• 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

Democrats In Decline: What Do They Have To Sell Besides Marxism?

The American Democratic Party has become  the Party of the country’s university social sciences department Marxists; the Party of Marxist George Soros, Daily Kos, and the nation’s Atheists, the Jewish Left, and Muslims.  They are devoted in conning the newer Latin Americans to join their mix.

What an interesting bowl of flakes.    They have been taught  to hate America.  They dispose of the Constitution except when they can hide among its guarantees.   They are the druggy narcissists we  Americans of the last two generations have produced.   These are they who are replacing us day in and day out.

Unless we change our curriculum of teaching , despite this minor glitch of decline recorde by Gallup, it will be through the Marxified Democrat Party that the end of American Democracy as we know it, will be  secured.

The following report from Gallup was written by Jeffrey M. Jones:

“PRINCETON, NJ — In 2010, 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, down five percentage points from just two years ago and tied for the lowest annual average Gallup has measured in the last 22 years. While Democrats still outnumber Republicans by two points, the percentage identifying as independents increased to 38%, on the high end of what Gallup has measured in the last two decades.

Party Identification Annual Averages, Gallup Polls, 1991-2010

These results are based on aggregated data from 21 separate Gallup and USA Today/Gallup polls conducted in 2010, encompassing more than 25,000 interviews with U.S. adults. Gallup has computed annual averages for party identification since 1988, when it began conducting most of its polls by telephone.

The Gallup Daily tracking poll, initiated in 2008, shows similar party identification figures for 2010 — 32% Democratic, 28% Republican, and 37% independent. The tracking data also show the same trend toward declining Democratic identification coupled with greater increases among independents than Republicans.

While there is usually some year-to-year variation in party identification at the aggregate level, the changes are typically not large. Thus, the five-point drop in Democratic identification over the past two years, from the party’s 22-year high of 36% (tying the 1988 figure) to its 22-year low of 31%, is notable.

Perhaps equally significant is that the percentage of Americans identifying as Republicans has increased only slightly to 29% during this time, and remains on the low end of what Gallup has measured the past two decades.

Nevertheless, 2010 was a good year for Republicans, given the party’s major gains in the midterm elections. Those gains were in part driven by the party’s appeal to independents, evident in the strong support for Republican congressional candidates among independent voters.

Independents’ increasing affinity for the GOP is also evident in a separate measure of party affiliation Gallup tracks, which takes into account the party leanings of independents. In 2010, 45% of Americans identified as Democrats or said they were independent but leaned toward the Democratic Party, while 44% identified as Republicans or said they were independent but leaned Republican. The 1-point Democratic advantage is the party’s smallest since 2003, when the parties were even, and represents a sharp decline from the record 12-point Democratic advantage in 2008.

Party Identification (Including Independent Leanings) Annual Averages, Gallup Polls, 1991-2010

The Gallup Daily tracking poll shows a similar pattern, from a 13-point Democratic edge in 2008 down to just 3 points in 2010.


Although 2010 brought some major legislative successes for the Democratic majority, it was not a good year for the party politically. In addition to losing control of the House of Representatives and seeing the number of Democratic senators and governors reduced, the party saw its support among the general population drop to tie its 22-year low.

However, even as Republicans were enjoying great electoral success, the percentage of Americans identifying with the GOP, the core base of the party, barely increased. Instead, the major movement in American politics since 2008 seems to be away from the Democratic Party and toward independent political status, rather than alignment with the GOP. Still, the Republican Party appeared to capitalize on many independents’ frustration with the majority Democratic Party, in much the same way the Democrats capitalized on independents’ frustration with the Republicans between 2006 and 2008.

As 2011 begins, the parties appear to be on fairly equal footing in terms of public support. The key to success in the 2012 elections may hinge on which party can win over the increasing number of independent voters. And it is quite possible that the pool of independents will expand in 2011, given that Gallup has seen an increase in the percentage of independents in each of the last five years after a midterm election (1991, 1995, 1999, 2003, and 2007).”

Warning from WSJ Pundit Henninger: Republicans Interested In Spending Control Are Powerless Without the White House!

……….So let us not get too excited about true accomplishment…..but read the article yourselves. 

