By Curtis Frantz
In general, low self-esteem and a lack of self-love are the basis for the ideology of liberals.
Liberals are those who would use government to reduce the freedoms of some people to provide benefits for others. Liberals argue for fairness and equality for all people, but neither is possible. Other than identical twins, all [...]
In general, low self-esteem and a lack of self-love are the basis for the ideology of liberals.
Liberals are those who would use government to reduce the freedoms of some people to provide benefits for others. Liberals argue for fairness and equality for all people, but neither is possible. Other than identical twins, all people are genetically different, and without exception, each has unique life experiences that are interpreted differently. We are necessarily and naturally unequal in a worldly sense. (If “all men are created equal” in a Godly sense, nothing more needs to be done to ensure it.) Liberals, progressives, socialists, fascists, communists, and statists seek similar means to the same end. They want control of an expansive, intrusive government using taxation, regulation, and takeover of private property and businesses to achieve an earthly equality — an equality that is unnatural, unhealthy, and unattainable. This irrational political ideology is rooted in psychological shortcomings.
The U.S. Constitution correctly identifies the purpose of government as protecting the freedoms of its people. Being free is the natural state of all lifeforms. Soldiers risk their lives and die fighting for freedom…not equality. The Statue of Liberty welcomes those “yearning to breathe free.”
Having an internalized sense of being less than others drives a desire for equality. The liberal’s internal motivation is: “If we are all the same, I can’t be less.” From a practical perspective, making people or situations equal involves punishing the successful; which can be a welcome expression of jealous anger for those with low self-esteem.
Having low self-esteem makes freedom something to fear. Freedom means being free to succeed or fail. For those with a low sense of self, the expectation is that one’s failure is inevitable. Freedom is not desirable under those conditions.
Liberals’ personal problems become a societal problem when liberals try to address them by requiring changes to the lives of others. They seek a government with extensive power and reach that can limit freedoms and penalize success so that we seem to be more equal. It’s as if I were to address a problem of poor posture by requiring everyone else to slouch. The adequacy of self-love or self-esteem one has is not determined by comparison to others. It is not measured by net worth, which government can adjust. Whether one has healthy levels of self-love and self-esteem is determined by personal physiology and psychology. No matter how much government can disrupt the lives of its citizens, it cannot make anyone love or esteem themselves more or make anyone happy.
What liberals really need — greater self-esteem and self-love — government is completely powerless to provide.
Free enterprise and the American marketplace – not the guiding hand of government – have revitalized the beleaguered automaker General Motors, which expects to announce another profitable quarter, according to GM officials.
Marking the 100th day after the Gulf oil spill disaster on Wednesday, House Republicans held a press conference to denounce the Obama administration's moratorium on offshore drilling as well as Democrat-sponsored legislation arising from the oil spill.
House investigators accused veteran New York Rep. Charles Rangel of 13 violations of congressional ethics standards on Thursday, throwing a cloud over his four-decade political career and raising worries for fellow Democrats about the fall elections.
“Anger in the streets and we’re there for the protests,” ABC anchor Diane Sawyer teased in making reaction from a few opposed to Arizona’s immigration enforcement efforts her top story on Thursday night. She led: “Emboldened by a judge's rebuke of that law yesterday, hundreds of opponents of the crackdown took to the streets today. But the state's unyielding Governor stood by the law.” ABC’s Barbara Pinto touted over video which included a protester waving a Che Guevara flag:
Demonstrations started at dawn – hundreds of protesters, dozens of arrests, tempers flaring. Tensions are running high here outside this jail, where protesters have gathered and it's turned into a standoff with sheriff's deputies who are trying to push their way out of the building. Demonstrations were loud, disruptive, but mostly peaceful.
After a clip of a woman complaining “Joe Arpaio has picked the easy targets, the day laborers. Let's go after the real criminals and stop wasting our money,” Pinto fretted: “This afternoon, Sheriff Arpaio launched one of his controversial crime raids, targeting illegal immigrants.” She concluded with a warning: “Tonight's rally intended to send a clear signal to lawmakers and to Governor Brewer from those who think even a partial law is too much.”
World News followed Pinto with a short bio piece on Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, but it didn’t offer any points in favor of the state’s law.
