Latest Articles

  • Christopher Freind Is Philadelphia Archdiocese Lying Or Just Incompetent?
    Written by Christopher Freind

    "I don’t know Chief…this shark is either very smart, or very dumb…” So was the famous line uttered by the legendary Quint in Jaws, as he was trying to figure out the intentions of the great white.  After the recent roller coaster ride regarding Archdiocesan school closings --- and now the many reprieves --- Catholics across the Philadelphia region are wondering the same thing.  Is the Church hierarchy very smart (in a conniving way), or very dumb? Or are they, and the “Blue Ribbon” school commission deciding the fate of so many, just downright incompetent? There isn’t a fourth option.…





    Written on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 09:01 in Local
    2 comments Read more...
  • Christopher Freind Chris Christie And Whitney Houston: Not Perfect Together
    Written by Christopher Freind

    Lowering state flags for Whitney Houston? Is that what it's come to, Governor? With the sparse media coverage of Whitney Houston’s death and funeral, it’s not surprising that her years of military service have gone largely unnoticed, as were her activities as an undercover cop in New Jersey (was she really killed after a sting went bad?).  After all, she must have done these dangerous things to warrant all Jersey state flags being flown at half-mast in her honor, as ordered by Governor Chris Christie. Because the opposite simply defies common sense. If Houston was not a police officer gunned…





    Written on Friday, 17 February 2012 11:55 in National News
    1 comment Read more...
  • Christopher Freind Opposing Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients? Are You High?
    Written by Christopher Freind

    Randomly testing all public workers is simply common senseRandom drug testing of welfare recipients and public workers is racist, discriminatory and blatantly unconstitutional.And if believe any of that, you’re smoking something.Once again, the drug testing issue is making headlines in Pennsylvania, as such a program is now underway. Unfortunately, because the Legislature dragged its feet (what else is new?), the current initiative is a scaled-down version of the original bill, and has been put into effect via an emergency budgetary order from the Governor. It only applies to welfare recipients who have been convicted of a felony in the last…





    Written on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 12:48 in National News
    Be the first to comment! Read more...
  • Christopher Freind Rendell As Inquirer Owner? Might As Well Be Philly Enquirer
    Written by Christopher Freind

    A Jerry Maguire-like treatise for how to resurrect the media’s credibility Famed political strategist James Carville once referred to Pennsylvania as two major cities with Alabama in between.  What an insult to Alabama. The folks in the nation’s fifth-largest state --- all of them --- are the backwards ones, the sad result of refusing to hold their leaders accountable for broken campaign promises and abject failures. All the while, their neighboring states --- AKA “the competition” --- continue to make gains at Pennsylvania’s expense. Ohio and West Virginia are successfully courting natural gas and oil companies, which are beginning to…





    Written on Tuesday, 07 February 2012 11:54 in National News
    Be the first to comment! Read more...
  • Christopher Freind Hey Chris Christie, Get On The Treadmill --- You May Be President
    Written by Christopher Freind

    Don’t Be Surprised If Romney and Gingrich Bow Out At The End About the only job better than weatherman --- where you can get it wrong half the time and still remain employed --- is political pundit.  These guys make an art out of looking dumb, and doing so with authority. In the last few years alone, we have been told that Obama had zero chance of beating Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney was sure to be the GOP nominee in 2008, and now, the President can’t win re-election because Romney will beat him.  That last prediction, of course, is predicated…





    Written on Friday, 03 February 2012 10:13 in National News
    Be the first to comment! Read more...
  • Christopher Freind Gingrich Is Right To Shoot For The Moon
    Written by Christopher Freind

    Romney, McCain are visionless dream-killers who should be ashamed In May, 1963, the astronaut sitting atop the Mercury-Atlas rocket “went higher, farther, and faster than any other American…for a brief moment, Gordo Cooper became the greatest pilot anyone had ever seen.”  So were the ending words of The Right Stuff, an incredibly inspirational film which followed the brave exploits of America’s space pioneers, as chronicled in Tom Wolfe’s famous book of the same title. Heroes they were: Chuck Yeager, Alan Shepard, John Glenn, Neil Armstrong and all the others who volunteered to charge into the unknown, routinely working on projects…





    Written on Thursday, 02 February 2012 12:53 in National News
    Be the first to comment! Read more...
National News
National News

National News (84)

Special Commentary on National Interest

Lowering state flags for Whitney Houston? Is that what it's come to, Governor?

With the sparse media coverage of Whitney Houston’s death and funeral, it’s not surprising that her years of military service have gone largely unnoticed, as were her activities as an undercover cop in New Jersey (was she really killed after a sting went bad?).  After all, she must have done these dangerous things to warrant all Jersey state flags being flown at half-mast in her honor, as ordered by Governor Chris Christie.

Because the opposite simply defies common sense.

If Houston was not a police officer gunned down in the line of duty, nor a military hero killed in a war zone, that means that the hugely significant act of lowering the flags in deference to her was because she was…. a singer?

Really, Governor?  A singer?  That’s what it’s come down to in Jersey?  Sure, Whitney Houston was a Jersey native, proud of her Garden State roots.  And undeniably, she was one of the most dynamic pop stars of all time, changing the musical landscape forever and inspiring some of the brightest performers of today.

But she was just a singer.  That’s not to minimize her accomplishments, as they are many, but let’s cut through the emotion and talk brass tacks.  She was a popular singer, past her prime, with a not-exactly stellar personal history. 

Play word association with most people about Whitney Houston, and they will tell you two things: great singer and crack addict.

That’s reason enough not to elevate Houston to god-like status.  While Christie can’t control the media’s nauseating coverage of all things Whitney, he certainly could have sent a message by NOT lowering the flags for her.  By doing so, Houston is now perceived, more than she ever has been, as a special role model, one for whom the Government has issued its seal of approval. 

And despite Christie’s protests to the contrary, that’s exactly what has happened as a result of his bad decision. Trite as it sounds that honoring Houston in such a fashion condones her behavior --- both good and bad --- it also happens to be true.

And where does it end?  What is the litmus test for getting flags lowered on your behalf? Once the hallowed territory of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in service to their countrymen, Christie has now changed the rules forever.  And is that really what we want from our governmental leaders --- their interpretation of who merits the honor, and who doesn’t?

If Jon Bon Jovi --- a Jersey Boy --- happens to meet his Maker next week, will the Guv give him the same special treatment?  And what is the threshold? Record sales? Movie appearances? Rehab stints?
More ominous is to ponder Bon Jovi’s flag fate had he died before Whitney.  Would Christie have honored him the same way?  And if not, would that have been because Bon Jovi wouldn’t have provided the same perceived political benefit?

“Wow, what a callous, crass and out-of-line statement!” So will be the response of many Houston fans who will take such a possibility as a personal affront to Whitney and her family, but the point remains a valid one, and that bring us to two possibilities:

1) Is Christie’s move a political calculation, pandering to constituencies that are not in his camp? And if so, is the Governor’s attempt at making inroads with the black community and young hipsters done to seem more “moderate and compassionate,” both perceived necessities when running for President or Vice President?

If that is the case, it is a massive miscalculation on three counts.  First, he won’t win over those constituencies because he lowers flags.  He can only do so by sticking to his core convictions, explaining to them why his vision will benefit them more than failed Democratic policies.  Second, he has now alienated an influential part of his natural base --- active and retired police and military personnel. In their eyes, his action has cheapened the sacrifices their fallen brethren have made, putting those fallen heroes on par with a drug-addicted millionaire Hollywood entertainer.  Last, such perceived political posturing doesn’t sit well with the vast majority of  regular, non-political citizens.  They may not see his motives as politically calculated, but many see his decision as a total lack of good judgment.

2) Of course, there may be absolutely no political calculation whatsoever, with Christie making his decision on a human level only.  This author, for one, would certainly like to think so, as no media commentator has defended Christie’s bulldog approach to tough issues more than Freindly Fire (and, to be fair, hammered him when he was wrong, such as “HelicopterGate”).

But that is exactly why politicians should not be lowering flags and honoring anyone they happen to like.  The nature of politicians is such that everything they do is perceived to be calculated, that their every move is an ulterior motive to curry favor with a particular constituency.

Why wasn’t the solemn act of lowering flags to honor real heroes left intact? Why is nothing sacred anymore? Why is common sense so incredibly uncommon these days, even by those from whom we expect more?

Perception is reality, and the growing perception --- from both the media’s nonstop Whitney coverage and Chris Christie stamping his imprimatur on her entire life --- is that she should be emulated and admired as one of the nation’s great role models.

To those entities, a suggestion.  If you want to honor her legacy, go buy her albums.  Otherwise, it’s time to exhale, come down from your drug-induced state, and realize that Whitney Houston is no…. Michael Jackson.

