But the hypocrisy is flowing deep and rich on the Left.  For years the Left has been calling the Tea Party a mob, racists, snidely referring to them with a derogatory term, and even a sitting Speaker of the House comparing them to Nazis.  Now, they are reacting with umbrage when GOP politicians  and conservative pundits refer to as a “mob” a group of unemployed, disenfranchised (and miseducated) twenty-somethings who are violating laws, picking fights with cops and reporters and getting arrested. ThinkProgress (two misrepresentations in one name), even called it a “smear.” Calling 700 people who are arrested for disorderly conduct a mob is not a smear.  It’s the textbook definition of a mob: “a disorderly or riotous crowd of people.”

The Left seems to swim in hypocrisy, so it’s not surprising that they are feigning outrage.  Earlier, we pointed out liberal hypocrisy in savaging Governor Christie over his weight, then rushing to criticize Senator Scott Brown for implying no one wants to see Elizabeth Warren naked.  Similarly with OWS, liberal elites are rushing in to defend their own side when they perpetrated much worse attacks on their opponents.

The reality, of course, is that the OWS protestors have a right to protest, just as the Tea Party does.  Just because you may disagree with, or, frankly have no idea, what they want, does not mean they don’t have the right to speak. There are some telling differences, however. The Tea Party protests are usually organized, rarely is anyone arrested, and perhaps most importantly, there is a consensus demand: keep the government out of our way.

In contrast, the OWS seems to be protesting the mere existence of corporations and has trouble articulating any coherent policies they support, or even why they are there at all.  The organizer of a similar protest in California couldn’t even answer the question: “Why are we here?  We have a team working on that, and should have an answer for you tomorrow.” I’m sure that, now that Van Jones and the unions are involved, the message will crystallize.  Though I doubt many of the protestors will appreciate the help.

In the normal rough and tumble world of politics, this should be nothing more than a Grapevine vignette on Special Report.  But Brown is a Republican, and Warren, in the eyes of her liberal defenders, is a poor, helpless woman who’s fragile self image cannot stand receiving the type of teasing that she dishes out.

For weeks the same liberal outlets have been mercilessly criticizing and piling on Governor Chris Christie for being “too fat to be president,” even making thinly veiled use of adjectives.  Christie even had to say in a press conference that “it’s not news to me that I’m overweight.”  Liberals now have the gall to tsk tsk over Brown’s response?

Really?  Does Elizabeth Warren, an attorney, a Harvard Law professor, a published author, a Sunday school teacher and a mother of two, have such a low self image and is so frail, that she can’t take a little ribbing from her opponent?  (Not to mention this was in a spat that she started.) If Elizabeth Warren cannot take a little ribbing, how will she stand up against the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy® and protect the rights of Bay Staters in the Senate?

More importantly, why is it okay for someone, without provocation, to openly, even cruelly criticize a man’s appearance, but not even hint at a woman’s?  Why is it that liberal elites don’t believe women are strong enough to stand up to so slight a criticism?  If I was Elizabeth Warren, I would be offended that they think I need to be defended.

Late on Friday night in June, 1998, James Byrd Jr.,  was at his niece’s bridal shower in Jasper Texas.  He was disabled and could not afford a car of his own, so he walked home, as he did almost everywhere.  At around 2:30 a.m., three men, Shawn Allen Berry, John William King, and Lawrence Russell Brewer offered him a ride in their pick up truck.

Instead of taking him home, they took Byrd to a remote country road and savagely beat him unconscious.  They urinated on him to revive him, and then tied his ankles to a 24.5 foot chain, and dragged him for over three miles.  A subsequent autopsy revealed that Byrd was alive during the heinous dragging.  Trying desperately to keep his head up, he sheared the flesh from his elbows, exposing the bone.  The coroner testified that Byrd was killed at the end of the torture, when he slammed into a culvert and was decapitated.

Berry, King and Brewer were tried and convicted in 1999.  Berry, who maintains his innocence, is serving life in prison and spends 23 hours a day in an 8×6 foot cell. King and Brewer were sentenced to death. On Tuesday, 13 years later, Brewer again confirmed his guilt, saying he had no regrets, and would do it all again.  Last night, the State of Texas carried out its solemn duty, did humanity a favor and rid the world of Lawrence Russell Brewer.

The case, understandably, shocked the world.  There were immediate calls for hate crimes legislation.  George W. Bush, then governor of Texas and a candidate for president, was criticized for not backing the subsequent James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act. The criticism followed Mr. Bush into his presidency, where he was criticized by Brian Williams and others for his “record on race,” including failure to support hate crimes legislation.  Bush’s response to these critics was that first, a murder is no less heinous because it’s not motivated by race, color or creed of the victim; and second, when you commit murder in Texas, you frequently get the death penalty or life in prison.  What enhanced penalties could there be? State required excommunication? 

Nonetheless, the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act, which provides resources for prosecution and enhanced penalties for “hate crimes,” was in fact signed into law in 2001 by Bush’s successor, Rick Perry.  You may have heard that name before in connection with Brian Williams.  Earlier this month, Rick Perry was asked by the same Brian Williams if he can sleep at night know that he has put 234 people to death–more than any other governor.  The audience applauded, confounding Williams and undermining his liberal premise. 

