• 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

Rush in todo over Fluke…..Perhaps the word “Slut” worked best.

Seven advertisers worried about Lefty sales abandon ‘Rush hour’.   Rush now says he shouldn’t have used two words.

Fluke, age 30 going on 13,  paraded  innocence around today  to share women’s pain.

I haven’t heard Rush’ original on the matter, only bits and pieces.   “Prostitute” seemed to have been a word Rush used in this matter……the matter that poor Ms. Fluke, unmarried, required at least $1,000 per term at Georgetown University to cover her sex costs, the ones that involve something contraceptive to keep her female studies up to snuff..   

The Poobahs at Georgetown don’t divvy out the stuff, so Ms. Fluke is appealing to Lefty America for taxpayer money to cover not only her sexual protection costs but those of all womanhood in her state of life.

Ms. Fluke has not reported to anyone that she is a Mrs.   Ms. Fluke needs money, quite a bit of it, $3,000 during her expected stay at Georgetown University to keep her protected from WHAT?

“Whore” is universally considered by dictionary people as an offensive word.   Perhaps Rush should have used ‘screwing around’ as the Fluke  choice of entertainment, but the dictionary considers that offensive as well, and suggests that ‘screwing around’ implies, such entertainment with more than one person.

Perhaps Rush did jump to conclusion a bit, but then, he didn’t use the phrase, “to screw around”.

A generation or two ago, whore referred primarily to a female entertainer offering sexual favors, but because of the recent feminist decades,  that female  reference has apparently been dropped.   My dictionary has several ‘meanings’ listed for ‘whore’:  l. offensive term used to refer to a prostitute; 2. offensive term used to refer to somebody as being sexually indiscriminate; 3. offensive term used to refer to somebody who is regarded as willingly setting aside principles or personal integrity in order to obtain something.  (This third definitiion is the one that refers  to Liberals and Marxists in their work habits)…..but there is no mention of the ‘female’ specifically….only   ‘prostitute’.

Then there is the word, ‘slut’, which perhaps  Rush included in his broadcasting. report regarding  the Fluke request for sex entertainments requiring   Federal funding.

My dictionary reports:  SLUT:  a highly offensive term for a woman thought by others to be sexually  promiscuous.

Well, now, there you have it!    “Slut” might work as an accurate description for the ‘thought’ of the activity for which  the sexual protection Fluke requires to be subsidized by the American taxpayers.   Rush must have thought “the thought”…..which fits the dictionary term and so must be accurate.   He THOUGHT  Fluke to be promiscuous.

Yet, for Ms. Fluke to  pay $3,000 of taxpayer money for a ‘collection’ of   contraceptives during her ‘studies’ at Georgetown University doesn’t seem to cut into the entertainment part.   Go figure, dear readers.   I don’t want to.

Fluke appeared on the View this A.M.   She knew she could find cuddling there.  and support for her taxpayer paid Federal Funding for slut work fighting for women’s ‘health’.

Perhaps Rush did jump to conclusion a bit, but then, he didn’t use the phrase, “to screw around”.

Would Obama have Fled to Pakistan to Avoid the Draft? Who Would Trust Obama in the Military?

Can anyone Marxist or no, imagine Barack Hussein Obama in uniform defending his country?   What country would he be defending?    What country would have confidence having Barack Hussein Obama defending it?   Who could trust Barack Hussein?

For roll call would Barack Hussein Obama sleaze into the darkest corner available  to announce “PRESENT”  as he did when voting as senator in Illinois?

Who could ever trust this wuss as a member of a platoon?  

But then, he would have bribed someone or got favors from a Bill Ayers  for an officer roll…..in an office somewhere where he could community organize or in a cubicle from where he could hang curtains in the mess hall.

