Monthly Archives: November 2011

Why Atheists really annoy me…a Conservative New Ager’s opinion

So through various personal encounters and stories in the news (here here and here just as a for instance, sadly it’s only the tip of the iceberg) in the last week or so I’ve been meaning to write another blog on my rather deep seated dislike of militant atheists. What do I mean by militant atheists, I mean those people who want all the crosses at memorials taken down, all the nativity scenes taken away, freak-out about the words “In God We Trust” as the national motto?  The people who feel that the mere existence of other religions is somehow a threat to their life, the ones who have the same attitude as wacky Christians who think gays marrying somehow affects their lives. Who need to insult every expression of faith at the drop of a hat with the zealousness of a member of the Westboro Baptist church talking about gays.

This behavior by atheists all strikes me as beyond petty.  I’m a New Ager, a pagan, and I don’t find signs of other people’s religions offensive (unless it’s a religion that is dedicated to tyranny, suffering, and the denial of reason).  I don’t believe in the absolute truth of the 10 Commandments (that idols thing is silly in some ways and the parents thing ignores that there are some people who don’t deserve to be parents)…but I’m not offended by their display.  I don’t demand that images of pentangles be placed everywhere so that I feel included.  So the fact that this attitude is what defines militant atheists is utterly perplexing and annoying to me.

First I think we need to establish a simple fact that is often overlooked.  Atheism is a religion.    A religion is a belief system based on an article of faithThe idea that there is no God is an article faith—it can’t be proven, and to base your beliefs off of that idea that can’t be proven makes the entire philosophy of atheism a religion.  If you’re going to go with pure reason then you have to go with agnosticism—but since being an agnostic in practice prevents you from having any practical beliefs in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics or politics, it’s a useless system. You have to make a leap of faith one way or the other.  And it is bad philosophy and rank arrogance to say that in my leap of faith that there isn’t a God is better than your leap of faith that there is a God (especially since there is evidence that suggests there is a God and really atheists only have the weak argument of the Problem of evil .)  And one really just has to look at the rabid proselytizing that atheists do and then compare that with the equally insane passion of some evangelicals to see that it’s not reason driving these people, it’s faith (and an irrational one at that).
It is a religion.  In fact I recommend you not refer to it as atheism anymore, always refer to it as the “religion of atheism” and when the whiny atheists start saying that they’re not a religion ask them for their impossible to refute argument that there is no God.  And if they fall for that trap they’re not only a whiner, they’re an idiot.

And it’s a vicious religion when you look at the way it is being dealt with in courts.  It’s a religion that says we don’t like any other religions and demands that all evidence of those religions be removed.  They demand that crosses placed in honor of fallen soldiers and police be removed.  They demand that references to the majority belief in God (you know the belief that actually has some evidence behind it) be removed because it offends us.  And if you’re a very special sort of asshole, militant atheists might even demand that the military stop offering chaplain services to the people who want religious counsel while putting their lives on the line so that you have the freedom to believe that there isn’t a God (despite the absolute lack of any evidence to justify that conclusion).

As it is a religion removing things because it insults atheists is actually favoring one religion over another in clear violation of the establishment clause.   Slippery slope arguments are flawed by their very nature of being extreme and taking things to the worst case scenario but we use them because every so often the slippery slope does yield a Soviet Russia, a Nazi Germany, San Francisco.  So if you begin to enforce the religion of atheism as the law of the land, what happens when atheism literally becomes the law, when all expressions of religion are outlawed? Well, off the top of my head I can think of only five countries that have outlawed every religion except atheism—those five would be France under the Terror, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.  Beside legally enforced atheism, what do those five have in common?  Blood and genocide.  I know of no atheistic nation in the history of the world that wasn’t genocidal.  It’s as if when you deny the divinity of human life, human life becomes cheap and expendable.  But this is an extreme argument.  After all, other nations have legally enforced one religion to the exclusion of all others.  However this is revealing point.  Governments that enforce one religion pretty much fall into two camps, Christian and Muslim (the East has had smatterings of enforced religion but these are policies that tended to be on paper more than in practice, and in the West this kind of single religion is not the entire norm).  Now Muslim countries (which interestingly enough also deny the divinity of the human soul) are also shit holes, although even these countries don’t usually meet that mechanical killing people by the millions in a systematic way that atheist nations seem to have refined to an art.  Christian nations that have outlawed all of the opposing religions historically do not have the kind of atrocity in such a sweeping nature.  Yes the Spanish in history are unjustifiable villains, but the English, the Italians, Germans, and French during the same period of time were able to still be relatively humane and still create advancements for civilization.  Can you show me an atheist nation in history that did not commit genocide or that advanced civilization in any, way shape or form?

Now most atheists will say it’s entirely unfair to use the slippery slope argument and compare them to Nazis.  But keep in mind that these are the same people who go to court and demand that every cross and nativity scene be taken down…why?  Because of their slippery slope argument that it could lead to a theocracy.  So much like their leap of faith being so much better than everyone else’s leap of faith, their slippery slope arguments are so much more valid than everyone else’s slippery slope arguments.   Illogical stances like that can only be held by people who fervently believe in their religion to exclusion of all others, so don’t tell me that atheism isn’t a religion.

By now any reasonable person is realizing that most atheist arguments that displays or this or that emblem endorsing religion are kind of stupid, as removing them at the behest of another religion is simply endorsing that religion (in this case the stupid one that doesn’t even have anecdotal evidence to back it up). These court rulings always endorse one religion over another.  There is no way to avoid that because siding with the atheists is siding with a religion.

So let me suggest some compromises.

First the question needs to be does the display hurt anyone?  For 99% of these cases that’s a no.  And I mean really hurt.  Not your stupid feelings were hurt.  If you’re upset that there are signs and displays out there of ideas you don’t agree with, this is so incredibly not the country for you.  We have freedom of expression around here and what comes with that is the freedom to be absolutely offended by what others say or do…but not the freedom to stop them from saying what they believe.

Second, on the issue of public money.  Has the money already been spent?  If not, then no, of course you don’t want to erect new religious symbols, but if the damage is already done then be a grown up and get over it.  Especially for symbols that have been up for years.  Atheists, you too can be big boys and girls and not take every single word against you with all the maturity of a bratty 2 year old (I’ve yet to see it in practice, but I’m willing to be astounded by seeing it for the first time).  If a community votes to take down a time honored symbol, fine, but the courts have no right to tell people to take down symbols of their faith that have been there for years.

As for memorials like crosses put out for fallen police officers or soldiers.  It’s more of a question of what did the people we wish to honor believe.  If they were Christians a cross is the appropriate way to honor them, and if you’re offended by someone putting up a memorial to honor a person who gave their life to protect yours…you’re an asshole.  You have a first amendment right to be one, but I have a First Amendment right to call you (in fact I have an ethical duty to point it out).  If members of other religions have problems with that symbol, and someone from their religion is among the ranks of those being honored, then just put up a symbol of that faith as well…taking it down is just insulting to everyone as it has the mentality of “If I can’t have my symbol all by itself, then no one can have a symbol” (which only benefits the religion of atheism).

Everyone should have the right to express their religion.

Some of this came out of my post of on the worship site for Pagans at the Air Force Academy.   I don’t begrudge them their meeting place, as members of the armed services they are more than entitled to worship, and I have no problem that it’s on our dime as it’s being beyond a heartless creature to say that those who risk their lives for us shouldn’t have the right to worship as they choose.  I was complaining how a $5,000 project cost $80,000.  And I was complaining that Pagans who are always trying to gain some good PR weren’t too bright to let themselves be attached to this boondoggle of government waste.  But they’re entitled to the worship as they see fit.

Which also bring up the atheist who wants a chaplain  in the military.  Is he entitled to one and should we provide one?  Yes, that way we’re treating all religions fairly.  Is this guy a complete ass who is just trying to mock other religions? Yes he is and then some…but he’s putting his life on the line for us so I say we give this complete asshole what he wants.

All religions need to be treated equally and this BS about secularism and removing religious display isn’t doing that.  It’s favoring one religion over another.  The fact that it’s a religion that has even less proof behind it than most and the fact that is in the running for most vicious religion in history should also give one pause.


