Demagoguery

During the past week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this:  “Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.”  And President Barack Obama wrote that without a so-called stimulus bill, the current recession will become so severe that “we may not be able to reverse” it.

 

All of which brings to mind the famous quote by H.L. Mencken many years ago:  “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

 

Pelosi’s claim is so asinine that it should incite laughter among anyone who has even a casual acquaintance with facts. Since the entire population of the United States is only 300 million – a number that includes children, retirees, stay-at-home parents, prisoners, disabled, etc. – there is no arithmetic in the universe that could make it possible for 500 million to lose their jobs at all, much less every month.

 

And Obama’s claim is absurd.  Historically, recessions last from 5 to 11 months during which the private economy adjusts to whatever caused the recession, and those adjustments then lead to periods of economic growth which last 4 to 6 years and cause the country to be more prosperous than before the recession.  And it's worth noting that America’s economy has been stronger than the world’s others even when it is going through a recession.

 

Only one time in our history has a recession lasted for years, and it just so happens that time was the only one in which our government responded the way Obama wants it to respond now.  When FDR took office the economy had been ailing for about a year, and he proceeded to usher in unprecedented government involvement in the economy.  The recession then grew into the Great Depression, which was still going on 8 years later.  The unemployment rate during that period was three times what it is today.

 

Conversely, history provides many examples of tax cuts enacted during recessions helping to spur recovery by leaving more money in people’s pockets, and thus available to be used naturally in the economy.  This happened under Kennedy, Reagan, and George W. Bush (Democrats like to ignore the fact that through most of Bush's tenure the economy was much stronger through when he was elected...only to be undone in the end by liberal policies like government mandates in the credit industry, plus Bush's liberal tendency to spend wildly on dubious social programs).

 

Yet, during the past week Obama had the audacity to write this about tax cuts:  “I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change.”  It is his right to reject the philosophy of tax cuts if he chooses, even if the facts show that choice to be foolish.  But when you consider that one of the main reasons he won the election was that he kept proclaiming he would cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, what are you to make of his current statement that “the American people” reject tax cuts?  Of the many conclusions you might draw, none of them say anything good about the self-flattering egotist who occupies the Oval Office.

 

One week before being elected, Obama said that a vote for him was a vote “to choose hope over fear.”  On the day he was sworn in, he said that by electing him the nation had “chosen hope over fear.”  Yet his recent comments (and those of his ally Pelosi) are fear-mongering at its worst, and the mongering is being done to gin up angst amongst the people so the people will pressure Congress to rush through a disastrous bill without scrutinizing it first.  The bill is disastrous because it will greatly increase government’s control over private initiative.  It does much to hurt the economy in the long-term, and nothing to help it in either the short- or long-term.

 

Obama is a Marxist who cares about power and doesn’t give a damn about average citizens, other than figuring out how he can manipulate them into yielding power to him.  I have said it before and I will not stop saying it, because there is a wealth of evidence that supports that statement and none that contradicts it.

Get Ready for Invective

I have followed politics most of my life, and even though I’ve always leaned right, in my younger years I did experience flirtations with a few parts of the left’s creed.  So I am more than comfortable saying my observations are unbiased, and based on my observations I am certain of this:  Many liberals actually hate – rather than simply disagree with – people whose opinions are different than theirs. 

And now that Obama’s election has given them reason to believe their views are shared by the general public, we can expect those liberals to become even more spiteful in the way they comport themselves.  During last Tuesday’s inauguration, America got a glimpse of their temperament when the president and first lady got out of their limousine.  As they started walking down the street, some of the cheering spectators raised a large sign that said “Arrest Bush.”

 

Mark this down as a guarantee:  In no event celebrating a conservative victory would conservatives agitate for, or even fantasize about, the imprisonment of their intellectual opponents – because conservatives don’t do that in the first place.  Furthermore, in every event celebrating a conservative victory, conservatives would respect the event’s dignity and behave with grace. 

 

Liberals, on the other hand, respond to their intellectual opponents by comparing them to Hitler, calling them stupid and uneducated, and accusing them of being racists and misogynists and homophobes.  Some of them openly express regret that their opponents’ mothers opted for birth over abortion (I’ve heard this thought voiced about George W. Bush several times, but one specific incident is recounted in this column by Kathryn Jean Lopez).

In the coming years, people on the left will be spitting venom like cobras.  Contrary to what they say about themselves, they have no interest in debating issues or compromising with anyone.  Their sole intent is to destroy their opponents, and to achieve that goal, their first tactic will be to try to cow them into silence.  If that fails, they will not hesitate to ignore the law and deny opponents their Constitutional rights.  Make no mistake:  In the minds of liberals, freedom of speech applies only to themselves.

