• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Bird’s Eye View of Lefty Protester at “Protest Park” in NY City

Video: Borderline insane — or totally facetious

— meltdown from OWS protester

 

posted  by Tina Korbe   at HotAir

Really not sure what to make of this. I have a hard time believing this kid is serious — and his periodic smirk makes me wonder if his rant might not be a — to borrow a word from Rachel Maddow — “genius,” ironic, satiric, mocking, obnoxious, somewhat schizophrenic and absolutely over-the-top parody of the real protesters. Right? Surely?

 

At the same time that I’m posting this, I’m thinking this is why the Flea Party (h/t Ann Coulter) is still out there protesting. The rest of us can’t tear our eyes away from the wreck, and all the coverage makes them feel important. Maybe it’s time to quit

Pelosi: Republicans would let “women die on the floor”

Thinking in more depth regarding this particular Pelosi statement, the only woman Republicans and many, many Democrats might think about letting  “die on the floor” would be Nancy Pelosi herself.     And any floor might be as good as another.

Ms. Nancy must be exercising her woman’s premonition.    What do you think from her performance in the video below?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/13/pelosi_republicans_would_let_women_die_on_the_floor.html

A Psychologist’s View of Barack Hussein….Why Obama’s shallow speeches, arrogance, incompetence?

Israeli Psychologist on Obama

Dr. Sam Vaknin is an Israeli psychologist. Interesting view on our president.

Dr. Vaknin has written extensively about narcissism.

Dr. Vaknin States “I must confess I was impressed by Obama from

the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling.. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama’s speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi “religious” impact on so many people.

The fact that Obama is a total incognito with Zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an

ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on
most important subjects.”

Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love believes

“Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist.” Vaknin is a world
authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes
the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks
about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama’s
language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his
closest, dearest friends suggest that the man is either a
narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).

Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves.

Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People’s Temple, the man
who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide
and even murder their own children was also a narcissist.
David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples
of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous
influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult
around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their
minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised
them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their
doom.

When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don’t know it

until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of
NPD is childhood abuse “Obama’s early life was decidedly chaotic
and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations,” says Vaknin. “Mixed-race marriages were even less common then.
His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant two
years old. Obama saw his father only once again, before he died
in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia, a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years
and then she vanished from his life in 1979.
 
“She died of cancer in 1995.”

One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do

his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes
the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted
image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his
co-dependents. Narcissists have no interest in things that do not
help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on
one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless
to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and does not deserve their attention.

If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The “present” vote is a safe vote.

No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Those issues are
unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.

Obama’s election as the first black president of the Harvard Law

Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what?
His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper
focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama
could not resist writing about his most sublime self.
He entitled the book Dreams from My Father.

Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography

when he was still a nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no
subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his

precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when

he can write about such an august being as himself?

Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless.  As the norm, they

lack conscience. This is evident from Obama’s lack of interest in

his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month.. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.

This election was like no other in the history of America. The issues were insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?

 
(The above analysis was sent to me by conservative, Bruce Taber.)

Democrats “Hot” to Hook up with the Occupy Hordes

An abhorrent ally for Democrats

by Michael A. Walsh   at the New York Post

About the only thing the Tea Party and the unwashed rabble occupying Zuccotti Park have in common is their deep loathing for the financial and political nomenklatura who precipitated the economic collapse of 2008 and — thanks to their generous campaign donations to politicians — have emerged unscathed while the rest of us suffer.

Any other resemblance is purely coincidental.

But that hasn’t stopped the Democrats from desperately latching on to the protesters, hoping to catch some of the lightning in a bottle that propelled the Republicans to their lopsided electoral victories in 2010.

Without the Tea Party (“Tea,” by the way, stands for Taxed Enough Already), the often-clueless GOP leadership would never have wrested control of the House and would not be poised to snatch back the Senate in 13 months — and very likely the White House, too.

So, in a fit of me-tooism, prominent Democrats seem to want to own the Occupy Wall Street crew.

President Obama, a millionaire himself, says he “understands” their frustration with a system that has served this country well from its founding. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, chaired by Rep. Steve Israel of New York, is urging party members to “stand with” the demonstrators. “God bless them for their spontaneity!” exclaimed former speaker Nancy Pelosi – whose net worth is estimated at $35 million.

