• 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

Former Alabama Representative Artur Davis Explains why he switched from Obama to GOP


Fmr. Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) explains his party switch on FOX News with Neil Cavuto.

Cavuto: Artur, good to have you. Why this move?

Davis: Neil, good to talk to you. You know, I’ve made a move I think that millions of Americans have made in the last several years. Fifty-three percent of people in this country voted for Barack Obama. At the time, 51 percent said they were Democrats. Well, those numbers have gone south in the last several years. So, I’m one of millions of people who, frankly, didn’t get what we voted for. A lot of people in my old state of Alabama, 15 Democratic elected officials, have now become Republicans. The guy who defeated me in the Democratic primary now works for the Republican governor who defeated him. A lot of us have made this move in some way, shape or form.

For a variety of reasons, I can only speak for myself, but I worked hard for Barack Obama four years ago because I thought he would bring this country together, and I thought he would change the way we talk to each other as Americans, and I thought he would change the way that we see ourselves. Well, there are many virtues around the president. I have a great deal of respect for the president. But that’s not the country the president has given us. So, it’s not something, in my case, that I woke up overnight and decided. It’s a period of thinking about a lot of issues over a period of time and, frankly, having the benefit, the enforced luxury, if you will, of kind of being on the sidelines the last two years. But this is where I feel more comfortable today.

Cavuto: You know cynics will hear you now, sir, and say, ‘Well, this is about political survival and keeping his political options open. Not cool to be a Democrat in your neck of the woods, better to be a Republican right now.’ What do you say?

Davis: Well, Neil, I no longer live in the state of Alabama. My wife and I live in Virginia now, and Republicans control about 60 percent of the vote in Alabama. They’re not quite so lucky in Virginia. This is a state that, if anything, leans slightly Democratic now. I’ve said to several people in the last several days, if all I wanted to do was to hold a political office, I had a very easy route to do that. All I had to do was go back to Alabama and run all around the 7th Congressional District saying how sorry I was and doing the biggest mea culpa anybody ever saw and begging forgiveness, and I’d be a U.S. congressman again. I would have won my old seat back pretty easily. That’s not what was important to me though.

Cavuto: You were such a high-profile backer of the president and sort of represented, I guess at that time, the new South that was rallying around an African American who could be the first in the White House. That proved to be the case. When did it start going bad for you?

Davis: Well, it became very clear in 2009 and 2010, Neil, that the agenda of the Democratic Party was frankly not the agenda that I thought I would see. I may be a minority in this regard, but I’m one of the people who supported Barack Obama because I thought that he was in the center. I thought that he was someone who might be running to the left in the primaries to win the nomination. I got that. But I believed him when he said he wanted to turn the page. I thought that he was going to be a pro-growth president. I thought that his focus at all times was going to be national unity and bringing the country together, and I saw an enormous amount of potential.

What did we see? We saw a very different path. 2009 and 2010, we saw the Democratic Party decide that for the first time in our country’s history, it was going to push through a major piece of domestic legislation that over 50 percent of the country opposed. Better known as ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. And so many times in 2009 and 2010, I heard people in the Democratic Party say, ‘Oh, we know this is unpopular. We know people don’t support this. But sometimes politicians just have to do that.’ Well, the reality is our presidents in the past have felt it was important to bring us together and to try to build a consensus and to reach across party lines. I didn’t see that effort. I voted against ObamaCare.

But, again, it’s been a gradual process over a period of time, and I emphasize the last two years. When you’re in office, of course you have to say things that end up pleasing your party. It’s a two-team sports sometimes. But the reality is when you’re out of office and you have a chance to think about the direction of our country, the drift of our country, and the fact that the economy today — well, people say it’s a recovery. People like you and me can call it a recovery because we’re doing OK. There’s many people walking around in this country who are not doing OK. And the market is beginning to move back now. There are all kinds of predictions that we could lurch back into a place we don’t want to be in the next several months. Policies we have in place aren’t consistently working. I could give you a laundry list. But what we’re doing is not working, and I’m someone who classifies myself as being on the center-right. There is no center-right in the Democratic Party. There is in the Republican Party, and I want to help it and be a part of it.

Comment:   Welcome, welcome neighbor American.  I can speak personally that when I joined conservatism during Ronald Reagan’s re-election campaign in 1984, and voted against Fritz Mondale, a man whose campaign I had volunteered to work for when he ran for the U.S. Senate in the early 1970s, I felt that I had left my family…..But my family had instead left me.

The Left wing of the Party was moving far away from me and was taking  hold of its national  leadership.    I had followed the stench of the detestable John F. Kerry on his road to treason during the Vietnam conflict.     The man should still be in jail, but instead represents the loony state of Massachusetts in the Senate.

Has anyone got hold of X-Rays of his buttocks yet?   Let us hope a hold is placed on his cremation when he passes, so an  autopsy can divulge  his crimes.

