Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Why The Vitriol?

For years now, it’s been apparent the modern left is driven by hate. In fact, it’s ingrained in the left’s ideology, which is entirely premised on taking from people it considers evil or undeserving. But their outpouring of hate in the past few days has been breathtaking. So why is the left so angry about this? There are several explanations for the left’s current vitriol and, as you might expect, the answer likely involves a combination of each factor. Let’s consider the possibilities:

Reason One: Exploitation Plain and Simple.

When Rahm Emanuel said “never let a good crisis go to waste,” he was saying something that has been at the core of leftist thinking for decades. The left puts little value on human life and no value of human dignity (their self-serving protestations to the contrary notwithstanding). Indeed, their entire political philosophy is based on the idea that society is more important than the life, rights, or dignity of any individual, and that we are all expendable for the greater good, i.e. their agenda. Add in other leftist ideas like the Black Panther slogan, “by any means necessary,” and you have a philosophy that will happily exploit any tragedy to further their political agenda. Hence, it’s been no surprise that gun control groups began pushing legislation within minutes of the shooting, that leftists took to the net and the airways immediately to slander their enemies (even after they should have known better), or that Democrats would use this in fundraisers before the bodies are even cold.

This is who the left is, and people need to realize that. The vitriol is all just part of the show. The left understands that its recent sales job to the public about the Tea Party being a bunch of klansmen fell on deaf ears. So now they are trying to raise the volume and intensity of the debate in the hopes that the public abandons the Tea Party.

Reason Two: Guilt Transference.

A second possible explanation involves psychology. One of the most common behaviors of the left over recent years has been that they routinely deny their own actions, and then they accuse others of the very things they pretend they have not done. In psychological terms, this is called transference, and it’s a defense mechanism that lets the individual avoid the responsibility for their own actions. You see this used in Hollywood when a gay-bashing character turns out to actually be gay, but is unwilling to admit it to themselves. It’s the same idea here:

At some level, the left must be aware that it engages almost constantly in hateful rhetoric. It also knows that this is wrong. To avoid the logical conclusion that, therefore, it is guilty of wrongful behavior, the left transfers this behavior onto the right by accusing the right of acting in the way that the left actually acts. This helps leftists cleanse their consciences. The stronger the guilt that must be cleansed, the strong the attack. Over the past 8-10 years, the left has been guilty of an incredibly high level of hateful rhetoric. Hence, the incredibly high level of vitriol in their current attack.

Reason Three: Fear.

The next possible explanation involves fear. The left has for decades engaged in guerilla tactics. This involves smearing their opponents, disrupting political events, spreading lies to trick the “ignorant masses,” and electoral fraud. This also includes making life incredibly unpleasant for people who oppose them.

That has taken the form of shouting down people who dare oppose them (politicians or otherwise), protesting at their homes or businesses, seeking to have their opponents fired or taken off the air, and using threats or implied threats to scare their opponents. Indeed, anyone who paid attention to the Townhall meetings saw this when union thugs intimidated speakers with violence. Similarly, most right-wing radio personalities and writers routinely receive death threats. Disruptions of political speeches and college commencement speeches often include death threats, bomb threats, physical attacks, threats against the speaker’s children, and other suggestions of violence.

But here’s the thing. This has been 100% the domain of the left. In other words, they’ve been getting away with it consequence free.

If the left honestly believes this shooter came from the right, their vitriol could indicate that they are terrified that this could (or will) become a trend. Indeed, with the right already adopting many of their other tactics, like turning out to protest en masse or giving the Code Pink treatment to the reading of the Constitution, this could easily be evidence that the right is about to adopt the same guerilla tactics. This would a terrifying prospect for the left as they would now begin to face personal danger for their political views. Hence, the vitriol is in direct response to their fear.

Reason Four: Lashing Out.

Finally, we come to what appears to be the main reason: the left feel personally betrayed by America, and this vitriol is them lashing out.

For years, there have been growing hints of hate boiling over on the left. And when I say hate, I mean it. People use the term "hate" far too lightly, just as they misuse other words. Real hate almost can't be described except with the word "hate." It's fiery, it's nasty, it's violent, it's irrational.

As victimology took hold on the left, the hate followed. Blacks who subscribe to victimology hate whites. Feminists hate men and housewives. Socialists hate capitalists and the rich. Etc. And when I say “hate,” I don't mean "dislike." I mean when you get these people started, they end up foaming at the mouth saying things that often end with them trying to find the nastiest way to wish some dead.

Then Bush came along and gave them something specific to focus their hate upon. And hate they did -- very publicly. Indeed, there was so much open hate that it soon became acceptable in leftist circles to talk about assassinating Bush or Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Delay, or Bill O’Reilly (later add Palin and Beck).

Then 2008 happened and suddenly leftists thought the world had changed. The clouds opened up, a rainbow appeared, and America finally accepted them. But things went wrong almost immediately. They got nothing. And at the first opportunity, the public thoroughly repudiated them (probably for several generations at least). Suddenly, what seemed like a dream come true victory became a humiliating defeat that indicated to them that they would never succeed in America.

So now it’s January 2011. You’ve got years of boiling hate, which reached a level where expressing it in its vilest form has become acceptable. You’ve got a crushing defeat inflicted upon these self-defined enlightened leftists by a public that they see as ignorant, and a fear that they are doomed to perpetual failure because that same public will never accept them. That is a recipe for an epic tantrum. Suddenly, you have this shooting and an opportunity to focus that tantrum on one thing. In one fell swoop, they could unleash all their hatred on the ignorant public that they blame for their failure and they could target the various bogeymen and bogeywomen they’ve come to despise over the past couple years. Hence, the vitriol.

It’s possible that some are hoping that by spewing forth, they might encourage other unstable people to assassinate their bogeymen, but for the most part I think this vitriol is the result of a personal desire by most on the left to “get even” with the ignorant public that shattered their dreams and the evil conservatives who made that happen.

Thoughts?


[+] Read More...

Monday, January 10, 2011

Leftist Hate Speech

The left are liars and hypocrites. No surprises there. But the last couple days have been extreme, even for them. I'll deal with the reason they've flipped out tomorrow morning, so as not to clutter this post. In the meantime, today I’ve collected some information they won't like: examples of leftist hate. I apologize in advance for the vile language (NSFW), but I will be quoting lots of leftists.

1. The Shooter Is A Leftist

Before we dig into leftist hate, let me point out that this shooter was by no means a right-winger. All the evidence puts him firmly on the left:
● The shooter’s favorite books include The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, and The Republic, which are all leftist books.

● He's a 9/11 truther.

● He was an intolerant atheist who wrote a diatribe against the military handing out miniature Bibles to recruits.

● Classmate Caitie Parker, who knew him in high school and college and was in a band with him, has stated: “As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal and oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy.”

● His favorite video on YouTube was someone burning the American flag.
None of these are consistent with him being a right-winger. Indeed, the only thing consistent with him being on the modern right is vague demands about abandoning the dollar because it is not backed by gold, BUT he then talks about everyone making their own currency -- which is more akin to Marxist thinking, which disdains currency as a tool of oppression.

2. The Left/Media Ignore The Truth So They Can Attack

Despite this evidence coming out fairly quickly, the left and their friends in the MSM jumped right out and claimed it was hateful right wing rhetoric that was to blame. Here are some samples of their claims (note the emphasis on boogeywoman Sarah Palin):
● Markos Moulitsas, founder of the DailyKos, sent the following tweet: “Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin.”

● New Jersey Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell said: “There’s an aura of hate and elected politicians feed it, certain people on Fox News feed it.”

● Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) specifically blamed the Tea Party for turning our political discourse “toxic” and making it so that “if you’re an opponent, you’re a deadly enemy.” He then accused them of “threatening our form of government.” And he said that “Ms. Palin needs to look at her own behavior, and if she wants to help the public discourse, the best thing she could do is to keep quiet.”

● Keith Olbermann compared the shooter to Glenn Beck and called on him to apologize.

● Paul Krugman claimed that Rush, Beck and Palin were to blame.

● CBS’s Nancy Cordes, CNN’s Jessica Yellin, Today’s Kelly O’Donnell and ABC’s David Wright all blamed Palin’s “cross hairs campaign” for causing this.

● The New York Times wrote a piece that actually lets liberals speculate that the shooter was motivated by specific militia magazines, even after they confirmed that he was never a subscriber to any of these. And interestingly, when they describe the shooter in this piece, they "somehow" fail to mention any of the evidence presented above, even though they mention every other known fact about him.
There are literally thousands of more examples, as this became a liberal talking point. Note the key themes, this was because of an "atmosphere of hate" created by the right.