 


An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

 

Randomly testing all public workers is simply common sense

Random drug testing of welfare recipients and public workers is racist, discriminatory and blatantly unconstitutional.

And if believe any of that, you’re smoking something.

Once again, the drug testing issue is making headlines in Pennsylvania, as such a program is now underway. Unfortunately, because the Legislature dragged its feet (what else is new?), the current initiative is a scaled-down version of the original bill, and has been put into effect via an emergency budgetary order from the Governor. It only applies to welfare recipients who have been convicted of a felony in the last five years or are currently on parole or probation.

Too bad.  It should include every single non-elected person receiving a paycheck courtesy of John Q. Taxpayer.

(The only officials who should be exempted from mandated drug testing are elected officials, though that position is sure to generate hoots and hollars from the cheap seats.  The rationale is simple: they are elected by the people. They are not collecting government assistance checks, nor are they hired as civil service workers. True, much of what we see from elected officials leaves us wondering if they’re all on drugs.  And yes, at first glance it seems hypocritical for lawmakers to enact laws that they themselves do not have to follow, but they are in the unique position of being employed directly by the people. What’s next? A State Rep fails the test and is stripped of his seat? Not practical, probably unconstitutional, and a very dangerous precedent.  Would these elected office holders be smart to voluntarily take a drug test? Absolutely, because if they don’t, they’ll be unsuccessfully explaining themselves all the way to the ballot box.)

Remember the point of state-mandated drug testing: to ascertain whether someone receiving money --- given to them by hardworking Pennsylvania taxpayers --- is breaking the law by using those funds on illegal drugs. It is not to put people behind bars, but to ensure that they are clean and not abusing taxpayer dollars.

Proof that this is not a conspiratorial police-state tactic designed to incarcerate the state’s drug users, but a program to simply ensure responsible stewardship of the people’s money?

Consumption of drugs is not illegal. Manufacturing, distribution and possession of illicit narcotics is. And since having drugs in one’s system is not legally considered “possession,” no one failing a drug test would be arrested.

*****

Taxpayers have an absolute right to know that their money isn’t going to welfare recipients’ drug habits.  No one has a gun to his head to go on public assistance, just like no one forces people to work at a private sector company that mandates drug tests.  It’s part of the deal--- take it or leave it.

Seemingly lost in the debate is that drug testing isn’t a discriminatory act against select individuals, but is increasingly common throughout all of society.  Many companies require applicants to pass a drug test as a condition of employment, for obvious, common sense reasons. No business wants drug users on the job, as they would be high-risk, untrustworthy employees who would undoubtedly threaten not just productivity, but company stability.

It’s key to remember that public assistance is supposed to help the recipient and his/her family survive; it should never be used carelessly, especially for something illegal.  Since drugs are illegal, if recipients can’t prove themselves to be clean, they should receive no benefits.  It’s that simple. Public benefits are a privilege, not a right, just like driving or flying. If people choose not to abide by the rules, that’s fine. But it’s simply arrogant to think one is entitled to these benefits without any conditions.

Here are some of the more disingenuous arguments the pro-druggie side likes to use:

Argument: Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.

Answer: Who cares?  That’s completely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what the percentages are, although that claim is certainly suspect.  The majority of the population isn’t directly receiving taxpayer-funded benefits. For those who are, drug testing should be the rule.  Don’t like it?  Fine.  Get a job. And if you have a public sector job, be thankful you do and act responsibly to keep it.  You work for the people. It’s their money.



Argument: Drug testing is expensive.

Answer: If the government starts operating like a business, and aggressively negotiates volume discounts with private testing companies, the price isn’t that high.  This common sense expenditure would surely even pass Tea Party muster.  By definition, Government must spend money, but should do so smartly and efficiently. The testing should be for all new applicants, and random testing of the entire public pool thereafter, somewhere in the five to ten percent range.

And financially and ethically, what is the cost of having taxpayers subsidize a crack addict’s drug habit?



Argument: The ACLU challenged the mandatory drug testing program as unconstitutional, arguing that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches, labeling it “intrusive.”

Answer: That’s insulting to every citizen NOT on the public dole. First, the anti-testing folks, including legislators and the ACLU, are not Supreme Court justices, so it’s not up to them to determine constitutionality.  Second, odds are certainly favorable that given the makeup of both the state and U.S. Supreme Court, mandatory drug testing would be upheld. Welfare recipients arern’t being forced to do anything. They choose to apply for welfare.  After that, they must abide by the conditions placed upon them in return for receiving public money.



Argument: Random drug testing is thinly-veiled racism, and an attempt to demonize public sector workers by lumping them into the (false) public perception that all welfare recipients are drug-using, inner city dregs of society.

Answer: I wouldn’t have believed these accusations could be made with a straight face, but that’s exactly what was thrown at me during two televised debates on this issue. Such weak arguments only serve to bolster what most people instinctively know: random drug testing of those receiving taxpayer money is sound policy that serves to weed out bad apples and preserve the integrity of “charitable” giving.

Given that a Democratic Senator, John Wozniak, is the prime sponsor of the Pennsylvania bill, and his Party loves to bill itself as the defender of the poor, minorities and public sector workers, those charges don’t stand up for a second.

They are so ridiculous on their face that they shouldn’t need rebutting, but it bears repeating: this issue has nothing to do with race (many on public assistance are White), and zero to do with demonizing public sector workers and unions (as many in the private sector are tested as well).  It has everything to do with the reasonable expectation of taxpayers that their money be used for humanitarian purposes (public assistance) and an intelligent, stable and productive workforce (public sector employees).

*****

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart ran a comedic segment, with one of its “reporters” interviewing the Florida legislator who sponsored a similar bill, and Rick Scott, the Sunshine State’s Governor who also championed the drug testing cause. Both men are right on the issue, but may have lost the PR battle, looking downright foolish at times.  That’s a shame, because it’s communication miscues like those in that interview that sets the issue back in other states, giving credence to otherwise baseless arguments that should have been smoked from the get-go.

It’s not what you say, but how you say it. So in Pennsylvania, let’s say it loud and clear: “This is your paycheck (a lot of taxpayer money).  And this is your paycheck on drugs: Absolutely nothing!”

Finally something worth inhaling.



An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

A Jerry Maguire-like treatise for how to resurrect the media’s credibility

Famed political strategist James Carville once referred to Pennsylvania as two major cities with Alabama in between.  What an insult to Alabama.

The folks in the nation’s fifth-largest state --- all of them --- are the backwards ones, the sad result of refusing to hold their leaders accountable for broken campaign promises and abject failures. All the while, their neighboring states --- AKA “the competition” --- continue to make gains at Pennsylvania’s expense.

Ohio and West Virginia are successfully courting natural gas and oil companies, which are beginning to exit Pennsylvania. Indiana is thriving after enacting comprehensive statewide school choice and becoming a Right To Work state, where compulsory unionism is no required as a condition of employment.

New Jersey (yes, Jersey!) can woo companies across the river because of faith that a real leader, Chris Christie, is righting the ship.  Everyone else on the planet can buy liquor easier and cheaper than Pennsylvanians.  And corruption, both criminal and institutionalized, remains rampant, killing optimism and trampling the hope that you can beat City Hall.

From Ed Rendell to Tom Corbett (is there a difference?), a lack of leadership has left Pennsylvania on the precipice, its citizens staring into the abyss of permanent mediocrity, paralyzed by fear to take the risks necessary to forge ahead. Such a malaise is anathema to employers looking for economic stability, a less hostile atmosphere and a better educational system. 

While that lack of leadership is inexcusable, there is another, even more important factor as to why the state finds itself in such a precarious situation: a media that has sold its soul, forsaking its most basic mission of holding everyone accountable, with a “no sacred cows” approach. For far too long, stories that needed to be told were relegated to the dustbin. And unsavory politicians and business leaders counted on that. Without an aggressive press, it was, and remains, the Wild West where bad guys operate with impunity.

There is no better example of the media’s fall from grace than that of the Philadelphia Inquirer.  Once a paper of national significance that took a bulldog approach to its reporting, it has since become a shell of its former self, an also-ran full of AP feeds and local fluff stories of virtually no interest. 

The Inky really jumped the tracks was when it was “led” by Brian Tierney, who, along with investors, paid over half a billion for the paper (and the Daily News) in 2006.

Mired in debt, Tierney did the unthinkable --- he approached then-Governor Rendell for a taxpayer-funded bailout to keep the papers afloat in 2009, a story that Freindly Fire broke ( http://freindlyfirezone.com/home/item/43-possible-inquirer-bailout-draws-ire ) and was picked up by the Wall Street Journal in its harshly-worded editorial “Bad News In Philadelphia --- The Worst Bailout Idea So Far: Newspapers.”