Championing left-wing protests in Arizona is nothing new for ABC’s World News. The newscast did it back on May 1 and again on May 30 when David Muir declared: “Day of outrage, anger on the streets of Phoenix and across this country tonight,” pleading: “Will an army of protesters be heard?”
Meanwhile, on Thursday’s NBC Nightly News reporter George Lewis centered a story on how plenty of resources are already focused on catching illegals with more help coming:
The question is how much border security is enough. There are 20,000 border patrol agents now. That's twice as many as there were nine years ago. They are a major presence on the streets of Nogales and soon they'll be joined by the National Guard...
“Angry backlash from coast to coast,” ABC’s David Muir teased Saturday’s World News, “huge rallies across this country tonight against that new controversial immigration law.”
ABC reporter Eric Horng touted how “this is the fifth year in a row that nationwide immigration rallies have been held on May 1st, but this year emotions are particularly raw. They came by the thousands. A sea of demonstrators armed with a message.” He soon claimed “the state has been lampooned by comedians” and as evidence played the very same clip from the left wing Jon Stewart as had NBC’s Andrea Mitchell earlier in the week when she asserted Arizona had become “a laughing stock.”
Another pro-illegal alien protest and, once again, the networks champion the cause. Four weeks after the broadcast network evening shows trumpeted May Day marches against Arizona’s effort to enforce federal law, another round of marches prompted ABC and NBC on Saturday night to push the left-wing cause.
“Day of outrage, anger on the streets of Phoenix and across this country tonight,” ABC anchor David Muir declared, pleading: “Will an army of protesters be heard?” Reporter Jeremy Hubbard began his story for World News: “In their most massive numbers yet, a deluge of adversaries rally and rail against what could soon be the law of the land in Arizona.”
The lead story on the Thursday, July 29 ABC World News:
DIANE SAWYER: Good evening. Arizona's immigration law is on hold. The protests are not. Emboldened by a judge's rebuke of that law yesterday, hundreds of opponents of the crackdown took to the streets today. But the state's unyielding governor stood by the law and filed an appeal. Barbara Pinto is in Phoenix tonight. She's been there all day, in the middle of the stormy showdown.
BARBARA PINTO [jpg of Pinto]: Protesters descended on Phoenix, despite a judge's ruling to delay enforcement of most of the state's new crackdown on illegal immigrants. Demonstrations started at dawn – hundreds of protesters, dozens of arrests, tempers flaring. Tensions are running high here outside this jail, where protesters have gathered and it's turned into a standoff with sheriff’s deputies who are trying to push their way out of the building. Demonstrations were loud, disruptive, but mostly peaceful.
LIZ HOURICAN, PROTESTER: Joe Arpaio has picked the easy targets, the day laborers. Let's go after the real criminals and stop wasting our money.
PINTO: This afternoon, Sheriff Arpaio launched one of his controversial crime raids, targeting illegal immigrants.
PINTO TO ARPAIO: Anything different today?
SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY: Well, we've got this other problem at the jails right now. As far as the operation, business as usual.
PINTO: Starting today, it's a state crime for anyone to transport illegal immigrants. That didn't seem to stop these day laborers. They were still getting picked up. They told us they're no more afraid today than they were yesterday. Outside Home Depot looking for work, we met Rene. He’s been in this country illegally for 20 years.
PINTO TO RENE: Have the police been by here this morning?
RENE, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT: No, no. We don't see the police. There's no police around here.
PINTO: Now, police and protesters are gathered here at the capital. Tonight's rally intended to send a clear signal to lawmakers and to Governor Brewer from those who think even a partial law is too much.
CNBC.com's Jeff Cox needs to brush up on his financial history.
He believes that George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts affected only the highest-earning taxpayers, i.e., those who gross $250,000 a year of more. He's wrong.
Here's part of what Cox posted this morning (erroneous statement is bolded; HT to Mark Levin in his Thursday broadcast):
Letting Bush Tax Cuts Die Would Kill Recovery: Analysts
The nascent US economic recovery would be halted in 2011 if Congress fails to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, analysts at Deutsche Bank said.
The cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush and covered those earning more than $250,000, but they are set to expire at the end of this year.
Deutsche said the drag on gross domestic product should they lapse could be as much as 1.5 percent, with the more likely impact at 1.1 percent.
