Gem of the Year: Gray Lady Gone Senile

What used to be a newspaper called the New York Times recently proclaimed that Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart is arguably today’s Edward R. Murrow, the renowned broadcast journalist.

While this may seem remarkable, in related stories the New York Times has made similar comparisons as follows: Rachel Maddow is today’s Walter Cronkite; Adam Sandler is today’s Clark Gable; Rosie O’Donnell is today’s Marilyn Monroe; Nancy Pelosi is today’s Thomas Jefferson; and Paris Hilton is today’s Joan of Arc. Oh, and of course, Barack Hussein Obama is today’s Jesus Christ.

I would add one more to their list: the New York Times is today’s Mad Magazine.

TRAITORS ALL!

se·di·tion (n.)

1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.  2. Insurrection; rebellion.

There’s been a lot of throwing around of the word “sedition” by liberals these days.   (Funny how they never brought that word up during the Bush Presidency.)  Anyway, a few weeks ago, Time Magazine columnist and all-around Obama butt-boy, Joe Klein, said that comments made by Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck criticizing Obama come “close to being seditious.”1  And now just this week, uber-liberal Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick said that Republican opposition to the Obama agenda is “almost at the level of sedition.”2  

Of course, neither of these left-wing geniuses cited any examples to back up their assertions.  But that’s okay.  If they want to talk about sedition, let’s talk about sedition. 

The definition of sedition (above) entails language or conduct that either incites rebellion or is tantamount to rebellion against a state.  Well, what about the spectacle that took place on the floor of the U.S. Congress last week?  I’d say that just about qualifies.  There you had the leader of a foreign country, “El Presidente” Felipe Calderon of Mexico, appear as an invited guest of the Democrats in Congress, and bash the State of Arizona’s new immigration law.  Speaking from the podium, Calderon had this to say:

“I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona.  It is a law that … ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree, [and] introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement.”3

Now, while this comment may have been ugly, tactless, undiplomatic and even insulting to most Americans — not to mention a display of complete ignorance of the law in question (Hey, maybe this guy should go to work for the Obama administration!), — none of what El Presidente had to say has anything to do with sedition.  Calderon is a foreign leader and, while he may be an indelicate third-world clown, he is allowed to say just about whatever he wants.  More the fools we as a country are for inviting him to say it in the House of Representatives during a joint session of Congress. 4

No, the sedition occurred immediately following Calderon’s remark: when every single Congressional Democrat, together with key Obama administration officials including the Vice-President, gave this obnoxious foreigner a standing ovation.  The sedition occurred when Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), acting in her capacity as Speaker of the House, chose an ovation to the leader of a foreign power over the duly enacted law of a sister state.  The sedition occurred when Eric Holder, acting in his capacity as Attorney General, chose an ovation to the leader of a foreign power over the duly enacted law of a sister state.  The sedition occurred when Janet Napolitano, acting in her capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, chose an ovation to the leader of a foreign power over the duly enacted law of a sister state.  The sedition occurred when Senator John Kerry (D-MA), acting in his capacity as an elected representative of the State of Massachusetts, chose an ovation to the leader of a foreign power over the duly enacted law of a sister state.  The sedition occurred when Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), acting in her capacity as an elected representative of the State of California, chose an ovation to the leader of a foreign power over the duly enacted law of a sister state.  The sedition occurred when Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), acting in his capacity as an elected representative of the State of New Jersey, chose an ovation to the leader of a foreign power over the duly enacted law of a sister state.

After Calderon made his offensive utterances, these legislators and these White House officials — supposed representatives of the American people — had a choice, and they chose to conduct themselves in the vile, seditious manner in which they did.  They chose the facile expediency of political correctness over fealty to their own country.  They chose the distorted, ill-informed, self-serving policy pronouncement of a corrupt foreign power over the duly enacted law of a State of the Republic.  In short, they publicly and flagrantly betrayed the State of Arizona and, in so doing, betrayed us all. 

What’s more, the sedition occurred (and continues to occur) when John Morton, the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — the man supposedly charged with enforcing the nation’s immigration laws — says he’s not necessarily going to enforce the law insofar as it pertains to Arizona.  Uh-huh.  Why?  Well, because he says he doesn’t think it’s all that great of a law.  “I don’t think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution,” he said. 5  Who the hell cares what you think you elitist asshole!  Who says you get to pick and choose which laws to enforce?!  Do your job and enforce the law! 

