So President Barack Obama has now taken full control of his new automobile manufacturing business, having mandated that U.S. automakers attain the so-called Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2016 while also reducing "greenhouse gas" emissions by 30% by the same time.  Apparently, Obama the mechanical engineer believes that achieving these two standards is a related effort, which, I admit, it may well be.  Better fuel economy might well lead to 30% lower emissions, although it really would take an engineer to figure out the exact relationship.

Combining the achievement of these two standards represents the marriage of two of the fondest delusions of the left wing.  First, leftists are convinced that Detroit automakers are failing only because they don't produce vehicles that are sufficiently fuel-efficient.  It has nothing to do with the fact that GM, Ford, and Chrysler pay almost $75 an hour, including very generous benefits, while U.S.-based foreign auto manufacturers pay less than $45 an hour for the exact same work.  No, it's the mpg, stupid, say the Jim Carville clones, and pay no attention to the fact that foreign-made gas-guzzling SUVs sell quite well, too.  Therefore, mandating a CAFE of 35 mpg by 2016 will save Detroit automakers from themselves, and our auto industry, too.

Second, liberals have completely bought into "anthropomorphic global warming" as a way of saying that humans are causing the Earth to warm due to carbon dioxide emissions which will cause catastrophic warming of the atmosphere.  No matter that the Earth was actually warmer 1000 years ago than it is today, with no widespread coastal flooding or tropical storm activity.  In fact, the only provable anomaly due to higher global temperatures 1000 years ago was the presence of vineyards in England, which at that time had a wine making industry that rivaled that of the French.  No, man-made climate catastrophe is just around the corner, unless we somehow contain the outrageous excesses of capitalism by enforcing the emissions standards mandated by the Kyoto accords.  No matter that two of the world's biggest economies, China and India, don't have to meet those standards.  No, the evil capitalist empire America must be forced to meet them, or the human race is doomed.

In a few years the folly of both these claims will be obvious, as the climate fails to respond to reduced carbon emissions as it continues to respond to the many more significant climate drivers, such as solar activity, for example, and as UAW-dependent Detroit automakers continue to need infusions of taxpayer dollars to operate.  Unfortunately, as Americans get more and more used to surrendering their freedoms in response to the outrageous claims of the anti-American left, one has to wonder if our country can survive this socialist onslaught.  The Democrats are betting not, but let's make them lose that bet.

My favorite weekly newsrag has produced yet another flight of fancy, this time called "Is the Party Over?" by one Michael Grunwald, a "reasonable" left-wing journalist.  Grunwald is, of course, referring to the currently down (but not out) Republican Party, and he's speculating that traditional conservatism will doom the party to extinction in this nation of liberals.  Talk about flights of fancy!

And how do I know Grunwald is a left-winger?  It's easy - his article is loaded with "reasonable" sounding assumptions that are actually opinions masquerading as journalism.  For example, in one paragraph he characterizes the traditional GOP position of strong national defense as meaning "strong support for torture," by which I suppose he must be referring to the successful interrogation techniques employed during the War on Terror at such places as Guantanamo Bay.  However, since none of these techniques involved any kind of physical pain, much less death, truly reasonable people understand that these techniques were nothing like torture, particularly when compared with sawing a captive's head off with a dull knife.

Grunwald also offers up the opinion that "support for 'gay' [homosexual] rights is soaring" presented as fact.  In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth, as even traditional-marriage supporter Barack Obama understands.  His article is filled with such suppositions disguised as facts, but his biggest flight of fancy comes when he predicts the ultimate success of liberal policies.

Grunwald makes this prediction in a backhanded way by sneering at conservatives who insist "that the New Deal made the Depression worse, carbon emissions are fine for the environment, and tax cuts actually boost revenues - even though the vast majority of historians, scientists, and economists disagree."  This statement is purely - purely - fantasy masquerading as fact.  Let's take the first statement, that the New Deal made the Depression worse. Forget historians.  Their work is limited to reviewing the writings and statements of historical figures and using them to paint a picture of the past.  They do little if any analysis, so what they say about the New Deal isn't relevant to this discussion.  As for economists, thanks to such recent work of Amity Schlaes in The Forgotten Man and Vedder and Gallaway in Out of Work, the majority have now come to realize that the New Deal did in fact make the Depression work.  But as long ago as 1939, Robert Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury Secretary, understood that this was true, saying, "We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. After eight years we have just as much unemployment as when we started, and an enormous debt to boot."  These are the facts, Mr. Grunwald.