The impact would be worse, the analysts said, if Congress fails to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was enacted in 1969 to make sure rich people pay taxes but was never indexed for inflation, and thus is now hitting middle-income workers.
... The opinion runs counter to that of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who said earlier this week that allowing the cuts to expire would not cause the economy to re-enter recession. The administration has proposed letting most of the tax cuts stand, but eliminating the ones for the top-tier earners.
Deutsche compared the situation to Japan in the 1990s, when the government let tax cuts expire and cut stimulus, leading to another leg down in the recession and ensuring the nation's "lost decade" of no economic growth.
While the US is headed toward unmanageable debt levels, now is not the time to start tightening the money supply, the analysts said.
It wouldn't have taken much of an effort for Cox to learn the truth. In fact, it took me about 5 minutes to find the following items (too bad documenting them doesn't go as quickly):
From CBS News (May 28, 2003; "Bush Signs Tax Cuts Into Law") -- You could tell that the network's Jarrett Murphy wasn't happy with having to report it, telling readers that "... Mr. Bush said the tax legislation will provide relief to 136 million American taxpayers." It's as if there was no reason to believe the president.
From the Tax Foundation (June 21, 2007) -- "... the Bush tax cuts were mainly across-the-board cuts in tax rates ..."
USA Today (May 19, 2003; three-paragraph excerpt from "Bush's drive for tax cuts fueled by his principles") -- Reporters Judy Keen; Laurence McQuillan quote Bush as saying in part: ""Across-the-board tax relief does not happen often in Washington, D.C."
Cox wouldn't even have had to go to Google or Google's news archive to learn how wrong he is. More recently, as in two weeks ago, Bloomberg briefly explained what the Bush tax cuts did in a report that was primarily about how Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan (sigh) wants everyone's taxes to go up next year ("Greenspan Calls for Congress to Let All Bush Tax Cuts Expire"):
... Bush tax cuts that passed in 2001 and 2003 gave middle- income earners a 10 percent rate on couples’ first $14,000 in income; subsidies for college expenses, a higher child-care credit and relief from the marriage penalty. Keeping those and other reductions for the 130 million households earning less than $250,000 would cost about $300 billion a year, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.
The Bloomberg item also notes that "President Barack Obama campaigned for election in 2008 on a promise of extending the Bush tax reductions for families earning up to $250,000 while eliminating the cuts for higher- income Americans, a position also embraced by most congressional Democrats." Of course this means that many other Americans earning below that amount received tax cuts.
This is a pretty blatant error, especially considering that it's from a business network. Tighten things up, guys and gals.
It is almost unfathomable to me that television’s talking heads and pundits sill continue to scratch their respective noggins and ask why The Obama is talking--again--about raising taxes via letting President Bush’s tax cuts (for everyone I would add) expire. ‘To end them’, the pundits offer, ‘will amount to the largest tax increase in US history--during the worst recession since the Great Depression’. These same talkers refuse to accept the Occam’s Razor explanation--the principle that states the simplest (most obvious) explanation is usually the correct one. In this case, Occam’s Razor tells us that Obama has no intention of allowing America to recover. Instead, he is actively stealing all of the liberties, religious freedoms and wealth from We-the-People and placing it into his, his masters’ and minions’ pockets.
Something has been troubling me for months now. I have not been able to shake the feeling that Obama knows his political party is going to take an enormous hit this coming November in the Mid-Term Elections and yet, he doesn’t seem to care - at all!
Before it was even put in place, the Arizona immigration law was already working because illegal immigrants were self deporting themselves to avoid prosecution. It does seem strange that a court would be so afraid of a law that specifically forbids law enforcement from racially profiling - but that wasn't enough for the courts (and a Clinton appointed Judge) to jump to the rescue of the paranoid left - who worry about kids being scooped up while they enjoy an ice cream cone. Before it was even put in place, the Arizona immigration law was already working because illegal immigrants were self deporting themselves to avoid prosecution. It does seem strange that a court would be so afraid of a law that specifically forbids law enforcement from racially profiling - but that wasn't enough for the courts (and a Clinton appointed Judge) to jump to the rescue of the paranoid left - who worry about kids being scooped up while they enjoy an ice cream cone.
