There were at least three more columns this week from prominent liberal columnists ridiculing Sarah Palin. The fact that they are still writing about her is revealing, and a positive sign for her potential impact in the future. But more than anything, the liberal narrative is a kind of proof statement for the accusations Republicans tried unsuccessfully to make during the campaign.
Those accusations center around the elitism that the liberal intelligentsia hold as a value.
Just as they feel morally superior for embracing global warming, supporting gay marriage, and valuing multiculturalism over meritocracy, they feel empowered to ridicule Palin for what amounts to her lack of liberal sophistication. She drops her g's at the end of words, speaking in the colloquial pattern of the area. Horrors! She hunts, which is absolutely unthinkable to the Left. Her faith in God is strong, and she is proud draw strength from it, another faux pas to the secular progressives. They are even trying to ridicule her for spending money on clothes. It should be obvious that any candidate for these incredibly important offices should package himself/herself as attractively as possible, making this a non-issue, but it again reveals the elitist attitude, because behind the headline is the sneer that her regular wardrobe must have been Wal-Mart high fashion, at best.
She's not one of them, that is true. What she is, is smart, confident, and attractive, all qualities that bug the Left. Especially that confidence part. How can she be so confident when she is such a rube, doesn't embrace the enlightened attitudes of the feminists, and doesn't feel guilty about hunting, praying, or looking so good?
She wasn't perfect in her first set of national interviews, so the Left has all they need to insult her intelligence. Obama says that we have 57 states, but nobody on the Left seems to notice. Hillary fabricates a mortar fire attack, and it gets brushed aside.
To all of you culturally superior beings on the Left- before you unleash your next attack on Gov Palin, you might want to assess how many Americans are closer to her profile, than to yours. She is a leader who embraces conservative principles (unlike McCain), and is willing to fight for them. All the snobbery the liberal elitists can manage isn't going to derail Sarah Palin.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Who Will Get the Blame?
When Obama is enthroned, and Congress empowered, who will get the blame for the damage they will wreak? Will they fall back on their tired lament of blaming Bush and the Republicans, or will they take responsibility?
I would like to see the answers they would give to that question now, before it all gets worse. The idea of increasing taxes to the most productive elements in a capitalist economy, so that you can write checks to distribute to a huge segment that is unproductive, turns our whole approach to society upside down. Providing a safety net to those less fortunate, either from birth or circumstances, is what most Americans support. I think the safety net should be generous and kind, but i also think it should be reserved for those who really need it.
The positive outcome of the welfare to work reform that the Republican Congress crafted, and Clinton signed, seemed to shock many Democrats, particularly liberals who were crying about how cruel it was. People challenged to find a place in society responded, and the increase in the number of self-reliant people was terrific. Not a surprise to most Americans.
But we are about to have a president who has always espoused a belief system that says capitalism is too rigid, and money needs to be taken from the rich (greedy bastards that they are) and given to the poor, regardless of the reason they are poor. Aided by the Pelosi/Reid team that would like nothing better than to stick it to Republicans, Obama will have an open field to implement policies that will harm business and the economy. If they work, I'll give him full credit, but when they don't work, will he take responsibility?
I would like to see the answers they would give to that question now, before it all gets worse. The idea of increasing taxes to the most productive elements in a capitalist economy, so that you can write checks to distribute to a huge segment that is unproductive, turns our whole approach to society upside down. Providing a safety net to those less fortunate, either from birth or circumstances, is what most Americans support. I think the safety net should be generous and kind, but i also think it should be reserved for those who really need it.
The positive outcome of the welfare to work reform that the Republican Congress crafted, and Clinton signed, seemed to shock many Democrats, particularly liberals who were crying about how cruel it was. People challenged to find a place in society responded, and the increase in the number of self-reliant people was terrific. Not a surprise to most Americans.
But we are about to have a president who has always espoused a belief system that says capitalism is too rigid, and money needs to be taken from the rich (greedy bastards that they are) and given to the poor, regardless of the reason they are poor. Aided by the Pelosi/Reid team that would like nothing better than to stick it to Republicans, Obama will have an open field to implement policies that will harm business and the economy. If they work, I'll give him full credit, but when they don't work, will he take responsibility?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Here Come the Judges. Watch Out!