As for carbon emissions being bad for the environment, the fact is that there is far from any unanimity among climate scientists on this issue, and among the scientists who do think that man-made carbon dioxide is causing climate change (which would have to be warming, according to their theory) are included at least some who, as recently as a couple of decades ago, were predicting a disastrous "nuclear winter" if we didn't slow down our burning of fossil fuels.  Now that it seems as if the earth might actually be warming, they've generated mathematical models to demonstrate that there is a correlation between human-produced carbon dioxide and this warming trend.  They then leap to extend this correlation into causality, for which there is little justification.  So this is hardly a settled issue, in spite of what Mike Grunwald thinks.  These are the facts, Mr. Grunwald.

Finally, tax cuts do, at least at some levels, generate increased tax revenues.  Even John Kennedy understood this, because he so stated as he signed a tax reduction bill during his presidency.  And he was right, because tax revenues are documented to have gone up following the passage of his bill.  Ditto the Reagan tax cut in 1982, and not only did Reagan's cut increase tax revenues, it ushered in an almost three decade long era of sustained prosperity.  Think about this for just a minute.  If a tax rate is 100%, it will clearly generate no revenues, because no one will work to earn any money at that rate.  Therefore, reducing it to, say, 90%, will generate at least some revenues because at least some people will have an incentive to work (or, in our economy, stop paying accountants and lawyers to find tax shelters), even it they only get to keep 10% of their income.  It's easy to see that reducing it further will continue to give more and more people the incentive to work, which will continue to increase tax revenues as long as the increase in the number of people earning income continues to offset the reduction in the marginal tax rate.  At some point, of course, there will be so many people working that further reductions will begin to generate lower total revenues, but the evidence is that this rate is fairly low in our economy.  For example, when George W. Bush reduced the top marginal rate from 39% to 35%, total tax revenues increased as the economy took off.  Any economist worth his salt understands what I've just said, and that's a fact, Mike Grunwald.

Time is our ally in this fight.  The Mike Grunwalds of the world can spout their nonsense at times like this because the American people are a little panicky and confused by the events of the last year, but in spite of Grunwald's assumption that liberals will ultimately be successful, history - real history - demonstrates that their policies will fail.  For example, history shows us that appeasement fails, that the activities of mere humans have little impact on God's climate, and that overspending in a restrictive business climate causes the economy to fail.  If we stay true to our principles instead of panicking ourselves, we will come roaring back, and it will be sooner rather than later, and that's a fact, Mike Grunwald.

Reading the latest issue of my favorite left-wing rag, Time, which features the 100 "most influential people" in the world, I came across an interesting entry by Angelina Jolie.  She nominated Somaly Mam, founder of an organization dedicated to eradicating the sex slave industry, which is estimated to generate some $12 billion worldwide each year.  

I have no problem with nominating Mam, who appears in the "Heroes & Icons" section of the top 100, as she is certainly a reasonable nominee for her efforts to combat this scourge against women.  Nor, for that matter, do I have any quarrel with Jolie, most of the time, because, although she seems to me to be in many ways a typical Hollywood liberal do-gooder, she at least spends her own money to pursue her causes, some of which even seem worthy.

I do have one quibble with Jolie's write up on Mam, however.  While describing Mam's life, Jolie characterizes genocidal campaign against the Cambodian people, which killed almost 2 million of them, as a "radical form of communism."  So, Angelina, how would you describe Stalin's form of communism, which is estimated to have killed between 30 and 60 million Russians - no one is quite sure how many died, because there's no way for anyone to count that many bodies?.  Or how about Mao's murder of some 20 - 40 million - again no one is sure exactly how many - Chinese people? Now <em>those</em> are radicals!

The point here, Angelina, is that "radical communism" is redundant.  There's no way to implement a form of government that steals from people who work and gives it to people who don't without using extreme measures, and of course, these extreme measures will always include killing off many of the objectors.  Communism <em>is</em> radical, by definition, and there is no way to avoid this fact.  The best way to combat it, and other forms of legalized theft that reside under the banner of socialism, is to protect the freedoms we hold dearest - including the freedom to enjoy the fruits of our labors.    

Lately, I fear we're not doing to well in this regard.This is unfortunate, because the freedom to keep our own property is just as important as all our other freedoms, and depriving the American people of one will ultimately lead to depriving them of all, ultimately including, in many cases, the right to survive.Reading the latest issue of my favorite left-wing rag, Time, which features the 100 "most influential people" in the world, I came across an interesting entry by Angelina Jolie.  She nominated Somaly Mam, founder of an organization dedicated to eradicating the sex slave industry, which is estimated to generate some $12 billion worldwide each year.  