Warren Announces another First……..’first nursing mother’ to take the bar exam in New Jersey, you know

Elizabeth Warren:

I was the first nursing mother to take the bar exam

in New Jersey, you know

 by Allahpundit     at HotAir

Via Legal Insurrection. As you might expect, New Jersey bar administrators have no idea what she’s talking about. Maybe she meant to say she’s the first fake Native American nursing mother to take the bar exam in New Jersey?

Because that might well be true.

“I was the first nursing mother to take a bar exam in the state of New Jersey,” Warren told an audience at the Chicago Humanities Festival in 2011, in a video posted on the CHF website. When asked how Warren knows that, her campaign said: “Elizabeth was making a point about the very serious challenges she faced as a working mom — from taking an all-day bar exam when she was still breast-feeding, to finding work as a lawyer that would accommodate a mom with two small children.”

Winnie Comfort of the New Jersey Judiciary, which administers that state’s bar exam, said there’s no way to verify Warren’s claim. Comfort said women have been taking the New Jersey bar exam since 1895, but she’s not aware their nursing habits were ever tracked.

Elsewhere in 0/32 Cherokee news, Legal Insurrection also notes the appearance of a bold new band of truthtellers — “Cherokees Demand Truth from Elizabeth Warren,” led by the same Cherokee genealogist who called Warren out two weeks ago. 156 members and counting:

Many wonder why we Cherokees are so insistent on Elizabeth Warren coming clean about her false claims of Cherokee ancestry. This is not a political issue to us. We don’t care if Elizabeth Warren is a Democrat, Republican, or an Independent. We do care, though, if she goes around claiming to be Cherokee and has tried to benefit from that claim. Some people might not realize there are only three federally recognized Cherokee tribes in the United States, but there are more than 200 groups who fraudulently claim to be Cherokee tribes. While the federally recognized tribes have very specific criteria their members must meet in order to be enrolled or registered, there is no consistent criterion for membership into the fraudulent groups. Many members of these fraudulent groups base their claim of Cherokee ancestry on the same thing Ms. Warren bases hers on…family lore…

We have researched Ms. Warren’s ancestry in the line she claims to be Cherokee through, as well as researched the collateral lines connected to that family. There is absolutely no indication of her having anything other than Caucasian ancestors. Though Ms. Warren’s ancestors did move into the areas that later became Oklahoma, they arrived at the same time many other non-Indian families arrived – when the land was going to be opened up and they thought they could get free or cheap land from the Indians. Ms. Warren’s ancestors were not Cherokees and neither is she. We, as Cherokees, cannot allow Ms. Warren to continue on with her false claims. If we allow someone as high profile as her to get away with it, then everyone else will expect a free pass as well.

Warren’s camp insists that she’s done talking about this and so far voters have shrugged at the storyline, but it’s not over yet. Go read Michael Patrick Leahy’s attempt to sort through the timeline at Harvard Law on Warren’s hiring and when members of the faculty might have learned of her “minority” status. An interesting contrast: Robert Clark, the former dean of HLS, says he was told by members of his own family that he was part Choctaw but he never thought to claim that status professionally because he never verified it. Quote: “It was just family lore, and more importantly, I had no identification whatsoever with the Choctaw community.” Go figure that a law professor might insist on hard evidence before asserting a professional credential.

Comment:   Wow, the rich credentials this academe is amassing.    What more will she remember that I and others know?  

And I admit I know  nothing about her background, neither the phony  or that which is not yet to be found phony.    She seems highly pleased with her milking firsts, the both of them.

But Obama is Incompetent as President, a Foreigner who Dislikes the Nation, and a Racist to boot

……and all he can do is blab and smear Americans who still believe in the American spirit and ethos to secure a second term to further screw the nation.

So, let’s concentrate on what the lefty surrogates in the main stream press have to write about “Our Dear Leader”.

We read the following from “The Week by  Robert Shrum titled:

“The unnecessarily frenzied handwringing over Barack, Biden, and Bain”

He suggests:   “The president enters the general election with an electoral college advantage, a coherent narrative, and a powerful case against Romney that squarely fits that narrative. He’s drawn his dividing line: Who stands up for you and who stands up for the few? Romney, for his (newly found) part, still has a worn and one-dimensional message that rests uneasily on the proposition that as a job creator in the private sector, he’s the one to create jobs for the country — although he stumbled last week by promising higher unemployment at the end of 2016 than the level projected under current policies. 

Bain’s on the airwaves and Biden’s on the ticket. And that won’t change.

There are legions of national polls, some involving relentless daily tracking, which tell us… well, not much that matters, except that Romney is rock bottom with Hispanics and Obama has high levels of African-American support: 88 percent in the NBC/Wall Street Journal survey. That will certainly go higher and secure him somewhere around another 1 percent of the overall popular vote. But what matters, of course, are the battleground states, and Romney needs to win a whole lot of them to reach 270 electoral votes.

The real and obvious danger to the president is the possibility of economic slowdown or downturn. Romney and the Republicans are rooting for it — and the austere and doctrinaire chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, may actually provoke a deepening European slide that infects both the American and the global economies. In the face of the eurozone crisis, she is a profile in stolid stubbornness — and Obama’s most dangerous opponent may be Merkel, not Mitt. 