It's interesting that the left is largely silent on the blatant power grabs by this administration - such as the latest with the SEC, who are now exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests. Everyone should be up in arms, because no matter who is in control, government and power has proven to be a horrible combination.It's interesting that the left is largely silent on the blatant power grabs by this administration - such as the latest with the SEC, who are now exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests. Everyone should be up in arms, because no matter who is in control, government and power has proven to be a horrible combination.
It's just one month away from the Restoring Honor Rally in Washington DC - proceeds from the event go to the Special Operation Warrior Fund. Glenn looks forward to seeing you in one month - and you can donate by bidding on any one of a number of great auction items...It's just one month away from the Restoring Honor Rally in Washington DC - proceeds from the event go to the Special Operation Warrior Fund. Glenn looks forward to seeing you in one month - and you can donate by bidding on any one of a number of great auction items...
Public Policy Polling, a Democratic pollster based here in my home state of North Carolina, has published polls testing the California Senate and gubernatorial races. The results favor the Democratic candidate in both cases. ...
WASHINGTON (AP) - A key to the U.S. approach to fighting the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is this seemingly backward logic: The more aggressively you protect your own troops, the less secure they may be.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's most influential small business lobby is joining a court challenge to President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, arguing that Americans cannot be required under the Constitution to obtain insurance coverage.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is endorsing the only female candidate in South Carolina's gubernatorial race who is also popular with tea party activists.
Scott’s running a campaign that’s making the DCCC nervous - to the point where they’ve decided to throw money at his opponent as part of their DOOMList - and we spoke this morning about that and other matters.
Scott’s site is here, and it’s a measure of the cycle that we’re legitimately talking about taking seats in Oregon. Roll on November…
[UPDATE] Via Hot Air: let the damage control begin! McMahon shoots the messenger, and completely fails to explain why she delivered the message in the first place. Remember, folks: fish rots from the head down.
Rep. McMahon is claiming that he wanted to make sure that people knew that the 200K that his opponent Mike Grimm raised last quarter - which is, by the way, quite good for a challenger - wasn’t locally raised. Well, to start off with: there’s usually no particular stigma involved in getting money from out-of-district, although I suppose that NY-13 might be one of those districts where such things are important. Secondly, and more importantly: you’d think that if McMahon wanted to prove that Grimm was getting mostly out-of-district money he’d pass out a list of Grimm’s out-of-district donors. Not a list of Grimm’s Jewish donors.
The file, labeled “Grimm Jewish Money Q2,” for the second quarter fundraising period, shows a list of over 80 names, a half-dozen of which in fact do hail from Staten Island, and a handful of others that list Brooklyn as home.
“Where is Grimm’s money coming from,” said Jennifer Nelson, McMahon’s campaign spokeman. “There is a lot of Jewish money, a lot of money from people in Florida and Manhattan, retirees.”
Yes, Jennifer Nelson, thank you for making sure that we all know that the Jews are bankrolling one of your candidate’s Republican opponents. I don’t know which would distress me more: that you felt the need to take a shower afterward, or that you didn’t.
As a point of comparison, the campaign also provided in-district and out-of-district fundraising totals from McMahon and Grimm’s G.O.P primary opponent, Michael Allegretti. However, they did not provide an out-of-district campaign filing from Grimm, but only a file of Jewish donors to him.
I suppose that we should be grateful that Rep. McMahon didn’t refer to it as ‘dirty Jew money.’
In public, that is.
Moe Lane
PS: McCain/Palin won NY-13, by the way: for that matter, both McCain and Palin have endorsed Grimm (McCain’s always up for supporting another war veteran and Palin has a soft spot for anti-establishment candidates). McMahon’s a squatter who snuck in during the 2008 shellacking (and the retirement of Fossella); he’s been playing up his opposition to health care, but as you just saw… progressives will out.
From Unlikely Voter: I’ve seen a few Republicans express serious doubts about Carly Fiorina after the latest California Senate poll from Public Policy Polling, but I think close inspection of that poll should give one pause before putting too much weight on its results.
Besides, the other new poll, from the Public Policy Institute of California, deep down is as bad for Barbara Boxer as the Republicans could ever hope for.
Public Policy Institute of California and Public Policy Polling might sound related, but they’re not, and their polls show it. Let’s look at the PPP poll first. Tossing aside the question about hairstyles, we get a key top line result of Fiorina 40, Boxer 49 (MoE 3.95). This represents a 6 point swing toward Boxer from PPP’s last poll in May. But I think the picture of the electorate it depicts is terribly unrealistic.
