The latest liberal meme is that if the Court rules against Obamacare it will be such an egregious case of conservative judicial activism that the Court will become illegitimate.
My question is: to whom? The 72% of the American public who already consider the mandate unconstitutional?
No, of course not. Those who’ll call the Court illegitimate are the liberal pundits and their followers who originally laughed at the entire idea of Obamacare’s unconstitutionality and cannot believe that any thinking person would disagree with them. And the fact that a Supreme Court decision overruling Obamacare might be very close—like so many controversial decisions in the current Court that is split 4-4-1 ideologically (that “1″ being Justice Kennedy, ever the pickle in the middle)—would be further evidence to liberals of this terrible Court illegitimacy.
Unless and until, of course, Obama’s re-election and appointment of a liberal justice makes decisions go reliably 5-4 for the liberal side. Or unless the current decision goes 5-4 for upholding Obamacare. Then the Court will be very very legitimate again.
[NOTE: The entire campaign about this legitimacy business has another goal: to intimidate members of the Court into voting the liberals' way. After all, who wants to be a bastard?]
Saturday, March 31, 2012
The politicization of higher education by activist professors and compliant university administrators deprives students of the opportunity to acquire knowledge and refine their minds. It also erodes the nation's civic cohesion and its ability to preserve the institutions that undergird democracy in America.
So argues "A Crisis of Competence: The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism in the University of California," a new report by the California Association of Scholars, a division of the National Association of Scholars (NAS). The report is addressed to the Regents of the University of California, which has ultimate responsibility for governing the UC system, but the pathologies it diagnoses prevail throughout the country.
The analysis begins from a nonpolitical fact: Numerous studies of both the UC system and of higher education nationwide demonstrate that students who graduate from college are increasingly ignorant of history and literature. They are unfamiliar with the principles of American constitutional government. And they are bereft of the skills necessary to comprehend serious books and effectively marshal evidence and argument in written work.
This decline in the quality of education coincides with a profound transformation of the college curriculum. None of the nine general campuses in the UC system requires students to study the history and institutions of the United States. None requires students to study Western civilization, and on seven of the nine UC campuses, including Berkeley, a survey course in Western civilization is not even offered. In several English departments one can graduate without taking a course in Shakespeare. In many political science departments majors need not take a course in American politics.
Moreover, the evidence suggests that the hollowing of the curriculum stems from too many professors' preference for promoting a partisan political agenda.
This MSNBC reporter (who frankly, up until now, I'd never heard of) best exemplifies the bigotry, the ignorance, the presumption, the hatred for justice based on truth running so rampant in this country today.
Check this out and help me understand where I'm wrong on this... It's pure race-baiting, race-pimping, presumption filled hatred being manifested merely because Piers Morgan had the audacity to air an interview with George Zimmerman's brother.
The liberalization of the American educational establishment has been a colossal failure. Liberals overtook the universities because (reasonably) they saw them as the way to shape a more progressive society in the long term. They insisted that they could set aside their own partisan beliefs and teach in ways that are fair to both sides. It is abundantly clear, however, that a progressive political mindset prevails in the American university system, especially at the elite levels. It’s more difficult for conservative professors to be hired or receive tenure, it’s more difficult for conservative students to speak up without fear of the consequences, and liberal students emerge from the universities with a terrifically superficial understanding of the conservative mindset — and American society is the poorer for it.
When you look at the three values that conservatives (according to Haidt) honor but liberals do not — loyalty, respect for authority, and sanctity — these are precisely the values that are flouted in the precincts of American academe. The result is a more impoverished moral imagination amongst students, a stubborn inability to understand the beliefs and the motives of conservatives, and thus the imputation of nefarious motives to those irrational conservatives who do not see things in the ways the illuminati do. If you don’t believe that this has contributed to the partisanship we’ve observed in recent years — particularly the exceedingly nasty way in which liberals in general have responded to the Tea Party movement, to social conservatives and generally to anyone who refers too much to moral sanctity and loyalty to American traditions and institutions, then I think you’re wearing exactly the kind of blinders Haidt talks about.
Friday, March 30, 2012
The Environmental Protection Agency is using its power to advance the objective of the environmental movement to deny Americans access to the energy that sustains the nation’s economy and is using the greatest hoax ever perpetrated, global warming—now called “climate change”—to achieve that goal.
“This standard isn’t the once-and-for-all solution to our environmental challenge,” said Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, “but it is an important commonsense step toward tackling the ongoing and very real threat of climate change and protecting the future for generations to come. It will enhance the lives of our children and our children’s children.”
This is a boldfaced lie. Its newest rule is based on the debasement of science that is characterized and embodied in the global warming hoax. It will deprive America of the energy it requires to function.
Bouie's elaborating the "accumulated disadvantages" thesis that's been the basis for the left's affirmative action advocacy for generations. But with a black president in the White House and a robust black middle class, it's increasingly hard to argue that the legacies of slavery and segregation are keeping blacks chained to poverty and economic deprivation. What's too bad about Bouie, however, is that he misrepresents the YouGov data. The report does not show that white Americans are ignorant of the history of slavery. Although it does say that whites think not enough blacks are willing to work hard. And it's not like there's a lack of evidence on that. See: "Alexandra Pelosi's Latest Video Slams 'Welfare Queens' and 'Obama Bucks'." Frankly, America's historic notions of individual initiative and self sufficiency radically violate the left's endless cries of racial victimology. And progressives like Bouie also completely (and conveniently) ignore the impact of the civil rights movement and decades of social welfare policies designed to reduce racial inequality in this country. Progressives are not only dishonest, but they're hateful and vindictive. This kind of raging racial deprivation is what's beneath this national "conversation" on race we're having in the wake of the Trayvon Martin killing. And it's the left that's pushing the country to the verge of racial civil war.
That's what explains the "regression" on racial progress in this country. And that's what's really depressing.
All around us today we are witness to the essential sociopathy of the "compassionate" and "loving" left. In the matter of Trayvon Martin, we have seen our own clueless President increase the hatred and fan the flames of racial divisiveness. Of course, he has not a word to say about his Justice Department's darling Black Panthers placing a monetary bounty on one of the characters in the ongoing national psychodrama. You would think that would be illegal (or, at the worse, uncivil; but you would be wrong--this is Obama's America we are now talking about; and in it, his political opponents are the ones who are always to blame.)
Let's move on to a more subtle expression of the sociopathic narcissism; i.e., the veiled threats that are being uttered directed toward the SCOTUS, who in the last several days have been annoyingly uncooperative in following the accepted narrative of the postmodern political left on the issue of Obamacare. How dare they question it!!
