Category Archives: Communications Theory

Editorial: I Was at Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day!

Let me be CLEAR! This issue is not about gays, it is about freedom. The “gay” issue is just the crutch being used today to disguise an attack on capitalism and freedom. Next time it will be some other crutch, but the attack will be the same. The gay people on my friends list support capitalism and freedom as well as anyone can and in that cause they have my support!

No matter the charge when the left cries wolf:

GAYS! (insert leftist cause here – this time it is let politicians punish freedom of religion)…

RIGHTS FOR WOMEN! (government forces the church and all private enterprises to pay for your birth control)…

RACE! (let government regulate all sorts of things that violate property rights)…

DISABLED VETS! (let government micromanage all sorts of aspects to private business including how high your mirrors are and how the steps to your door are built) …

ENVIRONMENT! (allow government to regulate all forms of production and virtually take over the energy industry picking winners and losers)…

DRUG GANGS! (Efforts to take away guns specifically from the law abiding – LINK)….

GLOBAL COOLING! (Solution is centralized control of the economy, the expansion of the state and abandoning of limited government and capitalism)…

GLOBAL WARMING! (Solution is centralized control of the economy, the expansion of the state and abandoning of limited government and capitalism)…

The waving left hand is the wedge issue, the right hand is doing what they want to accomplish. This is the modus operandi of the far left. The headline from the Huffington Post below is merely an example of this truth”

An association of black church leaders has come out against the attempt to redefine marriage and has spoken out against the Democrat Party leadership. You will notice that the so called “gay groups” have nothing to say about it. Why? Because the leadership of groups such as GLAAD could give a rip about gays and are functioning as a leftist radical group of pure ideology, much like the NAACP whose leadership constantly acts against the interests of inner city black families to support teachers unions and a far left political agenda. If this is about principle why aren’t these same “gay advocacy groups” doing “kiss off” protests at black inner city churches? [Answer – because it could chase away votes from Democrats].

Please enjoy this slideshow from Chick-Fil-A at South Bend and Mishawaka, Indiana

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Radicalized homosexual groups problem is not that they are homosexual, that is just the wedge issue they are using as a distraction, the problem with them is that they are radicalized leftist groups that use the claim that they speak for homosexuals as just another vehicle to attack capitalism and their pro-capitalist political enemies which is their true objective.

The case of MN Forward is another example of this truth – “radicalized homosexual activists” called MN Forward a hate group using all the same rhetoric. MN Forward is a group that supports business in Minnesota, their “crime” is that they gave a small donation to a Republican candidate who supports small business and happens to support traditional marriage. MN Forward is a small group that few had heard of that has no stake in the culture war, but they are effective at lobbying state government in Minnesota in preserving an free economic environment that is favorable for creating wealth and jobs. The average voter didn’t know that MN Forward even existed.

When people act on principle they have no need to lie and in fact have a vested interest in telling the truth to support their cause. GLAAD had this to say about actor Kirk Cameron:

“Saying that gay people are ‘detrimental to civilization’ might be ‘loving’ in Kirk Cameron’s mind, but it’s gay youth and victims of bullying who truly suffer from adults like Cameron who espouse these ideas. Cameron used his platform to attack gay Americans and is now attempting to play victim in an effort to sell his upcoming movie. That Cameron would risk the health and safety of young people in order to do so speaks for itself.

There is one problem, Cameron did not say that. Actually there are two problems, GLAAD changed what Cameron said, and then used the false accusation to paint him as an accessory to violence. GLAAD is making a bogus case that Cameron engaged in some kind of crime, or at least what should be considered a crime. By tying Cameron to violence falsely they are inciting others to do violence to him.

Here is the video of what Kirk Cameron really said – http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/02/kirk-cameron-on-homosexuality-its-detrimental-and-ultimately-destructive/.

Radicalized leftist groups such as GLAAD falsely accuse the political enemies of the left of being tied to violence, and are, in turn trying to incite others to do violence against them, in this case Christians. It is the worst form of bigotry imaginable. The leadership of GLAAD does this because Christians are more likely to vote for free market Republican candidates and as we pointed out above, you won’t see GLAAD attacking associations of black churches who oppose gay marriage. Why? Because they tend to vote for Democrats who oppose free markets and favor government control of the economy.  Such leftist groups are not even the slightest bit interested in protecting the freedom of religion, conscience, speech and association of those with whom they disagree.

Obama’s “You Didn’t Build That” comments were not out of context (video)

Romney Obama Built Out of Context

Judge for yourself. When Obama goes off teleprompter he gets that tear and hesitation in his voice that we have gotten to know so well.

Governor Romney makes a good point here – “The Context Is Worse Than The Quote”

The “You didn’t build that/you don’t deserve to keep most of your profits” theme is nothing new among radicalized anti-capitalist academia. I heard it when I was in college from Marxist professors. In the video below Massachusetts Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren, the professor who lied about being a native American to get her job at university, says the same thing (listen to the hostility in her voice).

Fox News Blasts Indiana University South-East for Unconstitutional “Speech Codes”

One would think that a university that has a law school could grasp something a simple as the First Amendment, but you would be wrong if you thought that. Censorship and discrimination against conservatives, Jews, Christians and other groups not in favor with the radical left are under some form of attack at our public universities. This problem is so huge that there are at least half a dozen civil rights organizations that use most ore all of their resources fighting just this type of illegal discrimination; and they are so overwhelmed with cases that they have to be selective on what cases to draw attention to.

Fox News:

If you thought college was a place for young people to speak out, challenges one another’s deeply-held beliefs and grow intellectually, chances are you’ve never been to Indiana University Southeast.

The school, located just 10 miles north of Louisville, Ky., is the latest college to see its speech code come under fire from a group that advocates freedom of speech on campuses. One stipulation in the code requires that students may only “express opinions” within a free speech zone, which is antithetical to what a college should stand for, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), an advocacy organization which defends the free speech and due process rights of college students.

“It’s the price you pay for living in a free society,” Robert Shibley, Senior Vice President of FIRE, told FoxNews.com.”The entire enterprise of a university is to express scholarly thoughts and opinions…restraints on that are impossible.”

The broad regulation probably doesn’t even state what its clumsy crafters meant it to say, said Samantha Harris, FIRE director of speech code research.

“IUS almost certainly doesn’t mean this–if you want to tell your friend that you think it’s hot outside, you have to go to the zone to do it…it’s an indicator of just how poorly written and unconstitutional this policy is,” she said.

