The final two nights of the Republican National Convention were blowouts, so much so that it had to scare the hell out of the Dirty Dems. Even I was impressed by Condoleezza Rice, Suzana Martinez, Marco Rubio, and, of course, Paul Ryan. And, yes, it was clear that Ryan’s boldness has helped Mitt Romney immensely, because MittMan gave the speech of his life.
So the last thing in the world I want to do is rain on the Republicans’ parade. Nevertheless, I am obliged to point out a critical mistake that I believe the GOP continues to make.
I was planning on writing an article today titled “When Morals Collide with Pragmatism.” The crux of the article was going to address the question: Should a true libertarian or conservative obey his conscience by voting for a third-party candidate or should he yield to pragmatism and vote for the “lesser of two evils?”
Right now, pragmatists are laser focused on one thing, and one thing only: getting Son of Saul out of the White House before he finishes the job of destroying America. The decades-long Republican argument goes something like this: “Forget what you think about our candidate. Let’s just get this evil guy out of office, then, once we’re in power, we can work on changing our man.”
Even the walking dead have by now heard Barack Obama’s classic collectivist slip, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” But it’s important to point out what lies at the heart of such an idiotic statement.
Karl Marx called it the “Labor Theory of Value.” This is the rather vague notion that calls for a laborer to receive “all the fruits of his labor.” Oversimplified, the Marxist believes that if a man puts $100 worth of labor into the making of a product (and assuming he makes every aspect of the product himself, which is almost never the case), he is being “exploited” if someone buys it from him for $100 and resells it for $125.
And so, my fellow Americans, here we are once again on the verge of yet another Robespierrian revolution. “Off with their heads!” shouts the mastermind of the Great Obamapression. “The problem with our economy,” he insists, “is to be found in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and Switzerland.” And millions of people are buying into his claim!
When the lessons of history so clearly demonstrate that redistribution of wealth always ends badly for a nation, what could possibly motivate so many people to ignore such clear evidence? I believe the answer is to be found in an acronym I like to refer to as GAVEAD (guilt, arrogance, victimization, envy, anger, demonization).
If it weren’t so tragic and there weren’t so much at stake, the tiptoe strategy of the Romney Tepid Team would actually be funny to watch. Here you have a group of archetypal RINOs who were clever and tough enough to figure out how to destroy the relatively weak Republican primary field while Romney patiently waited his turn — next in line behind John McMush — to be anointed by the Republican establishment.
Since the Republican debates ended, however, Romney has been so weak-kneed that he’s barely been able to keep pace with a president whom everyone but the most naïve among us now realizes is a dedicated Marxist. Romney and his Tepid Team apparently feel confident that he can quietly slip through the clogged media filters all the way to Tampa, get the official nomination, then squeak out a win in November without making a wave in the process.
In the lyrics of a popular song from 1967, the Zombies innocently asked the musical question, “Who’s your daddy?” By the 1980s, My Two Dads was on TV and children learned that Heather Has Two Mommies. In 2006, HBO began broadcasting Big Love, a show featuring the rollicking adventures of a polygamist and his three wives.
Small examples of cultural change, or something more significant? The media were gladly fostering new attitudes about the nature of the nuclear family. This was possible only because the structure of the American family was already crumbling.
A gentleman entering a saloon in the United States circa 1900 would likely find a sign announcing “Free Lunch.” It was understood, of course, that the offer was predicated upon the purchase of at least one drink. And it was assumed that the comestibles would encourage the customer to stay a while and imbibe even more, thereby increasing the profitability of the enterprise.
As we all know, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” (TANSTAAFL). Or is there?
George W. Bush did many memorable things during his time in office. He gave us No Child Left Unharmed (officially mistitled “No Child Left Behind”), a massive, unfunded prescription drug benefit (Medicare Part D), and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the real cost of which will ultimately be in the area of $4 trillion.
As of last Thursday, however, one could make an argument that his most memorable “achievement” was nominating John Roberts to the Supreme Court. What a super pick that turned out to be. Clearly, Bush knows a stealth liberal when he sees one. (I’m not buying the theory that Roberts is a cunning chess player who did conservatives a big favor by imposing limits on Congress’ power to make a mockery of the Commerce Clause.)
Watching the U.S., the EU, Japan, and other once prosperous countries going broke is a sad sight to behold. And what they all have in common is that they’ve tried state capitalism — a shotgun marriage between capitalism and socialism — and found that Margaret Thatcher was right when she said, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
Now, spoiled parasites everywhere are angry because their hosts have run out of other people’s money. The message of the parasites is straightforward: “We don’t give a damn if you don’t have enough money to pay our entitlements. We want them anyway!”
Last week, the Dean of Dumb, Howard himself, was at his outrageous best on The Kudlow Report, debating Bernie Marcus, cofounder of Home Depot. Marcus is an unabashed champion of capitalism and an advocate of shrinking the size of government.
In response to Marcus’ statement that the answer to America’s economic woes is not taxation and that the government doesn’t own his money, Dean shouted:
Having had the pleasure ofinterviewing Senator Tom Coburn this week about his book The Debt Bomb, I’m convinced he’s one of a handful of people in Congress who not only understands what is happening to the American Empire, but is willing to stick his neck out to try to do something about it. What makes Coburn different from most of his colleagues is that he is voluntarily limiting his time in the Senate to two terms, just as he did when he was a member of the House.