Then it struck me. There is no intelligent argument that can be made for liberalism. All any of them can do is parrot the same insipid sound bites dreamed up by the likes of Barack Obama, James Carville, David Axelrod, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and regurgitated ad nauseam by Jay Carney.
There is a very good reason why there’s nobody on the Left who is comparable to Charles Krauthammer, Mark Levin, Thomas Sowell, Brit Hume, Ann Coulter, Dennis Prager, Walter Williams, Mark Steyn, Steve Hayes, Bernie Goldberg, Harry Stein, Michael Medved, Mark Alexander, Bret Baier, Michelle Malkin and Lou Dobbs. The reason is that liberals never think for themselves. Aside from plotting how to game the system in order to steal elections, none of them ever has an original thought. Even questioning Barack Obama is regarded as an act of heresy.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
What is happening is that the president is coming across more and more as a trimmer, as an operator who’s not operating in good faith. This is hardening positions and leading to increased political bitterness. And it’s his fault, too. As an increase in polarization is a bad thing, it’s a big fault…
Democracy was the optimal form of government when voters were capable of making rational choices through an understanding of what was at stake, when they were ready to bear the responsibility for the consequences of their choices, and when the right to vote was understood to be a privilege, or the result of a struggle still remembered. Nowadays it is difficult to shake the impression that democratic societies are rapidly turning into ochlocracies, where the vast majority of citizens, seeing their rights as given and their responsibilities not at all, are easily addled by propaganda, distracted by spectacle and either unable or unwilling to invest the time and energy required to be a responsible democratic actor.
Liberals have this conceit that if you were really smart you would be a liberal. So they tend not to listen or comprehend arguments they disagree with.
The panicked reception in the mainstream media of the three-day Supreme Court health-care marathon is a delightful reminder of the nearly impenetrable parochialism of American liberals.
They’re so convinced of their own correctness — and so determined to believe conservatives are either a) corrupt, b) stupid or c) deluded — that they find themselves repeatedly astonished to discover conservatives are in fact capable of a) advancing and defending their own powerful arguments, b) effectively countering weak liberal arguments and c) exposing the soft underbelly of liberal self-satisfaction as they do so.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., faulted President Obama for adopting a strategy of attacking Republican proposals regarding debt and entitlements while refusing to offer any ideas of his own.
"This president is completely irresponsible," DeMint told The Washington Examiner in an interview. "The problems that are facing us, that have us on the edge of the cliff -- he's avoided. It's a cowardly thing to do as a world leader not to address the big problems."
"It's clear the president's not serious," DeMint also said. "His own party won't even touch his budget . . . the Democrats won't even show their hand with a budget. I really think it's disgraceful."
The senator characterized Obama's budgetary policies as a campaign strategy. "He thinks he can go into the election and fool the American people -- that he can take shots at what Republicans are suggesting and frighten old people."
Will that strategy work for Obama? "Americans aren't stupid," DeMint declared. "They're going to see through the clutter that Republicans are at least trying to address the problems with some different ideas that we can sit down and debate."
Why, pray tell, would the president of the United States of America appoint a man with no business or banking experience, who hates capitalism and believes that economic growth is bad for the poor across the world ... to head the World Bank?
Obama's appointee has even coauthored a book attacking capitalism and touting -- communist Cuba's health care system -- as a true success.
Clearly, the two men must share very similar views ... and, of course, neither have any business, banking, or experience in 'successfully' managing economic or financial matters of a country, and in the case of Obama's appointee ... a world bank.
Grievance theater isn't about race, it's not about slavery, police brutality or separate lunch counters, it's about power and money. Black politicians are not fundamentally different from white ones. They have more in common with their white colleagues than they do with their own communities. The only difference is that they are playing with the race cards they have been dealt.
The ghetto didn't evolve naturally, it was created through a web of national and local government regulations that played with real estate, social welfare, voting districts and the manufacturing sector to achieve the desired results. We don't have to have ghettos, we have them because at one point they were convenient for a number of political interests and because they were the unintended side-effect of a number of socialist policies.
The ghetto farms black communities for votes and more importantly for subsidies. For every dollar that is taken to help minorities, a penny goes to the problem and ninety-nine cents goes to the hucksters, the administrators, the bureaucrats, the wives of influential pols hired on massive salaries to oversee some aspect of the program, the experts who monitor compliance, the affirmative action contractors who charge four times as much to build a school or provide meals, the unions who have the exclusive right to service the program, the slumlords who administer affordable housing and finally the politicians who have the money kicked back to them by all of the above.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
The Senators do a good job of exposing the administrations attempts to mislead the public about their energy policies and their effect on our ability to produce oil and gas. It is a story that needs wide dissemination in the coming weeks. We deserve a debate on the facts and not administration deceit.
The Obama administration is pushing the first rules ever to cut carbon dioxide emissions in new U.S. power plants. It's a move that's sure to make energy a lot more expensive for everyone.
Everyone, of course, likes cleaner air. But the new rules are so draconian that they will lead to an end of the construction of any power plant that uses coal.
The rules will force new power plants to put expensive new equipment to capture and bury emissions underground. If it sounds easy, it isn't. In fact, the equipment doesn't even exist yet.
Despite this, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is going ahead with the energy-unfriendly plan.
We are broke, have a huge national debt, running record deficits, and STILL President Barack Hussein Obama wants $770 million to combat “global warming.” That, in and of itself, would be bad enough, but he wants the money to counter global warming in the developing world. Obama and his administration continue to pursue its policy of using foreign aid funds for anti-global warming measures, known as the Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI). Despite our financial situation, the government has spent a total of $2.5 billion on GCCI since 2010 on overseas anti-global warming efforts in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Here is yet another case of Obama, like Don, Quixote, tilting at windmills.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
What Paul Gregory is Writing About: A Community Organizer Among Hunter-Gatherers: Do We Have Socialist or Individualistic Genes?
My story is based on Thomas Mayor’s Hunter-Gatherers: The Original Libertarians. He demonstrates that we are genetically programmed to respect individual rights to the fruits of our own efforts. Our prehistoric forbearers did not engage in voluntary redistribution. They shared perishable food, not out of altruism, but as insurance and reciprocal gift giving. Consistent shirkers were expelled from the band. If anyone tried to force them to redistribute, they simply picked up and moved on to another hunting ground.
Al Sharpton is desperate to be considered relevant, and racially-oriented rallies are all he has left. If MSNBC pushed the issue I bet he'd quit the network so he could be viewed as a victim and keep running around crying racism wherever he feels it's convenient.
I'm looking forward to the day with both Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are so irrelevant nobody in the media cares what they think about anything.
Forbidden Facts: You can know the facts about "race and crime before too long, but you better be careful not to talk about them in polite society."
