Obama's Campaign Strategy Talking Points

It’s interesting when you notice Democratic talking point being passed around. The other day, The Economist put out an article which reeks of Obama re-election talking points. Almost instantly, I saw similar points being made at other websites. We even had a troll visit us with a cut-and-paste job of these. Without further adieu, here is how Obama apparently plans to sell himself for re-election.

● Defending Obama’s Glorious Record: The first big problem for Obama is his record. From causing the Great Recession to unbelievable debt and deficits, to the lost credit rating, to his failure to fix too-big-too-fail, his failure to fix the mortgage crisis, his failure to create any jobs, soaring gas prices, soaring energy costs, increased dependence on foreign old, overseas surrenders, his “failure”/attempt to enact gun control, “failure” to create a single-payer healthplan/his attempt to seize the medical system, his “failure”/attempt to enact cap and trade, his “failure”/attempt to end the Bush tax cuts and No Child Left Behind, his failure to close Guantanamo, or a dozen other things, no one left, right or center likes this man. Here’s how Team Obama plans to spin this.

First, blame Bush. The Economist put it this way, “considering the circumstances, he has not done badly.” In other words, Bush set him up for failure. They then credit him with preventing a Great Depression, rescuing Detroit’s carmakers and “stabilizing the banks.” If by “stabilizing” they mean “making the situation much worse” and by “rescuing” they mean “delaying the inevitable,” then sure, he did do those things. Claiming the Great Recession as a good thing is perverse, and they do it by claiming that “more Americans would be out of work today” if not for Obama. This is nonsense, but can’t be proven either way.

The Economist then finishes by crediting Obama with “battering al Qaeda” and killing Osama bin Laden. On point two: who cares, he wasn’t in charge anymore and it clearly didn’t stop a damn thing. On point one: where exactly is the proof for this? We are the ones with our tails between our legs in Afghanistan. Piracy, a new al Qaeda venture, is out of control. There are record numbers of terrorists attacks each year. How exactly did Obama neuter al Qaeda?

Our troll ran with this too. He points to bin Laden’s death (yawn), and he claims the Navy freed someone from the Somali pirates. He doesn’t seem to realize that under Obama there’s be a 625% increase in the number of ships taken, a 3,600% increase in the amount paid per ship, and a total increase in profits of 22,527%. At least somebody’s better off under Obama.

He then says: no one can name anything Obama did which “would remotely qualify as Marxist.” Well, I’m relieved. Then he lists some policies without mentioning they didn’t work -- the stimulus, the auto industry bailout, putting “attractive tax write-offs” on hybrids. . . which aren’t selling. He lists spending on various things as if that was somehow a good thing: high-speed porno for schools and increased infrastructure spending “after years of neglect.” He also lists some things that didn’t happen like healthcare coverage being given to four million more children, the closing of offshore tax safe havens, and “making more loans available to small business.” That’s all simply false. And this one I love, he “instituted enforcement for equal pay for women.” Uh. . . no. Obama made a point of not promising that the other day. Instead, he’s promising to pay for family medical leave and condoms.

That’s the laughable game plan for selling Obama’s record. Notice they don’t even try to defend the bad parts, they just gloss over those. But even more importantly, all of the above misses the key problem: the average American voter is much worse off than they were before Barry took over.

● The Campaign: Because Obama’s record is so horrible, Obama will run a vile, racist campaign. To prepare everyone for this, The Economist notes that this will be an ugly election. . . because of Romney. Apparently, the vile Romney must plead to the Republican base’s “hatred of Mr. Obama” to win the election. This will cause Mr. Obama to “run a more partisan campaign this time around.” Yeah, they really described it that way.

Then they said something hilarious. See, for reasons unknown to The Economist, Obama just happens to have been “portraying the Republicans as ruthless asset-strippers who care nothing about the middle class so long as they can promote the interests of the super-rich,” when good fortune smiled upon him: “How lucky for Mr. Obama that the super-rich Mr. Romney made his fortune in the cut-throat business of private equity.” Wow, what a coincidence? Obama just happens to be blasting the vile rich for no apparent reason, and then the vile-rich Romney gets the nomination. That’s so perfect, you would almost think Obama was saying those things intentionally. . . unless you work for The Economist, then you just see this as a lucky coincidence.

They continue by noting that Obama has been claiming the Republicans “embrace a form of ‘thinly veiled social Darwinism’ that would deprive needy children of healthy food, slash cancer research, close down national parks and eliminate air-traffic control in swathes of the country.” Why The Economist says this isn’t clear, unless they just want to spread the word for Obama. Indeed, that seems to be the case based on the very next sentence: “It sounds scary, and it contains more than grain of truth,” even though the Republicans “have proposed none of these specific cuts.” In others words, it’s scary because it’s true, even though it’s not technically true. Wow.

At least they do point out that Romney responded to this by arguing that these are straw men arguments. Of course, then The Economist says: “Coming from the Republicans, this is rich. They have attacked a straw man since the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. They labeled his conventional Keynesian response to a deep recession ‘socialist.’ They called Obamacare unAmerican, even though this market-based scheme to extend health cover to 30m uninsured Americans is almost identical to the one Mr. Romney adopted.”

Can you feel the tears? Those evil Republicans made The Economist cry and we should therefore ignore the truth of what the Republicans say. Notice also the massive double-speak here. Obamacare is not a market-based scheme by any definition. It is not identical to Romneycare. It was supposed to cover 43 million Americans, not 30 million. Keynesianism plus nationalizing banks and car companies, taking over state budgets, forcing unionization on companies, etc. etc. is socialism.

And again, notice how perfectly these whiny lies fit with the troll, who assures us there is no proof Obama is a Marxist. The troll also said, this is “why Republicans want to put the full weight of the National Debt on American Workers, while the super-rich get even richer.” Tell me that doesn’t sound like The Economist’s little tirade about the Republicans as “asset-strippers who care nothing about the middle class so long as they can promote the interests of the super-rich.” Sounds like somebody cheated off somebody else’s paper!

To its “credit,” The Economist does note that Romney has correctly attacked Obama for not coming up with a serious plan to tame entitlements, BUT “there is plenty of blame to go around.” Then they point out how Obama tried to do this last summer but was frustrated by Congress, and then they credit him with $1.2 trillion in phantom cuts. (By the way, this same magazine attacked those cuts as dangerous at the time.) They also note that the “Buffett rule” is just a gimmick. The Buffett rule, in case you didn’t know, is “supposed to make millionaires like Mr. Romney pay at least the same tax rate as their secretaries.” And for the record, Obama paid less than his secretary this year. . . as did his crony buddy Warren Buffett.

Finally, they finish with the old “can’t we all just get along” which liberals always use when they are going to lose.

That is Obama’s campaign in a nutshell. These are the talking points you will hear liberals start repeating now ad nauseam until you are ready to strangle every last one of them. And if you do indeed feel that need, don’t let me stop you.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Economist Believes In Magic

As I’ve said before, The Economist is a wonderful magazine if you want to see the insanity of liberalism presented in pure form. This time, they go all out to demonstrate how insanely stupid liberal foreign policy is in an article ludicrously titled “How To Set Syria Free.” Watch as they demand that we enter an unjustified war, and then they come up with a plan of action which relies on magic.

The Economist starts by trying to overwhelm your logic with emotion by talking about victims, butchery, dead being buried under cover of darkness, mourners, makeshift clinics, and floors slick with blood. They are trying to paint a picture so emotionally horrible that you put aside your reasoning and just accept that something must be done. Then they say the Syrian people have the “fire of conviction” that they will win, but “the outside world, to its shame, has shown no such resolve.” In other words, victory is inevitable and you are shameful to oppose intervention. These are peer pressure arguments.

Having set you up emotionally, they now give the “logical” case for intervening:

Argument No. 1: Almost 7,000 people have died and “the people of Syria deserve better. . . the world has a responsibility to act.” Uh. For starters, the number is actually half that. And if world-intervention is justified just because people are being killed, then why not invade Brazil? Don’t the 55,000 people killed there each year “deserve better” too? Why isn’t The Economist demanding the world invade Mexico where 30,000 people have been killed in the past few years in a drug war?

Argument No. 2: “[The world] also has an interest. Syria occupies a vital position in the Middle East, jammed between Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and Lebanon.” Holy cow! That’s the argument? The mere fact that Syria has neighbors is now considered an interest which justifies an attack? What country doesn’t have neighbors? Using this logic, there is literally nowhere on Earth that doesn’t have some vital world interest. And yet these people said we had no interest in Iraq and have no interest in Iran?

That’s it for the justification, by the way. Clearly, the case for intervention is unassailable, so let’s talk about what the world should do.

