Caution: Liberals at Work!

Normally, I never get an opportunity to watch the Sunday morning talk shows because my wife and I are in church, but yesterday we were bringing our son home from the hospital in Bethesda and we flipped the TV on while we waited for the doctor to release him. The set happened to be tuned to WJLA Channel 7 so I left it there for This Week with George Stephanopoulos and came away with the following observations:

1) It's been done to death but there's no way that George Stephanopoulos is a journalist. Upon the death of David Brinkley, ABC News simply replaced one over-the-top liberal with another over-the-top liberal - for continuity, of course.

2) It's also been done to death but there's no way that four liberals and one conservative equal fair and balanced discussion. George Will was outnumbered by David Brooks of The New York Times, Arianna Huffington (yikes!), Robert Kuttner who's glorified Barack Obama in his latest book and the Boy Wonder himself, so the overwhelming message that ABC News wants the public to hear is liberalism, liberalism, liberalism. And they wonder why people watch Fox.

3) Mr. Brooks thought that selecting Tim Geithner for Treasury, Larry Summers for Director of the National Economic Council and HRC for SECSTATE are shrewd moves by Obama to satisfy the Republicans, but Mr. Kuttner lamented the dearth of "progressives" in Obama's Cabinet, "progressives" being the code word that liberals use to describe themselves since "liberal" provokes the same reaction as "pervert." This was the first of the intellectual potholes I noticed in the roundtable discussion, that liberals would think that Republicans would be pleased with a lamp-throwing harpy like Hillary and wouldn't notice socialists like Rahm Emanuel, Tom Daschle and Obama himself in the new administration.

4) Intellectual pothole #2 came when Arianna Huffington criticized the Big Three Detroit CEO's for flying into Washington, DC, on private jets when she defiantly justified her use of the same to Sean Hannity a couple of years ago, then followed it up with intellectual pothole #3 by insisting that the senior management of the major US automakers should be sacked, because in her opinion, the same people who created a mess cannot be trusted to clean it up. By this logic, of course, trusting the Federal government to clean up an economic mess that they created (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, the Congressional Black Caucus and other liberal pinheads leaning on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Treasury to provide home mortgage loans to people who couldn't pay them back) is a mistake, but that's why America is such a special place: Even an idiot like Arianna Huffington can be on TV.

5) George Will tried valiantly to talk some sense into these people. For example, he correctly observed that the New Deal was a failure because, among other things, the worst loss of manufacturing capacity in US history occurred in 1937, four years after the sainted FDR introduced America to socialism. He only wanted his colleagues to acknowledge that the "new" New Deal that's got the Left all atwitter - the $700 billion boondoggle that Congress wants to blow in January, beyond the $700 billion boondoggle that Congress approved last month, beyond the $120 billion approved last Spring, and beyond the $1 trillion in new spending envisioned by Barack the First, Emperor of the Americas - would only be necessary if the original New Deal were a failure. This observation naturally incurred Arianna's and Mr. Kuttner's wrath since there is no higher god in the liberal pantheon than FDR and failure is never failure to a liberal...it is the nobility of a person's intentions that matter, not catastrophic results. Mr. Kuttner, in his excitement, then drove into intellectual pothole #4 by noting that employment in the United States fell to zero by 1942 under FDR's leadership, by which reasoning we should credit the 32d President with starting World War II.

6) Mr. Kuttner used the phrase "casino capitalism" to mock the Big Three Detroit automakers, the major Wall Street investment firms and by extension, the Bush administration, calling for more regulation of the market, which if anyone has been watching for the past few years, is a patently stupid thing to say. Did he not notice the Feds raiding and prosecuting white-collar crooks at Enron, Arthur Andersen, WorldCom, Tyco and Adelphia? Did he not notice Congress approving stringent new regulations for the financial system? And like I mentioned earlier, did he not notice Congress (who can regulate or not regulate as they choose) using Fannie Mae like a piggy bank to reward their low-rent constituents, something even worse than putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop? Hence intellectual pothole #5: What Mr. Kuttner considers "casino capitalism" is a market already heavily regulated. It would seem , then, that the only thing that would satisfy a Leftist boob like him is a joint press conference with Danny Ortega, Hugo Chavez, El Comandante Castro and His Eminence Barack announcing a total transition to socialism and free cigars for everyone. Jeesh!

