Showing posts with label liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberalism. Show all posts
7/11/2020
7/03/2018
As Seen On Twitter
Please do click on her profile
As a DSA chapter co-chair I just wanna set the record straight for a minute: communism is good
— Olivia Katbi Smith🌹أوليفيا كاتبي (@livkittykat) June 30, 2018
7/02/2018
6/29/2018
The Unhinged Left
Literally in tears. Haven’t felt this hopeless in a long time. With Justice Kennedy leaving, we now have two options as Americans: get fitted for your Nazi uniform or report directly to your death camp. How do you fight the darkness without light? My spark is going out. #SCOTUS
— Matthew K. (@mattiek17) June 27, 2018
Every single institution or agency in our government is being dismantled by this administration. Congress, gone, SCOTUS, gone, the Executive branch, in the hands of a madman, the FBI, DOE, EPA, etc. etc. etc. And you thought it couldn’t happen here.
— Bette Midler (@BetteMidler) June 27, 2018
MSNBC analyst urges Democrats to 'play by Street rules' to harass moderate Republican Senators to vote against President Trump's Supreme Court nominee pic.twitter.com/vZZinMlHCj
— Wired Sources (@WiredSources) June 27, 2018
The illegitimate POTUS will now try to ram a SCOTUS nominee through before Nov. So much for that McConnell rule. Calling on two principled Republicans to stand up against tyranny.
— Rob Reiner (@robreiner) June 27, 2018
Justice Kennedy retiring... If you are deeply disturbed, absorb the shock. But respond with even more determination. If you see this as a fight for the future of democracy, let those in power know that the will of the majority can still hold sway. https://t.co/lcKhiAgKao
— Dan Rather (@DanRather) June 27, 2018
I've never been so frightened for our country. And that's saying a lot, because the past 18 months have been mostly terrifying. How do we survive this? Can we? Can, um, Mueller please hurry up? 😫
— Tracey Gaughran (@traceygaughran) June 28, 2018
Stock up on abortions now. Roe v. Wade is gone.
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) June 27, 2018
Kennedy handing his seat over to Trump is the most perfect example *ever* about how it is all the party of Trump. All of it. Kennedy looks down from SCOTUS and sees the man in the White House and says “Yes. Him. I want him to be the one to choose my replacement.”
— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) June 27, 2018
4/14/2018
As Seen On Twitter
This is why the focus on Trump’s awfulness often misses the point. It does matter how horrible one candidate is if the other option are people who openly hate you and are proud of their hate. https://t.co/YW0RMzCrIg
— Frank J. Fleming (@IMAO_) April 14, 2018
3/30/2018
3/08/2018
Left and Lefter in California
Left and Lefter in California
The California Democratic Party's refusal to endorse the reelection of Senator Dianne Feinstein represents a breaking point both for the state's progressives and, arguably, the future of the party nationwide. Feinstein symbolizes, if anyone does, the old Democratic establishment that, while far from conservative, nevertheless appealed to many mainstream businesses and affluent suburban voters.
1/28/2014
The Difference
When the Census Bureau releases its latest population estimates on Monday, demographers expect that Florida and New York will be narrowly separated — perhaps by as little as a few thousand people — and that if Florida does not pass New York this time, it almost certainly will do so in 2014.
NY Times Dec. 26, 2013
When this news came out recently it did not immediately hit me with the potential significant opportunity it presented, but it has now, I'll explain in a bit.
Have you ever watched a commercial that just irritated you? I'm sure you have most people watch commercials that rub you wrong way. For the past few months there has been a commercial playing regularly here in Florida, I do not know if it is national or not I suspect it is, put out by the State of New York.
The commercial is part of Governor Cuomo's Start-Up NY campaign to entice businesses to move to New York. They are doing this by creating "tax free zones" for businesses in special "zones" in the state for ten years. So if you are a business, the idea is that you will move to a "zone" of New York in order to enjoy 10 years without any state taxes.
There are a lot of strings attached and regulatory obligations involved in the much touted program, which is spending millions of tax payer's money on the add campaign which will be a total boondoggle.
There is a reason people and businesses move out of their home states such as New York to states like Florida and it is not just the weather, it has to do with the old adage that "capital goes where it is wanted." People move their money and themselves where it is protected.
But what irritates me about the StartUp NY commercials is not that I know the whole enterprise is doomed to fail, it is the hypocrisy. There is no bluer" state than New York, they just elected a socialist mayor of New York for goodness sake! Andrew Cuomo despite any electioneering spin to the contrary is a dyed in the wool old fashioned tax and spend liberal who fervently believes in big government. So what does this bluest of blue states, run by the bluest of blue politicians do to try to attract businesses back into their lair? They cut taxes for evil businesses.
This is why the fact that these two states Florida and New York having virtually identical populations is such an opportunity, a very liberal blue state compared to a conservative red state. Every statewide elected official in New York is a Democrat while every state wide elected official except one in Florida is a Republican. New York's congressional delegation is 21-6 Democrat over Republican while Florida's delegation is 17-10 Republican over Democrat. The governor and both houses of the legislature in New York is Democrat, the Governor and both house of the legislature in Florida is Republican.
So let's compare two states with the same population but with opposing political philosophies.
Florida has a corporate tax rate of between 0 and 5%. New York has a corporate rate of 0 to 7.1%.
Florida has no state income taxes at all-for anyone, New York's state income tax rate starts at 4% for an individual making over $7500 and a couple making $15,000 and rises to a maximum of 8.82% for individuals making $1,029,250 or couples making $2,058,550.
Florida has a state sales tax of 6%, New York has a sales tax is 4%.
The average Florida homeowner pays 3.31 % of their income in property taxes 18th highest in the nation. The average New York home owner pays 5.02% of their income in property taxes the 6th highest in the nation.
The median house price in Florida is $182,400 -23rd highest in the nation. The median house price in New York is $306,000-4th highest in the nation.
The 2011-2012 two year average median household income in Florida is $46,059 down from 47,566 in the 2009-2010 average a 3.2% decrease. The 2011-2012 two year average median household income in New York is $$49,687 down from $53,062 in the 2009-2010 average, a decrease 6.4 %.