Yet Democrats should think twice before staking their electoral fortunes on the mobs “occupying” various public spaces in municipalities all over the country.

Party leaders plainly hope to get through the next election by appealing to the naked resentments and largely imaginary grievances of their far-left base. But, for all their claims of wanting a “better” America, the protesters loathe just about everything this country has ever stood for — including the value of hard work, individual responsibility and the liberal use of soap and water.

Spoiled, entitled and ignorant, they demand a guaranteed “living wage” for simply breathing, free universal health care, “green” energy, open borders and total debt forgiveness — a veritable wish list of far-left lunacy.

But even their sanctimonious outrage makes no sense.

When not pounding on bongo drums and destroying the bathrooms of nearby businesses, the demonstrators direct their greatest scorn at the “bankers” — when the Obama administration is a revolving door of Goldman Sachs connections, including former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, economics adviser Gene Sperling and former budget director Peter Orszag.

Goldman employees and their families funneled nearly a million dollars to Obama in 2008, while Wall Street emptied its moneybags into the Obama campaign in record numbers.

If they want to protest somebody, they should be in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. or on Capitol Hill. Plenty of well-connected rich folks there.

For all Democrats’ desire to co-opt the anger ordinary Americans feel about the endless recession, to tap into seething class envy and to rely on the old “plutocrats = Republicans” meme, the fact is that the Democrats are now the party of the very rich and the very poor.

Further, it’s highly unlikely that the juvenile Occupy movement can ever deliver the electoral strength the Tea Party has.

The Tea Party is a grass-roots mass movement that grew up in spontaneous opposition to the tax-and-spend policies of this administration; Occupy is a whining collection of gullible, entitled, indolent youth and bitter, aging hippies looking to relive the glory days of the ’60s.

One peaceably assembles to sing “God Bless America.” The other vilifies success, screams anti-Semitic slurs and openly advocates violence.

One takes pride in its overt patriotism, works within the political system, asks for nothing but relief from oppressive taxation and regulation and cleans up after itself at every demonstration. The other denounces capitalism, harasses the cops, demands yet more handouts from a government drowning in debt — and wallows in pigsties.

The only thing Occupy Wall Street will leave behind is a public-health hazard. Mayor Bloomberg announced that the city is going to start cleaning up the park today. After three weeks, it’s about time.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/an_abhorrent_ally_for_democrats_xGTB9hWABZPvwS3hDIiAHM#ixzz1anuI1nmO

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/an_abhorrent_ally_for_democrats_xGTB9hWABZPvwS3hDIiAHM#ixzz1antVzTbF

Is Herman Cain Over-Qualified to be Elected President of the United States? Compare Him to Attorney Barack Hussein!

My good friend and fellow conservative, Brian Ross sent me the following information regarding Herman Cain:

“What you may not know about Herman Cain who is running for president….
 