Obama: Soldiers in Afghanistan Must Be Fired Upon

to Receive Combat Pay

While I understand that only a fraction of the population of this nation is directly affected by what you are about to read, I would never-the-less like to remind you that the remainder of the population is affected coincidentally. While the majority of the American population probably never even considered the Armed Forces as a possible career objective, there are those who never considered life without serving their country, in uniform, on a field of combat.
Most of these young men and women never take the time to internalize some idealized vision of charging death for God and Country, they just have a burning desire
President Obama, however, was apparently never burdened with that urgent call to serve others or his country selflessly. And because the only thing he ever answered to was a call to “self-empowerment” and self-ingratiation, he has been a brutal failure as a moral leader and Commander in Chief. In addition, his unquenchable desire to “win over” that portion of the world population to whom he has sold his soul has led him to a new round of actions that should anger every red blooded American and will disgust every American who has ever donned the uniform of a United States Marine!
This week, President Obama sought to block legislation that would hold Iran accountable for the Hezbollah bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines in 1983 . This inexplicable move hasn’t any bearing on the current crisis except for it’s ability to tilt world opinion in favor of US interests. The Obama administration’s actions to derail this legislation in Congress, then, can only be seen as an effort to bolster support for the Iranian regime which can only be understood through the prism of this sitting President’s indefatigable efforts to “reconcile” with the Islamic nations of the world.
If three plus years of his purposeful attempts to insult the country he has sworn to defend through his many prostrating speeches on Islamic soil and this latest otherwise despicable move haven’t enlightened you, then maybe this next story will help finish your education!
As of February 1st 2012, President Obama has determined that Combat Pay for US forces will be determined by a new criteria. In general, Afghanistan has been deemed a combat zone and all US forces deployed in that region have been eligible for combat pay due to the certainty of encountering dirt-bags in firefights, ambushes, IED’s or suicide bombings. This new policy now requires having been shot at first. For those not understanding the problem with this, it now says that the US Government has effectively declared Afghanistan a “safe zone”! And this in spite of the nearly daily reports of Americans being either wounded or killed!
This newest insult is certainly an effort to bolster what will be his campaign claim to have “pacified” Afghanistan during his tenure and having kept one of his last campaign promises to bring all troops home by the end of his first term. But here again is where perception, does not align with reality. In a land where the Taliban are given new control over the country by our unwillingness to hold them accountable in combat and where discussions of “peace talks” include promises to release known murderous thugs back onto the battlefield where our troops still operate, the Taliban have made it clear they are not only not in talks but that they are not interested.
Is this the “safe” Afghanistan where Warriors are still forced to patrol daily, are wounded in daily, killed in daily, betrayed by Afghan Soldiers and Police Cadets, daily and which the Obama Administration has now effectively declared no longer a combat zone?
So once again, the health and well-being of our Warriors will suffer for political expedience. In addition, all troops fired upon, wounded or killed by our “Afghan partners” will not be viewed as combat deaths but fratricide/murder, making those incidents criminal acts. This will affect the way United States Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Coast Guardsmen who are wounded or killed in that polluted land are treated by this government. It will also most likely change the SGLI eligibility status from non-taxable to taxable!!
Are things clearing up now??
These latest actions by this sitting President would be curious and difficult to understand if his actions in the first months of his administration had not been so telling. When one of the first actions in a President’s term is to give a speech on foreign soil, to people who are spiritually opposed to our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and who we know have supported terrorist acts across the world, these newest actions can only be described as part of some subversive plan. Let’s not forget that he “apologized” for the United States in that and following speeches to yet other foreign, Islamic audiences and in at least one meeting, prostrated himself to his Muslim host which had the affect of subjugating the United States and it’s citizenry to that “host”.
It remains a mystery why no one in Congress has seen fit to decry either of these last two outrages which should give you an indication of the current condition of the heart of leadership in this country.
This election cycle certainly won’t give DC the enema it needs or deserves, but it could have the affect of sending a message to all those who dare suggest they are fit for leadership on the national stage. People seeking to “serve” on the national stage need to know that their personal proclivities toward self-aggrandizement will no longer be tolerated. They need to know that the American voter will be educated and engaged in the political process and that our first concern is for the future security of this nation and that vision includes those who are actively serving in regions of the world into which they have been thrust.
The people of this nation need to realign their priorities and put Honor first; not only in their own lives but in their requirement for those they would have represent them. Our Warriors have done that by the simple act of stepping forward and raising their right hands.
They should at least be afforded the dignity of having the dangerous space they operate in continue to be declared a combat zone!

