<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Evan Sayet</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/evan-sayet/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>The Promise Is Broken</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/evan-sayet/the-promise-is-broken/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-promise-is-broken</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/evan-sayet/the-promise-is-broken/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 04:10:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evan Sayet]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bruce Springsteen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[songs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thunder road]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=140155</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Springsteen’s most dedicated fan gives up.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/bruce-springsteen.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-140202" title="bruce-springsteen" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/bruce-springsteen.jpg" alt="" width="350" height="263" /></a>While many bands have legions of fans, few (if any) have garnered the type of following that Bruce Springsteen has.  Long before he became famous, those who knew his work were already nothing less than devotees.  Decades later, those numbers have skyrocketed but, for many, the devotion has not waned.  That was true of me…until now.</p>
<p>I don’t in any way repudiate Springsteen’s greatness.  He is, in fact, the greatest poet of my lifetime and, I would enjoy arguing perhaps the best since Shakespeare. I don’t have room here to defend that statement – nor is it the purpose of this paper – but I am far from the only one who has taken Springsteen’s works so seriously.  There are two Harvard professors, a leading theologian and one of the nation’s premiere social and political journalists (to name just a very few) who have written books on Springsteen – the artist, not the man – and his literary and moral contributions.  I, too, have considered writing one along the lines of <em>The Leadership Lessons of George Washington</em> and <em>The Tao of Pooh</em> – the often simple but essential lessons that I have taken from Springsteen’s lyrics and incorporated into my own life for the better.</p>
<p>Through the years I have been a fan – in many cases a big fan – of other acts as well. I think Paul Simon is a brilliant lyricist and musician and Bernie Taupin who, along with Elton John, has created some of the greatest songs in the soundtrack of my life are, too. Billy Joel has been unparalleled at catching and throwing back the zeitgeist of the times and so on.  But only Springsteen has been a moral guide and to this day I have no doubt that he is, outside my closest family and friends, one of the two people who has most helped me to be the man I wish to be.  The other, you may find of significance, is Dennis Prager.</p>
<p>Unlike any of the others, Springsteen has always seen his career as a body of work and he saw that body of work as a mission to offer people exactly what he, in fact, offered me, a blueprint for navigating the difficulties of life.  These lessons were often simple – but aren’t the best always that way? – and what made them great was that they were accessible and could be replicated by any and all.  Springsteen’s characters live in the real world with real world problems, problems that Springsteen would address with calls to action.</p>
<p>Much of Springsteen’s works – especially through the first third of his career – were centered around the automobile.  Everything changed depending on who (if anyone) was in the passenger seat, what was on the radio, whether the windows were open or closed, the condition of the road, the condition of the tires and so forth. Like old-style Westerns, the locale didn’t change much, but thousands of different stories could be told.</p>
<p>It was not a coincidence that Springsteen’s characters spent so much time in and around cars for, while it’s not a novel conceit, life is a journey, and the car, for Springsteen, was the means for getting from here to there in your life.  In “Thunder Road,” then, Springsteen’s car is not all supped up and gleaming telling us he’s just average guy.  The losers, meanwhile – those stuck in their perpetual rut  “Haunt these dusty beach roads in the skeleton frames of burned out Chevrolets.”  Even the number of lanes and their composition serve as another clue in the telling of the tale.  Springsteen’s on a two-lane highway.  Not bad, but just one accident – by anyone – and things get backed up.</p>
<p>Nor is it coincidental that another word for car is “automobile” – quite literally self (auto) moving (mobile.)  This, more than anything, brought Springsteen his legion of fans: the idea that the individual has the power to make choices that will affect his life.  It came offered independence and opportunity.</p>
<p>The flip side of this is that choices have costs and consequences and there is no single concept that appears in Springsteen’s canon more than one iteration or another of “If you want it, you take it and you pay the price.”  It’s a promise…and a warning.</p>
<p>But, just as actions have consequences, so, too does <em>inaction</em>.  It’s not enough to dream, you have to act.  (And, since there’s a cost to action you have to act <em>wisely</em>.)  It’s not always that hard.  In “Darkness on the Edge of Town,” Springsteen says “Where life’s on the line, where dreams are found and lost, I’ll be there on time and I’ll pay the cost.”  He reiterates this message in “Badlands” (“Talk about a dream, try to make it real”) and, again, in “Prove It All Night<em>:”</em></p>
<blockquote><p><em>“Everybody’s got a hunger, a hunger they can’t resist/There’s so much that you want, you deserve much more than this/well if dreams came true, ah, wouldn’t that be nice/but this ain’t no dream we’re living on through tonight, so, girl, you want it, you take it and you pay the price.”</em></p></blockquote>
<p><em></em>In the song many consider Springsteen’s masterpiece – and which I believe is the greatest poem ever written (made only that much greater by musical turns that Robert McKee could use as an example of “integration” in his story &#8212; structure class) &#8212; “Thunder Road,” Springsteen is imploring a women he knows to join him in his trip down life’s highway.  He – in themes that repeat throughout his body of work – knows that life’s better (and one’s chances for success, however one defines it, improved) with a pal, a confidant, a coconspirator, a lover and a friend beside you (in another song he’d say it point blank: “Two hearts are better than one.  Two hearts, girl, get the job done.”)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/evan-sayet/the-promise-is-broken/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>76</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Signs of a Romney Victory</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/evan-sayet/the-signs-of-a-romney-victory/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-signs-of-a-romney-victory</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/evan-sayet/the-signs-of-a-romney-victory/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 04:23:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evan Sayet]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[one-term]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[victory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=138791</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama is a one-term president. Let us count the ways.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/romney2.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-138798" title="romney2" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/romney2.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="527" /></a>As I study the news looking for clues as to who is going to win the White House in November, I am struck by how, no matter where I look – from the most obvious to the things only a political junkie finds under a rock or in some tea leaves, etc. – every single indicator (big and small) points to a Romney victory and, in fact, something awfully close to an electoral college landslide.  While I will, of course, discuss the polls, the vast majority of my analysis comes from observation and common sense.</p>
<p>Let’s first establish a baseline.  Mark Levin asked a room full of folks at the Ronald Reagan library recently, “Do any of you know a single person – even one – who <em>didn’t </em>vote for Obama in 2008 who plans to vote for him in 2012?”  The answer, of course, was “no.”  Not a single person in the room knew a single person who Obama had, in the course of his presidency, convinced that he was better than they’d expected him to be.  Conversely, we all know at least one person – and I personally know more than a dozen (because I ask) – who voted for Obama in 2008 who nothing less than rues the day.</p>
<p>Given that Obama’s 2008 victory was, while large in size, in no way numerically historic, and that he had all sorts of advantages (being a blank slate, following eight years of war after 9-11, etc.) that he won’t have this time, Obama’s chances for a second term are significantly lower based on just Levin’s observation alone.  But, for Obama, it gets worse.</p>
<p>Not only is the pool of potential Obama supporters way down from 2008, so too is the enthusiasm amongst those who still, to one degree or another, prefer Obama over the alternative.  Whereas, not all that long ago, Obama could pack football stadiums and basketball arenas with ease, not even the lure of attending the big campaign kick-off event was enough for Obama supporters to come, leaving the venue half-empty.  If you can’t get your supporters to an historic rally in the spring, there’s little chance they’re going to drive to the polls in the dead of winter.</p>
