Wealthy Democrats Pay Higher Taxes?

I thought wealthy liberal Democrats wanted to pay higher taxes? (cue guffaws, chortles, snorts). 

Guess not. Here's what Jim Sinegal, co-founder and former CEO of Costco (not to mention Obama supporter and donor) is doing in order to let shareholders of his company avoid paying higher taxes on capital gains in 2013 when the rates go up:

"...The giant retailer announced Wednesday that the company will pay a special dividend of $7 a share this month. That's a $3 billion Christmas gift for shareholders that will let them be taxed at the current dividend rate of 15%, rather than next year's rate of up to 43.4%—an increase to 39.6% as the Bush-era rates expire plus another 3.8% from the new ObamaCare surcharge. More striking is that Costco also announced that it will borrow $3.5 billion to finance the special payout. Dividends are typically paid out of earnings, either current or accumulated. But so eager are the Costco executives to get out ahead of the tax man that they're taking on debt to do so."

Mr. Sinegal stands to benefit as well. I read elsewhere that "Mr. Sinegal owns two million Costco shares, and his wife owns nearly 85,000 shares. He stands to make at least $14 million from the dividend. After taxes, he'll keep about $12 million. But if he waited until next year, he'd get only $8 million. By cashing in this year, he's avoiding $4 million in higher Obama taxes." 

And people wonder why conservatives disdain liberals and their phony "indignation" about those nasty Republican millionnaires. 

"Costco's Dividend Tax Epiphany" (Wall Street Journal, November 30, 2012) 

Memo to America: Raising Taxes on Rich People Doesn't Work

This is for all the silly, foolish people who buy into Barack Obama's rhetoric that raising taxes on "millionnaires and billionaires" will somehow solve all our problems. 

'T'wont work. Never has, never will. Case in point: rich people leaving Britain to avoid paying higher taxes. Said one conservative member of Parliament, “Labour’s ideological tax hike led to a tax cull of millionaires. Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue." See article in The Telegraph, below, for details.

Is anyone surprised? Are you kidding me? Of course they're going to leave! People with wealth are too smart to put up with this nonsense. There's nothing intrinsically altruistic about the wealthy. They've worked too hard to just lie down and let the government waltz in and pick their pockets. The Warren Buffets can pontificate all night long until the veins in their necks bulge about how they would gladly pay higher rates, but don't you believe them, not for one blue state second. These are the ones who can hide their money or just up and leave town, if they want. That's what's happening in California. People are high-tailing it out of town. Going to places like Texas. Even those phony-baloney Hollywood liberals are taking their business out of state. And why shouldn't they? California is robbing us blind. It's the bottom line that matters. End of story. 

Raise taxes on the rich? And for what, by the way? To what end? Come on, smarty pants. Let's look at this situation logically. Even if Barack Obama got what he wanted and was able to raise the tax rates on those nasty millionnaires and billionaires, the amount of revenue generated would fund the government for eight days. In fact, you could take every nasty millionaire and billionaire's last dime and it wouldn't make a dent in the national debt. Barack Obama has outspent all previous presidents in his first term than any of them did in two terms. And he's not stopping. He won't even discuss spending cuts as we approach this so-called fiscal cliff. This is absurd! This is a sham! This is mockery!

Nevertheless, there he is, folks, your wonderful president, your hero, your savior, Mr. Barack Obama himself, out on the campaign trail three weeks after the election, blaming the nasty Republicans for our fiscal problems and calling on everyone to support his plan to raise taxes on the wealthy. 

Yoo hoo, Mr. President, the election's over. It's time to stop demagoguing and start governing. 

Foolish, silly people, you're so proud of your little vote, aren't you? I hold every single last one of you, 18-years old on up, for what you've done, for your gullibility, for falling for this charlatan once again. Because if Barack Obama is good at anything, he's good at campaigning. Yes, we get it, we who lost, we get it. We were beaten by the best. He's a terrible president, but he's a master campaigner. He's an amazing community organizer (I say this with disdain). He's brilliant at dissembling, demonizing, propagandizing, so brilliant that most people--most well-meaning, genuinely nice people, people I'm related to even--have no idea that they're being manipulated, that they were played for fools. Not a clue. 