Right out of the gates, The Economist shows that it has no stomach to do anything real: “shifting Mr. Assad from power as fast as possible is essential.” Talk about a mealy euphemism. We’ve gone from defeating and killing to eliminating to regime change to shifting from power. That sounds like retirement. And it’s ominously passive, like they want Assad to agree to quit. In fact, they do. Observe.

First, they claim that it’s too late for Assad to “negotiate an accommodation” to oversee “an increase in democracy.” In other words, they’re sick of talking and he needs to be taken out -- notice how this flies in the face of their positions on Iraq and Iran where they demand never-ending talk. And why must he go? Because he’s lost the will of the people and if he gave them democracy, they would only use it against him violently. Translation: we can’t not-kill him because if we don’t kill him, the people would kill him, and we can’t have them killing him, so we are forced to kill him. Try figuring that one out.

But don’t worry about an actual attempt to kill or dethrone him, because The Economist doesn’t have the cojones for that. Indeed, watch them crumble.

See, Assad’s military is loyal and is willing to kill civilians. That’s a big advantage which we must overcome. So how do we stop them? “The most direct answer is. . . bombing Mr. Assad’s troops.” This would satisfy “outsiders’ urge to do something to show their outrage.” BUT, The Economist notes, Russia and China will stop the UN from doing that. Also, Syria’s terrain isn’t like Libya and there are no front lines, so The Economist says bombing won’t work. Ergo, take bombing off the list.

What about arming the rebels? That might work, EXCEPT the rebels are disorganized and lack unity and “such a policy would not suddenly turn the opposition into a fighting force.” Also, The Economist warns us that “a country awash with weapons would be plagued by the very violence the world was seeking to avoid.” It then argues that giving the rebels guns would create another situation like Afghanistan, where the flood of guns “helped create the chaos that spawned the Taliban.” This is, of course, ludicrous. First, it was a civil war which spawned the Taliban, not the presence of guns. Secondly, the Syrian regime has more than enough guns to cause this to happen if they fall.

So what do we do? Well, The Economist has the answer. It would be “far better to attack Mr. Assad’s regime where it is vulnerable – by peeling away his support.” Specifically, we need to SOMEHOW convince Russia to stop defending Assad in the UN because that would let us do a bombing campaign (which The Economist already said won’t work). We also need to convince all of the minorities in Syria to rise up as one. Yep. There it is: the Kumbaya Plan.

How stupid can you get?! When faced with a dictator killing his own people, the liberal response is to wish that people would stand up to them. Doesn’t The Economist realize that’s what’s happening in Syria right now and it’s not working? And how in the world can they think this will work when they just said the following a couple paragraphs before about Assad’s advantages:

“One is his willingness to do whatever it takes to put down the rebellion. . . Syrian soldiers are steeped in blood [and] Assad commands crack units and a relatively loyal officer corps.”

In other words, Assad doesn’t care how many people stand up to him, he’ll kill them all. Yet, The Economist’s plan is to hope enough people stand up that Assad gives up? Insane.

And The Economist isn’t done yet. See, to make this happen, “Syria’s fractious opposition must unite. . . with a single voice and credible leader.” In other words, they need a Magic Syrian they can all trust. Then this leader can talk to “the Kurds and Christians who back Mr. Assad.” Oh oh. Wait. The Kumbaya Plan relies on everyone rising up and “isolating” Assad, but now we’re hearing that chunks of the population support Assad? Doesn’t that doom the Kumbaya Plan? Oh, that’s right, the Magic Syrian can heal the sick and bring everyone together.

Then The Economist goes into all-out fantasy mode. Once this Magic Syrian appears, “the Russians would also begin to shift ground.” Why? Because Russia would then know that defeat for Assad would be inevitable, and unless Russia wants to lose a naval base it has in Syria and its arms export business to the country, then it would clearly shift sides. As this happened, naturally, the Syrian military will change sides too because the Magic Syrian is just unstoppable. . . somehow.

So let’s put this together. We need to enter a civil war without provocation because people are dying. And to defeat a military that is willing to kill as many of its own people as needed, we need only hope that a Magic Syrian arises who can unite all the people, including those who have a vested economic and social interest in backing Assad, and can convince the Syrian military and Russians to abandon Assad. And like that, the world will have solved the Syria problem.

Nice work Economist, you’ve solved everything.

Finally, for good measure, while we wait for the Magic Syrian, The Economist suggests that we kind of, sort of ask someone to create a safe haven somewhere near Turkey where Syrians can flee. Why? Because “a free patch of Syria would be powerful evidence that Mr. Assad’s brutal days are numbered.” Yes, refuge camps always defeat dictators.

Idiots.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Iran: Sanctioning Stupity

I always enjoy it when The Economist presents insanely stupid liberal arguments with a straight face. That’s high entertainment, like exquisite parody. The latest example involves an attempt to explain why Obama is doing just fine in his efforts to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. This argument is so awful that a child could see the problems with it. But apparently, The Economist can’t.

The Economist’s argument runs like this. First, they claim that Obama is on the verge of solving the Iranian problem because he just signed a measure into law which imposes “sanctions of unprecedented severity.” Yep. Specifically, these sanction will “ban” sales of Iranian oil to Europe, Japan and South Korea, who currently account for 40% of Iran’s sales. It will also “punish any foreign financial institution transacting business with Iran’s central bank.” This is meant to pressure Iran into stopping its development of nuclear weapons and “to show a jumpy Israel that there is an alternative to a military attack.” This is important because a military attack would raise tensions and might not actually work.

Makes sense, right?

Well, that depends on whether or not you keep reading the article. For in the very next breath, The Economist admits that skeptics “are entitled to ask” if sanctions will really work, “given that a variety of sanctions over the past 30 years has failed to change Iran’s behavior.”

Ok, let’s stop right there. This 30-years-of-failure fact tells us that the skeptics have been 100% right for 30 years now and what The Economist proposes has a miserable track record of absolute failure. Hence, the skeptics are more than just “are entitled to ask.” To the contrary, they are entitled to laugh uproariously at this idiotic suggestion. Indeed, what The Economist is doing fits Einstein’s definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Also, let’s be clear, this is the same Economist which claims that sanctions against Cuba can’t work but which now says they will work in Iran.

So why does The Economist think these will work? Because these sanctions are different. These are “sanctions of unprecedented severity” (sounds like “rodents of unusual size”). Indeed, according to The Economist, these sanctions will finally hurt the regime because they will stop Iran from selling its oil! Ah ha! Take that you Iranians! And take that too you dirty “Republican candidates” who are cynically trying to “depict Mr. Obama as weak.”

Yep, Obama is great. The end.

Oh wait, there are more words in this article. Words like this: “China, which is Iran’s biggest trading partner and has little truck with sanctions, will probably take up much of the slack created by Europe and America’s Asian allies.” Hmm. So Iran will shift its sales from Europe to China and Iranian sales will decrease by exactly 0%. Interesting. And no one at The Economist thought this might make their description of these as “sanctions of unprecedented severity” suddenly seem rather ridiculous? No one thought that Iran suffering NO economic consequences at all from these sanctions meant their estimate that “the latest sanctions will cause [Iran] more pain,” could perhaps be completely and utterly wrong?

It gets worse.

See, it turns out that this could be bad for Europe and the US: “the fragile economies of Europe and America would suffer if Iran’s oil exports disappeared from the world market.” Now think about this. This means these powerful sanctions will result in ZERO harm to Iran, but could tip the West into recession, thereby weakening Iran’s enemies. Yet The Economist, with a straight face, says this is “nevertheless worthwhile.”

Soooooo, let me see how this logic works. Doing something that hurts you but not the person you want to hurt is worthwhile because it will somehow force them to change their behavior. Hmm. Well, in that light, I think we should shoot pineapples up the rear ends of everyone who works for The Economist. That might just be what’s needed to stop Iran. Sure, I can guarantee you that it won’t actually do anything to Iran and it will certainly hurt the staff at The Economist, but it’s “nevertheless worthwhile” because. . . well, because it is. Problem solved, crack the bubbly!

Idiots.

Anyways, the pineapple sitters at The Economist aren’t done supporting their argument. They say, it’s clear that Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz is proof that the mere threat of these sanctions has put the regime under strain.

Of course, it’s more likely the Hormuz threat is a direct response to Israel fueling up its jets. But let’s not confuse The Economist with facts or logics as they clearly are not equipped the handle either. Also, for the record, this is the same threat Iran makes whenever something displeases it. They made it during the Iran-Iraq war, in response to the 30-years of ineffective sanctions, in response to UN reports, in response to Gulf Wars I & II, Saudi saber rattling, movies they didn’t liked, etc. In other words, thinking this threat shows a regime under pressure is purely wishful thinking.

