Gerson Vs. Rand

Michael Gerson's latest article takes on Ayn Rand and the recent movie (first part of a trilogy) of her Seminal Work "Atlas Shrugged." He is not a fan.

If Objectivism seems familiar, it is because most people know it under another name: adolescence. Many of us experienced a few unfortunate years of invincible self-involvement, testing moral boundaries and prone to stormy egotism and hero worship. Usually one grows out of it, eventually discovering that the quality of our lives is tied to the benefit of others

Gerson points out that she saw average Americans as looters and parasites and that she wasn't a fan of Christianity. He says that her philosophy, with it's laser like focus on freedom of the individual, doesn't work.

But both libertarians and Objectivists are moved by the mania of a single idea -- a freedom indistinguishable from selfishness. This unbalanced emphasis on one element of political theory -- at the expense of other public goals such as justice and equal opportunity -- is the evidence of a rigid ideology. Socialists take a similar path, embracing equality as an absolute value. Both ideologies have led good people into supporting policies with serious human costs.

Conservatives have been generally suspicious of all ideologies, preferring long practice and moral tradition to utopian schemes of left or right. And Rand is nothing if not utopian.

So a good take down. But, there are other points of view, such as those of Gerson's readers.

i am not sure why gerson does this hit piece. it may be that he is simply a pawn of the overlords who recognize that freedom for the individual is the greatest threat to their desire to be complete rulers of the masses. consequently, knowing the overlord's wishes, gerson seeks to discredit the movie before more and more people tune in to the socialism that is creeping surreptitiously into the american gestalt.

I just checked the list of pawns and Gerson's name isn't on it. Oh and there are no overlords. And I am certainly not an overlord.

Thank God for the movie. It was released just when we have the most totalitarian government ever in power in the USA. Ayn, we miss you. You would see instantly the parallels between the Obama Administration and Stalin's USSR. Your old nemesis is right here, right now, in Washington, D.C. And the clueless observers like Gerson don't even recognize it!

We live in the most totalitarian government in power? Why doesn't overlord Obama just get rid of those annoying Tea Partiers than? Send them off to Alaska (America's Siberia).

Gerson's writing is that of a disgusting blue-blood republican that may even be more dispicable than Obama. Gerson wants the rest of us to go back to the slimy days when Republicans cut deals with democrats to sell out the public in favor of the elite (to whom if you ever watched him or read him he considers himself one of). . . . Gerson you disgust me truly.

Funny that Ayn Rand, who was pretty elitist, is being held up as a champion of the little guy.

Trump! Trump! TRUMP!!!!

Several articles about Trump today. Cal Thomas wrote about how Trumps connection to Christianity may not be all that sincere.

He [Trump] did say he goes to church "as much as I can. Always on Christmas. Always on Easter. Always when there's a major occasion." Christians know a lot of people who attend church only on Christmas and Easter and special occasions. They are usually not serious about their faith. Not to judge, but if Trump intends to use faith to win votes from people of faith, then those people have a right to determine whether he is sincere or simply trying to manipulate them.

I pretty well agree with Thomas here; if he is playing to get Conservative Christian votes by pretending to be one of them, well, they have a right to ask how committed he actually is.

That said, Conservative Christians generally don't actually care about the faith of their candidates, so long as they vote the right way. Trouble is Trump has shown himself to be all over the map on that score.

Thomas does carefully exclude Trumps biggest selling point to the Right, i.e. his willingness to take Birtherism seriously. I suppose that makes sense, no sense bringing up embarrassing aspects about your base.

Larry Elder has no such compunction though, and dedicates his article to the proposition that Trump is asking questions that the media won't.

But are the "birther" folks wackier than the majority of Democrats who believe George W. Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11 or are unsure that he did?

Are the "birther" folks wackier than the majority of Democrats who believe that "Bush Lied, People Died" our way into the Iraq War or are unsure that he did?

Are they wackier than the majority of Democrats who, in 2008, held Bush responsible when gas prices hit $4 a gallon?

What's the point? When people are unhappy with a politician and/or his policies, they sometimes see the worst -- whether or not there is a factual basis. But the media do not even have a name for the Democratic equivalent of "birthers," despite these vicious, unsubstantiated and irresponsible accusations of Bush.

Poor Elder. Not a very strong section. But lets go through it.

First of all, 9/11 "Truthers" have never been taken seriously by any major Liberal pol. Liberal website Salon went out of their way to take the mickey out of the Truthers. In contrast there are several Republican pols who are taking this seriously, from state legislators putting up bills that require Presidential candidates to put up Birth Certificates to Presidential Candidates and Congresspeople giving a wink and a nod to Birthers.

