Archive for November, 2011
Chart from Jim Pethokoukis of AEI.
America faces an unprecedented debt crisis, true. What is not conventional wisdom is that America could face renewed, even unprecedented, greatness if a decent leader comes forward.
Given that the Republican party seems incapable of getting its collective crap together, that scenario seems unlikely, though.
Businesses are, at this point, forcing themselves to not grow. They are unwilling to take on more risk. They’re keeping cash on hand. They’re paying down debt. They’re waiting.
Individuals are doing the same. Part of it is that they don’t qualify for credit even if they wanted it. Part of it is that they don’t want it.
Still, this unrealized creation and growth waits for the right catalyst.
Obama, is not a catalyst. Quite the contrary, he’s an inhibitor. Hell, he antagonizes any growth potential.
Obama’s actions are so frustrating to expansion that even apathetic business people are paying attention. Usually business folks lobby hard for their interests–they win some, they lose some and they work around the bureaucracy and incorporate the rules and regulations and taxes and fees into the cost of doing business. Not so now. Everyone can thank Obama for being so persecutorial rhetorically and prosecutorial policy-wise, businesses are being put out of business. That’s attention-getting.
The business world is now in open rebellion. Screw you, Obama, we’ll just not spend any money, period. Zilch. The cozy win-win we had going on is over. Sure, we’ll throw some money at you on the outside chance you get re-elected–we don’t want to be the subject of your direct ire. Instead, we’ll do just enough to get by everywhere.
A couple things about this:
America should never be so beholden to the executive branch that one person can do so much damage to the economy. And yet, here we are, and business is mostly to blame. By lobbying tirelessly for the government’s favor and selling their souls (Walmart and the AARP’s obsequious deference on Obamacare comes to mind) to obtain that favor, business leaders find out [surprise!] that’s what’s given can be taken away. Obama has been busily taking away or threatening to do so.
Businesses can afford to lobby the government, but the individual has been marginalized. Businesses were totally fine with that so long as individuals could still afford to buy their wares. Nothing like a long, deep recession to drive home the point that poor people don’t buy stuff.
So, while the cozy relationship benefits businesses for a while, eventually, people have to be forced to buy stuff and people resist being forced to buy stuff (see also really expensive light bulbs). So they just stop buying stuff they don’t want (see also solar panels and the Chevy volt.) And those businesses, warmed by the loving embrace of government tax breaks, bailouts and inducements find themselves screwed. No one wants expensive, useless crap. It’s bad enough when it’s cheap. But the stuff the government touches gets very expensive.
So the individual revolts, too. He stops buying. And if the government creates perverse economic incentives long enough, he loses his job and can’t buy stuff.
And that’s where were at in America.
America is profoundly in debt. America is jobless. America is sitting on the capital it does have.
Obama is making everything worse.
And yet, America is primed for some success–if the GOP can muster something. A steady hand, reduced government interference, positive rhetoric, assurances that businesses aren’t going to be raked over the coals (or given an unfair advantage either), etc.
In a word: growth.
That requires political change and a person willing to articulate a sunny, hopeful message to encourage growth but willing to make some tough decisions–i.e. cut government spending.
More on why this is not likely to happen in the next post.
Governor Perry freaked out the political class this week by suggesting bold government reforms like these [it’s only 19 seconds long]:
Oh wait! That’s not Governor Perry! That’s Ronald Reagan and he was suggesting the same thing. He even talked specifically about getting rid of 75,000 government employees.
Doug Mataconis, resident cynic and Outside The Beltway (misnamed–should be Conventional Wisdom) blogger, says this:
In reality, though, much like Perry’s own chances to win the Republican nomination, there’s very little chance any of these ideas would ever see the light of day. To the extent Perry intended to propose a real plan, he failed here. Instead, all we’ve got are gimmicks.
