Like Slimey Cockroaches & their crooked President, Liberals Spread Disease

[Warph]

                           


I tend to think that California has a monopoly when it comes to leftists and other demented souls.  But the truth is, they're scattered hither and yon.  For instance, when Obuma was speaking at a fundraiser in Portland, Oregon, he gave a shout-out to Terence Bean.  And well he should have, because not only had Mr. Bean hosted the event, but he had raised about $100,000 for Obuma's campaign in 2008.  If you're unfamiliar with his name, it's probably because he's a homosexual who's made millions of dollars producing gay porn movies.

"There's a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs – partly because they want sympathy, and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances because they do not want to lose their job.  There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well because as long as the disease holds out, they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public."

Now if I had written those lines, I would naturally be accused of bigotry because of the use of "colored people" and "Negro race," but nobody would doubt that I was referring to the likes of Barack Insane-Hussein Obuma, Jesse Jackson, Sheila Jackson Lee, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters.  But the fact is, those prescient words were written by none other than Booker T. Washington, 101 years ago in his book, "My Larger Education."

The reason why, in spite of a disastrous economy, national security leaks, a scandal-riddled Justice Department and a weakened military, that Obuma is running neck-and-neck with Mitt Romney is because he has taken a page out of the FDR playbook.  Back in the 1930s, Roosevelt declared war on business and raised taxes, thus seducing union members; he started federal work projects that called for painters and writers, thus luring artists to the dark side; he wooed blacks and poor whites by expanding welfare; and in doing so, he rolled out the red carpet for a great many Jews, who had earlier found a home in the socialist and communist parties.

In similar fashion, Obuma is now counting on dividing Americans by race, class, gender and generation, in the hope it will get him re-elected.  If it works, I'm afraid it will mean that he was right in 2009, when he insisted that America is no more exceptional than any other country.

One of those countries, in fact the first one he visited after being elected in 2008, was Egypt, that paragon of nations where an imam recently ruled that Egyptian husbands, who may have had to put up with a lot of "I have a headache" type excuses while their wives were alive and kicking, will soon have the right to have sex with their wives for up to six hours after they've died!

Just because I find a lot to like about Mitt Romney doesn't mean that everyone else does.  I mean, just because he's good-looking, well-spoken, trustworthy, intelligent, doesn't drink or smoke, has stood faithfully by his wife of 43 years through her bouts with cancer and MS, has helped to raise five decent sons, and has honestly earned and invested millions of dollars, I can see where people might prefer a lousy community organizer with a lifetime of shady friends and associates who has kept his personal history concealed in a manner we all wish he had applied to national security documents.

I have to assume that those who parrot the nonsense about Romney being "stiff" are employing that word as a synonym for a man who is honest, patriotic and businesslike, which just happen to be three of the qualities I most prize when it comes to electing a commander-in-chief.  If you're looking for stiffs, I suggest you look no further than the millions of Americans who show up as "Undecided" in the polls because they pay no attention to political campaigns until Election Day rolls around, when at long last they make a decision by flipping a coin.

Finally, I'm wondering if I'm the only person who keeps picturing the following scene being played out on the second floor of the White House:
Malia proudly brings her completed science project in to show her parents, and Michelle, after quickly hiding the cookies she's been noshing on, predictably oohs and ahs in maternal appreciation.

However, when a beaming Malia turns to show it to her father, he frowns and angrily shakes his head. "I'm ashamed of you," he says. "You know you didn't build that!"

[Warph]

                 

                       

                             


                               

[Warph]

CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?


This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish. And send it on to everyone. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.


Can a good Muslim be a good American?

This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:

Theologically - no.. Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon god of Arabia.

Religiously - no... Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam. (Quran, 2:256)(Koran);

Scripturally - no... Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically - no... Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no... Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no.... Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.

Domestically - no... Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him. (Quran 4:34)

Intellectually - no.. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no... Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran does not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no... Because when we declare 'one nation under God, The Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore, after much study and deliberation... Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and 'good' Americans. Call it what you wish it's still the truth.. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.

The religious war is bigger than we know or understand!

Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within.

      SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.

   

  THE MARINES WANT THIS TO
     ROLL ALL OVER THE U.S.

[Warph]

                       

E-Mail: Liberals Think I'm Cute, Adorable and Filled with Hate

By John Ransom
8/26/2012


Mac wrote:
Where is it written and enforced that we no longer have the right to say Merry Christmas? I don't even know George Soros let alone LOVE him! Would stealing money from clients be like Congress robbing OUR social security? Like trying to ruin the US Post Office so their buddies FedEx, etc. can take over? - in Mr. Crony Went to Congress: Subpoena Soros, Buffett, et al.

Dear Mac:
Christian beliefs in the public square are increasingly under attack.

Here's an example: The Connecticut Post chose to not put a "Merry Christmas" greeting in print on the front page of the newspaper on Christmas Day. This was very disrespectful to the vast majority of the public who celebrate the day religiously and a poor choice in not honoring our national holiday.

Here's another: The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group that frequently targets the presence of faith and religion in the public square, is demanding that a nativity scene be removed from public property.

Does the Freedom from Religion Foundation ask women wearing burqas to remove them in the public square, or is it just Freedom from Christianity they seek? Plus it's Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from Religion.

