• 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

Prager Reviews Democrat Mayors’ Hugo Chavez Moments of Tyranny

Mitt Romney, Chick-fil-A, and Ben & Jerry’s

by Dennis Prager
The Democratic mayors of Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. gave Mitt Romney and the Republican Party the greatest gift possible. They provided the American people with as clear an example of the unbridgeable differences between left and right, between Democrat and Republican, as could be hoped for. And it was largely wasted.The Democratic mayors of Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. announced that Chick-fil-A is not welcome in their cities because the owner/founder of Chick-fil-A supports preserving the man-woman definition of marriage.Aside from free speech issues, the mayors did something dangerously un-American: they declared their cities open only to businesses whose ownership holds political positions they approve of.

And by extension, these mayors declared that anyone — not just a business — who believes that the man-woman definition of marriage should not be changed is not welcome in their cities.

What we have here is, first, the current policy of the mainstream left and the Democratic Party to destroy ideological opponents — to destroy their reputations and to destroy them economically. The left tried to do this to those who supported California’s Proposition 8 campaign to amend the state constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Prop. 8 was smearingly re-named “Prop. Hate,” and all those who wish to maintain that definition of marriage were, and are, declared haters. The left is actually incapable of regarding ideological opponents as well-meaning.

What should Mitt Romney have done with this gift?

He should have used the Chick-fil-A controversy to illuminate the most important aspect of this November’s election: the difference between the left and the rest of the country.

Romney should have shown up at a Chick-fil-A restaurant to support that company, ordered a Chick-fil-A sandwich and — here’s the key — eaten it along with a Ben & Jerry’s ice cream.

The photo of Romney eating both a Chick-fil-A sandwich and Ben & Jerry’s ice cream would be worth far more than the proverbial thousand words. Nearly every American who watches television news, or reads a newspaper, or gets the news online would have seen the picture and gotten the message.

The picture would make clear to the least political American the difference between Republicans and Democrats, between conservatives and progressives.

In total contradistinction to the Democrats and the left, Mitt Romney would be seen eating food produced by one of the most left-wing companies in America. Ben & Jerry’s has supported — either monetarily or through statements made by one or both of the founders — major left-wing causes, from the radical Occupy movement to the even more radical movement to free convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Romney’s message would be that in America, with rare exceptions (such as, for example, a Nazi- or KKK-owned company), we buy products based on their excellence, not the views of their makers. Do we really want supermarkets with sections for liberal ice cream, conservative ice cream, libertarian ice cream, atheist ice cream, etc.?

Conservatives buy products produced by companies run by outspoken leftists; leftists try to destroy companies that take conservative positions. That is one message Mitt Romney eating a Ben & Jerry’s ice cream at a Chick-fil-A restaurant would convey.

Another is that Republicans believe first and foremost in liberty. Ben and Jerry take far left positions, but in America, Republicans believe that you should be free to take whatever position you like without fearing that your business will be destroyed. Democrats, on the other hand, like the left worldwide, believe that other values — their understanding of fairness, of equality, of social justice, you name it — trump liberty.

A third message would be to demonstrate that the left is the greatest source of hate in this country. In one of its many acts of projection, the left accuses the right of hate because the left has done only one thing superbly for the last half century: demonize the right. The latest example is the labeling of every American who believes that marriage should be defined as it always has been, the union of a man and a woman, as a bigot and a hater of gays.

(Of course, the left never labeled Barack Obama or the majority of black Americans and Muslims who believe in the man-woman definition of marriage “haters.” The label is specifically directed at white Christians and Mormons who oppose same-sex marriage – proving its insincerity and its political motivation.)

Finally, while enjoying his Chick-fil-A and Ben & Jerry’s, Romney could have noted that any American who believes that marriage should not be redefined is not welcome in Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, and Washington, D.C. It is time to shame the left.

Mitt Romney must run against leftism and the contemporary Democratic Party, not only against Barack Obama. The president is a leftist. That is the reason this country is in trouble.

The Chick-fil-A controversy is a perfect way to explain all this to the American people. All Mitt Romney needs to do is enjoy a certain brand of chicken and a certain brand of ice cream.

