Another fool liberal posted to my P-N blog.  I quickly put him in his place, but I have to reprint here because it's so much fun.

You liberals are too easy to rebut.  Why don't you get some new arguments to make it challenging?

"Don't think just because there have been tea parties and more media attention towards republican voices after the election that the Republican party as it stands now has any opportunity to rebound."  No, I think the Republicans will rebound because the Dems are doing such a good job of wrecking the economy.

"Here's a little historical fact for you, young people voted in record numbers in this past election and a vast majority voted for Obama."  Here's a little historical fact for you.  Young people are always liberals.  In the words of that famous conservative, Winston Churchill (even you must have heard of him), "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."  Grown ups are conservative because they've learned that choices must be made as part of the process of maturing.  Therefore, they'll be changing their stances shortly.  Get it, you brainless child?

"A vast majority are turned off by the anti-everything party that doesn't represent fiscal responsibility by a long shot (another little historical fact, Reagan had yearly federal deficits more then double what they were in during WW2 when FDR was in office, Bush added trillions to the federal debt after two years of surplus during the Clinton administration)."  Your "historical facts" are irrelevant and out of context.  For a full explanation, see my post by the same title, because I don't feel like writing it all again.  But the gist of it is that Reagan ushered in a 30-year era of prosperity after the deficit hawk Jimmy C. failed miserably.  Anyway, that "fact" is really moot because Obama in only one year will almost match G.W., who I admit made some mistakes fiscally, for his whole term, but the alternative would have been and will be much worse.  Just wait and see.

"Maybe the reason why Republicans like Specter can no longer be part of the Republican party is that it has strayed so far from it's [sic] ideals, as many people have said the Republican party is only supported by people who think the Republican party was started in 1980."  Specter can no longer be a part of the party because he was going to lose the nomination next year, just like I said.

"Neoconservatism backed by radical Christian extremist now dominates the Republican party, making it's [sic] ideals seem more like hypocrisy then a real political platform."  I think neoconservatism has been tempered somewhat, and even if it hasn't, it still looks a lot better than the appeasement practiced by the liberal Dems.  See my references in previous posts to Jimmy C.'s foreign policy.  And if by radical Christian extremists you mean people that think a moral country is a strong one, that's not hypocrisy.

"Take an issue like gay marriage, used by the Republican party to reel in voters. The Republican party wanted a federal ban against gay marriage, even though it claims to support the rights of the states to determine their own laws, such as in marriage, as determined by our Constitution."  I take it by "gay" marriage you mean homosexual marriage, the gateway to all kinds of deviant marriages, is that right?  We have to call these things what they are, after all, and homosexuals are anything but gay.  Actually, I think almost all the Dems in Congress also voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which is what I believe is what you're referring to, but if you think deviant marriage is a winning issue for you, I strongly encourage you to pursue it politically - please!

"The Republican party uses the excuse of freedom of religion as an excuse for everything under the sun, yet wants to make abortion illegal because of a religious belief that life begins at conception. Young people can see through this conservative agenda as it is; an attack on our personal freedoms."  So First Amendment freedoms are an excuse, are they?  How about freedom of the press and assembly, are those "excuses" too?  I don't even have to ask about Second Amendment freedoms; I know you don't believe in those.  And life does begin at conception.  Try looking at an ultrasound sometime.  I've looked at four of them.  Interestingly, when anti-death (anti-abortion) groups show prospective aborters ultrasounds of their babies, they usually decide to cancel murder.  Even more interestingly, pro-death libbies try their best to prevent young women considering abortions from seeing these pictures.  That really says it all for me.  As for young people seeing through things, see my comments above.  Most people mature and grow up.  People like you are the exception.

Thanks for playing.

Another fool liberal posted to my P-N blog.  I quickly put him in his place, but I have to reprint here because it's so much fun.

You liberals are too easy to rebut.  Why don't you get some new arguments to make it challenging?

"Don't think just because there have been tea parties and more media attention towards republican voices after the election that the Republican party as it stands now has any opportunity to rebound."  No, I think the Republicans will rebound because the Dems are doing such a good job of wrecking the economy.

"Here's a little historical fact for you, young people voted in record numbers in this past election and a vast majority voted for Obama."  Here's a little historical fact for you.  Young people are always liberals.  In the words of that famous conservative, Winston Churchill (even you must have heard of him), "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."  Grown ups are conservative because they've learned that choices must be made as part of the process of maturing.  Therefore, they'll be changing their stances shortly.  Get it, you brainless child?

"A vast majority are turned off by the anti-everything party that doesn't represent fiscal responsibility by a long shot (another little historical fact, Reagan had yearly federal deficits more then double what they were in during WW2 when FDR was in office, Bush added trillions to the federal debt after two years of surplus during the Clinton administration)."  Your "historical facts" are irrelevant and out of context.  For a full explanation, see my post by the same title, because I don't feel like writing it all again.  But the gist of it is that Reagan ushered in a 30-year era of prosperity after the deficit hawk Jimmy C. failed miserably.  Anyway, that "fact" is really moot because Obama in only one year will almost match G.W., who I admit made some mistakes fiscally, for his whole term, but the alternative would have been and will be much worse.  Just wait and see.

"Maybe the reason why Republicans like Specter can no longer be part of the Republican party is that it has strayed so far from it's [sic] ideals, as many people have said the Republican party is only supported by people who think the Republican party was started in 1980."  Specter can no longer be a part of the party because he was going to lose the nomination next year, just like I said.