WSJ Link
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353263226537457.html


Predictably, Rendell was ready and willing to lend that helping hand.  But as negative fallout for the bailout plan grew, the deal fell apart and the papers filed for bankruptcy.

Despite what common sense unquestionably tells us --- that a taxpayer-funded newspaper would in fact be an “adjunct of the state,” as the WSJ so adroitly described it --- the players in that ill-fated bailout attempt saw nothing wrong with their actions.

Thankfully, Tierney is out of the picture, having lost the papers to an investor group who held much of the original debt.  But incomprehensibly, the situation has come full circle. Now the current owners want out, and it has been reported that none other than Ed Rendell has been approached to put together an investor group to possibly buy the papers.

Really?  Ed Rendell?  How is that even remotely possible?

Where is the journalistic integrity in working with the very man who stood cocked, ready to unleash millions in taxpayer funds to bail out an “independent” media entity?  It’s no secret that it has become increasingly difficult for papers to make a profit in the age of The New Media, but having Rendell as your “Go-To” man underscores just how desperate the situation has become.

Taking marching orders from elected officials destroys the very essence of being a journalist and jeopardizes the unique constitutional protections afforded to media members.  Sure, Ed Rendell is a private citizen now, but his mentality --- how he sees the role of the government working hand-in-hand with the media --- has undoubtedly not changed.

But the behavior of the Inquirer’s ownership should come as no surprise, given that it recently accepted a $2.9 million loan from the City of Philadelphia to assist the company move to a new headquarters. Yes, the same city, the same Mayor and the same City Council that the newspapers are supposed to be objectively covering.  Is nothing scared anymore?

The last thing the region needs is an investor group led by political insiders and ideologically-supercharged individuals with aggressive personal agendas.  As painful as it would be for the thousands of hard-working folks at the those newspapers, it would be better for the entire entity to close its doors than be associated with folks who may, at any given time, make a pitch for public financing. 

And while past performance is not indicative of future results, it’s a damn good bet.

Better to have no paper at all than one that prostrates itself at the feet of the very people it purports to objectively cover.  And since the Philadelphia newspapers have been anything but a watchdog over the last six years, churning out less than a handful of quality investigations, the bad guys would see virtually no difference, since they’re not exactly sweating investigative reporters knocking on their doors.


Where The Media Went Wrong

The sad reality is that The Fourth Estate has abdicated its sacred responsibility of keeping American institutions honest and true. No longer respected as the entity which holds feet to the fire and follows investigations wherever they may lead, the American media has instead become part and parcel of the Establishment. Too many journalists play the “go-along, get-along” game --- some because it’s easy, others because they want to be liked, still others who are afraid they will lose “access” if they ask the tough questions.

These people have forgotten that their profession does not lend itself to having “friends,” since nothing and no one should ever be off the table. The result of these close alliances is blatant conflicts of interest, both personal and professional.  Once that line is crossed, it is nearly impossible to return. 

No medium is immune from this malady.  Those in television, radio, newspaper and internet are all complicit. As an entity, the media has fallen down on its most basic journalistic responsibilities, losing its integrity, and ultimately its credibility, along the way.

Consequently, the public’s view of the media is at an historic low.  And while complaints abound that the media is biased, which to a certain extent it is, this is but a symptom of a much greater illness.  A slant towards liberalism or conservatism is wrong, to be sure, but inherent laziness and, by extension, incompetence, are the first problems that must be rectified. Competence and vision will trump bias every time.

Resurrecting the media's image is a Herculean task. And when the free press reaches the point where it is no longer believed, it stands on the edge of becoming completely irrelevant.

Whether it is nauseating nonstop coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's funeral procession or feel-good fluff stories in our nation's pre-eminent newspapers, the lack of hard-hitting investigative reporting and aggressive interviews with top national and international leaders is appalling. Producers and editors are constantly looking over their shoulders at the competition, choosing to push out content to be like “every other station,” passing on golden opportunities to be different, to be journalists ---  to be leaders.

These people spend more time trying to keep their jobs than actually doing them.

There is a certain irony here. If media executives produced the quality work that the American people expect, their ratings would skyrocket, and advertisers would pay a premium.  The biggest myth being propagated about the bankruptcy of media companies is that they are victims of the economy.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

They are victims of their own ineptitude.

Americans still have an unquenchable thirst for the news, but they are increasingly tuning out the mainstream media because the content is utterly lacking of substance. 

The solution is simple --- it's just not easy. Nothing and no one should be off the table.  Not politicians, government officials, businessmen, media personalities, sports stars, nor celebrities. With no agenda except the truth, the media should pursue stories with no boundaries and no restrictions. 

*****

Americans don’t gravitate to question marks, but exclamation points.  It’s time to put the exclamation point back in the American press, not through new technologies and gimmicks, but by pursuing the only thing that matters: the truth.

As the voice in the classic baseball movie Field Of Dreams commanded, “Build it and they will come.” In the same way, if the media gets off its duff and starts producing content worthy of the world’s best press, readers and viewers will come --- in unprecedented numbers.

Unfortunately, if Ed Rendell takes over Philadelphia’s newspapers, the ballpark will be empty before the new game even begins.

 

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

Don’t Be Surprised If Romney and Gingrich Bow Out At The End

About the only job better than weatherman --- where you can get it wrong half the time and still remain employed --- is political pundit.  These guys make an art out of looking dumb, and doing so with authority.

In the last few years alone, we have been told that Obama had zero chance of beating Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney was sure to be the GOP nominee in 2008, and now, the President can’t win re-election because Romney will beat him.  That last prediction, of course, is predicated upon Romney winning the Republican nomination, which the pundit brain trust is now telling us is a done deal after Mitt’s victory in Florida.

But just as it wasn’t over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, as Blutarsky taught us in Animal House, this race is far from over.

And the most comedic part is that the “experts” don’t even know it.  If they just took a walk outside their ivory towers, they would discover that there are still many elections --- not coronations --- yet to come, and that Newt Gingrich hasn’t been vanquished. 

This is not to say that Romney won’t end up the winner.  In fact, that’s a good bet since he has money and organization advantages over Gingrich. But to say it’s all but over is simply foolish.

Cutting through the pundits’ white noise, it is worth looking at where the race really stands. Never before have there been three different winners in the first three contests, so that alone should be a caution sign for traditional predictions. Mitt Romney has won two of the four contests, including the winner-take-all state of Florida, and yet the total number of delegates awarded so far amounts to just five percent.

Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, for various reasons, cannot win the nomination, but they can and will garner delegates, as many states award delegates on a proportional basis based on popular vote.

Without question, Gingrich will be in the hunt for the long haul. Following a disappointing fifth-place finish in New Hampshire, after which the “experts” wrote him off for good, he roared back to a thundering victory in South Carolina. In all likelihood, he will win a number of states on Super Tuesday, and in the contests that he doesn’t, will post strong second place finishes.

(There is another reason for Gingrich to stay in the race: the possibility that Romney will say or do something that would catastrophically implode his candidacy.  Mitt came close this week when he said “I'm not concerned about the very poor…You can focus on the very poor, that's not my focus.” Such blunders run in the family, as his father, former Michigan Governor George, crushed his quite viable presidential aspirations by stating he was “brainwashed” into supporting the Vietnam War.  The game was over the very instant he uttered that word.)

Short of a Romney implosion, Gingrich won’t win the nomination outright, but the impact of his candidacy could be substantially greater: he may deny Romney the prize.  If the three “challengers” to Romney can keep Mitt from attaining that “fifty percent plus one” number, it’s a whole new ballgame.

And while such a scenario was unthinkable to many pundits just a few weeks ago, it is becoming increasingly plausible.

An often overlooked but extremely important factor in determining the nominee is that many of the states have different legal rules concerning their delegates.  A handful of states, including delegate-rich Pennsylvania, do NOT require their delegates to commit for the candidate who won the state.  Put in layman’s terms, come convention time, delegates from the Keystone State can cast votes for any person they wish, whether or not the candidate won the state or even participated in the primary process.

Obviously, in normal election years, Party unity is assured because the nominee is determined early in the process.  But this year is anything but normal.  And there is precedent for delegates breaking ranks.

In 1980, George H.W. Bush handily won the primary election in Pennsylvania over Ronald Reagan.  The Reagan folks knew they weren’t going to win, so they pulled a coup by ensuring that the delegates elected were loyal to The Gipper. So despite Bush winning by 100,000 votes, Reagan emerged with roughly 70 percent of the state’s delegates morally committed to him.

Given that situation, a major concern for Romney is getting the right delegates to achieve the right majority.  But since Mitt has been running for President for five years, spent hundreds of millions in that endeavor, and still can’t come close to getting 50 percent of GOP primary voters, that might be a daunting task. 