Other crises that could transform the race constitute a Rumsfeldian array of unknowns. The most knowable of them is a potential but far-from-certain confrontation with Iran that could lead to armed intervention from the U.S. or Israel followed by a constriction of world oil supplies and an escalation of prices at the pump. As I have argued before, this would be a double-edged sword, and no one can be sure which way it would cut politically. So far, in every testing moment overseas, the president has performed superbly as commander-in-chief, and subsequently in his poll ratings. That’s not an unlikely outcome again if, at his orders, the U.S. has to smash the Iranian navy as it attempts to block the Strait of Hormuz.

If you are inside a campaign — Obama’s or Romney’s — such are the trends and turns you weigh, and welcome or worry about. And for me, that is all too knowable: I witnessed the impact of the Osama bin Laden tape suddenly released the Friday before the 2004 election as John Kerry was inching ahead.

But today, we are instead watching the skywriting about the Bain ads and Biden.

New York‘s John Heilemann, co-author of the classic Game Change, just wrote a fascinating piece that reported but didn’t endorse the timid lament of some Democrats, “in both politics and business,” that the president was polluting his brand: They regard the Bain commercials as “too divisive, too conventional, and too nakedly political.” There is something conventional, and sensible, about drawing a defining contrast with your opponent. There’s nothing conventional about the moving stories told in their own words, from workers whose livelihoods were plundered by Romney’s plutocracy. Indeed, the candidate can barely talk about this; he’s as tongue-tied as he was when similar ads confounded his effort to unseat Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1994.

What highly recommends the Bain approach is the Republicans’ reaction: They really don’t like it because it is the ground of a narrative that plainly, unforgettably, positions Romney as a beneficiary and champion of economic injustice — in the private sector and now in public life.

I suspect Heilemann, who has the 2008 campaign flowing through his journalistic veins, realizes that holding Romney to account is no game-changer for the Obama brand. Four years ago, in the speech that opened the path to his improbable victory in the Iowa caucuses, he did talk of reaching across the partisan divide, but in the very next paragraph warned: “…if those Republicans come at me…I will take them head on.” They’re coming after him again — and just as he did with John McCain, Obama is taking them head on.

Listen to the president now. He does push the differences with Romney; but out on the stump, he’s also hopeful; he continues to call for change — a message recalibrated to fit the trials of the last four years and the possibilities of the next four. He summons the nation: “Forward.” That’s not what gets attention in the media. But Obama’s no patsy, and he’s not about to take the advice to be above the battle, or just invoke the “better angels” of his 2008 campaign. 

Right now, he’s winning the battle to make the contest a choice, not a referendum. Like Franklin Roosevelt, who in 1936 arraigned the “economic royalists,” Obama is likely to reinforce and enrich his brand, not subvert it. There’s evidence for that in the Kennedy-Romney Senate race. Before the Bain commercials, Kennedy’s favorable and unfavorable ratings were about equal. After two weeks of the ads, his favorables were suddenly 57 to 38 and climbing. We had no positive spots on at that point. What explained the shift was that Kennedy, by taking up the workers’ cause, was powerfully communicating to the middle class and working families of Massachusetts that he was on their side. 

As he moves on to issues like protecting Medicare and tax fairness — and yes, jobs — Obama will have laid the predicate for his overall case: He’s the one who will fight for a future fair for all. 

And fighting at his side all the way to November will be his once and future running mate Joe Biden.

While there may be a remnant of disgruntled Clinton partisans yearning to see Hillary replace Joe on the ticket, I believe that most of this noise is coming from Republicans only too happy to sow doubt and dissension in Democratic ranks. Thus The Weekly Standard‘s William Kristol, a leading neo-con and Fox News commentator, has dispatched his advice to the president: “Dump Joe Biden.” Call in Hillary: “Why not the best?” Kristol’s solicitude here — he claims he wants the GOP to defeat the strongest possible ticket — is a transparent form of crocodile tears over false Democratic distress. 

Kristol is wrong. The swap will never occur — and it shouldn’t.

It’s not just that disposing of Biden would signal profound presidential weakness in both politics and character. The truth is that Biden strengthens the president in critical industrial states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, where he was all but the third senator — and in Florida, where his pro-Israel record offers powerful reassurance to Jewish voters. But what about that Gallup Poll showing Biden with a net unfavorable of 14 percent in 12 swing states? It’s way out of line with other surveys. And that’s not the essential point anyway. Biden, as he proved in 2008, can connect with the blue-collar Democrats, the Reagan Democrats, who Obama has had a harder time reaching.

Beyond this, Biden plays a vital role inside the White House; early on, he pushed to scale back America’s goals and footprint in Afghanistan. That’s the course that has now been adopted, along with his recommendation to rely far more on special forces and drones. Incidentally, I’d love to hear Biden go after Romney’s policy of keeping a lot of U.S. troops indefinitely in Afghanistan. Here’s another issue Mitt won’t want to discuss; he’s out of step with 69 percent of the American people — and who better than Biden to call him on it?