<p>Worse still for the President is that, in order for him to have pulled off his original victory, he needed unprecedented enthusiasm (manpower, money, votes and more) from a handful of the Democrat Party’s traditional constituencies such as blacks, Jews and those under twenty-five.  If these numbers were to simply return to normal, then Obama’s chances of a second term are only further diminished.  But logic and evidence suggests Obama’s support from these groups will be less – in some cases far less – than what any and all Democratic nominees can count on.  This is because, thanks to his policies, each of these constituencies has a specific and rightful grievance against this president.  These grievances not only dampen their enthusiasm for Obama but, in many cases, turn them against him.</p>
<p>Blacks, for example, particularly hard hit by the liberals&#8217; fifty-year war against the traditional family, have taken singular exception to Obama’s clearly politically motivated endorsement of homosexual marriage; Jews are rightly concerned about the most virulently anti-Israel President since the Jew-hating Jimmy Carter, while the young who have (attempted) to enter the workforce are suffering the realities of looking for a job in an Obama economy and can’t be wholly unaware that each dollar of new deficit Obama racks up will be expected to be paid for by them.  Will Obama still take a majority – even a large majority – of votes from these constituencies?  Of course.  But in every way – manpower, financial contributions and votes – not only will Obama fail to receive <em>record </em>support as he did in 2008, or even the usual support a Democrat needs, he will fall short and even see some of that support drift to Romney.</p>
<p>There is one more constituency that Obama had to win – and win big – in order to win the White House in 2008 that is now not only less supportive but greatly disgruntled.</p>
<p>They are the independents (and even some right-of-center Republicans) who might well have disagreed with many of Obama’s policies and prescriptions but who were willing to accept four or eight years of an Obama presidency in exchange for the promise his rhetoric offered of a more civil America.  Higher taxes, more wasteful spending, they believed, were an acceptable price to pay for a “post-partisan” America and maybe even a “post-racial” United States.</p>
<p>After four years of the most viciously partisan presidency in anyone’s living memory and the most race-charged administration most of us can ever recall (not to mention the vile tactics so closely associated with Obama and his administration, which are named after his hometown, “The Chicago Way”), those who voted against their policy preferences to elect the guy with “hope” and “change” are and can be nothing less than disgusted with him.</p>
<p>The category pollsters use to measure this sentiment is called “likeability” (or “personal favorability”) and Obama’s rating in this category is plummeting. The <em>only </em>way that a failed president can win a second term is if the people like and trust him. According to the latest <em>New York Times </em>poll, Obama’s tactics have left him “favorable” to only about one out of every three voters (36 percent).</p>
<p>Other recently released data suggest that Obama is in big trouble as well.  Not the least of them is the Obama camp’s inability to get people to donate to their campaign.  Not all that long ago, a confident (arrogant?) Obama team was predicting so much support that they’d bring in more money than any other campaign in human history – over one billion dollars.  So far, not only has Obama not come close to being the greatest fundraiser in all of human history, he’s not even the top fundraiser in his two-man contest for the presidency.  In fact, he trails Romney’s financial support by a wide margin.</p>
<p>This is important not just because money is a plus in any campaign (though not nearly the plus that many make it out to be) but because it is a <em>tangible </em>action.  Answering the telephone and saying “yes” or “no” ten times to some stranger from a polling company doesn’t require much of a commitment.  People who donate to a campaign are likely to do even more for that campaign and they are almost guaranteed to do the one thing that matters most: vote.</p>
<p>And there is more evidence of an impending Romney victory to be found in how each camp is conducting its campaigns.  The strategies employed, the rhetoric chosen, all of these things reflect the campaign’s belief about where they stand at any given moment in the contest.</p>
<p>For example, it is simply a truism in politics that a candidate who believes he’s winning stays on the message that put him in the lead.  Those who believe they’re losing change their message until they find one they believe is a winner.  Romney has run almost the entire time on a single, compelling and positive message.  At its heart it’s something like “America is in economic dire straits.  I’ve made my fortune and my reputation saving big and complex things (the Olympics, major industries, etc.) from economic dire straits.  Vote for me and I’ll save America.”  Romney’s staying on that message makes clear that, at the very least, his own internal polling and other evidence has convinced his campaign that he’s winning.</p>
<p>Obama, on the other hand, seems to be premiering a new message just about every week or two.  It’s a practice of the desperate not so delicately known as “Throwing sh-t against the wall hoping <em>something </em>sticks.”  Clearly, then, the Obama camp’s inside information is telling them the same thing my analysis and Romney’s intelligence is telling us: their messages aren’t working and that they trailing in the election.</p>
<p>Making matters worse for the president is that, while Romney’s message is positive and promising, the tenor of Obama’s ever-changing messages has been singularly negative.  As a failed president, since he can’t run on his record, the only option available to him is to try and render the alternative so far beyond the pale that, no matter how bad Obama is, the alternative is just unacceptable.  In other words, the entirety of Obama’s message (whatever it is at the moment) is comprised not of words like “Vote for me because” but only “Vote against him because…”  Such an unrelenting campaign of negativity – the only option for Obama – only serves to further undermine the only thing that could possibly help him win: his “likeability.”  It’s a catch-22 from which Obama is unlikely to be able to escape.</p>
<p>Making matters worse still for the current president is that, in these ever-changing messages, Obama’s case against Romney has ranged from beneath the dignity of a president of the United States to beneath contempt to beneath sanity.</p>
<p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/evan-sayet/the-signs-of-a-romney-victory/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>87</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Running as a Moderate: A Losing Proposition for Republicans</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/evan-sayet/running-as-a-moderate-a-losing-proposition-for-republicans/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=running-as-a-moderate-a-losing-proposition-for-republicans</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/evan-sayet/running-as-a-moderate-a-losing-proposition-for-republicans/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 04:05:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evan Sayet]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moderate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=120505</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Crystallizing the winning formula in America today.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/mod1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-120515" title="mod" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/mod1.jpg" alt="" width="424" height="230" /></a></p>
<p>There are two competing lines of conventional wisdom about how to win an election.  Both make sense in theory and both are argued by people of good will and of serious intellect and accomplishment.  Which one is right is of no small importance since winning this election will most assuredly determine the fate of America and may well determine the eventual fate of the world.</p>
<p>The first argument &#8212; often voiced by Michael Medved &#8212; is that since elections are won in the middle (and there is no doubt that at least in a sense they are) the best way to assure victory is to choose the most centrist of the available candidates.  The idea is that whoever the nominee is in either party, he is assured of the overwhelming majority of those who fall on his side of the political spectrum, the battle then, is for a simple majority of the remainder.</p>
<p>If Medved is right – and defeating Barack Obama trumps all of your other concerns – then Mitt Romney is your guy.</p>
<p>The second is the strategy employed by “The Architect,” Karl Rove.  Its premise is that since elections are won in the middle, make the number of votes one needs to win from the middle as few as possible.  This is accomplished by growing, energizing and getting out the folks on your side of the political spectrum, something that is best accomplished by the Republicans by choosing a true and articulate conservative.  In the remainder of this year’s crop, that would be Newt Gingrich or, if things change, Rick Santorum.</p>
<p>So, which one of these strategies is right?  Let’s dig deeper.</p>
