Burt Prelutsky Nails It

Image via Wikipedia

On Monday, Burt Prelutsky posted a great piece over at his blog. Few people can break down an issue as well as he does. If you have never visited his site, I encourage you to do so (he has a convenient link over on the right). Here is the piece from Monday:

Dick Morris and Other Questionable Characters

by BurtPrelutsky

It’s bad enough having those well-spoken, snazzy-dressed, spokesmen for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), getting all huffy over opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque, but what makes them particularly unbearable is the silence they maintain over the way their brethren burn churches, bibles and Christians, in the Middle East. In a way, it reminds me of the way that Barack Obama chastises Republicans for being uncivil, but never utters a word when his various stooges refer to Republicans as hostage-taking terrorists and when Rep. Andre Carson calls the Tea Party a lynch mob.

I know that Dick Morris is treated very respectfully by the hosts at Fox, but I can’t figure out why. For one thing, this is the same yutz who helped Bill Clinton win elections for about 20 years. Just when did he experience an epiphany and come over from the dark side?

His political morals, or lack of same, aside, he’s a joke as a prognosticator. Months before last November’s elections, he told Bill O’Reilly that Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman would be slam-dunk winners in their elections against Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown. I recall sitting in front of my TV set here in California and trying to figure out how to reach him so I could bet my life savings.

Naturally, when months later both Fiorina and Whitman bit the dust, Morris didn’t explain how he had so badly misread the tea leaves, and O’Reilly, who has the attention span of a gnat when it comes to anything unrelated to himself and his ratings, never brought it up.

Morris reminds me of a spit-curled Hollywood character who used to be a mainstay in the early days of TV. He called himself Criswell. His shtick was to stare into the camera lens and make goofy predictions, which often involved Martian invasions and the end of planet Earth. But unlike Morris, nobody pretended to take him seriously, except for Mae West, who was a bit of a goofball herself.

One of the more interesting conflicts that has recently developed pits animal activists against environmentalists. It seems that windmills kill thousands of birds every month. But you never hear the greenies, the very same knuckleheads who are always sobbing crocodile tears over an oil pipeline in ANWR possibly separating members of a caribou family, carrying on about the ongoing carnage. The fact is that the windmills have even slaughtered golden eagles and nobody has been held accountable. However, if a hunter shot one, he’d be fined and he’d get jail time. Perhaps would-be murderers should take heed. Don’t use a gun, a knife or a hammer; just use a windmill.

Rick Perry got a lot of static for suggesting that Ben Bernanke was guilty of treason. Even I wouldn’t go that far. Still, I did find myself trying to figure out the difference between being the chairman of the Federal Reserve and a garden-variety counterfeiter. The best I could come up with is that each man prints basically worthless money, and both men get to serve lengthy terms, but only one of them serves his in prison.

Finally, I find it amusing that the Democrats automatically think Republicans -- especially those who seek or win the presidency – are morons. It’s not a recent development, either. Although Palin, Bachmann and Perry, are all being dismissed by the DNC and the MSM as blithering idiots, as was George W. Bush, it goes back at least as far as 1952. Back then, it was Dwight D. Eisenhower, a graduate of West Point and a five-star general who commanded the D-Day invasion who was ridiculed as a simpleton. His opponent, Adlai Stevenson, had been a one-term governor of Illinois, thanks to the machinations of Jake Arvey’s old fashioned political machine. Further proof of Stevenson’s superior character and intellect is that he went before HUAC and testified to the loyalty and patriotism of Alger Hiss, the pride of FDR’s State Department, later proven to have been a Soviet spy. Predictably, Stevenson, was served up as a combination of Albert Einstein, Mark Twain and Thomas Jefferson, when, in fact, he had all the decisiveness of Hamlet, the warmth of a frozen turkey and the moxie of Franklin Pangborn.

Actually, I’ve found that once you get past the propaganda spouted by the left-wing media, the only difference between a really dumb liberal and a well-educated one comes down to the number of syllables in their drivel.

Related articles

• Dick Morris: Bachmann and Palin are an Existential Threat to the Democratic Party (crooksandliars.com)

Eat the Rich or Dare Congressional Republicans Not To

Image via Wikipedia

By W. James Antle, III on 9.20.11 @ 6:09AM over at American Spectator

President Obama unveiled deficit-reduction proposals in February, in response to his party's electoral shellacking, and in April, in response to being shown up by Paul Ryan. Perhaps his latest grand budget bargain should be called "Deficit Reduction Part Three: This Time I'm Serious."

Except he isn't. The spending cuts seem mostly to be the work of Medicare's Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), an unproven entity soon to bring its magical rationing powers and King Solomon-like decision-making to health care near you. But the tax increases are easily identifiable enough.

The Bush tax cuts, extended by Obama late last year, go bye-bye for upper-income taxpayers. Those earning more than $250,000 a year will see their taxes go up further still as various loopholes are closed and tax breaks are phased out. (This won't be tax simplification, however, since this package has been cooked up partly to offset proposed new credits cluttering the tax code for people who earn an Obama-approved amount of money and do what he says.)

Throw in the "Buffett Rule," which is effectively another alternative minimum tax designed to ensure that millionaires pay their fair share. It is ostensibly named after Warren Buffett, but Jimmy Buffett may be more appropriate. When it eventually grows to ensnare middle-class taxpayers -- as did the original alternative minimum tax, also billed as targeting the super-rich -- Americans will sing, "It's a real beauty… How it got here, I haven't a clue."

All told, we are talking about $1.6 trillion in tax increases to fund not just deficit reduction, but also tax cuts and spending increases for others. That's because tax cuts create jobs, except tax cuts for people and businesses that earn enough money to hire people. This is apparently another new Buffett Rule, so fix yourself another plate.

Proposing tax increases of this magnitude at a time of 9 percent unemployment can only mean one of two things: either a new era of economic theory is upon us or the administration wants to dare Republicans to vote against a millionaires' tax being levied to pay for jobs for the rest of us.

If revenue were the real issue, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for everyone would theoretically raise far more. Doubling taxes on millionaires, for instance, may only yield $19 billion in additional revenues. But that would also be politically and economically self-defeating. So it is better to be only economically self-defeating.

It's not clear that this will even raise the anticipated revenues. As the Cato Institute's Daniel J. Mitchell points out, the rich have far greater control of the timing and composition of their income than the rest of us do. IRS data show that people with an adjusted gross income of at least $1 million rely on salary and wages for just 33 percent of their income. People making more than $10 million get only 19 percent of their income from salary and wages.

It stands to reason that many of these millionaires will find perfectly legal ways not to pay these taxes. And when they don't, the administration can continue clamoring for the closing of more loopholes and chase after the capital from which the rich do earn most of their income. But capital is important for job and wage growth for the non-rich.

Will this work politically? It's hard to say. When Bill Clinton pretended to raise taxes only on the "top 1 percent" while advertising his expansion of the earned income tax credit as a tax cut for millions of others, few people believed him. The tax hike was a big reason Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994. But Clinton was re-elected two years later and the subsequent Internet boom is often used to vindicate tax increases as sound fiscal policy. (He ultimately signed some broad-based Republican tax cuts into law.)

Higher taxes for the wealthy poll well. That is why Obama frequently emphasized it as part of his "balanced" resolution for the debt ceiling debate and why he is proposing such taxes now. But presidential proposals containing such tax increases have not always polled well themselves.

The cathartic value of higher taxes on the rich is also limited when the economy remains in a shambles afterward. This was one of the lessons of George H.W. Bush's 1990 budget agreement. That's why this gambit may work best for the president if the Republicans thwart him and he is allowed to do his Huey Long impression without any real-world evidence to contradict his politics.

Some people claim that there's a Republican to blame. But according to the Buffett Rule, we know who's damn fault it is.

Bush Lied????

Image via Wikipedia

Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Above written by John Hawkins and published at Right Wing News.

Related articles

• 20/20 Hindsight Aids American Armchair Politicians (patriotwarrior.org)
• Russia moved Saddam's WMD (keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com)

Liberal Beliefs

This is a list of things that liberals seem to hold in their belief system. Read them slowly to prevent brain explosion:

1) They believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

2) They are against capital punishment but for abortion on demand.

3) When it comes to abortion, a woman has the right to choose because it is her body, but when it comes to fast food, the govt needs to step in because you can't be trusted to make such an important decision when it comes to your body.

4) The same public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

5) Trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.

6) Guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians.

7) Global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

8) Gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.

9) Businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

10) Self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11) There was no art before federal funding.

12) The free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

13) The NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

14) Taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

15) Cesar Chavez is more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson.

16) Standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

17) Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

18) Conservatives are racists but that black people couldn't make it without government help.

19) The only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

Great Smackdown.

Obama Gets Spanked

Image via Wikipedia

Jay Tea wrote the following piece that was posted over at Wizbang.


In the recent dust-up concerning President Obama’s planned address to Congress next week, two things show through clearly:

A) Obama is an arrogant prick.

B) Obama is way, way, way out of his depth.

Let’s look at how it all played out. Obama left for vacation, announcing that he would return with his jobs plan. Not to be confused with the jobs plan he said he’d have last year, but a brand-new one. On his return, he decided that the only way that would do his brilliance justice was before a joint session of Congress.

This let Obama do what he thinks he does best: give a big speech. In that speech, Obama would present himself as the mature, responsible adult lecturing the kiddies and magically entice them, through the sheer power of his oratorical brilliance, sway them to buy into what he was selling.

The timing of the speech was also classic Obama. He chose the night of the Republican Presidential Debate at the Reagan Library, scheduled months in advance. This would serve several purpose. It would draw public attention from those vying to be his rival next year. It would put three of the candidates — Representatives Bachmann, McCotter, and Paul — in the position of fulfilling their duties as Representatives or participating in the debate. And it would give the impression that Obama is the master of the federal government, including Congress.

Well, Congress itself believes differently. It believes that it is a co-equal branch of the federal government, and the president is only welcome there by invitation. And they have the Constitution and a couple hundred years of tradition on their side. They — especially the House, headed up by Republicans and whose chamber would be used for the address — saw right through the transparent ploy.

And here is where I have to give Speaker Boehner his due. The man showed remarkable political acumen. Instead of telling Obama to go pound sand (preferably on a golf course), he replied in a way that could not possibly be construed as political gamesmanship: “Wednesday’s bad for us. We’ll just be coming back from Labor Day, and there won’t be time for our required business and the mandatory security sweep of the building that the Secret Service insists upon. How about Thursday night?”

In one swell foop, Boehner utterly shredded Obama’s ploy. No longer would Obama be pre-empting the long-scheduled debate. By citing logistics, he avoided looking like it was a crass political response to a crass political move. That also avoided the issue of the speech simply time-shifting around the debate, preventing Obama’s speechifying either dominating the debate or him using it to quickly rebut anything that might have come up in it. Finally, it put Obama’s speech up against not the Republican debate, but the kickoff of the NFL season.

This incident perfectly encapsulates three aspects of Obama’s character:

1) He is always in perpetual campaign mode. There is absolutely no reason for him to present his program in a joint address, except for the visuals: it makes him look (in his eyes) presidential, giving his speech to the poor, benighted Congress (which he wasted no time in bashing immediately after gaining their consent for the address) who so need his wisdom and maturity.

2) All of Obama’s problems can be solved with him giving a speech. He seems to think — like a lot of liberals — that he can magically win over his opponents if he just finds the right combination of magic words. That if he just explains things right, he’ll overcome all resistance. He is constitutionally incapable of acknowledging that his adversaries just might be as smart (or smarter) than he is, that they might have actual principles, and those principles — not ignorance — just might be the cause of their opposition.

3) Obama, whenever possible, will resort to the classic “dick move.” For example, remember the White House Correspondents’ Dinner this year? Traditionally, it’s a chance for the press corps to take shots at the president, and the president gets to cut loose a little and show hey, he’s human, too. This year, though, Donald Trump was attending. So instead of Obama being the main target, Trump was — even by Obama. And unlike in the past, where the president gets to get in the last word, Trump was denied the chance to say or do anything but sit there and take all the shots, and smile all through it. Classic Dick Move.

When Obama was giving a speech on the debt ceiling issue, he invited several key members of Congress to attend — including Congressman Paul Ryan. He even made sure Ryan was sitting front and center, probably expecting a gesture of bipartisanship. Instead, Obama singled out Ryan’s plan for scorn and derision, while Ryan had to sit there and pretend it was just fine with him. Classic Dick Move.

When President Obama gave his 2010 State of the Union Address, he chose to single out the Supreme Court for some very pointed criticism — and, in the process, deliberately misstated the facts of the case in question. (The man is a former Constitutional Law lecturer, and allegedly a highly intelligent Constitutional scholar. Don’t tell me he got the facts of Citizens United wrong by accident.) The Supreme Court is there to show solidarity with their other branches, and their respect for their co-equals — not to get crapped on. Justice Alito, stunned at this breach of protocol, was caught muttering “that’s not true,” and was promptly deluged with criticism for stating a truth. Note that most of the justices chose to skip this year’s address. Classic Dick Move.

When Obama was giving a speech in Holland, Michigan, his staff made a point of inviting Congressman Pete Hoekstra to the event. This is also traditional; even though Hoekstra is a Republican, it’s a courtesy when visiting a district to have the Representative there, and to say something nice about them. Instead, Obama’s staff put him in the front row so he could enjoy Obama slamming him in his speech. Classic Dick Move.

With all that in mind, is it any wonder that President George W. Bush — who has quietly withstood being Obama’s scapegoat for everything and anything — politely declined Obama’s invitation to attend the Ground Zero ceremony observing the 10th anniversary of 9/11? Just imagine what Obama would say at that occasion, knowing that Bush wouldn’t be free to react in the least?

Here are the rules to remember when dealing with President Obama:

1) He is always in campaign mode.

2) He always thinks he’s the smartest man in the room.

3) He is always in political mode.

4) He will almost always go for the Classic Dick Move.

5) His idea of “bipartisanship” is “shut up and agree with me, you ignorant jerks.”

Boehner’s move is already being assailed on the left as “blatantly political” and “petty” and “arrogant” and talking about how he got Obama to back down. What is not being said — but should be noted — that Boehner countered a blatantly policital move in a way that defused the tension and showed who was the mature, intelligent adult in this confrontation.

Now, if Boehner really wanted to hit back at Obama in a way that would show just who the Master of the House is (hint: Boehner is the Speaker of the House), he’d arrange for some “technical difficulties” for Obama’s Teleprompter next Thursday night.

Related articles

• Can Obama Get Off the Mat? (jeffwinbush.com)
• Speaker Boehner Tells Obama To 'Eff Off' Over Jobs Speech Date (pinkbananaworld.com)

Larry Elder Explains the Welfare State

Image via Wikipedia

Larry Elder penned this excellent piece that was posted over at Town Hall.

The Welfare State: Too Many Takers -- Not Enough Givers

The Irish cabdriver complained almost nonstop during our half-hour drive to the Belfast International Airport. He especially worried about the job prospects for his 20-something son and, for that matter, about those for the generation of young people who face a "sh-tty" future on this beautiful island full of friendly people.

"Give me," I finally said, "the No. 1 reason for the economic problems here."

He looked almost stunned.

"Huh..." he said, "let me think."

We drove silently for nearly a half-mile. Then he turned to me and said, "Too many takers -- not enough givers."

Little by little, inch by inch, drop by drop, governments both in America and in Europe began taking more and more from people, diminishing the incentive of those on both sides of the transaction -- the taker and the giver. In America, nearly half of wage earners pay not one single dime in federal income taxes. Many of them trudge down to the local polling place or vote via absentee ballot -- and vote themselves a raise.

The Founding Fathers conceived a brilliant document to restrain the federal government and allow maximum freedom for the people to make their own way. It leaves people the power to make their own decisions and to deal with the consequences. Almost before the ink dried, Congress tried to circumvent the Constitution.

James Madison, the fourth U.S. president and the "Father of the Constitution," warned against using the document -- especially the "general welfare" clause -- to dispense money, no matter how well-intended or deserved: "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

When Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist French refugees in 1792, an appalled Madison wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

"Too many takers -- not enough givers."

Hollywood left-wingers understand the corrosive effect of burdensome government on their own industry. Those working in Hollywood long complained about "runaway" productions, where other states and countries lured television and movie productions away from California by offering tax incentives and less restrictive union rules.

What did Hollywood do about this?

The industry lobbied state and city lawmakers to lower the tax and regulatory burden on production companies in order to keep the work local. It worked. Still the left screams at "Big Oil" for taking advantage of legal tax breaks -- offered to other companies -- to reduce their tax burden, just as Hollywood producers try to do.

Meanwhile, an MSNBC pundit talks about the damage inflicted on the East Coast by Hurricane Irene. This shows, he said, the vital and unique role played by the federal government in disaster relief. He criticized some Republicans for wanting Irene disaster relief offset by spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. But aside from Republican-libertarian presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul and his senator son, has anyone asked under what congressional authority does Congress take money from its citizens to pay for state "disaster relief"?

Obama, after a two-year spending and regulatory binge, has learned nothing about Economics 101. He recently nominated left-wing economist Alan Krueger as chairman of his Council of Economic Advisers. President Clinton, among others, relied on Krueger's widely cited minimum-wage study to push for a higher minimum wage. Economists disagree about a lot of things, but there is a mighty strong consensus among them on this: Forcing employers to pay higher entry-level wages means fewer people will be hired.

Economist Milton Friedman called minimum-wage regulations among the "most anti-black" laws on the books. Why? A disproportionate number of blacks are unskilled and, therefore, are disproportionately harmed when laws force employers to pay more than the market value of labor. In fact, before federal minimum-wage laws began in the 1930s, black teens were more likely to be employed than white teens because they were willing to work for less. Bosses, no matter how racist, were more than willing to pay less for labor. Similarly, so-called federal and state "prevailing wage" laws and "living wage ordinances" disproportionately hurt low-skilled workers of color, women and others who wish to work part time. Yet like clockwork, Democrats and many Republicans pass laws to raise the minimum wage to an "affordable level," unconcerned about the unnamed person now out of a job.

The "welfare state" chickens, as the Belfast cabbie observed, are now coming home to roost. As governments take more away from their producing citizens and give it to their nonproducers, growth stagnates and opportunities dry up.

As my eighth-grade dropout, WWII ex-Marine dad used to say, "When you try and get something for nothing, you usually end up with nothing for something." Dad would have enjoyed chatting with the cabbie: "Too many takers -- not enough givers."

Related articles

• Riots - Spawn of the Welfare State (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
• Welfare Recipients Buying, Dumping Bottled Water for Cash (dakotavoice.com)