I guess that getting a tingle running up his leg only lasted so long before he had to give himself another fix.  Since talking about all the successes of the current administration seemed like a hard sell, Mr. Matthews put together a hit piece on the Tea Parties and the right, or as he calls it, the “New Right.”

On his Hardball  program, Matthews “documentary” was titled “The Rise of the New Right.”  In it he tries to paint the Tea Party movement as a fringe group of racists, gun nuts, and generally a group waiting for a reason to break into violence. 

You would be hard pressed to find a more over the top cheerleader for Barack Obama than Chris Matthews.  Matthews took advantage of his position in the media to actively work to get Obama elected, and now he is crestfallen that General Electric, CBS, and Disney/ABC do not control the news like in the good old days.  He openly attacks Fox News and blames the Internet for allowing the Tea Party to do an end run around the main stream media and get their information out.  Matthews, like big government, is smarter than you.  He knows what “news” you need to hear, and will diligently work to keep what you don’t need to know from reaching your eyes and ears.

 The Tea Party that I know has some very basic principles:

1. Fiscal responsibility
2. Accountability
3. Transparency
4. Free market solutions

 Pretty radical stuff, eh?  In a Rasmussen poll taken earlier this month, 46% of voters say the Tea Party is good for America, while 31% disagree.  Matthews doesn’t tell you this and he makes sure his “documentary” doesn’t provide the information that would let you draw that conclusion.

He reports on the militia movement and specifically mentions the Hutaree militia that plotted to kill a policeman and then those who would attend his funeral.  While constantly tying the Tea Party, and the militia to the Republicans he doesn’t mention that the one person in the Hutaree militia whose political affiliation is known was a Democrat and he voted as such.  Not that there is any linkage between what party one belongs to and being a nut-case, but a fair reporter might mention that to give an honest representation of the story.

Matthews also makes several references to violence against Democrats after the health care vote.  He neglects to say that only one case of violence resulted in an arrest.  That was for an attack against Republican Eric Cantor’s office.  Any one can get a brick and write a note on it quoting one of the Founding Fathers, but until to catch who did it and find out who they really are, you don’t know if it is an extremist on the right, or a Saul Alinsky disciple on the left who wants to discredit the Tea Party people.

Matthews liberally, no pun intended, sprinkles through his story extremists on the right, going back to the 1930s, such as Father Coughlin, but nowhere does he mention extremists on the left.  There is no profile of Louis Farrakhan, Reverend Wright, the Democrats who fought against the Civil Rights Act, while a majority of Republicans supported it.  There is no mention of our government internment of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II.

It’s getting closer to the mid-term elections and Matthews doesn’t like seeing everything he has bet his reputation on going down in flames.  So he takes out this “hail Mary” pass to try to turn the tide against the Tea Party and scare people into staying safe with the Democrats.  But this time, the main stream media is not in control.  They can’t craft the message and force feed it to the American public.  Broadcast news and many major newspapers are losing viewers and readership daily, because Toto has pulled the curtain back on the Great and Powerful Oz that was the main stream media and exposed it for what it is, a shill for the Progressive left.

Zogby International conducted a survey to measure how well people understand economics and what their political persuasion was.  The conclusion they came to was clear:  the Left is economically ignorant.  As reported in the Wall Street Journal (Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?) there were eight questions and the multiple choice answers were:  Strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree or are not sure.  Here are the statements:

1. Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services
2. Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago
3. Rent control leads to housing shortages
4. A company with the largest market share is a monopoly
5. Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited
6. Free trade leads to unemployment
7. Minimum wage laws raise unemployment

Answers of strongly agree and somewhat agree were grouped together for scoring purposes, as were strongly disagree and somewhat disagree.  The survey respondents were then asked their political persuasion:  progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; libertarian.  The correct answers to the statements are

1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree
4. Disagree
5. Disagree
6. Disagree
7. Agree

Here is how the respondents performed grouped by political views:

1. Libertarians 84.3% correct answers
2. Very conservative 82.4% correct answers
3. Conservative 77.7% correct answers
4. Liberals 59.9% correct answers
5. Progressive/very liberal 32.4% correct

If this were a course in school, liberal, very liberal, and progressive students, would have all failed and in some cases miserably;  conservatives would all have passed by comfortable margins.  The article goes on to say, “The pattern was not an anomaly.”  I think this survey explains an enormous amount about the frustration being felt across America today. 

