What the Left offers from its best and brightest...watch the video here.
I recall what Rushbo once said..."Evidence refutes liberalism" As Ezra Klein demonstrates in the clip...the left finds necessary to discredit the Constitution writ large to justify their own facts/agendas. Pathetic.
December 31, 2010
December 18, 2010
December 12, 2010
QUOTE O' THE DAY
" The rich would have to eat money if the poor did not provide the food"
- Assyrian Proverb
- Assyrian Proverb
December 6, 2010
December 5, 2010
December 4, 2010
R.I.P. MODERN-DAY KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS
Seems the THUD I heard hit the floor today was Keynesian economics; resoundingly dying on the Senate floor today rejecting President Obama's tax hike plan !! 12/4/2010
Read here and smile!
And let me take this moment to remind everyone that REAGAN WAS RIGHT!
Read here and smile!
And let me take this moment to remind everyone that REAGAN WAS RIGHT!
November 30, 2010
November 28, 2010
November 27, 2010
November 26, 2010
November 23, 2010
November 21, 2010
ANN COULTER'S 25 BEST QUOTES ABOUT LIBERALS.
Via Rightwingnews.
25) Liberals seem to have hit upon a reverse Christ story as their belief system. He suffered and died for our sins; liberals make the rest of us suffer for sins we didn't commit. Their claims of how awful 'we' are never seems to encompass themselves in the 'we.' Saying America is a racist nation is never meant to suggest that the speaker is a racist -- it's his neighbors who are the racists.
24) It's the famous liberal two-step: First screw something up, then claim that it's screwed up because there's not enough government oversight (it's the free market run wild!), and then step in and really screw it up in the name of "reform."
23) This is liberalism's real strength. It is no longer susceptible to reductio ad absurdium arguments. Before you can come up with a comical take on their worldview, some college professor has already written an article advancing the idea.
22) As long as American liberals are going to keep announcing that they're embarrassed for their country, how about being embarrassed by our public schools or by our ridiculous trial lawyer culture that other countries find laughable?
21) Liberals never, ever drop a heinous idea; they just change the name. "Abortion" becomes "choice," "communist" becomes "progressive," "communist dictatorship" becomes "people's democratic republic" and "Nikita Khrushchev" becomes "Barack Obama."
20) Americans cannot comprehend how their fellow countrymen could not love their country. But the left's anti-Americanism is intrinsic to their entire worldview. Liberals promote the right of Islamic fanatics for the same reason they promote the rights of adulterers, pornographers, abortionists, criminals, and Communists. They instinctively root for anarchy against civilization.
19) Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.
18) Liberals don't believe there is such a thing as "fact" or "truth." Everything is a struggle for power between rival doctrines.
17) The liberal charge of "hypocrisy" has so permeated the public consciousness that no one is willing to condemn any behavior anymore, no matter how seedy. The unstated rule is: If you've done it, you can't ever criticize it -- a standard that would seem to repudiate the good works of the Rev. Franklin Graham, Malcolm X, Whittaker Chambers and St. Paul, among others.
16) Liberals don't mind discussing who is more patriotic if patriotism is defined as redistributing income and vetoing the Pledge of Allegiance. Only if patriotism is defined as supporting America do they get testy and drone on about 'McCarthyism.
15) Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional. Both words are nothing more or less than a general statement of liberal approval, having nothing to do with either science or the Constitution.
14) If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have "racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple them.
13) Here the country had finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism and they don't want to fight it. They would have, except it would put them on the same side as the United States.
12) Just as we're always told that schoolyard bullies are actually deeply insecure, liberals rationalize their own ferocious behavior by claiming to have been wounded somehow. What about the little guy our poor, insecure bully is beating the living daylights out of? How's his self-esteem coming along? That is the essence of liberals: They viciously attack everyone else, while wailing that they are the victims.
11) What liberals mean by "goose-stepping" or "ethnic cleansing" is generally something along the lines of "eliminating taxpayer funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. But they can't say that, or people would realize they're crazy. So instead they accuse Republicans by speaking in code words.
10) With their infernal racial set-asides, racial quotas, and race norming, liberals share many of the Klan's premises. The Klan sees the world in terms of race and ethnicity. So do liberals! Indeed, liberals and white supremacists are the only people left in America who are neurotically obsessed with race. Conservatives champion a color-blind society.
9) The reason any conservative's failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It's an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites.
