Two buses traveling the same direction

Imagine we're standing on a highway overpass, watching vehicles of various sizes, configurations, and speeds approach, pass, and disappear over the crest of a distant hill. Off in the distance we notice a large bus approaching.
　
The bus is traveling well above the posted speed limit. It tailgates slower vehicles, sways violently as it cuts in and out of traffic, and swerves from one side of the highway to the other. The one constant is the driver's reckless disregard for the well-being of his fellow motorists, who are forced into radical evasive tactics to avoid a collision.
　
We might expect to see a crazed maniac behind the wheel, perhaps a drunkard. But when the bus passes under the bridge, we see that the driver is well-dressed, fully composed, and gripping the steering wheel with both hands. The driver looks like the consummate professional, not a wild-eyed kook. What's more, the passengers aren't the least bit disheveled, nor are they or upset with the driver's erratic maneuvers. They're reading, listening to music, or sleeping, blissfully unaware of the danger in which their driver is placing them.
　
The bus rockets beneath the underpass, runs two more vehicles into the median, and careens over the crest.
　
After a silent prayer for the bus' occupants, we turn our eyes back to the oncoming traffic. Of all horrors, another bus is approaching. But this one is different. The second bus is cruising at an appropriate speed. When it approaches a slower vehicle, the driver signals and the bus moves smoothly into the next lane, passes the slower vehicle, signals again and reenters the original lane.
　
When the bus reaches the overpass we again note the driver's mannerisms, driving techniques, and personal appearance. Everything is the same as with the first driver, maybe better. These passengers also ride peacefully, trusting their driver's ability to avoid danger. The second bus passes smoothly beneath the bridge and over the distant crest at a steady speed.
　
The contrasts between the buses are obvious. At one wheel is a dangerous radical whose professional façade belies his wanton disregard for his passengers and fellow travelers. His recklessness is rivaled only by his passengers' obliviousness. The second driver is cautious, concerned, and traditional. He is almost sedate, as are the passengers on his bus. However, the buses share a similarity that's more striking than the differences. Both buses are traveling the same direction. If neither changes course, they will ultimately reach the same destination.
　
The first bus represents the Democrat Party. Its terminus is an all-powerful State, a goal Democrats pursue with reckless abandon. Any harm caused along the route is dismissed as inconsequential. For the Democrat left the end justifies the means, with said end being a Marxist based society steeped with cradle-to-grave collectivism.
　
The Republican Party drives the second bus, and it follows the same route as the first. As the GOP bus cruises along it encounters mileposts similar to those seen from the Democrat bus: increased federal spending, burgeoning deficits, debilitating debt, and waning liberty. It travels that road a little slower, a little safer, and reaches the destination later. But the second bus will ultimately park in the same station as the first.
　
Certainly there are differences between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party. But the differences have become more evident in the driving style than in the direction of travel. No matter which bus we board, we'll be riding toward the same destination, that being a manipulative and controlling central government. If we continue riding one of those two buses and expect to arrive at a different station we are defining insanity.
　
The Democrat Party is so entwined in collectivism that redirection is impossible. Reforming the Democrats would require a course correction so radical that the rehabilitated product would bear no resemblance to the current one. As the number of people beholden to the Democrats' collectivist policies increases, the number of people who ignore their reckless driving and board their bus will also increase.
　
Conversely, the Republican course may yet be altered. But if changing that direction remains possible, it's only so for a season, and the season is quickly passing. Republican strategists, ever mindful of the electorate's increasing dependence on the State, are driving the party in the same direction as their Democrat counterparts, albeit at a slower pace. Any Republican who promotes a different agenda -- say one in which government actually shrinks -- will earn a commission in the tinfoil hat brigade.
　
The Founding Fathers foresaw these natural flaws in political parties. Like government, political parties are more interested in attaining power than defending liberty. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #1, "Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties." George Washington also warned us about the dangers inherent to political party agendas. The founders weren't suggesting that parties were intolerable. But anyone brandishing a healthy distrust for government's motivations should carry a similar distrust for a political party's motivations.
　
Preserving our liberty compels us to recognize the self-serving nature common to political parties. Party loyalty shouldn't blind us to the fact that both major parties are driving our country in the same direction. It may not be time to abandon the Republican bus just yet. But can we at least consider that another bus, traveling a different direction, might someday become necessary?

The GOP field: A wolf without teeth?

Can we say 2012 is a golden opportunity for the Republican Party? What case can the Democrat incumbent present for reelection? The economy is anemic and job growth remains sluggish despite announced declines in unemployment rates. Republicans have the momentum from 2010 and enjoy popular support for repealing Obama's signature achievement: ObamaCare.

Voters seem to like Obama personally. Yet their political ideals are more commensurate with conservatism. Sixty-four percent of Americans view big government as the country's greatest danger. Republicans are expected to hold such views. However, when 64-percent of independents and a sizeable number of Democrats also fear big government, Obama -- the commissar of czars -- has a problem.

Reasons abound for Republican optimism. So, you'd think the Republican Party would be drooling like a hungry wolf circling a wounded sheep. But further examination indicates the GOP may be a wolf that lacks teeth for the kill.

While voters prefer the generic Republican to Obama, only one GOP candidate, Mitt Romney, leads Obama in head-to-head polling. And his "lead" is within the margin of error. According to Rasmussen's December surveys the President enjoys leads of five points over Newt Gingrich, seven over John Huntsman, eight over Ron Paul, and double-digits over everyone else. The logical question is why voters would prefer an unidentified Republican over Obama but favor Obama above an identified Republican? There are several explanations.

First, Republican candidates are under a media microscope. Any faux pas generates instant negativity. Another reason is the incessant sniping. While negative ads are productive, pettiness is a drain on approval ratings. Once there's a nominee and the GOP targets Obama's record the named candidate will fare better. The easiest explanation is that no votes have been cast, meaning the polls are subjective. But a fourth scenario seems most plausible.

The Republican Party's preferred candidates haven't, as yet, generated excitement. Voters are ready to ditch Obama for a Republican. But they don't hear a consistent GOP message that reflects their current mood. Something is missing in the top tier, be it message, articulation, attitude, or believability.

A steady majority of voters believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction, charging headlong toward an all-powerful central government. Yet they possess little faith in the GOP's dedication to fundamentally altering the national course.

The antithetical poll result isn't doomsday for the GOP. But it does indicate the electorate's mindset. There's no interest in another Bob Dole, George Bush, or John McCain-style candidate. Voters distrust the burgeoning central government and its disastrous economic machinations. Opportunity knocks for a candidate who articulates a coherent message of fiscal discipline, national sovereignty, states rights, free markets, and international strength sans adventurism. In short, there's support for a Republican with conservative teeth.

Obama is the weakest of sheep. But if the Republican wolf expects to gum him out of office, get set for four more years.

Democrats and Republicans created the Tea Party

If you were born in the 1960s, educated in the 1970s, and emancipated from parental dependence in the 1980s, the ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans were clearly defined. Democrats favored high taxes, government regulation, and wealth redistribution. Republicans advocated low taxes, limited government, and private charity. During the 2000s those lines were blurred.

Republicans gained control of the federal government for the first time in memory. For conservatives the results were underwhelming. The hope was for Republicans to curtail government's growth and influence. Instead, they expanded the federal role in education, healthcare, airport screening, and law enforcement. Budget deficits grew, partially due to wars fought for righteous reasons but with murky objectives, and partially due to tepid efforts at entitlement reform.

Republicans performed so poorly in implementing the party's traditional platform that Democrats campaigned against a spendthrift GOP in two successive elections. Democrats prevailed, quickly revealed their true nature, and exponentially expanded the Washington's fiscal irresponsibility. No astute observer would've expected otherwise.

Despite the constant media harangue over the supposed lack of bipartisan cooperation, politicians of both main parties are alarmingly close in their basic governing philosophies. Washington politicians increasingly, and regardless of party, depend on Washington solutions to validate their worth, secure their status, and increase their authority. But outside the legislative arena the contrast between Democrats and Republicans remains quite clear.

Rasmussen polling indicates that 71-percent of Republicans, and 55-percent of unaffiliated and third party voters, oppose federal programs that create jobs from thin air. On the other end of the spectrum, 54-percent of Democrats think it's a jim-dandy idea for Washington to spend money it doesn't have on jobs the markets aren't demanding. And how do we know the markets aren't demanding those jobs? If they were, the jobs would be created with private wealth and investment.

