Monday, August 22, 2011

Nanny State in Action

Dietary supplements, such as the vitamin B sup...Image via Wikipedia
Alan Caruba reports on one of the latest intrusions of government over at his blog - Warning Signs

While watching a television commercial for some prescription medication, have you ever wondered why something it states may kill you or cause serious side effects ever was permitted to be marketed to the public?

For decades I have taken a full range of vitamins, minerals and herbal supplements every morning. I don’t get head colds or any unwanted side affects. In my seventh decade, I enjoy exceptional good health. An annual physical check up is always the same. I am fine.

Millions of Americans benefit from a daily regimen of vitamins, minerals, and herbal supplements. Athletes use whey protein powders. Body builders take amino acids. Others augment food products that lack sufficient nutritional value. Their health and wellness is now threatened by the Obama administration’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Banning Health!

On the Friday before the Fourth of July weekend, the FDA published a 47-page document, the Codex Alimentarius, that would ban all nutritional and supplemental ingredients by requiring them to file documentation involving multi-million-dollar testing and the regulations would be retroactive to 1994!

This will destroy the manufacturers of these products because most are small companies that could not afford such costs. It’s not like there is a vast body of information that demonstrates any threat to health from vitamins and minerals. Quite the contrary. There is ample information on their benefits. There are libraries filled with books devoted to this.

Who would benefit from such regulation of the natural supplement industry? Big Pharma. The same pharmaceutical companies that have a long record of putting forth FDA-approved medications that later prove to be lethal are looking to use the regulatory powers of FDA to literally increase levels of illness.

In the same way Obamacare has been demonstrated to not only be unconstitutional, but also a threat to the health of millions—especially senior citizens—this callous administration now threatens to remove from the shelves of stores that sell nutritional supplements, from pharmacies, and from supermarkets and other outlets, the vitamins, minerals, and herbal supplements on which millions depend for wellness.

This constitutes a criminal conspiracy and Congress, which has ceded its law-making authority to the FDA, must hear from everyone in order to stop this assault on everyone’s health.

Frank Murray, the former editor of Better Nutrition, Great Life, and Let’s Live, is the author and co-author of fifty books on health and nutrition. They include Natural Supplements for Diabetes, Health Benefits Derived from Sweet Orange, and 100 Super Supplements for a Longer Life. He is a member of the New York Academy of Sciences.

One of Murray’s books, Sunshine and Vitamin D, notes that “With the hundreds of clinical trials published on Vitamin D in recent years—I read one study with 132 references—it is obvious that the ‘sunshine vitamin’ no longer has to play second fiddle to the other vitamins.” The same can be said for vitamins A, B, C, and E. All have amply demonstrated their value. Add to them, zink, potassium, selenium, and other mineral supplements. All those prostate advertisements are about herbal supplements!

The Obama administration that has made obesity its pet project is also famous for photos of the President eating every kind of fast food. It is rank hypocrisy, but the proposed FDA ban is literally life threatening.

Write, email, and fax your Representative and Senator to ensure that Congress intervenes with the FDA in the same fashion it is struggling to protect us against an out-of-control Environmental Protection Agency. In particular, contact the members of  the House Oversight and Government Reform committee.

Your life and the lives of your loved ones literally depend on stopping this attack on real nutrition.

Americans are losing the freedom they take for granted as Big Government intrudes on every personal choice they make. The Obama administration has demonstrated its total indifference to America’s senior citizens' access to affordable medical care and now all Americans' ability to access nutritional supplements.

You are being “protected” into an early grave!
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

On the Backs of the Poor?

Various Federal Reserve Notes, c.1995. Only th...Image via Wikipedia
John Hawkins over at Right Wing News explains our current financial situation in a way that even a liberals should be able to comprehend:

In Real Terms, What Does if Even Mean to Say, "We Shouldn't Balance the Budget on the Backs of thePoor?"


