Leftists Say We're Crazy Lunatics For Thinking The Country Is Headed In A Socialist, Freedom Reducing Direction (UPDATED)

But then they write health care "reform" legislation that will throw people in jail for not purchasing insurance. Something that wasn't "illegal" behavior has suddenly become something punishable with prison time.

Stone: Do you think it’s fair to send people to jail who don’t buy health insurance?

Pelosi: … The legislation is very fair in this respect.

Look, folks, there are different paths to collectivist, socialist, repressive, Orwellian states, just because the United States isn't on the exact same one as, say, the former Soviet Union, doesn't mean that what the current group of leftists (including our President) is doing isn't of a piece with what was done elsewhere to limit the freedom of individual Americans.

This is how it's done in Nanny States. 20 years ago, the social democracies of Western Europe (including the UK) didn't look like they do now. Now, per the Telegraph, new environmental regulation could result in carbon rationing cards for subjects of the crown (remember, they're not citizens).

An Environment Agency spokesman said only those with "extravagant lifestyles" would be affected by the carbon allowances.

He said: "A lot of people who cycle will get money back. It will probably only be bankers and those with extravagant lifestyles who would lose out."

However, some have criticised the move as "Orwellian" and say it will have a detrimental impact on business.

Ruth Lea, an economist from Arbuthnot Banking Group, told the Daily Mail: "This is all about control of the individual and you begin to wonder whether this is what the green agenda has always been about. It's Orwellian. This will be an enormous tax on business."

Under the Climate Change Act, Britain is obliged to cut its emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050. This means annual CO2 emissions per person will have to fall from about 9 tonnes to only 2 tonnes.

Do you have an "extravagant lifestyle" as defined by the Holy Church of the Environment & Mother Gaia?

Prepare to have your unrighteous behavior curbed.

My friends here in the UK don't even know to be upset about most of these things. Like a frog in a pot of water, with the temperature slowly increasing, they're lives are managed and regulated to the Nth degree and they don't even know it.

President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid 2009 alone have shown their government control-loving, liberty-reducing in just the last 10 months. Card check to take away the secret ballot and sneak unionize wherever they can. Cap & trade to regulate 1/6th of the economy. Health "reform" to control another 1/5th or so. Takeover of domestic automakers. Takeover and regulation of the financial sector. Am I missing anything? I feel like I'm missing something.

The shocking thing about this is that I had no idea how wide reaching their grasp for power was until I started typing it all into this blog post.

My liberal-leftist friends are always convinced of the power of ever-greater reform and policy tweaking and technology and other knowledge advancement to bring efficiency to the inherently inefficient government bureaucracy.

But here's the thing, you cannot efficient-ize the government enough to make up for the concurrent loss of liberty.

UPDATE 14 November 6:17p BST: Ryan Decker's comment from the Facebook thread:

You could have ended the sentence thus: "you cannot efficient-ize the government." Even if the liberty/efficiency tradeoff did exist the point would be moot because government is not capable of increasing efficiency. Policymakers simply face the wrong incentives, lack the competence, and cannot process the information required to increase the efficiency of anything.

So there's no trade-off in which government policy could somehow increase efficiency at the cost of liberty. If they're taking your liberty, they're doing it inefficiently.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

"Dear Mr. Obama" MUST WATCH

I first posted this back on 12 September. The BBC reports that since it first debuted the end of August, "Dear Mr. Obama" has become the YouTube video of the campaign.

With good reason. It is powerful. Watch it again and send it to your friends.




If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Barack Obama's Militant Community Organizers

(apologies if you already read this at Drudge)

Even the oldsters are getting into the act. Can any of you see your grandparents doing something like this?

Poll workers from opposing sides in the presidential race apparently clashed in a physical altercation Friday at a Cuyahoga Falls nursing home when one accused the other of improperly marking a ballot.

George Manos, the 75-year-old Republican, told police that Edith Walker, the 73-year-old Democrat, jumped on his back and struck him in the head three to four times with her fists. Manos said two other elections workers had to pull Walker off his back, according to a report filed with Cuyahoga Falls police.

