'We' are finally part of 'We the People' by Leonard Pitts

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jeff Martin,

There is an ongoing debate that Bubba Bill Clinton is our nation’s first black president.

There are many that say Bubba Bill is blacker than Obama. After viewing this video, is Bubba Bill blacker than Obama?

You be the judge!

WHAT DOES IT REALLY MATTER WHAT RACE ONE IS?
ITS THE HUMAN RACE DUMB A$$!

The Road to Serfdom
by John Stossel


http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2008/11/12/t...e=full&comments=true

It's exciting that the world is so excited about Barack Obama. I'm excited, too. That he achieved the presidency says something good about America.

But the excitement also frightens me. It reinforces the worst impulse of the media and political class: the assumption that all progress comes from Washington. In a free society, with constitutionally limited government, the president would be a mere executive who sees to it that predictable and understandable laws are enforced. But sadly, the prestige and power of the presidency have grown, and liberty has contracted. That is not something to celebrate.

The infatuated chattering classes now demand "action" on the economy. They use positive words like "bold steps." The insufferable New York Times suggests the choice is "between a big-bang strategy of pressing aggressively on multiple fronts versus a more pragmatic, step-by-step approach .... " There is endless talk about how FDR ended the Great Depression and how Obama will apply similar "stimulus."

Please. FDR's "bold" moves didn't end the Depression. They prolonged it by discouraging capital investment. Hoover and Roosevelt turned what might have been a brief downturn into 10 years of double-digit unemployment.

Now Obama says, "we don't have a moment to lose," and he and the Democrats insist that government must unionize most of America by passing "card check" and taxpayers must throw even more money at American automakers.

This is the conceit of what Thomas Sowell calls "the anointed" (http://tinyurl.com/6me8d4). The politicians know best how our money should be spent. The "road to serfdom" is paved with such good intentions.

Obama promises:

"We will change the world ... There is nothing we can't do, nothing we can't accomplish if we are unified."

Who is this "we" politicians always cite?

We can change the world for the better if "we" means hundreds of millions of free people pursuing their interests, inventing, building, parenting, helping.

But the politicians' "we" is different. It means government. "We" will take your money by force and order you about. A democracy can become the tyranny of the majority. That's no way to create prosperity.

Obama is an extraordinarily talented man. But there is one thing he can't successfully do: ignore the laws of economics. No one can do that. That's why we call them "laws."

Ludwig von Mises wrote that once the science of economics emerged in the late Eighteenth Century, people began to realize "there is something operative which power and force are unable to alter and to which they must adjust themselves if they hope to achieve success, in precisely the same way as they must take into account the laws of nature. This realization ... led to the program and policies of [classical] liberalism and thus unleashed human powers that, under capitalism, have transformed the world."

The resulting abundance, which so many people take for granted without understanding its source, allows them to believe that a new president can "stimulate" us out of recession.

But we cannot raise wages or create jobs or eliminate poverty by executive order. We can do so by freeing people to save and invest and accumulate capital. We can't make medical care universal and inexpensive by legislative fiat. But we can approach that goal by permitting a free market in medicine to work.

Government is force, not eloquence. And force is an attempt to defy economic logic. The consequences are often opposite of those intended. "A subsidy for medical insurance increases the demand for services and raises prices. A price ceiling makes those services less available. A floor under wages makes jobs for unskilled workers more scarce, as employers find it a losing proposition to hire them. A subsidy to production means too much produced relative to something else consumers want. A trade restriction lowers living standards at home and abroad," writes Sheldon Richman on the Foundation for Economic Education website.

What will happen when the unintended consequences hit? F.A. Hayek warned that a government serious about enacting its economic plan must be prepared to use heavy-handed measures. Is that what we want?

I fear that today's "forceful actions" will not only be a painful assault on our freedom, they will exacerbate whatever economic troubles we face.

quote:

Live with it, Pigskinner, just as we learned to live with Bush.

The sad truth is that many people that voted for Bush had to learn to live with Bush before it was over. Over the course of eight years Bush changed tremendously, not just his policies, but the individual. From the pre-emptive strike in Iraq to domestic spying, we had to learn to live with it even though we were against it.

The moral of the story? Many Obama supporters may have to learn to live with Obama before it is all over.

Let's see how quickly Obama eliminates the domestic spying program, restores habeas corpus, and gets us out of the two wars with honor without getting us into another. Once Obama starts getting intelligence briefings, and learns everything that is going on, he might have some additional revelations similar to JFK when he took office.

[quote]This isn't even a joke. Its sad that Pigskinner thinks he can pass this literary selection as being objective on his part. The neocon has posted an article that speaks of "constitutionally limited government", how the "power of the presidency" has grown, and how "liberty has contracted". And he is frightened.

/quote]

Literary section????? LMAO

This thread is listed as an op-ed commentary thread.

