Washington Evening Journal

Fairfield Ledger   Mt. Pleasant News
Neighbors Growing Together | Nov 21, 2017

Pleased Obama will be around

By Gary A. Kallaus | Nov 30, 2012

November 26, 2012

Richmond, Iowa


To the Editor:

If anyone needs to find evidence as to why the Republicans got beat badly in the Nov. 6 general election, they need to look no further than Cynthia Anderson’s vicious, mean-spirited letter to the editor in the Nov. 20 Evening Journal, aimed at President and Mrs. Obama.

As a proud Democrat my inclination is to encourage people of Mrs. Anderson’s ilk to continue to spew their hate-filled messages, and by doing this, there never will be a Republican elected to the presidency. But, do you know what? We Democrats stand for so much more than that, and we are not in favor of anyone writing a letter such as hers.

My advice to you, Mrs. Anderson, is to relax, take it easy, sit back and take time to smell the roses, the Obamas are not going away, and a clear majority of the residents of the State of Iowa and of the United States are extremely pleased they will be around for another four years.

One final thing, how dare you to put down the thousands of Iowans who voted for President Obama, and who do you think you are by doing this? By the cynical, smart-alecky content of your letter, that question has been answered; we now know who you are. Shame on you, Cynthia Anderson.



Gary A. Kallaus

Comments (11)
Posted by: Glen Peiffer | Jan 19, 2013 04:48

Hi Glen,

Many thanks for your emails. I suggest you read, in turn, John Cassidy's interviews with Chicago School economists in the Jan 11, 2010 New Yorker.

As it happens, Grinnell was not nearly so leftist in my time as it was in yours, though I often found myself at odds with some of the politically correct attitudes there. My own politics may be different from what you suspect. If you have the time or patience you might want to read my biography of Whittaker Chambers (1997) or the complete text of the (very short) book excerpted in the Grinnell Magazine; it includes a chapter describing in some detail the failures of Great Society liberalism. I am also, for what it's worth, William F. Buckley's designated biographer.

Buckley, as it happens, disliked Bill O'Reilly, whom he considered "a bully.” O’Reilly’s reason for having me on his show, it turned out, was not to discuss my book but rather to complain about a review we’d run of his own book 4-5 years before. He insisted the reviewer is a credentialed liberal, which is demonstrably false. He lodged a complaint with the public editor about some observations, made not by our reviewer but by O’Reilly’s biographer, Marvin Kittman. During the program O’Reilly further complained about the accompanying caricature we published, something I’ve never heard from another author, though we’ve run many other caricatures in a similar vein. The self-described “Culture Warrior” has a very thin skin.

Best regards,

Sam Tanenhaus

Senior Editor

New York Times Book Review

New York, NY

Posted by: Glen Peiffer | Jan 13, 2013 10:53
Posted by: Glen Peiffer | Dec 22, 2012 03:30

By Thomas Sowell
When famed bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he said: "Because that's where the money is."
For the same reason, it is as predictable as the sunrise that medical care for the elderly will be cut back under a government-controlled medical system. Because that's where the money is.
One of those front-page editorials disguised as a news article in the New York Times begins: "The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama's health care proposals would create government-sponsored 'death panels' to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks."
As for a "death panel," no politician would ever use that phrase when trying to get a piece of legislation passed. "End of life" care under the "guidance" of "some independent group" sounds so much nicer — and these are the terms President Obama used in an interview with the New York Times back on April 14th.
He said, "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out there." He added: "It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. That is why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance."
The net result can be exactly the same as if those providing that guidance were openly called "death panels."

Posted by: Glen Peiffer | Dec 22, 2012 03:08

I wonder if people realize the implications of government run health care and having the government decide who gets what health care.

Thomas Sowell

"The duty to die"

OUR betters have been telling us how to live our lives for so long that it is only the next logical step for them to tell us when to die. We have grown so used to meekly accepting their edicts, even on what words we can and cannot use -- "swamp" has virtually disappeared from the English language, replaced by "wetlands," as "bums" has been replaced by "the homeless, "sex" by "gender" -- that it seems only fitting that they should now tell us when to die. 

The new phrase is "the duty to die." The anointed have proclaimed this duty, so who are we ordinary people to question it? Former Colorado governor Richard Lamm has said that the elderly should "consider making room in the world for the young by simply doing with less medical care and letting themselves die." Colorado didn't seem that desperately over-crowded to me, but Lamm is one of the voices of the anointed, so their arbitrary dogmas become well-known facts by sheer repetition.


In the Hastings Center Report, described as a journal of medical ethics, a medical ethicist says that "health care should be withheld even for those who want to live" if they have already lived beyond the politically correct number of years -- which he suggests might be 75. He says that, after such a "full rich life" then "one is duty-bound to die."


There's more. Another medical ethicist would consider extending the limit to 80 years but, after that, medical care should be denied to all who have "lived out a natural life span."


You may wonder who these people are and who gave them the right to play G-d. But the answer is simple. They are legion and it is we who have supinely accepted their pronouncements on so many things for so long that they see no reason to limit how far they can go.


There was a time when Americans told people like this where they could go. But one of the many phrases to fade from our vocabulary is "None of your business!" Today, everything is everybody's business. The next step is for it to become the government's business.


Posted by: Glen Peiffer | Dec 19, 2012 10:55

Economist Edward Lazear has cut through all of Barack Obama's claims about "creating jobs" with one plain and inescapable fact — "there hasn't been one day during the entire Obama presidency when as many Americans were working as on the day President Bush left office." Whatever number of jobs were created during the Obama administration, more have been lost.

Posted by: Glen Peiffer | Dec 13, 2012 12:21

Wayne Allyn Root
House Speaker John Boehner is negotiating like a man who believes he is already outflanked and defeated by President Barack Obama. As a Republican, I am embarrassed for Boehner and my party.

As a small businessman who has survived through his street smarts and negotiating skills (often up against much wealthier deep-pocketed competitors), I have some pointers for Boehner. I’m going to teach him out to negotiate from strength, not weakness. My goal is to prevent a GOP “brand suicide” in these fiscal cliff negotiations.

First, winning this negotiation is about winning the media battle. You need a winning argument. Doesn’t Boehner know that this battle has already been won in England? Why aren’t the House Speaker and his lieutenants in the media day and night, pointing out that the U.K. tried Obama’s exact idea of a “millionaire’s tax” only a year ago and it proved a disaster. Two-thirds of the millionaires in the U.K. disappeared in one year: from 16,000 to 6,000. Either they moved to other countries with their money, or they slowed down and stopped working so hard.

As a result, tax revenues plunged, instead of increasing. Two years ago, British millionaires contributed 9 percent of all taxes. After the special tax on “the rich” passed, this same group produced 4.4 percent of all taxes. In other words, U.K. politicians damaged their economy, and proved that revenues go down with the same “millionaire’s tax” that Obama now demands.

There is no debate. The case is settled. The “millionaire’s tax” is a proven failure. Get that message out before we kill our economy just like the U.K. did.

Second, winning this negotiation is about winning the public relations battle. Obama travels the Nation, stopping in the homes of middle-class families and asking them how paying $2,000 in extra taxes would affect them. Brilliant.

The face of the top 2 percent isn’t a billionaire. It’s the small-business owner, the professional, the family farmer. The GOP needs to win over the American public by showing them the faces of small business that will be affected by higher taxes.

The GOP should purchase national TV infomercial time and introduce America to farmers who will lose their farms because of this new tax; doctors who will lay off nurses; homeowners who will no longer pay the mortgage on their underwater homes if they get hit with higher taxes or loss of deductions; small-business owners who, because of a tax increase, will lay off half their employees.

Show the voters real faces and real stories. I know people with each of these stories — including me. Maybe Warren Buffett and Bill Gates can afford a tax increase, but most small-business owners are struggling to pay bills and keep their businesses going. We are hurting, too. We cannot afford a tax increase. “The rich” that Obama is attacking aren’t billionaires. They are you and me – small-business owners. Why is it OK to present us with a tax increase for Christmas?

Third, Obama claims this tax increase is “just going back to Clinton-era rates.” The GOP needs to take the offensive to debunk this misleading statement. The Bill Clinton economy was fueled by a GOP Senate and House that forced Clinton to cut spending, cut rules and regulations, lower capital gains taxes (to encourage investment, thereby creating jobs), and end welfare as we know it. And the GOP Congress killed government-run healthcare, too. The Clinton economy boomed because government, spending and entitlements were much smaller than today.