Some People are Genuine……and then there are the Obamas, who photo-op

The following article was sent by friend, neighbor, and aredent conservative,  Arlene Taber:

A doctor in Dothan AL had his TV on in his
clinic when news of the military base
shootings at Ft. Hood TX came on.
The husband of one of his employees
was stationed there.
The doctor called his employee into his office, and as he told her what had happened, she got a text message from her husband saying, “I’m ok.”
Her cell phone rang right after she read the message; it was an ER nurse. “I’m the one who just sent you the text, not your husband.
I thought it would be comforting, but I was wrong. I am sorry to tell you this, but your husband has been shot 4 times, and he is in surgery.”The soldier’s wife left Southern Clinic in Dothan, AL and drove all night to Ft.Hood. When she arrived, she found out her husband was out of surgery and would be OK.She rushed to his room, and found he already had two visitors there to comfort him.The wounded soldier was just waking up,
and he found his wife and the two visitors by his side, former president George W. Bush and his wife, Laura.
This is how people with class respond and pay respect to those in uniform.
I sent my cousin in Fayetteville, NC (retired from Special Forces) this picture of George W. visiting the wounded at Ft. Hood.
I got this reply:”What is even better is the fact George W. Bush heard about Fort Hood, got in his car without any escort (apparently, they did not have time to react), and drove to Fort Hood. He was stopped at the gate, and the guard could not believe whom he had just stopped. Bush only asked for directions to the hospital, then drove on. The gate guard called ahead that “The President is on Fort Hood, and driving to the hospital.”The base went bananas looking for Obama. When they found out it was Bush, they immediately offered escort. Bush simply told them it was “OK”, and to let him visit the wounded and the dependents of the dead.Bush stayed at Fort Hood for over six hours, and was finally asked to leave by a message from the White House.

Obama flew in a days later, and held a “photo opportunity” session in a gym, and did not even go to the hospital.All this I picked up from two soldiers here, who happened to be at Fort Hood when it happened.”

This Bush/Obama/Ft.Hood story is something that should be sent to every voter in the US. Those who wanted “change”, you certainly got it.Someone, PLEASE, show me anything that will tell us that Obama has ANY respect for the country he leads! I’m looking for just a little sign of respect

Minnesota For Marriage releases another video:

Minnesota For Marriage Releases New Marriage Minute Video: “Shouldn’t the government get out of the business of regulating marriage and leave it to adults to decide marriage for themselves?”

No. Marriage is not merely a private matter that exists only for the benefit of adults. Marriage serves an intrinsically public purpose to provide for the care and development of the next generation. 

CLICK HERE to view the video. Please take the time to share it with all your friends, neighbors, family and colleagues.

The Minnesota Marriage Minute is an ongoing dialogue with Minnesota voters hosted by veteran news anchor Kalley Yanta. The educational videos are designed to explore issues related to the marriage amendment. The videos are in a question and answer format and are released on a weekly basis.
The Marriage Minute series is a great resource for understanding the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment and equipping you to speak about the amendment. Please share this important educational resource with family members, friends and neighbors. It’s critically important that all our supporters be as informed as possible about the amendment, and this series of videos is a quick and easy way for you and your friends to learn about what is at stake in this election.

CLICK HERE to view this week’s episode of Minnesota Marriage Minute and then share it with everyone you can!

Prepared and paid for by Minnesota for Marriage, 2355 Fairview Ave N, Box 301, Roseville, MN 55113, in support of the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment 612-367-4588 http://www.MinnesotaForMarriage.com

More Stench from the Obama Desk politicizing pension benefits

Obama administration footprints all over

denial of pension benefits to

non-union Delphi employees

by Paul Mirengoff    at   PowerLine:

Delphi, a General Motors company, is one of the world’s largest automotive parts manufacturers. When the government bailed out GM, 20,000 Delphi workers lost nearly their entire pensions. But Delphi employees who were members of the United Auto Workers union saw their pensions topped off and made whole.

The White House and Treasury Department have consistently maintained that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) independently made the decision to terminate the 20,000 non-union Delphi workers’ pension plan. The PBGC is a federal government agency that handles private-sector pension benefits issues. Its charter calls for independent representation of pension beneficiaries’ interests.

But now, the Daily Caller has obtained emails showing that the U.S. Treasury Department, led by Timothy Geithner, was the driving force behind terminating the pensions of the 20,000 salaried Delphi retirees. According to the Daily Caller, the emails contradict testimony given to Congress by Former Treasury official Matthew Feldman and former White House auto czar Ron Bloom, both key members of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry during the GM bailout.

The emails show that representativesof the PBGC were “uninvited” from meetings at which the Treasury Department considered what to do about the Delphi pensions. This, says the Daily Caller, is likely a violation of federal law (29 U.S.C. §1342).