All I am doing is leading the pack on bringing back the "fairness doctrine",and giving the readers a "choice"!

The troll speaks...

GOP Road Sign: Keep Right

By Jonah Goldberg

http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2008/11/14...e=full&comments=true


By now you've probably heard: The GOP is becoming too regional, too white, too old to compete at a national level. Democrats look like a merging of the cast of "Rent" and Up With People, while Republicans look like diehard fans of "Matlock" and "Murder, She Wrote."

Fine, fine. The GOP needs to win over more Hispanics, young people, suburban women. That sounds perfectly plausible. But what does "win over" mean?

To listen to many pundits and analysts, it means Republicans must become Democrats. The GOP has become too socially conservative, and if it wants to win the support of mainstream voters, it will need to become more socially liberal. To be "economically conservative but socially liberal" is the beginning of wisdom for this school of thought.

Or, put another way, if only the party could be more like former New Jersey Gov. and Bush EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman, these voices have been saying for years, the GOP would truly become the majority party. Remember the Alan Alda character on NBC's blessedly defunct "West Wing"? We were told that his pro-choice stance on abortion would make the Republican Party vastly more competitive in places like California and New York.

The problem is that Alda's TV character is only marginally more fictional than Christine Todd Whitman. Economically conservative social liberals are the "jackalopes of American politics," in the words of National Review's Kate O'Beirne. The press keeps telling us they exist out there in huge numbers, but when you go looking for them, they refuse to emerge from the bushes.

In fairness, many people do describe themselves this way. Most of the time we simply call them "Democrats." Those who call themselves Republicans should more properly be called "confused."

This is not to say that one can't be a moderate on this issue or that and be a Republican. But the idea that social liberalism and economic conservatism can coexist easily is not well supported by the evidence. For example, in Congress and in state legislatures, the more pro-life you are, the more likely you are to be a free-market, low-tax conservative. The more pro-choice you are, the more likely it is that you will be remarkably generous with other people's money.

Former Sen. Phil Gramm, the best deregulator of the last 20 years, was adamantly pro-life. Sen. John Sununu, who just lost a brutal campaign in New Hampshire, is a champion of economic liberty and social conservatism. Even Ron Paul, the arch-libertarian congressman from Texas, almost surely would lose his seat if he weren't ardently pro-life.

One objection is that "economic conservatism" and "fiscal conservatism" are different things. One can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, in the sense that you're only willing to constrain your statist do-goodery to the extent you're able to pay for it. This is certainly an intellectually defensible position.

But politically, this is hard ground to defend. It turns out that people who buy into the logic of social liberalism, not just on abortion but racial and other issues as well, usually find themselves ill-equipped ideologically to say no to additional spending on causes they care about. They even find it difficult to stay Republicans, as we can see from recent example Colin Powell, who endorsed Barack Obama for president for largely ethereal reasons.

It should be noted that it's also difficult to be fiscally conservative and socially conservative if you've jettisoned the conservative dogma of limited government. We saw this in spades as President Bush embraced "activist government" and ended up wildly increasing government spending over the last eight years.

And that should serve as a warning to those, on the right and left, who would like to see the GOP defenestrate millions of actual, living, breathing members of the party -- e.g., social conservatives -- in order to woo millions of largely nonexistent jackalopes. The GOP would simply cease to exist as a viable party without the support of social and religious conservatives. But not so the other way around. We've seen what happens in this country when the passionately religious abandon love for limited government and instead embrace social liberalism and government activism. The results have been good, as in the abolition movement. And the results have been more mixed, like during Prohibition and the Progressive Movement.

The religious right is much more likely to stop being "right" than stop being religious. And secular conservatives and libertarians who passionately believe in limited government should be very grateful indeed that most of today's religious conservatives believe in it, too.

"Intellectuals"

by Thomas Sowell

The many wonders to be expected from an Obama administration, if Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times is to be believed, is ending "the anti-intellectualism that has long been a strain in American life."

He cited Adlai Stevenson, the suave and debonair governor of Illinois, who twice ran for president against Eisenhower in the 1950s, as an example of an intellectual in politics.

Intellectuals, according to Mr. Kristof, are people who are "interested in ideas and comfortable with complexity," people who "read the classics."

It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry.
Adlai Stevenson was certainly regarded as an intellectual by intellectuals in the 1950s. But, half a century later, facts paint a very different picture.

Historian Michael Beschloss, among others, has noted that Stevenson "could go quite happily for months or years without picking up a book." But Stevenson had the airs of an intellectual -- the form, rather than the substance.

What is more telling, form was enough to impress the intellectuals, not only then but even now, years after the facts have been revealed, though apparently not to Mr. Kristof.

That is one of many reasons why intellectuals are not taken as seriously by others as they take themselves.