As of December 2013, Florida had an unemployment rate of 6.2% tied with three other states for 22nd highest (below the national average). New York had an unemployment rate of 7.1% which was 36th highest in the nation
(above the national average).
Here is where we really see the differences in political philosophy. Remember these two states now have virtually the same population
2013 State Budget
Florida 69.9 Billion, New York 132.6 billion
State Debt
Florida- $134,900,802,000 / Each citizen's share $7,078.60.-
New York -$305,308,390,000/ Each citizen's share $15,415.52
The final category is the one the liberals love to point out without ever putting it in context and that is federal aid to the states. Liberals love to point to studies which show that "red" states depend on Federal Aid far more than "Blue" states. However the data they use is based on the percentage of a states general revenue budget which is made up of federal aid. So the higher your budget is (the bigger the government is), the less the percentage will be
Consider that as you realize that Florida's budget is 69.9 billion while New York's budget is 132.6 billion. Even if both states received the exact same amount in federal aid the percentage Florida receives would be far more than New York receives. But even using that deceptive way of calculating federal aid Florida receives 36.9% of its budget from federal aide which is the 23rd most of any state while New York receives 40.4% of its much more massive budget from federal aide which is 10th highest of any state!
If, however, you calculate federal aid on a per capita basis which is a much more objective way of looking at the issue, it is even more dramatic. Florida's per capita federal aid is $901.87 per citizen which ranks 48th in the nation. New York which remember is exactly the same size as Florida receives $2301.14 per citizen in federal aid which is 4th most in the nation, following Alaska (3), Vermont (2), and The District of Columbia (1).
Florida does not mooch off the rest of the nation, New York certainly does.
If the federal government ever makes one "fair" change to the tax code the migration from blue to red states will be a flood. If they ever eliminate the federal deduction on state taxes, blue states will either turn red or they will lose half their citizens, the half who are not on state or federal aid.
This in a rather large nutshell is a major reason why there is such political polarization in America today, two diametrically opposed views on how to govern. Tax and spend versus let people keep their own money, One grows an economy, one stagnates it. But more important one frees people while the other puts people in bonds to government.
It is really rather simple though if New Yorkers thought they were getting their monies worth out of big government they would not be leaving and moving to Florida and other less restrictive states . It's not the weather, its the freedom.
StartUp NY is really nothing more than liberal foolishness trying to avoid ShutDown NY.
7/23/2013
Suicide by Government
Via-NRO
Detroit is responsible for its own demise.
By Rich Lowry
The case of the city of Detroit isn’t much of a murder mystery. Various suspects have been fingered in its demise: The global economy. The fall of the auto industry. The decline of manufacturing generally. But it’s simpler than that. Detroit died of its own hand.
The city undertook a controlled experiment in what happens if you are governed by a toxic combination of Great Society big spenders, race hustlers, crooks, public-sector unions, and ineffectual reformers. It spent and misgoverned itself into the ground. It tried to defy the axiom of the late economist Herb Stein that “if something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Detroit’s bout of self-destruction lasted for a few decades, and now may finally stop only when there is little left to destroy.
The city was at the pioneering edge of urban liberalism and discovered that all the social spending in the world doesn’t deliver order, family stability, education, economic dynamism, or effective governance. In the hands of Detroit’s rotten political class, it proved inimical to all of those things.
The city’s downfall started long before anyone imagined that the Big Three would ever be anything but overwhelmingly dominant. Hardly anyone had heard of Toyota in 1967, when riots ripped the city and a long crime wave began that made it unlivable. According to Henry Payne of the Detroit News, the murder rate climbed from 13 per 100,000 residents in 1966 to 51 per 100,000 by 1976.
Detroit is responsible for its own demise.
By Rich Lowry
The case of the city of Detroit isn’t much of a murder mystery. Various suspects have been fingered in its demise: The global economy. The fall of the auto industry. The decline of manufacturing generally. But it’s simpler than that. Detroit died of its own hand.
The city undertook a controlled experiment in what happens if you are governed by a toxic combination of Great Society big spenders, race hustlers, crooks, public-sector unions, and ineffectual reformers. It spent and misgoverned itself into the ground. It tried to defy the axiom of the late economist Herb Stein that “if something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Detroit’s bout of self-destruction lasted for a few decades, and now may finally stop only when there is little left to destroy.
The city was at the pioneering edge of urban liberalism and discovered that all the social spending in the world doesn’t deliver order, family stability, education, economic dynamism, or effective governance. In the hands of Detroit’s rotten political class, it proved inimical to all of those things.
The city’s downfall started long before anyone imagined that the Big Three would ever be anything but overwhelmingly dominant. Hardly anyone had heard of Toyota in 1967, when riots ripped the city and a long crime wave began that made it unlivable. According to Henry Payne of the Detroit News, the murder rate climbed from 13 per 100,000 residents in 1966 to 51 per 100,000 by 1976.
6/25/2013
The End of the World
Via-Front Page Magazine
By Daniel Greenfield
Two years ago, the media had a prolonged belly laugh at a group that predicted the end of the world. Now media outlets from The New York Times to The New Republic to The Economist are wrestling with the question of why their own ideology’s doomsday predictions are not coming to pass.
“If scientific models can’t project the last 15 years, what does that mean for their projections of the next 100?,” the New Republic asks. It means that the world isn’t going to end. Even as Obama exploits Global Warming to launch a War on Affordable Energy, the doomsday environmentalists look as foolish as any other group that set a date for the end of the world, only for the world to stubbornly go on existing.True believers in Gore would say that’s the difference between science and eschatology. But when bogus science warns us of an apocalypse if we don’t follow the tenets of their ideology, then how much difference is there anyway?Of course no one expects MSNBC to do sneering reports of global warming activists freezing at a protest or Al Gore being forced to watch a count down of a solidly frozen North Pole. Such mockery is only directed at people who believe in more unpopular forms of apocalypses. At least unpopular at the broadcasting studios of Manhattan. It’s fashionable to mock religious leaders for hypocrisy, but there isn’t a peep when the Vice President turned Prophet of Gaia lectures on watching our carbon footprint and then flies on jet fueled carbon wings to another concert on behalf of the planet.Other aspiring prophets like Prince Charles, who admires poverty, but lives in privilege, are no better. Or Obama who told Americans that they couldn’t heat their homes as they pleased, while keeping his thermostat up to Hawaiian standards.If the invariably prosperous believers in Death by Global Warming really believed in the creed, wouldn’t they be selling their homes and cars, and going off to live a simpler life in the Himalayan mountains. But it’s easier to believe in something than to practice it.Like all liberal social engineering projects, environmentalism is meant to change everyone’s life. And there’s no point in its proponents doing more than paying lip service to it, as they make it the law of the land. If Osama bin Laden could preach Islamic morality while stocking up on X rated tapes, surely Al Gore can foretell the doom of the North Pole and still take a private jet around the world.If liberals have turned to doomsday predictions, it’s because they have discovered that religion and the apocalypse can be a marvelously effective way of controlling human behavior. But their religion is materialistic, concerned with the human presence in the natural world. Even its materialism is consumeristic.