It’s not surprising, then, that he believes “careerism” is at the root of virtually all of Washington’s problems. He generously ascribes good intentions to many members of Congress, but says they are torn between getting reelected and doing what’s best for America.
I had a dream the other night. It was Inauguration Day, January 20, 2013, and Mitt Romney, standing on the steps of the Capitol Building, solemnly swore, just like Barack Obama did back in January 2009, to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
As is always the case on Inauguration Day, the crowd was cold but ecstatic. After all, the newest savior of the Republican Party was about to take power. The TV cameras scanned the thousands of smiling faces that truly believed America had been saved from impending doom and that, at long last, financial sanity would be restored to government.
There have been scores of books that have attempted to pull the media mask off of Barack Obama and reveal the naked communist that resides within him. Some, like Dinesh D’Souza’s The Roots of Obama’s Rage and Stanley Kurtz’s Radical-in-Chief have been especially revealing.
None of these works, however, have come as close to entrapping the purveyor of the biggest political scam in U.S. history as Edward Klein’s new book, The Amateur. I have to admit I was surprised when I saw that the book had risen to number one on the New York Times bestseller list, even though the far-left media have virtually ignored it.
In his new book, No, They Can’t: Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed, John Stossel has zeroed in on an interesting theory about what causes people to believe they need government to be involved in so many areas of their lives. He believes that the notion that government can do things better than individuals is “intuitive.”
But what, exactly, is intuition? One dictionary defines it as “Direct perception of truth … independent of any reasoning process.” That definition, however, invites another question: What is “truth?”
Bill Ayers’ recent speech at the University of Oregon lit up the Internet as though he were a world-renowned statesman, igniting predictable responses from both the right and the left.
After reading as much as I could find about Ayers’ speech on the Internet, and listening to the brief video clip that most everyone has viewed by now, my reaction might surprise some readers. Brace yourself: I believe that a majority of what Bill Ayers said is true. It is his solutions with which I take issue.
The two most poisonous words in the English language are rights and entitlements. They mean essentially the same thing, and both are subjectively created in the minds of collectivist dreamers.
Though the notion of rights/entitlements has been around since the founding, and has been heating up at an accelerating pace since FDR first introduced Americans to the welfare state, it is Barack Obama whom historians will credit with bringing the issue into the debate arena.
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground,” said Thomas Jefferson.
Throughout my life, I have watched this phenomenon play out. Much like a stock-market chart, you may see an occasional upward blip toward liberty, but the general trendline is downward — toward bigger, more intrusive, more controlling government and less individual liberty.
I have purposely avoided writing about the Trayvon Martin case, for two reasons. First, because, as tragic as the death of a teenager is, it’s not a national news story. It was manufactured into such by the same old race baiters who make a living by stirring up racial hatred.
When I say race baiters, I’m talking about those who relentlessly work at keeping alive the racial divisions created by Democrats and their Jim Crow laws of yesteryear. It starts at the top with the Racist-in-Chief and goes all the way to the bottom — and I do mean the bottom — to intellectual dwarf Al Sharpton.
Longtime readers will recall that I began warning about Barack Obama’s dictatorial ambitions before he even won the 2008 presidential election. Now, finally, more people are beginning to take this possibility as a serious threat.
Obama’s recent contention that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overrule congressional legislation had dictatorship written all over it. It was, quite obviously, an ignorant slip on his part.
If MittMan fulfills his destiny as the inevitable Republican presidential nominee, which it now appears he will, one of the issues that would help him pull off his born-again conservative image is if he would take on outlaw unions in an aggressive fashion. MittMan likes to stick with winning issues, and given that only 7 percent of wage and salary workers in the private sector are unionized, taking on unions is a pretty safe way to look tough and conservative.
In rereading Barry Goldwater’s classic, Conscience of a Conservative, I was once again reminded of how convoluted the arguments over trade unions have become. It is a clear violation of property rights when a union not only can force itself on a business owner, but force everyone who comes to work for that employer to become a member.
As the Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of Obamacare plays out, I’m probably one of the few people who is not biting his nails over the outcome. In fact, I’m dismayed that a majority of Americans are actually taking this media-hyped event so seriously.
First of all, as Thomas Woods has often pointed out, the whole idea of an arm of the federal government ruling in a case where states are suing that same federal government is perverse. Let us not be naïve. The Supreme Court, Congress, and the Executive Branch are all part of the same team. It’s true that the Court may occasionally rule against the government, but, nevertheless, there is an inherent conflict of interest.
Obama in Wonderland(officially titled The Road We’ve Traveled), the world’s first sixteen-minute political ad, would have pleased Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s infamous propaganda minister. Like the ruling party in George Orwell’s 1984, this super-slick Hollywood production rewrites history with an alarming arrogance.
The first thing you see in this vulgar, vile, vitriol-filled video is the Obama family walking on stage to greet a huge crowd of tearful, cheering, flag-waving Stepford wives, husbands, and children. The melodrama of it all rivals New York City’s 1951 ticker-tape parade for General Douglas MacArthur.
