Lynn Woolley columns -- 2009

[lwoolley]

Obama – the Anti-Reagan
By Lynn Woolley
January 10, 2009

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
--Ronald Reagan, first inaugural address, January 20, 1981

“But at this particular moment, only government can provide the short term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe.”
--Barack Obama, George Mason University, January 8, 2009

On November 4th of last year, the American people embarked on a great experiment. They made a decision to embrace “change” embodied in the person of a young, charismatic, but ultimately inexperienced leader who intends to take the country down an opposite path from where Reagan took us.

Barack Obama, placing his full faith in the power of government intervention and deficit spending, is thus the Anti-Reagan, casting off the policies that directly led to the economic boom of the 1990’s that lasted up until the sub-prime crisis hit late last year.

Obama likes to talk about “the fierce urgency of now” – but few remember that Reagan used a similar quote: “the temporary convenience of the present.” Again, Obama and Reagan are polar opposites. Obama says “now” is what matters; Reagan says future generations matter as well.

We’re now living in one of those future generations that Mr. Reagan talked about 28 years ago. And things have rocked along pretty well – until government in its zeal to provide home ownership to those who couldn’t afford to buy houses stepped in and forced the issue. In the current crisis, there is little doubt that government IS the problem.

Reagan knew that. When he took office, the American people were sick and tired of the “national malaise,” the “misery index,” and the “stagflation” of the Jimmy Carter years. The inflation rate was 11.83 percent. Unemployment was 7.5 percent. Like Obama, Reagan proposed change. His idea was to stimulate the economy with large, across-the-board tax cuts. The new president identified the problem and laid out his plans in his inaugural address:

“For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.
You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we're not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow.”

Simply put, Reagan’s solution was to spend less; Obama’s is to spend more.

Reagan cut spending on non-military programs, lowered income tax rates, and brought the country out of the Carter recession. He created 16 million jobs, brought inflation under control and fashioned a sustained period of economic prosperity.

Reaganomics has stood the test of time with Nobel laureates like Milton Friedman and Robert A. Mundell recognizing what a boon it was to all Americans – and to the world. Obamanomics on the other hand is rooted in collectivism, which, so far in history, has never worked.

Both methods cannot be right. Either Reagan’s policies based on the theories of Arthur Laffer – or Obama’s which are based on the ideas of John Maynard Keynes – will prove to be the correct course. What has got us into the current mess is that we have spent too much – both as a nation and as individuals. Obama will now attempt to solve the problem by spending more. That’s just the opposite of what Reagan would do.

Lynn Woolley is a talk show host heard on KVCE 1160 in Dallas-Fort Worth from 8 a.m. – 10 a.m. His email address is lynn@belogical.com.

[lwoolley]

Obama and the Golden Goose
By Lynn Woolley
January 31, 2009

Until serious leadership emergences within the Republican Party, it has fallen to talk show hosts to lead the fight against the current pork-laden stimulus bill – and to suggest alternatives. Rush Limbaugh’s proposal, carried in the Wall Street Journal, is better than Obama’s by a country mile – but, clever as it is, it wouldn’t work because it contains too much spending.

What the country should do is look at the cause of the current financial mess – and try to fix it within Constitutional parameters. The cause is that America – from its local and state governments, the federal government, and individuals – is overleveraged. At all levels, we have spent beyond our means and when the sub prime crisis hit, the bill came due. We are in a recession, but it is also a correction; we simply cannot spend this much money that we don’t have without consequences.

President Obama is throwing gasoline on a fire. If the root cause of the meltdown is too much debt, how can the President seriously believe that spending still more will help?

Instead, the President should see America’s free-market economy as a golden goose. The goose is a magical bird that lays golden eggs. The objective of business and the government should be to encourage the goose to keep laying more eggs. So if we make sure to nurture the goose, it will continue to show dividends.

But in times like these, it’s tempting to simply kill the golden goose and eat it. That’s what Obama is proposing to do. But if he kills the free-market economy, it won’t produce any more. It will lose its ability to grow. This will lead to inflation, stagnant wages, layoffs, and a general economic malaise. That will necessitate the need for more government rescues. Without an economy in which market forces can operate, only government will grow. That may be what the President wants, but it’s not good for the people.

The problem with Mr. Obama’s stimulus is that it attempts to stimulate through the public sector. Even if it works, which is highly unlikely, it will leave us with massive debt. A private sector stimulus, using business incentives instead of spending, would bring us out of the recession quicker and with less debt that we started with. It would strengthen business and the overall economy.

So how do we feed the golden goose? We cut out wasteful spending and programs that government shouldn’t be involved in. We cut taxes across the board without redistribution of wealth. We cut the corporate tax rate at least by half. We cut the capital gains tax and lower the payroll tax. If we’re really serious about this, we abolish the IRS and adopt the Fair Tax.

This means that some sacred cows would be gone. The Departments of Education and Commerce for sure. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be busted up and eventually abolished. Other belt-tightening measures could come from Mr. Obama’s promised audit to eliminate wasteful spending, which he will surely be starting any time now.

The spending in the stimulus bill should be to alleviate human suffering – things like extended unemployment benefits that can be justified under the General Welfare Clause.

With a private-sector recovery, market forces would once again determine outcomes and companies that consider themselves “too big to fail” would be put on notice. With lower taxes would come increased demand, more hiring and more consumer confidence. Unfortunately, our inexperienced and naive president has everything backwards and is in the process of cooking the national goose.

Lynn Woolley is a talk show host heard across Texas including KVCE AM 1160 in Dallas-Fort Worth and AM 700 KSEV in Houston. His email address is lynn@belogical.com.