Manos said it happened after he accused Walker of ballot tampering, and he wants to prosecute.

[...]

The alleged assault piqued the interest of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign — as the voter in question reportedly wanted to vote for McCain but her ballot was initially marked for Sen. Barack Obama.

[...]

The voter was able to cast a new, correct ballot with her desired choices, according to elections board officials.

[...]

Walker said in her statement that Manos tried to grab the ballot in question out of her hand. She said he accused her of marking the ballot wrong and she ''apologized to him if I did do it, but he was very mean to me.''

Manos' written statement is similar to what he told police. He also said Walker initially refused to show him the ballot, then marked it a second time.

Richard Bader, a Republican poll worker at the nursing home, wrote that he forced his way between Walker and Manos and ''she tried to strong-arm me out of the way, but I held my ground.'' Bader said the incident drew a crowd of six to 10 people.

Robert Dengle, a Democratic poll worker who witnessed the incident, wrote that Manos grabbed the ballot out of Walker's hand and she went after him to get it back. When they ultimately reviewed the ballot, he said, it was marked both for Obama and McCain.

It's pretty clear what happened here. Walker was marking a ballot for another lady, purposely mis-marked it for Barack Obama, Manos noticed it, presumably told her to correct it, she wouldn't, but finally marked it a second time--this time for John McCain, as she knew she should have in the first place--at which point Manos took the ballot from her and she attacked him, and then attacked the other worker who tried to intervene.

No big deal, right? Unless you see this as early, anecdotal evidence, of how Obama's "in their face, arguing" tactics will play out across the country as election day nears. That's how I see it. Democrats don't care about the threat of voter fraud.

They'd let everybody vote: fake people, dead people, illegal immigrants, etc.

It's why they have felons voting in Seattle and 200,000 shady voter registrations in Ohio alone. Of course, the latter is the work of ACORN. No surprise there. And no one pauses to consider why it is the Obama camp thinks felons will vote for their guy.

The same thing is happening across the country.

By hook or crook. That's how they have always done it in Chicago. And Obama learned it well as a community organizer working for ACORN. Now the strategy has been exported to his "campaign workers" (read: militant, discontented hipsters) across the country.

Remember how Democrats screamed about the "stolen" election in Florida in 2000? Watch as they try to "community organize" their way to a win over the next 19 or so days.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Yup, He's A Democrat

At least part of the reason the public viewed (until recently) the Democrat Party more favorably than the Republicans is because of the way the MSM treats Democratic cautionary tales.

Take, for example, Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

Tom Blumer of NewsBusters.com, reported earlier today:

Previous NewsBusters posts by Brent Baker and Rusty Weiss have noted the "strange" and nearly complete memory loss exhibited by the TV networks (with the expected exception of fair and balanced Fox News) and the Associated Press concerning the political party affiliation of just-jailed Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

The New York Times's record during the past seven months has been almost equally disgraceful.

Click the link for the full list of the NYT's complete omission of party identifiers.

This, folks, is the MSM theme: Schadenfreude (R), when it's a Republican.

[ ]
Silence, when it's a Democrat.

"Breaking news" that John Edwards (former Democrat candidate for President) is another example. This is the breaking story that wasn't.

Anyone who even casually surfs the blogosphere, Drudge, or Fox News has known about this for some time. But because of an LA Times gag order and the fact that he wasn't a former Republican candidate for President has kept the MSM on the sideline.

Cue the liberal apologists and moral relativists. (oxymoron, we know)

Would this story have even leaked if it weren't for Drudge, the conservative blogosphere, and Fox News?


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Biblical Obama

If you haven't read this piece by Gerard Baker, you should. It's a funny Biblical adaptation of Barack Obama's (Guitar Hero*) short political career. Predictably, the Obamaniacs (read: the media) are less pleased with it than anyone else. Can't these people have a sense of humor about themselves and their candidate?

(Thank you Matt Drudge for bringing it to our attention.)

It's humor, people. Someone should remind the humorless Obama surrogates in the comments section. Their response to this bit of satire is a replay of the whole New Yorker kerfuffle from a couple of weeks ago.

