The Angry Left

Bernie Sanders is angry. Who is he angry at? Rich people. Why rich people? That’s not clear.

But has been the mantra of The Left for a generation at least. A generation brought up on this garbage. Garbage in, garbage out.

At Liberty University, Sanders complained about a small number of people who have “huge yachts, and jet planes and tens of billions” while others “are struggling to feed their families.” In Madison Wisconsin, Sanders called for a “political revolution against greed.”

So what’s the connection between people who have “tens of billions” and people who are “struggling to feed their families”? For the most part it’s a positive one. In a capitalist system, people get rich by meeting other people’s needs. Because some people are rich, other people find it easier to feed their families.

Take the world’s richest man, Bill Gates. When I was a student at Columbia in the 1970s, I remember a friend showing me a fantastic hand held device. It could add, subtract, divide and multiply. And it only cost $400. Today, I can sit in bed with my lap top, which in 1970 dollars cost less than $400. I can buy and sell goods on eBay, conduct personal banking, purchase airline tickets, book hotel rooms and even work the New York Times crossword puzzle – in large part because of Bill Gates.

Take the world’s richest woman, JK Rowling. When she wrote the last Harry Potter book or helped on the last Harry Potter movie was she making anyone worse off? Was she taking food out of the mouths of babes? Or was she bringing entertainment and pleasure to millions of people?

Is Bill Gates greedy? There’s no evidence of that. He is giving all his money away in ways that are curing diseases that kill children all over the world. More generally, I have never met a truly creative person who was motivated by greed. But even if greed were the motivation, we need more of it – as long as it’s meeting our needs.

So what’s Sander’s complaint? Here are his own words:

“99 percent of all new income today (is) going to the top 1 percent.”

In 2007, “the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income,” which is “more than the entire bottom 50 percent.”

“Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America.”

When Sam Walton was alive, he was one of the world’s richest men. Yet he wore blue jeans and drove a pickup truck. No one in Bentonville, Arkansas even knew he was rich until they read about it in Forbes. Is Walmart making it harder or easier for people to feed their families? You be the judge.

As has been said many times, The Left is only interested in the Narrative, not the truth.

Muslim kid brings homemade electronic device to school and the School system freaked out because of all the school violence.

The Left doesn’t give a crap about that. It’s all about the fact that he’s a Muslim.

Then it came out that it was all a setup by a Muslim “activist” father who set up the whole thing.

The Left doesn’t care. It’s all about “racism” to them because that fits their Narrative and what THEY want to be true.

bomb

Behind the rhetoric on the left, there is one persistent theme, always implicit, never explicit. Leftist rhetoric is designed to encourage people to believe that the reason they are poor are because other people are rich. And this kind of rhetoric is not confined to politicians who know nothing of basic economics. Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs and other well-known economists are just as guilty. They invariably imply that “all property is theft,” a staple of barn yard Marxism. Yet, on rigorous examination, this idea is silly. Most of the people on the Forbes 400 list are self-made or next generation of self-made billionaires.

But the truth doesn’t matter, to The Left.

Writing in the Dallas Morning News, Cullen Godfrey asks: why do we demonize billionaires?

And usually, not Democrat Million and Billionaires. Nor, say, NFL player millionaires, just the owners.

They didn’t steal our money. They earned our money by providing us with the things that we want and that make our lives better. The Forbes 400 list includes names such as Oprah Winfrey, filmmakers Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Phil Knight (Nike), Elon Musk (Tesla), Charles Schwab, Ralph Lauren and Michael Ilitch (Domino’s Pizza). Of course, there are those with inherited wealth, but the vast majority on the list are first-generation, self-made billionaires, and those with inherited wealth have, as a rule, been excellent stewards of their good fortune.

Like Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour Party leader in Britain, Bernie Sanders is appealing to our worst instincts. His is not the message of compassion and love. His is the message of resentment, jealousy and hate.

The hallmarks of the Left.

What would he do? Tax capital. He hasn’t given us a figure, but if he goes along with the 90 percent income tax rate favored by Paul Krugman or the 80 percent rate proposed by Thomas Piketty, Bill Gates may never have been able to start Microsoft. Sam Walton may never have given us Sam’s Club.

I’m not sure The Left would care about that.

As I wrote at Forbes earlier this week, the left is intellectually bankrupt. While appealing to our basest emotions, they have no real solutions to any real problems. In fact, their “solutions” would almost certainly make the poor more poor.

But they make them “feel” empowered. Perception is not reality, but it works for them.

There is, however, a proposal from the right of the political spectrum: tax consumption rather than saving, investment and capital accumulation. As I wrote previously:

[W]hen Warren Buffett is consuming, he’s benefiting himself. When he’s saving and investing, he’s benefiting you and me. Every time Buffett forgoes personal consumption (a pricey dinner, a larger house, a huge yacht) and puts his money in the capital market instead, he’s doing an enormous favor for everyone else. A larger capital stock means higher productivity and that means everyone can have more income for the same amount of work. So it’s in our self-interest to have very low taxes on Buffett’s capital. In fact, capital taxes should be zero. That means no capital gains tax, no tax on dividends and profits — so long as the income is recycled back into the capital market. We should instead tax Buffett’s consumption. Tax him on what he takes out of the system, not what he puts into it. Tax him when he is benefiting himself, not when he is benefiting you and me.

But the Left Politicians are only interested in Taxes that benefit THEM.

Food For the Sowell XI: The Narcissis

sowell- liberal care

The fundamental problem of the political left seems to be that the real world does not fit its preconceptions. Therefore it sees the real world as what is wrong, and what needs to be changed, since apparently its preconceptions cannot be wrong.

A never-ending source of grievances for the left is the fact that some groups are “over-represented” in desirable occupations, institutions and income brackets, while other groups are “under-represented.”

From all the indignation and outrage about this expressed on the left, you might think that it was impossible that different groups are simply better at different things.

Yet runners from Kenya continue to win a disproportionate share of marathons in the United States, and children whose parents or grandparents came from India have won most of the American spelling bees in the past 15 years.

And has anyone failed to notice that the leading professional basketball players have for years been black, in a country where most of the population is white?

Most of the leading photographic lenses in the world have — for generations — been designed by people who were either Japanese or German. Most of the leading diamond-cutters in the world have been either India’s Jains or Jews from Israel or elsewhere.

Not only people but things have been grossly unequal. More than two-thirds of all the tornadoes in the entire world occur in the middle of the United States. Asia has more than 70 mountain peaks that are higher than 20,000 feet and Africa has none.