<p>The “centrist” strategy is based on the assumption that party affiliation is about even in America and, in fact, it is (35.4-to-32.7)  If this were as far as it went, then the “centrist” theory would be right.  But a new survey from the Gallup Organization – confirming the results from previous such surveys &#8212; offers very different numbers when it comes to voters’ <em>ideological </em>affiliations, with Americans self-identifying as conservative almost two-to-one rather than liberal (40-21).</p>
<p>If you buy into my assumption that Conservatives are more to the right than are Republicans and Liberals are more to the Left than are Democrats, then the political spectrum would go like this (from right-to-left) Conservative (40) – Republican (35) –Democrat (33) –Liberal (21)<a title="" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>.</p>
<p>Conventional wisdom is that as you get to the “extremes” you find more fervent supporters but fewer of them.  But that is not what these numbers show.  These numbers show that the furthest right candidate gets the <em>most </em>support not only from within his own party, but across the entire spectrum.  Further, the more to the left he moves, the more support he loses, going from 40 as a Conservative to 35 as a Republican, to 33 as a Democrat to just 21 as a Liberal.</p>
<p>The conventional wisdom is wrong, then, in another sense.  “The center” where elections are to be won is not found somewhere between Democrat and Republican or conservative and liberal, equidistant from each, it is significantly further to the right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/evan-sayet/running-as-a-moderate-a-losing-proposition-for-republicans/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Braver New World</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/evan-sayet/braver-new-world/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=braver-new-world</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/evan-sayet/braver-new-world/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 04:05:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evan Sayet]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brave new world]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[utopia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=119302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Musings and worries about history’s course.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/brave.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-119304" title="brave" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/brave.gif" alt="" width="460" height="276" /></a></p>
<p>Conventional wisdom, or at least the cliché, is that history goes in cycles, or is akin to a pendulum that only swings so far this way until, as if by a force of nature, it swings back in the other direction.</p>
<p>It is easy to forget – or simply never to have thought about at all – but the human condition was pretty much the same from the dawn of time until what I call the Modern Liberal Era (post World War II through today.)  The “five thousand year leap” that was borne of Western Civilization in general and America’s founding in particular, was joined both by geopolitical realities and technological marvels over the past six-plus decades, to create a world vastly different than anything human beings had ever before known.</p>
<p>With it came questions that other civilizations rarely contemplated, and then only as science fiction.  These futuristic mullings are now our world’s realistic possibilities for both good and ill.  Never before, for example, did people have to give serious consideration as to how to sustain a civilization where aging can be slowed to a near-standstill, where average life expectancy will soon easily exceed a hundred years and where talk can seriously be engaged in about never dying at all.</p>
<p>How are these things to be paid for?  At what age does someone who never dies begin to collect Social Security?  Who’s to pay – and how &#8212; the medical bills of those who, with just another and then another implant or surgery can live forever?</p>
<p>Now that human life can be manufactured in a test tube and new species manufactured in a lab, is human life still the domain only of God and, if so, how does one control the genie now that it’s out of the bottle?  Should we control it?  Are we prepared to deal with the unintended – or in some cases, intended &#8212; consequences?</p>
<p>Further realties of our time – and no one else’s in human history – is the ease with which rogue regimes and evil despots can wreak havoc and even doom.  How will the “Arab Spring” shake out?  Will the world be faced with Jihad of the sort almost won by the Muslims the first time around only now with nuclear arms and hellacious toxins at their easy disposal?</p>
<p>These are no small questions nor idle and fanciful chatter.  They are the realistic possibilities – and in some cases, already the reality – of our brave new world.  How this plays out, history can offer little guidance.  But for us to be going into this yawning and daunting unknown with our books out of balance, our resources left untapped and our military eviscerated is beyond irresponsible, it is insane.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/evan-sayet/braver-new-world/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Hammerman Jews</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/evan-sayet/the-hammerman-jews/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-hammerman-jews</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/evan-sayet/the-hammerman-jews/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 04:02:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evan Sayet]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hammerman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[surrender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tebow]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=118749</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What Rabbi Joshua Hammerman’s fear of Tim Tebow tells us about why so many Jews vote Democrat.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/hammerman.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-118752" title="hammerman" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/hammerman.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="400" /></a></p>
<p>Once one gets beyond the self-serving sloganeering of the Democratic Party &#8212; the notion that they and only they are “compassionate” or that they and only they “like air and water” &#8212; and addresses the actual policies and values of the different parties, it becomes clear that there is absolutely nothing Jewish about the Democrat Party.  In fact, the Democratic Party is antithetical to Jewish moral beliefs.</p>
<p>Jewish values reside in the Republican Party, which is the reason that the more Jewish a person is by belief and practice, the less likely he is to support the Democrats.  Secular Jews are overwhelmingly likely, Reform Jews somewhat less likely, Conservative Jews less likely than that and Orthodox Jews not at all likely to put their faith in the party of faithlessness.</p>
<p>So why, then, do <em>any </em>Jews vote for a party that stands in total opposition to Jewish values?  The answer can be found, at least in part, in the writings of Rabbi Joshua Hammerman:</p>
<blockquote><p>Emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants.</p></blockquote>
<p>Many Jews – I’ll call them the “Hammerman Jews” &#8212; have made a Faustian bargain.  Fearful of what “emboldened” faithful might do, they have betrayed their own faith in exchange for the temporary safety they believe can be found in the arms of the faithless.</p>
<p>The attraction the Hammerman Jew has for the Democratic Party is found in its entirety in a rather shallow, objectively false and logically fallacious conviction that those with no religion are closer to Jewish belief than are those from a <em>different</em> religion. The idea is that Christians are, by being people of a faith not Jewish, more of a threat to Judaism than are those antipathetic to any and all faith equally.  It’s as illogical and self-destructive as it sounds.</p>
<p>But the Hammerman Jew has signed onto the non-Jewish, wholly liberal conceit that it is not <em>what </em>someone believes but the existence of <em>any </em>beliefs that is the threat to world peace in general and the safety of the Jews in particular.  Only those who have beliefs, the argument goes, can become so emboldened in those beliefs as to be willing to burn down a mosque or bash a gay or, by extension, start a pogrom or support a holocaust.</p>
<p>The way to prevent the next holocaust, then, isn’t to stand up for good and rightful values, it is to join with those with no values, allied with them in their war against belief.</p>
<p>How frightened of the faithful are these Hammerman Jews?  Consider the impetus for Hammerman having raised the alarm with his piece<em> </em>in the first place.  What had set Hammerman off to become fearful enough to warn the world was not a gathering of the Ku Klux Klan or a meeting of the Neo-Nazis, it was the possibility that Tim Tebow might lead his team to the Super Bowl.  I kid you not:</p>
<blockquote><p>If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants…<em></em></p></blockquote>
<p>When a man is so terrified of people of faith that he’s convinced the next holocaust is always just a field goal away, you can understand why he might chuck all of his values and blindly sign on with the enemy.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