One of the worst outcomes of the pending Obama victory will be the realignment of the judiciary. Be prepared for judges who value diversity over merit, and who believe that they have the wisdom to decide where to draw the line.
Obama wants judges with heart. I want judges who know the law. Obama would have a judge decide not on the merits of the case, but on the hardship, perceived or real, of the defendant. Certainly many courts have been moving leftward over the years, given a boost by the activist Warren Court, but the slide will now be a stampede, given that the 2 other branches of govt will be decidedly in favor of a kinder, gentler judiciary. The Constitution breathes!
Union votes will no longer be secret, allowing for the thug element to intimidate. (What? Thugs running the unions? Crazy!) Admissions to colleges and universities will be based on factors other than achievement and test scores (That would be color of skin). It will be more difficult to fire a worker who deserves firing, and more difficult to hire people unless great emphasis has been placed on meeting quotas.
It will take a great effort to undue the damage that is about to be done to our legal system, but lets hope that there are enough Americans for whom the light finally turns on, when they see the direction this very Left Wing President takes us.
Obama wants judges with heart. I want judges who know the law. Obama would have a judge decide not on the merits of the case, but on the hardship, perceived or real, of the defendant. Certainly many courts have been moving leftward over the years, given a boost by the activist Warren Court, but the slide will now be a stampede, given that the 2 other branches of govt will be decidedly in favor of a kinder, gentler judiciary. The Constitution breathes!
Union votes will no longer be secret, allowing for the thug element to intimidate. (What? Thugs running the unions? Crazy!) Admissions to colleges and universities will be based on factors other than achievement and test scores (That would be color of skin). It will be more difficult to fire a worker who deserves firing, and more difficult to hire people unless great emphasis has been placed on meeting quotas.
It will take a great effort to undue the damage that is about to be done to our legal system, but lets hope that there are enough Americans for whom the light finally turns on, when they see the direction this very Left Wing President takes us.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Taxes and Dishonesty: Obama
If a new bank took over your mortgage and told you that your monthly payment was being changed from $3600 to $3900, would you consider that an increase? If the bank tried to tell you that you shouldn't consider it an increase because your mortgage payment was once that high, years ago, would you buy it?
Obama wants us to believe that raising our taxes is not really a tax increase because they were once (under Clinton) that high. As if that's the way they should always be. So when he says that he will only raise taxes on the top 5% of earners, he is dishonest, because he is classifying the increases under this plan as a "rollback", not an increase.
Here is the problem: you cannot possibly deal with the economic situation as it is today, add all the programs Obama proposes, and then top it off with national healthcare, without a massive influx of capital. How does Obama propose to raise that capital? By raising taxes on the top 5%, and reducing taxes on the lower 95%. Folks, it doesn't take a genius, or even a graduate of a CA Community College to know this won't work. He is either lying or pitifully naive.
The top 5% of earners in America pay approximately 60% of all federal income taxes. This is the group he is going to target for all the increases? And he is going to do it in the name of "fairness"- even if it doesn't bring in more money, he has said.
Since the bottom 30% of earners in America pay zero taxes, Obama would send those people a check. That is correct. So to pretend he is not a redistributionist is ridiculous. That is exactly how he intends to operate, and thanks to a Pelosi/Reid Congress, he will have his way. Hang on America;for all of us who work hard to earn a living, the next 4 years are going to be a bitch.
Obama wants us to believe that raising our taxes is not really a tax increase because they were once (under Clinton) that high. As if that's the way they should always be. So when he says that he will only raise taxes on the top 5% of earners, he is dishonest, because he is classifying the increases under this plan as a "rollback", not an increase.
Here is the problem: you cannot possibly deal with the economic situation as it is today, add all the programs Obama proposes, and then top it off with national healthcare, without a massive influx of capital. How does Obama propose to raise that capital? By raising taxes on the top 5%, and reducing taxes on the lower 95%. Folks, it doesn't take a genius, or even a graduate of a CA Community College to know this won't work. He is either lying or pitifully naive.
The top 5% of earners in America pay approximately 60% of all federal income taxes. This is the group he is going to target for all the increases? And he is going to do it in the name of "fairness"- even if it doesn't bring in more money, he has said.
