Liberalism Twerks Normal Americans

By Kurt Schlichter

Monday, September 02, 2013

Like so many normal Americans, I recently discovered twerking, and true to the intent of its practitioners, it blew my bourgeois mind.  No, not because of its transgressive rejection of traditional values like modesty and dignity but because, until then, I had always thought sexuality was supposed to be sexy.

The tiresome antics of former Disney princess Miley Cyrus exemplifies a larger phenomenon.  Liberalism, in our culture and in our politics, is figuratively twerking all normal Americans.  And it is up to us to fight back.

Regular authoritarians are content to simply be obeyed; they don’t care what you think or feel as long as no one rushes their palace with pitchforks and torches.  But liberals want more – they want to control your mind.  They aren’t satisfied until you love Big Brother.  They seek to do this by destroying our values and our norms, leaving us empty vessels without the support of morality or tradition or religion.

They want to leave us no alternative to their poisonous ideology.  Hence, they must destroy what we normal Americans hold dear.  They must wave their lies in our faces in order to force us to accept them.  They break our spirit when we submit; the indignity and humiliation of jettisoning what we believe is meant to leave us powerless subjects before our liberal masters.  Hence, the twerking.

 It is not so much the literal twerking that is the threat – Americans still have enough collective common sense to react to Miley Cyrus’s festival of daddy issues with the mockery it deserved.  But we have fallen far – it’s sad that normal Americans feel they dodged a bullet because simulated sodomy was not greeted with general acclaim.

It’s the figurative twerking that’s the danger, the everyday, never-ending assault on normalcy that we constantly face.  Look at our popular culture – we have a president who eagerly cavorts with modern day minstrels whose raps are punctuated with words like “bitch” and “ho.”  Yet, without irony, he and his allies then accuse us of a “War on Women.”

TV shows and movies celebrate the same chaos-ridden lifestyles that generate the kind of helpless, hopeless losers eager to vote for candidates offering them a few food stamps and maybe a cell phone in exchange for their serfdom.  Families?  Who needs them?  Why, Hollywood teaches us that opting for single motherhood is as good for kids as any other familial arrangement – just pay no attention to the statistics behind the curtain, or to what your own experiences have shown you.

Who needs families anyway?  Your liberal masters will provide, but only if you swear your loyalty.  Remember, normal Americans, freedom is slavery.

They twerk America on race.  We know racism is a shadow of its former self, the Democrat segregationists of the past having been long defeated.  We know that “racial incidents” and “hate crimes” on college campuses are always – always – committed by devoted liberals frustrated by their inability to find any actual racism and driven to invent it.

They turn the shooting of a “thug life” aficionado who was smashing the head of a Hispanic citizen he profiled as a male “rapist” into proof positive that white racism is alive and well.  They hold a rally to spread the notion that America has not changed one iota since the likes of Democrat activist Bull Connor beat civil rights protestors.  Hey, I have a dream too – that someday a liberal will ask America’s only black senator and America’s only black Supreme Court justice what they think.  Oh wait, they weren’t invited.

Liberal icons harass women, but it’s okay because they’re “huggers.”  They leave women to drown in the bottom of ponds, but that’s okay – they dig abortion.  And the liberals revel in their hypocrisy.

Aided by their eager slaves in the mainstream media, they twerk us, waving their lies in our faces and demanding we submit and accept them.  We were told that, “If you like you insurance, you’ll be able to keep it,” but this was never true and everyone knew it was a lie.  No one outside normal Americans and their few renegade media outlets called the emperor on his new clothes.

A trillion dollars borrowed from our grandkids for a hideous “stimulus” that went straight into the pockets of liberal constituencies!  You’ve been twerked!  A tax increase on people who actually produce something so even more money can be transferred to Democrat voters who don’t?  You’ve been twerked!  Rights of free speech, religious conscience, to keep and bear arms, to be secure from unreasonable searches?  America, you have been twerked!

Hell, even the Republican establishment is on the verge of twerking itself out of not just recapturing the Senate but out of keeping the House with its flurry of lies and dissembling about immigration.  Marco Rubio was our fresh-faced Hannah Montana, but after his shameful campaign of line blurring aimed at conservatives he’s now just a GOP Miley Cyrus rubbing on Chuck Schumer.

The proper response to a literal twerker is, “Get that thing out of my face.”  The proper response from normal Americans to the liberalism’s figurative twerkers is a good, swift kick.

A Truly Great Phony

By Thomas Sowell

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Many years ago, I was a member of a committee that was recommending to whom grant money should be awarded. Since I knew one of the applicants, I asked if this meant that I should recuse myself from voting on his application.

"No," the chairman said. "I know him too -- and he is one of the truly great phonies of our time."