White People, the GOP kind, are the Scourge….Salon’s Lefty Racist, Joan Walsh, Writes


 Salon’s Joan Walsh’s Racism in her own words:

“So what is the matter with white people, anyway?  

When I wrote that sentence, I could hear aggrieved whites on the right getting indignant. We can’t generalize about any other group like that, why ask such a question about white people!? From the left, suggesting whites could experience something W.E.B. DuBois once wrote about might sound like I’m saying their troubles are comparable to those of black folk. Of course, I’m not saying that.

But if the problem of the 20th century was the color line, as Du Bois said, in the 21st century it’s the color lines. We don’t yet have a new narrative around social justice that makes sense in a world without a dominant majority. We don’t quite know what to do with white people.

Of course, whites will remain dominant economically and politically even after they lose demographic dominance, due to the legacy and endurance of racism. But it’s clear that times are harder in certain segments of white America. White unemployment and poverty doubled during this recession, though both rates are only half that of African Americans. Asian-American median income is higher that white median income, and growing faster. Asian-Americans have higher college completion rates than whites, and the gulf is widening. In California, Asian kids are twice as likely than whites to earn grades that make them eligible for the University of California system, and they now make up a majority of the flagship UC-Berkeley campus, where just under a third of students are white. When the New York Times ran a feature on a black student at the city’s elite public Stuyvesant High School last week, all over the Internet I saw people expressing shock that the student body was 72 percent Asian; San Francisco’s comparable Lowell High School has been a solid majority Asian since the 1980s; three quarters of the student body today is Asian-American.

In “Suicide of a Superpower,” poor Pat Buchanan seemed to believe that the rapidly growing number of Asian-Americans in the nation’s top schools had to do with affirmative action. I used to hear the same thing from clueless white people back before the passage of Ward Connerly’s Prop. 209 in 1997, which abolished affirmative action. Of course they were wrong — Asian-American students were succeeding the old-fashioned way, with hard work. Since then, of course, the white proportion of UC students has continued to decline, even without affirmative action.

Living in California it’s easy to see subtle and not so subtle signs of white status anxiety, real and imagined, even beyond school enrollment issues. I was intrigued to see, in a recent Pew Research Center survey of intermarriage trends, that intermarriage rates are going up for every group, except for Asian-Americans, whose rates have long been among the highest, but which are now coming down. Twenty years ago, when I was first writing about California’s racial frontier, sociologists explained high rates of Asian “out-marriage” as a kind of status-seeking: “marrying out” was a way of “marrying up.” Whites sought out Asian partners, in this analysis, as the closest surrogate for whites and as partners who in some settings might even represent their “marrying up.” Whatever the motive behind their pairings, white/Asian couples have the highest income of any pairings, Pew found, including white/white and Asian/Asian, and were far more likely than any other group to have college degrees. But it’s noteworthy to me that the Asian “outmarriage” rate has dropped significantly over the last few years; from just 2010 to 2008, the percentage of American-born Asians newlyweds who married whites dropped from 47% to 38% — a result of a larger Asian population in the U.S., as well as a sign Asian-Americans may no longer need to marry out to marry up.

I’m not suggesting Asians are becoming the American master race, or that Asian-Americans don’t still experience racism. But the way we talk about whites versus “people of color” sometimes seems like we’re grouping “haves” and “have nots,” and making whites the “haves.” A growing number of whites aren’t “haves,” despite our history. And while the country is facing a demographic and generational mismatch, as an elderly white population is supported by a younger, working population in which whites are a minority, it’s possible to exaggerate the importance of that mismatch. Upper middle class and wealthy kids of every race are doing OK; poor and working class kids, including whites, not so much. The Pew Research Center says that an astonishing 45% of black middle class children end up “near poor,” the rate for white families is 16% — and that data is from 2007, before the recession. The rate for both groups is too high for any society that prides itself on upward mobility. We can’t reassure ourselves, if we live in a majority-white area, that we’ll be supported by kids who will be doing well. We all have reason to worry, about everyone’s children.


It’s impossible to generalize about “white people,” of course, and almost as hard to make bold, broad statements about the “white working class.” There are regional differences and differences in age; distinctions according to whether people are married or have children. The biggest difference seems to be whether you define that group by income, or whether you define it in terms of people without a college degree. The Democrats’ current political troubles have more to do with white people who lack a college education than those who lack income. In 2008, Obama lost white voters who didn’t go to college by 18 points, but he lost whites who made less than $50,000 by only four points. No wonder Santorum doesn’t want us to go to college. (Intermarriage rates are also highest among the college educated.)

Young or old, surveys and polls find that whites without college degrees are the most pessimistic Americans, with a majority saying the expect their kids to be worse off than they are. Are they all like Pat Buchanan, sulking because their country no longer looks the way it did when they were younger, and they are unwilling to share it with people who aren’t white? No doubt, some of them are. But the way that white people, particularly the economically vulnerable, react to the browning of America will have a lot to do with how we treat them. Yes, I said we and them. The forces of social justice have always looked out for the rights and singular insights of minority populations. We’re about to have a new one to think about.

I know white people still hold disproportionate wealth and power in this country. They make up an estimated 95 percent of the top 1 percent. But I’m more interested in the more than 99 percent of whites who are excluded from that top group. We’re right to point out the ways even low income white people have benefited from the long legal and extralegal history of racial subjugation and white supremacy, to identify the colorless, odorless oxygen known as “white privilege.” But we’re wrong when we act like it trumps every other form of disadvantage. Increasingly, it does not.

I’d like to ask more of white people, too.  Conservative advocates of a “common culture” love to point to the slogan e pluribus unum, or “out of many, one.” I love that idea too. The question today is whether white Americans can accept merely being “one, out of many,” rather than the dominant American norm to which others are expected to aspire to join. The right acts like “minorities” invented the dreaded “identity politics.” But of course white people invented identity politics. It’s been our world, and everyone else has had to live with it, coping the best they can.

Still, it’s been clear for a while our ways of talking about fairness aren’t keeping up with the times. We’ve made enormous progress on racial justice in the last 40 years, and yet our shamefully high black poverty rate is roughly the same, and the share of all Americans who are poor has risen. In that same time, the top 1 percent has gone from 8 to 23 percent of the nation’s income and gobbled up 40 percent of its wealth. We are obviously doing something wrong.

Lately, we’re doing something right, even if it’s only in the way we talk about these issues. After an approval-rating low during the August debt-ceiling crisis, when he faux-bragged about cutting domestic spending to the lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower, President Obama now receives positive job-performance ratings from a majority of American voters in several recent polls. Tuesday’s unparalleled speech before the UAW showed some of why.

You want to talk about values? Hard work – that’s a value. Looking out for one another – that’s a value. The idea that we’re all in it together – that I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper – that is a value.

But they’re still talking about you as if you’re some greedy special interest that needs to be beaten. Since when are hardworking men and women special interests? Since when is the idea that we look out for each other a bad thing? To borrow a line from our old friend Ted Kennedy: what is it about working men and women they find so offensive?

This notion that we should have let the auto industry die; that we should pursue anti-worker policies in hopes unions like yours will unravel – it’s part of that same old you’re-on-your-own philosophy that says we should just leave everyone to fend for themselves. I don’t think so. That’s the philosophy that got us into this mess. And we can’t afford to go back.

We will not settle for a country where a few people do really well, and everyone else struggles to get by. We’re fighting for an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules. We will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony profits. We’re fighting for an economy that’s built to last – one built on things like education, energy, manufacturing things the rest of the world wants to buy, and restoring the values that made this country great: Hard work. Fair play. The opportunity to make it if you try. And the responsibility to reach back and help someone else make it, too.

That’s who we are. That’s what we believe in.

Sometimes the cold demographic analysis of the Democratic Party’s future can sound like we’re waiting for the white working class to die off. But that’s dangerous: if they rally to the Republican Party in this next election, they can do enough damage to make life very difficult for the Democratic majority that’s waiting to emerge – the young, women, lower-income blacks, Latinos and Asians – and for themselves. Waiting for them to die off seems like a risky strategy, and a little mean, to boot. I can’t do that; most of my extended family is among them.

