Category Archives: Carter

Newt shows he knows nothing about history

Newt’s latest argument against Romney runs as such:

“Why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?”

So we shouldn’t nominate Romney because he lost to McCain because McCain lost to Obama.

Okay let’s see if that is a valid argument by looking at history.  Obama has been compared to Carter a lot (I think it has something to do with the socialism, incompetence, destroying the economy, arrogance and Jew-hating), so let’s see if you had used that argument in 1980:

“Why would you nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Carter.”

The guy who lost to Carter in 1976 was Gerry Ford.  And the guy who lost the nomination battle with Gerry Ford was the former Governor of uber-liberal California, Ronald Reagan.  So by using Newt’s logic, we should never have nominated Reagan because he obviously couldn’t beat Carter because he couldn’t even beat a wimpy moderate like Gerry Ford.

Now I’m not saying that Romney is Reagan (although wouldn’t it be cool if he showed us a side of himself we never saw before once in the White House) but the fact is that Newt argument is BS.  And for a history professor, and a supposed Reagan Republican, not to mention someone who was in the House at the time, to not know how stupid his argument is…it’s just sad.

1 Comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Carter, Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics

In an argument with a Ron Paul supporter? send them here…

If you’re sane and like me you’re probably getting tired of these RonPaulBots who like Objectivists defending Ayn Rand (I wonder if there is any cross over there?) think the man walks on water and is no more infallible than the Pope…yeah because that kind of blind devotion really proves to me you’ve thought this one through. I think Reagan is probably the best President in history, but I can probably rattle off 20 things he did wrong right off the top of my head, easily. Even great leaders are human, and anyone who wants to portray their candidate as perfection defined clearly hasn’t thought about the issues very well…and as we have seen with Barrack “The One” Obama, blind devotion is often attributed to the worst, not the best candidates.

So to save you some time I am presenting you with a wide variety of valid resources on why Ron Paul must never, ever be allowed near the White House for any reason whatsoever.

I’m going to be providing a lot of links, and just copying some of my previous statements, so that you have it all in one place at one time. Please feel free to share this with any mindless Ron Paul supporters.

He is a racist and Anti-Semite and just a bigot in general

This is, by far, my biggest problem. I had hoped that Jimmy Carter would be the last anti-Semite this country ever elected. 2008 ruined that hope. But that is no excuse to once again make that mistake.

In his book Liberty Defined (Liberty Defiled might be a better title for his understanding of liberty) he goes on about how in high school he heard a Palestinian student go on about how those mean evil Israeli’s forced them off their land. And because they said the Jews were evil it must be true. That nice Mr. Goebbels wouldn’t lie to us, would he? He says it struck him as unfair. First, what conservative uses the word “fair”? Second, it strikes me as anti-Semitic propaganda and pretty much an outright lie, and history has shown me to be correct. But Paul would rather believe it than find the truth. For a high school student, or maybe some idiot hick that might be forgivable…for a person holding an advanced degree and who is in Congress and thus might have access to some legitimate records, it’s a complete denial of reality and unforgiveable. So there is point one for anti-Semitism, repeating anti-Semitic lies.

You might also notice, that any conversation would logically not start off with information from 60 years ago, but maybe deal in the here and now. But no he wouldn’t do that because that would show the Israeli’s to be people who target terrorists and military groups while on the other side you have thugs, tyrants and terrorists who target nightclubs, schools buses and other innocent civilians. Point two covering up legitimate evidence.

He uses the word Zionism as the title of that chapter as well. You know I know the word has historical meanings implications beyond a racial slur…but it’s pretty much a racial slur these days.

Then of course there is his newsletter which makes such statements as

We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”
“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” (I need to comment on this one, I could have sworn I saw white people involved in the in the LA riots in the early 90’s…and I believe order was restored, at least in part, because of the police).

“I think we can assume that 95 percent of the black men in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”


An according to the Atlantic “Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.”

Oh and did you know that gays were, “far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.” 

All of the articles have no byline but are written in the first person…so you believe that with a heading like the Ron Paul report, and written in the first person, Ron Paul has nothing to do with it’s content.  And if you believe that I have some lovely bridges to sell to you, please contact me. You know what I find interesting, if I found out someone was publishing racist material with my name attached suggesting I was the writer I would sue them for libel for every last cent they were worth, and if it cost me a job (like the Presidency) then that would be a solid case…yet I have seen no such lawsuit filed. And in 1996  “[h]e said they were being taken out of context.”  I would love to hear what context those statement were made in that doesn’t make them, at best, questionable.