[lwoolley]

The New Ism of Barack Obama
By Lynn Woolley
February 14, 2009

It’s called the first major victory of the Obama administration: a $787 billion economic “stimulus” package that combines tax cuts with massive social spending. This is a new approach, unprecedented in American history, replacing our free market system. That system is known as “capitalism” by the way. Since we are tossing it aside, what exactly are we getting in its place?

President Obama is often called a “socialist” by right-wing commentators. Is he? Socialism advocates public or state ownership of production and distribution channels, combined with equal opportunity for all. The key word to socialists is “fairness.” To achieve a “fair” and “equal” society, they would redistribute wealth and power, and they would do it through Central Planning as the old Soviet Union did.

At his core, Mr. Obama is a socialist. He told Joe the Plumber, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” He constantly talks about “economic justice” and fairness.

So what about “Marxism,” the philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels? There’s no question that Marxists are also socialists in that they believe capitalism is deeply flawed. The key word for Marxists is “change.” They believe in class struggle and making sure that the “oppressed” are fully aware of the pitiful conditions under which they are forced to live, breeding contempt for capitalism and leading to revolution.

Mr. Obama fully embraces the class struggle elements of Marxism, spending much of his early life as a “community organizer” in Chicago. In that role, he would isolate an injustice that could be exploited, gin up resentment, and demand a government solution. Obama’s mantra of “change” comes from this movement.

Marxism invariably leads to communism, which promotes a society with no classes at all. Under a communist umbrella, the problems of capitalism would be solved through doing away with private ownership. The key word for communists is “centralization.” Lenin envisioned a society in which government plans all economic activity. The top leaders of the Communist Party make the decisions and cannot be questioned. Communists allow no other parties, no political rivals and once a decision is made, all party members must accept it.

Are there parallels with Obama? His stimulus package is Central Planning on steroids, a vast expansion of government. His slogan, “the fierce urgency of now,” was driven home by his predictions of catastrophe if Congress didn’t pass the stimulus immediately, regardless of what it contained.

Then there is fascism, generally considered to be a far right movement as opposed to the leftist philosophies we’ve discussed. Fascism, such as the world saw under Mussolini and Hitler, is similar to communism. The key word is “nationalism.” It is collectivist in nature, but it allows private ownership of industry, without unions, but under government control. Fascists believe in extreme patriotism, racism, and military action. Fascists often come to power after an economic collapse when a leader with great powers of persuasion ascends to the head of government and promises a return to national glory. All criticism of the government is suppressed.

Obama is not a classic fascist. He supports unions, he’s not militaristic, and he has eschewed racism. But his rise to power in an economic meltdown is worrisome. He is a collectivist and he is presiding over the partial government takeover of private industry. He does not take criticism well and may seek to impose the Fairness Doctrine to silence conservative talk radio.

The bottom line is that none of these “isms” define Obama – yet all of them do to a point. Note, too, that these philosophies generally result in a total loss of freedom for the people, and produce dictatorships. Only capitalism is a free and open system that promotes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The other isms lead only to misery.

Lynn Woolley is a talk show host heard mornings 8 a.m. – 10 a.m. on KVCE AM 1160 in Dallas-Fort Worth and 8 p.m. -11 p.m. on KSEV AM 700 in Houston as well as other stations around Texas. His email address is lynn@belogical.com.

[lwoolley]

Hate Speech, Political Cartoons & Talk Radio
by Lynn Woolley
February 22, 2009

Hate speech is not a pretty thing. It’s not pretty when it’s real – such as Jessie Jackson’s famous “Hymietown” remark. And it’s not pretty when someone attempts to destroy a person or an institution with false charges of hate speech. Such is the case with the Rev. Al Sharpton’s ridiculous attack on the New York Post for a political cartoon.

The intent of the cartoon seemed obvious: an out-of-control chimp that had been making headlines was used to make a point about an out-of-control stimulus bill. But Al Sharpton and others like him saw racism. Even Juan Williams, a usually cool head about such things, saw it because of a history of racist stereotypes, coupled with the fact that the President is African American.

Still, it’s a stretch. President Obama didn’t write the stimulus bill; Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid did. But why let facts get in the way if you’re an outdated civil rights agitator and an opportunity like this hadn’t surfaced since the Don Imus incident?

So the Post apologized and New York Gov. David Paterson accepted on behalf of the outraged residents of his state. Then he said, “It might be time to open up a dialogue on just where that line is, where good clean fun and degradation are.” Excuse me? Political satire, protected by the Constitution and consistently upheld by the courts is not intended to be “good clean fun.” It’s intended to shoot an arrow into the heart of political stupidity and hypocrisy. If its targets are not offended, it likely didn’t do its job.

Meanwhile the Post’s apology is unfortunate. Because while others are expecting the Obama administration to return to the Fairness Doctrine using either the “imbalance” of conservative versus liberal programming on the AM dial – or the idea of “localism boards” to force stations to drop syndicated shows, I contend that the hammer they will use is hate speech.

Look at what happened to Imus. It wasn’t “imbalance” that got him fired from WFAN and MSNBC; it was a charge of hate speech.

The term “hate radio” has been around for while, but it came into its own in the days following the Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City. Shortly after that event, President Clinton gave a speech in Minneapolis in which he said the nation’s airwaves are too often used “to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us upset with each other. [Such people] spread hate, that leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable… It is time we all stood up and spoke out against that kind of reckless speech and behavior.”

Clinton was talking about Rush Limbaugh, though he never mentioned him by name. In Clinton’s estimation, it was really right-wing talk radio that created the climate for such hatred. Rush wrote a column for Newsweek entitled “Why I’m Not to Blame.”