I remember people worrying – I was one of them – that candidate Obama couldn’t connect with white working class voters in 2008.  But he changed some of his pitch, and he improved on white Democrats’ standing with that group in 2008. The president who made that UAW speech should be able to connect with all voters in 2012, except the most hardened, selfish members of the top 1 percent, and their errand-boys in the GOP.  The worst stereotyping about working class whites is today coming from the right, from the likes of Charles Murray and his Republican admirers. It’s time we all woke up.”

Quick Comment:   If Marxist-Democrats like Joan Walsh are so  in love with ‘E Pluribus Unum’, why is it so much of their energy goes into organizing,  teaching, propagandizing, and stealing  to create antiAmerican tribes based on their bigotries, their    self interest of cultural diversities  organized  to destroy the nation and its rule of law, the Constitution?

A Breitbart’s Look into Barack Hussein’s Marxism

The Vetting, Part I: Barack’s Love Song To Alinsky


by Andrew Breitbart   at Big Government

Prior to his passing, Andrew Breitbart said that the mission of the Breitbart empire was to exemplify the free and fearless press that our Constitution protects–but which, increasingly, the mainstream media denies us.

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” – “Who guards the guardians?” Andrew saw himself in that role—as a guardian protecting Americans from the left’s “objective” loyal scribes. 

Andrew wanted to do what the mainstream media would not. First and foremost: Andrew pledged to vet President Barack H. Obama. 

Andrew did not want to re-litigate the 2008 election. Nor did he want to let Republicans off the hook. Instead, he wanted to show that the media had failed in its most basic duty: to uncover the truth, and hold those in power accountable, regardless of party.

From today through Election Day, November 6, 2012, we will vet this president–and his rivals. 

We begin with a column Andrew wrote last week in preparation for today’s Big relaunch–a story that should swing the first hammer against the glass wall the mainstream media has built around Barack Obama.


In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama claims that he worried after 9/11 that his name, so similar to that of Osama bin Laden, might harm his political career.

But Obama was not always so worried about misspellings and radical resemblances. He may even have cultivated them as he cast himself as Chicago’s radical champion.

In 1998, a small Chicago theater company staged a play titled The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, dedicated to the life and politics of the radical community organizer whose methods Obama had practiced and taught on Chicago’s South Side.

Obama was not only in the audience, but also took the stage after one performance, participating in a panel discussion that was advertised in the poster for the play. 

Recently, veteran Chicago journalist Michael Miner mocked emerging conservative curiosity about the play, along with enduring suspicions about the links between Alinsky and Obama. Writing in the Chicago Reader, Miner described the poster:

Let’s take a look at this poster.

It’s red—and that right there, like the darkening water that swirls down Janet Leigh’s drain [in Psycho’s famous shower scene], is plenty suggestive. It touts a play called The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, Alinsky being the notorious community organizer from Chicago who wrote books with titles like Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals. On it, fists are raised—meaning insurrection is in the air.

And down at the very bottom, crawling across the poster in small print, it mentions the panel discussions that will follow the Sunday performances. The panelists are that era’s usual “progressive” suspects: Leon Despres, Monsignor Jack Egan, Studs Terkel . . .

And state senator Barack Obama.

Miner obscured the truth. His article only reveals only a small portion of the poster. Here’s the whole poster: 


byConn Carroll Senior Editorial Writer    at the Washington Examiner

California is going broke. Again. The state controller has estimated that the state will run out of money sometime this month. California will need to find $3 billion in cuts or revenues to keep the state in the black through the rest of this fiscal year.

And next year looks even worse. California’s Legislative Analyst Office projects that, even with billions in one-time revenues from Facebook’s impending IPO, Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget will run a $6.5 billion deficit.

Democrats in state government are desperate for cash. And they are beginning to cannibalize their local government brethren for revenues to make up the difference. The state’s more than 400 redevelopment agencies have become one of the first targets.

Created in the 1940s, RDAs empower a city or county to identify almost any parcel of land as a “redevelopment area.” When that is done, state property tax revenues from that area are frozen and any subsequent increase in property tax revenue beyond the frozen level goes directly to the RDAs.