7) Given the choice between cutting taxes so people can spend their own money and raising taxes so the government can spend it for them, liberals prefer the latter. They instinctively distrust individual judgment, even though our history proves that free enterprise is the fastest, easiest and most productive way to prosperity. If His Serene Loftiness gets everything he wants, and there's no reason to think that he wouldn't, the Federal government will engage in $2.5 trillion of new spending between last Spring and the end of his first term, starving the market of a huge amount of capital at the very time it is needed most. In spite of repeated failures in this country and elsewhere, liberals positively adore socialism, that glittering jewel of equally-distributed mediocrity, and will tax whatever they need to tax, spend whatever they need to spend and break whatever they need to break to make that nightmare come true, which is the very definition of insanity: Following the same failed policy and expecting a different outcome. Voila! Intellectual pothole #6, and for God's sake, let's not hit any more.

Workers of the World, Unite!

As the euphoria surrounding Barack Obama's election continues to build, those skeptics among us pry a little closer into his agenda to discern what he actually plans to do, pageantry be damned: A well-dressed disaster is still a disaster, after all.





American unions have been taking it on the chin for nearly thirty years now. Membership has plunged to 8.2 % of the total workforce from its zenith in the 1950's. Twenty-two states have enacted right-to-work laws that have eroded union strength. President Reagan, himself the former president of the Screen Actors Guild, fired every striking air traffic controller and dissolved the PATCO union during the strike of 1981, delivering a body blow to aggressive union tactics, and of course, every attempt to organize the employees of Wal-Mart has failed. So it comes as no surprise that the AFL-CIO and its sister organizations would spend $360 million to elect Democrat candidates this cycle and what they expect in return for their money is nothing less than a complete overhaul of labor regulations in this country, courtesy of the United States Government.

One hand washes the other. Labor unions are a core constituency of the Democrat Party. If they are weak, the party is weak. Next January, the Democrats will have strong majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate and a majority of governorships and state legislatures, and with this power, the most radical pro-union Democrat ever to assume the Presidency intends to change the game permanently in their favor by eliminating the most basic of constitutional freedoms: The secret ballot. You see, when union representatives campaign for organizing the workforce of a given company, an employee knows that they can promise to support the union when approached in public but cast their ballot in perfect anonymity in the actual election. Although the results reflect the employee's true opinion, the scenario frustrates union designs, wastes their resources and represents another defeat, especially where Wal-Mart is concerned. Thus the Employee Fair Choice Act - a misnomer if there ever was one - seeks to replace the secret ballot with a "check card" system in which an employee voting for organization would have to check "Yes" or "No" on a card in public and under the gaze of union thugs, a system designed to intimidate reluctant workers and guarantee union victory.

What about union complaints about employer interference and manipulation? Is a change to something besides the secret ballot justified? Not objectively, no. Figures from the National Labor Relations Board indicate that unions win an average of 61% of elections and that 95% of all complaints involving employer misconduct are resolved within six months. So why opt for such drastic measures? Why eliminate a fundamental right of our democracy? Because the unions and the Democrats realize that without such action, their slide toward total irrelevance will be complete. Arresting their decline can only be accomplished by attacking individual choice. It is, of course, patently undemocratic and hypocritical (given that Barack Obama and his Party were the beneficiaries of the secret ballot twelve days ago), but this is about power and the American Left will stop at nothing to get it. Taken together with their threats to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine to throttle conservative talk radio, passage of the Employee Fair Choice Act would be the Democrats' most aggressive effort ever to choke the opposition and establish a permanent socialist state. And after that, what's next? What other facets of democracy do they find objectionable? The Big Three American automakers are slipping toward bankruptcy, in large part because the high cost of union labor makes their products less attractive than their Japanese counterparts. Detroit invested heavily in big SUV's, pickup trucks and minivans when gasoline cost half as much as it does today and are furiously laying off worker and closing plants to stop the bleeding. They've asked for, and Congress wil likely approve, a $50 billion bailout package. What if, as part of that bailout, Congress mandates "target sales" for those gas guzzlers to protect union jobs? What if a customer at a car dealership is informed that the cute little economical hybrid they wanted is "unavailable" but they can have a Ford Expedition instead? What if the same scheme were applied to cell phones and refrigerators and furniture and everything else?

