The Rise and Fall of Hope and Change

The Rise and Fall of Hope and Change



Alexis de Toqueville

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Alexis de Tocqueville

The United States Capitol Building

The United States Capitol Building

The Constitutional Convention

The Constitutional Convention

The Continental Congress

The Continental Congress

George Washington at Valley Forge

George Washington at Valley Forge


Thursday, June 30, 2011

The New Desperation Of Team Obama

From Town Hall:




Lurita Doan





The New Desperation of Team Obama



6/27/2011
Email Lurita Doan
Columnist's Archive









































Share













0digg







Sign-Up







Team Obama is looking more desperate these days. The signs of desperation are clearly visible—Obama playing to a half-packed house in Miami, Obama using increasingly shrill arguments that his job creation efforts are working, Geithner’s threats regarding the debt ceiling and the Democrat-influenced mainstream media’s increasing criticisms of the Republican slate of presidential primary candidates. If Obama’s policies are so successful and if the country is doing so well, why do Americans see this growing desperation in Team Obama?



Team Obama’s desperation seems to stem from a fear of the unknown—how will it be possible for them to win congressional seats and keep the Presidency in 2012 when many Americans are seeing through the Obama Administration’s promises and the illusions of “hope and change”.



The five hundred promises made by Obama during his first presidential campaign have not been implemented. The economic philosophies of Democrat-led states, that high taxes and increased government spending will create prosperity, have proven to be a failure. Just look at states such as California, Michigan and Illinois. And, the state that most clearly implemented a Republican, capitalist, free market approach to governing, Texas, is thriving and growing.



Yet, even this failure of ideology is not what is creating the growing desperation among Democrats. These ideological failures are just emblematic of much larger issues, and the root cause of Team Obama’s growing desperation.



It may well be that Democrats are growing more desperate because they no longer have ACORN to ensure success at the polls in November 2012.



Think about it. In recent elections, Democrat party success has depended, in a large part, upon an uninformed electorate and an entitlement-heavy electorate showing up at the polls to vote. Any, but the most die-hard sycophants now realize that Obama’s ideological policies have been failures, so Democrats need to ensure that the message of failure doesn’t reach voters and that more and more of those beholden to the entitlement-rich policies of Obama show up to vote.



In the past, ACORN seems to have performed a valuable function for the Democrat party. They helped to swell the ranks with anyone willing to vote for Democrat candidates. ACORN was hugely successful too and was able to register millions of new voters, some living, some not. Moreover, when even ACORN ran short of new voters to register, it seems they made up fictitious names (the starting line-up for the Dallas Cowboys for example) to further pad the voting rolls for loyal Democrat votes.



But that jig is up and the question now is where will Democrats go to recruit, or invent, a new crop voters?



Clearly, modern economic demographics give Democrats a huge edge. A 2009 and 2010 “Index of Dependence Government” survey of voters that voted in the last presidential election shows that almost 50% were dependent upon the federal, state or local government. In addition, studies have now show that almost 50% of Americans do not pay taxes, so they have no incentive to vote to lower taxes and every incentive to vote for candidates promising increased entitlements. Not too surprisingly, these folks make up the core of support for Obama. The obvious problem here is the folks actually paying for the government are now outnumbered by the folks that do not.



Democrats have thus learned that the trick to eternal electoral success in congress is to keep promising more entitlements and expansion of government services, safe in the knowledge that fewer and fewer of their supporters will ever be required to pay the added taxes that an expanding welfare state requires. And that is why ACORN served Democrats so faithfully by expanding the rolls even more to include more and more “voters” that are dependent upon the continued expansion of government.



With ACORN exposed, Democrats and Team Obama are going to have a more difficult time cobbling together an electoral mass. It is obvious to nearly everyone (save the ACORN Voters) that Obama’s economic policies are making the nation less competitive, more indebted, and less prosperous.



But the stakes are high so expect Democrats to find innovative ways to push as many ill-informed and dodgy voters to the polls as possible, even without ACORN. After all, federal, state and local government are big business—accounting for almost $7 trillion dollars spent annually. With a GDP just a bit over $14 Trillion, it is clear that the government controls or indirectly influences almost 50% of the nation’s economy, either directly, through its spending or its regulatory overreach.