There’s an old saying, sometimes attributed to Newt Gingrich, that “They can lie louder, but we can tell the truth longer.” I’d like to believe that, but after years of watching the Lying Left in action, I’m not so sure about it.
Based on how they’ve ramped up their game since the Obamaviks arrived in Washington back in 2009, I’m convinced that the Lying Left possesses the audacity, the shamelessness, and the relentlessness required to tell the most outrageous and vile lies every bit as long as those of us who love liberty can tell the truth.
In Senator Jim DeMint’s new book, Now or Never, he boldly states, “The differences between the Democratic and Republican Parties are irreconcilable: there can be no compromise between collectivism and freedom.” How refreshing that someone in the U.S. Senate has the courage to speak the truth.
I totally concur with Senator DeMint’s position. The vast majority of Democrats are not interested in truth. They are not interested in logic. They are not interested in helping others. And they certainly are not interested in upholding and defending the Constitution.
One of the current questions in an endless barrage of moral dilemmas that politicians are constantly debating is whether we should send food to North Korea in exchange for its promise to shut down its nuclear program. And it’s not particularly comforting to know that a twenty-eight-year-old kid, Kim Jung-un (affectionately referred to by his barber as “Chublet II”), is now ostensibly running things.
The Korean War was the first in what has become a long string of losing U.S. wars. Harry Truman’s decision to stop General Douglas MacArthur from finishing the job in Korea has resulted in nearly six decades of slavery for North Koreans.
Our old friend, “pain at the pump,” is with us once again, and this time it promises to be far more painful than the last time around. “Pain at the pump” is a nice little catchphrase, but I’ve never been able to figure out why people pick on gas. After all, isn’t it just as painful to pay $250,000 for a house that used to cost $8,000? Or $30,000 for a car that once cost $2,000? And what about the skyrocketing prices of such basic foods as milk, bread, and eggs?
The fact is that the price of gasoline is relative. Relative to what Americans have been used to paying, $4.00-$5.00 a gallon sounds like a lot. And $6.00-$7.00 a gallon — which is almost certain to come — is going to sound like a lot more. But relative to what countries such as the UK, France, and the Netherlands have been paying for years, these prices are no big deal.
In my recent interview with J.C. Watts, he took issue with Mitt Romney’s controversial comment, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.”
Romney’s supporters claim that the media has used this quote out of context, but Watts doesn’t see it that way. “I didn’t take what he said out of context,” the ex-congressman told me, “I took it in context. What he [Romney] was saying was, ‘Let’s keep people trapped in poverty, and if we need to give them a few more food stamps … we’ll do that.’”
Otherwise dependable conservatives appear to be losing their minds in their zeal to vanquish the media-created first family from the White House. Ann Coulter, a one-time paragon of hard-core conservatism, has confirmed a growing suspicion that she possesses a latent liberal streak. By endorsing and singing the praises of Mitt-the-Flip, her open affection for left-wing nasties like Joy Behar and Bill Maher no longer appear to be anomalies.
Not one to leave bad enough alone, Coulter did a spin piece last week on Romney’s Obamacare model titled “Three Cheers for Romneycare,” which ended with, “Romney is the most electable candidate not only because it will be nearly impossible for the media to demonize this self-made Mormon square, devoted to his wife and church, but precisely because he is the most conservative candidate.”
When a longtime reader sends me a well-meaning but anti-liberty, anti-free-market e-mail, it makes me question my own writing skills because it means that even though he may thank me for what I’ve taught him over the years, his words make it clear that he doesn’t really understand what I’m saying.
Such was the case with an e-mail I recently received from a long-time reader that read, in part:
On Hannity last week, the king of vulgarity, Jerry Springer, kept hammering home a puzzling point — that Barack Obama needs additional stimulus money so the government can hire more people. After all, he said, “the private sector can’t employ everyone.”
Now that’s one I’ve never heard before. The private sector can’t employ everyone, therefore the government needs to take more money from working people and “create” jobs for people who aren’t working? Springer’s comment was, of course, code for more redistribution of wealth.
Every time you think the media is about to run out of ideas for transforming a nonstory into a spectacular news event, they manage to come up with yet another gem. That said, forgive me for adding my two cents worth to the Bain Capital brouhaha.
Those who know Newt Gingrich best have long predicated he would implode, even after he shot to the top of the polls, which he managed to do by cleverly playing the role of the calm, intellectual, peacemaking elderly statesman who was above the fray. So Gingrich’s angry obsession with taking down MittMan, even if it means destroying his own chances of winning the Republican nomination, is not surprising.
The Iowa caucuses spotlighted everything that’s wrong with politics in this country … everything that’s wrong with a republic devolving into a democracy … everything that’s wrong with entitlement-driven America.
Media cheerleaders valiantly tried to create a Super Bowl-like atmosphere around the Republican presidential candidates’ first test in Iowa, but I was so turned off that I watched very little of the coverage on election night. I make it a practice not to see bad movies more than once, and this was a very bad political movie I had seen many times over the years.