Second and three are just said. People think that Bush lied us into Iraq because what he told us about Iraq turned out not to be true. We didn't find weapons of mass destruction. There is strong evidence that Bush and his advisors were determined to invade Iraq regardless of the evidence. Did they genuinely believe we needed to invade Iraq? Probably. Did they present all the evidence to the American people so they could make up their minds with all the facts? It does not seem so.

And of course our invasion of Iraq had something to do with Gas Prices going up.

Finally, yes, the media do have a name for people who think that Bush allowed or caused 9/11 to happen. It's Truthers as mentioned above.

Elder does more than wink at the Birthers, but makes it clear that he thinks they have some good points. Which is nice, since he's Black. This is helpful for Birthers, who are regularly accused of being racist for questioning whether or not President Obama is legally qualified to be President. This is because some of them are clearly racist, and others seem concerned that Obama isn't a real America like the rest of us. So Elder does provide a valuable service to the Birthers here.

Still, even with Elder, you can't get around some of the ugliness in their comments.

I am not so concerned about the so-called "birther issue as the "What are we going to do to Obama when his birth issue proves to be correct. I always have the image of his grandmother stating that "li'l Barry was born in Kenya," in front of me.

There has to be some kind of splendiferous punishment for the con - death by firing squad seems too little in view of the level of the fraud.

When you tell a 224 year old Christian nation that we are not a Christian nation any more and you are going to change the foundation that made us great, then people are going to have questions.

Barack Obama is a limp-wristed-panty-waist, who does not like getting his own hands dirty, instead he surrounds himself with those who are willing to do whatever criminal act or illegal operation Barack Obama has in his bag-of-community-organizing-tricks.

Interesting mix. The top one speaks for itself. The middle one plays off of the belief of many on the right that Liberals just aren't very good Americans. And the bottom one is homophobic crap, which I guess is slightly better than being racist.

Who Loves America?

Michael Medved's latest article takes on that old conundrum, why are liberals and conservatives so different. Turns out conservatives see America as a great place and liberals aren't as keen on it.

The right views America as exceptionally blessed and righteous — chosen by God (or fate, if you prefer) to inspire humanity with distinctive ideals of liberty, self rule and free markets. The left, on the other hand, expresses an intensifying tendency to see the U.S. as exceptionally guilty (for slavery, "genocide" against Native Americans and arrogant imperialism) and exceptionally backward when it comes to "social justice." Progressives never tire of reminding us that the United States lacks the welfare state guarantees that characterize other wealthy nations, and that it tolerates a vast gap between rich and poor.

Or to put it another way, Progressives want an America that works for all Americans, not just the wealthy.

Medved is pretty transperant here; this is the simplistic way Conservatives beleive that Liberals look at America. We don't like it, and want it to be more like Europe. Conservatives love America and are content having a small powerless Government with a strong military, because they believe in the American people.

Putting Troops First

Mike Needham's latest article is intended to put pressure on Congressional Democrats to cave and pass the Republican Budget.

President Obama and Senator Harry Reid have an obligation to explain to our military why they have refused to come to the table and either pass H.R. 1 through the Senate or pass an alternative.

Needham does let on that he'd be satisfied if they just passed the military section of the resolution; and I'm more or less with him on that. We are fighting a couple of wars, no reason to stop paying our troops. That said, this is a pretty big bargaining chip for either side to play around with.

Of course Needham doesn't mention some of the controversial riders attached by Republicans, such as defunding Planned Parenthood and NPR, limiting the EPA and defunding the Consumer Protection Complaints database. It is possible that the American people would see some of those as Republicans settling scores on the backs of our troops.

Not many comments, but one notable one.

These pathetic, excremental democrats will hold out paying our troops in order to blame Republicans.

Die democrats, die!

Nice.

I'm Using Technology

Apparently Robert Knight feels that with all this talk about Japan and Libya, we are losing sight of what is really important; making sure the Gays stay second class citizens.

Now there’s a scenario for building respect for the military among the nation’s youngsters. Boy: “Look, mom, those men in uniforms are, uh, making out right there in the food court! I’m not sure I want to be a soldier after all.” Liberal mom: “Well, that’s a relief. I didn’t want you to be in the military anyway. All those guns give me the creeps. But why do you find this odd? Are you some kind of religious bigot? Honestly, we’re going to have to call your school and ask them to step up the tolerance training. You won’t even wear that nice polka dot dress and pumps I bought you.”

"All those guns give me thec creeps?" Anyway it's sad drivel, of the sort you expect from a town hall third tier columnist trying to build his profile by being extra hateful. Fortunately his readers enjoy hating Homosexuals.

Homosexuals are about trashing this country and Christianity. Look at every program advanced by the Leftists, it is at it's root, anti-Christian. No open homosexuals should not be allowed in the miltary since the lack the discipine to be good sailors, Marines, ect.

So there you go.

America is the Bestest Nation Ever!