Doesn't matter, though. A vote is a vote, elections have consequences, and now we're stuck, and we're all going to have to live with this decision to give this narcissistic, arrogant, divisive, charlatan another four years.

"Two-Thirds of Millionnaires Left Britain to Avoid 50% Tax Rate" (Robert Winnett, The Telegraph)

Tom Clancy, Yo! Here's a Good Story

Stranger than fiction....

Monica Crowley, writing for the Center for Security Policy, asks the questions that the press and maybe even Congress isn't asking (but needs to): 

Wonder why we're getting a drip-drip-drip of wild new details every day? To keep us distracted. The sex scandal is a mess, but it's not the mess that matters. What matters is what happened in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including two Navy SEALS, a longtime foreign service officer, and the personal representative of the President of the United States, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. 

Here are a few of the critical questions that REALLY matter: 

1. As has been reported by Aaron Klein and others, the U.S. compound in Benghazi was NOT a consulate.  It was a "mission" of some sort, and it looks increasingly likely that the CIA was running the show there.  What was the CIA doing in Benghazi? 

2. What were Stevens and the others doing at that CIA mission late into the evening? 

3. Before he was killed that fateful night, Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods rescued scores of Americans from the compound. Who were they?  What were they doing in Benghazi? 

4.  Woods sprung into action to try to save the Ambassador and others despite being given the order to "stand down." Who gave the "stand down" order? Did Obama approve it? 

5.  Who repeatedly denied their requests for help as they were under attack? Who was watching the attack unfold in real time back in Washington? 

6. Who dreamt up the fiction that the attack was inspired by some obscure video? And who sent out top administration officials, including U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and CIA Director David Petraeus, among others, to spin and perpetuate the fiction-for weeks? 

7.  MOST IMPORTANTLY: What is this administration REALLY covering up?

The title of Crowley's article is, "The Real Questions are Still About Benghazi, Not the Petraeus Sex Scandal." Read the seven sub-questions listed under item 7, above. The implications are startling and would explain why the Obama administration is going to such extremes to hide, conceal, distract, even lie to protect itself. 

Full article here. 

"Our Lord and Savior Barack Obama"

Slashing Jobs and Reducing Hours the New Normal Under ObamaCare

"Obamacare," I've been gently chided, is a derogatory term for the "Affordable Care Act." We shouldn't refer to this act derisively because supposedly Obama cares... 

Ah, I see. 

Somebody please show me that he cares. For instance, how much does Obama care about the ramifications of this poorly-thought out monstrosity on some of the sectors that may be impacted? 

Let's start with business:

"The restaurant industry, already operating with razor thin margins, doesn’t have the ability to absorb tens of thousands more in healthcare expenditures without a considerable increase in sales. It’s a basic realty [sic] of economics: more has to be coming in than going out. The only solution for restaurants that want to stay open and maintain competitive pricing would be to cut employee hours to part-time status. This is the conclusion already reached by several large chains–companies that provide jobs to tens of thousands of working class Americans . . . "

Now, education:

"Community College Of Allegheny County will cut the hours of some instructors to avoid paying for their health insurance coverage under new Affordable Care Act rules . . . The Affordable Care Act -- nicknamed Obamacare -- classifies employees who work 30 hours or more per week as full-time, and CCAC would be required under the new law to provide employer-assisted health insurance to those employees.Instead, temporary part-time employees, such as clerical, computer, seasonal and other positions, will be limited to working 25 hours per week, and adjunct instructors will only be able to teach 10 credits per semester. Permanent part-time employees, already eligible for health care coverage, will be unaffected. The Pittsburgh-based college estimates the move will save it from spending an additional $6 million."