"Neoconservatism backed by radical Christian extremist now dominates the Republican party, making it's [sic] ideals seem more like hypocrisy then a real political platform."  I think neoconservatism has been tempered somewhat, and even if it hasn't, it still looks a lot better than the appeasement practiced by the liberal Dems.  See my references in previous posts to Jimmy C.'s foreign policy.  And if by radical Christian extremists you mean people that think a moral country is a strong one, that's not hypocrisy.

"Take an issue like gay marriage, used by the Republican party to reel in voters. The Republican party wanted a federal ban against gay marriage, even though it claims to support the rights of the states to determine their own laws, such as in marriage, as determined by our Constitution."  I take it by "gay" marriage you mean homosexual marriage, the gateway to all kinds of deviant marriages, is that right?  We have to call these things what they are, after all, and homosexuals are anything but gay.  Actually, I think almost all the Dems in Congress also voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which is what I believe is what you're referring to, but if you think deviant marriage is a winning issue for you, I strongly encourage you to pursue it politically - please!

"The Republican party uses the excuse of freedom of religion as an excuse for everything under the sun, yet wants to make abortion illegal because of a religious belief that life begins at conception. Young people can see through this conservative agenda as it is; an attack on our personal freedoms."  So First Amendment freedoms are an excuse, are they?  How about freedom of the press and assembly, are those "excuses" too?  I don't even have to ask about Second Amendment freedoms; I know you don't believe in those.  And life does begin at conception.  Try looking at an ultrasound sometime.  I've looked at four of them.  Interestingly, when anti-death (anti-abortion) groups show prospective aborters ultrasounds of their babies, they usually decide to cancel murder.  Even more interestingly, pro-death libbies try their best to prevent young women considering abortions from seeing these pictures.  That really says it all for me.  As for young people seeing through things, see my comments above.  Most people mature and grow up.  People like you are the exception.

Thanks for playing.

Another fool liberal posted to my P-N blog.  I quickly put him in his place, but I have to reprint here because it's so much fun.

You liberals are too easy to rebut.  Why don't you get some new arguments to make it challenging?

"Don't think just because there have been tea parties and more media attention towards republican voices after the election that the Republican party as it stands now has any opportunity to rebound."  No, I think the Republicans will rebound because the Dems are doing such a good job of wrecking the economy.

"Here's a little historical fact for you, young people voted in record numbers in this past election and a vast majority voted for Obama."  Here's a little historical fact for you.  Young people are always liberals.  In the words of that famous conservative, Winston Churchill (even you must have heard of him), "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."  Grown ups are conservative because they've learned that choices must be made as part of the process of maturing.  Therefore, they'll be changing their stances shortly.  Get it, you brainless child?

"A vast majority are turned off by the anti-everything party that doesn't represent fiscal responsibility by a long shot (another little historical fact, Reagan had yearly federal deficits more then double what they were in during WW2 when FDR was in office, Bush added trillions to the federal debt after two years of surplus during the Clinton administration)."  Your "historical facts" are irrelevant and out of context.  For a full explanation, see my post by the same title, because I don't feel like writing it all again.  But the gist of it is that Reagan ushered in a 30-year era of prosperity after the deficit hawk Jimmy C. failed miserably.  Anyway, that "fact" is really moot because Obama in only one year will almost match G.W., who I admit made some mistakes fiscally, for his whole term, but the alternative would have been and will be much worse.  Just wait and see.

"Maybe the reason why Republicans like Specter can no longer be part of the Republican party is that it has strayed so far from it's [sic] ideals, as many people have said the Republican party is only supported by people who think the Republican party was started in 1980."  Specter can no longer be a part of the party because he was going to lose the nomination next year, just like I said.

"Neoconservatism backed by radical Christian extremist now dominates the Republican party, making it's [sic] ideals seem more like hypocrisy then a real political platform."  I think neoconservatism has been tempered somewhat, and even if it hasn't, it still looks a lot better than the appeasement practiced by the liberal Dems.  See my references in previous posts to Jimmy C.'s foreign policy.  And if by radical Christian extremists you mean people that think a moral country is a strong one, that's not hypocrisy.

"Take an issue like gay marriage, used by the Republican party to reel in voters. The Republican party wanted a federal ban against gay marriage, even though it claims to support the rights of the states to determine their own laws, such as in marriage, as determined by our Constitution."  I take it by "gay" marriage you mean homosexual marriage, the gateway to all kinds of deviant marriages, is that right?  We have to call these things what they are, after all, and homosexuals are anything but gay.  Actually, I think almost all the Dems in Congress also voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which is what I believe is what you're referring to, but if you think deviant marriage is a winning issue for you, I strongly encourage you to pursue it politically - please!

"The Republican party uses the excuse of freedom of religion as an excuse for everything under the sun, yet wants to make abortion illegal because of a religious belief that life begins at conception. Young people can see through this conservative agenda as it is; an attack on our personal freedoms."  So First Amendment freedoms are an excuse, are they?  How about freedom of the press and assembly, are those "excuses" too?  I don't even have to ask about Second Amendment freedoms; I know you don't believe in those.  And life does begin at conception.  Try looking at an ultrasound sometime.  I've looked at four of them.  Interestingly, when anti-death (anti-abortion) groups show prospective aborters ultrasounds of their babies, they usually decide to cancel murder.  Even more interestingly, pro-death libbies try their best to prevent young women considering abortions from seeing these pictures.  That really says it all for me.  As for young people seeing through things, see my comments above.  Most people mature and grow up.  People like you are the exception.

Thanks for playing.

Another fool liberal posted to my P-N blog.  I quickly put him in his place, but I have to reprint here because it's so much fun.

You liberals are too easy to rebut.  Why don't you get some new arguments to make it challenging?