And is it news that a disproportionate share of all the oil in the world is in the Middle East?

Whole books could be filled with the unequal behavior or performances of people, or the unequal geographic settings in which whole races, nations and civilizations have developed. Yet the preconceptions of the political left march on undaunted, loudly proclaiming sinister reasons why outcomes are not equal within nations or between nations.

All this moral melodrama has served as a background for the political agenda of the left, which has claimed to be able to lift the poor out of poverty and in general make the world a better place. This claim has been made for centuries, and in countries around the world. And it has failed for centuries in countries around the world.

Some of the most sweeping and spectacular rhetoric of the left occurred in 18th century France, where the very concept of the left originated in the fact that people with certain views sat on the left side of the National Assembly.

The French Revolution was their chance to show what they could do when they got the power they sought. In contrast to what they promised — “liberty, equality, fraternity” — what they actually produced were food shortages, mob violence and dictatorial powers that included arbitrary executions, extending even to their own leaders, such as Robespierre, who died under the guillotine.

In the 20th century, the most sweeping vision of the left — communism — spread over vast regions of the world and encompassed well over a billion human beings. Of these, millions died of starvation in the Soviet Union under Stalin and tens of millions in China under Mao.

Milder versions of socialism, with central planning of national economies, took root in India and in various European democracies.

If the preconceptions of the left were correct, central planning by educated elites with vast amounts of statistical data at their fingertips, expertise readily available, and backed by the power of government, should have been more successful than market economies where millions of individuals pursued their own individual interests willy-nilly.

But, by the end of the 20th century, even socialist and communist governments began abandoning central planning and allowing more market competition.

Yet this quiet capitulation to inescapable realities did not end the noisy claims of the left.

In the United States, those claims and policies reached new heights, epitomized by government takeovers of whole sectors of the economy and unprecedented intrusions into the lives of Americans, of which ObamaCare has been only the most obvious example.

The political left has long claimed the role of protector of “the poor.” It is one of their central moral claims to political power. But how valid is this claim?

Leaders of the left in many countries have promoted policies that enable the poor to be more comfortable in their poverty.But that raises a fundamental question:

Just who are “the poor”?

If you use a bureaucratic definition of poverty as including all individuals or families below some arbitrary income level set by the government, then it is easy to get the kinds of statistics about “the poor” that are thrown around in the media and in politics. But do those statistics have much relationship to reality?

“Poverty” once had some concrete meaning — not enough food to eat or not enough clothing or shelter to protect you from the elements, for example.

Today it means whatever the government bureaucrats, who set up the statistical criteria, choose to make it mean.

And they have every incentive to define poverty in a way that includes enough people to justify welfare-state spending.

Most Americans with incomes below the official poverty level have air-conditioning, television, own a motor vehicle and, far from being hungry, are more likely than other Americans to be overweight. But an arbitrary definition of words and numbers gives them access to the taxpayers’ money.

This kind of “poverty” can easily become a way of life, not only for today’s “poor,” but for their children and grandchildren.

Keep Them Down

Even when they have the potential to become productive members of society, the loss of welfare state benefits if they try to do so is an implicit “tax” on what they would earn that often exceeds the explicit tax on a millionaire.

If increasing your income by $10,000 would cause you to lose $15,000 in government benefits, would you do it?

In short, the political left’s welfare state makes poverty more comfortable, while penalizing attempts to rise out of poverty. Unless we believe that some people are predestined to be poor, the left’s agenda is a disservice to them, as well as to society. The vast amounts of money wasted are by no means the worst of it.

If our goal is for people to get out of poverty, there are plenty of heartening examples of individuals and groups who have done that, in countries around the world.

Millions of “overseas Chinese” emigrated from China destitute and often illiterate in centuries past. Whether they settled in Southeast Asian countries or in the United States, they began at the bottom, taking hard, dirty and sometimes dangerous jobs.Four-Letter Word

Even though the overseas Chinese were usually paid little, they saved out of that little, and many eventually opened tiny businesses. By working long hours and living frugally, they were able to turn tiny businesses into larger and more prosperous businesses. Then they saw to it that their children got the education that they themselves often lacked.

By 1994, the 57 million overseas Chinese created as much wealth as the one billion people living in China.

Variations on this social pattern can be found in the histories of Jewish, Armenian, Lebanese and other emigrants who settled in many countries around the world — initially poor, but rising over the generations to prosperity. Seldom did they rely on government, and they usually avoided politics on their way up.

Such groups concentrated on developing what economists call “human capital” — their skills, talents, knowledge and self-discipline. Their success has usually been based on that one four-letter word that the left seldom uses in polite society: “work.”

There are individuals in virtually every group who follow similar patterns to rise from poverty to prosperity.

But how many such individuals there are in different groups makes a big difference for the prosperity or poverty of the groups as a whole.

The agenda of the left — promoting envy and a sense of grievance, while making loud demands for “rights” to what other people have produced — is a pattern that has been widespread in countries around the world.

This agenda has seldom lifted the poor out of poverty. But it has lifted the left to positions of power and self-aggrandizement, while they promote policies with socially counterproductive results.


When teenage thugs are called “troubled youth” by people on the political left, that tells us more about the mindset of the left than about these young hoodlums.

Seldom is there a speck of evidence that the thugs are troubled, and often there is ample evidence that they are in fact enjoying themselves, as they create trouble and dangers for others.

Why then the built-in excuse, when juvenile hoodlums are called “troubled youth” and mass murderers are just assumed to be “insane”?

At least as far back as the 18th century, the left has struggled to avoid facing the plain fact of evil — that some people simply choose to do things that they know to be wrong when they do them. Every kind of excuse, from poverty to an unhappy childhood, is used by the left to explain and excuse evil.

All the people who have come out of poverty or unhappy childhoods, or both, and become decent and productive human beings, are ignored. So are the evils committed by people raised in wealth and privilege, including kings, conquerors and slave owners.

Why has evil been such a hard concept for many on the left to accept? The basic agenda of the left is to change external conditions. But what if the problem is internal? What if the real problem is the cussedness of human beings?

Rousseau denied this in the 18th century and the left has been denying it ever since. Why? Self preservation.

If the things that the left wants to control — institutions and government policy — are not the most important factors in the world’s problems, then what role is there for the left?

What if it is things like the family, the culture and the traditions that make a more positive difference than the bright new government “solutions” that the left is constantly coming up with? What if seeking “the root causes of crime” is not nearly as effective as locking up criminals?