While still a “long shot” scenario, don’t be surprised that, after all the states have voted, no one emerges a winner.  If neither Romney nor Gingrich can successfully make a deal with Paul or Santorum to acquire their delegates, the country may see two men who despise each other hold a joint press conference announcing that, for the good of the Party, they are withdrawing from the campaign and releasing their delegates.

And then it would become the Wild West. Backroom conventioneering would take on a life of its own, with countless deals being struck to choose the most unifying Republican ticket to take on Obama.

And who might top that list?  Well, put it this way. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie would do well to start using a treadmill. More than anyone else, Christie’s ability to tell it like it is, take no prisoners, and bulldog his way to success --- despite major Democratic majorities in the state assembly --- make him a Party favorite.  He is one of a very few who commands respect by the Establishment, rank-and-file grassroots activists, and Tea Parties alike.

Republicans, Democrats and Independents may not always agree with Christie, but they always know where he stands, and his speak-from-the-heart style is a breath of fresh air in a world of sound bites, talking points and focus groups.

Christie may have foreseen this scenario, possibly explaining why he declined to run in the brutal primaries. And for those who predict Christie as a Romney VP, forget it.  He is nobody’s Number Two, and almost certainly would not sign on to a meaningless ceremonial post when he could have, quite possibly, captured the top prize for himself had he wanted to do so.

Should Christie decline an offer made at a brokered convention, the list of frontline candidates grows relatively thin, but undoubtedly Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and, dare we say it --- Jeb Bush! --- would certainly be in play.

This scarcity of good candidates is testament to what happens when a political party refuses to build its bench with folks who actually believe in things, instead promoting those whose “turn it is.” Look no further than Bob Dole and John McCain. It’s pretty sad that in the election many Republicans are calling the most important in American history, the GOP can muster so few viable contenders.

No matter how it eventually plays out, the battle for the Republican nomination will go on for at least the next four months, and that’s a good thing. Despite the conventional wisdom as postulated by pundits that divisive primaries only serve to weaken the Party’s candidates and needlessly give an advantage to the opponent, the opposite is true. Combative and lengthy primaries make candidates stronger, sharper and better prepared for the rigors of a general election presidential campaign. Barack Obama proved that in his protracted battle with Hillary.

And given that Obama is in the driver’s seat to emerge victorious in November, a long primary season --- and even a brokered convention --- could be just what the doctor ordered to energize the Republican Party and unify what is now a very discontented base.

President Christie, anyone?

 

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

 

Thursday, 02 February 2012 12:53

Gingrich Is Right To Shoot For The Moon

Written by Christopher Freind

Romney, McCain are visionless dream-killers who should be ashamed

In May, 1963, the astronaut sitting atop the Mercury-Atlas rocket “went higher, farther, and faster than any other American…for a brief moment, Gordo Cooper became the greatest pilot anyone had ever seen.”  So were the ending words of The Right Stuff, an incredibly inspirational film which followed the brave exploits of America’s space pioneers, as chronicled in Tom Wolfe’s famous book of the same title.

Heroes they were: Chuck Yeager, Alan Shepard, John Glenn, Neil Armstrong and all the others who volunteered to charge into the unknown, routinely working on projects that more often resembled suicide missions than scientific research.  While they garnered glory and headlines, these men were deeply driven by something far more important: the opportunity to put America on top in the Space Race, and in doing so, become part of arguably the most exciting time in all of civilization.  These explorers opened the door to the final frontier, an astounding achievement that taught the whole of humankind that no dreams were too big, and that men and women could aspire to do things greater than themselves. They literally made true the can-do spirit that “the sky is the limit.”

But their road was paved by ridicule and doubt. Just years before these men --- and the countless unsung heroes at NASA --- achieved the impossible, their ambitions were considered folly. Putting a man into space? Pure science fiction.  Landing on the moon? Unthinkable, unattainable, unwise.  Reaching for the stars? Grow up.

Yet a mere 58 years after the Wright brothers first took  flight, America put those cynics out to pasture as Shepard blasted into the record books, with Armstrong later taking the greatest “step” in human history.

In addition to the lofty goals of exploring worlds beyond our own, the Space Race fostered something else: a fierce sense of nationalism that unleashed America’s competitive spirit as never before.  And for good reason. The Reds beat us into orbit, hell-bent on dominating Outer Space. From that point, it was “game on.”  And you know what? We won. Repeated trips to the moon, deep space probes, interplanetary missions, permanently manned space stations and newly discovered technologies that later benefitted Americans in every aspect of their lives.

That undisputed American leadership was as bold as it was purpose-driven, the result of generations inspired to study mathematics and science like never before, all for the opportunity to do things no one else had ever done --- to be on the cutting edge not just of technology, but of humanity.

The United States still had its problems, of course, but there was never the slightest doubt that it would continue to achieve unparalleled greatness as the most benevolent nation the world had ever known. From attaining civil rights for all its citizens to being the beacon of hope for oppressed peoples the world over --- and yes, to push the envelope in space --- America embodied the spirit that it would always be on an upward trajectory.  Mediocrity, timidness --- and fear itself ---were not part of the American vocabulary, and dreams were simply visions soon to be realized.

But somewhere along the way, we lost that spirit.  And oh how things have changed.

Now we find ourselves in the midst of The Great Decline --- a situation we have brought upon ourselves --- slogging through a tragedy which only seems to be accelerating. 

We haven’t been back to the moon to unlock its vast secrets in nearly four decades.  We have all but abandoned plans for a manned mission to Mars. And most telling, we no longer possess any means of transporting Americans into space, instead relying on the Russians to get us to the (misnamed) International Space Station --- you remember, the one America engineered, constructed, financed and put into orbit.  Yes, the same one which the Ruskies have decided to eventually abandon, allowing it to fall back to Earth as a crumbling fireball, a once-proud testament to American ingenuity vaporizing right before our very eyes. The symbolism to America’s fate is sickening in its reality.

And now we have a new adversary rising, challenging America at every turn. In addition to owning much of our debt, China now possesses the fastest trains, the biggest dams, the most dynamic growth, and an aggressive space program. That’s not an endorsement of the Chinese, but an angry lament that they have taken a page right out of America’s playbook, and worst of all, that this nation is paralyzed to counter it. Instead of rising to the occasion, as we always did before, the United States seems impotent, content to just watch the events unfold without so much as a last gasp.

The best example?  Mitt Romney, campaigning for the most important job in the world --- leader of the Free World and Sentry to American Dreams --- lambasting Newt Gingrich’s plans to erect a permanent base on the moon, cut NASA bureaucracies, and incentivize the private sector to reinvigorate America’s space program.  Romney went so far as to say he would “fire” anyone who dared propose something so bold.

Is that the kind of leadership America needs to get back on track?  Think big, and you’re out the door?

But it wasn’t just Romney who attempted to kill Newt’s admirable vision.  So many of the Republican Establishment who have been part and parcel to the deterioration of The American Dream weighed in, none more noteworthy than the Grand PooBah of Incoherent, Spineless and Worthless Political Hacks, John McCain, as he skewered Newt’s space vision by saying that “we ought to send Gingrich to the moon.”

How pathetic have America’s “leaders” become when they can’t separate partisan politics for even one minute to agree on that which should be a no-brainer: a rejuvenated space program is so eminently important that it should be a centerpiece of any Administration?

Of course, the cost factor arises, as it should. But that is an issue that should be settled in budgetary debates.  Instead of thinking big, as our leaders once did, the Romneys and McCains openly delight in mocking the dreams that still inspire so many Americans. And for what? Miniscule partisan advantage? Shame on them.

How can we afford to fund such a grand endeavor?  The bigger question is, “How can we afford NOT to?”  But it is a legitimate question, so here’s the answer:

First, it is imperative to use the presidential election platform as a bully pulpit, explaining to the American people how their money --- and by direct extension, their dreams --- have been wasted to fund ridiculous projects of absolutely no value, including so many entitlement programs which are simply unaffordable. It is necessary to identify the mistakes ---by both Parties ---so that they aren’t repeated.

Second, find concrete ways to save money.  Ending the pointless quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan --- which have cost Americans trillions of dollars --- would free up huge amounts of capital. Reorganizing the military so that it isn’t guarding Western Europe from a Soviet land attack would also be a good idea, since that threat evaporated 21 years ago.    And of course, common sense entitlement reform would free up trillions more.

Third, grow the American economy to increase tax revenue.  We cannot tax out way out of recession and into prosperity, nor can we simply cut our way out, as that only places more people on the welfare rolls. But responsibly utilizing our vast (and unused) domestic energy resources to become energy independent will allow America to compete with foreign labor costs. Having the cheapest energy on the planet would be more than enough to resurrect American manufacturing and permanently jumpstart the economy. 

