Here It Comes: The Second Stimulus

Here It Comes: The Second Stimulus

October 8th, 2009 Posted By Erik Wong.


“This time, the stimulus really will create jobs. No, really.”

WASHINGTON – Confronted with big job losses and no sign the U.S. economy is ready to stand on its own, Democrats are working on a growing list of relief efforts, leaving for later how to pay for them, or whether even to bother.

Proposals include extending and perhaps expanding a popular tax credit for first-time home buyers, and creating a new credit for companies that add jobs. Taken together, the proposals look a lot like another economic stimulus package, though congressional leaders don’t want to call it that.

Democratic leaders in Congress and the White House say they have no appetite for another big spending package that adds to the federal budget deficit, which hit a record $1.4 trillion for the budget year that ended last week.

But with unemployment reaching nearly 10 percent, many lawmakers are feeling pressure to act. Some of the proposals come from the Republicans’ playbook and focus on tax cuts, even though they, too, would swell the deficit.

“We have to do something for the unemployed, politically and economically,” said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.

The House already has voted to extend unemployment benefits an additional 13 weeks for laid off workers in the 27 states where the jobless rate is 8.5 percent or above. Senate Democrats reached a deal Thursday to extend the benefits an additional 14 weeks in every state. Both proposals are paid for by extending a federal unemployment tax.

Also on the table: extending subsidies for laid-off workers to help them keep the health insurance their former employers provided, known as COBRA. The current program, which covers workers laid off through the end of the year, costs nearly $25 billion.

Congressional leaders haven’t settled on the length of an extension, or how to pay for it.

Several bills would issue extra payments to the more than 50 million Social Security recipients, to make up for the lack of a cost-of-living increase next year. One bill would set the one-time payments at $250, matching the amount paid to Social Security recipients and railroad retirees as part of the stimulus package enacted in February.

The payments would cost about $14 billion and would be paid for by applying the Social Security payroll tax to incomes between $250,000 and $359,000 in 2010. Currently, payroll taxes apply only to the first $106,800 of a worker’s income.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she is also considering a Republican proposal to allow money-losing companies to use their losses to get refunds of taxes paid in the previous five years. Under current law, most companies can only use current losses to get refunds from the previous two years.

“The issue of a net operating loss carryback to five years rather than two is an idea that has some currency,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi didn’t offer specifics, but a similar proposal that was dropped from the first stimulus package had a cost of $19.5 billion.

Pelosi said she is also looking into extending and expanding a popular tax credit for first-time homebuyers. The credit, set to expire Dec. 1, allows first-time homebuyers to reduce their federal income taxes by 10 percent of the price of a home, up to a maximum of $8,000.

Pelosi said the credit could be expanded to people who already own homes, though she offered no details. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has announced his support for extending the existing credit an additional six months.

“The question is, would that be just first-time homeowners or would you open it up to other purchasers of homes?” Pelosi said.

The program is scheduled to run for 11 months this year and cost a projected $6.6 billion. Extending or expanding the program would add to the costs.

Lawmakers are also working on proposals to award tax credits to companies that add jobs. Obama’s economic team proposed a similar incentive during negotiations over the stimulus package enacted in February but the idea was abandoned amid questions over its implementation.

A proposal by Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., would provide a $4,000 tax credit, to be paid out over two years, for each new employee. His office could not provide a cost estimate.

Pelosi said lawmakers need to hear from economists before settling on a package to create jobs. “What is it that we can afford? What works the fastest?” Pelosi said.

Rep. Dave Camp, D-Mich., the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, said: “The fact that they’re putting forward all of these things is really an indication that the stimulus was a failure. It didn’t work.”

Congress passed a $787 billion economic stimulus package in February, providing tax cuts for individuals and businesses, relief for the unemployed, spending on infrastructure and aid to the states.

President Barack Obama and other Democrats are adamant the package has lessened the effects of the recession, saving jobs that would have otherwise been cut. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent in September, the highest since 1983. A total of 15.1 million people are unemployed, and 7.2 million jobs have been eliminated since the recession began in December 2007.

