Which is more offensive, the WWE or our government?
Published: 9:05 AM 08/17/2010 | Updated: 9:29 AM 08/17/2010


By Gen LaGreca - The Daily Caller

Connecticut GOP Senate candidate Linda McMahon is being vilified by the left for her role as the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), the company she and her husband grew from humble beginnings into a highly successful international corporation.

Her opponents claim that the empire McMahon built allowed steroid use to run rampant, peddled violence to children, exploited women, and committed other indecencies.

But is the alleged steroid use in the WWE more objectionable than the steroidal spending of a Congress pumped-up on Keynesianism? Is a WWE match more harmful to children than a $13 trillion national debt signed, sealed, and delivered to posterity by Congress? Is a WWE skit more indecent than the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, or the 2,000-page ObamaCare bill passed in the middle of the night, unread, by representatives eager to please party leaders? Is the WWE — which has no power to force anyone to buy a ticket to its events or to watch those events on television — more exploitative than a Congress that can seize our wealth, our future, and our liberty? Which is more offensive — the WWE or our government?
And which one is more in sync with America?

In the WWE, no wrestler would ever apologize for being too good, too strong, or too popular with his fans. But our president apologizes for America’s greatness.
In the WWE, every wrestler wants to win and to wave his championship belt high in the air. But our president says that “victory” is not necessarily our goal in a war we’re fighting and that he’s “always worried” about using that word.
In the WWE, no wrestler would ever give away his title belt to another wrestler who didn’t earn it. But our government unreservedly gives away our hard-earned money to its favored groups in order to buy votes and gain more power.

In the WWE, even the smallest wrestlers get to spar with the biggest bruisers, who cut them no slack — and the little guys often win. But our government thinks little guys are helpless and need cradle-to-grave assistance from their enlightened leaders. (And it views all Americans as “little guys.")

In the WWE, every wrestler thinks of himself — his matches, his victories, and his career — as the most important thing in the world. But our president questions our “strong bias toward individual action,” saying “individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”

In the WWE, a wrestler has to work extremely hard to become a superstar, creating an exciting presence and skillful maneuvers to please the audience. But in government, people rise to power who have no skills, who are sometimes semi-literate, who know nothing about the Constitution they swear to defend, and who do whatever they please.
Is it any wonder that the WWE — with its walk-tall, be-the-best, and play-to-win superstars — is a success? Or that the Obama-led Congress — with its bow-down, be-humble, and accept-America’s-decline playbook — has an approval rating of only 20 percent?

Instead of disparaging Linda McMahon and the WWE, McMahon’s opponents ought to be learning from the candidate and her company.

Gen LaGreca is the author of Noble Vision, a ForeWord magazine Book-of-the-Year award-winning novel about the struggle for liberty in health care today.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/17/which-is-more-offensive-the-wwe-or-our-government/#ixzz0wtnVESMM

The Latest Politics, News & Election Videos
March 08, 2010
Massa: Rahm Emanuel "Would Sell His Own Mother" For Votes




EMBATTLED DEM CONGRESSMAN: I WAS PUSHED OUT FOR HEALTHCARE!
'THEY KNEW I WOULD VOTE NO SO THEY GOT RID OF ME AND NOW IT WILL PASS'...
UPDATE: Will Resign Monday as Planned...
Lashes out in emotional radio appearance...
AUDIO...
AUDIO EDITS...


DEM REP. CHARGES: NAKED RAHM THUGS AROUND GYM SHOWERS



Roll Call: Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) told a New York radio station Sunday that an ethics investigation into his behavior focused on sexually-charged comments he made to an aide at a New Year's Eve celebration, but charged he was unaware of an ethics committee investigation into the incident until after he had announced his retirement last week. Massa said he had believed the committee was investigating an unrelated fundraising letter, and suggested that the ethics dust-up may have been orchestrated by Democratic leaders to get him out of office before the health care vote.

"Steny Hoyer has never said a single word to me, at all, ever, not once," Massa said. "Not a word. This is a lie. It's a blatant, false statement."


To comment on this video or click the "Comments" link below.


