Monica Crowley

Captain America vs. Robin Hood

The economy is sucking salt, and the reason is clear: President Obama's policies---and those of his party---have undermined and crippled the free market to the point of absolute paralysis. Since January 2009, Team Obama has given us: a massive expansion of government, unprecedented spending, record-breaking deficits and debt, and socialized medicine. No wonder there's no job creation or economic growth happening. The severe debt crisis, the government spending spree, and the uncertainty that comes with all of the new policies and regulations make any business owner want to crawl under a rock and wait until the Left-wing hurricane blows over.

A new Gallup poll posed the question: do you think our government should or should not redistribute wealth through heavy taxes on the rich?

The results were not comforting: 49 percent of Americans say no, but 47 percent say that the government should confiscate wealth and give to those who don't have as much. This is pure wealth redistribution---an anti-American concept all the way---and yet 47% think it's a swell idea.

71 percent of Democrats believe it, which is no surprise, while just 43 percent of Independents do, and only 28 percent of Republicans believe in enforced redistribution.

The demographic breakdowns are not surprising either: 52 percent of women want income redistribution, but just 42 percent of men do. Just 41 percent of whites agree with it, while 64 percent of non-whites do.

You don't need to be David Axelrod to figure out Obama's re-election strategy. He desperately needs minorities, union workers, and women if he's going to have a prayer of getting re-upped in 2012.

Obama is a true believer. There's no way he's going to change his ideological pitch. Statist wealth redistribution is how he rolls, and he's hoping enough people are riding the gravy train to pull the lever for him again, even as his Far-Left mania is destroying the economy.

The Left believes government is in the business of providing social justice by taking from the haves to raise up the have-nots. Conservatives believe government exists to maintain an equal playing field so that everyone has a fair shot at success. This is in line with the Founders' vision for America: maximum individual freedom to allow for maximum individual and therefore collective prosperity. The Founders understood that liberty is a zero-sum game: the more power the government exerts over your life, the less freedom you have.

The Democrat view of wealth redistribution runs counter to everything the Founders wanted for this country. This is the question before Americans today: do we want a vibrant capitalist nation or a European-style welfare state? We're quickly sliding down the path of the latter. There's still time to arrest the slide, but the sand is slipping through the hour glass.

Should I Stay Or Should I Go?

In the life of a politician, the crud inevitably hits the fan. The cause of the crud varies: sometimes it's a sex scandal, sometimes it's a financial scandal, sometimes it's an influence-peddling scandal, sometimes it's bribery or abuse of power or tax evasion. In all cases, the bottom-line question is: can the scandal-plagued politician remain a viable public figure? If the consensus is "yes," then they usually stay in office and choose to fight on. If the consensus is "no," they're usually toast pretty fast.

Many elements factor in to the consensus, which can form rapidly or take longer periods of time, particularly if the scandal is complicated. Does the wife or partner stand by them, encouraging them to fight back, or does she want out of public life, probably because she never wanted in it? Is the local and/or national press rabidly investigating the story, or are they glossing over it? Are the pol's constituents forgiving or not? Is the trendline moving toward more damaging revelations or is the worst already out? Has the pol said or done anything since the scandal broke that would make a bad situation worse, or has he managed the crisis well?

In the recent past, there have been those who have opted to bow out rather than prolong the public agony: President Richard Nixon, NY Governor Eliot Spitzer, NJ Governor Jim McGreevey, NY Congressmen Eric Massa and Chris Lee, NV Senator John Ensign.

There have also been those who have chosen to stay and fight: President Bill Clinton, SC Governor Mark Sanford, NY Congressman Charlie Rangel, MA Congressmen Barney Frank and Gerry Studds, LA Senator David Vitter, Idaho Senator Larry Craig. So far, embattled NY Congressman Anthony Weiner falls into this category.

The calculations about whether to stay or go are complicated and personal. Sometimes it simply has to do with the character of the pol in question: do they feel a sense of shame, or not?

Shame is severely undervalued in our society. It used to be that newspapers would run photos of prostitutes and their clients in order to embarrass them. It wasn't so long ago that Rob Lowe went underground after his sex tape emerged and Pee Wee Herman sent himself into exile after being caught having solo fun in a dark theater. Now the road to fame often runs through a homemade sex tape that's "leaked" to the media. If Weiner weren't a member of Congress, he could ride this internet sexting scandal all the way to a reality show on E!

