By MacPundit

Economics? Whats that?

For years, I have been fascinated by the high level of economic, political, and historical ignorance I have observed among American Liberals. It is a puzzling and mysterious phenomenon. I continue to encounter it in print, broadcast media, and in personal conversations and debates. While Liberals often self-describe as being more intelligent than people of other political persuasions, their lack of knowledge, which seriously undermines and distorts their arguments, belies this notion. To the contrary, based on the following universally accepted definition of intelligence, one can only conclude that they are, in fact, less intelligent.

intelligence   [in-tel-i-juhns] noun

1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

2008 Zogby International Survey

Below, is a summary of results of a December 2008 Zogby International nationwide survey, which gauged economic enlightenment of 4,835 American adults. The survey was designed by Daniel Klein, an economics professor at George Mason University, and Zeljka Buturorvic, a research associate at Zogby International. Ideologically centered questions were screened out, which left eight basic, core economic questions. In other words, none of the eight questions challenged typical conservative or libertarian policy positions.

Liberals and Progressives had the worst scores

Adults self-identifying as “very conservative” and “libertarian” performed the best, followed closely by “conservative.” Trailing far behind were “moderate,” then with another step down to “liberal,” and a final step down to “progressive,” who, on average, got 5.26 questions out of eight wrong. Progressive/very liberal respondents got four times more wrong answers than libertarians.

The results of the survey did not surprise me. They aligned with my personal observations spanning at least 30 years.

Nor were these results surprising:

Who the participants voted for in the 2008 Presidential Election and the number of economic questions they got wrong out of 8.

• McCain 1.60
• Obama 4.61
• Nader 4.92

Political party affiliations of the participants and the number of economic questions they got wrong out of 8

• Libertarian 1.26
• Republican 1.61
• Constitution 1.94
• Independent 3.03
• Democratic 4.59
• Green 5.88

Economist, Ron Ross:

“The survey results demonstrate the strong connection between economic ignorance and interventionist enthusiasm. Those who are most determined to interfere with the economy know the least about it.”

“Liberals don’t seem to care that things are the way they are for some very powerful reason or reasons, which explains why unintended consequences are so common and why results are so often the opposite of intentions.”

“What’s always amazed me is that liberals don’t seem to be even the least bit curious about how the economy works. They love taking and using the wealth created by a market economy, but don’t care a whit about the necessary ingredients for creating that wealth — incentives, the price system, or the critical role of private property rights, for example.”

What’s going on?

It has been said for many years that the political left often fail to incorporate basic economic insight into their morals, and politics. Hayek’s compelling and wholly rational theory, which seems to be supported by substantial empirical evidence, provides an explanation.

“The social-democratic ethos is an atavistic reassertion of the ethos and mentality of the primordial paleolithic band, a mentality resistant to ideas of spontaneous order and disjointed knowledge.”

In other words, their thought processes are a throwback to a primitive time in human development. They resist the inclusion of certain disjointed knowledge (apparently unrelated facts) and, therefor, cannot connect it with other knowledge in order to construct an orderly and reasonable hypothesis. Simply put: They don’t connect the dots very well because they are not aware of or simply do not acknowledge some of the dots.

And there’s this:

To answer the question, “If they are more intelligent, why are liberals – especially those in Hollywood and academia – so much more likely than conservatives to say and do stupid things and hold incredulous beliefs and ideas that stretch credibility?” – Bruce G. Charlton, Professor of Theoretical Medicine at the University of Buckingham, offers an explanation. He suggests that liberals and other intelligent people may be ‘clever sillies,’ who incorrectly apply abstract logical reasoning to social and interpersonal domains. (Notice he said, “… liberals and other intelligent people.” Is it more than likely that Charlton is, himself, a liberal? I’d bet on it. In simple terms, he goes on to say that while humans have, over millenniums, developed what we call “common sense,” liberals and other intelligent people lack common sense, because their general intelligence overrides it.

So their intelligence is a handicap? Oh my! Shouldn’t there be a special government program for them? Or, wait, should they be allowed to vote, or for that matter, hold responsible positions in our government? After all, they have no common sense and look at all the damage they have done already! I mean they are too smart to function well. That can’t be a good thing.

Oh well, at least one thing is clear; they don’t question the proposition that liberals are ignorant. They only attempt to explain why.

I suffer not an ounce of doubt that our current president will go down in history as one of our worst. It is painfully clear to knowledgeable Americans that Barack Obama either has no understanding of how our economy works or he does and is intent on transforming it into something quite different. Of course there is a third possibility: He does not know how it works but still wants to change it. Imagine that. The U.S.A. has been the most successful economy in human history, yet he would endeavor to destroy it. Yes, destroy it, for any meaningful alteration would, necessarily, destroy it.