IUS’s code also requires university approval for acts of ‘expressed opinions’ by submitting an application at least five days in advance.

But the school defended the speech code, expressing concern the exercise of First Amendment rights outside designated zones could disrupt others’ pursuit of an education.

“[The guidelines] were intended to provide some guidance on the issue so that those wishing to gather and express an opinion could do so without endangering people or property,” the school told FoxNews.com in a statement. “The guidelines also were intended to protect the rights of all students to have unfettered access to educational activities on campus (in other words, the exercise of free speech rights should not result in blocking access to buildings or disrupting classes or campus events).”

The university also said that it has never had any complaints about the policy since its implementation in 2004, and it welcomes the FIRE’s feedback.

“We have to regulate other groups who come from off campus. Some come and preach a lot of hate. We just can’t have them wandering around campus with bullhorns over here,” Joseph Wert, associate professor of Political Science and Dean of the School of Social Sciences at Indiana University Southwest, told FoxNews.com.

Oh that sounds so reasonable doesn’t it? Yes you see, IUS had this problem with people roaming about aimlessly with BULL HORNS shouting so no one could study…….yup that must be it.

Yup, and Joseph Wert had to get a PhD. to come up with that one. Professor Wert you are an idiot, and you are even more of an idiot if you think that anyone is going to fall for such an excuse. First of all, the First Amendment has never been construed by the courts to allow what is known as a “heckler’s veto” meaning that the speech in question is not so much about content as it is about disrupting the lawful activities of others. Your university speech code is written in such a way to adjust the universities illegal reaction depending on the content of the speech; meaning that “Students for Pushing Israel Into the Sea” get a prominent place to hold their speech event, but “Students Against Abortion” get to have their event in a tiny room no one can find. College administrators and professors like Joeseph Wert gets lots of practice making the totally unreasonable sound reasonable.

That is why the policy is written so broadly and poorly, so that it can be used for selective enforcement. There are countless cases of FIRE and other groups helping students who have had such speech codes used against them illegally. This is why FIRE in league with other groups have been suing universities to have such speech codes thrown out by the courts. Universities know about these lawsuits, but too often they go to court anyways knowning full well they are going to lose only for the purpose of forcing civil rights groups to expend more resources. After all it’s only your tax dollars funding your local university.

Highest Ranking Soviet Defector: Marxism is on the rise again, and people are not paying attention…

Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa:

“Communism is dead,” people shouted in 1989, when the Berlin Wall began to come down. Soviet Communism is indeed dead as a form of government. But Marxism is on the rise again, and people are not paying attention. Why not? Because most people do not seem to be familiar with the undercover forms of Marxism we are facing today.

Absolutely. When the wall came down 100,000 million dedicated communists didn’t suddenly become libertarians. They took over tax free foundations, took control of most public universities, environmental pressure groups, most union leadership positions and much of Hollywood. Not to mention the leadership of the Democratic Party.

I usually do not publish articles from WND, because what appears there is not as reliable as I would like, but some pieces there are still very good and this is one of them. This interview is an important piece of history so we are glad to help preserve it here.

WND:

Please tell me, did America win the Cold War? If so, why are we fighting Marxism in our own country today? And if not, what really happened?

Pacepa: Yes, we won the Cold War, but unlike other wars the Cold War did not end with an act of surrender and with the defeated enemy throwing down his weapons. But no, we are not fighting Marxism in our country, because the American people have not yet been warned that their country is being contaminated by Marxism. A few conservative luminaries like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly have warned that Marxism is infecting the United States, but neither the Republicans’ “Pledge to America” nor the Tea Party’s “Contract from America” has mentioned the word Marxism.

So far, to the best of my knowledge, only your “Marxism, American-Style” (June 2012 Whistleblower magazine) and PJ Media’s “Say No To Socialism” have called attention to the looming dangers of Marxism, a heresy that killed some 94 million people and transformed a third of the world into feudal societies in the middle of the 20th century.

There is still a widely popular belief in the U.S. and Western Europe that the nefarious Marxist legacy was uprooted in 1991 when the Soviet Union was abolished, just as the Nazi legacy was extirpated in 1945 when World War II ended. That is simply wishful thinking. There is a considerable difference between these two historical events.

In the 1950s, when I headed Romania’s foreign intelligence station in West Germany, I witnessed how Hitler’s Third Reich had been demolished, its war criminals put on trial, its military and police forces disbanded and the Nazis removed from public office. I also saw how West Germany’s economy was being rebuilt with the help of Marshall Plan money and how the country had become a multi-party democracy and a close friend of the United States. In 1959, when I returned to Romania, West Germany’s Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle) made it the leading industrial power in Europe.

None of those things have happened in the former Soviet Union. No individual has been put on trial, although its Marxist regime killed many more millions than the Nazis did. Most Soviet institutions, under new names, have been left in place and are now run by many of the same people who guided the Marxist state. The KGB and the Red Army, which instrumented the Cold War, have also remained in place with new nameplates at their doors.

“Communism is dead,” people shouted in 1989, when the Berlin Wall began to come down. Soviet Communism is indeed dead as a form of government. But Marxism is on the rise again, and people are not paying attention. Why not? Because most people do not seem to be familiar with the undercover forms of Marxism we are facing today.

Hiding the ugly face of Marxism behind a smiling mask has become a Marxist science, which I described in a large piece recently published in PJ Media. Here let me just say that until 1963, Marxism was mostly camouflaged as “socialism.” The 1962 missile crisis generated by the socialist República de Cuba gave the socialist mask of Marxism a dirty name in the West and few Marxists wanted to be openly associated with it anymore. They therefore began hiding their Marxism under a new cover called “economic determinism,” which became all the rage among leftists who no longer wanted to be labeled socialists.

Economic determinism is a theory of survival rooted in Marx’s “Manifesto” (another theory of survival), but it pretends that the economic organization of a society, not the class war, determines the nature of all other aspects of life. Over the years, economic determinism has assumed different names. Khrushchev’s dogonyat i peregonyat (catching up with and overtaking the West in 10 years) and Gorbachev’s perestroika are the best known.

I wrote the script of Nicolae Ceausescu’s determinism, which was hidden behind the nickname “New Economic Order.” Most Americans, who are not used to dealing with undercover Marxists, have problems recognizing one. In April 1978, President Carter publicly hailed Ceausescu as a “great national and international leader who [had] taken on a role of leadership in the entire international community.” At the time, I was standing next to Ceausescu at the White House – and I just smiled.