The man was indeed a very talented phony. He could convince almost anybody of almost anything -- provided that they were not already knowledgeable about the subject.

He had once spoken to me very authoritatively about Marxian economics, apparently unaware that I was one of the few people who had read all three volumes of Marx's "Capital," and had published articles on Marxian economics in scholarly journals.

What our glib talker was saying might have seemed impressive to someone who had never read "Capital," as most people have not. But it was complete nonsense to me.

Incidentally, he did not get the grant he applied for.

This episode came back to me recently, as I read an incisive column by Charles Krauthammer, citing some of the many gaffes in public statements by the President of the United States.

One presidential gaffe in particular gives the flavor, and suggests the reason, for many others. It involved the Falkland Islands.

Argentina has recently been demanding that Britain return the Falkland Islands, which have been occupied by Britons for nearly two centuries. In 1982, Argentina seized these islands by force, only to have British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher take the islands back by force.

With Argentina today beset by domestic problems, demanding the return of the Falklands is once again a way for Argentina's government to distract the Argentine public's attention from the country's economic and other woes.

Because the Argentines call these islands "the Malvinas," rather than "the Falklands," Barack Obama decided to use the Argentine term. But he referred to them as "the Maldives."

It so happens that the Maldives are thousands of miles away from the Malvinas. The former are in the Indian Ocean, while the latter are in the South Atlantic.

Nor is this the only gross misstatement that President Obama has gotten away with, thanks to the mainstream media, which sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil when it comes to Obama.

The presidential gaffe that struck me when I heard it was Barack Obama's reference to a military corps as a military "corpse." He is obviously a man who is used to sounding off about things he has paid little or no attention to in the past. His mispronunciation of a common military term was especially revealing to someone who was once in the Marine Corps, not Marine "corpse."

Like other truly talented phonies, Barack Obama concentrates his skills on the effect of his words on other people -- most of whom do not have the time to become knowledgeable about the things he is talking about. Whether what he says bears any relationship to the facts is politically irrelevant.

A talented con man, or a slick politician, does not waste his time trying to convince knowledgeable skeptics. His job is to keep the true believers believing. He is not going to convince the others anyway.

Back during Barack Obama's first year in office, he kept repeating, with great apparent earnestness, that there were "shovel-ready" projects that would quickly provide many much-needed jobs, if only his spending plans were approved by Congress.

He seemed very convincing -- if you didn't know how long it can take for any construction project to get started, after going through a bureaucratic maze of environmental impact studies, zoning commission rulings and other procedures that can delay even the smallest and simplest project for years.

Only about a year or so after his big spending programs were approved by Congress, Barack Obama himself laughed at how slowly everything was going on his supposedly "shovel-ready" projects.

One wonders how he will laugh when all his golden promises about ObamaCare turn out to be false and a medical disaster. Or when his foreign policy fiascoes in the Middle East are climaxed by a nuclear Iran.

Corporate Profits Decline: Time For A Celebration?

By Austin Hill

Sunday, September 01, 2013

“Corporate Profits Lose Steam.” That was the headline atop a recent Wall Street Journal article. For those that become indignant about highly successful and profitable corporations, this should be really great news – right?

But nobody is celebrating. In fact, the sagging profits reports of the past several weeks are thought to be such a bad thing that some believe they have brought about the downward shifts on the stock market as of late (could it be that the business uncertainty caused by our U.S. government could be the problem on Wall Street instead?).

Companies as diverse as Krispy Kreme donuts and the almighty Microsoft have seen profits decline a bit in recent months. Americans – especially the community organizers among us who become unhinged when businesses are successful – should be thrilled about this.

If profits are such a terrible thing, why aren’t we relieved by their decline?

For the record, I have no idea whether or not a recession is eminent. And to the extent that economic activity is nearly impossible to predict with precision, nobody else knows either.

But regardless of whether the economy is moving up or down, Americans need to grapple with this “love-hate” attitude towards profitable enterprise. And let’s start with a couple of philosophical questions: Are profits always a good thing for a company to produce? And is it okay for one company to be really, really, profitable, even when other companies are not?

In some spheres of life – collegiate and professional athletic competitions, for example –Americans have no problem accepting the fact that with each match-up, some will succeed while others fail. Yet when it comes to business, success in producing profits is often seen as merely a necessary evil – and only acceptable if the profits aren’t “excessive.”

Part of the dilemma may well be that far too many Americans assume economics to be, as the term goes, a ‘zero-sum game.” Just as it is the case in many sporting events that one team wins and the other loses, so also it is assumed that if one individual or group is profitable, it necessarily causes somebody else’s unprofitability.

That, of course, is false. In our competitive free market economy, success with one enterprise often creates new markets in which other companies can succeed.

