Thursday, March 11, 2010

Columnist: 5 Ways Liberals Misjudge the American People

One of my favorite columnists, John Hawkins, is making a list again.

From his latest column:
One of the reasons liberals tend to do such an incredibly poor job of governing is that they fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the American people. Given that liberals also fundamentally misunderstand Christianity, the Constitution, economics, and human nature, I guess it's no big surprise that they don't get the American people either. Come to think of it, I guess it's pretty much par for the course. I mean, let's face it, without conservatives around to help keep them in check, liberals would utterly destroy everything that is good about America and most of them would be baffled about what they were doing wrong right up until the end. But enough about the Left's general lack of common sense -- let's talk about how they misjudge the American people.

1) They believe the American people want liberal policies.
2) Liberals believe that many Americans don't know what's in their own best interests.
3) Liberals believe that the American people want to be treated like children.
4) Liberals believe that most conservatives are evil.
5) Liberals believe they can lie to the American people without consequence.
Read the full column at Townhall.com

Labels: ,

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Is Joe Hoeffel trying to lose the election?



A hilarious new political ad released by the Joe Hoeffel for Governor campaign proclaims Joe stands for "old-fashioned values" such as abortion-on-demand, gun control, same-sex marriage, protectionism and special breaks for unions.

This guy couldn't get elected in Massachusetts let alone Pennsylvania.

The final howler is when Hoeffel describes himself as "fiscally responsible."

Before Hoeffel took control of Montgomery County government in 2008, the county was a model of efficiency that other Pennsylvania counties could emulate. Montco government was so well run that the commissioners were able to cut property taxes while increasing services.

Under Hoeffel, Montgomery County has turned into an economic basket-case, facing deficits, layoffs and cuts in services. Cronyism is rampant as Hoeffel has hired all sorts of political allies to well-paying county jobs that didn't exist before Hoeffel came into the picture.

Now Hoeffel wants to do the same for Pennsylvania? Good luck with that.

Actually Hoeffel may be too late. His pal, Ed Rendell, has already bankrupted the state.

Prediction: Hoeffel will finish a distant third or maybe even fourth in the four-man race for the Democratic nomination for Pennsylvania governor.

Originally posted at TONY PHYRILLAS

Labels: , , ,

Friday, January 22, 2010

Columnist: Time to hide, liberals

It didn't take long for the American public to remember why they don't trust liberals in positions of authority, argues columnist Jay Ambrose.

From his latest:
The arrogance was suffocating. Resurrected liberals were practically smirking as they instructed us to sweet-talk our way out of terrorist threats, advised we should quickly duplicate Europe's semi-socialist mistakes and condescendingly dished up all manner of other liberty-smothering ideological inanities that would transform America into a poor imitation of what it once was if anyone actually acted on them.

Ordinary Americans have caught onto all of this, and so, I am sorry, liberals, but the word of the day for you is "lose." Your side has lost elections in New Jersey and Virginia, and now your side has lost the Senate seat previously held by the very liberal Ted Kennedy in very liberal Massachusetts to Scott Brown, a Republican.

The message to the Democrats is simple. Either give up your liberal ways and veer toward the center or face political catastrophe in November's general election. The message to liberals generally is also simple: Get back into your witness protection program.
Read the full column, "Time to hide, liberals," here

Labels: ,

Bill O'Reilly: The Far Left, Down For The Count

The signs of the Apocalypse are everywhere for the far left. A Republican wins Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. Air America goes off the air. Gitmo is still open. Obamacare is on life-support. Democrats are about lose control of both houses of Congress. Mainstream media ratings are in the tank.

From Bill O'Reilly's latest column on the demise of the far left:
Just look at the polls, where 20% of Americans describe themselves as liberal. So you figure the far left is less than half of that. In addition, radical left-wing media outlets life MSNBC and Air America are failing. Yeah, Al Franken won in Minnesota, but that's was an anomaly. Today, he'd lose big.

If President Obama wants to avoid the fate of Jimmy Carter, he must move quickly to the center. He must be a tougher guy on terrorism, rethink the health care deal so Americans can understand it, and stimulate the economy by targeted tax cuts, not massive government spending.