Three months later, I was granted political asylum in the United States, and I informed President Carter how Ceausescu had been feeding him a pack of lies. The admiration for Ceausescu’s undercover Marxism had, however, taken on such a life of its own that the U.S. Congress, dominated by President Carter’s Democratic Party, brought the United States a sui-generis version of Ceausescu’s economic determinism. That move generated double-digit inflation. The U.S. prime rate hit 21.5 percent, the highest in U.S. history, and people had to spend long hours in line waiting to buy gas for their cars.

Laura D’Andrea Tyson, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton and later an economic adviser to President Obama, has kept that undercover Marxism alive in the U.S. She even wrote her Ph.D. dissertation on the merits of the allegedly “mixed” socialist-capitalist economies in Ceausescu’s Romania and Tito’s Yugoslavia. Two American presidents went to Bucharest to pay tribute to Ceausescu’s Marxism disguised as economic determinism. None had ever gone there before.

A few months ago, when the devastating economic crisis in Greece exploded, economic determinism lost credibility and our Democratic Party replaced it with “progressivism,” which is the current cover name for American Marxism. The real Progressive Movement was born after the U.S. financial crisis of 1893, which the country tried to solve by redistributing America’s wealth. The progressives pushed through the first federal income tax and they created a string of labor standards that opened up the floodgates of corruption and financial excess that generated the Great Depression. A new Progressive Movement, dubbed the New Deal, led to steep top tax rates, strict financial regulations, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, eventually generating the current economic crisis.

Today’s Progressive Movement was born in New York’s Zuccotti Park. It was first known as the “Occupy Wall Street” movement and advocated the abolition of “capitalist America.” The Democratic Party strongly embraced it and made “Progressive” its new byword. “God bless them,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told the U.S. Congress. “It’s young, it’s spontaneous, it’s focused and it’s going to be effective.”

WND: You have said, “In the Soviet Union, the KGB was a state within a state. Now the KGB is the state.” Please explain that.

Pacepa: General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, the Soviet gauleiter of Romania, who afterwards rose to head the almighty Soviet espionage service for 15 years of the Cold War, used to tell me that “every society reflects its own past.” Sakharovsky, who was a Russian to the marrow of his bones, believed that someday “our socialist camp” might wear an entirely different face, and that even the Communist Party might have become history, but that would not matter. The party was a foreign organism introduced by Lenin into the Russian body, and sooner or later it would be rejected. One thing, though, was certain to remain unchanged: “our gosbezopasnost” (the state security service).

Sakharovsky used to point out that “our gosbezopasnost” had kept Russia alive for the past 500 years, “our gosbezopasnost” would guide her helm for the next 500 years, “our gosbezopasnost” would win the war with “our main enemy, American Zionism,” and “our gosbezopasnost” would eventually make Russia the leader of the world.

Sakharovsky was right. Marxism triumphed in feudal Russia, which had been a police state since the 16th century’s Ivan the Terrible. There Marxism evolved into a secret samoderzhaviye or autocracy, the historical Russian form of one-man totalitarian dictatorship, in which the new Marxist tsar’s political police first exterminated the entire leadership of Lenin’s Communist Party and then, behind a facade of Marxism, quietly took precedence over the original tools of ideology and the Communist Party for running their country.

Only a handful of people working in extremely close proximity to the Soviet and East European rulers knew that after Lenin died his Communist Party gradually became a scramble of bureaucrats, playing no greater role in the Soviet Union than did Lenin’s embalmed corpse in the Kremlin mausoleum.

So far, Sakharovsky has proved to be a dependable prophet. His successor, Vladimir Kryuchkov, who later authored the August 1991 coup that briefly deposed Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, clearly shared the same fanatical belief in gosbezopasnost. Kryuchkov’s successor, Yevgeny Primakov, who was an undercover KGB officer under Sakharovsky, rose to become Russia’s prime minister.

On Dec. 31, 1999, Russia’s first freely elected president, Boris Yeltsin, stunned the world by announcing his resignation.

“I shouldn’t be in the way of the natural course of history,” Yeltsin explained, speaking in front of a gaily decorated New Year’s tree and blue, red and white Russian flag with a golden Russian eagle.

“I understand that I must do it and Russia must enter the new millennium with new politicians, with new faces, with new intelligent, strong, energetic people.”

Yeltsin then signed a decree “On the execution of the powers of the Russian president,” which stated that under Article 92 Section 3 of the Russian Constitution, the power of the Russian president should be temporarily performed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

Yeltsin also announced that a special presidential election would be held around March 27, 2000, and he made a strong appeal for people to vote for Putin, who was “a strong person worthy of becoming president.” For his part, the newly appointed president signed a decree pardoning Yeltsin, who was rumored to be connected to massive bribery scandals, “for any possible misdeeds” and granted him “total immunity” from being prosecuted (or even searched and questioned) for “any and all” actions committed while in office. Putin also gave Yeltsin a lifetime pension and a state dacha.

To me, that had all the appearances of a KGB palace putsch.

Indeed, as of June 2003, some 6,000 former KGB officers were holding positions in Russia’s central and regional governments. Among them:

Vladimir Putin, elected president of Russia; Vladimir Osipov, head of the Presidential Personnel Directorate; Sergey Ivanov, defense minister; Igor Sergeyevich Ivanov, minister of foreign affairs; Viktor Ivanov and Igor Sechin, deputy directors in the Presidential Administration; Vyacheslav Soltaganov, deputy secretary of the Security Council; Viktor Vasilyevich Cherkesov, chairman of the State Committee on Drug Trafficking; Vyacheslav Trubinkov, deputy foreign minister; Vladimir Kozlov, deputy media minister; Gennady Moshkov, first deputy transport minister; Nikolay Negodov, deputy transport minister; Vladimir Strzhalkovsky, deputy minister for economic development; Vladimir Makarov, Leonid Lobzenko and Igor Mezhakov, deputy chairmen of the State Customs Committee; Sergey Verevkin-Rokhalsky and Anatoly Sedov, deputy taxes and duties ministers; Anatoly Tsybulevsky and Vladimir Lazovsky, deputy directors of the of the Federal Tax Police Service; Alexander Grigoriev, general director of the Russian Agency for State Reserves; Alexander Spiridonov, deputy chairman of Russia’s Financial Monitoring Committee; Vladimir Kulakov, Voronezh governor; Viktor Maslov, Smolensk governor.