Rhetoric is not a gimmick. And a Ron Paulian purist like Doug Mataconis should feel slightly ashamed for attacking a candidate that has little chance of success. I would wager that Rick Perry’s chances are far greater than Ron Paul’s.
But back to the point.
America has been pushed leftward both rhetorically and policy-wise for years. Bush senior, Clinton, and then George W. Bush all believed in a sort of government care-taker state. Most damaging to the body rhetoric was “Compassionate Conservatism”–a phrase that ceded rhetorical ground to the mean ways of big government and socialism.
It’s frankly rather astonishing that a libertarian would complain about a plan to get rid of government departments, but then, that’s what libertarians do. They complain.
For too long, self-reliance, ingenuity, creativity, personal responsibility, American exceptionalism, optimism, and all those other plucky American values have given way to Obama’s maudlin mealy-mouthed malaise.
Words matter. Rhetoric matters.
No one wants empty words. Words and ideas push in the opposite direction, lead the mind and heart different ways and open the policy world to ideas that have been long maligned are NOT empty. They’re purposeful.
Just like Ronald Reagan knew what he was doing when facing Debbie Downer Jimmy Carter, Rick Perry knows what he’s doing facing Bob the Blamer Obama.
Politics is about deeds AND words. Rick Perry has the deeds covered. One only has to look at his Texas record of reform and conservative (and yes, libertarian) change to see that.
A leader, though, must also use words and push ideas. For those having trouble with Perry’s government reform plan, pretend you’re a teenager again. Perry’s plan is like a kid asking for a 2 am curfew when he really wants 1 am or even midnight. He’s still getting to stay out later than he wanted.
Rick Perry is pushing the envelope and he knows it. So did Reagan, though, and Reagan’s words and ideas pushed America into a couple decades of growth and prosperity.
Words and ideas matter. They are the precursor of policy. The libs know this, which is why they’re howling. What’s confusing is why a libertarian would be bothered by small government rhetoric and a plan to match it.
Ben’s Transom newsletter was particularly good today and he saved the best for last. It’s so important I’m sharing it here.
Here’s the nutshell: The Left-leaning journalism investigates the right. The Right-leaning journalism provides commentary and (and Ben doesn’t say this, but I am) when they do rarely investigate, investigates the right after being given oppo research by someone on their own side.
The right is resource-deprived and lazy with the resources they do have.
Here’s what Ben says [subscribe here]:
RISE OF THE CONSERVATIVE THUMBSUCKER CLASS:
David Freddoso isn’t wholly wrong here, but I think his career is instructive in the real failings of conservative journalists. http://vlt.tc/cu Freddoso is one of a number of solid shoe-leather investigative journalists with a conservative bent – he’s now at the Examiner as an opinion page editor. Phil Klein was the same – now he’s an opinion columnist at the Examiner. So was Tim Carney – same deal. The general trend among conservatives is to ditch the investigative thing and move into what we might call Novak-lite opinion writing; they talk to sources and cover events but rarely break news. They take the second or third bite out of something, not the first. And they generally leave it to Gawker to file the FOIA requests. http://vlt.tc/da
There’s a whole class of people in DC who live this trend, wasting writing talent on minor league punditry which ought to be applied to keeping politicians accountable and rooting out scandals on the other side. Instead of offsetting in some small way the overwhelming advantage the left has among investigative journos, the sights of these writers are nearly always trained on their own party (Carney, for example, criticizes both sides, but much of his aim is at remaking the right into a less big business friendly entity). At the same time, the big publications on the right have gravitated toward three kinds of stories: the thumb-sucking or humorous rehash of what’s in the news; the big think-piece commentary about some social or political meme; or the throw-off profile of a friendly Republican politician. The effect is that these publications have little or no impact on the left or the broader conversation – their influence is limited to the right and stays there.