If this sounds too crazy to be believed, consider what we're discussing now and think again. Someone who doesn't like democracy will try to get rid of it, which applies to Barack Obama and his gang of socialist true believers, and my guess is that this is not the kind of change that his millions of hypnotized supporters voted for.

Source: http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

Source: http://www.heritage.org/research/labor/wm1359.cfm

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356643,00.html

Maverick Is His Name

My name is John McCain. I am the senior United States Senator from the state of Arizona and a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, but most recently I was nominated by the Republican Party for the presidency of the United States. I was defeated by Barack Obama, who will become the 44th Chief Executive and the first black man to hold that post.

I've been defeated before. I ran for President in 2000 and was leading George W. Bush until the South Carolina primary. I would have beaten him then except for some hardball tactics he used that turned the tables on me, and he went on to two terms in the White House instead of me. I've never forgiven that SOB and I swore I'd get even.

I pressured W. on campaign finance reform and he caved. Russ Feingold is a left-wing radical and a rabid partisan but he shares my view that the Republicans have enjoyed a financial advantage for too long and it's time to rein them in. He also shares my view that there's too much free speech by third parties in political campaigns. (Look what happened to my friend and colleague, John Kerry, in 2004. It proves my point.) It doesn't matter to me if a third party is telling the truth, it matters that it disrupts my vision of political discourse and it has to stop. Some people have complained that it's unconstitutional but that's just tough.

I also hijacked the process for approving the President's judicial nominees - that was great. I rallied thirteen other like-minded Senators to my cause: not a one was conservative. You see, I interpret conservatives fighting for their principles as partisans, while liberals fighting for their principles are gallant patriots. Dubya might have been the President but if he wanted anything done on the Hill, he had to go through me, and that was sweet.

...but we have common cause occasionally, as with the immigration reform bill we worked on in 2007. This bill would've allowed 21 million illegals to stay here mostly undisturbed but Rush Limbaugh and the other conservative die-hards stirred up the rednecks against it and we just couldn't get it done, and that really fried my bacon because I know what's best for this country and people keep getting in my way.

In many ways, I identify more with my liberal colleagues than I do my own party, and John Kerry even asked me to join his ticket in 2004, but I turned him down. You see, I'm a maverick. Mavericks get their credibility by rebelling against the norm and if I switched parties, I'd be just another Democrat. I'd be fighting Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid for airtime on the Sunday talk shows so I could bash the Republicans and I'm not about that. Wolf Blitzer and Larry King love it when a Republican criticizes his own party and that strokes my ego, so why would I give that up? Heck, Chuck Hagel figured that out a few years ago and it's a little flattering to see somebody try to emulate me, but not too much: If it's one thing a maverick doesn't like, it's another maverick.

Sarah Palin...well, that was just something I had to do. All I wanted was a respectful debate on issues I owned with a minimum of cash and outside influence so my natural superiority would stand out, but Barack Obama went and broke his promise to accept Federal money - that bastard! - and he was beating me everywhere I looked, so I had to do something. The moderates and the independents weren't flocking to me the way they should have and the only option I had left was to energize the Republican base, which was awkward given that I'd repudiated them for the past eight years, but part of being a maverick is switching from idealistic liberal lover to pragmatic politician and back again without upsetting my self-image of the angry old man who wants the Presidency as validation. So I went for it and boy, did I look like a genius! The rubes went crazy for her at the convention and on the campaign trail, and money and enthusiasm were running all over the place. Of course, my Democrat pals and the liberal media smeared her and I kind of took my time in defending her because she was stealing my publicity, and I sure didn't want the conservatives to hijack my campaign, but overall, she worked out: Choosing her proved that I was still capable of throwing the deep pass on fourth-and-long. The old guy's still got it, doesn't he?