ACORN was an easy vehicle to which Democrats could funnel funds that could be distributed as get-out-the-vote money and other incentives to advance the Democrat agenda. Now that ACORN is gone, the void is vast, the stakes are high, and Democrats have no guarantee that they can induce an uninformed electorate to vote in November 2012.



What Democrats have fallen back on is paltry in comparison—the three Ds—decry, demagogue and divert.



First, Democrats decry—using the blame game (blaming George Bush for all ills) despite Obama’s 29 months in office. Second, Democrats resort to demagoguery—portraying honest efforts at reining in out-of-control spending, such as Paul Ryan’s budget cutting proposal, as insensitive and un-American. Third, Democrats divert attention from their failed policies by fear-mongering among an uninformed electorate—whether the end of the world unless “green policies and jobs” are implemented or whether it’s the end of the nation unless the debt ceiling is raised and entitlement spending is increased, or whether it is scaring elderly citizens about Medicare/Medicaid entitlements.



Decrying GOP efforts, demagoguing GOP efforts and diverting attention via fear-mongering is designed to divert attention away from the failure of the Obama Administration to grow the economy, their failure to create the jobs promised and the Administration’s failure to bring the hope and change promised.



FDR said we have nothing to fear but fear itself, which is why Republicans need to be very careful about what Democrat-led desperation will resort to next.















Tags: 2012 Election , Jobs and Economy , Barack Obama









Lurita Doan

Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.

Obama Gingerly Weighs-In On NLRB Attack On Boeing Jobs

From Red State:

Obama ‘Gingerly’ Weighs In On NLRB Attack On Boeing Jobs












Posted by LaborUnionReport (Profile)



Wednesday, June 29th at 4:30PM EDT

13 Comments



Ever since his union appointees at the National Labor Relations Board launched an attack on the Boeing Company and its creating thousands of jobs in South Carolina, the ‘independent’ union agency has found itself the subject of much derision and President Obama has been challenged to ‘step up‘ and tell the NLRB to back off.



On Wednesday, according to the Hill, Obama finally “weighed in” on the NLRB fracas…gingerly:





President Obama weighed in on the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) legal complaint against airplane manufacturer Boeing for the first time Wednesday, saying he hoped the company and union officials could resolve their differences.



[snip]



….Obama addressed the case gingerly Wednesday, saying he didn’t have all the facts.



But the president said he hoped it could be resolved quickly.



[snip]



“It’s an independent agency and it’s going before a judge, so I don’t want to get into all the details of the case,” he said during a news conference. “We can’t afford to have labor and management fighting all the time at a time when we’re competing against China and Germany and other countries who want to sell goods all around the world.



“The airplane industry is an area where we still have a huge advantage … I want to make sure that we keep it,” he added.



It does seem that the President wants the NLRB issue to go away as quickly as possible. If he is truly serious about creating jobs in America, his union appointees at both the NLRB and the Department of Labor–with their continued assaults on job creators making investing in American jobs even less likely–are doing him no favors. As a result, heading into 2012, the NLRB attack on Boeing is likely to remain a 787-sized albatross around his neck and, as the case lingers on, a continual headache for the Obama campaign.

Political Cartoons

from Town Hall:

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Obama's Real Revenue Problem: Tax Receipts Are Low Because Of The Mediocre Economic Recovery

From The Wall Street Journal:

JUNE 30, 2011.Obama's Real Revenue Problem


Tax receipts are low because of the mediocre economic recovery..


President Obama was right about his audacity, if not always the hope. Six months after he agreed to a bipartisan extension of current tax rates, he is now insisting on tax increases as part of the debt-ceiling talks. At his press conference yesterday he repeated this demand, as well as his recent talking point that taxes are lower than they've been in generations. Let's examine that claim because it explains Washington's real revenue problem—slow economic growth.



Mr. Obama has a point that tax receipts are near historic lows, but the cause isn't tax rates that are too low. As the nearby table shows, as recently as 2007 the current tax structure raised 18.5% of GDP in revenue, which is slightly above the modern historical average. Even in 2008, when the economy grew not at all, federal tax receipts still came in at 17.5% of the economy.