A word on this. Let’s say Ron Paul’s latest excuse, that he owned the newsletter but didn’t have anything to do with the writing of the “very bad sentences” (there’s an understatement). Which means that he is 1. So incompetent a manager he has no clue what people under him are doing and 2. He has no ability to detect character in his employees as he apparently hired some really scummy people. So my option are he is a racist or the world’s worst manager. I can’t wait to see who he would pick as Attorney General…but I can tell you this, it would make Eric Holder look competent by comparison.

Or listen to this:

“…I think it’s absolutely wrong to prevent people that are starving and having problems, that are almost like in concentration camps, and saying yes we endorse this whole concept that we can’t allow ships to go in there in a humanitarian way…”

That’s right let’s compare the Israeli’s defending themselves to the acts of a Concentration Camp…who else talks like that, oh yeah, anti-Semite extraordinaire Jimmy Carter. Oh and you have to like the typical propaganda: let’s ignore the fact that these flotillas were a cover weapons and funding. And to deny that is again something either means he is an idiot or he is intentionally lying to distort the facts to hurt Israel.

And you have to love how he doesn’t see any problem with Hamas being voted in, in fact preposterously claiming them to be democratic government. Because why should you care if a terrorist organization whose charter is to “drive the Jews into the sea” takes charge of country? Notice his only definition of a democracy is that there is s public election. When most sane people talk about spreading democracy they mean spreading Classical Liberalistic democratic-republics which are designed to protect people’s right…not destroy them. But in Ron Paul’s mind anyone who receives the majority of votes is a valid leader. I remind you that Hitler, Saddam, Hugo Chavez, and a whole host of other tyrants are “democratically” elected by Paul’s definition. And it it’s good enough for Paul, Jimmy Carter and the rest of the world’s anti-Semites I guess it should be goo enough for us.

I also find it fun how he talks about “Didn’t we talk to the Soviets?” Yes, most presidents did…until Reagan who while he held a few conference pretty much gave them nothing and didn’t back down. So let’s see Truman-Carter talked and how did that go. Reagan gave them at best lip service…and that led to what? Cleary a ringing endorsement to always “talk” to despots.

Oh, and in 2008 he endorsed rabid anti-Semite Cynthia McKinney for President.

His ideas on foreign affairs are beyond insane


I love his argument. Islamofacists are terrorists because we’re occupying the Middle East. I’m sure that explains their genocidal beliefs and actions towards women, Jews, homosexuals and all non-Muslims. Because the U.S. is occupying the Middle East. I’m sure that explains why Hitler was making an alliance with Mufti of Jerusalem to exterminate the Jews in Palestine, because they were a bunch of peace loving people. I’m sure that’s why the Muslim Ottoman Empire committed the first acts to be called genocide against the Armenia population. This could go all the way back to the genocide of the Persian Empire and the vicious eradication of Zorasterism in the 7th century and back to Mohammed personally ordering the genocidal slaughter of the Jews of Medina. It’s all because the U.S. was occupying the Middle East. Islam has always been a religion of peace and does not have a history of encouraging the absolute worst aspect of human nature. It does not have a track record for acts that even in the 6th century would be called evil. It doesn’t have a “holy” book that glorifies violence and slaughtering those who are different. No. No. Not at all, it’s only because we’re in the Middle East and if we left (and probably took all the Jews with us) they would return to their pre-Israel state of near Edenic peace and utopian prosperity.

Why am I the only one who thinks this man saying “It’s because we’re occupying the Middle East” and implying that if we left they wouldn’t attack us has all the ring of Neville Chamberlain saying if we just give Hitler the Sudetenland we shall have “Peace in our time.” Might be because I have even a layman’s understanding of history and human psychology. They hate because, since birth, they have been fed a steady stream of hate…and it is a fire that cannot be quenched by appeasement, it can’t even be stopped by reason, it can only be opposed. I think most Muslims are probably like most Christians they care more about paying the bills and their family more than they do about the more abhorrent parts of the their holy book…but there is a virulent strain in Islam that seeks to oppress and destroy liberty, and it cannot just be ignored by leaving.