And so… [composure regained] these are all rank traitors.  So brazen are they in their treason that they are effectively pledging allegiance to a foreign sovereign state and a foreign flag: the Mexican flag.  They are doing so in their capacity as duly elected officials and government employees.  They are doing so on government soil and during a high-profile exercise of their solemn duty and sacred oath to represent the citizens of these United States, not the corrupt interests of a foreign sovereign.  They have betrayed that duty and that oath.  And they have betrayed the trust of the American people. 

It is one thing to use speech (language) to criticize a particular leader and his policies.  That is what Palin, Beck and many others including your humble writer here do.  That is political debate and political discourse and is at the essence of a free and open society.  However, it is quite another thing to attack the society itself and the very laws that undergird it; that is what these Democrat politicians are doing and that is sedition.  Simply, they are traitors all! 6

Now in the good old days, traitors were hanged, drawn, and quartered. Sadly that’s no longer the practice and as long as these thugs remain in power they will escape any punishment.  Elections have consequences, don’t cha know!  However in November, you the American voter can have your own little treason trial: where you get to be judge, jury, and hangman right there in the voting booth.  Be sure to make these villains pay for their high crimes.  And as for the biggest traitor of all, well I guess we’ll just have to wait for 2012 to come around.  But that’s okay.  We can wait, Mr. President. 

——————————————————————————–

Footnotes:

Fn. 1: Joe Klein:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36020.html

Fn. 2:  Deval Patrick:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/

2010/05/patrick_says_ob.html

Fn. 3:  Felipe Calderon before Congress:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2010/0520/Felipe-Calderon-calls-Arizona-immigration-law-racial-profiling 

(For a video excerpt of this speech, see the Comments Section of this post.)

Fn. 4:  As an aside, an inquiring mind might ask why he is so against the Arizona law? Is it because Señor Felipe Calderon is such a big proponent of civil rights in a country where he tolerates half of his population living in abject poverty?  No, it’s because Arizona just made it just that much more difficult for him to unload that half of his country into our country.  (According to official figures, in 2009 Mexico had more than 50 million people living in poverty, roughly 45 percent of the population, and those numbers are increasing.) 

Fn. 5:  John Morton:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/21/official-says-feds-process-illegals-referred-arizona/

Fn. 6:  Of course, throughout Calderon’s speech the Re-pubes just sat on their hands.  It would’ve been nice to have had a Patrick Henry moment and seen them get up and walk out en masse but I guess we just don’t have that kind of bravery anymore.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU BY OUR PROUD SPONSOR:

www.enforceazlaw.com

 

Pelosi to Young Americans: Tune In, Turn On, Drop Out; We Got Your Back

This week, that great thinker and illustrious leader of ours, Nancy Pelosi, had this to say about one of the many benefits of her new healthcare legislation:

“We see it as an entrepreneurial bill.  A bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care.” 1

So in other words, for all you kids out there (and by that we mean adults in your twenties), no need to be productive, just tune in, turn on, drop out and the government’s got your back.  It’s easy to see how Nancy can relate to this, being an old hippie chick herself.  You know, Haight-Ashbury and all that.  For the hippies of the 1960s, and for those who are still living that dream (most of whom are still in San Francisco), that was the way to go.  It was the cool thing to drop out, smoke weed, get high and take up the bongos or guitar; then go hang out at Woodstock or somewhere and protest the war or whatever was the latest thing going around on campus (besides herpes.)

But of course back then things were a little different.  Back then you had those good old capitalist pigs Mom and Dad to take care of things for you.  You see, in the 1960s your parents still made their money the old fashioned way: they earned it.  But today, the hippies are Mom and Dad.  And with Big Nanny Nancy in charge, they’re also running the country.  And guess what, they make their money the old fashioned way too: by taxing the American citizens (or at least those who still work for a living.)  That’s how the new healthcare law works!  Ain’t socialism just grand!

—————————————-

Fn. 1: For the Pelosi quote:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/65950

Bill Clinton: Extremist in Chief

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty. —Thomas Jefferson

 

In a speech given last Friday, commemorating the fifteenth anniversary of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing in which 168 people were killed and hundreds more injured, former President Bill Clinton said, in part, the following:

“Before the bombing occurred, there was a sort of fever in America… the fabric of American life had been unraveling. More and more people who had a hard time figuring out where they fit in, it is true that we see some of that today. … This Tea Party movement can be a healthy thing if they’re making us justify every penny of taxes we raised and every dollar of public money we spend, but when you get mad, sometimes you wind up producing exactly the reverse result of what you say you are for.”  (Emphasis added.)

