Read The Union Label

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden


Of all the cynical frauds of the Obama administration, few are so despicable as sacrificing the education of poor and minority children to the interests of the teachers’ unions.

Attorney General Eric Holder’s attempt to suppress the spread of charter schools in Louisiana was just one of the signs of that cynicism. His nationwide threats of legal action against schools that discipline more black students than he thinks they should are at least as damaging.

Charter schools are hated by teachers’ unions and by much of the educational establishment in general. They seem to be especially hated when they succeed in educating minority children whom the educational establishment says cannot be educated.

Apparently it can be done when you don’t have to hire unionized teachers with iron-clad tenure, and when you don’t have to follow the dogmas in vogue in the educational establishment.

Last year, there was an attempt to shut down the American Indian Model Schools in Oakland, California — schools that had been ranked among the top schools in the nation, schools with the top test scores in their district and the fourth highest scores in the entire state of California.

The reason given was that the former — repeat, FORMER — head of these schools was accused of financial irregularities. Since there are courts of law to determine the guilt or innocence of individuals, why should school children be punished by having their schools shut down, immediately and permanently, before any court even held a trial?

Fortunately, a court order prevented this planned vindictive closing of this highly successful charter school with minority students. But the attempt shows the animus and the cynical disregard of the education of children who have few other places to get a comparable education.

Attorney General Holder’s threats of legal action against schools where minority students are disciplined more often than he wants are a much more sweeping and damaging blow to the education of poor and minority students across the country.

Among the biggest obstacles to educating children in many ghetto schools are disruptive students whose antics, threats and violence can make education virtually impossible. If only 10 percent of the students are this way, that sacrifices the education of the other 90 percent.

The idea that Eric Holder, or anybody else, can sit in Washington and determine how many disciplinary actions against individual students are warranted or unwarranted in schools across the length and breadth of this country would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

Relying on racial statistics tells you nothing, unless you believe that black male students cannot possibly be more disruptive than Asian female students, or that students in crime-ridden neighborhoods cannot possibly require disciplinary actions more often than children in the most staid, middle-class neighborhoods.

Attorney General Holder is not fool enough to believe either of those things. Why then is he pursuing this numbers game?

The most obvious answer is politics. Anything that promotes a sense of grievance from charges of racial discrimination offers hope of energizing the black vote to turn out to vote for Democrats, which is especially needed when support from other voters is weakening in the wake of Obama administration scandals and fiascoes.

Eric Holder’s other big racial crusade, against requiring identification for voting, is the same political game. And it is carried out with the same cynical promotion of fears, with orchestrated hysteria from other Democrats — as if having to show identification to vote is like a revival of the Ku Klux Klan.

Blacks, whites and everybody else can be asked for identification these days, whether cashing a check or using a credit card at a local store or going to an airport — or even getting into some political meetings called to protest voter ID laws.

But to sacrifice the education of children, especially children for whom education may be their only ticket out of poverty, is truly a new low. As someone once said to Senator Joe McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

Why would they? THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA and no one is allowed to get in the way of it. Period.

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie



There are many successful liberals, so why do so many of them wish to subsidize failure for the poor, instead of showing them how to succeed?

Because, dependency breeds votes for Democrats.

If you’re poor, they want you to stay poor so you’ll be dependent on their money. If you’re in a Union or a Government job they want to lavish you so that you’ll give them with more money in a quid pro quo incestuous ever-increasing greed fest that benefits them alone in the end.

Look at Stockton, CA.

In late June, Stockton became the nation’s largest city to fail financially. At that time, all eyes were on the port city of 300,000 as experts warned the action could set off a string of similar filings among cash-strapped municipalities. Since then, a half-dozen cities have filed for Chapter 9 protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, including the city of San Bernardino.

During the 90-day mediation period, Stockton’s creditors refused to negotiate unless the city cut payments to the state pension plan, CalPERS.

The $900 million Stockton owes to the California Public Employees Retirement System to cover pensions is its biggest debt -– as is the case with many cities in California. 

Stockton slashed its police and fire departments, halted bond payments, cut employee benefits and adopted an emergency spending plan that cut many city services. But the city continues to pay into the state pension.

They cut everything EXCEPT the pension plan that was bankrupting them. Why? Because that was were the real gold goose was.

Calpers, the state pension fund, sued San Bernardino over its attempt to postpone its pension payments so it could keep basic services running. Now it’s Stockton that is being sued, this time by its Wall Street creditors, who are complaining that the bankrupt city is prioritizing its payments to pensioners (via Calpers) over those due to them.

In 2011, Stockton paid a little more than $20 million to Calpers—about double what it paid to run its public libraries. Its payments are expected to nearly double in the next 10 years, making Calpers the city’s biggest creditor. Stockton says it has no choice but to keep paying, even as it pares other costs, including its payments to bondholders. It says that if it cuts the rate at which its workers build up their pensions, workers will leave—especially the police, who have been recruited with the promise of large, early pensions. Last year, Stockton asked Calpers for a “hardship exemption,” allowing it to slow down its contributions. Calpers said no, fearing that if Stockton fell behind, it might never catch up.

“They’re scared to death,” Mr. Sweet said. “Calpers says, ‘You can’t give us a haircut, because if you do, the world is going to collapse. If it happens in Stockton, it’s going to happen in San Bernardino, and if it happens in San Bernardino it’s going to happen in Modesto, and if it happens in Modesto it’s going to happen in Bakersfield, and if it happens in Bakersfield it’s going to happen in Fresno.’ ”


Does that not sound like modern Liberalism? 🙂


Take Dr. Ben Carson, as one example. Dr. Carson, the renowned neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Md., is enjoying a certain amount of celebrity unrelated to his profession for speaking his mind about how individuals and the nation might succeed if more Americans were less dependent on government.

Dr. Carson, who is African-American, has been denounced as insufficiently black because he won’t toe the liberal line when it comes to big government and the implication that those in the African-American voting bloc, huge supporters of the Democratic Party, who fall below the poverty line, cannot succeed without it. The fact that many have not succeeded with government has apparently escaped the notice of his critics.

And they want that to escape the notice of the no- and low- information morons out there. Keep ’em down. Keep ’em stupid.

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

Speaking with Megyn Kelly on Fox News’ “America Live” last week, Dr. Carson addressed some of the slurs tossed at him, saying they are what you might expect to hear “on a third grade playground.” He appealed to his detractors to “move beyond” such rhetoric “and let’s have a real discussion about the real facts. If somebody disagrees, let’s talk about why they disagree, let’s talk about the pros and cons, let’s see if we can find some accommodation.”

A real discussion about real issues with a liberal? Now that is a Fantasy.

That is precisely what the left does not want to do, because to have such a discussion would expose liberalism’s failure to solve the problems of poverty and education — to cite just two examples — through government.

And since they are both the Morally Superior and the Just Plain Superior to all other forms of life that can’t happen. It’s their way or the Highway to Hell.

MSNBC’s Toure Monday has called Dr. Carson a token “black friend” to the Republican Party. I don’t recall Carson ever saying he belongs to the Republican Party, do you? Even so, labels should not define the man. What Carson is saying and what he represents ought to be the beginning point for the discussion he is trying to initiate.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” –Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr. Carson dismissed one suggestion he might be an “Uncle Tom” this way: “Well, obviously they don’t know what an Uncle Tom is because they need to read Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin.’ You’ll see that he was very, very subservient, kind of go along to get along type of person. Obviously, that’s not what I’m doing.”


In the Kelly interview, Dr. Carson hit his main point about liberal reaction on subjects ranging from Obamacare to higher taxes: “They feel that if you look a certain way then you have to stay on the plantation.”

You must be of The Body (to quote Star Trek)! If you are not of the The Body then the Lawgivers of Landru/Obama will come for you to absorb you into the bliss that is The Body. Otherwise you are a infection that must be fought and destroyed.

Isn’t such a personal attack also a form of racism? All whites don’t think alike, why should all African-Americans be expected to?

If government were the solution and not the problem, shouldn’t we expect that the amount of money spent on anti-poverty programs — $15 trillion since 1964, according to a CATO Institute analysis — might have moved the needle on poverty? Instead there are nearly as many poor people today as there were 49 years ago. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as the modern-day food-stamp benefit is known, has soared 70 percent since 2008 to a record 47.8 million as of December 2012.” Government as solution isn’t working and Dr. Carson wants to discuss why. For this he is attacked?

The nightmare for liberals would be if Ben Carson became a role model for the poor instead of a target. If more of the poor had mothers like his (and maybe active fathers, which he didn’t have), who focused on reading and discipline, more might grow up to be like him. They might reject the lie that they are incapable of succeeding because of their circumstances.

In addition to Carson’s remarks about government dependency, he is also under attack for his unorthodox positions on same-sex marriage and evolution, which the National Review Online reports has led to a petition being circulated at Johns Hopkins Medical School asking that he be disinvited as commencement speaker. That would add censorship to racism.

The Student Government Association at Johns Hopkins University has denied a pro-life group official club status at the Baltimore school for fear the group will make students feel uncomfortable.

“They were denied status because the students on the student council felt being pro-life violates their harassment policy,” Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, told Fox News.

According to emails obtained by Fox News, members of the SGA compared the pro-life students to white supremacists.

the college’s student government, whose members called the pro-life students’ desire to sidewalk counsel near abortion clinics “harassment” and their message “hate speech.”
An SGA senator said: “We have the right to protect our students from things that are uncomfortable. Why should people have to defend their beliefs on their way to class?”
“felt personally violated, targeted and attacked at a place where we previously felt safe and free to live our lives … this sidewalk attack on how abortions are hateful and such amounts to hate speech.”

Not only -Please don’t challenge my beliefs. You should have no right to challenge my beliefs!

I wonder if the Screaming Pro-Choicers would make them feel “uncomfortable”… 🙂

Meanwhile, the same night the pro-life student group was denied, student government members approved official campus status for Students for Justice in Palestine.

Because they are of The Body. 🙂

The late newsman David Brinkley said, “A successful man is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks others have thrown at him.”

By that standard, Dr. Ben Carson is building a mansion. (Cal Thomas,WT and others)

Uncomfortable, isn’t it. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

The Future’s So Bright…

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Update: Holder sent a terse letter to Paul that read: “It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.” 

In response, Paul said Thursday that “we’re proud to announce that the president is not going to kill unarmed Americans on American soil.” He later took to the floor to promote the attorney general’s response.

Now, the question would be- Do you believe Holder? Especially after Fast & Furious?

And his earlier answer: Holder said “it is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under te Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” and quoted Pearl Harbor and 9/11 as examples of when the federal government would conceivably resort to military force.

You shouldn’t. He’s as “cuddly as a cactus and charming as an eel.” 🙂

But the torture with and grinding of teeth that Holder had to undergo to write it is very satisfying though.

But don’t worry, the American people are smart enough and informed to know it’s all a face-saving put up job…. <<smirk>>


Officials told CBS 2′s Kramer that nearly 80 percent of those who graduate from city high schools arrived at City University’s community college system without having mastered the skills to do college-level work.

In sheer numbers it means that nearly 11,000 kids who got diplomas from city high schools needed remedial courses to re-learn the basics.

To Combat Problem, CUNY Starts Low-Cost Immersion Remedial Program

So now the University has to pick up the slack for the Teacher’s who can teach Johnnie to read after 12 Fricking Years!


I bet they know they have a PHd already in Class Warfare, The evils Corporate Greed, Keynesian Economics, how the Government is the answer to everything, They think texting is spelling, and how to get Welfare from the State though!

And they can vote in 2014 and 2016. Doesn’t that just fill your heart with hope… 🙂

Comment on the site From a “Mark Urbo”:

Two words: Teacher Unions

Daddy, what did you used to do at work ?

Well son, I was a NEA union leader and I didn’t really work, I just collected dues from union teachers that did work, and then spent that money on corrupt Democratic politicians so the NEA union could gain an unfair bargaining position with the government education system. But the schools closed because the States couldn’t afford the unions teacher contracts and the country (government) went broke…

Daddy, is that why we live in a box ?

No son, this is Obama’s socialist utopia !


“Mark Paquette” : I bet the kids will know how to pull the lever – or push a button with a picture on it (probably of $$$ or a cell-phone) – for a democrat, though.

So that’s why the Democrats want to raise the minimum wage. So employers can teach the stupid to read the pictures and do remedial math!!!

Now it all make sense! It’s only Fair! 🙂


ATR: Super Bowl MVP Joe Flacco and the Baltimore Ravens have agreed to a six-year, $120.6 million contract making the star quarterback the highest-paid player in NFL history, earning an estimated $20.1 million per year. But being the “highest paid player” and earning the most after tax pay are two very different things.

By choosing to remain a Raven, Flacco is now set to pay a combined marginal income tax rate of 51.98 percent. This overwhelming tax rate is composed of the federal, Maryland, and Baltimore County income tax rate, as well as the Medicare tax. And that’s excluding his “jock tax” liability for away games – play the Patriots at Gillette Stadium, pay Massachusetts income tax on earnings for that game – and other taxes levied against him such as Maryland’s property tax.

Given that Flacco is coming off of his best season, the franchise quarterback could have commanded a similar contract from any other team in the league while keeping a greater percentage of his contract. Four of the nine no-income-tax states have professional teams in need of the Super Bowl MVP’s caliber and skill.