This trend is a real shame, and it’s one of the reasons that story-breaking on the right about the left has been almost entirely conceded to the amateur or semi-pro class online. The biggest story of the year on the right is Solyndra – a story broken by ABC News. The second biggest story of the year on the right is Fast & Furious, which is now resulting in Congressional investigations and calls for Eric Holder’s resignation – it’s a story broken by CBS News. In a just world, these stories would’ve been broken first on the cover of a major conservative publication. But that hasn’t been true since, well, the days of David Brock.
At the Redstate confab in South Carolina (this was pre-Solyndra) I pointed out onstage that Obama’s administration had been to that point remarkably scandal free. I pointed out that scandal had followed the Chicago team for decades, and that we’d learn about the scandals eventually, but likely only after everyone was out of office. This is an indictment for every journalist on the right who has the capability to investigate but spends their time on opinion writing instead. It’s no longer debatable: Andrew Breitbart has done more for the cause of conservative investigative coverage than any of the right-leaning outlets under Obama (Schweizer works . And that’s something the DC-NY conservative professional thumb-suckers should be ashamed of.
As for Freddoso – who’s no more than an acquaintance, but again I genuinely like his work – yesterday is a bad day for him to be throwing this stone. He spent a good hour on Twitter deriding Rick Perry for calling Sam Brownback “John” at an event based on a Twitter report from a Bloomberg journo, a report which turned out to be completely false – Perry was referring to John Archer, a candidate for Congress who was in attendance at the government reform event. http://vlt.tc/cv It’s not that there’s anything wrong with that –but the point is that the Examiner doesn’t have anyone covering that event to correct him, and neither do any of the right-leaning outlets. It’s a different problem from the lack of investigative-focused stuff, but it illustrates the same truth. Writers on the right mostly don’t do journalism; they do play-by-play.
So much of the investigative work is being done by bloggers and they are under-funded and often over-worked.
One thing Ben doesn’t mention is how the right-leaning DC journos don’t want to be hated. They hang out with other journalists and want to be included. The social pressure in DC is liberal. Always.
Journalists are people (most of them). They want to be liked, included and respected. The way to be a skunk at a garden party is to criticize Democrats or investigate them.
Note also: bloggers and commentary from outside DC tends to be a lot more strident, and, I’d like to add, truthful. That social pressure isn’t there. It’s difficult to write about friends.
At Blogcon 2011 in Denver, Colorado, some fresh U.S. Senate and House hopefuls visited with bloggers. Here’s a little info on all of them:
Karen Harrington: Tough lady. Owns three restaurants. Bawdy, smart, funny and determined to win a tough election against Debbie Wassmerman-Schultz. Consider the following: If redistricting goes as planned, that shifts her district more favorably to Harrington. More importantly, a tight races keeps DWS from flitting around the country on behalf of Obama. She’ll have to stay back home and fight for her seat. We want her to have to work. Taped interview here.
Dan Lilenquist: Dan is a state representative in Utah and just won Legislator of the Year for how he has dealt with entitlements in Utah. Rumor has it that he may primary Orrin Hatch and win that seat. I’ve heard people I respect shrug and say that we shouldn’t be primarying Republicans this year. Hogwash. The new blood in the Senate has made a significant difference pulling the Senate to the Right. We need more constitutionally-based folks in there. Suck it up and get back to work Tea Party! Interview here.
Richard Mourdock: Richard is Indiana’s state treasurer and running against Obama’s favorite liberal Republican Dick Lugar. Again, tired of your ideals being sold down the river by a guy who works for the other side? Well, we need to continue to hold these Republicans accountable. See why here. Interview here.
With the national presidential election turning into a hot mess, keeping eyes on the Senate prize and adding seats there is an encouraging endeavor.
Very interesting (but rather wrong) piece about the younger generations blaming the Boomers by Walter Russell Read by way of Monty at Ace. The comments are far more insightful.
Says Alex Scipio:
Sorry, Prof. Mead, but you have widely missed the mark.
When the 18-yr olds, the lead Boomers, were given the vote in 1972 and shortly began their careers in office, the Debt was $400B. For this America had purchased and/or conquered a continent, invented air and space travel, modern manufacturing, fertilizers and pharmaceuticals, invented and commercialized computers and telecommunications, and won every war we had tried to win.
The Boomers? Have invented nothing. Have discovered nothing.Have generated wealth only in bubbles based on intenet (also invented by their parents as ARPANet) fantasy.
Sure – Boomers are in everywhere pretending that they have anything good to say or any worthwhile thoughts. But take a look around. The world of the past 50 years is a steady decline of cultural and societal courtesy, manner, education, volunteering, education, exploration, education (did I say education?).
Even better, John Lynch concludes:
I’m Gen X, and I’ve been stuck listening to Boomer [folderol] my whole life.
Now the Boomers are all doom and gloom. That’s not because the world is really all that much worse off than it’s ever been. It’s just the impending death of the Boomer generation. They’ve mistaken their own decline for that of the nation and the world.
The Boomer generation has always thought that nothing happened until they arrived (see that beautiful piece of propaganda, Mad Men) and are equally convinced that nothing will happen once they are gone. All the environmental millennialism has its origin in the Boomers. From The Population Bomb to Global Warming they’ve persistently believed that not only are they a social force but a cosmic one as well.
The world will survive their passing. I’m already enjoying the lack of 60s music on the radio and the blessed silence about Woodstock and the Vietnam War. My generation has accomplished far more, with less noise, and we won our war.
History will not be kind.
A couple thoughts:
1. I blame the parents of these indulged brats. The WWII/Great Depression parents, in an attempt to shelter their children from all difficulty, brought up a bratty, superficial, spoiled generation.
2. Learn the lesson. Children today have even more wealth and good fortune (for a while) than the Boomers started out with. The OWS-ers are astonished and dismayed because their Boomer parents sold them the same tripe they believe about themselves. So these little snowflakes are upset that the world is not interested in their brand of special.
Discipline, hard work, responsibility, right and wrong, common sense, diligence, fidelity, and humility don’t go over big but they’re characteristics that win over the long-term.
Overindulgence makes for rotten grown-ups.
UPDATED: Oh, and one more thing, what Ann doesn’t explain is this: Why would Axelrod out this stuff now. Wouldn’t Cain be the dream candidate to run against?
Consider this from Ann Coulter.
Consider this from Ace.
I went to great lengths yesterday to withhold judgement waiting for more information. So, so far, we’re one, possibly two women completely disqualified as accusers.
Mind you, none of this changes my opinion of Herman Cain’s fitness one way or another. I don’t want him to be our next president and didn’t before this.
What does matter to me is the truth.
What does matter to me is that the press is grossly unfair and biased against ANY conservative. They’ll spare no expense to destroy conservatives (remember those 15K Palin emails?).
What does matter to me is that conservatives seem JUST FINE burning down other conservatives…see also Herman Cain when the spotlight wasn’t on him.
What Ann and Ace don’t address is this: Axelrod may have dug up these allegations. Two of these women may be suspect. Axelrod didn’t, though, manufacture these women ten years ago. Those allegation have been sitting there. Axelrod may or may not have just dug them up.
That’s where things are at now.
Some people have asked why are there allegations only from the time at National Restaurant Association. Well, he did live away from his wife at that time and he was a lobbyist not a CEO. So. Who knows?
We’ll see if other women come forward. So far, what we have learned a couple things:
1. One, or possibly two, accusers are suspect.
2. Herman Cain flails under pressure.
3. Herman Cain has a horrible staff.
The last two things don’t bode well. A CEO should make better executive decisions. Eh. What a flippin’ mess.
Have conservatives lost their minds? Am I really hearing talk show hosts picking apart women who have asserted that Herman Cain engaged in sexual harassment? Am I seeing bloggers and journalists trot down the race card road?