Other emails show that the PBGC believed it needed to clear decisions and action plans through senior administration officials. This view seems to have been justified. One email describes how the Treasury Department’s Feldman reported that he “has made progress discussing [a] proposal with a number of key folks in Treasury and at [the] White House, but he has not yet wrapped up his coordination.” Feldman “indicated that there is an 8am call tomorrow that he’ll use to close the communication-loop, and he’s confident he’ll have a fully-vetted Treasury view after that call.”

And so on.

Perhaps the Romney campaign can produce an ad in which a former Delphi employee whose pension benefits disappeared complains that the Obama administration took his benefits, but not those of union workers, and then told Congress, under oath, that it had no involvement in the decision. That, of course, is the kind of ad Team Obama has used so effectively against Mitt Romney based on decisions by companies controlled by Bain Capital. The analogy seems pretty close.

A Childhood with No Dad, but Two Moms is far from the Ideal

Many thanks to California Cole, our Prager fan contact out West who often sends  articles demanding thought……..
Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View

by Robert Oscar Lopez    at  the Public Discourse:

The children of same-sex couples have a tough road ahead of them—I know, because I have been there. The last thing we should do is make them feel guilty if the strain gets to them and they feel strange.

Between 1973 and 1990, when my beloved mother passed away, she and her female romantic partner raised me. They had separate houses but spent nearly all their weekends together, with me, in a trailer tucked discreetly in an RV park 50 minutes away from the town where we lived. As the youngest of my mother’s biological children, I was the only child who experienced childhood without my father being around.

After my mother’s partner’s children had left for college, she moved into our house in town. I lived with both of them for the brief time before my mother died at the age of 53. I was 19. In other words, I was the only child who experienced life under “gay parenting” as that term is understood today.

Quite simply, growing up with gay parents was very difficult, and not because of prejudice from neighbors. People in our community didn’t really know what was going on in the house. To most outside observers, I was a well-raised, high-achieving child, finishing high school with straight A’s.

Inside, however, I was confused. When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird. I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions. I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast.

My peers learned all the unwritten rules of decorum and body language in their homes; they understood what was appropriate to say in certain settings and what wasn’t; they learned both traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine social mechanisms.

Even if my peers’ parents were divorced, and many of them were, they still grew up seeing male and female social models. They learned, typically, how to be bold and unflinching from male figures and how to write thank-you cards and be sensitive from female figures. These are stereotypes, of course, but stereotypes come in handy when you inevitably leave the safety of your lesbian mom’s trailer and have to work and survive in a world where everybody thinks in stereotypical terms, even gays.

I had no male figure at all to follow, and my mother and her partner were both unlike traditional fathers or traditional mothers. As a result, I had very few recognizable social cues to offer potential male or female friends, since I was neither confident nor sensitive to others. Thus I befriended people rarely and alienated others easily. Gay people who grew up in straight parents’ households may have struggled with their sexual orientation; but when it came to the vast social universe of adaptations not dealing with sexuality—how to act, how to speak, how to behave—they had the advantage of learning at home. Many gays don’t realize what a blessing it was to be reared in a traditional home.

My home life was not traditional nor conventional. I suffered because of it, in ways that are difficult for sociologists to index. Both nervous and yet blunt, I would later seem strange even in the eyes of gay and bisexual adults who had little patience for someone like me. I was just as odd to them as I was to straight people.

Life is hard when you are strange. Even now, I have very few friends and often feel as though I do not understand people because of the unspoken gender cues that everyone around me, even gays raised in traditional homes, takes for granted. Though I am hard-working and a quick learner, I have trouble in professional settings because co-workers find me bizarre.

In terms of sexuality, gays who grew up in traditional households benefited from at least seeing some kind of functional courtship rituals around them. I had no clue how to make myself attractive to girls. When I stepped outside of my mothers’ trailer, I was immediately tagged as an outcast because of my girlish mannerisms, funny clothes, lisp, and outlandishness. Not surprisingly, I left high school as a virgin, never having had a girlfriend, instead having gone to four proms as a wisecracking sidekick to girls who just wanted someone to chip in for a limousine.

When I got to college, I set off everyone’s “gaydar” and the campus LGBT group quickly descended upon me to tell me it was 100-percent certain I must be a homosexual. When I came out as bisexual, they told everyone I was lying and just wasn’t ready to come out of the closet as gay yet. Frightened and traumatized by my mother’s death, I dropped out of college in 1990 and fell in with what can only be called the gay underworld. Terrible things happened to me there.

It was not until I was twenty-eight that I suddenly found myself in a relationship with a woman, through coincidences that shocked everyone who knew me and surprised even myself. I call myself bisexual because it would take several novels to explain how I ended up “straight” after almost thirty years as a gay man. I don’t feel like dealing with gay activists skewering me the way they go on search-and-destroy missions against ex-gays, “closet cases,” or “homocons.”