Today's revenue problem is the result of the mediocre economic recovery. Tax collections in 2009 fell below 15% of GDP, the lowest level since 1950. But remarkably, tax receipts stayed that low even in the recovery year of 2010. So far this fiscal year tax receipts are growing at a healthy 10% clip, so the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) January estimate of 14.8% of GDP is probably low. We suspect revenues will be closer to 16%, but even that would be the weakest revenue rebound from any recession in 50 years, and far below the average tax take since 1970 of 18.2%.



1revenues

...

But what about the liberal claim, repeated constantly, that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 caused today's deficits? CBO has shown this to be demonstrably false. On May 12, the budget arm of Congress examined the changes in its baseline projections from 2001 through 2011. In 2001, it had predicted a surplus in 2011 of $889 billion. Instead, it expects a deficit of $1.4 trillion.



What explains that $2.29 trillion budget reversal? Well, the direct revenue loss from the combination of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts contributed roughly $216 billion, or only about 9.5% of the $2.29 trillion. And keep in mind that even this low figure is based on a static revenue model that assumes almost no gains from faster economic growth.



After the Bush investment tax cuts of 2003, tax revenues were $786 billion higher in 2007 ($2.568 trillion) than they were in 2003 ($1.782 trillion), the biggest four-year increase in U.S. history. So as flawed as it is, the current tax code with a top personal income tax rate of 35% is clearly capable of generating big revenue gains.



CBO's data show that by far the biggest change in its deficit forecast is the spending bonanza, with outlays in 2011 that are $1.135 trillion higher than the budget office estimated a decade ago. One-third of that is higher interest payments on the national debt, notwithstanding record low interest rates. But $523 billion is due to domestic spending increases, including defense, education, Medicaid and the Obama stimulus. Mr. Bush's Medicare drug plan accounts for $53 billion of this unanticipated spending in 2011.



The other big revenue reductions come from the "temporary" tax changes of the Obama stimulus and 2010 bipartisan tax deal. CBO says the December tax deal—which includes the one-year payroll tax cut and the annual fix on the alternative minimum tax—will reduce revenues by $196 billion this year. The temporary speedup in business expensing will cost another $55 billion.



Related Video



Editorial Board Member Steve Moore on the president's press conference.

..

The payroll tax cut was sold in the name of stimulating growth and hiring, yet the economy has grown more slowly this year than in last year's fourth quarter. As we've long argued, the "temporary, targeted and timely" tax cuts favored by Keynesians and the White House don't do much for growth because they don't permanently change incentives to save and invest. Mr. Obama was hawking more of those yesterday, even as he wants to raise taxes overall.



Republicans—notably George W. Bush in 2001 and 2008—have sometimes fallen for this same tax cut gimmickry. But perhaps they're learning their lesson. Republicans have reacted with little enthusiasm to the White House trial balloon to extend the payroll tax cuts for another year. The lesson is that when it comes to growth, not all tax cuts are created equal. The tax cuts with the biggest bang for the buck are permanent, take effect immediately, and hit at the next dollar of marginal income.



All of which makes the White House debt-ceiling strategy a policy contradiction. On the one hand, Mr. Obama is saying Republicans must agree to raise taxes on business and high incomes, though he knows even many Democrats won't vote for that. On the other hand, Mr. Obama says he wants another payroll tax cut because he is worried about slow growth.



Even orthodox Keynesian policy doesn't recommend a tax increase with growth under 2% and the jobless rate at 9.1%. The White House game here can only be an attempt to see if he can use the prospect of a debt-limit financial panic to scare Republicans into voting to raise taxes. We doubt the GOP is this dumb.



Republicans should stick to their plan of insisting on spending cuts in return for a debt-ceiling vote. Every dollar in lower spending means one less dollar taken from the private economy in borrowing or future tax increases. As for revenues, they will increase when the economy shakes its lethargy caused by Mr. Obama's policies. A tax increase won't help growth—or revenues.



And this, related, from Human Events:
 



We Need Growth, Not Higher Taxes



Let’s beat the "tax cuts caused the deficit" lie into the ground, pronto.



by John Hayward





06/30/2011















The Wall Street Journal, irked by President Obama’s unseemly insistence on higher taxes as part of deficit reduction negotiations yesterday, has published an important editorial today. It’s packed with nutritious information that should be spread far and wide, to kill off the lie that President Bush’s tax cuts caused the deficit to explode.



