About Me

Name: Laura L. Hollis,...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Scozzafava reveals what we already knew

by endorsing the Democrat candidate in the NY-23 race.  Go, Doug Hoffman, go.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More on the White House's "enemies list"

More disturbing practices, outlined by Mark Hyman in The American Spectator.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Government intervention and the dissolution of marriage.

Mona Charen writes critically here on Maria Shriver's new book.  Sorry, but the answer to disintegrating families is not more government intervention.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More communist aspirations

For those who thought this week's column on Townhall.com was "over the top," check out this editorial from National Review Online which discusses Obama's pay czar Kenneth Feinberg, and the Left's desire for control over executive pay:
"If this were simply a case of politicians’ grandstanding upon the misfortunes of seven deeply troubled firms, that would be one thing. If the ruins of General Motors are the rooftop from which you wish to shout your critique of capitalism, the very best of Motor City luck to you. But the Democrats wish to see these czarish pretentions extended over most of the American economy. Senator Schumer, the New York grandee renowned for his ability to squeeze campaign money out of Wall Street, wishes to see Mr. Feinberg’s pay restrictions extended to every publicly traded company in America: not every financial company, mind you, not every TARP recipient, not every bailout basketcase, but every single American company with shares trading on an exchange. Those aspirations are authoritarian, and remarkably so."
 
No kidding.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It isn't "Chicago politics"

As I have said before, Victor Davis Hanson is one of the best political commentators out there.  His column this week in National Review Online reveals what so many traditional political pundits are saying: "Gee, whiz, Obama's poll numbers are sinking." "What's he gonna do?" "He's going to have to move to the center if he wants to govern effectively."
 
I've got news for you folks.  Obama is never, EVER going to do that.  If you think that, you don't know the way his kind operates.  Bill Clinton needed to be loved.  It isn't about popularity with Obama, or gaining votes, or public support.  This is his moment.  This is his chance.  It will be about ramming as much of his leftist agenda down the country's throat as fast as possible, before the 2010 elections.  Universal health care.  Cap and trade.  A treaty on "climate change."  All of which will be intended for the federal government to get their hands on massive amounts of private wealth to redistribute it to the ones they want to give it to.  Anyone who gets in the way must be demonized, marginalized, discredited, destroyed. 
 
Hanson speculates that this may be Obama's intentions.  Only Congress can stop him, and this depends entirely on the (historically) limp-wristed Republicans holding fast and the Blue Dog Democrats realizing that this isn't just about a few more welfare checks or a little stronger "safety net."
 
Everyone is calling this "Chicago [i.e., hardball] politics."  I don't think so.  Rod Blagojevich was "Chicago politics" and that's about bribery and deal-making.  Everyone is for sale in the Chicago model.  Obama is not for sale.  He is a purist.  And that is far more dangerous than a mere Chicago politician.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Kim Strassel, on the other hand, gets it.

And some fun lines from The Untouchables, to boot.  Strassel has become one of my favorite writers.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Close, but no cigar for Peggy Noonan

Peggy Noonan, slowly but surely, is beginning to understand what those of us who were not hornswoggled by "hope and change" saw way back in the fall of 2008.
 
Of course, she treats it like a recent phenomenon.  It isn't.  Obama is long on leftist ideology, and woefully lacking ANY experience that would have taught him how dumb and destructive so many of his ideas are.
 
I'm sorry it's taking Peggy so long to figure it out.  Better late than never.  Maybe.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They're ALL Communists

This week's article, but with links.

Back when people were tippy-toeing around the “s” word (“socialist”), and before he was elected,
I called out Obama’s basic political inclinations for what they are - communist. 

Though plenty pooh-poohed this, and called it extreme or unsubstantiated, there was ample proof in Obama’s own writings, his interviews, and the political leanings of his mentors (Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshall Davis), his pastor (Jeremiah Wright) and his friends. It’s absurd to hear people say now that Obama is governing differently than he campaigned. If you think that, you weren’t listening.

But those who still harbor any doubts need only look at his team of “advisors.”

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn is the most recent Obamirror. In the address so many have been airing recently, she offered Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong as an inspiration to students who might need to “figure out how to do things that have never been done before.” Well, golly - a man who “figured out” how to murder 70 million Chinese certainly gets points for novelty.

Before Dunn, it was ousted “green jobs czar” Van Jones, a self-admitted communist.