Federal Income

Tax Burden

State and County

Tax Burden


Tax Liability


Baltimore Ravens

$8.72 million

$1.72 million

$10.44 million


Dallas Cowboys

$8.72 million


$8.72 million


Tampa Bay Buccaneers

$8.72 million


$8.72 million


Tennessee Titans

$8.72 million


$8.72 million


Jacksonville Jaguars

$8.72 million


$8.72 million

The Federal Income Tax Burden listed above is composed of the 39.6 percent tax bracket and 3.8 percent Medicare tax. For illustrative purposes, the marginal combined tax rate of 51.98 percent (which includes Federal, State, Medicare, and Baltimore County tax rates) is applied only to his contract salary and does not take into account his bonuses, endorsements, and other sources of viable income.

Had Flacco sought a new contract with one of the teams listed above, he would have saved $1.72 million in total marginal tax liability. Flacco may have the distinction of being the highest paid player in NFL history, but New Orleans Saints’ QB Drew Brees still earns more after tax pay.

Brees’s contract, which he signed before last season, is a 5-year, $100 million dollar contract that pays around $20 million per year. After applying the marginal combined tax rate of 49.4 percent to the Saints QB’s contract salary, he stands to make $470,000 more after tax pay than the newly crowned “highest paid player.” Consider how much more Brees will earn if Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal successfully eliminates the Pelican State’s income tax. Don’t be surprised if players begin to consider their tax liabilities even more now when making the decision of which team to ultimately sign with.

Yes, the Ravens may have the personnel to repeat as Super Bowl champions next year after signing Flacco to his new deal, but football careers are relatively short and Flacco is not receiving the greatest return for his physical investment in the game as he pursues his second championship. For now, by virtue of living in tax-heavy Maryland, he’ll just have to settle for being compensated second best.

Now, are you focused on his 9 million dollars a year as “enough” or the 52% tax rate?

That’s is the Difference between a Liberal and a Conservative. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

A Pipe Dream

“However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline,” he said, “they’re going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance.”-Obama Dec 8, 2011

Unemployment more important jobs. Unemployment and dependence creates jobs. 🙂

The great un-decider who wants someone to blame for his non-decision decisions is at it again.

In a decision that quickly re-ignited a fierce energy debate, the Obama administration on Wednesday rejected the controversial Keystone XL pipeline because the 60-day deadline imposed by Republicans did not allow adequate time to review an alternate route through an ecologically sensitive area in Nebraska.

It’s BS. They’ve been studying it for  3 years already!

He’s just playing his normal game with jobs. Where the jobs “saved or created” are credited to him, in service to him, or dependent on him.

But these were largely Union jobs, which is what so funny about this whole debacle.

But that’s the Republicans fault!!

Isn’t everything on the Left.

The boring meme of “they made me do it” is so tedious.

President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL oil pipeline sums up his presidency. When it comes down to well-paying new jobs and cheaper energy vs. his political base, guess which wins.

Because he is, after all, the most important man in the world and his re-election the only issue.

The 1,700-mile TransCanada Keystone crude oil pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast is a no-brainer. Canada’s oil sands are the largest source of crude oil outside the Middle East and the 700,000 barrels of black gold per day the pipeline would bring would mean hundreds of thousands of new jobs, lower gasoline prices, less U.S. dependence on Mideast oil and hundreds of millions of dollars in increased revenues for the states.

All those high-salaried jobs are why both Democratic-supporting labor unions and Republican-supporting business interests are pro-Keystone.

Yet, instead of supporting it in a spirit of bipartisanship, the “Great Uniter” had a State Department flunky announce his opposition on Wednesday.

Put more simply, the Obama administration hit back at Republicans by saying no because of their forcing him to decide on the project in just 60 days. Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail promptly painted the decision as a rejection of thousands of American jobs purely for political reasons.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, decried the news. “President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs and sell American energy security to the Chinese,” said Brendan Buck. “The president won’t stand up to his political base even to create American jobs. This is not the end of this fight.”

The Canadians have said that if we won’t approve the pipeline they’ll run it to Vancouver and sell it to the Chinese.

The White House has been trying to thread a needle between two segments of the Democratic base split over the pipeline: labor unions that support the project for the jobs it would bring, and environmentalists who oppose it for the adverse impacts that development of tar-sands oil could have on the environment.

So what you have is a PURELY POLITICAL Position.

The timing of the announcement was more surprising, since the administration had until Feb. 21 to decide. But a Wednesday announcement does make some political and economic sense. It allows Obama to go on offense before Thursday’s debate between Republican presidential candidates in South Carolina and before his own State of the Union address next Tuesday. It also comes before public anger could grow if gasoline prices continue their upward climb in the weeks ahead.

So when you here the meme that it was Republicans fault for the $4 a gallon gas this summer and that Armageddon is coming just remember who really started this mess because neither The Democrats nor The Media will remember it.

“This is the last day to own this issue on their terms,” said Kevin Book, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington-based energy consulting firm. “The administration gets to explain their choice before it gets explained for them.”

Obama fundraiser Wendy Abrams, for example, a well-heeled Chicago enviro-activist and Rahm Emanuel buddy whose family owns the country’s largest privately held medical equipment maker (ObamaCare anyone?), recently warned that the Keystone decision would show whether Obama “really wants to begin the transformation to building a renewable energy future.”

And after all, Obama’s Re-election is more important anything in the Liberal universe. Who gives a crap about jobs when only 1 job matters now.

And blaming the Republicans for YOUR OWN decisions is more important in the long run.

“Vote For Me– it’s The Republicans Fault!!”

“Vote for Me! the Other Guy is an Asshole!!”

“President Obama has taken steps to make us energy independent and create an economy that’s built to last,” the Obama campaign said on the Web page where the ad is hosted. It is already running in several swing-states, including Ohio and Pennsylvania.

<<Barf bag overload>>

The new ad is partly intended to shield Obama from criticism about his energy policies, which have curbed opportunities for oil companies, nudged up gas prices and heavily subsidized risky green-tech companies, including the failed Solyndra solar-tech company.

That purpose is highlighted in the ad’s first few words, which claims “secretive oil billionaires are attacking President Obama with ads fact-checkers say are not tethered to the facts.”

Those “secretive oil billionaires,” according to the campaign’s website, are David and Charles Koch — a pair of libertarian brothers who run an huge oil-services company and openly declare their opposition to Obama’s energy policies.

The Koch Brothers are the latest childish Satan-on-Earth obsession of the extreme left.

The campaign website began promoting the new ad on the same day Obama announced he would continue to freeze plans to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the United States.

Coincidence, I think not.

The Obama ad also touts a reduction in the nation’s energy imports. “For the first time in thirteen years,” it claims, “our dependence on foreign oil is below fifty percent.”

But that decline was a natural outgrowth of the nation’s economic recession, which has curbed energy consumption.

So we are using less because we can’t afford  to use it. That’s good! according to Obama so what we really need is to use even less and we’ll be fantastic!!

Instead of increase supply lower demand.

Break out the Horse and Buggy! Or worse a Chevy Volt!! 🙂

Environmental Protection Agency rules requiring expensive boutique blends of gasoline for different states during different seasons could be scrapped.

So could the law burdening oil refiners with a requirement to use a nonexistent product: “cellulosic ethanol.”

State laws requiring — we’re not making this up — that gas stations not charge too little per gallon could also be repealed. And, of course, we should drill, baby, drill into some of America’s own vast, untapped oil reserves.

But Obama insists on blaming Big Oil for big government’s failures. He had Attorney General Eric Holder establish an as-yet-to-be-heard-from task force last year to investigate, for the umpteenth time, price gouging by oil companies — about as easy as finding cellulosic ethanol in a switch grass haystack.

And Obama’s “Jobs Council” this week conceded that more oil “pipeline, transmission and distribution projects are necessary” and that until fossil fuels are replaced many years from now, “we need to be all in.”

But when we won’t take a treasure trove of oil from next door — forcing Canada to sell it to China instead — it proves the president is “all in” his green-left political base’s pocket.(IBD, Townhall and others)

And it’s the Republicans Fault!

So Vote Obama! It’s everyone else’s fault!

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy



It’s the Little Things That Really Bug You

Microphones accidently left on after G20 meeting pick up private conversation between US, French presidents. Sarkozy admits he ‘can’t stand’ Israeli premier. Obama: You’re fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day!

The conversation apparently began with President Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington’s strong objection to the move.

The surprising lack of coverage may be explained by a report alleging that journalists present at the event were requested to sign an agreement to keep mum on the embarrassing comments. A Reuters reporter was among the journalists present and can confirm the veracity of the comments.

A member of the media confirmed Monday that “there were discussions between journalists and they agreed not to publish the comments due to the sensitivity of the issue.”

But Herman Cain, well, they are all over that like a pack of  24/7 raptors on prey. But this, nope, too embarrassing…

And what do you know, one of the “accusers” is from Chicago and now uber-liberal Gloria Alred has stuck he head out of her rathole. Gee, no one saw that coming ……

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Meet John Monteith . He’s business manager for a Printing company in Charlotte, NC. The Democrat re-coronation of Obama will take place in his town. The town that als0 house the corporate headquarters of that evil capitalist enterprise, Bank of America. But we’re not here about them. This is about small business.

And Unions.

So like any business owner he wanted to see if he could get some business out of the convention. They wouldn’t return his calls.

Then, he talked to someone of importance.

According to John, he approached this person to see why he couldn’t get any traction with the committee.

They responded by asking him, “John, are you a union shop?”  When John told him he was not, the Committee member told him, “We were just told that we cannot accept bids unless they are from companies that are unionized.”

“Cannot? Or will not?,” John asked.  ”Cannot,” was the response he got.

Remember every time I say Obama and the Democrats only want the Politically Correct Job or else you can just stay unemployed? Well this is just further proof that your job has to have Liberal approval before they give a crap about you.

Now isn’t that special!

When he pressed to find out who to complain to, he was not given a straight answer.  After spending some time thinking about, accepting that the jobs would not go to his company, John decided he wanted his story to be told.  Not for political reasons so much.  He says he thinks that partisanship need not enter into this.

As far as he’s concerned, he was denied the opportunity to even compete for work because unions had already bought and paid for the people in charge.

  With the mayoral election in Charlotte coming next Tuesday, these broken promises of jobs has been something <Mayor> Foxx’s opponent, Republican Scott Stone, has been pointing out.“I think one of two things is going to happen: either the workers are going to come from out-of-state, either Chicago or Philly, and they’re going to come and get the work,” Stone said. “Or, they’re going to force local people, local employees and local companies, to unionize if they want to get a piece of this project. So, one of those two things is going to happen and neither one is good.”
According to John Monteith, that’s exactly what happened.  The person on the committee that he spoke to specifically asked him if he could unionize his shop in order to make bidding possible.
Naturally, the current Mayor denies it in typically liberal  hyperbolic fashion. Which only confirms it.
Foxx says, “It speaks to the use of labor within the region. This idea that someone from Alaska is gonna take a job from someone in Charlotte is absolutely ridiculous.”
It ain’t Alaska we’re talking about Mr. Mayor.
The truth is, that is all irrelevant in the face of what John was told about his business.  North Carolina is a right to work state.  No employee can be compelled to join a union.  This is the law.  Apparently, the Democrats in charge of the 2012 convention in Charlotte have found a way to get around that.  In order to get the DNC’s business, companies are being asked to unionize their employees — regardless of if the employees want a union.  And if not, they don’t get the work.  Apparently, discrimination is still legal.
Charlotte company Webb & Partners were also told to look elsewhere if they weren’t unionized:But Webb & Partners project management firm owner Sherwood Webb says he heard it straight from the horses mouth, “They said we will be using union labor.”  That’s why Webb says he never made a bid.

Committee for Charlotte 2012 Executive Director Dan Murrey said in an emailed statement, “The notion that the Host Committee will only allow unionized firms to bid is categorically untrue.”

Which means it is true. But they are just going to hide it better. And the media will work harder to bury it next time. Need more smoke to blow up your ass!

However, on the same day the DNC was scrambling to prove how pro-local business they are, it was revealed who they awarded the work that had been denied to John Monteith’s shop.  The work went to a company called Hargrove Inc, a shop that boasts its work force of more than 3,000 union personnel and hails from the union bastion of the Washington D.C. metro area.  They work with the biggest names in the union market.  From the Teamsters, to the Carpenters Union, union favoritism seems to be a very important reason Hargrove was selected.

Says Hargrove: The team has a strong record of working with women, minority and disability-owned contractors (Just not angry White people! :)). All of the firms demonstrated an ability to work effectively with union labor and share a commitment to sustainability. (emphasis mine)

But don’t expect to find this on Hargrove’s website, apparently they’ve scrubbed their website to make the lipstick brighter on the union pig so you won’t be able to see so causally.

 The dirty little secret in all of this is that since North Carolina is a right to work state, union labor will be hard to come by locally.  Which means locals will have two choices: join a union, or don’t get the job.  Right to work just became Forced to Unionize in North Carolina. I wonder what room Mayor Foxx and the DNC believe exists for non-union shops when they ship in a company from the the Washington, D.C. area and that company subsequently makes clear that it to will only work with union shops?  (

The Politically Correct Job. The Politically Correct Energy. The Politically Correct Car. The Politically Correct Food. The Politically Correct <fill in the blank> or ELSE you get nothing!
You have to be in The Party or you’re nothing, Comrade!
Now that’s “Fair” now isn’t it! 🙂
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

 Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Tonight’s Preview

Wanna Hear what Teleprompter One will tell the Great Speech Maker tonight?

Wanna Hear the latest speech that is supposed to be “policy” or “leadership” but is just more words and obfuscations?

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Well, there you have it. It just won’t be that straight forward. But it will be Tax and Spend, Redistribution and  More Government and Union Jobs. It will just be hidden under another layer of Orwellian Bullshit and The Mainstream Media’s Frenzy of Giddiness and Awe.

But it will still be ideological bullshit.

It’s not like he can step outside of his ideology.

Oh, I’m sure it will be soaring and emotional  and “heartfelt”.

But it will be a massive snow job the likes of which would cause an ice age.

And if you don’t buy the bullshit, you’re just a heartless, right wing, terrorist/extremist/racist. 🙂

So, no worries. 🙂

After an $830 billion “economic recovery” plan, two auto bailouts, cash for clunkers, mortgage bailouts and at least two subsequent jobs programs, Obama wants to convince the country that just a little bit more stimulus is what the economy needs to finally get back on track.

But wait a minute. Since Obama took office, the government has run up $4 trillion in deficits. And even before his newest stimulus package, he’s on track to add another $973 billion next year.

Unless Keynes’ was wrong, shouldn’t all that have superturbocharged the economy by now? We’re not talking about a little bit of extra spending, but record amounts.

So far, Obama has run deficits that are more than twice as large as any president since Truman. And by the end of his first term, he will have borrowed more money than the federal government spent over the nation’s first 200 years.

Yet all we’ve gotten in return for this epochal level of allegedly stimulative deficit spending is the country’s worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.

Worse, the specific ideas Obama will apparently propose — more money for infrastructure, another extension to this year’s payroll tax cut, an unemployment benefits extension and tax credits to encourage hiring the unemployed — have all been tried since he took office, and all have failed to move the needle on jobs.

But if you bang your Rigidly Ideological Head against this wall, eventually you will break the wall!

Simple really. 🙂

Spending on roads has been a particularly expensive flop. Last summer, Obama was so sure the huge amount of highway stimulus money getting paid out over those months would create jobs that he dubbed it “Recovery Summer.” Instead, the economy lost a net 329,000 jobs.

And when the payroll tax cut went into effect in January, Vice President Biden assured that the $112 billion put into workers’ pockets would end up “spurring growth and creating jobs.” So far, GDP growth has all but stalled, and there are 104,000 more unemployed.

Nor did the tax credits have any noticeable effect, with most of the money given away to companies that would have made the same hiring decisions anyway.

How much more time will it take for Obama to realize his economic policies have failed? The answer so far appears to be “Just a little bit more.”

At least until 2013 when he no longer has to run for election so katie-bar-the-door will the real Obama please stand up!

Imagine what Obama could do without being in perpetual Campaign Mode?

Be Afraid. Be Very, Very Afraid!!

But tonight, you’ll just get the Chicago Community Orginizer Soaring Rhetoric Speech # 504. It will sound like 503…502…501…500…499…
It will be like mythical Chinese Food, an hour later even he won’t remember what he said.

The same old ugly pig will have a new shade of Orwellian Lipstick on.


Are ready for some football! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne



Mob Rule

PHOTO: Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America by Ann Coulter

New York Times bestselling author and conservative political commentator Ann Coulter’s new book, “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America”, tackles politics once again, this time taking on the liberal left and what she describes as their “mob behavior.”

See my take:

In “Demonic,” Coulter traces the words and movements of groups from the Ku Klux Klan and the SDS to anti-war protesters and Democrats today to argue her point that liberals have “consistently used mob tactics to implement their idea of the ‘general will.'”

“Just as fire seeks oxygen, Democrats seek power, which is why they will always be found championing the mob whether the mob consists of Democrats lynching blacks or Democrats slandering the critics of Obama Care as racists,” Coulter writes.

Chapter 1

The Liberal Mob

2 When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an impure spirit came from the tombs to meet him.

3 This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain.

4 For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him.

5 Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.

6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him.

7 He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!”

8 For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you impure spirit!”

9 Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” “My name is Legion,” he replied, “for we are many.”– Mark 5:2–9

The demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic. It is the nihilistic mob of the French Revolution; it is the revolutionaries who seized control of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century; it is the Maoist gangs looting villages and impaling babies in China; it is the Ku Klux Klan terrorizing Republicans and blacks in the South; it is the 1992 Los Angeles riot that left fifty dead and did $1 billion of damage after the first Rodney King verdict; it is the bloody riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention; it is the masked hoodlums smashing up Seattle when bankers came to town; it is the 500,000 illegal aliens marching under a foreign flag in Los Angeles; it is throngs of Islamic fanatics attending the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s funeral, tearing his body out of its coffin; it is left-wing protesters destroying property and attacking delegates at the 2004 and 2008 Republican National Conventions.

Everything else changes, but mobs are always the same. A mob is an irrational, childlike, often violent organism that derives its energy from the group. Intoxicated by messianic goals, the promise of instant gratification, and adrenaline-pumping exhortations, mobs create mayhem, chaos, and destruction, leaving a smoldering heap of wreckage for their leaders to climb to power.

The Democratic Party is the party of the mob, irrespective of what the mob represents. Democrats activate mobs, depend on mobs, coddle mobs, publicize and celebrate mobs — they are the mob. Indeed, the very idea of a “community organizer” is to stir up a mob for some political purpose. “As so frequently happens when a crowd goes wild,” historian Eric Durschmied says, “there is always one who shouts louder and thereby appoints himself as their leader.” Those are the people we call “elected Democrats.”

The Democrats’ playbook doesn’t involve heads on pikes — as yet — but uses a more insidious means to incite the mob. The twisting of truth, stirring of passions, demonizing of opponents, and relying on propagandistic images in lieu of ideas — these are the earmarks of a mob leader. Over and over again, one finds the Democrats manipulating the mob to gain power. It is official Democratic policy to appeal to the least informed, most weak-minded and perpetually alarmed members of the public.

Their base consists of soccer moms, actresses, felons, MSNBC viewers (both of them), non-English speakers, welfare recipients, heads-up-their-butts billionaires, and government workers — who can never be laid off. The entire party gave up on attracting the votes of white men decades ago. It’s easier to round up votes by frightening women about “assault weapons” and promising excellent free health care to non-English speakers. Yes, a free health care system that is so superior that they exempt themselves and their friends from having to be in it. Liberals frighten people about their health care in order to stampede through ObamaCare. They claim the Earth is overheating in order to seize taxpayer money for solar panels and compact fluorescent lightbulbs.