The Reds had no truck with environmentalism. To a Communist, the natural world was a mass of raw resources to be used to build socialism. But to the children of the capitalists, concerned more with what they buy, than with what they do, environmentalism restraints and directs their buying habits. As religions goes, environmentalism is the Consumer Reports of theologies.
For all the talk of apocalypse and melting poles, the environmentalists really only care about your economic activity. Buy or don’t buy. But preferably buy, so long as you’re buying green, or buying carbon credits along with whatever you’re buying.
The sinner fills up on paper towels, but the righteous man buys paper towels with a green stamp on the box. The man of little faith may drive an SUV, and the faithful may also drive an SUV, but the faithful man’s SUV has a bumper sticker warning everyone to conserve something or other. Such hypocrisies are constant, pervasive and little commented on.
What began as a movement for the responsible stewardship of the earth has been corrupted from the ethical to the fanatical. Conservationism kept humanity in the picture. Environmentalism rages at humanity. Behind its colorful drawings and its dolphin key chains is the vision of a world in which humanity and its fire sticks are the original sin.That primal rage has been channeled and diluted into a million businesses, into countless regulations and profitable ventures. The new environmentalists are regulatory robber barons like Al Gore, green rent seeking tycoons looking to use cap and trade, and a thousand mandatory revenue streams to fleece both the faithful and the unfaithful. There is no further way to corrupt environmentalism, its existence is already an abiding corruption. For the false prophets, the lab coated peddlers of junk science and the writers dreaming up ever more fanciful depictions of the day when the oceans rise and man finds himself paddling for safety besides the polar bear, there is nothing left but the lie.
The religious apocalypse is the break between a fallen world and a better world. But in the environmental apocalypse, it is only the end. Materialistic eschatology cannot see any way past the end or any purpose for it. Only a Waterworld in which some of us develop gills and others have to learn to kayak.
The threat of their end of days is meant to badger us into bowing our heads and opening our wallets. Buy Green or the North Pole will end in 5 years. Bicycle to work or a polar bear will chew your ear off. Their end of days lacks imagination and proof. It is constantly imminent, yet never arrives. It is held to be proven so thoroughly that it can never be disproven. And who would want to disprove it, except someone who doesn’t already have a grant to prove it.
There’s hardly a problem in the world that the media doesn’t blame on Global Warming. When it’s hot, they point to Global Warming. When it’s cold, they also point to Global Warming. Earthquakes, civil wars and the end of WiFi are all laid at the door of one single phenomenon. The difference between religion and science is that one is revealed truth and the other is theory. But when men and women in lab coats start predicting the end of days if the heretics don’t repent and cast out their incandescent light bulbs and SUV’s, then what you have is theory as revealed truth. An experiment in eschatology.
Science requires objectivity. Combine science with ideology and you get a mandatory belief in absurdity. Everyone who self-righteously insists that global warming is science misses the point. The scientific orthodoxy of every generation has embraced ridiculous and wrongheaded theories. Science is not a pure form of revealed truth, it is the trial and error process by which we crawl toward a better understanding. A less flawed picture of the universe. Turn the scientific orthodoxy of any era into a mandatory ideology and you have killed the science and left only another belief system.
Environmentalists parade around the corpse of science on their shoulders, mount it on their walls and proclaim that science is on their side. Once you completely murder a system of using trial and error experimentation to confirm a theory, then you might as well use it as a banner on a flagpole or a trophy in your living room. But the environmentalist’ science has as much relation to a living field, as the head of a dead moose mounted over a bed and breakfast’s fireplace does to a living creature.
Ideology has killed science and now claims its intellectual credibility for its own. But purging dissenting scientists, burning books and silencing all critics with jeers is not science, no more than what passed for it in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was science. It is the fanaticism of an ideology, the championing of backwardness, the exploitation of titles and terminology to silence debate and betray the ethical trust of inquiry.
The end of the world? The same people who ridicule religious people waiting for the end, are waiting for their own end of the world without any real faith in it.
Their end of the world is only another consumeristic strategy for convincing people to buy the right brands and donate to the right causes. It is as hollow as everything else.
No one will hang around with a count down clock in 2014 and wait for the North Pole to end. Not even if Gore’s prediction were better known. Those who believe in Global Warming, paradoxically don’t really believe that the world could actually end. They may eat up the cinematic spectacle of oceans rising, cities sinking underwater and whales doing belly flops over the Grand Canyon, but it never really touches them.
To understand why is to understand the purpose of environmentalism. Its harsh criticism of consumerism turns it into a moral activity. The Whole Foods shopper is elevated above the Wal-Mart shopper. The woman who buys sneakers made of recycled tires isn’t shopping, she’s engaged in an ethical communion with the earth. Environmentalism is the theology of consumerism, uplifting it rather than proscribing it, taking a cut of ordinary economic activities in exchange for its blessing.
Environmentalism is the religion of the comfortable, and the theology of the convenient. It injects a false spirituality into the materialism of the faithless. There is nothing to it but greed. From the false prophets spinning tales of the end, to scientists doing a more elevated version of the same for grant money to scribes envisioning the end for a lucrative book or movie deal. It’s not the end of the world they’re waiting for, but a commercial break.
By Daniel Greenfield
Two years ago, the media had a prolonged belly laugh at a group that predicted the end of the world. Now media outlets from The New York Times to The New Republic to The Economist are wrestling with the question of why their own ideology’s doomsday predictions are not coming to pass.
“If scientific models can’t project the last 15 years, what does that mean for their projections of the next 100?,” the New Republic asks. It means that the world isn’t going to end. Even as Obama exploits Global Warming to launch a War on Affordable Energy, the doomsday environmentalists look as foolish as any other group that set a date for the end of the world, only for the world to stubbornly go on existing.True believers in Gore would say that’s the difference between science and eschatology. But when bogus science warns us of an apocalypse if we don’t follow the tenets of their ideology, then how much difference is there anyway?Of course no one expects MSNBC to do sneering reports of global warming activists freezing at a protest or Al Gore being forced to watch a count down of a solidly frozen North Pole. Such mockery is only directed at people who believe in more unpopular forms of apocalypses. At least unpopular at the broadcasting studios of Manhattan. It’s fashionable to mock religious leaders for hypocrisy, but there isn’t a peep when the Vice President turned Prophet of Gaia lectures on watching our carbon footprint and then flies on jet fueled carbon wings to another concert on behalf of the planet.Other aspiring prophets like Prince Charles, who admires poverty, but lives in privilege, are no better. Or Obama who told Americans that they couldn’t heat their homes as they pleased, while keeping his thermostat up to Hawaiian standards.If the invariably prosperous believers in Death by Global Warming really believed in the creed, wouldn’t they be selling their homes and cars, and going off to live a simpler life in the Himalayan mountains. But it’s easier to believe in something than to practice it.Like all liberal social engineering projects, environmentalism is meant to change everyone’s life. And there’s no point in its proponents doing more than paying lip service to it, as they make it the law of the land. If Osama bin Laden could preach Islamic morality while stocking up on X rated tapes, surely Al Gore can foretell the doom of the North Pole and still take a private jet around the world.If liberals have turned to doomsday predictions, it’s because they have discovered that religion and the apocalypse can be a marvelously effective way of controlling human behavior. But their religion is materialistic, concerned with the human presence in the natural world. Even its materialism is consumeristic.
The Reds had no truck with environmentalism. To a Communist, the natural world was a mass of raw resources to be used to build socialism. But to the children of the capitalists, concerned more with what they buy, than with what they do, environmentalism restraints and directs their buying habits. As religions goes, environmentalism is the Consumer Reports of theologies.
For all the talk of apocalypse and melting poles, the environmentalists really only care about your economic activity. Buy or don’t buy. But preferably buy, so long as you’re buying green, or buying carbon credits along with whatever you’re buying.
The sinner fills up on paper towels, but the righteous man buys paper towels with a green stamp on the box. The man of little faith may drive an SUV, and the faithful may also drive an SUV, but the faithful man’s SUV has a bumper sticker warning everyone to conserve something or other. Such hypocrisies are constant, pervasive and little commented on.
What began as a movement for the responsible stewardship of the earth has been corrupted from the ethical to the fanatical. Conservationism kept humanity in the picture. Environmentalism rages at humanity. Behind its colorful drawings and its dolphin key chains is the vision of a world in which humanity and its fire sticks are the original sin.That primal rage has been channeled and diluted into a million businesses, into countless regulations and profitable ventures. The new environmentalists are regulatory robber barons like Al Gore, green rent seeking tycoons looking to use cap and trade, and a thousand mandatory revenue streams to fleece both the faithful and the unfaithful. There is no further way to corrupt environmentalism, its existence is already an abiding corruption. For the false prophets, the lab coated peddlers of junk science and the writers dreaming up ever more fanciful depictions of the day when the oceans rise and man finds himself paddling for safety besides the polar bear, there is nothing left but the lie.
The religious apocalypse is the break between a fallen world and a better world. But in the environmental apocalypse, it is only the end. Materialistic eschatology cannot see any way past the end or any purpose for it. Only a Waterworld in which some of us develop gills and others have to learn to kayak.
The threat of their end of days is meant to badger us into bowing our heads and opening our wallets. Buy Green or the North Pole will end in 5 years. Bicycle to work or a polar bear will chew your ear off. Their end of days lacks imagination and proof. It is constantly imminent, yet never arrives. It is held to be proven so thoroughly that it can never be disproven. And who would want to disprove it, except someone who doesn’t already have a grant to prove it.
There’s hardly a problem in the world that the media doesn’t blame on Global Warming. When it’s hot, they point to Global Warming. When it’s cold, they also point to Global Warming. Earthquakes, civil wars and the end of WiFi are all laid at the door of one single phenomenon. The difference between religion and science is that one is revealed truth and the other is theory. But when men and women in lab coats start predicting the end of days if the heretics don’t repent and cast out their incandescent light bulbs and SUV’s, then what you have is theory as revealed truth. An experiment in eschatology.
Science requires objectivity. Combine science with ideology and you get a mandatory belief in absurdity. Everyone who self-righteously insists that global warming is science misses the point. The scientific orthodoxy of every generation has embraced ridiculous and wrongheaded theories. Science is not a pure form of revealed truth, it is the trial and error process by which we crawl toward a better understanding. A less flawed picture of the universe. Turn the scientific orthodoxy of any era into a mandatory ideology and you have killed the science and left only another belief system.
Environmentalists parade around the corpse of science on their shoulders, mount it on their walls and proclaim that science is on their side. Once you completely murder a system of using trial and error experimentation to confirm a theory, then you might as well use it as a banner on a flagpole or a trophy in your living room. But the environmentalist’ science has as much relation to a living field, as the head of a dead moose mounted over a bed and breakfast’s fireplace does to a living creature.
Ideology has killed science and now claims its intellectual credibility for its own. But purging dissenting scientists, burning books and silencing all critics with jeers is not science, no more than what passed for it in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was science. It is the fanaticism of an ideology, the championing of backwardness, the exploitation of titles and terminology to silence debate and betray the ethical trust of inquiry.
The end of the world? The same people who ridicule religious people waiting for the end, are waiting for their own end of the world without any real faith in it.