As for reading the classics, President Harry Truman, whom no one thought of as an intellectual, was a voracious reader of heavyweight stuff like Thucydides and read Cicero in the original Latin. When Chief Justice Carl Vinson quoted in Latin, Truman was able to correct him.

Yet intellectuals tended to think of the unpretentious and plain-spoken Truman as little more than a country bumpkin.

Similarly, no one ever thought of President Calvin Coolidge as an intellectual. Yet Coolidge also read the classics in the White House. He read both Latin and Greek, and read Dante in the original Italian, since he spoke several languages. It was said that the taciturn Coolidge could be silent in five different languages.

The intellectual levels of politicians are just one of the many things that intellectuals have grossly misjudged for years on end.

During the 1930s, some of the leading intellectuals in America condemned our economic system and pointed to the centrally planned Soviet economy as a model-- all this at a time when literally millions of people were starving to death in the Soviet Union, from a famine in a country with some of the richest farmland in Europe and historically a large exporter of food.

New York Times Moscow correspondent Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for telling the intelligentsia what they wanted to hear-- that claims of starvation in the Ukraine were false.

After British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge reported from the Ukraine on the massive deaths from starvation there, he was ostracized after returning to England and unable to find a job.

More than half a century later, when the archives of the Soviet Union were finally opened up under Mikhail Gorbachev, it turned out that about six million people had died in that famine-- about the same number as the people killed in Hitler's Holocaust.

In the 1930s, it was the intellectuals who pooh-poohed the dangers from the rise of Hitler and urged Western disarmament.

It would be no feat to fill a big book with all the things on which intellectuals were grossly mistaken, just in the 20th century-- far more so than ordinary people.

History fully vindicates the late William F. Buckley's view that he would rather be ruled by people represented by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard.

How have intellectuals managed to be so wrong, so often? By thinking that because they are knowledgeable-- or even expert-- within some narrow band out of the vast spectrum of human concerns, that makes them wise guides to the masses and to the rulers of the nation. .


But the ignorance of Ph.D.s is still ignorance and high-IQ groupthink is still groupthink, which is the antithesis of real thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Martin:
Yes, Pigskinner. Few will dispute that you are the antithesis to intellectual proudness.

Thank you,

I have always prided myself on being a "real thinker".

Man "talk radio" sure made that op--ed writer angry!

It probably was a good thing he was fired from his job, because he might have hurt someone.

I cannot prove the op-ed writer got fired, but neither can I disprove it.

Toward the end , he was able to "bring his news crews" to the disaster, but was unable to help those who needed it leave with him.Sounds like a disgruntled man who likes to blame every one but himself.

He was there and did nothing but contribute to the wind,,,nuff said!

Radical Homosexuals Trample a Cross, Harass a Granny, Crash a Church, and Threaten Joe the Plumber’s Life

http://townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2008/11/15/rad...le_a_cross,_harass_a

Can you imagine what would happen if a gang of angry male Christian activists started shouting down and shoving around some nice old lesbian during a religious rally right after ripping her rainbow pride flag from her hands and waffle stomping it?

How much television coverage do you think that spat of stupidity would spawn? What kind of outrage do you think the gays would gin up over such an inexcusable and pathetic act?

I’ll tell you what would happen: We would see an irate Elton John hold a special Candle in the Wind concert on the old lesbian’s behalf, Lance Bass would host a telethon, Ellen would weep, Brad and Angelina would adopt another baby and Rosie would shave the right side of her head again and again until justice was served and those chunks of corn were convicted and sent to prison.

You and I both know we’d never hear the end of it, and you know what? We shouldn’t because that kind stupid, out-of-whack bullying is bull.

What about this scenario?

Say some dyed-in-the-wool, belligerent backwoods snake handlers sporting crosses, vicious anti-gay fliers and blarin’ Dueling Banjos on a boom box infiltrated a gay soiree, disrupted the event, disbursed their literature into the crowd, performed some hetero sex acts and then threatened those in attendance? Do you think the gay bloggers would blog it and the MSM report on it and both sectors call for the rednecks’ necks?

Fo’ shizzle my nizzle they would.

Indulge me one more scenario: Would it be cool if a conservative Christian talk show host called for the death of some gay dude named Joe who simply campaigned for a month for president elect Barack Obama? Would that be cool? You and I both know the answer to that question would be “H” to the no—it would not be cool. That guy would be Imus’ed so fast his head would spin. His days of talk radio would be over.

The above three supposed scenes would be publically condemned, the perps would be captured, convicted and imprisoned, their names would become proverbs for our populace, and the nation would be put on notice that if Christians take their disagreements with homosexuality to belligerent, disruptive and life-threatening levels that their butts will be imprisoned.

It seems as of late, however, that gays can do the above junk to Christians and get a pass from certain cops and the mainstream media.