<p><strong>To get the whole story on why leftist Jews side with those who plan to do them harm, read Jamie Glazov’s book, </strong><strong><em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/United-Hate-Romance-Tyranny-Terror/dp/1935071602">United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror.</a></em></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/united9.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-118759" title="united" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/united9.jpg" alt="" width="350" height="515" /></a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/evan-sayet/the-hammerman-jews/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Voting Bloc Obama Doesn&#8217;t Care About</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/the-voting-bloc-obama-doesnt-care-about/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-voting-bloc-obama-doesnt-care-about</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/the-voting-bloc-obama-doesnt-care-about/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evan Sayet]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Socialism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white working class]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=115774</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The president's campaign gives up trying to win over the white working class.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/obama1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-115776" title="Obama Presents Tax Relief Plan" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/obama1.jpg" alt="" width="389" height="307" /></a></p>
<p>According to <em>The New York Times, </em>the Obama campaign has given up trying to win over a  majority of the white working class</p>
<blockquote><p>“in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment &#8211; professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists &#8211; and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.”</p></blockquote>
<p>What should be striking about the list of professions Obama (and <em>The Times</em>) thinks are so in the bag for the Leftists that the white working class vote is unneeded is that every single one of them – every one – is a profession where people “get ahead” by not doing anything.  Every one of them is all talk, but no action.  And, the thing is, when you don’t <em>do </em>anything you don’t need to know what you’re talking about because, when you don’t do anything, nothing can go wrong.</p>
<p>The professor doesn’t do anything.  He’s all talk.  His job is to <em>lecture </em>to school children who are <em>yet </em>to have done anything (and thus, are yet another guaranteed Democrat Party constituency.)  The artist doesn’t make things, he <em>depicts </em>them.  The actor doesn’t <em>do </em>anything, he only <em>pretends </em>to. The designer draws up plans for the people who do things and the editor moves words around to best <em>describe </em>the things that other people do and did that day.  Human Resource managers <em>hire </em>the people who will do things; lawyers <em>talk </em>their way to victory while Social Workers and Therapists do the same, using pseudo-intellectual psychobabble instead of double-talk and legalese.  Take the entire output of the constituency that is thought to most likely support Obama’s reelection and the Democrat Party in general and not a single <em>thing </em>has been produced.</p>
<p>On the other side of the spectrum, the “lower-income voter” may do things, but he doesn’t <em>own </em>them and he doesn’t <em>pay </em>for them.  In fact, because he pays no federal income tax, he doesn’t need to be right because, in the “cost/benefit equation” that comprises rational thought, he pays none of the costs.  These Democrat Party constituencies don’t need to know what they’re talking about because they don’t put their money where their mouths are.</p>
<p>The cultural divide in America has been described in various ways.  Some call it “The Makers and the Takers.”  Ayn Rand called it “The Producers and the Looters.”  Even <em>The New York Times </em>unwittingly recognizes it for what it is, America’s culture war is between “The Doers and The Talkers.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/the-voting-bloc-obama-doesnt-care-about/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Go Ahead…Imagine</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/go-ahead%e2%80%a6imagine/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=go-ahead%25e2%2580%25a6imagine</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/go-ahead%e2%80%a6imagine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 04:14:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evan Sayet]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=102594</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Let’s take John Lennon up on his offer: Let’s imagine a world with no countries, religions or a heaven or hell.  ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/john-lennon.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-102599" title="john-lennon" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/john-lennon.jpg" alt="" width="430" height="336" /></a></p>
<p>Let’s take John Lennon up on his offer.  Let’s imagine what the world would be like with no countries, religions or a heaven or hell.  Let’s imagine a world with no possessions and nothing important enough to be willing to kill to protect it or die to ensure its continuing.  Let’s imagine Lennon’s world where all the people are living for nothing other than today.</p>
<p>In this world, people will have saved no money for their retirement.  After all, retirement is somewhere down the line.  All the people would have massive debts – borrowed every penny from everywhere they could, maxed out their credit cards, bought houses they couldn’t pay for – because the promise to repay those debts were made yesterday.  In Lennon’s world people would splurge on big screen TVs, using money that should have gone to buying health insurance, but, alas, the big game is tonight while their health at the moment is just fine.</p>
<p>There wouldn’t be much kindness or decency in a world where all the people are living for today.  Kindness is not a form of instant gratification, it’s a lubricant that makes society work in the long run.  The long run goes on for years.  Those living for today don’t care about the long run and thus they don’t care about how society will function any further down the line than twenty-four hours from now.  This world would be vulgar – horribly vulgar – as refinement, as the word suggests, takes time.  Who knows, one might even find pornography on every corner, filth spewing from the radios, maybe even someday a gathering of the best and the brightest in all the land, will declare the vulgar and profane “beautiful,” and name something like “F&#8212;k You” – spelled out, of course &#8212; the very best record of the year.</p>
<p>In this world you would find the infrastructure going to hell.  Maintenance is performed to prevent disasters down the road and since it is down the road, the people who are living for today are not likely to invest in it.  Instead, monies taken from those who have not yet become enlightened (and thus work hard and well), said to be for infrastructure would, instead, be redirected into the pockets of those whose works are so infantile and incompetent that they could not be sustained except in a utopia where possessions are confiscated and redistributed at the point of a gun.</p>
<p>Besides, who would do the work?  Why in the world would anyone do the hard physical labor, put off momentary pleasure to acquire the skills to be, say, a plumber and the wade in those murky waters when, with no possessions, he can equally “share the world” by sitting on the beach all day?  In fact, in Lennon’s world, one might even find a class of people who do nothing except talk or paint or draw who look down on the hard working and the skilled for being so foolish as to not have joined them in their careers as “artists” and stand-up comedians and college lecturers and daytime chat show hosts like Joy Behar.  The might be an entire class of people convinced that those who work hard have something “the matter” with them and become fearful and filled with loathing for them.  After all, by <em>not </em>living for today – by putting off instant gratification for a better tomorrow – they are throwing the whole utopia thing off kilter.</p>
<p>In Lennon’s world the schools would quickly go to pot.  Educating the child would be recognized as unimportant, since an education is designed to prepare the child for a better tomorrow.  Everyone knows “the children are the future,” and, thus, to those who are living for today, their education would be meaningless.  Feelings would replace facts in Lennon’s paradise, so one might see children who graduate from high school and college completely illiterate and unable to count but filled with good feelings about themselves.  “Self-esteem” and not knowledge or competence might become the dominant “educational” goal in Lennon’s land for an education is for the future but feelings are right now.</p>
<p>As for the teacher, well, teaching is hard.  It’s sometimes unpleasant.  It’s so much easier to inflate the child’s grade, send him along to the next level and make your today easier by doing so.  Who knows, in this world, one might even find themselves opening the newspaper to find more and more teachers having sex with their young students.  Why not?  After all, who’s going to complain?   Those old fuddy-duddies?  They’re so yesterday!</p>