And while we shouldn’t get involved in every countries problem there are evils that always have a nature of expanding (tyranny) and are so abhorrent that to not act is an act of evil (genocide). To not oppose tyranny and genocide wherever we find it when we are able is to relinquish everything we believe is right (you know, the little things like the idea that “all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights”…I failed to see the line where it says that equality and those rights end at the U.S. border). If tyranny is an evil because it is in opposition to a natural right, it is as great an evil in someone else’s country as when it is in your own. And to sit by while this evil goes on and you have the ability to stop it is not only morally reprehensible, it is also patently foolish. One of my favorite authors, P.J. O’Rourke, pointed out that “evil is an outreach program.” History shows that tyrants and those who commit genocide are never content with their own little patch of ground and like a cancer they always, always spread…and when you’re the biggest country around they will always become your problem eventually. So why not stop evil when it’s small and easily handled, when the bloodshed committed by the evil has not gotten out of hand, and when it will take less bloodshed to put it down.

Or you can go with the Ron Paul/Neville Chamberlain theory of isolationism. Because it always works so well.

Yes, there are numerous legitimate objections to the way we handled Iraq and Afghanistan. Lots of legitimate objections. Might be helpful to have a plan on how to build a government next time. Maybe not make deals with the devils in the country. Just a thought. But there is a difference between complaining about how Iraq and Afghanistan were handled (which any sane person should have issues with) and with complaining about the idea of opposing tyranny wherever we find it with all the weapons we have at our disposal (which includes but should not be limited to diplomacy, embargos, espionage, assassination, and full military force). Paul seems to think that if you aren’t directly attacking us it doesn’t matter how evil you are.

In fact, the absolute litmus test of a just war is World War II, which in retrospect every sane human being sees that we should have invaded Germany the moment they took over Austria (probably sooner), not waited for the Sudetenland, not waited for Poland, not waited for France, not waited for the Blitz and certainly not have waited for Pearl Harbor but taken them all out before millions of innocents were needlessly slaughter …how did Ron Paul respond to this particular test of sanity? Why he said in response to being asked if we should have used military force to end the Holocaust:

“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”

Not only is that line pure evil, and another point in the Anti-Semite court (what is that five? but notice also his statement about going to fight for someone. Notice the moral ambiguity. It seems to suggest that if you wanted to go fight with Chinese or the British (which many honorable Americans did) that would be fine…but it also seems to suggest that if you would have rather fought with the Germans or the Japanese that would also be okay with him. Now I may be stretching a little, but the man seems to have no moral compass whatsoever so can you say there is anything he has ever said that would have stopped someone going to fight for Germany or Japan. A sane human being would say anyone who did that should be put up against a wall and shot, I’d bet you Paul wouldn’t be bothered by such an idea.

Need further proof he has no moral compass…

He doesn’t see a problem with Iran having nuclear weapons. The fact that they’re a theocracy might be a problem. The fact that their president, Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denying lunatic who believes the end of the world is near, and that he might be able to hasten it by bringing about nuclear war…yeah can’t see how that guy having nukes could possibly end badly.  After all many will point out that Ahmadinejad answers to the Ayatollah Khamenei, and Khamenei is trying to get Ahmadinejad removed on charges of “sorcery”. Yes I feel much safer with the nukes being in the hands of a Holocaust-denying religious leader who finds “sorcery” to be a valid accusation against someone. Why shouldn’t Iran have nukes? Because all the intelligent people were either killed, jailed, or are now too afraid to act after the U.S. didn’t support their uprising (maybe they should have demanded an even more Islamist government and Obama would have supported them…it worked in Libya and Egypt). And the fact that Ron Paul seems oblivious to this insanity is frightening. I guess since he feels that he, a lunatic, should have the nuke codes, why shouldn’t other mentally unstable dingbats.

Let me just ask this:  How do you expect a man to defend your rights, when he doesn’t apparently believe they are natural human rights in the first place?  I can see logical arguments for, we don’t have the manpower or money right not to take on the world’s tyrants…fine…but he isn’t making an argument from practicality, he’s saying that tyrants can burn the world to a cinder so long as they leave us for last.