Finally, it takes two to switch, and there’s no compelling argument for Hillary to do it. If she intends to finish her term as Secretary of State, leave public office permanently, and turn to public service through a foundation with global scope, why would second place on the ticket change her mind? She’s too smart to buy the argument that as a running mate, she would make the difference and save the party; indeed Kristol covets her presence so the GOP can simultaneously defeat Obama and Clinton. 

And if she contemplates a run of her own in 2016 — and despite her denials, I am convinced she does — she has no need to be vice president and every reason to step back and recharge. As a candidate next time, she would be a dominant frontrunner — nearly undefeatable in the Democratic primaries. Her role as America’s diplomat-in-chief, her overwhelming support among women, her appeal to African-Americans with no Obama in the race, and the near certainty that she would lead in every demographic would open the way for her to defeat say, Jeb Bush, and secure 16 progressive years in the White House. Clinton versus Bush: Sometimes history does repeat itself. 

By all accounts, the president is close to Joe Biden — and has absolutely no intention of replacing him. The notion is a hothouse story, admittedly fueled by Biden jumping ahead of Obama on marriage equality. Some White House insiders promptly and anonymously assailed their VP in the press, which only plays into the hands of the GOP. It was amateurish and alien to the customary discipline of the Obama operation. It appears to have stopped, and I’d bet it’s the president himself who’s shut it down. 

Obama has also been resolute about the Bain ads. He won’t be deflected by a few Democrats gathered in the critics’ corner, by reporters anxious for a fresh if irrelevant story, or by the subversive tactics of Kristol and the Republicans. The president comprehends the big forces driving the election. He sees the value of his running mate — in office and in constituencies that count. He sees the power of a widening critique of Romney as the economic royalist of 2012. 

So Bain’s on the airwaves and Biden’s on the ticket. And that won’t change. And who knows? There are plausible scenarios under which Joe could be picking his own running mate four years from now.

Robert Shrum was a senior adviser on Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign and chief strategist for John Kerry’s 2004 campaign. He has advised 30 winning U.S. Senate campaigns and eight winning campaigns for governor. Follow him on Twitter: @BobShrum.






Yet, after each year of more Americans ‘graduating’ from educational insitutions failing in teaching knowledge, but enlightened by preaching the disunity of Marxism, Feminism,  Black Racism,  Gay Sexism, Atheism  and other similar diseases bound to destroy the American Dream of E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty,  perhaps we should be surprised that there is still  an election for president at all.




Polish Ambassador: Obama error a matter of “IGNORANCE AND INCOMPETENCE”

President Obama misspoke on ‘Polish death camp’

during Medal of Freedom ceremony

Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski called it

a matter of ‘ignorance and incompetence’.

from the New York Daily News:

WASHINGTON — The White House said President Barack Obama misspoke on Tuesday when he referred to a “Polish death camp” while honoring a Polish war hero.

The president’s remark had drawn immediate complaints from Poles who said Obama should have called it a “German death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland,” to distinguish the perpetrators from the location. Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski called it a matter of “ignorance and incompetence.”

Obama made the comment while awarding the Medal of Freedom to Jan Karski, a resistance fighter against the Nazi occupation of Poland during World War II. Karski died in 2000.

During an East Room ceremony honoring 13 Medal of Freedom recipients, Obama said that Karski “served as a courier for the Polish resistance during the darkest days of World War II. Before one trip across enemy lines, resistance fighters told him that Jews were being murdered on a massive scale and smuggled him into the Warsaw Ghetto and a Polish death camp to see for himself. Jan took that information to President Franklin Roosevelt, giving one of the first accounts of the Holocaust and imploring to the world to take action.”

Sikorski tweeted that the White House would apologize for “this outrageous error” and that Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk would address the matter on Wednesday.

“It’s a pity that such a dignified ceremony was overshadowed by ignorance and incompetence.”

Alex Storozynski, president of the Kosciuszko Foundation, said Obama’s comment “shocked the Poles present at the White House and those watching on C-SPAN. … Karski would have cringed if he heard this.”

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said: “The president misspoke. He was referring to Nazi death camps in Poland. We regret this misstatement, which should not detract from the clear intention to honor Mr. Karski and those brave citizens who stood on the side of human dignity in the face of tyranny.”

Anxious to quell the controversy, the White House also noted that the president had visited the Warsaw Ghetto Memorial while in Poland and that he has repeatedly discussed the bravery of Poles during World War II.

The Polish Embassy in Washington, on its website, has a “how-to guide” on concentration camps that states that references to Polish death camps are “factually incorrect slurs” that should be corrected.

The Associated Press Stylebook states that when referring to “World War II camps in countries occupied by Nazi Germany, do not use phrases like Polish death camps that confuse the location and the perpetrators. Use instead, for example, death camps in Nazi-occupied Poland.”

Comment:   Mr. Obama obviously is vague about details concerning World War II.    How would the Leftist have learned them when purpose of life concentrated on black racist politics once he noted his blackness was of much greater economic value than his whiteness.

He has played the race card his entire life since his abandonment of the name, Barry.    How can one blame him for his narcissism and greed in a nation where profiteering is so highly valued?  