That may appeal to the ignorant and naïve because they assume that what we have would be replaced with a better economic model, which takes us back to the theme of this post — liberal ignorance.

I’ll leave you with this:

Those who are most determined to interfere with the economy know the least about it.

The Romney Obama War On Women

Women are smart, Mr. President. Watch out!

92.3 percent of jobs lost under Obama were lost by women!

While Hypocrite-In-Chief Obama fabricates one false charge after another against Mitt Romney, he and the Obama Media hide the devastating consequences Obama’s policies have had on American women. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between January 2009, when Obama took office, and March 2012, there has been a net decline of 740,000 jobs for both men and women. But (it’s a big BUT) among women there has been a net loss of 683,000 jobs. So 92.3 percent of the jobs lost under Obama were lost by women! Whoa, wait a minute, that can’t be. Obama loves women. He gives them all kinds of free stuff for goodness sake. I mean you don’t give free stuff to someone unless you love them. Right? Or unless you want them to vote for you. Hmm, yeah, there’s that.

The truth is, Obama’s economic flimflam has wreaked havoc on both men and women but it has taken a monumentally disproportionate hit on women. I repeat: 92.3 percent of the jobs lost under Obama have been lost by women! That means only 7.7 percent were lost by men. You can play with the numbers until your head bursts but it won’t change the facts. So did Obama sit down behind his big president desk one day and figure out how to hurt women more than men? I certainly hope not. No, it’s just that his policies happened to hurt women much more than men. But no matter what he had in mind, the net result is that women have suffered enormously under Obama and there is no relief in sight. It’s no wonder women can’t afford to pay for their own birth control pills!

“Romney’s War On Women”

Now, let’s take a look at “Romney’s War On Women.” Oh, we have a little problem: There is none. Come on all you Liberal hard heads, just for a few short minutes I want you to take a deep breath, imagine that Barack Obama is not the Messiah, and use some good old-fashion common sense. Why in the world would Mitt Romney declare a war on women? Come on now. You can do this. It is absurd! It is just as absurd as all the other bogus charges Democrats have made against Mitt Romney. (That he was responsible for a woman’s death for just one example.) Does Romney hold some positions that you don’t share? Of course he does. And Obama holds some positions that millions of other Americans don’t share. That is why we have elections. That is how we do things in America. But what we should not do is make up lies about whoever we disagree with in order to destroy their character for the sake of winning an election. You know, like Obama does.

Romney is Pro-Life. He also supports the de-funding of federal taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood, and government mandated free contraception for women. He doesn’t think it’s right that taxpayers who oppose abortion should have to pay for abortions. Nor does he think it is right that people who oppose the use of contraception should have to pay for others to use it. We should all take personal responsibility for our choices. That philosophy has made the United States the most successful country in human history and if we lose it, we will surely fail.

While you have every right to disagree with Romney’s beliefs, you do not have the right to impose your beliefs on others. Again, that is why we have elections. Furthermore, to disagree with a candidate’s position on an issue should not give anyone a license to mount unfair, dishonest, vicious attacks on that candidate.

Obama the baby killer?

What if Romney called Obama a baby killer for his position on late-term abortions? As an Illinois State Senator, Obama voted repeatedly to defeat a law that would have saved the lives of babies born alive during botched abortions. He did so in spite of at least one case in which a live baby was unceremoniously placed on a towel and allowed to die while distraught nurses in the delivery room were prevented by law from administering life-saving procedures. Of course my point is that even in that factually-based issue, Romney has refrained from exploiting it. Yet Obama never misses an opportunity to viciously attack Romney with wholly fabricated charges. It is despicable.

The Obama Administration Mistreats Women: Wage disparity and much more …

Now, let’s look at a few more examples of the Obama War On Women. Records show that female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues. What? Where do I get this stuff? Glad I asked. According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees, which was $71,000. Oh me and my facts. Yeah, I know. But it gets worse. Even though Obama White House women earn considerably less than their male counterparts, the Obama campaign trashed Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which extended the time in which women could file lawsuits against employers that discriminate against women on equal pay. To be perfectly clear for all you Liberal diehards: Romney is for (NOT AGAINST) equal pay for women. But the real question is: Did any female employees at the White House file lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act, and if not, why not?