Here's a little sampling:

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

*Over the top performance, no real skill.

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

McCain's New York Times Op-Ed

We woke up this morning intending to write a kind of an update about Iraq and how much things had improved over the last 18 months, 12 months, and 6 months. We were going to talk about how courageous Senator McCain had been to defend The Surge just over a year ago when it was so unpopular and looked like it would probably cost him the Republican nomination.

All of those things remain true--and Senator McCain should be rewarded for taking an unpopular stance that has proved right and good.
(something like this: Victory in Iraq)

But it's all been kind of preempted by the New York Times' refusal to print Senator McCain's op-ed just a week after printing Senator Obama's. This doesn't surprise us. It fits right into the ongoing narrative of Obama's fawning press coverage. At this point, can anyone deny it?

Obama commits gaffes every day ('I'll be President for 8-10 years') but it is not reported the way it would be if Senator McCain made the same remark. And if the shoe were on the other foot about Iraq--if Senator McCain were the one who wanted to abandon Iraqis to civil war and sure genocide, you better believe every liberal talking head would write numerous 'I told you so' op-ed pieces about how The Surge proved him wrong.

And the New York Times won't even print an op-ed piece in which Senator McCain challenges Senator Obama on Iraq. He challenged Obama the way the MSM should have been doing all along--by pointing out that Obama has been and remains wrong about Iraq. That his policy does not match reality. That he said ridiculous, unsupportable things in the primary ('I will withdraw within 16 months regardless of what's happening on the ground or what my commanders tell me') to get elected by the Leftists in his party.

Is it too much to ask that his press entourage actually ask Senator Obama a tough question? Is that allowed?

Oh well, the least the rest of us can do is link to the text of Senator McCain's op-ed piece at Drudge. Check it out here.

This is just another example of Barack Obama, Guitar Hero candidate:

He's plays well to a crowd, but give him a real guitar and he's a disaster.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Dem Debate

We've scanned the web to get a general sense (salute) of last night's Democratic debate and have been surprised to find that we disagree with most people--at least, according to the Drudge Report poll.

We thought Hillary was sharp, composed, articulate, funny at times, and generally, good. Obama was less impressive than usual. And we don't mean, less impressive according to the standard he set for himself. He seemed less articulate and more convoluted in his logic than we have seen him in the past. We were especially bothered by his default tack: lecturing.

George Stephanopoulos was good. Charlie Gibson was also good. We were shocked, shocked that these two guys actually put hard questions to the two candidates. This was a sharp departure from the love-fest nature of past Dem debates.

On Monday was we drove somewhere, we listened to the Sean Hannity show on the radio. We don't listen to Hannity very often, but when he has an interesting guest, we like to tune in. And on Monday, he talked to Karl Rove and George Stephanopoulos. Sean wanted to know why the press hadn't asked Obama about William Ayers. We won't get into the nitty gritty of the relationship, suffice it to say that Obama's relationship with this admitted terrorist is troubling.

Stephanopoulos has taken a lot of flak today for posing that, and other questions, to Obama. What do these people think? That McCain or anyone else is going to let Obama slide on these things in the general election? The only reason Obama has been as successful as he has been so far is because the press has treated him differently to how they have treated Hillary Clinton.

And this may be the wonderful irony of this election. Because of the press' love for Obama, they may in fact be doing him a disservice by not giving his record the vetting and scrutiny it might normally get during this stage of the campaign. As a result, things are going to come out in the general election--Chicago machine--that will seem like they are being sprung on or swift-boated on the Obama campaign. The truth? The press won't have done it's job so it will take that long to be found out by bloggers or some other source.

This is the double edge of the fawning press sword. Sure, he gets good, free, propaganda from the MSM, but because they don't ask the tough questions he doesn't have to sort through any of the tough things in his past. And we suspect this stuff will come back to bite him.

We first read Stephanopoulos' book, All Too Human, back in 2002. It was fascinating for a number of reasons: it was a window into Clinton's presidency and showed the man to be a flawed genius; it talked extensively about the policy development and rivalries among the Clinton staff; it illuminated interesting points in American history. Now, Stephanopoulos' book suffers from all the same problems common to memoirs: it is hugely tainted by the bias of the author.