"Don't think just because there have been tea parties and more media attention towards republican voices after the election that the Republican party as it stands now has any opportunity to rebound."  No, I think the Republicans will rebound because the Dems are doing such a good job of wrecking the economy.

"Here's a little historical fact for you, young people voted in record numbers in this past election and a vast majority voted for Obama."  Here's a little historical fact for you.  Young people are always liberals.  In the words of that famous conservative, Winston Churchill (even you must have heard of him), "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."  Grown ups are conservative because they've learned that choices must be made as part of the process of maturing.  Therefore, they'll be changing their stances shortly.  Get it, you brainless child?

"A vast majority are turned off by the anti-everything party that doesn't represent fiscal responsibility by a long shot (another little historical fact, Reagan had yearly federal deficits more then double what they were in during WW2 when FDR was in office, Bush added trillions to the federal debt after two years of surplus during the Clinton administration)."  Your "historical facts" are irrelevant and out of context.  For a full explanation, see my post by the same title, because I don't feel like writing it all again.  But the gist of it is that Reagan ushered in a 30-year era of prosperity after the deficit hawk Jimmy C. failed miserably.  Anyway, that "fact" is really moot because Obama in only one year will almost match G.W., who I admit made some mistakes fiscally, for his whole term, but the alternative would have been and will be much worse.  Just wait and see.

"Maybe the reason why Republicans like Specter can no longer be part of the Republican party is that it has strayed so far from it's [sic] ideals, as many people have said the Republican party is only supported by people who think the Republican party was started in 1980."  Specter can no longer be a part of the party because he was going to lose the nomination next year, just like I said.

"Neoconservatism backed by radical Christian extremist now dominates the Republican party, making it's [sic] ideals seem more like hypocrisy then a real political platform."  I think neoconservatism has been tempered somewhat, and even if it hasn't, it still looks a lot better than the appeasement practiced by the liberal Dems.  See my references in previous posts to Jimmy C.'s foreign policy.  And if by radical Christian extremists you mean people that think a moral country is a strong one, that's not hypocrisy.

"Take an issue like gay marriage, used by the Republican party to reel in voters. The Republican party wanted a federal ban against gay marriage, even though it claims to support the rights of the states to determine their own laws, such as in marriage, as determined by our Constitution."  I take it by "gay" marriage you mean homosexual marriage, the gateway to all kinds of deviant marriages, is that right?  We have to call these things what they are, after all, and homosexuals are anything but gay.  Actually, I think almost all the Dems in Congress also voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which is what I believe is what you're referring to, but if you think deviant marriage is a winning issue for you, I strongly encourage you to pursue it politically - please!

"The Republican party uses the excuse of freedom of religion as an excuse for everything under the sun, yet wants to make abortion illegal because of a religious belief that life begins at conception. Young people can see through this conservative agenda as it is; an attack on our personal freedoms."  So First Amendment freedoms are an excuse, are they?  How about freedom of the press and assembly, are those "excuses" too?  I don't even have to ask about Second Amendment freedoms; I know you don't believe in those.  And life <em>does</em> begin at conception.  Try looking at an ultrasound sometime.  I've looked at four of them.  Interestingly, when anti-death (anti-abortion) groups show prospective aborters ultrasounds of their babies, they usually decide to cancel murder.  Even more interestingly, pro-death libbies try their best to prevent young women considering abortions from seeing these pictures.  That really says it all for me.  As for young people seeing through things, see my comments above.  Most people mature and grow up.  People like you are the exception.

Thanks for playing.

Another fool liberal posted to my P-N blog.  I quickly put him in his place, but I have to reprint here because it's so much fun.

You liberals are too easy to rebut.  Why don't you get some new arguments to make it challenging?

"Don't think just because there have been tea parties and more media attention towards republican voices after the election that the Republican party as it stands now has any opportunity to rebound."  No, I think the Republicans will rebound because the Dems are doing such a good job of wrecking the economy.

"Here's a little historical fact for you, young people voted in record numbers in this past election and a vast majority voted for Obama."  Here's a little historical fact for you.  Young people are always liberals.  In the words of that famous conservative, Winston Churchill (even you must have heard of him), "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."  Grown ups are conservative because they've learned that choices must be made as part of the process of maturing.  Therefore, they'll be changing their stances shortly.  Get it, you brainless child?

"A vast majority are turned off by the anti-everything party that doesn't represent fiscal responsibility by a long shot (another little historical fact, Reagan had yearly federal deficits more then double what they were in during WW2 when FDR was in office, Bush added trillions to the federal debt after two years of surplus during the Clinton administration)."  Your "historical facts" are irrelevant and out of context.  For a full explanation, see my post by the same title, because I don't feel like writing it all again.  But the gist of it is that Reagan ushered in a 30-year era of prosperity after the deficit hawk Jimmy C. failed miserably.  Anyway, that "fact" is really moot because Obama in only one year will almost match G.W., who I admit made some mistakes fiscally, for his whole term, but the alternative would have been and will be much worse.  Just wait and see.

"Maybe the reason why Republicans like Specter can no longer be part of the Republican party is that it has strayed so far from it's [sic] ideals, as many people have said the Republican party is only supported by people who think the Republican party was started in 1980."  Specter can no longer be a part of the party because he was going to lose the nomination next year, just like I said.

"Neoconservatism backed by radical Christian extremist now dominates the Republican party, making it's [sic] ideals seem more like hypocrisy then a real political platform."  I think neoconservatism has been tempered somewhat, and even if it hasn't, it still looks a lot better than the appeasement practiced by the liberal Dems.  See my references in previous posts to Jimmy C.'s foreign policy.  And if by radical Christian extremists you mean people that think a moral country is a strong one, that's not hypocrisy.