As the poll indicates, Republican voters still favor limited government and self-sufficiency. Democrat voters are identified by their support for bureaucracy and entitlement. This isn't a problem for Democrats, whose leadership promotes a fast track to government intervention, perfectly reflecting the base's innate liberalism. But GOP legislators too often favor a slow path to big government, directly contradicting the memberships' allegiance to traditional Republican orthodoxies.

The TEA Party was born precisely because the lines between Democrats and Republicans were blurred. The movement reflects the mood of conservatives who are shunned by a blueblood Republican leadership, a leadership that has opposed genuine conservatism at nearly every turn, even to the point of dismissing as archaic the venerable Reagan philosophy.

There's clear public support for traditional Republican concepts. The Republican candidate who best articulates self-reliance, limited government, and free market philosophies has a leg-up for the party's presidential nomination. What's more, he or she gives the GOP its best chance to unseat the highly vulnerable Barack Obama.

Live to spend, spend to live

Vice President Joe Biden sticks his foot in his mouth so often that he's developed athlete's tongue. The news flash comes when Biden doesn't say something eccentric, unpredictable, or just plain stupid. So it was no great revelation to hear he'd accused Tea Party Republicans of behaving like terrorists during the debt limit debate. It's also no surprise that he denied making the comment that everyone within earshot clearly heard.

That's just Joe being Joe, right? He has a long history of uttering inanities at the worst possible moment. Sometimes his gaffes unintentionally reveal hidden truths. While Biden was merely blowing his usual hot air with his "terrorist" comment, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) can't make the same claim. He pulled a "Biden" in the same meeting, and inadvertently revealed a not-so-secret truth about Washington politics.

Doyle also called congressional conservatives -- unquestionably an endangered species -- terrorists. But he went a step farther, revealing far more about the D.C. mindset, and the Democrat Party, than he intended. Opined Rep. Doyle, "This small group of terrorists have [sic] made it impossible to spend any money."

Impossible to spend any money? If that doesn't summarize the bedrock problem in both Washington and the Democrat Party, what does? The United States faces annual budget deficits of more than $1.5 trillion, a national debt at 98-percent of GDP and growing, unfunded liabilities (SSI, Medicare, etc.) in excess of $114 trillion, and a reduction in our credit rating. Those realities should offend everyone. But a politician complains about the possibility of not spending the taxpayer's money. No wonder America's fiscal house is in such disarray.

Of course, you can blame Republicans for overspending, too. And you'd be right. But for Republicans, overspending is born of cowardice. They're afraid of being blamed for cutting a favored program, or of receiving unfavorable press. Therefore, they sacrifice genuine Republican principles on the altar of federal largess. For Democrats, spending doesn't result from cowardice; it's an addiction.

Ironically, Doyle's comment is completely bogus. Tea Party supporters aren't terrorists and they haven't made it impossible to spend money. In fact, the day hasn't been invented when Washington experienced difficulty spending. Running a deficit? Spend some money. A recent debt ceiling increase? Spend more money. Demonize your enemies, perhaps by calling them terrorists? Spend still more money.

Theoretically, Doyle's intent was to demonize the few conservative Republicans that still remain in Washington. But he has committed a "Biden." While attempting to slander a political opponent, Doyle exposed his party's soul, and that of Washington overall. Politicians live to spend and spend to live. They are drawn to the next federal program like a heroine addict to the next injection. Mike Doyle has affirmed the obvious; being a Democrat is to scorn fiscal discipline and financial restraint. If only fewer Republicans shared his view.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Big bark, little dog!

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is like a little dog, maybe a dachshund. She charges her adversary, teeth barred and yapping viciously, until realizing the other dog is larger. The realization sends her scurrying for cover, where she yelps, snarls and whines. While this analogy may seem ridiculous, it perfectly illustrates Schultz’s “confrontation” with Rep. Allen West and her political persona in general.

Schultz bit Rep. West during a speech on the House floor. Well, more like she nipped him on the heel. She never mentioned West by name, yet he was obviously her target. During a rambling, platitude-laced diatribe about the debt ceiling, Schultz accused Rep. West of denying Social Security checks and Medicare payments to senior citizens. West responded directly to Rep. Schultz, telling her exactly what he thought of her unprofessional tactics. Like a yapping, obnoxious little dog, Schultz tucked her tail and ran for the cover of her supporters, who were quick to oblige.

The President of Emily’s List, Stephanie Schriock, issued a thinly disguised fund-raising message in which she described West’s response as angry, threatening, sexist, and demeaning. “We don’t have to tolerate this kind of behavior,” she wrote, demanding a formal, public apology from Rep. West.

However, it was Schultz’s choice to play rough. She wasn’t genteel, professional, or ladylike toward Allen West. Rather than face West directly, Schultz hid behind the House microphone and her leftist supporters. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, like a dachshund, proved to be all show. She barked a good fight, but that was all. Schultz should’ve heeded West’s admonition to “shut the heck up.” But once safe from West, she feigned ferocity once again.

Schultz accused House Republicans of using the debt ceiling debate to establish a dictatorship. Conservatives, she charged, planned to inflict pain and suffering on as many Americans as possible. How she arrived at this conclusion is anyone’s guess. But logic played no part in Schultz’s accusation. It seldom does. She was again the angry dachshund on the attack, barking loud, creating commotion, becoming an annoyance, and accomplishing nothing.

Rep. Schultz can play the tough poser. But the threat she presents is as miniscule as her understanding of dictatorships.

Dictatorial powers are invested in a central figure, not a legislative body. No dictator worthy of the title allows outside forces to exercise more than a token influence on governmental decisions. Dictators rule without regard to outside opinion. Anything resembling a deliberative body is a smokescreen, a rubber stamp. And there’s no room for citizens’ representation.

Schultz can sniff all she wants. She won’t find the dictator’s mindset among genuine Conservatives. But, ironically, her Democrat colleagues seem ready, even eager, to yield dictatorial powers to the Executive Branch.

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) finds nothing controversial or inconsistent about a Democrat President unilaterally bypassing the representative body. He’s not alone; other Democrats echoed Clyburn’s sentiments. In fact, many Democrats have encouraged President Obama to act unilaterally in spending the public’s money and increasing the public’s indebtedness. True, Obama himself hasn’t acted on his colleagues’ wishes. But he's made it clear, in his own words, that wielding absolute power has entered his mind.

The seeds of dictatorship are present in Rep. Schultz’s party. A Democrat president dreams of making his own rules while alleged representatives encourage him to assume authority his office doesn’t legally possess. Did Schultz fail to notice her colleagues’ support for authoritarian rule, or conveniently ignore it? Perhaps she’s too busy barking at imaginary dictators to focus her attention on the tyrannical attitudes residing within her own party. Or, more likely, she shares their thirst for despotism.

Rep. Schultz is the perfect example of an absurdity. She’s a belligerent party hack with a blind eye for the obvious. She possesses the courage of a Doberman when unopposed, but can shrink into a whining whelp at a moment's notice. Like a dachshund, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a general nuisance who makes a big show, does nothing, and runs for cover when challenged.

Liberals rise to a new low

The left wasted no time in spinning the attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ life for their political advantage. Uncivil dialogue, liberals argued, had prompted the attack. The fact that Giffords’ assailant was apolitical, or even leaning left, didn’t matter. Leftists heeded Rahm Emmanuel’s advice, capitalized on a crisis, and demanded political civility as they define the term.

Apparently, liberals believe any criticism toward them or their positions constitutes uncivil dialogue. However, a running discussion about raping conservative legislators -- and how in need of being raped they are -- represents cutting-edge political commentary, protected free speech. “Raped” may sound like a strong word. But how else can we define “hate” sex?

Former Air America “comedian” Marc Maron (henceforth, Marc Moron), said on HBO’s “Real Time” with Bill Maher, “I hope Marcus Bachman (Michelle Bachman’s husband) takes all that rage into the bedroom with her. I hope he f---s her angrily, because that’s how I would.” Fellow panelist Dan Savage chimed in about “f---ing the s--t out of Rick Santorum.”

Here’s the situation as it exists. When conservatives challenge liberals on their anti-freedom, big government, authoritarian policies we’re inciting violence. But when liberals snicker about the violent rape of conservative representatives it’s a legitimate avenue toward a political point. Marc Moron dismissed his perverted insanity in exactly that fashion. “It’s a political statement I’m trying to make,” Moron explained.