3. The Real Purveyors of Hate Speech

So who really created this atmosphere of hate about which the left complains. With all their vast media resources, they've found one instance where Palin use a cross hairs image, which they have spun into possibly implying to the unstable that she was calling for an assassination (forget that leftist journalists routinely use warfare terminology to describe politics and many have used the cross hairs image themselves). Beside that, they have their opinions that Beck, Rush, etc. are spreading hate, but have been unable to produce any examples.

But what about leftist rhetoric? Bev informed us that the Huffers claimed the left had never said anything hateful. Roger Ebert likewise claimed that: "Were liberals angry about Bush? Yes. But liberals played by the rules." So is this correct or has the left conveniently developed collective amnesia? Let’s take a look.

Let’s start with some of things Ebert has said about Republicans:
● They have "a base it should be ashamed of."
● "The entire climate of paranoia and hate? Have these people always been there?"
● "Some of them may have been the victims of child abuse."
● "They are told to oppose, even hate, those who might be trying to help them."
So right-wingers are retarded, hateful, victims of child abuse? Nope, nothing hateful there. But Ebert's a piker when it comes to hate. For example, he never called for Bush's assassination, like so many other liberals did:
● Here is a collection of protest signs that threaten to kill Bush. Some of these signs include:
○ I’m here to kill Bush (Shoot Me)
○ Kill Bush Bomb His F___IN House
○ Save Mother Earth Kill Bush
○ Hang Bush For War Crimes
○ Bush Is The Disease Death Is The Cure
○ Bush the only Dope Worth Shooting
This link also shows dozens of other items like images of Bush being decapitated, a guillotine brought to a protest with Bush’s head in the basket, Bush being hung, Bush being burned in effigy, and an image of Bush being assassinated. Here are thousands of images of Bush as Hitler or Satan, and examples of t-shirts calling for Bush’s death, and wanted dead or alive posters.

● Comedian(?) Craig Kilborn showed a picture of Bush and ran a caption that read “snipers wanted.”

● John Kerry joked about killing Bush on Bill Maher's show. When asked if going to New Hampshire for his campaign "would kill two birds with one stone," Kerry responded: "I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone."

● And of course, in the middle of these nasty protests and Bushitler signs, Nancy Pelosi encouraged all of this when she called Bush “stupid” and said that “Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism.” Of course, when the protests went against her, then she suddenly demanded the government step in and investigate anyone involved with the protests.

Similarly, Democrat Rep. Robert Brady has now told CNN he will introduce legislation to make it a crime to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against federal officials. Funny how that wasn't an issue when it was Republicans being protested and attacked. . . like when bullets were fired at Eric Cantor's office or Bobby Jindal's campaign manager was attacked and her boyfriend's leg broken by protestors, or 7 out of 10 instances of violence at healthcare town halls were perpetrated by leftists.
But Bush hate is nowhere near the only hate the left has spewed of late. Tea Party hate is pathological on the left:
● In April, Joe Klein claimed that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin were guilty of sedition for opposing ObamaCare.

● Democratic House Whip James Clyburn accused the GOP of “aiding and abetting. . . terrorism.” Clyburn also described the Tea Party thusly: "It reminds me of that period in our history right after Reconstruction, when South Carolina had a black governor and the political gains were lost because of vigilantism, the rise of the Ku Klux Klan."

● Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) said this in October of Florida Republican Governor Rick Scott (a Tea Party candidate): "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him."

● Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy said this of the Tea Party:
I know how the "tea party" people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their "Obama Plan White Slavery" signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.
● In November 2009, Dylan Rattigan of MSNBC was so upset that voters (i.e. Tea Party) were frustrating his leftist friends that he said this: "Are things in our country so bad that it might actually be time for a revolution? The answer obviously is yes, the only question is how to do it."

His guest then said that non-violent means were not effective for the left: “The american left has been very peaceful since the early ’60s and where has it gotten us?” And here is a quote from the guest’s book, “The Anti-American Manifesto”:
“A war is coming. At stake: our lives, the planet, freedom, living. The government, the corporations, and the extreme right are prepared to coalesce into an Axis of Evil. Are you going to fight back? Will you do whatever it takes, including taking up arms?

The millions of partisans who follow Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and right-wing televangelists happen to be the best-armed people around, and they despise just about everyone who doesn’t think and pray like them. . . . They will act to stop teenage sluts from getting abortions, teach niggers a lesson, and slaughter those spics, dots, and everyone else who doesn’t fit into their vision of what and who is right.”
● The Nation also calls for violence: “where are the angry crowds, the demonstrations, sit-ins and unruly mobs?
And when it comes to radio personalities and political writers, the left really gets hateful. Ask yourself if you could ever imagine saying any of the following yourself or if you would accept your friends saying any of the following:
● Canadian columnist Antonia Zerbisias of the Toronto Star said this of Michelle Malkin: “Forget the Marxists. I wish the marksmen would take MichelleMalkin.” This same liberal often complains of other’s hate speech.

● How about some of the letters Michelle Malkin gets, like this:
○ You’re a sick BITCH. Are you aware that you almost causes the death of an elementary school teacher the other day with your bullshit. You are a disgrace to Black people. I’m sorry .That’s right . You’re not black. Is your husband a white man that works for the Insurance Cartel?

○ from Greg Diaz: times up you ugly motherfucker make sure sure your husband signs that policy bitch
● How about some of the letters Rush gets from liberals:
○ Rush Limbaugh is Cunt of the Day for not dying. So many people die each day, why does hateful cunt Limbaugh get to live?

○ RUSH LIMBAUGH WHY WONT YOU DIE?

○ rush deserves to die AND I HOPE HE BURNS IN HELL!!
● How about some liberal hate for Palin on Twitter:
○ Death 2 Palin family them retarded hillbillies take teabaggers w/ you hateful bitch

○ We cant expect gov to intervene we must shoot Gen. Palin on site be 4 her troops strike again!

○ one word racism choose sides plain and simply that bitch Palin launch an attack, she need 2 b shot on site!

○ @Palin360 you need 2 b assassinated soon we ll settle 4 one of the family if not u!

○ maybe it takes a murder or 2 2 get the point across take aim at radical TP members

○ Palin will b met with gunfire her or her family

○ @SarahStormRpt u need 2 be shot on site startin that racist Tp shit, all you all do is promo violence dont cry when some kill u basterds

○ her map w crosshair need to b put on her family she that bitch can die or a TP supporter

○ I cant wait till someone serious hurt that bitch Palin or one of her children soon she out of control!

○ Palin came 2 lower 48 2 start a civil divide this could b the moment of truth 4 americans 2 put her down

○ i encourage ppl 2 meet the TP wit the same acts of violence Palin instructs them 2 do we need 2 harass them 2 their racist graves

○ Damn violent teabaggers!
So when the left complains about hate speech, let’s be clear, they are talking about themselves. That’s why they are so familiar with it. They use it, they mean it. These are the ideological blood-brothers of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Che, and so many more -- hate and murder are deeply ensconced within their ideology.


(FYI: Patti has a link today that the left is using this shooting in their fund raisers already: LINK. I guess we shouldn't be surprised: "Never waste a crisis." -- Rahm Emanuel)

[+] Read More...

Happy New Year From The Union

Ah, the weather outside is frightful--let it snow, let it snow, let it snow. And let it collect so that emergency vehicles can't get to their calls and other workers can't get to their jobs. That was the position of the New York City Sanitation Workers Union after Auntie Bloomberg proposed budget restraints on the union employees and some necessary layoffs. He hadn't even gotten to the bloated pensions yet.

The left and the unions are always prattling on about how they care about the "little people" but when it comes to having to tighten their own expansive belts, that's another story entirely. Bloomberg said "we have to start saving money." The union replied "let them eat snow." Rather than do their jobs and protect the citizens of New York whose taxpayers pay for their outrageous salaries, benefits and deadwood employees, they decided to "make the mayor pay." In the process, at least two human beings also paid--with their lives. A newborn baby and an elderly woman died when the EMTs couldn't get to them through the uncleared snowdrifts.

But what are a couple of lives compared to the horror of layoffs, reduction in pay scale for "supervisors," and reduction in the size of the oversized workforce? Several union members with consciences (there are a few) reported to City Countilman Dan Halloran that: "They were told to take off routes and not do the plowing of some of the major arteries in a timely manner. They were told to make the mayor pay." There were also "blue flu" call-outs, so named for police union slowdowns in the past.