<p>In this world, parents wouldn’t parent.  Why would they?  Tough love is tough and, well, it can hurt peoples’ feelings.  Besides, punishing the child for doing wrong is an act meant to build better character tomorrow.  You might even find in Lennon’s world parents who proudly proclaim, “my child is my best friend.”  Friends are so much easier, so much more fun, so much less hassle than children.  You don’t have to educate friends.  You wouldn’t dream of disciplining your friends.  And if the child grows up to be an illiterate thug, oh well, that’s another day and someone else’s problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/go-ahead%e2%80%a6imagine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>142</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Terrorists and Double Standards</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/terrorists-and-double-standards/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=terrorists-and-double-standards</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/terrorists-and-double-standards/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 04:07:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evan Sayet]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=100184</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The New York Times' peculiar handling of Nidal Hassan and Anders Breivik.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/tale.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-100187" title="tale" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/tale.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="214" /></a></p>
<p>All one need do to conclude without doubt that the mainstream media is working on behalf of Islamic terror and against the Judeo-Christian West is to compare and contrast the story<em> The New York Times </em>ran in the wake of Nidal Hassan’s massacre at Ft. Hood with that of Anders Behring Breivik&#8217;s carnage in Oslo. In the forty-plus paragraph story on the Muslim Hassan&#8217;s murder of 13 American soldiers, the killer’s religion was not mentioned once. <em>Not once</em>. This despite the fact that Hassan had been well known for giving a Power Point presentations on Islam’s holy requirement to commit mass murder of infidels. It was also widely reported that he shouted the cry of Islamic terrorists &#8212; “Allahu Akbar!!!” &#8212; as he opened fire. He even had a business card – a business card for goodness&#8217; sake! – which identified him as a “Solider of Allah.”</p>
<p>How many paragraphs into the story did it take <em>The New York Times </em>to mention Breivik’s supposed Christianity? None. It was in the headline: “As Horrors Emerge, Norway Charges Christian Extremist.”</p>
<p>Clearly this is a double standard. But the<em> Times </em>would deny that it is anything other than honest and impartial. The editorial board would swear the paper has no pro-Muslim/anti-Christian agenda. And, in a sense, they’d be telling the truth.</p>
<p>Yes, there are folks in the mainstream media who see their mission in life as promoting Islamic terror and helping to overthrow the Judeo-Christian West. Their purpose in covering up Hassan’s jihadist agenda while highlighting whatever links to Christianity Breivik might have had, then, is obvious: They want to tamp down hatred for the folks they want to see win and to drum up hatred for the folks they want to see destroyed.</p>
<p>But not <em>everyone </em>at the<em> Times </em>is a calculating America hater.  Nor can we accept the notion that all the earnest journalists who followed the lead of <em>The New York Times</em> in how they reported this (and other related) stories are engaged in a conscious effort to tear down Western civilzation and promote a global caliphate.  So why do they do it?</p>
<p>Much of the answer can be found in a eulogy that Barbara Walters gave on the night that her colleague Peter Jennings died in 2005. Walters said, “What made Peter great is that he knew there’s no such thing as the truth.”</p>
<p>To thinking people, this statement is mind-boggling. After all, isn’t the journalist’s job to report to his readers/viewers the truth about what’s happening in places the reader/viewer can’t be? It also provokes the question: If Jennings “knew” there was no such thing as the truth, then by what criterion did he select the stories he would report on or keep covered up each night and the facts he would use or reject in the telling of that story? And the answer is this:</p>
<p>Jennings was not an evil man. He probably didn’t want to see Islamic fascism take over the world, America turned into part of the Islamic caliphate or the Jews of Israel marched into the sea.  He wanted to be a good journalist. He knew that a good journalist is someone who can convey the truth to his followers and since the truth is that there is no truth, Jennings saw his job as nothing other than to manipulate the stories to <em>undermine </em>the things that his viewers recognized as true.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/terrorists-and-double-standards/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Being Honest about the “Partisan Divide”</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/being-honest-about-the-%e2%80%9cpartisan-divide%e2%80%9d/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=being-honest-about-the-%25e2%2580%259cpartisan-divide%25e2%2580%259d</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/being-honest-about-the-%e2%80%9cpartisan-divide%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 04:27:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evan Sayet]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=96974</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The unbridgeable difference in how two sides see the world and human nature. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/two.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-96976" title="two" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/two.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="223" /></a></p>
<p>Those who lament the “partisan divide” in Congress are missing the point.  This is not about partisanship, it is about, to borrow Thomas Sowell’s phrase, a “conflict of visions.”  Proof of this is that those who have no reason to be partisan – my favorite cousin, for example – falls right into line with Democrat Party policies on quite literally every issue.  In fact, tell me but a single belief of one of my friends or neighbors (people with no reason to go against their own beliefs for the sake of the party) and I can tell you every other policy he supports or opposes.</p>
<p>If, for example, you were to tell me that you believe that global warming is real and manmade, I can predict to perfection that you support Obama’s healthcare scheme, opposes the immigration bill in Arizona and elsewhere and perceive across-the-board tax cuts as “tax cuts for the rich.”  On the other hand, tell me that you recognize manmade global warming to be the hoax that it is, and I can predict to perfection that you supported the liberation of the Iraqi people, are a strong supporter of Israel and understand that raising taxes on the most successful is a recipe for disaster.</p>
<p>What seems like a “partisan divide” is really a fundamental and unbridgeable difference in how the two sides see the world, their understanding of mankind and of human nature.  Most fundamental to this difference is how one understands the condition of the human being at the moment of his birth.</p>
<p>The Modern Liberal – the dominant ideology in today’s Democrat Party – believes that the human being is born morally perfect.  If left alone – uncorrupted by society – he would grow up to be a morally perfect person, someone who would do all the right things because such is his nature.  The conservative – the dominant ideology in today’s Republican Party – recognizes that the child is born with the propensity for both good and evil (and everything in between) and thus needs outside influences to encourage him to tamp down the evil instincts and to pursue that which is good.</p>
<p>Since the Modern Liberal believes the human being is born morally perfect, he is convinced that utopia is not only possible, but easily achieved.  All that is required to usher in a “brotherhood of man” (John Lennon’s phrase in the Modern Liberal anthem “Imagine”) is to retard the child’s moral and intellectual growth at a level <em>prior </em>to his being corrupted by society.  Further, the Modern Liberal is convinced, that when someone does something wrong – anything from dropping out of school to rape, torture and genocide – it must be because he was somehow victimized.  “To those with this vision,” Thomas Sowell writes, “the criminal is <em>twice </em>victimized. First, by whatever special circumstance <em>provoked </em>his crime and then by those who <em>lust </em>to see him punished.”  (Emphasis added.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/being-honest-about-the-%e2%80%9cpartisan-divide%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why I&#8217;m a Global Warming Skeptic</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/why-im-a-global-warming-skeptic/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=why-im-a-global-warming-skeptic</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/why-im-a-global-warming-skeptic/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 04:05:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evan Sayet]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alarmist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alarmists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climatology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hysteria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pronouncement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skepticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[society]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=95581</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Let’s begin by following the money.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/global.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-95583" title="global" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/global.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="300" /></a></p>