“Here’s something most Republicans don’t want to hear: There is no way the born-again, straight and sober Republicans of the 112th Congress are going to get spending under control unless they involve the fellow at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The spending reforms that Speaker John Boehner and his counterinsurgency lieutenants have proposed—spending reductions to offset any mandatory increases or stated budget limits for the current fiscal year—are terrific. But if you think Congress, by itself, is going to sustain this discipline over time, I have a bridge in Alaska I’d like to sell you.

Congress is a legislative body. Like legislative bodies from ancient Rome till now, its DNA is not to forgo things but to do stuff. Everyone agrees that Congress holds something called the “power of the purse.” And don’t they know it. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find that phrase. Nor in the Constitution that they are reading on the House floor Thursday will you hear the words “spend,” “programs” or “outlays.” All this, though, is what Congress has been about since anyone can remember.

The reform groups and blogosphere are threatening hellfire for any Republicans who cross them on spending, but take my word for it: Once any Congress makes it to the budgeting “out years,” all that hellfire will be just a puff of smoke. James Buchanan, the father of public choice theory, won a Nobel Prize for unraveling this reality.

It is not hopeless. The locus of hope, however, lies with the Executive, a word at least nominally associated with responsibility. In an article on these pages recently (“Time for Emergency Economic Reform”), a successful political executive, Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, identified the sine-qua-non reform to sustain spending discipline: presidential impoundment power.

However you define the idea—impoundment, rescission, the line-item veto—it is the power of a president or governor to zero out some of the spending pile that a legislature dumps on the front lawn. It is executive pushback against wretched legislative excess.

“Presidents once had the authority,” Mr. Daniels wrote, “to spend less than Congress made available through appropriation. On reflection, nothing else makes sense.”

Ask New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie about the impoundment power. He has it, and he’ll tell you it is indispensable to what he is trying to do in his hopelessly profligate state. Absent that impoundment power, a lot of the Christie pitch would be just rhetoric.

Before getting into why 43 governors, but not the U.S. president, have this power, a comment on those who say that impoundment is a pop-gun, that it can’t control entitlements or mega-programs.

Perhaps you have heard of the “broken windows” theory of urban chaos. It says that in a neighborhood wracked with murder and mayhem, it is important to repair broken windows. The idea is that leaving small matters like broken windows unrepaired tells criminals that no one cares if they break the neighborhood further, and it tells the people there is no hope of fixing the big things. In New York City, this worked.

Earmarks, pork, corporate carve-outs and all that are Congress’s broken windows.

Every knowing article written on this subject points out what a “small” percentage of spending this stuff is. But the behavioral incentives for big-time criminals in the Bronx and big-time spenders in a legislature like Congress are the same. An annual federal budget of $3.5 trillion is a towering monument of broken windows. Federal highway spending has been on automatic pilot for nearly 20 years. Sen. Tom Coburn has a long list of programs uselessly duplicated across the government; nine agencies run 69 early-education programs.

Here is a list of U.S. presidents and public figures who have used or supported the impoundment power: Abe Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton, the Bushes, John McCain, John Kerry, Al Gore, Pat Buchanan, Jeb Hensarling, Russ Feingold, Joe Lieberman, Judd Gregg, and not least both Paul Ryan, the new House Budget chairman, and Barack Obama.

This crucial executive ballast does not exist mainly for two reasons.

In the early 1970s, Richard Nixon tried aggressively to impound spending, touching off a war with Congress’s “prerogatives.” Then Watergate broke. In a fury, one of the most liberal Congresses passed the Budget Control Act of 1974 (which should be repealed). It transferred most spending “control” to Congress, which one commentator at the time called “congressional government—and chaos.”

Second, the Constitution is ambiguous on how to divide this authority, and the Supreme Court, in coin-flip decisions, has sided with Congress.

All the congressional names above, especially Rep. Ryan, have tried to thread this legal needle. But it doesn’t exist because the bipartisan pig-out caucus—in hiding now—won’t let it happen.

Yes, this week the GOP Congress is talking about a lollapalooza annual budget cut of $100 billion. Go for it! But let’s hear Barack Obama put the impoundment power back in play in his State of the Union address—for this presidency and however many presidents are left in the future of our broken-windows capital.”