Filed under Atheism, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Faith, Fear, God, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, New Age, philosophy, politics, Prayer, Religion, Spirituality

Paul Krugman shows you can win a Nobel and not know any math



So Krugman is at is again.  This time the New York Times resident idiot is towing the new Democratic party line…I know it’s a shock to see Paul Krugman just have a knee jerk reaction to repeat Democratic talking points.  Which talking point is it today…why what else we need to tax the rich.  He even has a cute name for the article “Things to Tax”….hmm

You have the usual level of Krugman insanity, such as:

Nonetheless, at some point we’ll have to rein in budget deficits. And when we do, here’s a thought: How about making increased revenue an important part of the deal?

That line is of course coming from the man who has been against all cuts to spending, who had incessantly beat the drum for MORE spending.  But now he wants to reign in the deficit he helped created.  But of course it has to be done by raising taxes.  Which taxes?  Well he suggests “taxes on very high incomes and taxes on financial transactions.”  Don’t you like how he broke out a 5th grade thesaurus and said “high income” and not “rich.”  You’d have to be an idiot or a Democrat to think he wasn’t saying something cliché, but I repeat myself.

Try this quote:

“The I.R.S. reports that in 2007, that is, before the economic crisis, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers — roughly speaking, people with annual incomes over $2 million — had a combined income of more than a trillion dollars. That’s a lot of money, and it wouldn’t be hard to devise taxes that would raise a significant amount of revenue from those super-high-income individuals.

Well no, highway robbery isn’t “hard” to do when you have all the power…why worry about things like ethics.  Did you notice how he mentions they have a trillion dollars?  A whole trillion.  Sounds like a lot doesn’t it?  Which means that if we taxed every last cent out of the these evil greedy bastards who have no right to earn money from their labor and took their trillion dollars…well it still won’t pay for the $3.7 Trillion dollar yearly budget.  (Won’t even cover the $1.101 Trillion shortfall…and let’s not forget that shortfall is calculated after the rich have been contributing a lot of money to the tax codes already).

But still it would raise lots of money.

For example, a recent report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center points out that before 1980 very-high-income individuals fell into tax brackets well above the 35 percent top rate that applies today. According to the center’s analysis, restoring those high-income brackets would have raised $78 billion in 2007.

Ooooh, $78 Billion dollars! Wow, that sounds like a lot doesn’t it.  That means if we had go back to 2001 and instead of cutting taxes raising them to Krugman’s level we would have raised $780 Billion dollars…ah hell I’ll say $800 Billion to account for variance from year to year.  $800 Billion!  So let’s see, Obama has raised the national debt by $5 Trillion which means that if we had raised that $800 Billion then Obama would only have a measly $4.2 Trillion increase to his name.  Hmmmm…I’m not seeing raising taxes as being the salvation here.  Maybe we might want to try cutting something from the budget?  NO! What was I thinking I’m dealing with a Krugman article.  The fact that math shows that raising taxes won’t help the problem has nothing, not one single thing to do with the moral imperative we have to tax the rich to death (and then spend the country into death).  And clearly there would be not a single adverse effect to the economy because raising taxes has never hurt an economy (if you ignore every time in history taxes have been raised, but that’s minor caveat).

After all Krugman states

“what I get for the next decade is that high-income taxation could shave more than $1 trillion off the deficit.”

Yeah cause we’re only raising the debt by almost a trillion and a half every year.  So after a decade instead of having raised the debt by $15 Trillion, we’ll have only raised the debt by $14 Trillion.  Clearly raising taxes on the rich will solve everything.

But then it gets really fun.  Because Krugman deals with the people who claim we need to cut the budget.  Read for yourself:

“It’s instructive to compare that estimate with the savings from the kinds of proposals that are actually circulating in Washington these days. Consider, for example, proposals to raise the age of Medicare eligibility to 67, dealing a major blow to millions of Americans. How much money would that save?

“Well, none from the point of view of the nation as a whole, since we would be pushing seniors out of Medicare and into private insurance, which has substantially higher costs. True, it would reduce federal spending — but not by much. The budget office estimates that outlays would fall by only $125 billion over the next decade, as the age increase phased in. And even when fully phased in, this partial dismantling of Medicare would reduce the deficit only about a third as much as could be achieved with higher taxes on the very rich.”


Of all the cuts to spending that conservatives, libertarians, the Republican Party, the Tea Party, the GOP candidates have suggested…does anyone remember raising the age of Medicare as being a top one?  No I don’t either.  I have absolutely no problem with it.  But it’s an odd one to pick.


How about this, here is a link to a proposed budget by Tea Party organization Freedomworks .  Their budget cuts a $560 Billion in the first year and 9.7 Trillion over the next 10 years.  Now I personally don’t think it goes far enough, but I’m willing to take 9.7 Trillion in cuts over the next decade over (which will probably be more because such behavior would spur the economy and bring in larger tax receipts) Krugman’s $0.8 Trillion in new revenue (which will probably be less as it would further depress the economy and lower tax receipts).


So I don’t know if Krugman is just stupid and doesn’t get that we need to stop spending and that spending cuts are bigger than his pathetic revenue increase.


But here is my favorite line.

So raising taxes on the very rich could make a serious contribution to deficit reduction. Don’t believe anyone who claims otherwise.

Serious in this case meaning not slowing down the growth of the debt by even a little.  And yes don’t believe anyone claims otherwise, they’re using that “evil math thing” and as all good liberals know you can’t trust math, or facts, or truth…because we have faith knowing that taxing the rich will solve all our problems and that Obama is the one true god and that Krugman is his prophet.  Evil math can’t ever be trusted.


He also very competently deals with detractors with the following statement:

But wouldn’t such a tax hurt economic growth? As I said, the evidence suggests not” I have no clue what mystical evidence” he is referring to because it’s certainly not to be found ANYWHERE in the history of the world.  But again don’t let facts get in the way of taxing the rich.


And then there is just the bizarre….

“And then there’s the idea of taxing financial transactions,” he suggests that putting a tax on the sale of stock could reduce bubbles and economic instability.  Technically he’s right.  Several people have advocated for such a thing, myself included …but as far as I know the only people who have ever seriously advocated for this do it as a part of a complete tax overhaul, usually demanding that the capital gains tax be radically lowered if not completely eliminated as putting two sets of taxes on investments would be somewhere past insane (but that kind of makes it right up Krugman’s alley).  And to prove why we need this Krugman states, “and that among those who do are Hong Kong and Singapore. If some conservative starts claiming that such taxes are an unwarranted government intrusion, you might want to ask him why such taxes are imposed by the two countries that score highest on the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom.”  Yeah let’s just ignore that while these countries have such a financial transfer tax (4.45% in Hong Kong ) that they have massively reduced tax burdens, no capital gains, no death tax, no payroll tax, no sales tax.  Paul you can’t claim that Hong Kong has a good tax system in the second half of your article  when everything else about the tax system in Hong Kong is absolute proof that the first half of your article was written by someone who is functionally retarded.


But to realize this little contradiction is probably beyond Krugman’s meager intellectual abilities.  Remember he doesn’t even believe in math.



Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Paul Krugman is an idiot, politics, Taxes, Tea Party, Tyranny, Welfare

Democrats Brand New Plan: Raise Taxes On Rich, No Spending Cuts

Say hello to the new Democratic plan, same as the old the Democratic plan

So the new Democratic plan, as laid out by resident scumbag Chuck Schumer is to raise taxes on the rich and cut nothing.  I’m glad the Democrats aren’t a broken record that have only one policy, but rather embrace a myriad of different ways to improve the economy and never stick to a plan after it has already failed the last 100 times it was tried. 


Senator Schumer, who has never met a tax hike or Constitutional violation he didn’t like  is suggesting this new tax hike on millionaires to offset the cost of continuing the tax break on the payroll tax we have all enjoyed for the last year.

And you know what, I like the payroll tax break.  Better that I get to keep my money than it goes to the Social Security system where it is guaranteed that I will never see it again.  I’m kind of like that; I prefer my money to remain in my wallet instead of the wallets of highway robbers.  I guess I’m just greedy.

But how about this we don’t need to raise taxes on anyone.  Do you know why?  Well first because Schumer’s tax those who make more than a million a year plan is just laughable.  You could tax everyone in the country who makes more than a million a year and still not have enough to shore up social security.

