Monthly Archives: March 2012

Rick Santorum. Psychopath or idiot? You decide.

So over the weekend Santorum claimed that Romney will not get 1144 delegate and this whole thing will go to a brokered convention (where this idiot seriously believes he’ll get the nomination).

So, I think the fact that it’s likely in my opinion to go to a convention.
I think it’s increasingly likely, not certain, but increasingly likely, actually is a good thing for the Republican Party, and a good thing for our chances in the Fall.

Uh-huh. Is that because he won a victory in Louisiana and a net gain of five whole delegates? I hate to tell him this but while we have nothing this week we have Wisconsin (Romney +13), Maryland (no poll data, but it’s hideously unlikely to go to Santorum based on demographics) and D.C. (where once again Santorum showed his truly stellar ability to handle the responsibilities of being a chief executive and failed to even make the ballot…seriously two states he didn’t qualify for, one of them the state he lives in, and two states he didn’t submit a full slate of delegates. I’ve never heard of a campaign so incompetent. I wonder how long President Santorum will go before someone tells him he forgot to fill 3 cabinet positions?) Which, on a winner take all system would mean that Romney would have a gain (net and gross) of 100 delegates.

Now while Santorum doesn’t trust that iffy math stuff, I did see one Santorum supporter try to point out that there is no true winner take all system with any of the states. I’m not going to link the article to spare you their truly bad logic but let’s deal with that semi-intelligent argument.
There are very few states who have the vast majority of the their delegates as winner take all. In fact, as everyone tracking the delegates knows, every state comes with 3 RNC officials who are not bound by their states’ votes. Okay fair enough. And many of the supposedly winner-take-all states, like California, have some of their delegates as a state-wide winner take all and majority of their delegates tied to winner-take-all or proportional elections in congressional districts. This means that even though Romney is up 20 points in “winner-take-all” California, Santorum will probably come out with a dozen delegates from California after all.

But let’s look at how the race actually shapes up. According to RealClearPolitics Romney currently has 565 delegates. Of all the states that have already voted 1187 delegates were up for grabs and 1028 have been awarded (which means 159 are unbound and still up for grabs…keep this number in mind it will be sort of relevant later.

Now using the Washington Post’s more detailed description of how all the states allocate their delegates I’ve pulled up this chart with some healthy guesstimates on how Romney will fair in all of these states. (Pennsylvania and Indiana have delegates chosen by the State Party itself and I believe that these favor Romney in the extreme. Nebraska delegates are assigned by the party who use the primary as a reference…whatever that means. And Montana like Missouri delegates are unbound).

Now, a word on my logic. The states with polls I based mostly on those polls, with I would say a conservative estimate of Romney’s gains. The states without polls, I believe it was safe to assume Maryland, DC, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Utah are in the Romney camp. I seriously underestimated Romney’s odds in the South and Midwest, making sure that the percentage of delegates was well below his average in those states from those areas that have already voted. This projection rather preposterously assumes that Romney will get NOTHING from Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and none of the popularly elected delegates from Pennsylvania.

This projection gives Romney another 600 throughout the rest of the primary. Added to the 565 he already has…that makes for a Grand Total of…drum roll please…One-Thousand-One-Hundred-Sixty-Five! Which I believe is 21 over 1144.

Now I’m sure you could argue that my number might be overestimating how Romney will perform in this or that state. Okay, fair enough. But first is that over and above what he will gain from Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania? Unlikely. And even if it is, remember I said I said from the states that have voted there are still 159. Now some of these are from Missouri which voted heavily for Santorum…but it would be silly to think that Ricky is going to get all of them. Romney has been averaging 54% of delegates (and doing even better with the RNC officials which most of these votes are) so it would be safe to say that he will get 50 of those as well. So for this to be a brokered convention Rick would have to knock 71 delegates away from Romney. Go on look at that chart…where is he going to do that?

Some other things to consider. Each week Romney’s numbers keep going up. He’s running double digit leads in Gallup, Rasmussen, CBS polls. After his blowout on April 3rd those numbers are going to go higher. Now Santorum supporters keep banging the empty-headed drum of “If Newt would just get out of the race”…except Gallup actually looked into that…it would appear that Newt voters are more or less split down the middle with half having Romney as their second choice and half backing two lame horses and picking Santorum as their second choice. (Actually since most Santorum supporters are merely anti-Mormon bigots, it would make Newt a more viable candidate for Rick to drop out). So no matter what happens Romney is going to keep being in a better and better position. This will have a dual of effect of some people jumping on the bandwagon (I don’t get it, but it does happen) and Santorum voters getting discouraged and becoming more likely to stay home during the primary. With both, the vote keeps skewing more and more towards Romney…thus making finding those 71 net delegates to take from Romney a task so hopeless Don Quixote and Sisyphus would just give up.

But that doesn’t stop Rick. No. He keeps going on and never backing down. He says quite point blank that Obama is better then denies saying exactly what he said. Then he says Romney is the worst candidate (apparently Rick doesn’t own a mirror) and this time says that it’s “bullshit” to ask him why he said what he said (and he did say it). And in amongst all of this there is the claim that the media is biased in favor of Romney. Would that be right-wing media? You know with Rush, Beck, Hannity, Gretta, Levin, Reagan and Malkin so solidly in your camp they repeat your lies without question? Or the left-wing media which ignores that you said Protestants were servants of Satan, that you admired Jerry Sandusky AFTER his first accusation of child molestation, that if your daughter was raped and got pregnant from that terrible event it would be a “Gift from God,” that you actually did speculate on states outlawing contraceptives, that you clapped when someone suggested all non-Christians leave America, that you said women were not fit for combat, and in your book stated you hate everything America stands for. If Romney had said half of those things they would be run for hours every day for weeks on end until he had to resign in shame…but you Ricky, you get a pass (or you would until you were the nominee when the big guns come out and blow you out of the water…but as it’s impossible for you to win, you get a pass). The media already pick Romney apart, eager to take any of his quotes out of context to try and hit him. You have full statements which make me question your sanity and I have to dig to find some of them. And you think the media is backing Romney? Are you stupid or just crazy?

Probably crazy as he gets more outrageous every single day.

Watching Santorum’s campaign is like watching The Caine Mutiny where Humphrey Bogart’s character, Commander Queeg, has a complete mental breakdown while on the stand during the court-martial of officers for raising a very justified mutiny against him.

The only difference is that halfway through his breakdown Queeg realized how crazy he sounded. Not only has Santorum not realized what a nutjob he is, but his acolytes haven’t figured out that their holy messiah is a psychopath yet either.


Filed under Capitalism, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Mitt Romney, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum

Atheists try and portray themselves as the religion of peace…when they are anything but

So I saw this mind-numbingly stupid statement on Facebook today.

“Militant Muslims blow up car bombs and commit acts of terrorism. Militant Christians blow up abortion clinics and gun down abortion doctors. Militant atheists might just hurt your feelings.”

Now as I’ve said before, atheists are idiots, because they are also a religion–they have a belief system based on an unprovable tenet of faith.  The difference being is every other religion knows it is using faith, whereas atheists mistake faith for reason and get hysterical when someone points this out to them.  Why was Socrates smarter than the rest of the Athens, because while he didn’t know more than they did, he knew he didn’t know.

There are a few ways to deal with this.  Let’s run through most of them.

Militant atheists who killed lots of people.  Tim McVeigh of Oklahoma city bombing fame who said “science was his religion” and indentified himself as an agnostic , Jared Lee Loughner the Arizona shooter didn’t believe in God, and Anders Behring Breivik that crazy guy in Norway last year (whose manifesto included “I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment” and called himself a “Christian-atheist.”  I seem to remember these non-religious schmucks killing some people.  Hell when you consider percentage wise the number of Christian in the world (about 35% of the world) versus the number of these “Christian militants” (maybe 1 or 2 every couple of years) compared to the total number of Atheists in the world (about 10% of the world) versus a relatively comparable number of atheistic psychos (maybe 1 or 2 every couple of years), on a per capita basis atheists seem to be a far more dangerous group of people.  But even that would be unfair because in both cases that is taking a few psychos and trying to blame whichever group name you want to apply to them.  Let me be clear, there is not a group, organization, religion, profession, ethnicity, or whatever designation you want to pick that doesn’t have a few crazies…because these groups consists of human beings and the human nature and statistics means that every so often you get a lunatic in the mix.

No, a more fair comparison would be to look at what happens when a religion gets in complete power and enforces their beliefs as law.  Now, without question a secular government which does not give preference to one religion over another is always preferable…but secularism is not enforced atheism.  A secular government does not forbid the display of religion or the acknowledgement of widely held religious beliefs; it merely does not impede others from practicing their own religion.  Banning all examples of religion in government would be an atheistic state religion, just as banning all other religions to the support of only one would be a religious government.