8) Liberals claim to love gays when it allows them to vent their spleen at Republicans. But disagree with liberals and their first response is to call you gay. Liberals are gays' biggest champions on issues most gays couldn't care less about, like gay marriage or taxpayer funding of photos of men with bullwhips up their derrieres. But who has done more to out, embarrass, and destroy the lives of gay men who prefer to keep their orientation private than Democrats? Who is more intolerant of gays in the Republican Party than gays in the Democratic Party?
7) Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.
6) If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you've said -- unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder.
5) If liberals expressed half as much self-righteous indignation about crime as they do about the random case of police brutality, one might be inclined to take them seriously. Criminals they like. It's the police they hate.
4) Liberals are perennially enraged that Republicans are allowed to talk back. For years, this wasn't a problem, because, in Lenin's immortal words, they had seized the telegraph office. There were only three TV stations, three major newspapers, and a handful of national magazines, all run by liberals. But at least since Rush Limbaugh got a microphone, liberals haven't been able to make arguments in a vacuum.
3) But all liberals only have empathy for the exact same victims -- always the ones that are represented by powerful liberal interest groups.
2) Liberals hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for liberals and they can't stand the competition.
1) Words mean nothing to liberals. They say whatever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago.
November 14, 2010
November 13, 2010
CHRISTIEMANIA!
Every American, and particularly, EVERY New Jerseyian should see this video. It is awesome, and it will be with the Governor...and define the Governor, for the rest of his career...in my opinion, hopefully a career that gets him to be President of the United States of America!
As he says his mother said, and at the heart of what New Jersey is... "nothing left unsaid between us"
November 11, 2010
November 3, 2010
MARCO RUBIO: HIGHLIGHT OF 2010 ELECTION NIGHT!
It was a resounding, historic election night! Marco Rubio culminates everything that was awesome about it.
- Also: The 'Tea Party' movement rocks the political landscape. Of course, we knew it would ;)
- Huge!: (R) Mark Kirk wins Obama's Senate seat!
- Charles Krauthammer: hyper-liberalism sucks!
- Also: The 'Tea Party' movement rocks the political landscape. Of course, we knew it would ;)
- Huge!: (R) Mark Kirk wins Obama's Senate seat!
- Charles Krauthammer: hyper-liberalism sucks!
October 26, 2010
October 21, 2010
October 20, 2010
October 18, 2010
October 14, 2010
October 13, 2010
October 6, 2010
CLUELESS: ANOTHER (D) GETS SCHOOLED ON JOB CREATION.
Nothing new, but always fun to watch a supposedly smart politician, look so incredibly stupid and clueless on fundamentals of our capitalist system. What's even possibly worse is that he was willfully ignorant of the question. McMahon sets the bait and Blumenthal swallows it whole.
"I can see November from my house"
"I can see November from my house"
September 30, 2010
September 26, 2010
September 25, 2010
QUOTE O' THE DAY
"We are about tomorrow, they are about yesterday"
Gov. Chris Christie on education/unions.
September 21, 2010
September 12, 2010
ECONOMICS: GETTING THE INCENTIVES RIGHT!
This audio clip demonstrates - via Alex Tabarrock - so well why economics has been so interesting to me. By extension of that...why economics is so interesting to me as a CONSERVATIVE! Conservative's simply understand incentives BETTER! Of course, I'm biased ;) ...but this blog has been cataloging quite a bit of good economics(free market/conservative vein) Enjoy!
Ironically enough, the clip is from NPR...oh, well, the learning curve is longest for the bleeding-heart, altruist types...at least, in the practical sense.
Listen here to the short, but rich audio clip on incentive in economics.
Ironically enough, the clip is from NPR...oh, well, the learning curve is longest for the bleeding-heart, altruist types...at least, in the practical sense.
Listen here to the short, but rich audio clip on incentive in economics.
September 9, 2010
September 6, 2010
OBAMA'S NEW RUG DOESN'T MATCH THE DRAPES...
...it doesn't match history either.
The most clueless Presidency in history; but this may be perfectly forgivable to anyone who thought a community organizer would make an ideal President of the United States.
The most clueless Presidency in history; but this may be perfectly forgivable to anyone who thought a community organizer would make an ideal President of the United States.
September 1, 2010
WHERE ARE THE OMELETS?
Where Are the Omelets?
By Lawrence W. Reed
(Lawrence W. Reed is president of the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington, New York—www.fee.org. This essay has been adapted by the author from the original version that appeared in FEE’s journal, “The Freeman,” in October 1999. If you like this essay, become a fan of FEE’s Facebook page.)