First there’s the issue of support for the PPACA. Previous polling by Rasmussen Reports showed a narrow split in favor of the bill, but PPP shows a wide 52-40 margin in favor. That was a key figure I saw that caused me to dig further into the PPP data.
The PPP poll is of registered voters. The firm is apparently doing nothing to weed out people who probably won’t show up, especially the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner “drop off” 2008 voters who will stay home in 2010. This is a problem because a) midterms have lower turnout than Presidential elections, and b) in a partisan wave like 2006 or the likely one in 2010, the desire to stay home will not be evenly felt by Republicans and Democrats.
This is why the PPP poll shows a split like 58% voting for Obama, 36% voting for McCain, 6% other/not voting, which almost exactly resembles the 61/37/2 split of the final 2008 Presidential election count in California. The PPP poll might be accurate if the state sent people to the homes of every 2008 voter and conducted the Senate election by hand, but that’s just not the case.
California’s next Senator will be determined by those who show up at the polls or take the time to fill out, stamp, and mail their ballots in. And I believe no serious analysis will project the 2010 electorate only to show a 2 point swing from the Democrats to the Republicans, as PPP’s poll projects. No, that swing will be higher.
That’s why I put more trust in the PPIC poll. It also shows Boxer leading, but by a 39-34 margin (MoE 2.7). This is a poll of PPIC’s model of likely voters in November. Not only is Boxer’s support remarkably weak for an incumbent, dropping below 40, let alone 50, but the 5 point edge is also a drop from before the primaries.
In May PPIC had Boxer ahead of Fiorina 48-39, so Boxer’s support has fallen badly. So has Fiorina’s but by half as much.
Any challenger would take her chances against an incumbent as weak as Barbara Boxer, I believe. Boxer leads, but Fiorina is in great position to win, especially should she make another late surge as she did in the primary.
Clearly, the Democrats think they have something here tying together the Republican Party and the Tea Party. However, it seems to me that this political miscalculation is exactly why Congress’ approval rating is at 11%.
What the Democratic Leadership doesn’t seem to understand is that the Tea Party isn’t a political party; it’s a set of ideas shared by the overwhelming majority of Americans.
The Tea Party is made up of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Constitution Party members, and apolitical Americans.
They are mainstream folks who love our nation and who wish to see America return to policies of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and strictly adhere to our Constitution. After all, these are the fundamental principles of our founding and represent the character of America.
For the Democrats to portray these fundamental principles as radical and a hindrance to public policy shows just how far out of touch they are from the political pulse of this country.
I hope the Democrats’ latest messaging campaign reaches far and wide because it will do nothing but distance them further from Main Street America.
Obama has "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." Glenn Beck
What should we do with Obama the racist?
"In Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, 'Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on,'
We need segregated buses. This is Obamas America."
Rush Limbaugh
What should we do with Obama the racist?
Where is Dick when we need him?
For the woman in your life, get her something that says what should happen to Obama.
Cook him good...
Share on Facebook
Print a PDF File, sign it
and carry it with you. Notify others in an emergency, that you
do not want your children adopted or cared for by homosexuals.
For the woman in your life, get her something that says what should happen to Obama.
Cook him good...
“Anger in the streets and we’re there for the protests,” ABC anchor Diane Sawyer teased in making reaction from a few opposed to Arizona’s immigration enforcement efforts her top story on Thursday night. She led: “Emboldened by a judge's rebuke of that law yesterday, hundreds of opponents of the crackdown took to the streets today. But the state's unyielding Governor stood by the law.” ABC’s Barbara Pinto touted over video which included a protester waving a Che Guevara flag:
“Angry backlash from coast to coast,” ABC’s David Muir teased Saturday’s World News, “huge rallies across this country tonight against that new controversial immigration law.” 
Another pro-illegal alien protest and, once again, the networks champion the cause. Four weeks after the broadcast network evening shows trumpeted May Day marches against Arizona’s effort to enforce federal law, another round of marches prompted ABC and NBC on Saturday night to push the left-wing cause.
BARBARA PINTO [
PINTO TO ARPAIO: Anything different today?
CNBC.com's Jeff Cox needs to brush up on his financial history.