He’s  not a career politician (in fact he has never held political office). He’s known as a pizza guy, but there’s a lot more to him. He’s also a computer guy, a banker guy, and a rocket scientist guy.
Here’s his bio:
     •     Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics.
     •     Master’s degree in Computer Science.
     •     Mathematician for the Navy, where he worked on missile ballistics (making him a rocket scientist).
     •     Computer systems analyst for Coca-Cola.
     •     VP of Corporate Data Systems and Services for Pillsbury (this is the top of the ladder in the computer world, being in charge of information systems for a major corporation).
All achieved before reaching the age of 35. Since he reached the top of the information systems world, he changed careers!
     •     Business Manager. Took charge of Pillsbury’s 400 Burger King restaurants in the  Philadelphia area, which were the company’s poorest performers in the country. Spent the first nine months learning the business from the ground up, cooking hamburger and yes, cleaning toilets. After three years he had turned them into the company’s best performers.
     •    ! Godfather’s Pizza CEO. Was asked by Pillsbury to take charge of their Godfather’s Pizza chain (which was on the verge of bankruptcy). He made it profitable in 14 months.
     •     In 1988 he led a buyout of the Godfather’s Pizza chain from Pillsbury. He was now the owner of a restaurant chain. Again he reached the top of the ladder of another industry.
     •     He was also chairman of the National Restaurant Association during this time. This is a group that interacts with government on behalf of the restaurant industry, and it gave him political experience from the non-politician side.
Having reached the top of a second industry, he changed careers again!
     •     Adviser to the Federal Reserve System. Herman Cain went to work for the Federal Reserve Banking System advising them on how monetary policy changes would affect American businesses.
     ! •     Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. He worked his way up to the chairmanship of a regional Federal Reserve bank. This is only one step below the chairmanship of the entire Federal Reserve System (the top banking position in the country). This position allowed him to see how monetary policy is made from the inside, and understand the political forces that impact the monetary system.
After reaching the top of the banking industry, he changed careers for a fourth time!
     •     Writer and public speaker. He then started to write and speak on leadership. His books include Speak as a LeaderCEO of SelfLeadership is Common Sense, and They Think You’re Stupid.
     •     Radio Host. Around 2007—after a remarkable 40 year career—he started hosting a radio show on WSB in  Atlanta (the largest talk radio station in the country).
He did all this starting from rock bottom (his father was a chauffeur and his mother was a maid). When you add up his accomplishments in his life—including reaching the top of three unrelated industries: information systems, business management, and banking—
Herman Cain may have the most impressive resume of anyone that has run for the presidency in the last half century.”

Comment:   One item not mentioned on this impressive list above…….Herman Cain DOES NOT HAVE A LAW DEGREE, which should be among the highest valued attributes any intelligent, dedicated American can list in his or her resume today.

The vast majority of the  crooks, the devious, disingenuous, duplicitous and dishonest in the United States’ various systems of government are ATTORNEYS.   They corrupt not only the executive process ala Barack Hussein, but also the legislative, and worst of all, the judicial, where THE requirement, no matter how deviate the individual, is the possession of a law degree.   These “judges” of the law, making law,  profoundly contaminate  both classic justice and democratic governance with  Marxist miasma learned as ‘law’ at the leftwing American madrassas  called Law School.

Herman Cain is free of this disease.   God Bless Him and the Country He So Clearly Loves.

Compare him to the Marxist attorney-graduate of Harvard Law School and Jeremiah Wright’s ‘GOD DAMN AMERICA’  temple of hate where Barack Obama spent 22 years of his life ‘worshipping’.

Brian did mention that this listing of achievments above did not necessarily mean that he endorses Herman Cain.   Personally, I hope he does endorse Mr. Cain.   At this point in the contest for the 45th President of the United States, I am rooting for Herman Cain.     This ‘endorsement’ in no way suggests that I have any grievances regarding Mitt Romney or Rick Perry, for they, too, are honorable Americans……but I do wish they would stop yapping baby talk one against the other during these televised circuses.

 
 
 
 

Herman Cain…..a Thinking American, terrifies Lefties of the American inner city Black Plantation

Why the left fears Herman Cain:

Surging candidate threatens allegiance

 between blacks and Dems

by Andrea Tantaros    the Daily News

Though he’s been a GOP candidate for President for months, it wasn’t until he won the Florida straw poll last month and performed adeptly at the Fox News/Google debate in Orlando that Herman Cain caught the eye of millions and started surging in most polls. And just this week, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed him leading the GOP pack.

One can see why. He espouses a Reagan-esque likeability, he isn’t stiff or staid and his story of personal success through hard work and determination is enormously inspiring. Growing up in the segregated South, he worked tirelessly to become the CEO of Godfather’s Pizza. He knows what it’s like to be forced to use a different water fountain than whites. But he also knows that being angry about his past would only hinder his future. The more you learn about Cain, the more you can’t help but admire him.

That is, unless you’re on the left. Yes, the man who compares himself to black walnut ice cream is giving liberals a brain freeze.

For example, singer and activist Harry Belafonte called Cain a “bad apple” and insinuated he was stupid.

“It’s very hard to comment on somebody who is so denied intelligence, and certainly someone who is as denied a view of history,” Belafonte said. “Because he happened to have had good fortune hit him, because he happened to have had a moment, when he broke through the moment someone blinked, does not make him the authority on the plight of people of color.”