A thriving economy means bold space exploration would once again be taken for granted. And if and when that happens, something else far more important would occur: the indomitable American spirit would once again nurture the achievable dreams of young children who fall asleep while looking out their bedrooms windows, gazing upon the moon and stars overhead with but one thought:

“…Someday I’ll be up there….”

 


An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

 

 

Pennsylvania and the nation have zero say ---yet again

Another election year is upon us, and there’s good news and bad news.  On the upside, Americans will again peacefully choose their next leader in November, a continuing miracle which we too often take for granted. 

The not-so-great part is that the 98 percent of citizens who don’t live in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina will --- yet again --- have virtually no say in their Party’s nominee for President.

In other words, the leader of the Free World will largely be determined by Hawkeye State hicks whose claims to fame are making full-size butter cows (sounds like a made-to-order Paula Deen special) and hysterically crying whenever their other sacred cow is criticized: ethanol mandates. 

Likewise, an equal say is incomprehensibly bestowed upon folks in New Hampshire --- which is mindboggling since these people still don’t know there’s an “r” in the alphabet. Guess it’s just pa’ fa’ tha’ coua’se. Pass the lobsta’.

And now we have Uncle Cletus in the state that started The War of Northern Aggression putting the finishing touches on the coronation.

Only in America.

Where does that leave the rest of the country? Voting for dogcatcher, coroner and several other less flattering offices, such as U.S. Senate.

So why does the nation put up with such an inequitable system, will it ever change, and is there a better way?  Lack of political courage, probably not, and resoundingly yes.

                                                              *****

Jokes aside, all three early-voting states are wonderful in their own right, rich in history and filled with salt-of-the-earth folks trying to make their lives and country better.

But having the first and last word in the election process is insane.  No state should hold that much power, and possessing it manages to accomplish three things, all negative:

-The rest of the country grows angrier every four years.

-That resentfulness leads to significant voter apathy because of the not-incorrect mentality that “my vote doesn’t count since the winner has already been chosen.” As a result, other critical state and local races, many of which affect people infinitely more than a national contest, go unnoticed and voter turnout nosedives.

- The eventual nominee leaves a lot to be desired.

With the exception of the Obama/Hillary Clinton race going the distance, which in truth was over well before many late-in-the-game states voted, nominees have been chosen by these states for decades. And the nation suffers.

What does an oil driller in Alaska, a manufacturer in Pennsylvania, or border patrol agent in Arizona have in common with an Iowa farmer? How does a small business owner in Oklahoma relate to a New Hampshire lobsterman’s fishery issues? And how much is a Montana rancher in tune with a South Carolina textile worker?

The present rigged system results in candidates who, instead of being more in touch with Americans’ varied interests --- and being forced to take positions on those issues ---are increasingly responsive only to voters in those three states. Win them, and it’s over, and the rest of the nation be damned.

                                                             *****

The system is the way it is because the Establishments of both Parties like it that way. To them, it is easy, clean and (relatively) quick, and avoids what is anathema: a long, drawn out primary election that ultimately would wrest control from Party leaders and give it to ---God forbid --- the people. And the more quickly a nominee can be picked, the less money has to be spent during primary season, with more time to raise cash for November. 

But since the interests of the people are not high on Party leaders’ lists (they prefer power for the sake of power), they will move Heaven and Earth to retain the status quo.

It could be changed, but that would require political courage. And that is in short supply.

Frontrunners are almost always part of the Establishment, so count them out. And long-shot challengers either suck up to Party leaders trying to get into the Club, or end up spending an entire year in one state pandering to a particular constituency ---such as Rick Santorum selling his soul by courting the ethanol corn vote in Iowa.

Admittedly, it is an extremely difficult system to break, but thus far the efforts to do so have been misguided. Take Jon Huntsman, who skipped Iowa to focus on New Hampshire. He was an extreme long shot anyway, so all the more reason to spend some of his personal fortune to tell the nation --- and the Party hierarchy --- why he was boycotting Iowa, and why the system was so flawed.  In doing so, he could have gained significant traction, not enough to win, perhaps, but enough to call the system into question.  And in some respects, that would have been more important than winning the nomination.  But he didn’t.

And in 2008, Rudy Giuliani skipped all three states to first compete in Florida.  Had he actually had a competent campaign and resonating message --- including strongly advocating why the system was unfair --- the outcome might have been different (especially since eventual nominee John McCain’s campaign was in significant debt). But he didn’t.

So can it change?  Tough to say, but if the electorate has taught us anything recently, it’s that it is volatile, angry and unpredictable.

To make it fair for all Americans, one of two options should be considered:

1) Divide the nation regionally into three groupings of roughly 17 states, and rotate each subset so that every four years, a different one starts the voting.  That would offer enough of a variation that local or even regional issues would not dominate the campaigning.

2) Perhaps better, the groupings of states should be picked randomly, so that the diversity of Americans’ issues would be better reflected. With only three primary election dates on the calendar, every state would have a significant say in which Party nominee wins. The downside is that nationwide campaigning for each of the primaries would drive campaign costs up, thus increasing the need for more fundraising.  But campaign costs will go up anyway, and with so many more voters having a stake in the election, small dollar donations via the internet may well offset the increased costs of running a larger campaign.

                                                           *****

Switching to a new system is no guarantee that better candidates will be chosen. It would, however, undoubtedly increase the slate of folks willing to throw their hat into the ring --- given that many now stay out because they feel they can’t compete. It would also engage millions more Americans in the presidential election process, finally giving them a say that has been denied to them for far too long.

Given the state of America, due in large part to electing pandering politicians with a scarcity of courage and conviction, it’s time to try something new and return power to the people, instead of relying on butter cows and lobsterman to choose our leader.

We could do no worse.

 

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

 

Second in a series on how retooled refineries can save jobs and revitalize manufacturing

“Thank you for trying to get those who should understand the urgency of energy independence, jobs, and our future…to do so.  (We are) loading up the SUV almost every day to give away household items to Neighborhood Services and friends…and preparing to relocate if necessary.  You are right… finding middle class wages here in Pennsylvania is challenging if not impossible.  The blood, sweat and tears of years planning and building our dream home only to sell it in a bad housing market is like adding salt to the wound….”

This heartbreaking message was sent by a distraught wife of a 19-year Sunoco refinery worker, as that company’s two refineries (Philadelphia and Marcus Hook) are slated for closing, as is the ConocoPhillips refinery in Trainer, Delaware County, if no buyers are found.  Making the sin mortal, there are reports that the ConocoPhillips plant might be dismantled, shipped overseas, and resurrected in a foreign—potentially adversarial — country.  But this is nothing new, as America’s abandonment of its manufacturing base has often included shipping entire facilities overseas for the benefit of our competitors.

Can it be reversed? Is it possible not only to save these refinery jobs but at the same time create a rebirth of American manufacturing — mandatory for the nation’s future since no country has ever survived without an industrial base?  Many “experts” will arrogantly claim “no,” that America can’t compete with Chinese labor costs, and smugly proclaim that manufacturing is passé anyway— unnecessary in a modern 21st century economy.

Unfortunately, the wrong people here are losing their jobs.  The backbone of America shouldn’t be facing the unemployment lines. The so-called experts, including the politicians from both Parties who got us into this mess, should be the ones getting canned.

(See Freindly Fire’s Sunoco Refinery Part One:)

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2011/12/21/save-philadelphias-sunoco-refinery-jobs/

But if we are to save jobs by retooling the refineries to process God’s gift to Pennsylvania (and the nation) — Marcellus Shale natural gas — it is imperative to stop the blame game and halt the tendency, while natural in a time of such high emotion,  to conveniently point fingers at whatever “boogeyman of the day” caused this unfortunate situation. Likewise, the fly-by-night ideas proposed by some shortsighted politicians must be seen for what they are: either clueless suggestions or a naked pandering for votes.

                                                                                  *****

Who Didn’t Cause The Problem

Sunoco

A million dollars is a lot of money — who hasn’t thought about having that much cash? You could do a lot with a mil per year, even more if you made that per week, and would be king of the world if you raked in seven figures per day, especially if that that was the case for three straight years. Life would be sweet — unless, of course, you happened to be in the sweet crude oil refining business in a deteriorating market.

So let’s be consistent. If making a million a day is desirable, losing that amount on a daily basis would be, in professional financial nomenclature, very, very bad. Common sense tells us that anyone losing a million a day for three years would do everything possible to stop the hemorrhaging. Welcome to Sunoco’s plight.