Obama’s Poverty Bill

The Democrats’ Plan to Demoralize Our Troops

The Democrats’ Plan to Demoralize Our Troops
By Edward I. Koch | May 17, 2007

Iraq appears to be lost. The Democrats, like terriers shaking a rat (Iraq) using a plan of funding war for three months — salami tactics — causing the Army command to recognize that the Congress, not the President, is effectively in charge, have achieved their goal: implementing withdrawal.

The Democrats will be responsible for affecting army morale. No one will want to lead the last charge and be responsible for or themselves suffer the last death or be taken prisoner before the order to stand down is issued. When and if — God forbid — the war and the acts of terrorism now faced daily in Iraq follow our retreat across the ocean to our homeland shores, the Democratic leaders who forced the withdrawal will be held responsible. While they will reject responsibility for the deaths and destruction that occur here in our homeland, the American public will remember the dire predictions of what would follow giving up the fight, and switch their support and recall the valiant efforts of George W. Bush to save us from those consequences and honor him in larger numbers than those who mistakenly now loathe his very name.

The Democratic Party will reap the political whirlwind, notwithstanding that President Bush and his advisors, particularly former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, failed in a host of ways in the conduct of the war through incompetence. Our army easily won the war, but then lost the occupation. While President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld failed in their leadership and strategy and bear the responsibility for those failures, they did recognize the true and long term danger of international Islamic terrorism, unlike the Democrats, and sought, albeit inadequately, to stop it in the center of the hostile Islamist world — Iraq.

The two men most responsible for actions causing the debacle other than President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld were CIA director George Tenet and former administrator of the U.S.-led occupation, Paul Bremer — Tenet for his totally incompetent operation of the CIA, e.g., foolish and inaccurate reporting on what was taking place in Iraq with respect to WMD and the dangers to the U.S., and Bremer, for his disbanding of the Iraqi army of more than 500,000 soldiers which had been toughened in an eight-year war with Iran from 1980 to 1988 and was capable of policing the country and preventing the now ongoing insurrection and terrorism. To see these two men honored by President Bush with the Presidential Medal of Freedom was shocking. They both deserved major reprimands and removal from their posts, rather than medals. Their effrontery has no bounds evidenced when each produced a book seeking to absolve themselves of blame. Both have since been hooted off the stage by the reading public.

My position until now has been different than that of either the Republicans or Democrats. The Republicans take the position that we must remain in Iraq until the Iraqis are able to defend themselves. The Democrats believe the Iraqis will never reach the ability to do that and therefore, we should leave now. My position is that we should provide our allies — the regional Arab countries of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey, all Sunnis — with an ultimatum, with a similar ultimatum to our NATO allies, that unless they come in with boots on the ground, we will commence getting out in 30 days. I believed that while our NATO allies under the leadership of France and President Jacques Chirac would never come in, our Arab allies out of fear of the consequences to them of our leaving would come in to prevent the enormous calamity of Iraqi refugees and terrorists crossing their borders by the millions. I learned recently from a U.S. general who was in Iraq that in fact former Secretary of State Colin Powell had gotten Turkey to agree to provide one army division to serve in Iraq and help police the occupation. But that the Iraqi government vetoed the offer refusing to accept the services of those troops. Our government, instead of insisting the Iraqi government accept the offer, acceded to the Iraqi refusal.

Our government has similarly acceded to the refusal of the Shiite majority in the Iraqi government to share power and oil revenue with the Sunni population. It is regrettably time to leave. It makes no sense to lose any more American soldiers or spill any more American blood. This is particularly true when, according to The New York Times, not long ago the King of Saudi Arabia referred to our occupation as “an illegal foreign occupation.” The Iraqi government has not passed a resolution denouncing the King’s comment and welcoming the presence of our troops. Even more indicative of a lack of Iraqi support for our troops is the Times report dated May 12, 2007 that “A majority of Iraq’s Parliament members have signed a petition for a timetable governing a withdrawal of American troops, several legislators said Friday.”