Liberal academic Cornel West (who has been taking swings at President Obama) told CNN, “I think he needs to get off the symbolic crack pipe.”

And the Rev. Al Sharpton – one of the most notorious race baiters of the 1980s – hypocritically charged that Cain invokes race at any chance he gets and has criticized him for not being “authentically black,” calling his politics a “joke.”

So why would African-Americans espouse so much hatred for a black man who broke through racial barriers to embody the very notion of the self-made man?

Columnist and commentator Juan Williams believes they are “threatened by the success of Herman Cain.” True as that may be, the anger of Cain’s black critics has deeper roots than mere professional jealousy.

First, there is the political threat that Cain could garner a portion of the black vote if nominated, thus stealing from Obama’s base. But second, and most importantly, Cain is blasting away at the left for having “brainwashed” African-Americans into voting the Democrat line, saying that he “left the Democratic plantation” and urging fellow blacks to do the same.

These messages are true for any oppressed American no matter what race or gender, but they directly threaten liberals like West and Sharpton, who have made careers out of inflammatory race rhetoric.

You see, talking about cutting government spending and lowering taxes to create jobs is one thing. Talking about personal responsibility over pocketing a government check, looking forward instead of backwards and choosing entrepreneurship over dependence is another. If the left co-opted the latter theme, blacks – and, in fact, many others – would be better off. Then again, West and Sharpton would suddenly become irrelevant.

Much as Sarah Palin flipped the feminist agenda on its head, Cain is doing the same for race.

The left wants minorities – women, blacks, Hispanics – to lean on government. Liberals have long loved to claim they represent African-Americans better than the right ever could, but under Obama – and even with a Democratic Congress – unemployment for blacks has spiked, as has the number of those on food stamps. Liberals also like to pretend they are tolerant and accepting of those who are different, but when it comes to anyone not ensconced in their progressive, elitist dogma – especially minorities – they mock and attack them, much as they did to Juan Williams when he was at NPR (and as they are now doing to Cain).

The strategy of Cain’s detractors might be to intimidate and call him names, but the more they ridicule and insult him, the more they look desperate to play the race card in a country that desperately needs to move on from racial outdated tension.

Whether or not Herman Cain secures the nomination has yet to be determined. But even if he falls short, he’s poised to be a rising star in the Republican Party, and a leader with a potent mantra.

“I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who believe this country owes them something,” Cain has said. “If you put your mind to it and you don’t play the victim card, you can do whatever you want to do in this country. I am walking proof of that.”

That’s a powerful message that everyone in this country needs to hear. No matter what your race or gender.

andrea@andreatantaros.com

The above article was sent to us by Marian Fischer, Dennis Prager fan in Waseca, Minnesota.

 

The Ignorance of the American voter is Profound

Principal-Agent Theory and the Welfare State

Controlling politicians in the welfare state bears resemblance to the principal-agent relationship, but brings with it a host of new problems.  When individual voters (principals) cannot reasonably “exit” relationships with politicians (agents), they often become trapped in inefficient structures.  Holding politicians accountable in a welfare state requires considerable time and effort.  Unfortunately, in a large democracy, the return on any one voter’s efforts is vanishingly small.  For this reason, they choose not to exert themselves at all.  This tendency manifests itself as political cynicism and voter apathy, problems that have the potential to cause profound disaster in the future, says Mark Pennington, professor of public policy and political economy at Queen Mary, University of London.

  • For example, in the United States, as many as 70 percent of voters can’t name either of their state’s senators and the vast majority cannot estimate rates of inflation or unemployment within 5 percent of actual levels.
  • This willful ignorance of the goings on of the government minimizes voter oversight as a factor in politicians’ strategic decision-making, enabling political opportunism via lackadaisical job performance and personal ambition.
  • When this loss of oversight is viewed in terms of the debate over the prevalence of entitlement programs, the results become obvious.

While a collective action problem prevents most younger and middle-age voters from taking a strong stand on entitlement programs, the same is not true of the elderly population.  Because they are organized (see AARP), have relatively similar interests and vote consistently, their voices are the most influential in political discourse regarding entitlements.  Furthermore, they overcome the collective action problem because the benefits of the programs (and therefore the costs of losing them) are concentrated, whereas the costs for the rest of the population are diffused.