Ask any student unschooled in economics what the primary objective of business is, and he will invariably answer, “to make money.” Wrong.  Making money is easy.  Earning a profit by taking in more than you spend — the correct answer — is the hard part.

Despite the misguided “Occupy” mentality that profits are nothing more than gluttonous greed, the truth is quite different. They are necessary to expand operations, hire more personnel, pay salaries and benefits, and contribute to the overall health of a company —and the entire economy.  (Not that Wall Street greed doesn’t exist in numerous other forms, much of which should be regulated/outlawed, but that is another column).

Sunoco and ConocoPhillips are not in the “business” of losing money, and their past profits and payouts to shareholders are completely irrelevant to the fact that the outlook for the refining business is bleak.  They are under no moral, ethical or financial obligation to keep the doors open. Keeping people employed inefficiently—READ: subsidized — in a business with no possibility of profit is anathema to the Free Market and would eventually collapse the entire entity.  This is not speculation but economic certainty.

And if you want to see what happens when this course is recklessly pursued, pull up a chair because you’re in luck. You have a ringside seat watching such an implosion in action: the unsustainable economic policies of the United States Government.

It is also important to note that in 2009, Sunoco announced a significant worker layoff in an attempt to improve company competitiveness — and all were white collar, with no unionized personnel getting pink slips.  Closing the refineries is anything but anti-labor.

Unions

The refinery shutdowns have nothing to do with “greedy unions sucking too much money” from the companies’ bottom lines, as some critics of organized labor incorrectly state. Many of those in refinery operations are highly- skilled union workers who have made a solid living over the last several decades. But a look at the market conditions shows such a minefield ahead for the companies that no amount of concessions would come close to solving the problem.  In the big picture, the significant obstacles facing Sunoco and ConocoPhillips are infinitely greater than any “high” labor costs associated with operating the refineries.

Just like “evil empire” rich oil company executives make inviting targets for blame, so do “pillaging” unions who “want more for doing less.” Is either side perfect? Of course not, since there is no such thing. But while both make good scapegoats, it is simply counterproductive to continually throw darts at them.  Insults don’t solve problems. Strategic vision and genuine partnerships do. The only thing that matters is solving the problem — and quickly.

Obama

Some find it convenient to blame the President for everything from high gas prices to their children getting a bad test grade. While he certainly has his faults, he extended his hand to the Republicans on the single most important issue of our time — moving America towards energy independence.  If some of his suggestions had been enacted (which, in reality, are part of the Republican platform), they would have quite possibly made the refining outlook much brighter for Sunoco and Conoco, and the shutdowns may not have occurred.

And the GOP response? No bills were introduced, and they absolutely refused to work with the President, with many stating that “he didn’t really believe what he was saying.”  What a brilliant, mature response.

For the disbelievers who need proof, just watch the President’s 2010 State of the Union speech, when, in front of the entire nation, he urged Congress to expand our offshore drilling ventures, and freed up millions of acres of coastal water for exploration and development. In addition, he called for an increase in nuclear power plants across America and pursued loan guarantees for new facilities (even one year later in light of the Japanese disaster).

Which was interesting, not only because he went against one of his strongest constituencies (the environmental lobby), but also because Obama’s move threw a wrench in the conspiracy that he was a closet Muslim who wanted to weaken America. Pushing for energy independence would be the polar opposite way to achieve that goal.

Granted, Obama has not been stellar in following up on his domestic drilling initiatives after the BP spill, and has yet to authorize the critical Keystone XL Pipeline project, but those shortcomings pale in comparison to the other Party’s inaction.

What did oilman George W. Bush or his Halliburton-affiliated sidekick Dick Cheyney do to increase domestic production? Zero.

Or the patriarch of the Bush family, George Herbert Walker Bush?  Well, it was the elder Bush who signed the moratorium on offshore drilling. His son W. left it in place for seven years, despite having sizable majorities in both Houses of Congress. Only after fuel costs skyrocketed to over $4.50 per gallon in 2008 did he call for the lifting of the moratorium. But it was too little, too late. And it never happened.

What could have prevented those crippling spikes at the pump? Offshore drilling — both off the continental shelves and in ANWR (the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) — and the construction of new refineries, given that the last one was built in 1976.

And what better time to have pushed it through than right after the September 11 attacks. In addition to having a Republican congress and nearly 100 percent of the nation behind him, Bush had the world’s goodwill in his corner.

Instead, this nation’s reliance on foreign oil — which is a nice way of saying we are pumping billions of petro dollars into the coffers of some who are hell bent on destroying us — has only increased.

And this week, gas hit another all-time high for this time of year.

Both Parties are guilty of forsaking America’s security and economic well-being. It is only right that they atone by eliminating the red tape, bureaucracy and onerous regulations placed upon the energy industry, as well as rescind the economy-killing taxes on fuel.  Those steps would make it infinitely more palatable for entrepreneurs to convert the refineries, keeping those strategic assets and jobs exactly where they belong: in America.

 

Parts Three and Four will detail solutions for how refinery conversions can jumpstart the economy through specific uses of dry and wet natural gas — while NOT making Philadelphia a port for Liquefied Natural Gas. 

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

Vatican II Destroyed Catholic Identity And The Essence Of Being Catholic


The message from Headquarters was sent to field agents worldwide:

“This is your mission --- if you choose to accept it:  Take one of the most powerful institutions in the history of mankind and change it so radically --- in all the wrong ways --- that in the span of fifty years, it will be a shell of its former self, relegated to a backwater shaped only by the sad ghosts of the past.”

Was this a Mission Impossible communiqué sent at the height of the Cold War to implode the Soviet Union? Certainly could have been. And the goal would have been a worthy one, fighting an evil adversary hell-bent on human domination.

Interestingly --- tragically, actually --- that message could also apply perfectly to another mammoth entity --- the Roman Catholic Church. 

There is one critical difference. The Soviets fell from outside forces, namely the influence of the United States.  But the Church, while admittedly having its fair share of outside “attackers,” is falling from within, and most of its decline is entirely of its own making.

The above message could well have come from St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican, 1965.  The “field agents?”   Cardinals, bishops and priests.  The objective: implement Vatican II.

And implement it they did.

The result? Disaster.

In the tumultuous 1960’s, the world was on fire as secularism and moral relativism were in vogue. Rather than standing its ground and fighting those undesirable concepts, the Church went in the opposite direction.  In effect, Vatican II allowed Catholics to be “Catholic” in pretty much any way they wanted, playing right into the hands of the Woodstock culture. Unwittingly, that carte-blanche decree served as a launching point for the now-dominant “do whatever you want to do and whatever makes you feel good without remorse” mentality.

In an instant, the things that made Roman Catholicism the world’s dominant force vanished.  To many, the “rock” upon which St. Peter built the Church no longer seemed solid, but more “flexible.” So rather than building upon the mighty history of the Church, expanding its reach while adapting to the times with a measure of common sense, the hierarchy went in the other direction.

Some Church officials, to be sure, disagreed with the Church’s new vision, but they were powerless to stop it, and for good reason.  Not only were they forced to follow orders, but in a much more practical sense, they were no longer able to hold their flock accountable when the Church itself abandoned many of the tenets which made it so attractive in the first place.

Give people an inch, and they take a yard.  And unequivocally, that isn’t limited to religion, but all organized entities.

When a political party strives to become a very large “tent,” trying to be all things to all people rather than affirming its platform --- what it stands for --- it eventually becomes impotent. It’s one thing for a position to evolve as circumstances change, so long as the basic belief structure isn’t irreparably compromised as to make the original tenet unrecognizable.  When that occurs --- and both Parties are guilty of it --- the result is the most unintended of consequences: no one is pleased, and people abandon the organization in ever-growing numbers, both officially and through apathy, indifference and inaction.

Has a football team ever won a Championship when the coach tells his players to practice in whatever way that makes them feel good about themselves --- if they want to practice at all? Has a team ever been successful after making mandatory team meetings optional?  And how long will a team stay a cohesive unit if players simply ignore the coach’s play-calling and do their own thing?

Morale and pride mean everything in building a successful team or institution, but they can only exist when sacrifice and dedication is demanded of the individuals who make up that entity. The only part of JFK’s inaugural address that people remember was when he demanded greatness of Americans by asking “what you can do for your country.”

The Church lost those things when it stopped demanding greatness from its rank and file, instead letting folks off the hook by making things “easier.” It thought that by doing so, it would be the recipient of goodwill from the flock and see its membership increase.

It thought wrong.

Holy Day of Obligation falls on a Saturday or Monday?  You don’t have to go to Church that day, since we’ll just make Sunday mass count for both.

Too hard to fast from midnight to receive Communion? That’s way too long! Make it an hour.