<p>Let’s begin by acknowledging that the science of global warming is beyond the vast majority of us.  Nonetheless, this does not mean we turn off our brains and simply accept the pronouncements of those sounding the alarm and offering their remedies.  I am a global warming skeptic (to say the least) specifically because I have thought through the issue and the claims of the alarmists just don’t add up.  What follows is my thinking and what it is that has led me to conclude that global-warming is a leftist farce which is being perpetuated for both financial and political reasons.</p>
<p>First, I am skeptical because skepticism is the scientific starting point.  Not cynicism but skepticism.  This is especially true when the remedy being proposed is so drastic &#8212; in this case requiring the near-total dismantling of society as we know it.</p>
<p>I am not overly impressed by talk of a “consensus” as there are enough good and serious scientists who reject the claims of the alarmists to make the pronouncement of “consensus” simply untrue. Besides, every wrong theory that had previously been embraced by society – such as the “fact” that the world is flat – was embraced by a “consensus” of scientists at the time and obviously that consensus was very wrong.</p>
<p>My skepticism is only increased with the knowledge that the science of climatology is relatively new, little tested and since its claims about consequences are decades and even centuries in the future, never proven by having had their predictions come true.  In fact, many of the alarmists’ most hyped claims have been proved by time to be patently wrong.  As one leading alarmist wrote in an email he thought would remain private, global warming has been on a fifteen year hiatus that he felt needed to be covered-up.</p>
<p>My skepticism of this new science is furthered even more by the knowledge that the “facts” upon which their models are created are based almost entirely on numbers that are not easily verified and which require great speculation to determine.  If these “facts” are wrong then the models are useless (to say the least.)  Remember, the whole global-warming theory is based on only a couple of degrees of change over many millennia. Do scientists <em>really </em>know what the temperature was in northeast Siberia in the year 802?  Do they <em>really </em>know that number down to a single fraction of a degree?  I’m skeptical and you should be, too.</p>
<p>My confidence in the conclusion of these alarmist scientists is further weakened because I’ve been here before.  For as long as I can remember the “experts” – many the very same people pushing global warming hysteria today – have been predicting one ecological disaster after another.  In the 1970s and virtually every year afterwards, we were doomed – doomed!!! – to global cooling, global wetting, global drying, mass starvation, acid rain, an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS, Mad Cow and, just the other day, a deadly pandemic of Swine Flu.  Alarmism seems to be a tactic employed by scientists to draw attention to their causes, garner major funding and make a name for themselves and hyped by a willing news (and publishing) media because hysteria sells.</p>
<p>My trust in the conclusions of the alarmists is even further diminished by the unscientific methods the alarmists are using in their efforts.  Not only are we now privy to leaked documents emailed back-and-forth between those at the head of the “climate change” research detailing the destruction of their work and their underhanded methods of preventing Freedom of Information laws to allow others to double-check their supposed findings, but the campaign to slander other scientists – those whose work sheds doubt on the alarmists’ claims – reeks of the kind of cowardice shown by those who know they are lying.  Slander is not a scientific practice.  Dubbing anyone who challenges their hysterical campaign as being like Holocaust deniers is an ad hominem attack with no scientific merit.  In fact, it is <em>anti­</em>-scientific, a means to discredit the man rather than the answering the opposing science.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/why-im-a-global-warming-skeptic/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>141</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Jews Support the Democratic Party</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/why-jews-support-the-democratic-party/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=why-jews-support-the-democratic-party</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/why-jews-support-the-democratic-party/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 04:10:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evan Sayet]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=94250</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The answer lies in modern liberalism’s rejection of Judaism’s quest for justice.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/obamayarmulke.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-94252" title="obamayarmulke" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/obamayarmulke.jpg" alt="" width="298" height="275" /></a></p>
<p>The question I am asked more than any other – besides what happened to the once seemingly reasonable Bill Maher – is: Why do Jews support the Democrat Party?  The answer is easy – but not short.  Here goes:</p>
<p>To be called a Jew –even to call yourself a Jew – is different than any other religion.  To be called a Christian, you have to believe something.  You have to believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior.  If you believe that, you’re a Christian.  If you don’t believe that, you’re <em>not </em>a Christian.  If you <em>do </em>believe that, then there are certain rites and rituals, practices and behaviors that tend to follow.  To be called a Muslim you have to believe something.  You have to believe that the Koran is the final testament of God and Muhammad his perfect messenger. If you believe that, you’re a Muslim.  If you don’t believe that then you’re <em>not </em>a Muslim.  If you do believe this then there are certain rites and rituals, practices and behaviors that tend to follow.</p>
<p>But, to be called a Jew you don’t have to believe anything.  To be called a Jew, all you have to do is plop out of a Jewish womb.  Because these Jews – I’ll call them here “The Plopping Jews” – do not believe anything particularly Jewish. Indeed, there’s absolutely no reason to expect them to vote in a way that reflects Jewish values and beliefs.  Since a Jewish person’s Judaism is not of his own choosing or a reflection of his beliefs, his Jewishness is nothing more than an accident of his birth. Therefore, to expect him to choose to support Jewish causes is actually a form of bigotry.  People’s behaviors are predicated on their beliefs, not on the circumstances of their birth.</p>
<p>In fact, not only is there no reason to expect the Plopping Jew to support Jewish causes, one might even argue that the folks who Dennis Prager calls “Non-Jewish Jews” and are more generally known as “Secular Jews” (note that it is almost unheard of for someone to call themselves or be called “Secular Christians” or “Secular Muslims”) are <em>less </em>likely to support Jewish causes and to be antipathetic to Israel and other Jewish issues than are others since we can assume, having been born to a Jewish mother, they were at least exposed to Judaism and chose to reject it.  Put simply, the Plopping Jew is more likely to be an anti-Semite than your average American.</p>
<p>Sadly, in an America that has been successfully secularized by the Left, the Plopping Jews make up the vast majority of the people who are identified as “Jewish” and thus a major part of the explanation as to why so many “Jews” vote for the party that is, as we shall see, patently Jew-hating.</p>
<p>Now we get to the rest of the people who are called Jews.  These Jews differ from the Plopping Jew in that they have made at least some personal decision to be Jewish.  These Jews are typically divided into three categories, in ascending order of their belief and practice of Judaism there are the Reform Jews, the Conservative Jews and the Orthodox Jews.</p>
<p>The Reform Jew – sadly the majority of the remaining minority of all “Jews” – are not really Jewish either.  In fact, while the Plopping Jew has done <em>nothing </em>Jewish in his life, the Reform Jew has done only <em>one </em>thing Jewish in his life – he joined a synagogue.  But the Reform Jew didn’t join a synagogue to better learn and practice the rites and rituals, convictions and values of Judaism; he joined a synagogue because it was his local recreation center.  Basically, it was more affordable than the country club and, while more costly than the YMCA, he didn’t have to worry about getting naked in front of strangers.  Put simply, the Reform Jew is a Plopping Jew with a somewhat better social calendar.</p>
<p>Since there is nothing Jewish about the reform Jew that is Jewish, again, it would be unreasonable to expect his policies to reflect Jewish values.  In fact, the Reform Jew, like the Plopping Jew, has rejected Jewish values and, as the name of the movement suggests, he doesn’t even like Judaism, which is why he seeks to “re-form” it to his liking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/why-jews-support-the-democratic-party/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>129</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Three News Mediums the Left Hates</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/the-three-news-mediums-the-left-hates/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-three-news-mediums-the-left-hates</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/the-three-news-mediums-the-left-hates/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 04:30:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evan Sayet]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=87801</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And guess what those three mediums have in common?