Citing Moron as an example of Air America’s vapid programming eliminates all doubt as to why the network failed. But one thing is certain, if he ever has sex -- hate or otherwise -- with Michelle Bachman he’ll have to use force. Rep. Bachman is an attractive, intelligent, successful woman. Moron is today’s prototypical liberal, a condescending, insufferable, sniveling little pervert. And Dan Savage is even worse. What more needs to be said about a “sex expert” who wistfully details the violent sodomy of a male congressman?

Imagine the left’s reaction had a conservative directed such a reprehensible “joke” toward a liberal legislator? What would leftists say if Rush Limbaugh talked about “hate sex” with Hillary Clinton? The DNC would demand Sean Hannity’s arrest if he said “let’s bone that Barney Frank boy” on national television, as Savage said about Santorum.

One point must be granted. It’s believable that a depraved little toad like Moron would fantasize about committing sadistic sex acts on Michelle Bachman, or Sarah Palin, or Nikki Haley. These prominent conservative women are physically attractive. Name a prominent liberal woman who induces even the most fleeting erotic thought? Anyone want a turn at Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, or Barbara Mikulski? Frankly, I would rather drink from a sewer pipe than have even consensual relations with one of those barking hags.

I would like to believe that Democrats and their media puppets wouldn’t condone the vile, near-criminal “hate sex” and homosexual puke Moron and Savage spewed on Maher’s freak show. But I’m not so naïve. In fact, neither the propaganda press nor the Obama White House -- both central figures in spinning the Tucson shooting -- have uttered a peep of censure toward Moron, Savage, or their equally slovenly host, Bill Maher. In fact, some leftist media outlets defend their debauchery.

Don’t think for a moment that these three stooges are fringe elements. Maher, Moron, and Savage personify liberalism’s core and represent the mainstream in Democrat policy. And the Democrat figureheads in Washington and the media have the gall to demand political civility and bipartisanship? Why would any human being, regardless their party affiliation, want to cooperate with such disgusting maniacs?

Dealing intelligently, morally, and maturely with stupid, wicked, and infantile adversaries is a fool’s errand. Honorable and ethical people have no common ground with contemporary liberalism (a.k.a. Regressives). Today’s liberals are psychotic liars, pathological degenerates, and detestable tyrants -- directing a legion of useful idiots -- whose greatest character strength is their filth and decadence.

Democrats are the butt of the Weiner jokes

Anthony Weiner left the House of Representatives as the butt of a thousand jokes. And why not? Any man named “Weiner” who spreads his digitized anatomy around the Internet should expect ridicule. Yet while the Weiner saga overexposed a congressional member, the Democrat Party emerged the biggest joke of all.

Anthony Weiner is a man of poor judgment and unmitigated arrogance. Internet anonymity is a long shot even for the most obscure person. Add celebrity to the equation and privacy dissipates like a vapor. Only a man of indescribable juvenility and pomposity would believe he could beat the stacked deck. Weiner lost his bet, with his own party calling his hand.

No one would’ve batted an eye had Republicans called for Weiner’s resignation. Manipulating promiscuity for political advantage is somewhat a tradition in Washington. Democrat’s struck the David Vitter and Mark Foley scandals with the venom of a thousand cobras. But Republicans had little to say about the Weiner matter.

Republicans were content to let Democrats rebuke Anthony Weiner. Their silence was a wise strategy, leaving Democrats caught in their own web. Defending Anthony Weiner would’ve again exposed the Democrat Party’s lack of moral conscience. In showing Weiner the door the Democrats have screamed their hypocrisy at the top of their collectivist lungs.

What did Anthony Weiner do that was worthy of resignation? So he sent risqué photos to a few women, some of whom were willing participants. Sure, he exercised poor judgment, loose morals, and complete dishonesty. But such depravity is common fare in Washington. If every irresponsible, immoral, or lying politician were forced to resign few would remain on Capitol Hill. Frankly, Democrats showed exceptional gall in demanding Weiner’s departure.

Anthony Weiner is far more virtuous than one of the Democrat Party’s ultimate heroes, William Jefferson Clinton. All Weiner did was engage in cyber sex: a text here, a photo there, his Congressional member everywhere. But it doesn’t appear he touched another woman. Clinton touched another woman, and another, and another, and another: Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willey, and Monica Lewinsky.

Bill Clinton didn’t waste his time on sexting and exhibitionism. He settled for nothing less than the genuine article. Not only did he and Lewinsky have an affair, but the affair occurred in the Oval Office on the taxpayer’s dime. Yet the Democrat Party excused not only the Lewinsky relationship but also Clinton’s other escapades. Not even feminists, who preach hellfire and brimstone against self-indulgent men, would criticize Clinton for routinely objectifying women.

But didn’t Anthony Weiner lie during his press conference? He did. Weiner’s claim that his Twitter account was hacked is akin to Newt Gingrich blaming his adulterous affairs on his love of country. Weiner lied, but Clinton lied worse.

Bill Clinton waved his finger in America’s face and lied like a used car salesman. But he wasn’t finished. Clinton also denied the Lewinsky affair in a sworn deposition. Sexual contact itself was redefined under Clinton’s watch. Oral sex was no longer sex; it was stress relief, like visiting a massage therapist. What’s more, the Democrat Party and their blind apologists excused both Clinton’s adultery and dishonesty. They explained how everyone lies about sex. If promiscuity and falsehood were acceptable behavior for Clinton, why weren't they acceptable for Weiner?

Anthony Weiner made several mistakes that led to his downfall. First, he erroneously believed his electronic erotica would remain anonymous in a techno age. Second, Weiner thought the best cover for an immoral act was another immoral act. But his greatest error was becoming embroiled in a congressional sex scandal and thereby embarrassing his party.

Anthony Weiner has learned a hard lesson: Congressmen are expendable, Presidents aren’t. The same Democrat Party that defended Clinton to the ends of the earth tossed Weiner aside like last week’s leftovers. It may be Washington politics as usual, but the hypocrisy makes Democrats the ultimate butt of the “Weiner” joke.

The Left wages war on the poor

Professor Walter E. Williams’ writings are required reading for anyone interested in preserving individual liberty and a free economy. Prof. Williams has long promoted both doctrines with a no-holds-barred approach, rendering big government proponents defenseless. In his pursuit, he recently targeted the nefariousness of the minimum wage.

Williams derides the minimum wage for its inherent discrimination. Minimum wage laws establish pay scales above the productivity levels of youthful and inexperienced workers. Therefore unskilled workers are denied the experiences necessary to climb the employment ladder. Williams believes a minimum wage discriminates against the poor, especially young black men.

Prof. Williams summarized his position thusly:

The best way to sabotage chances for upward mobility of a youngster from a single-parent household, who resides in a violent slum and has attended poor-quality schools, is to make it unprofitable for any employer to hire him. The way to accomplish that is to mandate an employer to pay such a person a wage that exceeds his skill level.

Minimum wage laws have massive political support, including that of black politicians. That means that many young black males will remain a part of America's permanent underclass with crime, drugs and prison as their future.

The minimum wage’s deleterious consequences for those it purportedly serves are disastrous even if unintentional. If purposeful, wage manipulation is downright sinister. And the results are intentional, for the minimum wage isn’t the only area in which progressive policies have suppressed the poor.

Who stands to profit when the poor -- whom the Left constantly references but never bothers to define -- are priced out of the labor market? If you answered, "Politicians, big government activists, and social engineers," take a gold star. Advocates for an expansive welfare state find their perfect pawn in the poor. The perpetually impoverished have an equally perpetual need to blame someone for their status. Leftist leaders manipulate the needy to enhance their own political and social positions.

The Left utilizes poverty and leverages "the deserving poor" against "the greedy rich" to create an electoral advantage. Leftist politicians preach grand solutions to the impoverished voter. Such voters can attain quality schools, crime-free neighborhoods, affordable and adequate housing, and an equal piece of the wealth. All the poor need do is elect Leftist politicians and each desirable outcome is theirs for the taking. But where are the results?

Once the votes are tabulated and the poverty-fighting politicians take office the poor are no better off than they were beforehand. Programs will be initiated and money will be spent. Yet, the poor will realize no distinguishable improvement in their condition. Scholastic achievement doesn’t increase, housing remains substandard, the destitute often resort to crime, and wealth continues to flow to more productive individuals.