You want to wear cut-off shorts, sports jerseys and flip-flops to Church? If it makes you feel good, then no problem.

Fasting from meat on Friday get in the way of ordering sausage on your pizza? The hell with it. Just do it. We’ll eliminate that rule too.

The list goes on and on, and the more the Church gave in to such expediency, the more people stopped going to Mass, and yes, the more parents stopped sending their children to Catholic schools.  Since the Church took away the essence of Catholic identity --- the very point of being a proud Roman Catholic --- then what was the point of doing either?

And now, several generations later, the carnage is everywhere.

The mosques are full, as are many evangelical churches, yet the churches are empty.

And in those evangelical churches, a significant percentage of the congregation is former Catholics who left the Church not because it was too “hard,” but because it stopped demanding.

Vocations are nonexistent, elderly out-of-touch priests have no replacements, schools are being shuttered at a staggering rate (which goes way beyond this latest round of closings), and scandal and corruption are rampant with no end in sight, as criminal trials and more billion dollar settlements loom.

And worst of all, the cover-ups continue, serving for many as the final nail in the coffin.  Why go to Church to listen to a long-winded uninsprational sermon about “morality” when Church leaders actively stonewall investigations and protect society’s absolute worst --- child predators?

So what does the Church do?

Despite all that baggage, the Church has fast-tracked Pope John Paul II to sainthood faster than anyone else in history --- a man who either was asleep at the switch during the height of the sandal, or chose to look the other way.  He could have aggressively rooted out the perpetrators with a take-no-prisoners attitude, sending an unmistakable message that the Church does not solicit nor will ever tolerate pedophiles to fill its ranks, regardless of the dearth of priests. But he didn’t.

And now, it has rolled out language changes in the liturgy which are ridiculous and inexplicable. Was it just another example of how out-of-touch the Church has become, or a deliberate distraction, as some theorize?

Either way, it doesn’t matter.

Until the Church implements real reforms that will start the road to recovery, the numbers will continue to dwindle.

What are they?

-For starters, demand more of its followers. Don’t cower behind the “if I demand that people dress better for Church, they won’t come at all” mentality. Make them look presentable and act appropriately when entering the House of God --- or tell them they aren’t welcome. The Church would be shocked to see how many MORE people will start attending Church again, and acting more reverently when they are there --- just like public school children have more pride when required to wear uniforms.

-Motivate the flock by relating to them, not talking in platitudes with rhetoric that puts the congregation to sleep.

-Make it tougher to be a Catholic --- to once again be the religious equivalent of the Marines. Sure, a kid taking the forbidden cookie wants it, but deep down, he is really looking for discipline. And sure, we complain when we have to sacrifice, but we feel good about it.

-Market the wonderful aspects of the Church, including it being the largest provider of social services in the entire world.

-Stop being a paper tiger politically. What’s the point of having so much muscle if you’re too scared to use it? If it had, most of the schools would not have closed (discussed in tomorrow’s Part Two).

And most important, eliminate the correct perception that the Church is close-minded and sexist. Allow priests to marry --- and yes, allow women to become priests.  Not only would these common sense changes enable all priest to better relate to their flocks, but they would also attract non-pedophile priests to fill the ranks, allowing those who want to pursue a life of service to not be viewed suspiciously--- by virtually everyone.

And neither would violate Church dogma, since priests married for at least four centuries, and quite possibly much longer. The practice was stopped not for religious reasons, but for disputes over property rights.  And since God was kind enough to bestow upon us annuities, life insurance and other neat financial tools in the last century, it’s time to drop the charade and bring the Church into modern times.

                                                                             *****

The Second Vatican Council set in motion series of changes that, if they didn’t completely shatter much of what was beloved about the Church, certainly called into question Catholic identity. And nowhere are the tragic results more apparent than the dwindling number of Catholic schools. As schools go by the wayside, so does the Church’s future generations. 

In 1911, there were 68,000 Catholic school students in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. That number peaked in the 1960’s at 250,000. After Vatican II took hold, the number plummeted back to 68,000 in 2011 --- despite the U.S. population exploding from 92,000,000 a century ago to 308,000,000.

And now, 49 more schools just went on the chopping block. The biggest irony is that the closings are not a solution, but the symptom of a much greater illness.  To save the remaining schools --- and that’s by no means a sure thing --- the Church needs to solve the problem…

Part II will discuss how to save Catholic education in America.

  
Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


    

 

The deceased had been incredibly beloved: successful businessman, political activist, philanthropist and the ultimate family man. Friends and colleagues from far and wide came to pay their respects to one who had touched their lives.

Predictably, the line at the viewing was long that night --- more than two hours. But hundreds dutifully stood, passing the time as best they could under the circumstances. Millionaire CEO’s conversed with blue collar workers, reunited grade school friends embraced, and many reminisced of good memories with their mutual friend. 

Standing for hours while barely moving is tough for anyone, but especially the elderly, as many were.  And yet all persevered, because that is what’s required when paying final respects to a good friend.

Well, almost everyone.

Turns out one person didn’t feel like waiting in line like everyone else.  A person who thought of himself as above the “masses,” someone in a class by himself. Someone to whom the rules didn’t apply.

That person? Rick Santorum.

Instead of honoring his friend by waiting in line, he glad-handed some “politically connected” people in the vestibule while ignoring others who, for some reason, were enthralled to see an ex-senator.  After wrapping up his political agenda at that “event,” Santorum proceeded to walk right down the center aisle to greet the widow and her family --- completely bypassing the line snaking all the way around the Church.

Incredibly, to the astonishment of those watching, he then turned around and strode away, winking and waving to those poor souls stuck in line. Total time in and out: less than 15 minutes.

Good thing too, for he had to fly back to Washington to vote on the all-important appropriations bill and defense budget and… oh wait. That couldn’t have been it, since he had lost his senate re-election by a whopping 18 points several years prior.

Santorum’s behavior offered more insight into his true character than any vote could provide.  His selfish actions disrespected every person in that Church, but most of all the deceased, who, despite being a big Santorum supporter, apparently wasn’t worth two hours of Rick’s time.

So why would Santorum deliberately thumb his nose at the hundreds in line, many of whom had been his biggest financial and grassroots supporters?  The same people, by the way, that he would later court for his presidential run.

Arrogance.  Plain and simple. (That’s the second unofficial definition of “Santorum,” and given the vulgarity of the first, we’ll leave it at that.)

In large part, Santorum’s arrogance led to his shellacking in 2006, yet, as we will see, it was a lesson lost.

It was arrogance that led him to publish his book before that election, despite advisors begging him to wait until later, since many parts, they warned, would be taken out of context by his opponent (which they were).

It was arrogance that led him to become a big-spending, big-government Republican while labeling himself a fiscal “conservative.”

It was arrogance to claim he was a “Pennsylvania” senator while effectively living year-round --- with his family --- in Virginia.

And most damaging, it was arrogance which led Santorum to endorse liberal Republican Arlen Specter over conservative icon Pat Toomey late in the 2004 primary election--- which many Pennsylvania Republicans credit as the final push that delivered Specter his razor thin victory.

For those who claim Santorum had to make that glowing endorsement because of his Leadership position, think again. True leaders actually lead because they are following a vision; simply doing the bidding of others makes one a Leader in name only.

More significantly, it was Santorum’s portrayal of himself --- contrasted with his subsequent actions --- that eventually became a sticking point for so many of his supporters. He asked people to believe in him, selling them on the idea that he was not a typical politician, but instead a man of integrity, for whom principle always came before Party. 

Since political backbone is extremely rare, it’s no surprise that most politicians do exactly what their Party tells them to do.  But Santorum represented himself as something different.  As a result, his repeated failures as a leader --- coming up small when he was needed most --- run deep, and can be attributed more than anything to an arrogance that playing both sides is a winning strategy. 

Nothing has changed.

Fast forward to 2012.  Lost in the media spotlight of the Iowa Caucuses is the fact that Santorum sold his soul right out of the gate, playing both sides on one of the most important issues to Iowans --- ethanol mandates.

Santorum voted against the subsidies his entire legislative career, which included four years as a congressman.  Yet because he felt that he needed the Iowa “corn vote” to be viable, he changed his tune and pathetically pandered to the ethanol crowd in the Hawkeye State.

Forget the fact that corn-based ethanol as a fuel is an unmitigated disaster that has led to higher fuel costs, skyrocketing food prices, inflation, and hunger, since a staggering 40 percent of America’s corn crop is used for ethanol production. And disregard the fact that, primarily because of ethanol mandates, the price of corn hit an all-time high just a few months ago.  And ignore the painfully obvious fact that natural gas --- from the virtually limitless Marcellus Shale under Santorum’s now-adopted home state of Pennsylvania --- is the single biggest key to solving America’s foreign energy dependence problem.