This is American Exceptionalism. Basically idea that America is better than all the other nations intellectually, morally, and militarily. And this is the theme of Lurita Doan's latest article. She comments on liberal reactions to the Gulf oil spill, the coal mining tragedy, and the nuclear situation in Japn, and how Liberals seem to think these accidents prove that we should move away from oil, coal and nuclear power.

In each of these cases, the defeatists seemed to be saying is that America was no longer capable of inventing better solutions to solve these and other challenges--better to just give up after any setback.

This may be the silliest American Exceptionalism article I've read. First of all, if you want to talk about not beliving in our ability to innovate, go read articles on solar or wind power by your fellow conservatives. You will see some real defeatism there.

Secondly, it's not American ingenuity that is being tested in some of these cases. It's American corpratism. It's not that we can't make safe coal mines or protect against oil spills; it's that it is unprofitable to do so (not to mention that we are eventually going to start running out of oil and probably coal).

Doan is down on Obama too, as you would expect.

Americans deserve a president who believes that we are an exceptional nation, capable of achieving everything that is good and great.

Everything that is good and great. You know what I believe America is capable of achieving everything that is good and great. I suspect many of my fellow liberals agree with me. It's just that our definition of what is good and great probably differs from your own.

But her readers are very supportive.

Democrats and other liberals are losers who project their own inability to succeed onto the rest of us.

As for humility, there's nothing un-humble about knowing that our system is best, because the evidence for that FACT is all there for anyone to see.

And then this gem.

Any problems with nuclear, oil, coal or other energy source can be overcome if we only just lined up all the regulators from the EPA and other alphabet soup agencies that constantly get in the way, and just shoot them.

That's just hilarious. After 8 years of Bush gutting the regulatory industries, we just need to shoot anybody with the temerity to work there? Do people really think that corporations are going to do spend the money to do things safely if they aren't required to? Apparently they do.

"The most evil population on the face of the planet"

Ben Shapiro's latest article is about the Israeli Palestine conflict. In particular he writes about a particularly brutal murder of Israeli settlers in the West Bank.

And the Arab Palestinian populace, which by and large constitutes the most evil population on the face of the planet, celebrated.

So that is Shapiro's opinion of the Palestinians. But he's particularly upset about a movie shown at the United Nations.

It was a premiere screening of "Miral," a film by Julian Schnabel, a self-hating Jew and world-famous director; it's based on a book by his Arab Palestinian girlfriend, Rula Jebreal. "Miral" is a virulently anti-Israel movie casting the state of Israel in the worst possible light. Every Israeli soldier is a brutal murderer; every Palestinian is a wounded innocent; Jews are usurpers of Arab Palestinian property rights. Every anti-Israel trope is employed. "These settlers living here are our real cancer," says one Arab Palestinian character.

A few interesting points to make, but let's start with the key one. Moments after writing Palestinians off as the most evil population on the face of the planet, Shapiro excoriates Schnabel for not showing both sides in the Palestinian Israeli conflict. Presumably, in Shapiro's mind, a fair representation of the Arab Israeli conflict would show the Arabs to be the monsters they are, and would completely exonerate the Israelis.

Unfortunately for Shapiro the events portrayed in Miral are historically accurate; they did happen. By all accounts (and the movie hasn't made it's way to the US yet), the movie is disjointed and ungainly, but has some good performances (although reviewers are torn about the performance of the actress in the title role). But the history is essentially correct, even if presented from one specific point of view.

At any rate, the choice for the United Nations to screen this movie, and to allow the attendance of Hollywierdos like Robert DeNiro and Sean Penn proves the immorality of the United Nations.

His readers certainly agree.

Yes, our departure from the UN should be immediate for a thousand reasons. It is corrupt from top to bottom.

I'll say it again: GET THE U. S. OUT OF THE U. N. AND THE U. N. OUT OF THE U. S.

there should be a new united nations for CIVILIZED nations only! no muslim nations need apply. agree 100% this UN should be shut down.

So nice to see some unity; although crapping on the United Nations is always popular over there at Townhall.

Caricatures are Reality

John Hawkin's latest article is written from the point of view of a liberal. Not a real liberal mind you, but a pleasing caricature of a liberal. Which is why his version of a liberal basically thinks America Sucks.

The problem with you Teabaggers is that, unlike liberals, you have such an unrealistic view of America. Liberals have a balanced view of America, which is why they understand that America is the source of all evil in the world. Hello, slavery! Like any other nations ever did that? And we brought slaves to a country that shouldn't even be ours in the first place. It should belong to the Indians, Mexicans and buffalo. Then there were all the people we've killed in our wars of aggression against the Nazis, the Soviets, and Al-Qaeda, all of whom hated us for perfectly valid reasons. Maybe if you Teabaggers stopped waving your flags and chewing your chaw for 5 seconds, you'd realize the world might be better off if "Murica" were broke, poor, and humbled.