"Take an issue like gay marriage, used by the Republican party to reel in voters. The Republican party wanted a federal ban against gay marriage, even though it claims to support the rights of the states to determine their own laws, such as in marriage, as determined by our Constitution."  I take it by "gay" marriage you mean homosexual marriage, the gateway to all kinds of deviant marriages, is that right?  We have to call these things what they are, after all, and homosexuals are anything but gay.  Actually, I think almost all the Dems in Congress also voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which is what I believe is what you're referring to, but if you think deviant marriage is a winning issue for you, I strongly encourage you to pursue it politically - please!

"The Republican party uses the excuse of freedom of religion as an excuse for everything under the sun, yet wants to make abortion illegal because of a religious belief that life begins at conception. Young people can see through this conservative agenda as it is; an attack on our personal freedoms."  So First Amendment freedoms are an excuse, are they?  How about freedom of the press and assembly, are those "excuses" too?  I don't even have to ask about Second Amendment freedoms; I know you don't believe in those.  And life <em>does</em> begin at conception.  Try looking at an ultrasound sometime.  I've looked at four of them.  Interestingly, when anti-death (anti-abortion) groups show prospective aborters ultrasounds of their babies, they usually decide to cancel murder.  Even more interestingly, pro-death libbies try their best to prevent young women considering abortions from seeing these pictures.  That really says it all for me.  As for young people seeing through things, see my comments above.  Most people mature and grow up.  People like you are the exception.

Thanks for playing.

Another fool liberal posted to my P-N blog.  I quickly put him in his place, but I have to reprint here because it's so much fun.

You liberals are too easy to rebut.  Why don't you get some new arguments to make it challenging?

"Don't think just because there have been tea parties and more media attention towards republican voices after the election that the Republican party as it stands now has any opportunity to rebound."  No, I think the Republicans will rebound because the Dems are doing such a good job of wrecking the economy.

"Here's a little historical fact for you, young people voted in record numbers in this past election and a vast majority voted for Obama."  Here's a little historical fact for you.  Young people are always liberals.  In the words of that famous conservative, Winston Churchill (even you must have heard of him), "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."  Grown ups are conservative because they've learned that choices must be made as part of the process of maturing.  Therefore, they'll be changing their stances shortly.  Get it, you brainless child?

"A vast majority are turned off by the anti-everything party that doesn't represent fiscal responsibility by a long shot (another little historical fact, Reagan had yearly federal deficits more then double what they were in during WW2 when FDR was in office, Bush added trillions to the federal debt after two years of surplus during the Clinton administration)."  Your "historical facts" are irrelevant and out of context.  For a full explanation, see my post by the same title, because I don't feel like writing it all again.  But the gist of it is that Reagan ushered in a 30-year era of prosperity after the deficit hawk Jimmy C. failed miserably.  Anyway, that "fact" is really moot because Obama in only one year will almost match G.W., who I admit made some mistakes fiscally, for his whole term, but the alternative would have been and will be much worse.  Just wait and see.

"Maybe the reason why Republicans like Specter can no longer be part of the Republican party is that it has strayed so far from it's [sic] ideals, as many people have said the Republican party is only supported by people who think the Republican party was started in 1980."  Specter can no longer be a part of the party because he was going to lose the nomination next year, just like I said.

"Neoconservatism backed by radical Christian extremist now dominates the Republican party, making it's [sic] ideals seem more like hypocrisy then a real political platform."  I think neoconservatism has been tempered somewhat, and even if it hasn't, it still looks a lot better than the appeasement practiced by the liberal Dems.  See my references in previous posts to Jimmy C.'s foreign policy.  And if by radical Christian extremists you mean people that think a moral country is a strong one, that's not hypocrisy.

"Take an issue like gay marriage, used by the Republican party to reel in voters. The Republican party wanted a federal ban against gay marriage, even though it claims to support the rights of the states to determine their own laws, such as in marriage, as determined by our Constitution."  I take it by "gay" marriage you mean homosexual marriage, the gateway to all kinds of deviant marriages, is that right?  We have to call these things what they are, after all, and homosexuals are anything but gay.  Actually, I think almost all the Dems in Congress also voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which is what I believe is what you're referring to, but if you think deviant marriage is a winning issue for you, I strongly encourage you to pursue it politically - please!

"The Republican party uses the excuse of freedom of religion as an excuse for everything under the sun, yet wants to make abortion illegal because of a religious belief that life begins at conception. Young people can see through this conservative agenda as it is; an attack on our personal freedoms."  So First Amendment freedoms are an excuse, are they?  How about freedom of the press and assembly, are those "excuses" too?  I don't even have to ask about Second Amendment freedoms; I know you don't believe in those.  And life <em>does</em> begin at conception.  Try looking at an ultrasound sometime.  I've looked at four of them.  Interestingly, when anti-death (anti-abortion) groups show prospective aborters ultrasounds of their babies, they usually decide to cancel murder.  Even more interestingly, pro-death libbies try their best to prevent young women considering abortions from seeing these pictures.  That really says it all for me.  As for young people seeing through things, see my comments above.  Most people mature and grow up.  People like you are the exception.

Thanks for playing.

Although, I don't generally pay much attention to the mainstream media, due to its left-wing bias, I do, as I've mentioned, have a subscription to Time.  I do this for the same reason that I occasionally watch ABC World News:  to know what the other side is saying and to be able to develop logical and factual counterarguments.  Time happens to be the least radically liberal publication of its kind; in short, I don't feel the bile rising quite so often when I read it as I do with the other vomit-worthy "news" magazines.