Let’s take a look. [2006 figures]  U.S. Census figures don’t list go above $250,000 a year but let’s use that.  After all $250,000 a year is rich and those bastards deserve to have everything taken from them anyway.  So there are 2.2 million households with an income of $250K or higher (There are 116 million households so this group is about the top 2% of the number of households).   The whole group has an average income of $448,687 (which if you take the time to think about it means most of them are below the million dollar mark, but they’re still evil rich bastards).  So the total income for this group is 987.1 Billion dollars.  So if Chuck put an additional 10% on their income that would yield 98.7 Billion next year.


But that won’t solve much.  You see Social Security was already taking in 29 Billion less than it was spending in March of 2010then in December of 2010 Obama signed the 2% Payroll tax holiday for a year, which is what Schumer wants to save.  That saved Americans about $100 Billion that wasn’t sent to the thieves at Social Security.  Oh wait, we were already spending more than we were taking in, then we cut income by a $100,000,000,000.00.  Hmmm and if Chuck got a 10% hike on everyone at $250,000 or more that would supply 99 Billion.

But Chuck only wants to tax those making over a million.  Which, since they’re a small portion of that top 2% means the tax rate will have to be even higher to make up the difference.  So we’re at what, a 20% increase?  30%?  And you’re still not making up for the initial $29 Billion shortfall that we started with before the payroll tax cut.

And let us not forget the baby boomers are starting to retire.  A massive generation of losers who expect to be taken care of.  Yeah I’m sure that won’t jack up costs.

And I’m sure a 30% tax increase on income won’t possibly slow down the economy at all.  No, not at all.

And it’s even more ridiculous as most people who make over a million a year make it through investments which is an entirely different type of income than the type Schumer is talking about.  So don’t worry Warren Buffet, your Democratic pals aren’t coming after a single cent of your income.

How about this, Chuck.  Instead of your plan which won’t work and is only there to stir up the class warfare, how about a plan that works.

If you’re on Social Security right now, you’re taking a 10% cut in benefits.  If you’re going on it in the next 3 years you’re taking a 15% cut.  If you’re not retiring in the next three years, guess what you’re really not retiring in the next three years because we’re raising the retirement age from 67 to 71…and look forward a 20% cut in benefits.  And if you’re under 50 right now you’re retirement age is 75 and a 25% cut in benefits.  This will get costs in line.

And then we should lower benefits for everyone 45 or younger even further but offer these people a privatized system that is self sustaining and not a ponzi-scheme like entitlement program.
But that would actually work.  And Chuck Schumer isn’t interested in things that work…he’s interested in things that get him and his ilk elected so they can be exempt from all payroll taxes and all insider trading laws.


Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, politics, Social Security, Taxes, Tea Party, Unjust legislation, Welfare

Pagans are not doing themselves any favors…

So there is a new site for pagans, witches, druids, and other “Earth-based” religions to worship at at the Air Force Academy in Colorado.

I have no problem with this.  I personally don’t see the need for a particular place to worship as I find God to be everywhere equally, but I understand how some need a church, synagogue, temple or outdoor “worship center” and prefer a particular place to practice their spirituality.

I do however have a problem with the L.A. Times stating that pagans are “followers of an ancient religion that generally does not worship a single god.”  Depends on your Pagan.  However, most of those who worship multiple deities by name would probably argue that there is a central single force behind all of those gods.  Judeo-Christians call them angels, Pagans call them gods.  You say to-may-to I say to-mah-to.  But the L.A. Times has often been a paper full of idiots, so this isn’t a major point.

What I do find a major point is that it cost $80,000.  Are you insane?  Look at it.

I could have a house with more square-footage built for $80,000

It’s some stones and concrete.  A few bricks.  They’re in goddamn Colorado the whole thing is nothing but stone.  That means they should only have had to pay for the concrete and the bricks.  That’s maybe a $1,000.  And then there’s the work hours.  First off, the pagan students at the Air Force Academy should have volunteered their weekends to put this together…and the more open-minded Christians should have helped.  But if you have to get outside workers, low bid the thing.  That’s maybe a couple thousand more if you do it right.  That’s maybe another 4 grand…20 if you have to hire useless union workers.   It should not have cost more than $5,000 to put something like that together…and even with all the absolute bullshit and waste of government spending that should not have cost more than $40,000….but look at that.  Eighty Thousand.  Are you kidding me.

This isn’t a story about pagans, if it was it would be very boring.  This is a story about government waste.  And the pagan students are not doing themselves any favors by allowing themselves to be tied to this travesty.


Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Debt, Economics, Faith, First Amendment, Government is useless, New Age, politics, Prayer, Religion, Spirituality, Taxes, Unions

Democrats are just as crazy as their leader…

I usually don’t talk about  the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) (primarily because my mother taught me it was wrong to make fun of people with a severe mental handicap)…but I couldn’t resist this one.

Today, on CNN she made the following statement…

“These are a field of Republican candidates so obsessed with one job, Barack Obama’s, rather than American jobs, that they even refused to acknowledge that it’s President Obama who planned and executed the attack on al Qaeda that killed Osama Bin Laden.”

Damn Right! He didn’t just sign a piece of paper giving approval, this man personally planned the approach and how the members of SEAL Team 6 would hit the compound, then he personally, personally I tell you, got on a chopper, went with the SEALs, calling every single shot, and fired the kill shot himself. “planned and executed the attack”

And he didn’t sign a piece of paper with a plan already pre-made by the generals and experts which it would have political suicide to not sign…no this is the man who told the CIA to start tracking this terrorist, because before him they were doing nothing, this is the man  who trained the seals, who executed the surveillance, who led the brave soldiers into battle and who rid the world of evil.   “it’s President Obama who planned and executed the attack on al Qaeda that killed Osama Bin Laden.”

And how dare those goddamned Republicans not give him credit.  The way they’re acting you’d think all he did was make a no brainer political call that anyone in his position (okay, maybe not Ron Paul or Jimmy Carter) would have done and then just sat and watched it on the big screen TV with only slightly more interest than he paid to Game Seven of the World Series.  How dare you!


How dare you treat this man as anything short of Jesus Christ, George Washington, Superman and Jack Bauer rolled into one.  Shame on you Republicans.

It’s kind of telling that the point she goes to as his shinning achievement which he should be given credit for is one that must have taken immense character and courage to make such a unpopular choice.

Oh, and what is it with liberals and blinking (go on, click the link above and watch the video)…When we used to always go to Pelosi she would blink only when she would be making bad calls on the stock market (it’s amazing how well that woman can pick stocks…it’s like she had insider information or something)…but now we have this dingbat who blinks about 30 times a second.


Filed under Congress, GOP, Humor, Michele Bachmann, politics, War on Terrorism

This Is Why I’m Proud to Be an American

International Liberty

At a basic level, my attitude on patriotism is captured by this t-shirt. And hold the snarky comments. My view is not influenced by the woman modeling it.

Or, if you want something with more substance, this Penn & Teller routine is very instructive.

But this polling data, taken from a recent report from the Pew Research Center, captures what is great about American exceptionalism.

When I periodically express my patriotic feelings, I am celebrating my happiness that I live in a nation where a majority of people still favor liberty over dependency.

View original post

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Meditation of the Week: The Fifth Chakra

Someone pointed out that while I tied the first three chakras to the psychological outlook of certain psychologists (First Chakra—Adler, Second Chakra—Freud, Third Chakra—Jung) I had not done this with the 4th and 5th.  This was partly because I was waiting to get to the 5th because the only psychologist who I know of who covers these two is Abraham Maslow…also he is the last psychologist we’ll be dealing with because as there are so few people in the world rooted in the sixth and seventh chakras no one has yet to come up with a psychological make-up of saints and enlightened beings (although A Course in Miracles does come close).

Maslow’s psychology, based around his hierarchy of needs, actually coverers all the chakras.  The first level covers the needs and issues of the first two chakras, the second level the 2nd and third chakras, the third level which deals with companionship, friendship and love clearly deals with the 4th chakra, and his 4th level, esteem needs, covers the fifth or throat chakra.  The esteem needs are those, according to Maslow deal with self-esteem, achievement, and confidence.  We need to know our place and purpose in the world and embrace it with passion and vigor.  This is often why the fifth chakra is associated with artistic pursuits, because it is often through art that many people best express who they are and what they believe.  However one could just as easily do this through being an inventor, being a great businessman or manager…as long as you are doing what your are really good at and really enjoy you are in line with your 5th chakra and meeting the esteem requirements…granted not all of us have found that…that’s why we still have to do these little things, these small actions to spark the creative juices to help you connect you to what you should be doing.