They call out union thugs to force politicians to accede to insane benefits packages. They stage campaigns of calumny to get their way on gay marriage. Faddish ideas that would never have occurred to anyone fifty years ago — or even twenty years ago — are suddenly foisted on the rest of us by the liberal mobs.

Although the left in America is widely recognized as hysterical, unreasonable, and clueless, the “root cause” of these traits has generally been neglected. More than a century ago, Gustave Le Bon perfectly captured the liberal psychological profile in his 1896 book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind.” Le Bon — a French physician, scientist, and social psychologist — was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. His groundbreaking book “The Crowd” paints a disturbing picture of the behavior of mobs. Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini used his book to learn how to incite a mob. Our liberals could have been Le Bon’s study subjects.

Even the left-wing Guardian has admitted that Le Bon’s study of crowd behavior was “possibly the most influential work of psychology ever written.” Presumably recognizing themselves in his psychological profile, liberals have recently tried to undermine Le Bon. They have complained that he merely “articulated the propertied classes’ fear of the mob.” Who likes mobs? Renters? Window manufacturers? Rope salesmen? Liberals also objected that Le Bon did not hold the police accountable for a mob’s behavior — which is like demanding that we take into account the length of the rape victim’s skirt.

It is revealing that liberals so fear Le Bon that they try to sully him as “controversial” and “reactionary.” (Those particular complaints, incidentally, were lodged by liberal activist George Monbiot, who has called for “citizen’s arrests” of former government offiials from George W. Bush’s UN ambassador John Bolton to former British prime minister Tony Blair. No wonder he doesn’t like psychological studies of mob behavior.)

It was all the usual claptrap, but the piercing truth of Le Bon’s study speaks for itself. Liberals wouldn’t go after him if, even a century later, his theories didn’t still ring true. All the characteristics of mob behavior set forth by Le Bon in 1895 are evident in modern liberalism — simplistic, extreme black-and-white thinking, fear of novelty, inability to follow logical arguments, acceptance of contradictory ideas, being transfixed by images, a religious worship of their leaders, and a blind hatred of their opponents.

Many of liberals’ peculiarities are understandable only when one realizes that they are a mob. For example, a crowd’s ability to grasp only the simplest ideas is reflected in the interminable slogans.

Liberals have boatloads of them: Bush Lied, Kids Died! Our Bodies, Our Selves! No Blood for Oil! No Justice, No Peace! Save the Whales; Love Your Mother (Earth); Ban the Bomb; Make Love, Not War; Friends Don’t Let Friends Vote Republican; Diversity Is Our Strength! Save the Planet! Pro-Choice, Pro-Child! Support Our Troops, Bring them Home! Co-Exist! Hey, Hey, LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today? Dissent Is Patriotic! War Is Not the Answer! Go Green! Healthcare Is a Right, Not a Privilege! Imagine Peace; Celebrate Diversity! Beat the Bushes for Peace! No Nukes! Give Peace a Chance; Think Globally/Act Locally; No Tax Cuts for the Rich; Save the Planet! Venceremos! One, Two, Three, Four, We Don’t Want Your F–King War! Bush = Hitler; Hell No, We Won’t Go! Off the Pig! Eat the Rich! Die Yuppie Scum! Peace Now! We Are the Ones We’ve Been Waiting For! Solidarity Forever! Bring America Home! You Can’t Hug a Child with Nuclear Arms; Meat Is Murder! Books Not Bombs! Fight the Power! Yes We Can!

And those are just the ones on my neighbor’s car.

What is the Tea Party’s slogan? There is none. Republicans almost never have slogans, certainly none that even they can remember — except when our presidential candidates are forced to come up with some utterly forgettable catchphrase for their campaigns.

There are only three memorable Republican slogans in the past half century — unless you count what Dick Cheney said to Pat Leahy on the Senate floor in 2004, in which case there have been four. There was, “27 Million Americans Can’t Be Wrong,” after Goldwater lost in a historic landslide in 1964. There were the YAF buttons made in tribute to William F. Buckley’s mayoral campaign platform in 1965: “Don’t Let Them Immanentize the Eschaton!”

And when there were few other reasons to vote for the reelection of the first President Bush in 1992, there was,”Annoy the Media, Vote Bush!” Republicans display crosses and fish, college and sports decals, and a few parodies of liberal slogans (“Imagine an Unborn Child”), but no bossy demands on our bumper sticker.

Conservatives don’t cotton to slogans. When they finally produce one, it’s never the sort of rallying cry capable of sending people to the ramparts, such as “Yes We Can!” or “Bush Lied, Kids Died!” “27 Million Americans Can’t Be Wrong” is a wry observation, not an urgent call to battle. “Annoy the Media, Vote Bush!” — barely qualifies as a suggestion.

Conservatives write books and articles, make arguments, and seek debates, but are perplexed by slogans. (Of course, another reason Republicans may avoid bumper stickers is to prevent their cars from being vandalized, which brings us right back to another mob characteristic of liberals.)

By contrast, liberals thrive on jargon as a substitute for thought. According to Le Bon, the more dramatic and devoid of logic a chant is, the better it works to rile up a mob: “Given to exaggeration in its feelings, a crowd is only impressed by excessive sentiments. An orator wishing to move a crowd must make an abusive use of violent affirmations. To exaggerate, to affirm, to resort to repetitions, and never to attempt to prove anything by reasoning are methods of argument well known to speakers at public meetings.”

Liberals love slogans because the “laws of logic have no action on crowds.” Mobs, Le Bon says, “are not to be influenced by reasoning, and can only comprehend rough-and-ready associations of ideas.”5 He could be describing the New York Times and other journals of elite opinion when he describes periodicals that “manufacture opinions for their readers and supply them with ready- made phrases which dispense them of the trouble of reasoning.”

You will see all the techniques for inspiring mobs in liberal behavior.

There are three main elements to putting an idea in a crowd: affirmation, repetition, and contagion. The effects takes time, Le Bon says, but “once produced are very lasting.” It’s the same reason annoying TV commercials are so effective. “Head On! Apply directly to the forehead. Head On! Apply directly to the forehead. Head On! Apply directly to the forehead.”

Affirmation is the creation of a slogan, free of all reasoning and all proof.” Indeed, the “conciser an affirmation is, the more destitute of every appearance of proof and demonstration,” he says, “the more weight it carries.” This is “one of the surest means of making an idea enter the mind of crowds.”

Affirmation only works if it is “constantly repeated, and so far as possible in the same terms.” The power of repetition “is due to the fact that the repeated statement is embedded in the long run in those profound regions of our unconscious selves in which the motives or our actions are forged. At the end of a certain time we have forgotten who is the author of the repeated assertion, and we finish by believing it.”