Even before this, G. Gordon Liddy had come under vicious attack for on-air comments about shooting federal agents if they ever came to confiscate your guns. Liddy was discussing a hypothetical instance in which agents burst into a private home, unannounced, guns blazing. No matter; his words were easy to twist.

Similarly, the Left has attacked Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, John Gibson and dozens of others for being purveyors of hate radio. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann has demanded to know why none of the “racist right” has been fired as Imus was.

Like Olbermann, liberals smell blood – even in the most innocent slip-of-the tongue, an off-the-cuff comment that a host might wish to take back, or a biting political parody. The Left will characterize it as hate speech, and along with the return of the Fairness Doctrine, it is the biggest threat to freedom of speech in a newspaper like the New York Post, or on the radio.

Lynn Woolley is a Texas-based talk show host heard on KVCE AM 1160 in Dallas-Fort Worth weekdays at 8 a.m. His website is www.BeLogical.com.

[lwoolley]

Our Global Leadership Meltdown
By Lynn Woolley
March 8, 2009

The global economic meltdown is severely testing the policies of world leaders – among them three, whose names are Putin, Chavez and Obama. There may not be an immediate New World Order in the offing, but current power struggles could portend a global leadership meltdown.

Vladimir Putin, the apparent fascist of the bunch, finds himself locked in a struggle with his self-appointed replacement, Dmitry Medvedev who is getting tired of being a puppet. The financial crisis has hit Russia quite hard and the military and security group known as the siloviki are clashing with economic liberals who are gathered around Medvedev.

It was Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal, who in July, 2007 wrote: "Russia has become, in the precise sense of the word, a fascist state. It does not matter here [that] Mr. Putin is wildly popular in Russia. Popularity is what competent despots get when they destroy independent media, stoke nationalistic fervor with military buildups…and ride a wave of petrodollars to pay off the civil service and balance their budgets.”

Indeed, activities like Russia’s military adventure in South Ossetia tend to overshadow the reforms that Mr. Putin made – such as a flat income tax of 13 percent. Russia’s stock market is worse off than Wall Street, having lost almost eighty percent from its peak. And now, finance minister Alexei Kudrin has issued a warning to the siloviki that the corporations in which they hold interests will see limits on government bailouts. All of this is encouraging Medvedev to assert himself.

Changing hemispheres and moving to the world’s most famous emerging socialist nation, Hugo Chavez likewise finds himself in some hot water. Venezuela is, if anything, in deeper trouble than Russia. Oil prices have plummeted to $40 per barrel, but Chavez had counted on at least $60. And, as the laws of economics suggest it must in a country where government sets the prices of goods and services, inflation is running amuck. More than 30 percent.

Chavez’s response is that Venezuela needs more socialism. His “national superintendent of silos and storage,” Carlos Osorio, said: “For the government, access to food is a matter of national security.” So the Chavez government will tighten control of the food supply. Shortages will continue because local farmers are not interested in producing food staples at government-dictated prices.

Chavez faces no more term limits and he has no Medvedev to challenge him. But the people can only take so much. Venezuela is a textbook case of the failure of socialism, even as Chavez urges the U. S. president to take America further down that path.

And what about it? Is that what President Obama will do? It sure looks like it. Even with criticism beginning to mount, Mr. Obama holds to his spread-the-wealth ideology.
Like Putin, he remains popular among the people, allowing him some time to see his plans through. But like Chavez, something has to work – and soon.

Mr. Obama’s answer has been to spend trillions of dollars while proposing more trillions be spent on three pet projects: government expansion into healthcare, education and energy. The dirty little secret is that there is no money to spend on these or any other projects. Democrats from Evan Bayh to Russ Feingold are off the Obama bandwagon along with most Republicans – and the stock market is at 1997 levels.

Socialism and communism destroyed the Soviet Union and is now destroying Venezuela. In America, Mr. Obama’s policies are taking us back to the “misery index” days of the Carter administration It’s time to take a fresh look at the free market, which always works when given a fair chance. If these three world leaders don’t do that, they’re not going to be leaders much longer.

The Lynn Woolley Show is heard mornings on KVCE AM 1160 in Dallas at 9 a.m. and in Houston on KSEV AM 700 at 8 p.m. Email him at lynn@belogical.com.

[lwoolley]

Turning the Page on Race
By Lynn Woolley
March 11, 2009

I have this theory that liberals will not use the Fairness Doctrine in its purest form to end conservative talk radio. I think they will cherry pick the hosts they dislike, and brand them as haters. Clarence Page, whether he realizes it or not, plays right into the theory.

Page is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, and in writing an op-ed piece about Senator Roland Burris, he eventually turns to the Rush Limbaugh controversy. “Limbaugh knows!” he writes – meaning Rush knows about how to use racial paranoia. “In his drive to build ratings, the radio talk show star has shown a talent for playing the strings of racial resentment.”

Art this point, Mr. Page proceeds to tear into Mr. Limbaugh by quoting, out of context, remarks that the host made about President Obama: “We are being told that … we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever because his father was black.” Now, I didn’t hear Rush say this, but let’s stipulate the point for argument’s sake and move forward.

Rush doesn’t take my calls, but if I could ask him, this is what I suspect he would say about that excerpt from his show: Obama is a cult of personality. He offers little in the way of substance, and so personality traits such as his youth, his coolness, his ability to deliver a rousing speech, and his anti-Bush credentials contribute to the Obama brand. And, of course, his status as an African-American. The Jurassic Press (the Drive-By Media in Rushspeak) has made a big deal out of the “historic” nature of his election.

But Mr. Page wants to know who is telling Rush this, as if even the most casual political observer would not notice. Rush states the obvious and Mr. Page wants references.