So much for Obama's (false) promise to spur job growth. I propose someone keep track of all the industries that start cutting back employee hours, reducing staff, or refusing to expand. 

Read full articles here: 

"Restaurant Industry Already Preparing for Obamacare Consequences" (Bethany Mandel, Commentary Magazine, November 19, 2012).

"CCAC Cuts Adjuncts' Hours to Avoid Obamacare Requirements" (Tyler Kingcade, The Huffington Post, November 20, 2012).

Situation Room Photos Released Only When it Promotes a Narrative?

Here's the now famous photo of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and others in the Situation Room the night when Osama bin Laden was killed:

Ah, as an American, I feel so proud of my leaders. They look so absorbed, so concerned.

Now, here's the Situation Room the night of the Benghazi attacks in which our ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stephens, and four others were killed in what is now understood to be a terrorist attack but which was spun for several weeks by the administration as a mob riot protesting an anti-Muslim video. Here's the pic:  










Oh, wait, sorry, folks. No picture is available, nor, apparently will one be forthcoming. Apparently Mr. Obama has (and I quote), provided all information regarding "what happened in Benghazi."

Gee, as an American, I feel so . . .well, so manipulated.

White House Declines to Release Images from Night of Benghazi Attacks (CBS News).

Faux Outrage? Sorry, LA Times. Not Buying It.

Here's the Los Angeles Times pontificating this morning about the "fog of politics" on Benghazi and claiming that the only reason Republicans are still talking about Benghazi is political: 

Both Rice's comments and the talking poins on which they were based apparently erred in portraying the attack in Benghazi as a spontaneous reaction to the protests in Cairo. But the charge that she knowingly misled her interviewers or the country is, as President Obama rightly said at his news conference last week, outrageous and utterly unsupported by any evidence.

The Times then sets its sights on John McCain, one of the leading voices critical of both Rice (possible nominee for Secretary of State) and the Obama administration itself in its weeks-long denial and obfuscation regarding the events that took place in Benghazi on September 11: 

On Sunday's Face the Nation, McCain suggested that Rice might return to his good graces "by publicly coming back on this show and saying, 'I was wrong, I gave the wrong information on your show some weeks ago.' That might be a beginning." No (sniffs The Times), the beginning would be for the senator to apologize to the ambassador. 

Oh, for heaven's sake, LA Times. Get off your pompous asses and admit that if a Republican president had sent his ambassador out to the major news outlets for a week of interviews that propagated a false narrative that concealed the truth to the American people about a terrorist attack, you'd be at the vanguard calling for impeachment. Your faux outrage isn't fooling anyone.

Stop insulting the intelligence of your readers. At least half of us are on to you. 

"Fog of Politics on Benghazi" (Los Angeles Times editorial, November 20, 2012).

"They're Playing a Different Game"

This morning, eating a bowl of cereal and waiting for eggs to come to a boil, I happened to tune in to Dennis Prager's program and caught a snippet of his discussion on leftism and taxes.

More important to leftists than liberty, Dennis argues, is equality. Bringing the wealthy down is more important than bringing the poor up. That's why the left believes in taxing the wealthy. Obama's tiresome and disingenuous mantra (my words), that millionaires and billionaires aren't paying their "fair share," is the latest riff on this idea.

If a conservative were to challenge that notion by explaining that raising taxes on the wealthy actually suppresses prosperity for everyone in society and not just the wealthy, the left wouldn't care. Dennis suggests an analogy. It would be like telling a baseball player, "If you do [thus and such], you won't be able to score a touchdown." But the baseball player doesn't care about touchdowns. He cares about home runs. It's a different game. 

That's the way it is with the Left, says Dennis. The Left doesn't care about prosperity. It cares about equality. The Left is interested in a different goal. They're playing a different game. 

I find this analogy pretty intriguing. I wonder how others view it. 