Write to henninger@wsj.com

Comment:  I am not sure  if any Americans, college “educated” or not, know much about the American systems of governance  and the reasons for which our  incredibly gifted forefathers, sculpted  citizen-govenment management of the nation.   We, in this new age of self love and self gratification, we have neglected to learn and then to teach our offspring the glories of our  own national identity.  

We, those of my generation took the American experiment for granted.   We failed  to pass the torch of  knowledge as the basis for understanding,  freedom and justice on to our young.   Vulgarity rules the civil.

The question for all Americans, the thinking and the unthinking:  Is it too late for the country to be saved?

‘I am a Jew’, Confesses David Horowitz. Confronts Muslim Student-Terrorist at University

David Horowitz is a tough, strident, humorless, bright, evangelical-democrat, America-loving  Jew.  As I remember,  he is from New York City.  As I know for certain, he was a child born into a strident, bright, evangelical Marxist-Communist, anti-American family. 

In my more leftist days in and after college I’d read his work as I read anything by Christopher Hitchens on the market today.  Certain people have more interesting things to say than others……Sorry, you foolish, MarxoDemocrats.  Not everyone is born equal and should not be forced to be equal.  

In those days reading Horowitz  encouraged me to love and to protect my America more profoundly.   He was strident, single-purposed, devoted, but WRONG on nearly every assumption, claim and conclusion.  He buoyed my faith in what I believed.

Eventually, I matured, for the most part.   Better yet, David Horowitz met his epiphany.   It occurred  during the bloody riots and murders during the Black Panther violence chapters of the anti-American cultural revolution in California in the 1970s.   He re-evaluated. 

Today, David Horowitz is still humorless. He is still bright.   He is still strident.  He is still a Jew.   

 He is also an American HERO of the first class.  

Our America we love is being subverted at university, in general, today a Marxist  institution of conformity as isolated from  and hostile to democracy as any madrassa from the demented Muslim world in the Near East. 

Almost alone David Horowitz has carried the flag to restore some raindrops of free expression and other democratic refreshing breezed in a hurricane of Leftwing totalitarianism, intolerance  and ignorance.

In this video below David Horowitz is confronted by a ‘student’ advertising the Muslim Students Association, a nation wide Muslim group at the “not quite terrorist level as yet” fever.   This student is very, very proud of herself.  I, for one, appreciate her honesty.  

From the lecturn David Horowitz interrupts the ‘student’s’  soliloquy on MSA and confronts her with a question about the terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah, devoted to the liquidation of the Jewish population.

Learn more about modern American university life and thought:   Click onto the video:


To learn more about this Crusader for Americn Values, David Horowitz….please click on below:


Muslim Terror and Assassination in Pakistan

The question should be asked of president Barack Hussein Obama and his fellow Leftist in and out of his administration, what is it that makes them look ‘the other way’  at the countless occurrence of Terror in the name of Islam.   Islamist are conducting the terror in the name of Allah throughout the world.  There aren’t people on Earth more bigotted than Islamists, so why is there this liaison between Left and Islamicists in our country and the world as well?

Such insanity is remindful of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and PolPot.

“In June 2009 in Punjab, Pakistan, Asia Bibi, a mother of five and a farmhand, was asked to fetch water. She complied, but some of her Muslim co-workers refused to drink the water, as Bibi is a Christian and considered “unclean” by them. Arguments ensued, resulting in some co-workers complaining to a local cleric’s wife that Bibi had made derogatory comments about the prophet Muhammad. A mob reportedly stormed her house, assaulting Bibi and her family.

However, the police initiated an investigation of Bibi, not her attackers. She was arrested and prosecuted for blasphemy, under Section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code. She spent more than a year in jail. On Nov. 8, she was sentenced to death by hanging; she has since filed an appeal.