The war in Iraq is drawing to an end. Remember the poignancy and impact of the death of the last German soldier — played by Lew Ayres in the film All Quiet On the Western Front — shortly before the armistice that ended World War I,

Because the Democrats are forcing an end to the struggle in Iraq, we must now prepare to fight terrorism in our homeland for the next 30 or more years. This is a war of civilizations. The Islamic terrorists worldwide want to destroy the U.S. and every other Western nation, along with moderate Muslim nations, e.g., Egypt, Jordan, etc. Our very survival as a nation is involved. Will we have the courage and will to do all that will be necessary to prevail?

What did “victory” mean in the Cold War? Did it mean invading the USSR? Did it mean bombing Moscow? No, it meant hanging tough, preventing the Soviets from expanding their base of power, until the internal contradictions and flaws in their system brought them down. The fight against terror and Islamic radicalism has the same goal…to prevent the radicals from expanding their base, which would happen if they get control of Iraq, and to maintain a tough defense until their medieval culture adapts to the modern world.

During the Cold War the pols in Washington were mostly united in support of this goal. But now the Democrats are not. There is no safety for the weak and foolish. When you seek to end a war without substantially achieving your essential goals by simply ceasing to fight, it is often a form of surrender. And that’s the way the Democrat-imposed outcome in Iraq will be understood around the world, especially by our enemies.

Click Here to support

New AP Poll: America Does Not Support Democrat Congress’ War Plan

New AP Poll: America Does Not Support Democrat Congress’ War


Congress’ Approval Rating Drops To Just 35% – “It’s Mostly Iraq”


Friday May 11, 2007 11:16 AM


Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) – People think the Democratic-led Congress is doing just as dreary a job as President Bush, following four months of bitter political standoffs that have seen little progress on Iraq and a host of domestic issues.

The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month.
(Read More)

Dems are running on fumes

Dems are running on fumes

Clarice Feldman
The Washington Post notes that the Dems are out of gas and running on fumes:

The “Six for ’06” policy agenda on which Democrats campaigned last year was supposed to consist of low-hanging fruit, plucked and put in the basket to allow Congress to move on to tougher targets. House Democrats took just 10 days to pass a minimum-wage increase, a bill to implement most of the homeland security recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, a measure allowing federal funding for stem cell research, another to cut student-loan rates, a bill allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices under Medicare, and a rollback of tax breaks for oil and gas companies to finance alternative-energy research.
The Senate struck out on its own, with a broad overhaul of the rules on lobbying Congress.
Not one of those bills has been signed into law. President Bush signed 16 measures into law through April, six more than were signed by this time in the previous Congress. But beyond a huge domestic spending bill that wrapped up work left undone by Republicans last year, the list of achievements is modest: a beefed-up board to oversee congressional pages in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal, and the renaming of six post offices, including one for Gerald R. Ford in Vail, Colo., as well as two courthouses, including one for Rush Limbaugh Sr. in Cape Girardeau, Mo.

If we could harness the Levin-Pelosi-Waxman-Reid wind, we might become energy independent, but we can’t  voters are noticing that this new Congress is stalled.

Sen. Inhofe: Harry Reid Should Be Recalled

Sen. Inhofe: Harry Reid Should Be Recalled


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should be recalled by voters over his “un-American” remarks about the Iraq war, Sen. James Inhofe declared.

Speaking with NewsMax pundit Steve Malzberg on “Bill Bennett’s Morning in America” radio program Wednesday morning, Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, expressed outrage over Reid’s criticism of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, his call for a timetable for withdrawal and his assertion that the Iraq war is “lost.”

Asked if the Nevada Democrat should resign from his leadership position because of his comments, Inhofe said: “I think it’s more serious than that. I think there should be a recall . . . for saying something as un-American as that.”

He also said: “But it would have to emanate from the people who elected him.

“I can’t imagine that something isn’t going to happen.”

© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.