RDAs are also empowered to borrow money without any voter approval. They can then buy property with that borrowed money and pay it off with the expected revenue stream from their take of the property taxes. All told, RDAs skim $5 billion from Sacramento every year.

Intended for “economic development,” RDAs quickly became the bread-and-butter of almost every pay-to-play construction project in the state. Developers would give money to local politicians, and those politicians would use the RDAs, and their powers of eminent domain, to obtain land for their campaign contributors on the cheap.

Developers then made millions building upscale shopping malls like Victoria Gardens in Rancho Cucamonga. Everybody won … except the free market and taxpayers.

In 2010, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to close his multi-billion dollar budget gap by raiding the RDA. Developers didn’t like that. They fought back with Proposition 22, which passed in November 2010. The measure forbids the state from siphoning off RDA money.

Fast forward to 2011, when Brown hatched a new plan to get that $5 billion. Being a Democrat, he had no philosophical problem with governments picking winners and losers through crony capitalism. But he did want, to steal a phrase from the Godfather, to wet his beak a little.

So Brown passed two laws. The first outlawed the RDAs entirely. That was the stick. The second allowed the RDAs to exist, but only if they gave a certain percentage of revenues to the state every year. That was the carrot.

Some RDAs were happy to play Brown’s extortion game. But others took him to court … and they blew up the system for everybody. The State Supreme Court threw out the second law, ruling that it conflicted with Proposition 22.

But the justices kept the first law banning the agencies. As of February 1st, all 400 plus RDAs suddenly became extinct

But while Brown now gets his RDA cash (which still isn’t enough to close next year’s budget gap), California local and city governments are stuck holding the bag for all their liabilities.

Cumulatively, RDAs own about $2 billion in assets statewide. Problem is, they also owe around $4 billion in debt. Local governments across the state are scrambling to figure out how to pay off this new burden.

Already crushed under the weight of unionized government employee pensions they can’t afford, Brown’s RDA money grab is driving many localities to the brink of bankruptcy.

The city of Stockton began the bankruptcy process last week. The cities of Hercules and Lincoln are not far behind.

So have California Democrats learned that government-funded crony capitalist development isn’t good for their constituents’ bottom line? Not at all. State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, is looking to “recreate a new set of economic development tools for cities.”

That will end well, too, I’m sure.

Conn Carroll is a senior editorial writer for The Washington Examiner. He can be reached at ccarroll@washingtonexaminer.com.

Dowd Proud of $1,000 per term Sex gal Fluke at Georgetown seeking Taxpayer Subsidy for Habit

Slashed Maureen knows Limbaugh Pain and asks Rush in her New York Times article:



AS a woman who has been viciously slashed by Rush Limbaugh, I can tell you, it’s no fun.

At first you think, if he objects to the substance of what you’re saying, why can’t he just object to the substance of what you’re saying? Why go after you in the most personal and humiliating way?

Then, once you accept the fact that he has become the puppet master of the Republican Party by stirring bloodlust (earning enough to bribe Elton John to play at his fourth wedding), you still cringe at the thought that your mom might hear the ugly things he said.

Now he’s brutalizing a poised, wholesome-looking 30-year-old Georgetown law student as a “slut,” “a prostitute” and “round-heeled” simply for testifying to lawmakers about wanting the school to amend its health insurance to cover contraception.

Sandra Fluke “goes before a Congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her?” Limbaugh coarsely ranted. “It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps. The johns.”

Isn’t this the last guy who should be pointing fingers and accusing others of taking pills for recreational purposes?

He said insuring contraception would represent another “welfare entitlement,” which is wrong — tax dollars would not provide the benefit, employers and insurance companies would. And women would not be getting paid just “to have sex.” They’d be getting insurance coverage toward the roughly $1,000 annual expense of trying to avoid unwanted pregnancies and abortions, and to control other health conditions. This is something men and conservatives should want too, and not just because those outcomes actually do cost taxpayers money.

Limbaugh leeringly suggested that were taxpayers to be stuck with the bill, Fluke and other “feminazis” should give them something back: sex videos. “We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch,” he said.