It has but one source.

Still, Stephanopoulos seemed pretty fair in the book. He didn't point a finger at everyone else and exculpate himself. He certainly showed himself to be a smart, fair, and idealistic young Democrat. We obviously don't agree with his politics, but his book presented him as fairly reasonable.

And after last night's debate, he gained a whole lot more credibility in our eyes. He asked tough questions of both Hillary and Barack--questions no one else seems to be asking. Partisan supporters of both camps certainly didn't like Stephanopoulos' questions, but we sure did.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Drudge, Patriotism, & Prince Harry

We suppose our biggest mistake was calling for consistency from a friend with thin skin. In the subpoint of our last post, we linked to a good post by Friend of Lybberty, Ben Treasure, about Drudge's outing of Prince Harry.

We didn't (and don't) really know about the circumstances surrounding the kerfuffle, so we deferred, and based on what we knew, agreed with Ben's take. It may surprise some of you to know that we don't have the time or knowledge to weigh in on every injustice in the world. Would that we could, can't so we won't. This is why we generally link to blog posts like Ben's with which we are sympathetic. Our only caveat in Ben's case was to ask for consistency: when the New York Times reveals intel about US troops and anti-terror actions (something they do frequently), we hope Ben will similarly condemn their actions as cowardly.

That said, we disagree with some of the sentiment reflected in the comments here, on Ben's blog, and in his blog's facebook mirror (subscription required).

Sidebar: we find it ironic that it is a liberal calling into question people's patriotism when liberals have always been the ones who complained about conservatives questioning their patriotism based on their war views. We guess they really do like having the shoe on the other foot. And further, we point out (and longtime readers will know this is true) we have never questioned someone's patriotism based on their Iraq War views. Examine our archives closely if you don't believe us: no scorched earth blogging here.

Back to our original point of contention. We agree with those who say that the disconnect between the all-volunteer military and the American public and government is a problem. The public and government don't know what it is like to be shot at while in the service of this country. Neither do we. We're grateful for and to those who serve. Many of them are our friends. We read daily about their struggles and successes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. They are on our minds constantly.

We disagree with those who say that only those who can and do serve in the military can be said to support the war. This is incredibly flawed logic. It's the old "chickenhawk" trope. Taking this line of argument to its logical conclusion, neither the young, old, physically unable, female, etc., can support the war.

Some even extend this flawed logic to say that only those who pay more in taxes than they reap in government benefits can be in favor of winning the War on Terror or can be said to support it. Again, this excludes the young, old, disabled, poor (not even just poor, but anyone below middle class). Because they aren't net payers of tax, their opinion doesn't count, their view isn't valid.

Right.

The reason this line of argument has become so popular is because the people "peddling" it are unable to argue against the war (as it stands now) on its merits. They know, we know, everyone knows we have to stay and finish the job or condemn Iraqis to a fate worse than '80's-'90's Afghanistan. In fact, premature withdrawal would be more like a combination of Southeast Asia post Vietnam (over a million dead, tens of thousands imprisoned and "re-educated"), the aforementioned terrorist haven in Afghanistan (you know, where Obama wants to send the troops), plus a complete destabilization of the Middle East, nuclear Iran, and skyrocketing oil prices (more than they are now).

We can take the ad hominem calls of cowardice and un-patriotism because, for one, we're not thin skinned and, because we know better. More importantly, we understand the anti-war left's penchant for demonization and bombast is a product of their frustration with the corner into which they have painted themselves.

With Harry Reid, they looked forward to the electoral advantage to be gained from an American loss in Iraq and (unwittingly or otherwise) allied themselves ideologically with America's enemies.

This is why their ideological mover and shaker (moveon.org) called General Petraeus, General "Betray Us" (where was your condemnation then, Ben?). This is why one of their like, totally awesome candidates, Hillary Clinton, essentially called him a liar when he testified before the Senate, saying his report required a "willing suspension of disbelief."