Left-wing policies, sold under the misnomer of compassion, have created a disastrous scenario and declared a de facto war on the poor. Conservatism, free markets, and right-wing ideologues, aren't responsible, despite the Left’s demagoguery. The poor suffer as a direct result of Leftist populism, which brings destruction on the very people wealth redistribution policies pretend to benefit. The poor receive nothing in terms of upward mobility. Instead, indigence warrants only enough benefit to ensure continued dependence on government.

The impoverished aren’t merely victims of inadequate central planning; they are prisoners of war. The Left has convinced the poor that government programs and policies are the antidote to poverty. In reality the opposite is true and the poor are relieved of nothing but their liberty and self-esteem.

If the intent behind government anti-poverty initiatives is to alleviate poverty the programs are miserable failures. However, entitlements are an unrivaled success in weakening the individual and empowering the Left. Leftists have generated a growing and perpetual voting bloc inextricably bound to big government. To genuinely solve the poverty issues on which progressives campaign would equal political suicide.

While robbing a population of their initiative, confidence, and motivation is a cowardly and dastardly strategy, the effectiveness is inarguable. For instance, the poverty rate declined steadily following World War II until Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society declared war on the poor. Poverty’s decline came to an abrupt halt and the rate has since remained constant, as has the impoverished voter’s allegiance to the Democrat Party.

No matter the topic -- education, housing, healthcare, or wages -- you can bank on government’s lofty assurances never producing the promised results. Anti-poverty programs are designed to malfunction. Accepting the Left’s anti-poverty rhetoric is as sensible as accepting a train ticket from Heinrich Himmler. In supporting the Left's initiatives, the impoverished are purchasing the shackles for their own restraint.

A ride on the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl

County fairs and traveling carnivals were once the prime entertainment for rural Americans. A staple attraction at those amusements was the Tilt-a-Whirl. For the uninitiated, the Tilt-a-Whirl platform simultaneously tilts and rotates while each passenger car spins independently. The Tilt-a-Whirl can be a dizzying, stomach-churning experience that leaves passengers incapable of determining a proper direction.

Don't fret if you’ve never had the pleasure of riding the Tilt-a-Whirl. You can live the experience, multiplied exponentially, simply by listening to a leftist (Regressive) politician. But be forewarned; the dizziness, nausea, and lack of a coherent direction you’ll experience on the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl is hazardous to your liberty, fiscal solvency, and your very sanity.

Buckle up tight. Your ride on the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl begins with mindless meanderings and banal rhetoric from Nevada’s Sen. Harry Reid. Reid recently accused Republicans of legislating to bar women from cancer screenings. But that’s not all. Reid claimed preventing such screenings was the GOP’s top priority.

Did Reid hit the nail on the head? Did Republicans win the 2010 mid-term elections with a platform built on fiscal responsibility, rejecting Obamacare, and preventing women from getting cancer screenings? Sure they did, I remember it now. Denying cancer screenings to women has always been a winning campaign strategy. Certainly it played a prominent role in the GOP’s November victories and its current House majority.

Sen. Reid has reminded everyone just how determined Republicans are to impose a lingering demise on women. Scare tactics? Nah! Just a little spin, as is common aboard the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl. Are you feeling a little nauseous? Hold on tight; this ride has just begun. And, as the saying goes, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

Rep. Louise Slaughter’s unintelligible drivel makes Sen. Reid seem a Greek orator. According to Slaughter, the current Republican House is the worst ever, a veritable gang of Nazi storm troopers bent on killing women. She didn’t merely insinuate that Republican policies would intentionally deprive women of cancer screenings and lead to premature death, as did Reid. No, not Slaughter. Republican legislators want to kill women outright. Slaughter thinks the Republican attempt to revoke Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer-funded subsidies is akin to how the Nazi regime ruled Germany.

With no due respect to Rep. Slaughter there hasn’t been a single Planned Parenthood facility where "Jew owned" has been painted on the doors and windows. The Gestapo hasn’t stormed Planned Parenthood offices, seized workers, tattooed them with serial numbers, issued them lab coats with the Star of David on the back and carted them off to concentration camps. Also worth noting, just for Slaughter’s information, is the fact that more death results at Planned Parenthood facilities, via abortion, in one hour than at every Republican convention since the dawn of time. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood was born from a mindset (the Birth Control Review, April 1932, p.108) similar to the one that drove Nazi Germany.

However, neither fact nor logic will deter Louise Slaughter from her swirling, spinning, talking points. Thus the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl rages on. Are you dizzy, perhaps queasy and disoriented? Take some Dramamine before the next example of leftwing nonsense.

Sen. Charles Schumer thinks you’re a flea. At least he thinks the conservative legislators you elected are fleas, which makes you a flea by proxy. Schumer sees the conservative legislators this way: "What we have here is a flea . . . wagging a dog." Schumer means a few conservative Republicans (the fleas) are determining the government’s (the dog’s) direction. Nancy Pelosi agrees, encouraging Republicans to take the party back from the radicals, with "radical" identifying anyone opposed to leftist dogma, or who helped depose her as House Speaker. Pelosi extended this advice to the Republican Party "so it doesn’t matter so much who wins elections." Then, Pelosi reasons, America can pursue its shared goals and do what’s right for children and seniors.

Pelosi is correct in one regard. If Republicans adopt her advice it won’t matter a whit who wins future elections. Still, I can’t recall Pelosi expressing indifference to the 2006 election results, which made her Speaker of the House. And I fail to recollect a single instance where Sen. Schumer opposed obstructionism when that tactic benefited his party or his ideological bent.

In these few instances the mindset driving the leftist agenda is laid bare. Conservatives are Nazi sympathizers who hate women and would kill them if possible. Republicans should eschew the conservative doctrines that once distinguished them from Democrats. Conservatives must relinquish their principles and allow Democrats to have their way. Otherwise they are obstructionist, power-mad, Nazi zealots.

The Democrat Party’s survival depends on spin and swirl, wielded expertly by people for whom shame is a non-issue. They are perpetual operators of the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl. Leftists ignore the problems their policies have created and have thus rendered Congress impotent for correcting them.

Don’t think for a minute that Reid, Slaughter, Schumer, and Pelosi are fools. Granted, their rhetoric is sophomoric. But they are masters at manipulating an inattentive electorate, utilizing even the most outlandish of arguments to peddle a totalitarian agenda. The sad realization lies not in leftist politician’s apparent foolishness but in the multitude of useful idiots who swallow liberal vacuity hook, line, and sinker, year after infuriating year.

The ride is finished, for now, and you may disembark the Regressive Tilt-a-Whirl. But accept a word of caution on your way out the gate. Dizziness and disorientation are common to your experience, and you’ll likely suffer sufficient nausea to light up the city of Las Vegas. The more you ride the Tilt-a-Whirl the less bothersome these symptoms become. They’re just as severe each time. But liberal politicians are banking on your becoming so accustomed to them you’ll no longer notice the spin.

This column first appeared on AmericanThinker.com.

Truth is the first casualty in Steve Israel’s politics

An old proverb regards truth as the first casualty of war. Logically, for truth to become war’s casualty it must be present to begin with. War is then a level above politics, at least in the way Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) practices the craft.

It’s no surprise to find Democrats spinning the standoff between Wisconsin’s Senate Republicans and public employee unionists. But Rep. Israel’s spin is so unbelievable that he has abused even the politician’s privilege of dancing around the truth. He sounds like a cheating child who’s tossing a tantrum because his playmates won’t play fair.

Rep. Israel’s rearrangement of reality was unveiled in a fundraising email from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Israel blasted Wisconsin Republicans’ “blatant assault on worker’s rights,” especially since the reorganization of public employee collective bargaining rules passed without Democrat participation. He called the GOP’s tactics “outrageous” and “unconscionable.”

But what right have employees lost, save the “right” to pay tribute to labor unions in order to earn a living? As for the Democrats’ absence, no one overthrew their caucus and exiled them to Illinois. Democrats ran for the tall grass of their own accord. Oh, and while we’re on the subject of unconscionable, it was Rep. Israel’s congressional colleagues who employed bribery, clandestine Christmas Eve votes, and threats to bypass the voting process altogether in order to enact ObamaCare.

Outrageous and unconscionable? Look in the mirror Steve.

Was anyone inspired at the site of marching Wisconsin teachers? Steve Israel was and thinks you should’ve been, too. But why? These teachers walked out on their pupils, proving their allegiance to unions exceeded their concern for students. These teachers called in sick when they were perfectly fit and trashed the capitol grounds in Madison. Inspirational? Please!

Rep. Israel hailed the “Wisconsin 14” as a reminder to everyone of what it means to be a Democrat. Democrats abdicated their duty to Wisconsin’s taxpayers when they went into hiding. They ran away rather than deal with the consequences of their lost majority. This is what it means to be a Democrat. And Israel calls the “Fleeing 14” heroes? Cowards I say, the whole lot of them. And remember, it was one of their own, Steve Israel, who said Wisconsin Democrats exemplified the party’s highest standards.

The “Fleeing 14” weren’t concerned with public employees. They were concerned with securing continued support from unions in the form of campaign donations. The real issue in Wisconsin wasn’t “worker’s rights.” It was union monopolies. Wisconsin can now become a right to work state where employees can’t be forced to pay tribute to labor unions in order to attain jobs.

In short, Wisconsinites may soon be liberated, free to make their own decisions regarding employment and unionization. Wisconsin’s Republicans upheld the concept of individual liberty and free association, which Democrats routinely oppose. And Steve Israel proved that truth was never part of the Democrat's rhetorical war.

Obama’s “say anything” address

The State of the Union address to Congress is a presidential duty per Article II, Section Three of the Constitution. Obama fulfilled that duty Tuesday night in a literal sense; he delivered an address to Congress. But frankly, his speech was dull, uninspiring and said little about the state of the nation. He sounded more like he was on the campaign trail.

His was a politician’s speech meant for an audience of politicians, long on focus group rhetoric and short on vision and honesty. Obama delivered a vapid concoction of talking points and spin. He said nothing that he meant and meant nothing that he said, save the central theme of his oratory, that government growth and national prosperity are synonymous.

We should’ve expected nothing else. Obama won office via a campaign predicated upon change and immediately doubled-down on his predecessor’s worst decisions. He uttered lofty words about transparent government, an end to cronyism and the need for fiscal discipline. Instead we received a boatload of czars with unspecified powers and no public accountability and a healthcare bill that was debated, passed and signed into law without being read. Obama filled his staff with cogs from the Chicago machine, the Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs. He and the Democrats drove an already unseemly federal budget to levels that make the spendthrift Bush administration seem like the progeny of Ebenezer Scrooge and Jack Benny.

It wasn’t partisan bickering that voters rejected last fall. It was Obama and the Democrat agenda; make no mistake about it. Tuesday’s speech was his feeble attempt at image rehabilitation. But why believe him? Why trust him on any subject, even when his words may have sounded plausible?

Oh, he appeared Reaganesque when he spoke of American resilience, ingenuity and determination. Or did he? Actually, Obama sounded distant and unconvinced when addressing the nation’s attributes. He portrayed research, innovation and advancement as impossible dreams without government’s intervention, as if Americans are too lazy and stupid to achieve on their own.

He insinuated that voluntary exchange represented in the free market is insufficient to address the country’s future needs. Obama made it quite clear that we cannot be trusted to make the proper decisions, with “proper” defined as the choices our rulers in Washington prefer that we make. America’s greatness, therefore, is dependent on having an all-encompassing central government at its core.

The President alluded to his preference for “robust” debate. Yet that call rings as hollow as Nancy Pelosi’s cranium. Debate itself is fine, as long as his opponents eventually agree with him. However, there’s little common ground between Obama and conservatism. Obama considers government the answer to most every problem while conservatives find government the cause of most every problem. The two philosophies are polar opposites.

Tuesday evening was a microcosm of the Beltway culture, an evening long on political theatre, posturing and grandstanding. Obama’s speech attempted to employ Ronald Reagan public rapport to promote Lyndon Johnson policies. Instead he appeared hollow and disingenuous. The worst part was he wasn’t acting alone.

The Republican Party was entrusted with halting the Democrat assault on liberty, not taking them out on dates. Yet there they were, giddy as teenagers in a corner booth at the Norman Rockwell Memorial Malt Shop. The entire charade, if charade it be, was appalling. Frankly, I hope the prom night atmosphere was a false pretense; we've endured enough insipid displays of bipartisanship. Republicans were hired to stop the Democrat’s statist governance, not compromise with their collectivist vision.

The entire evening was a fraud, a detestable hoax presented to the American people as unity. The only believable promise was the central theme. Obama pledged government first, government last and government at all points in between. But more government cannot solve the problems government growth has created. Only liberty, tempered with a higher sense of personal morality and responsibility, can ease the burden this country bears.

Politicians are known to say anything, promise anything, and do anything. Obama is a politician, as are his Democrat colleagues and, I fear, too many Republicans. The only theme that can be trusted from Tuesday’s State of the Union Address is the call for greater federal control over our lives. Let us not be deceived by the disingenuous blather fomenting from Washington’s blind guides and demagogues, regardless of their party or position.

A line from a song of the 1970s sums up the situation pretty well: I’m tired of hypocrite freaks, tongues in their cheeks, turning their heads as they speak. They make me sick and tired.

Dr. Hoyer diagnoses the TEA Party

Steny Hoyer’s time as the House’s second in command is complete. But he didn’t accept his demotion quietly. Instead he delivered a psychological evaluation of TEA Party activists. Dr. Hoyer’s diagnosis: “My presumption is they have unhappy families.”

Thank you Dr. Hoyer. Your keen insight has revealed the true mental state driving the TEA Party. TEA Partiers hate their mothers. They have low self-esteem due to incessant emotional and physical abuse suffered at the hands of their domineering fathers. Likely as not they want to wed their siblings, or perhaps their family pets. The root causes of their familial dysfunctions are limitless. But obviously TEA Partiers were forced to eat too many Brussels sprouts when they were young.

There’s only flaw (only one?) in Dr. Hoyer’s dysfunctional family theory. Steny Hoyer isn’t a doctor.

Hoyer’s résumé includes a substantial list of accomplishments. He holds two degrees, both from prestigious universities. Hoyer has served on numerous boards and caucuses in both the private and public sectors and he’s a career attorney. But nothing in his background qualifies him to render a psychological evaluation on Aunt Matilda’s Miniature Schnauzer, much less on a grassroots political movement comprising millions of individuals.

Someone on the congressman’s staff must’ve realized the nature--and possible repercussions--of his gaffe and made an attempt at damage control. According to an Investors.com article, his office released this statement:

Mr. Hoyer clearly meant that everyone has to compromise sometimes as part of a family and that compromise is necessary to successfully govern. He obviously was not referring to the personal family life of a large group of people.

Yeah. And then there’s the one about the goose that laid the golden egg. Hoyer’s “clarification” spins like a category five hurricane. And spin is exactly what one might expect from an attorney who is also a left-wing politician.

If Hoyer didn’t intend to snipe at his political opponents, why comment on the TEA Party at all? He certainly wouldn’t have reached into his “Li’l Shrinks Junior Psychologist Kit” for a psychopathic connection between political activism and family contentment. Had he really meant to highlight the TEA Party’s lack of interest in compromising with Democrats he could’ve said so. It’s not like that's a guarded secret or deep revelation. In terms of discovery, uncovering acrimony between the TEA Party and liberalism isn’t exactly Columbus’ landing at San Salvador.

Hoyer’s statement wasn’t meant to question the TEA Party’s willingness to reach across the aisle. He meant to discredit his opposition to the greatest possible degree. That’s how demagogues operate; casting dispersion on threatening opinion is a fundamental tactic of the tyrant. It’s Orwellian in theory and totalitarian in practice.

Well, it appears I’m psychoanalyzing Steny Hoyer’s motives. So what? My qualifications for determining another person’s mental state are at least on par with his. After all, I’m not a doctor.

Jared Loughner: Timothy McVeigh reincarnated

The similarities between the 2010 election results and those in 1994 are evident. In 1994 frustrated voters vented their disgust with a Democrat administration’s leftist direction and gave Republicans control of Congress for the first time in decades. What happened in 2010? The American people again rejected a hard-left push from the Democrat Party and Republicans won overwhelmingly. Within months of each election the Left used an unspeakably violent act to falsely portray conservatives as vicious, unstable cranks.

It was Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. It’s Jared Loughner and the Arizona shooting in 2011.

Before anyone concludes that I’m launching a conspiracy theory let me state that I don’t believe the Left orchestrated either the Oklahoma City Bombing or the Arizona shooting. But their reactions to both tragedies prove that they’ve learned Rahm Emmanuel’s lesson quite well: a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Arizona, like Oklahoma City before, has fueled a left-wing crusade the sole intent of which is to denigrate and silence political opposition.

To the Left, human suffering equals political opportunity. It was so with Oklahoma City, and with Hurricane Katrina, and with the Jena Six. They demagogued the massacres in Stockton (CA), Killeen (TX), Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois. Now they’re demagoguing the Arizona shooting. It’s shameless, and it’s time to call the Left on their duplicity.

Democrats and their media allies seized the moment when Timothy McVeigh struck, just like they’re doing now. Before the rubble had cooled at the Alfred Murrah Building they had blamed everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Before Arizona’s first victim was eulogized the Left was blaming Sarah Palin, talk radio and the “new media” for pushing Jared Loughner over the edge.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) went so far as to blame the Arizona rampage on the First Amendment. He thinks there are just too many media outlets and too much information available to those of us in the great unwashed. We simply lack the intelligence to distinguish his truth from our concocted fantasies. The accusation is perfectly clear. Conservatives are half-cocked knuckle-draggers ready to go off at the slightest provocation. We must be led on a government leash.

The prevailing media sings the chorus with equal intensity. Leftist commentators and journalists dissected the influence that conservative discourse played in driving Loughner’s rage. Their conclusion: Anyone espousing conservative thought, debate, or activism shares culpability for Loughner’s massacre. Even after acknowledging that no evidence exists to link Loughner to conservative positions or personalities, the Left continued to promote the connection.

Democrat strategists used the Oklahoma bombing to silence conservatives and quell the support for a smaller federal government that existed in 1994. There was no factual basis for their argument. McVeigh himself was something of a loner and neo-Nazi sympathizer--not a constitutional conservative. But the accusations had an affect. The game plan is the same with the Arizona shootings and Jared Loughner now. The similarities between the Left’s manipulation of Oklahoma City and Arizona cannot be dismissed, nor can they be allowed to flourish.

Little information has been verified concerning Jared Loughner’s political inclinations. The most credible evidence paints Loughner as a mentally unstable recluse motivated more by occult interests than a political agenda of any stripe. And nary shred of evidence has been presented to link Jared Loughner to conservative causes or right-wing rhetoric. Ironically, there is more hearsay evidence to link Loughner to left-wing radicalism than to right-wing conservatism.

Yet leftists continue to spin the Arizona tragedy for political advantage. It is they who are using incendiary language to divide our nation. It is they who exploit duped followers with blatant lies about political opponents. This time, unlike the spring of 1995, conservatives must hold the line against the Left’s baseless attacks.

Democrats aren’t appalled by the so-called “inflammatory rhetoric” coming from conservative politicians, talk radio hosts, or the TEA Party. They fear the substance behind the arguments. Therefore those voices must be marginalized by whatever means necessary. This time conservatives must stand their ground. History may repeat. But the end result must be changed.

Reading the Constitution was a worthwhile stunt

Considering Washington’s modus operandi anything that happens in the District warrants a grain of salt. In the last ten years Republicans spent money and expanded federal power in ways that would’ve made previous Democrat leaders green with envy. Their profligacy allowed Democrats to paint the GOP as a party of big spenders, helping Democrats to victory in ‘06 and ‘08.

However, the spendthrift methods the GOP had employed apparently didn’t sit well with the Democrats. Upon regaining government’s reigns they set out to prove that Republicans remained, by comparison, the party of limited government and fiscal sanity. Thus neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are as good as their rhetoric, making cynicism a proper response to Washington theatrics.

With both parties growing government and its related red ink, it’s perfectly normal to dismiss the House’s reading of the U.S. Constitution as a publicity stunt. Were Republicans simply catering to budget hawks and Tea Party activists while Democrats were trying to prove that they realize the Constitution exists? Both accounts are likely. But if the Constitution’s vocalization was a self-serving political stunt, it was a worthwhile stunt. Let’s look at three reasons why.

Foremost, the Regressive Left’s outright contempt for the supreme doctrine of American government was prominently displayed. Liberal-leaning media commentators referred to supporters of our founding document as possessing a fetish. Sure, some Democrats participated in the reading. But some found nits to pick or other things to do. And really, there’s little wonder that leftists aren’t enthused about reading the Constitution.

The Constitution, as written, limit’s the central government’s authority, clearly defining the areas where Congress can exercise its due influence and where it cannot. Regressives think big government is good and bigger government is better, thus ignoring the Constitution makes perfect sense for them. Conversely, conservatives believe that the government governs best when it governs least. If that makes for a Constitution fetish then label me a pervert and we’ll continue.

Another reason to applaud the Constitution’s reading is because it forced ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (yes, everyone realizes she’s the ex-Speaker, but I love using the phrase) to acknowledge the document. Last year, following the healthcare debate, a reporter asked then-Speaker Pelosi what part of the Constitution authorized Congress to provide or require healthcare coverage. She became incredulous. However, the reporter’s question was serious and reflected the views of many Americans. Pelosi learned that lesson last November.

Granted, reading even a small segment of the Constitution is to Pelosi what holy water is to Count Dracula. And merely reading the words will do nothing to reshape her collectivist mind. But at least she’s been forced to publicly recognize the document before her next premeditated subversion.

A third reason this stunt makes sense it because it reminds Congress that it’s a representative body and not the U.S. House of Sovereign Lords. These 435 men and women take an oath to abide by the Constitution. They make no vow to circumvent the amendment process or to ignore the document when it proves inconvenient. Isn’t it then sensible that representatives pay homage to the principles they swear to uphold? A representative Congress does not rule arbitrarily. A representative Congress cannot enact just law while exceeding its granted authority. Again, there’s no guarantee of compliance. But due deference was offered, which is at least a starting point.

Among the first acts of the 112th Congress was to read the U.S. Constitution on the House floor for the first time in our nation’s history. Perhaps it was simply a stunt, albeit of some value, intended to placate a restless and concerned electorate. Or was it something more, a repentance for Congress’ errant past? We can hope the latter. But keep the cynicism handy and call it an act of eternal vigilance. That is, after all, freedom’s price.

The five myths of Regressive politics #5: Conservatives stifle dissent

Whenever conservatives question stale Regressive talking points they are accused of stifling dissent. Of the five myths discussed in this series--racism, poverty, sexism and environmentalism being the first four--this is the greatest myth of all. Once again, apply the slightest common sense to the Regressive’s accusation and it melts like ice on a blistering sidewalk.

What represents today’s most popular conservative media outlet? If you answered talk radio, take a gold star. Talk radio is conservative equal time, offsetting the Regressive dominated media. If Conservatives stifle dissent, the greatest vehicle for promoting limited government vanishes in a flash.

Where would conservatism be if there were no Rush Limbaugh, no Sean Hannity, no Jason Lewis, or no hundreds more conservative radio hosts in local markets from coast to coast? Where would they be without free speech? Conservative talk radio wouldn’t exist and the Reagan Revolution would’ve long since withered away. Free speech kept conservatism viable during Bill Clinton’s early presidency and stoked the 1994 Republican Revolution.

Conservatives want to quell free speech and stifle dissent? Why not just cut off our right arms? Please. Can’t Regressives do better than that?

The left’s accusations about stifling dissent arise from the Conservative’s attitude toward content. The right to free speech compels no one to listen; audiences must be earned. Conservatives recognize this fact. But Regressives adamantly declare that their right to speak includes a right to force others to listen. This is the First Amendment, Regressive style.

Insubordination infuriates Regressives. Thus they despise having free speech employed to challenge their motives and ideologies, such as the Iraq War protests. When those protesters were challenged they accused Conservatives of stifling dissent. Actually, Conservatives were engaging in debate, something most Regressives avoid like the plague.

The left is where censorship exists in its purest form. The university, long a bastion of leftist elitism, has been home to speech codes for more than 20 years. Any discourse that may offend a protected class is summarily banned. “Hate speech” is the code word on campus.

Furthermore, it is the left that fosters the legal love affair with “hate crimes” legislation. Crime is crime, and few crimes there are that are born of a desire to do unto your neighbor as you would have them do unto you. Therefore hate crimes are but another means to the same end, that being the abolishment of speech, thought, opinion, belief, or content that does not follow a Regressive doctrine.

Yet another cause for left-wing resentment toward free speech is their utter failure in exercising it. Air America is exhibit A. The Regressive radio network launched in 2004 to counter conservatism’s talk radio dominance. No problem thus far. However, the network struggled from the womb, went bankrupt in 2006 and ceased operations entirely in 2010. Air America’s leadership blamed the collapse on a stagnant economy. Yet the network never generated a dependable audience or a steady revenue flow, the absence of which is a perfect recipe for bankruptcy. Their flimsy excuse begs the determination that the left’s disdain for talk radio stems from jealousy.

