Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Election 2010, Freedom, News, Politics | Tags: Barney Frank, Debunking Liberal Lies, Democrat Dirty Tricks, Financial Crisis, Sean Bielat
Barney Frank, that most dishonest Democrat, may, the good Lord willing, lose his job this November. His district voted for Scott Brown in that special election, and it’s looking increasingly likely that they will give Barney the boot as well.
Barney’s challenger is the supremely qualified, and far more honorable Sean Bielat. Sean is a Major in the US Marine Corps Reserves, a successful businessman, and a Harvard graduate, just to scratch the surface. Because Barney Frank is one of the supreme architects of the financial meltdown, having lead Democrats in blocking Republicans’ attempts to reform Fannie and Freddie, I watched the Bielat/Frank debates with great interest, and my primary observation was that while Sean was calm, cool and collected, striking blow after blow, Barney Frank was a nervous wreck, fidgeting, constantly interrupting, and desperately looking at the moderator as if pleading for mercy from the devastating onslaught of Sean Bielat’s barrage of unbeatable facts.
So now Barney is scared. How scared? This scared:
Upon exiting the most recent debate with Barney Frank, located at WGBH studios in Boston, MA, Republican Congressional candidate, Sean Bielat, gets heckled by a Barney Frank “supporter” while talking to the media. While watching this video, we realized that we recognized this “supporter”. We received confirmation from two eyewitnesses that the mysterious cameraman was none other than Barney Frank’s pot-growing boyfriend, James Ready.
I can’t think of a race that better exemplifies what this election is all about — defeating corrupt, ruling-class socialists and replacing them with principled, honest, good men and women. You can help Bielat defeat one of America’s most loathsome politicians here. Go Sean!
(h/t Doug Powers @ Michelle Malkin)
Filed under: Economy, Election 2010, News, Politics, Progressivism, Taxes | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Democrats, FDR, Great Depression, Great Recession, Jimmy Carter, Obama
(image credit: TIME)
FDR’s Great Depression, Jimmy Carter’s 1970’s malaise, and Obama’s never-ending Great Recession all have one thing in common — progressive Democrat policies.
Recessions happen. Recessions are a normal part of the business cycle; the natural ebb and flow of economic growth. Recessions, when the market is allowed to work, historically correct themselves fairly quickly — better still when the market is actually freed up.
Depressions, on the other hand, take work. Depressions take arrogance. Depressions take Democrats — the mind-boggling belief that government seizure, command and centralized control of millions of individual economic decisions will somehow foster and aid growth; that punishing economic activity with greater taxation and regulation will somehow encourage more of it; the inexplicable faith that what is most needed in times of economic stagnation is more bureaucracy.
A new study by UCLA economists, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, affirms what conservatives have long known — that FDR’s New Deal policies thwarted economic recovery for seven long years and turned what should have been a recession into the Great Depression:
“High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns,” Ohanian said. “As we’ve seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market’s self-correcting forces.” [read more]
“Progressives” do not ease economic suffering — they cause it. They do not fix recessions, they cause depressions.
These are lessons that Americans can and should apply to our current endless recession. The reason the economy is not getting better is because the same people who caused it are still in control. Democrats did not inherit this recession — they’ve controlled both houses of congress since a year before it even began and two years before the financial crisis hit. When President Bush and Republicans tried over 20 times to reform Fannie and Freddy, warning of exactly the kind of economic disaster we had if they were not reformed, Democrats blocked them. The economy went south in response to their promises of massive tax increases, massive new spending, massive new regulation and has been unable to recover as no one knows what industry these American fascists will seize next, what massive new regulations and entitlements they will burden industry with — in short, the economy sucks because everyone with two nickles to rub together is terrified of what Democrats will do next.
Like the shirt says: “D” is for “Depression; “R” is for “Recovery”.
Vote, volunteer, and contribute to Republicans as though your country depended on it. It does.
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, History, Iraq | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Driving the Economy into a Ditch., Heading in the Right Direction?
President Obama continues his parable of “They drove the economy into a ditch…” His claim seems to be, of course, that it’s all Bush’s fault. Obama puts the car in ‘Drive’ (D for Democrat, get it?) and because he’s heading in the right direction, all will be well. Those other folks that put us in the ditch want to put the car in ‘Reverse’ (R for Republican, get it?) and go backwards ‘Repeating’ ( R for Republican, get it?). Obama’s clever joke always gets a laugh, especially his.