Then on Monday, in an article appearing in the New York Times’ Op-Ed section, Clinton drew similar parallels between the conditions leading up to the Oklahoma City bombing and the political climate of today. Here are some excerpts:

“Finally, we should never forget what drove the bombers, and how they justified their actions to themselves. They took to the ultimate extreme an idea advocated in the months and years before the bombing by an increasingly vocal minority: the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them. On that April 19, the second anniversary of the assault of the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, deeply alienated and disconnected Americans decided murder was a blow for liberty. Americans have more freedom and broader rights than citizens of almost any other nation in the world, including the capacity to criticize their government and their elected officials. But we do not have the right to resort to violence — or the threat of violence — when we don’t get our way. Our founders constructed a system of government so that reason could prevail over fear. Oklahoma City proved once again that without the law there is no freedom. Criticism is part of the lifeblood of democracy. No one is right all the time. But we should remember that there is a big difference between criticizing a policy or a politician and demonizing the government that guarantees our freedoms and the public servants who enforce our laws.

We are again dealing with difficulties in a contentious, partisan time…. Fifteen years ago, the line was crossed in Oklahoma City. In the current climate, with so many threats against the president, members of Congress and other public servants, we owe it to the victims of Oklahoma City, and those who survived and responded so bravely, not to cross it again.”  1 (Emphasis added.)

Get it? Get the picture? If you are a member of the Tea Party movement or even just sympathetic to the cause, you better watch out! You better watch what you say or else you may be viewed as an extremist or, if something really bad happens, a facilitator to mass murder! So all you grandmothers, disabled veterans and other radicals better just put down your signs, get back on the bus, and get along back on home before you get yourselves in a real heap of trouble.

Liberal shills and other propagandists in the mainstream media as well as some Democratic members of Congress are saying the same thing. It is the same exact message and in some cases they use the same language: this Tea Party thing is dangerous! A year ago, they were ridiculing them. Remember Nancy Pelosi’s Astroturf jibe where she made the cynical claim that the Tea Partiers were really just the artificially contrived invention of a cabal of Republican operators rather than a legitimate grassroots movement? Well, it seems a few defeats at the ballot box have changed their tune. Now, it’s time to pull out the big guns. To get out that big brush and smear the hell out of these folks for having the temerity to speak up against an overreaching government.  And who bigger than Bill Clinton? 

To say that this is not a coordinated effort to besmirch the Tea Partiers on the part of the White House, the Democratic Party and their enablers in the mainstream media is to deny the obvious. The political wisdom of alienating almost a third of the electorate (by some estimates) is highly questionable but riskier gambits have worked before. And this Administration, I believe, is determined to let nothing stand in the way of its Progressive agenda.

 

But I think there is an even more sinister motive at work here. With regard to the ex-President’s words in particular, on its face it would appear that Bill Clinton is merely stating the axiom that words matter; that inciting extremism is a bad thing. 2  Well, of course words matter. (And no one would know that better than “Mr. Depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is!”) But the words that matter include your words too, Mr. President. Indeed, your words matter more than those of most Americans. One could argue that Mr. Clinton, by these series of statements alone, has done much more damage with his words than any home-made signs at a Tea Party rally could do. As Rush Limbaugh put it, Clinton has effectively set the stage for any nut-job, either on the extreme left or on the extreme right, to go out and commit violence. In effect, it legitimizes the motivations of, and provides an excuse for, any wacko who might want to do violence by permitting them to simply say, “Hey, I’m just agreeing with what them Tea Baggers are saying,” or “You know, like Bill Clinton said, ‘The Tea Party made me do it!’ ” And if this, God forbid, should happen, Rush would be absolutely right: the blame falls squarely on Mr. Clinton. Which, in that case, I think kind of makes Bill Clinton the de facto leader of all the extremists: The Extremist in Chief, one might say.