Murder is largely an intraracial crime. Almost all murders of blacks are committed by other blacks. Blacks as a group commit murder at a rate astronomically higher than other groups. The rate of murder committed by blacks exceeds that committed by whites by approximately seven times. -- No justice, no agitation | Power Line
The left has long been flummoxed by polls showing that roughly two of three Americans want this tax abolished. Why would Americans oppose a tax that politicians say is aimed at the top 1%?
The answer is that Americans instinctively understand that the tax is unfair. It punishes a lifetime of thrift and investment solely due to the accident of death. And it does so in a way that imposes another tax on income that in most cases has already been taxed once, or sometimes twice.
Brutally Honest: "The main problem for young black men is not violent white men chasing them. It is black on black violence."
The main problem for young black men is not violent white men chasing them. It is black on black violence.
And the main problem with that main problem is that it doesn't fit the meme.
The tragedy of young Mr. Martin's death is being compounded by the tragedy of America's willingness to be manipulated.
Instapundit � Blog Archive � HOW’S THAT HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF WORKIN’ OUT FOR YA? “I was in Australia earlier this month and there…
No organization can survive corruption and ineptitude at the top forever. And we’ve had the worse political class in American history for a while now, though its rottenness has really accelerated lately.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
From Ben Stein:
“Fathom the hypocrisy of a government
that requires every citizen to prove
they are insured . . . but not everyone
must prove they are a citizen.”
And of course, you must prove who you are when you cash a check, board an airliner, and even go to a doctor for the first time (I had to show my photo ID at the eye doctor this past week). But on Election Day you can be whoever you want to be, and as many different people as you want to be, because that's the way the Democrats want it. They rely too heavily on vote fraud to change it.
Gretchen Morgenson: Wall Street Really Does Enjoy A Different Set of Rules Than The Rest of Us | ZeroHedge
In this interview, she confirms that there is indeed a second set of rules that our elite financial institutions enjoy, largely unfettered by the constraints that apply to the rest of us.
Consequences for failure and fraud are very different under this second set of rules - in fact, they're practically rewarded.
Accountability, by all prudent measures, has become non-existent. The extraordinary measures the country deployed to deal with the great contraction in 2008 only served to exacerbate these imbalances.
What's sorely needed now is a national dialogue on whether we're willing to allow this to continue. What benefits are we receiving by enabling these elite to enjoy such different standards? What type of system and rules might work better for our interests?
Sadly, beyond the disorganized OWS outrage that has waned in visibility, there is no real cogent, organized public debate focused on this right now. A big reason is that Washington is actively avoiding such a dialogue. It was fundamentally complicit in creating the underlying factors resulting in the '08 collapse and it doesn't want brighter light helping the public understand that more clearly.
As a populace we have a decision to make: are we going to get more engaged and start articulating the reform we want to see? For if not, we're making a passive decision to allow the wealth gap to widen further.
In the meantime, Gretchen sees a lot of instability in financial markets that have been allowed to balloon further even though the underlying causes of the '08 crash haven't been resolved. She cautions investors to avoid risk (despite the Fed's encouragements), pay down debt, and have a defensive plan in place should the markets suffer another serious correction in the near future.
One of the biggest intellectual failures of the global green movement against climate change is the persistent failure of its leaders and spokespeople to grasp the way their own advocacy fatally undermines their credibility. They blame cunning, unscrupulous and well funded enemies for disasters that their own inaccuracies, overstatements and disingenuous advocacy has brought on their movement.
Robert Murphy over at Master Resource has an excellent essay that shows how the credulous and gloating response of so many greens to the Heartland Institute affair and the faked document at its core made the green movement much less credible as a source of reliable information about climate matters.
Why is it he's more sensitive to radical Islamists who are killing young Americans than he is to the Catholic church, to Baptists, to fundamentalists?" he asked Wednesday in an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren. "I mean, the fact is, this is a very strange presidency."
Gingrich blamed the "elite media" for hiding the president's association with Muslims.
"It's just astonishing to me how pro-Obama they are," the candidate said. "Do you think you are going to see two pages on Obama's Muslim friends? Or two pages on the degree to which Obama is consistently apologizing to Islam while attacking the Catholic Church."
We should be clear on such matters. The too-energetic effort to fall outside the shadow of prejudice has served to distort the response of investigators. Looking for everybody else except the most “likely” suspects first, wastes time and resources. In France, for instance, the yearning for the villain to be a “far-right neo-Nazi” clouded the initial response of police. Blindness as a form of social or ethnic courtesy is never good policy.
Our most urgently served impulse should be to make common cause with the victims of violence — in this case, Jews — not to excoriate ourselves over false phobias. These killings in France were, to state the matter with strict clarity, an anti-Semitic attack by a committed jihadist. That deserves to be the primary focus. Discussions of other prejudices may wait till mourning has been given its turn.
Certainly it's true that in the past, blacks have been victims of whites. But today the reality is quite different from what the street mobs, the government, the media and the P.C. crowd would have us believe. Far from being victims of white oppression, blacks today are disproportionately perpetrators of violent crimes against whites and against other blacks. According to data from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in 2009, "whites" -- a category that includes Hispanics -- were known to be responsible for 5,286 murders. Blacks, a mere 13% of the population, were known to be responsible for 5,980 murders. In 2005, the New Century Foundation's "Color of Crime" report found that "Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black" (emphasis mine). Also in 2005, the Department of Justice reported that one-third of rapes committed against white women (approximately 37,000) were perpetrated by blacks, while less than ten -- statistically zero -- rapes of black women were committed by whites.
Whatever happened in the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case, one thing is perfectly clear: it's high time this country quit the racial dog-and-pony show, and judged each criminal case on its individual merits instead of allowing the race-baiting demagogues to leverage each incident for political advantage in the streets and in the media.
“All of the above” isn’t a policy, it’s an attempt to avoid criticism in an election year.
Most of the critical founding ideals set forth in our Constitution originated long before the Enlightenment writers. The source of these ideals is the limit on the power of the centralized governing entity – the King – in favor of the decentralized governing bodies who made decisions inside their own fiefs – the feudal Lords.
Seems weird to think of it in this way, but this is really where it all came from. Winston Churchill, writing in The Birth of Britain, speaks of Magna Carta as follows:
"Throughout the document it is implied that here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it. . . . Now for the first time the King himself is bound by the law. The root principle was destined to survive across the generations and rise paramount long after the feudal background of 1215 had faded in the past. The Charter became in the process of time an enduring witness that the power of the [central government] was not absolute."
Today, Magna Carta is embodied in the American constitutional approach to power which is represented by the grant to the central government of only a limited series of discrete authorities. It is a concept created by law – a law which is above the federal government and which even it must not break.