I have been utterly appalled this last week. Mind you, and before getting into all this, here’s some of my history: When the Duke LaCrosse story came forth and after examining all the facts, it was evident that the whole thing was preposterous and a disgusting false charge against innocent young men. So zealous about the case was I that two mothers of boys accused of the heinous crimes wrote me emails to thank me for standing for their boys.
The stench of sexual assault and harassment charges lingers around even innocent men and it is an objective evil when this happens. Not only are innocent men tainted for the rest of their lives with doubt, women who have been abused and assaulted fear charging their aggressor for being accused of making up the story.
False charges are an abomination.
True charges denied by a serial abuser are an abomination, too.
We don’t know all the details yet, surrounding Herman Cain’s alleged sexual harassment charges. Here’s what we do know:
So, on this backdrop, I’m going to tell you my story of sexual harassment. Why? Well, it damn sure isn’t because it’s helpful to my cause if I do. Thank God I’m 1) self-employed and 2) don’t give a poop what people think. Most women don’t have that luxury. Just leveling a sexual harassment charge can damage a woman’s credibility. She’s “difficult”. She will be trouble. So, women with legitimate complaints stay quiet. They want to move forward in the work world.
The reason that sexual harassment settlements are sealed are often for the benefit of the accuser, so her reputation isn’t destroyed by a vindictive work peer or employer.
Does that mean that there aren’t women who bring spurious and frivolous claims? Hell no. That exists, too. Obviously. I’m guessing it must happen a lot because the men of Twitter and talk radio have been venomous and utterly certain that all five of the accusers are vile skanks making up stuff to destroy an innocent, innocent man.
Some men aren’t innocent men. I know you’re thinking of your own behavior and thoughts and figuring your clumsy actions and stupid jokes qualified as harassment at some point. Maybe. Some guys have a pattern of being harassing jerks, though. One socially awkward moment does not a harasser make.
Anyway, since many of you reading this know me both through my writing and in real life, I thought I’d tell my story.
Newly married, recent college graduate, 23, and jobless, I took temporary jobs to live. You know those kids bitching at the Occupy Wall Street rallies? That could have been me. Instead, I worked minimum wage plus as receptionists and secretaries. A Theology degree won’t get you a job? The hell you say!
So, my second job after working as a receptionist at a trucking company (all the men were respectful, if crass) was at an architectural and engineering firm.
My new boss was Ken. Ken had a reputation. He had gone through something like 21 assistants in 20 years. Ken picked fights with younger workers. He came to work drunk after his five martini Friday lunches. Ken was old school.
Ken had a glass office. On two sides of his office, Ken stared out at his assistant. More specifically, he leered out at his assistant all day. It was disconcerting, to say the least. He didn’t have to say a word. He just eye-f*cked you all day long.
But that sort of behavior doesn’t rise to the level of harassment–well, at least it didn’t to me. Annoying? Yes. Disgusting to be stared at by a nearly 60 year old man all day long? Absolutely.
Then one day, Ken reached for something on my desk, after walking up behind me, and “accidentally” grabbed my breast.
I was shocked. I told one girlfriend and swore her to secrecy. Why? Because Ken was powerful. I needed the job and he had a reputation for firing uppity help. Plus, the local human resources guy was impotent and cowered before mighty Ken. Ken happened to own the biggest account in the company. He was, he thought, untouchable.
Around two weeks later, the corporate head of Human Resources, a woman, came to town for meetings. We happened to be in the bathroom at the same time and I told her what happened. She asked if I would be willing to go on the record. I said yes. She told me that they had tried to get women to go on the record for years, but they were afraid of Ken.
I knew all hell was about to break loose, but by this time I hated Ken and didn’t care. He was put on probation. Not fired. And as much as I disliked Ken, he hated me with a pure, singularly-focused hatred. He shot laserbeams through that glass at me. Hostile work environment? You betcha!