The Sanitation Workers Union has the exclusive bargaining rights for all sanitation workers who are members of the union whether they want to be or not. Now imagine just how much worse it could have been if the big labor "Police-Firefighters Monopoly Bargaining Bill" had passed. Then the EMTs would have been ordered not even to try to get to the emergency calls. The big union bosses have not given up on their monopoly bargaining bill, and will keep trying until somebody caves. That will be much harder with the new Republican House, but union bosses are determined to get control of all public employees in order to hold the big cities hostage to unsustainable workforces, pay scales that are twice that of the private sector for comparable jobs, and retirement benefits that make the Europeans look like Ebenezer Scrooge.

We need to apply a new adage echoing an old one: "The price of public safety is eternal vigilance." The unions have billions of dollars in union dues extorted from unwilling members to throw at Congress critters to vote for the monopoly bill. The recent gala for freshmen Republican Congressmen indicates at least a few can be bought. In the words of the great American President who broke the police strikes, Calvin Coolidge, "nobody has the right to strike against the public good." Unfortunately, since that time, Congress and the muddle-headed Supreme Court have declared "nobody--except a union--has the right to strike against the public good."
[+] Read More...

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Liberal Insanity, January 1-9, 2011 Edition

This was a bad week for liberal sanity. But if you enjoy watching a good temper tantrum now and then, and you get a kick out of watching liberals expose themselves for the nasty hypocrites they are, then I give you the week that was. . .

Dateline: The Land of Free Speech

We all know liberals claim to represent free speech. But somehow that's always the first thing to go when they don't like what the other guy said. Take the example of the conservative who DARED to make an historical drama about Saint John F. Kennedy. The nerve!

The History Channel originally sponsored this production until they were confronted by liberal filmmaker Robert Greenwald, who had gathered the signature of 50,000 free-speech loving liberals who decided that it wasn't right that someone be allowed to make a show about the Kennedys that doesn't strictly adhere to the standard mythologized Camelot where we ignore all of the bad facts about the Kennedys and paint them as pre-Obama Messiahs.

Concerned that they were about to air unapproved thoughts, The History Channel decided that this kind of programming wasn't consistent with their mission. Said The History Channel, “We recognize historical fiction is an important medium for storytelling. . . but ultimately [we] deem [dropping] this as the right programming decision for our network.” No word on whether The History Channel will replace this show with some of the other historical fiction they show periodically or with hard-hitting historical shows like Ancient Aliens. . . did you know Jesus could have come from Mars?

Yet another stunning victory for (approved) free speech!


Dateline: 1984 Redux

You may recall that in George Orwell’s 1984, the protagonist’s job was to rewrite history. He would be given old newspapers and photographs, and he would place a piece of tape over the faces of people who had become unpeople so they could be expunged from history.

So welcome to the 2011 version of 1984. A new edition of Huckleberry Finn is being published which has removed certain words that liberals consider harmful. How far will liberals go with removing unapproved thoughts and words from books? Who knows? Spielberg removed the guns from E.T. and Britain requires the expunging of cigarettes from certain films and cartoons. The communists banned American books. Hitler banned the works of Jews. So at what point will our self-designated thought-protectors stop? Perhaps when everything is finally doubleplus good?


Dateline: Obama Has Forsaken Us

For months, liberals deluded themselves that the Obamessiah really was a socialist true-believer by telling themselves that he had been led astray by the evil Rahm “Judas” Emanuel. The Politico even called Emanuel “center right” and whined that Obama had been “ill-served and misinterpreted by Rahm Emanuel and other center-right aides.” Yikes!

Well, now the appointment of Bill Daley has shattered that delusion. As the Politico has described it, this has "broken hearts across the Democratic Party." Said one Democrat: “There’s a sense of resignation and fatalism.” Liberals are particularly upset that Daley comes from Wall Street and Big Business. . . because they apparently weren’t paying attention when Obama turned the Treasury over to Goldman Sachs. Fortunately, one thing they are NOT upset about (because liberals can't be racists) is that Bill once described the Democrats’ 1988 convention thusly: “For those of us who watched television, what they saw looked like a black party.”


Dateline: The Outrage To End All Outrages

Finally, while those dirty Republicans were reading something called “the Constitution,” which appears to be a pornographic document . . . not that there’s anything wrong with pornography, a lone monster shouted “except Obama” when they came to the part about Presidents needing to be born in the United States.

This brought outraged hand-wringing from liberals who could not believe that someone not on the left would dare to use disruption of a public ceremony as a way to spread their vile lies. Apparently, turnabout is not fair play when it happens to liberals.

[+] Read More...

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

The shooting of Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords has shocked the nation, and rightly so. And while we don’t know much yet, there are some things that are worth pointing out immediately. Here are some random thoughts:

First, it does not matter what Giffords politics are, the shooting of a public official is a tragedy. Murder is simply not acceptable in America for any reason, no matter who the person is, and we should all be outraged that anyone would take such actions.

Secondly, Speaker Boehner has issued the following statement:
“I am horrified by the senseless attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and members of her staff. An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve. Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society. Our prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her staff, all who were injured, and their families. This is a sad day for our country."
I would like to second Boehner’s statement, as I’m sure we all would.

Third, let us be thankful that political murders are so rare in the United States. By comparison, in places like Mexico, the Philippines, and South America, political murders are common place, even at the highest level.

Finally, let us be careful about calling this “politically motivated.” Such claims imply the existence of a political movement that has adopted violence. Aside from a few environmental terrorist groups, there is no evidence of any group in America that currently has chosen violence as a way to get its “message” across. Indeed, almost without exception, the murder of politicians in America has been the work of insane individuals, and their actions should not be attributed to any political movement or ideology.

And while our television culture unfortunately demands immediate speculation about motive and blame, let us remember two things. The blame falls squarely on the man who pulled the trigger and any who helped, no one else. America does not do guilt by association. Secondly, the motives do not matter. This act was wrong no matter what the motives were, and we should not give publicity to the views of this killer nor should we give them any credence.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Representative Giffords and with our country.

[+] Read More...

Little Bundles Of Joy

Ammesty for immigrants is off the table for now, but the Republicans are not satisfied with half-measures. At long last, there will be a major challenge to the concept of "anchor babies." We will finally see an activist attempt to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment the way it was originally meant, and stop the bleeding-heart boo-hooing about the poor little innocents who just happened to get birthed in the USA.

It appears to me that Americans have become much more knowledgeable about the debate that surrounded passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. Before the current debates about illegal immigration, most Americans simply knew the part about "born or naturalized" in the United States. A few more knew about the expression "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," but were not entirely clear on what that actually means. Today, a great many more Americans have become aware of the real purpose behind the Fourteenth Amendment Civil War legislation. The purpose was twofold. First, to establish once and for all that former slaves born in the United States were now entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of every other citizen. And second, that a citizen of the United States had the same fundamental rights nationwide, and no state could take those rights away.

The Amendment was never designed as a blanket endorsement of "run across the border into the US, have a baby, create an American citizen, even though you are there illegally." "Birthright citizenship" has simply become the law of the land by default. It's time to correct that error. The common expression for these little bundles of joy is "anchor babies," but I rather like Ann Coulter's description of them as "jackpot babies." Make it across that border, drop a baby, win the big prize. As if considering mere birth within American borders were not enough of a prize, the liberals have passed years of legislation that ties "family reunification" to the little darlings. They have simply enabled illegals to expand on a right they never actually had in the first place.

First of all, liberals argue that migrant farmworkers who come into the United States for the harvests then return to Mexico shouldn't have their baby's rights taken away simply because during one of those trips, the wife (or whatever) has a baby. That argument doesn't work simply because the parents have no intention of becoming American citizens (at least not the traditional way). It also runs counter to the liberal argument that "illegals come here for the great opportunities and freedom of American society." They are certainly subject to the law while sojourning in the United States, but they are not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the US in the way a genuine citizen is.

The amnesty argument is that America is the land of opportunity, and that anyone who comes here merely wants a piece of the action. Any denial, for any reason, is racist or ethnocentric. Throw in a baby born here, and the parents are instantly transformed into future citizens who should no longer be oppressed by those silly immigration requirements.

My favorite argument from the liberals is "you shouldn't punish the child for the mistakes of its parents." So the alternative is to reward them for the mistakes of their parents (and their liberal supporters)? Given the liberals' great love of illegal Mexican immigrants and Mexico, how is sending the whole damn family back, anchor baby included, a punishment? Before anyone unfamiliar with my previous disclosures decides I'm a racist too, I wish to point out that my lifelong best friend, my best college buddy, and both my sons-in-law are of Mexican descent.