In real terms, what does it even mean to say, “We shouldn’t balance the budget on the backs of the poor?” The poor already pay no income tax and since they have very little money, taxing them wouldn’t do much to balance the budget. So, it’s not that.

If it means that we should tax the rich, we already have an even more progressive tax code than Western Europe. Moreover, if we abandoned the country’s love of capitalism and free enterprise, embraced communism, and decided to take every dime of income the indisputably rich, the people who make more than 10 million a year, bring in per year, it would only amount to about 240 billion dollars. On one hand, that’s a large sum of money, but on the other hand, it amounts to about 1/6 of the deficit we owe JUST THIS YEAR, 1/56 of the debt, and 1/400 of our unfunded Social Security/Medicare liabilities. Moreover, if we were taking EVERYTHING the rich made, they’d have no reason to continue to work, which would put tens of millions of people out of work and dramatically reduce the amount of money we could bring in after this year. So, that doesn’t seem like what the term means.

Does it mean that we should never cut anything from any program that benefits the poor? Unfortunately, that’s not even an option at this point. We have 100 trillion dollars in unfunded Social Security/Medicare liabilities. We will not be able to even come close to borrowing that much money and to actually pay it, we’d eventually have to tax not just the rich, but the entire working population at a rate 80% higher than we pay today — FOREVER. That’s never going to happen. So, that can’t be it.

The simple reality is this: We are borrowing much, much, much more than we’re taking in and while raising taxes on the rich could erase a small fraction of the deficit, over the long haul, we’re going to either have to dramatically cut back what we’re spending or we’re going to have to dramatically raise taxes on everyone, including the middle-class.

The reason we’re going to have to make that choice is not because people are mean or because they don’t care about the poor; it’s because we simply can’t afford to continue to borrow massive amounts of money from other countries to give it away to people who aren’t earning it. Truthfully, we’ve already let this problem go unaddressed for far too long and it’s putting the entire country in an increasingly desperate position.

It’s fine to call for cuts to defense and for higher taxes on the rich. My guess is that the people calling for those things, one way or another, will eventually get their way. But, the reality is that even if you sliced our $529 billion defense budget to the bone and dramatically increased taxes on the rich, we would suffer greatly for it and we STILL wouldn’t even be to the halfway mark in paying off our deficit for just this year.

So, when people say “We shouldn’t balance the budget on the backs of the poor,” what do they mean? Do they even know what they mean? Do they have any magical solution to this problem — because if they do, now might be a great time to clue the rest of us in on what it may be.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, August 15, 2011

Is It Possible to Satisfy a Liberal?

Barack Obama speaking at a campaign rally in A...Image via Wikipedia
David Limbaugh posted this excellent commentary over at Human Events. He a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Crimes Against Liberty, Bankrupt: The Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party, Absolute Power and Persecution.

There Is Just No Satisfying Liberals
by  David Limbaugh
08/14/2011

What is 2011 if not a dramatic global outworking of the abysmal failures of liberalism? Their failures are everywhere, but liberals are no closer to abandoning their political theology than they were, say, five years ago.
       
Every marginally intelligent person must know that events unfolding in Britain are a likely foreshadowing of what's in store for us if we don't radically alter our ways. Unchastened and undaunted, liberals keep their collective foot on the big-government accelerator. There's no governor on the liberal golf cart.
      
For years, the more responsible among us have been warning about spending and unsustainable entitlements, and the left has mocked. But this past year, it's as if God has been trying, with increasingly urgent alarms, to get our attention, to no avail.
       
Tea partyers tried to hold the line during the debates of the continuing resolutions and debt ceiling, only to be vilified. But the national debt continues to explode as if to resoundingly validate conservatives as reasonable and their spending-addicted opponents as extremists. For liberals, too much government is never enough.
       
We were told that unless we lifted the debt ceiling, our credit rating would be downgraded and the markets would collapse. Most Republicans signed on to the deal under duress, which ended up neither preventing nor delaying the downgrade or the market free fall. But that was no problem for liberals, who simply changed their warnings after the fact, now saying it was the wrangling over the ceiling, not the underlying debt, that was responsible. Liberals are not to be held to account for what they said yesterday.
       