To eliminate the limits on the exercise of centralized power under the Commerce Clause as the Obamacare statute endeavors to do while providing no replacement limited guidance upon which the judiciary can adhere – either in law or in logic – essentially disavows the idea of a limited series of discrete authorities granted to the federal government. It disavows the existence of a critical law governing the balance of power which is above the federal government and which even it must not break.
In so doing, Obamacare in a sense disavows stability itself.
Some people think the negative portrayal is “no big deal.” But it is a big deal. This portrayal of men is dangerous to society as it causes people to stereotype men and see them as dangerous perverts. Men are reacting to this stereotype by going on strike, avoiding interactions with women and children; they no longer work with kids, volunteer as often or get married as readily for fear of a legal or cultural backlash. Many are “going Galt.” These are not positive developments for society. So, yes, negative portrayals of men are a big deal.
Friday, March 23, 2012
If videos were released showing Obama sacrificing children on a bloody altar, would it make a difference? Not with a sold out media to spin it differently and repackage the truth as has been so effectively done. But even without repackaging the truth, the bottom line is: people simply refuse to see the truth and many of those who do just don’t care.
I don’t believe the recent political drama is about a wealthy Georgetown Law student on a full ride scholarship; rather, it’s about young girls who have the legal ability to avail themselves of such services, but not the ability to pay. The bottleneck here is that while parents have lost their parental rights in these areas, they are still on the hook financially in many cases. I could be wrong, but I believe this has prevented young girls from availing themselves of their “rights” to the degree and in the numbers that liberals had hoped. Also, nonprofits have been losing funding previously utilized for providing “free” services. Now that such services are to be provided without “shared cost” to the patient by insurance companies, this opens up a whole new realm of opportunity for those providing various services with even a tenuous connection to reproduction. Remember, the majority of children are covered under their parents’ insurance policies, even though their parents have lost their legal right to information regarding that health care. ...
Liberals (communists), are steadily moving in the direction of allowing all medical, dental, psychiatric and educational professionals to circumvent parents altogether under various guises such as reproductive rights, the ever-useful “all parents are abusive” and more.
Who knew that we actually elected Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as our "post-racial" President?
What in heaven's name is Obama trying to do by injecting himself into these controversies? It's like spraying oil on the flames.
I suspect that most Americans are content to let justice play out and the facts be discovered in the aforementioned tragedy. But no, Obama just has to be the center of attention and stoke every flame of racism he can--and, of course, there is a very important political reason for this.
Obama's reprehensible behavior in this and the Sandra Fluke affair has nothing to do with heaven, let alone improving the race relations in America at all.
On the contrary. Inflaming racial divides; sexual divides; and in general ANY divides among the American people suits his political purposes perfectly.
The race-baiter in the oval office is trying desperately to deflect attention away from the policies that are strangling this country and dragging it into an economic death spiral. He is diverting attention away from dangerous and precarious position in which his Administration has placed the US with regard to national security.
In short, like any trickster and con artist, he must make his audience look away from his sleight of hand. He knows that helping to incite a race war (and stoking sexism and misogyny on the side) is exactly the kind of distraction needed to make a whole lot of Americans look the other way and divert their anger away from him and his Administration.
Scapegoats. The man requires scapegoats to blame and on which to focus the anger that needs to be focused on him and his Administration.
He's just another run of the mill opportunist disguised as some sort of caped crusader searching for his outrage of the day. Bleh.
Two years of Obamacare. Senate Democrats promised it would lower costs, lower premiums, cover everyone, and protect Medicare. Instead? Broken Promises. Twice the cost, higher premiums, 23 million people left out, and $500 billion cut from Medicare.
There is a great fallacy, he believes, to which most Christians have succumb, in thinking that they can solve the problems of poverty and unfairness in our fallen world. In his many efforts, he says the single most important lesson he wants his students to learn and people to take away from his lectures, videos and articles, is that "there are no solutions, only trade-offs."
But this is an understatement, an entirely inadequate phrase to capture my feelings about how the NAACP and the teachers’ union have joined forces to undermine educational opportunities for minority children.
There are honest left-wingers, who are misguided but genuinely wish to make America a better place. But that’s definitely not the right way to describe people who put the narrow interests of teacher unions ahead of helping disadvantaged kids.
This new video from Reason TV has the sordid details.
But the newest data on how the stimulus money was given out across the 50 states and the District of Columbia shows a perverse pattern: The states hardest hit by the recession received the least money. States with higher bankruptcy, foreclosure, and unemployment rates got less money. And lower-income states also received less.
Rather than helping out those in the toughest shape, it looks like Democrats ended up helping their supporters, including unions and many very wealthy supporters.
In this article, I'm going to argue that the US government, in particular, is being overrun by the wrong kind of person. It's a trend that's been in motion for many years but has now reached a point of no return. In other words, a type of moral rot has become so prevalent that it's institutional in nature. There is not going to be, therefore, any serious change in the direction in which the US is headed until a genuine crisis topples the existing order. Until then, the trend will accelerate.
The reason is that a certain class of people – sociopaths – are now fully in control of major American institutions. Their beliefs and attitudes are insinuated throughout the economic, political, intellectual and psychological/spiritual fabric of the US.
Addressing real problems while reducing government bureaucracies and entitlements will give the United States a new resourcefulness that can go a long way toward making the United States a decidedly freer market, and it will reestablish our exceptionalism in a way that other first-world countries have been unable to do with their stifling bureaucracies and statist programs.
It's one thing for good-faith conservative Republicans to challenge the Ryan plan from the right if they believe its cuts are too small and too slow, but these liberal attacks are something else again.
How catastrophic would the nation's fiscal condition have to be before liberals recognized its urgency? Is there any scenario under which they'd consider setting aside their partisan populism to come to the nation's rescue? Are they capable of even temporarily setting aside their redistributionist myopia long enough meaningfully to address the main drivers of the national debt?
As we know, President Obama hasn't addressed and won't address our financial problems. He has never presented a budget plan that even pretends to rein in entitlement spending or comes anywhere close to reducing our annual deficits to less than shocking numbers, much less reversing the debt picture.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
What Paul Gregory is Writing About: My Diminished Capacity to Understand Obama's Clean Energy Policy
It took President Obama’s Press Secretary Jay Carney to shock me to my senses. As someone who favors cutting government spending on clean energy and eliminating government subsidies in general, I was particularly distressed to learn (in Carney’s words) that “I am “aggressively and deliberately ignorant of the world economy not to know and understand that clean energy technologies are going to play a huge role in the 21st century.” Even worse, I learn that “I have a severely diminished capacity to understand what drives economic growth in industrialized countries in this century.”