But maybe Bill Clinton isn’t worried all that much about that. Maybe he’s prepared to have the debate over who’s to blame. In fact, maybe that is the scenario that he and their side really want to come about. So that when something horrible happens, they can point and say, “A-ha! See! This is what we’ve been saying all along! We told you they were extremists!” And then they can take whatever measures they believe are necessary to maintain order.  Maybe start by cracking down on all “anti-government” speech.  Followed by a general move toward “regulating” all free speech and freedom of the press (bye-bye FoxNews and talk radio!) through something like the “Fairness Doctrine.”  Then of course you must outlaw all gun ownership.  And in order to accomplish that, freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures would have to be swept aside.  Etc. etc.  It would be like their own version of the Nazi’s Reichstag fire. 3   Sound far-fetched? Time will tell.

For now, what gets lost in all this commotion over so-called extremism is the fundamental right of these patriotic Americans to peacefully protest under the protections of the First Amendment.  Doesn’t their right to free speech come into play here? Certainly Mr. Clinton doesn’t seem to be a big fan of it. The First Amendment guaranteeing free speech and expression isn’t there just for porn stars and Howard Stern. Unfettered political speech, especially political speech that vexes the sensitivities of the governmental authority, is precisely what the founders had in mind as the kind of speech most needful of First Amendment protection. That a former President, even one as discredited as Bill Clinton, should publicly declare otherwise, is nothing less than an affront to the very Constitution he once swore to uphold. But why in the case of Mr. Clinton doesn’t that surprise me?

I realize all this sounds like a harsh indictment of the illustrious former President, but believe it or not I actually like Mr. Clinton. He’s just a likeable guy: especially as an ex-President. So therefore, I respectfully suggest if Mr. Clinton truly wishes to put his gift of gab to good use, that he go back to using it where it serves him best: picking up slutty fat chicks. That way, nobody gets hurt.

__________________________

Footnotes:

Fn. 1:  To link to the full New York Times Op-Ed article, click here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/opinion/19clinton.html?ref=todayspaper

Fn. 2:  Bill Clinton does have one point here: Inciting extremism is a bad thing. In fact, it’s almost as bad as pardoning extremist terrorists during the last months of your Presidency. In August of 1999, just months before his Presidency and under cover of night, Clinton pardoned 16 members of a terrorist group known as the FALN, or Armed Forces of National Liberation, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group, who were responsible for two bombs that exploded in New York City on New Year’s Eve, 1982. In addition, the FBI linked FALN members to 146 other bombings and a string of armed robberies, resulting in nine deaths and hundreds of injured victims. According to the Wall Street Journal, Clinton claimed he granted the 16 pardons because those who were offered the pardons had “sentences that were disproportionate to the crimes.”  Oh, really?  Well, if Clinton wants to have a discussion about promoting or coddling extremism, let’s start with his pardoning of these vile scumbags rather than picking on grandmothers and disabled war vets who are angry over cuts in their Medicare.

 

Fn. 3: For more information on the German Reichstag fire click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

Inconvenient History

Last night’s vote was historic.  That’s what they kept telling us.  With universal healthcare enacted into law, a sweeping transformation of one-sixth of our nation’s economy and, therefore too our society and culture, would ensue.  Historic indeed!  Together with the vast network of medical bureaucracies and numerous apparatchiks that will inevitably be created in order to bring this monstrosity to life, casual decisions by government regulators and mini-health czars will bring about life-altering consequences for ordinary Americans.  Moreover, fundamental controls, previously reserved for the legislative branch will be transferred over to the executive branch giving it the authority to fashion new policy and reshape the healthcare system as it sees fit.  Thus all this will enable and invest the executive branch, under President Obama, with the authority to exercise virtually boundless powers in healthcare and other areas. 

Aaaaaa-Hahahahahaha... Aaaaaa-Hahahahahaha!!

In such circumstances, it will be allowed that Nancy Pelosi, by going to the great lengths she has to bring this all about, has become the President’s great enabler; she and the so-called pro-life Democrats led by Bart Stupak, who at the eleventh hour cut a deal with the President by accepting the latter’s pledge in the form of an Executive Order prohibiting federal funding for abortions.

Well, history has a way of repeating itself.

On March, 23, 1933, almost 77 years to the day, Adolf Hitler passed his own Enabling Act.  Before the Reichstag (the German legislature) Hitler made a speech wherein he pledged that “the government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures … The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one.” 

As the new law would alter the German constitution, a two-thirds majority was required which meant that Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi votes to get it passed.  He got those votes from the German centrist party after making a false promise to restore certain rights previously taken away by decree.  By this vote, Germany’s elected officials paved the way for the end of democratic government in Germany and the establishment, legally, of the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. 

The rest, as they say, is history.