The current language of Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act is muddied by those years of "common acceptance" of absolute birthright citizenship. Though a Constitutional Amendment would be better, it's a long and arduous process, and probably unnecessary. The Republicans who want action now to stem the tide prefer simply to clean up the language of Section 301 and amend it to read that birthright citizenship belongs to those who are born of American nationals and American citizens only. No other nation, Mexico included, allows birthright citizenship for people in the country legally or illegally without the requirement of parental citizenship or parents in the country legally and in the process of obtaining citizenship.

Allowing the children of illegal immigrants born by accident or design within the borders of the Unites States to be automatic citizens is not embedded in the Constitution, despite what the liberals would have you believe. It first of all assumes that it's OK that the parents should be rewarded with an anchor for future chain immigration. It ignores the fact that the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States until they get caught. It assumes that "subject to the jurisdiction of" means "any jurisdiction." Natural-born children of adult American citizens are only partially subject to the jurisdiction of the United States since minors have always been treated as offshoots of the parental unit until they reach legal maturity.

It is time to clarify once and for all that babies born to illegal immigrants (as well as children of foreign national parents here legally at the time of birth but who have no basis for obtaining citizenship or intention to do so) are not American citizens because of an incidental act of nature. I believe that the Supreme Court will ultimately have to rule on the legislation (not to mention the 20 states that are attempting to pass their own rules on the subject). I believe the high court will look to the original intent of the Amendment and uphold the statute. If not, then it really is time for a Constitutional Amendment.
[+] Read More...

Friday, January 7, 2011

Let's Read It So We'll Know What's In It

Yes, my friends, I must admit I had a great sense of schadenfreude watching the botoxed face of Nancy Pelosi having to read from the Constitution on the second day of the new Congress. She knew she had to do it, but it must have seemed to her like being required to down an entire bottle of castor oil. There they were. All those Democrats being introduced for the very first time to the foundational document of the greatest Republic in history.

I kept waiting for San Fran Nan to lose it and start shouting "it's alive, it's alive!" Once I realized that wasn't going to happen, I re-ran the moment just to determine if she had her fingers crossed. No luck there either. Just imagine the humiliation. She's lost her throne, her plane, her perks, and much of her influence, and now she's required to read from the very document that guaranteed the people the power to kick her skinny arse out of that seat.

Prior to the bipartisan reading of the document from the well of the House, several liberal Democrats made it clear they were unhappy. Sort of like the early Renaissance Church authorities who wanted the Mass to be heard in Latin only, lest the peasants find out what the priests were really telling the congregations and what the Bible actually says. You can never find an Inquisition when you need one. Lefty Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY) was incensed at even the suggestion of a reading of the Constitution. "It's a stunt," he said, "and it [the Constitution, I presume] is irrelevant to the issues we have to face. It's as if the thing was some kind of sacred document."

There were a few legitimate complaints, however. Talking heads kept yammering about "which version" of the Constitution was going to be read. Huh? There's only one version. What they were actually trying to say is "will the Constitution be read straight up?" The answer, sadly, was no. And it gave some demagogic Democrats a legitimate reason to complain, even if for the wrong reasons. In order to avoid having to read the portions of the original Constitution, sans the Bill of Rights and later Amendments, the Republicans went all politically-correct and deleted the portions relating to slavery and slaves as being only three-fifths of a person.

Their excuse was that there was no point in reading portions of the Constitution of 1789 which had subsequently been changed or eliminated as a result of later Amendments. That left the Democrats an opportunity to complain that the agony of black slaves was being ignored by the redacting Republicans. And Jesse Junior Jackson wasted no time tossing that theory into the ring.

Instead of walking on eggs, the Republicans should have been touting the glory of a document so rich in the rights of man and the responsibilities of government that it provided for change when those goals were being suppressed or ignored. What's the point of the Civil War Amendments if not to rectify the most major error the Founders made? What could the Supreme Court have based its decision in Brown v. Board of Education on if there were no Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments?

Of course we can always count on the New York Times to get it all wrong. They missed the part about the politically-correct redacting (which would have been a legitimate ground for criticism). All they heard was that those damned Republican right-wing reactionary fascists were going to read the Constitution. Using the device of the backhanded insult, they commented: "Surely the Republican leadership is not suggesting that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person." Anyone who knows the Times knows that the historically-ignorant and constitutionally deficient editors were inferring that the Republicans meant exactly that. I'm guessing they don't know that those annoying Civil War Amendments are part and parcel of the Constitution.

All of that said, this was a patriotic gesture which will not produce new legislation nor change the minds of doctrinaire liberals and leftists. They will still consider the Constitution an impediment to good governance. But at least, probably for the very first time, Democrats were forced to read from the Constitution, out loud, in Congress, in front of cameras broadcasting to the world, or face explaining why they found the document so repulsive. I'm rather amazed at how few of them choked, gagged or teared-up. They're better actors than I would have thought. It was ninety minutes of joy for those of us who love the Constitution, and ninety minutes of agony for those who think you're just supposed to make things up as you go along.

That's my take on the worthiness of taking time out to read--really read--the Constitution. It was merely symbolic and a gesture to patriotism and the love of limited government, but couldn't we all use a little more of that in our lives?
[+] Read More...

TV Review: The Twilight Zone (1959-1964)

There is something about the true classics that make them stand apart from all that came before and from all the copies that follow. The Twilight Zone is a classic. Indeed, despite decades of copies, nothing compares to the original. Ultra-creative stories, gripping plots, intense characters and perfect writing all combine to make the various episodes of The Twilight Zone not only unforgettable, but iconic and timeless.

Created by, narrated by, and mostly-written by Rod Serling, The Twilight Zone is part-drama, part-science fiction, part-fantasy, and part-anything else that came to Serling’s mind. Each episode stands alone, with each episode taking place in a different setting, from outer space to the old West to contemporary (1950s) America to the world of the future, and involving different characters.

The stories. . . well, the stories are where the The Twilight Zone becomes something special. Every episode of the The Twilight Zone involves a test of the human spirit. Some are morality plays, where characters are punished for their greed or avarice or jealousy or cowardice (or any other bad human trait). Some are tests of human limits to endure things like loneliness or the suffering of others. Some explore our fears or our sanity. Some explore the worst elements of human nature, such as our capacity to turn on each other. Some are warnings, such as the famous “wishing into the cornfield” episode, which offers an exaggerated example of what can happen when parents don’t provide boundaries for their children. Some are social commentaries.

Having all of this in a single show is itself rather unique and special. But what really separates The Twilight Zone from all its competitors, both the contemporary competitors like The Outer Limits and the subsequent copies like Amazing Stories and Ray Bradbury Theater, and the remakes of The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, are two critical differences:

First, you have the writing. Rod Serling is a genius, who should be considered among the greats with Shakespeare and Hemmingway. His dialog is brilliant. He always finds the perfect words for each line of dialog, and he has the courage to use only those words, without feeling compelled to hold the audience’s hand with unnecessary exposition or explanation and without filling his stories with meaningless distractions or unneeded filler. He also manages to keep his stories so well paced that they never lose your attention, and he does such a tremendous job of foreshadowing that you can never tell exactly where a story is headed even though the endings always seem inevitable when they finally arrive. A great measure of the quality of writing is to ask what could have been done to improve a story or a line of dialog, i.e. what would you take out or add to make the story/writing better. Only truly great works, like Serling’s Twilight Zone leave you with nothing that could be changed.

Secondly, and even more importantly, unlike all of the competitors, The Twilight Zone recognizes the good as well as the bad in human nature. For all of the bad things that happen in The Twilight Zone, it is surprisingly un-cynical; nothing is inevitable in The Twilight Zone and it's the rare character who isn’t given a fair chance. Indeed, when characters fail, they do so because they could not overcome their worst instincts. It is this fair examination of the human condition that leaves you wondering at the end of each episode how you would have responded, and it makes you think about our capacity for good and evil, altruism and greed, love and hate, and how easily we can be carried away by these things or how strong of character we can really be. By comparison, something like The Outer Limits (especially the remake) is pure cynicism, where no matter what the characters do, the worst possible result will happen, which leaves you only with the thought “gee, that sucks,” at the end of each episode.