With his power waning quickly, Mr. Obama has no time to lose.
Read the full column at BillOReilly.com

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Ebenezer Scrooge was a liberal

Terrific post at the always amusing DotPenn blog setting the record straight about Ebenezer Scrooge's political affiliation.

From "Eleven Reasons Why Scrooge Is A Progressive" --

Ebenezer Scrooge, or just Scrooge, has often been portrayed as a miserly Conservative.

However, a closer examination of the skinflint character from Charles Dickens's Christmas classic, A Christmas Carol, reveals that, on the contrary, Scrooge is a progressive.

Here are eleven reasons why Scrooge is a progressive.
1) Scrooge relies on government programs to handle poverty.

And the Union workhouses demanded Scrooge Are they still in operation? The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full then? said Scrooge.

2.) He ignores private charities as the most effective way to help people in need.

I help to support the establishments I have mentioned they cost enough and those who are badly off must go there.

3.) Scrooge, an environmental progressive, refuses to allow his staff members to burn coal.

Scrooge had a very small fire but the clerk's fire was so very much smaller that it looked like one coal. But he couldn't replenish it for Scrooge kept the coal box in his own room and so surely as the clerk came in with the shovel the master predicted that it would be necessary for them to part.

4.) Apparently uses energy-saving florescent bulbs instead of incandescent light bulbs.

Darkness is cheap, and Scrooge liked it.

5.) Afraid his majority cultural lens will drown out alternative voices, Scrooge made sure he never said "Merry Christmas." Prefers the more politically-correct "Bah Humbug."
Read the full post at DotPenn

Labels: , ,

Monday, September 21, 2009

Jimmy Carter Meltdown

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

CampusReform.org to Challenge Dominance of College Leftists

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Poll: 70% want smaller government

Six months of failure under the Democratic leadership of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid has convinced 7 in 10 Americans that big government liberalism is not the way to go, according to a new poll.

From the latest Rasmussen Reports:
Seventy percent (70%) of likely voters now favor a government that offers fewer services and imposes lower taxes over one that provides more services with higher taxes, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

That’s up five points over the past month and is the highest level measured in nearly three years.

Just 19% would prefer a government that provides more services in exchange for higher taxes, down five points from July and the lowest level in over two years. This marks the first time the percentage of voters who prefer this type of government has fallen below 20%.

Most Republicans (88%) and voters not affiliated with either major party (78%) like a government with lower taxes and fewer services, and 48% of Democrats agree. However, one-in-three Democrats (34%) prefer more government services and higher taxes.
Read more at Rasmussen Reports

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

'Why are they so angry?'

John C. Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, offers an excellent analysis of the growing anger exhibited by Americans toward the political class in Washington.

From his recent column in The Wall Street Journal:
Why are they so angry? The reasons are manifold, but the single biggest reason is the arrogance of our elected officials in Washington. Think about it. For the past seven months a small group of politicians has been meeting behind-closed-doors with powerful special interests to decide whether you will be able to keep your current insurance, where you will be directed to get new insurance and at what price, what fines you and your employer will have to pay if you don't conform, and how they're going to get your doctor to change the way he or she practices medicine. In the process, they never asked you what you thought about anything. If you are not mad about this, odds are you don't understand the situation.
Read the full column at the newspaper's Web site.

Labels: , ,

Monday, August 24, 2009

Liberal columnist scared to death of Obamacare

Nat Hentoff is the kind of hard-core liberal who should have no problem embracing Obamcare. But unlike most members of Congress, Hentoff has read the various provisions in Obamacare ... and he's scared to death about a government takeover of our health care system.

Keep in mind that we're not talking about Glenn Beck here. This is Nat Hentoff, liberal icon, champion of left-wing causes for decades.

Excerpts from a recent Hentoff's column on Obamacare:
I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover's FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama's desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) — as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill — decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It's already in the stimulus bill signed into law.

No matter what Congress does when it returns from its recess, rationing is a basic part of Obama's eventual master health care plan.

This end-of-life consultation has been stripped from the Senate Finance Committee bill because of democracy-in-action town-hall outcries but remains in three House bills. A specific end-of-life proposal is in draft Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, a House Democratic health care bill that is echoed in two others that also call for versions of "advance care planning consultation" every five years — or sooner if the patient is diagnosed with a progressive or terminal illness.