Now you’d have to be an idiot to apply all wars where one side (or both) sides were religious, because no matter how religious the propaganda the wars were really fought over other purposes (nearly all wars in the medieval and early modern era were fought not over God but over land and power, the war in the Balkans is more about ethnicity and nationalism than religious differences).  Now there are a few cases in the East of religious intolerance, but for argument’s sake let’s say 500,000 have been killed in the name of religion in the East.  Now religious wars that we should include are the Thirty Years War, the French Wars of Religion, the 2nd Sudanese Civil War, the Crusades, and the Lebanese Civil war (the last three being wars of Christianity vs. Islam) because these wars were fought almost solely to extend one religion and destroy another (I realize even that statement has flaws, but I’m giving the benefit of the doubt to those who want to say religion is evil…trust me you’ll love that I’m inflating numbers).  The high end estimate for these 20.75 million (plus our half million from before which gives us 21.25 million so far).    The Inquisition killed maybe 500,000 (a high end estimate), total 21.75 million.  The religious persecution in England during the Tudor and Stuart monarchies killed maybe a hundred thousand (a very high end estimate).  Let’s multiply that by 10 for the whole of Europe for an even million in deaths from religious persecution in Christian Europe, total 22.75. Now inevitably someone is going to want me to put in the conquest of the Americas (even though A. Greed and gold were more the motivating factor, B. Someone would have eventually crossed the sea even if there wasn’t religion and with it the diseases that did most of the killing would have happened anyway) but let’s put that in there.  Now Schweikart and Allen’s A Patriot’s History of the United States lists the number likely being around 800,000…but let’s give the benefit of the doubt to those who hate religion and give them 5 Million.  So our total for religion stands at 27.75 million.  Let’s add another 10 million for the European slave trade (again another high end estimate).  So our total stands at 37.75 million.  And let’s add another 10 million for all the death at the hands of priest ripping out hearts in the Americas and other religious motivated murders in the New World.  47.75 million. These are pretty much the deaths caused by religion in the last 2,000 years.   You know what, let’s double that number just to be on the safe side.  Let’s say 95.5 Million people have been killed by the repression of religion in the world (I’m also going to ignore other forms of torture, persecution and denial of rights as I think they are probably all in proportion to death tolls).

(I’m going to leave out Islam from this calculation because unlike just about every other religion on Earth, Islam denies the divinity or divine quality of the human soul, for instance you won’t find any statement that man was created in God’s image in the Koran or Haddith, and in this way it makes it philosophically more in line with atheism)…(If you think this is unfair, just look at the pro-atheist quote that started this rant; even they differentiate.)

Now let’s look at the nine nations that have actually implemented atheism in

  1. The French Revolution under the Reign of Terror
  2. Soviet Russia
  3. Communist China
  4. N. Korea
  5. Khmer Rogue Cambodia
  6. Mexico in the 1920’s
  7. Cuba
  8. Various other communist states in the 20th Century.
  9. Nazi Germany (right now some atheist are screaming that it’s wrong to claim Nazi Germany was atheist…shut up and sit down, I will prove this point)

As far as I can find (and this is the result of a month’s worth of research…they were all on the Wikipedia page, but I couldn’t find any others) these are the only countries to ever institute state enforced atheism.  Now anyone with even a modicum of knowledge knows that this death toll is easily going to top my previous one.  But let’s go over it anyway.

  1. The French Revolution with its Reign of Terror and “Cult of Reason.”  Catholicism and other versions of Christianity were outlawed.  Churches burned, relics desecrated, clergy persecuted and of course the guillotine.  Low end estimates for these 2 years of madness are around 15,000 dead.
  2. In Mexico’s 1917 Constitution nationalized all church property and outlawed all religious orders.  This resulted in a small civil war known as the Cristero War (1926-1929) between atheist President Calle’s forces and the pro-Catholic Cristeros.  Low end estimates put the death toll at 5,000
  3. Soviet Russia, Communist China and all other incarnations of communism

If the mere 20,000 deaths I racked up from 5 years of combined terror, let’s take at the death toll of government that brought us gulag, killing fields, the resurgence of crucifixion (yes, the Chinese crucified Tibetan monks and dissidents).  Forced labor, controlled famines, repression…the death toll is, according the obscenely well researched book The Black Book of Communism: Crime, Terror, and Repression edited by Stepane Courtois puts the number of all Communist/Marxist (where religion is always persecuted and outlawed) at 94 million dead. Now you could say it’s unfair that I just use the number the book lists and not say some Marxist tripe historian who probably put the number under 10 million…well I deal in reality and the fact that some historians have called the 94 Million estimate “too conservative,” I think I’m safe with sticking with that number.  But please go on, tell me that Communists have not killed millions.

    4. And of course Nazism.

Now the immediate cry/propaganda is that Nazism was Christian in nature and not atheistic.  And of course we call any nation that goes as far as outlawing miracles very Christian.

So let’s turn to some real sources…I’m going to quote large passages here instead of just sending you to the book because I don’t want to have to deal with the BS that is going to come from atheists farcical denial that their religion was behind a movement that is synonymous with evil.

From The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William S. Shirer, from the section “The Persecution of Christian Churches” (And right before the section “The Nazification of Culture”), page 240,

“What the Hitler government envisioned for Germany was clearly set out in a thirty point program for the ‘National Reich Church’ […] A few of its thirty articles convey the essentials:

“1. The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be the national churches of the German Reich.

“5. The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably….the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.

“7. The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains, or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.

“13. The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany

“14. The National Church declares that to it, and therefore to the German nation, it has been decided that the Fuehrer’s Mein Kampf is the greatest of all documents. It….not only contains the greatest but it embodies the purest and truest ethics for the present and future life of our nation.

“18. The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles, and pictures of saints.

“19. On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampf (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.

“30. On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals, and chapels…and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika.” [Emphasis added]

You know, just because you have the trapping of religious organization, when you deny God and all his works and put in the raving of a single psychopath, I’d call that atheism.

Maybe it’s just that one book.
Let’s switch to The Third Reich: A New History by Michael Burleigh, page 196:

“Nazism represented a sustained assault on fundamental Christian values, regardless of any tactical obeisance to the purchase it had on most Germans. […] The mission here and now, for utopian ends on earth, became a substitute for the futility of earthly existence and the majesty of God.” [The whole passage is quoted here.]

If you read the whole passage it will say that they didn’t want the name atheism applied to their beliefs either…but when you replace God and Heaven with the state and the race, you may not want to call it atheism, but it is atheism.

But, please, perhaps you can find for me a historian who says that Nazi’s weren’t at war with Christianity.  Yes early on they allied themselves with Christianity, and even spouted some of the rhetoric of it, but taking a look at the whole of Nazi history shows that their goal was to destroy ALL religion and replace God with the party and the race.  I suggest you look right next to the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or roughly in that area to find bullshit that says that they weren’t atheists.

It if walks like an atheist, talks like an atheist, acts like an atheist; it sure as hell ain’t a duck.  Germany paid lip service to religion as it slowly replaced every single aspect of religion with the atheistic state.  Communism at first claimed to welcome all religions in the early days and officially banned discrimination based on religion…the difference being that Nazism didn’t last 2 decades, Communism is still going in some parts of the world.  Had Nazism lived longer they would have embraced a full atheistic state.  And to claim anything else is at best naïve and at worst hideously disingenuous.

So now that we’ve cleared up the atheistic nature of Nazi Germany…I believe the number is 6 million (not counting all the deaths caused by their war to try and spread their evil over the globe).  Which I believe brings our total to 100,020,000.  All in little over 200 years.

So let’s see here 2,000 years an absurdly liberal estimate puts the death caused by religion at 95.5 Million meanwhile in a tenth of that time atheistic governments, by a very conservative estimate, have killed over 100 Million.  I’d hate to see the world after 2,000 years of atheism, the population of mankind would be around zero.

Now, my favorite objection is that these aren’t real atheists because atheists are people who follow reason (a claim I’ve never seen in practice, but let’s go with their objection), and these governments were very unreasonable.  Okay, let’s go with that objection and not count any of those deaths that the religion of atheism brought us, but then you have to play fair and admit that all of these supposedly religious governments are equally falling short of their religion’s call for compassion.  If you give the benefit of the doubt to one side you have to give it to the other…or will atheists fess up and admit not only to their atrocious reasoning skills (after all the preponderance of the evidence is on the side that there is a God ) but also their deep-seated hypocrisy.  I doubt they will.  And you wonder why I find them a bitter and violent bunch.  Religion shouldn’t take all of the blame for the death toll above, and atheism isn’t the sole cause of the death I attributed to them.  And it is wildly poor logic to attribute the acts of one lunatic who claims to be part of a group when they are acting against what most of the members of that group believe (when polls show that a majority of a group is fine with suicide bombing…that’s a different story, and you might want to look at what that belief system is preaching).

In the end there is a simple fact, as bad as religious government can be, and as much as we should always strive for pluralistic and secular government, religious government could go years, even decades without harming those who practiced other religions.  For atheistic governments, it would be hard to find a day where an atrocity was not committed.  Now the vast majority of atheists are not butchers as the vast majority of the religious aren’t, so again please explain to me how atheists feel they have such a right to their sense of superiority.  Perhaps it’s their recorded efficiency.