This is a major component of Democrat Party rhetoric. Aside from naked class warfare, it’s the stated reason for their absolute intransigence on tax increases. They refuse to even discuss fiscal restraint until they receive assurances they can raise taxes on the Evil Rich, because supposedly the Bush reduction in the top marginal rate caused government revenue to fall, and exploded the deficit.



This is not true, and the Journal has the numbers to prove it. The Bush tax structure pulled in 17.5% of GDP as federal revenue in 2008, but then Obamanomics kicked in. Only 14.9% of GDP was taken by the federal government in 2009 and 2010, and the Congressional Budget Office projects comparable receipts for 2011, although the Journal thinks this estimate is a bit low.



“What about the liberal claim, repeated constantly, that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 caused today's deficits?” ask the editors. “CBO has shown this to be demonstrably false. On May 12, the budget arm of Congress examined the changes in its baseline projections from 2001 through 2011. In 2001, it had predicted a surplus in 2011 of $889 billion. Instead, it expects a deficit of $1.4 trillion.”



So where did our titanic federal deficit come from? “CBO's data show that by far the biggest change in its deficit forecast is the spending bonanza, with outlays in 2011 that are $1.135 trillion higher than the budget office estimated a decade ago. One-third of that is higher interest payments on the national debt, notwithstanding record low interest rates. But $523 billion is due to domestic spending increases, including defense, education, Medicaid and the Obama stimulus. Mr. Bush's Medicare drug plan accounts for $53 billion of this unanticipated spending in 2011.”



There is one tax cut that actually did reduce federal revenue significantly: Obama’s vaunted payroll tax cut, which will cut $196 billion from Uncle Sam’s take this year. Of course, it did not stimulate employment at all. The doom of Keynesianism lies in its refusal to understand that short-term stimulus does not promote greater interest in making long-term commitments. Only a growing private sector economy will lead business owners to increase employment commitments that ideally last for years, after months of training, and the relatively low initial productivity of most new employees.



Virtually every action of the Obama Administration, from increasing the burden cost of labor to wiping out and nationalizing industries, has made the private sector smaller. This, in turn, reduces the amount of revenue the government can extract from a dwindling economy. Increase tax rates, and the economy will shrink faster, giving the government a larger piece of a rotting pie. No Democrat should be allowed to babble about tax increases without facing the demonstrable fact of the economic black hole they have created.









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at jhayward@eaglepub.com.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

AmeriCorps' Favorite Scandal-Plagued Mayor

From Town Hall:




Michelle Malkin





AmeriCorps' Favorite Scandal-Plagued Mayor



6/29/2011
Email Michelle Malkin
Columnist's Archive









































Share













4digg







Sign-Up







A prominent Democratic politician who was banned from receiving federal aid three years ago over fraud charges is once again raking in government funds from the very same program he abused. It pays to be a FOTO -- Friend of the Obamas.



Our publicly subsidized con artist is Sacramento mayor and former NBA star Kevin Johnson. He donated the maximum individual amount to Obama for America, campaigned across the country for Obama in 2008, and bragged to California media during his mayoral run about his friendship and access to both Barack and Michelle Obama. The Obama administration's Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) recently bestowed Johnson's city with an AmeriCorps grant worth more than $650,000.



The money will flow into Sacramento's "Get Fit Now! Initiative," which will hire 124 AmeriCorps members "to teach fitness and nutrition education to children and offer adult fitness classes for their parents. They will also set up school-based gardens where children will learn how to grow fresh vegetables."



That's a lot of fertilizer-shovelers employed in the name of "public service." If the award smells funny, it should. For Johnson, AmeriCorps has indeed been all about service -- self-service, that is.



In 2008, the independent Inspector General overseeing AmeriCorps, Gerald Walpin, concluded that Johnson and aide Dana Gonzalez had squandered hundreds of thousands of a nearly million-dollar grant earmarked for his nonprofit youth organization, St. HOPE. Based on Walpin's investigation, AmeriCorps' parent organization (the aforementioned CNCS) suspended Johnson and Gonzalez's access to federal funds. Here's a refresher on their fraud and abuse that led to the ban:





-- Using AmeriCorps members to "recruit students for St. HOPE Academy."



-- Using AmeriCorps members for political activities in connection with the "Sacramento Board of Education election."



-- Assigning grant-funded AmeriCorps members to perform services for Johnson such as "driving (him) to personal appointments, washing (his) car, and running personal errands."



-- Improperly using AmeriCorps "members to perform non-AmeriCorps clerical and other services" that "were outside the scope of the grant and therefore were impermissible" for "the benefit of St. HOPE."





Johnson didn't get jail time. Instead, the Democratic U.S. Attorney in Sacramento cut a cozy settlement deal so Johnson could avoid criminal prosecution. The deal also allowed Johnson to repay just a fraction of the money he siphoned from AmeriCorps coffers for personal gain -- and it freed Johnson to receive federal Obama stimulus money for Sacramento. (My most recent check of the Recovery.gov website shows the city has taken in at least $32 million in stimulus cash.)



In keeping with this administration's brutal war on whistleblowers, Walpin was unceremoniously fired and smeared by Team Obama. The White House baselessly questioned the veteran watchdog's mental health and accused him of political interference. The first lady then installed her former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, in AmeriCorps' top management to ensure -- in Mrs. Obama's own words -- that they remained the program's "No. 1 cheerleaders."



Even more troubling, Johnson continues to reap government tax dollars for youth programs while he remains dogged by questions about his predatory behavior with teenage girls. A little-noticed section of the joint November 2009 report by GOP Sen. Charles Grassley and GOP Rep. Darrell Issa on Walpin's firing revealed that the AmeriCorps inspector general's investigator "became aware of allegations of inappropriate contact between Johnson and three female St. HOPE students." Their stories mirror a similar incident involving Johnson (then 29 and playing for the Phoenix Suns) and a 16-year-old girl dating back to 1995.



Johnson's attorney, Kevin Hiestand, approached at least one of the St. HOPE students describing himself only as "'a friend of Johnson's,'" and "basically asked me to keep quiet," according to the student. She had complained to St. HOPE officials that Johnson groped her sexually after instructing her to grade papers with him in her apartment. The report also highlighted what clearly looks like a hush-money and witness-tampering attempt: "According to her interview with OIG investigators, about one week later, Kevin Johnson offered her $1,000 a month until the end of the program, which she refused to accept."



Erik Jones, a teacher at St. HOPE, reported to the police that one of his students told him Johnson "started massaging her shoulders and then reached over and touched her breasts." Jones quit his job in protest over the seeming cover-up of Johnson's harassment and wrote in his resignation letter that "St. HOPE sought to intimidate the student through an illegal interrogation and even had the audacity to ask me to change my story."



Another student recounted for investigators how Johnson "kissed her cheek, brushed up against her" and touched her thigh on various occasions -- as well as flipping up her skirt on a St. HOPE-sponsored trip to Harlem. She didn't report the incidents to AmeriCorps officials at the time because she "feared she would be terminated."



Another St. HOPE official, Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez, also left Johnson's nonprofit over the whitewash. Michelle Rhee, Johnson's fiancee and former D.C. schools chief, was a St. HOPE board member at the time. The Grassley-Issa report noted, "According to Wong-Hernandez, Rhee learned of the allegations and played the role of a fixer, doing 'damage control'" and vouching for Johnson's character.



He's a "good guy," Rhee told Walpin. Taxpayers -- and especially parents of teenage girls and AmeriCorps workers in Sacramento schools -- should beg to differ.















Tags: Budget and Government , Corruption , Obama Administration









Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010).

Political Cartoons

From Town Hall:

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Glenn Beck And Family Vs. New York Mob

From Human Events:




Glenn Beck Vs. The Mob



by Ann Coulter





06/29/2011











Of all the details surrounding the liberal mob attack on Glenn Beck and his family in New York's Bryant Park last Monday night, one element stands out. "No, it won't be like that, Dad," his daughter said when Beck questioned the wisdom of attending a free, outdoor movie showing in a New York park.



People who have never been set upon by a mob of liberals have absolutely no idea what it's like to be a publicly recognizable conservative. Even your friends will constantly be telling you: "Oh, it will be fine. Don't worry. Nothing will happen. This place isn't like that."



Liberals are not like most Americans. They are the biggest pussies on Earth, city-bred weaklings who didn't play a sport and have never been in a fight in their entire lives. Their mothers made excuses for them when they threw tantrums and spent way too much time praising them during toilet training.



I could draw a mug shot of every one of Beck's tormentors, and I wasn't there.



Beck and his family would have been fine at an outdoor rap concert. They would have been fine at a sporting event. They would have been fine at any paid event, mostly because people who work for the government and live in rent-controlled apartments would be too cheap to attend.



Only a sad leftist with a crappy job could be so brimming with self-righteousness to harangue a complete stranger in public.



A liberal's idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to a conservative public figure who can't afford to strike back. Getting in a stranger's face and hurling insults at him, knowing full well he has too much at risk to deck you, is like baiting a bear chained to a wall.



They are not only exploiting our lawsuit-mad culture, they are exploiting other people's manners. I know I'll be safe because this person has better manners than I do.



These brave-hearts know exactly what they can get away with. They assault a conservative only when it's a sucker-punch, they outnumber him, or he can't fight back for reasons of law or decorum.



Liberals don't get that when you're outnumbering the enemy 100-1, you're not brave.



But they're not even embarrassed. To the contrary, being part of the majority makes liberals feel great! Honey, wasn't I amazing? I stood in a crowd of liberals and called that conservative a c**t. Wasn't I awesome?



This is a liberal's idea of raw physical courage.



When someone does fight back, liberals transform from aggressor to victim in an instant, collapsing on the ground and screaming bloody murder. I've seen it happen in a nearly empty auditorium when there was quite obviously no other human within 5 feet of the gutless invertebrate.



People incapable of conforming to the demands of civilized society are frightening precisely because you never know what else such individuals are capable of. Sometimes -- a lot more often than you've heard about -- liberals do engage in physical violence against conservatives ... and then bravely run away.



That's why not one person stepped up to aid Beck and his family as they were being catcalled and having wine dumped on them at a nice outdoor gathering.



No one ever steps in. Never, not once, not ever. (Except at the University of Arizona, where college Republicans chased my assailant and broke his collarbone, God bless them.)



Most people are shocked into paralysis at the sight of sociopathic liberal behavior. The only ones who aren't are the conservative's bodyguards -- and they can't do anything without risking a lawsuit or an arrest.



My hero Tim Profitt is now facing charges for stopping a physical assault on Senate candidate Rand Paul by a crazed woman disguised in a wig.



But the disturbed liberal whose assault Profitt stopped faces no charges -- she instigated the entire confrontation and then instantly claimed victim status. In a better America, the cop would say, "Well, you provoked him."



Kentucky prosecutors must be very proud of how they so dutifully hew to the letter of the law (except in the case of Paul's assailant).



Maybe they wouldn't be such good little rules-followers if they ever, just once, had to face the liberal mob themselves. But if Beck's own daughter can't imagine the liberal mob, I suppose prosecutors can't be expected to, either.



Michael Moore and James Carville can stroll anywhere in America without risking the sort of behavior the Beck family experienced. But all recognizable conservatives are eternally trapped in David Dinkins' New York: Simply by virtue of leaving their homes, they assume a 20 percent chance of being assaulted.



Bullying is on the rise everywhere in America -- and not just because Obama decided to address it. It's because no one hits back. The message in our entire culture over the last two decades has been: DON'T FIGHT!



There were a lot fewer public confrontations when bullies got their faces smashed.



Maybe it's time for Beck to pony up some of those millions of dollars he's earned and hire people to rough up the liberal mob, or, at a minimum, to provide a legal defense to those like Profitt who do.



These liberal pukes have never taken a punch in their lives. A sock to the yap would be an eye-opening experience, and I believe it would do wonders.



They need to have their behavior corrected. It's a shame this job wasn't done by their parents. It won't be done by the police.



As long as liberals can't be normal and prosecutors can't be reasonable, how about a one-punch rule against anyone bothering a stranger in public? Then we'll see how brave these lactose-intolerant mama's boys are.



Believe me, liberal mobbings will stop very quickly after the first toilet-training champion takes his inaugural punch.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Slander, Treason, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), Godless, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America, and the forthcoming Demonic: How The Liberal Mob Is Endangering America.