Each time Obama demands Clinton-era tax rates, Boehner should say: “Let’s go back to the size of government, spending and entitlements under Clinton. Let’s eliminate all the rules, regulations and mandates since Clinton. Then, we can compromise and raise rates to Clinton levels.”

Fourth, Obama claims his victory was a mandate for tax increases. So let’s give Obama’s voters tax increases. Why is Obama defending the Bush tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans? Obama is admitting that Bush was right: Lower taxes are good for the economy. He says a tax increase now would devastate the economy. Really? If lower taxes are good for Obama’s voters (who voted for higher taxes), why wouldn’t they be good for everyone? This argument makes Obama look foolish and hypocritical. Boehner needs to take the offensive.

Fifth, point out that Obama created the fiscal cliff with $5 trillion in new debt. He is a spending addict. There is no “tax problem.” Taxes aren’t low. Obama has more tax revenues than any President in history. He’s just spent it all and then some. If high taxes worked, why are the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) all bankrupt and insolvent? And closer to home, why isn’t Detroit an economic model for the Nation? Why have more than 1 million citizens escaped from California in the past decade? There is no debate; this is already settled. Big government, big taxes and big spending destroy economies.

Lastly, let me give Boehner a hint about the art of negotiating. Obama already showed his hand a year ago. He asked for $800 billion in new taxes. This time, he asked for $1.6 trillion. That was a negotiating tactic. When Boehner came back with an offer of $800 billion, he handed Obama 100 percent of what he wanted in the first place. How dumb is that? How weak is that? Who taught Boehner how to negotiate? A librarian?

Boehner needs to point out there is only one antidote for this mess. Canada proved it in the 1990s. Its political parties agreed to compromise with massive spending cuts and tax cuts. That combination worked. Its economy healed. Its debt crisis ended.

That Canadian miracle proves that Ronald Reagan missed the other half of the equation that would have put our Nation on the right path 30 years ago: combining big tax cuts that encourage, motivate and reward entrepreneurship, investment and financial risk-taking with big spending cuts. That’s the half that never happened under Reagan: the spending cuts. Put those two together, and we get the greatest economic explosion in world history.

But Obama wants the disastrous opposite: tax increases combined with more spending and more debt to solve a spending and debt crisis. That’s like being diagnosed with cancer and asking your doctor for more cancer, which is why Boehner needs to get strong, be bold and take the offensive.

If the GOP caves on tax hikes, it is committing “brand suicide.” Going along with tax hikes as a compromise is not the answer, simply because it’s going along with damaging the U.S. economy.

In any negotiation the only way to win is to walk in prepared to walk away from a bad deal. Speaker Boehner, this is how you win a negotiation.

Posted by: Glen Peiffer | Dec 12, 2012 15:35
Posted by: Glen Peiffer | Dec 05, 2012 11:57

The official statistics which show plainly how wrong Barack Obama is can be found in his own "Economic Report of the President" for 2012, on page 411. You can look it up.

You may be able to find a copy of the "Economic Report of the President" for 2012 at your local public library. Or you can buy a hard copy from the Government Printing Office or download an electronic version from the Internet.

For those who find that "a picture is worth a thousand words," they need only see the graphs published in the November 30th issue of Investor's Business Daily.

What both the statistical tables in the "Economic Report of the President" and the graphs in Investor's Business Daily show is that (1) tax revenues went up-- not down-- after tax rates were cut during the Bush administration, and (2) the budget deficit declined, year after year, after the cut in tax rates that have been blamed by Obama for increasing the deficit.

Indeed, the New York Times reported in 2006: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year."

Posted by: Glen Peiffer | Dec 02, 2012 12:17

by Bernard Goldberg

Imagine that you’re standing outside on the street, in the bitter cold of the night, dressed in your pajamas. In horror, you’re watching your home engulfed in flames. Imagine that the fire fighters have arrived, and with them are all the trucks, hoses, and other equipment required to start attacking the fire.