Their end of the world is only another consumeristic strategy for convincing people to buy the right brands and donate to the right causes. It is as hollow as everything else.
No one will hang around with a count down clock in 2014 and wait for the North Pole to end. Not even if Gore’s prediction were better known. Those who believe in Global Warming, paradoxically don’t really believe that the world could actually end. They may eat up the cinematic spectacle of oceans rising, cities sinking underwater and whales doing belly flops over the Grand Canyon, but it never really touches them.
To understand why is to understand the purpose of environmentalism. Its harsh criticism of consumerism turns it into a moral activity. The Whole Foods shopper is elevated above the Wal-Mart shopper. The woman who buys sneakers made of recycled tires isn’t shopping, she’s engaged in an ethical communion with the earth. Environmentalism is the theology of consumerism, uplifting it rather than proscribing it, taking a cut of ordinary economic activities in exchange for its blessing.
Environmentalism is the religion of the comfortable, and the theology of the convenient. It injects a false spirituality into the materialism of the faithless. There is nothing to it but greed. From the false prophets spinning tales of the end, to scientists doing a more elevated version of the same for grant money to scribes envisioning the end for a lucrative book or movie deal. It’s not the end of the world they’re waiting for, but a commercial break.
4/08/2013
Guns Responsible for Global Warming
from The American Spectator
by Jed Babbin
Frustration is taking its toll in the liberals’ war against guns. President Obama, pushing his broad gun control agenda, said we should be ashamed if we’ve forgotten the Newtown shooting so soon. The New York Times opined that Obama is being shouted down by the “gun lobby,” even though he and Biden had been crisscrossing the country “…making a forceful case for a package of laws that would reduce gun violence.”
That, of course, is the media narrative on gun control. For every issue there is a narrative: a set of assumptions and boundaries of thought with which every story (and editorial) is tailored to agree. False narratives usually serve the left well. For over eighteen months, American politics was forced into as media narrative tat ignored everything else and focused on Obamacare which, we were told, would make healthcare cheaper and more available, the precise opposites of its effect. For months before that, we were told Obama’s “stimulus” would create tens of thousands of jobs and get our economy growing. It did no such thing, but the media narrative helped it become law.
Now the gun control narrative is equally false, and borders on the insane. It has become so wacky that it resembles the left’s hysteria on “global warming.”
4/02/2013
Inconvenient Headlines
Via-RCP
By Mona Charen
It's a deeply felt conviction among liberals that they are the caring party. It's not too much to say that liberals are quite confident that they are nicer, more moral people than conservatives.
It must require truly titanic powers of denial for the "moral" and "compassionate" party to maintain its position on abortion -- a position that leads them into some macabre rationalizations. Consciences among the morally superior party are agreeably quiescent.
But recent headlines have not been similarly cooperative. In Florida, the legislature is considering a variant of the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act," which would require that abortionists provide medical assistance to infants who are "accidentally" born alive and kicking during an abortion. (Then State Senator Barack Obama vociferously opposed similar legislation in Illinois.)
Ms. Alisa LaPolt Snow, representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified against the bill. Florida representative Jim Boyd, apparently unsure that he had understood her correctly, asked:
"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I'm almost in disbelief. If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?"
Ms. Snow responded that her organization "believes that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician." In short, as the Weekly Standard summarized, Florida Planned Parenthood is in favor of "post-birth abortion." This is consistent with the position of the president of the United States and most members of the caring party.
Ms. Snow was asked why she didn't support simply transporting a breathing, moving infant to a hospital where he or she would have the best chance of survival. Snow developed a sudden concern for ambulance convenience: "(T)hose situations where it is in a rural health care setting, the hospital is 45 minutes or an hour away, that's the closest trauma center or emergency room. You know there's just some logistical issues involved that we have some concerns about." Really? Logistical concerns?
So if a baby is brought to a rural clinic suffering from, say, meningitis, and the nearest trauma center is 45 minutes away, does Planned Parenthood have "concerns" about the "logistical issues" involved? Or does Planned Parenthood stand for the principle that when a woman chooses abortion, she is entitled to a dead baby?
By Mona Charen
It's a deeply felt conviction among liberals that they are the caring party. It's not too much to say that liberals are quite confident that they are nicer, more moral people than conservatives.
It must require truly titanic powers of denial for the "moral" and "compassionate" party to maintain its position on abortion -- a position that leads them into some macabre rationalizations. Consciences among the morally superior party are agreeably quiescent.
But recent headlines have not been similarly cooperative. In Florida, the legislature is considering a variant of the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act," which would require that abortionists provide medical assistance to infants who are "accidentally" born alive and kicking during an abortion. (Then State Senator Barack Obama vociferously opposed similar legislation in Illinois.)
Ms. Alisa LaPolt Snow, representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified against the bill. Florida representative Jim Boyd, apparently unsure that he had understood her correctly, asked:
"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I'm almost in disbelief. If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?"
Ms. Snow responded that her organization "believes that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician." In short, as the Weekly Standard summarized, Florida Planned Parenthood is in favor of "post-birth abortion." This is consistent with the position of the president of the United States and most members of the caring party.
Ms. Snow was asked why she didn't support simply transporting a breathing, moving infant to a hospital where he or she would have the best chance of survival. Snow developed a sudden concern for ambulance convenience: "(T)hose situations where it is in a rural health care setting, the hospital is 45 minutes or an hour away, that's the closest trauma center or emergency room. You know there's just some logistical issues involved that we have some concerns about." Really? Logistical concerns?
So if a baby is brought to a rural clinic suffering from, say, meningitis, and the nearest trauma center is 45 minutes away, does Planned Parenthood have "concerns" about the "logistical issues" involved? Or does Planned Parenthood stand for the principle that when a woman chooses abortion, she is entitled to a dead baby?
3/21/2013
Bill Maher’s Tax Hypocrisy
Via-Front Page Magazine
By Ben Shapiro
Last Friday night, Bill Maher spent time on his HBO show blasting away at liberal tax policy. “You know what?” he asked. “Rich people – I’m sure you’d agree with this – actually do pay the freight in this country.” After noting that California’s wealthy carry the vast bulk of the tax burden in the state, he said, “I just want to say liberals – you could actually lose me. It’s outrageous what we’re paying – over 50 percent. I’m willing to pay my share, but yeah, it’s ridiculous.”