The Regressive playbook is based on blind allegiance to banal talking points. Since such arguments can’t stand scrutiny the left must control the debate. Therefore they accuse conservatives of stifling dissent, the very tactic they deploy at every turn.

Why do we go to the polls?

Tea Partiers have waited nearly two years for this Election Day. We’ve dreamed about it, worked toward it and suffered unsubstantiated slanders for our efforts. Our opponents, who live for the Washington establishment, call us racists, xenophobes, homophobes, Islamophobes and the sexually derisive “tea-baggers.” We’re Limbaugh’s, Beck’s and Hannity’s puppets, intellectually vapid and thoroughly Neanderthal.

Such derision is unwarranted but not surprising. When an ideology is under assault its adherents will fight. Therefore the Washington establishment--well represented in both dominant parties--is retaliating against the Tea Party, for we threaten to tear the playhouse down.

We’ve traveled a long road to this day and many a long road lies ahead. With polls showing large conservative gains across the electoral spectrum complacency becomes a danger. We must send a loud message on November 2nd. And our motivation lies in the reasons the Tea Party was born, why it grew, and why it’s redefining the two party system.

Our national balance sheet is corrupt. The debt is $13 trillion, give or take a few hundred billion. That’s roughly an entire year’s worth of national production. Obama, who campaigned on reducing deficits, has proposed a $9.7 trillion increase in debt over the next ten years. Yet our federal “representatives” claim the answer lies in more government, higher taxes and an expansive cradle-to-grave welfare state. Therefore we go to the polls.

Social Security and Medicare are runaway trains hurtling toward a washed-out bridge. There is no Social Security trust fund and the touted “surplus” is but an accounting gimmick backed by worthless IOUs. Medicare is just as bad, if not worse. The Part D prescription drug plan and Obamacare only expand the problem.

Productive Americans--rich, poor and in between--are taxed to fund programs for the dependent. Politicians tantalize ignorant voters with promises to soak “evil” corporations and institute mythical visions of regulatory “fairness.” Yet the costs of such measures are paid by people, not legal entities. Each tax, each burdensome regulation is absorbed by the people, for the cost is passed to the consumer. Economists call this phenomenon the “unseen consequence.” It’s time we, the unseen consequences, were both seen and heard. Therefore we go to the polls.

We must repeal the onerous healthcare bill that promises high costs, poor service and shoddy results while granting enormous power--and the probability of abuse--to the central government. A majority of Americans, even if those who aren’t Tea Party activists, want this law repealed. Furthermore, it is another unconstitutional program sold to us “for our own good.” Therefore we go to the polls.

We are tired of arrogant “public servants” like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who invents Bible passages to promote her global warming agenda. She holds our freedom, the U.S. Constitution and her duty to both in utter contempt. Truth and honesty aren’t character traits for Nancy Pelosi; they are obstacles to overcome. This woman is unfit to hold public office, much less the Speaker’s gavel. Therefore we go to the polls.

Sen. Harry Reid thinks you and I stink. We, the great unwashed, are just too gamey for his aristocratic olfactory. When the Capitol Visitors Center opened Reid expressed his joy. A sensible, reasonable person would’ve been happy for the Americans who would no longer wait in the broiling sun to tour Congress. Not Reid! The air conditioned center meant no more smelly peasants near his office. Frankly, a herd of filthy goats couldn’t stink up the Capitol like Sen. Harry Reid and his ilk have done.

Reid ramrodded the healthcare overall into law despite deep objections from a sizeable number of Americans. Oppose amnesty and you’re racist in Harry Reid’s world. He is arrogant, unresponsive, sanctimonious and insulting. Even Reid’s own son views him as damaged goods, shunning the family name while running for the Nevada governorship. Therefore we go to the polls.

On Tuesday we strip power from the tyrants who kept the healthcare bill hidden, changed it indiscriminately, lied about its content and their pledge for an open review, and then passed it via a secretive, backroom vote. The bill itself was unreadable; a labyrinth of legalese, vagaries and cross references intended to prevent public understanding. Supporters of Obamacare blithely told us how wonderful the legislation would be for all Americans, yet said that the bill must pass before we can know what’s in it. Not even Sen. Max Baucus, the bill’s alleged author, bothered to read this nonsense before it became law. It’s naïve to think Congressmen and Senators read these large bills. But their contempt for our intelligence can’t go unchallenged. Therefore we go to the polls.

We go to the polls to prevent cap and trade from sacrificing our economy to an unproven theory. We go to the polls so card check won’t transform employer-employee relationships into one-sided AFL-CIO/SEIU playgrounds, which will ultimately fund our further demise. We go to the polls to correct our fiscal future and secure our national sovereignty.

Government is too large. It is unmanageable and unrestrained. Our representatives have stretched government far beyond its constitutional limits while scoffing at the Tenth Amendment, state sovereignty, property rights and individual liberty. We go to the polls to save the greatest hope for human liberty from a destructive Marxist agenda.

Ultimately, the reason we go to the polls is to fire the first salvos in a long and arduous revolution--fought each election cycle, as our Founders intended--to restore constitutional principles, fiscal sanity and common sense to American government at all levels. And we do this not only for ourselves. We go to the polls for our posterity, that future Americans may live as government’s masters, not its servants. We go to the polls because we are liberty’s last line of defense.

A leftist confuses exceptionalism with superiority

Sen. John Thune (R-SD) summarized his Deficit Reduction and Budget Reform Act on the Hill website. His purpose was to outline his ideas for restoring fiscal discipline to the federal government. Not once did Sen. Thune mention “American exceptionalism,” the laws of science, religion, or race. But that didn’t stop an obvious Regressive from taking the Senator to task on each subject.

In the comments section “PGBACH” wrote:

Dear Johnny, The Founders did not embraced [sic] a "spirit of American Exceptionalism." Unlike you, they were not arrogant. There is nothing in their writings to suggest they believed they were better than anyone else. In fact, to the contrary. The Founders were rational people. They rejected delusional psychosis. At no time did they claim America was above the laws of science. I do understand, Johnny, you belong to a party that rejects rationalism and science, while embracing religious delusions. That your proposal would double the poverty rate in the USA in 24 months demonstrates the GOP's agenda for rich white folks. You nearly make me ashamed to be white.

Unsubstantiated claims accompanied by race-baiting and ignorance of the Founding Fathers. “PGBACH” is a vapid talking point, a Regressive through and through. But it’s the total misconstruction of “American exceptionalism” that warrants response.

The respondent’s hostility toward "American exceptionalism" reveals a colossal ignorance of how conservatives utilize the term. “Exceptionalism" rises not from American citizens being better than citizens of other nations, but from our society and culture being based on a more solid foundation, namely personal and economic liberty and property rights. These inalienable rights have created a greater opportunity for success in America than in nations where such ideals are uncommon or suppressed.

“PGBACH” has equated exceptionalism with attitudes of superiority, the latter being more common on the American Left than on the American Right. The Left claims the understanding necessary to dictate everyone’s affairs. It is the Left that encourages Americans to surrender their rights and decisions to government. Healthcare? Retirement? Defense of self and property? How we build our homes? The kind of car we drive and the fuel economy we receive? Energy production? All are mandated, to some extent, through legislation and bureaucracy. Some such rules are warranted, but not all.

Before taking conservatives like Sen. Thune to task the respondent should’ve gotten the facts in order. Understanding Sen. Thune’s arguments and presenting a sound opposition would’ve been a start. Knowing the difference between exceptionalism and superiority would’ve helped, too. It’s likely “PGBACH” would’ve remained wrong. But there’s no excuse, aside from stupidity and laziness, to have looked so foolish in the process.

Silence is Jimmy Carter’s remedy

A viral infection can be dangerous to an 86-year old man, even if that man is a former United States President. Best wishes to Jimmy Carter for a full recovery. However, that sympathy doesn’t exclude a hope that he will keep his mouth shut.

Carter was making headlines even before falling ill. During an interview to support his new book, White House Diary, Carter belied the humility for which he is credited. “I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents,” he meekly declared. He also blamed the late Ted Kennedy for preventing his administration from imposing socialized medicine in 30 BO (Before Obama).

Such ranting does nothing for Carter’s thoroughly tarnished image. He whines because his administration didn’t implement health reforms that have endangered the Obama presidency if not the entire Democrat Party? And his one alleged quality—humility—he tosses aside like an oily rag. That’s not a great day at the office, Mr. Carter.