But what do you expect from the party that supports Eric Holder's "lying is a state of mind," and Clinton's "it depends on the what the definition of the word is, is"?

What would liberals be if they couldn't change the definition of words to support their perverted science?

Truthful, that's what. And then the cat would be out of the bag.

As far as robbing from social security, I think you are getting your philosophical lines crossed here. It wasn't conservatives who did the robbing from taxpayers, it was liberals.

Lastly, I don't know any one who works at FedEx, yet alone love anyone who does.

But to suggest that the Postal Service's problems are part of some conspiracy is nonsense.

The causes of the USPS losing money annually are union-inspired practices like the one noted by Time Magazine:

The Washington Post's Federal Eye blog reports that in 2009, postal workers were paid for 1.2 million hours of standby time, costing a total of $30.9 million. For the first half of 2011, however, the Postal Service has paid $4.3 million for 170,666 hours of standby time.

What, exactly, is standby time? Due to union agreements, postal workers can't be laid off or reassigned during periods of low mail volume. Even if they're not needed on the job, postal employees still show up at work (and get paid) for what's known as standby time—which basically amounts to hanging out in a break room, conference room, or cafeteria for a few hours, perhaps all day. The scene calls to mind The New Yorker story about "rubber rooms" where New York City teachers accused of incompetence or misconduct sit idly for months, sometimes years, doing nothing except showing up to continue collecting paychecks.



Bdogslo wrote:
Ransom is misleading. Obama hasn't manipulated anything. Unemployment is one of many economic indicators, all of which appear to be improving. –Obama Unemployment Magic Trick: Indefinitely Detain 4 Million People from Workforce

B-Dog:
I stand by the article.

You may not like it, but I think it's legitimate to point out that Obama is benefiting from the fact that he's drawn out this recession. You don't think his economic folks knew that the survey would show more people qualifying as "long-term discouraged," thereby deflating unemployment numbers the longer the recession continues?

The real problem, and the one Obama and everyone else ought to be concerned about, is the diminished capacity for output that a long, drawn-out recession is taking on the economy, as noted by my friend and fellow Townhall writer, economist Dan Mitchell. What people should be very concerned about is that 4.4 million people have permanently left the workforce because of the length of the recession. That's a population number that would qualify as the 26th largest state in the country.

Imagine a state the size of Kentucky or Louisiana not having any jobs. That's extremely harmful to the long-term future of the country and it will take at least a generation to repair the damage. And Obama praises it as progress?

The point is that the government unemployment number masks what is really going on in the economy. That's the Obama magic trick, and it always has been.

He makes "investments" in green energy which even the Washington Post says is just graft. He "saves" healthcare by killing healthcare. As long as he continues to use words as a dodge against what he really stands for, people like me will be there calling him out about his real motives.

If you don't like it, next time trying nominating a president who tells the truth and follows the constitution.



MsAllison wrote:
It's adorable the way John Ransom believes this crap of Kantor's. Kantor interviewed the Obamas once, decided that there was tension between them and that might make a juicy book and then spoke to WH staff people to get their opinions and then fabricated a novel in which Mrs. Obama recklessly spends "The Taxpayers' Money" on her personal pleasures. –The Alice-in-Wonderland President

Dear Allison:
Liberals have called me a lot of things, but never have I been called adorable by them.

But thanks, my wife agrees with you 100 percent- on the adorable part.

On the rest of it, she thinks you're nuts, in a real, clinical and medically certifiable way.

Kantor's liberal pedigree is impeccable. Columbia, Hahvahd, Slate, New York Times. She's been covering Obama and Michelle for quite some time.

But what really tells me she is on the mark- besides the fact that everything we learned from her book is consistent with what we see in Obama's presidency- is that the Obama folks have been out doing the full court press to rebut her.

I never pick on Michelle Obama because I think generally it's cheap to drag someone's family into political slugfests. But I'll make an exception here because Michelle injected herself into the fight.

In response to Kantor's book Michelle did a puff interview saying that she was tired of being depicted as an angry black woman. Well here's an idea for you then Michelle: Stop acting like an angry black woman. And Mr. President, if you are truly concerned with the deficit, then stop spending money the country doesn't have. Or here's a novel idea: Present a balanced budget...or a budget that will get one (1) vote.

Because we know already that at least part of the book is true that Obama claims is fabricated. Former press secretary Robert Gibbs says that he apologized to Michelle for an incident that the White House says never happened.

It's like I wrote in the original story: "It only 'looks' bad if you get caught, I guess."

Caught.



Mac 287 wrote:
It should have been designed as a political punching bag because today Mom, apple pie and all things are targets for incredible snarky printed sarcasm...and it obviously pays well...bottom line, huh? The Volt is not the point...if its faulty, fix it or get rid of it...or yoo hoo consumer...don't buy it! Obama does not design cars...cheap shot. –GM CEO Burst into Flames at Volt Meeting- Almost

Dear Comrade 287:
So your theory is that mom and apple pie are targets in a right-wing snark conspiracy?