The hard facts show that the murder rate was going down for decades under the old traditional practices so disdained by the left intelligentsia, before the bright new ideas of the left went into effect in the 1960s — after which crime and violence skyrocketed .

What happened when old-fashioned ideas about sex were replaced in the 1960s by the bright new ideas of the left that were introduced into the schools as “sex education” that was supposed to reduce teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases?

Both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases had been going down for years. But that trend suddenly reversed in the 1960s and hit new highs.

One of the oldest and most dogmatic of the crusades of the left has been disarmament, both of individuals and of nations. Again, the focus of the left has been on the externals — the weapons in this case.

If weapons were the problem, then gun control laws at home and international disarmament agreements abroad might be the answer.

But if evil people who care no more for laws or treaties than they do for other people’s lives are the problem, then disarmament means making decent, law-abiding people more vulnerable to evil people.

Since belief in disarmament has been a major feature of the left since the 18th century, in countries around the world, you might think that by now there would be lots of evidence to substantiate their beliefs.

But evidence on whether gun control laws actually reduce crime rates in general, or murder rates in particular, is seldom mentioned by gun-control advocates. It is just assumed in passing that of course tighter gun-control laws will reduce murders.

But the hard facts do not back up that assumption. That is why it is the critics of gun control who rely heavily on empirical evidence, as in books like “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott and “Guns and Violence” by Joyce Lee Malcolm.

National disarmament has an even worse record. Both Britain and America neglected their military forces between the two World Wars, while Germany and Japan armed to the teeth. Many British and American soldiers paid with their lives for their countries’ initially inadequate military equipment in World War II.

But what are mere facts compared to the heady vision of the left?

After all, they can’t possible be wrong. There’s is the superior intelligence. The superior compassion. And just plain old superior to everyone and everything.
There’s a word for that: Narcissism.

At the heart of the left’s vision of the world is the implicit assumption that high-minded third parties like themselves can make better decisions for other people than those people can make for themselves.

That arbitrary and unsubstantiated assumption underlies a wide spectrum of laws and policies over the years, ranging from urban renewal to ObamaCare.

One of the many international crusades by busybodies on the left is the drive to limit the hours of work by people in other countries — especially poorer countries — in businesses operated by multinational corporations. One international monitoring group has taken on the task of making sure that people in China do not work more than the legally prescribed 49 hours per week.

Why international monitoring groups, led by affluent Americans or Europeans, would imagine that they know what is best for people who are far poorer than they are, and with far fewer options, is one of the many mysteries of the busybody elite.

As someone who left home at the age of 17, with no high school diploma, no job experience and no skills, I spent several years learning the hard way what poverty is like. One of the happier times during those years was a brief period when I worked 60 hours a week — 40 hours delivering telegrams during the day and 20 hours working part-time in a machine shop at night.

Why was I happy? Because, before finding these jobs, I had spent weeks desperately looking for any job, while my meager savings dwindled down to literally my last dollar, before finally finding the part-time job at night in a machine shop.

I had to walk several miles from the rooming house where I lived in Harlem to the machine shop located just below the Brooklyn Bridge, in order to save that last dollar to buy bread until I got a payday.

When I then found a full-time job delivering telegrams during the day, the money from the two jobs combined was more than I had ever made before. I could pay the back rent I owed on my room and both eat and ride the subways back and forth to work.

I could even put aside some money for a rainy day. It was the closest thing to nirvana for me.

Thank heaven there were no busybodies to prevent me from working more hours than they thought I should.

There was a minimum wage law, but this was 1949 and the wages set by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 had been rendered meaningless by years of inflation. In the absence of an effective minimum wage law, unemployment among black teenagers in the recession year of 1949 was a fraction of what it would be in even the most prosperous years of the 1960s and beyond.

As the morally anointed busybodies raised the minimum wage rate, beginning in the 1950s, black teenage unemployment skyrocketed. We have now become so used to tragically high rates of unemployment among this group that many people have no idea that things were not always like that, much less that policies of the busybody left had such catastrophic consequences.

I don’t know what I would have done if such busybody policies had been in effect back in 1949, and prevented me from finding a job before my last dollar ran out.

My personal experience is just one small example of what it is like when your options are very limited. The prosperous busybodies of the left are constantly promoting policies which reduce the existing options of poor people even more.

It would never occur to the busybodies that multinational corporations are expanding the options of the poor in third world countries, while busybody policies are contracting their options.

Wages paid by multinational corporations in poor countries are typically much higher than wages paid by local employers. Moreover, the experience that employees get working in modern companies make them more valuable workers and have led in China, for example, to wages rising by double-digit percentages annually.

Nothing is easier for people with degrees to imagine that they know better than the poor and uneducated. But, as someone once said, “A fool can put on his coat better than a wise man can put it on for him.”

But feels they can not only make the coat superior but they can wear it to. And that’s all down to their own sense of their own vast Superiority.

Homo Superior Liberalis. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

 Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson


The Message Rule

“There are others who are saying: ‘Well, this is just a gimmick. Just taxing millionaires and billionaires, just imposing the Buffett Rule, won’t do enough to close the deficit,’ ” Obama declared Wednesday. “Well, I agree.”

But it works for ME, what the hell, might as well…I will say anything to get re-elected so I can be “flexible”.

“The notion that it doesn’t solve the entire problem doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do it at all,” he explained.

Who cares about the economics. It’s good politics.

So let’s cut spending, it won’t solve the whole problem but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it right? 🙂

Appointing the Simpson-Bowles commission and then disregarding its findings, offering a plan for business tax reform only, and issuing a series of platitudes. The Buffett Rule, rather than overhauling the tax code, would simply add another layer.

And another layer of bureaucratic morass can’t be bad and beside it’s more “fair” and that’s much more important. 🙂

A search of the White House Web site yields 17,400 mentions of the Buffett Rule — a proposal that would bring in $47 billion over 10 years  (That’s 4.7 billion a year– The government current has a debt of over 3 billion a day!- Wow! That’s a great plan!), much of that from 22,000 wealthy households. By contrast, the alternative minimum tax gets fewer than 600 mentions on the site. The AMT, if not changed, will take about $1 trillion over a decade from millions of taxpayers, many of whom earn less than $200,000 a year.

And the DEMOCRATS passed the AMT back in 1968 as a way to stick it to 155 millionaires!

YES, I SAID 155 Millionaires!