I have no particular problem with being the butt of political jokes. I do, however, care about the facts. Obama claims that the economic crisis and our fiscal problems were caused by the massive debts of the two previous illegal wars (The cost of the entire 8 years of the War in Iraq cost far less than Obama has spent in his first 18 months in office).
Obama also wants to blame it all on Wall Street. No one has explained how that works, but there’s a pretty clear track of evidence that starts way back in the Carter administration with the Community Reinvestment Act. It was intended to help get more poor and minority people into their own homes, and home ownership became a popular ideal. As time passed, home ownership was not increasing fast enough, so regulations were passed to make sure that banks made loans readily available, and lowered standards of traditional prudence so that more people could get a loan. Easy Opinions succinctly described what happened:
The government bought bad loans, guaranteed them, pressured bond ratings agencies, and ignored experience, restraint, and regulation. The massive losses of $2 trillion ($2,000 billion) killed our economy.
When we say “the government” we mean those federally guaranteed enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So when Obama says the economy is heading in the right direction, he means that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been sorted out and reformed, and we will never have that problem again. doesn’t he? Well, no. The big financial reform bill doesn’t do anything at all about either Fannie or Freddie, and they are still encouraged to go on doing the same old thing. If there is anything in government that is not transparent, it’s Fannie and Freddie’s books.
Did you know that George W. Bush called for reform 17 times in 2008 alone? I didn’t think so. Randall Hoven at American Thinker gathered together a snapshot of what our economy looked like in December 2006, after six years of Bush and in the last month before the Democrats took over both houses of the national legislature. And Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House of Representatives — the source of all financial bills and appropriations.
- Unemployment stood at 4.4%.
- Real GDP growth over the previous four years (under a Republican President, House and Senate) averaged 3% per year.
- A gallon of regular gasoline cost $2.30.
- Even the S&P 500 stock index stood at 1418, or 84% above its post-9/11 low and more than 7% higher than when Bush took office.
- Every year of Bush’s presidency, real (inflation-adjusted) disposable income per person went up. By the end of 2006, the average person was making 9% more in real terms than before Bush became president.
The last election in 2006 was considered a referendum on Iraq. The war was not going well, 64% of Americans said the country was on the wrong track, but 55% of Americans said the economy was is good shape. And guess who was saying the War in Iraq was lost? And guess who introduced a bill in the Senate to prevent the Surge?
Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Energy, Liberalism | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Rewards for the Labor Movement, The Definition of Insanity
Supposedly it was Albert Einstein who said: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” I expect a lot of people are using that quote today.
President Obama announced, to a Labor Day Laborfest today, that he plans to invest $50 billion [more] in “rebuilding and modernizing America’s roads, rails and runways for the long-term.” I thought we had established that the stimulus didn’t work.
He demonized the rich, blaming everything on Wall Street and “the last decade” (which is the new term for it’s Bush’s fault) when everybody supposedly suffered, and from which he will rescue everyone just as soon as the Republicans stop saying “no.” The Middle Class, which was invented by the Labor Unions, is going to be put back to work doing highway and railroad construction, and manufacturing solar cells and batteries for electric cars, and building a “smart grid.”
The problem here harks back to a basic difference between Republicans and Democrats in general. Democrats are apt to start with an idea of “wouldn’t it be great if we could…” and build upon that, figuring out how to get it passed, and how to put it into force. They think politically.
Republicans may start with the same idea, but they don’t start with the politics of the thing; but with questions about whether or not it will work, what experience other countries have had, what the studies say — trying to determine if it is feasible.
I hasten to say that these are generalities, and not all Republicans look at studies, or consider feasibilities. Democrats are not apt to be interested in studies, because most of the studies come from right-leaning think tanks. Once Democrats get their enthusiasm up about doing something, they assume that all negative statements are just Republicans saying “no” rather than warnings about consequences.
When government pays workers to do a job, they are taking money out of taxpayers’ pockets to do so. The economy does not grow. FDR had the NRA, the WPA, the CCC and all sorts of other schemes, but none of them worked. Only the private sector can make the economy grow, because the government has no money of its own.