This is a far cry from Maher’s 2010 perspective on taxation. Back then, he said, “I’ve done some math that indicates that, considering the hole this country is in, if you are earning more than a million dollars a year and are complaining about a 3.6% tax increase, then you are by definition a greedy a–hole.”
So why is Maher saying now that he’s sick of taxes, when just a couple years ago, he felt that standing against class warfare made people “greedy a—holes”?
Hollywood is full of hypocritical millionaires who stash their cash in offshore accounts to avoid taxes, buy goods using cash, and take every tax deduction they possibly can. These are the same folks who loudly proclaim the evils of capitalism while partying on Sunset Blvd. with their friends. They order thousand-dollar bottles of wine while complaining about the fate of impoverished youth in the inner city. They own private jets but whine about income inequality.
By Ben Shapiro
Last Friday night, Bill Maher spent time on his HBO show blasting away at liberal tax policy. “You know what?” he asked. “Rich people – I’m sure you’d agree with this – actually do pay the freight in this country.” After noting that California’s wealthy carry the vast bulk of the tax burden in the state, he said, “I just want to say liberals – you could actually lose me. It’s outrageous what we’re paying – over 50 percent. I’m willing to pay my share, but yeah, it’s ridiculous.”
This is a far cry from Maher’s 2010 perspective on taxation. Back then, he said, “I’ve done some math that indicates that, considering the hole this country is in, if you are earning more than a million dollars a year and are complaining about a 3.6% tax increase, then you are by definition a greedy a–hole.”
So why is Maher saying now that he’s sick of taxes, when just a couple years ago, he felt that standing against class warfare made people “greedy a—holes”?
Hollywood is full of hypocritical millionaires who stash their cash in offshore accounts to avoid taxes, buy goods using cash, and take every tax deduction they possibly can. These are the same folks who loudly proclaim the evils of capitalism while partying on Sunset Blvd. with their friends. They order thousand-dollar bottles of wine while complaining about the fate of impoverished youth in the inner city. They own private jets but whine about income inequality.
3/13/2013
Understanding the Left’s Demands on What Others Own
Via-American Spectator
By J.T. Young
What it can’t control the left will call unfair and undemocratic.
The Left’s inherent challenge is justifying their claim to what others own. This challenge arises from the contradiction between the Left’s motivating ideology and the failure of its economic application. Understanding this inevitable contradiction and the necessity it creates enables us to understand everything else the Left think, say, and do.
Nowhere is the hypocrisy of accusing others of one’s own greatest fault clearer than with the Left. The accusation in question is materialism — the charge with which they seek to indict capitalism. Yet, it is the Left themselves who are utterly captivated and defined by material production.
If there is a political embodiment of the ethos of greed, it is not capitalism, but socialism, where everything is reduced to no more than a means to that society’s self-professed end: material production. While Marx explicitly made this the basis of everything — not only in socialist and communist societies, but all human history — it is no less the implicit motivator of the rest of the Left.
However it is perhaps history’s greatest irony that the Left consciously choose to eschew capitalism — history’s most efficient means of producing the material resources they require. The Left deny the equity of any distribution of resources that they do not control. Capitalism is therefore the most egregious violation of their sense of fairness, because it is premised on a lack of control — i.e., a free market.
As a result all Leftist systems are rooted in a profound and insoluble contradiction: an ideology of producing a materially superior society that is doomed in practice to be a materially inferior one.
By J.T. Young
What it can’t control the left will call unfair and undemocratic.
The Left’s inherent challenge is justifying their claim to what others own. This challenge arises from the contradiction between the Left’s motivating ideology and the failure of its economic application. Understanding this inevitable contradiction and the necessity it creates enables us to understand everything else the Left think, say, and do.
Nowhere is the hypocrisy of accusing others of one’s own greatest fault clearer than with the Left. The accusation in question is materialism — the charge with which they seek to indict capitalism. Yet, it is the Left themselves who are utterly captivated and defined by material production.
If there is a political embodiment of the ethos of greed, it is not capitalism, but socialism, where everything is reduced to no more than a means to that society’s self-professed end: material production. While Marx explicitly made this the basis of everything — not only in socialist and communist societies, but all human history — it is no less the implicit motivator of the rest of the Left.
However it is perhaps history’s greatest irony that the Left consciously choose to eschew capitalism — history’s most efficient means of producing the material resources they require. The Left deny the equity of any distribution of resources that they do not control. Capitalism is therefore the most egregious violation of their sense of fairness, because it is premised on a lack of control — i.e., a free market.
As a result all Leftist systems are rooted in a profound and insoluble contradiction: an ideology of producing a materially superior society that is doomed in practice to be a materially inferior one.
1/30/2013
How the Left Thinks
Via-Front Page Magazine
By Dennis Prager
To understand leftism, the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years, you have to understand how the left thinks. The 2013 inaugural address of President Barack Obama provides one such opportunity.
–”What makes us exceptional — what makes us American — is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’”
What American does not resonate to a president reaffirming this magnificent statement from our Declaration of Independence?
But here’s the intellectual sleight of hand: “What makes us exceptional — what makes us American” is indeed the belief that rights come from God.
But this seminal idea is not mentioned again in the entire inaugural address. This was most unfortunate. An inaugural address that would concentrate on the decreasing significance of God in American life — one of the left’s proudest accomplishments — would address what may well be the single most important development in the last half-century of American life.
–”We learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.”
If there is one word that most excites progressives, it is “new.” (“Old” turns the left off: Judeo-Christian religions and the Constitution are two such examples.) The fact is that Americans did not make “themselves anew” after the Civil War. What they did was finally affirm what was old — the Founders’ belief that “all men are created equal.”Read entire article
Read entire article
By Dennis Prager
To understand leftism, the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years, you have to understand how the left thinks. The 2013 inaugural address of President Barack Obama provides one such opportunity.
–”What makes us exceptional — what makes us American — is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’”
What American does not resonate to a president reaffirming this magnificent statement from our Declaration of Independence?