In August 1969 as he was preparing the next year’s budget <Treasury Secretary> Barr warned that the country faced a taxpayers’ revolt. He explained, according to the Washington Post, that in 1967 there were a total of 155 individuals with incomes over $200,000 who did not pay any federal income taxes; twenty of them were millionaires. These individuals successfully used all tax loopholes available to legally evade paying taxes. The revelation attracted wide media attention and led to public shock.

Sound familiar? Gee, Liberals don’t stray very far from their “fair” tree do they. 🙂

And funny how that all worked out. You don’t think it could happen again do you? 🙂

The politics of the Buffett Rule — it has no chance of passing when the Senate takes it up next week — are so overt that Obama’s remarks Wednesday were virtually indistinguishable from a section of his campaign speech in Florida on Tuesday.

Wednesday: “If we’re going to keep giving somebody like me or some of the people in this room tax breaks that we don’t need and we can’t afford, then one of two things happens: Either you’ve got to borrow more money to pay down a deeper deficit, or . . . you’ve got to tell seniors to pay a little bit more for their Medicare. You’ve got to tell the college student, ‘We’re going to have to charge you higher interest rates on your student loan.’ . . . That’s not right.”

So does this mean he admits to being an evil “rich” Millionaire. Aren’t they untrustworthy, selfish, self-centered, egotists only looking out for #1?-themselves 🙂

Tuesday: “If somebody like me, who is doing just fine, gets tax breaks I don’t need and that the country can’t afford, then one of two things is going to happen: Either it gets added to our deficit . . . or, alternatively, you’ve got to take it away from somebody else — a student who’s trying to pay for their college, or a senior trying to get by with Social Security and Medicare. . . . That’s not right.”

Parts of Obama’s “official” speech will no doubt be repeated on the stump, including the points that “we just need some of the Republican politicians here in Washington to get on board with where the country is,” that Obama cut taxes 17 times (the bobbleheads nodded in agreement), and the contention that Republicans today would view Ronald Reagan as a “wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior.”

Nothing is inherently wrong with campaign-style rhetoric from the White House; George W. Bush used it repeatedly to pass his tax cuts and in his attempt at a Social Security overhaul. The pity is that Obama doesn’t use his unrivaled political skill to sell a tax plan of more consequence — and less gimmickry. (Dana Millbank)

The federal tax code with its 44000 pages, 5.5 million words, and 721 different forms so whose going to notice one more gimmick?

According to the National Taxpayers Union, we each waste about 12 hours a year, every year, filling out this crazy stuff. Schedule B. Schedule C. Above the line. Below the line. Deductions, exemptions, non-refundable credits. Medical bills over 7.5% of adjusted gross income. The instruction booklet for the 1040 now runs to 189 pages. No kidding. Seventy-five years ago, says the NTU, it was two pages.

The U.S. tax code is insane and out of control. It’s tripled in a decade. It now runs to 3.8 million words. To put that in context, William Shakespeare only needed 900,000 words to say everything he had to say. Hamlet. Othello. The history plays. The sonnets. The whole shebang.

Your tax bill this year is a lie. You’re only seeing about two-thirds of the full cost of government services. Really. Taxes are $2.3 trillion. Government spending is $3.6 trillion. The rest is being put on the national credit card.

The tax bill is a lie every year. We’ve only paid our bills in full on April 15 five times in the last fifty years. The last president to balance the books every year he was in office? Calvin Coolidge — back in the 1920s.

But ultimately he’s not selling anything but himself. It’s all about HIM. The universe does revolve around him and he just has to get you to see it too.

So it begins…

In 2008, a mostly unknown Barack Obama ran for president on an inclusive agenda of “hope and change.” That upbeat message was supposed to translate into millions of green jobs, fiscal sobriety, universal health care, a resetting of Bush foreign policy, and racial unity.

Four years later, none of those promises will be themes of his 2012 re-election campaign. Gas has more than doubled in price. Billions of dollars have been wasted in insider and subsidized wind and solar projects that have produced little green energy.

Unemployment rates above 8 percent appear the new norm, when 5 percent in the past was dubbed a “jobless recovery.”

From the Middle East to the Korean peninsula, the world seems on the brink. Modern racial relations are at a new low.

If borrowing $4 trillion in eight years was “unpatriotic,” as Obama once labeled George W. Bush, no one quite knows how to term the addition of $5 trillion in new debt in less than four years. ObamaCare is unpopular with the public. Its constitutionality now rests with the Supreme Court.

After four years, the claims of “Bush did it” and “It might have been worse” grow stale. So re-election will rest not on a new agenda, or an explanation of what happened, but on a divide-and-conquer strategy. Translated, that means Obama will find fissures in the voting public over fairness, expand them, and then cobble together various angry partisans in hopes of achieving a bare majority. Such an us/them strategy is not new in American history.

There are suddenly new enemies called the “one percent” — those who make more than $200,000 per year and who “do not pay their fair share.” Apparently in a zero-sum economy, this tiny minority has taken too much from the majority and thereby caused the four-year lethargy that followed the 2008 meltdown. Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan and Franklin D. Roosevelt all ran, with varying success, against the selfish “rich.”

Congress is also now a convenient enemy of the people. Although it was Democratically controlled in Obama’s first two years, and the Senate remains so, the new theme insists that a Republican House stops the Democrats from finishing all the good things they started. When support for 16 years of the New Deal had evaporated by 1948, Harry Truman ran successfully against a “do-nothing” Republican Congress that had blocked his own big-government “Fair Deal” follow-up and thus supposedly stalled the economy.

In 2009, Obama pushed through his health care plan by a narrow partisan margin in the House, despite constitutional questions about the individual mandate. Now, as the Supreme Court seems skeptical of the legality of ObamaCare, the president seems to be running against “unelected” justices. That could work too. In 1968, Richard Nixon squeaked by Hubert Humphrey in a divisive campaign, in part by lambasting the activist Warren Court that had done everything from outlawing school prayer to supporting school busing.

Team Obama has seized on the Democrats’ allegations of a “war on women,” waged by both Republican and Catholic grandees against federal subsidies of birth control. For the first time since the campaign of John F. Kennedy a half-century ago, the role of the Catholic Church in politics is suddenly a landmark issue.

The president faults “Big Oil” and tension in the Middle East — not his own failure to develop vast new gas and oil reserves on public lands — for high gas prices. Jimmy Carter likewise blamed greedy oil companies and the Middle East in 1980, after gasoline prices spiked and lines formed at filling stations.