The belief that his ideas on the economy are sound is a joke


Now in all fairness, Ron Paul claims to be a follower of Austrian economics, whereas usually I am more of Milton Freidman Monetarist, so while we agree on probably 99% of this economically, we would never agree on everything. But as I did research I found he doesn’t exactly live up to even his supposed Austrian economics ideals…

But watch him be a total hypocrite

So what he does is he gets pork put into the bill but then votes against it so he can say he has never voted for an earmark. The lack of a principle there is beyond astounding. I haven’t seen ethical summersaults like that since Kant tried to argue you should help murders find their victims. How much Pork has Ron Paul brought to his district?

·$8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Phase Piers.
·$2.5 million from taxpayers for “new benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, decorative street lighting.”
·$2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an “Economically Disadvantaged” area.
·$2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a “Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center.”
·$38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to “encourage parents to read aloud to their children.”
·$18 million from federal taxpayers for a Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering Phase (light rail).
·$4 million from federal taxpayers for the “Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative.”
·$11 million from federal taxpayers for a “Community-Based Job Training Program.”
·$2 million from federal taxpayers for a “Clean Energy” pilot project.
·$5 million from federal taxpayers in order to build a parking garage.
·$1.2 million for a “Low-income working families Day Care Program”
·$4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility.

Don’t believe me, think I just made this up, or got it off another website (I got the wording because this is getting long as it is and I’m trying to save time) …well then you can go to this website. It’s Ron Paul’s Congressional webpage, maintained by Paul and his staff and you can see pdf copies of all the requests WITH PAUL’S SIGNATURE on them. Oh yeah he really believes in small government. Not one of those pork projects has even the slightest thing to do with what federal spending should be. It takes balls to complain about the size of government spending with one hand and contribute to the tune of $82.4 million dollars in 2010 alone…let’s see, assuming this is an average year for him, he’s been in the House for over 2 decades at $82.4 million a year…last time a I checked that number comes out to just over a Billion dollars in pork. Truly this man is a champion of conservative economics and not a hypocrite like the rest of the Republican party.

And then does anyone remember his response to Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, that is was too ”regressive” that it was utterly unfair to think that maybe, just maybe, the poor should pay some part of the tax burden of the economy. That’s right he only believes the middle class and the rich should shoulder the burden. Does that sound like a capitalist to you? Now if you want to complain that the numbers were too high, that it should have been 5-5-5 would be more economically logical, that would be fine, it was not a perfect plan…but to complain that it has an actual capitalist tenant that everyone has their money in the game…utterly astounds me that any supposed economic conservative can possibly support this man.

Or there is this little gem from his own website “ Legalizing sound money, so the government is forced to get serious about the dollar’s value.” Sound nice doesn’t it. Do you know what it means? It means he wants to go back to the Gold Standard. You know ignore whether there was a rational argument for staying off the gold standard or going off it back in the day…the fact is that we have been off it for so long that there is no going back. Yeah, academics may like to banter around whether it would be a good thing or not…but show me one crazy enough to advocate to have it put back in place immediately. Even if you were going to do it you would have to lower the amount of money in the system (which the Fed has put far too much in) but continue lowering it beyond what any Monetarist would think healthy even over a 20 year period of time…but in Paul’s case, since you wouldn’t have 20 years to do it you would have to do it in 4 years or less! Even if returning to the gold standard was a good idea, trying to adjust an economy that fast is suicide. There is no going back and trying to force it back into place and it would possibly be the most economically destructive idea possible. It’s an arcane debate that whether it was the right or wrong thing to do is a pointless argument now. And a man who doesn’t get that is not qualified to be in the Oval Office.

This is a man who thinks that all countries are created equally and should be left alone to do whatever they want, because none of it is America’s business. First off it’s frightening to think that someone who claims to understand economics has not a single clue that the economy has reached a point where every country in the world is connected into one giant economy. No country is an island; every country is a piece of the whole global economy… any country’s economic problems diminishes America, because we are involved in the global economy, and therefore never seem to know for whom the closing bells on Wall Street tolls; it tolls for thee.

I have few problems with true Austrian economists like Hayek or Von Missus. But Paul, while he may at times parrot the words well. The man’s words may say economic capitalist…his actions show he knows nothing or is just a hypocrite. Either way he ruins the valid arguments of libertarian philosophy.