The Economist also thinks Iran is worried about the Arab Spring. Of course, it conveniently ignores the fact that Iran already had its spring and the springers lost.

Finally, it suggests offering Iran “a carrot” by telling it everything it stands to gain if it just starts playing nice. This is idiocy. Can they really believe that Iran doesn’t know what it could gain or lose either way and hasn’t made a rational decision that it has more to gain going this route? “Wait Ahmed, you mean the Americans will open a McDonalds in Tehran if we stop trying to kill them? Why has no one told me this before?!”

The Economist also suggests we could promise to enrich their uranium for them. Yay! Never mind that this was only ever a temporary suggestion to slow Iran’s own enrichment and it’s been offered twice, by France the first time and then Brazil and South Africa the second, and Iran laughed it off because they want to build a bomb.

Liberalism is a mental condition and articles like this prove it. No human being with even a hint of intelligence could think that a plan which would do no harm except to the person proposing the plan will cause a bad guy to become a good guy. Yet here it is. I am honestly at a loss for words to describe how stupid this is.

I swear I’ve been punked.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Economist: Religious Jews Are The Real Evil

Sometimes The Economist has to be read to be believed. In December, The Economist began worrying for the first time that things weren’t going right in Egypt because “inexplicably” some religious types were winning the elections. How bad are these religious types? Almost as bad as ultra-Orthodox Jews. . . the worst of the worst.

When the Arab Spring hit Egypt, there were plenty of reasons to hope the country would move in the right direction. Egypt had a history of religious tolerance before the modern era. The country is relatively modern. The country has a huge Christian population who would presumably be a moderating force. The Army was definitely a moderating force. And the Muslim Brotherhood has publicly forsworn violence and any intention of imposing strict Sharia law on the people. It seemed very possible Egypt could become a Turkish-style moderate-Islamic democracy.

But there were also plenty of reasons to believe things would go wrong. The Muslim Brotherhood’s political history is more radical than they admit. Islam would not see subjugating a Christian population as much of a moral dilemma, see e.g. anywhere in the Middle East, Sudan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc. And there is another group, the Salafists, who are openly pushing for a Taliban-like puritanical interpretation of Islam to become the law of the land.

People with brains saw the potential for good in this and the potential for bad, and they waited to see how the middle class and youth would respond. Idiots, i.e. liberals like The Economist, saw only the good parts.

With the first round of the elections in the books, the bad appears to be winning. The Muslim Brotherhood have become the big winners with 46%. Even worse, the Salafists got 24%. The question now is whether the Brotherhood will team with the Salafists, which they originally promised they wouldn’t. That will decide Egypt’s future.

And now that things appear to be going wrong, liberals are shocked to discover there was ever a potential for bad. Who knew there were Muslims who really meant it when they said they want to stop women from driving, going to school, and fondling vegetables, when they said they want to murder Christians who won’t convert, and when they said they want to go to war with Israel? Who could have known this, whined The Economist when it confessed to being misled by all the Egyptian Facebook pages that seemed so hopeful and so liberal.

Anyway, The Economist is now trying to save face by equating the Salafists with ultra-orthodox Jews. Indeed, according to The Economist religious Jews are just like the Muslim Brotherhood and the ultra-orthodox are just like the Salafists. Let’s compare:

● Religious Jews are “carving out no-go areas for the authorities with their own legal and morality police.”

Yep, that’s just completely evil. It’s kind of like how it’s a death sentence for non-Muslims to be in places like Mecca and Medina and how Jews aren’t allowed in Saudi Arabia and how the Muslims in places like Sudan and Ethiopia slaughtered their Jewish and Christian neighbors. Yeah, those imaginary no-go areas are about as bad as it can get.

● Religious Jews are “using their power as parliamentary kingmakers [and] religious Jews are the state.”

Oh, so they’ve imposed Torah law and Rabbis select political leaders now? Oh wait, no, that still only happens in Muslim countries.

● “The hotter-headed religious soldiers boycott military pageants at which women perform,” . . . “Municipalities cancel concerts with female artists or insist that they fully cover their bodies and remove advertising of even modestly-clad women from streets and buses.” . . . and “Hillary Clinton recently said she was worried that women’s rights in Israel were being eroded.”

Wow, if Hillary says it, then it must true. Of course, boycotting parades and demanding that scantily-clad women be covered up isn’t quite the same as requiring women to wear veils head to toe, sentencing women to be stoned for having sexy eyes, attacking male doctors who try to help women, sentencing women to death for adultery or sorcery or being raped, allowing instant divorce by husbands, not letting women vote, hold office, drive, work, go to the same churches, go to school, etc. etc. But yeah, I TOTALLY see how you could equate these things.

● “In ultra-Orthodox suburbs of Tel Aviv, women, like their Saudi counterparts, do not drive.”

Of course, in Israel, it’s a choice. In Saudi Arabia, it’s a law and women drivers get a death sentence. Also, it’s not just Saudi Arabia. It’s all over the Gulf and spreading.

● “Religious Jews tend to be more dismissive of Arabs than their secular compatriots.”

Yep, that’s bad. There’s nothing worse than being dismissive. . . like how the left is dismissive of Christians. Of course, Muslims aren’t really dismissive of Jews so much as “murderous of.” Tomato... tomato I guess.

● “Polls suggest that a high percentage of religious Jews would deny non-Jews the vote.”

But they can vote. Show me a Muslim country where non-Muslims can vote? In fact, in several Muslim countries (e.g. Pakistan) being a Jew or Christian gets you a death sentence.

Oh, those evil Jews! Won’t someone rid us of their terror?!

This is shameful, but it’s also par for the course these days among liberal journalists for whom anti-Semitism and stupidity are tools of the trade. They casually mix anti-Semitism with their bizarre language of equivalency to come up with stunning comparisons like this, where a blood thirsty murderer can be equated to someone shushing you at a theater. Nice work Economist.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Tea Party Is THE Middle

So many self-described moderates or independents whine about the disappearance of the center. They want people to put “ideology aside,” to reject both the leftwing and rightwing view of the world and to come together “to get something done.” The Economist laments the absence of these people a lot. But the truth is, they’re already here. . . they’re called the Tea Party.

Whenever groups like The Economist lament the left-right divide, here is how they describe the two sides: On the right, you have an intolerant group beholden to social conservatives. They worry about gays and abortion and little else. They won’t touch a penny in military spending and they will never accept a tax hike of any sort. The ideological left is described as beholden to unions, in particular teachers unions, and won’t accept a penny in cuts or any change in labor laws to make the labor market more efficient.

Let’s accept this dichotomy as true, despite some obvious errors. Now let’s see how the Tea Party fits into this structure:

1. The Tea Party is clearly not beholden to unions.

2. The Tea Party is willing to eliminate the types of regulations that protect teachers and government workers from competition.

3. The Tea Party has consciously ignored social conservatism. They have in fact repeatedly made the point that now is the time to deal purely with economic issues.

4. The Tea Party is willing to slash military spending, provided the cuts are sensible.

5. The Tea Party is willing to accept higher taxes on some in exchange for a more efficient, cleaner, less corrupt tax code for all, i.e. an elimination of deductions in exchange for a flat tax or Cain’s 9-9-9 plan.

Thus, the Tea Party specifically rejects everything The Economist uses to describe the left AND the right. In other words, the Tea Party does not fit into the stereotype The Economist has of the right, nor does it fit into their soft-pedaled version of the left. They are, in effect, the very people The Economist keeps calling upon to bring a new “non-ideological” focus to politics.

So why won’t The Economist recognize this?

The answer simple: this isn’t “the middle” they were hoping for. The Economist and their ilk wanted to believe the middle looked exactly like RINOs. They thought the middle would be people who trust the government, who don’t mind regulation but maybe want to tinker a bit here and there to make the regulations run smoother, and who don’t mind tax hikes to balance the budget. They figured the middle would be people who were willing to accept higher taxes and fewer services but otherwise wanted business as usual. . . people without strong views about anything who simply want to make the left and the right split every baby.

But the reality is the middle has very definite opinions and they aren’t at all what The Economist was hoping. The middle wants a government they don’t have to worry about. They want a government that leaves them alone except where absolutely necessary. They want a government that taxes less, spends less and does less. They want a government that stays within the boundaries set by the deal we’ve all struck called the Constitution, and they want a government that rejects everything about the current state of business as usual.

This is not the middle The Economist or anyone else really expected to find. But this is what you get when you bring together all the non-ideological people in the country. And thus, another leftist fantasy comes crashing down.