However, I do write rebuttals to some of their silliest articles in the form of letters to their editors.  I've never had one published, which doesn't surprise me, given that I disprove their most cherished shibboleths, such as bigger government is better, but I'm persistent.  Here is my latest effort:

'Obama and FDR

So Joe Klein thinks Barack Obama’s “start has been the most impressive of any President since F.D.R.” because F.D.R “reinvented American government in the 1930’s.”  That’s a great comparison – for the Republicans.

As Vedder and Gallaway demonstrated conclusively with data in their book, Out of Work, President Roosevelt’s New Deal prolonged rather than alleviated the Great Depression. For nearly three consecutive years, beginning in February 1932, the unemployment rate never fell below 20 percent for any month before January 1935, when it fell to 19.3 percent, according to their statistics.  By 1939, without the negative impact of new federal labor laws, social security, and unemployment compensation alone, the unemployment rate should have been 6.7 instead of the 17.2 percent it hovered at that year.

Even Robert Morgenthau, Roosevelt’s Treasury Secretary, recognized this fact, saying "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started and enormous debt to boot."

On the other hand, F.D.R. was reelected twice during his Great Depression as he convinced the American voter that he was actually doing a great job.  Maybe that’s the comparison Klein is really referring to.'

As I said, I doubt it will be published, or even looked at seriously, because Time won't have the guts to see any factual criticism of their idol FDR.  But now, at least you've seen it.

Here is a follow-on to the Specter self-preservation story, some of which reiterates a piece I posted a few weeks ago, but it's worth updating in light of recent events.  A few weeks ago, a local political staffer named Evan Kreiner published an Op-Ed article in the Sunday Patriot-News entitled, "Alienating Specter Accelerates GOP's Ride to Obscurity."  The thesis of Mr. Kreiner's article was that Arlen Specter is the kind of moderate Republican with appeal, especially here in Pennsylvania, which he describes as "increasingly becoming a blue state," to the moderates who are the ultimate swing votes in elections.  According to Kreiner, if we Pennsylvania Republicans nominate a reliable conservative like Pat Toomey, who almost took the nomination from Specter in 2004, his "prospects  in the general election against any credible Democrat would be grim."

Well, we now know how this turned out.  Specter is no longer a Republican, forced to change parties to have some chance of retaining his Senate seat.  But is he now one of those "credible Democrats" himself, and what, in 2010, will constitute a "credible Democrat?"  Forget for the moment the credibility of any politician who switches parties to ensure his political survival.  The Democrats are wrecking the economy with unprecedented gargantuan overspending which will cause stagflation reminiscent of the late 1970s, a fact which should be painfully obvious by 2010. 

And, speaking of the late 1970s, when "human rights" instead of national interest was the driving force in U.S. foreign policy, naive Dems are offering the olive branch to terrorist-sponsoring states such as Iran, ignoring the obvious consequences of appeasement.  Of course, in the 1930s, the Houdini-like FDR continually convinced the American people to reelect him and his discredited party, in spite of the fact that unemployment seldom went much below 25% until World War II came along,.  And maybe Barack Obama is, as Joe Klein of Time and other news reporters think, the reincarnation of FDR, at least in that respect.  But the political landscape is much different in the 21st century, with conservative watchdogs ever-vigilant in pointing out the obvious failures in liberal policies.

And what will a credible Republican look like in 2010?  Well, I'm betting fiscal conservatives like Pat Toomey will look more and more credible, as their predictions of the dire consequences of the Obama Administration's economic finagling become obvious to all but the most dyed-in-the-wool lefty.  Compromise can be good - sometimes - but compromising with people who are so very wrong will cost Specter the Democrat in 2010 as Pat Toomey, Tom Ridge, or whoever wins the nomination, will have credibility himself.  And in 2012, if all goes well (for conservatives, but, unfortunately, not the country), we'll see a repeat of the 1980 election, when American's voted against malaise and for greatness. 

I don't think that Evan Kreiner is old enough to remember the late 70s, or he surely wouldn't predict that the likes of Arlen Specter is the future of this country.  On the other hand, if Kreiner is the RINO he appears to be, I can understand that he's nervous for the party, because he believes that compromising with people who are wrong is O.K.  But it's not O.K., Evan, which is why ridding the party of Arlen Specter will accelearate GOP's rise to ascendancy, an ascendancy it justifiably enjoyed for almost 30 years beginning in 1980.  As for the 1930s of FDR, more on that in my next post.

In my latest letter to the P-N editor, I have to take Fauxconomist Paul Krugman to task again.  In Krugman’s latest effort to sell Americans on socialism, he writes that banks are now all “a ward of the state…every bit as dependent on government aid as recipients of [welfare].”  Therefore, he concludes, there is a new reality where bankers can no longer receive bonuses as “a reward for their creativity” and that bankers need to accept this new reality, in which banks will be run like public utilities.

But Paul, whose idea was it to give hundreds of billions of dollars to failed bankers in the first place?  It was you and your liberal buddies who did that, and now you want us to believe that having made major banks “ward[s] of the state,” it’s only fair that you liberals want to take them over and run them.  That's some not-too-brilliant circular logic.  I’ll admit that these bankers made a lot of mistakes, but if you want to see a badly run financial system, replace them with government bureaucrats and see what happens.

At least before the big bank bailout, bankers had some accountability for their failures; government bureaucrats have no such accountability.  We don’t need to be nationalizing our banks.  We need to stop the bailouts and let the failed banks expire, to be replaced by well-run banks.  There will be some short-term pain, but in the long term the system will be much better off.  As a real economist, Alan Meltzer, has said:  “Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin – it just doesn’t work.”