So this week we’re back to silent meditation.  I want you to sit for at least 15 minutes each day (I’d prefer 15 straight minutes, but if you have to break it up into three five-minute periods that is okay) and while sitting  (lotus position if possible)  focus on your fifth chakra, the spinning blue circle in your throat and see it blindingly bright with light.  Then ask the universe “What am I meant to do?”  then clear your mind and listen carefully for an answer.  Try to keep your mind clear but notice what thoughts do come to you over the course of your meditation, they may be the answer you’re looking for.  If you can do this twice a day, once in the morning before you start your day (giving the universe a chance to answer you through some sign in your day) and once at night (giving the universe a chance to answer you in your dreams) so much the better. 

1 Comment

Filed under 4th Chakra, 5th Chakra, A Course in Miracles, Art, Chakra, Faith, Fifth Chakra, God, Happiness, Love, New Age, Prayer, Purpose of Life, Religion, Spirituality, Throat Chakra

In other horrifying news…

So apparently this weekend in an area of Brooklyn with a  large Jewish population there was a rash of vandalism and arsonist fires set.  The statements and choice of victims makes this clearly aimed at the Jewish

As I’ve been complaining for a while that Anti-Semitism, the barometer of evil in the Western World, has been on the rise in America and the  world in general and that the public has been far too lackadaisical about the  fact that evil is growing in strength and audacity right in front of them.

So why is this story any worse?  Why should it be more disturbing…

Well first  because it was pretty much buried by most of the media.  I couldn’t find this in the NY Times or any other major  media outlet. You think they were trying to ignore acts of Anti-Semitism while their most favoritest people in the whole wide world, OWS, were in town.   This is actually counterproductive for OWS as the lack of  coverage just makes it appear that it’s actually the OWS people behind this  perverse behavior and the liberal  media is just trying to hide that.

But there is something even worse.  This weekend was the anniversary of the Kristallnacht, the Nazi German night long attack on Jewish citizens and businesses.  It made Russian pogroms look pleasant.  The night it should have become obvious to the entire world that Hitler’s hateful words weren’t empty rhetoric but that actions would back up those words and genocide was guaranteed to follow.  The night that the lack of action by the German public and the rest of the world crossed the lines from foolishly naïve to criminal depraved indifference.  What makes this so terrible is that is means the Anti-Semites aren’t just saying and believing stupid things, they’re not even just acting on those evil beliefs…by trying to “honor” the evil of the Kirstallnacht it means they’re actively trying to embrace Nazism.  This should be a “oh shit” moment for all of us.  The evil that this suggests is coming back from the extreme fringe should be a horrific concept and it should be one that should make you stop and think.  When was the last time you heard someone say something even remotely Anti-Semitic, did you challenge their statement?  Did you berate them?  Did you force them to justify their prejudice  (which can’t be done)?  Did you  irrevocably humiliate them in front of everyone around?  If not, shame on you.  Every single trace of this evil needs  to be stamped out, preferably once and for all. Every statement, no matter how  seemingly harmless and innocuous, needs to be challenged.  Every rant needs to be berated. Every action needs to be punished with a harshness that exceeds the evil of individual  acts, because it’s not an individual act, Anti-Semitism has always been a  symptom of something far worse and far larger.  And we cannot let it rear its head ever again.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Occupy Wall Street, Tyranny

Tea Party vs OWS (Patriots vs. Thugs)

I am getting tired of people comparing the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street. Now I am not fully in support of the Tea Party, while I like what they stand for they need to prove to me that they can last beyond a single election…at that point I will whole heartedly say I am a Tea Party member (also assuming it stays solely focused on economics and ignores social issues). And the Tea Party hates the fact that the government gave bailouts to banks because it was a bad economic move…Occupy Wall Street hates that banks took the money (not so much with the government giving money)…but this is really the only place where the two movements kinda sorta touch…as an example of a Venn Diagram these two movements are a poor case. The Tea Party is asking for government to get out of the economy, the Occupy idiots are asking for the government to take charge.

But what really pissed me off is today I heard someone complain about the use of force to disperse the morons at Zuccati Park. The complaint went “They didn’t use police against the Tea Party.”

Could that be because while there was not a single murder at Tea Party rallies there has been one murder suspected to be in relation to Occupy Oakland and several rapes and sexual assaults at OWS

Or maybe because for the most part the craziest thing you see at a Tea Party rally is a guy in a tri-corner hat…whereas at Occupy there is (at last count) 271 major crimes

Maybe it’s because Tea Party members aren’t a massive collection of disease, lice, and drug resistant TB…Typhoid Occupy.

Maybe it’s because we can teach chimps more sophisticated hand signals.

Maybe it’s the Anti-Semitism

Maybe it’s the media bias that ignores all of this…

Maybe it was that endorsement by the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party.

Maybe it was the fact that, unlike the Tea Party, they have no ability to articulate even the most basic of core beliers.

But, you say. The Tea Party has problems too. They’re racists. Really? Because I looked to find evidence of that.

I found a conference of College Professors that said they could prove the Tea Party was racist because Tea Partiers support more border control and actually enforcing laws when it comes to illegal aliens.  Well you have me there because there could not possibly be any legitimate economic reasons to support border control, no, none whatsoever  …clearly the only possible reason is that they’re racists. No other logical option is open.

I couldn’t find much else. Hell I looked for just pictures of signs of idiots with racist comments at a Tea Party rally. I couldn’t find them. Now I’ll admit there has to be a portion of idiots at Tea Party rallies who have racist ideas, it’s all but impossible to get a group that big and not have a few assholes in the mix, but they don’t seem to be making a lot of noise in the movement. There is such a lack of evidence of racism in the Tea Party that it’s kind of funny to see what liberals trump up as evidence.
For instance this website ( Linked to someone’s blog at blogspot as proof that the Tea Party is racist. Because as you all know if one idiot who posts a blog is racist then every single organization that moron belongs to is nothing but hell-bent on establishing a pure Aryan race—without exception. If you have even one racist in your midst clearly your whole organization is corrupt to the core (unless of course you’re the perfectly saintly people of OWS, the evil in their midst, and the rap sheets must be ignored for these nearly divine soldiers for social justice…how dare you question them!)

Oh and I found this genius his proof that the Tea Party is a bunch of Anti-Semites?…well there was…
A picture from a Ron Paul campaign flyer…now Ron Paul is not a Tea Party candidate, he’s a libertarian, and we’ve always known him to be an Anti-Semite and lunatic.

A picture comparing ObamaCare to the Dachau…now it might have issues with tact…but this isn’t denying the Holocaust nor is it claiming it wasn’t terrible…such a sign merely is literarily or poorly hyperbolically stating that ObamaCare will end up killing people. How is that Anti-Semitic?

An Op-Ed (and we know all Op-eds from good liberal papers are to be treated ahead of the gospels in terms of their absolute truth) that says the Tea Partiers shouted the N-Word (Andrew Breitbart has offered a lot of money for tape of that…but it has strangely not shown up yet, it’s only a couple of years I’m sure it will turn up ) and recounting (read hearsay) that Rep. Anthony Weiner (remember him?) had Tea Party members shouting Anti-Semitic statements at him. Weiner was an ass and liar even back then so I would have doubted his word; that amazingly lacks any tangible proof from an event that supposedly occurred the week when ObamaCare was voted on…you know when you couldn’t throw a stone around the capital and not hit two camera crews.

A news article that White Supremacists were planning to recruit people at Tea Party rallies…yet strangely no follow up on how well that member ship drive went…although given the American Nazi Party’s endorsement of OWS, I’m going to guess they didn’t do all that well.

Really, that’s all they have I looked for over an hour to find better stuff. Nothing. No racist’s pictures, no rants on video about how we should all blame the Jews. Nothing legitimate. Hell I expected to find something, pure statistics said some lunatic should have wandered into a Tea Party rally and some liberal journalist would have recorded his rant. But no. Yet somehow FOX,, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, and a few bloggers have been able gather the plethora of evidence against OWS I have shown above (really it’s just the tip of the iceberg). Now the liberals were slobbering to find evidence of the evil at a Tea Party rally and couldn’t (and don’t for a second tell me that CNN, MSNBC, the main 3 networks, Huffingtonpost, NY Times, Washington Post and a dozen others weren’t better staffed than the conservative side of the journalism game…and yet they found nothing).