Interestingly, this also tells us why the Tea Party people and the Republicans haven’t meshed so well. The Republican Party is based on several interest groups. Social conservatives care about gays and abortion. Neocons want big government and foreign adventuring. Big Business Republicans and K-Street want the government handing out goodies to corporate America. Libertarians have spent the past few decades trying to legalize drugs. And the grumpy Republicans simply want whatever the liberals don’t want.

The Tea Party people reject all of this. They don’t care about the desires of these factions and they want no part of business as usual.

Will the Tea Party people eventually win or lose? It’s too early to tell. But the Presidential primary has been interesting. Romney is the choice of Neocons and big business, and he’s stuck at 20% support. Bachmann and Santorum are Religious Right darlings and they’ve collapsed. Perry was your standard K-Street Trojan Armadillo and he’s collapsed. Ron Paul isn’t doing as well as he has in the past either. Right now the guys with the momentum seem to be the two guys who don’t fit into any of the traditional Republican interest groups.

Fascinating, isn’t it?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Austerity?! You're Kidding, Right?

It drives me nuts that everyone keeps claiming we’ve entered an “austerity” period in government. You can’t read an article in The Economist without them whining about this supposed austerity “endangering the recovery.” Seriously, every. . . single. . . article. And they aren’t alone. Most journalists now whine that “austerity” has “sapped growth” and hurt the economy. Noted liar Paul Krugman recently claimed “the turn toward austerity is a major factor in our growth slowdown.” This is demonstrably false.

In April, the White House and Congress agreed to a “draconian” $38 billion cut in the 2011 budget -- a whopping 1% of the $3.82 trillion leviathan. Oh my! Then in August they agreed to cut $2.4 trillion over the next decade. . . which would be 6% assuming the budget doesn’t increase for ten years (RFLMAO).

So there is austerity, right? It’s slight, but it is there, right?

Well, no.

Data from the Treasury shows that federal spending in 2011 is actually $120 billion higher than it was in 2010. In other words, spending is 5% higher than it was in 2010 and the supposed $38 billion in cuts has somehow morphed into $120 billion in additional spending.

That doesn’t sound like austerity to me.

Ok, so maybe we’re looking in the wrong place? Maybe the problem is really at the state level? After all, we keep hearing about belt-tightening and layoffs at the state level. Could that be where this supposed austerity is happening?

Well, no.

State budgets in 2010 were 8% higher than they were in 2008. And in 2011, they are 5% higher than they were in 2010. And in 2012, they’re estimated to be 2.6% higher again.

So where is this austerity? It’s made up. Liberals have spent like drunken sailors for the past decade. Federal spending is up 93% in 10 years and state spending is up 72% in 10 years, and there are no signs this growth is slowing any time soon. But they don’t want you knowing that, so they whine about austerity. And supposedly reputable magazines like The Economist prove they are too incompetent to even look up the truth. It’s a sad world.

Finally, let me point something out vis-a-vis the Democratic belief in stimulus spending. Federal spending increased 93% in ten years, yet the economy produced ZERO new jobs this decade. What gives? Maybe federal spending doesn't create jobs after all. . .

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Liberal Hypocrisy On Libya

I find the liberal response to Libya rather fascinating and I can draw only one conclusion: liberals are the ultimate unprincipled hypocrites. There is no other way to put it. Observe:

Point One: Winning a war does not make an illegal war legal. Nor have liberals ever accepted such an argument. . . until now. When Obama started this war, liberals rushed out to declare it illegal. Not only did Obama not have a legitimate reason (using liberal principles) for attacking Libya, but he didn’t even bother to inform Congress, as required by the Constitution. Had this been Bush, the left would have screamed bloody murder and would be demanding Bush be tried for war crimes. As it is, they just grumbled about the illegality, but took no action against O Duce.

Apparently, liberals don’t believe war is illegal, they just say that when it wasn’t their guy who started the war.

Point Two: All their whining about the invasion of Iraq being “illegal” or “stupid” is total hypocrisy. Bush invaded Iraq because he believed Saddam was involved in terrorism and had weapons of mass destruction. This belief was based on (1) statements by Saddam that he had such weapons, (2) sales by German companies of the necessary materials, and (3) a history of using weapons of mass destruction (like gas) on his own population. Saddam also was linked to terrorist groups, just not al Qaeda, constantly killed his own civilians, and even was behind an assassination attempt on Bush Sr. during the Clinton years. Yet liberals whined that Bush had no justification for “waging an aggressive war against Iraq.”

So what justification did Obama give for attacking Libya? Qaddafi was killing civilians, i.e. rebels, who were trying to overthrow him. That’s it. Bush gave that as a justification for Iraq and was still called a criminal. So what makes this better?

What’s more, The Economist, which always reliably toes the Democratic line, explains that Obama’s war policy is justifiable because:

“The West does indeed have a dog in this fight: if Colonel Qaddafi can be replaced by a decent regime, the forces of modernity and reform across the Arab world will get a huge fillip, which in turn will benefit the West in a host of economic and political ways.”

The exact same thing could be said about Iraq. . . or Iran, or Syria, or Venezuela, or Russia, or virtually any other country on the planet. This is a doctrine of limitless war.

Point Three: Liberals love to whine that Republicans politicize wars. Yet, they were the first to complain that Republicans caused 9/11 and that Republicans ruined the global Kumbaya-spirit after 9/11. They were the first to politicize Iraq, trying to declare the war lost and illegal the moment the bullets started flying. They also couldn’t run to microphones fast enough to play up Obama’s killing Osama bin Laden. Heck, they even made a film about it they want to release right before the election.

And now Libya? Check out this quote: “The president will achieve a tremendous military and political victory with Qaddafi’s ouster.” Really? So liberals intend to exploit this politically? Who could have guessed? And since when has sending a few planes to support rebels as they take six months to beat a third rate dictator who hasn’t been able to buy military hardware since the 1980s been considered a “tremendous military victory”? What's next, is Obama going to take on the Wyoming Highway Patrol?

Point Four: And what’s this crap about Libya vindicating Obama’s “lead from behind” policy? The US provided almost all the supplies, did all the reconnaissance, provided the ammo, did the refueling, provided all the logistical support and the headquarters, and flew the largest portion of the combat missions. The only thing we didn’t do was send our generals to the press conferences. If this was “lead from behind,” then it involved a serious reach around.

I’m sorry my cowardly liberal friends, but you are idiots. It is impossible to win a war without fighting it. And using the locals as your cannon fodder while you drop bombs from 35,000 feet is neither new nor noble. It also only works in certain very narrow circumstances, which all happened to exist in Libya -- small population, unpopular government with limited resources, flat terrain with no trees. When you tried this in Vietnam and Yugoslavia and Pakistan, you lost. I also can’t help but notice that Obama isn’t trying this anywhere else.

And another thing, I seem to recall the same liberals who are currently dancing in the streets at this great political victory whining that Bush “lost” Iraq because the country didn’t immediately turn into a full-fledged modern democracy because Bush never sent enough American ground troops to control the situation on the ground. They made the same complaint in Afghanistan. Yet, in Libya, it’s suddenly ok send to no American ground troops whatsoever and to declare victory before anyone has any idea how this will turn out? "Mission accomplished" O Duce!

Point Five: Make up your minds on drones, jerks. Liberals whine that drones are evil. Some even call their use a war crime. Yet, when Obama uses them, the whining stops? Hypocrites. And what’s wrong with drones anyway? This more than anything proves what’s wrong with the left: they don’t care that people get killed, they just want American pilots to put themselves at risk to do the killing.

Point Six: Finally, how is this supposed to work exactly? One of the big liberal complaints about taking out Saddam or the Taliban or any other dictator was that it’s pointless “because someone worse will take their place.” Indeed, when Bush talked about installing a democracy in Iraq, liberals scoffed, claiming that Arabs weren’t prepared for democracy and Bush should not be nation-building. Yet, now we’re told these Arabs will create a perfect democracy and this was a worthwhile goal to start a war. Why is this exactly?

Considering all of this, I am left with one thought: liberals are hypocrites and nothing they say can ever be trusted or taken seriously.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Businesses Flee California!!

In the 1990s, Colorado found itself awash in Californians. It was like a flood and it did as much damage. In fact, we still haven’t recovered. What sent these people East was the horrible business climate California had created, which drove businesses from the state. Well, things have only gotten worse and now some of the hardest-core hard-core liberal companies are fleeing. . . tech companies.

California has been ranked by Chief Executive magazine as the worst place to do business for seven years running. High taxes, insane regulations, aggressive regulators, and a failed “government” which couldn’t run a hot dog stand have contributed to what Chief Executive magazine describes thusly: “California, once a business friendly state, continues to conduct a war on its own economy.”