Can you imagine a democratic Germany run by Gestapo officers?

Putin is indeed trying to make Russia the first intelligence dictatorship in history. In 2004, nearly half of all top governmental positions were held by former officers of the KGB. The Soviet Union had had one KGB officer for every 428 citizens. In 2004, Russia had one intelligence officer for every 297 citizens.

A new generation of Russians is now struggling to demolish the barriers Soviet Marxism spent over 70 years erecting between themselves and the rest of the world, and to develop a new national identity. If history – including that of the last 22 years – is any guide, these Russians, who are now enjoying their regained nationalism, will not truly turn westward. They will struggle to rebuild a kind of an Old Russian Empire by inspiring themselves from old Russian traditions and by using old Russian ways and means.

This does not mean Russia cannot change, but for that to happen, it will need help. In order for us to help, we should first fully understand what is now going on behind the veil of secrecy that still surrounds the Kremlin. Man would not have learned to walk on the moon if he had not first studied what the moon was really made of and where it lay in the universe.

WND: Gen. Pacepa, you are credited with playing a pivotal role in waking up the Romanian people and inspiring the overthrow of the tyrant Nicolae Ceausescu. Why is it that a communist nation like Romania could hear and heed your message, but not America?

Pacepa: Emil Constantinescu, the second post-Communist president of Romania, once said:

The missiles that destroyed Communism were launched from Radio Free Europe, and this was Washington’s most important investment during the Cold War. I do not know whether the Americans themselves realize this now, seven years after the fall of Communism, but we understand it perfectly.

The serialization of my book “Red Horizons” by Radio Free Europe was just one of the missiles fired against the Romanian version of Marxism during the Cold War years. We need a kind of Radio Free America. Let’s hope that others, many others, will join our efforts to help the new generation of Americans – who have no longer been taught real history in schools and know little if anything about America’s 44 years of war against Marxism – to understand the deadly danger of this heresy.

American essayist George Santayana, an immigrant like me, used to say that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Let’s hope that others, many others, will help America understand this truism.

WND: Many Americans would roll their eyes at the phrase “Marxism in America,” even though with every passing year we are becoming more and more Marxist. Why are so many Americans so blind?

Pacepa: They are not blind. They just do not really know what Marxism is. Few Americans will roll their eyes hearing the world “Nazism.” Why? Because the hideous crimes committed by Nazism were publicly exposed and their main authors were publicly tried and hanged. Unfortunately, there was no trial of Communism, although this Marxist heresy had killed 10 times more people than Nazism killed. Nazi archives have been opened to the public, who could learn about Nazism’s atrocities from the horse’s mouth. Most Soviet archives are still sealed.

Stalin was famously quoted as saying: If it is not written, it did not happen. But Marxism did happen, it generated a dreadful empire of gulags and it spawned a 44-year Cold War. Let’s open that Pandora’s box. The United States of America is a unique country of freedom, built by people who came to this land of opportunity in search of religious, economic and personal freedom. Once Americans know the truth, they will never allow themselves to become puppets of Marxism.

WND: General, you were the head of Romania’s Presidential House – the equivalent in the U.S. of being White House chief of staff and director of the CIA, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security – but you ultimately defected to the West. You radically changed, and gave your loyalty to America. What woke you up? What changed you?

Pacepa: Michelle Obama once confessed in front of television cameras broadcasting her statement worldwide: “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” When I was Michelle’s age I also liked to believe that history started with me. It took me a very long time to see the light. Power can generate blindness and it did in my case. It took me many more years to find the courage to renounce my exorbitantly luxurious existence and to face up to the truth about the hidden face of Marxism. Communist rulers have always been very generous with their spy chiefs – that is until they tire of them and kill them off.

It was noon when the U.S. military plane that was bringing me to freedom landed at Andrews Air Force Base outside of Washington, D.C., on that memorable July 28, 1978, and I was sitting up front in the cockpit with the pilots. It was a glorious, sunny day outside, which only magnified the fireworks popping off inside of me. For many, many years I had learned to hide my personal feelings. For that was the way of life in a Marxist society, where the government had its informants everywhere and where microphones covered you everyplace you went, from the office to the bedroom. But on that unforgettable day I had an overwhelming desire to dance around in a jig all by myself.

I was a free man! I was in America! The joy of finally becoming part of this magnanimous land of liberty, where nothing was impossible, was surpassed only by the joy of simply being alive.

It was my desperate hunger for freedom that woke me up.

WND: What will it take for Americans to wake up?

Pacepa: A “Campaign of Truth” like the one unleashed by President Harry Truman in 1950. I still keep the declassified version of his NSC 68/1950 on my desk. That 58-page document put together by the U.S. National Security Council set forth the strategy of exposing and containing Marxism and Soviet Communism.

“The issues that face us are momentous,” the document stated, “involving the fulfillment or destruction not only of this Republic but of civilization itself.” Truman reasoned that Marxism and Soviet Communism were the mortal enemies of freedom and religion – of all religions – and he believed their expansion could be stopped only “through a concerted effort” that would place the superiority and strength of what he called “truth and freedom” before the peoples of the world.

Marxism is now threatening our country again. Let’s unleash another Truman-style campaign of truth. Let’s remind the leaders of the Democratic Party that Truman was a Democrat. Let also remind them that John F. Kennedy, another Democrat, was ready to start a nuclear war in order to protect the United States from the danger of Marxism. And let’s remind America that the peace and freedom of the world depend on the economic power of United States and the united resolve of its public opinion, as was always the case.

If our capitalist economy and national unity go, so will our prosperity, our security and the peace of the world.

Eight simple rules for defeating liberals…

Chelsea Gruenwald at Resist 44 wrote this lovely piece about eight things you should do when dealing with liberals:

The 8 Simple Rules for Defeating Liberals (And Remaining Sane in the Process):

1. Keep calm. One of my grandmother’s favorite sayings is, “Never discuss religion or politics in polite company.” This is because both topics are often accompanied with strong opinions and even stronger emotions. Because of the emotional connection it is easy to get lost in the moment and lose your temper. However, losing your temper rarely wins over the opposition. If you are able to keep your cool during a political debate, it shows leadership and maturity and people are more likely to take your message seriously.