Fluke was lobbying Georgetown University to change its policy for three years before she became a cause célèbre outcast when the Republican congressman Darrell Issa barred her from an all-male panel on contraception. But her conflict with her Jesuit school did not stop its president, John DeGioia, from eloquently defending his student (who ended up testifying for Nancy Pelosi’s all-Democratic panel).

“She provided a model of civil discourse,” he said in a letter to the school. “This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression.”

He branded the reaction of Limbaugh and some other commentators as “misogynistic, vitriolic and a misrepresentation of the position of our student.”

Given this season’s lava spill of hate, it was fitting that DeGioia evoked St. Augustine: “Let us, on both sides, lay aside all arrogance. Let us not, on either side, claim that we have already discovered the truth.”

It’s hard to believe that not that long ago, Bob Dole, the former G.O.P. leader and presidential nominee, was a spokesman for Viagra. (Mother Jones pointed out that Rush, a Viagra fan, might be confusing the little blue pill and birth control, since “when and how much sex you have is unrelated to the amount of birth control you need.”)

Rush and Newt Gingrich can play the studs, marrying again and again until they find the perfect adoring young wife. But women pressing for health care rights are denigrated as sluts.

On Thursday, the Senate narrowly voted down a puritanical Republican attempt to let employers and insurance companies deny coverage for contraceptives on any religious or moral grounds they could dream up.

Only a last-minute media glare caused Virginia’s Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, and its Republican-led Legislature to modify a shockingly punitive law aiming to shame and in many cases penetrate women seeking abortions. The version that passed on Thursday is still harsh enough to damage McDonnell’s vice presidential prospects.

By Friday, President Obama, who had started out fumbling the contraception issue, and the Democrats were taking gleeful advantage, raising $1.6 million to combat the G.O.P.’s “war on women.”

Mitt Romney reacted to Limbaugh for days with craven silence before finally allowing on a rope line on Friday night that “it’s not the language I would have used.” Is there a right way to call a woman a slut?

Rick Santorum, whose views on women are medieval, said “an entertainer can be absurd.” Speaker John Boehner offered a tepid comment through a spokesman that Limbaugh’s words were “inappropriate.”

President Obama called Fluke and bucked her up, probably hoping to get Limbaugh to double down. El Rushbo, as he calls himself, obliged. “Did you ever think of backing off the amount of sex you’re having?” he demanded of Fluke on Friday’s broadcast as some advertisers were fleeing: Sleep Train Mattress Centers, Quicken Loans, Select Comfort and AutoZone.

The law student got the call from the president as she was about to go on Andrea Mitchell’s show on MSNBC. She darted into an empty office to talk to Obama and closed the door; soon Chris Matthews was wondering who was inside and sending a staffer to check it out. 

“The president just wanted to make sure I was O.K.,” she said. “And I am O.K. I’m pretty level-headed.”

The childless radio yakker wondered snidely how Fluke’s parents, who live in rural Pennsylvania, would feel about her crusade. Fluke, a Methodist Democrat, said she was particularly touched that the president told her, speaking as the father of two daughters, that her parents should be proud.

“My parents and I don’t always agree politically,” she said, but about the issue of insuring contraception, “we see eye to eye.”

Update: On Saturday evening, Rush Limbaugh posted a statement on his Web site, which can be read here.

The following note is from Allahpundit at HotAir concerning a Barack Obama misogynist fan, Bill Maher:

“But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?

“[T]he grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a ‘dumb twat’ and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann ‘boobs’ and ‘two bimbos.’ He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, ‘She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.’ He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, ‘Don’t show me your tits!’ as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: ‘And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!’…

“This is not to suggest that liberals—or feminists—never complain about misogyny. Many feminist blogs now document attacks on women on the left and the right, including Jezebel, Shakesville, and the Women’s Media Center (which was cofounded by Steinem). But when it comes to high-profile campaigns to hold these men accountable—such as that waged against Limbaugh—the real fury seems reserved only for conservatives, while the men on the left get a wink and a nod as long as they are carrying water for the liberal cause.

“After all, if Limbaugh’s outburst is part of the ‘war on women,’ then what is the routine misogyny of liberal media men?”