Of course, the difference between Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian and Pamela Anderson and Anthony Weiner is that Paris, Kim, and Pamela aren't paid by taxpayers and invested with their trust (thank the Almighty).

There is no easy way out for a pol in a heap of his own self-inflicted trouble. As the Clash so aptly observed, "If I go, there will be trouble/ An' if I stay it will be double."

Should I Stay Or Should I Go?

Should I stay or should I go now?
Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
An' if I stay it will be double
So come on and let me know!
Should I stay or should I go?

The O'Reilly Factor---TONIGHT!

I'll be on with Bill O'Reilly tonight at 8pm and 11pm ET on the Fox News Channel. Please tune in.

From The Sublime To The Ridiculous

I awoke this morning thinking about what a profound anniversary it was: June 6. Sixty-seven years ago today, thousands upon thousands of our extraordinary, brave young men stormed the beaches of Normandy and began the greatest liberation from evil the world has ever known. Most were mere teenagers. They came from every corner of the nation. They knew not what lay ahead of them as they crossed the choppy waters of the English Channel in the early morning hours of June 6, 1944. All they knew was that their nation needed them, and they answered the call. The American (and British and Canadian) forces landed on Utah, Gold, Sword, Juno, and the bloodiest of them all, Omaha, and fought past Hitler's Atlantic Wall. The casualties were so heavy that only the battle of Antietam during the Civil War surpassed it in terms of American battle dead and wounded.

I thought about those brave men today as soon as I opened my eyes. I thought about their courage, their valor, their absolute sacrifice for freedom and for country.

I close out today having to listen to the ever-increasingly tawdry details of a Congressman's illicit internet sexual dalliances. From the sublime to the ridiculous, indeed.

The soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines of the great Allied Expeditionary Force of D-Day fought for our system of government, which, I'm sad to say, often gives us the likes of Anthony Weiner (and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Eliot Spitzer and Charlie Rangel and John Ensign and Bill Clinton and John Edwards....I could go on but the internet has limited space.) They fought for our right to be free, even if we take that freedom and be stupid with it.

Those who came ashore in France 67 years ago today deserve our deepest and most profound gratitude. Perhaps if Weiner had used the brain at the other end of his body, he would have reflected on the sacrifices of those who came before him and made his career and liberty possible---and perhaps he would have behaved in a manner befitting that sacrifice.

His True Stripes

The writer Maya Angelou once said, "When somebody tells you who they are, believe them."

Barack Obama has been telling us over and over and over again just who he is. Many Americans heard him the first time. Many more still don't get it, or choose not to believe him.

He has been telling us, in more ways than one, that he is a wealth distributing, socialism embracing progressive. His beliefs and policies are so radical that some Americans have a difficult time processing that this man is actually the president of the United States---and using that high office to fundamentally remake America in a European socialist model. They try to explain or justify it away, by claiming to themselves and others that he's "really not that bad" or that "his critics attack him over every little thing." The defensive crouch sometimes expresses itself in a benign way ("Obama may be naive or in over his head") and sometimes in a much darker way ("his critics are racist"). Instead of seeing the man and his ideology clearly, these folks want to ascribe every possible explanation for his radicalism other than the obvious one: that he is, in fact, a radical.

We have seen it with his associations with radicals of all stripes, from domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers to anti-American hatemongers like Jeremiah Wright to communists like Van Jones. We have seen it in his wealth redistributing policies, from the $1 trillion "stimulus" to cap and trade to ObamaCare. We have seen it in his giving the bum's rush to close allies like Great Britain and Israel while sending mash notes to enemies like Iran and Russia. We have seen it through his massive expansion of government, unprecedented spending, record-breaking deficits and debt, and socialized medicine. We have seen it as he perseveres with this agenda, even as it continues to fail in epic ways (witness today's 9.1% unemployment rate, a still-collapsing housing sector, and anemic, barely-there economic growth of 1.8%).