In the end, I lost by a touchdown if I can use another football metaphor. Obama just had too much money, too many volunteers, he looked and sounded great on TV, my liberal friends in the press had a love fest over him while they threw me under the bus, the economy chose this exact moment to tank and voila! Eight years down the tubes. If I were an introspective guy - I'm not but let's say that I was - I'd say that my strategy was wrong. Undermining Dubya should have impressed people with how independent I am but it may have appeared as selfish and bitter. Refusing to criticize Obama's relationships with William Ayers, Tony Reszko and Reverend Jeremiah Wright (except at the very end when it wouldn't make a difference) should have demonstrated my loftiness but the base - like Joe the Plumber, for God's sake - saw it as a missed opportunity, even stupid. Sucking up to the liberals for eight years should have guaranteed their loyalty but they turned on me as soon as I finished off Huckabee, and criticizing conservatives for being too partisan while palling around with Joe Biden may have looked hypocritical. But like I said, I'm not an introspective guy.

Sure, I'll go to the Inaugural...why wouldn't I? And I'll go back to the Senate so I can help President Obama get his agenda through because I know his heart is in the right place. Like I've said for years, you have to be willing to set ideology aside and reach across the aisle to get things done in Washington. It's just funny that the Democrats never seem to do any reaching themselves.

I Voted for Senator Obama Because...

I voted for Senator Obama because I need health insurance and I want someone else to pay for it.

I voted for Senator Obama because I bought a house that I can't afford and I want someone else to pay for it.

I voted for Senator Obama because he opposed the war in Iraq and he opposed the surge, and now that we're winning, he'll bring our troops home so we can spend that $10 billion per month on my health insurance and my mortgage.

I voted for Senator Obama because he'll raise other people's taxes, not mine.

I voted for Senator Obama because he looks better and sounds better than John McCain.

I voted for Senator Obama because the Europeans love him, and I want the Europeans to love us again.

I voted for Senator Obama because he was endorsed by Warren Buffett, who's really rich, and by Colin Powell, who's pretty cool for a Republican - he's pro-choice, pro-affirmative action and doesn't like President Bush. (It's a little strange that HAMAS endorsed Senator Obama but I dismissed it.)

I voted for Senator Obama because he promised me a middle-class tax cut even though I don't pay Federal income taxes. I don't understand how he can do that but it doesn't bother me.

I voted for Senator Obama because he promised to bankrupt the coal industry because they pollute the environment and I like clean air. I don't worry too much about the fact that coal produces 40% of our electricity, nor that my electric bill may skyrocket, nor that hundreds of thousands of working-class people would lose their jobs...he'll make it all work out.

I voted for Senator Obama because he represents working-class people like me, not working-class people like Joe the Plumber. Joe shouldn't have embarrassed Senator Obama the way he did, but Senator Obama would never come after me they way he went after Joe.

I voted for Senator Obama because I don't want to feel guilty anymore about being white.

I voted for Senator Obama because I would never lose my job because he raised taxes.

I voted for Senator Obama because some people have way too much money and ought to share it, and if they don't, they're being selfish.

I voted for Senator Obama because if he confiscates everyone's 401(k), he'll leave mine alone.

I voted for Senator Obama because his relationships with Tony Reszko, William Ayers and Reverend Jeremiah Wright aren't important to me. I don't particularly like someone defrauding pension funds or throwing bombs or murdering police officers or shouting, "God damn America," but I don't think about it too much.

I voted for Senator Obama because I think he'll send my kids to college for free.

I voted for Senator Obama because there's no way that Sarah Palin has the experience to be President. (Not that experience is all that important. That's what Senator Obama says.)

I voted for Senator Obama because that guy from Iran will chill out now.

I voted for Senator Obama because when we leave Iraq, the terrorists will leave us alone. Al Qaeda would never attack us here.

I voted for Senator Obama because illegal immigrants should have the same rights as I have. After all, they only want a better life.

I voted for Senator Obama because he will give me everything I want, it won't cost me a thing, and because he can turn water into wine.