Other studies have shown that about 60% of Americans describe themselves as conservative.  The current administration is driving hard left at an extraordinary rate and most Americans don’t understand what President Obama and the Democratic Congress are doing or why.  This survey explains it pretty well.  They don’t know what they are doing, or they are expecting outcomes that are economically flawed.  The American people know it and they have been shouting, “STOP!”  But the Democrats blissfully press on in their ignorance and are confused why America is not going along. 

Statists have long assumed and treat their fellow Americans as if we are too stupid to know what they are doing is for our own good.  Well here’s the proof folks that the American people are the ones who know what works and what doesn’t and the only way to fix it is to send all the progressives/very liberal/liberal politicians packing.  If we elect conservatives they will implement what works and what economics proves works, and our country will be on the mend.

Democrats think they have a winner.  They want to lather on some more financial regulations because regulators dropped the ball on enforcing what already exists.  So as conservatives point out that what they are proposing is unnecessary or won’t work, they can gleefully say, “Republicans are for the fat cats, while we’re for the little guy.”

Broken Regulations

Harry Markopolos recognized within “minutes” that Bernie Madoff was a fraud.  He took his case to the SEC and was promptly ignored.  He took it to Forbes magazine…not interested.  Bernie Madoff himself was surprised how long it took to be found out. 

So what does the SEC do now?  It initiates a case against Goldman Sachs where professionals on both sides of a transaction knew what they were getting into.  One side bet on housing prices continuing to rise, the other betting the bubble would burst.  The decision on pursuing this was voted 3-2, with three Democrats voting in favor of pursuing the case, and two Republicans voting against.  It must be the Democrats looking out for the little guys and the Republicans looking out for evil Wall Street, right?

John Paulson is the investor who allegedly played unfairly by being able to choose the securities that went into the investment that Goldman Sachs allegedly didn’t disclose to the other party.  Mr. Paulson hasn’t been charged with anything.  Mr. Paulson also contributed $30,400 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee last June.  If you recall Jon Corzine, former Democratic Senator and Governor of New Jersey, used to be the chairman of Goldman Sachs.  The new head of the SEC enforcement division in the Obama Administration, Adam Storch, is a former Goldman Sachs Vice President.  So who’s in bed with Wall Street? 

Democrats Need a Diversion

With almost every measure of public opinion on government appointment sinking to all time lows, the Democrats need to ramp up the class warfare machine to find anything that will gain traction with the public.  They know they can’t fight on the facts so they have to start the fog machine.  Typical Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals stuff.

Conservatives must focus the debate on the issues and not shrink from the fight.  It is far too easy to show that Big Government (Obama) and Big Business (GE, et al) are really partners in dividing up the spoils amongst themselves and telling the rest of us how to live our lives.

Remembering Reagan

Ronald Reagan famously said that the statists believe:

“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

There is currently no more telling example of this than Senator Chuck Schumer bloviating about Spirit Air Lines charging passengers for carry on baggage.  He wants to introduce legislation prohibiting this.  Hey, Chuck, if you don’t like Spirit charging you for your carryon bags, pick another airline!  That’s how markets work.  But the genius that is Washington is, NO we have to regulate that!  So the idiots would pass a law prohibiting charging for carryon bags and the airlines will respond by raising ALL ticket prices to compensate.  So instead of my having a choice of carrying a bag on board or saving the money, or choosing another airline altogether, the government will make everything equal and more expensive.

So, Chuck, how are you and your pals doing as far as growing the economy and getting the unemployment rate down?   Maybe you should spend some time on that, no?

Right after the Nancy Pelosi “in your face” parade to the capital to cram ObamaCare into law, the lame stream media filled the airwaves with “news” of those Tea Party Extremists.  They were spitting on a black Congressmen, shouting the “N” word and other ugly things.  In listening to those news stories I pondered the possibility that it was all a page right out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”.  Make false accusations and let the slobbering media do the heavy lifting.  Well perhaps it’s time to re-visit the scene of the crime.