Filed under Anti-Semitism, Atheism, Death, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, God, Government is corrupt, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, politics, Religion, Spirituality, Tyranny

The Possible Future of the Republican Party


“Look at Europe, you fool. Can’t you see past the guff and recognize the essence? One country is dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the collective is all. The individual held as evil, the mass – as God. No motive and no virtue permitted – except that of service to the proletariat.

That’s one version. Here’s another. A country dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the State is all. The individual held as evil, the race – as God. No motive and no virtue permitted – except that of service to the race. Am I raving or is this the harsh reality of two continents already? If you’re sick of one version, we push you in the other. We’ve fixed the coin. Heads – collectivism. Tails – collectivism. Give up your soul to a council – or give it up to a leader. But give it up, give it up, give it up. Offer poison as food and poison as antidote. Go fancy on the trimmings, but hang on to the main objective. Give the fools a chance, let them have their fun – but don’t forget the only purpose you have to accomplish. Kill the individual. Kill man’s soul. The rest will follow automatically.”—Elsworth Toohey, The Fountainhead [emphasis added]


Believe it or not Rick Santorum’s campaign gives me hope.   Why?  Because it proves beyond the shadow of all doubt that religious fundamentalists do not control this party.  Let’s be honest cowards are voting for Ron Paul, social conservatives for Santorum, (I haven’t the foggiest clue as to why anyone is voting for Newt) and fiscal conservatives are voting for Mitt Romney.



But listening to Santorum’s speech did make me think about his new theme: Freedom.  It’s ironic that this would be his theme as it is something that he is opposed to in every area of existence.  We know that Ricky is a social conservative and thus opposed to liberty in the social arena…no we need government laws and regulations backed with up with fines and jails and guns to control that part of the world.  From his earmarks, pro-union stance and wish to control the economy through loopholes and regulations we know he is opposed to economic freedom.  And while you might say at least he’s a conservative on the foreign policy arena, but you’d be wrong, as he doesn’t believe in holding the line against Islam-fascists or Communist China because of the relevant communist or fascists part…he opposes them because they’re Muslims and atheists…after all he has said it’s a “holy war” (his words not mine) that we’re fighting right now.  Rick Santorum, American Jihadist.  He’s not interested in beating back tyranny; he’s interested in beating back non-Christians.   In every form of political thought this man is opposed to liberty and freedom in every way possible.

And while Santorum may be in the running for worst politician in the history of presidential politics, it did start me thinking about the nature of freedom in relation to political parties (yes I’m weird and the most boring conversationalist…deal with it).


So, contrary to that two axis graph the libertarian love so much (with one axis being economic freedom and one being social freedom) modern politics is actually a balance of three axes.

  1. Economic Freedom ranging from zero freedom with socialism/communism (the name changes the government doesn’t) to full freedom (anarchy) with true capitalism being about 80-90% of the way to complete freedom.
  2. Social Freedom with communism/theocracy/fascism being at the zero end and again capitalism in the 80-90% range of full freedom.
  3. And finally you have the third access which I will call interventionism (for a much more protracted discussion see Republicans and Reincarnation).  This is the idea of whether or not we feel that freedom should be extended throughout the world as “all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights” at the full freedom side or feel that tyranny, socialism and oppression are fine so long as they stay outside our borders at the zero freedom side, we call this side isolationism.

Sadly, right now each political party embraces at least one of these evils.  Democrats embrace the evil of restricting freedom in the economic sphere.  Libertarians embrace the evil of allowing oppression in other nations so long as it doesn’t bother them (much like Whigs in antebellum America or isolationist pre-WWII who didn’t mind 6 million people dying so long as it wasn’t them…we all see how well those policies worked)…and the Republican party embraces the evil of government intrusion in the social sphere.


And this is why I chose the quote I did to open this post.  The system seems rigged (more by human nature to want to control something not by nefarious evil conglomerates trying to control our every choice) to leave us with a between government control in the social sphere or government control in the economic sphere…and if we’re too disgusted with those we go to a party that turns a blind eye to evil, no matter how atrocious and antithetical to our most basic principles,


But there is hope.  Because right now we are seeing a rejection of that very evil represented in Rick Santorum (yes he embodies all three evils, but he’s running on his social “conservative” agenda).


But there is more hope than just the destruction of Rick Santorum and the defeat of the social conservatives in this election…but the possibility of the defeat of them for all time.


Look at it this way.  Almost every Tea Party candidate who ran in 2010 won.  The ones who didn’t, the ones who cost the GOP in the Senate (most notably Angle and O’Donnell) were portrayed not as fiscal conservatives but as wacky social conservatives (I’ll not be getting into whether that depiction is correct or not).  So it appears that when Republicans run on fiscal issues they win. 



Or to look at it another way.  The highest Santorum has ever been is 39% of Republican voters who make up only about 36% of the voting public.  In other words social conservatives who place their social conservatism above all else make up only 14% (39% of 36%…and those are kind of high end estimates, it’s probably lower in reality) of the electorate.


Only 14%.  14% that has no choice but to vote for the Republicans or let a party that allows its economic liberalism turn into an excess of social liberalism.  Do you really think that 14% of the electorate that identifies itself as independent or libertarian aren’t driven from the Republican Party by its perverse adherence to social conservatism…to a belief that the government should tell people how to live their lives.  Hell, I know a few blue-dog Democrats who are fiscally conservative and whose only argument against Republicans is the pointless social concerns.


If we drove them out of power now, if we made this a party of fiscal and foreign policy concerns, and only of social moderation, that the government takes no sides in social issues (you know, as the Founders wanted)…and leave social issues to individuals, churches and local communities,  then we would experience not a drop in election results, but a surge, a powerful surge that would not only be a death blow to psychosis that is social conservatives desire to rule over people’s bedrooms but also to the evil that is the Democrat desire to rule over our wallets.


Or we can just keep going as we always have and let these lunatics have too much influence in our party.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Republicans and Reincarnation, Taxes, Tyranny

Ayatollah Rick Santorum’s war against filthy non-Christians

“And then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man. If you can do one, you can do the other. Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we’ll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!” –Henry Drummond Inherit the Wind

Okay the title is intentionally hyperbolic…but I had to get your attention somehow.

But, frighteningly, it’s only mildly hyperbolic.

So over the weekend, after making us all wish we could burn out our eyes with images of his flabby form, Rick attended a rally and was introduced by pastor Dennis Terry in, what has to be the most surreal speech I have ever seen given to introduce a Presidential candidate.

“I don’t care what the liberals say, I don’t care what the naysayers say, this country was founded as a Christian nation, The god of Abraham, the god of Isaac. There’s only one god, there’s only one god and his name is Jesus.”

“I’m, listen to me, if you don’t believe as I say you don’t love America and you don’t like the way we tell you to do things, I’ve got one thing to say. GET OUT.

“We don’t worship Buddha. I said we don’t worship Buddha. We don’t worship Mohammed. We don’t worship Allah. We worship god. We worship god’s son Jesus Christ. “[emphasis added]

I’m just really shocked to hear Rick Santorum, a man who implied that all Protestants are in league with the devil, endorsing something like this. Now in his defense, Rick, possibly my least favorite bigot in the nation right now, has said he is not responsible for what other people say but (1) you are responsible when they’re introducing you, and (2) you are clearly clapping in the video and not hanging your head, shaking it thinking “dear god what have I gotten myself into”…you know as any sane human would be doing at that point. So your defense, Ricky, is nothing but the usual bunch of lies…which is really all you have. I really don’t know which I hate more your bleeding heart liberal economics or your psychotic religious beliefs, Rick, but you are clearly the worst of all possible combinations of positions.

So let’s start with the words that Rick Santorum clearly agrees with, the words that clearly advocate for a single minded intolerant theocracy. The words that are bigoted, close-minded, and let’s not forget vaguely anti-Semitic (which means Romney might not have Ron Paul as his VP, but Rick might).

“I’m, listen to me, if you don’t believe as I say you don’t love America and you don’t like the way we tell you to do things, I’ve got one thing to say. GET OUT.”

You know if this had been followed by a statement of we do things here by civil and uncivil discourse…debate, discourse, and screaming our bloody heads off with insults…but not with violence and not with mob behavior then the call to get out might have been okay. If that statement had been followed by a condemnation of terrorism and violence and if you embrace those things you have no business in this country, that might have been appropriately hyperbolic. But what was it followed by “We don’t worship Buddha.” That’s right because the eightfold path is just such a Satanic way…and let’s just ignore the fact that Buddhist don’t actually worship Buddha, it’s more of the relationship between Catholics and saints in their relationship, calling on for help and guidance but not actually worshipping. No let’s just say that all other religions are not welcomed in the U.S. Yes because a nation which has a Constitutional law guaranteeing the freedom of religion is going to ban all religions other than Christianity. As a pagan I feel so comfortable about a Rick Santorum presidency. Because I remember all those sermons Jesus preached against Roman gods (you remember how he told the pagan Roman guard to go fuck himself when the guard pleaded for his servant, don’t you?), and the Jewish god, and all those sermons where he told the Jews that they must worship him and him alone. I clearly remember them in the Book of…the book of…chapter….oh well I’m sure they’re in there. After all Santorum and pastor Terry wouldn’t be basing their beliefs on only their small-minded ignorant prejudices, there must be scriptural backing for it. Just poor pagan me who has read the Bible several times must be forgetting those passages where Jesus told you to hate all who had different religious opinions…like that time when he told his followers to despise the group the ancient Jews had the most theological disagreements with, the Samaritans. There certainly must be a story in the Bible where he tells his followers to treat Samaritans as outsiders and others who deserve nothing but hatred. I’m sure of it.

But let’s move on.

“I don’t care what the naysayers say, this country was founded as a Christian nation.”

Really? Let’s look at the Founding. You know the Declaration of Independence. Written by Deist Thomas Jefferson, you know the guy who thought so highly of the Bible he felt it could use a little editing (down to about 20 pages) to get rid of all the useless stuff. But I’m sure a semi-educated response would respond that in reality the Declaration, while penned by Jefferson was the result of heavy discussion and editing by a committee of five people. Roger Sherman, Philip Livingston, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams. Now Livingston, a Presbyterian, and Sheramn, a Congregationalist were clearly Christians…but Franklin, a Deist, and Adams, a Unitarian, the two who probably had the most influence on the document, both doubted the divinity of Christ (Adams even signing a treaty stating “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” that the Senate confirmed, that would be the 6th Senate still filled with many Founders…the same treaty Tripoli later broke and was used as the justification for Jefferson’s preemptive strike against the Barbary Pirates). Now while they may have doubted the divinity of Christ they did not doubt the necessity of both religion and spirituality but were not so close minded as to believe only one version of religion was all that should be allowed.

But it was only these three guys right? Well no. President of the Continental Congress (and first president under the Articles of Confederation) John Hancock and General and First President George Washington were both Freemasons…which means that while they may have been Episcopalians they would also not be restricted by any close-minded view that only their religion counted. If such a view was abhorrent to the Founding Fathers, one wonders why twice they would put their first president under two constitutions as a man who believed in the truth of all religions. (Oh, Chief Justice John Marshall, whose influence in creating a capitalistic system of laws cannot be overstated, was also a Freemason, but I’m sure the Senate, filled with Founding Fathers was opposed to such open minded beliefs when they confirmed him).

Were the majority of them Christian? Certainly. But none of them were the close-minded bigots that pastor Dennis Terry and Rick Santorum (D) have shown themselves to be. They believed in God back in those days, and weren’t all that particular about the name or the form of worship you had back then.

“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”—Thomas Jefferson…I’m sure Jefferson was advocating for only a Christian nation where there is only one God with that line.

But I’m sure they would have all supported the small minded nature of demanding all non-Christians leave America because, clearly, they have no place here. And I’m sure after pagans and Jews and non-believers are either deported or solved through some other kind of solution with a certain finality to it, that Mormons and Catholics and Episcopalians are next. Then I’m sure other Protestant denominations need to go. I’m sure that is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the First Amendment and state bills guaranteeing freedom of religion. Well I’m not sure of it, but I think Rick Santorum is.

We could go over the rest of this lunatic’s speech. I could tear every single phrase apart and show him to beyond the shadow of a doubt a psychopathic, vicious, evil and ignorant man whose vile knows no conscience, humanity or intelligence until you would be convinced that clearly Sherman didn’t go far enough on his march to the sea if it lead to even a minority in the South that behaved like this. I could, but what’s the point.


Oh, and if you don’t believe that Rick is guided a little too heavily by religion, then listen to this little quote where he basically claims that God himself speaks to Rick Santorum.

“I don’t believe life begins at conception, I know life begins at conception.”


Whenever anyone claims to know something that can only be known to God…they’re either a prophet or a psychopath. Let’s guess which one Rick Santorum is.


Filed under Death, Election 2012, Faith, Fear, Founding, Free Will, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Religion, Rick Santorum, Spirituality, Stupid liberal quote of the day

More stupid and evil quotes from Santorum…

Arroyo: Now you’ve conceded that you can’t win the majority of the delegates, right?

Rick Santorum: No. I haven’t conceded that at all. I think we can win the majority of the delegates. That’s phony Romney math.

You think you can win the majority of the delegates Rick, but you and your ignorant followers are the only ones. You’ve been averaging 25% of the delegates and you need 70% of those left. Even Don Quixote would look at you and say “I said impossible dream, not incredibly stupid denial of reality and all existence drug induced delusion.”

I don’t usually listen to talk radio, but I do have some respect for Laura Ingram…but whoever this idiot is sitting in for her gives hacks a bad name by letting Santorum, who is running for the position of Ayatollah of America, get away with so many idiotic statements and outright lies.

Where to begin?

“I would say just the opposite. I think what people don’t realize is as soon as we get a nominee, the Obama Administration, the Obama campaign—as well as all of the national media—will turn its guns on whoever our nominee is. And those guns will be trained on someone who will basically be out of money, having just gotten out of these primaries. Let’s assume that tomorrow everybody drops out and we have one nominee. Starting the next day the media will train all of their guns, as well as President Obama, on whoever that nominee is. Right now they can’t focus on anybody. I make this argument, I’ve made this argument from the beginning: The longer this argument goes the better it is for us because there’s less opportunity for the media to pound the heck out of our nominee.”

So his argument is that as long as there isn’t a nominee Obama has no one to attack. So either he’s mentally impaired and hasn’t actually caught onto the fact that Obama is already running attack ads against Romney, and doing everything to help Santorum become the nominee or he’s just a pathological liar. (Actually it’s option 3: Both). Rick is a moron’s moron. Rather than only having Obama attacking Romney, a fight we all know Obama is going to lose…but Obama, Santorum and Newt attacking Romney is better than just Obama attacking him? Strategic thinking like this would make for fascinating foreign policy “We can’t support Britain during the Blitz because that would only encourage Germany to attack them.” “We can’t continue to give Taiwan military support because siding with them will only encourage China to invade.” “We can’t back Israel because as long as we turn our back on them Iran will not do anything.”

Rick do you know why they’re attacking Romney now and not attacking you? Because if you were the nominee it would take roughly, I don’t, 48 hours to have the majority of the public demanding your head on a pike. They just have to play the “Protestants are the servants of Satan clip” and “if my daughter was raped, the child would be a gift from God” speeches. You have said, perhaps some of the dumbest things in the history of politics. They’re not targeting you because they know that while most of us could get liquored up and vote for McCain, we would need a few shot of tequila beyond fatal alcohol poisoning before we could be dumb enough to vote for you, someone who wants big government in the social arena and big government in economics.
I also love how he says a long campaign will drain the candidates’ resources financially….but a long primary won’t? Do you really want to trust the budget to a man who doesn’t understand that money spent in a primary is the same money you’d be spending in a general election. Of course one could reasonably mention that in a general election you aren’t splitting the Republican fundraising between three candidates, but again that bit of blindingly obvious reasoning would once again show Santorum to be a stupid jackass.

He also mentions that he thinks he can win, and I’ll deal with his, to put it politely, shit-for-brains plan to win the convention later, but did you also notice how he says he plans to make sure that Romney “hobbles into the convention, having lost a bunch of the last primary states and not shown his ability close the deal.” So he’s a weak candidate because he won’t be able to close the deal…but you’re a strong candidate because you can’t get anywhere near that mark. I’m very confused. Oh by the way those last primary states Romney is going to lose according to Santorum include California (Romney +20), New Jersey (Romney +5), Montana (Ron Paul might do well, but Santorum’s big government certainly won’t), New Mexico (I hope Ricky goes there and tells them they all have to learn English too, it will be fun to watch that reaction at the polls) and the last primary before the convention…Utah. Who thinks Romney is going to lose Utah? Ignoring religion, Romney is the man who made the Olympics bring their state millions of dollars and allowed their scandal over that thing to be forgotten. Yeah I’m sure he’s going to have a real hard fight to win Utah. One must wonder how much LSD Santorum is taking on a daily basis.

But in the mean time he’s looking to the next two races…
He’s heading to Puerto Rico…
To tell a territory that has voted 4 times not to become a state that if they want to become a state they have to learn English. And what does he do when he finds out they don’t want to be a state? He doubles down and tells them they still need to learn English… I’m all for English only here in the 50 states…but I don’t go down to Mexico and tell them they need to learn English there. Oh it will be a Happy St. Patrick’s Day for the Team Romney.

He’s heading To Louisiana
One it’s a closed primary, so there goes a third of his voters. Two…well, I have problems spending money on anything, and I mean ANYTHING, at the federal level…but if it’s a choice between the bridge to nowhere (Sarah Palin’s pet project) or sending said money to Katrina victims. Oooh tough call.