Pre-emptive Surrender

Pre-emptive Surrender
By Jacob Laksin | February 22, 2007

Henryk Broder, one of Germany’s few contrarian journalists, recently wrote a book decrying the weakness of the free West in the face of Islamic fanaticism. Tongue firmly in cheek, he called it: Hurra, Wir Kapitulieren, (Hurray! We’re Capitulating). Broder was primarily addressing Europe’s political class. But if the machinations of the Democratic Congress last week are any indication, the tendency toward gleeful submission before enemy forces cannot be dismissed as an exclusively Continental phenomenon.

Exhibit A in this tendency was the passage on Friday of the “non-binding” House resolution condemning President Bush’s strategy of boosting troop levels in Baghdad. If Democrats had the courage of their antiwar convictions, they would have taken a page from their predecessors in 1973 and exercised the power of the purse to deny any further funding for the war effort. But this would require principle, however misguided, and Democrats are primarily interested in political posturing.

The result? Even as American troops were marching into battle, House Democrats, abetted by 17 Republican defectors, were prejudging their mission a failure. How to reconcile last week’s vote with the fact that just weeks ago the Democrat-led Senate unanimously approved Army Gen. David Petraeus to command that same mission is anyone’s guess. Time may yet prove the House skeptics right about the wisdom of the surge. But it won’t alter the fact that at a dire time for the country they have acquitted themselves abominably.

And they were just getting started. As a sequel to last week’s resolution, House Democrats are working on what the website described as a “slow-bleed strategy.” Cynicism on a spectacular scale, it works like this: Into a forthcoming bill on supplemental spending for the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Democratic leadership intends to insert prohibitive restrictions that will make it all but impossible to deploy additional troops into the military theater.

Leading this obstructionist onslaught is antiwar agitator Rep. Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, the current chairman of the House subcommittee overseeing appropriations for defense. Having resoundingly lost his bid to become House majority leader in November, Murtha seems determined to save face by engineering American defeat in Iraq. He sounded positively giddy last Thursday as he explained the logic of the slow-bleed plan to antiwar website “They [the troops] won’t be able to continue. They won’t be able to do the deployment. They won’t have the equipment, they don’t have the training and they won’t be able to do the work. There’s no question in my mind … we’re going to stop this surge.” Translation: Hurray! We’re Capitulating!

Not content with sabotaging the Iraq war, Democrats are also working to undercut any leverage the United States may have in holding Iran to account for its catastrophic meddling in Iraq and its rogue nuclear program. Toward this end Murtha is reportedly trying to introduce a new measure into upcoming appropriations legislation that would prohibit any military action against Iran without specific congressional approval. Democrats’ views of the “War on Terror” being what they are, it’s hard not to see this as anything but an anti-war mandate. Murtha’s Congressional confrere, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has already said that she would propose the measure as a separate bill if it is not included in the appropriations bill.

If successful, Murtha and Pelosi’s plan would be a legislative coup. Though only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war,  the president can unilaterally send troops into battle. He can do so, moreover, absent a formal declaration of war from Congress. Murtha’s measure would strip the president of his war-making powers, a prospect that should unnerve anyone who doubts the ability of poll-worshipping legislators, let alone the Democratic majority in Congress, to provide steadfast wartime leadership. 

Equally disturbing is the message that Murtha’s measure would broadcast to America’s enemies. If a central pillar of the “Bush Doctrine” was preemptive war, the new Democratic Doctrine seems premised on its inverse: preemptive surrender. Small wonder that prior to the November election Democrats restricted their foreign policy pronouncements to platitudes that they “support the troops.” Their effective approach  — call it “America, First to Yield” — has limited appeal as an electoral cri de coeur.

Ironically, the Democrats’ declared refusal to countenance hard power against Iran came in the same week as a leaked policy document from the European Union, hardly a bastion of foreign policy hawks, underscored the futility of diplomatic measures. Written under the auspices of EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, the paper concludes that “the problems with Iran will not be resolved through economic sanctions alone” and acknowledges that “[a]ttempts to engage the Iranian administration in a negotiating process have so far not succeeded.” Considering that the EU has long been the staunchest proponent of continued diplomacy with Iran, last week’s paper should induce skepticism among those who counsel engagement-at-all-costs.