The Unsubstantiated Claims

• Spitting on a black Congressman  — video footage shows a man cupping his hands around his mouth to channel the sound energy as he bellowed his opposition to Pelosi and crew.  A black Congressman walking near by learned the true meaning of “say it, don’t spray it.”  Upon being struck with the vocal protesters spittle, the Congressman said something to him, but the man continued to shout his protests.  There was no clear evidence of someone spitting, in the true sense of the word, on the Congressman.  Perhaps you can call it collateral damage.
• Shouting the “N” word — another individual claimed that the “N” word was shouted at him “at least fifteen times.”  Hundreds of protestors, dozens of cameras, cell phones, police, news media, and no one can produce any evidence to back up this man’s claim.  Esteemed civil rights hero John Lewis was asked to come on several news programs to talk about this but he declined.
• Threats against Congressmen — reports of voice mail threats, faxes of nooses, bricks through windows, all no doubt happened, but no perpetrator has been caught.  Without out a suspect, this could just as easily been done by a left wing supporter to discredit the right as someone on the right.  Until such time as an individual is questioned there is no way to tie this to any Tea Party affiliation.

The Stubborn Facts

Here are some developing news items that you won’t hear reported in the lame stream media.

• There was one arrest regarding a death threat of a Congressman.  That was for a threat against Republican Congressman Eric Cantor.
• The ugly business about protesters at the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder who died in Iraq.  Members of the Westboro Baptist Church gleefully cheered the death of the brave Marine, saying it was God’s will.  The leader of this movement, Fred Phelps, calls America a “sodomite nation of flag worshiping idolaters.”  He believes all homosexuals should be persecuted.  He has also run for public office five times…as a Democrat.
• When the Hutaree Militia were arrested while plotting to assassinate a police officer and then kill those who attended his funeral, the lame stream media immediately referred to them as a “Christian” militia and ominously tried to link them to those on the right.  The political affiliation of one of the militia members, Jacob J. Ward has recently been uncovered.  He is a registered Democrat.

Let History Be Your Guide

Having attended several Tea Party gatherings, I can report that they were orderly, law abiding, polite and enthusiastic.  Did some expressions of frustration and outrage go a little too far?  Perhaps, but it was rare and limited to what was written on signs. 

However on the left we have real unrepentant bomb throwers (Obama pal Bill Ayers), we have smashing windows in Seattle, and at WTO meetings, we have tables being overturned and thrown at an Ann Coulter speaking engagement in Ottawa.  When the police show up for a left wing demonstration they typically arrive in riot gear.  At a Tea Party people come up to the mounted police and ask if they can pet the horse.  So when things get ugly, who do you think is really behind the nasty business?

“What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

So reads the opening paragraph of Saul Alinsky’s book, “Rules for Radicals.”  Barack Obama is a follower of Saul Alinsky taking his first job out of Columbia as a community organizer in Chicago and tutored by a man named Mike Kruglik.  Kruglig described Obama this way:

“He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.” — “Obama’s Alinsky Jujitsu,” American Thinker, January 8, 2008 

Democrats Facing Threats After Passage of Health Care Reform

While wading through a crowd of protesters carrying a massive gavel, Nancy Pelosi was joined by several prominent black Democrats.  A racial epithet was called out from the crowd evoking a reaction from Pelosi’s companions.  The cameras caught the reaction, but not the provocateur.  Neither the police or any news organization caught the individual, but the “main stream media” immediately started linking Tea Party protesters with racism.

In the following days, CNN and others reported threats to Democrats who voted for the health care bill, including a graphic voicemail to Bart Stupak; an anonymous fax picturing a noose was sent to a black Democratic Congressman James Clyburn; Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter reports a brick being thrown through the window of her district office in Niagara Falls, NY.  Very troubling indeed.