“Gov. Romney, for example, right now he’s spending very little money in Mississippi and Alabama.” Santorum said that Tuesday morning. You can hear him yourself say that. Notice however that Tuesday night he said he won in spite of all the money Romney spent. Yes you could point to the fact that Santorum goes into discussion of SuperPACS…but doesn’t he have his own SuperPAC…can’t they spend as much? No? You mean Santorum can’t get anyone with money to back him? You think if they despise him now they’re suddenly going to show up in August to back his pro-union, pro-loop hole, pro-spending economic plan? No I didn’t think so either.

“Mitt Romney has raised about as much money as he ever thought he could raise.” That would of course be several time the amount that you’ve raised Ricky.

Oh but wait. Let’s not forget that Santorum actually thinks he can win and that we’re lying when we say Romney is inevitable. Of course that is because we’re using, in your words, “phony Romney math.” That would be the math that says 2+2=4. I know your special pixy dust power Obama/Santorum math comes out differently. But trust me Ricky, Romney has this in the bag and you would need an act of God to support you…and I hate to tell you this, God is not the close-minded, bigoted, evil and stupid person you are (he probably loves you, no accounting for taste, but I doubt he’s going to pull out a miracle for you).

And then there is how he views the convention. “Iowa we finished with 25% of the vote; we’re probably going to get three times that number of delegates [from Iowa].” He is right that Iowa is a nonbinding caucus and thus it could happen…although Iowa has 28 delegates, so that’s what 21 delegates. According to RealClearPolitics there are 368 delegates from non-binding states…let’s say he got them all, even in states we haven’t yet had a vote…then that would give him a grand total (combined with what he’s won already) around 508 delegates, still, you know, less than half of what he needs. Wow. He would still need to win 50% of the remaining delegates and he’s been averaging about 25%…and he’s behind in almost every winner-take-all state (if you assume Romney picks up the winner-take-all states he’s currently ahead in, then Santorum needs to win about 75% of those delegates in proportional state…) But here’s the problem, those non-binding people are Republican Party delegates, i.e. they’re politicians and businessmen. The average GOP delegate is 54 years old, college educated, and makes over $100,000 all groups Romney kills Santorum in EVERY exit poll. Also 30% of delegates are women and 30% are Catholic, groups Santorum repeatedly loses. Santorum talks a nice game, but the reality is that those unbound delegates are actually his enemy not his friend. Also in his little warped mind he thinks that if he can stop Romney from getting the 1144 delegates needed (most projections now have Romney going in with 1200-1500, so dream on Ricky) he thinks that he can win on a second ballot. That would mean that all of the delegates Romney has selected in states where he had to submit slates of delegates he would have to have (after 4 years of planning) picked people in a rush without vetting them who might betray him. Unlikely. It’s far more likely that Santorum who can’t even find enough people to submit in states as his delegates picked some who will defect. Not to mention that I think Ron Paul delegates will have a much deeper hatred of Santorum than of Romney…and Newt supporters that defect are just as likely to hate Santorum more than Romney. So even if the mathematically unlikely happened and this did go to a second or third ballot, it’s actually stacked against Ayatollah Santorum.

I also like how he said he would protest Arizona and Florida for making their votes winner take all. It makes it sound like this will end up giving him more delegates. It won’t. Arizona and Florida have already been penalized by this move and had half their delegates (all of which went for Romney), so they are already playing by the rules since this was the penalty they knew about and it has been enforced. But let’s say he does go forward and challenges this, for two states where Romney won big and Santorum did very badly…under a full delegate count and proportional distribution Romney gets EVEN MORE delegates! Way to go Rick, that’s some real good planning you have there. Is your policy to stop Iran to ship them refined uranium? Maybe your plan to stop hunger is to burn crops? The obscene stupidity of this man is just endless.

Oh speaking of obscene…don’t forget Rick will be making banning ALL internet porn a hallmark of his administration…because there weren’t any other issues we needed to worry about.

But the real question is who is the True Conservative?

And notice how Rick Santorum judges if you’re a conservative or not. On social issues and ONLY social issues…I’m convinced if you could find a quote of Marx stating he was against abortion and gays, Rick would declare Karl a great conservative hero.

He votes for a bill to spend tax payer money to Planned Parenthood (and votes for it so that all of his unethical earmarks can get through as well) and justifies it with other corrupt politicians doing the same thing. So in Rick’s mind voting to spend tax payer dollars on something he doesn’t agree with is fine so long as he gets taxpayer dollars for what he wants to spend it on…increasing the size of government everywhere.

Romney gives his personal money to charity (I know making personal donations to charity is a rather odd concept to Santorum as he rarely does it) but says that we’re going to end federal funding to the very same organization he makes private donations to. Thus limiting the size and scope of government.

Santorum big government. Romney small government. Remind me again which ones conservatives like. And remind me again by saying you’re a conservative.

“He gave his own personal money. I voted for a large big appropriation bill.” It’s sad he thinks the offensive idea in this is money given to Planned Parenthood…where a real conservative would find the words “large big appropriation bill” to be the offensive part.   Rick finds it okay to give your money to someone that he abhors as long as he gets his. But making a personal donation with one’s own earned money (a concept that likely eludes Rick as all of his money comes from corruption) offends Rick to no end. After all it should be the government, under it’s religious leader Rick Santorum, which gets to decide what charities exist and which don’t. I’m Rick but giving my money to an organization that I oppose without my consent is far, far worse than someone else giving their money to that organization. And the fact that you don’t see that difference is beyond disgusting and beyond reason to making me fear what your administration would hold.

And the worst part is he actually says that he thinks Romney’s attack is accusing him of being “pro-choice.” He doesn’t even get it’s an attack on his spending of taxpayer money. He has no conception whatsoever of fiscal conservatism. All that matters to him is abortion. Abortion and gays. Gotta outlaw them all ‘cause Jesus had whole sermons on the evil gays and abortion (at least it appears there were whole sermons on that in Santorum’s special edition in the Bible which no other Catholic has ever seen, but a few crazy Evangelicals in Westboro also seem to have that copy).

To Santorum all that matters is whether you are willing to make gay marriage illegal in all 50 states, make abortion and birth control illegal, everywhere, and of course making porn illegal. Because those are the things that are most important to Rick Santorum and his social conservatives. It does not matter that he believes in heavy government interference in the economy…he doesn’t oppose Obama because Obama is getting involved in the economy, he opposes Obama because he believes Obama isn’t getting involved in the right places.

Which makes him all the more the hypocrite by saying Romney had a government take over of healthcare…when in fact Romneycare was designed to prevent that. Santorum then goes on to say that Romney raised taxes by a billion dollars. That’s doubly a lie, first because it was $740 Million, but accuracy in numbers was never Rick’s strong suit. And second he didn’t raise taxes. He first closed a lot of loopholes in the Massachusetts’ tax system…which last time I checked was what we wanted to do at the federal level…oh wait those loopholes are designed to help pick winners and losers in the economy, a favorite thing for a socialist like Ricky. And he raised fees on a lot of services in Massachusetts…so instead of tax payers paying for services they didn’t use only the people who used those services paid for them. My God, how terribly capitalistic. I’m sure Rick’s grandfather, the one Rick speaks with endless praise of, the Communist Party Leader, is just spinning in his grave hearing how someone brought conservative capitalist reform that worked to increase revenue and treat everyone fairly to a blue state. So he didn’t raise taxes Rick, he just stopped the system from being rigged. Once again you have a hard time opening your mouth without lying or saying something stupid.

I also love “I never voted to increase spending.” This from the earmark king. And then he goes over all the other lies of Romney’s flip flops. I’ve dealt with all of those before. Oh and he lies about Romney supporting Obamacare, he never did. But if Rick Santorum has ever said a truthful word about Romney I’d be damned surprised.

“this is one of the most liberal guys we have ever had and for him to go out there and attack me as being a moderate is just truly laughable.” Sadly it’s not laughable that you, Rick, can consider your big government, pro-union, big spending total control of the economy ideas conservative. It’s not laughable, it’s disgusting. At least with most social conservatives they come with the virtue of wanting less government in the economy so they make decent allies in the fight of what is the biggest problem facing the nation right now. But you want government in every aspect of our lives. In our religion. In our homes, our beds, our work, our shopping. I would say that your mentality is everything that is wrong with the Republican Party, (but I can’t because, as I said usually, I get small government economics even in the worse aspects of the GOP)…your mentality, Rick, is everything that is wrong with Iran and Saudi Arabia, a perverse mix of fanatic and intolerant religion with socialist economics. Every evil belief in the world can be found in the words of Rick Santorum.

I could go on. Every single thing this man says boils down into one of three categories (1) lies (2) stupidity (3) evil, usually in some Venn-Diagram level crossover. But really what’s the point. You can listen to it all on your own. Unlike Santorum who feels he should make all your decisions for you, I trust you can see the utter hypocrisy and despicableness of this petty excuse for a human being.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Gay Rights, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

Snatching Defeat From Jaws of Victory: Republican’s idiotic obsession with social issues

I believe in liberty for all, capitalism, a Classically Liberal republic of limited government that combines to make this nation (and any other that follows those principles) the shinning city on the hill for others to look to as the model. Which is why, for better or worse, I am a Republican.  The Libertarians don’t believe in the first or last point  (they seem to think the rights listed in the Declaration end at the border and if another country has a genocidal dictator that’s none of our business), the Democrats abhor the two in the middle.  But the Republican Party stands for all of them.  And every time we run on those principles we win.  Coolidge, Nixon (even though he didn’t believe in them), Reagan (go on, tell me which social issues he made a focus of his campaign…none), the Contract with America (the closest it came to social issues was dealing with the marriage tax and tax credits for care of the elderly and adoption, it dealt entirely with money and the size of government).  Every time we run on expanding the government we lose.  Hoover, George H.W. Bush (read his lips, more taxes), Ford, Dole, McCain.  The two major exceptions being Nixon the first time (and we can blame that on how he looks without makeup and Joe Kennedy buying a lot of votes) and Goldwater (where the economic moderates and big government Republicans actively backstabbed their own candidate).

But overall there is a simple rule: Economically Conservative Republicans win. Economically Moderate Republicans lose.  (Certainly not once can I remember an economic liberal and social conservative win).

But, more and more, the Republican Party wants to press social issues?  Why?  Conservative economics and foreign policy are winners with the American public…liberal stances on those mixed with big government behavior for social issues is always a loser.  And I don’t mean just Santorum, there are a lot of “socially conservative” issues out there that are actually taking aim at our economic conservatism and I don’t understand why Republicans are so eager to hype the weakest issues and the ones that will cause us to lose.

Now full disclosure, I am a social moderate.  I don’t want the government in my wallet, my business or my capitalist transactions nor do I want them in my bedroom, my marriage or my doctor’s office.  I believe in small government (and unlike pro-tyranny Libertarians I think that’s a human right not an American right…yeah Libertarians are really pissing me off too lately, can you tell?).  But apparently some in the GOP don’t know that we’re the party of small government, not just the party of small government in the economy.

And it’s getting bad.   Even my beloved Heritage Foundation is saying stupid things like “As conservatives, it is important to remember that social issues are central to preserving the Principles of the Founding Fathers.”  Uh-huh, looking to the Founders for social conservatives.  Ben Franklin who never married the mother of his child but lived with her in sin for most of his life.  Thomas Jefferson, and probably most of the Sothern contingent, and their pro-raping the slaves practices.  John and Abigail “let’s abandon our children to the care of others for almost a decade” Adams.  Alexander Hamilton who had an affair with another man’s wife. They were all heavy drinkers and Franklin was not the only libertine among them. Now don’t get me wrong, I admire these people to the ends of the Earth, but I don’t mistake greatness for sainthood (one, John Dickenson, I think should have been treated to a short drop and a sudden stop for his behavior at the signing of the Declaration and Constitution).  But don’t just take my word for it.  Go look at some real conservative authors like Larry Schweikart’s What Would the Founders Say?  or W. Cleon Skousen’s The Five Thousand Year Leap: 28 Great Ideas That Changed the World…both books are about the Founding Father’s opinions of government. Now while both stress the importance of personal religion and spirituality, of the societal importance of marriage (which anyone with half a brain has to admit) the closest either comes to what modern social conservatives consider important is when in Skousen’s book he points out that the Founding Fathers would not be for government money paying for abortion. That’s it. That’s all I can find of two well researched authors (who I would wager are more socially conservative than I am)…the most the Founding Father’s would care about modern social issues is the economic side of it. That’s probably because if you stop to think about it this motley crew of misfits, smugglers, drunks, deists, and other radicals, when asked about what goes on in their bedroom or what happens with their doctor would point you to the 2nd Amendment…and if the point wasn’t made clear enough that government had no right in those issues they’d drive the point home with their musket barrel in your redcoat face.   And before you look to more modern Republicans for your pinnacles of virtues I would remind you that Reagan was divorced and Lincoln, well, it’s the “Log Cabin” Republicans for a reason.  The fact of the matter is that most modern social conservatives would criticize that Jeshua of Nazareth guy for his hanging out with hookers and his obsession with alcohol (to the point of making a whole ritual of it).

This is idiotic.  We’re Republicans.  We don’t trust.  We just admit that a little (very little) government is needed for society to run.  But there now seems to be the Santorum wing of the Republican Party that thinks, per Santorum’s words:

“One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.” [Italics Added]

Ignoring the fact that Rick Santorum just admitted to knowing less than nothing about history or conservatism…actually no, let’s not ignore that fact, Santorum is about as anti-American as it gets and it is revolting that a man who says such filth could get to any office, let alone a Republican one.  You’ll notice that Rick tries to quote the Declaration a lot when in every speech he mentions the last line “we pledge our lives, our fortune, and our sacred honor.” (Odd from a man whose life is all about him and his ego, who is actually one of the few millionaires who doesn’t give to charity, and who has no honor).  He never quotes “life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” as one can see from his above quote, viscerally opposed to the “liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” part.

But it’s not just Santorum whose “social conservatism” (I want a better term, conservatism in reference to government has for the last 100 years meant smaller government, social conservatism means larger government).

For instance in Arizona, my home state, there are two laws that just baffle the mind

SB 1359 which states:

12-718.  Civil liability; wrongful birth, life or conception claims; application





Translation into human language: Your doctor can intentionally not tell you about medical conditions that might cause you to get an abortion and you can’t sue him for that lie of omission.  WTF!  Let’s ignore all the social concerns about ethics of aborting a child with severe diseases because people will never listen to reason on that, they’re in whichever camp they’re in…notice, however, that this law is a direct attack on capitalism.  You have a contract with your doctor.  The contract is you pay them; they give you correct medical advice.  This bill condones violation of contract, effectively little more than fraud and theft (I’ll take your money, but not give you what you’re paying for).  This is what we have government to stop, not to condone!  So social conservatives show they only stand for the quantity of life, none of the liberty and human dignity that is implicit in capitalism and democratic-republicanism.

Or try this one HB 2625.

It’s two fold.  First it lets any company, not just religious ones, exempt out of paying for contraceptives. I’m a capitalist, so I’m fine with that part. I don’t think companies should be forced to pay for insurance so I’m for tearing down these laws piece by piece.  But then they do something else to the existing law.  On numerous occasions this update of an existing law, they strike out the following phrase:

“A religious employer shall not discriminate against an employee who independently chooses to obtain insurance coverage or prescriptions for contraceptives from another source.”

So if your employer finds out you use birth control they can now fire you without fear of a lawsuit?  One, I’m not sure if any court would side with an employer if such a suit were brought to court.  Two, this endorsement of violating a person’s right to privacy is rather disturbing.  Now if you wanted to change the law that an employer can fire you for any random reason they have no matter how insane (before you go to the extreme example I will counter that numerous studies, see Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics to start, show that even racial discrimination hurts the employer more than the employee…if you’re going to fire good workers for stupid reasons, you’re not going to be in business for very long) I would have no problem with that.  But to pick and choose is economically inefficient, but to pick and choose in favor of idiocy…well that just goes beyond rational thought.

Oh and over in Virginia they passed a law that requires women to get a “transvaginal ultrasound” to see the fetus before getting an abortion.  I am not going to go into this one for long as I couldn’t easily find the bill text and there is conflicting reports on exactly how bad this is (the left wing media makes it sound like something beyond rape and the right wing media makes it out to be a gentle massage…shame on both sides for not providing me with some reasonable information)….but given just how uncomfortable the procedure sounds (gentlemen, switch it to transurethra to get an idea) I’m willing to say that in all likelihood this is a stupid bill.  Most Americans would want an ultrasound, a 24 hour waiting period, maybe even a counseling session with a professional (a real professional, not some hack) before getting an abortion; even a die-hard pro-choice person like myself is not going to say that this is a small issue that should be taken lightly or without consideration.  But there’s a difference between running the ultrasound wand over a belly and sticking the wand up a person’s genitals.

So called conservatives, don’t you see the hypocrisy of this?  Of the government mandating objects be put into people’s bodies.  That’s about as intrusive as a government gets.

I could go on, but I’m sure you get the point.  These so called conservatives are really just big government liberals, using the government to enforce their will. And if they are not stopped in this party they will sink it (or worse, I fear that after a summer of $8 a gallon gas the GOP could run a sock puppet against Obama and win…even Ayatollah Santorum might stand a chance against this idiot.  And I really don’t want to live under the regime of a man who not only whole heartedly believes like Obama that government should be deeply involved in the economy and pick winners and losers, but also feels the government should enforce his psychotic Puritanical views on a form of Christianity Christ would have condemned to no end.)