DEM REP. CHARGES: NAKED RAHM THUGS AROUND GYM SHOWERS





http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/08/massa_rahm_emanuel_would_sell_his_own_mother_for_votes.html



"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn, Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) said. "He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."

Rep. Massa describes a confrontation with Emanuel in a shower: "I am showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me."

Flashback: Rahm Emanuel Scolds Massa For Being Too Angry

Can the free market be saved without Rand?

By Marsha Enright and Gen LaGreca 02/16/10 at 12:00 am

It’s been a year since Stephen Moore’s article, “Atlas Shrugged: from Fiction to Fact in 52 Years,”seemed to ignite an explosion of interest in Ayn Rand. Sales of this prescient novel tripled; two Rand biographies have been selling like hotcakes; and references to her in the media have skyrocketed.

Yet, some free-market defenders continue to repudiate her and her ideas, as they have for decades. It used to be conservatives such as William F. Buckley of National Review trashing “Atlas Shrugged;” now the critics include libertarians, such as Heather Wilhelm of the Illinois Public Policy Institute, who penned “Is Ayn Rand Bad for the Market?”.

But in their rush to distance themselves from Rand, they succumb to a deadly philosophic trap. It results from their anxious desire to apologize for the individualistic, self-interested motives that actually drive free markets. This anxiety prompts them to defend capitalism on the opposite premise: that capitalism is good only because it is “other-directed”—i.e., that it grants certain groups, such as the poor, opportunities to acquire wealth and power.

Over the decades, this has led such apologists to launch unpersuasive and futile crusades, such as “compassionate conservatism” and “bleeding-heart libertarianism,” which are not defenses of capitalism, but embodiments of its opposite. For example, conservatives and some libertarians plunged headlong into the moral and logical pitfalls of collectivism when, led by “compassionate conservative” Republican president George W. Bush, they created Medicare Part D, then the biggest-ever addition to welfare entitlements.

Likewise, Wilhelm summed up what too many on the right think, when she writes that free markets are best “sold” on the premise that, above all else, they help society’s neediest. She adds that “Rand’s insistence on the folly of altruism, however, tends to overshadow and even invalidate this message.”

You bet it does—and with good reason. That’s because no one can defend capitalism and free markets logically and consistently without a moral validation of enlightened self-interest as the highest good.

After all, the left didn’t rise to power because they had facts and rational arguments on their side. The empirical case for the superiority of capitalism in bringing a better life to the poor is overwhelming, whether we compare Chile to Cuba, Hong Kong to communist China, or the fully communist China of the past to itself today. So, one has to ask: Why haven’t these arguments won over all those who claim to want to help the poor?

The answer is that the left’s ascendance to power wasn’t driven by economic fact but by a moral vision thinly covered with economic claims. This vision was accepted by millions only because of the moral philosophy of self-sacrifice that dominates our culture.

That morality claims that the highest good for each individual is to live for the sake of others—for society or the collective. Ultimately, it implies that each of us is a moral slave to someone else. Whether it’s Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” or Hitler’s admonition to live for the German Volk, or Pol Pot’s belief that “since he [the individual] is of no use anymore, there is no gain if he lives and no loss if he dies,” the morality of self-sacrifice kills liberty because it subordinates the individual’s life to the group.

This is the morality that brought us the carnage of the 20th century.

The arguments of “compassionate” libertarians and “bleeding-heart” conservatives do nothing to challenge this ethic. They merely try to slip capitalism in under the tent of collectivist moral philosophy, telling everybody, in effect: “Don’t worry; even though sinful, individualistic self-interest drives capitalism, it is good because it can be harnessed to serve groups, such as the poor.”

In other words, these would-be defenders of capitalism merely “me-too” the collectivist moral claim that our primary ethical responsibility should be the welfare of other people. In this view, they march lockstep with those on the left who revile individualism and capitalism as being anti-poor, anti-caring.

Their view couldn’t be further from the truth. Free-market capitalism arises from a social vision that cares about the smallest minority of all: the individual. That vision recognizes the moral superiority of the right of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—the very vision identified by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and fought for by the Founding Fathers.

What is this right, if not the right of each person to pursue his or her own highest self-interest? Remember, the slogan of the American Revolution was “Don’t tread on me.”