On ne saurait faire une omelette sans casser des oeufs. ” Translation: “One can’t expect to make an omelet without breaking eggs.”
With those words in 1790, Maximilian Robespierre welcomed the horrific French Revolution that had begun the year before. A consummate statist who worked tirelessly to plan the lives of others, he would become the architect of the Revolution’s bloodiest phase—the Reign of Terror of 1793–94. Robespierre and his guillotine broke eggs by the thousands in a vain effort to impose a utopian society based on the seductive slogan “liberté, égalité, fraternité.”
But, alas, Robespierre never made a single omelet. Nor did any of the other thugs who held power in the decade after 1789. They left France in moral, political, and economic ruin, and ripe for the dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte.
As with Robespierre, no omelets came from the egg-breaking efforts of Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini either.
The French experience is one example in a disturbingly familiar pattern. Call them what you will—leftists, utopian socialists, radical interventionists, collectivists, or statists—history is littered with their presumptuous plans for rearranging society to fit their vision of “the common good,” plans that always fail as they kill or impoverish other people in the process. If socialism ever earns a final epitaph, it will be this: “Here lies a contrivance engineered by know-it-alls and busybodies who broke eggs with abandon but never, ever created an omelet.”
Every collectivist experiment of the twentieth century was heralded as the Promised Land by statist philosophers. “I have seen the future and it works,” the intellectual Lincoln Steffens said after a visit to Stalin’s Soviet Union. In The New Yorker in 1984, John Kenneth Galbraith argued that the Soviet Union was making great economic progress in part because the socialist system made “full use” of its manpower, in contrast to the less efficient capitalist West.
But an 846-page authoritative study published in 1997, The Black Book of Communism, estimated that the communist ideology claimed 20 million lives in the “workers’ paradise.” Similarly, The Black Book documented the death tolls in other communist lands: 45 to 72 million in China, between 1.3 million and 2.3 million in Cambodia, 2 million in North Korea, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan, 1 million in Vietnam, 1 million in Eastern Europe, and 150,000 in Latin America.
Additionally, all of those murderous regimes were economic basket cases; they squandered resources on the police and military, built vast and incompetent bureaucracies, and produced almost nothing for which there was a market beyond their borders. They didn’t make “full use” of anything except police power. In every single communist country the world over, the story has been the same: lots of broken eggs, no omelets. No exceptions.
Nobel laureate economist F. A. Hayek explained this inevitable outcome in his seminal work, The Road to Serfdom, in 1944. All efforts to displace individual plans with central planning, he warned us, must end in disaster and dictatorship. No lofty vision can vindicate the use of the brute force necessary to attain it. “The principle that the end justifies the means,” wrote Hayek, “is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule.”
The worst crimes of the worst statists are often minimized or dismissed by their less radical intellectual brethren as the “excesses” of men and women who otherwise had good intentions. These apologists reject the iron fist and claim that the State can achieve their egalitarian and collectivist goals with a velvet glove.
But whether it is the Swedish “middle way,” Yugoslavian “worker socialism,” or British Fabianism, the result has been the same: broken eggs, but no omelets.
Have you ever noticed how statists are constantly “reforming” their own handiwork? Education reform. Health-care reform. Welfare reform. Tax reform. The very fact that they’re always busy “reforming” is an implicit admission that they didn’t get it right the first 500 times.
The list is endless: Canadian health care, European welfarism, Argentine Peronism, African postcolonial socialism, Cuban communism, on and on ad infinitum. Nowhere in the world has the statist impulse produced an omelet. Everywhere it yields the same: eggs beaten, fried, and scrambled. People worse off than before, impoverished and looking elsewhere for answers and escape. Economies ruined. Freedoms extinguished.
It is a telling conclusion that statists have no successful model to point to, no omelet they can hold up as the pièce de résistance of their cuisine. Not so for those of us who believe in freedom. Indeed, economists James Gwartney, Robert Lawson, and Walter Block in their survey, Economic Freedom of the World: 1975–1995, conclude that “No country with a persistently high economic freedom rating during the two decades failed to achieve a high level of income. In contrast, no country with a persistently low rating was able to achieve even middle income status. . . . The countries with the largest increases in economic freedom during the period achieved impressive growth rates.”
Perhaps no one explained the lesson of all this better than the French economist and statesman Frederic Bastiat more than 150 years ago:
“And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