On one point, however, the Democrats and their EU counterparts are in agreement: there can be no military solution to the growing problem of Iranian belligerence. Indeed, both seem to see the United States as the real menace in the Middle East. The EU’s policy paper makes a point of highlighting what it calls the “more aggressive US approach to Iranian interference in Iraq.” Meanwhile Democrats and their media amen corner have been working tirelessly to dismiss the legitimacy of the Bush administration’s concerns about Iran and to cast the United States as the true aggressor. The New York Times editorial board recently accused the Bush administration of “bulling Iran.” Presidential aspirant John Edwards has upbraided the US for “antagonizing” the mullahs. Rep. James Clyburn, a Democrat from South Carolina, emerged as the spiritual leader of this antiwar congregation last week when he denounced America as a “warmonger.”

As historical exegesis, this is precisely backward. The fact may come as news to the Democratic leadership and the party‘s antiwar base, but Iran’s war against the United States is nearly thirty years old. It began when Iranian militants stormed the U.S. embassy in 1979, shouting “Death to America!” as they took 53 Americans hostage for 444 days. It was through the faithful rendition of that same slogan that Ayatollah Khomeini ascended to power and pronounced death on the “Great Satan.” It was Iran, too, that birthed and nurtured Hezbollah, the terrorist group that killed 240 Marines in Lebanon in 1983 and whose leader, Hassan Nasrallah, declared in 2003: “Death to America was, is, and will stay our slogan.” It is Iran that has repeatedly vowed to annihilate America’s ally, Israel, most recently when the country’s Holocaust-denying president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called for the Jewish state to be “wiped off the map.” And only a fool or a fanatical partisan — today’s Democratic Party is depressingly hospitable to both — would deny that the Islamic Republic today plays a role in killing American troops in Iraq.

Pedants can wrangle over whether this role is limited to supplying rocket-propelled grenades, roadside bombs and sniper rifles to Shiite and Sunni terrorists or also extends to training Shiite militias. To those soldiers who have born the brunt of insurgent attacks, including the 170 troops that the American authorities estimate have fallen to Iranian-made explosive devices, it is doubtful that it makes a difference.

Amid this sad state of debate about Iran one can’t help but recall the words of the venerable conservative journalist Clare Booth Luce. Marking President Carter’s fecklessness in the dark days of the Iranian hostage crisis, Luce quipped that  “the United States will end up apologizing to Iran for its having declared war on us.” Luce’s cynicism proved prophetic when former Secretary of State Madeline Albright tendered just such an apology in 2000. Is another one on the way? Current trends do nothing to dispel that suspicion.

What is urgently needed instead is a new foreign policy realism. Not the Beltway “realism” of the Iraq Study Group, which holds, with an aggressive contempt for logic, that stability in the Middle East demands placating the region’s most destabilizing actors in Iran and Syria. Rather, it the kind of realism that gives American policy in Iraq a deserved opportunity to succeed, and which does not attempt to blunt American negotiations with Iran by swiping a pivotal arrow — the credible threat of military force — from the diplomatic quiver. Asking Congress to abandon their current course of capitulation and show a measure of political courage is, alas, asking too much.

Click Here to support

You Can’t Win a Politically Correct War

You Can’t Win a Politically Correct War

Evan Coyne Maloney, Brain-terminal

[This is a great essay.]

For the last five years, it seems that every American use of force has resulted in hand-wringing and hypercriticism from the media and the president’s political opponents. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, the wiretapping of phones used to call terror suspects abroad…the end result of the obsessive and overblown coverage of all this is to weaken the political structure that’s attempting to fight a war for the survival of Western civilization. Fortunately for the people we’re fighting, no abuse of human rights seems grave enough merit a many-months-long series of front page headlines and navel-gazing editorials. No, that’s a standard to which only the United States is held.

Don’t get me wrong: it is legitimate to question our conduct of the war, it is healthy to ponder the morality of our actions, but these days, that seems to be the only role played by the opposition and their allies in the media. And that has an effect on our ability to win wars.

