Greedy liberal bastards

President Obama believes in “an America where everybody gets a fair shake and everybody does their fair share.” Now I know the man is not a Marxist because all my liberal friends have said so, but does this sound any different than the words of Karl Marx, "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs?"

Doing your "fair share" in Obamaspeak is certainly not about volunteering or donating to charity, it is about paying more taxes. The class war continues in which the "haves" must sacrifice more for the "have nots." Even though the "haves" (the top 10%) pay in excess of 40% of the taxes already, while the "have nots" (the bottom 50%) pay 2%. But this is unfair. Not unfair to those who are carrying the burden, but to those who are not. Because 40% is just not enough! They must pay more!!!

There is never an explanation of why the current system is unfair, other than that those evil people that earn money are allowed to keep so much of what the government would like to spend and/or redistribute.

Fairness is a stupid approach to taxation. It has nothing to do with funding the government, and nothing to do with economic policy. Fairness is merely an appeal to base human instincts. Our perception of fairness is laced heavily with envy and covetousness. Fair is not necessarily that I will do better, but that you not do X amount better than me. To be fair, we can all be worse off and live in a more fair society.

Fairness doctrine paints earners as greedy for wishing to keep the fruits of their labors, but the confiscators are never called greedy. I would posit that it is greedier to take something that is not yours, than to wish to keep that which you have rightly earned.

Tea Party - Too Popular for Comfort

Charles Postel opines on the Tea Party movement in a Reuters piece. This is a continuation of the liberal mind not being able to believe or grasp the obvious. (He is from San Francisco so he lives in a fever swamp of idiocy.) It is impossible for these progressives to understand that the movement is really just about limiting government and living within our means. Postel claims Tea Partiers are hostile to federal spending on jobs. That seems right, but that is a limiting and incomplete statement. They are hostile to federal spending for any reason that is unsustainable.

There is an anti-incumbent wave, and it is being driven by the belief that spending must be reined in. This is not just anger against Democrats. The Republicans spent like fools during the Bush presidency, and now the Democrats are doubling down. The Tea Party group seems to understand that it is not the President who budgets and spends, it is Congress, and they are willing to do something about it. Sen. Bennett of Utah lost at the state Republican convention after serving three terms, because he is a spender.

This is a sizable movement with the support of a large percentage of the general population. Continuing attempts to vilify seem to only build the movement. The liberal media doesn't understand that if they are against something, that is an indication to many that it must be a good thing.

Massachusetts elects a Republican

According to the Drudge Report Coakley has called and conceded the race to Brown.

Massachusetts is as firmly Democrat as Texas is Republican. I don't see any way to read this but as repudiation of the Democrats over-reach in the past year. Specifically the attempt to force a national health care bill on the country that is wildly unpopular. The Liberal side of the party has sacrificed all support in a rush to produce a more socialist government.

I have always believed that America is centrist. The religious Conservative branch of the Republican Party is not popular with the average American, and neither is the Progressive branch of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately the seniority system in the legislative branches ensures that the fringes will be over-represented in the legislative process.

We will hear a lot about what this means for the November elections, but that is a long way off, and the Democrats have a chance to salvage some of the inevitable losses. If they continue to legislate against middle America's wishes their losses will make 1994 look like a minor loss.

Anthropological study of conservatives

I won't comment on this blog post by Judith Warner...yet! I read it yesterday, and have thought about it at length, so I do have some comments. But, I would like to have all of my three or four readers comment on it before I weigh in.

Please, if you visit here, read the item and express an opinion.

ADDED: Since only one of my massive reading audience chose to comment (thank you Miss Brazil) I will go ahead and give my opinion of this piece.

Ms. Warner brought a massive load of condescension to her post. She went forth to laugh and make fun of those conservative women who might think Gov. Palin is something other than evil in a lovely dress. She found, to her horror, that these women were actually nice to her. She has no context for understanding that people with political views other than her own might be rational, thinking human beings. It was embarrassing to read how flummoxed she was to find that these were not people out for her blood.

Her final bit about research showing that conservatives can empathize with liberals, but not vice versa was totally borne out by the commenters. The viciousness and hatred expressed by these people was more eye opening even than her own post.

Hillary is a woman?

Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Benazir Bhutto; what do they have in common? Obviously they are all women, and they are all women who rose to the top of the government in their respective countries. Peggy Noonan in her incomparable way discusses the difference between the first three of these women and Senator Clinton. Her bottom line is that they didn't make their femininity an excuse. They played the game with the big boys and won.

What Ms. Noonan doesn't say, that seems evident, is that Ms. Clinton belongs to the party of the victim. Of course she didn't lose the nomination because Senator Obama was a better campaigner, or because people didn't like her ideas, or because the voters just don't trust her. No, she lost the nomination because she is a woman and misogynists just would never stand for a woman being the nominee. She is the victim.

If she had won the nomination we would be hearing that racism is the reason that Senator Obama didn't win the nomination. He would have been the victim.

These people, meaning the liberals (damnit, I keep forgetting they are progressives now,) are not adults. They are two year olds. It is never their fault that things don't work out. Someone or something else is to blame. And by God, something should be done about it. Americans are such narrow minded, bigoted, misogynists that they just can't see what is best for them. Puhleeze!!

End of rant.