It’s insulting and intellectually dishonest to compare a real political movement to a collection of thugs, whiners, criminals, and scum. But that’s the kind of intellectual dishonest the left traffics in…

…and I dare anyone to find for me a video of someone at a Tea Party rally going off on an ant-Semitic rant, of anyone rapes at a Tea Party rally, or even of Tea Partiers leaving such massive piles of filth. I remember a story about someone showing up with a racist sign but they got yelled at and told to leave (something that you don’t see at OWS)…but that’s about as close as you come.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Occupy Wall Street, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, politics, Popular Culture, Taxes, Tea Party, Tyranny

What real conservatives care about…

So this stupid ad campaign for a clothing company I’ve never heard of has world leaders who by all rights should be at each other’s throats (because in almost all of them there is at least one person who makes the Who’s Who of World Most Evil Tyrants). The stupid statement on all of these is the non-word “Unhate.” Not anything as usual as maybe “Depose tyrants” or “Stand up to evil” or maybe even  “Evil must be opposed”…no Unhate. That’s right you should be deeply offended and disgusted by the numerous crimes against humanity that this lot has racked up—it’s wrong to not have revulsion at the sight of butchers like Mahmoud Abbas, Hu Jintao, Kim Jung Il, Hugo Chavez and the like.

But it’s a stupid ad, why should we care. After all the fashion industry regularly makes Hollywood look sane and middle of the road…
Well because these ads create the perfect way to determine who is a real conservative.

Look at this picture.

Now stupid people who are only in the Republican party because they oddly believe that “good Christians” are Republican and then want to use the government’s power to determine what you can and can’t do in your private life (a very, very liberal attitude about government) would see two men kissing and be offended by that.
Now a real conservative sees things differently. A real conservative takes a few moment to even realize they’re looking at a picture that is out of the social norm of heterosexuality…no a real conservative sees Obama getting all touchy feely with the Communist dictators and goes ballistic in the fraction of a second before they realize the photo is doctored. To hell with the genders, a real conservative is pissed about this man once again getting too close to our enemies (and after his long standing habit of groveling before any other head of state it almost seems plausible that first moment you see it)…so which did you first see?


And then there’s this picture.

You broke my heart Mahmoud, you broke my heart.

My blogging colleague, Dirty Sex and Politics, will likely get offended that her hero Netanyahu is cozying up to scum like Abbas…but my first reaction to this picture was farily pleasant. Why you ask? Well I like to think that this picture was taken in a similar situation to Michael kissing Fredo…

…granted such a comparison deeply insults Fredo…even that worthless, spineless excuse for a Corleone wasn’t nearly as terrible a person as Abbas…but I think we’re all hoping that Abbas soon meets Fredo fate.


What should the caption be on the Obama/Chavez lovefest picture?

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservative, Evils of Liberalism, Humor, Obama, Tyranny

Misconceptions about New Agers: That we’re just a bunch of hippie pacifists


Krishna drives Arjuna into battle

“Think thou also of thy duty and do not waver. There is no

greater good for a warrior than to fight a righteous war.

There is a war that opens the doors of heaven, Arjuna!

Happy the warriors whose fate is to fight such war.”

Krishna to Arjuna, Bhagavad-Gita 2:31-32

As I pointed out in Republicans and Reincarnation, New Agers would always prefer to deal with people through reasonable means—discussion, diplomacy, compromise. However, we’re not crazy (ok, there are lot of people who say they’re New Agers who are out of their minds…but this is not a problem that only New Agers seems to have, it seems to affect every religion…some in fact seem to be nearly entirely made up of genocidal lunatics) we realize that not all of the world is open to being rational and humane. There are people out there who will always resort to force and never use reason. And these people are not just sitting quietly and being miserable bastards in the back of their trailers. No, sadly far too many of them have acquired a disturbing amount of power and control over the lives of others (Kim Jung Il, Ayatollah Khameni, Ahmadinejad, Hu Jintao, Bashar al-Assad, Putin, a couple million Islamofacists, and a hoard of more petty criminals who are just out to torture one or two people in their immediate sphere of influence). There are people who will use violence to hurt other people as their first course of action—these people (I use the term loosely) cannot be reasoned with because they are beyond reason, they cannot be negotiated with because they are beyond being capable of being trusted, they cannot even be appeased because appeasement only means delaying a confrontation at the cost of someone else. And for these people the only way to deal with them is violence.

And New Agers recognize this. As New Agers we look to all the enlightened souls through the entire world’s history for guidance…

Oh look, here’s the cover to a New Age book…looks like a sword in his hand.

and when you do that you can see quite a bit of embracing violence when no other option is available. Christ didn’t exactly first engage the money changers in a polite conversation. Krishna didn’t advise Arjuna to sit down with his enemies and sing Kumbaya, no, he told him to go out and slaughter them to a man. Lao Tzu didn’t say peace was always the way, in fact he said that one must use weapons when no other option is available (Tao Te Ching 31) and to wage war in a rapid and surprise manner (57). Saint Joan of Arc killed quite a few people with the help of God. Even the Dalai Lama ordered the Tibetan Army to defend against the invading Chinese butchers. Granted peace is always preferable, but peace is an end to be achieved, not a means to be acted upon.

Pacifism is not the way of a New Ager as it says that the life that we have been given is worthless and that we will simply give in when confronted with violence, that we will cower to force rather than live our lives, and that we will sit quietly as others suffer.

Not on your life.

To be a New Ager is to want peace in both your soul and the world, but that means you must confront evil whenever and wherever you find it with all force appropriate. Violence is seldom appropriate, but when it is a question of your safety or the safety of another, then violence against someone who has initiated force is always preferable to letting the suffering continue.

As a modern example…the correct action for a New Ager if you had found Sandusky in the shower molesting a child: beat him to a state of unconsciousness with the nearest blunt instrument (if you want to go all the way to killing him I’ve got no issue with that, child molesters are possibly the sickest perversion of human life imaginable) and get the child away, then call the cops…clearly no one at Penn State is a good New Ager.

Now some very ignorant (and cowardly) people have tried to throw in my face that I have also used the mantra “I am love, I give love, I receive love” as being in contradiction to my strong defense of national security and harsh punishment of violent criminals. They see that this New Age sentiment is somehow in contradiction to the willingness to defend those who are suffering. This shows that some people don’t understand what love is. Love is an expression of our souls that recognizes the worth and value of the soul in people around us. Violence initiated against the innocent is pretty much in direct opposition to that emotion—and while I don’t believe in some kind of personified version of evil (like the devil), those actions are evil, and they must be stopped because they desecrate the value and sanctity of the soul, they are so opposed to the idea of love that someone who is dedicated to loving others must be dedicated to doing everything in their power to stopping those actions. Yes, maybe we can talk and reason and rehabilitate the person who initiated the violence once they have been stopped, but the violence has to stop first. And in any conflict that would require violence (i.e. one where violence of some kind has already been initiated and where you are in a position to do something about it) everyone has the choice to either do nothing or to use violence to stop the person at fault…to do nothing is choice that sides with the that which is opposed to love, it put all action on a completely morally relevant scale and says there is no good or evil, no right or wrong to justify the fact that such a choice is wrong and is evil.  To not help when you can is always evil and about as opposed to love as it gets.

For individuals this means first and foremost you have to incarcerate them if possible (or kill them if that is not a viable option). For governments like the tyrannies of Iran, China, Cuba, Syria, Libya (this list could go on) these governments must be removed first because negotiating with nations whose stated policy is evil is only giving sanction to their evil…and it’s about as opposed to the concept of love as you can get. To embrace the cowardly pacifism as the person who chided me over the seeming contradiction of love and acting against terrorists seemed to imply, would be to say that I do not value the lives of those who are suffering, it would be to say that those who have given into their worst inclinations should not be stopped, that their violence was acceptable—it would be to give into indifference which is something even worse than violence or hate.

A good way I would suggest to deal with all violence is the advice, “Never start a fight, but always finish them.”

1 Comment

Filed under Faith, Free Will, God, Love, New Age, Religion, Spirituality, Tao Te Ching, Tyranny

With Friend’s like these, who needs benefits…Words of Wisdom from Paul Krugman’s long lost twin…

So I saw this bullshit in the Pravda—I mean the New York Times.  I will just intersperse my commentary liberally.  First off there is the title “Friend with Benefits” by Charles M. Blow…only a liberal could think of using a pun on universally acknowledged psychologically, socially and emotionally destructive practice as a way to describe how much he loves government.  Only a liberal can be so dumb as to not see how this just lends itself to comment about getting screwed.

Government is not the enemy.

Well he lost me here

  Not always.

We’ll he’s right sometimes other government are the enemy

 Don’t believe that right-wing malarkey.

As opposed to liberal bullshit?

In fact, for millions of Americans down on their luck and at the end of their rope, they can quickly find that government is their last friend left.

Like your crack dealer, he may have been the one who got you into the end of the rope situation to begin with, but he’s always there to offer you another hit

Governmental assistance can prevent the certainty of a hungry night and a homeless tomorrow.

Yeah, let’s just ignore that the government is at the heart of the reason for the terrible economic downturn and why you were ever even allowed to buy a house you couldn’t afford that when it went into foreclosure your entire life savings were destroyed, yes let’s just ignore how much responsibility the government likely had in you being in that position in the first place.

It can mean the difference between the comfort of stability and the ravages of poverty.

Yes, yes it can.  When government gets involved you have the ravages of poverty, when government is treated as the enemy and forced to mind its own business you have the comfort of stability

This function is now more important than ever, even as it is under more pressure than ever.

Yes, it has caused nothing but problems so far, so EVEN  MORE GOVERNMENT clearly will fix the problems. What the hell is Blow on?

We learned this week that not only are there more poor people in America than had been previously reported, but that the only thing keeping millions more out of poverty are the very same social safety net programs that many Republicans despise.

Or you could look at it as the only thing keeping them on the government teat is the Obama administration’s refusal to do anything that would actually create jobs…reduce regulations, kill ObamaCare, not sue states in favor of illegal immigrant, not back unions, not bailout losing companies, approve a pipeline  that would actually create 20,000 just to build the damn thing…let alone the reduced energy costs that would help all businesses…no let’s not look at how Obama and the Democrats are doing EVERYTHING in their power to stop economic recovery.

For decades, experts on both sides of the poverty debate have complained that the official government measure is flawed because it doesn’t account for measures like benefits from government programs, health care costs or taxes.

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?  I love the liberal habit of making massive jumps in the topic without any transition…it models their rather schizophrenic logic pattern.

So, to address those concerns, the Census Bureau this week released a Supplemental Poverty Measure, or S.P.M. The new measure changed the composition of the poor but found that it was a larger group — the official 2010 poverty rate was 15.2 percent, but the S.P.M. rate was 16 percent.

Because we just didn’t have enough people to treat as victims.  I love how he admits that the Obama administration massaged the numbers to make them look worse, but he sees no problem with this.  Also if the number is 0.8% off when poverty is at its highest—Thanks Barrack for that—that means during good economic times that difference is probably even smaller.  I’m sorry but 0.8% error in social science statistics is pretty insignificant…but I wouldn’t expect liberals to actually know anything about the social science, or economics, or politics, or logic, or math, or common sense, or, well, anything.

Even more important, the report highlighted the role government programs play in mitigating it.

But conveniently ignored the role government programs play in causing it, it’s nice how liberals don’t ever look at the whole picture.

 Many of these programs were expanded under the Obama administration with the much-maligned stimulus package. we subsidized poverty and poverty grew…who would have guessed

 Now many of those expansions are scheduled to expire

Thank God!

 and a new crop of callous

Callous is a liberal term for “they can do math and know when they don’t have the money to pay for things”

Republicans threaten to not just trim the fat but to cut the meat.

Yes, because in this case the meat is on a carcass that has been lying out in the sun rotting for the last couple of weeks.

For instance, the report shows that if the earned income tax credit, a refundable tax credit for low-to-moderate-income workers designed to offset Social Security taxes and encourage work, was not included in the S.P.M., the poverty rate would jump from 16 percent to 18 percent. For children, it would jump from 18.2 percent to 22.4 percent.

So if we don’t count money they have people appear to be poor…well no shit…if you just ignored all the money I made I would look poor…hell if you ignored all the money Bill Gates made he would look poor…did you know that most of those in poverty (as defined by the census bureau) also have a refrigerator, more than one TV, a stove, a microwave, air conditioning, a DVD player, cable, a cell phone, a washer and dryer…indeed these people are without means and kept alive only by the government.

the stimulus bill increased the credit for people with three or more children

That would be people who can’t do the math that says birth control pills are cheaper than children…yeah I so want to subsidize these morons to continue imitating rabbits

 and for married people so they would not have to face a “marriage penalty.”

Hey, here’s a wacky thought, why not just get rid of the marriage penalty in the tax code?  Oh wait because that would mean we wouldn’t get to continue bleeding the middle class dry.

  Those increases will expire next year. Furthermore, as The Christian Science Monitor’s Tax VOX blog points out, almost all of the Republican presidential candidates’ economic plans would “cut back or eliminate refundable tax credits.”

Yes, because they’re getting rid of all or almost all loopholes, which will mean the rich will get taxed more…but we can’t have that we have cronies like Warren Buffet and GE to bailouts.

As for the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program for food stamps, the report says that without it, the overall poverty rate would move from 16 percent to 17 percent and for children it would move from 18.2 percent to 21.2 percent.

Hmmm…given what I’ve seen people with food stamps buy while they waddle around looking like Jabba the Hut, and that goes for their little oompa loompa spawn as well, I don’t think they would exactly be starving if ended the food stamps, they just wouldn’t be buying steak.  You want to continue programs like WIC, fine that limits it the things you actually need.

The stimulus bill increased financing for food stamps, but those increases are being phased out. And, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has pointed out, the Paul Ryan Republican budget presented earlier this year proposed slashing nutrition assistance by $127 billion over 10 years.

Translation in real terms: we’re cutting the fruit cups out of school lunch programs…you know, the ones we all threw away when we were in elementary school because they tasted like crap…I mean tasted like they were bought by a government buyer…oh there also seems to be some kind or program called “Senior Farmer’s Market Nutritin Program”…wtf…senior can go to the normal farmer’s market like the rest of us).

Obama’s stimulus package may not have provided the jolt to the economy that the country wanted and needed,

and while this may sound like the first honest thing he’s said, it’s not admitting what damage the stimulus did to the economy.

 but it no doubt kept a jobs and poverty crisis from becoming a catastrophe.

Actually it created a catastrophe, much like if you actually knew anything about economics FDR extended the Great Depression rather than being the savior from it.

 The administration’s inability to effectively convey that point is its own catastrophe.

Well it’s hard to convince someone you just shived that you’re doing them a favor, so I understand the Obama administration’s problem in selling their destructive policies.

A vast majority of people now believe that Obama’s economic policies have failed.

Yeah, that would be called those people who live in reality.

After Republicans hammered that point for so long, most people can only see what didn’t get better, not what didn’t get worse. (What didn’t get worse because of Obama’s programs…umm…union stranglehold on America, corruption and cronyism, the Chinese economy) A Gallup poll released on Wednesday found that 67 percent of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy.

Thus showing that 33% of the country may quite possibly be mentally challenged or living in a cave.

This level of dissatisfaction makes people open to his cartoonish competitors’ Grinch-ish

Very mature ad-hominem attack…oh that’s right we’re going to steal Christmas from you…we mean evil terrible Republicans are going to steal everything from you …and you know what we’re going to tax your Christmas tree too…oh wait, no that wasn’t the GOP…who was the Grinch this week?

 alternatives to economic policy

alternative to socialism, i.e. an economic plan that works

 which invariably means the rich would get more  and pay less

Because that’s why the Ryan plan would close all the loopholes, because we want the rich to pay less…huh?

 and the poor would pay more get less

if by get less you mean they would have fewer handouts and actually have jobs which they would have to WORK for their livelihood, then yes…I am so glad that liberals don’t engage in class warfare.

At Wednesday’s debate, Michele Bachmann said that everyone should pay at least “the price of two Happy Meals a year” in taxes. And this is a candidate for president. Of The United States.

The bizarre place to put the period, plus the fact that President should be capitalized aside…she’s right everyone should pay taxes.  If you’re going to enjoy the benefits you should contribute at least something to the general coffers…that’s not just fair, a word liberals love all too much, that’s just, a word that means nothing to a bleeding heart.