An easily understood example of this is the coffee house industry. In the 1980’s, Starbucks took the concept of the local coffee house where people meet and spend time together and drink beverages, and turned it in to a global business phenomena. And since the earliest beginnings of Starbucks, several other coffee house chains have been launched - Moxie Java, Tully’s Coffee, and Caribou Coffee to name a few - as an effort to capitalize on the burgeoning coffee house market. While today Starbucks remains the largest chain of its kind, these other newer and smaller companies have nonetheless benefited from Starbucks’ success, in as much as Starbucks essentially created the market for the modern-day coffee house in the first place.

But economic realities are one thing, and people’s perceptions and “feelings” are something different. And at present America is surrounded by an ever-present hostility towards profitable businesses – much of which emanates from the highest levels of our government.

Some of us saw this era of hostility coming. Back in 2008 while he was campaigning for the presidency, Then-Senator Obama made it a point to chastise American businesses nearly every time a robust earnings report was published. In the summer of that year, as an example, speaking to a stadium full of adoring followers, the President-to-be made it clear his disdain for the petroleum industry:

“First of all,” candidate Obama stated, “you’ve got oil companies making record profits…no… no companies in history have made the kind of profits the oil companies are makin’ right now…They..they…….one company, Exxon Mobil, made eleven billion dollars…billion, with a “b” ….last quarter….they made eleven billion dollars the quarter before that…makin’ money hand-over-fist…makin’ out like bandits…”

Imagine that! “Makin’ out like bandits” – that’s an amazing assessment of a successful business enterprise, suggesting that posting profits is tantamount to thievery. Of course at that moment in time, the early signs of a recession were appearing, and it was politically viable to send the message that “if we can’t all prosper right now, then none of us should prosper right now,” and his vitriol over the profitability of the Exxon Mobil Corporation played well with the crowd.

Yet Mr. Obama’s disdain for business “profits” has continued throughout his presidency. Fast forward to February 7th of 2011 when the President addressed an audience of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Speaking of the improving balance sheets that were emerging within many American companies at that time, President Obama stated: “The benefits can’t just translate into greater bonuses and profits for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that expanding trade and opening markets will lift their standards of living, as well as your bottom line…”

These were the words of our Ivy League-graduate, Nobel Prize-winning U.S. President. Surely he, of all people, understands that profits aren’t simply “shared” - they are “earned.” And surely he realizes that when a company is profitable, it’s not merely the C.E.O. that benefits (investors, employees, and customers benefit from profitability as well). Certainly the President of the United States understands these most basic concepts of free market enterprise – doesn’t he?

But we never hear that from our President. Nor do we hear much praise at all for successful, profitable enterprise from anybody in our government. It’s usually anger and disgust when profits are good, and promises of intervention and “stimulus” when profits are bad.

It’s a very self-serving and destructive game that our politicians play. And they will keep on playing until Americans demand differently – and until Americans come to terms with profits.

Liberal Guilt, Public Education, My Clear Conscience

By James Allen

Sunday, September 01, 2013

A new cornerstone piece on public education by Allison Benedikton on Slate.com titled, "If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person," was shocking but consistent and clearly revealed that liberals value the word “education,” as long as the word “public,” precedes it. According to the author, public schools continue to fail because parents are sending their children to private schools, instead of public schools. Parents who spend their hard earned money to send their children to private schools are in fact destroying the fabric of America’s public education: which is immoral. For liberals, abortion is not a moral issue but rather an issue of liberty and choice. Education whether public, private or charter, should have the same application of liberty and personal choice. Unfortunately, allowing freedom and choice in education would require an admission of failure and for liberals to turn their back on a core government institution.

This is because liberals value community more than the first and primary institution, which is “The Family.” Liberals believe that public education equals strong community and that all people have an obligation to community before family. Since community is more important than family, we are therefore obligated to send our children to public schools that are failing. Liberals would also suggest that we invest our time and other resources to improve the failing schools, as if other options did not exist. Truthfully, I feel no such obligation to public education nor can I intellectually rationalize sentencing my child to state education for the sake of the greater good. Public schools need good students and good parents and I understand that, but not at the cost of my child’s future.

So in applying this blind allegiance, if I live near a failing public school –which many people do – I have an obligation to send my children to that school. I also by implication of this argument have an obligation to fight for what my child needs as in new computers, AP classes, and specialized education. Liberals believe that property taxes are not enough, even for parents who pay for public education and do not use it and also pay for private education. Liberals want more than our money they want our flesh and blood and for us to sacrifice our children on the public school alter no matter the cost. Instead, I would rather send my child to a school where I believe they will be educated, instead of learning how to be busy worker bees producing widgets. It is my belief that classes in formal logic, centered in a classical education, will provide my child with an ancient forgotten skill: the ability to think and reason properly.