The question about whether raising taxes on the wealthy helps or hurts the economy was addressed in an article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal by Stephen Moore. Moore argues that raising taxes hurts the economy and cites several times throughout American history when this was demonstrated, including during and after JFK's administration. 

Moore writes:

JFK cut rates by about 30% for every income group. He argued that the lower tax rates would "boost the economy, produce revenues, and achieve a future budget surplus." He even called lower rates an "investment in the future." His prediction that the economy would surge was validated by rapid growth every year from 1965 through 1968. Tax collections grew by 8.6% per year and unemployment fell to 3.4%. "The unusual budget spectacle of sharply rising revenues following the biggest tax cut in history," announced a 1966 U.S. News and World Report article, "is beginning to astonish even those who pushed hardest for tax cuts in the first place."

This is the kind of common-sense fiscal policy we might have seen instituted under a Romney administration. Unfortunately, common sense fiscal policy is lost on the class warfare policies of hard-leftists like Obama and his fellow Democrats who, believing they were given a mandate in the 2012 election, are trotting onto the football field carrying gloves and bats, intent less on lowering the deficit and stimulating job creation than they are on leveling the playing field. They're playing a different game.

"Why Lower Tax Rates are Good for Everyone," by Stephen Moore (Wall Street Journal, November 15, 2012).

Four More Years

This is What They Voted For

From today's Wall Street Journal editorial board (full article linked below): 

“Note, however, that federal spending remains at a new plateau of about $3.54 trillion, or some $800 billion more than the last pre-recession year of 2007. One way to think about this is that most of the $830 billion stimulus of 2009 has now become part of the federal budget baseline. The "emergency" spending of the stimulus has now become permanent, as we predicted it would….

Even if Mr. Obama were to bludgeon Republicans into giving him all of the tax-rate increases he wants, the Joint Tax Committee estimates this would yield only $82 billion a year in extra revenue. But if growth is slower as a result of the higher tax rates, then the revenue will be lower too. So after Mr. Obama has humiliated House Republicans and punished the affluent for the sheer joy of it, he would still have a deficit of $1 trillion.

Most of our readers know all this, but we thought you'd like some new evidence to rebut the kids who voted for your taxes to go up when they return from college for Thanksgiving. Maybe they'll figure it out when they have a job, if they can find one.”

The Hard Fiscal Facts (Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2012)

He Has Now Won Twice (Alas)

Or, why we despair. 

Anyone who uses the Latin phrase inter alia instead of the more prosaic "among other things" deserves at least a listen.

Written by a Brit, who has been there/done that, it's as clear an explanation for why conservatives believe the re-election of Barack Obama says more about America than it says about Obama. Which is why many of us, like the author, despair.

I've linked the entire article below. Here are a few choice nuggets.

"But, consider this: A president of the United States just ran a reelection campaign based on the promise of government largess, exploitation of class division, the demonization of success, the glorification of identity politics, and the presumption that women are a helpless interest group; and he did so while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the looming — potentially fatal — crisis that the country faces. And it worked." 

"Our president, a Narcissus masquerading as a Demosthenes, makes big speeches packed full of little ideas, and he is applauded wildly for it." 

"I have watched how these sorry ideas play out in the real world, and it is not pretty: They make people’s lives worse, and yet simultaneously convince them that any reform will kill them — a fatal combination. Americans should avoid this path sedulously, for that way lies decline." 

"The president has an ample library of ideas from which to choose, and yet he raids the Old World." 

"This year, certainly, was not the perfect storm of 2008. Then, novelty and redemption played a role; this time, an insipid bore ran on an openly statist platform and won the day in a country that is supposed to be 'center right.' Maybe it no longer is."  

"The central problem, then, is not that Obama will be president for the next few years, but that the American people — knowing him — chose to reelect him." 

"Obamacare will now go into effect, and Americans will soon feel entitled to its fruits. Those who doubt that this will have a deleterious effect on American republicanism have clearly never been bribed with their own health care." 