And furthermore, this is why the largely liberal press has ignored the positive gains of the surge for the last six+ months. (incidentally, National Review and the Weekly Standard have never called our military leaders, liars; and they're still reporting the news from Iraq)

Bloggers, columnists, pundits, reporters and more--whether they fight the war or not--have an important role to play in helping to inform and form American public opinion with regards to Iraq, Afghanistan, terror, torture, etc., etc. Could they do a better job? Of course. This is why it's important for good bloggers like Ben to condemn irresponsible journalism--especially that which does damage to us or our troops.

Those who have "been there, done that" clearly have a greater degree of authority when they hold forth on a given topic. Just as the educated and informed generally add more to a discussion and debate in their area of expertise.

But that does not mean that everyone else should just shut up.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

How Does It Feel To Have A "Kool" Candidate?

Cartoon link

*UPDATE 1:57pm MST: Schadenfreude Watch: Remember our post last week about the coming Clinton-Obama storm? Drudge has a taste of things to come: War Over Words: Clinton Team Accuses Obama of 'Plagiarism''

**UPDATE 2:45pm MST: Like us, Mark Steyn doesn't like Che Guevara. Jeff Jacoby doesn't either. You Say You Want A Revolution by Mark Steyn (worth reading in its entirety):

Do Obama’s volunteers even know who Che is? Apart from being a really cool guy on posters and T-shirts, like James Dean or Bart Simpson, I doubt it. They’re pseudo-revolutionaries. Very few people in America want a real revolution: Life is great, this is a terrific country, with unparalleled economic opportunities. To be sure, it’s a tougher break if you have the misfortune to be the victim of one of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs or a decrepit inner-city grade school with a higher per-student budget than the wealthiest parts of Switzerland. But even so, to be born a U.S. citizen is, as Cecil Rhodes once said of England, to win first prize in the lottery of life. Not even Obama supporters want real revolution: They’re messy, your cities get torched, the economy collapses, much of your talent flees. Ask the many peoples around the world for whom revolution means not a lame-o Sixties poster above your desk but the carnage and horror of the day before yesterday.

Ah, but revolutionaries are so romantic.

***UPDATE 4:14pm MST: Michael Barone on the electoral implications of upcoming Democratic primaries and caucuses. Interesting stuff, this:

The Democrats, in contrast, have been split on demographic lines, between blacks and Latinos, old and young, upscale and downscale. The delegate selection rules, based on their notion of fairness, are heading the party not to a clear outcome but to a conflict in which the losing side is likely to feel profoundly aggrieved.

Where/how will it end? Regarding Michigan and Florida, should the rules change now the vote is done? Voters in those states knew the election rules--they'd been well-publicized. Wouldn't it have changed the outcome if they knew their votes would count (remember, Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan)? It isn't as cut and dry (Spikers) as simple disenfranchisement of the Michigan and Florida voters (count 'em!); there's a lot more to it. Do you want the courts to resolve this?

****UPDATE 5:14pm MST: This blog--obamamessiah.blogspot.com--does a better job of tracking the religious nature of Obama's campaign than we do.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Rep. Tom Lantos, RIP

This morning we were saddened to learn from Drudge that Human Rights champion Tom Lantos had passed away.

We didn't know Congressman Lantos well, and we didn't agree with many of his political positions, but we certainly admired his leadership on human rights issues. He was one of the few in his party, indeed, all of Congress, to decry human rights abuses in North Korea, the Middle East, Cuba, China--around the world.

Our interest in history and Holocaust history in particular made us admire his personal story as a Holocaust survivor. He was one of the many saved by Raoul Wallenberg.

He was a staunch defender of Israel--a position we share. He was also one of the few who was consistently critical of Saddam Hussein and did not, once he was out of power and executed, forget Saddam's atrocities.