Now, you might say, “Melissa, he grabbed you, that’s assault! Why didn’t you go to the police?”
Back then, no one thought in those terms. He was just an entitled dick. The thought of going to the police never occurred to me. Even now, the idea seems laughable.
I just wanted Ken to stop. More, it made me really angry that he had gotten away with this for years.
Maybe I should have threatened a lawsuit. I can understand why some women did. As it was, I was interviewing for another job outside of this company and got out and had the satisfaction that the next woman who had to suffer with Ken wouldn’t have to worry (probably) about being abused by him.
What people now don’t understand is the way the work world used to be. Twenty years ago things were entirely different. There was a five to ten year transition where men learned and adapted to women being in the workforce –and not just in helping roles.
Twenty years ago, women were graduating with degrees and just starting to be peers to men, instead of subordinates.
Guys my age and younger have less issues. They’re used to working with women and having female bosses. The dynamics of the workplace have changed dramatically.
The world has changed and a lot for the better. Some things not for the better. But a woman in the work world does not have to deal with the bull women dealt with even a decade ago.
A friend of the former generation spoke of anger between the sexes–strident women and frustrated men. Now, men and women have far more flexibility and amicable relations.
When I see young men decry the spurious claims against Herman Cain and say that a $35,000 or $46,000 claim is small potatoes, I laugh. Really? Most of these cases were like mine and no money exchanged hands at all. That Herman Cain has two, TWO!, cases like this outstanding against him makes me think that there’s more than nothing to this story.
One woman bringing a spurious claim against an executive is absolutely plausible. Two? Come on. And now, there’s five women who have spoken out about harassment or certainly, highly questionable judgement?
It seems that conservatives would at least give these women a hearing before casting them into the lake of fire.
This case is nothing like what happened to Clarence Thomas. I’ll even give Anita Hill the benefit of the doubt and believe Thomas said something about a pube on a Coke can. That is not sexual harassment. It’s stupid. People are stupid.
Now, I recognize that everyone one of these women can be filthy, lying [fill in the blank epithet] manipulated by nefarious Democrat or establishment Republican or biased media sources to plot against a black conservative man.
Can we wait, though, to destroy these ladies until the whole story comes out? Herman Cain doesn’t think so. He’s in full nuke ’em mode.
I understand that Herman Cain can’t prove a negative.
What he can do is this: he can prove positive assertions wrong. He can go to the Hilton and release those room records and prove his accuser is a liar instead of asserting that she is one.
The Anchoress just wrote about what Herman Cain should have said today.
So, maybe everyone can just chill a bit?
Beyond all the media bias (and there’s lots of that), there are people involved. It would be appalling if these women were victimized twice–and at the hands of conservatives who know better.
1. I like Herman Cain.
1.(a) Well, I liked the Herman Cain who was giving inspiring speeches and firing up a movement. The blaming, obfuscating Cain? Not so much.
2. I do not want Herman Cain to be our President because of things like this. [I have openly endorsed Governor Rick Perry in the Republican primary.]
3. I can still like Herman Cain even if I think he mishandled the crisis.
1. The press is grossly biased. See also Bill Clinton and John Edwards.
2. The press was right to post the Cain case. It was news. Yes, the press is unashamedly hypocritical: Edwards was BIGGER news.
3. The press should be as bull-doggedly after the Democrats as they are the Republicans.
1. Sexual harassment laws are vague and can harm people.
2. Sexual harassment happens and is wrong when it does.
3. It strains credulity that four women are making up charges (just like it did with Clinton).
3 (a). Women coming forward in this day and age know that they will be destroyed by the media (left, and now, it seems, the right) when they bring forth charges against popular men. Why on earth would a woman come forward in this climate? Some say money or fame. Really? These women would likely be middle-aged now or mid-career and with kids. They have NO good reason to come forward in the face of this.