2. Expose the lies but focus on promoting the truth. As with many campaigns, attacks and smears ran ramped in the Wisconsin recall election. The most famous attack came from the Barrett campaign claiming Wisconsin finished last in job creation. Governor Walker produced federally verified numbers proving this claim to be wrong. While acknowledging the falsity of Barrett’s claim, Governor Walker did not dwell on it. Instead, he launched a series of messages to promote the truth. The average American admits to distrusting politicians, so dwelling on a false claim won’t increase support and trust, but producing the truth will.

3. Do not stoop to their level. Yes, liberals are notorious for playing dirty tricks in elections. They are also famous for their “the ends justify the means” mentality. Do not be like them. What’s good for the goose is not good for the gander. Even if you are not running, you are a member of a community, act accordingly.

4. Actions speak louder than words. I have had several extremely liberal friends recently convert to conservatism and they always cite people’s actions as a reason. For example, compare the Wisconsin union protest to the Tea Party rally that happened at the same time. The union protesters surrounded the Tea Party rally, booed during the national anthem, threatened and degraded tea partiers, and left a trail of trash and trampled flowers behind. The tea partiers stuck to their side, were courteous, cleaned up after themselves, and took the time to clean up after the union protesters as well. So while the unions were preaching solidarity, brotherhood, and kindness, it was the tea partiers who actually practiced those values. And people took notice. One friend described that very event as the reason for his conversion.

5. Get involved. One of the powers of the Left is their ability to organize and create a sense of community. There is nothing more defeating than feeling alone. This is why it is essential to reach out to others like you. Volunteer on a campaign, attend a Tea Party; even reaching out to others online can make all the difference.

6. Don’t preach. Engage yourself. Just like a child being scolded by a parent, people are less likely to absorb a message if their thoughts and concerns are ignored. Even if you don’t have the solution, engaging and addressing the concerns of others shows you care. People are more likely to vote for a candidate (or party) if they think they truly care about them. Governor Walker mastered this skill. While Barrett was busy giving speeches and holding rallies, Governor Walker was visiting local businesses, churches, and events to talk with people individually.

7. Know what you are up against. Any psychologist will tell you that personal accounts have much more meaning than statistics. This is because humans can relate to a personal story (and all the emotions that come with it) better than impersonal numbers. Hearsay can only get you so far, but a first hand account, video, and pictures of an event leave a much bigger impact. This is why it is important to have first hand experience with your opponent. I have attended dozens of Wisconsin Union protests, marches, and sing-a-longs. These experiences not only allowed me to develop better-informed opinions, but also to share my experiences with others.

8. Vote. This might be the most important rule. All of your hard work engaging others, promoting the truth, and community involvement will be wasted if you don’t actually vote. Barrett and the unions learned this important lesson on June 5th. While the unions were able to make a lot of noise, cause a fuss, and bring about the recall, they had difficulty getting those same people to vote. This eventually led to their defeat.

Conservatives have been dubbed “the silent majority” for a reason. While liberals beat conservatives 10-to-1 in protest enthusiasm, conservatives continue to show their dominance at the voting booth. You don’t need to be loud and carrying a sign to get your message across, instead practice what you preach, talk to an elderly neighbor, or get involved in a local campaign. The Revolution wasn’t won by occupying a British ship, but by people, big and small, coming together as a community. This holds true for the election in November: we can’t win an election as an individual; we must work together as a team.

Did the Bush tax cuts fail?

Via the RSC:

Why weren’t even more jobs created during the Bush years? Because we were at full employment for 5.5 years. John Merline says “A key attack line in President Obama’s campaign stump speech these days is to claim that the country has tried Mitt Romney’s economic policies already, and they were a dismal failure. ‘The truth is,’ Obama says, ‘we tried (that) for almost a decade, and it didn’t work.’ . . .

“The month after Bush signed that 2003 law, jobs and the economy finally started growing again. From June 2003 to December 2007, the economy added 8.1 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“The unemployment rate fell to 5% from 6.3%. Real GDP growth averaged close to 3% in the four-plus years after that, and the budget deficit fell steadily from 2004 to 2007.

“What’s more, the rich ended up paying a larger chunk of the federal income tax burden after Bush’s tax cuts went into effect [This is true, I wrote about this in 2006 HERE – PoliticalArena Editor]. Obama is correct that the country has tried a combination of deregulation and tax cuts before; that took place under President Reagan.

“Reagan aggressively deregulated entire industries, while putting the brakes on new federal rules. As a result, regulatory compliance costs fell 8% during his time in office, and staffing dropped almost 7%. At the same time, Reagan’s tax cuts knocked taxes as a share of GDP down by 6%.

“The result was an almost eight-year economic boom in which real quarterly GDP growth averaged 4.3%. That’s nearly double the average growth rate Obama’s economic policies produced during the 3-year-old recovery.”

Romney Ignores Palin at His Peril

by Chuck Norton

I know what the Romney camp is thinking: They have conservatives locked up so they don’t need Palin; since she is polarizing some independents won’t like her. That thinking while having some merit is still very wrong headed.

Independents have voted for TEA Party candidates in droves in 2009 and 2010. Sarah Palin was the driving force behind it. People tell pollsters what they want to hear very often. People who intend to vote GOP and don’t want their friends to know have a history of lying to pollsters. On the other hand I know LOTS of conservatives who intend to stay home this November. The travesty from Chief Justice Roberts helped to motivate them, but make no mistake, there is still a real problem that true conservatives have with Mitt Romney.

If Palin is a master of one thing it is political payback. When Gov. Christie said something stupid about her she let him have it so hard that he never did it again. If Sarah Palin is not invited to the convention with a prominent roll there will be a price to pay and she WILL exact it. She may even stage her own event nearby to suck the wind out of a key Romney event. Palin is far more charismatic than Romney, she knows it and so does the media. She may even rip up the Republican establishment “Good Ole Boy” network at her event. Palin has a long and very effective history of doing just that.

Canadian Free Press:

In the roughly three years since she quit as the state’s chief regulator of the oil industry, Palin has crushed the Republican hierarchy (virtually all male) and nearly every other foe or critic. Political analysts in Alaska refer to the “body count” of Palin’s rivals.

“The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who crossed Sarah,” says pollster Dave Dittman, who worked for her gubernatorial campaign. It includes Ruedrich, Renkes, Murkowski, gubernatorial contenders John Binkley and Andrew Halcro, the three big oil companies in Alaska, and a section of the Daily News called “Voice of the Times,” which was highly critical of Palin and is now defunct.