Part of me thinks there is no point to responding to this kind of tripe. But the problem is that Hawkins probably thinks this is a fair representation of what people like me think. They really think we don't like America. It's telling that he brings up slavery, our taking of the land from the indians, and our wars (although he botches all three's description particularly the war one. Yes America has aggressively interfered in other nations affairs, but the three enemies he mentions aren't the ones that we feel ashamed about opposing). Hawkins has correctly identified our nations great sins. But in traditional Conservatoid fashion the solution isn't to be an adult, admit our mistakes while also being proud of our successes. Instead, even bringing up slavery and our treatment of Native Americans makes one not love America. Either America is perfect or it is evil, apparently.

The Big A

Mike S. Adams has taken a break from complaining about how hard it is being a Conservative University Professer to write a confusing article on Abortion. Short answer is that he is against it. He thinks that people who are pro-choice are hypocritical or confused, and he proves this by asking leading questions that don't make any sense. The overall thrust seems to beas follows.

You pro-choice people seem to believe in a right and wrong.

11. My opposition to those who bomb abortion clinics is rooted in my religious views. Should I impose those views on others by supporting laws against bombing abortion clinics?

Ideas about right and wrong come from God, who definitely exists.

12. If the universe’s expansion had been too slow or too fast the result would have been elements either too light or too heavy to sustain life. Do you think there is a God who intended for life to be sustained on this planet?

Abortion kills a baby.

8. Is ultrasound technology helping people converge upon certain undeniable truths about the complexity and origins of life?

. . . 13. Do you consider the fetus to be a life? If not, would you concede that it is at least intended to be a life?

. . . 19. Do human beings have a right to commit murder in a safe way?

That last one is interesting in light of his comments on bombing abortion clinics. He doesn't reference Dr. Tiller here, but if you see Abortion as Murder doesn't it follow the executing those who perform abortions is the correct action (assuming you favor the death penalty I suppose). He lends further credence to this argument in another pair of questions.

16. Imagine that a woman is headed to the hospital to have an abortion. Her car is hit by a man who ran a stop light in his car. Her offspring is killed. In most states, he can be charged with homicide. Does that make sense to you?

17. In the previous example, I forgot to add that the man who hit the woman headed to the hospital just happened to be her doctor – the one scheduled to perform the abortion. In most states, he can still be charged with homicide. Does that still make sense?

Of course pro-choice people generally don't think it should be homicide. But leave that aside, isn't this a clear argument that Doctors who kill babies should be charged with homicide? And isn't homocide a capital crime? So what is wrong with executing abortion doctors (if you follow this chain of thought)?

There is also this gem.

18. In 1961, there were 210,000 abortions performed in America. Within seven years of Roe v. Wade, there were 1.2 million abortions in America. Have we succeeded in making abortions safe, legal and, rare?

OK - let's unpack this. In 1961 there were 210,000 abortions. In the seven years following Roe V Wade, which I take to be 1973 to 1979 (Roe was decided January 1973, so it could also be 1974 to 1980), there were 1.2 million abortions. That works out to be an average of 171,428 million abortions annually, which is fewer abortions than previous. However in those years, I don't think the goal was to make Abortion "safe legal and rare" as that particular terminology was coined by President Clinton in the 1990s. Or to put it another way, I don't know what the hell Adams is talking about here. He probably meant to put in an "annually" there.

Abortions, incidentally, peaked in the 80s and declined through the 90s.

Some interesting bits in the comments.

I told you that on Wednesday, my dad bought a Mossberg 500 12-gauge shotgun.

Well, on Friday, he took it shooting for the very first time, with his retired policeman neighbor.

The neighbor was actually fairly impressed with my dad's aplomb with the gun, considering he had never been a gun owner before in his life and the last time he probably even FIRED a gun would have to be at least over 40 years ago.

So if some libcreeps try breaking into my parents' home at night with the thought of "aborting" my parents, the libcreeps are likely to be "aborted" first!

You don't really abort adults, do you? But lets get on to what Townhall readers should be done about abortion.

If abortion is murder then it is to be dealt with as every other murder.

Christians can use this column to stiffen up their backbone and follow Jesus Christ of Nazareth in educating American that ACCORDING TO GOD, abortion is MURDER.

“Don’t like Abortion? Don’t Have One?" Don’t like murder? Don’t commit any. Don't allow any to be committed, either.

i beleive abortion is murder and anyone supporting it has blood on their hands ,,, and they know it and a only denie it when it when the light of truth shines on em

Yeah they really think abortion is murder; and at least a few of them have thought through the implications of believing that.

2012

Jonah Goldberg's latest article is a reaction to George Will's latest article, in which he talks about who the likely candidate for the GOP will be in 2012. Will suggests it will be one of the more centrist possibilities (Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, or Pawlenty), writing off Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and Mike Huckabee.

