Daily Archives: June 16, 2011

Another Republican Weekly Round Up

So, we had possibly the world’s most boring debate this week. You know, usually, I am a firm believer in Regan’s 11th Commandment (“Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of your fellow Republican”) but the mutual appreciation society that we saw on CNN was rather boring…further the 11th Commandment doesn’t apply to shiftless socialists like Romney who are Republicans in name only (RINOs). Whatever this CNN debate was…it wasn’t an argument, which it should have been…

Michele Bachmann…One commentator called her the thinking person’s Sarah Palin. This is still an insult to Bachmann. She did better than anyone else on that stage and she is still my 2nd choice if Giuliani doesn’t get it. However, her statement that she wanted us out of Libya because they didn’t attack us does give me pause…we should want out of Libya because there is no pro-democracy force to support and we have no goal in mind as far as anyone can tell (oh, and we’re already over extended)…her answer makes me worry that she might adopt the “not our problem mentality” that so often gets the U.S. in trouble. But still she understands the economy is the most important thing, and she understands how to solve the problem correctly. Oh, and to date she is the only candidate I know of who says she will go through and review all of Obama’s executive orders (most of which are unconstitutional anyway) and revoke the ones that need to be.

Herman Cain–to call Cain’s statement about not wanting to put a Muslim in his administration is just stupid. Exactly who did they have in mind? I don’t know of any American Muslims in Politics who are Republican, certainly I know of none that are qualified for a cabinet level position…so who exactly are we worried about not getting a job they earned…or is it that the Democrats think you should put in minorities just for the sake of having minorities. Actually that sounds about as cynical and racist as I expect from most Dems. However, it did not strike me as if he has enough knowledge and background experience to be able to move from the board room to the Oval Office. I would still vote for him if he made it to the nomination, but he is still not filling me with an abundance of confidence.

Newt Gingrinch–Newt did fairly well. Too bad for him he already sunk his chances.

Gary Johnson. Who? Yeah I’m there too.

Ron Paul–Ron is fun as ever. Completely and totally wrong on all things foreign policy, but I love having him in the legislature.Just never in the executive.EVER!

Tim Pawlenty— “Obmneycare” was perhaps one of the most genius things I have heard to date in this campaign and it illustrates the clear perspective that Romney does not belong in this party or this race. It shows clearly that Romney would just be another 4 years of the stupid economic policies of Bush and Obama. But when Pawlenty had the chance to distinguish himself, to show he had a backbone, to show that he was a leader…he backed away from it.
Mitt Romney–and what a shock, Mitt continues to be the same old moderate that we knew and hated 4 years ago.

Rick Santorum—the smarmy ass continued to be a smarmy ass and continued to believe that social issues were somehow relevant in the face of trillion dollar deficits, growth killing taxation, and job killing regulation. I’d compare voting for Santorum to shooting oneself in the foot if it wasn’t more like putting the gun in your mouth and blowing out the back of your head.

John Huntsman–Obama’s Ambassador to China…the guy Obama picked to go kiss China’s ass and beg for more money…He may have been a good Governor but working with Obama suggests a major lack of character. And the fact that he increased spending in Utah during his tenure also not a good sign. And he believes in Global Warming…could he and Romney please just go establish the RINO party and leave the conservatives alone.

Sarah Palin–the media continues to stalk this worthless non-entity without a conscience. Like Romney she will back any plan, no matter how against the principles of conservatism as long as she get more money or press time. This trip, while it’s fun to watch the media squirm, shows how completely egocentric and self-deluded she is. And you know what?… I’ve already lived under an egocentric idiot for three years…I don’t need another term of that.

Rudy Giuliani–News is that he is meeting with Chris Christie and Rick Perry. Hopefully it is to get their endorsements. I envision Giuliani at the podium, flanked by Perry and Christie (two real fiscal conservatives), announcing his intent to run and eviscerate Romney and Obama (but I repeat myself).

Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012, Michele Bachmann

Books for Conservatives: Stone of Tears by Terry Goodkind



The last book I recommended was Wizard’s First Rule which is a wonderful book in its own right but what makes the Sword of Truth Series great is the collections of philosophical themes which are explicitly stated as Wizard’s Rules. Stone of Tears, while still one of the better books in the series as it follows the growth of main character Richard Rahl into becoming a wizard. It has certain aspects of a bildungroman, a story of growing up, and certainly all the trappings of good high-fantasy (battles against ultimate evil, sword fights, a talking dragon, you know the deal)…but as “People are Stupid” made Wizard’s First Rule more than just a fantasy book, Stone of Tears is more than just a fantasy novel because of Wizard’s Second Rule:
“The greatest harm can result from the best intentions. Kindness and good intentions can be an insidious path to destruction. Sometimes doing what seems right is wrong, and can cause harm. The only counter to it is knowledge, wisdom, forethought, and understanding the First Rule. Even then, that is not always enough.”

Or if you have any understanding of politics or economics, this is called the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Why is this important?

Well, just look at the people who don’t heed this basic rule…that is the Democratic Party. They do lots of things, because they want to make the world a better place…but they never seem to ask will this make the world a better place, is there any reason to believe this will work, are there any facts to prove that this will work? No, they just feel and want to do something. To hell with reality. They have good intentions.

For instance…

Welfare. Let’s help the underprivileged. To hell if there is a reason why most people who have low incomes actually have low incomes. To hell if they choose to have children out of wedlock early in life, not get an education, or cultivate an air of laziness. No let’s just throw money at them. Yes let’s subsidize bad behavior and give it out indiscriminately. Whereas church and private charity would hold people to standards and encourage them pull themselves out, welfare encourages the worst behaviors in society and has destroyed the lower classes of this nation and wrecked the possibility for having a country made entirely of a middle class. But we wanted to help; shouldn’t that excuse the evils welfare has brought on our society? No. Because they were completely foreseeable. And they’re even less forgivable now when the liberals’ answer is more handouts that won’t work.

Tax Policy. Yeah, so we spent ourselves into debt. So let’s tax the rich to solve our problems. We want it to solve our problems. To hell with the fact that it will make it worse. Let’s just jack up the top rate to 70%. To hell with consequences! We want it to solve our problem, whether it actually will is irrelevant.


Just about any law making whatsoever…same problem. They create more problems. This is why the Tao Te Ching 57 states

[…]The more laws and restrictions there are,
The poorer people become.
[…]
The more rules and regulations,
The more thieves and robbers.[…]
2500 years ago they knew more than modern liberals. The more you want to try and change things the more you screw things up because there are always unintended consequences. Now those consequences may be forgivable if they could not be foreseen, but how many of our current problems were not so much 20/20 hindsight but rather clearly visible if we had just looked with foresight. Almost all of them.

And this doesn’t just apply to governments. Anyone who got a subprime loan. You violated the second rule. You wanted something and didn’t consider the consequences. How many of us go through all of our lives like this? Too many. We all need to adopt a habit of weighting consequences before we act—you know, try not to be completely stupid—and maybe also try to get those around us to also use some foresight.

If you want more examples of how acting before you think can cause major problems I would read Stone of Tears once you finished Wizard’s First Rule.

Leave a comment

Filed under Books for Conservatives, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid

Should we look at everyone?


So Democrat Laura Richardson objects to looking at the radicalization of Islam hearing because any look based on “race or religion” is discriminatory. Is that it? Do we have a problem with radical Islam because we dislike other religions only because they’re different and we’re bigots? I’m sure she’s right. It’s not like almost every major terrorist attack against the US and its allies (with the exception of Oklahoma City) for the last three decades hasn’t has been committed by only one group of radical religious lunatics. No, not all it’s because we’re bigots.

Richardson is right. We should also look at Neo-Nazi’s because Nazi’s have never had anything to do with radical Islam (you know if you ignore all the diplomatic relations Nazi Germany had with radical Islamic groups because they were united in their hatred of Britain and the Jews). I’m sure that you find all those connections are gone now and that a deep seated hatred of the Jews is no longer uniting these two organizations.

Richardson is right we should look at other problems in the prison system. Like gangs…as most gangs have some connection to the Mexican cartels…and it’s not like the Cartels are pushing heroin and other drugs grown by terrorists to fund their war against the west. It must be that we’re just bigots and only want to go after radical Muslims.

And while not in this committee’s scope of interest, maybe we should look at the religions that are the victims of hate crimes in this country. Remind me again which religion has the most hate crimes perpetrated against it in this country…oh, that’s right, that would the Jews. I’m sure radical Muslims have nothing to do with that.

Sarcasm aside, this woman is delusional if she doesn’t think radical Islam is a problem not just for America but for the world at large. My only complaint against King’s statement is that he didn’t lay into this idiotic excuse for a member of Congress more.

And for a variation on this theme…

Leave a comment

Filed under War on Terrorism