Columnist.
The Obama campaign fans the flames of racial hatred.
Obstacles in the way of the Islamist takeover of Egypt are dwindling.
Either Mitt Romney and the Republican party doesn't get it about the media, or they're just plain stupid. Monday, the moderators for the presidential debates were announced. ... Leftists masquerading as even-handed, one and all. Virtually guaranteed to frame both the issues and the questions in the best possible light for Democrats in general, and Barack Obama and Joe Biden in particular.
A competition of philosophies is now underway.
Political propaganda is a powerful thing. When it is married to economic illiteracy, people can be fooled into voting against their own best interests. Yesterday, a bit of economic reality was introduced into the Social Security debate. To wit: "People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press." What debate? One of the most successful bits of propagandizing by leftists has been their ability to convince a majority of Americans that they are better off sending their Social Security payments to that giant federal sinkhole Washington, D.C., instead of putting them into a private account with their own name on it.
The field of apparent Republican vice president picks narrows considerably.
Scandalous emails reveal a sordid tale.
To paraphrase an old saying, if you're going to accuse someone else of being a weasel, it's probably not a good idea if you're a major weasel yourself. Senator Harry Reid called attention to himself last week, accusing Mitt Romney of not having paid taxes for 10 years. The basis of his allegations? Depending on the day of the week, it was one person: "As I said before, I was told by an extremely credible source that Romney has not paid taxes for ten years...," or more than one: "I am not basing this on some figment of my imagination," Reid said in a telephone call with Nevada reporters. "I have had a number of people tell me that." Asked to elaborate, Reid declined. "No, that's the best you're going to get from me," he said.
The senator's unhinged politics at their worst.
The secretary of Homeland Security makes a startling admission.
Islamic Republic calls for annihilating the great "plight" on humanity, the Jewish State.
What the Republican candidate's primary win tells us about the grassroots movement.
The Obama administration again sets minorities up for financial ruin with "social justice" lending regulations.
For me, there's nothing quite like an ideological argument whose final destination brings us to terminal stupidity sold as common sense. Two of my personal favorites are playing themselves out right now, one courtesy of the atrocity in Colorado, the other courtesy of the 2012 election. Once again, the issues of gun control and the economy are at the forefront of the national conversation. And once again, both illuminate the utter bankruptcy of progressive ideology. Let's begin with gun control. Actually, the words "gun control" are a bit misleading. Government-imposed "self-defense control" would be a far more accurate statement of what the American left is attempting to foist on the public. Only a progressive could imagine that limiting a law-abiding citizen's right to own a firearm would reduce the amount of gun violence, inasmuch as the law-*ignoring* citizen (or non-citizen, for that matter) would be completely unaffected by such restrictions. Perhaps progressives, as is their wont, envision a society with no guns at all, as if the proverbial toothpaste can somehow be squeezed back into the tube.
To punish dissenters, left-wing politicians promise to use the full force of the government.
How long before someone pays the ultimate price?
I'm beginning to wonder if those who write about politics for a living have been worn down to the point where they can't see something, even if it's as blatantly obvious as the Hollywood sign perched high above L.A. For the past week-plus, we've been inundated by columns centered around the president's speech last week in Roanoke, Va., where he uttered the immortal words "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Both Obama defenders and detractors have offered up gobs of "insight" regarding that couplet, yet I haven't seen one column that comes to correct conclusion about why he said it. Most of the columnists on the liberal side defended the president's remarks as something taken out of context, or that the second half of the couplet, "you didn't build that" didn't actually refer to businesses, but to something earlier in the speech, such as infrastructure. Yet the best someone can say about that so-called analysis is that, when you have to "re-interpret" what Obama said in order to explain it to the "benighted" masses, either the idea itself is pretty lousy, or the re-interpreter is doing his slanted best to cover his man's behind.
The hate-America media unleashes.
Doing the Obama campaign's dirty work for them.
Why Mitt Romney needs to wake up and go on the offense.