So which is it–support more stringent sentences for people who commit hate crimes, or stop short of the death penalty.  In Texas, a state that takes every crime very seriously, you cannot have both.  The two questions, then that I would ask Mr. Williams and those like him, who support hate crimes legislation, but not the death penalty are:

1. What do you propose to do to Lawrence Brewer’s corpse to punish him for his hate crime?
2. Would you sleep better at night if Brewer, King and Berry walk free? 

That’s not hyperbole, King’s sentence is on appeal, and Berry is up for parole in 2038.

You’ll no doubt recall that Senator Durbin’s misplaced arrogance led to price fixing on debit card transaction, a move that costs banks and consumers dearly, but will benefit the bottom line of his big box retail donors. Dick believes it is inappropriate for the GOP to pressure the Fed on monetary policy.  Of course, he should know, this is the exact same thing he did seven months ago.  Dick, who’s never had a real job outside of politics, also believes he knows how to allocate risk in an insanely complex system that safely processes over $1.3 trillion a year better than people who have done it for decades.  So maybe we should take the crazy things he believes with a grain of salt.

Liberals love to throw money at things, especially when it’s someone else’s money.

There is no reason why the GOP, or anyone, cannot send a letter, an email, a video, a dead fish or a horses head (subject to local law, some exclusions apply), to the Fed.  The Fed is an independent central bank, and is designed to shrug off political criticism.  If Ben Bernanke cannot handle a few angry politicians, he is not the right man for the job.

To the substantive point of the criticism, though, discouraging the Fed from printing more money is not sabotage, or even evidence of some Vast, Right Wing Conspiracy™ to bring down President Obama.  Governing is choosing, and there is a clear choice here:

1. Do we print more money (a THIRD try at quantitative easing) and hope against experience that this time, the banks begin to lend to companies and investors that don’t want to borrow and people begin to spend on things they don’t need; or
2. Do we reform our tax and regulatory process and encourage people to invest and spend the money they already have.

Liberals love to throw money at things, especially when it’s someone else’s money.  But there are real consequences to quantitative easing (a fancy phrase for printing more money to throw at stuff).  When you print more money, each dollar becomes less valuable.  This is great if you’re a debtor, because it’s cheaper to pay off $14 trillion when the dollar is not worth as much as when you borrowed it.

They see capitalism as an incomprehensible dark art involving incantations read from the Wall Street Journal over mahogany altars.

But if you already have money, inflation is a silent thief.  Warren Buffett, Obama’s best buddy, has said for years that inflation is more confiscatory than any tax increase.  And if we show a willingness to pay off our enormous debt by devaluing the dollar, we may find that the dollar is no longer the world’s reserve currency (see artists renderings).

More importantly, the purpose of printing money is to make it cheaper for people to borrow.  Interest rates are already ridiculously low.  No matter how low they go, no one can force unwilling capital to invest.  Obama has made it clear that he is no friend of capitalism, and his regulatory promiscuity and demagoguery is impairing expansion and investment.  The CEO of Euro Pacific Capital testified today that he was fined for hiring too many people, and had to spend half a million dollars to fight off regulators.  Regulators have run amok, and the uncertainty is undermining expansion.

They beat on the fuselage of the gleaming, silver jet of capitalism and grunt “make fly now!”

It’s not just hiring and expansion, either.  Investor confidence is almost as low today as it was right after the Lehman collapse.  Ask yourself, if you came into money tomorrow, would you buy a second home, or would you hold on to the money until the housing market hits bottom?  Would you invest in the stock market, or wait until the ups start outnumbering the downs on a more regular basis?  Would you invest in a business, hire new workers and expand, or would uncertainty–not just in your product–but in the regulatory and economic landscape make you guard your nest egg?

Unless an investor believes prices are more likely to go up than down, investing is a fool’s errand.  And a fool and his money are soon invested in Solyndra.   People are spooked, and until the world starts to make sense again, they will keep their money under their mattress–no matter how cheap Bernanke makes it to borrow more.

Liberals may understand this, or they may not.  It is tempting to believe that our liberal friends see capitalism as black magic voodoo; an incomprehensible dark art involving incantations read from the Wall Street Journal over mahogany altars..  Like an anachronistic caveman, they beat on the fuselage of the gleaming, silver jet of capitalism and grunt “make fly now!”  All the while, damaging the sensitive avionics with their thorny, regulatory clubs.  Occasionally, Warren Buffett shouts “beat harder!”

We have to decide if we’re going to make life easier for ourselves now and harder for our children later, or vice versa.  It’s a choice, and it has consequences.  So the next time someone you are part of the “let him die” party, or want to subsidize corporate jets at the expense of children’s safety, or that you’re trying to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, children and the middle class, ask them if they’d rather deficit spend and print money on the backs of their unborn grandchildren.

*Fair disclosure: I work in the credit card industry, though not for a bank.  I know these issues well, but I also have a (very indirect and slight) financial stake in the outcome.