Suddenly, after the Trayvon Martin tragedy and what may prove to be murderous white vigilantism in Oklahoma, race again looms large. President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have weighed in often on that issue. The former castigated police for acting “stupidly” in one incident, and more recently reminded the nation of the racial affinities between himself and Trayvon Martin. The latter blasted the nation’s reluctance to discuss race as cowardly, and alleged racial bias among his own congressional overseers. Race is always an explosive wedge issue. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson ran successfully in part on the need to expand civil rights, while in 1968 Richard Nixon found traction in the backlash against racial violence.

If Obama can cobble together disaffected young people, greens, women, minorities and the poor — who all believe a nefarious “they” have crushed their dreams — then massive debt and deficits, high unemployment, sluggish growth and spiraling gas prices won’t decide the election.

Lots of presidential candidates have run by identifying such enemies of the people, rather than debating the general state of the nation — sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

But the problem with an us/them strategy is not just winning an election, but trying to put back together what was torn asunder. (Victor David Hanson)

Assuming a Democrat would want to do that to begin with. Divide and Conquer is more satisfying when you get to the Conquer bit.

Conquering is good.

Conquering is “fair”

Conquering gives you the power to do what you want when you want because you want to. And doesn’t every “selfless” and “fair” liberal just want “fairness” and “justice” for all. :0

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

 Political Cartoons by Eric Allie
Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

False Choices

“The more the American people see of Mitt Romney, the less they like him and the less they trust him,” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a statement issued shortly after Santorum suspended his campaign.

The same can be said of you Mr. President (but the Liberal Media is still trying to hide it as much as they can). But I NEVER liked what I saw to begin with.

Arrogant, condescending Socialist who wanted to run everyone’s life for them and who has a virtual Messiah Complex.

Everything I’ve ever wanted! 😦

“What drags our entire economy down is when the benefits of economic growth and productivity go only to the few,” Obama said.

“The gap between those at the very, very top and everybody else keeps growing wider and wider and wider and wider,” Obama said.

The president argued that government-led investments in the future economy were not a “socialist dream” as some of his conservative opponents would have it, but were essential to future prosperity.

“Let me you ask you: what’s the better way to make our economy stronger? Do we give another $150,000 tax break to every millionaire and billionaire in the country?” the president said.

“Or should we make investments in education and research and health care and our veterans?”

A False Choice Mr. President. Just like you.

Spend more Money. The Liberal answer to everything. Just Spend Even More!

$16 Trillion Dollars in Debt not good enough for you?

And giving more money to Education means giving more money to the Unions that turn around and give it to the Democrats. Giving more money to education is not about giving more money to the children.

Imagine That. 🙂

“So these investments — in things like education and research and health care — they haven’t been made as some grand scheme to redistribute wealth from one group to another,” the president said today at Florida Atlantic University. “This is not some socialist dream,” Obama added, as he called for tax increases on millionaires today to pay for those investments.

And he can say that with a straight face because he’s a practiced politician and his lap dog media are not going to challenge him on it.

And this ‘magical’ class warfare tax on Millionaire will do absolutely nothing for either job creation or debt reduction. But it will satisfy the heart and soul of liberalism — Divide and Conquer Class Warfare & Envy!

“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” — Candidate Obama to then private Citizen Joe The Plumber.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky 2011: “You Don’t Deserve To Keep All Your Money”
“I’ll put it this way, you don’t deserve to keep all of it. It’s not a question of deserving, because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together.”

So “spread the wealth around” just don’t say those exact words and that isn’t what you mean even if it is. Orwell smiles upon you my son.

“If we would just convert these investments that we’re making through out government in education, research and healthcare. If we just turn those into tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, then somehow the economy is going to grow stronger. That’s the theory,” President Obama said about the right at a campaign event on the tax code in Boca Raton, Florida today.

“Here is the news. We tried this for eight years before I took office. We tried it. It is not like we did not try it. At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans got two huge tax cuts, in 2001 and 2003. Meanwhile, insurance companies, financial institutions, there were all allowed to write their own rules, find their way around the rules. We were told the same thing we’re being told now — this is going to lead to faster job growth, it’s going to lead to greater prosperity for everybody. Guess what? It didn’t,” he said an audience at Florida Atlantic University.

See what I mean. Can’t you just feel the love. 🙂

Time to bring out one of my favorite videos yet again:

Romney, a former venture capitalist, paid a tax rate of just 13.9 percent in 2010, a far lower rate than the average American paid, as his fortune is mainly based on investment and not salaried income.

Warren Buffet’s income, even more so. Funny how that worked out…. 🙂

http://townhall.com/video/ingraham-what-happened-to-bringing-people-together

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 Political Cartoons by Michael RamirezPolitical Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 

Occupy Hollywood

More Hope & Change: 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

More hilarity for “99% er” Millionaire Michael Moore. Who seems to want some media attention more than anything else. Any publicity is good publicity.

Too bad he’s gone so Hollywood. Roger & Me is deeply cynical and hilarious. But we come from the same town and the movie was about the same time I was growing up there, so I understood the humor and the sarcasm. Then.

In Denver: Moore, ever the populist $50 millionposeur, did not disappoint. “Everybody is a leader!” he insisted. “Wage slaves! That’s right. You know, historians — I believe that’s what they’re going to call us. They’re going to call us all wage slaves!” (would that apply to the little people who work for a guy who has $50 Million Dollars like he does?)

When Michael Moore told Piers Morgan that he was not among the hated 1 percent, he wasn’t lying. That’s because with a net worth upwards of $50 million he’s among the top 0.1 percent.

This story appears in the Nov. 11 issue of The Hollywood Reporter.

One of the many things that bug me about the industry in which I work is the large population of phonies who claim to be liberal, caring, green and unaffected by their wealth and fame but in reality are just as self-centered and addicted to their huge, over-air-conditioned living spaces and private planes as those at whom they point their fingers. And none is more phony and finger-pointing than Michael Moore.

But it looks good. And in Hollywood, Perception IS reality. And in Democrat Politics Perception is the ONLY reality they want.

Moore seems to be everywhere of late, talking about the “occupy” movement and fashioning himself its spokesmodel. I saw him on CNBC blowing hard and receiving kid-gloves treatment from Carl Quintanilla. On Piers Morgan Tonight, Moore said, “How could I be in the 1 percent?” When Morgan made the statement that Moore is “worth millions,” Moore responded with “No, that’s not true.” He went on to justify that comment by saying, “Even though I do well, I don’t associate myself with those who do well.” Although Morgan started off a bit confrontational, he, like most other interviewers, backed down fast. In my opinion, a lot of important issues are being brought up by the “occupiers,” but overall, this protest would be better served if those speaking on its behalf were of cleaner hands and less hypocritical than Moore, who has suckled mightily at the teat of “those who do well.”