Who'll let us know what's really being decided about our lives — and what is set into law?

Condemning the furor at town-hall meetings around the country as "un-American," Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are blind to truly participatory democracy — as many individual Americans believe they are fighting, quite literally, for their lives.

I wonder whether Obama would be so willing to promote such health care initiatives if, say, it were 60 years from now, when his children will — as some of the current bills seem to imply — have lived their fill of life years, and the health care resources will then be going to the younger Americans?
Read Hentoff's full column, "Will Obama, Congress decide when you die?" at The Mercury's Web site.

Labels: ,

Monday, May 11, 2009

A guide to Democratic Doublespeak

Syndicated columnist Debra J. Saunders offers a handy guide to understanding Democratic Doublespeak in the Age of Obama.

From her latest column:
Doublespeak is alive as Democrats pull the strings in the White House and Congress 24 years after 1984. What do they mean when they engage in Democrat-speak?

I know I'm not worthy, but I've got an assignment, so I shall borrow a page from Ambrose Bierce, not with a Devil's Dictionary, but a Democrats' Dictionary. The easy part: There's no dif.
Here are some examples Saunders has uncovered:

Academic freedom: Full license to espouse liberal thought to unformed minds.

Bailout: Billions upon billions -- trillions really -- of government aid doled out to financial institutions to remind voters of the need for strong regulation.

Bipartisanship: 40 Republicans and 60 Democrats.

Clean coal: What Santa Claus puts in Democrats' stockings so they don't have to admit that their global-warming agenda is anti-coal.

CNN: Unbiased news network whose reporters battle "right-wing" media.

Deficits:
Overspending before 2009, or spending practices that President Obama inherited. For current usage, see: Investment.

Extremists: Abortion opponents.

Read the full column, "The Democrats' Dictionary," at RealClearPolitics.com

Labels: ,

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Michele Obama's $540 sneakers

File this under Democratic double standards ... or liberal hypocricy.

First Lady Michelle Obama wore $540 French sneakers during a recent visit to help the poor.

From Michelle Malkin's latest column posted at Red County:
Michelle Obama was stylin' in her $540 French sneakers during a volunteering photo-op at a Washington, D.C., food bank this week. Her suede and patent trainers from the house of Lanvin are apparently all the rage among the celebrity set. Who knew there were sneakers out there that cost as much as many Americans' monthly rent?

Don't misunderstand: I don't begrudge the first lady her fashion options. But I do begrudge the Obamas for their double standards when it comes to the flaunting of wealth -- and the earning of it.

Obama's supporters at the liberal Huffington Post website devoted an entire slideshow to John McCain's $520 Ferragamo loafers. CNN piled on with a feature on McCain's "well-heeled campaign." The "report" contrasted McCain's Italian footwear with Obama's "average guy" shoes.

Will they show the same indignation toward the first lady?
And where's the outrage in the liberal media over the $300,000 in taxpayer dollars wasted by the White House for Barack Obama's Air Force One photo op over New York City?

Read the full column by Malkin at Red County ... and rub it in the face of your liberal friends next time they bring up how wonderful the Obamas are.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Why is Obama threatened by veterans?

Ralph Peters, a retired Army colonel, national security expert, author and newspaper columnist, tries to make sense out of the recent news that the Obama Administration considers military veterans (among others) as a potential threat to national security.

From his most recent column:
Racism is racism (unless you're a left-wing celebrity; then it's just humor). The left-wing propaganda document, published officially by your government under the title "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," might be the shabbiest U.S. government publication of our time.

The report warns that "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists ... carrying out violent attacks."

The document's evidence? None.

The report contains no hard data, no statistics. It's nothing but a racist, anti-military opinion column that might pass muster in The New York Times but shouldn't be issued by our government.

The report continues by saying "rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans" who "possess combat skills."

The point? Our hayseed, uneducated, unskilled, wacko vets aren't able to think for themselves and will be patsies for right-wing fanatics. Guess that's how things look from Harvard.

The Obama Homeland Security Department report is profiling at its worst and exposes the far-left's paranoia with anyone who disagrees with them, Peters concludes.