We have explained that there is currently a worldwide glut of electric batteries — far more than could be used even if buyers suddenly developed an irrational enthusiasm for the Volt, when for the same money they could buy a Mercedes. There is a glut of battery factories responding to government stimulus and government loan guarantees. They won’t survive.
Here are several articles on “the smart grid.” and the economics involved. One comment was: “What’s a trillion dollars or so to bring unreliable power to market?” This is another idea that is not new, it’s been lying around in bits and pieces for years–going back as far as the 1950s and the so-called “smart house.”
President Obama expects to get a lot of mileage out of calling the Republicans the party of “no”, which is profoundly silly; because the Democrats control the House and the Senate, and the Republicans cannot vote anything down. Obama also accuses Republicans of having “no ideas,” which is completely untrue. He just doesn’t like ideas that disagree.
Republicans garner an enormous amount of hate, vitriol and obscenity from Democrats simply by disagreeing. It’s not really rewarding to be put in the position of saying “we told you so,” when the consequences could have been prevented. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Filed under: Islam, Liberalism, Media Bias, Terrorism, The Constitution | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Democrat Demagogues, The Ground Zero Mosque
Democrat pollsters like Charlie Cook are telling Democrats that the election in November is going to be a “wave” election. Democrats are running scared, and they’re desperate.
They were going to run against George W. Bush, but that’s not working. Obama has been president for 19 months, and the “blame Bush” theme has worn out. Most people don’t blame Bush. Then Democrats were going to blame Republicans as “The Party of No,” but that won’t work either. Democrats have control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency. It doesn’t matter if Republicans say no.
Democrats have done exactly what they wanted to do, and it isn’t working.
Liberals just hate it when you disagree with them. They are quick to assign evil motives to conservatives when they disagree, and they quite literally hate conservatives for having the nerve to do so. Part of the problem is that liberals start with the policy that fulfills their dreams, and aren’t much interested in evidence of how that policy has worked previously. Liberals assume that of course it will work. Conservatives want to know how a policy will work before they pass it into law, so they look for studies and examples and history.
What this means is that when liberals are ecstatic about having passed a long-desired bill, there are the conservatives carefully explaining why it is not going to work, with facts and figures. Liberals cannot understand this way of operating, and assume that conservatives are just being their normal, evil, disgusting selves trying to destroy the liberal accomplishment.
So now, not only are conservatives saying bad things about liberals’ amazing accomplishments, but they are convincing the common folk out there that the Democrats were wrong. That makes them very angry.
So we return to the question of the mosque at Ground Zero. It is, technically, 360 feet from the World Trade Center site. The building that the mosque purchased was damaged when the undercarriage of one of the planes fell through the roof.
Muslims, of course, have freedom of religion: the only argument is that it is inappropriate to build a mosque so close to the site of 9/11, an attack made in the name of Islam. The families who lost their loved ones and friends in the World Trade Center are offended that the backers do not understand the inappropriateness of the mosque site.
Democrats saw an opportunity to demonize Republicans and are out in full-throated attack mode. Republicans are bigots and racists. They can have no other reason to oppose the mosque. Isn’t it about time they got over 9/11? Hypocrites as well — always talking about the Constitution as if it is a holy document and they can’t even recognize the poor Muslims’ right to freedom of religion.
- Michael Kinsley, editor at large, The Atlantic”: “Is there any reason to oppose the mosque that isn’t bigoted, or demagogic, or unconstitutional? None that I’ve heard or read.”
- Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun Times blog, August 19: The far right-wing has seized on the issue as an occasion for fanning hatred against Muslims.”
- Tony Norman, columnist, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: “…a handful of politicians who cynically conflate the religion of American Muslims with the nihilism of the 9/11 terrorists.”
- More, much more, from the likes of Peter Beinart, Tony Norman, Keith Olberman, James Zogby, Andrew Sullivan, here, and here,and here.
So some brilliant PR person has decided that the best move is to accuse Conservatives of being racist, evil, disgusting bigots. But what do they say about the moderate Muslims who say that of course the mosque is intended as a provocation? Other sources have noted that several floors of the “community center” are intended as offices for an effort to promote Sharia law in the United States.
I do believe that those who immigrate to the United States have an obligation to become Americans. They don’t get to bring their culture here and insist that the religious laws of their former country be observed here.
Filed under: Conservatism, Election 2010, Liberalism, Politics | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Economy, Spending, Unemployment
(h/t: National Review)