There is a need for broad legal and social reforms in Pakistan, and it can start with the repeal of this law. But the assassination Monday of Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Punjab, by one of his official security guards shows how difficult that will be. The alleged assailant reportedly gave a statement after his arrest expressing no remorse as he was ostensibly “protecting Allah’s religion.” Taseer was perhaps Pakistan’s most brave, vocal and liberal statesman. He had met with Bibi in prison and subsequently lent his support to the campaign calling for the repeal of the blasphemy law.
Section 295C was introduced into the Pakistani legal system in the 1980s by the military dictator Gen. Zia ul-Haq as part of his broader effort to Islamize laws in Pakistan. It stipulates that “derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet … either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly … shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Bibi is far from the first person from a minority community in Pakistan to be sentenced to death for blasphemy. Although no person has yet been executed under the blasphemy law, at least 32 people have been killed while awaiting trial or after they have been acquitted of blasphemy charges. In 2009, 40 houses and a church were set ablaze by a mob of 1,000 Muslims in the town of Gojra, Punjab. At least seven Christians were burned alive. The attacks were triggered by reports of desecration of the Koran. The local police had already registered a case under Section 295C against three Christians for blasphemy. Hence a conviction or even an accusation under this law is often a death sentence.

The blasphemy provisions were an important component of a social engineering campaign devised and implemented by Zia during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. The ostensible objective was to Islamize the Pakistani state. But the goal was also to tailor the social and legal system of the country to aid the mujahedin (loosely, the contemporary Pakistani Taliban) by making them appear to be indigenous freedom fighters.

The infamous discriminatory Hudood Ordinance, supposedly based on the Koran, was put into effect. It sought to charge women who were raped with adultery if they could not bring forth four pious male Muslims who were witnesses to the rape. Zia also undemocratically amended the constitution to implement Sharia, or Islamic law. The school curriculum was modified to make it more Islamic. Female television anchors were ordered to cover their heads on the air; heavy censorship was exercised on the print and electronic media to safeguard the glory of Islam.

But it is not only Pakistan that has been adversely affected.

Zia’s Islamization efforts played a significant role in today’s global war on terrorism because of his social engineering, aimed to deliberately introduce ethno-centrism and intolerance into the moral fabric of Pakistani society. This, in turn, aided in the rise of the Taliban in the region, particularly the Pakistani Taliban.

It is almost an accepted fact now that the war on terrorism, both globally and in Pakistan, cannot be won by military might alone. Stopping Al Qaeda is still important, but the Taliban has become the top priority. We must isolate the Taliban, and not only geographically. It must also be stripped of all moral authority and public sympathy. That is hard to achieve with provisions like the blasphemy law in place. Institutionalized biases influence human behavior.

Legal and social reforms in Pakistan are imperative not only to save many like Asia Bibi but to provide a long-term, sustainable solution to the growing threat of extremism inside and outside Pakistan.

Pakistan and its democracy are in a state of ethical and political uncertainty, and the coalition government is too fragile to address the crisis without internal and external help. A tolerant and secular Pakistan is crucial for eradication of global Islamic fundamentalism. And the international community is well placed to demand change, given Pakistan’s extraordinary reliance on foreign support.

Bibi needs to be saved, and the laws perpetuating these barbaric practices need to be repealed.

Saroop Ijaz is a lawyer and human rights activist based in Lahore, Pakistan.  He wrote the above article for the Los Angeles Times

Huck Finn Loses the Nigger He Loves to “Progressive” Ethnic Cleansing


The Stalinists in the American Marxist politically correct world are reviving the old adage of pathos groaned by the citizens of the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics years of Marxist dictatorship:

“The future is known……It’s the Past that keeps changing”.      The censorship of political correctness is a Marxist rather than a Nazi phenomenon.   Here is an example in this story at Telegraph.co.uk by Christopher Howse:

“There is a great fuss in America about a new edition of Huckleberry Finn from which the word nigger has been excised. It occurs in the novel 217 times, or 219 (tallies vary, and I have lost count), so its loss makes quite a difference. It is like The Merchant of Venice without the word Jew.

Indeed Jew is far more pejorative in the mouths of Shakespeare’s characters than nigger is in the mouths of some of Mark Twain’s. Launcelot Gobbo, Shylock’s servant, resolves to run away, and declares: “I am a Jew if I serve the Jew any longer.”

We readers of Shakespeare and Mark Twain do not dislike black people or Jewish people. Yet we can be more certain that Twain did not hate blacks than that Shakespeare was not anti-Semitic. Anyone would have to be not only stupid but a fool to miss the fact that Mark Twain was on the side of Jim, the runaway slave in Huckleberry Finn.