In a move ostensibly aimed at containing the plummeting market, Obama bounced out once again to his trusted prompter. But instead of acknowledging his culpability for the unfolding national nightmare -- for which he, at the very least, is blocking remedial action -- he wagged his skinny finger of blame, saying it is everyone's fault but his. Being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry.
       
Meanwhile, we got another stern jolt of reality from across the pond as one of Europe's primary poster nations for the grand socialist experiment implodes into abject violence before our eyes. We witnessed the very beneficiaries of government largesse exhibiting their gratitude as they stole from an already beaten and bloodied man and forced people to strip naked to prove they'd not withheld any assets.
       
It was unnecessary to speculate as to the causes of this unrest. Audiotapes of the inebriated women justifying the despicable behavior on the basis of income inequality told us all we needed to know.
       
But British liberals are as impervious to proof as their American counterparts. A video linked on National Review Online featured a British Labour Party liberal condemning the protesters' violence through one cheek and sympathizing with their plight on the other, thereby further excusing and enabling their behavior. Her party injected the addict with addictive substances yet castigates conservatives who call for an intervention.
       
There is just no satisfying liberals. No amount of money thrown at a project can ever be enough, because you can't solve problems by throwing money at them, especially when that money comes with federal demands attached and leads to diminished local control. They'll always demand more -- even when we are wholly bankrupt. Always. No exceptions.
       
Indeed, if there were ever a test case to see whether exceptions exist, whether there are some limits to the rapacious liberal appetite for spending, our current debt picture and economic malaise provide it. But they won't even countenance the thought of counseling, much less patient rehab.
       
Like their addicted wards, liberals remain in perpetual denial, continually giving themselves a pass for their disastrous policies because of their allegedly good intentions. But how noble is it to stoke the dark human passions of greed, jealousy, envy and covetousness? How commendable is it to foment resentment among the races, genders and different income groups? How virtuous is it to promote policies that rarely, if ever, live up to their promises?
       
Should we lavish praise on President Obama for his simulated compassion when his press secretary, Jay Carney, insists that extending unemployment benefits creates jobs, willfully ignoring both common sense and empirical evidence, which contradict the claim? Must we laud Obama for his unrelenting demands for more "stimuli" that not only don't work but also will further impoverish us and our posterity?
       
It must be easy to be a liberal. When your policies don't work, you just change the goal posts and say we haven't done enough -- and then demand more.
       
Honestly, close your eyes and try to imagine a scenario in which liberals would ever say that enough money has been spent, enough federal government power exerted. You will fail -- because there is just no satisfying liberals.




Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, August 8, 2011

Snake Oil Salesman in Chief

Barack Obama - CaricatureImage by DonkeyHotey via FlickrMy friend Alan Caruba hit the nail on the head again today.

President Blah, Blah, Blah

President Blah, Blah, Blah got in front of the television cameras midday on Monday to say the usual meaningless things he has been saying since he was elected, none of which are true and none of which have been able to hide the fact that he has driven the nation into the ditch with a lot of help from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Over the weekend he unleashed the White House attack dogs to blame the nation’s problems on the Tea Party when, of course, it was his administration that added three trillion to our debt.

After a while we just stop listening to what a president says; especially if we have concluded he is either clueless or has a hidden agenda.

“If his lips are moving, he’s lying” is an old cliché, but it fits President Barack Hussein Obama because it is quite likely that no one believes him any more with the exception of the usual brain-dead liberals who still think he is a genius. So far he has shown a genius for increasing the debt and the unemployment numbers.

This is a man who was still talking about electric cars, high speed trains, and renewable energy while the price of gas continued to increase along with everything else.

On Monday he was still talking about the nation's infrastructure as a source of jobs even after recently admitting there were few "shovel ready" projects. Tired ideas, ideas that don't work, repeated over and over again.