Says one relocation expert: “There is a feeling that the state is not stable. Sacramento can't get its act together and that includes the governor, legislators and regulatory agencies that are running wild.” So California gangs invented “wilding” and California regulators brought it into government.

As a result, companies are fleeing California at a rate five times greater than just two years ago. According to relocation specialists, the top states California companies choose are Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Virginia and North Carolina. Utah, which actively sends representatives to poach California companies, touts stable government, balanced budgets, a AAA debt rating, lower taxes, lower real estate costs, lower utility costs, lower living expenses and all around better quality of life. Arizona’s Commerce Authority is pushing its lower workers compensation and unemployment taxes and offers incentive packages to relocate.

Even those who aren’t leaving the state entirely are choosing to establish new division or facilities elsewhere rather than expand in California. PayPal just opened a new 2,000-job facility in Arizona. eBay sent 1,000 jobs to Texas and is expanding in Utah. Electronic Arts and Adobe are both expanding in Utah. Feel Golf, owner of Pro Line Sports, is moving entirely to Florida.

Said one CEO about California: “The whole state is a bureaucratic Santa Claus.”

BUT wait. . . . California isn’t going down without a fight. No, no, no. Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsome is developing a plan. First, he intends to sit down with executives to hear their complaints. . . because he really has NO IDEA what could possibly be upsetting them. Then he’s going to study “the best practices of other states” to see how they taxed and regulated themselves to prosperity. He’s already visited Texas. Then he’s going to focus on the state’s “premier industries,” which he identifies as biotechnology, agriculture and digital media -- the rest of you can pound sand. Finally, he will “highlight the state’s strengths in innovation and research.”

Allow me to translate. Gavin Newsom doesn’t have a clue how business works but he needs to look like he cares. Forming a fact finding commission is a great way to waste time while appearing diligent. So he will meet with top contributors and fly to other states on junkets disguised as “fact finding missions,” where he will hear what he wants to hear. . . which is that the Democratic "tax, regulate and spend like the criminally insane" policy is the only way to bring prosperity. Then he will lecture the evil business community about how great California is and demand they swear allegiance to California. Finally, he’ll get some more money for “innovation” in the budget. Problem solved. California will bloom!

Yes, good things are coming to California. . . just you wait.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Wisconsin: Union Collapse = Education Reforms

There was an interesting article the other day about what is happening in Wisconsin now that the teachers’ unions have lost their iron grip on schools. This article was made all the more interesting by a laughable article in The Economist which tried to explain why any cuts in education would be catastrophic.

The Economist is one of those liberals rags which hides behind claims of sanity, but somehow never quite comes through. For example, they claim to favor cuts in union benefits, but they just can’t find a single cut they ever approve of. This time, they're worried that "cuts" in state budgets could destroy American education. But these aren't really cuts, The Economist is using standard liberal sleight of hand to call decreases in projected increases "cuts." In other words, many of these “cuts” don’t actually result in less money being spent, they just eliminate planned increases. Nevertheless, The Economist claims these “cuts” will result in a parade of horribles. But check out this list:

1. “Baseball may be cut to keep football going.”

2. "Latin will be even rarer -- and forget about adding Mandarin this year.”

3. “Some school are now charging fees for certain classes or activities, a startling trend that violates some basic ideas about what public schools are supposed to do. . . Elementary-school teachers ask their pupils to buy school supplies; high-school students sell cupcakes and wash cars to raise money for the prom. Parents may supplement a child’s education with extra services—a tutor, a week at lacrosse camp, a second-hand car, a new silver trumpet rather than the borrowed cornet, glottal with generations of spit.”

Oh.... my.... God!!! How will the public ever survive? Ok, let’s start with some of the most obvious responses. First, Title IX has caused most sports to be abandoned, not budget cuts, but The Economist thinks Title IX is a good thing. Secondly, kids have always paid for their own supplies. That's the American public school system. Sometimes, they even had to pay for their own books. Students have always paid for their own proms. Tutors and something as bizarre as “lacrosse camp” have never been provided by public schools. And no school on the planet has ever provided students with new cars. Also, dear Economist musical instruments are cleaned before they are sold, i.e. they don’t come with generations of spit in them.

How retarded does someone need to be to make these arguments?

Well, a lot. See The Economist even acknowledges in its article that recent studies (even by leftists) have shown that more money simply does not equate to improved achievement, yet The Economist still illogically argues that these "cuts" will hurt students. How does that make sense? That’s like conceding water does not cause cancer, but then arguing that letting people drink water will lead to more cancer! What's more, The Economist actually suggests that "cutting" this funding will undermine democracy. How? The only "evidence" they cite is that Noah Webster advocated public education. That's nonsense.

Next, The Economist argues that these cuts are upsetting kindergarteners in Michigan, who are sending “emotional letters” to evil Republicans. So what? Never mind that these kindergartners can’t have any idea what they are talking about and that it’s shameless for liberal teachers to use them as political props, but the mere fact that people are upset tells us nothing about whether a law is good or not. Even a law banning serial killing will upset someone.

Finally, The Economist assures us that “classes will be more crowded, school-bus rides longer.” That sounds believable right?

Well, that’s where Wisconsin comes into this. With the union contracts broken Wisconsin schools are suddenly finding they have freedom to arrange their schools in ways that are best for the students. When the Wisconsin bill was signed, the Democrats and their fellow travelers in the media predicted catastrophe. . . just like The Economist. But not only did that not happen, things are looking up dramatically.

Consider the Kaukauna School District. This district has 4,200 students and 400 employees. They have a $400,000 deficit to fill. To fix this, they made the following changes, which turned that $400,000 deficit into a $1.2 million surplus:

1. Teachers will now be required to pay 12.6% of the cost of their medical coverage instead of 10%. And they will need to contribute 5.8% of their salary to their pensions. Other than this, teacher’s salaries will remain the same, with a current top of $85,000 a year plus $35,000 in benefits for 184 days worked.

2. What’s more, something interesting has happened. Under the union contract, schools were required to obtain health insurance for teachers from a company owned by the teacher’s union. That company, the WEA Trust, had just notified Kaukauna that it would face significant premium hikes this year. Now that Kaukauna suddenly has the right to shop around for other providers, the WEA Trust has magically reversed its position and is offering to match the lowest bid Kaukauna can find rather than raising rates. Imagine that! (Frankly, if they can match the lowest bid, then the attempt to impose a premium hike should be looked at as a violation of Wisconsin’s False Claims Act.)

3. They also eliminated the rule that allowed teachers to work only 37.5 hours a week -- they will now work 40. And teachers will be required to work 6 of 7 periods a day instead of 5 of 7. This will result in more classes being offered, more one-on-one time for troubled students, and class sizes will fall from 31 to 26 in high school and 26 to 23 in elementary school.

So much for everything The Economist claimed.

In any event, it’s clear the world did not end and education did not perish. Wisconsin schools are about to improve and will do so for less money because the unions were broken. And the fact The Economist is left arguing that students will be forced to buy unwashable used trumpets tells us how intellectually hollow the arguments of the left have become.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Time To Change Gay Marriage Strategy?

This is clearly my week for endearing myself to religious conservatives, so let's go for the unhappy trifecta! I think the fight against gay marriage is lost. Don't get me wrong, I'm still opposed to it, but I also think it's time to consider a change of strategy.

I’ve explained before why I oppose gay marriage. To summarize my position, the government cannot grant rights in a vacuum. If gays are given the rights of married couples, then those rights must come at the expense of other people’s rights. In this case, the rights the government would take away are (1) the rights of employers, who would become legally obligated to extend partnership benefits to gay couples, (2) churches, which could no longer refuse to recognize such marriages, and (3) taxpayers, who would be forced to bear the burden of subsidizing these new marriages through the government benefits that become available to married couples.

Thus, to extend marriage rights to gays, the government will take the property rights of businesses, the right to freedom of religious belief from churches, and will impose more burdens on the over-stretched taxpayers. I can see no justification for doing this based on a group that defines itself by its conduct rather than some innate characteristic. In other words, gays aren’t gay unless they act upon those impulses -- unlike blacks who are black no matter what they do. Thus, being gay is by definition a choice. And while gays may claim being gay is an impulse they cannot control, so is bestiality and serial killing, yet gays would not suggest extending rights to those groups. Thus, their argument is not principled and cannot support their claim.

Consequently, I oppose gay marriage.

And indeed, my fears are already being played out in England, where the government is forcing churches to provide equal services to gay couples and to hire gay employees, no matter what the church’s view on the morality of homosexuality might be. Consider this bit of incredible double-speak by The Economist explaining why this does not violate the freedom of religious belief:

“[The government] was not questioning the right of religious bodies to follow their own beliefs when hiring priests or imams; it merely wanted to clarify that, in recruiting for non-religious jobs (accountants, for example), churches must obey the law and refrain from discrimination against gays.”