“Science czar” John Holdren has written of the possible need (and constitutionality) of mandatory sterilization and forced abortions to forestall whatever crisis du jour he and his colleagues Paul and Anne Ehrlich were predicting back in the 1970s (The coming ice age! Catastrophic food shortages! Death to billions!)

“Regulatory czar” Cass Sunstein has argued in favor of government regulations banning hunting and eating meat, humans representing animals in court to protect their “rights,” government intervention to ensure that the “constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals,” (whatever those are) and “libertarian paternalism,” whereby government controls the choices you make. (Late comedian George Carlin would have had a field day with that oxymoronic suggestion.)

And none of this even mentions the laundry list of tax cheats.

These appointments are routinely characterized as amateurish leadership; examples of poor vetting. This would be laughable were it not so obviously false. How many of Obama’s advisors have to be exposed as communists and Marxists before some of the duller-witted among us admit not only that there is a pattern here, but that it is deliberate, and reflects the leanings of the White House?

Connect the dots, people. It’s not that Jones, Dunn, Sunstein et al were not properly vetted; it’s that they were. It’s not that Obama wasn’t familiar enough with their viewpoints; it’s that he was. These people were not chosen despite their views; they were chosen precisely because their views coincide with Obama’s own. If it walks like a communist, talks like a communist, and espouses state control in the name of “the people” like a communist, it’s a communist.

In February of this year, Newsweek giddily proclaimed, “We are all socialists now!” But Obama is no mere socialist. A socialist just wants your money; a communist wants complete control of your life. Some questioned the tone of my October 2008 column when I wrote it; how temperate it looks now in light of the first nine months of the Obama administration. 

Obama has nationalized banks and car companies, fired the chief executive of a major corporation, appointed unaccountable ministers to set salaries for executives in private industry, castigated and threatened secured bondholders and run roughshod over their contract rights in favor of political patronage, spent nearly a trillion dollars in “stimulus” legislation that was loaded with payback and pork, proposed “cap-and-trade” legislation that will confiscate American wealth and transfer it to third world nations, many of whom are run by leftist dictators. And his pièce de résistance would be a government takeover of the entire health care industry in the United States, the crowbar by which government will be forced into every aspect of our lives from birth to death.

All of this has been accomplished by deceit, trumped up indignation, and demonization of private enterprise and business leaders – classic Marxist propaganda. But it is still not enough. Too many Americans still oppose Obama’s attempts to take over the American health care industry (54% according to the latest Rasmussen poll). Over 40% now “strongly disapprove” of Obama’s performance as President. Hundreds of thousands have turned out at “tea parties,” townhalls, and a march on Washington. Resistance is growing.

Obama knows that Americans who favor limited government, personal liberty, free market exchange, and individual responsibility opt to get their news and commentary outside the controlled Pravda press that has cast him as a “god,” and pitches his statist agenda adoringly. Thus, because every good communist knows you must have a stranglehold on the media, he has now launched a full-scale attack on Fox News, and other media that refuse to toe his party line. 

This is right out of the Marxist-Leninist playbook, as is Obama’s methodology. In the style of history’s most talented dictators, Obama remains above the fray, having thugs, well-meaning but ignorant “social justice” Christians, leftist theorists, and political hacks to make his arguments and do his dirty work for him.

Still, there are those who cannot square Obama’s admittedly leftist leanings with his reluctance to vocally support the Iranian protestors, his shunning the Dalai Lama, his obsequious bow to the Saudi king, embrace of Hugo Chavez, and defense of ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya (whose disregard for the constraints of the Honduran constitution was the reason for his ouster). 

Anyone struggling with that perceived inconsistency does not understand the difference between traditional liberalism and communism. The communist – like every other utopian ideologue - is always, at his core, an authoritarian.  Professing to love and do all for “the people” is a transparent cover for loathing of “the people” and complete disdain for their choices, as Obama, his comrades in Congress, and his shills in the media have demonstrated toward Americans over and over again. Representative government is a farce and a façade for these people. It doesn’t matter what you want; we know better than you.

Time was, those accused of communist sympathies would deny it. Today’s Marxists brazenly say, “Yes, we can!” Perhaps too much time has passed since the last leftist barbarian starved, imprisoned, or slaughtered millions of his own people in the fruitless pursuit of utopia. Perhaps Obama & Co. are allowed to get away with this because our Pravda press views Obamunism as a “kinder, gentler” sort of communism than that responsible for the deaths of 100 million people in the past 90 years or so. Or perhaps people cannot believe that a fatherless boy from a difficult background, a man willing to reveal all in heartfelt autobiographies, a gifted speaker inspiring such admiration – could possibly pose a threat to the freest nation in the world.