Ultimately the election will largely be a referendum on Obama and the economy. The desire to order off-menu will abate over time. And Republicans will surely stomach the nominee, if for no other reason than they're ravenous to make Obama a one-termer. And, as the Irish say, hunger is the best sauce.

I hope Goldberg's wrong, but I have to admit, Steve Kornacki over at Salon has an article largely arguing the same thing, giving the nomination to Romney.

Meanwhile, Romney, for all his flaws, starts with a significant base of support -- or at least potential support. The elites still see him as an acceptable, maybe even preferable, option for the nomination and plenty of Republican voters are still open to supporting him. If you assume that Huckabee and Palin won't run (or that Palin, if she does, will be marginalized), then Romney still begins this campaign as the closest thing there is to a default choice for Republicans.

I don't want to see Romney as the candidate for a number of reasons. He's patently phoney, he changes his opinions with the political winds, and he's Mormon (which I am as well).

I think though, a lot can happen between now and then. The base may or may not be as hungry as they should be to settle for a Romney (as exemplified by the comments to Goldberg's column).

I will NOT vote for Romney or Huckabee. Romney is deeply flawed and I don't even consider him to be a republican.

If any of the old RINO "retreads" run, THEY WILL LOSE. Yes, this includes, romney, huckabee, gingrich and any of the "old guard".

I will not vote for Romney whom I consider to be a closet socialist . . .

I certainly don't want Romney, whoever he is THIS week.

In fairness there are plenty of posts that assert they will vote for whoever runs against Obama.

I have a Legal Right to be an Asshole and I'm Determined to Exercise It

Apparently Doug Giles feels this way in his latest article in which he gleefully smokes a cigar despite annoying a nearby lesbian.

Yes, I don’t believe in being bullied to put out my legal smoke just because she finds it offensive. I’ll put out my smoke when she gets a new doo and quits lip locking Melissa Etheridge in public. Maybe.

It's not clear that he is defending his right to be an asshole or his right to be an asshole to lesbians. If a nice clean-cut heterosexual mom had come up to him, what would he have done? But apparently his point is that oral sex is more dangerous than cigars. Therefore even though he seems like a total asshole, he really has a point.

It's hard to see past his mountain of assholery to see his point, though.

Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator, auditions to be Mini-Beck

Shapiro's latest article essentially regurgitates Beck's theories that the Union Protests in Wisconsin and the protests in Egypt and Libya are part of the same movement designed to destroy everything that is good.

Why now, after 9/11 and after the fall of the Soviet Union, is the socialist-Islamist axis of ideological evil rising once again? Because the president of the United States stands at the center of that axis, bridging the gap.

President Obama is a committed socialist with a history of warmth toward Islamism. His father was a communist and a Muslim; his grandfather and mother were communists; his stepfather was a Muslim.

American Unions and Muslims are also apparently united in their hatred of jews. This is proved by a lot of international unions taking the palestinian side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Apparently American unions do this too, although poor Ben is unable to find any actual examples of the part of American Unions. It's kind of pathetic really.

And sad that Ben doesn't get a lot of comments on his article; only ten. A really popular article can get hundreds. Still they is a gem or two.

An enemy is an enemy and will spill your blood the same no matter what you label them as.

Unless, presumably, you spill their blood first.

Just to Make it Clear

This is from Jonah Goldberg's latest article.

Wisconsin labor officials fairly note that they've acceded to many of their governor's specific demands -- that workers contribute to their pensions and health-care costs, for example. But they don't want to lose the right to collective bargaining.

But that is exactly what they need to lose.

So there it is; despite what others pretend, this has nothing to do with balancing Wisconsin's budget. The unions have acceeded to the budgetary demands of Governor Walker. It is about smashing unions; taking away their tools and reason for existance.

And his readers seem to be on the same page.

All those teachers need to be fired and not wait. There is no way that you can justify that they were sick and it is one camera anyway. Get new teachers, they are willing to work and not allow them to ambush the people who pay their jobs.

I will be happy when every cockroach infested public sector union is exterminated.

They will not give up their power willingly or through legitimate political means and unless the Right begins to recognize what's behind these things and girds up its loins for a long and bloody battle, it really is over

And I mean "bloody" in the literal meaning of the word.

Grim. A long and bloody battle between liberals and conservatives.

Filthy Liars

John Hawkin's loves his lists. This week's article is a list of 5 political catchphrases you shouldn't believe. Most of them are kind of silly (and the sorts of things politicians don't actually say. For example, "It's for the children." Well, when you are talking about cutting school lunch programs or funding for after school activities, well, yes, liberals do think it's good to think of the children at those times. But then he brings up Social Security.

It’ll be paid for with the Social Security trust fund: When people think of a "trust fund," they think of a big pile of cash sitting around somewhere, waiting to eventually be used by the beneficiaries. We don't have that with Social Security because we've already spent ALL of the money. So, what exactly is in the "trust fund?" It’s a bunch of special bonds that the government can refuse to honor at any time. Put another way, it's an IOU that future generations of Americans will have to pay off.

This is a filthy lie, one so transparent that most Republicans have abandoned it. But not John Hawkins apparently. The trust fund is invested in United States Treasury securities; some of the most stable investments on the planet. The are not worthless IOUs, and should they become that, well, our entire civilization will have collapsed. To pretend like there is no Trust Fund is simply deceitful. It's possible that Hawkins doesn't know any better.

He also takes issue with the believe that Liberals want Abortions to be safe, legal, and rare. Apparently we are lying when we say that; we really love abortion (the way Michael Jackson loved little boys (and isn't that a nasty thing to bring up considering Jackson is dead)).

You never had it so good

Carol Platt Liebau's latest article diagnosis an issue in America.

According to the Department of Labor, when it comes to hourly wages, the average in the private sector is $19.68 per hour; for workers in state and local government, it’s $26.25. While 74% of private-industry workers receive paid sick leave and 8 paid holidays per year, 98% of state and local government workers have paid sick leave, along with 11 paid holidays yearly. And 99% of government workers have retirement benefits (with the same percentage enjoying medical benefits), compared to 74% and 86% respectively of private sector employees. Finally, in the private sector, an average of 20% of medical premiums are paid by employees, while state and local government workers pay only 11% on average. By almost any measure, it pays to work for the government – subsidized by taxpayer money and unconstrained by the economic discipline imposed on the private sector by the need to compete -- rather than as a taxpaying employee in a private enterprise.

It wouldn't suit her point to talk about the history, but the truth is back in the day both private and public sector jobs had many of these advantages. But as unions dwindled, businesses moved to the south and to other nations, the standard of living in the private sector has steadily decreased relative to the public sector. The solution for Republicans isn't that American workers have it to hard and should be improved; how could they think that? Rather, in their quest to support big business, they find the one class of workers that have closer to decent wages and benefits and attempt to strip those away.

Townhall readers are varied on this issue. Some are pro-business and therefore want to see the union smashed. Others were very down on the governor, comparing him to Mubarak. And some are just envious and want to tear public sector employees down.

But why is the hussein, who wanted to be elected as president for all the people, chopoing to stand with a ghreedy minority of parasites, more concerned about their over generous slariies and benifits that many working in the private sector will never enjoy through their jobs.

Seems rather selfish that well paid public sector union parasites, have no qualms about those with lower paying jobs be asked to pay higher taxes just to enrich these union slugs

it's long past time tyo end the public unions and have them pay the same proportions of their incomers for retirement and health benefits like the rest of us.

The use of the name hussein to refer to President Obama is of course intended to remind us he's not really an American.

More on Multiculturism

Boy the right really does hate Muslims. Well some do anyway. Rick Santorum, recently departed from Congress, has a new article on the scourge of Multiculturalism, and how it ruined the war on terror.

When the previous administration pitched our war as a “war against terrorism,” I implored President Bush to define our enemy by name, not by tactic. When we don’t tell the truth about who the enemy is in the hope of pacifying those who might be offended, it becomes ever more difficult for the American people to rally, support, and sacrifice to win.

In other words when Bush said we weren't at war with Islam, Santorum was dissappointed. Possibly Santorum would prefer that Bush say we are at war with radical Islam, but, tellingly, he doesn't clarify. And in fairness, most of his readers probably know what he means.

Radical Islam is the problem and until we make the price too high for them to pay it will not stop. Islam teaches at all levels that everyone on earth must be either converted to Islam or killed. Until we get it and vow to put an end to it, the trouble will continue.

One cannot serve two masters, the muslims do what their book tells them to do and that book is diametrically opposite to the constitution.

The list of atrocities perpetrated in the name of that 'religion" is appallingly long and you know it, it has NO place in this country whatsoever IMO, should be declared a cult and given no weight whatsoever.

Yeah, I think they picked up on it. A little later in the article, Santorum says this.

In the last year Western European leaders have had to face up to the devastation caused by socialism and multiculturalism. Yet our president continues to champion these policies.

I've said this before; the most frusterating thing about guys like Obama and Clinton before is defending him against the ridiculous charge that he's a socialist while watching him sell out the base at every occasion. Obama is working for Wall Street, plain and simple. He is more liberal than McCain or Bush; but he's no socialist.

You Make the Best of What's Still Around

Emmett Tyrell's latest article is about how multiculturalism has failed. He argues that we are to tolerant in the west (particularly Europe) of people who don't like us, and that we teach history wrong.

I think it started with the way they teach their history. Militarism, colonialism and racism are all prominent ingredients of European history books, particularly British history. For that matter, American history stresses these ingredients also. I have been reading American college history texts, and they present an alarmingly ugly view of the Western past.