The result of this perniciously disproportionate influence is a burgeoning entitlement structure that is plagued by fraud.  Politicians, desiring both a leisurely job and a reliable senior voting bloc, choose not to exert the additional effort necessary to rein in the excesses of the system.  Meanwhile, truly good policy for the rest of society is ignored due to lack of mobilization.

While reform suggestions are numerous, at their core should be two principles: first, we must abandon a system in which those who claim future benefits have the ability to dismiss those who finance them.  And second, we must address the fact that those who manage taxpayer dollars have every incentive to favor short-term political gain over long-term sustainability.

Source: Mark Pennington, “Principal-Agent Theory and the Welfare State,” Cato Institute, September/October 2011.

For text:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v33n5/cprv33n5-1.html

For more on Government Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=33

The above article was made available by the National Center for Policy Analysis.

 

Krauthammer: Obama, the duplicitous, devious, disingenuous, divider of America Focuses on Scapegoating

The scapegoat strategy

by Charles Krauthammer,   Washington Post

“What do you do if you can’t run on your record — on 9 percent unemployment, stagnant growth and ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see? How to run when you are asked whether Americans are better off than they were four years ago and you are compelled to answer no?

Play the outsider. Declare yourself the underdog. Denounce Washington as if the electorate hasn’t noticed that you’ve been in charge of it for nearly three years.

But, above all, find villains.

President Obama first tried finding excuses, blaming America’s dismal condition on Japanese supply-chain interruptions, the Arab Spring, European debt and various acts of God.

Didn’t work. Sounds plaintive, defensive. Lacks fight, which is what Obama’s base lusts for above all.

Hence Obama’s new strategy: Don’t whine, blame. Attack. Indict. Accuse. Who? The rich — and their Republican protectors — for wrecking America.

In Obama’s telling, it’s the refusal of the rich to “pay their fair share” that jeopardizes Medicare. If millionaires don’t pony up, schools will crumble. Oil-drilling tax breaks are costing teachers their jobs. Corporate loopholes will gut medical research.

It’s crude. It’s Manichaean. And the left loves it. As a matter of math and logic, however, it’s ridiculous. Obama’s most coveted tax hike — an extra 3 to 4.6 percent for millionaires and billionaires (weirdly defined as individuals making more than $200,000) — would have reduced last year’s deficit (at the very most) from $1.29 trillion to $1.21 trillion. Nearly a rounding error. The oil-drilling breaks cover less than half a day’s federal spending. You could collect Obama’s favorite tax loophole — depreciation for corporate jets — for 100 years and it wouldn’t cover one month of Medicare, whose insolvency is a function of increased longevity, expensive new technology and wasteful defensive medicine caused by an insane malpractice system.

After three years, Obama’s self-proclaimed transformative social policies have yielded a desperately weak economy. What to do? Take the low road: Plutocrats are bleeding the country, and I shall rescue you from them.

Problem is, this kind of populist demagoguery is more than intellectually dishonest. It’s dangerous. Obama is opening a Pandora’s box. Popular resentment, easily stoked, is less easily controlled, especially when the basest of instincts are granted legitimacy by the nation’s leader.

Exhibit A. On Tuesday, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed punitive legislation over China’s currency. If not stopped by House Speaker John Boehner, it might have led to a trade war — a 21st-century Smoot-Hawley. Obama knows this. He has shown no appetite for a reckless tariff war. But he set the tone. Once you start hunting for villains, they can be found anywhere, particularly if they are conveniently foreign.

Exhibit B. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin rails against Bank of America for announcing a $5-a-month debit card fee. Obama echoes the opprobrium with fine denunciations of banks and their hidden fees — except that this $5 fee is not hidden. It’s perfectly transparent.

Yet here is a leading Democratic senator advocating a run on a major (and troubled) bank — after two presidents and two Congresses sunk billions of taxpayer dollars to save failing banks. Not because they were deserving or virtuous but because they are necessary. Without banks, there is no lending. Without lending, there is no business. Without business, there are no jobs.

Exhibit C. To the villainy-of-the-rich theme emanating from Washington, a child is born: Occupy Wall Street. Starbucks-sipping, Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over.

These indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees have decided that their lack of gainful employment is rooted in the malice of the millionaires on whose homes they are now marching — to the applause of Democrats suffering acute Tea Party envy and now salivating at the energy these big-government anarchists will presumably give their cause.

Except that the real Tea Party actually had a program — less government, less regulation, less taxation, less debt. What’s the Occupy Wall Street program? Eat the rich.

And then what? Haven’t gotten that far.

No postprandial plans. But no matter. After all, this is not about programs or policies. This is about scapegoating, a failed administration trying to save itself by blaming our troubles — and its failures — on class enemies, turning general discontent into rage against a malign few.

From the Senate to the streets, it’s working. Obama is too intelligent not to know what he started. But so long as it gives him a shot at reelection, he shows no sign of caring.”

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Comment:  I readily admit that my hero in thecontemporary  American polititcal review scene after Dennis Prager is Charles Krauthammer.   

 

The Hate Mail of Feminist Fanatic, Jane Mayer, at the New Yorker Magazine

Posted on October 13, 2011 by John Hinderaker in Liberals, Media Bias

Liberal “Reporting” Smears Another Good Citizen

Jane Mayer made a name for herself as a reporter by writing a book-length smear of Clarence Thomas titled Strange Justice. A favorite of the hard left, she has continued to turn out advocacy journalism through the years. She currently writes for the New Yorker; her well-nigh book-length hit piece on Charles and David Koch in August 2010–absurdly titled “Covert Operations”–was the genesis of the crazed leftist assault on the Kochs and their company that has been going on ever since.

The October 10 issue of the New Yorker includes Mayer’s latest effort on behalf of the Democratic Party, which could have been titled “Son of Koch.” Her subject is Art Pope, a North Carolina businessman who funds various conservative causes in that state. Mayer’s article is titled “State For Sale,” which pretty well sums up her thesis. Mayer is of the shamelessly hypocritical liberal money=good, conservative money=bad school.

Who is Art Pope? He isn’t well known outside North Carolina, but then, the Koch brothers weren’t very well known either, until Mayer turned them into the Left’s enemies #1 and #2. Pope is a lawyer who owns or co-owns a company called Variety Wholesalers, which operates a chain of discount stores in the South. Pope is the company’s CEO. He describes himself as a political conservative in contemporary American terms. Philosophically, he is a classical liberal who admires philosophers like John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. He served for a time in the North Carolina legislature and now contributes a number of conservative groups and causes, including the John Locke Foundation, North Carolina’s branch of Americans For Prosperity, Real Jobs NC, Civitas Action, and others, as well as North Carolina’s Republican Party and various individual candidates. According to Mayer, Art Pope is single-handedly responsible for North Carolina’s voting Republican in 2010.

You can think of Art Pope as a kind of mini-Charles Koch, a very smart conservative who puts his money where his philosophy is. Mayer makes the comparison explicit; of course, to her it is a searing indictment of Pope:

Some have compared him to Charles and David Koch, the conservative oil-and-chemical magnates, whom Pope regards as friends; Pope has at times joined forces with them, attending some of their semi-annual secret planning summits [Ed.: "Secret planning summits?" Good grief. I spoke at one a few years ago; the Kochs' semi-annual get-togethers are extraordinarily high-level seminars.] and, through the family foundation, contributing millions to many of the same causes. Pope, in addition to being on the board of Americans for Prosperity—which David Koch founded, in 2004—served on the board of its predecessor, Citizens for a Sound Economy, which Koch co-founded, in 1984. Charles Koch recently praised the Popes, along with other donors, for providing financial support for the 2012 election effort, and tax records show that Pope has given money to at least twenty-seven groups supported by the Kochs, including organizations opposing environmental regulations, tax increases, unions, and campaign-spending limits.

Pope is, in other words, a great American. Mayer employs the usual tricks of the trade to put Pope in a bad light. She tells the story of a noble liberal politician brought low by the forces of Mammon; her article begins with “John Snow, a retired Democratic judge who had represented the district in the State Senate for three terms, found himself subjected to one political attack after another.” Political attacks, of course, should only be made by liberals:

“The attacks just went on and on,” Snow told me recently. “My opponents used fear tactics. I’m a moderate, but they tried to make me look liberal.”