Why Is Uncle Sam Now Leftier than Canada?

We Can Cut Government: Canada Did

from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

Two decades ago Canada suffered a deep recession and teetered on the brink of a debt crisis caused by rising government spending.  Since then, the country has undergone a remarkable recovery, reclaiming financial strength and harnessing a powerful economic boom.  The United States would do well to learn what it can from Canada’s experience and adopt its pro-growth policies, says Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute.

The origins of Canada’s problem lie within an incredible spending binge that began in the late 1960s and lasted for 16 years.

  • The Canadian leader during most of that time, Pierre Trudeau, expanded programs, raised taxes, nationalized businesses and imposed barriers to international investment.
  • Government spending as a portion of gross domestic product (GDP) skyrocketed during this period, as did the federal government’s total debt level.
  • Canada also suffered from high inflation during the 1970s and early 1980s.

This growing problem was addressed first by a series of pro-market reforms throughout the 1980s and 1990s, inspired in part by comparable programs instituted by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

  • In the mid-1980s, the Canadian central bank adopted a goal of price stability, which greatly reduced inflation and has kept it low and stable ever since.
  • Following U.S. tax reforms in 1986, Canada enacted its own income tax cuts under Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
  • The government privatized Air Canada in 1988, Petro-Canada in 1991 and Canadian National Railways in 1995.
  • All in all, Canada privatized about two dozen “crown corporations” in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
  • The other major reform of the late 1980s was the free trade agreement with the United States.

The market reforms were accompanied by substantial spending cuts in the late 1990s that finally got Canada’s fiscal house in order.

  • Between 1994 and 1996, the Canadian government cut defense, unemployment insurance, transportation, business subsidies, aid to provincial governments and many other items.
  • As a result, total noninterest spending fell by 10 percent.
  • With this restraint, federal spending as a share of GDP plunged from 22 percent in 1995 to 17 percent by 2000.
  • These spending reforms allowed Canada to balance its budget every year from 1998 to 2008.

Source: Chris Edwards, “We Can Cut Government: Canada Did,” Cato Policy Report, May/June 2012.

For text:


For more on Tax and Spending Issues:


Comment:   Well, they got rid of their Barack Hussein Obamas in the government.

Minnesota for Marriage: TARGET throws $120,000 into promoting Gay Marriage to further corrupt the American family

Report from Minnesota for Marriage:

Friend of Marriage,
As the Campaign Manager of Minnesota for Marriage I have to tell you how thankful I am for supporters like you who have donated in response to Target’s shocking announcement to sell “Pride T-Shirts” during the month of June.
Since then we have learned two very important things that I need to share with you:
1) The Washington, D.C. based pro-homosexual marriage group they are donating to is a partner with the main supporter of gay marriage in Minnesota – this means Target’s donation of $120,000.00 will go to attempting to defeat the Marriage Protection Amendment this November.
2) They will sell the “Pride Shirts” starting tomorrow online for $12.99 with ALL of the proceeds going to support redefining marriage.

We don’t have a gigantic corporation like Target supporting us in our fight to preserve marriage, but we have you! And I am asking you to please donate $12.99 to us so we can combat what Target is doing to promote the pro-homosexual marriage agenda they are advocating.

Only people like you can help us defeat rich corporations and – George Soros like Liberals – trying to impose east coast values in Minnesota today!
Onward to victory,

Frank Schubert
Minnesota for Marriage
Campaign Manager
P.S. We are asking you to send a clear message to Target by donating $12.99 to us online during the month of June. Your donation will help us offset the sale of every “Pride T-shirt” that Target sells this next month.


Obama’s Sloppy Mouth exposes his Ignorance of the World War II Era

It Wasn’t a “Gaffe”

by    at the Daily Beast

Introduction to article:    President Obama’s recognition of Jan Karsk at this honors presentationsi yesterday, said:   “For years, Jan Karski’s students at Georgetown University knew he was a great professor; what they didn’t realize was he was also a hero.  Fluent in four languages, possessed of a photographic memory, Jan served as a courier for the Polish resistance during the darkest days of World War II.  Before one trip across enemy lines, resistance fighters told him that Jews were being murdered on a massive scale, and smuggled him into the Warsaw Ghetto and a *Polish death camp* to see for himself.  Jan took that information to President Franklin Roosevelt, giving one of the first accounts of the Holocaust and imploring to the world to take action.  It was decades before Jan was ready to tell his story.  By then, he said, “I don’t need courage anymore.  So I teach compassion.”

 David Frum writes:

President Obama just slapped in the face one of America’s closest allies in Europe. I’m looking for comment in the American media, and I find … wire stories reporting a spokesman’s apology for the president’s “misstatement”?

The president intended to honor Jan Karski, a Polish-born U.S. citizen, who died in 2000. Karski was a hero of the Polish resistance, the courier who brought to the outside world the irrefutable proof of the Nazi extermination campaign against the Jews of Eastern Europe. But instead of honoring Karski, the president stumbled into the single most offensive thing he could possibly have said on this occasion:

Before one trip across enemy lines, resistance fighters told him that Jews were being murdered on a massive scale, and smuggled him into the Warsaw Ghetto and a Polish death camp to see for himself.