Read the full column here.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Stingy liberals

Allen Hunt, writing at Townhall.com, notes that the Obamas and the Bidens are not exactly the most generous people in the United States.

Based on the numbers in their 2008 tax returns, the Bidens gave a measly 0.2 percent of their income to charity, Hunt writes.

The Obamas did better, giving 6.5 percent, but Hunt points out that the Obama's generosity may have a lot to do with Barack Obama's high-profile run for president than his giving nature.

From Hunt's column:
Two observations: Biden is stingy, and Obama only began giving when he knew the public would be watching.

Vice-President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, who have given about 0.2% of their income to charity in each of the years between 2000 and 2008. Less than ½ of one percentage point given to persons in need, to ministries of their Catholic Church, to agencies that serve the poor and the hurting. In fact, this year they gave a total of $1,885 to charity, marking the first time they had even given a sum larger than $1,000 for the entire year. In every year of this decade, the Bidens' income has exceeded $200,000, and for the first time they gave away more than $1000 of their own money. Astonishing stinginess. Record-setting, in fact.

Their stinginess makes Barack and Michelle Obama appear generous. The Obamas gave away 6.5% of their considerable income ($2.6 MM) in 2008. They are showing progress. This percentage of giving (6.5%) marks their own personal best in the past decade. In fact, they gave less than 1% away in 2000, 2001, and 2002, only breaking into the paltry 1% category in 2003 and 2004, when he began to run for public office. Then, upon launching a bid for the presidency in 2005, their giving rose to 4.7%, and then 6.1% in 2006, and 5.8% in 2007.

Sadly, one has to wonder why the Obamas' giving only began to reach any meaningful level once they began to run for public office. Was it because they knew it would now be scrutinized by the public eye?
Read the full column at Townhall.com

Labels: , ,

Friday, April 17, 2009

'Americans Are Not The Enemy'

From a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano from David K. Rehbein, National Commander, The American Legion:
Your report states that "Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages." Secretary Napolitano, this is more than a perception to those who have lost their job. Would you categorize union members as "Right Wing extremists"?

In spite of this incomplete, and, I fear, politically-biased report, The American Legion and the Department of Homeland Security share many common and crucial interests, such as the Citizen Corps and disaster preparedness. Since you are a graduate of New Mexico Girls State, I trust that you are very familiar with The American Legion. I would be happy to meet with you at a time of mutual convenience to discuss issues such as border security and the war on terrorism. I think it is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are.
You can read the full letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano from David K. Rehbein, National Commander, The American Legion, at this link.

Labels: , , ,

Columnist blasts Obama 'Gestapo' tactics

Less than three months on the job, Barack Obama has designated conservatives as rightwing extremists who pose a threat to his utopian socialist society.

Michael Reagan offers his take on the revelation that the Obama Department of Homeland Security has issued instructions to law enforcement across the county to be on the lookout for potential terrorist acts by conservatives.

From Reagan's column:
Have we really come to this? Has Adolf Hitler's propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels been reborn and recruited by the Obama administration to scare the heck out of the American people with absurdities such as this whacked-out document?

Obviously recognizing that public knowledge of the nonsense alleged in this document is very undesirable, the weirdoes who prepared it did not want you to see it.

They warn: "No portion of the LES information should be released to the media, the general public, or over non-secure Internet servers."

Too bad. The Washington Times got their hands on a copy and revealed it to the entire world.

Once it became public and many Americans reacted in disbelief, the Obama White House disavowed it despite the fact that a document as explosive as this could never have been distributed without the president's explicit approval in the first place.

The screed was prepared long before tens of thousands of outraged Americans banded together in today's peaceful Tea Party demonstrations, which by their very nature gave the lie to the outrageous allegations contained in the document.

The demonstrations were conducted by people who believe strongly in the very issues cited by the administration as those that incite violence, yet who themselves abhor violence as a political tactic.

They're getting ready to take names, so beware if you say anything negative about abortion or gay marriage or our out-of-control system of taxation.

Sounding like something out of a Gestapo directive, the document reveals that Homeland Security "will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization."
Read the full column, "The Obama Administration Says We're Dangerous, Rightwing Extremists," at The Reagan Exchange or Townhall.com

Labels: , ,

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Ann Coulter: Tea Parties struck a liberal nerve

Ann Coulter is both amused and amazed at the reaction of the far left to the April 15 Tea Parties.

"I had no idea how important this week's nationwide anti-tax tea parties were until hearing liberals denounce them with such ferocity," Coulter writes in her latest column.

The usual far-left suspects, The New York Times, MSNBC, Air America and "every unbathed, basement-dwelling loser on the left wing blogosphere" spent the week leading up to the Tea Parties riduling ordinary Americans for simply exercising their right to protest a government that has grown too big and takes too much of teir pay checks, Coulter argues.

From Coulter's column:
The point of the tea parties is to note the fact that the Democrats' modus operandi is to lead voters to believe they are no more likely to raise taxes than Republicans, get elected and immediately raise taxes.

Apparently, the people who actually pay taxes consider this a bad idea.

Obama's biggest shortcoming is that he believes the things believed by all Democrats, which have had devastating consequences every time they are put into effect. Among these is the Democrats' admiration for raising taxes on the productive.

All Democrats for the last 30 years have tried to stimulate the economy by giving "tax cuts" to people who don't pay taxes. Evidently, offering to expand welfare payments isn't a big vote-getter.

And all that government spending on the Democrats' constituents will be paid for by raising taxes on the productive.
Read the full column at HumanEvents.com

Labels: , ,

Are you a domestic terrorist?

If you are a military veteran ...

If you believe the U.S. must do more to stem the flow of illegal aliens ...

If you oppose abortion-on-demand ...

If you protest high taxation and out-of-control government spending ...

You are a potential domestic terrorist, according to a new assessment released by the Obama Department of Homeland Security.

This would be the same Homeland Security Department that has banned the use of the word "terrorist" to describe Islamic extremists who want to kill Americans.

Now that we are living in the Obama-nation, the word "terrorist" is reserved for Americans with conservative beliefs.

And you wonder why gun sales are at an all-time high in the United States? It's only a matter of time before the liberal fascists move against Americans who believe in the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano spent Thursday morning making the rounds on the morning news shows to defend the Obama Administration's latest assault on conservative Americans.

From The Associated Press:
Napolitano described the report, issued last week, as part of the department's routine of analyzing intelligence information to give law enforcement agencies guidance on possible security threats.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, assailed Napolitano's department for the report and pressed the agency to apologize to veterans.

"To characterize men and women returning home after defending our country as potential terrorists is offensive and unacceptable," Boehner said.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, December 29, 2008

'An American Carol' on DVD



"An American Carol," David Zucker's dead-on spoof of Hollywood liberals, led by Michael Moore, makes its DVD debut on Tuesday.

It's a little late for a stocking stuffer, but the film, starring Kevin Farley, Kelsey Grammer and Jon Voight, is worth buying.

Labels: ,

Monday, November 3, 2008

Newspaper: McCain can blunt 'dangerous left-wing Congress'

There are plenty of reasons to elect John McCain, but perhaps one of the most urgent is to prevent a liberal takeover of U.S government.

From The Wall Street Journal:
Perhaps the best case for the McCain candidacy -- apart from national security -- is that he would be a check on what is likely to be an emboldened and dangerous left-wing Congress. He would surely work with Democrats on some things -- for the better perhaps on immigration, for the worse on energy "cap and trade" regulation. However, unlike President Bush, Mr. McCain wouldn't wait four years to use his veto pen.

In this difficult year, Mr. McCain has had the harder sale to make. His admirable personal tenacity has been better than his variable political argument. We'll find out Tuesday if biography trumps hope.
Read the full editorial, "McCain's Honor," at the newspaper's Web site.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, September 19, 2008

'Crippled liberal thinking'

Excellent letter published in the West Chester Daily Local News about the hysterical left's attacks on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. The writer dissects the far left's illogical thinking over the abortion issue. It appears the only qualification a woman should have to run for office, at least if you listen to the left, is that she has had an abortion.
A stretch of logic

On Sept. 1, you published a letter regarding Sarah Palin from Valerie Anne Mahgoul. I can't imagine a more clear demonstration of crippled liberal thinking than was exposed in that brief letter concluding Palin is an untrustworthy gambler based on her decision to have a child at age 44. Mahgoul opens with an effort to provide herself cover by noting she has a disabled child of her own. My sympathy is with her as she struggles with that difficult burden, but it has little bearing on her point or the life of Palin's Down syndrome baby.