Now, granted, the left is partly to blame for this.  They keep fanning the flames of ultra-liberal social policy in people’s faces. Sex-ed to kindergartners.  A pile of paper work for students to get a band aid, forbidding them access to aspirin…but the condoms are in a basket for all to take.  Forcing people to pay for birth control when they don’t want to (I have no problem with you buying birth control, when I’m in a relationship I insist on using it, but I’ll split the bill with my partner and not ask you pay for ours, you do the same and don’t demand we pay for yours).  Same goes with abortion, you can have it, I don’t want to stop you, but don’t ask that I pay for it.  But just because the left is constantly trying to shove government into this, that does not excuse the right reacting with the same level of idiocy.

Now, all that said, a real social conservative would not want government involved in social issues. They would be for a large church presence in society, they would be for encouraging others to attend some form of spiritual life, they would conduct their own lives with temperance and prudence (in all aspects of their personals lives) and encourage others to do so.  But they would never demand that government enforce that. Conservatism is supposed to be a belief in liberty, a belief that government is only to stop immediate and severe threats, not to impose the standards that we live by, but to provide the safety and freedom necessary that we can choose to live by those standards.  True social conservatism is not using government to force others to live by our codes of conduct, but to live them ourselves and by our example and civil argument with individuals encourage others to do the same

1 Comment

Filed under Arizona, Capitalism, Charity, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Founding, Gay Rights, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, People Are Stupid, politics, Rick Santorum, Tea Party, Tyranny

The Problem with liberals

Okay, the title is a little misleading…if I was going to discuss the problems with liberals in any kind of comprehensive way it would be in the form of a series of volumes that would make the entire Encyclopedia Britannica seem like light pamphlet reading. But, the fact of the matter is that I have been hitting the dumb end of the Republican party for quite some time and I felt the need to point out that while there are some big government idiots in the GOP who don’t seem to understand that this is supposed to be the party of conservatism, especially economic conservatism (which is the only thing that can win against Obama), rather than the party of stupidity and Santorum (but I repeat myself).

But back to the idiots that are liberals…while I would like to just deal with them like this…

..I am not the governor of anything and thus actually have to spend time articulating why they are the dumbest SOB’s on the planet.

Lately it’s been a complete inability to distinguish the forest from the trees—they can not distinguish relevant facts from irrelevant ones.

The lastest row over contraception is more than obvious. Yes, part of the Republican Party is also here to blame over this, but trust me the majority of the Republican Party does not want to ban birth control they just don’t want to pay for it. Hell, I would bet if not the majority then a heavy plurality of most Republicans would ignore abortion if you just promised a that not a single cent of tax payer money from federal to the local level would ever go to pay for them (Only 20% are against abortions in all cases…and I don’t think Republicans could ever get elected with only 20% ). And only a few liberals I know understand what a dangerous precedent it is to allow the government to tell religions what they can and can’t do, and what businesses have to provide. Only a few seem to understand that the powers that allow a feast of entitlements from President Obama are the same powers that can allow a President Santorum to force of famine of liberties.

And then there is the idiocy of misunderstanding relevant details from irrelevant ones. If you pay attention to the comment section of this blog you might have noticed the repeated posts by some liberal idiot who wanted to talk about ketchup making practices in 1900 as proof that businesses cannot be trusted. Uh-huh, I don’t quite understand why he didn’t just quote The Jungle, as it would be more relevant to the hideous food practices of the late 19th/early 20th century, but aside from finding out odd but utterly irrelevant details…I don’t think the practices of over a century ago are exactly great justification for the utter and abysmal failure that the modern FDA with it’s allowable levels of rat feces and years of salmonella outbreaks. (Oh he also seemed to use the Chinese as an example of why capitalism doesn’t work…this left me very confused. It’s like using leeching as an example of why all modern medicine doesn’t work. But anyway…back to understanding the difference between historical examples and modern realities…)

Look at the arguments around unions. Yes, unions needed to be created and they needed laws to allow their creation, and in many cases they needed protection…but that was then. Now unions and their leadership are worse than any robber baron of yore and far more destructive to the fabric of the society and the economy. Laws now need to be put in place to protect the right to work, the right to fire incompetence (especially in the teaching profession…although since teachers are professional nowadays they don’t need a union) and the old arguments that liberals keep trotting out are no longer relevant.

Here I’ll throw liberals a bone…Governments are great at building infrastructure, but they’re terrible at maintaining them. Highways, the post office, public education, the national park service, and yes even the FDA. I will grant that these organizations would either never been created purely by the private sector or would have taken a very long and circuitous route to be created. But guess what, just because they once could make a reasonable argument for the need of government intervention to help create these things at some point in history does not mean you need government intervention to maintain them. In fact the reasonable argument is against that. Look at the post office. Certainly at its creation there was no one with the resources other than a central government that could maintain such a valuable and necessary organization. But nowadays we have FedEx ,UPS, and DHL. The Post Office is no longer needed. Get rid of it’s legally enforced monopoly, allow private carriers to handle first class mail and undercut the post office on pricing and you will find the post office will become largely obsolete. Yes we’ll probably have to keep some of it around, maybe 5-10% (probably sent to the states to administrate) which will do weekly delivery of random mail, but trust me the bloated overpaid inefficient bureaucracy will no longer exist. Private companies will do it better and faster.

Same with roads as John Stossel has pointed out time and time again. Private companies maintain and service roads far better than any government agency, and they make a profit doing it while keeping traffic down and drivers far happier.

And the same goes with the FDA, it’s pointless to argue if private industry would have ever come up with a similar private industry given time because that in some alternate universe that didn’t happen. The FDA was created. It served a purpose. The question is now who would run it better the Federal government or states? Or spin it off into two or three competing private companies? And all experience shows that the private sector can do a better job. Actually to give you an example the hospitals in country monitor themselves through private companies – when you hear that a hospital is JACHO compliant – this is a private company that hospitals pay to review them. The government follows the lead by penalizing a hospital that is not JACHO compliant up to even shutting them down.

But do argument and reason and modern realities matter? Nope. And I’m not perfect, but I try to reason with them. I get quite snarky and insulting but I do primarily use reason. And I get back drivel and insults because, for the most part, liberals can’t focus on what’s important and just start throwing hissy fits over their useless information.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservative, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid

Aspiring director I will be on the look out for

Ridley Scott recently helped sponsor the Tell It Your Way Competition to help aspiring directors.

This is the winner:  The Porcelain Unicorn by director Keegan Wilcox.

All I can say is that just from this I will watch any feature length film directed by Wilcox.  This is clearly someone who understands film better than most of the hacks in the industry right now.

Leave a comment

Filed under Art

Stupid quote of the day…Rick Santorum’s bad math

In an article entitled Santorum: I’ll beat Romney if Gingrich drops out it was pointed out that Santorum suggested that he would be winning if it weren’t for Newt.

“It’s always harder when you’ve got two conservatives running in the race as we have seen in Washington and we’ve seen in other states,” Santorum said on Fox News Sunday. “We have the anti-Romney vote, if you will. Both Gingrich and I are slugging away.”

I’ve got numerous issues with this statement, but let’s deal with just the math first. For the moment let’s ignore the fact that when a candidate drops out their vote splits and never does 100% of their supporters go to one candidate and one candidate only. (Romney and Santorum both benefited after Bachmann dropped, Romney and Gingrich went up after Huntsman dropped, Gingrich and Santorum went up after Perry dropped…nobody gets all the voters when a candidate drops)…but let’s ignore that fact of reality for just a moment to give Rick the best shot possible.

Last night’s numbers for the Washington Caucus were as follows:

The only conservative in the race. The only one who can win the nomination. The only one who can beat Obama.

Romney 37.6%

Paul 24.8%

Santorum 23.8%

Gingrich 10.3%

Last time I checked 37.6% is more than 35.1%…but Santorum math is special math, much like all of Santorum’s short-bus style statements.

But maybe Washington is just the outlier. (Santorum hopes it’s the outlier because otherwise he lost to Ron Paul, how pathetic).

Okay, but apparently he says that if Newt had dropped out before Michigan he would have won Michigan.

How about before the Romney Michigan bounce…Let’s look at Arizona.

Final Numbers

Romney 47.1%

Santorum 26.8%

Gingrich 16.0%

Paul 8.6%

Nope 47.1% still beats 42.8%.

Okay, let’s go to Michigan itself.

Final numbers

Romney 41.1%

Santorum 37.9%

Paul 11.6%

Gingrich 6.5%

Okay so if ALL of the Gingrich voters went for Santorum in Michigan then Santorum would have won by 3.3 points. But let’s take a look at that and apply reality. First of all we know that 9% of the total vote that went for Santorum was Democrats trying to throw the race. So no matter how you want to look at this Romney still beats Santorum among Republicans in a Republican primary. That’s just a fact.

But let’s talk about something else. When a candidate drops out never in history have ALL of their voters gone for one candidate over another. They split. Each candidate always gets a little boost and then more often, especially in this race, people are going to stay home and just wait for the end when they can vote for any Republican against Obama. So, and I realize this is speculation, but I think these are safe numbers, of the 6.5% that voted for Newt, 1% would have stayed home (Santorum’s lead is now only 2.3%), 1% would have voted for Paul ( lead of 1.3%) and 1% would hate Santorum’s religious rhetoric so much they would even vote for Romney rather than see the fundamentalist freak show get it (so that’s +1 Romney, -1 Santorum…or Romney wins by .7%). So even with cheating by throwing in with the Democrats AND Newt dropping out, Santorum still couldn’t win.

