Dispelling the common myth of the “liberal elite”

In Kim Strassel’s excellent column today in which she effectively makes the case that both Santorum and Romney are playing (to lose) Obama’s class warfare game, one peripheral phrase lept out at me, and spurred me to write this. She says:

“Team Obama may be abandoning [White working-class Americans] altogether, instead looking for 2012 victory in a progressive coalition of educated, socially liberal voters, combined with poorer ethnic voters, in particular Hispanics.”

Hold on. “Educated” socially liberal voters? This theme of educated people typically tilting leftwards is one that needs dispelling. Are we talking about indoctrinated when we use the term “educated?”

Churchill’s old saw was that you’d be heartless if you weren’t a [modern day] liberal when young, brainless if you weren’t a conservative when old. That progressive liberalism is favored by artists, college kids and the ill informed, while conservatives tend to be older, tax paying, more world-wise if less up to date on the latest trends, all detract from the notion of the “educated liberal.” But it’s progressive liberalism’s policies and actions that really demonstrate how false this premise is.

Fact is, anyone who is truly educated in the goings on of the world, anyone who has any knowledge about the way people and organizations work, knows full well that progressive liberalism or statism, cannot work. In fact, at least from this American’s view, the entire concept behind leftism, collectivism, marxism, et all, is one that doesn’t stand the test of even the most basic logic and has been disproven countless times in history, right on up to present day.

While it’s now fashionable to be one of the 99%, people used to understand that communism is a great idea on paper, but when implemented it leaves something to be desired. Perhaps it was more evident when we had the example of the Soviet Union staring us in the face. Yet a few decades later we have folks protesting capitalism in the streets. American leftism may not be the communism of the U.S.S.R, but it clearly takes us in that direction. If adherents of statism in America can’t internalize the hard-earned lessons of a mere 30 years ago, or even the lessons being learned in Europe right now, then how can they possibly claim to be educated?

And of course the majority of progressive-liberal policies simply haven’t worked. The idea that handouts help the poor, very popular with the Obama administration, despite a half century-long war on poverty that’s yeilded no results. Or the concept that public schools just need more money, despite some of the most well funded, and worst performing schools, right in the very bastions of liberalism.

Conservatism in D.C. and our southern states isn’t the cause of the extreme poverty, terribly performing public schools, or bugetary and fiscal woes found in the heart of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Detroit. Not to say there isn’t poverty in Republican states, but if liberal policies worked, then poverty would ONLY exist in red states, meanwhile blue states wouldn’t be facing the financial and educational issues now confronting them either. Are the educated statists to have us believe that somehow George Bush is the blame for the lifestyle or quality of public school education for residents in New York or Los Angeles’ worst neighborhoods, despite decades long liberal Democrat control (Anthony Wiener and Charlie Rangel to wit)?

The truly educated rely on facts and logic, and I believe most tenets of Conservatism are likewise based on facts and logic. However, often progressive-liberal positions are plainly based in deceit.

The notion that the rich don’t pay their fair share is commonly touted by the liberal left as if the science is settled. Yet the fact is that nearly half of America’s working populace pay no federal income taxes at all – and it’s not the rich half. Yes, lower income Americans may pay other taxes – so too do the rich along with punitive federal, capital gains and estate taxes as well. On top of this, the very term “rich,” and millionaires and billionaires, refers to people making 250k or more a year (less if they are single). All of this is so out rightly deceitful, and yet despite the fact that the richest 1% of Americans pays nearly 40% of federal income taxes collected (a share that’s grown considerably over recent decades), teenagers squatting in the parks are screaming that rich people pay less taxes than the secretaries they employ.

Another liberal deceit is that higher taxes and increased regulations don’t hurt business or cost anyone money. Regulations actually create jobs, and higher taxes are absorbed in one way or another, the (and I am being generous here) thinking goes. In reality, the big picture is that some regulations are necessary, but the King Kong style regulatory and taxation regime adopted by this administration has one effect, make America less competitive globally, at the expense of it’s citizens and to the benefit of it’s competitors like China.

Even the liberal view as to the cause of our economic crisis is likewise based in deceit. Sure, the symptom of the problem came out in failures in the credit markets, but this stemmed from one thing – liberal policies encouraging lenders to loosen standards so that more people (i.e. those less qualified) could borrow. No mortgage backed security ever caused someone to foreclose (unless that person traded in said MBS), but plenty of forclosures are what caused the credit markets to seize. Yet progressives commonly blame the downturn on a lack of deregulation by Bush or Reagan depending on who you talk to. The president himself has even given claim to exactly that. To add a bizzarre twist to the already insane, progressives believe that Dodd-Frank is the corrective to all this, even as the Fed recommends further easing of lending standards.