This is foolhardy. The people Obama has handpicked to advise him share his willful ignorance of human nature and his arrogant sense of moral superiority. Those two traits, more so than any others, power the “ends justify the means” ethos that has been behind some of the bloodiest excesses in human history. And that same history is filled with examples where oppression was accompanied by inspiring tales of hardships overcome, ghost-written autobiographies, soaring rhetoric, and a population willing to enshrine the Leader as a godlikefigure.

And ultimately, it isn’t – or rather, it shouldn’t be – about Barack Obama the individual. He may be the kindest man one could hope to meet. But the drafters of our Constitution understood something fundamental: that the best protection against oppression lies in a government with limits, not the benevolent personality of whoever happens to be in office at the time. Throwing away our liberty hand over fist because Obama seems like a basically decent guy is precisely what the Founding Fathers warned against. (And for the record, I personally place no confidence in a man who views our Constitution as “flawed,” precisely because it limits his power.)

There were few who remarked with astonishment at a President whose inaugural address was themed around “remaking America.” But millions wondered in breathless anticipation what this “remade” America would look like. Just look at Obama’s role models, and the role models of his appointees and political supporters, and you’ll know. Obama’s remade America would look like CubaNorth Korea. The former Soviet Union.  Venezuela.  CambodiaMyanmarChina.

“Communism” is a term that may be outdated. Fine. Whatever you choose to call it – totalitarianism, authoritarianism, liberalism, progressivism, statism, libertarian paternalism – it is the same mindset. Like a virus, the change of name is just a mutation of the same ideas that threaten to destroy the body politic.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sesame Street, redeemed

This is hilarious:

Thanks to The American Spectator for this one.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cardinal Chaput's letter about Obama, abortion, and Notre Dame

He revisits the controversy over Notre Dame's awarding an honorary doctorate of laws to President Obama.  Read the full text of his letter here.

Here is one of my favorite passages:

"[S]eeking common ground and pursuing the common good can often coincide.  But they are not the same thing.  They can sharply diverge in practice.  So-called "common ground" abortion policies may actually attack the common good because they imply a false unity; they create a ledge of shared public agreement too narrow and too weak to sustain the weight of a real moral consensus.  The common good is never served by tolerance for killing the weak – beginning with the unborn."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

This is "hate speech"?

So now, defending the right of unborn human children to live is "hate speech"?

Oh, and this is great.  Students who don't agree with the views expressed by the speakers filed a complaint, saying, "Vulnerable students tried to communicate their concerns to the University through the available channels: the SSMU executive, SSMU Council, AUS [Arts Undergraduate Society] Council, the McGill Tribune, and The McGill Daily.  There were no other avenues through which to stop this event, which they deemed as victimizing, offensive, and stifling of educated debate, from happening."

"Furthermore it is unfair to expect these student protesters to calmly watch a presentation and engage with a speaker when such a presentation would make them feel violated, demonized, and silenced.  This event created a hostile environment and should not have been permitted. It is possibly most disappointing that when students peacefully engaged in a public response to this hostile environment, they were removed through a police intervention."

You can watch the videos to see if this was "peaceful."

And their complaints just drip with irony they do not even see.  Who is "vulnerable," if not human children in the womb?  Who is "victimized," who is "silenced," but these small people, deprived of any rights, of any voice?  And a "hostile environment"?  I'll leave that one to your imagination.

Canada is producing such remarkable, Orwellian little communists, such impressive budding Thought Police.  And America is not far behind.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Make Obama debate Michael Cannon!

If Obama is going to govern like it's a campaign, then can we insist upon debates?  Please, please, please, let's have him debate Michael Cannon from the Cato Institute, whose dissection of Obama's deceitful address to Congress on health care is here.
 
Circulate this to everyone you know.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More people should call the Iranian president

the idiot that he is.  Like Netanyahu did.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Der Fuhrer, der Fuhrer, wie wir lieben der Fuhrer.

First "Alpha! Omega!" and now this?  And people wonder why parents recoiled at the idea of Obama addressing schoolchildren?  Personally, I think that the President speaking to children is fine, and inspirational.  But the most important point is this: it is not President Obama who is soliciting these dopey propagandistic chant-fests for schoolchildren.  It's the teachers.
 
Your tax dollars at work again.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wilson, West prove that rude isn't racial

This is my Townhall column from last week....

Of all the absurd accusations being tossed around in the wake of Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst during President Obama’s address to Congress last week, the most ridiculous is that of New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd (surprise, surprise) and others, who have accused Wilson of being a racist. Dowd’s accusations were the most inflammatory, since she decided to create additional words out of thin air, saying that she “heard” Wilson say, “You lie, boy!,” something he never said, and a word she chose to make up deliberately, fraught as it is with discriminatory overtones nearly as repulsive as the dreaded “n” word. This is the most despicable and irresponsible excuse for “journalism” I have ever seen.

But it is all too common. As I have written elsewhere, the Left’s favorite slight-of-hand is to get everyone talking about intentions, and state of mind. Intentions can never be refuted, and state of mind can never be disproven, which is why the Left loves to argue that way. Saying, “I intend to eliminate poverty!” or “You only oppose the President’s policies because you hate black people,” is nothing more than a distraction. When it comes to writing law, what matters is not the drafters’ intentions, but the law’s results, which regressives never want to discuss, even when they’re obvious. And you can accuse anyone of thinking anything – how on earth could this ever be disproven? More to the point, it puts the accused on the defensive, and takes the argument away from the real issues – also the objective of the hard Left in all matters political.

Everyone who opposes the President’s leftist agenda has discovered that the “racist!” epithet is the desperate gasp of those who absolutely cannot refute the arguments on the merits. (And, as we saw with last weekend’s non-coverage of hundreds of thousands of Americans protesting in Washington, the media’s other favorite tactic is simply to ignore things: “If we don’t cover it, it didn’t happen.”)

Thousands of words have been printed already, demonstrating that the assertions President Obama was making during his address were, in fact, untrue, and Congress’ quick scurrying to close the loophole that would permit illegal aliens to receive free medical care on the American taxpayers’ dime further proves it.

President Obama has declined to fan the flames of Nancy Pelosi’s and the liberal media’s manufactured outrage, accepting Congressman Wilson’s immediate apology, and the White House issued a subsequent statement saying that they did not believe any racial animus was behind Wilson’s outburst.

But the media will never be satisfied with that. So I want to give a big shout out to performer Kanye West, whose rude interruption of country singer Taylor Swift’s acceptance of the “Best Female Video” award at the MTV Video Music Awards two nights ago was the perfect bookend to Congressman Joe Wilson’s conduct, and an ironic smackdown to the liberal media who have tried to deflect attention from the legitimate concerns about the government takeover of health care by demonizing Wilson.

During the awards ceremony, Taylor Swift, who is white, had just received her award. Kanye West, who is black, leapt onto the stage where Swift was speaking. Taking the microphone away from her, he said, “Yo Taylor, I’m really happy for you, I’ll let you finish, but Beyoncé [Knowles, also a nominee] has one of the best videos of all time. One of the best videos of all time!”

Swift was speechless. Beyoncé, when the camera panned the crowd, looked mortified. To their credit, the crowd responded with boos. The whole incident was embarrassing for everyone. Even President Obama reportedly called West a “jack.a.s.s” off the record for his boorish conduct.

Like Joe Wilson, Kanye West immediately apologized, privately and publicly.

So where are the chattering media heads now? Are they sounding the alarm, accusing West of being a racist? Accusing everyone who thought Beyoncé should have won of actually harboring insidious thoughts against white singers? Are they attributing unseen motivations to West, insisting that he couldn’t stand to see a white girl win over his black friend, Beyoncé Knowles?

Nope. Same hypocrisy as we see with the Lefty media all the time.

But in this case, I’m glad. I am not accusing West of being a racist, and I hope no one else does. He was impolite, and boorish, and impulsive, and probably overly enthusiastic in support of his friend, Beyoncé. But racist? That’s absurd.

And Beyoncé herself was the epitome of grace and dignity, even offering the podium to Taylor Swift during her own acceptance speech later in the event, so that Swift could finish her remarks. What a lady.

The VMA awards should be a lesson to the media. As with Kanye West, Joe Wilson’s outburst may have been heartfelt, but the sentiment he expressed was done the wrong way, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Inappropriate? Sure. Racist? Bunk.

Kanye West did Joe Wilson – and the rest of us – a big favor, pointing out once again the inherent equality of all human beings: grace and decency are found in people of all colors. And rudeness is an equal opportunity error.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive