Human Events: Ann Coulter: 'Save Us From Paul Ryan And The Kemp Boys'

Source:Human Events- U.S. Representative Paul Ryan, R, Wisconsin- Incoming Speaker of The House

Source:The New Democrat

Apparently to be considered a Conservative with the Tea Party/Far-Right base on the Republican Party, you have to hate Barack Obama. See him as a criminal, be willing to shut down the U.S. Government to get exactly what you want and repeal at any cost anything that the Obama Administration was able to get passed through Congress in their first two years. On policy grounds Representative Paul Ryan the most likely incoming Speaker of the House, is inline the Tea Party on 99% of the issues that they care about. But he's more interested in tactics, vision and governing, then fighting the good fights and losing badly. Representative Ryan, is a legislature. He came to the House of Representatives to legislate and accomplish certain policy objectives. The Tea Party, is not about governing, because to govern in Washington especially in a divided government you have to work with the other party.

A Speaker of the House, who can't work with a President of the other party, the Minority Leader of the House when controversial legislation has to be passed and they don't have the votes to pass it on their own side, who can't work with the Senate Leadership regardless of which party runs it, won't be Speaker for very long. Because the job of the Speaker is to govern and not just pass legislation that gets blocked, or voted down in the Senate, or even it makes it out of the Senate and gets vetoed by the President. The Speaker, is not a political activist, but a the leader of their House Caucus and the leader of the House as well. He's not there simply to do whatever the most vocal and active political activists in their party want to do, but to govern. And again if your party doesn't control the presidency, you have to work with the other party in order to do that.

Paul Ryan, by far in a way is the best candidate for Speaker that House Republicans have. Wouldn't be my choice for Speaker as a Democrat, but just at the House Republican side right now, I'm not sure they have anyone who comes close. Paul Ryan, doesn't need the Tea Party, or to be a member of the House. Doesn't want to be President, or run for the Senate, or even Governor of Wisconsin. There are plenty of other jobs that he could be doing in Washington, or back home in Wisconsin. Unlike John Boehner, he doesn't need the House Republican Conference. But they need him if they want to be looked at as a responsible governing party again. That can take two steps forward without stepping on one of their own toes. Or put their gun back in their holster without shooting off one of their toes. A Speaker Paul Ryan, would mean that the House could function again and that Congress could function again. Because the Senate would know there's now an adult in charge of the House.

Human Events: John Stossel: 'The Economy Needs No Conductor'

Source:The FreeState.  

There’s been this endless debate in America in the last few years about what creates economic and job growth. Is it the private sector or public sector. Does government actually create any jobs, well the answer to that question is yes. In the sense that they create government jobs that can contribute to private sector job growth, by rewarding contract to the private sector that then hire additional workers. To perform the new work that their contract requires, to complete the new work. 

But what really creates jobs, is consumer demand. When people need to buy things or want to buy things and have the money to do so, then they go out and buy those things, which leads to economic and job growth to meet the new consumer demand. The way to create job growth, is through economic growth. And government can help and hurt in several ways.

They can help buy keeping taxes down, so consumers have money to spend.

Only having needed regulations that can be understood and doesn’t make employers jobs even harder. And make their cost of doing business more expensive.

And they can help with things like infrastructure investment that creates work for construction companies and builds and repairs, new roads and bridges around the country. So people can get around in an efficient way.

They can help with Energy Policy, by allowing the American energy industry to capitalize and produce all the natural resources we have in America.

Where government can hurt the economy, is through over taxing. For example passing Tax Hikes on people who can’t afford to pay them. So now they have even less money to spend.

Over regulating to the point that no one understands the regulations and they aren’t even be enforced. Because government doesn’t even understand them.

And they can hurt the economy by overspending. Running up huge debt and deficits, driving up our interest rates. Making everything more expensive for everyone. Which results in everyone spending less money. Which is what happened in the recession of the early 1980s and early 1990s. And they can hurt by not trading enough and over taxing private companies. Making their cost of business more expensive.

It's really consumer demand thats what drives economic growth, that leads to job growth. So as long as people have incentive to spend money and have the money to spend, then they’ll do those things. So what government can do, is try to ensure that consumer spending is always high. That we always have a need to spend money.

Human Events: John Gizzi- 'Best Debate Moments': Mike Dukakis in 1988

Source:Human Events- Governor Michael Dukakis (Democrat, Massachusetts) at the 1988 presidential debate against Vice President George H.W. Bush (Republican, Maine)

"#3: What if some criminal raped and murdered Dukakis' wife, Kitty. Would Dukakis still oppose capital punishment? Michael Dukakis's unemotional response is our #3 debate moment.

John Gizzi counts down the Top 10 Debate moments in our multi-part series "Presidential Debates: How they changed the race." 

From Human Events 

Mike Dukakis had one more opportunity to turn a presidential election, he should've won at least going in around in the presidential debates and used those opportunities to let the Americans know more about him, that he wasn't cold and could connect with people in a personal positive way. 

But Governor Dukakis blew that when Bernie Shaw of CNN asked him a gotcha question, by bringing his wife into it, about the death penalty. It was sort of no win situation for Governor Dukakis, because it was a gotcha question about his wife of all people but he could've avoided losing it as well and instead of trying to make it a question about policy, he should've took the question for what it was, which was a personal gotcha question and should've answered about how he would feel, if his wife was raped and murdered. And what he feel should be done to the person responsible for the crimes. 

But instead Governor Dukakis used it as an opportunity to explain his opposition on the death penalty, an issue at least back then where a large majority of Americans were in favor of the death penalty.

Human Events: John Gizzi: 'Best Debate Moments #8: Fuzzy Math / Lockbox'

Source:Human Events- political reporter John Gizzi.

"#8: George W Bush's "Fuzzy Math" vs. Al Gore's "Lockbox"

John Gizzi counts down the Top 10 Debate moments in our multi-part series "Presidential Debates: How they changed the race"

From Human Events

If the 2000 presidential election between Governor George W. Bush (Republican, Texas) and Vice President Al Gore (Democrat, Tennessee) could be summed up in one word, it would be ridiculous 

In 2000 we had what most objective people would probably consider two decent, likable men, (at least the people who know them) with good sense of humors in George W. Bush and Al Gore and we get these two presidential debates where both men could barely find anything to say that was positive about themselves and what they wanted to do as President of the United States. 

Oh wait, we did have empty political slogans like Governor Bush saying: "I'll return the people's money to the American people." And with Vice President Gore saying: "We need a world class economy for the American people and put Social Security and Medicare in a lockbox." 

And when Bush vs Gore couldn't find anything positive to say about themselves, they tried to make look like the other guy would destroy the country as soon as he became President. That he was too risky, etc, to be President of the United States. 

If there any real wondering left to do why during a good election year, maybe 3-5 Americans who are eligible to vote, even bother to vote. Especially today with all the legitimate alternatives to voting like reality TV, celebrity court cases, smartphones, social media, and coffee houses, to keep Americans out of the voting booths.

Human Events: David Harsanyi- David Limbaugh: 'Liberalism is Like a Metastatic Cancer'

Source:Human Events- interviewing right-wing author David Limbaugh.

"Part one of Senior Reporter David Harsanyi's with NYT bestselling author David Limbaugh about his latest book "The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War On The Republic."

From Human Events 

Just to respond what David Limbaugh said about liberalism: 

"Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the American Revolutionary pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against the individual. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power." 

From Britannica 

So if you are someone who doesn't believe in protecting and enhancing the freedom is a bad thing, then you are illiberal, not liberal. If Barack Obama is what David Limbaugh believes he is, then President Obama is illiberal, not liberal. Someone who is illiberal, is someone who doesn't believe in advancing liberal values, like the freedom of the individual and our individual rights. Not the freedom of man or for men, but the freedom of individuals, which includes men and women. 

Some would argue what David Limbaugh is really talking about here (even though Limbaugh never says so) is what's called modern liberalism and what Barack Obama is what's called a Modern Liberal. Modern Liberal and modern liberalism, is what closeted Socialists call socialist and socialism, because they're terrified of people knowing what their real politics is, which is socialist. (Democratic or otherwise) 

Hearing David Limbaugh talk about liberalism, is like getting an opinion from an auto mechanic about what's the best diet for you. I would think any intelligent person would want a second opinion (like from a doctor or dietician) about what's the best diet for you, before you automatically take the word of an auto mechanic about what's the best diet for you.