And I had thought that if clean energy technologies were going to dominate the 21st century, private enterprise would figure this out and develop them itself. In my ignorance, I thought that subsidies are dictated by and for special interests not by economic rationality. I also believed that Solyndra and SunPower were not aberrations but representative of what is going on in Secretary Chu’s and Obama’s energy department. What I fool I have been.
Protecting the integrity of the ballot box is essential to our democracy. Laws requiring voters to show identification at the polls are commonsense measures to prevent fraud and corruption, and ensure that each year's election returns accurately reflect the will of the people.
Yet President Obama's administration and political allies are pursuing a dual-track approach to vilify such tools, in a crass political ploy to aid the president's reelection.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Obama's So-Called 'All of the Above' Energy Policy Nothing More Than a Big Snow Job :: Political News and commentaries :: Hyscience
On the surface, it sounds like a plan; the president has an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy, which calls for investment in clean energy and expanding domestic oil and gas production."
There's just one problem, though ... he doesn't.
It's a snow job. The part about expanding domestic oil production is a big lie. Obama's incessant claims of energy open-mindedness, insisting that his policy includes "all of the above" ... doesn't really include drilling.
And that then leads to insoluble dilemma one:
In every “advanced” nation today, those who vote for a living outnumber those who work for one. It is true that not everybody, or even a majority of those eligible in many cases, bothers to vote at all. It is equally true that the “wards of the state” have much more incentive to vote than do those who are to provide for them.
That, in a nutshell, is the dynamic that both feeds and dooms the welfare state. The creation of a class of people incentivized to perpetuate the Welfare State because the Welfare State has made them dependent.
It naturally leads to insoluble dilemma two, which, of course, is the creation of untouchable but also huge and unfunded future liabilities that no politician – who panders for votes for a living — is willing to address for fear of losing those “who vote for a living”.
That describes precisely what we’re seeing today in this country as well as the countries of Europe. The end is inevitable. The will to do anything about it doesn’t exist.
If you don’t believe me, watch the critiques of the Ryan budget over the next few days.
President Obama says he wants to make society more fair. Advocates of big government believe fairness means taking from rich people and giving to others: poor people; or people who do things politicians approve of, like making “green” energy equipment (Solyndra); or old people (even rich ones) through Social Security and Medicare.
The idea that government can “make life fair” is intuitively appealing to people -- at least until they think about it. I’ll try to help.
Obama says fairness requires higher taxes, but as The Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore asks, “Is it fair that the richest 10 percent of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country’s income-tax burden than do the richest 10 percent in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?”
Or as economist Art Laffer asked on my Fox Business show, is it fair that American corporations pay the highest corporate tax rate in the world?
Beyond taxes, again quoting Moore, “Is it fair that President Obama sends his two daughters to elite private schools that are safer, better-run and produce higher test scores than public schools in Washington, D.C. -- but millions of other families across America are denied that free choice and forced to send their kids to rotten schools?”
No. Parents ought to be able to spend their education money at any school they choose.
Big-government politicians bemoan income inequality, but would equalizing incomes make life fair?
To many, it is intuitive that such inequality is necessarily unfair. If someone makes his income by looting the taxpayers -- sure, that’s unfair. His gains are ill-gotten, and honest taxpayers are out hard-earned money. But there’s nothing unfair simply in making more money through productive work. People have a range of talents and ambitions. Some will serve consumers better than others and therefore make more money. Government should not worry about that.
Limbaugh: Obama Supporters ‘Don’t Want to Admit That the First Black President Is a Failure’ - Rush Limbaugh - Fox Nation
Rush Limbaugh: “So these people have to be convinced that they made a mistake but that it wasn’t their fault. The truth here is that Obama is not smart. They were tricked. They had the wool pulled over their eyes. Because the truth here is Obama’s not smart. This is key, folks. Listen to me very carefully. This is very key. Where you had a lot of people who thought they were making history voting for the first black to run for the presidency, by the same token, these people don’t want to admit that the first black president is a failure. They don’t have the guts to say it. They don’t want to think it. They don’t want to believe it. Because of the racial component.”
Pond scum stinks. And so do the Obama administration's enormous, taxpayer-funded "investments" in politically connected biofuel companies. While the president embarks on a green rehabilitation tour this week to quell growing public outrage about big green boondoggles, the White House continues to cultivate a cozy algae racket.
Obama's promotion of algae as a fuel source at a campaign speech in Miami last month caught the nation's attention. But algae companies have been banking on administration support from Day One. In December 2008, when the White House announced the nomination of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the CEO of Florida-based biofuels startup Algenol, Paul Woods, exulted to Time magazine: "You see this smile on my face? It's not going away. Everyone is really excited by this."
I confess, after years of "teabagger" snickering, grotesque fingerpointing over the Tucson shooting, and most recently the high-fiving on Twitter over Breitbart's death, it's increasingly difficult to blog about these sporadic "civility" lectures. What's left to say? They're frauds. They care about "tone" precisely to the extent that it can be exploited to electoral advantage and no further.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
And all this time, I'd believed that an inexperienced, unqualified community organizer -- controlled by the Chicago Democrat Machine -- would have been above reproach. My mistake.
If good-faith assumptions cannot be well-founded, what does “civility” serve beyond the preservation of polite fiction?
News finally reports the obvious: the national debt increased more in President Obama’s first three years in office than in the entire eight years of the Bush administration. Earlier, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that Obama’s policies would increase the national debt by $9.7 trillion. National and state debt figures are massively understated by their failure to include unfunded pension obligations and healthcare entitlements. Americans now owe $189,000 each in national debt and unfunded entitlements. That’s 885 percent of our economy’s size (or GDP), exceeding Greece’s debts and unfunded liabilities, which amount to 875 percent of its economy (although Greece is worse off than the U.S. now since its economic growth is lower due to factors like greater corruption and a more rapidly-aging population, and its borrowing costs are higher). In the 2008 campaign, then-Senator Obama promised a “net spending cut,” but as soon as he was elected, he proposed substantial spending increases, resulting in the largest budget deficits in history.
Massive budget deficits and mushrooming pension and health-care entitlements increased the federal government’s long-term obligations by $4.2 trillion in 2011 – more than three times the $1.3 trillion official figure for the federal budget deficit, noted a Washington Post article. Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package, which benefited the public-employee unions that receive lucrative unfunded pensions and health benefits, will actually shrink the size of the economy in the long run, the Congressional Budget Office says, although it temporarily pumped up employment among government employees. (By contrast, two economists argue that it wiped out the jobs of a million private-sector employees by diverting money from the private sector to the public sector.)
Millions of Americans voted for Barack Obama in the hope that he would be a trailblazer who would conduct the presidency in a new way. Well, he has: Obama has been the most divisive president in our modern history, unabashedly stirring up hate against not only his political enemies, but against private citizens who exercise their right to participate in our democracy. The most recent hatefest has been directed against Rush Limbaugh, and Obama has personally stirred the pot.