The bottom line is that Sarah Palin is still the most powerful figure in the Republican Party and too many in the beltway still haven’t managed to accept that. Palin is also a fund raising machine who can help Romney raise funds for the election. In either case, if you guys at the Romney camp think you can out-smart her, you can’t. Just the attempt will raise her ire and you will only end up paying a heavier price.

Megyn Kelly: Does Truth Matter in Politics Anymore? (video & commentary)

This is what bothers me about these two candidates. While Obama’s attacks are far less honest today, Mitt Romney is not innocent either and in the primary Romney’s attacks on the other GOP candidates were often sickeningly dishonest.

Interesting how the Democrat brings up the Swiftboat Vets Ads from when John Kerry ran for President as an example of a distraction. But he leaves out a fundamental truth – John Kerry made the three months he spent in Vietnam in the Navy a cornerstone of his campaign. At the convention Kerry had it military themed and he was saluting and the whole nine yards. The problem is that John Kerry misrepresented his service in his campaign and the people he served with and other veterans took issue with it. John Kerry, in a most unpatriotic way in the view of many war heroes, took the side of Jane Fonda when he came back and the North Vietnamese used John Kerry’s actions for great propaganda value.

With that said, the economy at the end of President Bush’s first term was doing rather well and national security and military policy was front and center which is another reason why the Swiftboat ads were no mere attempt at distraction. The economy today is a disaster and the Obama campaign wants to talk about anything but. And why the Obama Administration is declaring executive privilege to delay the release of documents relation to huge scandals such as “Fast & Furious” and is still hiding all sorts of documents form his past, all they want to talk about is how Mitt Romney had not released his tax returns from ten years ago? THAT is a distraction.

The simple truth is that most people are outraged at what Obama and the Democrats have done with our money and are not overly concerned with what Mitt Romney did with his own money ten years ago.

Project Veritas: Politicians & Union Bosses Seek Funding for Digging Holes and Filling Them Back In (video)

Union Bosses: “Green Jobs” – a lot of it is “Bullshit” like digging ditches and just refilling them…

James O’Keefe strikes again! This is how your public funds all too often get spent….

“Don’t use shovels, use spoons. It takes longer.” – Liberal economist Paul Krugman

Devastating New Romney Add: These Hands (video)

According to Obama and far left Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren (the one who was caught lying about her heritage) people who own businesses and such are not entitled to the fruits of their labor because we had roads; therefore they didn’t do anything to deserve any profit form their work.

Obama invested heavily with outsourcers, after accusing Romney of doing the same…

See our other coverage on General Electric, Obama and Outsourcing. Also see – Obama’s Top Money Man Was In Charge of Bain Capital During GST Steel Layoffs – LINK.

Here we have an outstanding piece of journalism from Phil Klein at the Washington Examiner:

President Obama has accused Mitt Romney of raking in profits from investing in companies that ship American jobs overseas, but according to his most recent financial disclosure, he and First Lady Michelle Obama have hundreds of thousands of dollars in a mutual fund that has large holdings in corporations that outsource jobs.

“(Romney) invested in companies that have been called ‘pioneers’ of outsourcing,” Obama said at a Saturday campaign event in Glen Allen, Va. “I don’t want a pioneer in outsourcing. I want some insourcing.”

But Obama’s own portfolio shows a willingness to invest in American corporations that have shifted employment overseas.

In his most recent financial disclosure from 2011, Obama and his wife reported having between $200,000 and $450,000 in the Vanguard 500 Index Fund, which invests in the largest U.S. corporations. According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as of Sept. 30, 2011, the fund’s biggest holding was 8,272,039 shares of Apple Inc., then valued at $3.2 billion.

The New York Times reported in January:

Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas….

“Apple’s an example of why it’s so hard to create middle-class jobs in the U.S. now,” said Jared Bernstein, who until last year was an economic adviser to the White House.

“If it’s the pinnacle of capitalism, we should be worried.”

The mutual fund that the Obamas have invested in also held 94,582,281 million shares of General Electric, valued at $1.4 billion, as of the SEC filing. The multinational conglomorate has a long history of outsourcing – according to a new book  cited by the New York Times, in 1989, “G.E. became the first U.S. company to outsource software work to India.” Obama also has close ties to GE’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, who was appointed as chairman of his outside panel of economic advisers last year.

In addition to Apple and GE, the Obamas’ fund listed 10,655,961 shares of International Business Machines, valued at $1.9 billion. As the Wall Street Journal reported in 2009, “The technology giant has been steadily building its work force in India and other locations while reducing the number of workers based in the U.S. Foreign workers accounted for 71% of Big Blue’s nearly 400,000 employees at the start of the year, up from about 65% in 2006.”

The point in this is not to say outsourcing is wrong. Corporations are supposed to maximize profits for shareholders. But Obama’s own portfolio shows that despite his heated rhetoric, he makes investment decisions without regard to whether companies are outsourcing.

You can look at a full list of the fund’s holdings as of Sept. 30, 2011, here.

12 TOP REASONS WHY ALL USEFUL IDIOTS VOTED DEMOCRAT

12 TOP REASONS WHY ALL USEFUL IDIOTS VOTED DEMOCRAT

1. I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I’ve decided to marry my German Shepherd.

2. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

3. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

4. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

5. I voted Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

6. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

7. I voted Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

8. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away the social security from those who paid into it.

9. I voted Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

10. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

11. I voted Democrat because I think that it’s better to pay billions for their oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish.

12. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my a** it’s unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.

Thank you: Andrea Plescia

An example of how TEA Party people should NOT behave (VIDEO)

The Congressman is right. Listen to what he said – he said that you have to have a plan to get back to it (constitutional limited government) and you just can’t say “I stand for the Constitution” and expect to win. He never said or implied, to set the Constitution aside like he was accused. Immediately the TEA Party activists took what he said and converted it into something he never came close to saying in the video.

The Congressman is right when he said half the people do not believe in the Constitution – largely because they are clueless to what it says. Just the other day I had to sit down and talk with a 59 year old women who was furious and decided that she would never vote again. Why? Because she had just heard about the Electoral College and so she thought that no ones vote counted any more.

I LOVE TEA Party people, but the kind of knee jerk over reaction to what he said, without actually LISTENING to what he said, is the kind of stupidity that will render them irrelevant. No one wants to talk to you when talking to you is like talking to a Klingon. Knee-jerk over reaction rampage is not how to win people to your side.

With that said there is a lot of truth to what the TEA Party activist at the end said about the erosion of the Bill of Rights.