1. The left is far more racist and sexist than the right.
2. The left would bring these charges against ANY conservative, no matter the race or gender. They hate conservative ideology and especially their special-interest groups (blacks, women, other minorities) who embrace conservatism.
3. The race card should not be played. Period. Unless there is actual racism.
What bugs me about this whole thing is that conservatives are using liberal defenses they’ve long reviled:
1. Talk radio wants to destroy the traditional media so badly that the Big Three ignore how their posture negatively influences the conservative movement, ultimately. They end up sounding like they excuse sexual harassment. They end up sounding like they’re blaming the (possible) victims which is exactly the disgusting thing the press did with the women who came forth about Bill Clinton. It is wrong. Period. In addition, their fury at the media sounds like ardent support of Herman Cain as candidate for President at any cost. This is ridiculous and ultimately undermining of them.
2. People who support other candidates who take glee in this story should beware. Candidates who pile on with the media destruction of another Republican should also beware. The media loves destroying conservatives. Remember the media lovefest over John McCain? Slobber, slobber — until he became the nominee. The same thing is happening in the conservative political field now. The media, one by one, is systematically making it seem like all conservatives are awful. They’ll take a magnifying glass to little problems and blow them up into huge issues. It is distressing that people participate in this game because their favored candidate is spared. It is NOT okay.
3. Defending the indefensible is indefensible. It damn well DOES matter if Herman Cain or any other nominee sexually harassed or assaulted a woman or women.
I understand the fury at the press. After watching Jay Rosen in his journalism class at NYU where he discussed manipulating the front page of the New York Times to create a guy like Barack Obama and destroy conservatives like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, I wouldn’t be sad if the whole media system got nuked. Either that, or they should just out their biases instead of being deceitful, hypocritical moralistic destroyers of truth.
I get it. But hot damn, I haven’t been part of the conservative blogosphere six years to become the very thing I hate.
1. Be open about biases.
2. Print the truth.
3. Do not defend wrong.
“By any means necessary” works for leftists and it is destroying the fabric of our society. See the Occupy Wall Street folks? They believe that anything is fair game — children as shields, crapping on police cars, raping, stealing, breaking things.
We win nothing if we win this way.
Herman Cain is well-liked, an amazing speaker, he energized the Tea Party movement. He is loved. It seems he is also a flawed person.
The women who have stories, if they’ve watched this media storm, would be terrified to come forward. Remember what the feminists did to Monica Lewinsky? It made me sick.
Some people I very much respect are treading awfully close to this evil territory. A woman who has a true story to tell, shouldn’t fear being assassinated by conservatives. CONSERVATIVES. That is the provenance of the left. It should stay theirs. This is sickening.
Not sure what to get those hard-to-buy for relatives this Holiday Season? I’m here to help. Buy them the spectacular and riveting book by Phil Kerpen, Democracy Denied.
Phil’s book is a companion and follow up to Michelle Malkin’s book Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies. Like Michelle’s, Phil’s book is fastidiously researched and carefully documented.
Like Michelle’s book, Democracy Denied, is terrifying.
Think you know the full implications of President Obama’s power grab? Think again. And I have to say, seeing it all spelled out made me queasy to read it.
If Obama has his way this is your life:
– Energy consumption rules
– Internet takeover
– Forced union membership
– Forced health care control
– Financial regulations limiting your choices
– Destroying energy jobs
– Taking your land
Full disclosure: Phil Kerpen is one of my friends. He also happens to be one of the smartest guys in Washington, D.C.
Phil is one of those people who has a monster intellect combined with the extraordinary ability to make the complex simple. I’ve met one other person with this gift.
Phil can teach you without talking down to you.
His book is beautifully written–so in addition to reading an informative book, the experience of reading it is enjoyable.
I urge you all to go buy Democracy Denied. Buy them for your skeptical family members. This is no conspiracy book. This is just the cold hard facts about the Obama administration. Those alone, will win over unsure family members and friends still supportive of Obama.