By presenting the West as repugnant and the other civilizations as our prey, particularly during colonial days but also in modern times, we encourage such social pathologies as jihadism.

I'm curious as to how you teach colonalism without talking about how Western nations preyed on native cultures. My guess is you simply skip over it. Tyrell would probably prefer the "let us now praise great men" version of history where we talk about the founders for half the term, and then blow through the rest of history, with stops at Abraham Lincoln (maybe), denouncing FDR, and wrapping up with the glory of Reagan.

Still this particular nonsense isn't a patch on what you find in the comments section.

Keep in mind that Jeb Bush is married to a woman of Hispanic heritage, another reason why we should never elect another Bush to the presidency. Compassion for the inheritors of failed cultures is not a rational ruling principle for a nation that used to assimilate immigrants in a generation or two but thanks to liberals' smarrny multi-cultural idiocies is not working any more.

european leaders have suddenly discovered that inviting huge numbers of hostile muslims to conquer their countries was not a good idea. brilliant. the obvious can be sooooooooo difficult to see. now they must decide what to do about it. there is only one reasonable answer, and that is the one answer the "leaders" will never ever suggest. lets see. we invited muslims who are breeding like rats, become increasingly murderous with each generation, and are demographically certain to overrun the continent in a few years. what to do............what to do..........lets see. in a decade there will be so many that we will not be able to get rid of them. lets wait 10 years. yes, thats it. lets continue to import muslims until it is too late to do anything but surrender. then we surrender!!!!!!!!!!!!! the cathedral of notre dame will make such a nice mosque. the sistine chapel will be a nice place for the sultan to molest little christian boys. nice plan, "leaders"

The answer is kill them all before they kill us.

Sending them back or putting them in ghettos are terrible ideas. No, extermination would be much more feasible, practical and makes much more sense. After all, sending members of a murderous cult to another part of the world does not negate them as threats. Six feet of dirt, however, does.

Pretty nasty stuff, from some Conservatives. Of course there are other conservatives who would disagree with these posters.

Into the Depths

In July of last year, Andrew Brietbart posted a heavily edited video claiming that Shirley Sherrod was a racist who didn't want to help white people. Sherrod was subsequently denounced by the NAACP and let go by the Obama Administration. Then the full video was released, which revealed that actually she was willing to help white people. The story was essentially that she was hesitant to, but then did, and learned a valuable lesson about helping all people.

Brietbart, naturally enough, largely admits to no wrongdoing. Instead he constructed an alternative timeline in which the fact that Sherrod got some money in the Pigford settlement lead to her being fired. For those who don't know, Pigford was a class action suit against the USDA, which alleged that Civil Rights discrimination complaints went ignored. This was because they went ignored; Reagan had shut down the branch of the USDA that would have responded to them. Sherrod got part of this settlement. For a longer look at this subject, see here.

Days after being embarrassed by the appearance of the full video, Brietbart hit upon this as a new way to justify his attacks. And he's been hammering her all year, culminating in his appearance at CPAC over the weekend. Apparently Sherrod has had enough, because she has opened a lawsuit against him for disparaging her character.

Fortunately Brietbart has allies like Ben Shapiro, who uses his latest article to defend Brietbart. Let's check it out.

Sherrod, you may remember, was a ranking Department of Agriculture official in Georgia. Breitbart released a video of Sherrod speaking to the NAACP, where she told a story about discriminating against a white farmer before realizing that such discrimination was wrong.

OK this is at best a half truth. The video actually shows Sherrod considering discrimination but deciding that she was there to serve everybody. Thoughts of discrimination aren't actually the same as discrimination.

The purpose of releasing the video, as Breitbart clearly stated, was to demonstrate that the same NAACP that labeled the tea party racist tolerated racism within its own ranks. The video accomplished that purpose -- members of the NAACP cheer and laugh as Sherrod describes her past racism in the video.

This is not entirely true either. They cheer her speech, but not specifically that she didn't help a white person. Shapiro is either lying or deceived. Or possibly stupid.

No matter what you think of the original Sherrod incident, Breitbart's commentary falls squarely within the protections of the First Amendment.

No it doesn't; lying to defame someone isn't allowed even against famous people. Now it's hard to prove, but if you are frankly lying, there's probably a case. And Brietbart's edited video is deceptive at best.

Shapiro paints this as a poor Internet journalist who is unfairly sued by Sherrod and the sinister forces backing her for telling the truth (despite the fact that, well, he didn't exactly tell the truth. Some of his readers are even more forthright, with a spirited defense of taking things out of context.

Yeah, man...it's OK for the left to take things out of context, but not for the right...yeah...keep flappin' yer yap...you folks are far more guilty of perpetrating that BS...daily...