Moreover, The Twilight Zone leaves plenty of room for good things to happen to good people, for cowards to overcome their fears, and for the good but odd to demonstrate that goodness trumps conformity. For example, who doesn’t smile when Mr. Bevis (Orson Bean) forgoes the successful “conformist” life to be who he really is, or when Wanda Dunn realizes that death (Robert Redford) is not something to be feared. These are the kinds of stories that make The Twilight Zone both a fascinating drama but also an uplifting show, and keep the episodes from blurring together as an unrelenting series of failures and disasters.

I think there are three lessons in The Twilight Zone for would-be modern storytellers. First, lose the cynicism. So many movies and books today are modeled on what the writers think are The Twilight Zone-like ideas, but these stories are so awash in cynicism that they’ve lost both the heart that drives The Twilight Zone and what makes it so interesting to us, and they’ve lost the range of stories the The Twilight Zone could tell.

The second lesson is something I find truly frustrating in modern storytelling (and I date this back largely to Star Trek TNG): a misunderstanding of what defines character. Modern storytellers think that character can be created by providing a detailed list of likes and dislikes and hobbies. But that’s not true. Character cannot be created by telling us that a character plays an instrument or drinks Klingon coffee; character can only be developed through the actions of the characters. Consider the pool game between Jonathan Winters and Jack Klugman. Although modern storytellers see the fact of Klugman playing pool as a significant indicator of his character, the reality is that this fact is irrelevant. Indeed, it does not matter to Klugman's character if his game is pool or poker or even basketball, what matters is his obsession with being the best -- that is what defines his character. The Twilight Zone understands this and that’s why its characters are fascinating to us: because they have flaws and strengths, just as we do, and they act according to those, just as we do. Thus, we learn who they are by seeing how they behave, we associate with them as we share their traits, and we invest in them because they become a proxy for our lives. Simply knowing someone’s hobbies just can’t provide a similar connection.

Finally, while The Twilight Zone relies in most episodes on some form of twist, it isn’t the twist that keeps us watching, it is how the characters react to the twist. In other words, if your story relies on the twist to keep people interested -- as so many modern movies do, then you’re doing it wrong. What really matters to a story is the characters, not the moment of shock or surprise.

It’s too bad more modern storytellers don’t get these points, because realizing these things could improve a lot of films.

All in all, The Twilight Zone is one of the few classics of the modern age that you really need to see. Its episodes are iconic and are some of the most copied and repeated stories of the modern world. It permeates our culture, and it set the standard against which all modern cinema should be judged.


[+] Read More...

Thursday, January 6, 2011

Hollywood Stumbles. . . Actually, No

Hollywood profits were down slightly this year and ticket sales were off by a whopping 6%. Suddenly, a great many articles are being written announcing Hollywood's demise: they don’t know how to make good films, they have alienated their audiences, 3D has turned out to be a bust, and the sky is falling. The truth, however, is rather different. Indeed, no matter how much I wish their business model would fail so they would need to change the way they do business, the truth is that everything is fine for them.

Let’s start with my grievances. For those of you who've been reading my discussions of films, you will know that I think Hollywood has entered a dead period, where they are making nothing but poor, throw-away, formulaic junk. Indeed, if you compare the extraordinary number of top films that came out of the 1990s against the total lack of good films in this past decade, it’s obvious that something’s gone wrong:

Some of the Best of the 1990s. . . The "Best" I Could Find in the 2000s. . .
The MatrixLord of the Rings
Ghost300
Men In BlackThe Dark Knight
The Sixth SensePirates of the Caribbean
Jurassic ParkUp
Independence DayHarry Potter
The Lion King
Pulp Fiction
L.A. Confidential
Terminator 2
Saving Private Ryan
True Lies
Basic Instinct
Schinder's List
The Usual Suspects
Fargo
Titanic
Trainspotting
Goodfellas
Unforgiven
Toy Story

But Hollywood isn’t about art, no matter what they say, it’s about profit. And when you look at profit, you quickly understand why they don’t care about my complaints.

Last year ticket sales fell 6%. And in the past decade, ticket sales fell six out of ten years, which compares poorly to the 1990s when sales rose six out of ten years or the 1980s when sales rose seven out of ten years. And when you compare the number of tickets sold during the decade with the population of America during that decade you find a drop in the number of tickets sold per person from the 1990s to the 2000s. In the 1990s, there were on average 5.2 tickets sold per person per year. In the 2000s, this number fell to 5.1 per year. So the studios must be freaking out right?

Actually no. When you look at the 1980s, you find that the number of tickets sold was only 4.9 per person per year. Thus, while the 2000s saw a loss of 0.1 tickets per person per year compared to the 1990s, it was still 0.2 tickets per person higher than in the 1980s. In other words, the studios sell more tickets per person today than they did 20 years ago. That’s hardly a reason to panic.

And don’t forget, this is despite the massive explosion of alternatives -- cable television, the internet, video games, video on demand, home theaters, etc. These same changes are killing network television and the old media, but Hollywood hasn't missed a step.

Moreover, despite somewhat falling tickets sales, profits are soaring. In 2010 and 2009, the studios made more than $10.5 and $10.6 billion in ticket sales. By comparison, the best year in the 1990s was only $7.5 billion, and the early 1990s saw sales below $4.9 billion. So in 20 years, the studio has more than doubled its income, and it’s on a nearly straight-line curve. That’s not an unhealthy business model.

If there is a problem, it’s the increasing costs the studios are facing, with the average cost of movies going up from $11.3 million per film in 1980 to $26.8 million in 1990 to $54.8 million in 2000. That poses a problem because that appears to mean that costs are doubling every decade, whereas profits are only doubling every two decades. But the answer to increasing costs is to cut those costs, not to hope for better sales. Consequently, Hollywood has begun shipping its productions overseas to low-cost places like India and non-union locations.

What all of this means is that the studios have no reason whatsoever to change what they are doing. Despite dramatic increases in ticket prices and all of the complaints we can level against the industry, people continue to buy tickets at about the same rate they’ve bought them for the last 30 years and dollar-value sales continue to double every decade. If there is a problem, it’s on the cost end, not the sales end, and that is not going to get them to worry more about story. Thus, no matter how much we may wish that Hollywood would listen to our complaints, they have no economic reason to listen or to change anything they do. Ug.


[+] Read More...

Is This A Good Start?

I'm not sure that this is an auspicious start for a Republican Party that took over the House of Representatives claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility and down-to-earth identification with the struggling middle class. I understand the need to get the freshmen Congressman together to join in a common cause, but a lavish party with re-election as the centerpiece is at least a dubious convocation.

Incoming freshman Congressman Jeff Denham (California, natch) organized a very expensive party to welcome newbie Republicans to Washington DC. Also invited to the fancy-schmantzy Hotel W gala were lobbyists and PAC managers who paid $2500 each for the joy of rubbing elbows with freshmen. The event, held this past Tuesday, featured a performance by country and western star LeAnn Rimes. For the wannabe future influencers of the votes on the public's business, there was an extra package available: $50,000 purchased eight tickets to the event along with a VIP suite where the lobbyists and PACmen can wine and dine the freshmen. Heady stuff, indeed.

Now who doesn't like a good party? But there are plenty of Obamists out there, with the assistance of the MSM, who would love to claim that the new Republicans are fiddling while Rome is burning. One of Denham's PR people, Dave Gilliard, offered the following: "Helping the freshmen get reelected is a project that Denham is very interested in and, of course, his own reelection is part of that. It's such a huge freshman class, and that first reelection is the time that you end up losing people, so he really wants to help keep the majority."

I can't help thinking that this is a very big misunderstanding of what the recent election was about. The freshman Democrats didn't perform at all, or performed badly, and they were defeated by freshman Republicans. The American people would very much like to see some accomplishments from their new representatives before they give any consideration to voting for them again. What Gilliard said is exactly the opposite of that. It's a statement that money and reelection are the important things, and performance is secondary. That has been the accusation the Democrats have been using extremely well against those "rich Republicans" for decades. It's like sex with no foreplay--it feels good when you do it, but it's not very satisfying in the long run.

Denham was previously a two-term California State Senator from a very safe Republican district, and perhaps missed the message the electorate just sent to Congress. He prides himself on being "one of the best fundraisers in the California Legislature." Though he would have won election to replace retiring Republican George Radanovich almost by default, Denham was still only one of two California freshman who had his own PAC. The other is a Democrat.