No one is going to win an election by campaigning on going back to 1787 overnight. Campaigning on going back to 1787 is not electorally possible when half the people are more familiar with Justin Bieber’s love life than they are with Separation of Powers.

Much like the abortion battle, we are winning more and more people to the pro-life cause and there are fewer and fewer abortions because we are educating people and winning hearts and minds. This is why pro-life people did a whole lot more than block the doors to abortion mills.

The Founders repeatedly and ad nauseum went to King George and appealed to him and others and yes they even offered compromises, and while it did not influence the king it did influence others and brought allies to our cause when shots were fired.

If in 1743 When Sam Adams started bring people onto his “radical” cause had gone around saying “War with England tomorrow if we do not get all of our demands tonight” he would have gotten no where. It is the journey to get there that brought him allies that he could never had gotten if he tried to go from 1743 to 1787 overnight.

I am not saying that we should sell out, what I am saying is that getting back to limited government is a path that will take time, it is not just something one can do overnight.

I would like to remind our TEA Party friends of my initial point: the group of activists in that video basically applied a point of view to the Congressman that he never said or advocated in the video. They took what he said, converted it to something MUCH worse, and applied that to him. Those are the tactics of Saul Alinsky.

Forbes: Capitalists Need To Learn How To Use Words

This is one of the most important columns you may ever see. Read every last word. It is good to see the message I have preached for years get some backup – Editor.

“When government surveillance and intimidation is called ‘freedom from terrorism’ or ‘liberation from crime’, freedom and liberty have become words without meanings. The rhetoric in Washington has done more to defeat liberty than all the armies and police forces in the world. This war all around us is being fought over the very meanings of words.” – Chad Dumier

Harry Binswanger at Forbes Magazine:

It’s the concepts, stupid.

A wag in my high school said “Words are the tools of the English language.”

It was supposed to be a parody of deep-sounding but vacuous pronouncements. But the joke turns out to be on him: since words *are* the tools of language, they are the tools of thought. That means you must resist unto death using the terminology of your enemy. The side that controls language controls thought.

Anti-capitalists are onto this fact. Pro-capitalists need to catch up–especially since the mainstream media are dominated by anti-capitalists, who insinuate their distorted terms into what would otherwise seem to be open debate.

Notice I said “anti-capitalists.” That’s a case in point. I did not say “progressives”–that’s how they wish to be known. But capitalism, not government dictation, is the system of progress, replacing primordial collectivism with the radical concept of individual rights, including property rights. And embracing technology not environmentalism is required of anyone who favors actual progress. The self-styled “progressives” are regressives.

“Liberal” is another word that is booby-trapped. Joe Lieberman is the last living liberal–a museum piece, really. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Paul Krugman, and the rest are not liberals but Leftists, if you want a shorter term than “anti-capitalists.” Today’s Leftists have nothing of substance in common with those we used to know as “liberals”–JFK, Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson.

The word “liberal” derives from “liberty.” Liberty is the last thing on the mind of today’s Leftists. They seek to stamp out not only economic freedom but freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Just make a visit to your local university. The term “liberal” should never be used for people whose driving ideology is, to use a proper term, statism.

Words matter because words stand for concepts–abstract ideas that join certain things and separate others. Your ideological enemy is your ideological enemy in part because he divides the world up differently from you. He works with different concepts, different classifications. Where you see the opposition of freedom vs. government force, he sees the opposition of “exploitation” vs. “equality.” Where you see earning vs. freeloading, he sees “luck” vs. “compassion.”

Even little, innocuous concepts are game-changers. Take “access.” Is there some national, collective problem in the fact that some people don’t have “access” to quality medical care? What if we rephrase the question to be: do some people have the right to force other people to pay for their medical care? Sounds a little different, doesn’t it? I don’t have “access” to your car, your home, and your bank account. That’s a disgrace!

Politicians know, or at least sense, the power of language. President Obama speaks of government “investment,” a term properly applied only to the private sector, not to the government’s expropriation of capital from the private sector to finance boondoggles that men’s free financial decisions would not allow.

The Antitrust Division of the Justice Department defines “monopoly” in terms of earned market-share–i.e., success in competition–which it proceeds to penalize. The term “monopoly” should be applied to coercively imposed barriers to competition, and coercion is what is wielded by the government, not by business.

You see the theme running throughout the ideological distortion of language: evading the fundamental distinction: freedom vs. force. The free market is the scene of voluntary, uncoerced cooperation. Government is the agency with the exclusive power to compel obedience by law–i.e., at gunpoint.

It’s the dollar or the gun. As a hero in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged puts it:

When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other.

There is no other choice regarding the concepts we use, either. Our concepts either recognize or obliterate the distinction between freedom and force.

Harry Binswanger is a member of the Ayn Rand Institute’s Board of Directors and has taught philosophy at Hunter College (City University of New York), The New School for Social Research, and the University of Texas, Austin. His forthcoming book is “How We Know”.

Devastating new ad: Obama’s “war on women” (video)

When there is a war on wealth and growth and on small business as this administration has engaged in, only the “most employable” keep their jobs. Women who take time off for babies and such become expendable in such an economy. By the way, the statistics in the ad are directly from the Obama Administration.

Our pals Michelle Fields and Sandra Smith respond:

Liberal Elite Media Group Calls Romney Too White…..

This is the kind of race bating sleaze the leftists in the elite media are pushing. Wait until you see below who is behind this sleaze campaign. Remember when the left tried to make like they were the civility police? And some people wonder why the public does not trust the elite media….

Washington Examiner:

In advance of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s speech Wednesday to the NAACP, a liberal group headed by a former New York Times reporter and ex-Media Matters executive have produced a video “satire” that claims blacks don’t like Romney, who they dub so white he makes “Wonder Bread look like pumpernickel.”

The YouTube from “The Message,” an online “media hub,” is described as a satirical video of Romney getting advice on what to say to the civil rights group. Or, as they said in a release, the video “lacerates Romney and his advisors as they prepare for his speech to NAACP in Houston on Wednesday.”

The lead “advisor” in the video is described as the brainchild of the 1988 Willie Horton ads and the 2004 swift boat campaign. He states bluntly that “blacks don’t like us and we’re about to give a speech to a whole lot of them.”

He also says to the candidate, “you are so white, you are extremely white, you make Wonder Bread look like pumpernickel,” before advising the Romney actor never fully seen to “go on out there and get all Mormon, Martin Luther King on them, you’re going to be great.”