Having walked down Pennsylvania Avenue with thousands of Tea Party protesters last year, I can say they were the most orderly, principled, polite, helpful gathering of people you could imagine.  Naturally the “main stream media” reported nothing of this demonstration other than a sign or two that linked this administration to the Nazis.  So was I surprised to see this vitriol suddenly sprout up?  While I could understand the frustration with this arrogant Congress and President ignore the overwhelming will of the people, I still couldn’t grasp them going that far.

When I heard about the broken window in Congresswoman Slaughter’s district office, I thought of other protests with broken glass.  Protesters smashing windows in Seattle at a meeting of the World Trade Organization in 1999.  The G20 summit in Scotland in 2009 had protesters smashing windows.  These violent protesters represent the left, not the right. Hmmm…

Last night in Ottawa, the police cancelled a speech by Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa, because the threat of violence became too great:

After Tuesday night, the hatred incited by Francois’ letter is no longer theoretical. The police called off my speech when the auditorium was surrounded by thousands of rioting liberals—screaming, blocking the entrance, throwing tables, demanding that my books be burned, and finally setting off the fire alarm.  

Ms. Coulter received a letter, before her speech, from the provost of the University that she could potentially be criminally liable for hate speech in Canada.  Who else spoke at the University without such admonishment?  How about Communist Angela Davis?  Hmmm…

Rules for Radicals

So what are Saul Alinsky’s instructions to radicals?  Here he outlines the purpose:

In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace…. “Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.’ This means revolution.” p.3                               

“Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing.” p.6

“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.” p.10

“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing…. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations….”

Everything is relative and changing.  Doesn’t that sound like the left’s view of a “living and breathing” Constitution?  The Constitution is not what the Founding Fathers intended when the wrote it, but what the words mean in today’s context.  In other words, there really is no Constitution, because the Constitution means whatever you say it means today.

“The tenth rule… is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.… It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time… Who, and how many will support the action?… If weapons are needed, then are appropriated weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly…” p.36

Clothe it with moral garments.  Did the Democrats argue the merits of health care or did they continually fall back to stories of, for example, “a woman who had to wear her dead sister’s dentures,” said Louise Slaughter.  Or, they said that when people were asked about the details of ObamaCare, the public overwhelmingly supported it, so they are not opposed to the whole package.  Really?  I’m sure that if you picked through the programs of Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and Mao you could get similar reactions: lower unemployment, self-respect, prosperity, etc., but the full package doesn’t work, it’s a lie.

Rules for Radicals: Tactics

9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

Can you say racism?  How many times has this trump card been played?  The epithet hurled from the crowd immediately sparked cries of racism and the “main stream media” tied them to the Tea Party protesters.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…

The Democrats squeaked through an ugly health care bill.  The next hurdle is to get this far behind them and try to salvage the 2010 election before they are thrown from office.  Recent polls show a significant uptick in Obama’s approval, but it is all coming from Democrats.  Republicans haven’t budget and Independents are even worse.  Hmmm… what do Democrats do now?  Read Rule 13.

Pick the target: The Tea Party protesters are the most energized potent force in politics today.  They must be stopped.  Freeze it:  Have some left wing radicals, maybe some SEIU members mingle among the Tea Party protesters and shout the racial epithets and melt away.    Pelosi’s parade route was known among the Democrats.  They staged it to look like a Civil Rights march from the 1960s.  They knew the media would be there and they could see, once on site, where to stand to be heard by Pelosi & co., but not be caught on camera.  The lap dog media would immediately launch into grave concerns of the Tea Party turning ugly, “as we knew they would.”  Freeze them.

Personalize it.  What is more personal than racism?  How do you defend against a charge of racism?  Polarize it:  Paint the Tea Party as a bunch of hateful, racist, violent rednecks with guns and fair minded people will not want to associate with them.  They will drift away from the Tea Party and in the absence of another group to organize them, they hope these folks will become dejected and not turn out in November, and Nancy Pelosi can dodge a bullet and tighten her grip on the Speaker’s gavel.

Battle Back

The executive branch is responsible for enforcing the laws.  Press them to find out who did these things.  Put forth the theory that it is the left trying to discredit the Tea Party people.  After all, which is the more plausible explanation, radicals being radicals or law abiding citizens becoming crazed and dangerous?  Make them disprove the case.