Short slogans endlessly repeated create a “current of opinion” allowing “the powerful mechanism of contagion” to operate. Ideas spread through the crowd as easily as microbes, Le Bon says, which explains the mass panics common to rock concerts, financial markets, street protests, and Dennis Kucinich rallies. “A panic that has seized only a few sheep,” he observes, “will soon extend to the whole flock.”

Liberals have it down to an art: The cacophonous method of yelling until conservatives shut up just because they just want to go home, the purblind assertions — No WMDs in Iraq! Civilian Deaths! Violence at Tea Parties! Head On! Apply directly to the forehead! — and overnight the entire mass of liberals is robotically repeating the same slogans.

It isn’t only in their incessant street demonstrations that liberals talk in slogans. This is how liberals discuss serious policy matters with the public. It’s as if they’re speaking to a vast O.J. Simpson jury, mesmerized by a pair of gloves and a closing argument that rhymes (“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”).

Conservatives talk the same on TV as off TV — unless they are inarticulate politicians using sound bites to avoid saying anything stupid. But regular conservatives talk on TV as if they’re having a normal conversation with their friends or neighbors.

Liberals don’t know how to do this because they don’t have normal friends and neighbors — only fellow demonstrators. Their self-image is as little Lenins, rousing the masses at the Finland Station, which is why they always sound as if they’ve gotten control of the PA system and are broadcasting from Big Brother, Inc. — or if they’re Al Gore, addressing a kindergarten class.

Here, for example, is Stephanie Bloomingdale, of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO, being interviewed on MSNBC about the union’s beef with Governor Scott Walker: “Well, America, we need all of you to help us with our fight. Because this is a fight to reclaim the values of the middle class. This is the movement of our time. And we need people all across America, working people, to stand up and say, this is the time we need to restore economic justice. And we know that the only — that the union movement is the only thing that stands between unbridled corporate greed and a true economic democracy. And we — what I would like to say is, America, stand with us, stand with us who are fighting for justice and economic justice in our society.”

The next night, Katrina Vanden Huevel was engaging in the same sort of “Internationale” hectoring: “People are waking up. And they’re in the streets. There are going to be fifty rallies around this country. Maybe a million people in the streets of this country. And what are they saying? Enough! You’re giving our people’s money away. Invest in our country, invest in jobs, invest in education. Keep cops on the street, keep teachers in the classrooms. Enough with these perks for corporations. There’s a movement called U.S. uncut, which is inspired by an article in The Nation.

“If we can recoup from the very richest who brought us this financial crisis and from corporate tax dodgers, we can balance budgets in a fair way. Justice, fairness, concepts that may be coming back to America in this moment.”

The advantage of slogans like these — “working families,” “economic justice,” “unbridled corporate greed,” and “invest in our country, invest in jobs, invest in education” — is that liberals never have to talk about the actual issues being discussed. You’d never know in the fog of jargon that the Republican governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, was only asking government employees to start paying 6 percent of their pension contributions (up from zero percent) and 12 percent of their health care insurance (up from six percent).

Similarly, the pro-abortion movement depends on never ever using the word “abortion” — only cant, such as “choice,” “family planning,” and “reproductive freedom.”

The Left’s robotic speaking style helps explain why liberals have never been able to make a dent in talk radio, despite many tries. Apparently, even the people who get bused in to their rallies can’t be paid to listen to liberals hectoring them on talk radio. Being endlessly lectured by deadly earnest liberals is boring. Ask any Cuban.

Based on their public commentary, it appears that not one liberal has the vaguest idea how the economy imploded. The only thing liberals know is — as President Obama explained — “Republicans drove the car into the ditch, made it as diffiult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want the keys back. No! You can’t drive. We don’t want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the car out.”11 (It was always a “ditch” and not a “lake” because a lake would have been offensive to Teddy Kennedy.)

A liberal would stare at you slack-jawed if you explained that the federal government, via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, forced politically correct lending policies on the banks — policies that were attacked by Republicans but ferociously defended by Democrats — and that the banks’ suicidal loans were then bundled into mortgage- backed securities and dispersed throughout the entire financial system, which poisoned the economy, bringing down powerful institutions, such as Lehman Brothers, and destroying innumerable families’ financial portfolios.

In light of the Democrats’ direct role in creating the policies at the heart of the nation’s financial collapse, it’s not surprising that they prefer metaphors to facts. What’s strange is that the image of a car in a ditch is sufficient for the bulk of Democratic voters and commentators to adjudge themselves experts on the economic crisis and refuse to listen to explanations that aren’t images of Bush driving a car into a ditch. Image is all that matters to the mob. Obama can take in the biggest campaign haul from Wall Street in world history, as he did in 2008, but the mob will never believe he is in the pocket of Wall Street bankers.

The top- three corporate employers of donors to Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Rahm Emanuel were Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and JPMorgan. Six other financial giants were in the top thirty donors to the White House Dream Team: UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and Credit Suisse Group.12 In 2008 alone, Goldman Sachs employees gave more to Obama — nearly $1 million — than any other employer, with the sole exception of the entire University of California, which has 230,000 employees — ten times more than Goldman.13

And still Republicans are called the Party of Wall Street. Bush let Lehman Brothers go under — what else do Republicans have to do? Liberals latched on to the image of Bush, Cheney, and even Tom DeLay as “oilmen” to blame them for everything from Enron’s collapse to blackouts and high oil prices.

In 2006, Speaker Nancy Pelosi blamed “oilmen” in public office for high oil prices — and hearing Pelosi try to craft a syllogism is like watching Michael Moore attempt ballet. She said, “We have two oilmen in the White House. The logical follow-up from that is $3-a-gallon gasoline. It is no accident. It is a cause and effect. A cause and effect.” That’s all liberals needed to know. Two “oilmen” in the White House — cause and effect. Strangely though, a barrel of oil costs the same on the world market for all those other countries that were not being run by “oilmen.”

A few years earlier, she had blamed Bush and Representative Tom DeLay for the blackout throughout the Northeast United States and parts of Canada — presumably because they are both from Texas — saying they had “put the interests of the energy companies before the interests of the American people.”14 In fact, the blackout was due to a failure of humans operating electric power; it had nothing whatsoever to do with oil.

The New York Times’s Paul Krugman has written more than a dozen columns making hazy connections between Bush and the corrupt and collapsed Enron — “Some cynics attribute the continuing absence of Enron indictments to the Bush family’s loyalty code”  — despite Bush’s having absolutely nothing to do with the company, other than being from Texas.

By contrast, Krugman was on Enron’s advisory board while he was writing encomiums to Enron in Fortune magazine.16 Once a year, when I don’t feel like writing a column, I think I’ll reprint Krugman’s column singing Enron’s praises — although, again, in fairness, he was being paid by Enron at the time.

Democrats wouldn’t make such absurd statements if absurdity didn’t seem perfectly logical to their base. This is how Democrats communicate with their constituents: They use mob tactics to rile up the irrational masses. Crowds can’t grasp logic, only images. “These image- like ideas,” Le Bon says, “are not connected by any logical bond of analogy or succession, and may take each other’s place like the slides of a magic lantern which the operator withdraws from the groove in with they were placed one above the other.”

Republicans love Wall Street — oh look, Wall Street just made historic campaign contributions to Obama; he must be really cool. Republicans hate the poor because they’re trying to block government policies promoting easy mortgages. . . . Oops, I wonder why the economy just tanked. It’s because Bush drove it into a ditch! Enron collapsed and Paul Krugman says it’s Bush’s fault. Krugman was paid by Enron and Bush wasn’t? Bush lied, kids died! Oil prices went up under Bush — it’s his fault — he’s an oilman! Oh but then oil prices went down under Bush. . . . Hey, look over there! A shiny object!

Despite their perennial enthusiasm for revolution and “change” in almost any form, Le Bon says, crowds are wildly conservative when it comes to scientific progress. Want to scare a liberal? Mention nuclear power plants, genetically modified fruits, new pharmaceuticals, food irradiation, or guns with plastic frames. We could probably get a crowd of liberal protesters to scatter just by coming at them with a modern vacuum cleaner.

It certainly works on dogs and cats. The Left’s abject terror of technological development is yet another mob attribute. Le Bon says that the mob’s “unconscious horror” of “all novelty capable of changing the essential conditions of their existence is very deeply rooted.”

While mobs go about changing the names of institutions and demanding radical changes to society, he says, when it comes to scientific progress, crowds have a “fetish- like respect” for tradition.18

Thus, according to Le Bon, if “democracies possessed the power they wield today at the time of the invention of mechanical looms or of the introduction of steam- power and of railways, the realization of these inventions would have been impossible.” It is lucky “for the progress of civilization that the power of crowds only began to exist when the great discoveries of science and industry had already been effected.”

Our liberals are even worse than Le Bon imagined. Democrats don’t merely want to block scientific progress, they want to roll it back. Al Gore’s global warming fantasy book Earth in the Balance called for the worldwide elimination of the internal combustion engine within twenty-five years. (Which, if nothing else, would have ruined Obama’s “car in the ditch” catch-phrase.)

In 2007, Democrats in Congress banned the incandescent lightbulb, currently scheduled for elimination in 2014. Indeed, banning Thomas Edison’s invention was among the very fi rst acts of the new House majority elected in 2006, in a bill cosponsored by 195 Democrats and only 3 Republicans (two of whom are no longer in office). When Democrats came up with the idea of banning the lightbulb, what image appeared in their heads? A litcandle? Only four Democrats voted against the bill in both the House and then Senate, with the vast majority of Republicans voting against it in both chambers.

Consider that the two industries that provoke the most fear and loathing in liberals are two of the most innovative: the oil and pharmaceutical industries. When a majority of the country objected to national health care because, among other reasons, it would mean the end of innovation in medicine once the government took over, liberals stared in blank incomprehension. (It was almost as if they’d been drugged.) They believe every drug, every diagnosis, every therapy, every cure that will ever be invented has already been invented. Their job is to spread all the existing cures, not to worry about who will discover new ones.

The only traditions liberals are eager to smash are moral and sexual ones, such as marriage and protecting the unborn. Crowds are too impulsive to be moral, according to Le Bon, which explains why liberals are mad for innovation when it comes to thousands-year-old institutions like marriage. Only when it comes to scientifi c innovation, are they hidebound traditionalists.

Indeed, the only way to get liberals interested in novel scientific research is to propose slaughtering human embryos. When adult stem cell researchers had already produced treatments for eighty different diseases, 21 while embryonic stem cell researchers were stuck in the dark ages, the failed researchers won liberal hearts by pointing out that their method destroyed human fetuses, while adult stem research did not.

As long as Democrats can win by demagoguing the mob, they are perfectly happy to turn America into a banana republic. With the country drowning in debt and Medicare and Social Security putting us on a high-speed bullet train to bankruptcy, the entire Democratic Party refuses to deal with entitlements. Instead, they will gin up the mobs to throw out any politician who cuts these increasingly theoretical “benefits.” The country will have the economy of Uganda, but Democrats will be in total control.

Rich liberals want chaos for everyone except themselves, confident that they can afford a “green” lifestyle and their children will still attend Sidwell Friends. The rest of us are forced to live in a lawless universe of no energy, gay marriage, girl soldiers, and marauding criminals because liberals can’t enjoy their wealth unless other people are living in complete pandemonium. They promote anarchy, believing the middle class should live in squalor, while liberals will be protected by their wealth against the mob.

The seminal event of the New Testament — Jesus’ crucifixion — is a dramatic illustration of the power of the mob.

When the mob was howling for Pontius Pilate to sentence Jesus to death, even Pilate’s wife couldn’t convince him to spare Jesus. After having a dream about Jesus, Pilate’s wife sent her husband a note saying Jesus was innocent — a “just man.” Pilate knew Jesus was innocent and that the mob hated Jesus out of “envy.” But not his wife, not even his own common sense, was enough for him to resist the mob.

Three times Pilate told the “multitude” that Jesus was innocent and should be spared. He pleaded with the mob, proposing to “chastise him, and release him.” But the mob was immovable, demanding Jesus’ crucifixion. Pilate was required to release one of the prisoners, so he gave the mob the choice of Jesus or Barabbas, a notorious murderer and insurrectionist — in other words, someone who incites mobs. Again, the mob “spoke with one voice,” demanding “with loud shouts” that Jesus be crucified.

Capitulating to the mob, Pilate ordered Jesus’ death.

Even one of the mob’s victims, a thief being crucifi ed alongside Jesus, joined the mob’s taunting, saying to Jesus, “If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.” The other thief rebuked him, noting that they were guilty, whereas Jesus was not. He said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” And Jesus said “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”Pilate gave in to the mob out of fear. The thief joined the mob to side with the majority. The mob itself was driven by envy.

Although it all worked out in the end — Jesus died, darkness fell over the Earth, the ground trembled, and the temple veil was ripped in two, and three days later, Jesus rose from the dead, giving all peoplethe promise of everlasting life — here was the stark choice, to be repeated like Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence: Jesus or Barabbas?

Liberals say Barabbas: Go with the crowd. C’mon, everybody’s doing it — it’s cool. Now let’s go mock Jesus. (As is so often the case, the mob said, “Kill the Jew.”)

Conservatives — sublimely uninterested in the opinion of the mob — say Jesus.