Fundraising is vitally important to the life of any political party. The adage that still hasn't changed is that "money is the mother's milk of politics." But even the Bible tells us that there's a time an a place for everything under heaven. There are many conservative Republicans who believe that this was neither the time nor the place. Following the "great national malaise" of Jimmy Carter's presidency, Ronald Reagan threw an elaborate and very expensive series of inaugural balls, for which he was excoriated by the left. But that action was both appropriate and necessary to restore America's pride in itself. Fund-raising was certainly a part of the formula, but that was not at all what Reagan was attempting to accomplish.

To flaunt wealth and excess to freshmen Congressmen as the purpose of being a Representative is simply the wrong message. The message from Denham is that if you start fundraising and campaigning immediately after election, you can have all this and much more. Barack Obama is in that mode perpetually. Fortunately a few notable Republican invitees have said "get thee behind me, Denham." Speaker-elect John Boehner was among those declining the invitation, and as of this writing, Majority Leader Eric Cantor hadn't accepted. On the other hand, National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Pete Sessions of Texas accepted the invitation enthusiastically.

As part of the proceedings, Denham has formed a fundraising venture called "America's New Majority," which is the named sponsor of the event. He encouraged freshmen Republicans to join the ANM committee, and as of December 10, eleven of the incoming Republicans had signed up. One unnamed Republican political consultant advised against joining the committee, saying "it's causing a buzz because it's in direct contradiction to the image that leadership is trying to portray as a conference that wants to get down to business."

When Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took over the House, Republicans (particularly conservatives) strongly criticized and ridiculed the lavish victory party for being both excessive and in bad taste. That extravaganza only cost $1000 per ticket, and featured performances by Tony ("I Left My Wallet In San Francisco") Bennett and what was left of the Grateful Dead. It won't be that hard for the Democrats to place the shoe on the other foot. But at least this time the party leadership is not involved, at least not directly or publicly.

Another Republican fundraising consultant criticized not only the timing and lavishness of the event, but also pointed out that it probably wasn't even cost-effective, costing nearly as much as it raised. He also pointed out that it's a very transparent ploy for gaining a leadership position using the old tried and true method of buying friends. Denham has already passed out largess to several freshmen from his PAC, and it's not that hard to imagine that they will now feel obligated to him for present and future gifts.

Many of the new Republicans were elected after gaining support from the Tea Parties. Some signed pledges regarding fund-raising as well as the Contract From America pledging fealty to the Constitution and limited government. Going to a fundraising/reelection party at the palace of Mammon may not be the best way to solidify their conservative and Tea Party supporters. Andrew Ian Dodge, Maine coordinator for Tea Party Patriots described the Denham/Rimes fundraiser as "a tone deaf signal that some freshmen did not internalize the tea party's message of changing the political culture in Washington."

Tea Partiers, conservatives and those with common sense are watching for "business as usual" to rear its ugly head. Meanwhile, Democrats, the "party of the people" are looking for major gaffes on the part of the new Republican majority. This event may discourage the former and energize the latter. Let's hope we don't see anything like this again until at least a few real accomplishments have been achieved in Congress.
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Never Enough - Americaʼs Limitless Welfare State

By Tennessee Jed

William Voegeli is a visiting scholar at the Henry Salvatori Center at Claremont McKenna College. His articles have appeared in, among others, The L.A. Times and National Review. In his most recent book, “Never Enough,” the author freely admits it is a different book than the one he intended to write. His original thought was to examine what the ideal welfare state might look like from the liberal point of view.

However, after close examination of liberal writings over the past 75 years since the dawn of the “New Deal,” what Voegeli discovered was that no such description exists. It reminded him of the Texas cattle baron who insisted “he never has intended to buy all the land in Texas, only that adjacent to what he already owned.”

As a result, the book becomes an examination of why liberalism, as Voegeli puts it, “lacks a limiting principle” and just what that means for the long standing 80 year dispute between conservatives and liberals over the size and nature of the American Welfare State.

Voegeli provides a wealth of data illustrating the steady growth of welfare spending, even after adjusting for inflation and population growth. He uses the governmentʼs own data by taking the Human Resources “superfunction” and making a couple of minor adjustments to arrive at an extremely close approximation of what should be defined as welfare spending. The growth is steady, slowed only during the Reagan Administration and Gingrich Congress. The size of the American Welfare state is also compared with other countries. While we see we have yet to catch up with some of our European counterparts, that gap is narrowing.

The author continues by looking at the theory underlying this apparent lack of a limiting principle. Many liberals argue that lacking such a principle is actually a virtue in that each perceived “need” is considered on a case by case basis. Voegeli skillfully shows there apparently has never been a case rejected as unecessary. As he points out, FDR promised to experiment with government programs and quickly cast them aside if they failed. History, however, clearly indicates that has not happened.

Conservatives, of course, would like nothing better than to put clear limits on the size of government, including caps on the amount of taxes and spending. Attacks usually come along three lines; libertarianism (anti-liberty is bad,) supply side economics (lower taxes increase revenue more than higher taxes,) and welfare economics (starve the beast.)

Despite slowing growth of the welfare state during Reagan and Gingrich, conservatives have failed to ever get such caps enacted. As Voegeli explains “liberal victories advance liberalism; conservative Ê»victoriesʼ merely postpone liberalism.” He spends an entire chapter detailing his thinking on why this is so. In doing so, Voegeli determines that Americans want some welfare state, but due to our unique character and experiences, we seem unwilling to accept or pay for as much as some of our European counterparts. With liberals unable to convince Americans to pay for all their wants, and conservatives unable to obtain caps, we are left with our present situation. Voegeli seems to indicate the implications of the lack of limiting principle will require a bargain. Liberals agree to caps, and conservatives admit there will be some sort of welfare state. Perhaps then, we could focus more on obtaining efficiencies in what we do spend. The author does not give us a bucket load of suggestions, although he implies means testing might make sense.

Whether or not you agree with all Voegeli says, I will go so far as to say it should be a must read for Democrats, liberals, Republicans, conservatives and independent alike. I believe he does a fantastic job of laying out the history and theory of our political differences. The charts alone are worth the price of admission. Perhaps one of our bloggers will do a follow up article to either agree or disagree.

[+] Read More...

Democrats: The Old Corrupt Lawyers Party

The Democrats love to claim they're the party of the common man, the party of the young and the hip, and the party that disdains special interests. It won't surprise you that none of this is true.

For starters, the Democrats are the party of lawyers. Not only were lawyers their largest contributors in 2010, giving 81% of their donations to Democrats, but Democratic ranks are crawling with lawyers. In the last Senate, 35 of the 54 lawyers in the Senate were Democrats. In the last House, 106 of the 162 lawyers were Democrats.

The Democrats also like to nominate lawyers. The Obamas are both lawyers, as were the Clintons. In fact, every Democratic Presidential nominee since 1984 was a lawyer (Gore didn’t graduate but did go to law school), as was every VP nominee since 1976 except Lloyd Benson. By comparison, the last Republican President/nominee who was a lawyer was Gerald Ford.

Republicans also send more varied candidates to Washington. Republican leadership ranks have in the past included: businessmen, an exterminator, economists, a plastic manufacturer and even a heart surgeon. Of the 85 Republican freshmen in the Congress, half have never served in government, there are six doctors, three car dealers, two funeral directors, an airline pilot and a pizza restaurant owner.

The source of funding between the parties is sharply different as well. Besides lawyers, the Democrats drew the majority of their money from Wall Street, the real estate industry, public sector unions, lobbyists, Hollywood and Big Pharma. Retired people and doctors led the way with the Republicans. Here are the percentages of how the top groups spent their money, note which party got the lion’s share of their giving:

Percent Given to DemocratsPercent Given to Republicans
Lawyers81%19%
Wall Street58%42%
Real Estate61%39%
Public Sector Unions92%8%
Lobbyists68%32%
Hollywood70%30%
Big Pharma58%42%

So much for claims that the Republicans are in thrall to lobbyists and special interests.

The Democrats in Congress are significantly older than the Republicans as well. The average age for House Republicans is 54.9 years, compared to 60.2 years for the Democrats. In the Senate, these numbers are 61.4 years for Republicans and 63.1 for Democrats -- and that’s after the death of 137 year old Teddy Kennedy and 472 year old Robert Byrd.

Moreover, when you look at the Democratic leadership in the House you find the following ages: 70, 71 and 70, compared to the Republican leadership: 61, 47, 45. The Democratic committee chairmen are even older: 70, 79, 65, 71, 70, 69, and 81, for an average age of 72.1 years. Most of these Democrats were born 34 years before the average American -- the median age of Americans is 36.8. World War II was just starting when they first darkened the planet.

So much for the Democrats’ claims to being the party of the young or representing new and youthful ideas.

To sum all of this up, the Republicans fit fairly closely with average Americans, and they are much more likely to draw their campaign money from non-lobbyists sources. The Democrats are a party of senile lawyers, bought and paid for by the Washington Lobbying Complex. And that explains why the last Congress was so ready to try to repeat the FDR years and to hand out money to special interests, and why the Democrats didn't learn anything from the election: you can't teach an old lawyer. . . anything.

[+] Read More...

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Is Issa On To Something?

As the incoming Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Darrell Issa (R-Ca) will be critical to Republican hopes of defeating Obama in 2012. Indeed, as the point man for Congressional oversight over the Obama administration, Issa occupies a position that could let him destroy Obama. . . or could destroy the Republicans amid charges of witch hunts and grandstanding. At this point, I’m still not sold that Issa’s plan will be good for the Republicans, but I’m starting to get a good feeling.

Prior to the election, Issa made a lot of very aggressive noises about dragging administration people before his committee to explain everything he could dream up. This sounded like his plan was to conduct round-the-clock witch hunts in the hopes that the spectacle of constant investigations would damage the Obama Administration. That would have reflected very poorly on the Republicans, particularly at a time when people are starting to demand greater results from their representatives and less political grandstanding.

But a week ago, Issa softened his tone and started sounding more statesman-like, talking about trying to work with the White House rather than beating them up. He even met with Joe Biden and declared that there would be no reason to use subpoenas to drag people before his committee. That sounded doubly-positive. For while I don’t want witch hunts, which always backfire, I do want solid investigations of issues where the Obama Administration has failed or has violated the law and I want to see legislation introduced to correct those problems.

Yesterday, Issa issued his list of investigations, and again I wasn’t too thrilled. The list seemed like a grab bag of unrelated issues that had more to do with re-fighting the blame game for the financial meltdown than it did anything approaching the kinds of oversight that are needed today -- oversight like restricting unaccountable czars, accounting for slush funds, and repealing stifling regulations.

Then a key new fact emerged regarding Issa’s plan. Apparently, he has sent letters to 150 trade associations and companies, in which he asks them to identify the regulations that have been put into place that are restricting job creation and growth. I see this as brilliant on many levels:
● First, this should be a wonderful education for the public on the nature of regulation and its connection to the creation/destruction of jobs.

● Secondly, if done properly, these hearings will result in a steady drumbeat of business leaders (not Republican Congressmen) bashing the Obama administration and its policies. This should lead to a devastating public relations nightmare for an Obama Administration that is already seen as anti-business.

● Third, this should actually result in useful legislation that targets the most harmful regulations and seeks their repeal. Indeed, done properly, this could easily lead to a deregulatory wave of the like not seen since the Reagan Administration, and could easily sweep away recent power grabs like the EPA’s attempt to regulate carbon and the FCC’s attempt to impose net neutrality.
To me, this is one of those pleasant surprises where you start to think that the people you’ve put your faith into may actually know what they’re doing.

Add in that the Democrats are taking the wrong tact on ObamaCare and this has quickly turned into a hopeful week -- rather than defending ObamaCare across the board as a single item, the Democrats are mistakenly defending only the popular parts, e.g. plugging the “donut hole” and covering the uninsurable. If the Democrats aren’t careful, the Republicans will call their bluff on this and will offer a repeal of all but those handful of provisions, and the Democrats will be trapped.

Between this strategic mistake by the Democrats and the solid plan by Issa to let business blast the Obama Administration, this could be a very bad year for the Democrats and their agenda.

Let’s hope.


[+] Read More...

Free Speech About To Get More Expensive

Obama and his fellow liberal fascists are constantly harping on a news and opinion "level playing field." That means one tilted to the far left. But there are a few holdouts, most notably talk radio, Fox News Channel, and the people's forum--the internet. The new Obama Novelty Czar (his official title is "policy adviser for innovation"), Ben Scott, has some innovative ideas, all right.

At least they're fairly innovative for America. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union used them for decades. Scott and his good buddy card-carrying Marxist Robert W. McChesney have recently teamed up to write articles in the far left magazine Tikkun. Their thesis is simple. We must have "net neutrality." That is leftist Newspeak for quashing speech and silencing the opposition. Scott's very first recommendation to Barack Obama: "Increase government spending for public and community broadcasting." He must be angling for the future position of Minister of Propaganda.

I never lose my astonishment at how very good the left is at couching its fascist agenda in touchy-feely terms that it would be hard to object to. "Net neutrality." Now how could any fair-minded patriot not want that? No government intrusion, the market free to operate, and citizens free to express unpopular and even anti-government opinions without being hounded by government agents or censorship. But like nearly all leftists slogans, "net neutrality" means exactly the opposite of neutrality. In fact, it means highly-partisan left wing Democratic messages being foisted on and paid for by the taxpayers while freedom of speech is left to its own devices.

"Now wait," they say. The government has a duty to protect its citizens from offensive speech and "inform the people of the truth." It must do so to counter the evil media moguls (that's the attack word for this century that replaces the nineteenth century "robber barons"). Tikkun and its far left editor Rabbi Michael Lerner hate Israel, despise the freedoms of America, and will do anything to unravel the entire course of western civilization in their pursuit of government control of every facet of our lives. Czar Ben vigorously supports those positions, and is determined to get the government to pay for messages to counter those media moguls (and all those not-so-mogulish individuals who dare to differ on the internet).

Says Czar Ben: "Whatever issue tops your list of priorities, real progress will be impossible unless we first change our media system. Currently, access to communications and control over media content are vested in the hands of corporate titans. Yes, indeed folks, Andrew and I are fat cat corporate titans, spending freely of our millions to publish this blog, along with hundreds of thousands of other corporate titans of the internet. You see, unlike the MSM, which is totally neutral, the net is controlled by greedy, rich, right-wing media moguls like us.

And that means the net must quickly be brought into line so that neutral people like Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Van Jones and their ilk can counter us billionaire publishers of non-conforming opinion. After all, we are rich and the government is poor, so they must get the rich taxpayers to pay for the truth to offset the gazillions we spend on our daily blogs and opinion sites.

Czar Ben intends to leave no field unleveled, so while he's neutering (oops, I mean "neutralizing") the internet, he figures he must also guarantee that the presently- compliant MSM doesn't stray. Here's the agenda:

1. "Restore the original mission" of the Federal Communications Commission as a guardian of the public interest. And as we all know, the government's interest is the public's interest.

2. Support ownership limits and public oversight to foster (here it comes) more diverse, competitive, and local ownership of radio, TV and cable channels. Again, as well all know, the best promoter of genuine competition is the federal government. And nobody promotes diversity (aka "disunity") better than the Democrats.

3. QUINTUPLE the federal funding for public and community broadcasting, at least. And let us not forget "earmarking money for children's and public affairs programming." And lest the playing field not be level enough, what the taxpayers don't pay for will be paid for by "fees paid by commercial licensees to the public airways." I'm not sure if the media mogul commercial licensees will pay their fees before or after taxes.

4. Ban all advertising on broadcast and cable TV programs where over 33% of the viewers are under the age of 12. This is accompanied by the inevitable "this is similar to rules in many European nations." Well, if they'll call Michelle Obama food-fascism "advertising" and ban it as well, I'll go for it. Of course, if there's no advertising, the gummint and the taxpayers will pay for 100% of children's programming, and I suspect I know where that will lead. "Obama, mmmm, mmmm, mmmm."

5. Establish "Network Neutrality" rules that guarantee free speech and a free market on the Internet by prohibiting discrimination, manipulation and interference by network owners like Comcast or AT&T. I'm still trying to digest this one. Have Comcast and AT&T been conspiring to control speech? If so, I haven't heard about it. They'll take almost anything from almost anybody so long as it's paid for, not obscene, or a clear and present danger. And even a few of those have slipped through. If they actually mean the ISPs, I know for a fact that the entire ownership and management of Google is extremely liberal, yet they own Blogger, and we haven't had a single comment edited or censored--yet.

6. Restore competition to the market in high-speed Internet access to break the hold of the cable-telephone duopoly of the nation's broadband infrastructure. Well, I'd like to see some of that myself. But Government Motors and Government Banks don't need to be joined by Government Internet. This sounds a lot like "increasing competition in the health care market" by destroying the ability of anybody to compete with the government. We had to kill the patient to save him.