I think it's only appropriate that a jackass join the party of the jackass.  I'm talking, of course, about our distinguished Senator Arlen (Deficitman) Specter, who wisely switched parties when it became painfully obvious that if he tried to run again as a Republican, he could not win the nomination.  Nor could he apparently win as an independent, as Joe Lieberman did in Connecticut when he lost the Democratic nomination for his longtime Senate seat a couple of years ago.  Ergo, the completely self-serving party switch.

Most of us real Republicans say "good riddance" to the likes Arlen Specter, but there will no doubt be some RINOs lamenting his loss because he was always "electable."  In fact, one such RINO, Evan Kreiner, a former staffer for a "moderate" Republican congressman, wrote an article recently published in the P-N entitled, "Alienating Specter Accelerates GOP's Ride to Obscurity."  To see my comments on that article, see my blog entitled, "Alienating Specter Accelerates GOP's Ride to Ascendancy."

Specter has proven for almost thirty years that he is indeed electable, but a new day dawned with the gargantuan deficit spending spawned by the Bush administration and taken to new levels - no, new orders of magnitude - by the Obama administration. By 2010, it will be obvious to most voters that bankrupting the Treasury and raising taxes wasn't the way to ensure prosperity at all.  Once that happens, no one who voted for multi-hundred-billion dollar bailouts will have any credibility left, and with that, the career of Arlen Specter will expire.

Ever devoted to liberal causes and policies, the Patriot-News today published an article assessing the first 100 days of the Obama administration, with the bottom line being, as expressed in the subhead, that Obama himself is "building on broad appeal."  To support this claim, the P-N interviewed some Central PA residents who praised Obama's performance so far, then threw in a few quotes from conservatives they deemed "highly partisan."

There was one quote in particular, however, that I believe undeniably sums up a lot of the sentiment the average American has toward Obama's economic policies.  One Doug Davis of Lower Paxton was quoted as saying that Obama is doing well so far, in his opinion, because he is making the banks and car companies "do right."  And whatever does that mean?  Banks and car companies in this country are accountable to many parties, but primarily to their customers and stockholders - to the former to produce products worth buying, and to the latter for making a profit that can be shared through dividends and stock appreciation.  Where does or should the government enter the picture?

Certainly we shouldn't expect the government to know more about running banks and car companies than bankers and auto executives, and to whom will government bureaucrats be accountable?  They won't be accountable to customers and shareholders, that's for sure.  Maybe they should be accountable to the taxpayers who are ponying up the cash to bail these companies out, but bureaucrats tend to think that the taxpayer dollar is actually theirs, and the government's record of accountability with regards to the efficient spending of tax dollars is abysmal, to say the least.

If Mr. Davis and other Americans want banks and car companies to "do right," therefore, they should leave knowledgeable industry executives in charge of those companies and force them to be accountable to the very people who have a vested interest in securing a favorable outcome for those companies, a group that clearly doesn't include the government.  And if these individuals and organizations are unable to effect a favorable outcome, these companies will go the way of all failed businesses - bankruptcy - to be replaced by companies in their respective industries that can effect a favorable outcome.  The free market economy is ruthless like that.

Unfortunately, far too few Americans want to hear that anymore.  They want the government to just "do something" - anything - that will spare them the pain of a recession, no matter how necessary that pain is to ultimately make the economy stronger for the long term.  As a result, although the economy will have some sort of recovery in the short term, unless we do something to curtail rampant government spending and the inevitable tax increase on the most productive segment of society, the long term looks bleak.  It must be time to dig out the old W.I.N. (Whip Inflation Now) buttons.

I've seen all sorts of proposal for immigration reform, none of them more foolish than the one I commented on in my last entry, in which a deluded individual thinks that renegotiating NAFTA will solve the problem.  On the other hand, how much more foolish was that idea than the attempt to slip an amnesty bill through Congress last summer before the American people realized what was going on?

Still, it's clear that we need to do something.  Our country is flooded with illegal aliens from all parts of the world, but the majority come from Latin America and sneak across the 1800 or so mile border we share with Mexico.  This situation can't continue, because while I believe - as do most Americans, I think - that we should welcome immigrants who come here legally, there has to be an orderly process to do so.  We don't know if illegal immigrants might be criminals, mentally ill people, or carriers of contagious diseases.  This latter possibility has become more worrisome recently with the news that there is a swine flu epidemic raging in Mexico that has killed at least 86 people down there.  Deadly swine flu is not what we need here now, or ever; we have enough of our own problems.

So how do we discourage lawbreakers - yes, they're lawbreakers, in the most literal sense of the term - from jumping the immigration line?  The current system, whereby captured illegals are simply returned to their countries of origin at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer, simply invites them to return again as soon as they can raise the money.  That is, after all, the only penalty they'll have to pay.  However, I think that we do probably owe people one warning, so that the first time they come here illegally, we should just go ahead and fly them home with the warning not to come here again without permission, or else.

Or else...what?  Well, the first time illegal aliens are caught, they can surrender a sample of their DNA.  That way, when illegals are captured, their DNA can be compared with a database of previous lawbreakers to see if this is their first time.  If it isn't, they can be deported again - just as soon as they pay back the U.S. taxpayer.  They can repay their debt by working it off in a labor camp.  There is precedent for this in our country.  Many states, particularly in the South, have required prisoners to work off their debts to society by building roads, for example.  I've heard numerous politicians and other public figures state that we desperately need to rebuild our infrastructure, including highways and other roads.  These illegals could work on these kind of projects until such time as it is deemed that their debt to the U.S. taxpayer has been satisfied.  Then, and only then, they can be sent back once again to their country of origin.