Obama’s own deceit, too vast to be covered in a single article, or perhaps book, has been most recently displayed in some comments he made justifying his latest unconstitutional move to install Richard Cordray as head of CFPB:

“We know what would happen if Republicans in Congress were allowed to keep holding Richard’s nomination hostage. More of our loved ones would be tricked into making bad financial decisions. More dishonest lenders could take advantage of some of the most vulnerable families. And the vast majority of financial firms who do the right thing would be undercut by those who don’t.”

All those dishonest lenders just salivating over the hordes of newbie working “families” who apparently can’t read what they are signing aside, are we really to believe any element of this was really worth setting this lawless precedent? Failing a clear judiciary overturn, something I think is unlikely, our republic has been irrevocably damaged and all we get on this point from the left is deceit.

Lastly, while the educated should be tolerant, Liberals also tend to be the least tolerant people that exist.

This whole idea of the 99% and the 1%, just the latest example, and is so divisive that it’s scary. How is the persecution of the 1% any different from the roots of racism in early America? How is dividing each and every American based on gender, ethnic and victim group, and then assigning special rights and privleges to certain favored groups a demonstration of equality and tolerance? It is in fact the very opposite of tolerance, only serves to further divide us, and if left unchecked over the long term, will only result in what class warfare always results in, a lower quality of life for all involved.

Of course progressive intolerance is at it’s worst when discussing any of the issues above. The disdain liberals have for conservatives is palatable, and always with an assumption that the conservative is somehow ill informed. I guess conservatives treat liberals similarly now, but most conservatives seem more willing to at least engage in discourse. This is plainly evidenced by conservative media outlets such as Fox or the WSJ that routinely take pains to show both sides of the story, something that’s verboten in liberal bastions such as MSNBC, Huffington Post, Politico, and of course the New York Times. I guess when you believe in something that can’t hold up to basic questions of logic, you’re not so interested in discourse.

Educated? Not so much. Ignorant, deceitful and intolerant? Yes, very much so. Let’s not let this false narrative of the intellectual left continue.

I’ve noticed over the last week or so a strange phenomenon. Obama’s numbers are steadily improving, and meanwhile I sense a disruption in the momentum behind the GOP. I’m not sure if it’s the endless bickering over primary candidates, the gamesmanship over this tax bill, or just some more of the same political collusion practiced by the liberal left wing mainstream media taking effect, but I feel our edge slipping away, and Obama’s chances of making good on his hope to change this country for the worse, improving.

We need to be smart here. The 2012 election is seriously up for grabs, Obama could easily win, and is likely to win. As desperately terrible as this presidency has been these last years, our side is in fact likely to lose. Every single one of us interested in the long term survival of this country need to take this very seriously, be smart, and keep our eye on the prize. It really doesn’t matter if our guy wins the primary, if Obama wins the general. And if Obama does win, 2016 doesn’t exist, because America ceases to exist.

Think I’m being dramatic? 1 in 7 are on food stamps now, and as a second term of Obama comes to a close, and that number decreases further, to what, 1 in 5, 1 in 4, and with Obamacare, now firmly entrenched as an entitlement like Medicare or Social Security, an entitlement that people are actually dependent on for their healthcare, exactly how well do you think old-fashioned, conservative and individualistic values will play among the electorate? It won’t. The entitlement mentality, already dangerously close to taking over a majority now, will be so firmly entrenched by 2016 that the majority will cease to be as concerned with our debt level, as long as someone (perhaps Germany), bails us out. Not to mention the deleterious effect of another 5 years of Obamanomics.

This isn’t an election for the POTUS, it’s an election to decide whether we remain America or not. We lose this one and it’s game set and match for this once great country.

Despite these realities, our team hasn’t been a team. Each day I read another article about a brokered convention, or I hear the candidates (or their surrogates) destroying each other. It’s not that Mitt’s better than Newt, it’s that Newt is simply so flawed as to be unworthy of consideration. Eventually, Americans watching who might be open to something other than Obama, instead get a sense that none of these guys is fit.  Not Bachmann, not Perry, not Cain, not Romney, not Newt, and now… wait we ran out of people. And before the Paulites accuse me of prejudice, let me add that should Paul take even one primary state, it will only go to prove what the left says about us.