The Tax Policy Center has found that Herman Cain’s now-famous 9-9-9 would cause 84 percent of families to pay higher taxes. Even After Cain changed his tune and said “if you’re at or below the poverty level, your plan isn’t “9-9-9, it’s 9-0-9,” an expert with the Tax Policy Center told NPR that “we’d still expect to see close to 84 percent of families being made worse off by the Cain plan.”

Yes, and who was the first person to point out the compounding nature of 9% sales tax…that would be Michele Bachmann…but I have no problem with the 53% who don’t pay taxes now starting to pay taxes…further this doesn’t take into account that even with the overly high 9-9-9 (somewhere in the 5-7% seems more economically reasonable) that the economy would skyrocket with logical taxation and regulation which means that 100% of the people would probably be in a better position.

In Wednesday’s debate, Mitt Romney reiterated, with a straight face, that he prefers to let the foreclosure process happen instead of hold off “the normal market process,” or in plain English: help people to stay in their homes (as the Obama administration is attempting to do).

Homes which they can’t afford, homes which are artificially inflating the market, which is keeping people from buying homes at prices they can pay…yes we need to keep prices at a level where you need a handout to purchase them…heaven forbid we should eve r let the market make things affordable, what would people do if they didn’t need to rely on the government.

The lack of empathy for the poor and suffering on the part of the right is nothing short of breathtaking.

And your fucking lack of intelligence is astounding.  So we should screw the next 3 generations so a small portion of whining idiots can have houses they shouldn’t have bought in the first place.  We should make our children suffer so you can be comfortable today.  It’s your absolute inability to think about anything but the immediate moment that shows that you, Mr. Blow, and your liberal brethren are the selfish bastard who have no empathy, who are incapable of thinking of anyone but yourselves, demanding that others live to serve you and your illogical desires without any regard for the people who do have to pay the bill and the children who will inherit unspeakable debt.  A short period of pain and economic downturn would be far superior to the generation suffering you’re advocating. You’re not just lacking in empathy, you’re a goddamn sociopath.

And it comes as Gallup reported on Thursday that, “Americans’ access to basic needs is now at the lowest level recorded since Gallup and Healthways began tracking it in January 2008.” It explained that, “the Basic Access Index — which comprises 13 measures, including Americans’ ability to afford food, housing, and health care — declined to a record-low score of 81.2 in October. This means Americans’ access to basic needs, though still high in an absolute sense, is now worse than it was throughout the economic crisis and recession.”

Actually the low point was in 2009, but don’t let facts get in the way…the more important part to consider it this is not a scientific analysis of poverty it’s asking people “Have there been times in the past 12 months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?” I have the feeling that this American is confusing want with need.  Not making what you need would probably mean you’re living in the poverty of the third world.  It more likely means that people had to go to rice and cheap vegetables.  Which I don’t care about—you’re not entitled to good food, you have to earn it!

And a Brookings Institution report released last Thursday said that “after declining in the 1990s, the population in extreme-poverty neighborhoods — where at least 40 percent of individuals live below the poverty line — rose by one-third from 2000 to 2005-9.”

You mean when Obama rolled back welfare reform and started paying for producing litters every year population went up in those areas. Shocking.  I’m also shocked that’s there is gambling going on at Rick’s.

The Obama administration is far from perfect,

much like evil is far from good or stupid far from intelligent

  and government is not beyond becoming bloated and being abused,

you have to love how he mentions bloating and abuse like it’s some theoretical thing for which there are no examples of right now, it must be very nice to live in his reality where pretty pink unicorns power the economy

but right is right and truth is truth: government can play a very positive role in protecting the less-well-off from the interests of the more-well-off, and this administration’s view of government is much more benevolent than those of the people who are seeking to unseat it.

Saying truth is truth right before making a patently false statement doesn’t make your lie anymore true, no matter how much you’d like it to.  Government can do good for the poor by providing the laws and rules of capitalism and providing opportunity for self improvement, what this idiot is talking about never works.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Conservative, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Michele Bachmann, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

7 Billion People, The Problems It Can Cause, And the Staggering Lack of Options

Here is a topic I’ve heard discussed in the last few days so I thought I should throw my two cents in…
So last week we hit 7 billion people on the planet (give or take).

7 billion people.


This is insane!

Now some people will say that I’m the one who is crazy. That my adherence to the basic principles of Malthus are out-dated. But they’re wrong.

For a brief refresher, Thomas Malthus said that available resources grow arithmetically (2,4,6,8,10) over time while population grows geometrically (2,4,8,16,32) every generation. So after a time the population will always out strip the available resources…this will result in war, famine, disease, and of course death. Yes all four horsemen for the low, low price of not keeping our hormones in check.

Critics like to point out that the industrial revolution prevented this by allowing resources to grow with population. Which is not exactly true. Yes, the industrial revolution did help readjust the curve of how quickly we can replenish our resources. However, it did not entirely destroy the Malthus crisis it just delayed it. Also one of the advantages of the industrialized world is lower population growth. In fact if you subtract immigration the industrialized world had near zero to negative population growth…yes it’s amazing when you provide enough education to appreciate other things you have more to do for entertainment than just that one thing.

One just needs to look at Sub-Saharan Africa to know that Malthus’ dire predictions about limited resources is still with us. One just has to look at the current level of fresh water in the world and the rather staggering lack of plans to build desalinations plants anywhere in the world to know that even in the industrialized world we may soon find ourselves back where Malthus warned us about.

So where does that leave us? Well, water, to a lesser degree oil and a few other things are limited resources. And we can’t get 7 billion people up to first world standards of living right now on the resources that we currently have…and yes that should be our goal, getting everyone in the world up to a first world standard of living. Does that mean everyone will be rich? No. But it will mean everyone will have the opportunity to make themselves well off.

So how do we do that?

We either need to (A) suddenly and miraculously produce a lot of new resources or we can try to (B) slow or decrease population growth.

Option A is a bit of a pipe dream. A wonderful one, and I hope that story about cold fusion out of Italy turns out to be legitimate…but I’m not holding my breath. It still doesn’t solve that problem with fresh water …although I hear the UAE is working on that  (It’s just amazing what you can do in the Middle East when the majority of your country isn’t a bunch of !@#$%^ psychos but rather a westernized constitutional government with one of the highest literacy rates in the world).
…so hoping for the miracle cure to provide a way out may be a little short sighted…

The problem that slowing or decreasing population growth is even more problematic. It shouldn’t be. If all of Africa saw a 10% population decrease due to few births over the next decade it would probably explode in terms economic and political stability. Africa has infrastructure and growth, but it’s never fast enough to keep up with a growing populace. If the population dropped by 10% you would find that you would suddenly have infrastructure that could handle the current populace which would result in a cascade effect in improving people’s quality of life. But you can’t just decrease the population.

Why? Because there is pretty much no way to do it.

Oh sure China has some remarkable success with the one-child policy, but mass genocide is I think for most sane people obviously off the table before the discussion even starts. Also out are such horrendous crimes against humanity as forced sterilization, permits for having children, and putting birth control in the water. I only mention these because I see some idiot putting these as a suggestion in the comment box with an arrogant tone that suggests I didn’t consider every possibility. Trust me I gave evil as much consideration as it deserves. None.

Then some might suggest we simply add a tax to every child, around a $100 per child per year (or the rough equivalent portion of the average income for each country). On the face of it this seems to make some sense as people with children get the most out of governments (education being the least of it). And when you tax something you get less of it, so this would lead to lower population growth. However as I want all taxes to switch to pure sales tax (which would hit those with children more anyway) I can’t quite fully support this. Further, the countries that need a smaller population to aid in the growth of their quality of life are not exactly known for quality tax collection systems (corrupt ones perhaps, but not efficient ones), so that probably won’t end up being the deterrent to population growth that we would hope it would be.

(Oh and in case you’re wondering the heavy use of gender selective abortions that seem very prevalent outside of the West makes me shy away from advocating abortion.)

One could argue that we could improve efforts of distributing birth control…because that has worked so well in American high schools. If anything more birth control only encourages people to have more sex which seems to always find that 1% of the birth control isn’t effective…but, pragmatics aside, given that the places that could benefit from slowing population growth are often heavily Catholic and you’d need the Pope to actually change church policy (forget that the whole “be fruitful and multiply” thing was supposedly said when there 6.999,999,998 fewer people on the planet) …so I’d expect that cold fusion thing I mentioned above to work first.