President Obama has been boring people from the day he took office. “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” The oceans have been rising a few centimeters every century and the planet is just fine. His election did not transform either the laws of nature or physics.

Instead, all that transformational gibberish turned out to be about a nation already in financial trouble as the result of the September 2008 bursting of the housing bubble. His response was to waste a great deal of time forcing Obamacare on everyone. Americans want to feel that they have a say in what the government is doing and, when they don’t, they organize.

The emergence of the Tea Party was the legacy of Obamacare. A movement without leaders, but one that made itself felt in the 2010 elections that transferred the power of the nation’s purse from Democrats to Republicans in the House and reduced their majority in the Senate.

It may just be my imagination, but President Obama seems to believe he can just stand at the podium, read from the Tele-Prompters, and convince Americans that all our problems have to do with “millionaires and billionaires”, “corporate jets”, and the folks who provide the sources of all real energy; coal, oil, and natural gas.

Nobody is buying those idiotic electric cars (except government agencies) and nobody believes the Green grifters who have been living off federal largesse with their pathetic wind and solar farms, and ghastly ethanol. If it were not for government mandates they would all have been out of business long ago.

Politico recently reported that “people and households earning more than $1 million annually made up just 0.1 percent, or just over 235,000, of the 140 million tax returns filed in 2009.” Meanwhile, there are now a record 45.8 million Americans using food stamps, nearly 15% percent of the population. You do the math.

As for those awful oil companies, the top three paid $42.8 billion in income taxes in 2010. Moreover, according to the American Petroleum Institute, oil and natural gas companies employ 9.2 million Americans and account for 7.5 percent of GDP.

If the Obama administration had not set out to thwart any new oil exploration and a US-Canada oil pipeline, and to shut down active coal mines while punishing coal-burning utilities, the economy would be looking a lot better.

In a recent column, former Reagan speechwriter, Peggy Noonan, said, “But the president is supposed to be great at speeches. Why isn’t it working? One answer is that it never ‘worked.’ The power of the president’s oratory was always exaggerated.”

“The debt-ceiling crisis revealed Mr. Obama’s speeches as rhetorical kryptonite. It is the substance that repels the listener.”

In an effort to look as if he was truly engaged in finding room for compromise during the debt ceiling debate, Obama seemed to be on television with either a prepared or impromptu speech every other day. He does not do “impromptu” well. The casual “eat your peas” remark was received as it should have been, as someone pretending to be the only adult in the room, lecturing the rest of us as children.

I am beginning to sense that even in Congress, a lot of Democrat Senators and Representatives are beginning to do the calculus of getting reelected if they continue to vote the straight party line or are even seen on the same stage as Obama.

None of Congress’s solutions to our economic doldrums are working because of the sharp partisan divide that ignores the problems millions of Americans are encountering. They were all tried in the 1930s and they all failed.

Now that Obama has hit the campaign trail, it would be nice if the mainstream media began to report on how many or how few people turn out to listen to President Blah, Blah, Blah. How many of them are union members? How many are minorities?

How many will have been out of work for so long that by November 2012 they will vote for Bugs Bunny if he is on the Republican ticket?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

The Rise of Capitalism

The city hall (known as a hôtel de ville or ma...Image via Wikipedia
David Hines penned a great piece that was posted at Renew America.

Porky and the Barrel

When and why did greedy capitalist pigs arise?

The guy who built the first plow was a capitalist. Instead of hunting or foraging for immediate gratification, he created a capital good. With it he could produce more at a much later time, enriching his entire community. He wasn't the first; earlier capital goods included the bow and arrow and the dugout canoe.

The additional wealth produced by the ploughman was often taxed and redistributed to friends of the ruling regime. The investor and producer was to be kept poorer than his kleptocratic masters. The power of sword and spear — capital goods producing no useful commodities, instead producing only coercion — dominated plows and pottery wheels. It still does, which is a reason we are in a recession.