The biggest red flag for candidate Santorum is not a policy issue but a question of character. No one held a gun to Santorum’s head to run for President, nor to compete in Iowa. So when he made the decision to run, and campaigned as a man of principle, the very least voters should have expected was a campaign of conviction --- not a politically-calculated flip-flop right from the get-go on the single-most important issue of our time.

Rather than speaking the truth and advocating a principled stand --- which, ironically, are what voters are thirsting for more than anything --- Santorum chose the easy way out by becoming that which he claims to abhor. And once one opens the door of political expediency, rationalizing that it’s the only way to achieve the next level, the door never shuts, and the slope becomes too slippery to ever regain one’s footing.

Rick Santorum worked as hard as any of the GOP candidates in Iowa, but much of his “success” in that state’s archaic caucuses was based on a false premise --- that he has the character necessary to be a President of true leadership.

Santorum’s sound bite line after the Iowa results was “game on.” But as America learns about the real Rick, it will soon be “Game Over.”

And that’s no corn.

 

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

 

 

Saturday, 31 December 2011 12:54

Freindly Fire's Biggest LOSERS of 2011

Written by Christopher Freind

Although Freindly Fire has never been known for sarcasm and negativity, it feels compelled as a civic duty to point out this year’s biggest losers. 

So with very little pleasure (okay, maybe a little), here are some of 2011’s notable wankers:

Philadelphia Phillies

A colossal failure. Period. End of story.

But this being Philadelphia, further explanation is, of course, warranted. Yes, they won the (ridiculously weak) National League East Division for the fifth time in a row. Yes, they set a franchise record for regular season wins. Yes, there was one World Series Championship three years ago. And yes, they will probably win the Division again in 2012. So what?  All meaningless. 

And for anyone who actually believes any of those achievements mean squat, well, you’re delirious from being an Eagles fan. 

The team --- the only one in the nation’s top four markets which does not share its city with another franchise --- was billed as having the best rotation in baseball history and a powerhouse lineup of battle-tested veterans.  But when you enter Yankee territory, as they claimed they did, anything short of a Championship must be viewed a total failure, as there are no points for second place.

The blame should be laid at the feet of the players, several of whom refused to hustle and play fundamental baseball, and more importantly, the coaches who didn’t address those problems.

So while the Phils are still a dangerous team, their window of opportunity is closing fast. Time to lose the ‘tude and play ball the way Little Leaguers and consistent World Series Champs do. Otherwise, Charlie Manual will become the city’s next Andy Reid. (Alright, that’s a stretch. Andy’s in a class by himself.)


NBA

Speaking of sports, shame on the NBA for ending the lockout.  If they really cared about Fan Appreciation, they would have continued the impasse for the next decade. It was leaps and bounds more exciting than anything the 12 people watching a typical NBA game will see.

Jerry Sandusky, His Wife Dottie, Penn State, Tom Corbett, Joe Paterno, and Mike McQueary

At the very least, all failed the test of moral leadership, permitting small, defenseless children to live a nightmare from which they may never awaken --- because no one would help. How could Happy Valley seem more like Yemen, where child sex trafficking and molestation is an accepted fact of life?  Even if Penn State turns into the State Pen for those who may have done wrong, it will be little solace to the victims.

And all the folks on this list, whether directly or indirectly, have blood on their hands. For shame.


Mitt Romney

Is Romney the most intelligent candidate running for President? Probably. Is he a successful businessman? Undoubtedly.  But what does it tell you when, after campaigning for five years and spending hundreds of millions, Romney still can’t even muster 30 percent of the GOP base? In other words, seven of ten Republicans simply don’t like him.

And it’s not rooted in his issue positions (though his Romneycare law in Massachusetts doesn’t help), but that he has no core convictions on…anything.  The man is the very embodiment of an articulate politician without a soul, one who will say whatever it takes to get elected.   So prevalent is his flip-flopping that he couldn’t even decide whether to campaign in Iowa. Contrast that to Congressman Ron Paul, whose support is surging for the opposite reason --- because he has been steadfastly consistent throughout his entire political career.

It’s a lesson totally lost on Mitt.  He’s so out of touch that he doesn’t understand the peoples’ yearning for a leader who stands for something and sticks to his guns.  Instead, Romney’s “be all things to all people” approach has him foundering, and will make him an inviting target for Obama should he win the GOP nomination.

Romney is the best Christmas present the GOP could give the Democrats.


Hollywood Movie Studios

Fewer Americans went to the movies this year than at any point in the last 16 years. Sure, the economy is in the toilet, tickets are expensive, and you need to take out a second mortgage to buy Raisenets, but they are all symptoms of a much greater illness: Hollywood’s product continues to decline.

Most flicks are flat-out horrible, but Hollywood execs don’t care. Their formula of hiring a star and throwing in some special effects is enough to dupe Americans into opening their wallets.  And despite the dismal box office numbers, don’t look for that to change anytime soon.  As long as they can make enough money to get near breakeven in North America, they’re still be laughing all the way to the bank because the foreign box office is providing the big haul. In fact, it was a record year for overseas profits. Which means that folks in Indonesia who are still starstruck will ensure more of Hollywood’s mediocrity for the foreseeable future.

Or here’s an idea: maybe Hollywood could stop looking for the easy way out of making remakes of remakes and using the same musical score ad nauseam ---just listen to Pirates of the Carribean (2003), Gladiator (2000), and The Rock (1996) --- and reinvent itself.  Sure, it takes effort to be creative, but that’s what made Hollywood the most powerful force in the world.

Most people couldn’t name one U.S. Senator, nor do they care.  But when Hollywood produces a creative, classic movie, it touches the soul, inspires, motivates, and enlightens (Remember the Titans meets all that criteria and then some).  It makes people think in a way they normally wouldn’t, and more often than not, produces a smile.  When was the last time Congress did that?

The slogan of the G4 network is playing “Movies That Don’t Suck.” Since that list is growing thin, let’s hope Hollywood regains its footing and returns to its glory days by putting blood, sweat and tears ahead of the easy buck.

Jim Matthews, Joe Hoeffel, and Montco Residents

Even in its most creative mode, Hollywood couldn’t have scripted this soap opera. Four years ago, the GOP won control of the County Commissioners, but Jim Matthews forsaked loyalty for power and sided with Democrat Joe Hoeffel, giving the Chairmanship to himself and power, effectively, to the Democrats. Top vote getter Bruce Castor was left out in the cold.

So (in)effective was the dynamic duo of Matthews-Hoeffel that both got the boot from their respective Parties and were forced into retirement.  And for the first time ever, the Democrats took control of Montgomery County.  So once again, Castor will be the only voice of reason as the Dems will most certainly raise taxes and get cozy with the unions.

But in a most fascinating twist, Matthews was recently arrested on perjury and false swearing charges for allegedly lying to a Grand Jury about his relationships with county vendors.  The Grand Jury found that “Matthews lied with such ease and frequency, that he acted as though, as Chairman of the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, he is above the law.”

When you’re arrogance knows no bounds, what goes around comes around. And for Jim Matthews, the red and green colors of the season may well turn to jumpsuit orange.  So in the spirit of giving, Freindly Fire will send Jim a belated Christmas present, just to be safe: Soap-On-A-Rope. 

Pennsylvanians

Maintaining the status quo simply isn’t good enough when the state has an effective unemployment rate above ten percent. So to solve that problem, what did Republican Governor Tom Corbett and the GOP-controlled legislature achieve? Pretty much zilch.

Sure, the budget wasn’t increased, but that wasn’t due to political courage but the fact that the federal stimulus funds had evaporated. And yet, despite many good programs going on the chopping block, the “fiscally conservative” Republicans still spent money on a lavish union deal, the Yankees’ AAA stadium, a bailout of the Philadelphia Shipyard to build ships with no buyers, and ---while not ultimately spent --- a grant to Jerry Sandusky’s Second Mile Foundation.

What of the signature issues that will be ignored in the upcoming election year? School Choice? Dead as Marley’s Ghost. Liquor privatization? Forget it. Reducing the second highest corporate tax in the nation --- a certified job killer? Not going to happen.

And how about the virtually limitless cheap natural gas under Pennsylvania? It still hasn’t dawned on the Governor to mandate that state buildings and vehicles utilize that gift --- which would be an economically and environmentally sound policy.

So because the demand for natural gas remains so low, the industry will cap their wells and move out of state, and we won’t have them to use as a convenient punching bag anymore. Brilliant.

So Pennsylvanians will suffer as more opportunities to bring the state into the 21st century are squandered.  The politicians change, but the dismal results stay the same.

Happy New Year!

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

 

 

 

 

 

<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next > End >>
Page 1 of 6