For more on this topic, link to:

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/inconvenient-history/

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/america-r-i-p/

Why You Don’t Have a Right to Healthcare

 

 

 

I.  What is a Right?

Healthcare in America is not a right and cannot be a right so long as we live in a country that still recognizes the United States Constitution as the law of the land.  Our rights are embedded in Natural Law.  They do not come from a king, they do not come from the President or any other politician, they do not come from Congress, nor do they come from the government as a whole or from some special group of policy makers within the government.  They do not even come from the Constitution itself.  Our rights emanate from the fundamental nature of our humanity or, if you will, from God.  As individuals, we are born with them.  The Constitution is the document under which our rights are protected.  Protected from what or whom? Why, from the government of course.  Or more to the point, the government’s inherent desire for ever more encroaching power and control over our lives.

Because our rights derive from our own individual humanity, healthcare, whether provided by the government or somebody else, cannot, by definition, be a human right.  And why is this?  Because if it were a right, we would be able to require of another person that he or she provide it to us, which would then infringe on that person’s rights.  In other words, if a so-called right requires someone else to do something for you or give something to you (i.e., guaranteed care whenever you are sick) then it is not a right.  So if healthcare is not a right, what is it?  It is a good.  A good is something we want or need, as opposed to something we naturally possess from birth.  So healthcare is no more a right than is food, clothing, housing, high-speed Internet access, or a double mocha latte from Starbucks. 

What are some examples of rights?  We have a right to life, to speech, to worship, to travel, to due process (or fairness); we also have the right to be left alone.  These basic rights and others are to be found among the first ten amendments to the Constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights.  But when you think about it, they are not really rights at all. There is nothing there that is being given to Americans that they do not already naturally possess.  They are more like prohibitions – prohibitions placed upon the government; things that the government shall not do to infringe upon the rights of the individual.  “Congress shall make no law…” this right “shall not be infringed…” this other right “shall not be violated,” the Bill of Rights is replete with such language.  So if we already possess these rights, why were they even added to the Constitution?  Because the people were, understandably, suspicious of government and in fact feared a government that would not only fail to secure their rights but actually, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, become “destructive of these ends.” 

 

 

II. The Progressive View 

Of course none of this squares at all with what Progressive politicians are saying.  Those great liberal luminaries, Dennis Kucinich, Tom Harkin, Nancy Pelosi and even Barrack Obama, have all argued that healthcare either is or should be a right in this country.  If they think it is already a right, then they either are unable or unwilling to comprehend the above analysis.  On the other hand, believing it should be a right is even more troubling because that implies that they —the officials of the government — actually think they have the power to grant it as a right.  Well, they who have the power to give, also have the power to take away.

But all this begs the question, why are these deep-thinking Progressives so hot to make only healthcare a right?  What about food? What good is it being healthy if you don’t have anything to eat?  What about housing? You need a place to sleep don’t you? What about a job?  How about a car to get to the job?  How about a place to rest when you go on vacation from your job?  Sound good?

Well, believe it or not, these things can all be yours.  Just one little catch: you have to leave the country.  Yes, the governments of other fine nations, both existing and defunct, have provided in their constitutions for all of the above, including healthcare.  Regarding the healthcare “right,” here is just a brief sampling: 

Article 42.  Citizens … have the right to health protection.This right is ensured by free, qualified medical care provided by state health institutions; by extension of the network of therapeutic and health-building institutions; by the development and improvement of safety and hygiene in industry; by carrying out broad prophylactic measures; by measures to improve the environment; by special care for the health of the rising generation, including prohibition of child labor, excluding the work done by children as part of the school curriculum; and by developing research to prevent and reduce the incidence of disease and ensure citizens a long and active life.

This comes from the U.S.S.R.’s Constitution of Fundamental Rights, as amended in 1977.

Here is the right to healthcare from the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (as adopted in 1982): 

Article 45. Citizens of the People’s Republic of China have the right to material assistance from the state and society when they are old, ill or disabled. The state develops the social insurance, social relief and medical and health services that are required to enable citizens to enjoy this right. The state and society ensure the livelihood of disabled members of the armed forces, provide pensions to the families of martyrs and give preferential treatment to the families of military personnel. The state and society help make arrangements for the work, livelihood and education of the blind, deaf-mute and other handicapped citizens

And to satisfy the Michael Moore crowd, the Cuban Constitution (as amended in 2002) also gives everyone the right to healthcare:

Article 50: Everyone has the right to health protection and care. The state guarantees this right; by providing free medical and hospital care by means of the installations of the rural medical service network, polyclinics, hospitals, preventative and specialized treatment centers; by providing free dental care; by promoting the health publicity campaigns, health education, regular medical examinations, general vaccinations and other measures to prevent the outbreak of disease. All the population cooperates in these activities and plans through the social and mass organizations.

