Why conservatives don’t hate Warren Buffett

E.J. Dionne’s columns don’t offer much in the way of argument or information, but they are valuable as a window into the mind of the left. For example, his column from the Washington Post website on September 28th, titled “Why conservatives hate Warren Buffett“.

Maybe only a really, really rich guy can credibly make the case for why the wealthy should be asked to pay more in taxes. You can’t accuse a big capitalist of “class warfare.” That’s why the right wing despises Warren Buffett and is trying so hard to shut him up.

But conservatives don’t hate Warren Buffett, they disagree with Warren Buffet on the issue of tax rates. And no one is trying to shut him up. It’s pure psychological projection from Dionne, who obviously hates conservatives. He doesn’t offer any evidence in the whole column, none, to back up his assertion that conservatives hate Buffett or anyone else, or that anyone is trying to shut him up. But this is pretty much an article of faith on the left – they’re motivated in large measure by hate, envy, and anger, so they just assume we on the right are motivated by the same emotions.

What’s really bugging Dionne is the fact successful Americans aren’t giving enough of their earnings to the government, and that anyone dissents from the idea that they should give more to the government.

Wealthy people, by definition, have done better within this system than other people have. They ought to be willing to join Buffett and Edwards in arguing that for this reason alone, it is common sense, not class jealousy, to ask the most fortunate to pay taxes at higher tax rates than other people do. It is for this heresy that Buffett is being harassed.

Wealthy people, by definition, do not put their money under a rock, they use it for all sorts of things – they invest in new or existing businesses, they pay employees, they purchase goods and services from other businesses, they give to charity – but Dionne and his fellow leftists don’t think any of that counts. Their comments suggest that only money given to the government counts as contribution to society.

Advertisement

Washington Post offers press release for White House “deficit plan”

In the “news” item from the Washington Post about President Obama’s latest iteration of his same old “deficit reduction” plan, the hackery begins right up top in the title: “Obama’s debt-reduction plan: $3 trillion in savings, half from new tax revenue“.

And the item begins:

President Obama will announce a proposal on Monday to tame the nation’s rocketing federal debt, calling for $1.5 trillion in new revenue as part of a plan to find more than $3 trillion in budget savings over a decade, senior administration officials said.

….

About half of the tax savings would come from the expiration next year of the George W. Bush administration tax cuts for the wealthy.

But of course, raising taxes is not “savings”. The whole thing is written using Democratic Party language and talking points – “tax savings”, “tax cuts for the wealthy”, etc. The only thing missing is the official DNC logo at the top of the page.

Paul Krugman and the Flag Burners

There’s been a good amount of reaction to the blog post put up by Paul Krugman at the NY Times today. There’s been less reaction to the story that’s linked below Krugman’s on memorandum as I write:

A group of Muslim protesters set fire to an American flag outside the US embassy in London during a minute’s silence to mark the moment that the first hijacked airliner hit the World Trade Center 10 years ago.

You expect some Muslims fanatics to burn a US flag somewhere on any given day. You expect some irrational, angry leftist like Paul Krugman to post some irrational, angry bile on a day like today. So we don’t get particularly shocked or outraged by either event.

We tend to agree with William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:

That’s how they feel, so in a sense I’m glad Krugman gave voice to it on this day. They can’t stand the fact that the attacks on 9/11 proved that their world view was wrong, and every mention of 9/11 is like a thorn in their political sides.

Clarity about how leftists like Krugman think and what they believe about America is important, especially important as we approach an election year. We should encourage them to be as open and honest about their real views as possible.

Update: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air isn’t outraged either:

It’s nothing Krugman wouldn’t say (and probably does say) the other 364 days out of the year, and Krugman says it in pretty much the same vacuous manner of the everyday sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome. After reading this, you seriously have to remind yourself that the New York Times pays Krugman to write it; this wouldn’t even pass muster for a Letter to the Editor at most newspapers. It’s so trite, sad, and cliched that it’s hardly worth the effort to rebut. He’s mailing this in from 2003. It’s as if Krugman hasn’t bothered to think about 9/11 in the past ten years at all, which says a lot more about Krugman than it does about 9/11.

Yahoo News contributor equates “Hispanic” with “Illegal Immigrant”

Yahoo News posted a commentary from Democrat activist William Browning, attacking Senator John McCain of Arizona for alleging a wildfire in May was started by illegal immigrants or drug smugglers.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., made an appalling statement June 20, regarding the Wallow Fire that was raging in his home state. The largest wildfire in the state’s history had allegedly been started by illegal immigrants.