The Black Death democratized wealth. With the untimely demise of as much as a third of Europe's population, labor could command a premium. Peasants could afford more goods and better lifestyles.
The additional flow of money changed taxation by enabling lords and kings to demand coin rather than payment in goods. The greedy capitalist peasants could take pride in the opulent lifestyles in places such as Versailles that redistribution provided for the elite — so much pride that they revolted.

For centuries most people had to be content with plain-looking fabric. Fancy patterns were beyond their reach. Then a capitalist named Jacquard invented a distant ancestor of the computer. The Jacquard loom brought fancy patterns within reach of lower-class budgets. Naturally, the silk weavers opposed a capital good that could challenge their hegemony on fancy weaving. No doubt their objections mirrored many arguments used against "capitalism" today.

Even many defenders of "capitalism" don't get it right. Many think that savers are not necessary to the process, and instead government can merely print money for investment. This is not capitalism; it's corporatism. It penalizes savers as well as consumers. It removes the reward for delayed gratification, fostering a culture of conspicuous consumption. No real resources are created by politicians. Instead, resources are removed from the general economy and directed into malinvestments concocted by their fantasies, and those of their constituents.

Who gains from this cheap government money? Not the family saving for a big-ticket item such as a house or a car. Not your retirement account. Not the middle-class person's rainy day fund. No, the ones benefiting are those who first get the newly-created money — the bailed-out CEOs; the banksters; the bureaucrats. It's no accident that the DC area is largely immune from the recession hitting everywhere else.

Many people mistake government for a magical cornucopia, dispensing wealth arising from the ether. Thus they support the friends of politicians getting the tenderloins while they themselves settle for chitlins — if even that. Savers — the creators of capital — are called "greedy pigs," but it's the politicians delivering the pork. I guess that makes them butchers.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, July 30, 2011

The Man With No Plan

Got this one from The Other McCain.

“President Snippy Pants,” as William Teach calls him, evidently believes what America needs is more lectures from him:


While accusing the House GOP of wasting time by, y’know, passing legislation, our Lecturer-in-Chief uses his weekly address to issue yet another iteration of Democrat Party talking points:
Republicans in the House of Representatives just spent precious days trying to pass a plan that a majority of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate had already said they wouldn’t vote for. It’s a plan that wouldn’t solve our fiscal problems, but would force us to re-live this crisis in just a few short months. It would hold our economy captive to Washington politics once again. If anything, the past few weeks have demonstrated that’s unacceptable. Any solution to avoid default must be bipartisan. It must have the support of both parties that were sent here to represent the American people — not just one faction of one party. Now all of us — including Republicans in the House of Representatives — need to demonstrate the same kind of responsibility that the American people show every day. The time for putting party first is over.
One hesitates to spend “precious days” (or even precious minutes) risking this, as the hypocritical falseness of Obama’s rhetoric really ought to be self-evident.

Let us first have done with Obama’s bogus insinuation that he represents the credible voice of “responsibility.” He hasn’t put forward any detailed plan of his own. Instead of providing a budget, he gave a speech — April 13 at George Washington University — in which he dishonestly used the phrase “my budget,” and rolled out the focus-group-tested phrase “balanced approach” (i.e., code for “tax increases”).

In his GWU speech, the president recycled the old-and-busted partisan talking-point that ObamaCare “will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion” (laughably false), and then infamously asserted that his “balanced approach” would “achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years.”

I say he “infamously” made this assertion, because it stands as a historic milestone in the annals of deceptive political rhetoric.

The first thing to notice is that Obama employed the Large Number Trick, whereby politicians throw out a sum of millions, billions or trillions knowing full well that the average listener will be so awed – “Four trillion dollars! Wow!” — that rational thought ceases. But when our current annual deficit is $1.4 trillion, and the president projects that out over 12 years ($16.8 trillion by simple multiplication), a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation shows he’s actually proposing about a 24% reduction in the deficit, so that the 2024 budget deficit would still be $1.07 trillion.