Many of the Nazi death camps were located inside the territory that is now Poland, yes. But it was not Poland in 1942. Poland then was a conquered and enslaved territory. If we are to identify the killers by nationality—rather than by their Nazi ideology as would be most appropriate—then the camps were German, German, German: ordered into being by Germans, designed by Germans, fulfilling a German plan of murder. When they found local thugs to guard the victims and run the killing machinery, even those low-level wretches were very rarely Polish by language or self-conception: they were more typically Ukrainian, because many Ukrainians—with their own sufferings at the hands of Josef Stalin’s Soviet regime fresh in mind—were willing to act as German allies in a war that was advertised as a war against the Bolshevism that had starved their fathers, mothers, and children to death in the early 1930s. But Poles? As a Polish friend of mine once bitterly put it, “The Germans despised us so much, they did not even want us as collaborators.”

When one writes this way, one hears much about the Polish history of anti-semitism. Polish anti-semitism is of course a very real thing. But boycotts, insults, and street-fights are not genocide. And alongside Polish anti-semitism has to be set the other history, the history that explains why Jews migrated to Poland in such huge numbers during the Middle Ages, and stayed there for so long. When my own grandfather emigrated from Poland to Canada in 1929, he was leaving a land where his ancestors had likely lived for at least 400 years, and very possibly 600. 

There’s a tragic bias in the Jewish remembrance of Poland. The Jews who suffered discrimination and poverty in the newly independent Poland of the 1920s, and who—like my grandfather—succeeded in emigrating have left descendants. We carry in our memories their stories of discrimination and harassment. But the much larger number of Jews who found conditions tolerable—the many who flourished in business, the professions, and the arts—the many who regarded Poland as their home and carried arms for her in war—those Jews stayed. They were murdered. And they left no descendants to remember their version of the story.

Few organizations have been more vocal against the “Polish death camp” slur than the Anti-Defamation League. Its president, Abe Foxman, was born in what was then Poland. His story exemplifies the complexities of the Polish-Jewish relationship. When Foxman’s parents were deported to a ghetto, they entrusted him to his nanny. She raised him—not only saving his life, but risking her own, for the Nazis killed Poles who sheltered Jews. But she interpreted “raising” to mean raising him as a Catholic, and after the war—which Foxman’s parents amazingly survived—she refused to give him up until after some nasty custody battles. (By then, the border had shifted, which is why many biographies of Foxman describe him as born in the Soviet Union.)

What North American Jews who originate in Poland need to learn from Foxman and those who have stories like his to tell is that Poland was not only a place where Jews were murdered, but also a place where Jews lived—and at every level of society. The Foxmans had a nanny! Other Polish Jews owned factories, shops, and country houses. There were Jewish chaplains in the Polish Army. (The head chaplain was murdered by the Soviets in the Katyn Forest, alongside his brother officers.) That story needs to be rediscovered too, and since 1989, it has been.

I took my family on a long visit to Poland two summers ago. And yes, we toured the camps. We also stayed in a beautiful hotel in the historic center of Krakow, whose lobby was filled every day with the sounds of Hebrew: visitors from Israel who had come not only to see the sites of Auschwitz and Belzec, but also to see the Schindler museum in Oskar Schindler’s one-time factory, the preserved Jewish quarter, and the rebuilt grand synagogue. The state of Israel has had few better allies in Europe than democratic Poland. That’s part of the story too.

The honor to Jan Karski was intended to memorialize all this. Instead, an ignorant error by somebody who could not be troubled to understand the story he or she was telling has offended Poles and thrown discredit on Karski’s own memory. It’s not a big story in the United States, but it won’t soon be forgotten in Poland.

You may say the Poles are over-sensitive. One might as well say that Americans are under-sensitive. The U.S. has had such a comparatively happy history that it’s hard to think of a domestic analogy that would capture what Poles feel when the worst crimes of their worst oppressors are attributed—not to the authors—but to them. “The Hawaiian sneak attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor” is a pathetically inadequate approximation, but at least it gets the grammar of the insult. “The Belgian massacre of U.S. prisoners at Malmedy”? No, still not it. Aside from being morally inadequate, such analogies also miss the moral intensity of World War II for Poles. Their war did not end until 1989: they continue to live more intimately with the war’s legacy even now, more than almost any other European nation. The medal to Karski was to be part of the process of laying painful memories to rest. It was intended too to strengthen the US-Polish relations that the Obama administration has frayed in pursuit of its “reset” with Russia. Instead, this administration bungled everything: past, present, and future.


And another article, this one by Sckott Johnson at  PowerLine:

by Scott Johnson in Books, History, Obama administration

Jan Karski’s message

Jake Tapper reports that President Obama offended our Polish friends with his reference to a “Polish death camp” in his remarks yesterday awarding Jan Karski the Presidential Medal of Freedom. (The Nazi death camp, incidentally, would have been Belzec.) Karski was the incredibly brave courier who brought the West word of the Holocaust in 1942. Karski emigrated to the United States, earned a Ph.D. at Georgetown after the war and taught at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service. He died an American citizen in 2000.