On the other hand, Mr. Page, as a liberal himself, and a person of color, is empowered to discuss the Roland Burris case without being accused of spreading racial paranoia. Mr. Page bemoans the apparent fact that Chicago politics are not sufficiently advanced beyond the notion of holding on to a “black” senate seat as an end in itself.

No one will accuse Mr. Page of being a race baiter or a hater because of those comments – because they make perfect sense. So what is it about Rush’s comments that are any different? In Chicago, a lot of people want Burris to remain in the Senate because he is black. Across the nation, a lot of people want Obama to succeed because he is black.

Yet Mr. Page comes within a hair of accusing Mr. Limbaugh of racism in his “drive to build ratings.” The difference is that Rush Limbaugh is a white conservative who does not buy into the Obama cult, and who is not afraid to discuss race openly.

In the wake of the recent speech by Attorney General Eric Holder, who charged that Americans are “cowards” when it comes to discussing race, perhaps Mr. Limbaugh should get an “I am not a coward” award from the Justice Department. Instead, he gets accused by Clarence Page of manipulating his audience through “racial paranoia.”

Remember, my theory is that if the Left can successfully brand a talk show host as a hater, they can get him fired. It worked in the case of Don Imus, who made a comeback, but is a mere shadow of his former self. That was the test case. Rush is the prize.

The Lynn Woolley Show is heard mornings on KVCE AM 1160 in Dallas at 9 a.m. and in Houston on KSEV AM 700 at 8 p.m. Email him at lynn@belogical.com.

[lwoolley]

Greed Is Not a Dirty Word
By Lynn Woolley
March 21, 2009

It seems like everybody is beating up on greed these days. In the wake of the AIG bonus scandal, pompous members of Congress, the Obama administration, and the media are disparaging the very concept. It’s time someone stands up for greed because without it, there would be no United States of America.

Greed – the desire to make a profit – is the engine that runs a free-market democracy, and that is precisely what President Obama is trying to change. He wants to spread the wealth around so that people who are not greedy can have the same things in life as those who are. But here’s the rub: Why should someone work hard to get an education, develop a skill, and become successful, only to have government take away part of that success and hand it to someone with no initiative?

That’s what the late economist Milton Friedman tried to get through to Phil Donahue in an amazing clip from 1979 posted on You Tube. Donahue was a big time TV talk host at the time, and he brought Friedman on to confront him about capitalism:

“When you see around the globe, maldistribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries, when you see so few ‘haves’ and so many ‘have-nots,’ when you see the greed and the concentration of power, did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed is a good thing to run on?”

Friedman did not hesitate with his answer: “Tell me, is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? Do you think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed?” And then Friedman whacked Donahue with this statement that should be in every economics text: “The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests.”

Exactly. The difference is that here in America, the people are free to pursue their interests while in many societies around the globe, only government is. Many of those governments are corrupt. The more power they have to redistribute wealth, the more corrupt they are. Sometimes, as in the case of the Soviet Union, they collapse under the weight of the socialist system.

As Friedman told Donahue, “The record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.”

What does it take to convince some people? Look around at the amazing wonder that is America. We didn’t get where we are by forcing equality on the masses. America’s great achievements came through the entrepreneurship of individuals who knew they could keep most of what they earned.

But what about the AIG bonuses? They’re hard to defend, but not nearly as bad as bonuses for political hacks and government insiders at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Chief among those is former Fannie CEO Franklin Raines who stepped down on December 21, 2004 during an investigation that accused Fannie Mae of cooking the books so its officers could earn huge bonuses. Raines got as much as $90 million himself.

Raines profited from a corrupt government spoils system devoid of honesty and ethics while AIG’s bonuses were negotiated in advance and then enabled by the Dodd Amendment. It is a fact that the current crisis is artificial – wholly created by government.

Yet AIG employees are said to be living in fear, and the government that created this mess has passed an ex-post-facto law to tax away the bonus money. Milton Friedman would most likely be puzzled at the outrage over a few million dollars in bonuses while the administration is busy destroying our precious free enterprise system.

Lynn Woolley is a Texas-based syndicated talk show host. His web site is http://www.BeLogical.com.

[lwoolley]

Doublethink is Truth
By Lynn Woolley
April 5, 2009

“Well, sir, here’s to plain speaking and clear understanding.”
-- Casper Gutman to Sam Spade in “The Maltese Falcon,” Dashiell Hammett, 1930.

“For it is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely.”
-- Emmanuel Goldstein, defining doublethink in “1984,” George Orwell, 1949.

Guess what – there was no terrorist attack on 9/11. There may have been an “attack,” but there were no “terrorists.” If we had “terrorists,” then we would require a “Global War on Terror,” but we don’t because the Obama administration has changed the language. We now have an “Overseas Contingency Operation.” You can almost imagine Winston Smith, slaving at his post in the “Ministry of Truth” to redact all mentions of the Global War on Terror.

Of course, the term “Global War on Terror” left something to be desired since it was really a Global War on Radical Islam. Doesn’t anyone in the political world believe in plain speaking and clear understanding? Not exactly.

Mostly they believe in “doublethink,” the Orwellian concept of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. Winston and Julia, the star-crossed lovers in “1984,” refused to allow Big Brother – the government – to think for them. But today, we seem just fine with that.

Look at how we name legislation. President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” law left a lot of children behind; arguably most of them as our educational system continued to deteriorate.

The Obama administration is particularly good at bill-naming. Have you ever heard of the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009”? That’s the good old Stimulus Plan that has been called “generational theft” by Senator John McCain. This bill spends billions and could lead to hyperinflation down the road – the direct opposite of the bill’s name.

But nothing exemplifies doublethink like a proposed bill that would take away the right of a worker to cast a secret ballot in union elections. In an amazing display of Orwellian chutzpah, this bill has been labeled the “Employee Free Choice Act.”

Remember the three slogans of the Inner Party in “1984?” WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

What is so different from the real world of 2009 where racial preferences are called “Affirmative Action,” and the concept of killing a baby in the womb is routinely referred to in your local newspaper as “Abortion Rights.”

So do politicians EVER tell the truth? Sure; it happens from time to time. Before Bill Clinton lied through his teeth, telling you, me, and presumably Hillary that he “didn’t have sex with that woman,” Ronald Reagan was cutting through the crap.

Mr. Reagan shocked the world when he called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” Reagan was telling the truth. The old USSR had no free elections, the people were repressed, and leaders were always eyeing some neighbor with aggression on their minds. The government run newspaper that carried little truth was named “Pravda” – The Truth! Orwell would be proud!

Mr. Reagan, by the way, named one of his initiatives the “Strategic Defense Initiative,” an excellent name since it was a defensive program. But the media renamed it “Star Wars,” the doublethink opposite.

Today we get such lunacies as “comprehensive immigration reform” for illegal alien amnesty; the “USA Patriot Act” for a law that allowed government spying without much in the way of judicial review; and “economic justice” as the name for redistribution of wealth.

Remember, it is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be maintained. Before “Atlas Shrugged,” before Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals,” there was doublethink -- a concept still practiced by our government long after 1984 has come and gone.

Lynn Woolley is a Texas-based syndicated talk show host. His web site is http://www.BeLogical.com.

[lwoolley]

Assimilation in the 21st Century
By Lynn Woolley
April 20, 2009

If, as Linda Chavez seems to think, the intent of those who come to America illegally is simply to raise a family, send the kids to college and assimilate into American society, then where’s the problem? The problem is – that’s just simply not the case.

The situation in 2009 is very different from the days when people emigrated from all over the world and came here to be part of the American Dream. The difference is that no one then really wanted to re-establish the old country; they wanted a BETTER life – not the same life in a different place.

For the record, there are thousands of immigrants – illegal and otherwise – who feel that way. But there are additional thousands who don’t. One of them is Charles Truxillo, a professor at the University of New Mexico, who says the “Hispanic Homeland” should be brought into existence by any means necessary. Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez at the University of Texas at Arlington has said much the same thing.

Ms. Chavez might also explore the days of yore that she compares to today, just to see if government and business kowtowed to people who had no desire to assimilate. Schools, for example, have been pretty much ruined by programs like bilingual education and curricula based on “diversity.” In my day, we learned reading and writing and, though we had Hispanic kids in school, they learned in English too. The department stores of my youth had no Spanish signage. Now, we have Wal-Mart opening up “Supermercado de Wal-Mart” stores in Arizona and Texas.

So government and business enable this rapid culture and demographic shift – and the Democratic Party eats it up. Most illegals who sneak into the country and take advantage of our system will sign up to vote as Democrats. The naive Republicans who want cheap labor don’t even understand they’re being had. The cheap labor will come, but if they can manage to send their kids to school and then college – an admirable goal – then the cheap labor goes away. So we have to keep the flow of illegals coming across.

If you want to see the problems associated with this rapid demographic shift in which English and the old melting pot culture have been thrown aside, look no further than the Dallas School District. A little less diversity, English immersion, and the 3 R’s would work wonders if they ever tried it.

[lwoolley]

We Are Living in Liberal Land USA
By Lynn Woolley
April 19, 2009

We conservatives are starting to understand how progressives must have felt during the Bush administration. We are almost at the hundred-day point of the Obama presidency, and there is very little that those of us on the Right can agree with. It is as if we are living in Liberal Land USA –a dimension of sight and sound, but not of logic.

The tea parties were an obvious manifestation of dissatisfaction from the Right. Leftists in the media, particularly talking heads on MSNBC and reporters on CNN, called the parties “anti-government” and even “anti-CNN.” Nancy Pelosi called it “an Astroturf movement” rather than a grassroots movement. Janeane Garofalo went on “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” and unloaded:

“It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about; they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks.”

“Teabagging,” we have learned, is a slang term used in the homosexual community that all the liberal commentators seemed conversant with but that Sean Hannity (and your writer) had never heard of.

So never mind the fact that the parties were also attended by some Democrats and people of color – and that the big spending policies of George W. Bush were also slammed. The truth is that the tea parties were fairly one-dimensional; they were about Big Government committing generational theft.

But look at what else might have come up. Barack Obama, traveling the world and apologizing for America at every turn. And since the tea parties, he’s done it again in Port-of-Spain, and he’s sat through anti-American tirades from the likes of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

With Iran inching closer to being a member of the nuclear family, President Obama is in a virtual duel with Israel and its new Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The President is demanding a freeze of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and says the terrorist group Hamas should be a part of ongoing negotiations.

While all this is going on, the President has released memos written by Bush administration lawyers that reveal certain enhanced interrogation methods ranging from waterboarding to use of a caterpillar, and even sleep deprivation. None of the methods seem particularly harsh when compared to the beheadings the other side uses. Former CIA chief Michael Hayden went on Fox News Sunday to say that this is a dangerous decision. Janet Napolitano, the DHS Secretary, defends the decision -- but then “Big Sister,” as some are now calling her, has also had to defend her own agency’s report that labels seemingly mainstream conservatives as potential terrorists. You know, people who are pro-life, own guns, and might not believe in global warming.

And in Liberal Land, global warming is the new religion. The Environmental Protection Agency has now ruled that carbon dioxide – the gas we humans exhale – endangers public health. That sets the stage for draconian new regulations and Obama’s planned “Cap & Trade” tax on emissions. Cap & Trade could kill any possible economic recovery.

So what is there to agree with President Obama on? Well, let’s give him due credit for the Somalia Pirate rescue. For the record, let’s state that his new Cuba policy might work. Other than that, most of his policies lead to Big Government. Which is what the tea parties were about.

The American people know that Mr. Obama’s plans with regard to education, climate change, healthcare, and energy cannot be accomplished without massive tax increases and more government involvement in our everyday lives. To many of us taxpayers, that sounds like Liberal Land. We are millions strong, Mr. President, and we just might form a movement. If that’s want you want, then continue to ignore us.

Lynn Woolley is a Texas-based radio talk show host heard on KVCE AM 1160 weekdays at 9 a.m. His email address is lynn@belogical.com.

[lwoolley]

The Politically Correct Flu
By Lynn Woolley
May 2, 2009

As the world works its way though what may or may not be a devastating pandemic, there are three questions we have to ask:

Why do we call the ailment “Swine Flu” and not “Mexican Flu”? Why hasn’t the Obama administration sealed the border with Mexico? Finally, why is this strain of the flu more deadly in Mexico than in the United States?

There is a long tradition of naming specific outbreaks after the best-guess geographic point of origin: Russian Flu (1889), Spanish Flu (1918), Asian Flu (China in1956 and 1968), Hong Kong Flu (1968) and West Nile Virus (Uganda, 1937). You get the idea. But in today’s world, it’s not nice to offend a country that provides us with a cheap labor force and new voters for one of our political parties.

When Vice President Joe Biden correctly stated that we might not want to travel in airplanes or subways as a safety precaution, he was “corrected” by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. But neither Biden nor anyone else in the administration has suggested closing the border to the country where the virus began and to which almost every confirmed case has a direct link. But then we have not closed the border because of illegal immigration or the deadly Mexican drug wars. So what’s the big deal about a possible pandemic?

The other question is why the illness is so much stronger in Mexico. The answer is that it most likely isn’t stronger there. The problem lies with the Mexican health care system. You can quibble about whether Mexico has “socialized” medicine, but there’s no argument that healthcare there is heavily subsidized or free. That means long waits for doctor visits.

The case of Adela Maria Gutierrez, which was covered in the New York Times, is a lesson as to how the Mexican system works. The 39-year-old mother of three daughters fell ill on April 1. She treated herself at home with aspirin and antibiotics, but nothing brought down her fever. Eight days later, she finally went to the hospital in Oaxaca. By that time, she was out of breath and too weak to save. She became the first known victim of the Mexican Swine Flu.

According to the story in the Times, this woman’s tragic story is the norm in Mexico. People simply can’t get in to see a doctor. The public facilities are overcrowded, and only those people with the worst apparent injuries are accepted into the emergency rooms. Others are simply turned away.

Mrs. Gutierrez’ husband Luis said that when they arrived at the hospital, there was no bed available and no respirator. “They give preference to people who are bleeding, who are near death,” he said.

Mrs. Gutierrez wasn’t bleeding, but she was much sicker than she seemed.

Four years ago, my wife was stricken with symptoms eerily similar to those of Mrs. Gutierrez. We took it slow, just as the Gutierrez family did, only seeing a doctor six days in – when she could no longer catch her breath. The eventual diagnosis was gram-negative sepsis – something most folks don’t walk away from. It starts with an infection and leads to a whole-body inflammatory condition where little proteins called cytokines wreak havoc with the immune system --- something that likely happened to Mrs. Gutierrez as well. In our case, prompt attention and state-of-the art facilities led to a full recovery.

The difference in these two cases is the healthcare systems of the two countries. It’s not politically correct to say so, but President Obama would take us closer to the rationing system that Mexico has. Under that system, everyone would be covered, but my wife would be dead.

We still don’t know what the eventual outcome of this current outbreak will be. But here’s something we can be sure of: Political correctness takes a bad situation and makes it a whole lot worse.

Lynn Woolley is a Texas-based talk show host heard on KVCE AM 1160 at 9 a.m. Email him at lynn@belogical.com.

[lwoolley]

Sessions’ “Bizarre” Theory
By Lynn Woolley
May 16, 2009

Democrats piled on U.S. Representative Pete Sessions of Dallas after he said that President Obama might be intentionally damaging the economy in order to consolidate power. But just two days later, a very prominent Democrat seemed to agree with him. That Democrat is the President himself who pronounced to the world that his own spending policies are unsustainable.

Rep. Sessions, who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee, effectively declared the Obama honeymoon over when he told the New York Times that the administration intends to “diminish employment and diminish stock prices” as part of a “divide and conquer” strategy.

The blowback was quick and pointed. Sessions’ counterpart on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, called Sessions’ statement a “bizarre conspiracy theory.” Van Hollen said the remarks have no place in our current economic debate. That’s where Rep. Van Hollen is wrong.

Going back just a few days to April 15th, millions of American engaged in their Constitutional right to tell their government that they aren’t happy. Hundreds of tea parties took place, during which Americans of all colors and creeds protested – not just high taxes, but the incredible amount of spending and debt this nation is piling up. New figures released by the administration bolster that argument: the government will have to borrow 46 cents for every dollar it spends this year and the deficit will skyrocket past $1.8 trillion.

That takes us back to Sessions’ contention that Mr. Obama is doing this on purpose for some underlying reason.

The President’s own writings and his past associations certainly indicate that he is of a socialist bent. His time as a community organizer in Chicago was spent uncovering “injustices” that could be exploited for government intervention. During the campaign, he told Samuel Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. Joe the Plumber, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

The President’s credentials as a redistributionist are without question. But is he openly against corporations and capitalism?

The President’s own rhetoric suggests that he is. Business groups are angry at some of the President’s comments and policies. While in Mexico, Obama criticized the credit card industry saying some of their dealings “are not honest.” Before that he was on the case of lenders and international companies, accusing them of going overseas to reduce their US tax burdens.

According to Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker, Mr. Obama is creating an “us-against-them” dynamic in an attempt to align himself with ordinary people while demonizing faceless corporations. Mr. Obama’s latest target – credit card companies – may very well feel the intimidation. After all, the President’s power over the private sector is unprecedented in American history, even allowing him to “fire” the CEO of General Motors.

Even so, Texas Sen. John Cornyn told the Dallas Morning News that he’s not sure where Pete Sessions is coming from and that he doesn’t think Mr. Obama wants to sabotage the economy. But then, Sen. Cornyn warned of “hyperinflation” from excessive spending. “A lot of what [Obama’s] doing is going to have disastrous consequences,” said Cornyn.

And Mr. Obama himself turned some heads when he told a town hall meeting in New Mexico that his own deficit spending is “unsustainable.” The President warned that his own policies will cause skyrocketing interest rates if we continue to borrow from other countries. “We have to pay interest on that debt,” said the President. “And that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Earth to President Obama: these are YOUR policies. Like Sen. Cornyn, you seem to be agreeing that the consequences will be devastating. How could any reasonable person conclude that, if you know these polices are unsustainable, you are not tanking the economy on purpose? That’s what a lot of people are thinking, but it took Pete Sessions to say it.

Lynn Woolley is a Texas-based talk show host. His show streams at www.BeLogical.com M-F 8 a.m. - 11 a.m. CT.

[lwoolley]

Sonia Sotomayor’s America
By Lynn Woolley
May 30, 2009

In a world where a failed Supreme Court nominee’s very name had not turned into a verb, conservatives might now be espousing an “oh well” attitude toward the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. But Judge Robert Bork – the first nominee to get “borked” -- changed all that. Stand by for war.

It’s a battle conservatives will lose; they simply don’t have the votes to keep Sotomayor off the bench. But the battle will be fought, both on the merits of the case and because of a dangerous precedent set by liberals in the wake of President Reagan’s appointment of Judge Bork in 1987.

Mr. Reagan had already made two appointments: Sandra Day O’Connor -- fulfilling a campaign promise to name a woman – and Antonin Scalia. When Lewis Powell announced his retirement, the Left was afraid that the Court might become stacked with conservatives. They had to stop that from happening.

President Reagan chose a DC Federal Appeals Court judge with outstanding credentials to be the nominee. But Robert Bork was famously against judicial activism – something the Left cherished. Judge Bork was on the record opposing the 1965 Griswold decision that established the elusive “right to privacy” that was not stated in the Constitution – and the Roe v. Wade decision which followed in 1973.

Then, as now, the liberal litmus test was abortion. Senator Edward Kennedy, a member of the Judiciary Committee, went on national television from the Senate floor within 45 minutes of the nomination to deliver perhaps the most famous slander in American history:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution.”

The Chairman of the Committee, Sen. Joe Biden, and Sen. Arlen Specter, both announced their opposition.

But why? Was Judge Bork really an evil person who would take America back to the Dark Ages? Not exactly. He was considered a brilliant jurist, but he advocated an adherence to the letter of the law that liberals could not abide. Here is what Judge Bork said at the time about his own philosophy:

“Liberal, moderate, conservative shouldn’t apply to judging. The correct philosophy is to judge according to the intent of the legislature or the intent of the Constitution’s framers. Judges are overwhelmingly from a narrow segment of society, and if they begin to read their own ideals into the law, then most of society isn’t represented.”

That’s called “separation of powers.” Congress legislates. The court judges. Virtually all rulings of the High Court should be 9-0 under a system such as ours. But that’s not the view of the Left and it’s certainly not the view of Sonia Sotomayor. Here’s what she said at a cultural diversity lecture at Berkeley in 2001:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

So, in Sonia Sotomayor’s America – to paraphrase Sen. Kennedy’s 1987 rant – unborn babies may be removed from their mother’s wombs on demand, white firefighters who work hard to pass exams can forget their promotions if minorities didn’t do as well, Black Panthers can intimidate voters with nightsticks at polling paces with no repercussions, and public schools will become centers for multicultural indoctrination.

The sad truth is that this description of Sotomayor’s philosophy is much closer to reality than Kennedy’s outright lies about Judge Bork. This would be a better, stronger nation today if Judge Bork had been confirmed, but we were denied that.

Robert Bork was committed to the law – to the Constitution. Sonia Sotomayor is committed to identity politics and “the richness of her experiences.” If President Obama has the opportunity to stack the court with more jurists like her, the rule of law will not mean much. So even though her confirmation seems assured, let’s fight the battle anyway.

Lynn Woolley is a Texas-based syndicated talk show host. His show and commentaries are heard on seven Texas radio stations and from www.BeLogical.com.

[lwoolley]

The Tipping Point
By Lynn Woolley
June 12, 2009

The socialism has hit the fan. The exact date of the “tipping point” may forever be in dispute, but mark down this date: June 8, 2009. The big overseas story was across-the board conservative gains in European elections. That could not have been a good morning for President Obama.

Mr. Obama’s campaign mantras of “change” and “hope” escalated in a deep recession into such massive government spending that people began to wonder if the “cure” isn’t worse than the disease. The first indication that the people are not happy with all this spending and the taxes it may require came in the once-proud state of California. Voters killed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s slate of budget fixes – including prolonged tax increases.

Then came the European surprise. In an utter repudiation of big-government fixes and bailouts, voters supported right-leaning governments in Germany, France, Italy and Belgium. Conservative opposition parties won in Britain and Spain. On the exact same day, senior Chinese leaders were complaining about U.S. fiscal policy, specifically the soaring deficit under Obama – and warning that they will diversify from the dollar.