Snow, a modern-day Helen Gahagan Douglas, lost, and Mayer blames Art Pope. She even drags out Willie Horton. Of course, exposing “moderate” Democrats as liberals is one of the things conservatives can do if they have an advertising budget.

Mayer uses the age-old technique of telling Art Pope’s story through the eyes of his enemies. Here are some of the sources she relies on, in addition to John Snow, as she herself describes them: “Bob Phillips, the head of the North Carolina chapter of Common Cause;” “Fred Wertheimer, who heads Democracy 21, another group that works for campaign-finance reform;” “Margaret Dickson, a sixty-one-year-old retired radio broadcaster and media executive who … was seeking reëlection to the North Carolina State Senate [as a Democrat];” “Chris Heagarty, a Democratic lawyer, [who] ran for a legislative seat in Wake County, which includes Raleigh;” “Nina Szlosberg-Landis, a Democratic activist in Raleigh says…;” “According to an analysis of tax records by Democracy NC, a progressive government watchdog group…;” “Marc Farinella, a Democratic political consultant who was Obama’s 2008 campaign director in North Carolina…;” “Martin Nesbitt, Jr., the Democratic leader in the North Carolina Senate, says…;” “Mac McCorkle, a former Democratic campaign consultant in the state, who is now a visiting lecturer at Duke, recalls…;” “According to Gene Nichol, the chairman of the Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity, at the U.N.C. School of Law…;” “David Parker, the chair of the Democratic Party in North Carolina, says…;” “Dean Debnam, a North Carolina businessman who backs progressive politics, says…;” “Bob Geary, a political reporter for the Indy, the alternative weekly in Durham, recalls…;” “In an e-mail, Chris Kromm, the executive director of the Institute for Southern Studies, said…;” “Critics describe Civitas as Pope’s conservative assembly line…;” “‘Civitas was clever,’ Bob Hall, the executive director of Democracy NC, the progressive watchdog group, says;” “Chris Fitzsimon, the founder and director of NC Policy Watch, a progressive think tank, says…;” “Martin Nesbitt, the Democratic leader, said…;” “The former U.N.C. president Bill Friday told me…;” “Bill Race, the former chairman of the classics department at U.N.C.-Chapel Hill, told me, ‘The Pope machine is narrow-minded and mean-spirited and poisoned the university;’” “Cat Warren, an English professor at North Carolina State University, in Raleigh, who has been critical of Pope, says…;” “North Carolina Democrats accused Pope of engineering, in 2009, the re-segregation of public schools in Wake County…;” “The Reverend William Barber, the head of the North Carolina chapter of the N.A.A.C.P., … says…;” “Bob Hall, the Democracy North Carolina director, sees…;” “Chris Fitzsimon, of NC Policy Watch, says of Pope…;” “Jim Goodmon, the president and C.E.O. of Capitol Broadcasting Company, which owns the CBS and Fox television affiliates in Raleigh, says, ‘I was a Republican, but I’m embarrassed to be one in North Carolina because of Art Pope;’” “Martin Nesbitt, the Democratic leader in the State Senate, says…;” “Gary Pearce, a longtime Democratic consultant, says of Pope…;” “Nina Szlosberg-Landis, the Democratic activist, predicts…”

This is a common ploy–a liberal reporter interviews liberals and quotes them attacking a conservative–hey, I’m just a reporter, relating the facts! But Mayer takes it to such an extreme in this hit piece that it almost makes you laugh out loud.

So, what is it all about? Mayer is horrified by Pope’s classical liberal philosophy:

Pope told me that he cares deeply about the people of North Carolina; he just believes that they are better served by private enterprise than by public largesse. He therefore believes in cutting personal and corporate income taxes, reducing estate taxes, and cutting government spending. He questions the notion that government serves the public interest, and calls himself a supporter of “public-choice theory,” which views the political system as being driven largely by self-interest. At the same time, he donates to food banks and to shelters for the indigent. Robert H. Dorff, a professor at the U.S. Army War College, and a friend of Pope’s, said, “He’s a profound believer in charity. But he believes, philosophically, that it’s the role of others, not the government, to take care of others.”