The letter drips with condescension. I presume the reference to "professional woman" is to make a distinction between Palin and those huddled masses unfamiliar with family planning. "Responsible decisions regarding reproduction" is apparently not to be confused with actually wanting another child, or recognition that some people find contraception morally offensive or even that contraception sometimes fails.

Making sure we are aware that this baby is the Palins' fifth indicates the writer's attitude about "responsible" as much as does her concern about the odds of Down syndrome.

To then ascribe the birth of this wanted and loved baby as an indicator of a gambling mentality incompatible with governance is a stretch of logic suitable for someone who has contributed to the campaigns of Ed Rendell, Joe Sestak and who was a recipient of a disbursement from the Hillary campaign.

Greg Leibel
Exton

Labels: , ,

Monday, August 25, 2008

Dems to nominate 'unabashedly liberal' ticket

Columnist Jim Callahan, writing in the West Chester Daily Local News, wonders if American voters are so fed up with Republicans that they would support the most liberal presidential ticket in perhaps 30 years.

National Review ranks Sen. Barack Obama as the No. 1 most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. The same publication, highly respected an nonpartisan, ranks Sen. Joe Biden as the No. 3 most liberal member of the Senate.

"Ever since the Vietnam War, being tagged a liberal in American politics could sometimes lead to trouble for a politician. Plenty survived, but many went down the chute," Callahan writes. "The suspicion here is that the Democrats don't think it matters anymore. The theory here is that Obama is reasoning that after nearly eight years of conservative Republican government under President Bush, the public is weary, and really does want change."

Democrats are fighting against history. There's a growing list of liberal Democratic Party presidential nominees rejected by voters: George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry.

Read the full column, "An unabashedly liberal ticket," at the newspaper's Web site.

Labels: , ,

Friday, August 8, 2008

The difference between conservatives and liberals

I've been reading a terrific book this summer called "Makers and Takers" by Peter Schweizer.

That's the short title. The subtitle is a bit longer: "Why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less … and even hug their children more than liberals"

Schweizer's previous best seller was "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," in which he details how many of the best known liberals in the country don't live the lifestyle they promote in public.

Liberal icons like Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader, George Soros, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi simply don't practice what they preach.

For example, Michael Moore, the crusading do-gooder who denounces oil and defense contractors as war profiteers, owned stock in Halliburton, Boeing and Honeywell.

Nancy Pelosi accepted a "champion of labor" award from the United Farm Workers but she and her millionaire husband own a Napa Valley vineyard that won't hire union workers.

"These do-as-I-say liberals don't actually trust their ideas enough to apply them at home," Schweizer wrote in the book. "Instead, when it comes to the things that matter most in their personal lives, they tend to behave — ironically — more like conservatives than liberals. Which can only make one wonder: If their liberal prescriptions don't really work for them as individuals, how can they work for the rest of us?"

The natural progression for Schweizer's argument is to go beyond the political arena in his latest book. What about everyday liberals and conservatives? What makes them different — beyond their political affiliation?

"It is my contention that liberalism and conservatism are not simply political ideologies, but represent divergent ways of life," Schweizer writes in the new book. "For those on both sides, their political views are just the tip of an encompassing worldview that addresses the biggest questions about life. This worldview influences the decisions they make about family, work, community and life."

"Makers and Shakers" divides America into liberal and conservative camps but the kind of people who fall into these categories will surprise you.

Peeling away the propaganda fed to the public by the liberal-dominated media, Schweizer poured through tax records, scholarly research, opinion surveys and private records to develop a profile of the typical liberal and the typical conservative.

What did Schweizer find?
Liberals are, in the aggregate:

… more selfish. Liberals are much more likely to think about themselves first and less willing to make sacrifices for others. They are less interested in caring for a physically ill or elderly family member, and more concerned with ensuring that their own needs are met.

… more focused on money. Liberals are much more likely to report that money is important to them, that they don't earn enough money, and that money is what matters in a job. They are also more likely to be envious of others.

… less hardworking. When considering a new job, liberals are more interested in job security and vacation time than their conservative counterparts. They also tend to value hard work less and embrace leisure as more desirable. Conservatism on the other hand is directly associated with the so-called Protestant Ethic.

… less emotionally satisfied. Liberals are much more likely to suffer from a nervous breakdown, attempt suicide, suffer from depression and be chronically angry.

… less honest. Liberals are more likely to believe that it's okay to be dishonest or deceptive, cheat on their taxes (and their spouse), keep money that doesn't belong to them, and sell a used car with a faulty transmission to a family member.

… less knowledgeable about civic affairs and economics. Despite claims that conservatives are ignorant, studies and surveys show that conservatives and Republicans tend to know more about public affairs, have a better understanding of economics, and do better on word association tests.

Schweizer found that conservatives are, again in the aggregate:

… happier and better adjusted. Conservatives are more satisfied with their lives, their professions, and even their health, even when compared to liberals with the same demographics (age, income, etc.)

… generally more successful parents. Obviously there are many exceptions, but conservatives in general are more willing to make sacrifices for their children, and their children in turn are less likely to take drugs, smoke, or drink at a young age. Conservative families are closer. They are more likely to stay in touch with each other on a regular basis and trust each other more.

… more generous. For all the talk of liberal compassion, the reality is that conservatives are much more likely to donate money and time to charitable causes. Also, the reasons that liberals and conservatives get involved in charities tend to be different. Liberals support charities to "make a statement." Conservatives want to improve the lives of the people they are trying to help.

… less angry. Conservatives are less likely to become angry at someone, less likely to seek revenge, and less likely to throw or break things in a temper.
"The research is clear," Schweizer says. "Looking at data gathered by the most authoritative and reliable academic research centers in the country as well as academic studies published in refereed journals, a pattern emerged that has until now been completely ignored. When compared to conservatives on a long list of personality and moral traits, modern liberals consistently come up short."

"Makers and Takers" is a fast read at 258 pages and the conclusion that "liberalism not only leads to social decay, but can also lead to personal decay" is backed by a wealth of research.

"Liberalism promotes a way of thinking, a way of life, and a pattern of living that are destructive on many levels," Schweizer says.

Labels: , ,

Monday, June 30, 2008

How liberals define 'fairness'

Liberals control most television news (ABC,CBS,NBC,PBS,CNN and their various cable affiliates), where most Americans say they get their news.

Liberals control most of the major newspapers in the United States.

Liberals control the public education system and higher education.

Liberals control the Democratic Party.

But it isn't enough. There is still dissent out there. Fox News dominates cable news. Conservatives have won control of talk radio. Conservatives also have a foothold on the Internet, although the most visited sites are usually liberal, and the far left spends way too much time attacking conservative sites and attempting to intimidate or silence them.

In short, liberals want to stamp out all opposition. (For more on the history of liberal oppression, check out Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism blog at The National Review Web site.)

If the Democrats continue to build on their Congressional majorities and if a Democrat is elected president, the far left is promising to stifle opposition viewpoints in the U.S.

The tool the far left will use is a government crackdown called the "Fairness Doctrine," a term only George Orwell would love.

Liberals won't be satisfied until they can silence talk radio and take control of the blogosphere.

Investor's Business Daily warns on its editorial pages that the "Fairness Doctrine" is the latest example of despotism by the far left.

From the IBD editorial:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intends to restore the "Fairness Doctrine" regulating political speech — proof that in the Internet Age, Democrats have lost the communications war.

Under a President Obama and Democratic Congress, a Fairness Doctrine could mean all three branches of government, plus the media, would be under the iron-fisted control of big-government, anti-national security liberals.

Despite losing the war of words to Republicans on low taxes and strong defense, Democrats would win politically with a law regulating national debate.
Read the full editorial, "Fairness Despotism," at the IBD Web site.

Labels: ,

Friday, June 20, 2008

Activist Judges Run Amuck

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Liberal judges side with our enemies