I have no problem with nominating Mam, who appears in the "Heroes & Icons" section of the top 100, as she is certainly a reasonable nominee for her efforts to combat this scourge against women.  Nor, for that matter, do I have any quarrel with Jolie, most of the time, because, although she seems to me to be in many ways a typical Hollywood liberal do-gooder, she at least spends her own money to pursue her causes, some of which even seem worthy.

I do have one quibble with Jolie's write up on Mam, however.  While describing Mam's life, Jolie characterizes genocidal campaign against the Cambodian people, which killed almost 2 million of them, as a "radical form of communism."  So, Angelina, how would you describe Stalin's form of communism, which is estimated to have killed between 30 and 60 million Russians - no one is quite sure how many died, because there's no way for anyone to count that many bodies?.  Or how about Mao's murder of some 20 - 40 million - again no one is sure exactly how many - Chinese people? Now those are radicals!

The point here, Angelina, is that "radical communism" is redundant.  There's no way to implement a form of government that steals from people who work and gives it to people who don't without using extreme measures, and of course, these extreme measures will always include killing off many of the objectors.  Communism is radical, by definition, and there is no way to avoid this fact.  The best way to combat it, and other forms of legalized theft that reside under the banner of socialism, is to protect the freedoms we hold dearest - including the freedom to enjoy the fruits of our labors.    

Lately, I fear we're not doing to well in this regard.This is unfortunate, because the freedom to keep our own property is just as important as all our other freedoms, and depriving the American people of one will ultimately lead to depriving them of all, ultimately including, in many cases, the right to survive.

Yesterday, I got "bashed" in a comment from a liberal poster with the userid "pparenting" using some of the same, old, tired, discredited arguments liberal posters always trot out.  This time it was the "Reagan deficit" argument, whereby the libbie argues that conservatives have no business complaining about deficits, since the conservative icon Reagan ran a large one, bigger than liberal President Jimmy Carter's deficit.

I cover this in more detail in by entry entitled "Irrelevant and Out of Context," but to review, this argument is easily discredited in two ways.  First, Reagan ushered in an era of prosperity that lasted almost 30 years, including the Presidency of closet Reaganite (at least in terms of economic policy) Bill Clinton.  This era was possible only because Reagan was able to repair, using among other devices tax cuts and lowering the rate of increase of spending, the damage Carter did to the economy in the late 70's, including among other problems 10% unemployment and 13% inflation.  Second, though, and more importantly, is Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, [and] to pay the debts..."  In short, Congress passes budgets, not the President.

So, libbies, it isn't a good argument to say that Reagan had deficits and Clinton balanced the budget, because the Congress in the 1980s was Democratic, and the Congress during the latter half of the 1990s, when the budget was balanced, was Republican.  Of course, in the 2000s the deficits ran up again, but this was at least in part due to G. W. Bush's attempt to stabilize the Middle East, an effort that will prove worthwhile in the long run.

So let me suggest a new argument for liberals to bash Reagan with.  Since Reagan did usher in that era of prosperity - an era coming to a screeching halt with the advent of the Obama administration - just say, "prosperity is bad!"  After all, prosperous people find all kinds of things to waste their money on, everything from boats and vacation homes to fancy foreign automobiles and oversize houses.  Furthermore, whenever the top 90 - 95% of the population is getting rich from lower taxes and a humming free-market economy, there are always the 5 - 10% of losers who just can't get their lives together enough to participate in the big party.  These people always, therefore, feel bad, and feeling bad is bad.  Anytime anyone feels bad, we have to fix their problem immediately, even if it means bringing the rest of the country down to their level.

The flip side of this new, improved libbie argument is that in the middle of a recession, everyone feels the same - crummy - so that society's perpetual losers are on an equal footing with the many former winners.  Furthermore, none of the minor winners has to be jealous of the major winners - doctors, lawyers, business executives, IT consultants, etc. - who make the really big bucks.  During recessions, we'll show those "rich" people why they shouldn't work so hard and be so successful; it's just not fair.  So in bad times, fairness is the order of the day, as it should be, when everyone's income is in the toilet.

See how easy this was, libbies?  In future posts, I'll provide more fresh new arguments for you to use in the battle of ideas.  Maybe then you'll love me.

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.