“During our tour of the damaged areas caused by the Wallow Fire on Saturday, we were briefed by senior Forest Service officials, one of whom informed us that some wildfires in Arizona (across our southern border) are regrettably caused by drug smugglers and illegal immigrants. This statement is consistent with what we’ve been hearing for years, as well as testimony by the Forest Service and media reports dating back as far as 2006,” McCain’s website stated.

….

Caleb Joshua Malboeuf and David Wayne Malboeuf are cousins who were allegedly camping in the Bear Wallow area May 29. The Tucson Citizen reports their campfire supposedly burned out of the control and high winds picked up the campfire and it quickly spread. After $79 million, 72 burned buildings and 538,000 acres the two men are charged with five counts which face jail time and/or fines.

McCain owes the state of Arizona and every Hispanic living in his state an apology.

Senator McCain’s statement, that “some wildfires in Arizona…are regrettably caused by drug smugglers and illegal immigrants”, is a perfectly reasonable statement, there’s nothing appalling about it at all.

The only appalling statement in this story came from William Browning.

News flash for Yahoo and Mr. Browning – “Illegal immigrant” and “Hispanic” are not synonymous. Most of the Hispanic people living in Arizona are not illegal immigrants, they are citizens or legal residents of the state.

A Republican making such an equation would immediately be shouted down as a racist hate-monger. But obviously the standards are different for liberal Obama supporters.

New York Times applies religious test to Governor Rick Perry of Texas

From The New York Times, “Rally Raises Anew Question of the Boundaries of Perry’s Faith“:

Few political figures in America have so consistently and so unabashedly intermingled their personal faith and their public persona, peppering speeches with quotations from Scripture, speaking from the pulpit at churches, regularly meeting and strategizing with evangelical Christians and even, in one recent speech, equating public office with the ministry.

This reminded us of Franklin Roosevelt’s D-Day Prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

….

And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.

FDR – right-wing religious extremist.

Breaking News from 1517: Lutheran Church “Anti-Catholic”

This story from James Oliphant at the Los Angeles Times is just hilarious. It just shows such a glaring ignorance of basic Christian history and theology he should be embarrassed. But he obviously doesn’t know enough to be embarrassed.

Taking a page from President Obama’s political playbook, Michele Bachmann has formally left a church in Minnesota accused of holding anti-Catholic views.

Wait, hold on a minute! The Lutheran Church is “anti-Catholic”? Hasn’t this been the case since, oh, 1517 or so? Has Oliphant ever heard of Martin Luther? Churches have theological disagreements. To talk about this fact as if it can’t be based on anything more than some invidious prejudice is ridiculous. It only demonstrates the ignorance and/or prejudice of the writer. Liberals always preach “diversity”, but then they portray any disagreement as bias or prejudice.

The controversy began when someone doing opposition research on Michele Bachmann read a statement on the website of her former church in Minnesota.

Earlier this week, the Atlantic reported that that the synod’s website contains a statement that equates the pope with the antichrist. The writer, Joshua Green, also spoke with [Joel] Hochmuth [a spokesman for the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod], who explained the statement thusly:

“Some people have this vision of a little devil running around with horns and red pointy ears. (Martin) Luther was clear that by ‘antichrist’ [he meant] anybody who puts himself up in place of Christ. Luther never bought the idea of the Pope being God’s voice in today’s world. He believed Scripture is God’s word.”

The comparison of the Protestant Reformation to the rants of Obama’s racist pastor Jeremiah Wright is also a nice touch.

Obama left his church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, in May 2008 after incendiary sermons by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright surfaced in the heat of his bitter presidential fight with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton

Can Oliphant really not see any difference between a centuries-old theological disagreement and Wright’s contemporary racist, anti-American rants?

It’s pretty typical for secular liberal journalists to be ignorant of religion, this is just one glaring example out of many.

Obama Supports, Opposes “Same-Sex Marriage” at Same Time, Lapdog Press Goes Along

It’s hard to choose which is more ridiculous, President Obama’s continuing disingenuous double-talk regarding so-called “same-sex marriage”, or the willingness of so-called “journalists” to go along with the game.

After Obama’s press conference today, we get this bizarre abuse of language in a headline from the Los Angeles Times: Obama praises New York on same-sex marriage [sic] but won’t endorse it

The story doesn’t do much to clarify the difference between “praise” and “endorse”:

The president has been on the record as opposing same-sex marriage [sic], but Wednesday, he attempted, as he has previously, to attempt to carefully navigate a middle position. At a news conference at the White House East Room, he lauded the recent move by the New York Legislature to legalize the practice, calling it “a good thing.”