This plan kills several birds with a single stone: it deters illegal immigration (I believe the prospect of spending a year or more in a work camp with no money to send home is a deterrent) while providing needed labor at low cost for rebuilding highways and other roads.  It seems like a good, workable plan to me, which probably means it has little or no chance of ever becoming reality.

The Patriot-News could almost be Fox News sometimes, because it seems at times that they let liberals spout off to allow readers to see just what sort of nonsense they believe.  Earlier this week, they printed another letter espousing yet another brilliant idea.  Brian Case wants us to renegotiate NAFTA because “more than two million rural Mexicans have been driven off their land” by American-grown corn.  This is more perfect than Brian knows, because as a bonus, all the U.S.-based auto industry jobs that have been sent to Mexico can return here.

Of course, all the hard-working American farmers losing sales to their Mexican markets might have something to say about that, not to mention all the Mexican auto workers who will lose their jobs.  And the fact that free trade caused these realignments because they were more efficient is of no import.  After all, we can’t let efficiency stand in the way of liberal social engineering.

I responded to Brian's silly letter with one of my own, which the P-N probably won't print because it was toooooo sarcastic.  I'm undeterred, however, and I'm going to follow up my critique of Brian's immigration reform proposal with one of my own.  Mine's a lot better.

According to one of my favorite liberal rags, the L.A. Times, Barack Obama revealed last week that under CIA interrogation, "prisoners could be kept awake for more than a week. They could be stripped of their clothes, fed nothing but liquid and thrown against a wall 30 consecutive times."

Oh, my God!!  And it didn't stop there!  "In one case, the CIA was told it could prey on a top Al Qaeda prisoner's fear of insects by stuffing him into a box with a bug. When all else failed, the CIA could turn to what a Justice Department memo described as 'the most traumatic' interrogation technique of all -- waterboarding."  How awful!  Those dastardly CIA people!

Of course, Al Qaeda and their affiliates don't bother with torture, usually remaining satisfied to simply cut off the heads of the infidels, but if they wanted to bother with it, now they know  how.  That's about the only reason I can see to have released such data - to enable our enemies, and Islamic terrorists are our enemies, to figure out how to extract information from Americans and other Westerners from whom they might want to do that.

Of course, Obama has a different idea about this topic.  According to his press release last week in which he announced this abomination, such interrogation techniques "undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer."  Well, actually, Barack, they do make us safer, at least when it tips us off to terrorist plots and enables us to nab the potential perpetrators before they can do any harm, as has happened at least a few times that we know of.  And it "undermine[s] our moral authority" to do this?  Shades of Jimmy Carter.

Apparently, our effete President believes that the fact that we're a nation of laws prohibits us from engaging in aggressive interrogations, which is what these tactics were.  They did not - I repeat, not - constitute torture.  However, I think he needs to reflect on the words of the document which stands as the foundation of all our laws - our constitution.  Specifically, he needs to re-read the first nine little words:  "We, the people of the United States of America..."  They mean, simply, that it's our constitution; it doesn't apply to foreigners, although we extend the courtesy of applying it to aliens who are here legally.  It certainly doesn't apply to enemy combatants.  Sometimes, the Geneva Convention protects enemy combatants, but only when they are employed as part of an army belonging to a state which has similarly recognized the validity of the Convention by signing it.

In short, we are repeating the mistakes of the 30's and 70's by taking a weak stance with regards to our sworn enemies, people who have vowed to kill as many of us as possible.  I can't believe this is what most Americans want, yet there it is.  This man was duly elected President last November, and we can't fix this problem until at least 2012.  Let's hope we can fix it then.

but here goes.  In response to a liberal named "Cityinterest", who posted to one of my other blogs and apparently considers himself a moderate, I have the following definitive rebuttal.

"The conservative movement took this nation so far to the right over the last three (3) decades that people do not recognize was [sic] is moderate, what is liberal and what is far left.  The conservative movement seems to reject the skill of discernent [sic] and the concepts that we are a nation and society made up of many different views."

How on earth could the conservative movement take the nation to the right, where Cityinterest obviously thinks they don't or shouldn't want to be?  The fact is, America is a moderate right country, moderated only by the fact that many individuals, while recognizing the historical and logical correctness of conservative principles, nevertheless feel that the government owes them something, in the face of all logic.  They therefore frequently vote for individual legislators who will "bring home the bacon", a source of fiscal woe for this country.  Even so, the voters are the ones who have taken the country to the right.  It couldn't be otherwise.

As far as the "skill of discernment" goes, conservatives are the discerning ones.  While it is true, as Cityinterest says, that there are many "different views" in our society, I for one am able to discern that not all views are equally correct, which is where Cityinterest goes badly wrong.  In fact, conservative views represent a time-tested philosophy of national success. Liberal views are a product of leftists who believe that the world works or should work a certain way, regardless of the reality.  Why should conservatives want to compromise with people who are so wrong at the expense of national prosperity and security?

"In 2002 [sic], the conservatives finally got their wish and took full control of all three (3) branches of our federal government, as well as many state governments.  The results have been a predictable national and international disaster.  The leaders of the conservative movement and its many foot soldiers have no concept of what is really means to effectively govern.  Their policies and practices taught the world of nations one (1) overall lesson.  They should not count on the Americans anymore to lead the world, as they just mighht [sic]elect and re-elect  such ill-qualified people to again govern some day."