There’s something about our psyche which seems to make self-criticism the new national pastime. Naturally, our political leaders know this. They know that when hundreds of newspapers and television stations align in a daily tearing-down of the war effort, the American people will eventually lose their nerve and want to give up. Others know this, too, which is why al Qaeda distributed copies of Black Hawk Down as a means to understand how the media can be used to amplify a relatively minor military failure and drive the United States from the field of battle. [..]

If terrorists provide enough negative footage to our media, they know we’ll turn and run. But if we fight too vigorously, that will be held up by our own media as evidence of our inherent evilness.[..]

Beware: Nancy Pelosi Is Not Just a Spoiled Millionairess

Beware: Nancy Pelosi Is Not Just a Spoiled Millionairess

Written by Rene Guerra
Thursday, January 11, 2007
       David Brooks, the conservative columnist of the New York Times, came out with an article proposing the hypothesis that millionaire Nancy Pelosi is just another fake populist.  He portrayed her and her kind of opulent leftist Democrats, as just infants terribles engaged in a childish duel for power with their Republican counterparts. 

        But, Alas: Pelosi and her leftist brethren consider themselves part of something that resembles the nomenklatura, the top-stratum elite in any communist or socialist society (and notoriously made highly noticeable in the defunct Soviet Union) that places itself in a superior privileged position to the proletariat, or the populace.  That is, all the rest of us. 

        Those who may think it bizarre that a millionaire could spouse leftist ideas, should just remember that the best place for miscreants to hide well is among their opposites. 

        The nauseating
Wichita, Kansas BKT serial killer didn’t hide in skid row; Dennis Lynn Rader
was a model family man, an active church member, and a law enforcement officer . . . well, a dog catcher.

        Not many people would have dared to even think the terrible heresy that the sanctity of many Catholic priests was mere self-serving–until the worldwide news of raped altar boys came out in the open a few years ago. 

        The say goes: “The habit doesn’t a monk make”; affluence doesn’t make one a capitalist.  Friedrich Engels, a billionaire under current standards, is the co-author with Karl Marx of “The Communist Manifesto.”  Engels is furthermore one of the most venerated theoreticians and ideologues of the
Valhalla of the left, and he was Marx’s financier and only source of sustenance.

        Enrique Álvarez-Córdova, a Salvadoran millionaire acquaintance that I had met in my youth as a polo player, and whom I later in life met again as a colleague in the Salvadoran government cabinet of 1979, was abducted, and most savagely tortured and murdered by the infamous Salvadoran ultra-right death squads, around the end of 1980.  He had been a clandestine member of the Communist Party of El Salvador since his young adulthood, and made the lethal mistake of “outing” himself precisely at the apex of urban political violence in
El Salvador.  Sometime in December 1979, he confided to me that he acquired his leftist leanings during his college-student years at

University.  He was a warm man with a huge heart, an idealist who, unfortunately, grew to believe in communism.  He, as many, became polarized by the socio-economic feudalism and stone-age political environment that reigned in El Salvador at the time, and that fortunately ended about 15 years ago, upon the monumental collapse of the
Soviet Union.  Such a momentous event in part provided a safer environment for the broad political aperture that then started to take place in El Salvador; there were no more of Moscow’s agents roaming through
Latin America sowing Bolshevik revolution.

        Had Álvarez-Córdova lived in communism, or had
El Salvador turned communist, he would have been among the first to be purged, Stalinist style.   Paradoxically, he believed in participatory, horizontal democracy, and not in that abominable leftist contraption called “democratic centralism,” referring to the rule by the Central Committee of the Communist Party or by the nomenklatura.

        See also the case of billionaire George Soros, who uses the vast fortune he accumulated via one of the most extreme expressions of capitalism, speculating on currencies, to advance even the most bizarre leftist enterprises aimed at undermining

        What about the late billionaire Armand Hammond, the son of the United States Communist Party founder, Julius Hammond?  Armand Hammond was the most prominent purveyor of western goods and services to the Soviet Union since the times of Lenin until his, Hammond’s, death when only Russia was the leftover of the
USSR.  And he hid so well his true nature that he was a generous political donor to the Republicans, particularly to Richard Nixon.  Hammer even went to jail for illicit donations he made to the Nixon presidential campaign.  The western goods and services he provided to the Soviet Union were of great importance to help keep the
Soviet Union going.  He did a great service to Soviet communism while lining his pockets and living in opulence.