You know a lot of damage has already been done to your house, but the foundation is solid, many of your belongings can still be saved, and you’re certain you can rebuild if the fire is put out in time. The problem is that there are two lead firemen standing in your front yard, arguing over how best to extinguish the flames. While the fire spreads and your house continues to burn, they keep arguing with neither of them giving in an inch. You’re forced to watch helplessly as everything you’ve built up over the years is being destroyed.

With a big smile on his face, your neighbor records the fire on his iPhone, and wonders how long it will take to upload the video to YouTube later. He doesn’t really seem to understand the situation, and is oblivious to the very real threat of the large, swirling flames soon jumping from your house to his house.

Your frustration turns to anger over the inability of the firemen to act professional, formulate a plan, and save your house. You run up to them to try and figure out what their problem is, and are shocked to hear the source of the stalemate. The fireman with the “R” printed on his helmet is proposing to hook up the hoses to fire-hydrants, and douse the flames with large quantities of water. The fireman with the “D” printed on his helmet is proposing to hook up the hoses to gasoline-tankers, and douse the flames with as much gasoline as possible.

You quickly realize that Fireman D is either dangerously ignorant or completely insane, but Fireman R’s lower rank won’t let him take control away from Fireman D to resolve the situation. You beg Fireman D to put out the fire with water, but he completely ignores you. Furthermore, your neighbor has now joined the argument and is backing the gasoline idea, purely because he finds Fireman D to be more personable and charming than Fireman R.

Reporters from the media show up and begin covering the fire with their lights and cameras. You run up to them and explain what’s going on, and beg them to get the message out that you’re going to lose your house because the guy in charge isn’t taking the situation seriously. You hope that the media exposure will pressure Fireman D into doing the right thing. To your shock, however, you find that the media is on Fireman D’s side. They broadcast live on the evening news that Fireman R is “obstructing” Fireman D from doing his job, and a house is going to be completely destroyed because of it.

You shout at the reporters in frustration, but they tell you you’re “just angry”, and suggest that your anger is “racially motivated”.

“What???” you scream out in utter disbelief.

The reporters point out that Fireman D is an African American – a fact that is completely irrelevant to you. While you insist that you’re not a racist, and just want someone to save your house, the reporters skeptically roll their eyes, snicker, and whisper something among themselves about “dog whistles”.

Your neighbor asks you why you don’t want Fireman D to put out the fire, and you explain to him that a fire can’t be put out with gasoline.

“Have you ever tried to put out a fire with gasoline?” he asks.

“Of course not!” you scream.

“Well then how do you know it won’t work?”

You grab onto your hair and shout, “Because it’s gasoline! It’s flammable!”

“Flammable?” asks one of the reporters with a snide expression on his face. “Where did you hear such a stupid thing? FOX News?” All of the reporters laugh.

“It’s common knowledge! It’s common sense!” you wail.

At that point, you notice that your neighbor’s house is now on fire as well, and you yell at him to turn around and see it. But he won’t. He just looks at you like you’re talking in a foreign language.

“There’s nothing to be worried about, man,” he says. “Fireman D says that he’s ‘looking out for me’. It’s all good!” "Relax and smell the roses." He then turns his attention back to his iPhone, and starts playing video games on it.

“Listen…” begins Fireman D as he puts his arm around your shoulder. “I’ve been trying to compromise with the other fireman. I told him that while we’re pumping gasoline through the hoses, he can use a squirt gun to try and fight the fire with water. It’s a balanced approach.”

“That sounds fair,” quickly says a reporter.

“Yes, more than fair,” says another one.

“I’m all about compromise,” says Fireman D before he smiles and poses next to you for a quick picture from the press. “But the other guy is being completely unreasonable. He must want the fire to destroy this house. What’s with this guy’s obsession with water, anyway? He’s probably in bed with Big H2O!”

The reporters laugh. Some even applaud. Your eyes are glazed over in disbelief.

Fireman D continues, “You see…In the past, we’ve tried it Fireman R’s way and it didn’t work! We’ve been using water to put fires out for a long time, and yet buildings still burn down! So his plan doesn’t work!”

At your whits end, you say, “Sir… I know that burning buildings can’t always be saved with water, but it’s the best chance we have. Gasoline won’t work! Gasoline will only make the problem worse! Please help me! I built that house with my own two hands!”