Now pay close attention:

The group is directed by Razor & Tie co-founder Cliff Chenfeld, former Media Matters for America president Eric Burns, former AOL chief creative officer and co-founder of theknot.com Michael Wolfson, and former New York Times journalist Andrew Zipern.

So much for objective credibility. These are the kinds of loons that get hired in elite media news rooms. If you don’t tow the line they get rid of you.

Has America Fallen? The most honest three and a half minutes of television? (video)

Contrary to the portrayal in the video I believe, along with most Americans, that believing in Angels is a strength; but the rest of this makes an important point. Of course many of the countries he names have “freedom”, but much less than we have, but we are moving in their direction at a frightening pace.

Obama Administration repeats same line on bad employment numbers—for 30 months of bad reports!

This is an outstanding piece of journalism form Chris Moody at Yahoo News. I love it when the reporter isn’t lazy and actually does the homework. Nice work Chris. (Another reason why I use Yahoo and try to avoid Google.)

Yahoo News:

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the nation’s latest national employment figures Friday, the Obama administration stressed that people should not “read too much” into the data.

Mitt Romney’s campaign pounced, and flagged the fact that the White House has repeated that same line nearly every month since November 2009.

See below for the roundup of articles from WhiteHouse.gov that Romney’s campaign posted on its site. In many of the posts, the authors for the administration do acknowledge that they repeat themselves:

June 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/06/employment-situation-june)

May 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/06/01/employment-situation-may)

April 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/04/employment-situation-april)

March 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/04/06/employment-situation-march)

February 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/09/employment-situation-february)

January 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/03/employment-situation-january)

December 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/06/employment-situation-december)

November 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/02/employment-situation-november)

October 2011: “The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August’s jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/11/04/employment-situation-october)

September 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/07/employment-situation-september)

August 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/02/employment-situation-august)

July 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/05/employment-situation-july)

June 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/08/employment-situation-june)

May 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/03/employment-situation-may)

April 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/06/employment-situation-april)

March 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/01/employment-situation-march)

February 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/04/employment-situation-february)

January 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/02/04/employment-situation-january)

December 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/07/employment-situation-december)

November 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/03/employment-situation-november)

October 2010: “Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/11/05/employment-situation-october)

September 2010: “Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/08/employment-situation-september)

July 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.  It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/06/employment-situation-july)

August 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/03/employment-situation-august)

June 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/02/employment-situation-june)

May 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/06/04/employment-situation-may)

April 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/05/07/employment-situation-april)

March 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/02/employment-situation-march)

January 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/05/employment-situation-january)

November 2009: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/04/employment-situation-november)

Seven Truths About Politicians

It is pieces like this that make me regret that I do not have much time to write original pieces anymore. In this piece John Hawkins gives us an all important reminder of what those of us who are politically aware often take for granted.

John Hawkins:

1) The first priority of a politician is always getting re-elected: As Thomas Sowell has noted,

“No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.”

Politicians may care about sticking to the Constitution, doing what’s right for the country, and keeping their promises, but all of those issues pale in importance to staying employed in their cushy jobs.

2) Most politicians care far more about the opinions of interest groups than their constituents: Because of gerrymandering and America’s partisan fault lines, even under the worst of circumstances, 75% of the politicians in Congress are in no danger of losing their seats to a candidate of the opposing party. Furthermore, because of their advantages in name recognition, fund raising, and the fealty of other local politicians to someone they view as a likely winner, most challengers from the same party have little hope of unseating an incumbent either.

The only way that changes is if an incumbent infuriates an interest group on his own side that has the money and influence to help a challenger mount a credible campaign against him. That’s why politicians in non-competitive districts are far more afraid of groups like Freedomworks or the SEIU than their own constituents. Incumbents can — and often do, crap all over their own constituents without fear of losing their jobs. However, if they infuriate an interest group, they may end up in the unemployment line.

3) You shouldn’t ever take a politician at his word: People say they want a politician who’ll tell the truth. Unfortunately, that’s not true. What people actually want is a politician who’ll tell them what they want to hear and call that the truth. [Emphasis ours – Political Arena Editor] Partisans on both sides of the aisle have very little tolerance for politicians who deviate from accepted ideology; so the politicians get around that by lying. Most (but of course, not all) of the politicians championed by the Tea Party? They think the Tea Partiers are riff-raff, but useful riff-raff; so they cater to us. It’s no different on the Left. Most of the politicians who talk up the Occupy Movement think they’re damn, dirty hippies. They’re just useful damn, dirty hippies. That doesn’t mean no politician is ever “one of us,” but they are few and far between.

4) Most members of Congress aren’t particularly competent: On average, the politicians in Congress are generally well meaning, a little smarter than average, a lot more connected, and wealthy — but also considerably less ethical. Beyond that, they’re mostly just like a random subsection of a population. If you had a hundred random Americans in a room, a senator probably wouldn’t be the smartest person there, the person you’d want in charge, or even necessarily one of the more useful people to have around. In many respects, politicians are FAR LESS COMPETENT than the average person because so many of them led pampered, sheltered lives before they got into Congress and then have had their behinds kissed incessantly from the moment they got into power.

5) Members of Congress are out of touch: First off, even if members of Congress care about what their constituents think, they spend most of their time in D.C., not back home. Meanwhile, the median net worth of members of Congress is about $913,000. On top of that, members of Congress have staffers who do everything for them and treat them like god-kings in the process. These aides schedule their lives, read everything for them and regurgitate back what they think they need, and incessantly tell them how wonderful they are. Most members of Congress have more in common with celebrities like Madonna or Barbra Streisand than they do with the teachers, factory workers, and small business owners who vote them into office.

6) Few of them will do anything to limit their own power: It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about big government liberals or small government conservatives, very, very few politicians are interested in doing anything that will limit their own power. That’s why term limits for Congress have never passed. It’s why the ethics rules in the House and Senate are a bad joke. It’s also a big part of the reason why government gets bigger, more expensive, and more powerful no matter who’s in charge. If you expect to reduce the concentration of power in D.C. by electing different politicians, then ultimately you’re going to find that you’re barking up the wrong tree.

7) Most politicians only do the right thing because they’re forced to do it: As the late, great Milton Friedman once said,

“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.”

If you want to change how politicians behave, then you have to change public opinion, build structural limits into the system that force changes, or make politicians fear for their jobs. If people are hoping politicians will do the right thing, just because it is the right thing, then they’re hoping in vain.