This appears more dangerous and grave every day.  It’s eight months to November.  Stay vigilant and don’t let up.

Conservatives, do not lose heart.  Tea Party people, stand firm.  Like many great turning points in history, they often involve an historic battle that is lost.  The Alamo. Remember the Maine. Dunkirk.  Pearl Harbor.  9/11.  What they do instead is rally the troops, get them fired up and motivated.

The Battle

In New York’s 23rd Congressional District, the aloofness of the professional pols came to a head.  It was the epitome of a recent Rasmussen poll that said 74% of Republicans said their elected leaders were out of touch with the base.  On the Democratic side, the opposite was the case were most Democrats felt their elected leaders held similar views to their own.  So what happened in the special election in New York’s 23rd district?

Republican party bosses chose Dede Scozzafava to defend a seat that has been Republican since the Civil War.   Ms. Scozzafava is pro-abortion, pro-”reform in workers ability to organize”, pro-gay marriage,  pro-Obama stimulus package, and endorsed by the Working Families Party, an ACORN front group.  That was more than conservatives could stand.  Doug Hoffman threw his hat in the ring, conservatives from around the country rallied to him, and Scozzafava eventually dropped out of the race and threw her support behind…the Democrat!!

So the race was between a Democrat and a Conservative, with the Republican candidate a footnote.  The Democrat prevailed by about 5% and picked up a seat for Nancy Pelosi.

The Talking Heads

The liberals started rubbing their hands and crowing over the Republican party self-destructing.  I see it differently.

In a Gallup poll, 40% of Americans considered themselves conservative, 20% described themselves as liberals.  That leaves 40% in the middle.  The prevailing wisdom among the Republican Party leadership is that we need to run “moderates” and have a big tent to win elections.  I say, do the math. 

If you need 50% to win the election, and many times you don’t, then run a conservative candidate.  You will start off with the 40% that call themselves conservative, and then you only need to win 25% of the middle to put you over the top.  (40% in the middle x 25% = 10%; 40% conservative base plus this 10% = 50%). 

Liberals have the tougher job.  Starting out with only a base of 20% self-described liberals, they need to win 3/4 of the middle to get to 50% and win.  It’s even tougher for them because they typically have to go hard left to win the primary and then try to swim upstream to get back in the middle without anyone noticing.

Putting Elections on a Platter

So what has been the strategy of the Republican Party leadership?  Run moderates, because “we can’t win elections with the conservative base alone.”  That’s true but neither can the Democrats win with just their liberal base and as I just proved, theirs is the tougher job.  But when you run moderates, here’s what happens.  A good portion of the conservative base stays home, disgusted.  So from starting with 40%, you maybe now have a 20% base.  You just let the Democrats pull even.  Now you have to win not 25% of the middle but half of the middle.  Let’s say the middle is a continuum from almost conservative to almost liberal.  If Republicans keep their base, then they can just go after the middle group that is “almost” conservative.  If they alienate their base then they have to get every vote in the middle that is the least bit conservative and maybe some liberals.  On the flip side, if they keep their base by running conservative candidates, that forces the Democrat to get all the liberals, all moderates, and some who lean conservative, to capture 3/4 of the middle.  After going hard left to get nominated, that is an almost impossible task.

Don’t Let Obama Fool You

Obama’s election had an historical element to it that we are not likely to see again.  He is an incredibly good speaker, that is, until you realize that is all he is.  Put up a moderate like McCain, and it was no contest.  The only time it became interesting was when McCain picked Palin, which got the base energized.  But the McCain campaign completely mismanaged bringing Palin on board, and the moment was lost.

Remember the 23rd!

So, conservatives have to rally and the Republican leadership has to pay attention.  As Margaret Thatcher used to say, “Don’t go wobbly.”  Start putting conservatives on the field and turn the tide of the battle. 

The next battle is Florida where Charlie Crist…better update his resume, there is a new kid in town, named Marco Rubio and he’s a conservative.