7. Authorize the license of more noncommercial, low-power FM radio stations in communities nationwide. Communities? What communities? The Amish community? The homeless community? The children's community? The Obama-organized community? What the hell does this mean? Best guess--government propaganda paid for by the ultraliberal "foundations" most of which have gone completely off the rails from their original missions.

8. Establish antitrust divisions for the FCC and open antitrust investigations into vertically-integrated media companies that control production and distribution through anti-competitive policies. Don't we already have the Sherman Antitrust Act to take care of that?

Now lest you think I'm reading socialist philosophy into the entire Obama-Czar Ben agenda, consider this. In their joint articles, Czar Ben and the aforesaid Robert W. McChesney have laid out their plan, so don't take my word for it. Czar Ben authored The Future of Media, which was both edited and praised by McChesney. McChesney is also a professor at the University of Illinois (friendly with Bill Ayers?), and the former editor of, no kidding, the Marxist Monthly Review.

In February, Czar Ben and McChesney laid out their joint plan: "In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles." Now I realize I took my logic courses back in the 60s, but I'm afraid I just can't figure out how destroying the capitalist system encourages competition.
[+] Read More...

Monday, January 3, 2011

A Falling-Out Among Thieves

Former BFFs Hugo Chavez and Barack Obama have just had a lovers' spat. It seems that Obama had appointed another one of his diplomatic geniuses as ambassador to Venezuela and Hugo "Boss" Chavez didn't like him. Appointee Larry Palmer is a typical Obama hack, but he also shares a trait common among all Obama State Department picks in that he has foot-in-mouth disease. Palmer suggested that the Chavez regime might be less than perfect.

In fact, Palmer's exact words were: "Morale in the Venezuelan military is low, and the Colombian rebels are easily finding refuge in Venezuela." He also suggested that there was solid information that the US Treasury Department had identified three members of Chavez's inside cadre as helping Colombian drug-terrorists by supplying them with arms and assisting in their trafficking operations. Palmer spoke truth to power, he just picked the wrong power to tell the truth to.

So Chavez said he would reject Obama's appointee. Obama said "I dare you, and if you do, I'll expel your ambassador." Chavez replied: "I double dare you." To which Obama replied: "Lookee here, I double-dog dare you." This was a very high-tone diplomatic exchange.

The official State Deparment announcement following the yanking of the two ambassadors was: "We believe it's in our national interest to have an ambassador in Caracas so that we can candidly express our views and engage with the government of Venezuela." It seems to me that doing so was Palmer's big mistake. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said: "There are tensions in the relationship, and it's precisely because of that that we feel it's important to have appropriate diplomatic relations." And where would this country be without this great nation of ours?

So the socialist-by-choice in Venezuela has told the socialist-in-denial in America that his nation will not accept any ambassador in whose presence there has been heard a discouraging word. What a shame. Just a year-and-a-half ago the two were hugging each other enthusiastically at the international socialist conference for the western hemisphere. Part of the problem is that Chavez is within inches of succeeding in eliminating all political opposition, squelching speech entirely, and ruling by diktat. So there might be some jealousy involved. Obama has been trying to do the same thing, and has failed miserably, facing a fairly hostile Republican House when Congress returns next week. And speech is still allowed in America, though most of the press are in lockstep with the left wing of the Democratic Party.

Chavez is about to succeed in passing serious restrictions on the internet, barring messages that "disrespect public authorities, incite or promote hatred or crimes, or could create anxiety in the citizenry or alter public order." Since Obama has the same goal, perhaps there is hope for change in the seeming diplomatic impasse. The two leaders could conduct some private diplomacy, instruct each other on how to squelch dissent, then give each other big hugs as they reinstate their mutual ambassadors. All Obama has to promise is that no American ambassador to Venezuela will ever again slip and tell the truth. Peace for our time.
[+] Read More...

Obama Does Not Grasp Terrorism

Obama doesn’t get terrorism. He never has. He doesn’t grasp the nature of terrorism, or why it’s wrong, and it truly doesn’t seem to bother him that people are killed. Indeed, he’s bothered more that his political “enemies” would disagree with his agenda than he is by the brutal murders committed by terrorists.

The evidence that Obama doesn’t see terrorists for what they are has been building since the beginning of his administration. Indeed:
● We all know about Team Obama’s attempt to rename “terrorism” to downplay it. Specifically, they tried to substitute the term “man made disaster” and they ordered Federal agencies to stop using the term “terrorism.”

● We know that Obama took a couple of days before he even bothered acknowledging the Christmas bomber, because the potential murder of Americans wasn’t as important to him as his vacation.

● We’ve seen his advisors pretend to be entirely stumped by what could possibly be motivating Islamic terrorists. . . the same Islamic terrorists who issue statements saying they are acting in the name of Islam against the enemies of Islam. Yep, no clue.

● We’ve seen Team Obama act as if they had no idea why Islamic terrorist Hassan shot and killed American soldiers, and they cautioned us not to jump to conclusions.

● We’ve seen them all-but-ignore an Islamic murderer who killed an Army recruiter while they played up a lone, lunatic gunman who shot up the Holocaust Museum.

● We’ve seen Obama more concerned about Americans theoretically retaliating against Muslims than he was that Islamic terrorists were killing Americans.
Now we have more evidence that Obama does not understand terrorism from Obama’s response to the New Year attacks in Alexandria, Egypt and Nigeria. Consider this:

The statement is 205 words long but does not once mention Islam, except to say that Muslims were injured. This is like condemning "the deaths of some people in Poland in 1939, including some Germans." The statement also never once calls these terrorists “terrorists,” it calls them “perpetrators” and “those who carry out these attacks,” which demonstrates an incredible degree of detachment in Obama's mind between the actions and the responsibility for those actions. Indeed, this is eerily close to suggesting that the events happened without intent.

Now compare this with Obama’s standard rhetoric where he describes Americans who disagree with him as “those who oppose” and where he called them "enemies." Rhetorically, he is actually describing his political opponents in similar or harsher terms than he uses to describe the terrorists. This shows a disturbing sense of equivalence in Obama's mind between political opposition and terrorism.

Further, when it comes to describing what the terrorists have done, Obama says only that these “perpetrators” have “no respect for human life or dignity.” No sh~t? So it’s their lack of respect that matters. . . not the fact they have brutally and indiscriminately killed and maimed people to impose their sick beliefs? Not only should this shock you in terms of how wrong Obama’s views are, i.e. he does not understand what is actually wrong with terrorism, but it should also shock you that he is again treating terror and political opposition as morally equivalent. Indeed, Obama has often spoken of "those who oppose" lacking respect for human life and dignity because they oppose his policies. In other words, he's using the same rhetoric to describe terrorist acts as he routinely uses to describe his opponents' opposition to his policies -- opponents that he often describes as hostage takers. . . a harsher description than he's willing to use on terrorists.

Moreover, Obama says that these attacks “demonstrate the bankrupt vision of those who carry out these attacks.” Bankrupt vision? Are you kidding me? This is political verbiage that is used by wonks to describe the political policies of the other side. This is not something you say about terrorists, anymore than you say it about serial killers or bank robbers or hostage takers: terrorists have no vision and they are offering no agenda. They are seeking to kill enough and to terrorize enough that their targets submit to their will. There is no vision. And for Obama to suggest that they are even offering a vision shows that he fundamentally does not understand what terrorists are.

Additionally, to describe this “vision” as “bankrupt” shows even further the moral equivalency Obama sees between politics and terrorism. “Bankrupt” is a term that means “without value” or “worthless,” it does not imply any moral distinction -- that's why people say "morally bankrupt" when they want to imply a value judgment. For Obama to use the term “bankrupt” when Obama should be using a term like “evil” shows that Obama does not see terrorism as morally wrong. . . he just sees their cause as flawed.

So consider what Obama has said here. He fails to call these terrorists “terrorists,” he fails to make any reference to them being Islamic terrorists, and he describes their crime as being a lack of respect for human life and dignity or as having a viewpoint or agenda that lacks merit. That’s not how anyone should describe the cold-blooded, intentional murder of strangers to further the goal of forcing a society to submit to their own twisted beliefs.

This tells us that Obama fundamentally lacks an understanding of what terrorism is or why it’s wrong. And if he can't understand that, then he is the one who has no real respect for human life or dignity. Add in that Obama repeatedly demonstrates that he sees an equivalence between terrorists and his political opponents, and in fact reserves harsher rhetoric for his political opponents, and we are left with only one conclusion: there is something fundamentally wrong within this man.

[+] Read More...