All of this is shocking to the American psyche, but none of it should be surprising. After all, during the 2008 campaign, Obama said this to Joe the Plumber:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too.I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Of course he wants to punish your success. That's what his entire regime of wealth redistribution ("spreading the wealth around") is all about.

And remember this similar 2010 socialist classic from Obama?

"We're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I do think at a certain point you've made enough money, but you know, part of the American way is, you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product."

There he goes again, claiming he doesn't "begrudge success." He protests too much. And by the way, he thinks you've "made enough money." Whew---so glad to have Obama around to tell us when we've hit that point, huh?

And who could forget his more recent socialist classic:

"I believe that we can't ask everybody to sacrifice and then tell the wealthiest among us, well, you can just relax and go count your money, and don't worry about it. We're not going to ask anything of you."

As if "the rich" became rich by sitting around, doing nothing, relaxing. As if the country "doesn't ask anything" of them, when they carry the vast majority of the tax burden. As if "the rich" spend all day eating bon bons and "counting their money."

The arrogance and condescension and complete anti-Americanism inherent in these statements---by the president, no less---is breathtaking. No wonder so many Americans wonder if he's truly "one of us." (The birth certificate controversy was merely a manifestation of this gnawing and deep concern that the country elected a man whose beliefs are so utterly alien to the nation's.)

If you need any more proof, here is his Solicitor General this week, arguing on behalf of ObamaCare to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, telling the court that if an individual doesn't like the individual mandate, they can just earn less money:

"So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn't need to earn that much income."

Say what?

Judge Jeffrey Sutton interjected, "That wasn't in a single speech given in Congress about this...the idea that the solution if you don't like it is make a little less money."

He is correct: no Democrat in Congress made that argument when they were pushing ObamaCare down our throats. But it's completely consistent with the wealth redistributing agenda this administration has put in place from Day One.

And if we were listening to Obama during the campaign, if we were listening to what he's been saying through his policies, none of this should be a surprise.

This is what his presidency is. This is who HE is. When somebody tells you who they are, believe them---the first time.

How She Rolls

She's at it again.

But what "it" is, nobody really knows.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has hit the road on what she calls a "One Nation" bus tour of key American historical sites. She kicked off her tour on Sunday by causing a sensation at the annual Rolling Thunder bike rally that calls attention to vets who remain MIA. She made the scene on the back of a Harley, fierce in black leather. Girlfriend is not only a true conservative and shrewd political operator, she is drop-dead gorgeous, which are three of the biggest reasons the Left and their handmaidens in the media loathe her.

From there she set out to visit the Gettysburg battlefield and the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. She is always seen at these sites wearing a broad smile, as if she's actually happy to be reaching out and touching great American history. Imagine that! Unembarrassed patriotism! She is a true happy warrior! Another reason the Left hates her.

Plus, she's taking a page out of the playbooks of Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, who went over the heads of the press and took their messages directly to the American people. She doesn't need to go through the editorial page staffs of newspapers who despise her to talk to the people. She goes right TO the people and talks WITH them. Yet another reason the Left hates her.

She's on to New York City, where she'll visit the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, the gateways to America for previous generations of (legal) immigrants. After that, her schedule remains a mystery. Will she go to Boston, Faneuil Hall, see the route of Paul Revere? Will she visit Plymouth Rock and the harbor that hosted the original Tea Party? Will she roll into....New Hampshire?

No one knows. And that's exactly how she likes it. She is so smart and clever that the Left's attacks on her intelligence look evermore ridiculous. Let them cackle. She's playing them like a Stradivarius.

They know it and hate it, of course. A CBS News producer, charged with following her caravan across the Northeast, said, "It feels like she's baiting us and treating us like paparazzi and make the 'lamestream media' appear that way." Actually, Palin doesn't have to do ANYTHING to make the lamestream media appear lame. They do that all by themselves.

And yes, she IS baiting them, making them look like fools. Isn't it great? They hate her so much, and yet they're forced to chase her like 12 year old girls running after Justin Bieber.

Former President Richard Nixon once said, "I intend to confound my enemies before I defeat them."

I have no idea if Sarah Palin will run for the Republican nomination or not. What I do know is that she is having her political opponents for lunch. She is confounding them, and it's only a matter of time before she defeats them. She's already doing it. And having the time of her life.