Which side, the right or the left, had rallies where they left the public spaces cleaner than when they started? Which side, the right or the left, left literally tons of garbage in Zucotti Park after breaking the law? Which side, the right or the left, used defecation on a police car as a form of self-expression.

The right loves mom and apple pie. The Chevy Volt is an example of how far from baseball, hot dogs and apple pie America's best loved brand of cars has strayed.

This quote exemplifies why: They have a whole other ethos, inspired by Obama: "The Volt's technology and its recent accolade from Consumer Reports make the Volt a marketing tool for Chevy," said Alan Batey, vice president for Chevrolet U.S. sales, according to Bloomberg "This vehicle is about more than how many we sell," Batey said. "This vehicle is a magnet around everything we are trying to do to showcase our brand."

More than about how many they sell? They are going to reinvent their whole company around the Volt?

Try running any one of Chevy's iconic music backgrounds like, "Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet," or Bob Seger's "Like a Rock," or John Mellencamp's "Our Country" over footage of a Chevy Volt starting a garage fire.

Sorry, the mom and apple pie folks are buying Fords.

That's why Volts aren't selling.



Robert4112 wrote:
I think the facts are misrepresented in this essay. The engineers who developed the Volt did not ask for a taxpayer bailout. Obama did not design the Volt. Its basic design predated the Obama presidency. – GM CEO Burst into Flames at Volt Meeting- Almost

Dear Comrade 4112:
No, I think the facts are pretty-well represented in the piece.

It was Obama who set as a goal as he was campaigning for president that he would put 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015.

The piece wasn't about the engineers. It was about people like GM CEO Akerson who thinks he can take $50 billion of taxpayer money and then complain that he has to be accountable to the American taxpayers for the results. If you are not prepared, Mr. Akerson to sit before Congress and answer questions patiently about your stewardship of America's investment in GM without resorting to demagoguery, then you ought to quit. In fact, I think Akerson should be fired for his testimony before Congress.

Let's be quite clear: 1) Bailout of any company by the federal government is wrong; and 2) It's even worse when taxpayers will lose over $23.6 billion on the bailout and rising.

Then to top it all off we have to hear from a sycophant like Alan Batey that sales don't matter.

As far as Obama goes, he's the one who promised to put a million of these cars on the road. Until his mouth stops writing checks the country can't cash, expect him to rightly get the lion's share of the blame.

DonnaRain wrote:
Don't you just LOVE how wingnut like Ransom HATE American workers and manufacturing? ESPECIALLY when he and the rest of the hatemongering GOP were completely against the loan given to GM to keep millions of workers employed and innovation alive in the US after the Bush Depression destroyed the American economy. –GM CEO Burst into Flames at Volt Meeting- Almost

Dear Comrade Donna:
I don't LIKE the WAY you use CAPS.

You'll be eating those words when 20 years from now the "innovative" autoworkers of America are standing hat in hand once again asking for a bailout because their union screwed the rest of us at the bargaining table.

I love American workers. I hate the people who would use them to further their own narrow partisan purposes.

Far from having a manufacturing boom, manufacturing is lagging under Obama.

From our economists at Political Calculations:

Going by the post-recovery figures, we find that President Obama hasn't been paying much attention to manufacturing, either during the recession or during the recovery, as its share of jobs lost and created has been essentially identical during his three years in office.

Only 1 out of 3 jobs that have been created have been created in supply chain and manufacturing even though those jobs account for 47 percent of all jobs in the US according to Political Calculations.



Lon wrote:
The most striking thing about this column, and the comments that follow it, is the degree to which they highlight the lie that what differentiates the right and left is how much government they want. Ransom is outraged that a town is not telling a business where they can and cannot locate. (Oddly he is actually outraged at a nearby city that a town is not telling a business where it can locate, but he tends to have a special level of incoherence). Very few of the conservatives below even blink at the idea that government should interfere with private property rights. Apparently property rights aren't so important to them after all when it is not a matter of helping the poor (which apparently contradicts an absolute property right).- Catholic Nuns Fight Strip Club and City Hall

Dear Comrade Lon:
I'm incoherent? I had to read your comments a dozen times to figure out what your point is and I'm still not positive what you are arguing.

But here goes:

I don't know how the column differentiates the amount of government either the right or the left is willing to accept. I personally think that normal zoning laws should be sufficient to keep a strip club separated from a convent. Zoning laws have been around for a long time. I'm not arguing that property owners should have the unfettered right to build a nuclear power plant, for example, next to your house. You seem to be arguing that they should be allowed to build one.

But even more, my argument is that liberal haste to build a society free from the influence of the Christian religion has taken us to the point where we don't even know what's in our best interest.

I think it's in everyone's best interest that the convent stay where it is and the strip club find somewhere else to locate.

Take a drive down the Dan Ryan and the Kennedy Expressway southward. Every once in a while the highway will jog a bit. Every time it does, straight ahead you'll see a church steeple. That's because politicians had enough sense when the expressway was built to understand that churches were an important part of the community. But not anymore. Now they just sneer at church. It's one thing to be corrupt, it's another thing to be entirely without moral sense, which is what seems to have happened to Democrats from Chicago, including and especially Obama.

My argument with Chicago is really about the Cook County-Illinois politico-crime syndicate that includes Chicago, Cicero, Stone Park. I use the term Chicago loosely in this case because readers are most familiar with it. But the term could apply just as well to Illinois.

From the Chicago Mag: When federal agents arrested Governor Rod Blagojevich two years ago—interrupting what the U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald called "a political corruption crime spree"—Robert Grant, head of the FBI's Chicago office, offered a succinct analysis of the day's events. "If [Illinois] isn't the most corrupt state in the United States," he said, "it is certainly one hell of a competitor."

The diamond in that pin of corruption however starts in Chicago and spreads outward.

Don't believe me?

The University of Illinois alumni club is hosting a seminar called 21st Century Chicago and Corruption Today. "A new report shows Illinois to be the third most corrupt state in the nation and Chicago the most corrupt city," says the teaser. "Join study leader Dick Simpson, UIC political science professor, author, and former Chicago alderman, to discuss recent study findings."

Simpson is a very liberal Democrat.

About half the people in the administration followed Obama to DC from Chicago. And the amount of sheer corruption shown in the Solyndras, the Lightsquared and Fast and Furious scandals say it was the wrong half.

You and your liberal buddies didn't select an Arthur when you reconstituted Camelot, but rather a Mordred.

To my conservative friends, if you think this next election isn't important, think again.



FallofU wrote:
Never seen any "finance editor" b&^%$ and moan like a little baby as much as you. Why don't you try supplying some facts and figures and show us how the economy is so much worse than it was at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009 and prove to us this President has made things worse? Come on John try using your brain instead of the black hole where you're heart supposed to be. You're filled with hate. - Half Time in America; We Need a New Quarterback

Dear Comrade Fall,
You want stats? Fine. Here some stats:

There are fewer people in the labor force now than when Obama became president.

In the end what it means is that wages in the US have been permanently reduced by $208 billion per year and counting so far. That's about 1.5 percent of GDP just in wages, not counting anything that is actually produced by those workers. When you figure in total output subtracted from GDP from missing workers, the number is closer to 2.1 percent of GDP that's permanently missing from our economy. That's about $320 billion.

Even the most optimistic projections for Obama's millionaires' tax doesn't come close to raising that amount.

Over the long-term those little variations of 2 percent more or less in GDP growth make a huge difference in our economy. Over a ten-year period an economy that grows by 2 percent versus an economy that grows by 4 percent is the difference between having a GDP of $18.5 trillion versus a GDP of $22.5 trillion by year ten.

In total over ten years, it means that the economy will miss about $20 trillion worth of GDP in those ten years, and between $3.4-$4 trillion in tax revenues unless we start to follow pro-growth policies that lead to job creation for someone other than major Obama donors.

As far as "b&^%$ and moan like a little baby," I wasn't aware that someone without heart could both b&^%$ and moan.

You have to admit, that takes talent.



Ca7 wrote:
It's cute that you would try to paint this as "democrats don't think of unemployment insurance fraud as a crime" when your only specific example of unemployment insurance fraud is one where all the parties involved were actually arrested on fraud charges.- How Stimulating: Unemployment Benefits for Murderers

Dear Comrade 7:
Actually the specific examples (plural) that I included did include one example where someone was arrested on fraud charges- because he was unlucky enough to be incarcerated for murder. Local authorities got involved where the feds likely wouldn't have. And like the typical progressive, you point to the exception and ignore the rule.

The rule is that $16.5 billion was paid out in fraudulent claims, with less than 5 percent of that money recovered. And under Democrats, unemployment fraud has jumped another 11 percent year-over-year. One would think perhaps someone in the federal government who has the responsibility to administer the program might actually do something about it.

But nope.

"We don't think this is mostly about fraud—we think it's a lack of clarity of understanding what eligibility is," Jane Oates, Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training Administration at the Department of Labor, told the Times.

Tortured words and tortured reasoning for not enforcing the law just leads to more crime and encourages people to steal.



Rob Mitchell wrote:
Perfect example of conservative truth distortion. Nowhere in fact is Pelosi advocating for benefits for convicted murderers. I hope they do not pay you to write this stuff.- How Stimulating: Unemployment Benefits for Murderers

Dear Comrade Rob,
Why yes I do get paid to write this stuff. I'm guessing that you are wondering how to tax it. The Stamp Act has already been tried. But hey: Maybe Democrats can bring it back and just call it a fee? Three cheers for King Obama!

Pelosi doesn't have to advocate for convicted murders to get unemployment. They already collect the benefit according to the example cited above. And why wouldn't they? The "Clarity of Understanding" training that they'll make these gang-bangers go through as punishment probably won't be much of a deterrent to people who make a living breaking the law.

If Pelosi advocated policies that forced us all to live with our doors and windows wide open, I'm guessing crime would go up. And when it did, you wouldn't just blame the criminals, but rather you'd blame the people who made our property and families unsafe to begin with ala Fancy Nancy.