In my opinion, public education is as bad as public restrooms or public swimming pools. People become accustomed to free stuff and then develop a sense of entitlement believing they deserve community pools and free lunches. Feeling that we have certain natural rights and actually having them are two completely different things. I feel I have a natural right to dunk a basketball and play in the NBA, but no matter how hard I practice, playing in the NBA is not possible because I am a 170-pound short white guy. The government does not give rights to people and our constitution only protects our natural rights from the threat of government. Liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party have an agenda that is connected to a misguided worldview and it starts in public education.

Liberals value equality and so do conservatives, but the definition of that word is used very differently between conservatives and liberals. I believe human beings have natural rights by the very nature of being human, whereas liberals believe their rights come from government. Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, as all men and women being equal before God. Liberals on the other hand believe in equality of outcomes, where everyone becomes so equal that no one really has anything at all.

Applying the equality of outcomes to education is not only foolish but also dangerous. I will send my child to a school where their talent will be cultivated and they will learn how to think. In short, any school that is in line with my values is where I want my child to attend.

Leave the public schools to liberals and to people who do not care and wish to die on the hill of public education reform. The longer we suffer the fools of government the longer they can pretend their grand ideas are working. I do believe in community and in the importance of education. What we are missing is not the want or desire for community and better education, but an actual foundation for community to exist.

Freeing Inmates Is Criminal

By Debra J. Saunders

Sunday, September 01, 2013

Why would someone who opposes draconian federal mandatory minimum sentences oppose efforts to cut California's prison population by about 9,600 inmates? Because the federal system and the California system are two different animals.

U.S. prosecutors have been known to throw the full weight of the federal government toward putting low-level, nonviolent offenders away for decades.

In California, the focus has been on violent and serious offenders. In the past several years, Sacramento has reduced the state prison population by about a quarter, or more than 40,000 inmates. Gov. Jerry Brown's 2011 "realignment" plan diverted nonviolent, non-serious and non-sex offenders to county jails or programs.

Now, apparently, Brown has hit his limit. "The proverbial low-hanging fruit, they're gone," California Department of Corrections spokeswoman Terry Thornton noted. "The people who still come to prison are serious and violent and sex offenders."

Now Brown wants to put the brakes on the inmate exodus. Alas, in 2009, a panel of three federal judges ordered the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of capacity. Please note that 100 percent capacity means one inmate per cell; by this definition, every prison is overcrowded. No worries: The judges also concluded that overcrowding is "criminogenic" -- or likely to produce criminals. So they ordered the inmate reduction, which Brown clearly fears would be truly criminogenic.

"If you let 10,000 people out, what happens if they decide not to go to church every Sunday and instead commit serious crimes?" Dao Gov noodled during a news conference. They will have earned their way back to prison, but thanks to the judges' inmate cap, there will be no room at the inn. Before freeing inmates, Brown argued, do-gooders should ask, "How many people will pledge not to commit crimes that will get them back in?"

"Politically, (Brown has) been with the releases all the way down the line," observed Kent Scheidegger of the tough-on-crime Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which opposed Brown's realignment plan. Now that Brown wants to stop an inmate release, he added, "I do think he genuinely believes that releasing another 10,000 would indeed increase crime."

Brown fought the three-judge panel all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. But he lost. (So much for the Roberts court's being conservatively activist.) With a Dec. 31 deadline looming, the Democratic governor has been left with two choices -- free thousands of inmates who are likely to reoffend or find more prison beds. Here "find" means "build them or buy them."

The governor reached out to Assembly Speaker John Perez, Assembly Republican Leader Connie Conway and state Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff to put together a bipartisan package to place state prisoners in privately owned facilities. To pay for the program, Sacramento will have to raid budget reserves to the tune of about $415 million per year.

"I always tell the governor," Conway later quipped, "I love it when he channels his inner Republican." For their part, Conway and Huff had to hold back the temptation to criticize Brown for not spending some of the $7.4 billion in bond funds approved in 2007 to build more prisons.

Perez has the thankless task of standing with Brown and GOP leaders as state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg pushes an alternative plan that screams the sort of soft-on-crime thinking that drove up crime in the Golden State until voters approved a three-strikes ballot measure in 2000. Steinberg proposed spending $200 million per year on drug treatment and mental health programs; in exchange, prison inmate attorney Donald Specter might agree to a legal settlement that would give the state three years to reduce the prison population, not four months.

If an attorney for inmates might agree to keep some 10,000 inmates in prison, that says two things: The prisoner lobby can live with the status quo, and maybe it's afraid of what happens if too many inmates go free. As Scheidegger blogged, "if you release prisoners in order of dangerousness, the danger to the public safety per prisoner released increases as you go along."