Of course, Obama has had nothing to say about the far worse invective that his own supporters have directed against Republican women. As I noted yesterday, he was asked a question about the double standard in his press conference yesterday, and ducked it. Bill Maher, who has contributed $1 million to re-elect Obama, called Sarah Palin a “c***” and a “dumb t***.” (Hey, when Rush rips a Democratic Party activist, at least you can print what he said on a family web site.) Obama has never criticized Maher or any of his many other supporters and minions who have kept up a steady drumbeat of hate for years.
I wrote last week about how women are just sex objects to the American Left, "though with political and statist rather than fleshly purposes." The Left can think only in terms of identity-group politics. Women, being an identity group, should all groupthink in ways that the Left defines as the only authentic women's position.
Most people assume that free market capitalism is the economic system that creates "selfish" societies. Dennis Prager begs to differ. In the latest course from Dennis' "Prager University" project, DP analyzes what it is about the welfare state that causes a citizenry to demand more than create (and then share).
You can't give adults free stuff and expect them to become better people in the long-run. There is no substitute for personal involvement in your own healthcare decisions. There is no substitute for hard work and sacrifice. There is no substitute for charity that you personally provide to other people. All of these things (and so much more) are not encouraged in a welfare state. We're seeing that system crumble before our very eyes in Europe.
What MacPherson desperately needs is for the proto-angel from It's a Wonderful Life to take her on a tour of what MacPherson's life would have been like if she had been born in, say, East Germany or the Soviet Union in, say, 1955. Maybe they'd have time for a quick visit to the Gulag Archipelago. Or the angel could show her what her life would have been like if she had lived in Cambodia in the late 1970s.
Socialism failed. Miserably. Communism collapsed because it was unable to compete with democratic capitalism. Marxist-Leninist countries produced misery, inequality, poverty, and environmental degradation. Chinese communism has morphed into a fascist-like form of state capitalism. European social democracy is struggling to survive an era of austerity.
About the only people who haven't figured out that saying "I'm a socialist" is the same as saying "I'm a massive idiot" are Western academics and zillionaire celebrities. But I guess that's why MacPherson is known as "the Body" and not "the Brain."
Monday, March 19, 2012
Instapundit � Blog Archive � VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: The Liberal Assault on Liberalism. “Conservatives are put into awkward positi…
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: The Liberal Assault on Liberalism. “Conservatives are put into awkward positions of critiquing liberal ideas on grounds that they are impractical, unworkable or counterproductive. Yet rarely, at least outside the religious sphere, do they identify the progressive as often immoral. And the unfortunate result is that they have often ceded moral claims to supposedly dreamy, utopian, and well-meaning progressives, when in fact the latter increasingly have little moral ground to stand upon.”
As Stanley Fish has helpfully explained, their only real moral compass is power.
Larry is an example of why treating homelessness and poverty is so difficult. It isn't as if Larry wasn't trying. He was. He still is. But he didn't end up on the street by accident. As he admits, he's got issues. He's still battling addiction. He doesn't always make the best long-term decisions. His lack of follow-through is frustrating.
But that's who he is. He's a nice guy, with a great personality, who has battled those shortcomings his whole life. Giving him money may make us feel better, but it doesn't fix the problems.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
As I’ve been saying:
It doesn’t really matter who gets elected as long as overcompensated, un-fire-able unionized bureaucrats are the ones really running (and ruining) the country.
And it is because of this — the progressives’ fidelity to a belief system that is fundamentally at odds with the idea of equality of the individual before the law — that I’ve said time and time again that modern progressivism / “liberalism” is nothing like the classical liberalism upon which this country was founded, and is in fact antithetical and hostile to the very notion of individual autonomy, and a foundational “fairness” that comes about as a result of a system of law that seeks to create an even playing field. That is, it is in a very real and strict sense un-American.
What is sad, is that even the general public is now increasingly more aware of these outright gimmicks by the Federal Reserve-Wall Street cartel, and refuses to participate in stock rallies premised on fraud and erroneous data interpretations, forcing the banks themselves to inflate their own asset values even higher in a coordinated incestuous circle jerk of intra-Primary Dealer stock purchases, resulting in an even greater disconnect with the underlying reality. Because at the end of the day, what it all boils down to, is simple cash flow. And that, despite all the Fed's mock tests and words of encouragement, in a world of perpetual contract law abatement, is lacking more than ever. After all, why pay for something today, when the administration itself tells you not to?
Alas, the relentless encroachment of socialism is something that not even the most naive and gullible 'stress test" can mask.
Call me weird, but if Texans have to brandish an ID to buy cigarettes or beer, coach a youth football team, see an R-rated movie, cash a check, buy Sudafed or spray paint, pick up their children from school early, rent a video, open up a P.O. Box, pick up tickets at will call for a Bon Jovi concert, or rent a kayak to float down the Guadalupe then I don’t think it is too much to ask that a person who waddles up to a voting booth to elect our next president prove that he or she is here legally. Voting is a sacred honor for legal citizens, and I pray to all that is holy that Texans fight Holder and his boss’s overreach into state voting laws like a pit bull.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
“Whether one believes in a large, very active government or something more limited, mathematically the amount of debt we already have and the terrifying rate at which it is accumulating will lead to national ruin,” [former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels] said. “There is no other outcome arithmetically possible.”
As Investor’s Business Daily observes, misdirection of the debate into the tangles and briars of “the economy, the stock market, female contraception, [and] Rush Limbaugh” doesn’t diminish our fiscal peril.
This head in the sand approach to a massive problem is what has passed for the “normal state of affairs” ever since the inception of the Great [sic] Society.
I ran across an observation recently (whose source I cannot recall) that what passes for “normal” today really is a psychotic state. This psychosis manifests itself in the areas of unrestricted immigration, legal discrimination against whites, pandering to the worst of black delusions about the cause of the extraordinary pathology of the black underclass, constitutional inversion, judicial law making, the pointless war on drugs, hostility to free speech, adulation of the homosexual “life style,” and the refusal to recognize Muslim hostility to infidels and the fundamental, irreparable Muslim incompatibility with Western culture and modernity itself.
Not to mention the election of Barack Hussein Obama, an oddity whose constitutional disqualification for the office of president is clear and whose origins are, to say the least, unclear even now, thanks to a disgraceful media complicity. As I like to say, I know of pedigree cocker spaniels with more paper credentials than Mr. Obama. But millions of Americans fall at his feet. The new normal.
Lawrence Auster writes extensively on the fatal disease of liberalism that has long since infected the West and the almost certain necessity of having to ride it to the point of civilizational catastrophe before we can be freed of its psychotic grip.