"Alas, there is nothing written in the stars that says that America will always be America." 

"Why I Despair," by Charles C. W. Cooke (National Review Online)

Barack Hussein . . . Nixon?

Sorry, I'm not going to let up. Obama is 10 times worse than Nixon.

Some day people will see.

This is only the latest in a string of ground shaking events demonstrating that the Obama administration hid information vital to the American people during the last days of the 2012 election cycle. The fact that the most respected soldier of his generation, Petraeus, would be leaving the administration during an Obama second term, had to be known by the White House prior to the election. And they said nothing in order to run out the clock.

The fact that Attorney General Eric Holder was considering stepping down from the administration had to be known by the White House prior to the election. Meanwhile, during the election cycle, the Obama administration claimed executive privilege in order to shield Holder from questions about Fast and Furious.

The fact that an American drone was fired upon in international airspace by Iranian airplanes was hidden from the American public for a week in order to prevent the American public from recognizing the failure of the Obama Iranian foreign policy.

The facts in Benghazi were lied about by virtually every member of the Obama administration for weeks upon weeks.

The fact that the administration had been slow-walking reams of vital regulation to beyond the election in order to avoid scaring off voters was hidden from the public.

Now that the Obama administration has succeeded in winning a second term, they are cleaning house. The two figures most linked to the disaster in Benghazi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Petraeus, are gone. The figure most linked with Fast and Furious, Eric Holder, will be gone. The figure most linked to the administration's economic failures, Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, will be gone.

Only Obama remains. He ran out the clock on his scandals, and now throws anyone associated with them overboard.

The Petraeus resignation is only the most recent evidence that the Obama administration will lie to the American people to achieve its ends. But with all of his experts gone, Obama's cabinet will now be staffed by the political C team in a time of crisis, both domestically and internationally.

"CIA Director Resigns Over 'Affair'"

??????????????????????????

The Gospel According to...?

Just not sure what to make of this. One is tempted to mock. On the other hand, it sort of fits into a profile that has emerged, and is still emerging, of a cult leader of sorts.

According to an article in The Daily Caller, the stated goal of Thompson’s book is to “unlock the answers” contained within Obama’s numerous speeches, so that “his followers” may have a guide “to creating and living in the reality of a middle class lifestyle that was so economically and ethically sound that it appeared to be ‘heaven here on earth.’” 

By the way, the author, a professor at Florida A&M University.

Thoughts? 

What's Happened to the Democratic Party?

Then...



And now...

Obama's America?

Excerpt from a September 2012 Megan McCain interview of Dinesh D'Souza in The Daily Beast. Obama has been re-elected. Does he still believe this?

What do you think 2016 will look like if Obama is elected?

I think my worry, as an immigrant, is 2016 may see the end of the American era. What I do mean by that is that in the last 70 years, it is has been a special time to be an American. America has truly had a privileged position in the world and that means, in a small way, when you travel abroad the American passport is better than everybody else's passport and the American dollar can be used when other currencies can't be. But in a broader way, it means America has really been calling the shots around the world. I was born in a little pocket in the outskirts of Bombay. I came to America excited about being at the center of things. I believe in the American Dream. I'd fight to keep that American era going. I think Obama sees it differently. To him, it's a bad thing that one country, the United States, gets to lord over the rest of the world. He thinks it would be good to have many powers in the world—Russia, Brazil, China, India, and America—all sharing power. He thinks it will be better if the standard of living between countries were leveled. American decline may be inevitable. But we never had a president who was a champion of decline.

Megan McCain Talks to "2016: Obama's America" Director Dinesh D'Souza (The Daily Beast, September 4, 2016

Because...

Last night I drank an entire bottle of wine, sitting in the kitchen listening to Mitt Romney lose the election one swing state at a time.

This morning, I have a headache.

Here are just a few random thoughts.