Even if we cannot be sure that Shakespeare wasn’t anti-Semitic, should it mean that teenagers at school must never read The Merchant of Venice again? Or, if we are doubtful about Thomas Carlyle’s attitude to emancipated slaves, does that mean nobody should peruse his discourse from 1853, On the Nigger Question?

Striking out the word nigger every time it appears in Huckleberry Finn is a kind of ethnic cleansing, a pretence that in the land of the free no one referred to black people by a demeaning term once the Civil War had been won.

Worse, it is to confuse a word with a system of thought. For something really hair-raising on race, look up the “scientific” approach of the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica under the entry Negro. “The recognised leaders of the race are almost invariably persons of mixed blood,” it declares, “and the qualities which have made them leaders are derived certainly in part and perhaps mainly from their white ancestry.”

Mark Twain was having none of this. Huckleberry Finn is about the moral education of its hero. At first he is scandalised that his friend Tom Sawyer should be willing to help Jim escape from his “owner”. “I couldn’t believe it. Tom Sawyer a nigger-stealer! ” Huck believes that stealing will send him to hell, but, in a crux of the plot, he chooses to risk hellfire rather than betray Jim.

Huck learns Jim has feelings too, after hurting them by playing a trick on him. He apologises. “It was fifteen minutes,” Huck explains, “before I could work myself up to go and humble myself to a nigger; but I done it, and I warn’t ever sorry for it afterwards, neither.” How would that sentence be improved by changing nigger to slave, as the new publishers have done?

Huckleberry Finn has a happy ending of sorts, for Jim is freed. But Huck himself is the one who has no place in civilised society, and he hatches a plan to head off for “Injun” territory. Only, of course, the publishers can’t let the word Injun sully the minds of the impressionable young either.
The position of black people in America is only one strand of Huckleberry Finn, but it is the dominating theme of Twain’s very interesting problem tale Pudd’nhead Wilson. It concerns two babies, one regarded as a “nigger” though only one-32nd part black, the other the heir to the local estate. As in The Prince and the Pauper, Mark Twain has fun when they are swapped. Yet he calls his story a tragedy.

The child brought up as the heir goes to the bad, behaves badly to black people, and turns to murder. The amiable child brought up as a “nigger” is at last rewarded by being recognised as the heir. But he can never feel comfortable among white people, because of his speech and manners.
It’s nurture, not nature that makes the man, Twain suggests. For him, the problem is not “Niggaz with Attitude” but the attitude to “niggers”.

Tags: , , , , ,

Further comment:    This is another example of America’s progressives progressing to their ideal progress, atheistic Marxism.

Socialist N.Y. Representative, Jerrold Nadler, Blasts Republicans for Plan To Read Constitution Before the House

“Ritualistic reading” as if it is a “sacred text”…..”a highly imperfect text”  Socialist Nadler insists. 

Article was found at Cristy Li.

“Democrat-Socialist Jerrold Nadler having only today taken his Oath of Office as required pursuant to the 6th Article of the Constitution of the United States now criticizes the Republican Majority for their plans to open up Thursday’s Session of Congress with the reading of the Constitution.

WaPo “For more than 200 years, Americans have revered the Constitution of the United States as the law of the land…”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY complained that Republicans plans to read the Constitution on the House Floor Thursday will be “…reading it as a sacred text,” arguing that the “ritualistic reading…total nonsense and propaganda…You read the Torah, you read the Bible, you build a worship service around it,” said Nadler adding, that the Founders were not “demigods” and that the documents need for amendments to abolish slavery and other injustices showed it was “highly imperfect.”

Naddler comments show the main problem with Progressive (Democrat-Socialists) Philosophy. One does not simply read the Torah like its a good novel or the morning paper—the Torah is studied because it is meant to be a Blueprint for how to live your life.

Similarly the U.S. Constitution is a Blueprint for good government to follow and the fact that it may be amended is the beauty of its perfection.

If nothing else, Nadler’s comments evidence Democrat-Socialists disdain for our Founding Documents and how obsolete and irrelevant Loony Liberal Lefties believe them to be.