And I really can’t wait for yet another vow taking session where each candidate swears to their moms about how pro-life they really are. Or whether they are against Gay marriage enough. Or Christian enough. Listen, I’m a single issue voter too – my one issue is I strongly support second amendment rights. But I don’t want to “scare the horses” – if the candidates start making vows on my issue, it will have one effect only – to incite and inflame all the pansies in liberal land who don’t understand the difference between legal and illegal gun ownership. We have to be smart here – if Obama wins a second term, ALL of these single issues will cease to matter. Law of man, and not law of god, becomes the rule of the day. We’re already halfway there now.

This is not 1980. This is 2012. Obama won in 2008, not by getting specific on issues, but by selling himself and a vague idea of change. The population bought it and like it or not, those same voters will be pulling the lever in November. We have to be smart here, and realize that we don’t benefit by endlessly debating the finer points. Yes, we’re smarter than the majority by and large, and yes we could debate the finer points, but let’s actually prove how smart we are by actually snatching the White House out of the clutches of burgeoning marxism.

Say it with me: “If your candidate wins, I’ll vote for him. Both of our candidates are vastly superior than the current occupant of the white house. No way am I staying home in November, I’ll be at the ballot voting R down the line, because I know a third party vote means Obama wins. And I’m not going to make my contentious single issues an issue this time around because more is at stake than ever before.”

If you can’t say the above, then you are part of the problem, and your actions will help ensure a second Obama term. And don’t be mad at me for telling you the truth.

We’ve already lost the 2012 election. Thanks goes to the liberal media (of course), the “Get out the (illegal) vote” machine, ACORN (or whatever they call themselves these days) and conservative dolts who in 2012, faced with a threat to the very republic for which we all stand, decided to instead argue about social conservative issues like abortion, the religion of a particular candidate, or worse, the marital or other history of a candidate, unrelated to his achievements.

Truth be told, I know that abortion is murder, and life begins at conception. I think conservatives SHOULD hold their candidates to a higher standard than the left. But we don’t have the luxury to have these debates this year. Let me (ah) be very clear here – if Obama is re-elected president in 2012, and believe me, the chances of this are very very good that he will, it’s America that will be one and done.

Just a mere three years of Obama, and Iran is on the verge of getting nukes with no deterrent, Israel is on the precipice of war as a result. Our credit rating has taken a severe dive (about soon to get worse). The government now has it’s tendrils firmly implanted in our healthcare, our banking industry and American energy independence is being farmed out to Brazil. Our DOJ is going after states for enforcing our borders, and the NAACP is claiming to the UN that the GOP wants to “suppress votes.” Meanwhile, our fourth estate, fully owned by the extreme left, continues to sing a happy song, brainwashing millions (possibly a majority of Americans) that things are not only fine, but that Obama is actually a likeable person despite actually being a thin-skinned, immature creep.

Meanwhile, conservatives who should be united in their objective to defeat this man-child president are arguing over such nonsense as Abortion, the “purity” of candidates, and whether Trump should be hosting debates.  Some, whose favored candidates can’t seem to muster even 10% in any given poll threaten to vote third party (see Ross Perot and Bush 1).  Note that in Politico today, the lefties referred laughingly to what’s going on in conservative circles as a “knife fight.”

Newsflash people: Your cherished single issues will cease to mean anything when they change the name of the place to the U.S.S.A. When 1000% of our GDP is owned by the Chinese, not only will abortion be legal, but it will be mandated. Whether Newt got divorced or whether Trump is hosting a debate will cease to matter once the state decides it’s only fair that those extra rooms in your home should be used to provide housing for the less fortunate (like they did in Venezuela a couple of years ago).

Think these things can’t happen here?  You’re dead wrong.  The very essence of America is slipping away, and in about a year, our nation faces a choice between America the great, and America the social safety net. And you’re arguing about the position of the deck chairs.

It’s time to cut it out. You can’t get everything you want, and you’ll get nothing if you cut your nose to spite your face, which is the tenor of many of the diaries I’ve been reading here as of late.

Throughout his presidency, the liberal sycophants in the media have continuously tried to link President Obama with some of the greatest presidents in the history of this nation. He would be the new FDR. No, he would govern like Abe Lincoln. Actually, he’s a lot like Reagan the leg-chillers would breathlessly tell us. Now, the liberal online rag Politico tells us that he’s the new Theodore Roosevelt (excluding a link as I don’t want to send them traffic):

“Just over a hundred years after the Bull Moose delivered his New Nationalism speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, Obama is scheduled to tout his own square deal – he’ll describe it as everyone getting a fair shot – there on Tuesday.”