·      I have some very specific reasons for voting for Mitt Romney. Do Obama supporters have theirs? I'm working on a theory that most people, if asked, could not give their reasons. Some day I'd like to ask people who voted for Obama in 2012 to fill in the blank: I voted for Obama because_____________. I am not a betting person, but I'd be willing to bet real dollars that they could not complete the sentence. Theirs, I'd wager, was an emotional vote, not a rational, reason-based vote. Real dollars. 

·      Some people celebrate Obama’s win the way fans cheer for their team. But  we are not two teams. We are America. What if Obama’s re-election is not good for America?

·      One of my liberal friends on Facebook basically suggested I get a life (take up a musical instrument?) Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard says something similar. In saying “good riddance” to the 2012 election, he writes, “What’s worrisome, perhaps only to me, is that too many people take politics too seriously. More than a few folks I’ve run into in recent years are obsessed. They’re political junkies in the non-metaphorical sense. They’re addicted. It’s fine to be concerned about this year’s presidential race. It’s enormously important. And it’s smart to keep up with the news. But there’s a limit. Politics isn’t life." 

·      Another of my Facebook friends nudges me toward God: “Society will continue to run. God’s purposes will continue whether it includes a strong America or a weak one. Society will continue in its disordered love to make attachments and idols about them. We will continue to believe lies. But if there is any value in the Incarnation, it is the grace of God stepping into our lives to turn our heart toward Him and say, In spite of it all, You are enough.”

·      OK, so I admit, I'm a political junkie. And I also admit my faith took a bit of a beating last night. My good Christian friends posted or texted things like, “God is still on the throne.” While I don’t think I stopped believing this, I do admit to being found muttering last night, somewhat despondently, “So I guess you have turned your face away from America after all.”

·      Of all the people who voted to re-elect Barack Obama, it’s the twenty-somethings that irk me more than anything. Some of their Facebook postings (“Congratulations, Mr. President! “We Won!” “Get over it, Obama-haters!”), for example, suggest they they don't have a clue about what just happened. To these young people, all I can say is, Be careful what you wish for. You just re-elected a man to office who has nothing to show for his first term and who offered no new ideas about how things would be different during his second. This is now your America.

·      More than anything else about this election, the thing that has distressed me the most is the media. Those who voted to re-elect Obama did so, I believe, for two reasons: the lies they heard (about Republicans in general and Mitt Romney in particular) and the truth they didn’t hear (about the Obama administration in general and Barack Obama in particular). Both of these factors can be traced to a corrupt (yes, I did say corrupt) and left-leaning (yes, provable, proven) media who did everything in their power, including concealing information (yes, provable) in order to protect from scrutiny and/or promote Obama. This aspect of the 2012 election, and also the 2008 election, is what frightens and disturbs me the most, especially since the twenty-somethings who are jubilant this morning don't seem to appreciate how dangerous this is. 

·      Is America doomed? I guess I'm thinking so. I have many sunny and optimistic friends. But I’m not so optimistic. Civilizations rise, civilizations fall. America has been a dominant player on the world stage for a long time. It appears, however, to be in decline, militarily and economically. There was an extremely good chance that Mitt Romney could have altered the trajectory of this decline. As a Christian, I prayed for him to be given this chance. But, to be honest, as a Christian, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that these prayers weren’t answered. After all, there is a Biblical time-table for human history, and America’s place in this history is looking more and more like a footnote, especially with Barack Obama at the helm, steering us leftward, possibly into obscurity.

Those are my thoughts for now. Here are some additional musings from the conservative punditry:

Michael Barone: One America tends to be traditionally religious, personally charitable, appreciative of entrepreneurs, and suspicious of government. The other tends to be secular or only mildly religious, less charitable, skeptical of business, and supportive of government as an instrument to advance liberal causes . . . there are going to be many Americans profoundly unhappy with the result of this election, whichever way it goes. Those on the losing side will be especially angry with those whose candidate won . . . Now the two Americas disagree, sharply. Government decisions enthuse one and enrage the other. The election may be over, but the two Americas are still not on speaking terms.