What he said.
For the foreseeable future, we are wedded to dysfunction. Even at this late hour, Republican voters cluster around a moderate like Mitt Romney, yet another in the line of Dole-Bush-Bush-McCain would be and actual leaders who aspire to the highest office with no clue whatsoever about the destruction of the Republic of 1789 and the impending conversion of the United States into a third world glop.
Leftists understand that they are in a perpetual war with liberty, and proceed accordingly. Conservatives blind themselves to the nature of the leftist project, and so leave themselves vulnerable to it. I don’t make that mistake. I look for the liberty, and if it is under attack, then I seek to destroy those who are attacking it. Pound a stake through their hearts, burn them, and bury the ashes with silver. It’s the only way you can be sure.
Progressive tactics and organizational skills are superior to those of Conservatives. Progressives have been at it for decades and have been able to advance their anti-American, anti-Liberty agenda to unimaginable levels through:
- effective community organizing,
- strong financial backing,
- skillful language manipulation to make their cause sound reasonable, thereby drawing in our youth and impressionable adults who won’t do their homework,
- subversive legislation that is contrary to our Constitution, and
- successful campaigning to get their radical Progressives elected – at all levels of government.
Although Conservatives are behind the power curve, they are working hard to stand against Progressive tactics in order to stop the Progressive agenda from moving forward.
Bruce McQuain at Q and O blog utilizes Charles Krauthammer to hammer Paul Krugman.
John Hayward at Human Events on the costs of Obamacare from the CBO (now that we’ve passed the bill and are finding out what’s in it as reality rears its ugly head).
Thursday, March 15, 2012
As we approach the second anniversary of ObamaCare, it's worth re-examining some of the claims its proponents made about the impact of the law on health-care costs. Three of the law's most-touted cost-control measures have already been shown to be unlikely to succeed.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Great News: CBO Reconsiders Obamacare, Decides Country Is Headed for Collapse Under President Subprime McDowngrade
CBO’s “alternative” projections ... make clear once again that too much spending—not too little tax revenue—is the biggest threat to the country’s fiscal and economic health. Among other things, the alternative figures show that:
Federal spending will consume record levels of resources as a share of the economy, reaching nearly one-quarter of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2022.
Yes, the sounds are there. We just don't listen. We only hear (or see) what we want. As the country gasps for clarity of purpose, we the people figure someone or something else will come along and fix the problems for us. I don't think so. The warning signs have been there for a long time. A very long time. It is my humble opinion that, during these turbulent times, we find ourselves in the dilemma of our lifetimes. As a country we have been either asleep or just too comfortable in our own cocoons to realize the depth of our plight.
An event took place in 2008 that changed the world we live in. It changed the face of America, it changed the direction of our moral values, it changed how we view the future and how we see ourselves as human beings and it changed the make up of our basic freedoms that we so irreverently tossed aside for entitlement freebies and empty promises by the engineers at the helm.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
The stated plan of the Obama Administration, or at least their stated goal, was to see gas prices rise “to the level of Europe,” so alternative energy sources would be more feasible, affordable, and attractive. Or that’s how I remember it.
So here we are, headed that way. But while the Administration may find that to be a good thing, most Americans watching gas prices rise . . . don’t.
And whom do they blame? Well, they blame the same person they always blame—the President. Right or wrong, and the reason is irrelevant. That’s politics in America. So the best thing to do is implement policies that will ensure this potential political landmine is kept disarmed. Of course, this Administration, despite its strident claims and outright falsehoods to the contrary, has done anything but that.
Obamacare will harm the health care system and reduce employment. The Dean of Harvard Medical School, Jeffrey Flier, noted that Obamacare will harm life-saving medical innovation. Obamacare is causing layoffs in the medical device industry. Obamacare will raise the cost of insurance by at least 55 percent in Ohio, according to one study. It taxes medical devices and cosmetic surgery, arbitrarily discriminates against certain hospitals, and raises taxes starting in 2013 on investors. The Associated Press and others have noted that it breaks a number of Obama campaign promises. Earlier, CEI filed an amicus brief against the health care law on behalf of Minnesota and North Carolina legislators.
Bloomberg News features an interesting column by Ramesh Ponnuru, “Obama’s Stimulus Helped Grow Debt, Not Economy,” which debunks some frequently-repeated claims about stimulus jobs and job projections. Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron argued that the $800 billion stimulus package wasn’t even designed to stimulate the economy, but rather to benefit special-interest groups, since it ignored even old-fashioned Keynesian policy prescriptions about how to revive the economy. Obama claimed the stimulus was needed to prevent an “irreversible decline” in the economy, even though the Congressional Budget Office admitted that the stimulus package would shrink the economy “in the long run.” The Congressional Budget Office, ignoring the stimulus package’s flaws, argues that the stimulus has boosted the economy in “the short run.” But even the CBO concedes that the stimulus will shrink economic output in “the long run” by increasing the national debt and thus crowding out private investment.
Legislation in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate will rescind an additional $108 billion that was extended to the International Monetary Fund by the Pelosi-Reid Congress in 2009. This is necessary to save taxpayer funds from being used to bail out bankrupt socialist states in Europe that refuse to get their houses in order — and the banks that foolishly lent them the money to begin with.
Despite the public testimony of these respected military, academic and intelligence figures, I simply not convinced that the Iranian regime is a rational actor. General Dempsey bases his assessment of Iran’s rationality on the basis that they have yet to make a decision to as whether or not they will develop nuclear weapons. Such an assessment is at best wishful thinking and at worst an act of willful blindness.
What’s shocking is not that Mitt Romney is ahead. A syphilitic camel should be ahead. What’s shocking is that the distance is only 5 points.
Assuming Mitt can hold it together, his advantage should widen. He is, after all, running against one of the most vulnerable presidents with one of the worst records in American history.
While the Times carefully avoided drawing any indelicate conclusions that might upset its liberal readership, the review of government finance at the state and local level reveals an appalling picture of blue model thinking at its worst. New York state and local politicians, egged on by public sector unions, have dug the state into such a deep hole that it will be hard to emerge.
And the unions — along with the pro-bankruptcy wing of the Democratic Party — want to keep digging.
The reality is that from Long Island to Buffalo, New York cities and counties face severe and growing fiscal woes. The chief drivers of the crisis: blue sweetheart programs that are out of control: state pensions, Medicaid, and retiree health costs.