So what’s left? Pray for a pandemic? Well there is one option left but it’s not a quick fix, in fact it’s as long term a solution as it gets. What is that solution? Keep exporting capitalism and democracy, free trade, and globalization. The fact is that once you’re a first world nation your population growth slows down. We need to get the rest of the world up to a first world standard. That means we need to take down trade barriers, we need to use our charity to these countries more efficiently (building infrastructure (roads, electricity, water and sewer, schools, hospitals) is far more caring than sending drugs or food, as in the long run it will help far, far more people). We need to take down dictatorships as those are the largest hindrances to economic growth. It’s not a simple answer or a quick one, but it’s the only one that will actually work.


Filed under Capitalism, Economics, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, politics, Taxes, Tyranny

Laws for the GOP to Pass: Last weekly blog in the series, Stop subsidizing bad behavior

Basic psychology. If you reward a behavior you will get more of it. If you repeatedly reward a behavior you will get more of it. So the worst thing anyone could do is reward bad behavior…and even the dumbest person in the world, even before B.F. Skinner, knows this. So how stupid do you have to be to be a government that does just that?

So while I have covered bits and pieces of this basic concept, the entire U.S. government needs to adopt a policy that we need to stop subsidizing and encouraging bad behavior.

Let’s take a look at some ways we do this. Do you run a crappy business? Is it about to go belly up because you make the worst product in your field, have the dumbest advertising, the most inane management and you pay unskilled workers more than most college graduates make. Well don’t worry because someone in the government will say you’re “Too big to fail.” So you get to keep doing everything that made you a business that is eventually going to fail. Why do we do this? Do we think that businesses succeeding or failing is just something random and not directly a result of the choices made by that business? Businesses succeed because of good practices, not because of bad luck. Bailing out the losers only rewards the losers and prevents the people who have good practices from expanding to fill the gap.

Or how about this one?  Have you done something absolutely brain dead like not save for retirement? Don’t worry we’re going to pay you 140% of what you paid into to our Ponzi scheme. Why should you save, you’ll have life subsidized no matter how poorly you planned or saved. And for the kicker, not only did you raise terrible children who won’t let you come and move in with them (thus also hurting all of society by the fact that you didn’t teach them even a small piece of charity) but you’re now going to screw not just your children again, but also your grandchildren by having to pay for the fact that we like to reward your inability to plan for something that there is actually no question will occur.

Then of course there is Medicaid and Medicare. Yes we all get sick, we all get old and our bodies all break down and die. But let’s be honest here most of the money is spent on entirely preventable conditions (heart disease, lung diseases, Type II diabetes…hell most cancer have a certain amount of behavior and bad habits as their cause). The more idiotic your decisions the more rewarded you get with more and more money spent on your numerous medical problems.

And then of course we have welfare. Did you not study in school and are thus completely un-hirable? Well let’s give you money. Do you not go to find a job no matter how far below your ideal job it might be? Don’t worry we’ll give you money. We won’t require that you get an education, do a certain amount of community service, or even go look for a job…no we’re just going to give you money.

Now with all of these we need to stop rewarding bad behavior. Some of these programs we just need to kill (Bailouts, social security, Medicaid and Medicare) and others like welfare we need to require certain things like requiring good behavior (like making all payments dependant on education and community service).

With every single expenditure made by the government we need to start asking are we encouraging good behavior or subsidizing bad ones? And if the answer is we are wasting money encouraging bad behavior we need to not pay for it. If we just followed this basic principle then it would save us trillions of dollars in the long run.

1 Comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Charity, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, politics, Unjust legislation, Welfare

A video that reminds me why I love this country, and why we’re better than everyone else.

Take a moment and watch this video…

Yes, if you have even a shred of a brain and a shred of conscience you probably would love to see a sequel to this video where someone punches this girl so hard that she loses several teeth and is permanently disfigured. Sadly there is no such video of someone making her external appearance match the sick black hole that passes for her soul. But once the rage has passed let me remind you that a moment like this should be cherished for the many reasons it reminds us of why America is so great…

Let the cognitive dissonance pass, and let me explain.

First I’d like to point out something about her courage. She says what many liberals think but are afraid to say, and she should be commended for that. Granted she doesn’t have the stones that her hippie forefathers had to actually go up to a soldier spit right in their face and call them a baby-killer, but we must give the devil his due. She is leagues ahead of many of her liberal colleagues. But why is this one of the reasons why America is great? Well just imagine if she had tried this in one of those countries which, according to her, are not our enemies. Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, Libya (pre and post Kaddafi), Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan (again, pre and post), Pakistan, China, North Korea, Tunisia, and Russia (yes even still to this day). Well first, half of those countries as a woman she would never have even been allowed near a computer and even if she had posted a video about how great Allah was (while wearing her legally required burqa) she still would have been stoned to death. If she had said the same things about any of those countries’ soldiers as she said about her own country’s she would likely have been kidnapped in the night, probably raped and tortured before being killed herself. If she was lucky she would have a show trial. And in China they’d charge her family the cost of the bullet used to shoot her. But not here in America. This is a country where you can literally go up and spit in a soldier’s face and at most face a misdemeanor assault charge.

What other country lives so fully the ideal of “I will defend your right to say things I find morally abhorrent to the death” as the United States. Granted we’re not too hot on libel, slander, fraud, inciting violence that present a clear and present danger, obscenity (which is rather haphazardly enforced) and…and…I think that’s about it. What other country does that. Even most of the other nations of the Western world have some limitations on free speech, usually in the areas of racism and hatred against religions…but only one has to look at how such P.C. speech codes protect the truly violent and vicious from being attacked and cause true and civil discussion to be gagged. What other country does that?

And what other country can trust its soldiers to control themselves well enough that they don’t immediately rip out the throat of wretches like this girl with all of that deadly force we have trained them to have. Few and far between.

Now granted, she is right to point out that there has been some atrocious behavior committed by members of armed services.  But two things should be noticed. One we don’t go to the lengths other governments do to cover these things up (destroying documents, threatening news outlets, etc.). UN troops (read not US) have a history of raping and murdering the population they’re supposed to be protecting. (also see Eric Shawn’s the UN Exposed if you want to know how corrupt this organization is). The difference is that while our military has a few bad apples (show me any group of over a 100,000 people who are all saints) other governments actually dedicate themselves to butchering others. The difference is that we know about all of our atrocities (which are few and far between compared to other countries) because we don’t go to great unethical lengths to hide them (yes there’s always some idiot in the government doing a half-assed job, but it’s nothing compared to the evil of other governments). And we’re one of the few governments that prosecute those who defile the uniform of our military—and last time I checked military prisons were not pleasant places. Again you don’t see a lot of that in most of the world. The fact is that even in many countries that profess free speech, this girl would be dead. But not in America.

Still on the freedom of speech side you have to love the fact that you can make wildly inaccurate statements and not have the government coming for you and throwing you in prison. You have the right to be wrong in this country. For instance she says we’ve killed millions in Iraq, it’s closer to a hundred thousand or so …but liberals were never very good with numbers. She is right that it’s offensive with what we pay over half of every tax dollar on. But actually we don’t spend 51% of the government’s money on the military (that’s about 20% of the budget) we spend over half the budget on inefficient, evil and destructive socialist programs. But when did liberals ever let little things like facts get in the way.  Oh and her statement that the troops are dumb, as I pointed out in Republicans and Reincarnation, the average person in the military actually scores higher on every test of intelligence than their civilian counterparts. As to evil, yes it’s so horrendous wanting to defend people like her so you have the liberty to smear the people who make you safe at night. As for morally compromised, show me one reservist who is making more money being in the military, show me one person who signs up for a second tour who couldn’t find a better paying job with their highly trained skills. To find someone dumb and evil I would suggest this girl buys a mirror, to find morally compromised I would suggest she goes to a DNC meeting where people say they support the troops and then create policy that does the opposite (not that Bush not having a plan for occupation was particularly great either). But only in a country like this, where people have near unlimited freedom of speech, do we know that someone like this is a vile excuse for a human as she really is. In no other country would there be such a wonderful sign for all other human beings to ostracize someone like this or the Westboro Baptists. How would we know if they weren’t allowed to express their filth.

And because of this freedom to express evil and ignorance we know when people are stupid and horrendous, only in America, which is why I support this dimwit’s right to not support the troops, and why this is a great nation.


Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Budget, China, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Declaration, Evils of Liberalism, First Amendment, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Libya, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny, War on Terrorism