Finally, there’s this one:

… Healthcare is a basic right … to be provided through a not-for-profit plan.  We … include coverage for those excluded… We … free the states. We … have control over private insurance companies and the cost their very existence imposes on [our] families.  We … provide a significant place for alternative and complementary medicine, religious health science practice, and the personal responsibility aspects of health care which include diet, nutrition, and exercise.

Actually, those are the words of Congressman Dennis Kucinich in a speech he gave just last Wednesday regarding his plans to vote on the upcoming bill for government managed healthcare in this country.  Sound familiar?

 

 

 

III. America the Exceptional

I often get this from liberals: “Most of the industrialized world thinks that healthcare is a human right, why not the United States?” Well most of the world, industrialized or not, thinks a lot of things that are decidedly un-American, including the government’s power to bestow healthcare (and other things) as a right.  One has to ask, how did America get to be America?  By becoming like the rest of the world?  By giving things away for free? Heck no!  What makes us still today the shining beacon to the rest of the world is that we are different from the rest of the world.  We are exceptional.  And what allows us to be exceptional is the recognition that our rights and liberties are intrinsic to the individual and not derived from government.  Where over the course of human history through to this day, governments of other nations have handed down rights to the peoples they’ve governed and have, in the name of those very rights, meddled, restrained and enslaved, in America the individual rights and liberties of our people have freed us to create, innovate, invest, build, grow and pursue success and happiness in every conceivable way, including giving it all away if that is an individual’s choice.

So really the question is not so much whether healthcare is or is not a right, because in America it is not.  Rather the question is what kind of country we want to be. 

For more on the healthcare debate, link to:

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/fortune-favors-the-brave/

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/the-arrogance-of-hope-change-%e2%80%a6-or-else/

 

Lately, I have been getting a little more than the usual static from the luminaries of the liberal left on the economy and from whence our current economic woes have come.  To set the record straight, here is a little clarity on three points:

I.  Liberal Canard Number One: The Bush tax cuts were bad for America

First, only a liberal, or a deranged person, would argue that cutting taxes somehow hurts Americans.  The misconception spread by leftists that the Bush tax cuts caused the federal deficit problems of today (as opposed to wanton government spending) is a prevarication that only the mind of Nancy Pelosi could invent.  In point of fact, the Bush tax cuts actually increased government revenue.  It is established fiscal science that tax revenues depend not only on the tax rate, but on the tax base.  If the tax base is shrinking, then it doesn’t matter what the tax rate is; tax revenue will be anemic.  The tax base expands only when taxable behavior is encouraged (as opposed to discouraged.)   Raising tax rates discourages taxable behavior and therefore shrinks the tax base, offsetting whatever revenue gains might occur by raising rates.  On the other hand, lowering tax rates encourages taxable behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting any revenue losses as a result of the lower rates.  Of course, I wouldn’t expect a liberal to understand this because it is all common sense.  But don’t take my word for it, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) tax revenues in 2006 (after the Bush tax cuts had taken effect) were actually $47 billion above what the CBO had projected before the tax cuts were implemented. Clearly, common sense works in the real world as well.  For more, see: 

www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

II. Liberal Canard Number Two:  Bush is to blame for the current size of the federal budget deficit

Liberals like to refer to the 2008 Bush-Paulson bailout of Wall Street banks when they really should be talking about the Bush-Paulson-Obama-Geithner bailout of 2008. As we will recall, Obama gave his full throated support for the bailout during the campaign, and tax cheat Tim Geithner was actually instrumental in crafting that bailout in his role as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.  And now, it seems, he and Obama can’t wait to do more.  And by more, I mean add another one trillion onto Bush’s $700 billion (and this doesn’t even include what he wants to spend on healthcare!)  Again, don’t take my word for it, click on the link below for a full exposition of the Bush vs. Obama deficit comparison. 