Some 10,215 new federal regulations from the Obama administration are costing consumers, businesses and the economy overall $46 billion annually, more than five times the regulatory price tag of former President Bush in his first three years in office. Worse: just implementing those regulations had a one-time additional cost of $11 billion, according to a Heritage Foundation analysis provided to Washington Secrets.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Opinion versus Fact: Why Opposing Beliefs Leave No Room for Compromise Between Republicans and Democrats | A Voice of Sanity - RobertRinger.com
The only hope America has for returning to its roots of a nation based on individual liberty and a government whose only legitimate function is to defend and uphold the Constitution is for libertarians and conservatives to have the courage to speak out against the absurd notions of bipartisanship, “working together,” “finding common ground,” and compromising with the enemy — meaning the far left.
Senator DeMint is right when he says there can be no compromise between collectivism and freedom. Nor can there be any compromise between right and wrong, moral and immoral, or constitutional and unconstitutional. It’s time to get serious about taking back America.
There are two types of revolutionary Islamists in the Middle East today: the Muslim Brotherhood and the “Salafists.” Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood is in fact a salafist group, in the sense that it wants to use Islam as it can be most strictly and repressively interpreted and create a dictatorship based on a radical interpretation of Sharia law.
And that is the first important point to understand. The difference between Brotherhood and “Salafists” is purely tactical. The Brotherhood has learned how to maneuver politically, an advance similar to what Lenin instituted for the Marxists of his day. You can’t just declare a revolution and change everything overnight.
No, the Communists argued a century ago and the Brotherhood advocates now, instead the road to victory is to create a disciplined movement, build a mass base, construct front groups, create (temporary) alliances that split your opponents, and march step by step to total power. .Just as Lenin planned to get the capitalists to sell him the rope with which to hang them, the Brotherhood plots to get the infidels to do.
So far the Brotherhood has been pretty successful.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
According to Krauthammer, until President Barack Obama apologizes for HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher’s prior comments, Romney shouldn’t have to apologize for Limbaugh. Maher has donated $1 million to a super PAC supporting Obama’s campaign.
“Look, I am sure that is a liberal’s dream, but when the president of the United States apologizes for what Bill Maher says about women and receives a $1 million for his — or even acknowledge or talk about it — when Obama speaks about Maher’s misogyny as he takes $1 million for his campaign, then I would expect Romney to denounce somebody else,” he said.
Krauthammer named not only Maher, but also MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Louis C.K., who withdrew as host of a dinner for the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association last week.
“But the hypocrisy on the left about this about Rush Limbaugh, as if he is the spokesman for the Republican Party, and as if misogyny is exclusively the province of conservatives and Republicans. It’s out there all the time Maher, Chris Matthews, with this guy — is it C.K. Louis, or Louis C.K. who is going to be the emcee at the congressional correspondents dinner. So, when I hear a denunciation on the left, I will expect one on the right.”
Besides the fact that university campuses are the most likely places to find the right cohort to advance this campaign – a cadre made up of radical Palestinian and Muslim students and their ideology-driven student and faculty allies – they are also the prime battleground for another reason. For it is there that the leaders and voters of tomorrow – young idealists who are thought to be particularly vulnerable to the kinds of messages that are deceptively evoked – are coming of age. It is there that Israel’s adversaries try to shape the American mind (to modify a phrase introduced by Allan Bloom 25 years ago) so Israel will no longer be thought of with sympathetic understanding.
It’s hard to think of many social experiments that have more disastrously failed. Now many of these once flourishing cities are hollowed out shells, while around them suburbs and increasingly exurbs flourish away from the deadening influence of urbanist politics. None of this affects the hold of progressive and urbanist ideology on true believers; if anything, they believe even more passionately in the cause. Obviously the problem is that we haven’t spent enough on enough tenured teachers, haven’t written enough new regulations and established enough new bureaus to enforce them, haven’t published enough white papers by enough credentialed planners, haven’t extracted enough taxes and provided enough services. If we could just tax the suburbs and exurbs more heavily and spend more of the money in the cities, all would be well.
Being a nation that was "conceived in liberty" -- and for modern conservatism to have so wrapped itself up in the concept of liberty -- it is often seen as a contradiction that conservatives wish to "legislate morality." However, as Edmund Burke (considered by many the father of modern conservatism) noted, "[m]en are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites[.] ... Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free."
Saturday, March 10, 2012
oftwominds-Charles Hugh Smith: Our "Let's Pretend" Economy: Let's Pretend "Job Growth Is Best Since 2006"
Instead of just swallowing Ministry of Propaganda swill, let's examine actual data. If we do that, we find job growth is mostly smoke and mirrors.
In today’s Washington Post, I argue that while electing a transformational conservative president may not be in the cards this November, stopping a transformational liberal president still is. The damage of a second Obama term could be potentially irrevocable. I asked a number of conservative thinkers what they feared most from a second term, and compiled this list of the top ten disasters that would befall America if Obama were re-elected this fall:
1. Obamacare will not be repealed.
2. The unprecedented levels of spending in Obama’s first four years will become the new floor, as America sets new records for fiscal profligacy and debt.
3. Job creators will face massive tax increases, and more Americans will come off the tax rolls—resulting in fewer citizens with a stake in keeping taxes low and more with a stake in protecting benefits.
4. Government dependency, already at record levels, will continue to grow.
5. Four lost years in dealing with the entitlement crisis will become eight—digging us into a hole from which we may not be able to emerge.
6. Obama, unworried about the impact of gas and electricity prices on his reelection, will finally wage the regulatory war on fossil fuels the Left demands.
7. He will unleash the Environmental Protection Agency to impose crushing new burdens on U.S. business.
8. His administration’s assault on religious freedom will go on and expand to new areas.
9. The Defense Department will be gutted, with cuts so deep that America will no longer be a superpower.
10. Obama could have the opportunity to appoint more liberal Supreme Court justices, ending the Roberts court in all but name for a generation.
This is what we are up against: a hydra-headed Obama machine, with Hollywood, the unions, academia, and the lamestream media creating false narratives and then using their immense power to spin those lies until many Americans believe them. If we’re going to have any hope of saving this country, we’re going to have to fight back every second of every day.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
But it’s safe to say that the overall trend lines in the developing world are pointing up, and that poverty is falling (little thanks to the antipoverty movement). That is something we should all be happy about; perhaps market capitalism isn’t as evil as its many critics allege.
It now costs over $10,000 a year to “educate,” or brainwash, a child in a public school, whereas it costs about $550 to $1,000 a year to homeschool a child. The taxpayer pays nothing for the education of a child at home. Yet, the homeschooling parent must continue to pay the taxes for the public schools. This is just one of the minor injustices that exist in our society in the interest of education.
And the reason why it now costs so much to educate a child in the public schools is that the dumbing-down process is not cheap. It requires costly programs that need frequent upgrading and revision, and it also requires specially trained teachers who are constantly attending expensive conferences and seminars in order to learn how better to dumb down the children.