I wonder if they would feel the same about the NAACP being forced to hire white racists, so long as they weren’t forced to hire them for their most senior positions?

In any event, on to the issue at hand. I think the writing is on the wall. Each liberal state, like New York, will slowly adopt gay marriage provisions. The conservative states are unlikely to at this time. However, even the conservative states will eventually cave in. For one thing, libertarians have wrongly fallen for the one-sided “we just want freedom” argument and have not considered the rights being taken. Moderates do not find homosexuality immoral and thus see no reason to oppose it -- a flawed bit of logic in American society, i.e. that having no reason to oppose something means a right thereto should exist. Thus, combining liberals, moderates and a chunk of the conservative ranks will be more than enough to eventually get gay rights passed.

What’s more, the pressure will increase when the world doesn't end. Little will change as a result of gay marriage laws. Cities won’t erupt into panic or fall into Sodom-like levels of debauchery and God’s not going to turn everyone in Boston into salt. . . though he should for several reasons. A small number of gays will marry, giving further proof they are only 1-2% of the population and not 10% as Kinsey claimed, and few people will even notice the difference unless they work in their firm’s HR department. If the world doesn’t end, then even conservative states will begin to wonder what the big deal is. And I suspect it will only be a matter of time before they follow suit.

So the thing to do now is to reconsider the strategy. And to do that, we need to consider what the goals are. If the goal is to change public perceptions about homosexuality, then a massive public relations campaign will be in order to explain why it should bother average Americans that there might be gays lurking in neighboring homes. This will be very difficult unless places like New York implode. Thus, a better strategy might be to figure out whose rights will be infringed upon and work to pass laws protecting those rights. For example, I would suggest legislation that:

(1) Prevents employers, businesses or landlords from being forced to recognize any marital arrangement they consider outside their moral beliefs and specifically granting these employers, businesses or landlords the right to discriminate against those types of marriages. Unfortunately, this would probably require a Constitutional change.

(2) Prevents churches from having to recognize any relationship, hire any person, or extend any right, privilege or benefit to any person where such an act would violate the church's religious doctrine. This would be consistent with the First Amendment and would probably work.

A better approach, however, might be to get the government out of the marriage business entirely. Let me ask this, has it helped or hurt the institution of marriage that the government has been recognizing and affirming marriages? I would say marriage is in much worse shape now that the government is involved -- as with everything else the government seeks to help. By making the government blind to marriage and returning this institution to churches, it would be entirely up to the churches and private employers, businesses, landlords and individuals if they choose to recognize and/or favor marriage.

This may sound radical, as indeed I thought it was when I first heard it, but it might be a good solution. It gets the government out of deciding what is moral and what isn't and away from social engineering. It also returns the role of the regulation of marriage to the churches, and thereby makes both stronger institutions again. Churches could require things like pre-marriage counseling, a waiting period, and consideration of numerous things the government doesn't ask anyone to think about. Indeed, this last point could be critical as removing the government from marriage would force people to take more care in arranging their affairs (e.g. inheritance, care of children in the event of death or divorce, etc.), things people now assume the government will do for them automatically. This should certainly force people to go into marriage with their eyes open.

Maybe a little bit of independence would be a good thing for all concerned?

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Journalistic Ethics: Breakin' All The Rules

Wisconsin and the shutdown debate have again exposed the bias of our media. Indeed, our media is a disgrace: bias, lies, distortions, laziness, conflicts of interest, you name it, they’re doing it wrong. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s take a walk through the code of ethics for journalists and see how the media measures up to their own standards.

This particular code of ethics can be found HERE. It’s from the Society of Professional Journalists. Founded in 1909, the SPJ is a professional organization that includes broadcast, print and online journalists, as well as journalism educators. Here are some of their principles:

"Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. They should test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible."

Right out of the gates, we have a bit of a laugher, unless making stuff up to help Democrats counts as honest and fair. Take, for example, the AP’s total distortions during the ObamaCare debate, like how they called Pelosi’s plan “universal coverage” when it actually excluded 22 million people, or how they uncritically reported “cost savings” that weren’t there, or a dozen other bits of Democratic propaganda. And don’t forget how The Economist mistated Republican positions and poll results so it could present its distorted view of the American right (I love how they describe 70% of the public as “extremists.”)

As for verifying information, can someone then explain to me why the MSM went insane over FOX News daring to be skeptical over the left’s global warming sacred cow? I guess some things weren’t meant to be tested.

"Journalists should identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability."

But this apparently asks too much of modern journalists, so they just attribute the information to “sources within the administration.” They also get around this problem by using other journalists or websites as sources. This is how they report rumor as fact: “angryliberalmonkeyliar.com is reporting that Sarah Palin drinks human blood.”

"Journalists should diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing."

Yeah, except then you get into the whole problem of what do you do if they deny the story and point out that it can’t be true. That could kill your story. It’s better to report it now and issue a correction later... on page 100 -- especially when you want to smear a conservative right before an election. The way around this rule, by the way, is to call the subject at their office at 3:00 am and then write the magic words, “Mr. Obama did not immediately respond to our request for comments.”

"Journalists should never distort the content of news photos or video."

Unless you want to make it look like Israelis are killing unarmed Palestinians, then by all means feel free. Or if you want to make someone look bad, feel free to take their quotes out of context.

Take a look at Politico’s coverage of the Issa “scandal.” One of his staffers may have shared journalists’ notes with other journalists. Big whoop. Issa looked into it and fired the staffer. Yet, Politico tried to turn this into an "Issa scandal" by including Issa’s name in each headline and image in each article as if the “scandal” involved him. Compare that to how Pelosi's name never appeared when her aid was arrested for selling drugs.

"Journalists should examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others."

Unless you’re Joe Klein, who set out to disprove that he had a distorted view of America by visiting Democratic activists in big liberal cities in liberal states all over the liberal parts of the country. Imagine my surprise when he found that every American he met seemed to love Obama just like he does and intended to vote for the Democrats in November 2010, except for a few “ugly” and “angry” conservatives?! Yeah, no bias there.

Oh, and let’s not forget that journalists seem quite happy to dismiss bad economic conditions when Democrats are running the show but somehow think better economic conditions are horrific under Republican administrations. Or that somehow, they always see civil wars in the Republican ranks, but see nothing but unicorns and love in Democratic ranks. Or that somehow, Republicans can never be specific enough about their agenda for these journalists, yet they never make the same complaint about Democrats.

"Journalists should avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status."

Unless they are covering racist teabaggers or conservatives, then feel free to use racist, sexist, or homophobic insults against them. . . after all, they’re all fat, white, racist, southern hillbillies. Seriously, the MSM spent months intentionally not understanding and misrepresenting the Tea Party as confused astroturfers who were really a PAC created by Ron Paul or Sarah Palin. . . or Satan, and who had no idea what they wanted. Yet, these same journalists easily understood the confused and tribal coffeebreakers, and honed a unified message for them. And let’s not forget, stereotyping is second nature to the media. How often have you heard Republicans described as “angry, white men” or as representing “the rich”?

"Journalists should distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context."

Actually, I think the AP officially declared this one dead; not that anyone in the media was following it anyway. There almost isn’t a story written today that doesn’t spend as much time opining as it does reporting facts.

Check out the AP’s advocacy of ObamaCare, or the media’s distortions of all things Republican, or any of the other items linked in this article. And how can they possibly justify the Journolist, a large listserv for leftist journalists to coordinate their stories to attack people and ideas opposed by the left? Why were none of these people punished? Why did no one from the MSM even investigate this? This was an indictment on the whole rotten "profession."

"Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know. They should avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived, and remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility."

You mean like the Journolist? Or how about the way journalists give vast sums of money to Democratic campaigns or the way they marry Democrats or the revolving door between the MSM and Democratic administrations? Does any of this ring any bells with our journalistic friends? I thought not.

Interestingly, a corollary to this rule requires journalists to “disclose unavoidable conflicts.” So why did they attack Tucker Carlson for exposing the Journolist? And why didn’t any of them expose it themselves? And why would they “expose” Newscorp giving donations, but remain silent about each other? And why do so many journalists (like those at Politico) go through George Soros’ training program without disclosing that? Don’t you think they’d be upset if conservative journalists didn’t disclose being trained by The Right Wing Propaganda School?

"Journalists should distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two, and should deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage. They should also refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity."

Uh huh. That’s why ABC never runs negative stories about Disney and NBC studiously avoided talking about GE, and why sportswriters do the bidding of the NFL by covering up for their collection of criminals or pimping for new stadiums, and entertainment writers cover up the messes of the studios. Journalists are for sale. See my article on Newsvertising or watch a few minutes of CNBC if you want proof. And don't get me started on the direct link between journalists and the Democratic Party.