Carter apologists and history revisionists tout his presidency as one of international accomplishment and domestic reform. But there’s precious little evidence to support those claims. Carter’s presidency was fraught with poor decisions, so much so that political jokesters labeled his administration the “Carter Error.”

In fairness, Carter brought Israel and Egypt to the peace table at the Camp David Accords. But the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis generated his greatest international fame. Under Carter our military preparedness degenerated until we couldn’t get our helicopters off the ground. He also surrendered control over the strategic Panama Canal at a time when the Soviet Union’s influence was surging in Central America.

His direct dealings the Soviets left much to be desired, too. Carter apologists point to his administration’s negotiation of SALT II as instrumental to world peace. Instrumental it was, but to Soviet superiority, not peace. Basically, this Carter “victory” banned nuclear weapons systems in which we held an advantage--such as depressed trajectory missiles--while allowing the Soviets to develop and deploy their advanced technologies. Some deal.

Domestically, Carter is better remembered for 20-percent interest rates, double-digit inflation, a stagnant economy and the misery index than educational and environmental reform. His “superior” post-presidency includes the Oslo Accords, a one-sided Israel-Palestine peace agreement that the PLO and Hamas violated before the signatures dried. And his nuclear negotiations with the North Koreans during the mid-90s lulled the world into a false sense of security. We soon learned that the communist regime had developed the very nuclear technology Carter was credited with preventing.

Neither Carter’s health nor his age requires us to ignore his self-aggrandizement or his attempts to reform his abysmal presidential legacy. I don’t wish him poor health. But if he must fall ill, why not a case of laryngitis? His silence would make his supporters’ chronic amnesia slightly more tolerable.

Atlanta’s mob scene results from Democrat policy

One sure way to draw a crowd is to offer a benefit paid for with someone else’s money. That’s why 30-thousand people congregated in Atlanta to apply for taxpayer funded federal housing subsidies. You needn’t be an Old Testament prophet to foresee how such a gathering would unfold. There was shoving, pushing, cursing and a mob scene or two. Big surprise, huh?

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution attributed the lack of public decency to impatience, frustration and confusion brought on by the high summer temperatures. The mercury hit the low 90s before the crowd dispersed around 2 PM.

You know what? Summer temperatures are hot in most cities at two in the afternoon. In fact, on the day Atlanta’s Section 8 housing chaos unfolded the temperature reached the mid to upper 90s for quite a few people whose day didn’t end at 2 PM. They were at a place they visit each and every day. It’s a place that helps them provide for their families and meet their financial obligations; a place called work.

Work serves another purpose, too. It’s allows productive people to earn the money their government will confiscate to construct the dependent mentality that prompts 30-thousand people to gather in search of a slice from their countrymen’s pie.

“But Hager,” you say, “times are tough and people need assistance.”

Yes, the economy is tough and I’m quite thankful for gainful employment during these down economic times. But the incivility and near-riots on display in Atlanta aren’t the result of the recession or of industrious people who’ve caught some bad breaks. They are the result of a long-standing problem that was created, apparently with malicious intent, when the welfare state was initiated.

Government has excused and rewarded a lack of productivity for so long that indolence has become a celebrated lifestyle. Subsidies, paid for with tax money, are now considered rights. The entitlement mentality these attitudes have fostered is a contributing factor to our nation’s fiscal abyss. It is a death knell for personal and economic liberty regardless of how Democrats spin it.

Don’t bother telling me about how your Uncle Joe spent his entire life working his fingers to the bone and is now dependent on government programs to make ends meet. The claim hasn’t been made that everyone seeking government assistance--even among the 30-thousand in Atlanta--is a worthless bum. But the mentality that produces the Atlanta episode isn’t compatible with people like your Uncle Joe. It is, however, compatible with your Uncle Joe if he votes based on which politician will best help him live at his neighbor’s expense.

There is no question that social welfare programs have created a dependency attitude wherein government is seen as lord and savior. There are indeed women who consider pregnancy an opportunity for a pay raise and men who bequeath to government their family responsibilities. There are people who have no qualm with having government provide for them from cradle to grave.

What happened in Atlanta, similar to the scenes in New Orleans following Katrina, is the predictable result of regressive social policy. Democrats have long preached dependence under the guise of civil rights. The lack of decorum at this gathering identifies people who have lost their moral compass, disregarded their talents, ignored their purpose for living and become comfortable with entitlements funded by their neighbor. No amount of federal subsidy or government program will change their social status.

The façade of elitist empathy

Few expressions are more vacant than the political elite’s public displays of empathy. Empathy is a vicarious emotion, allowing empathizers to feign compassion for other people’s hardships without the actual experience. It is a handy device, and one the elite class routinely utilizes.

Elitists relish the opportunity to parade their empathy before their underlings. Who better to provide an example than Vice President Biden?

Biden credits the administration with saving our financial system and preventing an economic disaster that would’ve sent Western Civilization spiraling toward a quasi-Stone Age existence. Everyone now has health care and the sewer called Wall Street--whose alleged abuses the federal government initiated, exacerbated and subsidized--has been thoroughly sanitized. These steps were necessary because Biden’s opponents (meaning Republicans) “are wildly out of touch” with America.

Mr. Biden has suffered yet another recurrence of foot-in-mouth disease, a chronic malady among elitist empathizers. Biden championed the administration’s achievements during a speech he delivered to $500-per-person Democrat donors in Chapel Hill, NC. How many truck drivers, welders, nurses and retail sales clerks attend $500 political fundraisers? Tell us again, Mr. Biden, who is out of touch?

The elitist’s empathic expressions are a façade intended to conceal their love for the private luxuries they publicly condemn. If only Biden were alone in is condescending attitudes. Sadly, he has ample company on Empathy Hill.

President Obama stands on that hill too, sided by the wealthy real estate potentate Neil Bluhm. Don’t let Bluhm’s apparent capitalist successes fool you. He is a Regressive to the core, having contributed more than $60,000 to various Democrat political causes over the last two years.

Mr. Bluhm also hosted a birthday party for our 44th President. But the downtrodden, toward whom Regressives extend their boundless empathy, didn’t attend. They couldn’t afford the prerequisite $30,000 donation to the Democrat National Committee that Bluhm assigned to his extravaganza. If the attendees were truly concerned about the unfortunate, why not make $30,000 contributions to the nearest children’s home? After all, to paraphrase ex-President Clinton, no donation to the DNC ever fed a hungry child.

The Clintons are also elitists in good standing. Chelsea’s recent nuptials are estimated to have cost between $3 and $6 million dollars. Chelsea herself was reportedly adorned with a quarter of a million dollars worth of jewelry. The driveways at the wedding’s plush mansion locale were widened, not to accommodate an influx of public transportation buses but swanky limousines.

The portable toilet facilities cost $15,000. Minimum wage employees--routine targets for elitist empathy--will barely earn that amount for a year’s labor. Even the electricians were instructed to wear tuxedos, perhaps with a combination cummerbund and tool belt. There was no word on the dress code for stand-by plumbers.

In all honesty, the Clintons, Obama and Bluhm can spend any sum they desire on their parties; it is their business. Their extravagances would be wholly inconsequential save for one small detail: their duplicity. Elitists, illuminated in the Clinton-Obama-Bluhm triumvirate, wallow in the wealth and luxury they condemn for anyone outside their clique. Small wonder Rasmussen polling finds an extensive disconnect between “regular” Americans and the ruling political elites.

Wealth is acceptable only when the elite class controls its use. A person must adhere to the elite political ideology; otherwise their attainments are attributed to avaricious philosophies. Achievers are deemed winners in life’s lottery, born to the silver spoon. The elites’ strategy is to divide and conquer, leaving the elites themselves to determine for whom wealth and luxury are acceptable.

The elites who lead the Regressive Movement are experts in smugness and sophistry. They think nothing of flaunting their wealth and status while claiming empathy with the poor and obscure. Elitists then ease their consciences with “charitable” government entitlement programs funded through legislative theft.

We of the great unwashed are to stoke the elitists’ egos, marvel at their wisdom, praise their compassion, beg their generosity and grovel for their acknowledgment. We are to unquestionably adhere to the diktats of our superiors, forsaking our individual goals for their vision of the collective good.

The elitists’ empathy extends only to the point that their agenda is served. Actually, elitist is a misnomer. They are the contemporary royalty, bidding us live as they decree while they indulge as they wish.