In his Sunday column Frank Rich described Republican candidate for New York’s 23rd Congressional District a “mainstream conservative by New York standards.”  So what did Dede Scozzafava do after falling so far behind the Democratic and Conservative candidates that she decided to drop out?  Well, naturally, she endorsed the Democrat!  Why would a conservative endorse the Conservative, rather than the Democrat?  Because, perhaps, she was a RINO?  That is, a Republican In Name Only.

Party On

What frightens the statists more than anything else is that the Tea Party people know how to walk and chew gum at the same time.  They know that protesting is one thing, but it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t bring about results.  What was demonstrated in New York’s 23rd District is that just like the Minutemen back in Revolutionary times, conservatives could rally, join the fight, and win.  The lock the left had on the media is gone.  The statists no longer control the information game, putting their spin on the news.  If this were 20 years ago, Doug Hoffman the Conservative candidate in the race, would have been, at best, a footnote in history.  His story would not have gotten off the local newspapers in that rural part of New York State.  In today’s world, he quickly got on television, talk radio, and the blogs, got his message out and the rest is history.

What’s the Lesson?

Despite Frank Rich’s hand wringing and Dede Scozzafava’s backing the Democratic candidate, how has the race changed?  From neck and neck between the Conservative Hoffman and the Democrat Owens, recent polls show Hoffman surging into the lead with one poll showing a 5% lead and another showing a 17% lead.  The lesson is that if you give Republicans good conservative candidates, they will vote for them.  If you instead go for weak, moderates, then the Republican base stays home, and the independents choose between the professional statist (Democrat) and the amateur statist (moderate Republican) and as I like to say…in a contest like that why wouldn’t you pick the pro over the amateur?

There is panic in the ranks of the left this Halloween.  In today’s Times, Frank Rich, does his level best to whistle past the graveyard, but the fear is clear.  He astonishingly titles his piece, “The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York.”  I guess they feel the Hitler moniker has lost its zest, so the leftists resort to calling those on the right, Stalinists.  Their disorientation could not be more palpable.

What has them in such a tizzy?  It centers around the special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District.  The local Republican party bosses chose a candidate, Dede Scozzafava, who would never be mistaken as a conservative, although Mr. Rich actually called her, “a mainstream conservative by New York standards.”  That’s like saying David Letterman is chaste by liberal standards, as if these things are measured on a relative scale.  But that’s the way liberals and statists think.  If your neighbor is more promiscuous than you, then you must be celebate.  If you want to make Nancy Pelosi a moderate, move her to Cuba.

Ground Shift

What has Mr. Rich and his cohorts nervously clearing their throats, is that the uprising against the entrenched statists, led by the Tea Parties, actually delivered results.   Ms. Scozzafava is pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage, pro-Obama stimulus package, pro-card check to make it easier to form a union without a secret ballot election, and supported by ACORN.  This is what Mr. Rich calls a conservative, “by New York standards.”  What sticks in his craw is that the election was a win-win, for him and his friends.  Elect the Republican or the Democrat and it doesn’t matter much, they both hold the same basic views.  Then along came Doug Hoffman.

Doug Hoffman threw his hat in the ring on the Conservative Party line.  By this Saturday, with support pouring in all across the country from true conservatives, Hoffman was in a dead heat with the conservative and the Republican Scozzafava was fading fast.  So she decided to suspend her campaign, and Mr. Rich and company hit the panic button.

So how does Mr. Rich frame his argument?  Well he starts by saying Hoffman has no grasp of local issues.  Uh, the position is United States Congressman, not city alderman.  He well understands the issues at the national level and how the policies of the Obama Administration are bankrupting the country.  Those policies will negatively affect the people in his district.  But leave it to Mr. Rich to scoff at Hoffman, because he doesn’t know how much pork barrel spending the district needs. A true patriotic Congressman, like John Murtha, finds a way to build an airport in the district that nobody uses and hands the bill to people in other districts like, well, New York’s 23rd.  He’s going to Washington to fight those who are bleeding the Treasury dry.  So Mr. Rich fights that by calling Fort Drum, home to the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division, a “pork-dependent military base.”  Hmmm…the last time I read my copy of the Constitution, it specifically required providing for the national defense.  I couldn’t find in my copy where it required building airports no one needed so that John Murtha could get re-elected in perpetuity.  I understand it is a fine distinction, but I would have thought someone employed by the New York Times would be able to make it.