Jedidiah Bila: I always hear "We are a center-right country." No. A center-right country does not elect Barack Obama twice. Time to re-evaluate."

Mark Steyn: A lot of the telly chatter is about how Republicans don’t get the shifting demographics: America is becoming more of a “brown country,” as Kirsten Powers put it on Fox. But New Hampshire is overwhelmingly white — and the GOP still blew it. The fact is a lot of pasty, Caucasian, non-immigrant Americans have also “shifted,” and are very comfortable with Big Government, entitlements, micro-regulation, Obamacare and all the rest — and not much concerned with how or if it’s paid for.

Kevin D. Williamson: The lessons of Ohio are that Barack Obama is a skillful demagogue, that the ancients were wise to number envy among the deadly sins, and that offering Americans a check is a more fruitful political strategy than offering them the opportunity to take control of and responsibility for their own lives.

A terrible, horrible mistake

Heartbroken. Still trying to process.

If I keep this in perspective, from the standpoint of my faith, then....America's loss is a sign of the end times. Watch and see. The diminishing of this great country (which Obama is heralding) could signify the beginning of the end times.

That's my view of this.

But I had hoped....from a strictly human point of view, for my children's sake, that Mitt Romney would have turned things around.

Bottom line: we're doomed.

But Christ's kingdom is coming.

Obama is a terrible, horrible mistake, and he will destroy this wonderful country.

Someday the next generation will understand this, but may not be able to remember how it came about.

I fear for their future.

My heart is breaking.

Washington Post Scrubs Positive Reader Reviews of "Hating Breitbart"

Positive reviews of the documentary "Hating Breitbart" apparently must not be tolerated at the Washington Post. Indeed, the Post's own film critic skewered the film, giving it a paltry one and a half stars. 

So when readers started posting 4-star reviews and raving about the movie in the paper's comments section, it was too much for the editors to bear. 

What to do, what to do....? What any self-respecting leftist organization would do: Scrub the comments. 

Ah, the irony. If there are any are any lingering doubts about what drove Andrew Breitbart to spearhead a movement of citizen journalists and create a new media outlet, the Washington Post's censorship is a perfect illustration. 

********* 

Update from Breitbart.com as of November 2nd: "The Washington Post has restored the erased readers reviews as of this afternoon ... for now." 

Here's a link. 

Got 21 Minutes? Meet Breitbart....

Meet Andrew Breitbart, the "man behind the mayhem. "

You can read Nick Gillespie's (Reason Magazine) review of the film here. You can also read Matt Welch's and Nick Gillespie's obits of Breitbart here and here.

My favorite line? "The new media is taking over where the old media have failed." 

RIP Andrew Breitbart. I wish you could have stuck around, at least until November 7th. 

Note: You need to click the little "x" in upper right hand corner to get past the opening ad!

Is 2012 the Most Important Election of our Lives?

Charles Krauthammer, writing in the National Review Online, believes it just might be. 

An Obama second term means that the movement toward European-style social democracy continues, in part by legislation, in part by executive decree. The American experiment — the more individualistic, energetic, innovative, risk-taking model of democratic governance — continues to recede, yielding to the supervised life of the entitlement state. 

If Obama loses, however, his presidency becomes a historical parenthesis, a passing interlude of overreaching hyper-liberalism, rejected by a center-right country that is 80 percent nonliberal. 

A Romney win, however, 

...could guide the country to the restoration of a more austere and modest government with more restrained entitlements and a more equitable and efficient tax code. Those achievements alone would mark a new trajectory — a return to what Reagan started three decades ago. 

Krauthammer concludes: 

Every four years we are told that the coming election is the most important of one’s life. This time it might actually be true. At stake is the relation between citizen and state, the very nature of the American social contract.

A brief but insightful analysis. Here's the entire article. 

 "The Choice," by Charles Krauthammer (National Review Online, November 1, 2012)