This seems to offend Fireman D, who raises his voice and condescendingly states, “You didn’t build that! Somebody else made that happen!”

Minutes later, your house has been completely burnt to the ground and your neighbor’s house with it. Your neighbor’s still playing video games, unaware of anything happening around him. The media is circled around Fireman R, angrily blaming him for the destruction, and citing his hardline, unreasonable demands as the cause. Fireman D is on his cellphone, coordinating plans for an upcoming Hawaiian vacation. You are sitting on the sidewalk, alone, with your face in your hands, wondering if the whole world has gone completely nuts.

Posted by: Glen Peiffer | Dec 02, 2012 02:31

One of the highly developed talents of President Barack Obama is the ability to say things that are demonstrably false, and make them sound not only plausible but inspiring. Many people may have voted for Barack Obama in 20012 because of his charisma. But anyone familiar with the disastrous track record of charismatic political leaders around the world in the 20th century should have run for the hills when they encountered a politician with charisma. His rhetoric brings back memories of another charismatic leader, Jim Jones. Jones attended Indiana University, where a speech by Eleanor Roosevelt about the plight of African Americans impressed him. Around this time, Jones witnessed a faith healing service. He observed that it attracted people and their money and concluded that, with financial resources from such healings, he could help accomplish his social goals. Sort of like a community organizer. We know the end of the story, of course. He was the founder and leader of the Peoples Temple, best known for the mass suicide in 1978 of 914 of its members in Jonestown. Some people's devotion to Barack Obama would be laughable if it weren't so serious. I would tell them to go off and follow him but the problem is that they are taking the rest of us with him.

Posted by: Glen Peiffer | Dec 01, 2012 14:12

Thomas Sowell

Mitt Romney now joins the long list of the kinds of presidential candidates favored by the Republican establishment— nice, moderate losers, people with no coherently articulated vision, despite how many ad hoc talking points they may have.


This year, Barack Obama had the hard-hitting specifics— such as ending "tax cuts for the rich" who should pay "their fair share," government "investing" in "the industries of the future" and the like. He had a coherent vision, however warped.

Most of Obama's arguments were rotten, if you bothered to put them under scrutiny. But someone once said that it is amazing how long the rotten can hold together, if you don't handle it roughly.

Any number of conservative commentators, both in the print media and on talk radio, examined and exposed the fraudulence of Obama's "tax cuts for the rich" argument. But did you ever hear Mitt Romney bother to explain the specifics which exposed the flaws in Obama's argument?

On election night, the rotten held together because Mitt Romney had not handled it roughly with specifics. Romney was too nice to handle Obama's absurdities roughly. He definitely out-niced Obama— as John McCain had out-niced Obama in 2008, and as Dewey out-niced Truman back in 1948. And these Republicans all lost.

In this year's first presidential debate, Obama out-niced Romney. But, when he lost out doing that, he then reversed himself, became the attacker, and ultimately the winner on election night, despite a track record that should have buried him in a landslide.

The stakes for this great nation, at this crucial juncture in its history and in the history of the world, are far too momentous to look at this election as just a contest between two candidates or two political parties.

Quite aside from the immediate effects of particular policies, Barack Obama has repeatedly circumvented the laws, including the Constitution of the United States, in ways and on a scale that pushes this nation in the direction of arbitrary one-man rule.

Now that Obama will be in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices who can rubber stamp his evasions of the law and usurpations of power, this country may be unrecognizable in a few years as the America that once led the world in freedom, as well as in many other things.

Barack Obama's boast, on the eve of the election of 2008— "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America"— can now be carried out, without fear of ever having to face the voters again.

This "transforming" project extends far beyond fundamental internal institutions, or even the polarization and corruption of the people themselves, with goodies handed out in exchange for their surrendering their birthright of freedom.

Obama will now also have more "flexibility," as he told Russian President Medvedev, to transform the international order, where he has long shown that he thinks America has too much power and influence. A nuclear Iran can change that. Forever.

Have you noticed how many of our enemies in other countries have been rooting for Obama? You or your children may yet have reason to recall that as a bitter memory of a warning sign ignored on election day in 2012.


If you wish to comment, please login.