Frank Rich’s Happy Talk

Mr. Rich oddly calls the developments in New York as good news.  With a recent Gallup Poll, showing that for every self-described liberal there are two self-described conservatives, Mr. Rich says the ideologues that brought about the events in New York’s 23rd, may then start picking off other conservatives and destroy the party.  Does he mean conservatives like Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, Charlie Crist, oh my!  With 73% of GOP voters saying that Congressional Republicans have lost touch with their base, this is not good news for Mr. Rich and company.  What he believes is that a small cabal of conservatives will put unelectable candidates on the ballot that voters will reject and the Democrats will gleefully reap the rewards.  In reality, the GOP leadership has for too long put weak candidates on the ballot that Democrats easily beat because the Republican base cannot get excited about them.  McCain is a war hero and worthy of our admiration, but just look at his signature legislation:  McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy.  He was not a conservative on many fronts. 

Nixon was a conservative, Ford was not.  Reagan was a conservative, Bush 41 was not and  Dole was not.  George W. started more conservative than not, but then drifted to become a big spender.  McCain was not a conservative.  Do you see a pattern here?  Conservative Republicans win.

With Obama’s approval rating going down in a virtual straight line, Mr. Rich confidently proclaims that the only politician Obama has to fear is Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan.  By all means, Mr. Rich, you keep telling your pals that.

On this Fourth of July weekend we will have many opportunities to celebrate the genius of the founding fathers who created this country.  There is no other country like ours nor has their been.  It was and is a beacon of hope for people around the world who we welcome, those who come here legally, to help continue to build this great country.  Here is how Emma Lazarus described the new Statue of Liberty.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame,
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

by Emma Lazarus, New York City, 1883

Liberals vs. Conservatives

The most stark difference, I see, between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe in the individual and their right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, while liberals believe in groups.  And God help you if you stray from the Plantation of your group.  Groups, like blacks for instance, have “leaders”.  For years if you wanted to know what blacks thought about an issue you asked Jesse Jackson.  He would tell you what blacks thought and then he would tell blacks what they are supposed to think.  If your skin was black, you belonged in the group called “blacks” and Jesse Jackson was your leader, no independent thought, no dissension, he was it.  He would collect the money from the coffers of the guilt ridden whites, take his fair share, and preside over the distribution of the rest.  In return to access to power he would tell blacks to always vote Democratic. It was a very lucrative career for Jesse Jackson.  For blacks?  Not so much.

If you were so bold as to be a black with an independent mind such as Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Michael Steele, Janice Rogers Brown, J.C. Watts, and many more, watch out.  You were to be condemned in the vilest language imaginable for your failure to surrender your soul and pledge your fealty to the black leadership.

But this country was built on individual rights, the Pursuit of Happiness, not the guarantee of Happiness.  This country was not founded on the principles of taking from the successful and giving handouts to those who are not, either through misfortune or sloth.  Those suffering from misfortune were cared for by organized religion and charity.  Liberals believe that government should use its enormous power to steal from successful individuals and give to whoever they deem to be needy.  There is no clearer demonstration of this than in who gives to charity.

– Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). — RealClearPolitics

Consider for example, “Buck-a-Day” Biden, who gave an average of $1 per day to charity, although being a millionaire, with an annual salary of $174,000 per year.  In a formulation that liberals like to use, Joe Biden earns that much money before his head hits the pillow on New Year’s Day.  But he keeps virtually all of it and from his seat of power tells us how it is patriotic to pay more taxes to fund pork projects for his favored groups.

The Hunt for the Latest Escapee from the Plantation

Lieutenant Ben Vargas is a New Haven Connecticut firefighter.  He had the audacity to pass a test for promotion and fight for the promotion he won when the city of New Haven invalidated the test because no blacks made the cutoff.  You see, Ben Vargas is Hispanic and as such liberals have assigned him to the group that includes all Hispanics.  When not protesting how not every Hispanic is successful, Hispanics are required to fight for other groups if they are not all successful.  Ben Vargas stood up for his rights and was assaulted by a black man in the bathroom of Humphreys East Restaurant and ended up in the hospital.  Having wandered off the plantation, the Hispanic firefighters association publicly refused to back him up.