Our Polish friends are not pulling their punches:

“The White House will apologize for this outrageous error,” Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski tweeted. Sikorski said that Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk “will make a statement in the morning. It’s a pity that this important ceremony was upstaged by ignorance and incompetence.”

Well, there is a lot of that going around in the administration, frequently in the guise of “smart diplomacy.” After quoting the White House’s exculpatory efforts yesterday, Tapper dryly notes toward the end of his report: “It seems likely that a more formal apology will need to be issued.” Nile Gardiner piles on here.

Obama’s remarks at the White House ceremony yesterday are posted here. The citation of Karski prepared by the White House is a little confused. (See, for example, this account.) The citation fails to do justice to Karski’s story, but it isn’t bad:

Karski served as an officer in the Polish Underground during World War II and carried among the first eye-witness accounts of the Holocaust to the world. He worked as a courier, entering the Warsaw ghetto and the Nazi Izbica transit camp, where he saw first-hand the atrocities occurring under Nazi occupation [Karski proceeded to sneak into Belzec, to which I assume this must mean to refer]. Karski later traveled to London to meet with the Polish government-in-exile and with British government officials. He subsequently traveled to the United States and met with President Roosevelt. Karski published Story of a Secret State, earned a Ph.D at Georgetown University, and became a professor at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service. Born in 1914, Karski became a U.S. citizen in 1954 and died in 2000.

I first learned of Karski’s story in Walter Laqueur’s The Terrible Secret: Suppression of the Truth About hitler’s “Final Solution,” published in 1980 (and first learned of Laqueur’s book from George Will’s excellent column on it in the Washington Post that year).

Laqueur notes that Karski patiently submitted to his detailed questioning in a September 1979 interview and even wrote out for him the message that he (Karski) conveyed to President Roosevelt, Anthony Eden and others in 1942 and 1943. According to Laqueur, the message could not be published during the war. Karski’s message is included in Appendix 5 to Laqueur’s book. Laqueur comments elsewhere in the book:

Democratic societies demonstrated on this occasion as on many others, before and after, that they are incapable of understanding political regimes of a different character….Democratic societies are accustomed to think in liberal, pragmatic categories; conflicts are believed to be based on misunderstandings and can be solved with a minimum of good will; extremism is a temporary aberration, so is irrational behavior in general, such as intolerance, cruelty, etc. The effort needed to overcome such basic psychological handicaps is immense….Each new generation faces this challenge again, for experience cannot be inherited.

President Obama and the rest of his administration could learn some timely lessons from Karski’s story, if only they were capable of learning.

UPDATE: Sikorksi telegraphed this punch, and Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk is not pulling it: “I am convinced that our American friends can today allow themselves a stronger reaction than a simple expression of regret from the White House spokesman — a reaction more inclined to eliminate once and for all these kinds of errors,” Tusk told reporters in Warsaw. “Today, this is a problem for the reputation of the United States,” the prime minister said.

Sometimes even Obamafolk Squirm at Obamalies of the Obama campaign

Private Equity vs. Public Equity:

the White House Tries to Explain

Earlier today, White House press secretary Jay Carney was asked about Solyndra. He responded that the government made a number of “green energy” investments; some of the companies failed, but most haven’t (not yet, anyway). So an alert reporter asked Carney how that is any different from Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital experience, which has been so bitterly attacked by Barack Obama. As Romney has often said, Bain made many investments, frequently in troubled companies; most succeeded, but some failed. Carney’s deer-in-the-headlights response is entertaining:


Obama Claims he is a Fiscal Conservative …….A Lie from the pages of 1984

AP fact-check blasts Obama spending claims

 by Ed Morrissey  at  HotAir:

Who’s buying the notion that Barack Obama is a fiscal conservative who’s engineered the slowest spending growth since Calvin Coolidge?  Not the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler, who gave the argument three Pinocchios in a fact-check yesterday, and not the Associated Press, either.  In a fact-check of their own this morning, the AP’s Andrew Taylor reports that Obama’s “rosy claim” has a lot of problems — with Obama being first and foremost among them:

There’s also the question of how to treat the 2009 fiscal year, which actually began Oct. 1, 2008, almost four months before Obama took office. Typically, the remaining eight months get counted as part of the prior president’s spending since the incoming president usually doesn’t change it much until the following October. The MarketWatch analysis assigned 2009 to former President George W. Bush, though it gave Obama responsibility that year for a $140 million chunk of the 2009 stimulus bill.

But Obama’s role in 2009 spending was much bigger than that. For starters, he signed nine spending bills funding every Cabinet agency except Defense, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security. While the numbers don’t jibe exactly, Obama bears the chief responsibility for an 11 percent, $59 billion increase in non-defense spending in 2009. Then there’s a 9 percent, $109 billion increase in combined defense and non-defense appropriated outlays in 2010, a year for which Obama is wholly responsible.

So what’s the real picture?  Spending sharply increased under Obama, and the rate only slowed down due to the influence of a Republican-controlled House:

If one assumes that TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie by the government as one-time budgetary anomalies and remove them from calculations — an approach taken by Holtz-Eakin — you get the following picture:

—A 9.7 percent increase in 2009, much of which is attributable to Obama.

—A 7.8 percent increase in 2010, followed by slower spending growth over 2011-13. Much of the slower growth reflects the influence of Republicans retaking control of the House and their budget and debt deal last summer with Obama. All told, government spending now appears to be growing at an annual rate of roughly 3 percent over the 2010-2013 period, rather than the 0.4 percent claimed by Obama and the MarketWatch analysis.

The argument was always absurd on its face.  The last fully Republican budget was FY2007, which came in at $2.77 trillion.  The last Bush/Democrat budget was FY2008, which was $2.982 trillion.  The FY2009 budget, which Obama signed into law and which was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, was $3.517 trillion with a $1.4 trillion deficit.  That’s a year-on-year increase of nearly 18%, and those numbers come straight from the White House website.  If you prefer the figures in percentage of GDP, as Kessler noted yesterday, we went from 20.8% of GDP in FY2008 to 25.2% in FY2009, which is an increase of 22% year on year.

Nor does it get any better.  Using FY2008 as the baseline comparison, FY2010′s budget was $3.456 trillion, an increase of 15.88% over the last Bush/Democrat budget.  FY2011′s $3.603 trillion budget was a 20.8% increase, and FY2012′s projected $3.795 trillion (the White House projection, mind you) is an increase of 27.26% over the last Bush budget — in just four budget years.  An argument that this is a demonstration of fiscal discipline would have to come straight out of the pages of George Orwell’s 1984.

John Stossel: Governments Force Workers into Unions……. Punish Good Workers

Improving Life for Workers

By John Stossel    at   Fox Business:

It seems intuitive that a free market would lead to a “race to the bottom.” In a global marketplace, profit-chasing employers will cut costs by paying workers less and less, and shipping jobs to China.

It’s a reason that progressives say government must step in.

So America now has thousands of rules that outlaw wages below $7.25 an hour, restrict unpaid internships and compel people to pay union dues. These rules appear to help workers. But they don’t.

“Collective bargaining” sounds good. Collective bargaining “rights” even better. Employers are more sophisticated about job negotiations than individual employees, so why shouldn’t workers be able to join together to bargain?

They should be. But in 27 states, labor laws force workers to join unions. When CBS offered me a job, I had to join AFTRA, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. I didn’t want to. I don’t consider myself an artist. I didn’t want to pay dues to a union that didn’t appear to do much. But I had no choice.

Laws that force workers to join unions treat millions of diverse people, most of whom want very different things, as undifferentiated collectives. That means that good workers get punished.

When I was at ABC and CBS, union culture slowed us down. Sometimes a camera crew took five minutes just to get out of the car.

But without a minimum wage or union protection, wouldn’t employers abuse workers? In a real free market, no, they can’t. Because workers have choices. Employers have an incentive to maintain a good relationship with employees — one that keeps them reasonably loyal — because workers can quit and go work for a rival.

If globalism leads to a “race to the bottom,” why do 95 percent of American workers make more than minimum wage? It’s not because companies are generous, but because competition forces them to offer higher wages to attract good workers. Companies may move jobs overseas to escape high U.S. wages (or U.S. taxes and regulations), but they clearly prefer to keep jobs here, close to their headquarters, suppliers and customers.

Unions once helped advance working conditions, but now union rules hurt workers because they stifle growth by making companies less flexible. When I arrived at CBS, I was stunned to discover that I couldn’t even watch a video in a tape player without risking a grievance being filed by a union editor, saying I’d encroached on his job. Work ground to a halt while we waited for a union specialist to press the “on” button. ABC and CBS, being private businesses that had to compete, eventually got rid of those rules. But it took years.

Unions eventually hurt union workers because unionized companies atrophy. Non-union Toyota grew, while GM shrank. JetBlue Airlines blossomed, while unionized TWA and Pan Am went out of business. Unions “protect” workers all the way to the unemployment line.

When I criticize compulsory unions and regulations, it’s not because I want rich employers to get fat off the labor of workers. It’s because I’ve learned that markets are fluid — and the best way for more workers to find good jobs is to leave everyone free to make any contract they wish.

Outlawing the low-wage job that taught a teenager skills or the internship that gave a kid a foot in the door doesn’t insulate people from hardships of the market. It insulates them from knowledge about how to function in an ever-changing economy.

That’s not compassion. That’s a denial of reality.

Advocates of “kind” central planning overlook the gradual, piecemeal improvement that markets make. Focused on government’s promise of once-and-for-all solutions (promises that rarely lead to actual solutions), people miss how free markets gradually help humanity solve problems.

Economic historian Robert Higgs joked that it will always be easier to rally politically inclined people behind unrealistic, revolutionary causes than to rally them around subtle economic progress, because no crowd marches behind a banner proclaiming, “Toward a Marginally Improved Society!”

The best way to help workers is to get the government to butt out and let competitive markets work.