Yet, that “selfish” American Revolution established a social system that created the most productive nation the world has ever seen, with the highest level and broadest distribution of wealth. It was a system based on individual rights, limited government, and equal justice under the law, in which everyone could keep and enjoy the fruits of his or her own efforts.

This system was fair because it gave each person the equal opportunity—and the pride-enhancing challenge—to make the most of his or her life, poor and rich alike. In fact, only a capitalist society can truly serve the interests of the poor and the disadvantaged, as well as the rich and the capable, because it is at root based on justice for the individual. And justice for the individual is justice for all.

This is what makes capitalism morally superior to collectivism.

Ironically, given the prevailing presumptions about self-interest, capitalist societies such as the U.S. are also the most charitable. Our individualistic system created a nation of magnanimity due to our unimpeded productivity, overflowing abundance, and benevolent sympathy for other individuals struggling for their own lives, liberty, and happiness.

It’s amazing that in all their talk of Rand’s “harsh message” and “confrontational language,” many free-market defenders haven’t asked themselves why her writings have inspired millions to become advocates of capitalism. They don’t understand that she completes the 18th century vision of the American Revolution by presenting a morality that fully justifies capitalism and individual freedom.

Rand’s morality of rational, enlightened self-interest defends the individual’s right to his own life, the power of his own liberty, and the glory of his pursuit of his own happiness. She said: “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive work as his noblest achievement, and reason as his only absolute.” Her message—that “man’s proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads”—is a message of the glory of the individual, unshackled and free.

We urgently need Rand’s vision of the moral nobility and greatness of a social system based on enlightened self-interest if we, the 21st century advocates of freedom, are to finally free the world from the death grip of collectivism. And that is a vision we must defend with “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

Marsha Familaro Enright is president of the Reason, Individualism, Freedom Institute at the Foundation for the College of the United States. Gen LaGreca is the author of Noble Vision, an award-winning novel about the struggle for liberty in health care today.

Chipping Away at Bias

By Sara Pentz

As John Adams said more than two centuries ago:

"Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes,

our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions,

they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Faint in the background I hear the chip-chip-chip of a tiny pickaxe as it begins to expose the bias in the media. It is a fragile sound, but nevertheless it is there in response to the increasingly open criticism of the media from all sides of the spectrum. Taken collectively there is evidence to indicate that the end result may open a crevice into which those who do not report with objectivity and integrity will fall—unless they find it absolutely necessary to listen to the whittlers in the forest.

There are reasons to hope for a more fair and responsible media. For one, the expansion of Internet sites devoted to demonstrating biases has taken the lead. Sites like Townhall.com and Spinsanity.org (“Countering Rhetoric with Reason”) cut to the chase analyzing biases. For another, some book publishers looking at the bottom line have finally discovered that books critical of media bias actually sell.

Former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg’s books “Bias” and his newest one “Arrogance” have exposed bias on a first person basis making Goldberg a highly reliable source. When Goldberg revealed that, “…his network—and all the others—were liberal,” it came as a shock to his colleagues. He wrote, “…the liberal press had been talking to themselves for so long, they all believed that every other sane person shared their views, and that Republicans, the NRA and pro-lifers were all wackos.” The response from Liberals was to flail him over a hot stake. His books have sold very well.

There are other small fissures exposing media bias which, when taken as an overview, seem to reflect the general appearance of an anti-bias uprising. At NBC, Today Anchor Katy Couric is said to be losing popularity with viewers and The Today Show is losing ratings. For example, sounding like a good Liberal, she claimed that the capture of Saddam Hussein was only symbolic. Not that Couric is the only one who colors her reports and interviews. Maybe that’s why the public is voting with a remote control.

Meanwhile, across the pond, the BBC is in trouble. Recently, an independent inquiry looked at the BBC’s report about supposedly “sexed up” information regarding weapons of mass destruction in order to sway the British public against the Iraq war. The inquiry found all allegations entirely unfounded, vindicating the government—but not before the tragic suicide of the reporter’s source. The report precipitated the resignation of the BBC chairman, the director-general and the reporter responsible for the debacle. Later it was reported that the British government was considering a plan to break up the BBC and remove its independent status.