But here’s the intellectual sleight of hand: “What makes us exceptional — what makes us American” is indeed the belief that rights come from God.
But this seminal idea is not mentioned again in the entire inaugural address. This was most unfortunate. An inaugural address that would concentrate on the decreasing significance of God in American life — one of the left’s proudest accomplishments — would address what may well be the single most important development in the last half-century of American life.
–”We learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.”
If there is one word that most excites progressives, it is “new.” (“Old” turns the left off: Judeo-Christian religions and the Constitution are two such examples.) The fact is that Americans did not make “themselves anew” after the Civil War. What they did was finally affirm what was old — the Founders’ belief that “all men are created equal.”Read entire article
Read entire article
1/09/2013
Why can’t Republicans enforce law against Harry Reid?
Via-Washington Examiner
Byron York
Many of the responses I’ve gotten to my article on the Republican plan to use the debt ceiling as leverage to force Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to pass a budget have been along these lines: If it is against the law for Congress not to pass a budget (and it is), and if Harry Reid is violating that law (and he is), then why can’t something be done about it? Why can’t Reid be charged with something? Or perhaps a lawsuit be brought?
The answer is the law requiring Congress to pass an annual budget, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism. Lawmakers are required by law to pass a budget each year by April 15, but there’s no provision to punish them, or even slightly inconvenience them, if they don’t. In Reid’s case, the Senate last passed a budget in April 2009, 1,351 days ago as of Wednesday.
“The law doesn’t have teeth,” says a Senate aide involved in the fight. “Sen. Sessions and others have proposed process reforms to give the budget law teeth (one reform would make it harder to pass spending bills without a budget), but the debt ceiling is the strongest leverage we have on this. This is the opportunity.”
Read entire article
Many of the responses I’ve gotten to my article on the Republican plan to use the debt ceiling as leverage to force Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to pass a budget have been along these lines: If it is against the law for Congress not to pass a budget (and it is), and if Harry Reid is violating that law (and he is), then why can’t something be done about it? Why can’t Reid be charged with something? Or perhaps a lawsuit be brought?
The answer is the law requiring Congress to pass an annual budget, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism. Lawmakers are required by law to pass a budget each year by April 15, but there’s no provision to punish them, or even slightly inconvenience them, if they don’t. In Reid’s case, the Senate last passed a budget in April 2009, 1,351 days ago as of Wednesday.
“The law doesn’t have teeth,” says a Senate aide involved in the fight. “Sen. Sessions and others have proposed process reforms to give the budget law teeth (one reform would make it harder to pass spending bills without a budget), but the debt ceiling is the strongest leverage we have on this. This is the opportunity.”
Read entire article
12/21/2012
Liberal Obsession With Race is Growing Old
Via-Chicago Tribune
Jonah Goldberg
When will liberals stop living in the past? Specifically, when will they accept that they aren't all that stands between a wonderful, tolerant America and Jim Crow?
I was in the room when, during the Democratic convention, civil rights hero John Lewis suggested that Republicans wanted to "go back" to the days when black men like him could be beaten in the street by the enforcers of Jim Crow. I thought it an outrageous and disgusting bit of demagoguery. The audience of Democratic delegates cheered in a riot of self-congratulation.
It's bizarre. I spend most of my time talking or listening to fellow conservatives, and I never hear anybody talk about wanting anything of the sort. But to listen to liberals, that's all we care about.
Toward the end of the presidential campaign, various liberal pundits -- a great many of them born after the signing of the Civil Rights Act -- thought it a brilliant and damning indictment to note that Mitt Romney ran strong in states that once comprised the Confederacy. When Barack Obama won, Jon Stewart conceded that at least Romney won "most of the Confederacy."
These states committed the obvious sin of voting Republican while the president was black.
Jonah Goldberg
When will liberals stop living in the past? Specifically, when will they accept that they aren't all that stands between a wonderful, tolerant America and Jim Crow?
I was in the room when, during the Democratic convention, civil rights hero John Lewis suggested that Republicans wanted to "go back" to the days when black men like him could be beaten in the street by the enforcers of Jim Crow. I thought it an outrageous and disgusting bit of demagoguery. The audience of Democratic delegates cheered in a riot of self-congratulation.
It's bizarre. I spend most of my time talking or listening to fellow conservatives, and I never hear anybody talk about wanting anything of the sort. But to listen to liberals, that's all we care about.
Toward the end of the presidential campaign, various liberal pundits -- a great many of them born after the signing of the Civil Rights Act -- thought it a brilliant and damning indictment to note that Mitt Romney ran strong in states that once comprised the Confederacy. When Barack Obama won, Jon Stewart conceded that at least Romney won "most of the Confederacy."
These states committed the obvious sin of voting Republican while the president was black.
12/07/2012
The Stone truth: Left-wingers are boring
Via-Chicago Tribune
Jonah Goldberg
When, at long last, will people understand that the left is boring?
The question came to mind as I was dipping in and out of Oliver Stone's miasmic 700-plus-page tome. I'll never read the whole thing, and not because it's a left-wing screed full of slimy distortions about the evils of the United States (though that doesn't help). It's that it's boring.
Stone and co-author Peter Kuznick call their book "The Untold History of the United States," except, again, it isn't. This story has been told countless times before. As the Daily Beast's Michael Moynihan notes in a devastating review, Stone and Kuznick offer no new research, and much of the old research they rely on has been rendered moot by more recent discoveries since the Berlin Wall came down.
Still, what vexes me about the book isn't really the substance. What bothers me is the manufactured rebelliousness, the kitschy nostalgic play-acting of the thing. The 66-year old Stone can be an original filmmaker, but he is a stale old Red when it comes to politics.
Jonah Goldberg
When, at long last, will people understand that the left is boring?
The question came to mind as I was dipping in and out of Oliver Stone's miasmic 700-plus-page tome. I'll never read the whole thing, and not because it's a left-wing screed full of slimy distortions about the evils of the United States (though that doesn't help). It's that it's boring.
Stone and co-author Peter Kuznick call their book "The Untold History of the United States," except, again, it isn't. This story has been told countless times before. As the Daily Beast's Michael Moynihan notes in a devastating review, Stone and Kuznick offer no new research, and much of the old research they rely on has been rendered moot by more recent discoveries since the Berlin Wall came down.