        Lenin preached to leftists to use capitalism’s proficiency to acquire and accumulate wealth, and, in the process, use it to destroy capitalism itself.  The mechanism is similar to what a virus does when taking over a healthy cell to reproduce itself many million times and in the process leach its host to total extinction.          That technique has been embraced by those sectors of the left who clearly understand that revolution by peasants and laborers in developed economies is not possible, as it perfectly is in feudalistic ones. Hence some in the left in the West, and particularly here in the
United States, morph themselves, like perfect chameleons, into apparent capitalists.  They know that words talk, but money works, and money they accumulate by tons.  They know that in a capitalist society what weighs the most is the accumulation of wealth, and that’s logically and precisely what they do to finance the advancement of their cause.  In the process they live la vie en rose.

        The leftist sector that has been in control of the Democrat Party since the mid 1960s won’t be happy until it socializes
America.  The rest of the world would then follow like lemmings jumping down the precipice.  (Well, that’s not exactly true; most of Europe is already well advanced on that route, plus most of the Western Hemisphere, with the exception of the
United States and less that a fistful of Latin American countries.)

        American leftists dream of a socialist
America, with them in the nomenklatura at the top, and the rest of us as an ant colony of androids and zombies, obeying their dictates.  They won’t relent until they see Americans queuing in long lines, with their ration coupons in their hands to get the most basic staples, or waiting for months to get a medical appointment even with the greenest physician.  They dream of all of us sharing the misery–but with them, the nomenklatura, exempted, of course.

        But the most lethal danger that Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party nomenklatura and the left in general pose to America and the free world, is that in the process of attempting to socialize America they inevitably must debilitate her to mass hopelessness and malaise.  Then they, the leftists, can come out like knights in shining armors to save America from its predicament, with the left’s destructive socialist policies. 

        And in the process of debilitating
America, leftists make her more vulnerable, than what as an open society she inherently is, to an apocalyptically deadly enemy: Islamo-Fascism.

        That’s how Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party nomenklatura and the left in general are in effect in a symbiotic alliance with Islamo-Fascism.  The left knows that Islamo-Fascism seeks to debilitate America, and more; Islamo-Fascism knows that the left seeks to debilitate
America, and more.  Neither of the two likes what they correctly see in
America: the world’s utmost inextinguishable beacon of freedom, perpetual fountain of effective democracy, inexpugnable bastion of individual rights, and the inexhaustible mother lode of free entrepreneurship.

        What else could explain Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party nomenklatura and the left in general adopting attitudes, promoting policies and playing politics that in effect help Islamo-Fascists? 

        Pelosi and other millionaire leftists in the Democrat Party nomenklatura are not just the infatuated-with-power spoiled brats that David Brooks wishes they were; they are a real threat to America, and the only hope is that Democrats who at least care for America’s national security, such as Joseph Lieberman (despite that he is an abortionist, homosexualist, and big-brotherist), one day rescue the Party of Thomas Jefferson from the claws of Karl Marx. 

        And, finally, even if Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party nomenklatura were just populists, see what populists do to nations. 

        See what Juan Domingo and Eva “Evita” Perón made out of
Argentina, in the first third of last century. Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world, but now it is a complete basket case.  See what the arch-corrupt PRI (Partido Revolutionario Institucional or Institutional Revolutionary Party) has made out of Mexico, a country of vast natural resources, but another basket case in
Latin America.  See what Hugo Chávez is making out of immensely petrodollar and minerals rich
Venezuela.  It’s not attractive.



Then see how stagnant and stale socialists have made
Western Europe. 
There’s n

othing attractive there either! 

        No, this is not a squabble between vineyard-tycoons and cattle-ranch barons, as naively, or maybe wishfully thinking, Brooks attempts to portray it.  It is a titanic battle for
America between leftism and capitalism.  Plain and simple!