Beyond the president’s deft use of the Large Number Trick in his April 13 GWU speech, there is the obvious problem of a “plan” (or an “approach” which Obama dares to call “my budget”) that presumes to know the state of economic and political affairs in 2024.

This is what we might call the Future Projection Trick: Make your budget calculations based on some distant point in the future and propose draconian cuts in the latter years of that multi-year span. This permits you to claim to have saved taxpayers a lot of money while not actually cutting much of anything in the near term. And of course, those projected future draconian cuts never actually happen, because future congressmen and future presidents don’t consider themselves bound by their predecessors’ promises.

Even if Obama gets re-elected next year, the 2017 budget would be the last over which he had any influence, so his future-projected deficit cuts in 2018, 2019, et cetera, are even more utterly worthless than every other promise he’s ever made.

Yet the final and most important thing about Obama’s “budget” (or “plan,” or “approach,” or whatever you want to call what he outlined April 13 in his only explicit attempt to address the debt-ceiling issue) is that it was so lacking in specificity that it couldn’t be scored by the Congressional Budget Office.

Here once again we see Obama employing a rhetorical trick — the Virtue of Vagueness — in a phony attempt to claim that he is serious about the budget problem. He employs the “bully pulpit” to present himself as responsible (he used “responsibility” or “responsibilities” 10 times in his April 13 speech), the spokesman for an America that “is generous and compassionate,” and yet utterly fails to provide the kind of numbers that will permit a green-eyeshade accounting of whether he has actually done what he wants listeners to believe he has done, i.e., reduce the deficit.

While I’m not sure whether an “approach” is supposed to be subject to an accountant’s scrutiny, an actual budget must be. (My “approach” to making money from this blog is to rattle the tip jar and try to hustle up some lucrative Amazon sales, but this Underpants Gnome business model would never pass muster with the CBO.) What Obama avoided through his Virtue of Vagueness Trick was having to say, for example, what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration budget would be in 2014, or how much would be spent to fund the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in 2015.

Obama’s “approach” is arithmetically nebulous for the very reason that he doesn’t want to have to explain or defend any actual budget reductions. An actual budget must be specific as to the amount of funding allotted to each department, each division, each agency, each program, and this Obama was unwilling or unable to do, so his big “bully pulpit” proposal on April 13 wasn’t something for which the accountants and economists at the CBO could produce a score.

How much money would Obama’s approach save? We don’t know!

And this, I suggest, can only be a matter of cold political calculation.

From the very outset of the debate over the debt-ceiling, Obama was playing a game: Make the House Republicans spell out in a CBO-scored budget proposal exactly what they were planning to cut. Then claim that, by doing so, they were rejecting the “balanced approach” of the “generous and compassionate” president.

The House GOP’s legislation would, by necessity, include specific numbers for agency budget reductions, which could then be employed as campaign attack-ad fodder next year, frightening the ignorant “swing voters” and gullible “soccer moms” with scary-talk about greedy Republicans who want to slash funds for the Bureau of Generosity and eliminate altogether the Department of Compassion.

The president’s not-so-secret-weapon in this political attack strategy is, of course, Harry Reid’s Democrat majority in the Senate which predictably rejected anything that John Boehner could actually push through the House. Thus, Obama’s partisan attack machine not only gets the specific budget numbers with which to smear Republicans as heartless villains in next year’s campaign, but also affords the president an opportunity to claim — as he did today — that this entire ginned-up crisis is due to the ideological fanaticism and partisan opportunism  of those dangerous right-wing GOP extremists.

As usual with Obama, the truth is the exact opposite of whatever he says. He is the one seeking partisan advantage and being irresponsible. It is not the House Republicans but the Senate Democrats who have acted the part of ideologues and obstructionists. And the only question now is whether President Snippy Pants will get away with this transparent trickery.