Never in my life have I seen a president who constantly and consistently tried to emulate the successes of presidents past. Every other president, from Carter all the way up to Bush II, has stood their own, and governed in their own way, to fit the time. Not to say the media hasn’t made comparisons before, but the comparisons of the Obama presidency, mostly flattering of course, seem to be the very substance of his administration.

Of course, this brings us back to the central issue with Barack Obama. Three years in, no one really knows who he is. We get what he stands for, class warfare, an all powerful centralized government, and fundamental change of this great nation to, well, something else. (But don’t dare call him a socialist.) Rather than simply be Barack Obama, he instead is constantly searching for a way to be someone or anyone else, other than himself. In effect, Obama, throughout his presidency of imitation, has admitted that he is but an empty vessel, which even he can place his hopes and dreams.

The real question of course is whether the populace sees this. From the relatively safe confines of Redstate and others, it sure feels like the man is a one termer, but I get scared when I talk to the “moderates” out there who spout off about an intransigent congress, or the “weak field” of GOP candidates. God help this nation if Obama (or FDR, Lincoln, Reagan, TR, or whomever else Obama fancies himself to be today) gets another four years. Sadly, with the bulk of the mainstream media behind him and actively covering for his faults, and with a GOP primary focusing on nonsense like abortion and a candidates previous marriages, and rumbles from Paul freaks of a 3rd party run, I think that’s just what we will get.

Liberal Fox News anchor Shep Smith just said that the war in Libya (he referred to it as the un-war or the like) is now over, as NATO is pulling out. I think that’s great. Not that I am a dove or anything, but the farther we keep this man-child who occupies the White House, away from the controls of war, wasting our blood and treasure on half-hearted attempts to appear like he has a sack, the better.

So it’s great we’re pulling out of Libya, and likewise, I fully support our complete withdrawal from Iraq AND Afghanistan as well. When the American people elect a President who can prosecute foreign affairs in the actual interest of this great land and her allies, and with respect to the young men and women putting their lives on the line, then we can think about putting Americans in harms way.

In the last few days there has been lots of talk about how the developments in Libya prove out Obama’s strategies, and add to his already extensive bona fides – a canard so rich that it deserves it’s own column, but I digress. What I’ve found so astonishing is how little talk there is about “Winning the Peace” (WTP).

Remember WTP? Back when President George W. Bush went to war in Iraq, after asking permission of congress and passing several resolutions in the UN, I might add, and after he appeared under the “Mission Accomplished” banner following the toppling of Baghdad, the literati, the professional left, and seemingly the entire world (or at least the U.N.), couldn’t stop handwringing over what would happen now that the dictator Saddam was toppled. We broke it, we had to fix it right? We had to have a plan to win the peace, right? I mean right?

What ever happened to nation building? Are the good people of Libya, sprung from the clutches of an admittedly despicable dictator, any less in need of a new nation than Iraq was? Where is the outcry from the media, where are the human rights groups now that a vacuum has been created in leadership, likely to be filled by the Muslim Brotherhood or some equally fanatical group or worse, a proxy for Iran?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think we should rebuild Libya. I think Bush’s tactical error was playing into this handwringing in the first place – Iraqi’s were an industrious people and they would have figured it out without us.  We should have limited our mission to wining the military conflict, and toppling Saddam (an accomplishment for Bush far greater than anything Obama might have had to do with the demise of Qadaffi) regardless of what the NY Times editorial page thought. But I just can’t get over the ever growing and astonishing double-standard at play here. I shouldn’t be surprised, but I’ve just never thought I’d see a time where dis-ingenuousness would so thoroughly rule the day without the populace as a whole so much as batting an eye.

The positive side of this may be that the next Republican president in 2012 might be able to follow suit, as now no Liberal can ever now complain that we broke it, so we must fix it, or have a plan for winning the peace.  Those same rules didn’t apply to their guy,  so it stands to figure that when a Republican takes the White House and actually tries to act in the interest of this country using military force, our new President might have quite a few more options than Bush ever did .  Then again, given the traitorous liberal media, who informs the masses in lockstep with an unflinchingly partisan tilt, perhaps I shouldn’t count on it.

  

The celebration of Ms. Simpson's appointment to Commerce proves just how silly and bigoted the Democrats really are.

The Attempt on Flight 253 is a symptom of Obama's prosecution of the War On Terror

An Open Letter to President Obama

As events have unfolded in the last five-plus months of Obama's rule, it's nothing short of astounding that a majority of Jews supported him.

Collectivism and the myth of American Unexceptionalism may undermine American society as a whole and bring about the drab and unexceptional society the left dreams of.