Actually, I believe Cityinterest means 2000, although I also believe he is talking about George W. Bush, who implemented some decidedly un-conservative policies such as No Child Left Behind.  Interestingly and tellingly, his greatest failures as President was in policies such as these that in fact abandoned conservative principles.  But it's far from true that his other "policies and practices taught the world of nations...[that] they should not count on the Americans anymore to lead the world."  Actually, it was liberal disasters such as Viet Nam, where we bailed on the South Vietnamese and left them to be conquered by communists, that taught the world that lesson.  I'm quite sure that the Iraqis knew they could count on George W. Bush to stay the course, which he did, to a so far successful conclusion.  On the other hand, Barack Obama is now cutting and running, which has told insurgents they only need to wait another year to come out of their holes.  When they do, Iraq may well go the same way South Vietnam or Iran did, but it won't be the fault of conservatives.  Oh, and by the way, I see no national or international disasters, only opportunities to excel that Barack Obama will fail to rise to.

"Now, other nations devote more to relations with other large powers, building them up while shrinking down U.S. power and prestige.  Now, other nations feel free to ignore U.S suggestions, policies and demands, as they see us weakened by the conservative grip of power."

Don't be a baby, Cityinterest.  This was always going to happen as other countries gain economic, political, and military power, and even when the U.S. was dominant, most countries felt "free to ignore U.S suggestions, policies and demands."  It's been going on for years, and it has nothing to do with conservatism.

"Self-serving, short-term business thinkers -- who have come to dominate the U.S. business community -- constantly got their way, which included getting governments to do what business thought was best.  Of course, this overlooked that these same business leaders were not looking past their own self-interests around the globe."

This statement contains the first grains of truth I've found in this post, but bear in mind that these corporations wield power with the Democrats as well as the Republicans and always have.  The best way to punish short-sighted corporations in the free market is to let them go bankrupt in the long run, but the Obama administration has elected to instead pump a couple of trillion taxpayer dollars into failed business in an attempt to prop them up, a strategy which will wreck the economy in the long run if Obama continues to pursue it.  John McCain isn't my favorite conservative, but it's hard to picture him doing that.

"Conservative agendas have used social fear to scare people to give them power and then self-interest when power was gotten.  It seems that so many of the conservatives see no real consequence if millions are without work,  if the sick are denied real medical care and if the poor just stay that way.  So long as they are not taxed and an elite few can do just as they please, that is al that seems to matter."

This is such a ridiculous statement, it's hard to know where to begin.  I'll address it fully in future posts.  Suffice it to say for now that no one want people unemployed or sick, and it's just stupid to suggest otherwise.  On the other hand, to the extent that people are failing due to poor decision making, it's not smart to bail them out, because that would be subsidizing bad decisions, and all intelligent people know what happens when you subsidize something - you get more of it.  If Cityinterest is looking for rich people who don't pay taxes, he need look no farther that John Kerry or Ted Kennedy, both of whom pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the average taxpayer.  On the other hand, the top 50% of taxpayers pay 97% of all income tax, and the top 5% pay about 2/3, so that last statement is just another ridiculous piece of nonsense in a nonsensical post.

"A functioning government should not even be an issue, but the right seems afraid to have a government that just might function efficiently.  They reject regulation despite's histrory [sic] showing regulation to some degree is needed when a few can determine the outcome of the well-being of the many.   They have become as dogmaic [sic] as a marxist, believing their montras [sic] without bothering to notice that their ideas do not work in practical application."

The most ridiculous statement yet.  Everyone wants government to function, but some think that such functioning should be limited to what the Constitution, which is supposed to be the overarching blueprint for what the American government does, says it should be.  The capitalist free market system has made this country the most prosperous in the history of the world, despite the occasional downturn.  If Cityinterest is looking for policies that "do not work in practical application", he/she need look no farther than either the 1930s, when liberal/socialist big tax-and-spending sent the unemployment rate to 25%, or the 1970s, when similar policies sent the inflation rate to 13% while unemployment topped 10%.  We even coined a term for the results of these failed liberal policies: stagflation.  And we're about to see them again, thanks to Cityinterest's savior, Barack Obama.

"The argumenst and paranioa [sic] of the conservative agenda has come to remind me of the Soviet Communist Party, when it use to come out with ludicrous statements and claims to justify their own ineptness and try to hide their real motives and objectoves [sic].  It became silly and that movement collapsed.   The same is happening with U.S. conservative movement."

I think I've demonstrated clearly who's making the ludicrous statements.  As for collapsing, just wait for 2012, when Obama's failures help us retake congress and elect this generation's Ronald Reagan.

"Those who tout that we should again let this brand of phobia rule our nation seems to be asking us all to pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.  It was the conservatives that set in motion policy after policy that is now costing taxpayers around the world their jobs and fiscal secuirty.  Their policies have damages the brand name quality of the very term " the U.S.A."   It is because they cannot discern that there are degrees of diffferences [sic], but instead insist anyone who disagreees [sic] with them must be totally wrong, if not evil or weak or socialist or some other ugly label."

You liberals are totally wrong.  See my above paragraphs for the proof.

"The Obama administration will be imperfect beacuse [sic] it is run by human beings.  But at least we are being governed by folks who will take into account the ideas, needs and points of view of others.  At least they will let rational judgment and not just the thirst for total control determine their course.  That is what we have been missing in government for a long time as conservatives besmirched the very idea of America with what has become a poisioned [sic] brand in the political landscape."

The Obama administration is far more than imperfect; it will be the second coming of Jimmy Carter's administration.  They've already made a great start.  And as I've said above, I won't compromise with people who are wrong and who, whether it be through ignorance or malice, attempt to implement policies that will undermine this great country of ours.  Have a nice day, "Cityinterest."