Though I have a biography particularly relevant to gay issues, the first person who contacted me to thank me for sharing my perspective on LGBT issues was Mark Regnerus, in an email dated July 17, 2012. I was not part of his massive survey, but he noticed a comment I’d left on a website about it and took the initiative to begin an email correspondence.

Forty-one years I’d lived, and nobody—least of all gay activists—had wanted me to speak honestly about the complicated gay threads of my life. If for no other reason than this, Mark Regnerus deserves tremendous credit—and the gay community ought to be crediting him rather than trying to silence him.

Regnerus’s study identified 248 adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships. Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda. Yet the results are backed up by an important thing in life called common sense: Growing up different from other people is difficult and the difficulties raise the risk that children will develop maladjustments or self-medicate with alcohol and other dangerous behaviors. Each of those 248 is a human story, no doubt with many complexities.

Like my story, these 248 people’s stories deserve to be told. The gay movement is doing everything it can to make sure that nobody hears them. But I care more about the stories than the numbers (especially as an English professor), and Regnerus stumbled unwittingly on a narrative treasure chest.

So why the code of silence from LGBT leaders? I can only speculate from where I’m sitting. I cherish my mother’s memory, but I don’t mince words when talking about how hard it was to grow up in a gay household. Earlier studies examined children still living with their gay parents, so the kids were not at liberty to speak, governed as all children are by filial piety, guilt, and fear of losing their allowances. For trying to speak honestly, I’ve been squelched, literally, for decades.

The latest attempt at trying to silence stories (and data) such as mine comes from Darren E. Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, who gave an interview to Tom Bartlett of the Chronicle of Higher Education, in which he said—and I quote—that Mark Regnerus’s study was “bullshit.” Bartlett’s article continues:

Among the problems Sherkat identified is the paper’s definition of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”—an aspect that has been the focus of much of the public criticism. A woman could be identified as a “lesbian mother” in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child, regardless of the brevity of that relationship and whether or not the two women raised the child as a couple.

Sherkat said that fact alone in the paper should have “disqualified it immediately” from being considered for publication.

The problem with Sherkat’s disqualification of Regnerus’s work is a manifold chicken-and-egg conundrum. Though Sherkat uses the term “LGBT” in the same interview with Bartlett, he privileges that L and G and discriminates severely against the B, bisexuals.

Where do children of LGBT parents come from? If the parents are 100-percent gay or lesbian, then the chances are that the children were conceived through surrogacy or insemination, or else adopted. Those cases are such a tiny percentage of LGBT parents, however, that it would be virtually impossible to find more than a half-dozen in a random sampling of tens of thousands of adults.

Most LGBT parents are, like me, and technically like my mother, “bisexual”—the forgotten B. We conceived our children because we engaged in heterosexual intercourse. Social complications naturally arise if you conceive a child with the opposite sex but still have attractions to the same sex. Sherkat calls these complications disqualifiable, as they are corrupting the purity of a homosexual model of parenting.

I would posit that children raised by same-sex couples are naturally going to be more curious about and experimental with homosexuality without necessarily being pure of any attraction to the opposite sex. Hence they will more likely fall into the bisexual category, as did I—meaning that the children of LGBT parents, once they are young adults, are likely to be the first ones disqualified by the social scientists who now claim to advocate for their parents.

Those who are 100-percent gay may view bisexuals with a mix of disgust and envy. Bisexual parents threaten the core of the LGBT parenting narrative—we do have a choice to live as gay or straight, and we do have to decide the gender configuration of the household in which our children will grow up. While some gays see bisexuality as an easier position, the fact is that bisexual parents bear a more painful weight on their shoulders. Unlike homosexuals, we cannot write off our decisions as things forced on us by nature. We have no choice but to take responsibility for what we do as parents, and live with the guilt, regret, and self-criticism forever.

Our children do not arrive with clean legal immunity. As a man, though I am bisexual, I do not get to throw away the mother of my child as if she is a used incubator. I had to help my wife through the difficulties of pregnancy and postpartum depression. When she is struggling with discrimination against mothers or women at a sexist workplace, I have to be patient and listen. I must attend to her sexual needs. Once I was a father, I put aside my own homosexual past and vowed never to divorce my wife or take up with another person, male or female, before I died. I chose that commitment in order to protect my children from dealing with harmful drama, even as they grow up to be adults. When you are a parent, ethical questions revolve around your children and you put away your self-interest . . . forever.

Sherkat’s assessment of Regnerus’s work shows a total disregard for the emotional and sexual labor that bisexual parents contribute to their children. Bisexual parents must wrestle with their duties as parents while still contending with the temptations to enter into same-sex relationships. The turbulence documented in Mark Regnerus’s study is a testament to how hard that is. Rather than threatening, it is a reminder of the burden I carry and a goad to concern myself first and foremost with my children’s needs, not my sexual desires.

The other chicken-and-egg problem of Sherkat’s dismissal deals with conservative ideology. Many have dismissed my story with four simple words: “But you are conservative.” Yes, I am. How did I get that way? I moved to the right wing because I lived in precisely the kind of anti-normative, marginalized, and oppressed identity environment that the left celebrates: I am a bisexual Latino intellectual, raised by a lesbian, who experienced poverty in the Bronx as a young adult. I’m perceptive enough to notice that liberal social policies don’t actually help people in those conditions. Especially damning is the liberal attitude that we shouldn’t be judgmental about sex. In the Bronx gay world, I cleaned out enough apartments of men who’d died of AIDS to understand that resistance to sexual temptation is central to any kind of humane society. Sex can be hurtful not only because of infectious diseases but also because it leaves us vulnerable and more likely to cling to people who don’t love us, mourn those who leave us, and not know how to escape those who need us but whom we don’t love. The left understands none of that. That’s why I am conservative.

So yes, I am conservative and support Regnerus’s findings. Or is it that Regnerus’s findings revisit the things that made me conservative in the first place? Sherkat must figure that one out.

Having lived for forty-one years as a strange man, I see it as tragically fitting that the first instinct of experts and gay activists is to exclude my life profile as unfit for any “data sample,” or as Dr. Sherkat calls it, “bullshit.” So the game has gone for at least twenty-five years. For all the talk about LGBT alliances, bisexuality falls by the wayside, thanks to scholars such as Sherkat. For all the chatter about a “queer” movement, queer activists are just as likely to restrict their social circles to professionalized, normal people who know how to throw charming parties, make small talk, and blend in with the Art Deco furniture.

I thank Mark Regnerus. Far from being “bullshit,” his work is affirming to me, because it acknowledges what the gay activist movement has sought laboriously to erase, or at least ignore. Whether homosexuality is chosen or inbred, whether gay marriage gets legalized or not, being strange is hard; it takes a mental toll, makes it harder to find friends, interferes with professional growth, and sometimes leads one down a sodden path to self-medication in the form of alcoholism, drugs, gambling, antisocial behavior, and irresponsible sex. The children of same-sex couples have a tough road ahead of them—I know, because I have been there. The last thing we should do is make them feel guilty if the strain gets to them and they feel strange. We owe them, at the least, a dose of honesty. Thank you, Mark Regnerus, for taking the time to listen.

Robert Lopez is assistant professor of English at California State University-Northridge. He is the author of Colorful Conservative: American Conversations with the Ancients from Wheatley to Whitman. This year he will be publishing novels he wrote in the 1990s and 2000s.

Receive Public Discourse by email, become a fan of Public Discourse on Facebook, follow Public Discourse on Twitter, and sign up for the Public Discourse RSS feed.

Comment:   I want to emphasize of  the many TRUTHS  which escape Dennis Prager in his teachings to the public, one of the most vital one to understand is political…….ALL THAT THE LEFT TOUCHES CRUMBLES TO DISHARMONY AND THEN TO DUST.    Its bribes of kindness, generosity and care destroy  human development both collective and individual.   

The purpose of marriage is for the raising of the human family with the sharing of duties and responsibilities of a member of each sex…….for each has a special role.     If those of the same sex are given equal right to ‘marry’, the American family will be further exposed to decay and eventually will lose its purpose, for  its dysfunction will eventually become a department of the State.

I’d recommend readers read or reread, or read again and again George Orwell’s masterpiece expose of Marxist ideals in “1984”.     The ultimate goal of any true leftist is State governance over people to guarantee equality of the masses.

Should America Demand Obama Open his Sealed College Records and Marxist Activities?

Should Romney demand that

Obama release his college records

in exchange for tax returns?

 by Ed Morrissey    at  HotAir:

That’s the suggestion from former Libertarian Party VP candidate Wayne Allen Root, who graduated in the same disciplines as Barack Obama at the same time (1983) from the same college, Columbia University.  If Harry Reid wants to play the “there must be something scary in those records” game, why not challenge Obama by offering to release 10 years of tax returns if Obama will release 10 years of college records?

Obama and his infamous strategist David Axelrod understand how to play political hardball, the best it’s ever been played. Team Obama has decided to distract America’s voters by condemning Mitt Romney for not releasing enough years of his tax returns. It’s the perfect cover. Obama knows the best defense is a bold offense. Just keep attacking Mitt and blaming him for secrecy and evasion, while accusing him of having a scandal that doesn’t exist. Then ask followers like Senator Harry Reid to chase the lead. The U.S. Senate Majority Leader appears to now be making up stories out of thin air, about tax returns he knows nothing about. It’s a cynical, brilliant, and vicious strategy. Make Romney defend, so he can’t attack the real Obama scandal.

This is classic Axelrod. Obama has won several elections in his career by slandering his opponents and leaking sealed documents. Not only do these insinuations and leaks ruin the credibility and reputation of Obama’s opponents, they keep them on the defensive and off Obama’s trail of sealed documents. …

My answer for Romney? Call Obama’s bluff.

Romney should call a press conference and issue a challenge in front of the nation. He should agree to release more of his tax returns, only if Obama unseals his college records. Simple and straight-forward. Mitt should ask “What could possibly be so embarrassing in your college records from 29 years ago that you are afraid to let America’s voters see? If it’s THAT bad, maybe it’s something the voters ought to see.” Suddenly the tables are turned. Now Obama is on the defensive.

My bet is that Obama will never unseal his records because they contain information that could destroy his chances for re-election. Once this challenge is made public, my prediction is you’ll never hear about Mitt’s tax returns ever again.

I admit that this scenario would give some satisfaction after Reid’s attack-dog McCarthyism of the past week or so.  There is precedent for release of both tax returns and college records; in 2004, both candidates released at least part of their college records, which showed that George W. Bush had a slightly better undergrad GPA than John Kerry, and both earned good grades in pursuit of their post-graduate degrees.  Other than that, the topic was completely uninteresting, because it had little to do with the issues in the election, and also because they came out early — well before either campaign could build a sustained narrative about them.

Tax returns hold the same cachet and relevance.  They’re usually dry affairs, especially for people who can afford to have professional preparation for their tax returns.  As I wrote earlier, they don’t really serve any purpose but to allow critics to seize on legal income and tax structuring in order to paint their opponents as too rich to trust.  That’s exactly what Barack Obama and David Axelrod want to do with Romney, which is why he’s balking at releasing any more of his returns.  The risk for Romney is that the refusal makes him look secretive, which Team Obama has already claimed, when in fact it’s no one’s business what’s in his tax returns.  Romney, just like all other politicians at the federal level, is required to make disclosures about his wealth in order to disclose potential conflicts of interest, which is what is actually relevant to the pursuit of public office.

People have criticized Obama for not releasing his college records, especially in 2008, when he ran as a super-intelligent outsider whose lack of experience was an asset to bringing a fresh perspective to Washington and policy.  Poor grades would certainly have been relevant at that time, but probably not so much today.  (Root argues in his piece that he thinks Obama scored scholarships as a “foreign exchange” student based on his years spent in Indonesia, but Obama had been in the US all through his high-school years, so that doesn’t seem very plausible.)

The problem for Romney in this kind of strategy is that it will serve as a distraction from his central premise: that Obama’s record as President shows that his policies have failed, and that the US needs new leadership, especially on the economy.  Even if he did adopt this strategy, the Obama campaign has Harry Reid playing Tail Gunner Joe on this issue, keeping a safe distance from the mud-slinging.  Even if, as Root supposes, Axelrod has been running Reid as a front man, a Romney challenge on Obama’s college records won’t shut Reid up.  Instead, Romney will end up punching below his weight, way off message, while Team Obama stays ostensibly on the sidelines and benefits from the derailing of Romney’s messaging. And by making the offer at all, Romney legitimizes the demand for the release of his tax returns.

In the end, Obama’s betting that people care more about Romney’s tax returns than their own pocketbooks.  If they stick with that strategy, they’re going to be in for a rude surprise in November — and the more the economy slides toward recession, the more the reminders of Romney’s business success might backfire on Obama.

Update: A couple of commenters are angry with me for using the term “McCarthyism,” claiming that the communist infiltration that Joe McCarthy claimed turned out to be real.  But that’s not what the term means.  As I wrote two years ago in another context, Joe McCarthy may have been right in general, but he ended up doing a lot of damage:

Note: People objected yesterday to the use of the word “McCarthyism” in my post, but I use it for two reasons.  First, it’s a term that the Left throws out with abandon any time people dissent from their orthodoxy and have the temerity to question their motivations.  Second, it is a clear, concise description that immediately conveys the kind of guilty-until-proven-innocent abuse of power from government officials when it occurs.

Some people objected because later information proved Joe McCarthy correct in general about Communist infiltration in the government, but that doesn’t acquit McCarthy of his abuse of power.  He accused people without evidence, many of them the wrong people, and did so as a representative of the government that is supposed to protect the individual presumption of innocence until evidence proves contrary.  McCarthy was a dangerous man, and perhaps even more for the discredit he heaped on the anti-Communist effort when the Soviet Union was at its most aggressive.

Specifically, McCarthy smeared people as Communists or Communist sympathizers when he didn’t have evidence to back up those claims, then demanded that they prove themselves innocent rather than him proving their guilt.  It was a despicable tactic then, and it’s a despicable tactic now.  No one should waste time trying to rehabilitate McCarthy.

Arthur Brooks on Marxist Obama’s “If you’ve got a business-you didn’t build that.”

Arthur Brooks: Obama and

‘Earning Your Success’

The work mandate was the most successful welfare reform in 60 years. Ending it is a

“Within the space of just two weeks, Americans have witnessed two radically different philosophies about the free enterprise system from President Obama. In his notorious Roanoke, Va., speech of July 13, he said “If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” That is, Americans have not fully earned their success.

Backpedaling after a public outcry, the president insisted he had been misinterpreted, and that he is fully committed to the values of competition, merit and opportunity. In a speech to the National Urban League in New Orleans on July 25, he asserted that “America says we will give you opportunity, but you’ve got to earn your success.”

The sentiments expressed in these two speeches are inconsistent. To find the truth, we need to look at the administration’s actions.

As far as business is concerned, a great deal has been written about the myriad barriers the Obama administration has placed in the way of entrepreneurial success. From stimulus spending that benefited politically connected firms to Dodd-Frank’s expensive and onerous new regulations that disproportionately harm small banks, the deck is increasingly stacked against the entrepreneur. And proposed tax increases on “millionaires and billionaires” who allegedly don’t pay their “fair share” (though the top 1% of earners already pay 38.7% of all federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office) seem like more of a punishment for earned success than an incentive to achieve it.

But one recent administration action in particular contradicts the president’s claim that “you’ve got to earn your success.” On July 12, the administration unilaterally weakened the federally mandated work requirements for welfare recipients. Since welfare reform was passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, the states have been required to have at least half of adult welfare recipients in qualified “work activities”—actual jobs, or participation in education or training programs. Now, however, Mr. Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services has announced that the agency will issue waivers to the federal work requirement.

This is a dramatic change in direction. As Rep. Dave Camp (R., Mich.), chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, flatly asserts, “This ends welfare reform as we know it.”

The 1996 law was arguably the most successful policy change to help low-income Americans in the past 60 years. Welfare policies of the 1960s led generations of families to languish on the government dole at subsistence levels, never gaining the skills to work and with little hope to rise. It took more than a decade to get Congress to reverse course. But it was worth the effort.

According to the U.S. government, welfare reform helped to move 4.7 million Americans from welfare dependency to self-sufficiency within three years of enactment. The overall federal welfare caseload declined by 54% between 1996 and 2004.

Even more important, there is evidence that it improved the lives of those who moved off welfare. In the Berkeley Electronic Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy (2011), Santa Clara University’s John Ifcher showed, using data from the General Social Survey, that single mothers—despite lost leisure time and increased stress from finding child care and performing household duties while working—were significantly happier about their lives in the eight years after reforms led them into the workforce.

The central insight from welfare reform is that people flourish when they earn their success, and this requires real market work. They escape poverty—and they live dignified, better-ordered lives. They don’t just move out of welfare; they move up from dependence on the government.

When it comes to earned success, the administration’s actions—from business regulation to taxation, and now welfare—speak louder than the president’s words.

Mr. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “The Road to Freedom: How to Win the Fight for Free Enterprise” (Basic Books, 2012).

The Unnatural President Obama; Our First Harpy Heading the White House!

These past 40 years  are the years of feminist propaganda and its censorship powers managed by the American Democrat Party and its allies at university and throughout American media.  

Outside of delivering the human body in its infancy, nearly everything  created, invented, developed, built, modified, and even thought of has been performed  almost exclusively by the human male throughout this particular species history.

Refinements, the polishing,  the disseminating and use of what has been male created, with all of the sensitivities which satisfy some taste or another  move more toward the female or the ‘sensitive’ male.

I wonder if anyone these days in the western world has heard of   ‘testosterone’.    The  drive on this planet is still determined by the human MALE……Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan  notwithstanding.

Nearly all of male failure, whatever the description of  male failure in societymay be, arrives from his inability to find himself  compatible with his genetic determination to ‘make a difference’  in the culture.  

He is unable to find his station of influence which could be defined as success.   Male critics would call it negatively as the male ego……and they are right if they would forego the sneers.     Male harmony with himself is often his  battle from puberty to death.   The lucky in modern society are those whose  ego is in balance with accomplishment, with accomplishment the primary driver over ego.

Such harmony is bestowed  these days upon a very lucky human male, since there are so many harpies of both sexes in Obama’s Democrat Party which insist nothing really is invented or created without the domination of the masses.   It is their policy to denegrate human male success.   

They have found a very successful man on nearly every count, Mitt Romney,  to show their fangs and sound  their growls,  snipings, their lies, their Harpy natures, led by Barack Obama and Harry Reid. 

According to the Obama camp in the White House and at university,Marxist equality must be served.    Nothing may be recognized as individually achieved without homage  to the government’s highway masses.

Despite the years of leftwing feminist lunacy and its propaganda permeating throughout western education, not much has changed during the past three decades of lunatic female rebellion against science and common sense.

The evidence is overwhelming.    Steve Jobs was NOT Stephanie Jobs.   While amidst its bureaucracies, the human at work performs equally obediently whether for good or bad.   

The following observation  by Charles Murray of David Brooks,   is a conversation  among males, not females.   It is one which cannot occur in public among Obama leftists, for Obama himself is not a problem solver, not an  inventor or  a creator of substance.   He possesses his ego, but  is void of these male solving and building traits and most appropriately represents the harpies demanding their rewards from those in America who indeed have built, invented, created, and added  material wealth, knowledge, and expanding abilities to our culture since its founding.

Mr. Obama is the first  feminized American president;  our first Harpy in the White House.   He  was morphed at  university and by fatherlessness.


Why David Brooks can look forward to

old age

David Brooks has delivered his take on the “you didn’t build that” conversation with this as his thesis: As a practical matter, it is useful for young people on their way up to think that their future success is up to them. But as we reach old age, we understand how little we have accomplished independently of all the forces acting on our lives.

But I have the advantage actually being old, whereas David is, through no fault of his own, still a whippersnapper. So I am in a position to correct him. As you get to be a codger, David, you will actually be able to see more and more clearly what has been a matter of luck and what you can legitimately take credit for, and the latter will give you a great deal of satisfaction.

At least that’s the way it has worked out for me. I understand completely that talent is pure luck of the draw. For example, I will never, ever, be able to come up with a sentence as acute and witty as this: “Ambition, like promiscuity, is most pleasant when experienced vicariously.” It’s one of half a dozen such bon mots in this column alone, and they are possible only because of the bundle of skills that David Brooks is lucky enough to possess and he did nothing to deserve.

But what makes those sentences possible for him to write does not make them come into existence. And that is the basis for the credit that people can legitimately take in their own achievements. Speaking for myself, I know that some of the things I have written were easy for me, because of the bundle of skills I was given, and they are no big deal to me. I also recognize that other things I have written took enormous effort. They exist because of continuing acts of will on my part, sometimes extending over long periods of time. Those give me increasing satisfaction as I grow older, not less. I am proud of my younger self—at a remove, as if I were thinking about another person; almost the same way that I am proud of my children.

Continuing acts of will are associated with every kind of major success, including those that arise from family, community, and faith. They also are associated with major success in business, the law, the sciences, or the arts. That’s why studies of greatness in all of those fields have one finding in common: The greats in all of those fields worked incredibly hard. See Human Accomplishment for details.

At this point, dreary people will try to push us into the “Oh, but your ability to make those acts of will was because of factors over which you have no control” line of argument. But that argument works only theoretically. We certainly know that other forces have made a big difference, but as we get older we have a pretty good sense of what they have been (in my case, my wife standing above all others). But we all know from our inner history the many times that we had the choice to exert an act of will and failed to do so along with the times that we did. We experience in our hearts the reality of free will. Knowing that, it’s okay to take credit for the times we sucked it up and did the right thing. Those things, we built.

Further comment:   “Oh, but your ability to make those acts of will was because of factors over which you have no control” line of argument”,  is Obama’s and Elizabeth Warren’s Harpy language to fit their Marxist religion  to enforce equality……representing thousands of Democrat-Harpies  like them running for political office this November, 2012.