Lieutenant Vargas, who posted the sixth-highest score on the exam, was ridiculed as a token, a turncoat and an Uncle Tom — all of which, he said, “made my resolve that much stronger.” — NY Times, July 3, 2009

This case has achieved notoriety because of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.  This case came before her and was dismissed with little explanation.  The Supreme Court just overturned the decision 5-4.  Now Lieutenant Vargas is set to become Captain Vargas.  Here are his views:

“I consider myself an American — I was born and raised here,” he said in an interview on the porch of his home in the wooded suburb of Wallingford. “I love my people. I love my culture. I love our rice and beans, our salsa music, our language — everything my parents raised us with. But I am so grateful for the opportunity only the United States can give.”

That’s the American Dream.

An interesting op-ed piece in the New York Times Nicholas Kristof nicely sums up what many conservatives have known all along that leaving aside that conservatives want to push grandma in her wheelchair down the stairs, keep children from getting a good education, and are generally racists to boot, when it comes to being charitable, conservatives are far more generous that those compassionate caring liberals.

Many studies have been done on the subject and a number of them by liberals, who started out with the objective of proving how cold and uncaring conservatives are, only to find the opposite is true.  Liberals are generous as long as it’s not with their own money.  They insist on using the overwhelming power of the state to steal your money (increasing taxes) and give it to special interest groups in return for votes and by extension, power.  Do I seem too cynical?

Let’s take education.  The Department of Education was started in 1980 at the end of the Carter Administration.  From 1980 to 2008 Congress appropriated $1.06 trillion dollars to the Department of Education.  What have we gotten for our “investment” as liberals like to call expenditures?  The statistics are hard to come by but I found a comparison of math scores of fourth and eight graders between 1995 and 2007, about half the time the Department of Education has been in operation.  In that period test scores improved about 2% in fourth grade and 4% in eight grade.  If someone came to you in 1980 and said I’ve got a great deal for you, if you give me a trillion dollars, I’ll improve test scores 2-4% over twelve years, would you buy it?  Imagine where we would be today, if we kept that trillion dollars in the hands of taxpayers to use as they saw fit?

If all that money didn’t improve test scores, what did it do?  What about employment?  Again, it was a challenge finding a comparable period, but I did come up with information for the period 1999 to 2007.  From the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the class Education, Training and Library occupations grew 50.8%.  The mantra that we have been hearing, “for the children” mostly trumpeted by the teacher’s unions has been for smaller class sizes.  That sounds good but what does it really mean?  If you have smaller class sizes, you have to have more teachers.  If you have more teachers you have more teacher’s union members. If you have more teacher’s union members you have more contributions to the Democratic party, more votes for Democrats and in turn more education spending to continue the cycle.  The students are marginally better educated, the taxpayers get hosed, and on the local level property taxes go through the roof.

How about “Buck-A-Day” Biden?  I call him that because that is the average amount that this devout Catholic has given to charity over the past ten years.  But pay more in taxes?  He says that’s your patriotic duty!  The government needs more money.  Times are tough.

The problem I have with many government programs is that once passed into laws, rules have to be written on how to execute them and the rules have to be followed explicitly or the lawsuits follow.  That means that there will be cases of deserving people, who for one of the rules does not qualify.  That also means that there will be cases of undeserving people, who because of the rules qualify for benefits even though they don’t need them.

If liberals followed Mr. Kristof’s lead, in his attempt to shame them into giving more, maybe we could have government take less.  That would allow us all to give more, and do it a lot more effectively.  Or how about this for a novel approach.  Before we implement any government social program, the first 10% of funding has to be raised privately, through charitable donations.  If the liberals, who largely favor these kinds of programs can raise the cash, perhaps the program is worthy.  If not, perhaps we could be spared another Department of Education bleeding $1 trillion from the economy when most school decisions are made locally anyway.