Such views, which are increasingly entering the mainstream of American politics, incense progressives like Nichol…

“Increasingly entering the mainstream of American politics?” Those views were the mainstream of American politics for close to 200 years.

But that difference of opinion is a given. Mayer is hunting bigger game than Art Pope. Her real target seems to be Citizens United, a theme that ties together her smear of Clarence Thomas and her hit pieces on the Kochs and Pope:

Bob Phillips, the head of the North Carolina chapter of Common Cause…argues that the Court’s decision, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, has been a “game changer,” especially in the realm of state politics. In swing states like North Carolina—which the Democrats consider so important that they have scheduled their 2012 National Convention there—an individual donor, particularly one with access to corporate funds, can play a significant, and sometimes decisive, role. “We didn’t have that before 2010,” Phillips says. “Citizens United opened up the door. Now a candidate can literally be outspent by independent groups. We saw it in North Carolina, and a lot of the money was traced back to Art Pope.” …

“The disastrous Citizens United decision has opened the door wide to influence-buying,” [Fred Wertheimer] says.

This claim is made in an unsubtle way in the title of Mayer’s article, “State For Sale,” and an even less subtle way, if that is possible, in the magazine’s caricature of Pope, which depicts him with wads of cash in one pocket and the State of North Carolina in the other:

I interviewed Art Pope to find out what he thought about Mayer’s portrayal of him. He was, as you would expect, smart, principled and dedicated to the welfare of North Carolina and the United States.

Pope pointed out that Mayer virtually ignored the fact that the left has institutions and donors that advance its ideas and interests, too. The Reynolds Foundation–an inheritor of tobacco money–is, like Pope’s family foundation, a 501(c)(3) entity, and, along with groups like Blueprint North Carolina, has heavily funded liberal causes and candidates. Reynolds contributes more to liberal causes than Pope does to conservative ones. He also noted that Mayer falsely claims that when Pope makes donations from the Pope family foundation to public policy organizations like Civitas, “he is able to take tax write-offs.” In fact, Pope says, both the foundation and groups like Civitas are 501(c)(3)s, and a 501(c)(3) does not get a tax deduction when it donates to another 501(c)(3). But then, knowledge of the tax laws has never been a liberal strong point.

Pope also points out that neither he nor any group that he funds was responsible for any of the three television ads that Mayer claims were unfair. But let’s cut to the chase: the whole point of Mayer’s hit piece is that Art Pope and other nasty Republicans bought the 2010 elections in North Carolina by swamping them with conservative money:

So far, Pope’s strategy seems to be a success. Martin Nesbitt, the Democratic leader in the State Senate, says, “Art Pope set out to buy power, and it’s working.” He believes that Pope’s forces, by redrawing the political districts, are setting the stage to control the state for the next decade. Nesbitt says, “I don’t hold anyone’s political views against them. But any time you have the takeover we did, with the influence of money and absolute power, you have to worry. It’s a blue state that has a Democratic governor, and voted for Obama in 2008, but in two years they turned it into a red state, all because of their money.”

It is almost enough to make you feel sorry for those poor, underfunded Democrats, isn’t it? But wait! Art Pope notes that the Democrats and their liberal independent groups out-spent the Republicans and their conservative groups in 2010–a fact that is notably absent from Mayer’s tale of woe. In 2008, the Democrats out-spent the GOP nearly three to one, over $19 million to $7 million plus. In 2010, the Republicans closed the gap somewhat–courtesy of Art Pope and others–but the Democrats still spent more, $16 million to $14 million. More here. If anyone is buying elections in North Carolina, it is Democrats, not Republicans. Mayer had this information, but chose to suppress it in order to fool her readers.

What really happened in 2010 was that after two disastrous years of the Obama administration, the Republicans scored a huge, nationwide sweep. The GOP surge in North Carolina was duplicated in state after state. Republicans didn’t “buy” the election in North Carolina or anywhere else; in North Carolina and most other states, they were out-spent. But voters, revolted by the overreach and incompetence of the Obama administration, pulled the GOP lever. Democrats can’t face that reality, so they peddle pathetic tales about Republican plutocrats buying elections, courtesy, supposedly, of Citizens United. Such thinking is delusional. It is unfortunate that good citizens like Art Pope are its drive-by victims.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 124 other followers