Early this year ABC News made an amazing confession of sorts about its own bias. On its own website the Network published “A Note” written by the political unit:

* Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.

* They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are ‘conservative positions.’

* They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories. ...

* It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him – and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base.

The fact that ABC posted this information on its own website for all to read deepens the chipping by a considerable margin. But then along comes The New York Times with a brilliant new idea. The solution to a Liberal bias, they determined in a formal announcement, was to examine “…conservative forces in religion, politics, law, business and the media...” by giving a new Conservative beat to a former media correspondent. Here now would be reports from one man about all the conservative views on Earth while the rest of the staff would continue to write from their own Liberal viewpoint. It was typical Times politics to pretend that this was the answer to bias, but—still—it was an admissions of sorts.

The top people at The Times, and others, surely have not changed their politics or philosophy—or even acknowledged their bias. But The Times, even in this convoluted manner—by implication—has admitted that it is publishing slanted material. That act alone might convince us that the faint chipping away we hear might one day lead to the non-objective stalwarts in the forest falling one-by-one upon their swords—ending the monopoly of media bias. Just maybe!

Sara Pentz is a professional journalist living in Corona del Mar, California. She has been a TV reporter/anchor and has written for local, regional and national magazines and newspapers.

This article was published in April 2004.

Don Hewitt's Biased Spector Haunts Us By Lowell Ponte Don Hewitt, who created the popular CBS news show “60 Minutes” and controlled it for 36 years, died Wednesday at age 86. It is customary in our culture to speak no ill of the dead, but as William Shakespeare wrote: “The evil that men do lives after them.” The specter of Don Hewitt continues to haunt both the network news he shaped and American politics. Whatever part of Hewitt's soul was an honest journalist would want us to report his shortcomings and his liberal legacy truthfully. Hewitt boasted that he elected two presidents. The reporters and executives he put in charge of “60 Minutes” prior to his retirement in 2004 went on to help elect a third, President Barack Obama. After serving as director for ultra-liberal CBS newslord Edward R. Murrow, Hewitt became producer-director of America's first televised presidential debate, which happened in 1960 between Republican Vice President Richard Nixon and Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kennedy. Nixon won the debate handily, according to those listening on radio. Kennedy won among those who watched the slanted images Hewitt contrived to put on national television. In his book "Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High-Risk TV," Northeastern University Journalism Professor Alan Schroeder described how Kennedy and Nixon together had refused makeup, but before the debate began, “unknown to Nixon, Kennedy got a touch-up [i.e., makeup] from his own people.” Nixon, years later, recounted how he and his staff were misled about the debate stage lighting, the color of its background (lightened by repainting on debate day), and hence the color of suit, shirt, and necktie he should wear. On that set, wrote media historian Erik Barnouw, Nixon appeared “haggard; the lines on his face seemed like gashes and gave a fearful look.” Kennedy's makeup and clothing somehow were perfectly coordinated to make him look like a star on Hewitt's suddenly-changed stage set. Hewitt’s camera shots during the debate outraged a Nixon aide in the control room. Whenever Kennedy spoke, the camera tended to stay on him. When Nixon spoke, the cameras often cut away to show Kennedy’s reaction, distracting viewers from what the Republican was saying. Hewitt gave Kennedy 39 percent more time in such reaction shots than he gave to Nixon’s reactions while Kennedy spoke, and this made Kennedy appear to dominate the debate. In 1992, Hewitt helped another Democratic presidential candidate win. Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton was sinking when Hewitt offered him and his wife Hillary an interview to air moments after that year’s Super Bowl on CBS, the primest of prime airtime worth more than a million dollars per minute. Then-Clinton hatchet man George Stephanopoulos, who now anchors ABC’s Sunday show “This Week,” recounted in his memoir "All Too Human: A Political Education” what he witnessed at this “60 Minutes” videotaping: “Don Hewitt. . . told the Clintons how he’d made John Kennedy president by producing the debates in 1960 and said he could do the same for them.” In this interview, America heard suburban Chicago-raised Hillary in a fake Southern accent speak loyally at her husband’s side. This Oscar-worthy performance enabled Clinton to eke out a second-place finish days later in New Hampshire, proclaim himself "the comeback kid," and go on to win the White House. What Americans were not told was that the Clintons knew in advance the questions they would be asked. Hewitt had also promised the Clintons that if they disliked the way a "take" was going, they, like prima donna Hollywood stars, could halt the videotaping and do a new take — or three, four, whatever the Clintons needed to sound and appear the way they wanted to. Don Hewitt gave the Clintons their own free $20 million TV commercial. CBS dishonestly broadcast this Clinton infomercial to the nation disguised as an honest news interview. And in the 2008 elections the “60 Minutes” that Hewitt shaped and staffed was up to its old dirty tricks, pretending to be even-handed while smearing Republican moderate candidate John McCain and promoting the Chicago’s Democratic machine’s far-left candidate Barack Obama. In CBS’s softball Obama interview by Steve Kroft — the same lapdog reporter Hewitt had used in the 1992 Clinton infomercial — Obama was repeatedly pictured before adoring, cheering crowds. CBS even showed him embracing an African-American woman who “wanted to tell Obama that she had just lost her husband of 70 years, and that he tried to live long enough to vote for him.” Whenever Obama spoke, Kroft let him orate almost uninterrupted. After merely mentioning that Obama had “never run anything,” Kroft left unchallenged Obama’s dishonest retort that “if the question is executive experience, then Senator McCain and I are on equal footing.” In fact, McCain commanded the largest fighter squadron in the U.S. Navy, but viewers would never know this from CBS. By contrast, the McCain interview was conducted by attack dog Scott Pelley, notorious for his one-sided alarmist global warming reporting. When asked why he unethically refused to interview anyone with contrary views, Pelley snidely dismissed warming skeptics as “Holocaust deniers.” More than 22,000 scientists, including MIT’s chief atmospheric scientist, have signed a petition expressing skepticism about Al Gore-like, Pelley-like climate alarmism. CBS showed McCain not with friendly crowds like Obama, but alone facing a bright Hanoi Hilton-like interrogation light that made him appear white and pasty, and made him blink or look away. Pelley repeatedly interrupted McCain’s answers with accusatory statements. “Can you see [your running mate Sarah Palin] as president of the United States?” he demanded repeatedly in a haughty, incredulous tone. Palin was governor of America’s largest state and commander in chief of Alaska’s National Guard, with 80 percent popularity among voters who know her. Why didn’t Kroft similarly press his question about Obama’s utter lack of executive experience? The specter of Don Hewitt will haunt America for a long, long time. Lowell Ponte is co-host of the radio show “Night-Watch,” heard live nationwide Monday through Friday, 10 p.m. to midnight Eastern time, on gcnlive.com. © 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Sara Palin: The 'Cap And Tax' Dead End

By Sarah Palin
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Washington Post


There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America's unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won't bring jobs. Our nation's debt is unsustainable, and the federal government's reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket." So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, "poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity."

We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama's plan will result in the latter.

For so many reasons, we can't afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama's energy cap-and-tax plan.
The writer, a Republican, is governor of Alaska.

Barry Farber

Honduran Coup Exposes Liberal Hypocrisy

Monday, July 13, 2009 4:34 PM By: Barry Farber Article Font Size

Let me try to make this riddle sufficiently agonizing. It's a straight riddle. No tricks. Liberals have long nourished a dream with an intensity not even social equality and the end of racism and poverty could equal. More "What ifs." More "Why nots." More breasts were bared and beaten and more prayers frisbee'd upward toward Heaven on behalf of this dream than any other. Suddenly, in mid-2009, dramatically and unexpectedly, that dream came true. And, not only did the liberals not like it. They hated it. Question: What was that dream? This is a blazing example of failure to recognize what you've always dreamed about and prayed for. An old joke illustrates. A rabbi in the Pennsylvania flood-lands is dispatching his congregation to safety during the rising of the flood waters. As the last of them are carried to safety he goes to the roof of his synagogue to escape the rampaging waters. A motorboat with rescuers comes along and the crew says, "Jump in, Rabbi. It's getting bad." "No, thanks," replies the rabbi. "God will save me." The waters rise to the rabbi's knees even up there on the roof and another motorboat comes along and a yell issues forth, "Come on, Rabbi. It's still rising." "I choose to remain here," said the rabbi. "God will save me." As the water rose beyond the rabbi's hip yet another motorboat appeared and the rescuers beg the rabbi to hop aboard to safety. "Thank you," he gently replies. "But I'll stay here. God will save me." By the time the water had risen to the rabbi's neck a helicopter took up position directly over his head and a voice through a loudspeaker said, "Rabbi, we're going to lower a rope ladder. Just put your foot in the stirrup and grab hold and we'll lift you up and you'll be okay." "Thank you very much," said the rabbi. "I'm remaining here. God will save me." The waters rose higher still and engulfed the rabbi and he drowned. When he arrived in heaven and faced God he said, "Lord, God of the universe. Forgive my impertinence, but I'm confused. I spent my entire time on earth believing in you and spreading your word among my flock. And at the end I had faith you would save me. Why, dear Lord, did you not save me?" "What do you mean, why didn't I save you?" thundered an irritated God. "I sent three motorboats and a helicopter for you!" Didn't the Bible tell us the big flood started with a cloud "no bigger than a man's hand?" The great liberal dream started materializing in the Central American nation of Honduras, geopolitically no bigger than a "man's hand." The Liberal Dream was always as follows: "Why didn't and why don't the great capable powers move in and stop a leader somewhere between his initial grab of dictatorial powers and his first aggression against neighbors and his first political murders, genocide, or holocaust? Why, oh why, for instance, didn't the civilized nations jump in and stop Adolf Hitler at some point between his burning of the books, torching the Reichstag, officially persecuting Jews and sending German troops into the Rhineland in 1936; a biggie, that one, because that was a blatant violation of the Versailles Treaty that ended World War 1? Better yet, if the outside world isn't going to do anything more than sit there and watch and wait and complain and offer limp protest resolutions, why don't forces inside the country threatened with dictatorship save themselves? I mean, after all, any dictator is just one guy! Ah, big problem. So many dictators are "democratically elected," including Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Liberal DNA paralyzes any move to overthrow a democratically-elected dictator. Or, it did until Honduras! Honduras got it right. The minute a democratically-elected leader shuts down the opposition, dismisses his parliament or, as in the case of Honduras, contravenes a direct order of his supreme court, that leader is no longer kissed by the radiance of democratic election. He becomes a fully-qualified candidate for removal. Please don't waste your life-force trying to convince your liberal friends anything this virtuous is what happened in Honduras. The liberal imagination can no more imagine anything but a strongman-military takeover in Latin America than they can imagine Icelandic wine, Norwegian suntan lotion, or a book entitled "Irish Gourmet Recipes," or "Ten Thousand Years of German Humor." The rest of us can rejoice that when democratically-elected Honduran President Jose Manuel "Mel" Zelaya decided to stage a referendum on whether he could remove the Honduran constitution's limit of a single term for president, his supreme court said no. When the ballots, printed in Venezuela, continued to arrive and Zelaya ordered the army to distribute them, the head of the army refused to obey this illegal order. When Zelaya ordered the military chief arrested, soldiers arrested him instead and, in a refreshing break from Latin American tradition, did not shoot the president dead on the spot, but rather ushered him in his pajamas to a plane and exile in Costa Rica. No shot was fired during this dictatorship-prevention procedure. The man who sits in the president's chair for the time being, Roberto Michelleti, is not a colonel or even a corporal, much less a caudillo. And he belongs to the same party as the ousted Zelaya. Some classic Latin American coup! Meanwhile, certain American news channels are showing footage of the "crowds" of Hondurans who want Zelaya back, ignoring the fact that the anti-Zelaya crowds total many times (some say 10) as large as the pro-Zelaya crowds. Any newsroom chief who knowingly does that should be banned from newsroom-type employment for life. And America — beginning with President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — ought to be ashamed of bringing Zelaya to the United States to "show support." Instead, they should make a donation to the new Honduran president's military — a package consisting, maybe, of three motorboats and a helicopter. © 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.