Twfox wrote:
i plug my volt in to charge at night. i drive my volt to work in the morning. i plug my volt into a solar powered charging station (drawing nothing from the "grid") i have just done several of the most patriotic things imaginable---#1 bought American---#2 used American generated power (coal- i live in West Virginia) --- #3 saved American jobs. #4 helped to support a new "green technology"(alternative energy source). Without progressive thinking, the world would still be flat, the earth would still be the center of the universe and polio would still be a killer of children. (i am old enough to remember those days). –Dear GE, GM and Obama: We're Not as Dumb as You

Dear Comrade Fox,
I think you out-foxed yourself. Dr. Seuss you are not.

You forget the most patriotic thing according to vice president Joe Biden and French socialist candidate for president, Francois Hollande: pay more in taxes. But why would you? The Chevy Volt, green technology, and those American "jobs" you talk about are a net drain on our Treasury- that's tax out-go, not tax in-come.

So whatever perceived patriotism you think you've engaged in, it's not out-weighed by the tax-paying done by everyone else that allows you to be a "patriot." It's a Tory kind of patriotism though isn't it?  ...JR



From our own Dan Mitchell:
The Socialist favourite in France's presidential election, Francois Hollande, has said top earners should pay 75% of their income in tax. ...Mr Hollande himself renewed his call on Tuesday, saying the 75% rate on people earning more than one million euros a year was "a patriotic act". ..."It is patriotic to agree to pay a supplementary tax to get the country back on its feet."

Just like Joe Biden.

Good to see however that you all admit that about the only things you progressives support as patriotic are: 1) Spending taxes; and 2) Raising taxes;

and 3) Occasionally killing American citizens without trial when it suits you.

At least you are consistent in your hypocrisy.



That's it for this week,
...JRansom

[Warph]

    

The presumption of selflessness
By: John Hayward
8/24/2012 11:16 AM


Liberal author Jane Mayer caused much unintended hilarity with a New Yorker article called "Schmooze or Lose," whose thesis is that Obama might lose the election because he doesn't like "cozying up to billionaires." The President's "attitude toward money is complicated," you see, and the super-genius academic Obama is not sufficiently "awed by wealth" to entertain big-money donors with the kind of deference they expect.

Democrat millionaires, in turn, are supposedly more interested in "social affirmation" than political favors in return for their donations. "Usually, it's not about favors," an anonymous Obama adviser is said to have explained to Mayer. These noble and selfless liberal millionaires don't want anything from the government – they just want Obama to flatter their egos.

Which Obama "crony capitalist" were you thinking of while you were doubled over with laughter after reading that? George Kaiser of Solyndra fame? Jeff Immelt of G.E.? Perhaps Frank Clark of Exelon, who Culture of Corruption author Michelle Malkin spotlighted today? The Hollywood glitterati who rely on all sorts of special treatment from the government, ranging from subsidies to tax breaks, to accumulate their immense fortunes?

Matthew Continetti of the Washington Free Beacon does a superlative job of dismantling Mayer's column, calling "the idea that liberal donors don't ask for anything in return" the Biggest Myth of 2012.  http://freebeacon.com/the-biggest-myth-of-2012/

His marquee example of Obama cronyism is billionaire investor Marc Lasry, "whose financial support for Obama in 2012 must be totally unrelated to the fact that the White House was kind enough to give a prestigious job to one of his sons (a detail that is of course left out by Mayer); and whose email solicitation to his fellow superrich liberals dangled the possibility that a $35,000 donation would buy a chance to ride in the presidential motorcade.."

After making due allowances for the urges of both Obama campaign officials and donors to flatter themselves while concocting excuses for Obama's disappointing 2012 fundraising, Continetti writes,"What binds the disparate threads of Mayer's piece together is its assumption of good faith on the part of progressives and bad faith on the part of Republicans. This kindergarten-level reasoning is presented matter-of-factly, as though American politics at the highest level had all the subtlety of a Disney cartoon."

This dovetails with something that has always fascinated me: the reflexive presumption of benevolence afforded to Big Government by not only committed liberals, but "moderate" voters who go along with their schemes. Mayer's lazy Disney mythology of Democrat billionaires who wouldn't dream of asking for "favors" in return for their donations is a subset of this faith, in addition to being an expression of liberal moral vanity, and the after-image of their blazing contempt for the "bad faith" motivations of their opponents. If everyone who opposes Big Government liberalism is motivated by greed, it follows that the acolytes of Big Government must be relatively free of greed. Liberalism is all about "helping people," so by definition, liberals cleanse themselves of the stink of self-interest.

This mythology is powerful enough to excuse even the most egregious examples of corruption – including the hunger for power by politicians, rent-seeking by liberal billionaires, and even predatory capitalism. Class warriors are never instructed to hate millionaire celebrities. On the contrary, the conspicuous consumption of their lifestyles is celebrated. There are popular TV shows devoted to following their lavish lifestyles and touring their mansions. And yet, the film industry brutally exploits both its customers and business connections – ask a theater owner how much of the take from screening blockbuster movies they get to keep. It uses the most absurdly contorted accounting to claim that even high-grossing films never actually made money. Huge tax bills are avoided, "little guys" in Hollywood are routinely screwed, and if you're a filmgoer, you've probably well aware of the soaring prices extracted for often inferior, misleadingly-advertised product.