In 2005, the Weinstein Co. set up financing of about $500 million to fund production and distribution. The investment vehicle was created and syndicated by a little firm called Goldman Sachs. One of the films that was produced by TWC using funds from that investment was Moore’s documentary “Sicko”. Given the success of his previous film, Fahrenheit 9/11, which he made with Harvey and Bob Weinstein, Moore was able to command a terrific deal for himself.

For which he is suing The Weinsteins for  alleged “financial deception” and “bogus accounting methods” in their production deal.

Apparently, the “wage slave” feels he’s owed more $$$ millions. 🙂

By 2010, TWC had burned through the capital raised in the Goldman Sachs deal. Investors were forced to restructure their arrangement, meaning some suffered a devaluation of their investment. Goldman also lost some money it put in TWC, but it could handle the loss in part because it was a recipient of the government’s TARP bailout. Some unlucky investors might never get back the money they put into funding TWC.

Not unlike other bad investments set up by Goldman Sachs and others during this period, some people did make out quite well, while others, often lower on the food chain, suffered. One of those who did quite well using the TWC funds was Moore.

While I don’t know for sure what Moore received on his movie, given his previous success, it likely was several million dollars. Sicko, produced by TWC but released in 2007 by Lionsgate, did not perform as well as Fahrenheit, earning $36 million at the box office. But Celebritynetworth.com pegs Moore’s net worth at more than $50 million, and Moore is suing TWC for $2.7 million more in profits from Fahrenheit. (Reports at the time of the lawsuit said Moore already had received $19.8 million from TWC for that film alone.)

If Moore really wants to be seen as someone outside the circle of those he is protesting, it would be great if he would disclose how much he has made off his TWC-backed movies and why he was willing to associate himself with financing set up by Goldman Sachs. Further, journalists should start showing more backbone in testing the veracity of statements made by those who use the media to disseminate a holier-than-though message.

Never happen. They are too dishonest and in-the-tank for that to happen. There are virtually no actual journalists left, the vast majority are just Propagandists.

There are many reasons our country is in financial trouble, and some do relate to misdeeds by Wall Street executives. Calling attention to such misdeeds and issues of income inequality is a good thing. But the true fault of what put us in this situation resides with the government that gave leeway to those who contributed to political campaigns and provided jobs to those who ran between the various administrations and the private sector. Having a hypocrite blowing hard about groups of people in whose number he himself should be counted diminishes the impact and validity of the message.

Ah, who cares, he’s a Liberal, so we’ll give him a pass…

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Now this made me laugh:

“I have made it to the big time. I’m on MSDNC…”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vitn50hI0OA

 

Economics for Idiots

Vice President Joe Biden said yesterday on CNN that nobody can say “that the stimulus did not create jobs,” but he did not specify how many jobs he believes President Barack Obama’s stimulus created and how much each of those jobs cost.

According to the most recent report on the stimulus by the Congressional Budget Office, the law had created a maximum of 2 million jobs as the fourth quarter of 2011 at a cost of $412,500 per job.

It took them nearly 3 years to figure this out. I guess the government is great at creating jobs and predicting economics. 🙂

On CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, host Candy Crowley asked Biden about the skepticism of those who point out “we did almost $1 trillion ins stimulus spending” and the administration said “unemployment won’t gove above 8 percent,” and yet we have not had the results the administration forecast. (Solyndra and Fisker included??)

“The problem was in the beginning, the economists said that in fact we wouldn’t go above 8 percent, because they didn’t know until this last quarter that the economy shrunk in the last term of the Bush administration almost 9 percent,” said Biden.

Yep, their bad economic forecasts and their even worse “solutions” are Bush’s fault, not the “economists” that said we had to pass the Stimulus or else (and that whole 8% thing that was pure guessing)

 “Everybody thought it was more like 5.5 percent.

And you know what they say about assuming. It makes an ass out of u and me. But we get stuck with check for their guessing. But it’s still Bush’s fault for their guessing being wrong.

And so the point was, we were all operating off of what the blue chips were looking at, and the numbers were wrong. But the fact is, if we hadn’t had that stimulus, we would be in a position now where we would be in a double dip recession some time ago.”

Instead of the recession we’ve had for nearly 3 years now and the “double dip” we already have!! A Trillion dollars of waste and 3 years later!!

And now Obama wants ANOTHER Stimulus!! and if you don’t pass it you’re a just a “rich” loving mean old fart. So he’ll just pass parts of it by executive fiat instead!

If you don’t succeed (or fail spectacularly) fail, fail again!

It shows how well Government does when it inserts itself into the economic to “create” anything other than chaos and misery.

Taking the high-end number of 2 million jobs and dividing it by the $825 billion cost of the stimulus yields a cost of $412,500 per job. (mind you virtually all these jobs are government union employees).

So given that sterling example, it should only take another $2,475,000,000,000 for the other 6 million jobs lost since 2007 but most of these are private sector jobs in the hands of evil greedy corporations. 🙂 (who cares about the $15,000,000,000,000 debt, anti-business regulations and ObamaCare!)

Damn those rich people are going to have pay up Big! 🙂

And government is very good at “creating” jobs”.

At a million-dollar  (no 1%ers there!) San Francisco fundraiser today, President Obama warned his recession-battered supporters that if he loses the 2012 election it could herald a new, painful era of self-reliance in America.

“The one thing that we absolutely know for sure is that if we don’t work even harder than we did in 2008, then we’re going to have a government that tells the American people, ‘you are on your own,’” Obama told a crowd of 200 donors over lunch at the W Hotel.

“If you get sick, you’re on your own. If you can’t afford college, you’re on your own. If you don’t like that some corporation is polluting your air or the air that your child breathes, then you’re on your own,” he said. “That’s not the America I believe in. It’s not the America you believe in.”

Hope and Change! 🙂

Yeah, government controlling everything is what you believe in. After all, government is infinitely better at running your life than you are.

You’re hopeless! So re-elect me or else you’re screwed! You’re incompetent!