Yep, just this past week a 69-year-old woman carried a Styrofoam cross in support of traditional marriage into a pro-gay marriage march in Palm Springs and within seconds had the cross ripped from her hands and stomped on, and then the homosexuals began to shove her around and curse her out. You can watch it on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q. If Christians would have done that to an old gay lady they would be currently in the Palm Springs pokey waiting to make bail. No arrests were made. Can you say, double standard? I knew you could.

From that crap we move to Lansing, Michigan and last Sunday’s protest inside the Mount Hope Church by the rabid gay group Bash Back. These winners entered the church along with worshippers and surprised the congregation when they stood up during the service, threw fliers and condoms at the congregants, pulled the fire alarm, made out in front of the church by the pulpit and shouted slogans such as “Jesus was a homo.” No arrests were made.

In light of this Mount Hope Church event I’ve spoken to several pastors across the nation who have wisely beefed up their security in case the protests/threats turn violent. Matter of fact, if I was a radical gay activist I would really think twice about barnstorming churches and threatening their members.

Then we come to one Charles Bouley, ***** activist and talk show host on San Francisco’s (where else) station KGO who on November 1st angrily said on the air that Joe the Plumber was a “G** D*** M-F’er” that he wanted dead! At least he got fired this past week. However, I’m sure he’s inking a contract right now for a gig on a new station to keep hate alive.

Again, if homosexuals got the above from Christians the media and the cops would be on them like a duck on a June bug.

My advice to the MSM is this: If I were you, I’d cover it and condemn what the gays are doing to Christians and their Churches or it’s going to get worse—way worse.

And lastly to the radical gay guys, do you really believe that this kind of belligerent behavior is going to make Americans capitulate to your cause? Who came up with this strategy? Was it the same guys who thought that Clear Pepsi would be a real winner?

Why Dogs, Not Liberals, Are Man's Best Friend

http://townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2008/11/17...are_mans_best_friend

Some people are convinced that a compassionate conservative is an oxymoron. But, I know better. I'm not suggesting I am one, but I do know a few. They're the people who occasionally take me to task for being too critical of liberals.

They'll insist that some of their best friends are liberals. Liberals, they'll inform me, make fine neighbors and positively first-rate relatives. I patiently explain that they're preaching to the choir. I know first-hand that liberals can be all of those things, and more.

My only problem with liberals is that they're hypocrites and they can't help lying.

Perhaps, like my friends, you now think I'm too harsh in my judgment. On the contrary, I think I tend to give liberals the benefit of the doubt.

I happen to believe they are so besotted by their emotions that they can't help painting themselves into indefensible corners.

To blame a liberal for lying and blatant hypocrisy would be as heartless as blaming an alcoholic for drinking. In fact, I suspect that, like alcoholics, liberals suffer from a chemical imbalance.

Otherwise, how would you explain the enormous gulf between what they say and what they do?

For instance, how often have we read newspaper editorials arguing for Affirmative Action in schools and in the work place? In most cases, those pieces are not being written or edited by members of a racial minority group.

So, if they were sincere, shouldn't these journalists clear out their desks and surrender their jobs to somewhat less qualified, but far more deserving, blacks and Hispanics?

Or consider, if you will, how consistently liberals object to tax cuts. They prattle on incessantly about how much the wealthy benefit, ignoring the logic that if there's a 10% reduction across the board, it figures that the person who pays more will save more.

But, when liberals blather about the inequities of tax cuts, you realize they actually believe that if a millionaire saves fifty thousand on his tax bill, the guy who only earns, say, thirty grand-a-year should get the same return!

Liberals, for reasons that some of us will never comprehend, are convinced that the federal government can be trusted to spend money more wisely than the people who actually earn it. When Bill Clinton was in the White House, he said as much.

They're entitled to their beliefs, you say. Where does the inconsistency come in, you ask? It's simply this -- liberals spend just as much money as conservatives on shrewd attorneys and clever C.P.A.'s, attempting to lower their own tax liability. There is nothing in the tax laws, after all, that prohibits an American citizen from paying Uncle Sam more than he owes.


But, I have yet to hear of a liberal, even one as rich as George Soros, who claimed that, even though he belonged in the highest bracket, he so admired the way in which Congress spent his money, he was going to send the I.R.S. 70 or maybe even 80 percent of his earnings.

Finally, I have never heard a liberal speak out in favor of school vouchers. Instead, they wave the flag for public schools, even though everybody in his right mind knows that, in spite of the No Child Left Behind program, a majority of public schools in America are a disgrace. The system has routinely passed along youngsters who wound up graduating from high school lacking self-discipline and even rudimentary math and reading skills.

Yet, every liberal in Congress can be counted on to pay lip service to public education, although not one of them has a child enrolled in the Washington, D.C., school system!

So, while I acknowledge that liberals can be as loyal and steadfast as cocker spaniels, I have found it is nearly impossible to paper-train them.