Sherrod is a walking example of reparations. A worthless hack feeding off the public. She and thousands of other public employees who think they warrant special consideration and are belligerent towards those generous taxpayers who fund their payroll and benefits.
Obviously Sherrod the toad is the quintessential example of Black O's diet efforts.
I am past the point of caring about these worthless pond scum government employees.

Sherrod is a pawn? She sounds more like a black queen. She is clearly one of the biggest race-hustlers afoot. Her personal wealth is built on it. She sounds like she could rival Jackson, Wright & Sharpton in ill-gotten gains.

Why she is now or ever has been on the federal payroll is testament to the racist panderings of the federal government. Time to end it. Good luck, Andrew!

It's hard to know what to say about Race in this matter; it's at the heart of it. Pigford was a lawsuit about racial injustice and Brietbart, essentially, edited the video to accuse Sherrod of racism. This is basically where Limbaugh Conservatives come down on the issue; there is no relevant white on black racism, and black on white racism is endemic. Blacks accuse whites or racism because they are racist and/or hucksters trying to get a buck. That's the template. That's the way Limbaugh Republicans look at the world.

Seasteading

John Stossel's latest article is about Seasteading, which is the theory that wealthy libertarians can create their own countries at sea.

Friedman is convinced that only competition can produce the way to extricate us from the mess the politicians have created. "Seasteaders believe that government shouldn't be like the cell phone carrier industry, with few choices and high customer lock-in. Instead, we envision a vibrant startup sector for government, with many small groups experimenting with innovative ideas as they compete to serve their citizens. ... The world needs a place where those who wish to experiment with building new societies can go to test out their ideas. All land is already claimed -- which makes the oceans humanity's next frontier."

Kind of silly. First of all such seasteading societies will self select for sympathetic souls (say that 5 times fast). In other words; no bums. Even the working class who can afford to go to a seasteading community will be motivated to see it work. Secondly, these communities will be small as well as homogeneous. It's unlikely that the sorts of solutions that will work in these small communities will also work on a nation the size of the United States.

There's not a lot in the comments for something this intellectual; many do seem to believe that some form of this idea is a good one.

Why not invade a small county the same way Mexico is invading us.... just move there. Costa Rica is an inviting place. Move there and become the voting majority. Let the looters have this place. They will destroy it soon enough and maybe there will be an opportunity to return.

I wonder if I count as a looter? Probably not; mostly likely he means Hispanic immigrants.

Pat Buchannan Praises Bigotry

Or it sure reads that way, in his latest article.

"It is a matter of culture," said Sarrazin, and "Islam is the culture." This is why Muslim immigrants are "socially, culturally and intellectually inferior to most everyone else." Yet Sarrazin did use the phrase a "genetic minus" to describe migrants from the Middle East.

Were these the ravings of a neo-fascist intellectual and closet admirer of the late Fuhrer? Not at all. Sarrazin was a proud member of the Social Democratic Party of Willy Brandt and a board member of the Bundesbank.

With Merkel and the German establishment howling for his head, Thilo resigned, unrepentant. Two-thirds of Germans said he had a right to speak his mind, a third said they agreed with him, and "Germany Abolishes Itself" has sold over a million copies.

A genetic minus. Socially, culturally and intellectually inferior. Yeah that doesn't sound good. But better than having darkies running things, apparently.

This is what James Burnham meant when he wrote that liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.

Yeah, Buchannan is a bit of a bigot.

Let's see what his readers say.

It's called ethnic cleansing. If Germany feels German culture is being killed; they need to identify those killing it (who will mostly be those minorities mentioned in the article) and deport them. If they fight deportation then Germany should resurrect that bad-axed Army it used to have and deport their souls.

France and Britain should do the same thing. But again, the west as villified ethnic cleansing and therefore will not use it. And because of that, in a few decades nobody will even know what a real German or Frenchman is.

HOMOCIDE LIBERALS, POLITICAL TRAITORS, AND WALL STREET CROOKS VERSUS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

Liberals are naturally angst-ridden and suicidal.

. . . Look at all the laws we have against the destruction of the United States, and NONE OF THEM ARE ENFORCED! How can we survive when these TRAITORS are allowed to get away with this? ARE THESE RATS TOO BIG TO JAIL?!

Christ was an exclusionist.. not inclusionist. He avoided members of certain groups prevalent in the middle east during His time. Now.. what did He know that if questioned on this fact elicited a response from Him.. 'there are things for man to know and things for God to know". Such an answer might.. just might.. cause a reasonable person to conclude that since Lucifer was and presumably remains nearly as powerful as God.. then this beast could create duplicate beings, soulless while also human in appearance only, that God then took the wise time to separate from His true creation. Who or what comprises this diverse group of ungodly and religio-deviant 'believer-duplicates'?

What a sewer. And in case you missed that last guys point; Muslims aren't actually human. They were created by the devil without souls to be pure evil.