“I guarantee it’s going to be a close election [in 2012] because the economy is not where it wants to be (Notice how impersonal that is phrased) and, even though I believe all the choices we’ve made have been the right ones, we’re still going through difficult circumstances,” the president said.

Doh!

Remember, Liberals are never wrong. Ever. And the economy is nowhere near where it wants (was the “it” government, free enterprise, or evil rich corporations??) to be and I and I alone can save you because your hopeless and if you don’t re-elect me the hungry capitalist raptors will eat you!!

Vote for me or Else!

NARCISSISM UPDATE

The State Department has bought more than $70,000 worth of books authored by President Obama, sending out copies as Christmas gratuities and stocking “key libraries” around the world with “Dreams from My Father” more than a decade after its release.

The U.S. Embassy in Egypt , for instance, spent $28,636 in August 2009 for copies of Mr. Obama’s best-selling 1995 memoir. Six weeks earlier, the embassy  had placed another order for the same book for more than $9,000, federal purchasing records show.

That’s taxpayer money paying for book sales for Obama who will get a royalty for it as the author!

About the same time, halfway around the world, the U.S. Embassy in South Korea  had the same idea and spent more than $6,000 for copies of “Dreams from My Father.”

One month later, the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta , Indonesia , spent more than $3,800 for hardcover copies of the Indonesian version of Mr. Obama ’s “The Audacity of Hope,” records show.

A review of the expenditures in a federal database did not reveal any examples of State Department  purchases of books by former Presidents George W. Bush or Bill Clinton.

Michael Moore is an Academy Award Winning Millionaire who went from a low-pay local rag in Flint, Michigan to millionaire but he’s not “rich” (aka ” the 1%”) but when asked about it, he dodges it like any good politician asked a question you know they will never answer honestly.

The inquiry came from Twitter, where one user asked why Moore appeared so disgusted by capitalism despite benefiting greatly from capitalism. “I’m here talking against my own interests– what’s wrong with me?” he joked, but didn’t really answer the question, other than to claim that “for a documentary filmmaker, I do very well.” When Morgan pushed him to explain how “very well” did not translate to elite levels of wealth, he merely said he felt “blessed,” given his high school education level, and claimed that “they made a huge mistake, putting me on TV.”

Moore continued to bash the wealthy, distancing himself from “a system that is unfair to working people” and concluding of the people that funded his first film, “I hope they rue the day.” He did not give any numbers to explain how his lifestyle did not conform with theirs.

He’s capitalism in action. Problem is, he’s an anti-capitalism millionaire capitalist!

After all, he is suing for money from the producers of “Fahrenheit 911”. He claims he was cheated out of at least $2.7 million in profits from his hit documentary.

“discovered substantial irregularities in the accounting” that resulted in a “gross underpayment to [Moore],” the lawsuit says.  

But he’s not a greedy capitalist millionaire!! 🙂

In the NBC appearance, Obama also professed to be paying little attention to the long series of fiery debates among Republican contenders vying for the chance to take him on in next year’s presidential election.

“I’m going to wait until everybody is voted off the island,” he quipped in a reference to the “Survivor” reality show.

“Once they narrow it down to one or two, I’ll start paying attention.”

Oh, the rapier wit…

Meanwhile, I have $38,500 per person fundraiser to attend riding on my Canadian Made Uber Bus passing out class warfare and fear,despair and hopelessness.

“We’ve made great progress,” Obama added, “but we’ve got so much more work to do. Obviously in Washington, the politics that I think people are hoping for is not what they’re getting. It’s still dysfunctional. It’s still perversely partisan.’’

The Democrat said that as if it was someone else’s fault.

But don’t worry, be happy. It could have been worse! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Can I have an Order of Fear & Freeloaders, Please…

A Michigan man who won $2 million in a state lottery game continues to collect food stamps 11 months after striking it rich.

And there’s nothing the state can do about it, at least for now.

Leroy Fick, 59, of Auburn won $2 million in the state lottery TV show “Make Me Rich!” last June. But the state’s Department of Human Services determined he was still eligible for food stamps, Fick’s attorney, John Wilson of Midland, said Tuesday.

Eligibility for food stamps is based on gross income and follows federal guidelines; lottery winnings are considered liquid assets and don’t count as income. As long as Fick’s gross income stays below the eligibility requirement for food stamps, he can receive them, even if he has a million dollars in the bank.

Food stamps are paid for through tax dollars and are meant to help support low-income families.

“If you’re going to try to make me feel bad, you’re not going to do it,” Fick told WNEM-TV in Saginaw on Monday.

After all, he’s “entitled”. As I have said before and will say again, Liberals are the greediest, most self-centered because they feel the most entitled to other people’s money.

Oh, and if you disagree with Liberals on this Grandma is going to be thrown off a cliff (that’s coming later on in this blog).

Then there are the frauds. Like AARP.

“I think I’m scheduled to get my AARP card in a couple of years?” President Barack Obama asked today.

“Anytime you want one,” the organization told him. “Platinum.”

Obama at AARP.jpg

The stage was set at AARP, the powerful Washington-based lobby for senior Americans, for Obama to host another “town hall” forum on healthcare reform, where the president allowed that both he and his wife Michelle have “living wills” drafted but hope they don’t have to use them anytime soon.

“If you have insurance that you like, you will be able to keep that insurance,” Obama said of the healthcare reforms that he is pursuing on Capitol Hill. “Nobody is trying to change what works.” (Obama 2009)

They were a massive supporter of ObamaCare.

Now they get a waiver for their MediGap insurance. Their main rival, Medical Advantage gets savaged by ObamaCare.

Effectively, AARP is no longer a senior advocacy group, but just another “evil” “greedy” insurance company. But since they are in bed with Obama and the Liberals, that’s ok.

Their moral outrage is selective.

The Daily Caller has learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rate review rules, which it finalized on Thursday, exempt “Medigap” policy providers, like the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), from oversight when such providers increase payment rates for their supplemental insurance plans.

Insurance providers who aren’t exempt from Obamacare’s rate review rules are required to publicly release and explain some health care payment rate increases.

The AARP is the nation’s biggest seller of Medigap policies, or supplemental healthcare plans that add onto what Medicare won’t cover for seniors. The senior citizens interest group advocated for Obamacare to include an attack on Medigap policies’ biggest competitor, Medicare Advantage.

Though the White House and HHS dismiss allegations of political favoritism when it comes to who’s getting exceptions from the new health care regulations – such as in the recent uproar over the disproportionate number of Obamacare waivers that went to companies in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district — Obamacare critics say the mere appearance of the administration helping friends is disturbing.