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

III. Liberal Canard Number Three:  Bush and his failed Iraq War policies are the cause of all our present econoomic woes

With regard to Iraq, after the attacks of 9-11 America found herself at war and we are still at war today.  One would think this to be self-evident, but with liberals you never know.  Wars cost money (another axiom), but further, this was (and is) a first-of-its-kind war to be waged on many fronts.  While it can be argued whether invading Iraq when we did was truly a necessary component of the war, it cannot be denied that Bush kept the country safe for eight years.

Finally, liberals need to stop obsessively blaming Bush for everything under the sun, moon and stars.  The problems of present-day America belong to the present administration under the jurisdiction of Mr. Obama.  In the psychobabble that liberals are so fond of, he needs to start owning them.  You can’t begin to fix a problem until you first admit you have one.

The Arrogance of Hope

He is the distinguished college professor seated at the head of his class.  Today’s subject: universal healthcare.  He calls on his students one by one.  Have they done their homework?  Have they completed the assignment to his satisfaction?  Did they come to class prepared with the answers that he wants to hear?  He calls on Johnny McCain who inappropriately raises the issue of unequal treatment of citizens under the proposed law.  The professor summarily scolds him, reminding him that the campaign is now over.  As an upperclassman, Johnny should know better than to revert to mere talking points!  Then there is little Eric Cantor who had the temerity to bring the 2700 page assignment with him to class.  He needs to be scolded too.  Ostentatious props like that are uncalled for and serve only to distract from the intellectual discussion.  Then there is naughty Paul Ryan who just didn’t have his facts right. The professor will need to speak with him after class.  Alas, it would appear that at least some of his students are very delinquent indeed!  But then there are his honor students: Joey Biden, Harry Reid, and of course teacher’s pet Nancy Pelosi.  They all followed the professor’s instructions implicitly and so get to go to the head of the class.  Well if there is nothing further, class dismissed!  Now the professor, with the able help of his honor students, can return to his treatise on universal healthcare and the reshaping of American culture and society.

The arrogance is nothing new; only it was on full display at last week’s healthcare summit.  Americans who had the weekday leisure hours (and infinite patience) to tune in saw in microcosm the raw conceit that is the defining quality of this administration’s approach, not just to the healthcare, but every policy debate.  Perhaps the campaign trail is where he first learned he could get away with it, and indeed he did.  Being derisive of conservatives and conservative ideas will always win you points with the broad-minded liberal media. 

But it is much more than that.  Arrogance towards opposing ideas and derision towards those who stand in opposition is really what Progressive Liberalism is all about.  “If you disagree with me, it is because you are stupid.” That is the basic mindset.  “And because you are stupid, I don’t need to listen to you, you need only do as I say.”  When his healthcare plan is rejected by two-thirds of the American public, it is not because it is a bad idea, but because the ignorant masses are just too dumb to understand it.  So he will try to explain it in simpler terms so that they can understand it.  And if they still don’t get it, then tough sh*t!  Elections have consequences. The last election was about “hope and change”, but did anyone stop to ask what that really means.  Now that the campaign is over (as we are constantly reminded) apparently hope and change really mean entitlement and transformation: the entitlement of the governing elite to transform the society of the governed.

... or else!

This is the nature of Progressivism and, historically, has been the political approach of Progressives in America since the beginning of the twentieth century.  The governed are not to be listened to, but instead instructed by the governing elite in matters of health, wealth and general welfare.  Only the governing Progressive elites, having superior education and understanding, are qualified to fathom the multifarious aspects of daily life in an increasingly complex society.  It is they, therefore, who are best suited to make decisions for the average American citizen, who will only screw things up for himself.  Only the Progressives are capable of brininging about much needed change through the implementation of a whole raft of government programs.  And yet, none of the programs of the Progressives are based on any grasp of reality, but rather on an imagined vision of the future.  It is a vision of how to change reality.  A vision of a society reshaped and reordered in their image.  And once power is gained, that hoped for vision becomes expectation.  And the nearer the goal of the vision’s realization, the more expectation grows into entitlement.  Healthcare for all is now something to which we are entitled.  Healthcare is now a right.  In an America where rights are still defined under the Constitution and are God-given, this line of thinking is nothing short of arrogance: the arrogance of hope.

But the approach of the Progressives is not without its consequences, at least as long as we still live in a Democratic Republic.  Last week, average Americans finally got a long look at their methods and, in that sense at least, the healthcare summit did some good.  Regardless of how things play out over the coming weeks and months, there is always the ballot box, where Americans as voters will at last be able to send arrogance back from whence it came: the world of academia, where it doesn’t matter much.