Obama predictably relies on deceptive sophistry to advance his self-serving agenda. His address today is entitled “Compromise on Behalf of the American People,” which more honestly could be called “Compromise on Behalf of My Re-Election Campaign.” And he might very well get away with it unless Republicans unite and speak with one voice to explain to voters exactly what the president is doing.

Call him out on his phony political gamesmanship, his dishonest partisan rhetoric and his unspeakable hypocrisy in claiming to be “responsible” while abdicating his own responsibility.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, July 24, 2011

25 Quotes About Liberals

Ann Coulter 2007Image via Wikipedia
As compiled by John Hawkins:

25) Whenever I read liberals reporting about the goings- on of conservatives I always get the nature-documentary vibe. A liberal reporter puts on his or her Dian Fossey hat in order to attempt to write another installment of Conservatives in the Mist. I've followed this particular brand of reporting for years, it's almost a fetish of mine. Most attempts fail. Of these lesser varieties, there's fear ("Troglodytes!"), mockery ("Irrelevant troglodytes!"), condescension ("I had to explain to them they're troglodytes."), bewilderment ("Why don't they understand they're troglodytes?"), astonishment (Dear God, they're not all troglodytes!"), and a few combinations of all the above. -- Jonah Goldberg

24) There are no bad guys on the left. There are only people who’ve been driven to desperation by conservative evil. -- Allahpundit

23) Words mean nothing to liberals. They say whatever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago. -- Ann Coulter

22) Inside many liberals is a totalitarian screaming to get out. They don't like to have another point of view in the room that they don't squash and the way they try to squash it is by character assassination and name calling. -- David Horowitz

21) The reason any conservative's failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It's an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites. -- Ann Coulter

20) Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. It leads the modern liberal to invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Why? Very simply if nothing is to be recognized as better or worse than anything else then success is de facto unjust. There is no explanation for success if nothing is better than anything else and the greater the success the greater the injustice. Conversely and for the same reason, failure is de facto proof of victimization and the greater the failure, the greater the proof of the victim is, or the greater the victimization. -- Evan Sayet

19) It was in the 1960s that the left convinced itself that there is something fascistic about patriotism and something perversely "patriotic" about running down America. Anti-Americanism -- a stand-in for hatred of Western civilization -- became the stuff of sophisticates and intellectuals as never before. Flag burners became the truest "patriots" because dissent -- not just from partisan politics, but the American project itself -- became the highest virtue. -- Jonah Goldberg

18) But all liberals only have empathy for the exact same victims -- always the ones that are represented by powerful liberal interest groups. -- Ann Coulter

17) Liberals have created, and the minority leadership has exploited, a community of dependent people, unaware of the true route to prosperity and happiness: self-reliance and self-investment. Instead, people are told that America is unjust, unfair, and full of disadvantages. They are told that their only hope is for government to fix their problems. What has happened is that generations of people have bought into this nonsense and as a result have remained hopelessly mired in poverty and despair -- because the promised solutions don't work. And they will never work -- they never have. -- Rush Limbaugh

16) One of the overriding points of Liberal Fascism is that all of the totalitarian "isms" of the left commit the fallacy of the category error. They all want the state to be something it cannot be. They passionately believe the government can love you, that the state can be your God or your church or your tribe or your parent or your village or all of these things at once. Conservatives occasionally make this mistake, libertarians never do, liberals almost always do. -- Jonah Goldberg

15) Given the religious nature and the emotional power of Leftist values, Jews and Christians on the Left often derive their values from the Left more than from their religion. -- Dennis Prager

14) When one becomes a liberal, he or she pretends to advocate tolerance, equality and peace, but hilariously, they're doing so for purely selfish reasons. It's the human equivalent of a puppy dog's face: an evolutionary tool designed to enhance survival, reproductive value and status. In short, liberalism is based on one central desire: to look cool in front of others in order to get love. Preaching tolerance makes you look cooler, than saying something like, “please lower my taxes” -- Greg Gutfeld

13) Stupidity is a luxury and you will find time and time and time and again that those who are overwhelmingly on the left are those who can afford to be. -- Evan Sayet