But all of that is forgiven, and the wealth of celebrities is applauded, because they're generally liberal, and thus presumptively free of self-interest. This flows naturally into the presumption of selflessness that surrounds Big Government, which receives endless credit for noble intentions, no matter how horribly its plans work out... or even how corrupt some of its high-minded programs turn out to be. Uncle Sam begins each new adventure as the civic-minded good guy, who just wants to do what's best for everyone. Compulsive government action is viewed as morally superior to the benefits of free-market commerce, and even voluntary private charity.

In reality, it's wise to retain a health suspicion of the "motives" of every large organization, from the vendors of consumer products to government bureaucracies. Nothing about any human interaction is automatically sanctified by civil-service exams or electoral victories. Rational self-interest is not inherently evil, and the benefits of its pursuit have enormous social value. And no one should be presumed free of self-interest merely because they claim to be... or donate money to politicians who make that claim.

[Warph]

     

A Powerful Movie

By Thomas Sowell
8/22/2012


Years, and sometimes decades, pass between my visits to movie theaters. But I drove 30 miles to see the movie "2016," based on Dinesh D'Souza's best-selling book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage." Where I live is so politically correct that such a movie would not even be mentioned, much less shown.

Every seat in the theater was filled, even though there had been an earlier showing that day, and more showings were scheduled for the rest of the afternoon and evening. I had to sit on a staircase in the balcony, but it was worth it.

The audience was riveted. You could barely hear a sound from them, or detect a movement, and certainly not smell popcorn. Yet the movie had no bombast, no violence, no sex and no spectacular visual effects.

The documentary itself was fascinating, as Dinesh D'Souza presented the story of Barack Obama's life and view of the world, in a very conversational sort of way, illustrating it with visits to people and places around the world that played a role in the way Obama's ideas and beliefs evolved.

It was refreshing to see how addressing adults as adults could be effective, in an age when so many parts of the media address the public as if they were children who need a constant whirlwind of sounds and movements to keep them interested.

Dinesh D'Souza's own perspective, as someone born in India who came to America and became an American, provided a special insight into the way people from the Third World often perceive or misperceive the United States and the Western world.

That Third World perspective is Obama's perspective, D'Souza demonstrates in this documentary, as in his book -- and it is a perspective that is very foreign to that of most Americans, which may be why some believe that Obama was born elsewhere.

D'Souza is convinced that the president was born in Hawaii, as he claims, but argues that not only Obama's time living in Indonesia and his emotionally charged visits to his father's home in Africa, have had a deep and impassioned effect on his thinking.

The story of Barack Obama, however, is not just the story of how one man came to be the way he is. It is a much larger story about how millions of Americans came to vote for, and some to idolize, a man whose fundamental beliefs and values are so different from their own.

For every person who sees Obama as somehow foreign there are many others who see him as a mainstream American political figure -- and an inspiring one.

This D'Souza attributes to Barack Obama's great talents in rhetoric, and his ability to project an image that resonates with most Americans, however much that image may differ from, or even flatly contradict, the reality of Obama's own ideological view of the world.

What is that ideological view?

The Third World, or anti-colonial, view is that the rich nations have gotten rich by taking wealth from the poor nations. It is part of a much larger vision, in which the rich in general have gotten rich by taking from the poor, whether in their own country or elsewhere.

Whatever its factual weaknesses, it is an emotionally powerful vision, to which many people have dedicated their lives, and for which some have even risked their lives. Some of these people appear in this documentary movie, as they have appeared throughout the formative phases of Barack Obama's life.

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is just the most visible and vocal of a long line of such people who played crucial roles in Obama's evolution. When Jeremiah Wright thundered about how "white folks' greed runs a world in need," he captured the essence of the Third World or anti-colonial vision.

But many of the other mentors, allies, family and friends of Barack Obama over the years were of the same mindset, as this documentary demonstrates.

More important, the movie "2016" demonstrates how so many of Obama's actions as President of the United States, which D'Souza had predicted on the basis of his study of Obama's background, are perfectly consistent with that ideology, however inconsistent it is with the rhetoric that gained him the highest office in the land.

[Warph]

     

The Quest For A Reason To Re-Elect The President

By Austin Hill
8/26/2012


Have you heard the latest from the Obama re-election team?

Mitt Romney doesn't have enough of his money taken from him in taxes. Paul Ryan wants to give rich people a tax "break." Mitt Romney cut jobs when he was an executive at a private equity firm. Paul Ryan wants to cut school lunches for needy children.

You've probably seen and heard it all before. Romney and Ryan are scary, "extreme," and out of touch, according to Team Obama. The President, Vice President, and all their operatives and surrogates are committed to getting the word out.

But while the President and his friends are adept at making rhetorical attacks on Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, it's an infrequent occurrence when they offer any reasons why the President should be re-elected. So what, really, is the case for an Obama re-election victory? We know why the President dislikes the Romney-Ryan ticket (and Republicans, generally). But why do we need another four years of Barack Obama as our President? "Because Mitt Romney is terrible," seems to be the implied answer.

Try searching for remarks from the President about what he intends to do in a second term, and you won't find much. This is because he hasn't said much on the topic. Most of the President's comments these days are disparaging remarks about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and not about his agenda - although he did note in an Associated Press interview on August 25th that if he is elected to a second term, he believes there are Republicans in the House and Senate who will compromise and work with him to "get things done" for the country.

I did, however, receive a recent email update from the Obama campaign, a portion of which read like this: "President Obama believes the only way to create an economy built to last is to build it from the middle out and not from the top down. His economic plan is to restore middle-class security by paying down our debt in a balanced way that ensures everyone pays their fair share. Yet the President also wants to still invest in things we need to create jobs and grow our economy over the long term, things like education, energy, innovation, and infrastructure."

This little blurb should raise some big questions. First, we should all ask "who is seeking a 'top-down' approach to the economy?" The answer, of course, is the President himself.

Within less than two years of taking office, President Obama successfully put in to place a system of tremendous governmental control over the otherwise private economy. By the middle of 2010, the President had become a de-facto C.E.O. over huge chunks of the economy, with the power to hire and fire executives, establish compensation limits for executive management, and to determine what products and services are produced. Insurance companies, car manufacturers, lending institutions and energy producers – President Obama has successfully forced his will upon them all.

So has all this governmental control created an economy that is "built to last?" We should also ask the Obama campaign emailers "how does the extra $6 trillion in U.S. government debt (roughly the amount of federal debt increase since the President's first day in office) help pay down the debt?" And what about the $813 billion stimulus bill of 2009 – that was supposed to be an "investment" in innovation, infrastructure and education – where did that money go? Wasn't that supposed to be "invested" in important things? And what happened to "shovel ready jobs" – were there any "created?"

A quick check of Democrats.org, the national party's website, also reveals a list of other specific policy ideas that the President allegedly supports, yet he isn't talking about them these days. One such policy has to do with energy independence, as the Democrats claim that "President Obama knows we can't just drill our way to lower gas prices," and that President Obama is focused on "developing all of America's natural resources..."

Of course, the President himself said late last year and earlier this year that he is committed to an "all of the above" approach to energy policy, implying that he's okay with petroleum-based energy, along with the alternative energy development that he's promoted.

This sounded great- but the President isn't saying this anymore. This is probably because an "all of the above" approach to energy, we now know, means "anything except Big Oil" within the Obama worldview – hence the President's veto on the Keystone XL Pipeline project that could have reduced America's reliance on oil from other continents and could have created jobs from the Canadian border all the way down to Texas. The President and his friends would prefer to ignore this here within the last ten weeks of the election cycle, so they simply don't talk about it – better to remind everyone about the scary and terrible Romney and Ryan.

Historically, Americans haven' been content to merely vote against a particular idea or candidate – they generally prefer to vote for someone or something, even if they are choosing the lesser between two "evils." Will President Obama defy the odds this year – or will Americans be more scrutinizing?

[Warph]

         


President Obama famously declared in this year's State of the Union: "I've approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his." Heritage's James Gattuso and Diane Katz have run the numbers. And Obama shouldn't be bragging.

Obama's comparison encompassed all regulations, including federal rules for such things as Medicare rates, migratory birds and fireworks safety. And on that point, he was telling the truth.

This week's chart tests Obama's claim by looking at the number of major regulations imposed by each administration. Major regulations, as defined by the government, are regulations that cost up to $100 million or more each year.

In his first three years of presidency, President George W. Bush imposed 28 major regulations at a cost of $8.1 billion. Obama imposed 106 major regulations at a cost of $46 billion.

"This is almost four times the number—and more than five times the cost—of the major regulations issued by George W. Bush during his first three years," according to the report.

Gattuso and Katz's report, Red Tape Rising, documents how the Obama administration has greatly increased government regulations.

A few notable findings from the report:

•A majority of the major regulations came as a consequence of the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law, Obamacare and the EPA's global warming crusade.

•The report used information given by the agencies that have no incentive to report accurately, so the costs estimated are understated, giving agencies the benefit of the doubt.

•More regulations are looming. Obamacare is imposing rules faster than the regulators can write them.

In order to help the economy and put a stop to regulations, Katz and Gattuso suggest three prongs of strong oversight: approval of new major regulations by Congress, a congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis, and sunset dates for existing regulations.

Katz spoke about the report at The Bloggers Briefing, which is available on Livestream and BlogTalkRadio.

[Warph]

     

The New Breed of Republican: Artur Davis

By Bruce Bialosky
8/27/2012

Note: Mr. Davis will be speaking tonight at the Republican National Convention. Don't miss him.


One would instinctively conclude that it is a tremendous act of courage to have been a leading Black supporter of President Obama – in fact, the first Congressman outside of Illinois to endorse Obama for president – and then change parties to become a Republican. But if you ask Artur Davis, he'd tell you that it was completely natural and the right thing to do.

Artur Davis had every appearance of being a standard-issue Black politician. He was good enough to get into Harvard as an undergraduate, and then matriculate to Harvard Law School. He then interned at the Southern Poverty Law Center and started working for the government as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. He first ran for Congress in 2000 as a Democrat because, as he says, "everyone he knew was a Democrat and that was how he was brought up." He was elected to Congress in 2002, served four terms, and then lost in the primary for the Democratic nomination for Governor of Alabama.