The appearance of favoritism exists with the new AARP exemptions, too. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sens. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, and Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, wrote to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius last October asking her not to do what HHS just finalized today – that is exempt Medigap policies from rate increase oversight.underwriter

“While Medicare Advantage premiums are declining, we are hearing disturbing stories from beneficiaries across the country about excessive premium increases for Medigap supplemental insurance policies,” Reid, Baucus and Kerry wrote to Sebelius on Oct. 6.

“For example, some beneficiaries enrolled in the United of Omaha Life Insurance Company will see their Medigap premiums increase by approximately 40 percent between 2010 and 2011,” the letter read. “An increase of this magnitude raises serious concerns about premium-setting practices and rate review procedures in place for Medigap policies.”

Instead of listening to three top Senate Democrats, the Obama administration decided to go ahead anyway with the Medigap exceptions from rate increase reviews.

The AARP was a driving force behind getting Obamacare through Congress, contributing a large sum to the $121 million advertising campaign pushing it, and spending millions more lobbying for it on Capitol Hill.

The senior citizen advocacy organization stands to make huge profits from Medicare Advantage cuts and from the exemptions it will benefit from when it comes to the Medigap plans sold under what AARP CEO A. Barry Rand calls the AARP’s “for-profit side.”

The AARP’s support of Obamacare during the debate over the legislation raised lots of eyebrows nationwide, as President Obama called for $313 billion in cuts to Medicare to push the plan through. Seniors weren’t happy about it, and many ripped AARP representatives at town hall meetings nationwide.

Now, though, it’s clear that the AARP is set to make millions, if not billions, of extra dollars in Medigap plan sales moving forward because they’ve effectively knocked out their biggest competitor, Medicare Advantage, through Obamacare. (DC)

AARP aided and abetted Democrats’ efforts to inflict a disastrous bill on an unwilling public.  They now stand to profit from the resulting law — while simultaneously receiving convenient exemptions from provisions that may hurt their bottom line.  Ed Morrissey pens the appropriate response to this outrageous report:  “If the AARP and the labor unions that backed ObamaCare need waivers from its consequences, then we all do.”  Amen.  I’ll leave you with this delightful AARP/Obama walk down memory lane.  This clip still makes my blood boil:
Update from AARP: “To be clear, AARP is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with a membership. While there are insurance products that carry the AARP name, they are underwritten by insurers such as Delta Dental, UnitedHealth Group, and Aetna and others—not AARP.  We work to ensure those products meet our standards and provide value to our members.

And, NATO is the US so the US didn’t attack Libya…right….. 😦
Oh and if you disagree with them, Grandma is going off a cliff…
Democrats continue to try to scare seniors with a new anti-GOP Medicare ad that shows “Grandma” getting thrown off a cliff and then asks, “Is America beautiful without Medicare?”

Welcome to the land of the freeloaders and the home of the depraved. No image captures America’s regressive ethos better than that of 30-year-old Stanley Thornton Jr., self-proclaimed “Adult Baby.” Profiled on a recent National Geographic reality television show, Thornton claims to suffer from a bizarre infantilism that leads him to wear diapers, lounge around in an oversized crib and seek constant coddling.

The nappies may be extreme, but let’s face it: Thornton Jr. — let’s just call him Junior — is a symptom of our Nanny State run amok, not an anomaly.

Junior came to Washington’s attention this week when Oklahoma GOP Sen. Tom Coburn challenged the Social Security Administration to probe into how the baby bottle-guzzling 350-pound man qualified for federal disability benefits. A former security guard, Junior is handy enough to have crafted his own wooden high chair and playpen.

Junior can drive a car and has sense enough not to go out in public in his XXL footie pajamas. Yet, welfare administrators treat him as an incurable dependent. Also collecting taxpayer-subsidized paychecks: Thornton’s adult roommate, a former nurse, who has indulged Thornton’s baby role-playing for the past decade.

Junior, naturally, threw a tantrum when his government teat-sucking was called into question. He wiped his nose and un-balled his fists long enough to type out an e-mail to The Washington Times: “You wanna test how damn serious I am about leaving this world, screw with my check that pays for this apartment and food. Try it. See how serious I am. I don’t care,” Junior threatened. “I have no problem killing myself. Take away the last thing keeping me here, and see what happens. Next time you see me on the news, it will be me in a body bag.”

Not from nowhere has this stubborn, self-destructive sense of entitlement sprung. As I reported last month, a record-breaking 12 million Americans have been added to the federal food stamp rolls over the past two years, and the bloated $6 billion AmeriCorps social justice army has been converted into a publicist corps for the welfare machine.

Just this week, a Michigan man boasted that he’s still collecting food stamps after winning a $2 million government-sponsored lottery prize. “If you’re going to … try to make me feel bad, you aren’t going to do it,” he told a local TV reporter. Embedded in his rebuke is the eternal refrain of the self-esteem-puffed teenager: “You can’t judge me!”

Diana West, author of “The Death of the Grown-Up,” traced the modern abdication of adulthood to the Baby Boomer generation. “The common compass of the past — the urge to grow up and into long pants; to be old enough to dance at the ball (amazingly enough, to the music adults danced to); to assume one’s rights and responsibilities — completely disappeared” after World War II. A culture of behavioral restraint gave way to “anything goes” and morphed into the current generation’s “whatever” attitude.

Look around: Junior’s infantilism is of a piece with the refusal of celebrity mothers Dina Lohan and Tish Cyrus to act like parents — and instead serve as best friends and tattoo parlor pals for their wayward daughters Lindsay and Miley. They’re the kind of women who shop at Forever 21, buy beer for their daughters’ prom parties and give them Botox certificates for high school graduation.

Junior’s penchant for pajamas is of a piece with perpetually stunted Hugh Hefner’s fetish for velvet robes 24/7 and self-indulgent decadence. Junior’s giant playpen is a cringe-inducing symbol of the Farmville-tethered, “funemployed” class of self-gratifiers who continue to live for today and spend like there’s no tomorrow.

Adult Baby Syndrome isn’t an isolated pathology. It’s the new American Way. Or, I should say, the new American Wahhhhh. (Michelle Malkin)

On issue after issue, Republicans are putting forward serious, sober and often politically risky solutions (if sometimes a bit weak kneed) to the nation’s most pressing problems, while Democrats play class-warfare games and stoke the public’s fear.

Oh, and today was supposed to be the end of the world… 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok