President Bush's "Failed economic policies."

President Obama and the Democrats continue to blame our current economic problems on "Bush's failed economic policies." Of course nothing could be further from the truth. To be sure, President Bush's economic policies were extraordinarily successful given the circumstances, which accrued to him and were not of his doing. In fact, the root causes of our current economic problems are well documented (though avoided by the mainstream media) and can be traced directly back to the social re-engineering policies that began decades ago. Further, the "trigger" was more recent. (See Did Bush Cause Our Financial Crisis? and Obama Blames Bush For Financial Crisis)

But for now, let's take a look at just some of the results of President George W. Bush's economic policies.

Beginning in August 2003, President Bush’s economic policies resulted in the creation of 8.31 million jobs. It was the longest continuous months of job growth on record.

November 2, 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures – 166,000 jobs created in October. Since August 2003, 8.31 million jobs have been created, with 1.68 million jobs created over the 12 months that ended in October. Our economy has now added jobs for 50 straight months – the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 4.7 percent.

The U.S. Economy Remains Strong, Flexible, And Dynamic

• Real GDP grew at a strong 3.9 percent in the third quarter of 2007. The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.

• Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 12.7 percent – an average of over $3,800 per person – since President Bush took office.

• Real wages rose 1.2 percent over the 12 months that ended in September. This rise is faster than the average rate during the 1990s.

• Since the first quarter of 2001, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year. This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.

• The deficit today is at 1.2 percent of GDP, well below the 40-year average. Economic growth contributed to a 6.7 percent rise in tax receipts in FY 2007, following an increase of 11.8 percent in FY 2006.

In other news, the Democratically controlled congress has also set a new record — they now have the lowest congressional approval rating in history. After promising virtually everything, they have accomplished virtually nothing.

Ignorance and the Political Left

It is extraordinarily disingenuous when liberals sneeringly accuse the Fox News Channel of being conservatively biased when all credible studies reveal that every so-called mainstream media outlet in America is politically biased to the left. Moreover, 80 to 90 percent of "mainstream" media reporters, journalists, and supporting personnel vote almost exclusively for Democrats. So can anyone seriously wonder why a fair and balanced news outlet like Fox would look "conservative" to liberal viewers who have been fed biased liberal reporting, analysis, and commentary for decades?

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson

It is a sad and dangerous fact that political left operatives are now demonstrably akin to fascist propagandists. It has become apparent that, for them, the end justifies the means and truth and respect for fellow countrymen are mere obstacles to overcome. Liberals do not want open and honest debate because they know they cannot win in a fair exchange of ideas, nor can they possibly appear credible if questioned on the facts. Hence, Political Correctness and other insidious thought-police concoctions of theirs are designed to severely limit such debate.

To be clear, an inseparable element of the political left are the biased media outlets that control and shape their news, analysis, and editorials in order to convey a specific and very intentional point of view to their audience. The resulting product is pure propaganda.

The political left is attempting to destroy the essential political/socio-economic tenets upon which our nation was founded. Knowing human nature as they did, our founding fathers worried that this kind of power-driven self-interest based on highly flawed political ideology could someday bring down the nation they worked so hard to create. Yet, now, powerful politically-left forces are organized and mobilized in an unrelenting assault on our culture and our political and economic systems. They are heavily financed by self-proclaimed socialists like George Soros and their goals are very clear: They want to change America into a “Europeanized” socialist country.

This problem cannot be overstated. The liberal left collective reaches beyond their political majority to encompass our education system and our media. Yet, while even the most casual student of history should be alarmed by this knowledge, there seems to be no widespread concern, which is precisely what was intended and should have been expected.

Yet, perhaps the most insidious form of ignorance, and the most dangerous to our survival, is to not know that it is the structure and nature of our constitutional republic and our capitalistic economic system, combined, that have enabled us to become the most successful nation in world history. Consequently, we (who understand) are left to wonder what those who seek to destroy that which has worked so well, can possibly be thinking! What drives them? Is it the allure of power or is it ideology? Or is it something yet undiscovered or undefined? Whatever it is, one thing is certain: We cannot sit idly by and merely wonder. We must, aggressively and persistently, act to restore and protect the political and socioeconomic systems and values upon which our nation was built and with which we have thrived.

Post Election 2008 Update:

As shown in post 2008 presidential election surveys, the majority of Obama voters were pathetically ignorant of the most important issues of the day, positions and statements of the presidential candidates, and other pertinent information such as which party currently controls congress.

There is no doubt that if the media had done their job, Barack Obama could not have won the election. Without the indulgent complicity of the media, Obama’s populist and demagogic message of “hope and change” would not have been enough. Ignorance was, in fact, an essential element of the Obama victory.

60 Minutes On The Valerie Plame Affair

60 Minutes & Katie Couric
Sunday, October 21, 2007

Another CBS Propaganda Piece

Dan Rather or Valerie and Joe Wilson could have written this piece. Richard Armitage at the State Deptartment "outed" Valerie Plame to Robert Novak. Period. End of story. Both Novak and Armitage have confirmed this. Anything that anyone said after that meant nothing and more important, neither of the Wilsons, nor anybody else, have ever provided an ounce of proof that the White House planned or did anything to hurt either Valerie or Joe Wilson. The Wilsons simply indulged in what all liberal, left-wing Bush-haters do: They fabricated accusations in order to hurt our president and destroy the reputations of perfectly innocent people. No? Then where is the proof? Not innuendo. Not suspicion. Proof! No one has produced any. None. Zip.

Before I continue, let's be clear about Richard Armitage—who he is, what he did, and what his relationship was to the Bush White House.

• He was Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell when, in an unrelated discussion with journalist Robert Novak, he mentioned that Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA.
• Armitage was a career diplomat and did not have a close relationship with the Bush White House who knew nothing about what Armitage had said to Mr. Novak.

It is also important to know that Mr. Armitage has never been charged with any wrongdoing and that, contrary to what the Wilsons have said very loudly, very publicly, and very often, there is no evidence that Valerie Plame was a covert operative of the CIA when Mr. Armitage spoke with Mr. Novak. In fact, no one has been charged with any wrongdoing as regards the "outing" of Valerie Plame. Why? Because no law was broken and therefore no crime was committed. More importantly, neither President Bush nor anyone in his administration did any of the things they are still being accused of doing. Yet the propaganda and the character assassination never lets up.

But what has been absolutely documented is that Joe Wilson has lied numerous times during the course of this despicable witch hunt and now Valerie Plame is doing it too. Yet in her interview with Valerie Plame, Katie Couric never so much as hinted at the countless lies that can be so easily documented by anyone willing to spend a little time on Google. But then of course dear honest, unbiased Katie left out everything that would have made this piece an honest one.

CBS pulled another bogus hit job on the Bush administration and anyone who thinks otherwise is either in denial, ignorant, certifiably stupid, or a pathological ideologue. To say that CBS is a propaganda arm of the political left is to state the obvious. Can anyone doubt that Dan Rather would still be there if it were not for the existence of the Internet and a couple of alert citizens?

Tonight's 60 Minutes program is just one example of how biased media outlets control and shape a story in order to convey a specific and very intentional point of view to their audience. It is pure propaganda.

An Email To U.S. Congressman Pete Stark

Mr. Stark:

I am not usually a man without words but your remarks regarding the President of our great nation have caused me to feel such deep outrage and visceral anger toward you that nothing I shall say here will be adequate. How dare you! It is one thing to disagree with the President, it is another thing entirely to accuse him of horrendous crimes for which you cannot even begin to make a credible case.

Throughout our history presidents have been criticized for taking us to war and for their conduct of those wars, but, possibly with the exception of the Civil War, never has the criticism reached the volume and the level of meanness, which you and your fellow Democrats viciously inject into the body politic on a daily basis. It is horrendous and it is shameful, and if left unchecked, it may well destroy our great nation.

Among your other despicable accusations against the President, was your charge that he is criminally killing innocent civilians. So let’s look at the truth against the dark lies of your twisted propaganda. The fact is that Democratic presidents have led us into every major foreign war in our history and almost 2 million of our best young people died in those wars. Furthermore, as to the killing of innocent civilians it was Democrats Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman who ordered ongoing massive "carpet bombings" of civilian populations in Europe and Japan. As a result, our military killed more civilians in WWII than military personnel. But under President Bush it is our policy to avoid civilian casualties wherever possible. Yet you and other despicable Democrats accuse him of unspeakable crimes of which he is absolutely not guilty. Compared to presidents of your party, Mr. Bush looks like a saint. I do not make these comparisons in order to disparage the aforementioned presidents but rather to establish honest perspective and context — something you so dishonestly and so conspicuously failed to do.

In a relative sense, the Iraq War is a minor war. It is also clear to any informed person that if we succeed in Iraq (You would hate that.), compared to the massive "Democrat wars" and considering the geopolitical gains, which would most likely accrue, it will have been a real bargain.

You and other dishonest, self-interested political goons constantly decry and sabotage noble American efforts to build a safer world. Your relentless false depiction of the Iraq War as the biggest and most costly war in our history is just one example of this. The truth is, we suffered almost twice as many casualties on D-Day alone than we have suffered during the entire Iraq War and I haven’t even mentioned the First World War, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War—all “Democratic Wars.” Moreover, mistakes made in wars conducted under Democratic presidents fill volumes. But of course you know all of that. So you are a bald-faced liar, Mr. Stark. You are a disgrace and I am ashamed that you are a member of the United States Congress.

Our time-honored tradition of coming together in a time of war has been indispensable as the backbone of our national resolve. Yet you Democrats have trashed that tradition. You have made it starkly (that’s appropriate) clear that your political party and your pathological quest for power comes first and if there is anything left of the country, it comes second. Power is everything to you and you have shown that you will do anything to get it; even destroy honorable and good people who are real American patriots. You truly have no shame.

Finally, you should know that I am a veteran who knows how lucky I am to have been born a U.S. citizen. Now, given the behavior of Democrats over the past six years, I cannot imagine ever voting for one. I see the current Democratic Party as being perhaps the most heartless, morally corrupt, and politically corrosive, party in our history. Your party's standard practice of character assassination is thoroughly disgusting and it is certainly antithetical to what our country stands for.