A friend of ours interned with Congressman Lantos and knew him to be honorable and principled. When we were involved with the Sutdent Campaign for Child Survival, we attended a conference at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Congressman Lantos was the featured speaker to a relatively small, intimate group of student activists. We asked him questions during the Q&A and briefly spoke with him afterward. We found him to be kind and gracious and patient in answering our questions. We found the following excerpt from a report on the first SCCS conference:

Our very first speaker, Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), updated us on child survival and the Millennium Challenge Account. He then gave us tips on how we could be more effective and pledged his own supporting leadership for Child Survival.

He followed through on his pledge. We're sorry to see him go and send our deepest condolences to his family and all who knew him. Representative Tom Lantos, RIP.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Barack Hussein [Bad Satire] Obama

Thanks to those of you returning to OL&L after a long absence and for adding your comments to the ongoing and building dialogue.

Yesterday's post prompted a castigating response in comments. We were taken to task for always using Senator Obama's full-name--Barack Hussein Obama. The commenter assumed, as many of you may have as well, that we do so to inflame populist conservative opinion against his candidacy. We don't mean to scare away negative critique of our blog or those who disagree with us, but if this particular commenter had read our posts for any length of time, he would know we don't buy or sell any of that nativist, anti-Muslim rhetoric.

No, rather our use of Senator Obama's middle name is an admittedly lame attempt at satire. Those following the campaign will know that liberal pundits use Obama's middle name at least as much as conservative ones. Click here, here, here, here, here, or here if you don't believe us. We even used ultra-liberal website Media Matters to further prove the point.

We find it mildly amusing, bordering on humorous, that liberals--the open-minded, enlightened half of American society--pound on the Hussein key as much or more than Rush Limbaugh (we only found one Limbaugh reference to Obama's middle name). We believe this has something to do with the fact that liberals tend to take their politics a little more personally than Republicans do. [huge generalization alert]

What's even more interesting is the fact that both frontrunners (if we can call them that, now that the gap has narrowed) in the Democratic primary have middle or third names they'd rather voters forgot. Does anyone remember that Hillary always used to be Rodham-Clinton? But now that she wants to get elected, it's simply Clinton AND, according to Drudge, "love" drove Bill bat-crazy in South Carolina, prompting his latest outburst. All of this to prove their mutual love and affection, and the normalcy of their marriage (hasn't it been disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt? Clinton Marriage, read: union of political, power-grabbing convenience).

Therein lies the satire and by explaining it all, it's completely lost its amusement. That's the thing with humor, once explained, everyone kind of says, "oh, how nice." If you look back at our posts, we refer to Senator Clinton as Hillary Rodham-Clinton and Senator Obama as Barack Hussein Obama. Again, not because we want to inflame populist conservative opinion (longtime readers know we detest populist politics) but rather to satirize the two candidates and their party's supposedly enlightened, open-minded moral condescension. Our friend the commenter further proves our point with his own name-calling.

Readers would be justified in saying that our humor was lame or too subtle, but mistaking it for anti-whatever is baseless. We wouldn't care if Barack's name were Barrack Saddam Hussein Osama bin Laden Adolf Hitler Joseph Stalin Obama, and neither should anyone else. Our point in using his middle name is not to conjure up an image of Saddam Hussein and scare the Republican base. If reading or hearing his middle name makes you think he's a Wahhabist terrorist/sympathizer, you've probably been watching too much 24.

And besides all that, we're tired of liberals thinking that conservatives are stupid enough to believe anything based on Barack's middle name. We don't know any conservatives who believe Barack is some 5th cousin of Saddam or a closet islamofascist.

We'll continue referring to Senators Clinton and Obama by their full names, now not simply for satirical purposes (though they remain) but more in protest of those who take it personally. If they want to dredge up Romney's or any other Republican candidates' sacred, personal religious beliefs and make fun of them, well, we'll let the reader decide who is acting in poor taste.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

World Oil Prices

From Drudge:

• Bush wants OPEC to Up Oil Output...
• *Saudia Arabia: Market Dictates Production...
• **BYU Econ Major to Saudi Arabia: Markets? Don't give me that. Saudis part of "largest cartel in the world."

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Democrat Dust-up: Race and School Choice

For years, Lincoln's Republican party, by virtue of having freed the slaves, was the party of newly enfranchised black Americans. Just as African-Americans now vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, they once voted for Republicans.

This began to change under FDR as his social programs appealed to many ethnic minorities--not just those of African descent. This shift was solidified during the Civil Rights era of the 1960s under President Lyndon Johnson--as Hillary Clinton pointed out.

It appears many African-Americans finally tired of liberal patronization. After decades of liberal self-congratulation and credit taking for Civil Rights gains (look at us! see how enlightened and open minded we are!), blacks finally see it for what it really is--supremely condescending nanny-statism. Hillary's statement is just another example of what President Bush called the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

From Drudge:

• RASMUSSEN: Clinton leads Obama among white voters 41% to 27%
• Obama leads Clinton among African-American voters 66% to 16%

Could this be a break-up in the liberal-Democrat coalition? And if black Americans finally see Democrat's true colors, is it possible other traditionally Democrat-voting minorities will also break from stereotype politics?

For a long time we've wondered about what type of conservative message might appeal to minorities who typically do not vote Republican. One strong possibility is school choice and vouchers. (We wrote about it here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Public education overwhelmingly fails minority students. Given the opportunity, minority parents--especially African-Americans--have taken their child and voucher and gone to better schools. With the Democrats and adversarial teachers' unions joined at the hip, this is an opportunity where Republicans are uniquely positioned to capitalize. What's more, it would not be a case of pander-politics. Conservatives already believe in vouchers and school choice, they simply need to explain how they benefit minority students.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Hillary Clinton is a racist

Or at least, she'll use race or anything else to her political advantage. This much we know.

This morning, while getting ready to leave, we watched Fox News Sunday with Brit Hume, Juan Williams, Mara Liasson and hosted by Chris Wallace. We were particularly interested when they turned their attention to the latest spat between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Quick review: Hillary said Obama was no Martin Luther King Jr., and that anyway, it was Lyndon Johnson who passed important Civil Rights legislation.

Drudge is carrying the most recent headlines:

• Dems try, but fail, to transcend race
• War of words
• BET Founder/Hillary Supporter Slams Obama in S Carolina; raises drug use

Chris Wallace and Brit Hume got Juan Williams to admit that Hillary and her surrogates were trying to "remind" people of Obama's race. But to what end? They tried to push him to follow his thinking to its logical conclusion, but he would not. Bill Kristol stepped in and filled in the blanks: it was, simply, because Hillary thought she could gain from this bigoted "reminder." The same way Mike Huckabee gained from mentioning that, 'well, don't Mormons think that Jesus and the Devil are brothers?'

Was it because she thinks Democratic voters are racist? Maybe.

Did she do it because she is racist? Probably not overtly so. She does seem to believe that they need "taking care of." That, like her MLK allusion, she thinks blacks are capable only of making nice speeches but that it's left to the whites--like her and Lyndon Johnson--to do what's best for the African-American community.

This last point seems most likely to us. It fits the overall narrative of the nanny state Hillary would try to create were she (oh, the horror) elected President.

And if this is the case, where is the outrage from the unelected "leaders" of the black community? Where's Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson with sanctimonious calls for Clinton's withdrawal from the race?

We have no time nor patience for this type of racism (or any type of racism for that matter)--that Lyndon Johnson did what MLK Jr. could not or even that the same is true today--that blacks somehow need Hillary Clinton. That they need her to tell them what to think and how to vote.

What must independent minded African-Americans like Clarence Thomas be thinking? If only more people would take their cues from he and Thomas Sowell rather than following the liberal Clinton/Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson stereotype.



If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Roger Clemens, the Seahawks & New Hampshire

- In the '99 season, the Seahawks played the Packers at Green Bay in what was Mike Holmgren's first homecoming game. The Packers committed 7 turnovers with Brett Favre throwing 4 picks. If they win this Saturday, that's how they'll do it again--pressure the passer and force turnovers. Football Outsiders does a good job of analyzing the NFL at a macro level, but it breaks down at the team level because they simply can't devote enough attention to each team. The best Seahawks analysis used to come from Mike Sando at the Tacoma News Tribune's Seahawks Insider blog. Since Mike moved on to espn.com, the torch passed to John Morgan at fieldgulls.com.