12) With their infernal racial set-asides, racial quotas, and race norming, liberals share many of the Klan's premises. The Klan sees the world in terms of race and ethnicity. So do liberals! Indeed, liberals and white supremacists are the only people left in America who are neurotically obsessed with race. Conservatives champion a color-blind society. -- Ann Coulter

11) If the truth is boring, civilization is irksome. The constraints inherent in civilized living are frustrating in innumerable ways. Yet those with the vision of the anointed often see these constraints as only arbitrary impositions, things from which they--and we all--can be “liberated.” The social disintegration which has followed in the wake of such liberation has seldom provoked any serious reconsideration of the whole set of assumptions--the vision--which led to such disasters. That vision is too well insulated from feedback. -- Thomas Sowell

10) Liberals claim to love gays when it allows them to vent their spleen at Republicans. But disagree with liberals and their first response is to call you gay. Liberals are gays' biggest champions on issues most gays couldn't care less about, like gay marriage or taxpayer funding of photos of men with bullwhips up their derrieres. But who has done more to out, embarrass, and destroy the lives of gay men who prefer to keep their orientation private than Democrats? Who is more intolerant of gays in the Republican Party than gays in the Democratic Party? -- Ann Coulter

9) End results that work that don't involve government threaten liberals. -- Rush Limbaugh

8) In their zeal for particular kinds of decisions to be made, those with the vision of the anointed seldom consider the nature of the process by which decisions are made. Often what they propose amounts to third-party decision making by people who pay no cost for being wrong--surely one of the least promising ways of reaching decisions satisfactory to those who must live with the consequences. -- Thomas Sowell

7) That is one reason "feelings" and "compassion" are two of the most often used liberal terms. "Character" is no longer a liberal word because it implies self-restraint. "Good and evil" are not liberal words either as they imply a moral standard beyond one's feelings. In assessing what position to take on moral or social questions, the liberal asks him or herself, "How do I feel about it?" or "How do I show the most compassion?" -- not "What is right?" or "What is wrong?" For the liberal, right and wrong are dismissed as unknowable, and every person chooses his or her own morality. -- Dennis Prager

6) In their haste to be wiser and nobler than others, the anointed have misconceived two basic issues. They seem to assume (1) that they have more knowledge than the average member of the benighted and (2) that this is the relevant comparison. The real comparison, however, is not between the knowledge possessed by the average member of the educated elite versus the average member of the general public, but rather the total direct knowledge brought to bear though social processes (the competition of the marketplace, social sorting, etc.), involving millions of people, versus the secondhand knowledge of generalities possessed by a smaller elite group. -- Thomas Sowell

5) Everyone moralizes. The suggestion that liberals aren't moralizers is so preposterous it makes it hard for me to take any of them seriously when they wax indignant about "moralizers." Almost every day, they tell us what is moral or immoral to think and to say about race, taxes, abortion — you name it. They explain it would be immoral for me to spend more of my own money on my own children when that money could be spent by government on other people’s children. In short, they think moralizing is fine. They just want to have a monopoly on the franchise. -- Jonah Goldberg

4) If you can somehow force a liberal into a point- counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you've said -- unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder. -- Ann Coulter

3) My analysis is that most faith based systems depend upon an absolute moral order. The declaration of things as absolutely evil or absolutely good, as sin or virtue, puts liberalism into a horrible position because it's founded on no judgment on anything. As a result, any faith that is seriously practiced or understood is a challenge to the politics that depend on constituencies that would rather not be told that their choices are bad and their lives are not virtuous. -- Hugh Hewitt

2) The charge is often made against the intelligentsia and other members of the anointed that their theories and the policies based on them lack common sense. But the very commonness of common sense makes it unlikely to have any appeal to the anointed. How can they be wiser and nobler than everyone else while agreeing with everyone else? -- Thomas Sowell

1) To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. -- Charles Krauthammer



Enhanced by Zemanta