]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a class="highslide" onclick="return vz.expand(this)" href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/microphone.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-87829" title="microphone" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/microphone.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="400" /></a></p>
<p>There are three mediums for news and information that the Modern Liberal hates – HATES!!!  Modern liberals hate these three mediums so much that for all their vaunted adoration of the First Amendment, they’d happily shut them down and shut them up, using government regulation when possible to prevent them from ever again being heard.  These mediums are, of course, <em>Fox News</em>, conservative talk radio and the Internet’s blogesphere.</p>
<p>What do these three things have in common? Well, for one thing, of course, they tend to be right-of center (at least in comparison to all of the other news outlets and mediums out there.)  For another thing, they are all relatively new.  <em>Fox News</em> is only 12 years old.  This means that, for someone who just turned fifty (take me for example), that person was almost into their fifth decade on the earth before there was a single source of television news that the leftists of today could object to.  If you wish to choose the syndication of Rush Limbaugh’s radio show as the start – just the start – of the conservative talk radio phenomenon, then someone my age was finished with high school and college, well into their family and career before there was a single voice in radio or television that today’s leftists could object to. And since Al Gore didn’t invent the internet until the mid-1990s (and it would be another decade before the blogesphere would evolve), until someone my age was almost into their fourth decade on earth, was there a single source of news or information that today’s leftist could find objectionable.</p>
<p>These three mediums have something else in common: each of them (and only they) are forums for debate and discussion.  Leftistss can only succeed when they dictate “the truth” with their statements unquestioned and unchallenged.  The Leftistl does well, for example, on the twenty-three minute nightly news on the broadcast channels because some superior being – some fabulously pretty boy or girl – lectures his or her viewers uninterrupted.  When the leftists attempt to take these very same claims to the hour-long debate and discussion programs on cable news, despite a decade-long head start and being in more homes than <em>Fox News</em>, very few people still watch <em>CNN</em> with <em>Fox</em> drawing more viewers than the three leftist cable news channels combined.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/the-three-news-mediums-the-left-hates/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>47</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>To Define a Leftist</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/to-define-a-leftist/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=to-define-a-leftist</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/to-define-a-leftist/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 04:05:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evan Sayet]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=87053</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why knowing just one of them guarantees that, in some way, your life will be done harm.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/larry-david.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-87056" title="larry-david" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/larry-david.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="502" /></a></p>
<p>Every once in a while liberals stun me with a moment of unconscious self-awareness.  Yes, I know this is a seeming oxymoron, but stick with me. What I mean is that the Liberal will create some work with a theme whereby he admits to the cruelty and stupidity of the Modern Liberal while seemingly unaware that this is the message.</p>
<p>I was first reminded of this when I again watched the Wendy Finerman-produced, Tom Hanks-starring <em>Forrest Gump</em> on TV last week.  The entire message of the movie is that, as much as liberals like to think they are morally and intellectual superior to any and all others, they are really stupider than is even a mentally-challenged conservative.</p>
<p>After all, Jenny, the “smart” one, does all the things that the “enlightened” liberal did over the course of the Modern Liberal Era.  Jenny joins all the right causes (like the Black Panthers), fights all the right evils (like the Vietnam War), “expands her mind” with drugs, takes advantage of her sexual liberation by being promiscuous and the result is that she gets beaten by the Panthers, almost commits suicide coming down off of a night of drugs and ultimately dies of the sexually transmitted disease of AIDS.</p>
<p>Forrest – the “stupid” one – does the things that conservatives do.  He loves one woman, he fights for his country, he’s good to his friends and the result is that not only do none of the horrors of Liberalism befall him, but only he is around to help his son grow up.  Two generations – Jenny and Forrest Jr. – caused to suffer because the liberal is so much smarter than everyone else.</p>
<p>It was by sheer coincidence that I soon thereafter happened onto the final episode of Larry David’s autobiographical <em>Curb Your Enthusiasm</em> – the title of the show another indication of the unhappiness that is the lot of even the most successful Liberal. Think about it – Bill Maher, Joy Behar, Rosie O’Donnell, Woody Allen, Larry David, do you <em>know </em>a liberal who isn’t a miserable human being?</p>
<p>In this episode David dies and, as his soul is leaving his body he is given a chance to revisit the important relationships he’s had in his life.  One after another the characters from the series appear before him and David recalls the horrible ways in which he treated each and every one of them.  Finally, asked by God if, on his death bed, he wished to apologize to any of them, David thinks for a moment and then cavalierly answers, “Neh.”</p>
<p>David’s life-and-death moment, the culmination of his most autobiographical work with a parade of the people most important to him and his recognition that knowing him has been anything but a boon in their lives, speaks volumes about David, but what it says is amplified by the fact that this was not the first time David had employed this as the theme to sum up his life. Many of you will recall the finale of David’s other series – also autobiographical, <em>Seinfeld. </em>In that series, David used the conceit of a trial where each of the important characters testified in court as to how the “heroes’” callousness, selfishness, pettiness, deceit and corruption caused them all to suffer.</p>
<p>Stupid and mean and destructive to all those who know them.  This isn’t just my opinion of the liberal, it’s theirs, too.</p>
<p>Another of these unconsciously self-aware moments was when Robert Fulghum penned – in all seriousness, mind you – that everything that he ever really needs to know he learned before he was six years old.  In other words, Fulghum admits – and those who adore the book, liberals all, I’m sure – that he is no wiser than the very young child who, like Jenny, could easily get caught up in the new-fangled and exciting, the blur of colors that are the psychedelic drugs of the Sixties and the “live only for the moment” mentality that sees both the young child and the Democrat living – to but slightly paraphrase John Lennon – only for the moment.</p>
<p>But liberals aren’t just stupid, they’re mean.  Jenny herself may not have been mean but she was attracted to the violent and hate-filled and facilitated these things through her actions.  Larry David – the creator of <em>Seinfeld </em>may not be that mean (he surely isn’t nice, however) – but he does recognize that those who come into contact with him, a rather typical Modern Liberal – are far worse for the experience.  Not once but twice now David has created a retrospective episode of his televisions series, both of them show a stunning recognition of his – and his co-ideologists – mean-spirited and destructive personalities.</p>
<p>In the final episode of the New York City-based, Liberal-adored <em>Seinfeld, </em>David puts the lead characters on trial.  One-by-one, each of the people whose lives had been effected by contact with the show’s “heroes” testified to how the conniving, corruption and meanness of the stars had severely damaged their lives.  Just knowing one of these quintessentially liberal characters was a guarantee that, in some way, your life would be, if not ruined, then most assuredly done harm.</p>
<p>Stupid, mean, petty and destructive to everyone who they come into contact with in their lives. These are the themes of movies, books and TV shows written, produced and starring liberals about liberals.  They may not know what they’re saying, but they sure are self-aware.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/to-define-a-leftist/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>39</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unions and the Divorcing of Reward from Merit</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/unions-and-the-divorcing-of-reward-from-merit/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=unions-and-the-divorcing-of-reward-from-merit</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/unions-and-the-divorcing-of-reward-from-merit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 04:03:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evan Sayet]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=86012</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The damage wrought by the Left's “self-esteem” movement.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Fascist-Union.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-86015" title="Fascist-Union" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Fascist-Union.jpg" alt="" width="392" height="523" /></a></p>
<p>Two headlines, running within a couple of days of each other, caught my attention because they are interrelated.  The first was from the Milwaukee Journal and it made clear that, for the first time in history, the average compensation garnered by the Milwaukee school teacher exceeded $100,000.  The second was found in a variety of places, a statistic coming from no less a source than the Department of Education, which declared that “Two-Thirds of Wisconsin 8<sup>th</sup> Graders Can’t Read Proficiently.”  The reason for both the exceedingly high pay and the exceedingly low scholarship is due, of course, to the unions.</p>
<p>Oh, there are other causes as well – but they, too, are a reflection of the union because the problem with unions is the same problem with our culture in general – the near-complete divorcing of reward from merit.</p>
<p>If students can’t read, then how did they make it to the eighth grade in the first place?  The answer is that their grades were inflated and thus they were rewarded with grades they did not merit.  They are in the eight grade because they received “social promotions,” rewards given to children obviously not based on their scholastic aptitude but on the Modern Liberal premise that <em>not </em>rewarding them might hurt their self-esteem.  In fact, the entire “self-esteem” movement which began with the Leftist take-over of our culture is predicated on reward (feeling good about yourself) without merit (doing something good.)</p>