Since the bottom 30% of earners in America pay zero taxes, Obama would send those people a check. That is correct. So to pretend he is not a redistributionist is ridiculous. That is exactly how he intends to operate, and thanks to a Pelosi/Reid Congress, he will have his way. Hang on America;for all of us who work hard to earn a living, the next 4 years are going to be a bitch.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Palin and the Feminists
I was having lunch with a female friend the other day, and she blurted out, "I hate Sarah Palin." Her vehemence caught me offguard, but it certainly echoes feelings that are being expressed by lots of women these days. When I asked my friend why, the only reason she could come up with was the way Gov Palin spoke, dropping her g's, as in, hopin' and prayin'.
What is it that has all these women pissed off? Gov Palin is an example of an independent woman who has shown herself to be strong, capable and confident, with no indication she is anything other than an honest public servant. She has a fine family, shows an ability to balance her priorities, and looks great. Where's the problem?
For years the feminists told us this is exactly the kind of woman they were trying to be, if men just wouldn't hold them back. Bullshit. What the feminists really meant was they want all those things, as long as the woman was Liberal. What hypocrisy! They hate Palin but can't articulate why. What they hate is that she has all those qualities they pretend to want, but more. She doesn't whine about political correctness. She won't abort her baby, even when she knows it had Down Syndrome. She hunts because it was part of the way she was raised and she loved it. No apologies, no pretending that she was made to do it.
She has the guts to stand up for what she believes, the guts to take on the establishment in her home state, and the guts to go on Saturday Night Live knowing the Hollywood Lefties were going to try to skewer her. If the feminists had any guts of their own, they would be applauding the example that Sarah Palin is showing the country. Instead, the Joy Behar in all of them is being exposed, and that is most definitely ugly.
What is it that has all these women pissed off? Gov Palin is an example of an independent woman who has shown herself to be strong, capable and confident, with no indication she is anything other than an honest public servant. She has a fine family, shows an ability to balance her priorities, and looks great. Where's the problem?
For years the feminists told us this is exactly the kind of woman they were trying to be, if men just wouldn't hold them back. Bullshit. What the feminists really meant was they want all those things, as long as the woman was Liberal. What hypocrisy! They hate Palin but can't articulate why. What they hate is that she has all those qualities they pretend to want, but more. She doesn't whine about political correctness. She won't abort her baby, even when she knows it had Down Syndrome. She hunts because it was part of the way she was raised and she loved it. No apologies, no pretending that she was made to do it.
She has the guts to stand up for what she believes, the guts to take on the establishment in her home state, and the guts to go on Saturday Night Live knowing the Hollywood Lefties were going to try to skewer her. If the feminists had any guts of their own, they would be applauding the example that Sarah Palin is showing the country. Instead, the Joy Behar in all of them is being exposed, and that is most definitely ugly.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Noble Ambition?
I was thinking about the explanation that everyone involved in the Fannie/Freddie fiasco provides for their irresponsible actions; that it was all done so that home ownership could be provided to more Americans. How noble. For centuries people worked, in order to have enough money to buy their own home. Many came up short, but for those that made it, their home was the foundation of their family, where they raised their kids, the center of their life, and a source of pride.
Much like a college degree, in order to have more people share "the American dream", the Left thinks that by simply expanding accessibility, we also expand qualities that go with it. Of course that is foolish. Expand anything of great value that has to be earned with personal sacrifice, by removing the need for sacrifice, and it is devalued. It is typical thinking by the Left, however, and is at the heart of our current crisis.
The reason banks have always wanted home buyers to be credit worthy is pretty obvious: the responsibility of owning a home comes with financial obligations, and a person without any history of meeting any obligations is a much higher risk of defaulting on his mortgage. Beginning with Carter, and accelerating under Clinton, the govt took the absurd position of encouraging banks to write mortgages for those who were not credit worthy, guaranteeing those loans through Fannie/Freddie. The result was predictable: home value was falsely inflated with too many "buyers" on the market, and defaults quadrupled. The real problem is that the Bush administration called for more oversight, but was easily brushed off by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al. But hold Bush accountable. Much like most of his presidency, his call for more oversight was mushy with no backbone. If he foresaw the problem, then he should have screamed from the rooftops and demanded action. Instead, we have a meltdown, and nobody is willing to assign responsibility. I'd start with the proposition that America should expand home ownership to those who do not qualify. Expose on the Liberals who think that's mean. Stand up for EARNING something as important as a home, and shine a light on another of the Democrats' noble ambitions with unintended consequences.