This is why no one trusts the media. I can’t think of another profession that so routinely and so sanctimoniously ignores ALL of its own ethical rules.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Why You Shouldn't Trust Open Borders Arguments

I am a firm believer in immigration. Immigrants add to our economy, our history, our defense and our culture. They add to the national energy, and most of the immigrants I know are deeply in love with America. But I don’t believe in open borders, nor do I accept the arguments made by the open-borders crowd. The reasons I don’t accept the open-borders arguments are highlighted in a recent Economist article on Muslim immigrants in Germany.

The Economist is a long time advocate of open-borders (though it never says so explicitly). In this case, it is responding to concerns voiced by several high profile Germans, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, that the idea of multiple cultures living together in harmony in Germany has failed. Specifically, these Germans argue that Muslims are not integrating into German society, that they are instead bunching together in German cities, where they live off the German welfare system, while contributing nothing to the country. Because of this, Germany is now talking about requiring assimilation into German society and stopping the flow of immigrants. The Economist rejects this, but none of the arguments it advances are convincing, and its conclusion is downright disturbing.

The Economist first tries to dismiss the concerns voiced by these Germans by arguing that Germany needs immigrants: “Awkwardly, Germany is bashing foreigners just when it needs them. . . The workforce is shrinking and growth is raising demand for skilled labor.” But is this accurate?

According to data found in the article itself, 16.9% of immigrants in Germany are unemployed. That means there is already a surplus of immigrant labor in Germany of 1.97 million people. Moreover, the article notes that 7.5% of Germans are unemployed. That translates into an additional labor surplus of 6 million. With a labor surplus of nearly 8 million people, why should Germany bring in more people until it can find jobs for those people?

Well, suggests The Economist, there is a need for “skilled labor.” But does that change this analysis? The answer is NO, because immigrants aren’t skilled labor. The Economist implies that they are when it says that as long as Germany finally passes a law to recognize foreign credentials, 300,000 immigrants can return to their old professions. But let’s think about this number. That 300,000 represents only 2.5% of the 12 million immigrants in Germany. That means the rest are unskilled labor. This is a ratio of 44 to 1.

So at best, this argument would suggest allowing targeted immigration, where Germany lets in only people with the missing skills. Yet, both the left and The Economist have already argued repeatedly that this would be unacceptable to them -- they want fully open borders. That means, Germany would need to let in 44 immigrants to get 1 skilled immigrant. Is that really a good deal, especially considering that there are no more jobs for unskilled immigrants? Should Germany really add 44 people to its welfare roles so it can get one person skilled at working a printing press or programming a computer? Also, wouldn’t it make more sense to train the 8 million unemployed to do those jobs first before looking outside for more labor? Or are those 8 million to be considered permanently useless unless Germany returns to a manual labor economy?

What you’re seeing here is that the economic arguments for letting in more immigrants are flawed to their core. And the “skilled labor” argument is nothing more than a red herring used to suggest that immigrants can do something they cannot. And in any event, none of this actually addresses the concerns of the people who say that lack of assimilation is the problem. So what does The Economist say to disprove their concerns? Nothing.

It admits that “Islam can be an additional barrier” to assimilation, but then it adds, “but only for Muslims who choose to make it one.” This is meant to dispel the idea that there is some incompatibility between German culture and Islam, but this is double speak. At first, the article purports to agree that Islam is a barrier (something that is too obvious to deny with any credibility), but then it simultaneously dismisses that by claiming that this is only a barrier for people who let it be a barrier, i.e. it's an optional barrier. Not only does The Economist not provide a shred of proof to back this up, but this point actually goes against its argument. If Muslims are seeing Islam as a barrier, when it is not, then the only way to remove that barrier is the very assimilation The Economist abhors so much.

What’s more, let’s look at how this voluntary barrier is taking shape. According to the article: “One study estimated that 10-12% of Muslims have radical Islamist leanings, and a quarter of Muslim teenagers are hostile to Christians and Jews or to democracy.” In other words, because of Islam, 3 million of these 12 million immigrants are hostile to their neighbors and the government they are now living under. How can that be considered acceptable, and how can this situation justify bringing in more Muslims? What this should do is convince anyone with a rational mind that immigration must be stopped immediately until those three million can be assimilated to reduce their hostility. But The Economist doesn’t see this. Instead, it offers a different solution: “Germans’ idea of what it is to be German will have to change.”

There you have it: the problem isn’t that continued immigration of Muslims will change Germany, the problem is that Germans won’t just shut up and accept it.

And that is the problem with the open borders people. They make economic sounding arguments to justify bringing in all the immigrants they can get. But their economic arguments are false and contradictory. And when confronted with real concerns about changes in culture, they ignore those concerns. What’s worse, they don’t understand or care that it’s a very bad thing that a country like Germany will go from being a tolerant, modern, Western democracy to becoming a country whose people are hostile to Christians, Jews and democracy. This is why the open borders people cannot be trusted and their arguments must be exposed.

I am a fan of immigration, but to suggest that a government should let in enough hostile immigrants to kill off the existing culture, to bring in millions of people who are hostile to their neighbors, and to put millions of immigrants onto the backs of existing taxpayers is obscene.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Don't Hate The Haters. . . Or Else

Let’s play a game that often exposed flaws in an argument. I’m going to present an article from a typically liberal source (The Economist), but I’m going to stick “Hitler” in place of the people they are defending to show that they would not be making the same argument if the subject was someone they didn’t like. In other words, while they present this as a series of general principles, these are not principles, they are excuses which they would only use to defend some people. Inconsistency is evidence of false logic and bias.

---------------------

Title: Why Mr. Churchill is a problem, not a solution

Winston Churchill, leader of the anti-Nazi Party, is on trial for incitement to hatred and discrimination against Nazis. But when he appeared before judges, this champion of free speech declined to speak.

The court heard some of Mr. Churchill’s greatest hits: “Mein Kampf is the Bible of a religion that intends to eliminate others”; “Nazism wants to control, subdue and is out for the destruction of our Western civilization”; Mein Kampf stripped of its hateful verses, “should actually have the format of a Donald Duck comic book.” The judges’ questions were comically innocent. Did Mr. Churchill really say such things? Was it in the heat of the moment? Had he received legal advice? Did he really need to refer to Donald Duck? Stubborn silence.

Notice the double implication in the phrase “comically innocent” that only a fool would make such comments and that these judges clearly have no understanding of how evil a mind like Mr. Churchill’s can be, an understanding our enlightened author clearly has.

Maybe the state should not be in the business of prosecuting politicians for their offensive views. But these are highly charged times.

Ah the enlightened leftist mind, always looking to criminalize disagreement with their views, and always willing to use alleged crises (“highly charged times”) as an excuse for circumventing what they claim to be fundamental rights. Further, notice what our enlightened author thinks should constitute thought crimes. Churchill did not call for violence, he did not preach sedition. No. He merely said something insulting about another’s beliefs. And that is enough for this enlightened author to call for his imprisonment.

* * *

Mr. Churchill’s party is only one of many anti-Nazi groups that are gaining ground in northern European countries previously known for their liberal social attitudes. . . . These parties, all with their own special characteristics, are distinct from older far-right groups. . . but a common theme is a dislike of foreigners, especially Nazis.

Right, because it can’t be the Nazi’s hateful views and intolerant ideas these people oppose, it must be about race. Clearly, Churchill just hates people who don’t look like he does. Forget that Nazism isn’t a race or ethnicity, it’s a set of beliefs.

* * *

Mr. Churchill should not be underestimated. By identifying the enemy as Nazism and not foreigners, and by casting his rhetoric in terms of freedom rather than race, he becomes harder to label as a reactionary, racist or neo-Nazi. . . He [claims to be] fighting to defend the West’s liberties; the enemy is Nazism (not Nazis, he says), which seeks, violently, to destroy them.

Again, our enlightened author assumes that Churchill is a racist, and he does so over the denials of Churchill. To make his assumption work, he further assumes that Churchill’s denials are merely a clever form of disguise. What’s more, notice how we are told separating Nazis from Nazism is a ruse. . . yet we are simultaneously told that we must separate “Nazis” from the things they do, they say, and they believe, and from the things done in their names. In other words, "don’t blame the serial killer, blame the killing. . . but if you are someone I don’t like, then I know that you are really blaming the killer even if you only talk about the killing." This is complete nonsense.