There’s more

Former Obama Economic Advisor, Christina Romer, “I felt like a piece of meat.” (working in the Obama White House”)

“Even when women are in the room with Obama, they are sometimes seen but not heard.” Time Magazine

“… Obama himself is responsible for a work atmosphere that marginalizes and ignores women.” Time Magazine

“The president has a real woman problem.” Reported in book by Nia-Malika Henderson, Women In Obama White House Felt Excluded And Ignored

Alright, if you insist, I’ll throw in one more: Former Obama White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, described attitudes in the White House as fitting

“… all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” – and “This place would be in court for a hostile workplace.”

So how is Obama doing with the female vote? He is not doing great with married women and women with children but he is winning with young single women. But let’s be clear: Women are smart and if the media starts to do their job and they tell the truth, even the young women will change their minds about Barack Obama. After all, he is hurting them right now and under his policies, their future’s don’t look bright at all. The majority of married women and mothers have already figured it out and it is just a matter of time before the young single women do the same—at least for their sake, I hope so.

It’s a hard pill to swallow

There, there. I know this has given you Liberals a migraine. It is because your brains are overloading trying to compute this horribly dissonant information. Not to worry. There is a cure. As foreign as it may sound to you, it is really quite simple: Just open your minds to new, honest information. One of our presidents rightfully cautioned that, “The nine scariest words are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'” Thomas Jefferson said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”

While President Obama tells you that he is your guardian angel, his treatment of women in his own administration is deplorable and his economic policies have wreaked havoc on women in particular. Those are incontrovertible facts. You are being conned! Barack Obama is not in love with women, he is in love with the female vote. Ignore the facts at your own peril.

Personal responsibility is at the heart of American greatness

Learn to respect the rights of other people with whom you disagree. Accept the idea that you cannot always get your way and that other American citizens should not have to pay for free stuff for which you, yourselves, as adults, should be responsible. They aren’t asking you to pay for their stuff so don’t ask them to pay for your stuff.

To Liberals: You have read the facts. Now it’s time to take action. Call the White House, your congressional representatives, and the Obama Media and demand that President Obama end his War On Women. No, I will not hold my breath, but thank you for asking.

Big Government Destroys Nations

By MacPundit

The Five Truths

1. Human beings are corruptible.
2. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
3. The more power a government has, the more corrupt it becomes.
4. The more corrupt government is, the more the people in government (the ones with the power) will make laws and regulations to maintain and extend their power over we the people. To do so, they will favor those who support them over those who do not. Think of “favoritism” and “special interest groups.” This is corrupt.
5. The more power government has over us, the less freedom we have—less freedom to make our own life decisions to decide for ourselves what we think is best for us. Less freedom to speak out against the government. Less religious freedom. Less freedom in every part of our lives.

Without an active, watchful citizenry, government grows exponentially and takes on a life of its own. The people in power create government jobs for their friends and supporters as payback and to help them manage and direct our lives, including our economy. Soon, the free market system is at the mercy of politicians and it can no longer function as the engine of economic creativity and job creation. Unnatural limitations are imposed on economic growth, and we the people suffer financial hardship and loss of freedom. At this point, political power has been successfully taken from the people and it is now in the hands of the ruling class of politicians.

Watch these videos from governmentgonewild.org

And this one …

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

President John F. Kennedy delivered those wise words in his Inaugural Speech. At the very least, President Kennedy would be a right-of-center Democrat today as compared to President Obama who is the most radical left-wing president in U.S. history. Kennedy understood why our political and economic systems work so much better than all others. Kennedy also described himself as, “An idealist with no illusions.”

I don’t know if Obama is an idealist but I am convinced that he wants to strip the United States of its super power status. I believe this conforms with his worldview in which no nation dominates any other. While this idea sounds noble on its face, given the realities of human nature and the history of mankind, it is simply one more fatuous notion that can only appeal to the uninformed or naive. Yet when proposed and aggressively sold to disillusioned masses by a masterful rhetorician, it can become a potentially dangerous idea. If in the late nineteen thirties all nations were essentially equal economically and militarily, who would have been able to stop Adolph Hitler from realizing his demonic vision of a world ruled by his “super race?” The Treaty of Versaille imposed clearly defined restrictions on Germany’s ability to rebuild militarily, yet they did it anyway.  Of course history is replete with similar examples.

To realistically imagine a world without a powerful United States, is to imagine a world dominated by Fascist regimes of one sort or another. Remember the Five Truths. Big Government is our enemy. Government of any size is a necessary evil. Know your history, be informed and involved, and stay free.

Barack Obama, All That Glitters …

Iron pyrite is often mistaken for gold. History is speckled with stories of prospectors whose initial feverish excitement over having discovered gold was soon dispelled by the realization that their “gold” was instead iron pyrite, a convincing lookalike. So this “less special” mineral was ignominiously tagged with the name “Fools’ Gold.”