But despite this electoral history, there were telltale signs that Mr. Davis was different. He voted against ObamaCare. He told me he thought the plan was "too unpredictable, too expensive, and not actually going to help people in the manner it was intended." He came out in favor of voter ID, which is loathed by most Black officials, adding that 60% of Black voters support common-sense voter ID laws, and that they have been in place for years in Alabama with no negative effects. Davis has little patience for those who accuse opponents of Obama's policies of racism. He believes that in a democracy, it is the obligation of the opposition to clearly and cogently voice their concerns with the policies of the party in power. To call that racism because the office holder is Black degrades the political process.

In fact, Davis was a different kind of politician from the beginning. He had no political mentor and therefore was not obligated to any single individual, special interest, or philosophy. He threw himself into his Congressional job, which is where he began to experience reality, and what he saw first-hand was the misguided system that our federal government has become. In his words, "We were throwing money at problems whether the program was working or not." He saw clearly the bloat, the waste, and, above all, the endless pandering to interest groups.

How does someone who went as far as he did make the change he made? When one speaks to Mr. Davis, it becomes quite clear that he is a very thoughtful and principled man. He decided that he was elected as a Democrat and should remain in the party while in office. But once outside of the political arena, he had a chance to step back, engage in some serious reflection, and analyze where he stood. What he discovered was that the party he had joined was not what he had thought. Davis found the Democrats to be a party that has become "narrower and narrower," and he characterized it as a "monolithic party."

After a period of reflection, Davis became a Republican. Because prominent Black officials such as Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have been called Uncle Toms just for being Republicans, one might think Davis to be unusually courageous. He dismisses such compliments, maintaining that what he did was just common sense.

Davis told me that he hasn't suffered retribution from Democrats and has been warmly welcomed and strongly supported by Republicans. More importantly, his perspective of how he is viewed reflects his experience. He feels that as a Democrat, he was treated as part of a group – Black Americans – but as a Republican, he is perceived as an individual and treated as a person.

Would Davis's change of party matter as much if he were not Black? No. But it has more meaning than the fact that he was an early endorser of Obama and has turned his back on the President's party. He offers two things to the Republicans: first, an individual that minority groups perceive as one of their own who can eloquently argue the principles of the party. Second, Davis very effectively makes a case that Republicans can win the Black vote by promoting initiatives to change their lives through reform-oriented, free-market Republican policies. As an example, he cites Governor Bobby Jindal's efforts to reform schools in Louisiana: 75% of those affected are Blacks. Republicans have a lot of room to appeal to Blacks and Davis can help guide them there.

Usually when a politician changes parties it is a craven political move. It often happens after their party has lost the majority, while in a reelection mode or when they're promised plum committee assignments. Artur Davis changed parties for all the right reasons, and Republicans should embrace him warmly and give serious thought to his ideas about appealing to Black voters.

It appears that Americans will be hearing much more from this very capable man.

[Warph]

Former Costco CEO and cofounder Jim Sinegal


Democratic War on Women Continues

Speaker at DNC target of class action gender discrimination lawsuit

BY: Andrew Stiles
August 24, 2012 2:31 pm


The Democratic Party plans to highlight the alleged Republican "war on women" at its convention in Charlotte next month, an effort that could be undermined by the selection of former Costco CEO and cofounder Jim Sinegal to address the convention.

During his tenure at the retail supply firm, Sinegal faced allegations of widespread gender discrimination at the company, which was the target of a 2006 class-action lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in the case alleged that Costco frequently promoted less-qualified male employees to the detriment of female employees, and failed to give sufficient notice of advancement opportunities.

Court filings charge that Costco practices allowed for "favoritism and individual biases" in the awarding of promotions. The company disregarded complaints of such discrimination, and Sinegal personally opposed recommendations to provide advanced notice of senior management opportunities, the suit alleged.

"I have always felt very, very strongly and very adamantly, that those were not the types of jobs that should be up for posting," he said in a 2006 testimony.

Costco's lead attorney said Seligman personally signed off on all promotions to management positions.

The lawsuit noted that although women made up about half of Costco's 78,000 employees, less than 20 percent of senior managers were female, well below the established benchmark of 34.1 percent for other retail companies.

Sinegal attempted to explain the gender discrepancy in an April 2006 deposition, saying it was because female workers preferred to work fewer hours due to family responsibilities.

"Our experience is that the women have a tendency to be the caretakers and have the responsibility for the children and for the family," he said.

Sinegal dismissed the allegations in a 2009 interview, saying: "You can always find someone who is dissatisfied with the way you've done something and is going to bring a lawsuit."

The case, which involves about 800 female Costco employees who were denied promotions to general manager or assistant manager, had been on hold for years but began to move forward in June 2011 following a Supreme Court ruling in a similar case involving Walmart.

Sinegal, who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates and committees since 2007, hosted President Obama at a fundraiser last month. The president praised Sinegal and Costco at the event, saying he "couldn't ask for somebody I admire more to introduce me than Jim Sinegal."

"The story of Costco and everything you guys have done I think is representative of what America is all about," the president said.

Sinegal is not alone in being criticized for discriminating against female employees.

The White House, the Obama campaign, prominent Democratic Senators, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), and the Democratic National Committee all consistently pay women less than men, several Washington Free Beacon analyses have found.