Much like a college degree, in order to have more people share "the American dream", the Left thinks that by simply expanding accessibility, we also expand qualities that go with it. Of course that is foolish. Expand anything of great value that has to be earned with personal sacrifice, by removing the need for sacrifice, and it is devalued. It is typical thinking by the Left, however, and is at the heart of our current crisis.
The reason banks have always wanted home buyers to be credit worthy is pretty obvious: the responsibility of owning a home comes with financial obligations, and a person without any history of meeting any obligations is a much higher risk of defaulting on his mortgage. Beginning with Carter, and accelerating under Clinton, the govt took the absurd position of encouraging banks to write mortgages for those who were not credit worthy, guaranteeing those loans through Fannie/Freddie. The result was predictable: home value was falsely inflated with too many "buyers" on the market, and defaults quadrupled. The real problem is that the Bush administration called for more oversight, but was easily brushed off by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al. But hold Bush accountable. Much like most of his presidency, his call for more oversight was mushy with no backbone. If he foresaw the problem, then he should have screamed from the rooftops and demanded action. Instead, we have a meltdown, and nobody is willing to assign responsibility. I'd start with the proposition that America should expand home ownership to those who do not qualify. Expose on the Liberals who think that's mean. Stand up for EARNING something as important as a home, and shine a light on another of the Democrats' noble ambitions with unintended consequences.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
McCain has to be the most disappointing Republican candidate since Bob Dole. And that is no small feat. He is so busy scrambling to find an opening, and reacting to every turn in the road that he overlooks the real opportunity, which is to articulate how different the approaches are to governing between the candidates.
The significance of Wm Ayers isn't so much that he is a crazy old hippie who blew up things with bombs, but that he is an unrepentant marxist who somehow gained a powerful position in the inner sanctum of Chicago politics, and Obama aligned himself with him. Forget the terrorist stuff, what is far more important is what it reveals about Obama's politics. You could only be Ayers guy if he was completely comfotable that you were a marxist. It tells us just how far to the left Obama is. He was hand picked by Ayers to distribute a huge pot of money on schoolchildren in poor neighborhoods for programs that stressed not reading, writing and American History, but all the values that liberals are shoving down our throats in schools everywhere: multiculturalselfesteemism, or whatever they want to call it.
Move on to Rev Wright, and now the dots are connected and paint an even clearer picture of a guy who is ambivalent about traditional America. It is not possible to attend Wright's sermons for 20 years and not be fully aware of the anti-white bias that he spews. He is either a believer or a hupocrite. There's a question for Tom Brokaw. Which is it Senator Obama?
And McCain doesn't want to confront him? Because the Democrats say that's mean, or racist, or why? Obama's politics, and his practical experience are to the left of any major party candidate that has run for president, ever. This election should fall to Mccain by default, simply by exposing the extreme left wing ideology of Obama. McCain wants us to view him as a leader when he isn't even strong enough to take on the empty vessel that is sailing leftward towards the White House.
The significance of Wm Ayers isn't so much that he is a crazy old hippie who blew up things with bombs, but that he is an unrepentant marxist who somehow gained a powerful position in the inner sanctum of Chicago politics, and Obama aligned himself with him. Forget the terrorist stuff, what is far more important is what it reveals about Obama's politics. You could only be Ayers guy if he was completely comfotable that you were a marxist. It tells us just how far to the left Obama is. He was hand picked by Ayers to distribute a huge pot of money on schoolchildren in poor neighborhoods for programs that stressed not reading, writing and American History, but all the values that liberals are shoving down our throats in schools everywhere: multiculturalselfesteemism, or whatever they want to call it.
Move on to Rev Wright, and now the dots are connected and paint an even clearer picture of a guy who is ambivalent about traditional America. It is not possible to attend Wright's sermons for 20 years and not be fully aware of the anti-white bias that he spews. He is either a believer or a hupocrite. There's a question for Tom Brokaw. Which is it Senator Obama?
And McCain doesn't want to confront him? Because the Democrats say that's mean, or racist, or why? Obama's politics, and his practical experience are to the left of any major party candidate that has run for president, ever. This election should fall to Mccain by default, simply by exposing the extreme left wing ideology of Obama. McCain wants us to view him as a leader when he isn't even strong enough to take on the empty vessel that is sailing leftward towards the White House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)