But how about if we turn to the national polls?

What is the poll that is most consistently accurate when you compare their last pre-election poll to final results. I would say that in previous years that has always been Rasmussen (probably because of large sample size and looking at likely voters not just registered voters). So what does the most recent numbers from Scott Rasmussen have to say?

Romney 40%

Santorum 24%

Gingrich 16%

Paul 12%

Wow Rick Ties with 40% to 40%…oh but wait if even 1% of them goes to Romney, Paul, or stays home…Rick loses again. Rick always looses.  Because Rick is a loser.

To quote Those who win never quit, those who quit never win...but those who never quit and never win are idiots.

But beside the fact that there is literally no way for Santorum to win this (Santorum may “win” a few states on Super Tuesday, but all of those are proportional delegate distributions, so he will gain absolutely no delegate advantage there, and Santorum isn’t even up for a lot of delegates in Ohio or any of them in Virginia due to the fact that he is a terrible executive and can’t manage a campaign)

But let’s deal with the more egregious thing he said:

“It’s always harder when you’ve got two conservatives running in the race as we have seen in Washington and we’ve seen in other states,”

Two conservative? Where? I see Romney a pro-business, small government, pro-capitalism, state’s rights conservative who did the best he could in a highly liberal state and held the line keeping the private sector of health insurance alive against the liberals who just wanted to nationalize it (is nationalize the term for a government take over of a private industry when it’s only a state?). Then I see Santorum who is pro-union and never met a spending increase he didn’t like, who has repeatedly voted for the growth of government power and never for state’s rights and every chance he gets he can’t lavish enough praise and admiration for his communist grandfather. No conservative there. And I see Newt who, while infinitely more conservative than the socialist that is Santorum, he has also on repeated occasion voted for and advocated for the expansion of government power. So really Rick, where are these two conservatives? The only conservatives who have been in this race are Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann (and maybe Herman Cain, but I was always too shaky on his foreign policy to say that he was really a conservative). I am getting tired of this man lying about being a conservative and no one calling him on it. Economically he is as bleeding heart and big government as it gets. And given that his low opinion of women is more in line with Israel’s enemies than with Israel I worry about his foreign policy conservative credentials as well. He is opposed to the liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the Declaration and the limited government of the Constitution. He is not a conservative.

1 Comment

Filed under Economics, Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics, Rick Santorum, Stupid liberal quote of the day

Santorum Doesn’t Understand That He Lost Does He

(you don’t need to watch the whole thing…but you know me I like to show I didn’t take things out of context)

Did you catch Santorum’s speech after Michigan and Arizona? By his attitude you wouldn’t know that he lost by over 20 points in one state and even cheating couldn’t win the other. Look at how happy he is. I don’t think he gets he lost. And lost big. Because don’t forget 9% of those who voted were Dems. And they were 53% for Santorum. So that gap between Romney and Santorum is actually a bit bigger.

But as always, it’s the words that spew out of his mouth with no discernable purpose that have to make you go “huh?” Here’s a random sampling.

“Wow, a month ago, they didn’t know who we are, but they do now.”

Yeah Rick that’s kind of the problem. We learned what a psycho and liberal you are. And I’m sorry but you got the vote of Obama Democrats and nut jobs who think that the only function of government is hatin’ us some gay and bannin’ abortion.

“And the people of Michigan looked into the hearts of the candidates, and all I have to say is: I love you back.”

Yes, yes they did look into the heart of the candidates. And sane people didn’t vote for you. In fact the majority of people didn’t vote for you.

“But my mom’s is a very — well, unusual person for her time. She’s someone who — who did get a college education in the — in the 1930s, and was a nurse, and got a graduate’s degree, even, as a nurse, and worked full time.”

What a snob she must be. Goin’ and getting’ one of them highfalutin’ college degrees. I am usually a fan of women working if they choose to…however clearly Mrs. Santorum did not stay at home enough and beat common sense into her dipshit son. Shame on her. Well I’m just glad he’s stopped talking about how much he admires his communist grandfather.

“It’s getting harder for people to make ends meet, because we have a government that is crushing us every single day with more taxes, more regulations, and the idea that they know better than you how to run your life.”

Would those have been the regulations and taxes put in by your union friends Rick?

And what he’s not adding, what we all know he’s thinking is, “The government and Obama don’t know better than you. I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU.”

“Are we a country that believes in big government?”

Judging from your voting record Ricky, you do.

“ Do we believe in the smart and elite in this country to manage us?”

Okay I get the use of the word “elite”…but “smart”? Yes I do believe the smart people should be in charge. That’s what the major complaint against Democrats and the religious wackjob wing of the Republican party is, that they’re morons. That intelligence is required to govern. That we need thought and reason and knowledge and virtue guiding us…not idiots who follow whims. I know what he’s trying to say…but the choice of the word “smart” instead of say “intelligentsia” or “ivory tower” or “arrogant” or any word to convey the appearance of intelligence without the existence of it, that would be fine…But “smart” in conjunction with his “college is for snobs” remark really scares me. I agree that the ivory tower elites who ponder ideas that have no basis in reality shouldn’t be in complete control, but that doesn’t mean education and intelligence are to avoided (as Santorum’s Freudian slips keep suggesting). If “aristocracy” literally means government by the best…what word means government by the dumbest (no, besides Obama)?

Also do you notice how he uses the word manage without explicitly condemning it. I may be reading too much into this (not really when you take it in context of everything else he says) but it seems to suggest that he thinks it is the government’s job to manage us, just so long as it’s him doing it.

“Or do you believe in free people and a free economy and building a great America from the bottom up? What do you say?”

I believe in freedom and capitalism, Rick. You published a book bluntly and explicitly condemning them. Probably had to do with your hatred of those smart and edjurmacated (since I assume his devote followers don’t have the education to pronounce words properly) Protestants who wrote the Declaration and Constitution. (I would also bring up that Ann Coulter points out that you don’t know anything about the Constitution. In fact you may know less about it than Obama.)

At that point in the speech there was some REALLY weak applause. I want to find the people who did applaud because I have some lovely bridges to sell them.

He continued for no purpose…and certainly no where in this does he acknowledge that even by cheating he couldn’t win.

“We put forward a plan the Wall Street Journal calls supply-side economics for the working man, the working men and women of this country, to be able to get those jobs in manufacturing, to be able to get those skills, provide for their family. The average manufacturing job in America pays $20,000 more a year than the average job in America.”

Dear God in Heaven, shut the f!@# up about manufacturing! It’s not 1890 you idiot! Yes, if we have pro-growth policies manufacturing will rebound a great deal, but that is not the future of this nation, it’s the past, and you keep treating it like it’s the newest idea on the block. Have you heard of advanced technology, research, and computers? Oh, no, because those are jobs that require…what’s the term?…college degrees.

And Rick do you know why it’s 20K more, because half those jobs are union. And I hate to tell you this, the goddamn unions are the enemy. They are more corrupt than any business they were formed to oppose and have rigged the system to encourage the most corrupt, most overpaid, most under-working, most useless bunch of steady Democratic voters in history. If you let the free market determine salaries and not unions backed by their corrupt lawmakers (yes, Rick, I mean you) then manufacturing jobs wouldn’t pay that much. That’s why companies leave America, there is no reason to pay someone 20K above the average for a job that requires no education.  Like Obama, you’re trying to pick winners and not let the market operate itself.  If you knew the first thing about economics you would know that never works.

“All of our economic plan is based on a very simple concept, based on what’s worked for America from its very founding.”

Following Founding principles does not mean following Alexander Hamilton’s plan to expand manufacturing and industry to the letter…you do know this, right, Rick?

“I wave this Constitution at every speech,”

You might want to try reading it sometime.

“and I talk about it being the operator’s manual of America. It’s how America works. It’s the “how” of America. But there’s another document equally important, which is the “why” of America, and that’s the Declaration of Independence. And in that Declaration is these words, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.'”

Shocker he doesn’t bother to mention that Right to pursue Happiness….you know the one he will do everything in his power to stop.

“The men and women who signed that Declaration of Independence wrote this final phrase: We pledge to each other — we pledge to each other our lives, our fortune, and our sacred honor.”

I’m beginning to see that Rick’s knowledge of history is spotty at best. Which women signed the Declaration? Rick, just because they had long hair doesn’t mean they’re women.

Okay Rick. You give like 4% of your ill-gotten fortune to charity and you have no honor to speak of…could you please treat your life the same way and make it go away from the public eye.

I could go on but quite frankly it just started getting rambling and disorganized to a greater degree. It almost reminded me of that last scene in Inherit the Wind where the prosecutor after losing the case start rambling in a plea just to be treated like he was important. Rick did not have the manners to exit as gracefully as the character in the play.


Filed under Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Founding, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, politics, Rick Santorum, Unions