Such views chime with some American conservatives. . . Yet Americans (and Europeans) should be wary of embracing Mr. Churchill. To expose violent Nazi ideology is legitimate, even necessary; to attack Nazism and Mein Kampf is dangerous stupidity that weakens the civilization Mr. Churchill claims to defend.

This is double-double speak. First, how do you point out ideological extremism without attacking the source of that extremism, i.e. the ideology? That’s like being asked to criticize the word choice in Moby Dick and the ideology of Melville without mentioning the book or the author. Secondly, if you will recall from above (“highly charged times”), our enlightened author has already said that it should be a speech crime to point out the extremism, which he now claims is “legitimate, even necessary” to “expose.” This is gotcha logic: you may criticize, but any criticism you make will be wrong.

What should democratic parties do when lots of voters back a far-right party? At a time of recession, populism cannot just be wished away.

Historically, populism is a leftwing philosophy.

One answer is to address legitimate grievances about the scale and nature of Nazism. (In France Nicolas Sarkozy has, controversially, pinched far-right rhetoric.) Another is to use the law to curb blatant examples of hate speech.

In other words, your two best methods are to (1) start using extremist rhetoric to trick people into voting for you and then never following through with it, i.e. lie, or (2) “use the law” to stop people from saying things you don’t like. . . but only people who criticize the Nazis, as we’ve already made clear that any interference or criticism of Nazism is beyond the pale.

But the temptation for many is to isolate the extremists, perhaps with an alliance of mainstream left and right. That risks intensifying voters’ sense that politicians are not listening to them, further boosting the extremists, but it may be necessary against the most odious groups.

This is idiotic. First, our enlightened author is concerned that the center banding together might make people feel that politicians aren’t listening to them, yet he has no qualms about suggesting that the center adopt extremist rhetoric but not follow through. Which is more likely to anger voters and make them feel alienated? Secondly, this enlightened author tell us in the first sentence that banding together in the center won’t work, but then tells us that this may be necessary? Gee, taking this drug won’t help you, but it’s probably necessary that you take it.

A better, braver strategy (”brave” because the left loves heroes rather than ideas) might be to bring far-right leaders into the cabinet, exposing their ideas to reality and their personalities to the public gaze. It may make for tetchy government, but it could also moderate the extremes. So roll the dice and make Mr. Churchill foreign minister: for how long could he keep telling the world to ban Mein Kampf?

Wow! Words cannot describe how stupid this enlightened author is. “Gee, he’s evil, so let’s give him power because that will stop him!” The only way that makes sense is if you assume that Churchill doesn’t actually believe what he’s saying and that you are calling his bluff by giving him the chance to implement those policies. How deluded must this idiot be to think that Churchill doesn’t genuinely believe that Nazism is bad? And how hypocritical for this jerk to consider the above judges naive!

--------------------

Obviously, what we’re talking about Islam, not Nazism, and Mr. Churchill is Dutch politician Gert Wilders. But the parallels with Winston Churchill are much stronger than you may realize. When Western elitists were marveling at the great Adolph Hitler and Time named him Man of the Year (1938), Churchill was warning the world. . . and was seen as a lunatic for pointing out Hitler’s own words. Wilders has done the same thing, using the very words of the Koran and of Islamic leaders to point out their intent. . . and finds himself laughed at by the same chattering class whose ancestors worshipped Hitler before falling for Stalin.

What makes this article so interesting to me is the blatant hypocrisy and that the author clearly assumes that people like Wilders don’t really believe what they are saying -- not to mention that somehow he sees being opposed to Islam, a religion, as being a racist. But the article is most notable for how easily the author suggests criminalizing disagreement with his views. That’s the same attitude that gave aid and comfort to the likes of Hitler and Stalin and Mao as they silenced the troublemakers in the millions.

I guess that’s just how liberals roll.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Proven: Obama Is “Not” AntiBusiness

Ladies and gentlemen, you will be relieved to hear that Barack Obama is not anti-business. Oh, thank goodness. I was getting worried. Who has proven this, you ask? Why, The Economist that’s who! Indeed, it looked at all of the whining allegations against Obama and it dismissed them all. Observe. . .

In the past several weeks, the business community has waged an unseemly campaign against Obama. For example, Ivan Seidenberg, the CEO of Verizon, “accused the president of creating ‘an increasingly hostile environment for investing and job creation’,” and the Chamber of Commerce complains that Obama “vilifies industries.”

But they probably never supported him.

Of course, GE CEO Jeff Immelt did. He’s a big-business socialist hack who pimped hard for Obama. He now says this administration “is not in sync with entrepreneurs.” The Business Roundtable, a crony capitalist group, loves ObamaCare, but they just published a 49-page list of Obama policies that inhibit economic growth. And let us not forget evil hedge fund crook Dan Loeb, an Obama donor and former classmate of Obama’s, who is circulating a letter accusing Obama of undermining free-market capitalism and the rule of law.

But do they have a case? Heck no, says The Economist. Here’s why:

First, Obama always said he favors a “mixed capitalist economy.” Thus, The Economist says, it’s not valid to argue that he’s anti-business when he has never hidden this fact before. Apparently, logic escapes The Economist.

Secondly, corporate America should really be upset at Bush. The incursion in the financial industry and the recession both began under Bush. Therefore, the blame rightly lies with Bush. Forget that Obama had two years to fix this (and the Democrats had six) and that he spent trillions of dollars. . . all of which clearly appears to have been wasted.

Third, corporate America deserves the blame itself! After all, it was evil “corporate America, in the shape of Wall Street banks, that was largely to blame for the depth of the recession.” Finger pointing. . . the answer of a loser bereft of ideas, e.g. The Economist. Of course, The Economist concedes, Obama didn’t have to vilify business so much, but “some shame was surely in order.” Wow, so demonizing is now good economic policy?

Fourth, it’s not like Obama ignores business. He did make some vague promises in his State of the Union. . . forget that he hasn’t kept them. He did pledge to return GM and Chrysler to private ownership “quickly” . . . forget that this won’t happen for decades. And he did create a committee “to propose ideas for promoting more innovation.” One single committee? Oh, and forget that one committee member says “the administration is doing more talking than listening, and several of us are already worried we’ve been suckered into a PR exercise.”

Fifth, business is upset about “uncertainty,” but it’s not Obama’s fault. For example, they asked him to “kill some of the more alarming reform proposals” in financial reform. He did that by “punting the proposals on to regulators.” So it’s not fair to blame him for creating uncertainty because business itself asked for it. Of course, this shows that The Economist doesn’t understand our government because Obama had no power to do this. Congress passed financial reform, which was always headed to the regulators. All Obama did was sign the reform and the rest happened automatically. Moreover, it’s illogical to say Obama can’t be blamed. They wanted parts of the bill killed. Obama didn’t do that. Instead, he left those parts in and just put the issue off by letting the regulators handle it. Thus, not only did he not kill the provisions, he injected uncertainty.

Continuing with uncertainty, The Economist claims he can’t be blamed for uncertainty in fuel prices because Republicans stopped cap and trade, which is a nonsensical argument. Cap and trade was not going to reduce fuel costs or make the commodities market less uncertain. Moreover, Obama can be blamed for uncertainty if he keeps saying that he’s going to keep trying to do bad things.

And The Economist claims business can’t blame him for the uncertainty about whether or not the Bush tax cuts will expire because they’re only returning to the levels they were at under Clinton, “which was hardly a terrible for business.” Which is another nonsensical argument that ignores that Obama’s dithering is causing the uncertainty. Do it or don’t, but don’t drag the decision out for two years.

Sixth, Obama can’t be blamed for the deficit because of the “nasty, mostly inherited fiscal problem.” And this requires taxes to fix, so business should just shut up. Of course, The Economist ignores that the deficit went from $200 billion to $400 billion under Bush to $1.3 trillion under Obama. That’s on Obama.

Seventh, business complains about ObamaCare, but they favored reform, so again just shut up you whiners. Think about this one. According to The Economist, if you’ve ever advocated fixing something, then you can’t complain about anyone else’s solution. Ridiculous.

Eighth, counterattack: the only reason business is really complaining about Obama is “their failure to create jobs in America coincides with earning huge profits and sitting on record amounts of cash.” Ah hah! Villains! Of course, this is ridiculous. They don’t owe anyone a job, and the fact that they could spend their profits creating jobs doesn’t mean they should or that it’s a good idea. Nor does it mean that their concerns are in any way invalid. Moreover, it’s asinine to attack the accusers when you’re supposed to be providing an analysis of Obama’s policies. This is called blaming the victim and it’s something liberals are very good at. . . and even better at whining about.

The Economist is a great source of amusement these days, but don’t take anything they say seriously: their analysis is biased, weak, illogical and ignorant of economic principles, and their facts are generally shaded and selectively incomplete. Sad.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...