<p>The unmerited promotion of the incapable student was delivered to him by those whose union membership ensures that they continue to be employed whether their work merits continued employment or, more likely than not given their failure to educate those eighth graders, it doesn’t.  These same teachers vehemently reject pay based on merit, with raises automatically given on a schedule that has nothing to do with whether or not they have bothered to educate the children.</p>
<p>The very concept of collective bargaining is designed not only to undermine the merit-reward relationship but to invert it.  In a merit-based system, the best and hardest working employee can demand the highest compensation while the laziest and most incompetent is paid the least.  In the collective, however, the best worker must forfeit the most in order to see the least able receive a far higher salary than his work merits.</p>
<p>Of course, only the most superhumanly altruistic worker is going to continue to go above and beyond while being underpaid and compensated at exactly the level he would be paid no matter how lazy and incompetent he or she is, while it is just as unlikely that the lazy and incompetent person who might raise his skills and efforts in order to receive higher compensation is going to do so knowing there’s no more money to be made by doing good work than in continuing to do bad work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/unions-and-the-divorcing-of-reward-from-merit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Hatred is Endemic to the Left</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/why-hatred-is-endemic-to-the-left-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=why-hatred-is-endemic-to-the-left-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/why-hatred-is-endemic-to-the-left-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 04:42:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evan Sayet]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=82454</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What happens when truth is undesirable.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/leftist-hate.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-82458" title="leftist hate" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/leftist-hate.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="438" /></a></p>
<p>My favorite sign at Tea Party gatherings reads something like “It  Doesn’t Matter What This Sign Says, You’ll Still Say It’s Racist.”   Well, it doesn’t matter what Jared Loughner’s motives were, the  Democrats will still blame it on a “climate of hate” supposedly created  by the Right.</p>
<p>Of course, this effort to pin “racist” motives on the Tea Party and  to blame the massacre in Tucson on Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and the  millions of concerned Americans who comprise the Tea Party movement is  itself nothing more than an attempt by radical leftists to ignite hatred  for those who have the audacity to challenge their utopian agenda.   Given that these attacks began before a shred of evidence existed about  Loughner’s true motives, these attacks are by definition bigotry and  prove yet again that the purpose of Modern Liberals&#8217; arguments have  nothing whatsoever to do with the truth and everything to do with their  blind hatred for those who challenge their policies.</p>
<p>In the wake of these vicious and hateful attacks, many have cited  Rahm Emanuel’s famous quotation about “never letting a good crisis go to  waste.”  Here is a “good crisis” by Democrat standards and folks like  Paul Krugman at <em>The New York Times </em>(of course) did not let even a  second go to waste before launching his hate-filled attacks.  Not even  Krugman denied the bigotry behind his attacks, since a good working  definition of bigotry is the ascribing of negative motives and deeds to a  category of people without regard for the facts.</p>
<p>But a quote more important to understanding the utter shamelessness  of the Democrats in using what they saw as a wonderful opportunity to  silence dissent comes from arguably the most beloved and influential  Modern Liberal (read: radical leftist) of all, Howard Zinn, who declared  that “Objectivity is undesirable.”  Zinn declared the facts to be  “undesirable” because “if you have any kind of a social aim, if you  think history should serve society in some way; should serve the  progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it  requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think  will advance causes of humanity.”</p>
<p>Those who seek to inflame hatred for the Right don’t care one whit  about the facts – they find the facts to be undesirable because they get  in their way of their “social aim.”  Thus, it <em>doesn’t </em>matter  what the Tea Party attendee’s sign reads, the Democrats will still say  it’s “racist” because their “social aim” requires them to fire up hatred  for those who question their policies.  Hatred is the <em>goal </em>of  Modern Liberalism because hate will blind their followers to the  objective fact that the “social aim” of the Modern Liberal – the  dominant force in today’s Democrat Party and the ideology that rules  academia and the news media, is infantile folly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/why-hatred-is-endemic-to-the-left-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why the Left Hates Sarah Palin</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/why-the-left-hates-sarah-palin/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=why-the-left-hates-sarah-palin</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/why-the-left-hates-sarah-palin/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 04:41:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evan Sayet]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=82034</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Democrats' treasured illusion that the former governor shatters. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/sarah-palin-eyeglasses.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-82041" title="sarah-palin-eyeglasses" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/sarah-palin-eyeglasses.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="538" /></a></p>
<p>It just happened again.</p>
<p>I spend a fair amount of time at my local coffee shop.  I like to do my writing outside and, besides, it gives me an opportunity to try and initiate political conversations with the people who pass by &#8212; my hope always being to begin to enlighten them as to what conservatives <em>really </em>believe (and not just what the leftist media tells them.)</p>
<p>Today, the conversation turned to Sarah Palin and my latest acquaintance blurted out: “Oh I <em>hate </em>her.”  Since she did not yet know my politics, and since we were in Los Angeles, it is clear that she expected to hear back what you usually hear back in this city: “Yeah, I hate her, too.”  Instead, I asked her why.</p>
<p>At this point I could have predicted her response because it’s the same response you get from liberals no matter who on the Right you’re talking about: “Because she’s stupid.”  I replied: “Being stupid is no reason to hate someone, but tell me, which one of her policies do you disagree with?”  It wasn&#8217;t hard to predict her response: “All of them!”</p>
<p>I continued to push.  “Well, then, if it’s all of them, it should be easy for you to name one.”  Her reply?  “They’re too many to list.”</p>
<p>“So don’t list them, just give me one,” I said.</p>
<p>This went on for awhile until my new acquaintance finally admitted that she didn’t know any of Ms. Palin’s policies.  Before she ran off – Democrats always run off when asked to provide facts to justify their hatred for Republicans – I looked her in the eyes and said, “If you don’t know any of her policies, perhaps you should look into them.”  She promised she would.  She won’t.  If there are two things you can count on with Democrats, they are filled with hate and empty of facts.</p>
<p>But it got me to thinking.  Given that these people don’t know any of Ms. Palin’s political positions, what is it about her that they hate?  It has to be her life story.  Now, to all decent people, Ms. Palin’s life story could not be more laudable.  She married her high school sweetheart to whom she remains married and with whom she is apparently still in love.  In the harshest of climes, she and Todd started a small business which, apparently, they ran well enough to purchase a home and raise a family.  Despite the long hours required to run a family business and raise children, when Ms. Palin saw that the public schools were not doing a good job in educating her children, she joined the local PTA and was so effective there that the people who knew her best – and in small towns like Wasilla there are very few secrets – elected her to be their mayor.</p>
<p>Apparently, Ms. Palin was so effective in that job that the mayors of the other small towns and big cities elected her president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.  After a highly successful stint as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, she ran an uphill battle against an entrenched <em>Republican </em>governor and was elected to the top position, Governor, of the largest state in the nation.  She did that job so well that her approval ratings – despite having ruffled the feathers of the leading political family in Alaska – bordered on 80 percent.</p>
<p>As Ms. Palin’s political horizons continued to grow, she found out she was pregnant with her fourth child, a baby with Downs Syndrome.  Despite knowing in advance that this child would require even more attention and care than other kids, Ms. Palin opted to give her child – Trig – life.</p>
<p>So, given that those who hate – hate!!! – Ms. Palin know nothing more than these facts about her, what is it about Ms. Palin’s life story that generates this blind loathing?  The answer is that, at every turn, Ms. Palin’s story debunks the myths of victimization and self-centeredness that is at the heart of the modern liberal ideology.</p>
<p>First, Ms. Palin is married with children.  The Democrat Party’s treasured storyline is that women with children – especially those who take care of them themselves – are oppressed, victimized and doomed to a life without personal fulfillment.  Ms. Palin’s life proves them wrong and the Democrats <em>hate </em>her for this.  If Ms. Palin were a Democrat she would have offed the last child before he was born so that she could have more “me” time to pursue her own wants and pleasures.  There is clearly something very “wrong” with this woman who allowed her “special needs” child to live.  They <em>hate </em>her for that.</p>
<p>One of the most obvious demographic differences between the Left and the Right is that people without children – those too self-centered and jealous of others stealing “their” attention, angry and hate-filled “feminists,” radical homosexuals and school children too young to have started a family &#8212; are just about guaranteed to pull the lever for anyone with a “D” next to their names.  Those married with children are just as assured to pull the lever for someone from the Right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/evan-sayet/why-the-left-hates-sarah-palin/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>290</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1076/1184 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 07:53:49 by W3 Total Cache -->