Culture of Deceit

As long as I can remember, liberals have used slander as a weapon to protect themselves from debate. Rather than explain their ideas, they lie about their opponents, hurling hysterical falsehoods all over the place with such machine-gun rapidity that the opponents are forced to either: 1) rebut the lies, which are so numerous there would be no time left to explain their own ideas; or 2) ignore the lies and explain their ideas, at the risk of having people think the lies are true because they didn’t bother to defend themselves; or 3) as Ann Coulter said, “end up conceding to half the lies simply to focus on the lies of Holocaust-denial proportions.”

In such a deceitful environment it’s hard to believe that one person could stand out as the most deceitful, but with each passing day it’s becoming clear that Barack Obama might be just that person. I’ll be writing about his dishonesty starting tomorrow, but instead of dealing with every issue he lies about in one post I’ll deal with them in a series of installments tackling one at a time. That way I won't have one enormous post that's so long nobody would want to take time to read it. And because I do have a life to live and other interests to pursue, I’m sure I will post about other issues in between some of the installments.

Feminism: The Great Fraud

If Sarah Palin was a liberal, feminists would be praising her for showing how a woman can raise a family and run a government at the same time. But she is a conservative, so instead they are attacking her – and for the first time in history, feminists are voicing questions about whether a woman can be there for her kids while having a career.

The reaction to Palin’s nomination demonstrates how dishonest – and dishonorable – the feminist movement has become. But through the years we’ve already had many examples of the movement’s dark side. Consider:

Feminists always say that conservatives don’t like strong women, even though they know very well that every conservative you can think of admires strong women such as Margaret Thatcher, Phyllis Schlafly, and Peggy Noonan.

Feminists rattle on and on about “choice” but never utter the word “abortion,” even though that’s what they’re talking about. They oppose efforts that would require doctors to provide information about alternative options to women who are considering abortion. And far worse, they oppose efforts that would require doctors to educate women about this crucial fact: That later in life, when thoughts turn to what their aborted children might have been like, women who have had abortions experience much higher rates of depression and suicide than women who have not. Can you imagine an interest group being against making sure that patients are properly educated when considering any other surgical procedure?

If feminists actually cared about women's well-being, they would want women to be fully informed before making a choice. And if their only concern about abortion was that women be allowed to choose it whenever they want and for whatever reason they want, there would be no reason to oppose attempts to make sure women are fully informed about it.

However, this is the same feminist movement that shrieks whenever some low-level Republican is accused of infidelity...but which has spent years remaining silent about Bill Clinton's philandering, and which continues to remain silent about the very credible allegation that he raped Juanita Broaddrick.

Fortunately, there are some self-described feminists who actually place women’s interests ahead of their party affiliation, and if you’re interested in what they have to say, go here. But unfortunately, most feminists are nothing more than socialist misanthropes in drag: They care about left wing politics and nothing else.

Palin's Power

Margaret Thatcher once said: “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding, because I think, well, if they attack me personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

Sarah Palin should take heart in those words, and the rest of us should remember how true they are, for the liberals' response to her vice presidential nomination has been one personal attack after another.

What we saw in Palin’s speech last night was true conservatism that was unapologetic, unashamed and unafraid. She hit the nail on the head when it came to every major topic: national defense, energy production, taxes, government waste, the sanctity of life, etc. Her jabs at Obama (such as likening her former job of mayor to Obama’s former job of community organizer, "except that you have actual responsibilities") were not only accurate, but delivered with humor and good cheer and not even a hint of bitterness.

For years conservatives have been growing disenchanted with the GOP because of the way its officeholders have gone native after arriving in D.C.: the way those officeholders have lurched leftward, behaved like Democrats, sucked up to hostile media, and failed to stand up for the conservative ideals they espoused while running for office. That is the reason the GOP lost control of Congress and that is the reason Bush’s approval ratings are low – not because Republicans became too conservative, but because Republicans stopped being conservative. Liberal pundits and pols know this, which is why they are frightened of Sarah Palin, which is why they are attacking her.

Palin's speech last night was something we have not seen since the days of Reagan. Conservatives know we have a voice in the party again, and looking at the party's recently drafted platform, we know that voice is strong despite the problems we've had with McCain over the years. With Palin now at center stage in the country’s political discourse, and with her becoming conservatism’s standard-bearer, the future of conservatism is bright regardless of what happens in November.

Why Emulate Them?

Have you noticed how Barack Obama acts like a European and seems to wish he was one? Of course he was treated like a rock star over there, seeing as how he’s more European than American on every meaningful measure you can think of. And it’s no wonder the MSM worships him, since it’s filled with likeminded elitists who think of Europe as sophisticated and idealistic while thinking of America as backward and oppressive.

Unfortunately for their worldview, however, it was F. Scott Fitzgerald who had it right when he described that continent as “rich in the culture and arts, barren of all ideas.” Italian cuisine is delicious, French prose is mellifluous, and the onion-domed architecture of Russian cathedrals is strangely beautiful, but the reality of European life is not something we would ever want to duplicate. The vast majority of the continent is plagued by high unemployment, chronically stalled economies, and fertility rates so low it has become questionable whether many European societies will be able to sustain themselves.