So the president himself, out of his own mouth, calls it “a good thing”, but he doesn’t endorse it. Crystal clear. The Times doesn’t really explain what the “middle position” is between endorsing and praising that Obama attempted to attempt to carefully navigate. Maybe “praise” means he’s for it (but not really, bigoted hick voters of middle America, wink, wink), and “endorse” means he marries a man himself. What, he’s already married, you say? Stop being so judgmental – what are you, the Taliban?

Maybe the Times will clarify further in their next Obama campaign press release.

The L.A. Times concludes:

But as his reelection campaign heats up, Obama gave no sign that he will move toward openly embracing same-sex marriage [sic], a priority for gay and lesbian advocates.

Really? For this supposedly “professional journalist”, saying the redefinition of marriage “is a good thing” gives no sign, none at all, that Obama openly embraces the redefinition?

It cannot be that journalists are that gullible. They’re obviously, dare we say “openly”, participating in a transparent ruse to try to fool some voters going into the next campaign.

The Times piece ends with a real confidence-builder from the president:

“I’ll keep giving you the same answer until I give you a different one,” he told one reporter.

Alan Colmes’ LoonyLand

Via memeorandum, we noticed this hilarious/pathetic post on Alan Colmes’ website:

The Right’s Hypocrisy About Rap Music and Common

The right wing, desperate to find reasons to attack President Obama, has been going crazy because the rapper Common appeared at a White House poetry event.

Conservative critics are blasting tonight’s White House poetry event for including a rapper named Common, whose lyrics have blasted former President George W. Bush — “burn Bush” — and celebrated a former Black Panther convicted of killing a New Jersey state trooper.

The New Jersey state police union is protesting is protesting Common’s appearance at poetry, as is 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

….

Of course one can’t expect Sarah Palin, and many white conservatives, to understand how rap music gives voice to a population that is often mistreated by authorities.

And the right has a short memory, conveniently forgetting their own associations which don’t seem to trouble them. Eazy-E of NWA, famous for the song “F…Tha Police”, attended an invitation-only lunch with the first president Bush in 1991 ….

The utter stupidity of the post is hard to overstate. First, how in the world is it “hypocrisy” (perhaps the most overused and misused word in the left-wing lexicon) for any conservative in 2011 to criticize this current event, because President Bush had lunch with some other rapper in the early 1990s? That’s just absurd. (Colmes is one of many on the left who considered it out of bounds to bring up Obama’s decades-long, close association with his racist pastor, Jeremiah Wright. But Sarah Palin, indeed all conservatives, are responsible for who Bush had lunch with in 1991? Talk about hypocrisy.)

Second, how would any sane person characterize the New Jersey state police union as “the right wing”? Of course this is a rhetorical question.

Third, how about that condescending, even somewhat racist, dig “Of course one can’t expect Sarah Palin, and many white conservatives, to understand…”? Of Course! Who among us could possibly understand the mean streets of the inner city like Alan Colmes does! Nice touch Homes, I mean Colmes!

Finally, American society really is in sad shape if it’s really considered “right wing” to oppose the celebration of someone who murdered a police officer. Fortunately, we don’t think Alan Colmes has that much influence.

The Democrat-Communist Coalition 2

Via Pajamas Media, here’s another example of the Democratic Party base openly cavorting with communist groups.

And no, this isn’t guilt by association, it is actual association.

We noted a similar coalition of Democrats and communists back in 2006. This sort of thing is nothing new, the DeMSM has been ignoring these associations for a long, long time. But of course, if there’s one guy in a sea of thousands at a Tea Party rally with an unfortunate sign, DeMSM cameras are rolling.

The issue is not unions, it’s government employee unions

A common tactic on the left, including in the media, when there’s a discussion of illegal immigration, is to talk about “immigrants” rather than “illegal immigrants”, in order to cloud the issue at hand.

A similar dynamic is occurring in the current debate over government employee unions in Wisconsin and elsewhere. Protesters in Wisconsin, and their media and political allies, consistently speak of “worker rights”, “labor rights”, “union rights”, etc. But no one anywhere is talking about doing anything at all regarding private sector unions. The issue at hand is solely about government employee unions.

It’s important for people to understand that the relationship between management and labor in the public sector is entirely different from the relationship in the private, profit-making sector. Even liberal icon FDR understood this well back in the 1930s:

“The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,” Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees. Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, wrote Roosevelt. But, he wrote, “I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place” in the public sector. “A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government.”

It’s understandable that the protesters in Wisconsin would want to obscure the distinction, but conservatives (like Sarah Palin, for example) should be careful to preserve it whenever they address the topic. The government union bosses, who want to preserve their political clout and perks, want to portray the issue as “fat-cat rich Republican politicians” against “working people”. Conservatives need to be careful not to help them do it.