Still, what vexes me about the book isn't really the substance. What bothers me is the manufactured rebelliousness, the kitschy nostalgic play-acting of the thing. The 66-year old Stone can be an original filmmaker, but he is a stale old Red when it comes to politics.
11/07/2012
The "Last Generation"
It is like suddenly the family you have belonged to your entire life tells you "why no, actually you are adopted." That is the election of 2012, only worse, the family doesn't really care for you all that much, they have just been putting up with you until such time as they could be rid of you, "and now could you kindly pack your bags and quit burdening us with your presence."
I have never really bought into the whole "greatest generation" hype given to America by Tom Brokaw of all people. It is not that I do not admire the fact that the generation that preceded mine fought and defeated the Nazi and Communist threat to mankind, though the latter of these two accomplishments appears to be prematurely celebrated, I do respect them for that. I also respect the fact that they survived the Great Depression but this too seems to me to be over rated since they elected politicians that in fact made their situation worse not better, yes that would be the saintly FDR in all his New Deal glory. There is much to admire of this so called "greatest generation" that took us from the shores of Normandy to footprints on the moon. But the truth appears to be that their most lasting contribution to America, indeed the world, is that they sowed the seeds to America's destruction and gave birth to the "last generation" of Americans.
In their desire and rush to save their children from the deprivations that consumed their youth, they institutionalized and put in place policies that would consume future generations of Americans in the fires of entitlement and sloth. The "baby boom" generation inherited this destructive legacy without fully appreciating that this present from their parents was a time bomb set to explode at some future date when the toxic and combustible chemicals finally ate through the thin an aging parchment of America's foundation causing a chain reaction explosion which would bring down the very nation they fought so hard to protect. This nation's collapsing explosion occurred on November 6, 2012 with the re-election of Barack Obama.
It is easy to say that, though troubling, this too will pass, but it won't, not in my lifetime. The old adage "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" applies in spades to what has happened, but it is worse than that. Because you see it was not America which was fooled by Obama, it is us who see the truth of him who have been fooled by America. America is not what we thought it was, we are now the unwanted adopted child in our own home.
The fact that we make up half the pie doesn't change the fact that we no longer are the baker of the pie but rather an unwanted ingredient in it and those that now control the dials are going to turn up the heat to burn us out. At this point it appears that they will succeed because our best shot at turning this car around on the road to tyranny has just passed us by and who knows if we will have the stamina to withstand being outcasts in our own land which we sincerely believe is our birthright but in which we now find ourselves unwanted adopted orphans.
The terrible truth is this, that for the most part our children's generation does not see America's past, present or future through the same eyes that we do. We are the last generation of American's blessed with that perspective, born in a time when America's glorious past was undeniable and before the total distortions of that past were introduced into the curriculum of future generations.
I remember years ago going to Mt Vernon with my two sisters. My older sister and I were born a year apart in the mid fifties, our younger sister was born in "59". Not that far apart in age really, but worlds apart in education and perspective. My younger sister was the first and only member of our family to graduate from college, my older sister and I are intelligent without that burden. While we were walking around George Washington's plantation my younger sister made a somewhat snarky yet very funny joke about George Washington's slaves, it was a put down of our founding father, but it was funny and we all laughed at her humorous comment. Even at the time, despite the humor, I was somewhat taken aback by the obvious sarcasm in my sister's voice. As the years have passed and my younger sister has remained a staunch liberal while my older sister and I have grown more conservative I often think of that day and my sister's attitude towards Washington. I have come to see that my sister was taught a different history of America than I was, a history devoid of balance. A history where the faults of our great nation are magnified while the glory and genius are either ignored or distorted.
This is the generation that elected and now has re-elected Barack Obama. This is the generation that is now teaching the children of today what America is and what it was and what it will be. My younger sister is also a member of the baby boom generation but closer to the end of it than the beginning. I suspect that when the election of 2012 is dissected we will find that the over 50 demographic voted against Obama while the under 50 voted for Obama.
Where does this lead us? This leads us to a very ominous future, a future where the people who still grasp and see what America's true nature was destined to be, meaning individual liberty, is being supplanted by a generation that has not a clue that the default position of humanity is always towards tyranny unless actively resisted. They say that the definition of life is anything that opposes death, well liberties life is losing its antibodies and being over run by a cancer that the "greatest generation" unknowingly bequeathed their children.
It is entirely possible that we, those who oppose Obama and all that he represents are the "last generation" of Americans. But it is our fault too because we passed on our parents disease to our children instead of fighting it or instructing them that liberty is more important than....well anything. Even a cell phone.
The Greatest Generation gave birth to the Last Generation which has now given birth to the Lost Generation because I fear that the next generation barring a drastic turn around is going to be the one that loses freedom in America entirely.
Now for the good news.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.Ronald Reagan
At least I have something to do in retirement.
By the way the only Greatest Generation of Americans was the founding one and perhaps, someday, the one that saves us from ourselves.
10/26/2012
News From Obama’s Home State
Via-The American Interest
WALTER RUSSELL MEAD
Three states form the base of Democratic political power in the United States: California, New York and Illinois. All three states are locked in an accelerating economic, demographic and social decline; all three hope that they can stave off looming disaster at home by exporting the policies that have ruined them to the rest of the country.
Mary Williams Walsh, a talented reporter who is doing much to sustain the luster of the New York Times brand these days, has a must-read piece on the mess that is Illinois, and it is a compelling description of the misery and ruin that well-intentioned liberals combined with aggressive public sector labor unions inflict on the poor they ostensibly want to serve.
WALTER RUSSELL MEAD
Three states form the base of Democratic political power in the United States: California, New York and Illinois. All three states are locked in an accelerating economic, demographic and social decline; all three hope that they can stave off looming disaster at home by exporting the policies that have ruined them to the rest of the country.
Mary Williams Walsh, a talented reporter who is doing much to sustain the luster of the New York Times brand these days, has a must-read piece on the mess that is Illinois, and it is a compelling description of the misery and ruin that well-intentioned liberals combined with aggressive public sector labor unions inflict on the poor they ostensibly want to serve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)