“I felt this thrill going up my leg.”

Adoring believers were ecstatic when he spoke—breathlessly hanging on to his every word. They cheered and swooned, their faces masked with the unnerving look of idolization—of blind fanaticism that our elders had seen in Europe and the Far East seventy years before. Media commentators fawned over him. Chris Mathews, a top MSNBC news anchor said, “I felt this thrill going up my leg” when he spoke. The most successful woman in the history of American television announced to the world that “He is the One.” – thereby classifying him as a being unlike the rest of us—more than a mere mortal. He was the Messiah or at the very least, Neo from the movie The Matrix.

Bestselling author, Bernard Goldberg, wrote a book entitled, A Slobbering Love Affair about this unprecedented, American phenomenon. He said,

From the day [he] announced his candidacy to the moment he took the oath of office, the mainstream media fawned over him like love-struck school girls. Even worse, this time they went beyond media bias to media activism.”

Journalism in America had died, but not of natural causes. For all practical purposes, its left-wing, so-called mainstream journalists committed ethical suicide when they hid their bags of professional ethics away in inaccessible dark corners of their politically corrupt newsrooms. Objective observers who knew better imagined hearing the earth shake and shudder from the groans of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and other founders whose worst fears were manifesting in the person of Barack Obama.

Ideologues, starstruck youth, apologists, and ignorance

His starstruck supporters were:

• an eclectic mix of rabid Liberal Democrats (many left over from the loud dissemblers of the Sixties)
• politically and historically ignorant youth who had been shaped by a superficial culture that elevates and esteems the cult of celebrity, and others whose singular accomplishment was to become famous
• white apologists for past national wrongs who thought the election of a Black president would somehow publicly affirm America’s penance and mitigate their personal, nagging, misappropriated sense of guilt
• almost the entire bloc of African American voters
• plus other uninformed and misinformed ignorant Americans who were easily swayed by a disarming smile and populist, demagogic rhetoric slickly delivered by a silver-tongued politician.

Post election surveys revealed the full measure of the naivete and ignorance of Obama voters. Liberal to moderate Democrats who at least had an inkling of Mr. Obama’s extreme radical background and his woefully inadequate resume, simply deflected all rational considerations and joined the fervor to elect America’s first Black president. Others acted like college freshmen who had just ingested one more serving of stale Marxist pablum served up by their favorite anti-capitalist professor.

When asked why they voted for Barack Obama their answers were often childish, remarkably inane—dumb: “It would be nice to have a black president.” “He is a great speaker.” Without hesitation, when asked a series of rational, fair, important questions such as “Does his inexperience concern you?” – “Do his long-standing radical associations trouble you?” – “Is the fact that he has not even completed his first term in the U.S. Senate a problem for you?” or “Can you name one significant legislative accomplishment of his?” the answer was “No” every time. Even many informed voters simply ignored their normal tendencies to rational thought, went into denial mode and voted for Barack Obama.

The mask comes off

It was unprecedented. It was astonishing. Now, three years and seven months later, it is clear to all objective, knowledgeable Americans, that it was also rankly irresponsible. By now, it is demonstrably clear that President Obama is at the very least a statist, an advocate of statism—the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. Many political observers will take issue with that analysis and argue that Mr. Obama is a closet Socialist or even a more ambitious Marxist. They base this on his lifelong associations, which have yet to be aggressively vetted or made public by the “mainstream media.” Thus, a large portion of the American public remain unaware of our president’s history—his political beliefs and purposes.

Yet even as these corrupt journalists continue to shield and protect Mr. Obama, we are beginning to see credible signs of disenchantment among some. Occasionally, their questions to Mr. Obama are more pointed, more aggressive than before, which may explain why the President has not held a formal news conference in months. Most of the fawning has subsided. Two honest, well-documented, bestselling books about Barack Obama— Radical In Chief, by Stanley Kurtz and The Amateur, by Edward Klein—finally portray a true picture of our 44^th president. Still, the media continue to be egregiously biased and to give us unbalanced news and commentary. Therefore, it looks like we are in for another presidential campaign in which Mr. Obama will have an unfair and undeserved advantage over his opponent.

All that glitters is not gold

So after almost four years of failed Obama policies marked by the worst economic recovery in seventy years—massive, unsustainable debt, unemployment over 8 percent for over three years, continuing deficits over a $trillion with no end in sight—the Obama believers cannot seem to accept that what they “discovered” four years ago was the political equivalent of Fools’ Gold!