BY ANTHONY J. BAZZO
OF YORKTOWN NEWS
TITLE: Liberal Catter “Wohl” ing
Recently I wrote a column “Wohl See Who Has The Better Argument” taking my liberal counterpart in The Mahopac News, the sister paper of Yorktown News, Steven J.Wohl to task over a number of columns he wrote and the opinion’s he expressed. I offered a debate in the arena of ideas. I am glad to say, Mr. Wohl has decided to engage in that debate.
WOHL: I’d like Mahopac News’ readers to consider a new term: “BamBazzoLed,” my invented variant of the verb “bamboozled.” “Bamboozled” is defined by various dictionaries as “to hoodwink, deceive, mislead, confuse,” “to practice trickery or deception,” or to “lead by the nose, puzzle, or flummox.” BamBazzoLed (and its variants) means being bamboozled by Mr. Bazzo in particular.
BAZZO: When one spends their life always seeing the glass half-empty as liberals do, one of the first casualties is a sense of humor. So when a liberal tries to be clever, it usually comes out mean spirited. My column title was a pun one the phrase “we’ll see” (Wohl See). Mr. Wohl, trying to be clever, condescends. I will give him points for trying to be clever, though as a liberal, he is out of his league. As you read on, the only ,person “to practice trickery or deception,” or “BamBazzoLed” you is Mr Wohl.
As is my practice, I copy exactly what he wrote before I comment, a practice he could also employ, so as not to be accused of taking things out of context. Mr. Wohl on the other hand, filters what I said, leaving out the context of what I wrote, there by he “BamBazzoLed” you. Also, one should note, creating a clever title for a column is designed to spark reader interest in the text.
WOHL: In “Twick or Tweet,” Mr. Bazzo wants you to believe that it was “an honest expression of emotion” for Sen. Ball, a public official sworn to upholding the Constitution, to advocate for torturing the “punk” who allegedly carried out the Boston Marathon bombing, and to do so not only before the “punk” was tried and convicted, but even before he was formally charged. Mr. Bazzo justified Sen. Ball’s position by saying, “Revenge is a perfectly human response.” Duh! That obvious truth was then twisted by Mr. Bazzo into the conclusion that “the high and mighty” (read: liberals) “believe the civil rights of a person” who “waged war on America” are “more important than the civil rights of the people who were harmed.”
This tactic is shameful for someone who fancies himself a constitutional conservative, as I believe Mr. Bazzo does. After all, what is the essence of constitutional conservatism if it is not upholding both our Constitution and the morals upon which our democratic system is based? Trying to BamBazzoLed you by convincing you that the presumption of innocence should be disregarded before trial, and disregarded to the extent of approving torture of a person accused, but not yet convicted of anything (whether or not due to understandable emotions of anger or revenge), is an affront to our democracy. “The high and mighty,” as Mr. Bazzo calls them, denounced Sen. Ball’s statements not because they believe the surviving bomber’s rights are superior to the victims’ rights, but because they believe that the presumption of innocence and eschewing of torture are bedrock principles of our democracy, principles which in fact guarantee the rights of all of us.
BAZZO: “what is the essence of constitutional conservatism if it is not upholding both our Constitution and the morals upon which our democratic system is based? ”
First and most importantly, Mr Wohl leaves out the nut of the column, which was Senator Ball is not in a position to enact his opinion. That the Justice Department decided to try this as a criminal matter, not an act of war. That the perpetrator of that heinous act in Boston would be accorded the full protections of the constitution he so hated.
Second, if we are going to go down the road of constitutional conservatism, then the first right protected is speech. Honest speech. Honest emotion. How many times have we used the term, “I will kill so and so” for what ever grievance they inflicted on the person uttering that phrase? We know that person has or had not the wherewithal to carry out that threat. It was just a honest emotion at time of pain. However, like all Liberals, Mr. Wohl wishes to punish thought. He says so right here”(whether or not due to understandable emotions of anger or revenge), is an affront to our democracy.” Think political correctness and hate crimes. They are liberal concoctions to circumvent and punish speech and thought. In the world of the liberal, you are not even allowed to utter an unholy thought. Shades of the Inquisition.
Third, Mr Wohl leaves out that by going after Senator Ball the media was able to cover up their desire to pin this on the tea party of white males. He leaves out: “24 Hours after the bombing was this from Salon.com “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American” and “In fact even before the sequester and to prove we are in a new day in regards to domestic terrorism, Obama administration has SLASHED the budget for domestic bombing prevention by 45 per cent.”
Fourth, as the recent scandals coming out of the executive branch of this administration regarding the IRS targeting conservative groups, one they admitted to in their apology to those targeted groups show, “The high and mighty,” do in fact as I wrote consider the conservatives and tea party more dangerous then terrorist groups.
No, the only one who BamBazzoLed you was Mr Wohl by leaving out context.
WOHL: I won’t dwell at length on his misstatement that “Individual freedom starts with the preamble of the Constitution where the first inalienable right granted by our Creator, is the right to life. Life first, then liberty and pursuit of happiness.” The fact is, nowhere are “our Creator,” “life” or “the pursuit of happiness” mentioned in the Constitution’s preamble. Puzzlement and BamBazzoLing! These terms are in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
BAZZO: My bad. He is correct. This was my typing faster than I was thinking. However, the words in the Declaration Of Independence were codified into law and action in the Constitution by it’s creation of a government with limited interaction vis-a-vis the people and the amendments that protect those inalienable rights given by our creator.
WOHL: But of more consequence are Mr. Bazzo’s comments about the origins of the Iraq War and the significance of the North Dakota anti-abortion and “fetal personhood” initiatives.
Mr. Bazzo’s comments are, once again, little more than attempts to BamBazzoLed you. The Iraq War Resolution passed the House with 215 Republican “yes” votes and only 6 against; Democrats voted 126 to 82 AGAINST. In the Senate, the vote was 48 to 1 for (Republicans), 29 to 21 for (Democrats), and of those Democrats who did vote for the Resolution, many did so because of President Bush’s insistence that Saddam had WMD and that our country was in direct jeopardy if we did not go to war. Most of them voted as they did because they chose to believe our President, given his unmatched access to supposed “intelligence.”
Did Mr. Bazzo never hear of the expression, “the buck stops here,” as in, it stops on the President’s desk? Mr. Bazzo, again, would “lead you by the nose” to the conclusion that the Iraq War was a bipartisan project. Deceit, confusion and trickery: BamBazzoLing you, in other words.
BAZZO: Fact one, the buck did stop at Bush’s door. He certainly never lead from behind as this President does. President Bush never wavered or made excuses for his decision. Unlike those Democrats who voted for the war resolutions, there were two resolutions, demanded by the then Democrat controlled Senate. Second, those resolutions were certainly more bi-partisan than the “Affordable Health Care Act” that Mr Wohl so loves, that had not one Republican vote to transfer one sixth of this nations economy to government control. Now again, as more facts about this monstrosity come to light, these same Democrats that overwhelming voted for this, are now trying walk back their votes, again saying they were fooled about what was in it. It amazes me that Mr Wohl supports such people who admit to being so easily fooled about such important matters upon which they voted.
WOHL: Now to the loony and unconstitutional North Dakota initiatives. Talk about “leading you by the nose” elsewhere. Mr. Bazzo had no response whatsoever vis-a-vis North Dakota’s suppression of a woman’s legal right to choose, a right that actually IS guaranteed by the very U.S. Constitution.
BAZZO: Context, context, always missing. This is not a law. It will be voted on by the people of North Dakota in November. Until it and if passed it is only an expression of speech. Again, the liberal punishing thought. Also as I mentioned even if passed it would have no affect on New York law.
What was decided in Roe vs. Wade was the implied right to privacy upon which a woman’s right to chose rests. It is because we have a right to privacy, that the North Dakota proposal would never pass constitutional muster. How many initiatives have been passed by people’s in other states that have failed their state’s and federal constitutions? Too many to mention. Yet the people still have the right to petition their government. What the people do not have is the right to have their petition granted. The liberal wishes to take away the right to petition is they do not like what is in that petition. The liberal is afraid of the people. They do not want debate, no, they wish to silence all disagreement. It must be demonized and demagogued . Not only the issue, but the proponents.
WOHL: However, Mr. Bazzo, rather than honestly take on that “argument in the arena of ideas,” as he calls it, instead preferred to try to BamBazzoLed you by diverting you to the subject of a few corrupt Albany pols.
If you understand what I mean by being BamBazzoLed, I think you probably had a pretty easy time deciding “‘Wohl’ see who has the better argument” when it comes to Mr. Bazzo’s “arguments in the arena of ideas.”
BAZZO: This issue of a “few corrupt Albany pols.” is what lead off my comments on North Dakota. I pointed out (again,context) that while Mr. Wohl is captivated by the actions in North Dakota of which he has no say, he ignores what he says is “few corrupt Albany pols.”, which he has a say and is happening now!. That was the context. Not the validity of an initiative in North Dakota.
Mr.Wohl’s response on Albany’s cesspool is to dismiss it. How many corrupt pols must we endure before Mr. Wohl thinks it is an issues upon which he might opine? The total now stands at close to fifty either under investigation, indicted or convicted since 2007. Does he remain silent that out of that total it is only 5 are Republican? If it were instead 41 Republicans, would he then think it an issue?
You have a Governor who has decided not to engage the Legislature on this as not to endanger his agenda. He said so himself (page 2,New York Post 05/14/13) . On this Mr Wohl is silent! Does he agree with the Governor that his agenda is more important than an honest government? As long as reputable people like Mr. Wohl remain silent, nothing will be done. I am waiting Mr. Wohl, when will this be an issue you have an opinion on?
Finally, Mr Wohl sought out this job of being my liberal counter part. He wanted to be engaged in the arena of ideas. In the arena of ideas, one does not get to sit in a room with like minded people who keep saying you are right. No, in the arena, one must defend their position. One can not utter a statement with out proof. Mr.Wohl and I have the same formative experiences in forming our political viewpoints. The Vietnam War. The Great Society. Race riots and finally Watergate. We just took different lessons away them.
So now as I write this there are major scandals coming out of the executive branch. I purposely leave out the President himself as not to distract from the issues. What is known is that all so far have come from the executive branch. There has not been a dot connecting the President himself. You have the Justice Department tapping the phone lines of the AP. You have the Treasury Department via the IRS targeting political enemies. You have the State Department covering up the death of an American Ambassador, the first time that has happened in 30 years. People in the Nixon Administration went to jail for less. A President resigned for less.
I call on Mr.Wohl, a proud liberal to tell his audience the difference between then and now and how this is anyway justified if the lessons of Watergate are to have any meaning. Nobody died in Watergate. Nobody sat in prison for political purposes as the maker of the video that was falsely blamed on the death of the Ambassador is. In fact, the kidnapper of those three girls in Ohio was granted bail, (8 million dollars) yet the video maker was denied bail. The fact is the crime is not in doctored press releases, for there are no laws governing them. That part of the discussion is a distraction, The crime as I see it, is the imprisonment of an American citizen for political purposes.
You again have IRS scandals and wiretapping of the press. The Justice Department says they tapped the phones and gathered records of the AP for national security. That is the argument a dictatorship makes. “We suppress your freedoms for your own good”. As for the IRS, besides only looking at conservative groups, the real scandal is the division of the Internal Revenue Service that improperly scrutinized the tax-exempt status of conservative groups took that information which is confidential, they sent information on 31 conservative groups to a liberal nonprofit journalism organization called ProPublica. ProPublica told everybody on 05/14/13 that the IRS sent them the information on these conservative groups. By law, the IRS isn’t supposed to give anybody anything. Every bit of information on everybody’s tax return, everybody’s application for tax-exempt status is supposed to be closely held and private.
Are the readers being BamBazzoLed or is this just Liberal Catter “Wohl” ing. This IS what I say, what say you Mr Wohl?