More here Nadler Gets Both Constitution & Torah Wrong –Yid With Lid”

Comment:  Mr. Nadler is a leading Socialist in the  Democrat Party.  He has been in the House of  Representatives  almost 20 years.  




Roger Kimball: Debt Reaches $14,000,000,000,000……..and Obama on Another Holiday

“Barack Obama;  Comedian”   by Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media:

“There aren’t many humorous headlines today (another assassination in Pakistan, Illinois on the brink of bankruptcy, the national debt tops $14 trilliontrillion!), but here’s one that brought a smile to my face:

“Obama exhorts Republicans to put politics aside.”

Yes, that’s right: just as he ends his two-week vacation (I think we ought to start calling Obama “President Holiday”: has any president ever taken as many vacations as he?), the leader of the formerly free world is “appealing to newly-empowered Republicans to resist jockeying for the White House in 2012 and work with him to get the economy growing and the jobless back to work.” Ha, ha, ha! Oh, what a card.

Help him “get the economy growing,” eh?  What better way than to inject a little venom into the temporary extension of the so-called Bush tax cuts he grudgingly endorsed last month?  How about the carbon frenzy his administration has exhibited, using another bogus “environmental” concern to hamper businesses all over the country? (See this depressing story on “the EPA’s War on Texas.”) Or, since I mentioned the $14 trillion national debt, how about the incontinent spending this profligate administration has indulged in? Take a look at this:

What the chart fails to communicate, of course, is the staggering reality behind that ascending red line: who among you really appreciates the world-destroying effect of $14 trillion in debt? The President of the United States has two basic, interwoven,  responsibilities: 1) to “provide for the common defense,” as the Constitution puts it, and (2) to pursue responsible fiscal policies.

“One thing that  makes President Holiday’s appeal to Republicans to “put politics aside” risible is its timing.  When he won in 2008, President Holiday told us that “elections have consequences” and that he now had a mandate to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” into a European-style socialist state. But when the 2010 election had a rather different outcome, we were told that the election didn’t really signify anything.

Of course, we know that for President Holiday and his team, elections only matter when they happen to endorse their policies. Which is to say: they don’t matter at all, except as window dressing. But we knew that already, didn’t we?  Consider the way the administration rammed ObamaCare down the throats of the people: has there ever been such far-reaching, consequential legislation passed over such widespread popular opposition?  Elections are meant  to register the will of the people. The people, to the resounding number of some 63 percent, oppose ObamaCare. Never mind: President Holiday and his bureaucrats know better. They want ObamaCare — not because it is better health care, but because it invests more power in the government, i.e., in their hands —  so it is ObamaCare you will get.

The deeper cause for humor here, however, is the spectacle of a politician, speaking in his role as a politician, exhorting other politicians  to “put politics aside.”  But if the politicians we elect to do the people’s business were to “put politics aside” they would have failed to do their job. That’s what we pay them for: to play politics, which means to argue and lobby for policies that, in so far as is possible, further the common good.

The exhortation by a politician “to put politics aside” is never anything more than a cynical political gesture designed to thrill the credulous and sentimental. To hear a hardened pol like President Holiday utter it is to find oneself warring with two conflicting emotions: disgust, at the brazenness and bad faith of the pronouncement, and hilarity at the chutzpah and sheer baldness of the performance.

I own that I laughed when I read about President Holiday’s appeal.  It wasn’t long, however, before other sentiments took over.”

112th Congress….Welcome to the Fresh Faces!

The biggest freshman class in the House of Representatives in more than 60 years will take their seats this week. The 112th Congress will feature a Republican Party looking to capitalize on its sweeping election victory and newfound majority status in the House to tackle government spending and attempt to roll back some of President Obama’s agenda — most notably, health care reform.

Meanwhile, the Democrats, who have just nine of the 94 freshman members, find themselves in the minority for the first time since 2006. With many of the more moderate “blue dogs” swept away last November, the party’s more uniformly liberal caucus will attempt to hold Republicans in check.

To help you get your arms around the 112th Congress, we’ve compiled the definitive guide to the freshman members of the House of Representatives. Click on the state names below to see details on the new members of each state’s delegation.


Found at RealClearPolitics