Here in America, the standard of living is higher and the cost of living lower. And an overwhelming majority of Americans move up through the income percentiles during their lifetimes, whereas in Europe a much higher percentage spend their whole lives in the same economic class to which they were born. Consider that most people in the top fifth of U.S. earners started in the bottom fifth, and few who start in the bottom fifth remain there.

Plus, perhaps most striking, free speech is an alien concept on most European soil. After French actress Bridgette Bardot criticized this ritualistic slaughter of sheep by Muslim immigrants, she was prosecuted for “inciting racial hatred.” After British blogger Lionheart criticized Al Quadea’s growing influence in his country, he was arrested for “stirring up racial hatred.”

The United States is great precisely because it is not like Europe. Combine all the nations of Europe together and they still have not done nearly as much for human progress and individual freedom as the U.S. Yet virtually the entire MSM, and their wunderkind candidate Obama, and most disturbingly, millions of well-intentioned but ill-educated people who call themselves “liberal” because they’ve bought the lie that it’s a synonym for “good,” think we should abandon our path and follow Europe’s. I say: Why?

Culture and Liberalism are NOT Synonyms

I have always thought it interesting – and frustrating – how liberals never separate culture from politics, as if only they can have any taste for music, or dark beer, or Southwestern pottery, or tie dye shirts, etc.

Politics and culture do have the ability to influence one another, but they are not the same thing and, in a free society, should be mingled rarely if ever. Jay Nordlinger included this tidbit about the subject in his recent “Impromptus” column for National Review:

You know how liberals assume you’re liberal because of what you do, or the way you are or something — like if you read, bathe, or don’t have horns and a tail? A reader of mine recently visited his cousin in Oregon. The cousin is an artist and psychologist. And he lives in a neighborhood filled with Obama signs. My reader asked how he was holding up. And the cousin answered, “Well, they assume I’m a socialist too because I paint, I suppose. So I just let them.”

Perfect. I couldn’t have said it better, at least in so few words.

And They Call Conservatives Intolerant?

It’s been one week since Tony Snow passed away at the age of 53, leaving behind his wife and three children. He died of colon cancer, the same disease that took his mother from him when he was 17. Here is a sampling of the comments left by liberals on the Los Angeles Times “Top of the Ticket” blog:

I wonder how he likes hell (tedson)

I only wish his suffering were more prolonged (Efrain Rojas)

The question begs to be asked, is it possible to die when you don’t have a soul (Chad)

I hope he suffered at the end. (Melanie Samson)

Goodbye Snowjob – I will not miss you at all (RB)

the world is now a slightly better place (gundumma)

GOOD RIDDANCE CANCER WAS TOO GOOD FOR HIM HOPE IT WAS PAINFUL. NOW FOR THE REST OF THIS SCUMMY ADMINISTRATION. COME ON CANCER, DO YOUR GOOD WORK……………… (perry)

And a commentator named Alan posted this remark on that blog:

All you right wingers would be saying much worse things if the same had happened to Ted Kennedy or Obama - you are nothing but trash and liars just like Snow job was. good riddance to bad rubbish

Considering Alan’s pronouncement, it only makes sense to check out what conservatives actually did say when Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a brain tumor in May. So I checked out freerepublic.com, and these were the only comments left on it that might be considered anything other than kind:

Bummer. I hope he repents (airborne)

I wonder how long he will be kept on life support to keep his Senate seat in dem hands. (greyfoxx39)

Maybe Teddy will now have second thoughts about all the wrongheaded positions he’s taken throughout his life, chiefly, his rabid pro-abortion stand. There’s something fundamentally wrong with someone who cheers on the murder of unborn children. (reagan_fanatic)

Hmmm…according to the MSM, conservatives are bitter and intolerant while liberals are open-minded and want the best for everyone. But my experiences have always shown the opposite to be true (with a few exceptions, of course) and these comments match my experiences. The possibly negative quotes from conservatives are far fewer than the actually negative ones from liberals, many of which I left out to save space. Just as important, the quotes from conservatives are benign by comparison. The liberal remarks are not merely “negative,” they are venomous and hateful, and compared to them it’s not even clear whether each of the three conservative remarks is really negative, or just poorly worded.

I want to be very clear: The liberal comments I quoted do not reflect the majority from the LA Times blog. Many of the comments were sympathetic and humane, yet the cruel ones accounted for almost two of every five and it’s worth noting that the blog states: “Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.” (emphasis mine) So, the multitude of cruel remarks was deemed appropriate by whoever moderates that blog, which is located on the web site of one of the nation’s largest and most liberal newspapers.

Though I suspect that comments on freerepublic.com are also moderated or subject to approval, I could not find any place that says so. If in fact they are moderated, some conservatives may have tried to post inappropriate remarks; but if that happened, they were weeded out by other conservatives in the interest of taste and decency. Which is consistent with something else I’ve long thought to be obvious: that conservatives as a group hold themselves to standards, while liberals as a group do not.

This instance is one more example of why, if I was a liberal, I’d be embarrassed to admit it.