Frankly, you should be thrown out of congress.


Sincerely,

Robert McKinley

The Truth About Compassionate Conservatives

Another Liberal Myth Is Dispelled

While it won’t come as a surprise to those who have been paying attention, liberals will inevitably try to spin the facts when confronted with the most recent evidence that conservatives are considerably more charitable than liberals. Still, they will not find it easy to refute the numbers and the fact that conservatives are as a group indeed more compassionate than they are.

For decades, liberals have lectured that they are the most compassionate among us. Their political bag of talking points is stuffed with “We-take-care-of-the-underdogs.” and “Conservatives-are-uncaring-selfish-rich people.” rhetoric. But now, their persistent self-righteous sermonizing is shown to be nothing more than the class warfare propaganda of dishonorable demagogues it has always been. Someone has opened their bag of rhetorical lies and found it filled with nauseating hot air—so much it is finally drifting into the crowded upper atmosphere of liberal political myth.

Conservatives give a lot more

Not only do conservatives give more to charity than do liberals, they give much more: a whopping 30% more—and this while conservative’s income is less as a whole than liberal’s, which dispels yet another myth so revered by all liberals—that Republicans are wealthier than Democrats. So is it then fair to say that “Liberals are uncaring, selfish rich people?” and that “Conservatives take care of the underdogs?” Using “Liberal Logic” of course it is. And unlike liberal political myth, it is fact-based on hard evidence.

Arthur C. BrooksWho Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism, by Arthur C. Brooks

Mr. Brooks is a professor at Syracuse University. He studied economics at the prestigious Rand Graduate School. After exhaustive nonpartisan research into the charitable behavior of liberals and conservatives he found that the average conservative-headed household gives 30% more to charity than the average liberal-headed household. He also learned that among the same households conservatives earn 6% less annually than do liberals. Simply put: Conservatives earn less but give much more money to charity than do liberals. His study also revealed that of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average, George W. Bush won 24 of them in the 2004 presidential election. Yes, 24 of the 25 most charitable states are red states.

But the deception runs much deeper
John Edwards, who was the vice-presidential nominee for the Democrats in 2004 and is now running for president in 2008, is constantly telling us that there are two Americas: The haves and the have-nots. In doing so, he continues to reinforce standard liberal class-warfare propaganda. What he and virtually all Democrats would have us believe is that the Democrats can and will fix the economic inequities inherent in our system.

Notice he does not produce evidence that Democrats have a history of actually having helped the less-fortunate sector of our society. Rather, he tells you only that they will and that Republicans will not. Why? Because he also knows that his party has been telling us these things for decades and they have yet to deliver on their promises. In fact, most of their policies have not only failed, they have often been utterly disastrous to large portions of the American underclass. For example, until a Republican congress led by Speaker of The House, Newt Gingrich, reformed our welfare system it had all but destroyed the economic potential of millions of our citizens who had become “slaves” to the very system that was supposed to lift them up out of poverty. He also knows that Republican welfare reform has been quite successful and that it has literally changed the economic dynamic in our society from one of dire hopelessness for an entire class of people to one that has enabled new generations to educate themselves to become productive members of our society and to realize a sense of personal self-worth and dignity unattainable by their parents who were dependant on handouts from their government.

So when John Edwards and other Democrats talk about haves and have-nots, be careful to know exactly what they are doing. They are appealing to your sense of social duty—to your social conscience—in order to get your vote, but not because they intend to actually fix anything.

It is an old Democratic strategy

They are appealing to your simplistic, emotional self in the hope you will not take it upon yourself to learn what the root causes of poverty really are and how to deal with them. They are demagogues. They are trying to convince you that they are the compassionate party—that if you don’t vote for them, there is no hope for our society. Yet in a very real sense, their welfare system was far more successful in getting people to vote for Democrats than it ever was in lifting welfare recipients up and out of poverty. As long as the welfare recipients received their monthly checks, it was virtually guaranteed they would vote Democratic. It was an insidiously deplorable bargain between the Democratic Party and the welfare recipients: The Democrats got votes and gained power, which is always their primary goal, while the welfare recipients remained stuck in a state of virtual economic slavery. It stank.

There are two Americas

There are still have-nots among us. Yet, thanks to Republican welfare reform and other effective policies, there are far fewer as a percentage of population than during the decades of “Welfare Dependence”, which was so near and dear to the hearts of Democratic vote getters. But now we know for certain that there is another significant social divide in our nation: The charitable ones and the less charitable ones.

So let’s dispel this devilish, insidious liberal myth once and for all: The Democratic Party and its loud liberal component, is not, nor has it ever been, the compassionate, charitable party they would have us believe it is. Moreover, if they protest and argue differently; if they still insist they are the most charitable and compassionate among us; ask them, “Compared to whom, the Republicans?”

Of course there are many more myths in their red-hot bag of rhetorical lies. In fact, they have built their entire political house on a bed of deceit.

More later.