June 8 was indeed a big day: socialist Europe moves to the right and the Communist Chinese lecture the United States about its spending orgy. It was the same day that a group of technology companies, including IBM and Motorola, pooled resources to hire former Clinton economist Robert Shapiro to defeat Mr. Obama’s plan to raise taxes on overseas profits. June 8, by the way, was also the day that Mr. Obama pledged to speed up the spending of stimulus money going into summer works programs.

Just a day later, the bad news for Democrats continued, this time in the state of New York. “Chaos in Albany” screamed the headlines! What happened was a “coup” in the New York state Senate, made possible when two Democrats defected. The Senate majority leader was thus ousted, while Democrats turned out the lights and cut off the internet feed of Chamber proceedings. Didn’t matter. The New York Republicans and the two defectors voted in the dark.

June 9th was the date that the Wall Street Journal exposed Mr. Obama’s signature phrase about jobs – “saved or created” – as a fraud. The President had just claimed credit for 150,000 jobs “saved or created” by the stimulus. But the Journal called his hand, saying that Obama had coined a term that could never be disproved. Later that same day, the President told the American people that he is serious about fiscal responsibility. He urged passage of “pay-go” legislation that would require any new tax cuts or spending to be offset in the budget.

Pay-go may not amount to much, but it was an indication that the President was starting to feel the pinch. And he STILL has healthcare and cap & trade legislation yet to come.

The rest of the week continued to go downhill. Actor Jon Voight, father of Angelina Jolie, told the Washington Times, “The people who voted for President Obama are just beginning to wake up to exactly what they brought in. The ‘change’ they envisioned is not the ‘change’ they have gotten.”

On Wednesday, election results in the Virginia gubernatorial race showed the most conservative Democrat winning in a field of three that included a far-left candidate and Clinton buddy Terry McAuliffe. State Sen. Creigh Deeds, a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, had far less money than his two liberal opponents.

The rest of week saw business groups demanding that President Obama impose pay caps on union bosses as he is planning to do with company executives, some Chrysler dealers raising heck about being shut down by the government, and even a chain of Burger King restaurants running a sign saying “Global Warming is baloney.”

It was a GREAT week for Mr. Obama on MSNBC, but in the real world – perhaps a tipping point was reached. Only time will tell.

Lynn Woolley is a Texas-based radio talk show heard in Dallas-Fort Worth on KVCE AM 1160 at 9a.m. His email address is lynn@belogical.com.

[lwoolley]

The Fierce Urgency of Screwing Up
By Lynn Woolley
July 3, 2009

Face it: the wheels are falling off of the Obama administration. None of the President’s policies are working and the polls show that the American people are catching on to that.
Sure, Barack Obama is a good family man and his fly-swatting prowess is undeniable. Other than that, it’s hard to find a bright spot.

Perhaps the oldest cliché is that when you are in a hole, you should stop digging. Mr. Obama’s hole is growing exponentially, because he’s digging with a backhoe. Stepping into a tough situation left over from the Bush administration, the President chose to accept the Bush stimulus and bailouts and make them bigger and more expensive. So we’ve gotten more of the same – MUCH more – including corporate takeovers and a $787 billion dollar stimulus that was guaranteed to stop the bleeding of jobs.

Instead, it’s making things worse. 467,000 jobs were wiped out in June leaving the
unemployment rate at 9.5 percent. 136,000 of those job losses came from the critical manufacturing sector. Another 79,000 came from construction. In fact, the total number of jobs that our country has lost since this recession began comes to 6.5 million -- equal to the number of jobs created in this country over the past nine years.

It is fair to ask the question: If spending our way out of this recession is going to work – WHEN can we expect some improvement? The answer, of course, is that Mr. Obama is throwing gasoline on a fire. This recession started because the country is overleveraged at every level; the federal government, state governments, local governments, school districts and families have all gotten into massive debt.

When George Bush’s stimulus failed to provide even a mild improvement, the Obama economic team should have taken notice. Unfortunately, they are driven by ideology and the idea of “using a crisis” to redistribute wealth was just too enticing. Mr. Obama has moved quickly as if there was some fierce urgency to screw up this country.

It would be bad enough if big spending and huge deficits were the only major errors coming from this administration. Unfortunately, you can add healthcare and energy taxes to the lunacy. Mr. Obama’s healthcare plan is based on the idea of private insurance companies competing with a public option. It won’t work, and there are plenty of examples, starting with the plan that’s already in operation in Massachusetts where a state insurance plan now costs an average of $16,897 for a family of four. That’s more than $4,000 higher than the national average.

Mr. Obama’s massive energy tax called “Cap & Trade” will cost taxpayers multiples of what the government predicts. These government schemes always do. Worse, Cap & Trade could turn the recession into a depression.

The American public is starting to understand. They know we are headed straight for a Misery Index like we had in the Jimmy Carter years. But why should we agree to be miserable when there are common-sense fixes for our problems? Essentially, we should cut up the credit cards.

Nassim Taleb, author of the new book “The Black Swan,” told CNBC last week that we are “in the middle of a crash.” He said the government needs to de-leverage $40-to-$70 trillion and stop using stimulus packages that will only stimulate inflation. “The monkey on our back is debt,” he said. Yet Mr. Obama is considering another stimulus package.

That would be insane. We should stimulate the economy by cutting spending, lowering taxes, breaking up companies that are Too Big To Fail – starting with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – and leveling the playing field for manufacturing companies so they can run their plants in America.

Obamanomics has failed. It’s time to change directions.

The Lynn Woolley Show streams Mon. –Fri. 8 a.m. – 11 a.m. CT from www.BeLogical.com.