- Robert Novak is reporting in Human Events (hat tip: Drudge Report) that Romney may be "rallying" in New Hampshire. Probably the best chance for Romney to over take McCain's advantage is, ironically, Barrack Obama. If Independents, McCain's key voting block, vote for Obama (in New Hampshire, they can vote for candidates in either party) Romney may win New Hampshire, as he leads among Republican voters.

- Roger Clemens is a bully and a cheater. Brian McNamee testified to George Mitchell that he personally administered drugs to Clemens. In his posterior. Clemens, in addition to being a cheater, is a bully, and thus, filed a lawsuit against McNamee. He knew that McNamee could ill-afford a fight against Clemens' largesse--especially since there doesn't seem to be a book deal in the offing.

All this places McNamee in a lose-lose situation. He faces criminal charges regardless of whether he withdraws his assertion that Clemens took steroids. This lawsuit, coming at a time when he also has a sick child, threatens to break him financially. Jail, financial ruin and a sick kid? That's a tough 1, 2, 3 punch.

Then, today, Clemens played a recorded phone conversation between he and McNamee. Who is handling Clemens' PR? This was clearly a staged conversation in which Clemens repeated prepared comments about his innocence and McNamee, well, McNamee is clearly distressed about his son's sickness and his place in the spotlight.

This might have been news if Clemens had gotten McNamee to confess that he had lied about injecting Clemens with steroids. McNamee confessed nothing of the sort. Instead, it smacked of a contrived attempt by Clemens and his big money lawyers to get out from under his alleged steroid use. Clemens repeatedly stated his innocence in the recorded phone conversation, while trying to come off conversational, inviting McNamee to admit that he lied. Clemens' attempt to talk McNamee into a confession seemed like bad writing for a bad cop show. Do yourself a favor, Roger, play less baseball and watch more TV.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Another take on Romney's "big loss"

From a Drudge Report-linked article (hat tip: Matt Lybbert) at a Washington Post blog comes this interesting take on Romney's performance in the Iowa caucus (note: scroll to the first comment).

Turn Rich Lowry's numbers around and you'd see something very interesting - if Utah was the first caucus and 60% of caucusers were Mormons and Mitt only got 1/3 of the vote and only won by 9 points, you'd say he lost. You'd say that even if his opponent had spent millions more. I hate to sound like a sore loser, but the media response doesn't make sense to me. Given the favorable circumstances, I think Huckabee lost and Mitt won.

No, we're not drinking the kool-aid, we just thought this was an interesting way of giving context to the outcome. Furthermore, and importantly for all those of us who were angry with the evangelicals and homeschoolers, this seems to indicate that evangelical voters are not blindly following Huck. Romney got nearly 20% of the Evangelical vote, Huck got 45%, and the remaining 35% was spread among the other candidates. Despite what will undoubtedly be the MSM company line, sanity and rational thought do exist among the religious right.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

National Review, Our Fav Conservative Mag, Endorses Mitt

Generally, we believe that newspapers should not endorse candidates. Rather, we think they should advocate issues, ideas, and positions. We're not quite sure what to make of it when an outspoken conservative publication endorses a particular candidate.


Drudge called our attention to this development and it appears the Drudge traffic is overloading National Review's servers, so good luck getting at the article here.

Like National Review, we appreciate the totality of Mitt Romney's conservative positions. His current stated positions more closely match ours than any of the other Republican candidates for President. However, we still have reservations about Romney. How sure is his conversion to conservative principles? Was his change of position the result of a change of heart? Or was he just endorsing moderate to liberal positions to get elected in MA? Or, even worse, is he only now adopting conservative ideals to get past the Republican primary?

Point by point, Mitt is our ideal candidate. But if he is not a true conservative believer, we'd rather have a candidate with whom we disagree, but believe is telling the truth.


***Update 11:23PM MST - Transcript of chat between Hugh Hewitt and Rich Lowry, Editor of National Review. This provides great insight into NR's decision making process vis-à-vis their endorsement of Romney.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.