And that he is the only answer

Three times already I have been asked by a Ron Paul supporter in the last week “What do you support NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act of 2011) or SOPA (the poorly named Stop Online Piracy bill)?” when I said it would be a cold day in hell before I supported Paul. Those would be the defense bill that allows Obama to imprison any American without trial and the bill that allows Obama to shut down any website he wants. Both bills were moves by the Obama administration to have near tyrannical power and to completely shred the Constitution. Both are entirely unconstitutional and I see a 9-0 thumbs down coming from the Supreme if they survive the first days of a new presidency. However, why if I oppose Obama’s power grabs would it follow I must support Paul or that if I don’t support Paul I must approve of shredding the Constitution. Huh? Is that the best they have, that a man who has been able to get exactly one bill through Congress in a very long political career is the only hope we have for getting this legislation overturned? That is beyond any form or reason as I understand. But RonPaulbot reason is very different than our Earth logic, they believe it to be superior form.

He appears to be very, very popular with liberals (which in this case I think is a valid case of guilt by association)

And then there is this. And I’m saving this for last, because I do know how laws are written and how there can often be extra materials that has nothing to do with the law that should be opposed (like I support funding for the military included in NDAA, I oppose the Constitutional violations, thus I oppose the whole law)…so I’m kind of willing to hear that there was something else that was terrible in this bill that was tacked on because no one would vote against it…but he voted against a bill that would have required wi-fi carriers to report child porn downloads to the police. I don’t care how libertarian you are, it’s child porn, if you’re caught with it you need to go away for a very, very long time. (Again I would be willing to hear an argument that there was some terrible part to this bill that did need it to be opposed until that part was removed…but otherwise this is kind of sick.) I’m sorry you vote against this there is either a legitimate legal reason, and in which case you scream from every mountain exactly why you’re doing it to make sure there is nothing unclear about your motives and you offer a bill or amendments that corrects those problem (which I can’t find any record of him attempting amendment or a different bill), which last time I checked is why we elect people to Congress, to work together to craft the best bills (yes I know they all fail miserably, that doesn’t forgive Paul’s sins)…or, besides getting money from Odessa, is NAMBLA funding this psycho as well?

You know what, you don’t like Obama or Romney, fine. But don’t vote for an even bigger idiot just because you don’t like your choices. Stay home, or vote for Mickey Mouse…anything, but do not support this vicious, hypocritical demagogue.

***

One last thing I have to say. I get very animated and passionate about my arguments with liberals or isolationist libertarians.  But unlike RonPaulBots I do understand where they are coming from.  I understand that much of what I say comes off as heartless to liberals (even though I would argue that it helps more people in the long run by being purely rational in terms of government) and I understand the desire of libertarians to just want to be left alone (even though I argue that attitude is never pragmatic).  My point is that while I cannot always agree with my opponents I can at an intellectual level understand where they are coming from.  Ron Paul supporters do not seem capable of this.  If you tell them you can’t support him because you think he’s an anti-Semite they act like you just said the sky is green with yellow polkadots or suddenly just started speaking Summerian in front of them.  I know this won’t actually shut them up, because they believe with a religious fervor that cannot be challenged with fact and data.  It is faith that Ron Paul is the only solution and there can be no challenging the faith, they cannot even conceive of there being an objection to their god-king–there can only be burning the heretics.

Vote for Ron Paul…prove the Mayans were right about 2012

6 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Capitalism, Carter, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Racism, Taxes, Tyranny

California, Land of the Crazies, and why the Luthor plan may be the only way to save the state.

Continuing with my astonishment at the absolute insanity that seems to permeate all of society at this point, one must mention California, Land of the Crazies. The state is all but beyond hope, and let’s take a look at why it’s so far gone.

There is no need to go over the obscene welfare state, extreme illegal immigrant problem (a problem so bad that they have become a powerful voting block, despite having no legal right to vote), and the fact that the state has avoided bankruptcy only through budget tricks that make Enron look ethical. These are all known facts. The problem comes in when you consider what California is doing about it…

Well first they elected Jerry Brown. Brown used to be Governor of California back in the 1970’s when he did the same thing to California’s economy that dim Jimmy Carter was doing to the national economy, i.e. destroying it. So it made perfect sense to reelect him again? I’ll grant you the Republican option wasn’t very good, but Brown’s track record is literally that he destroyed the California economy. I don’t care how bad the Republican option is, you don’t elect a man who has already failed at this very job.

But let’s ignore who got elected to the executive branch. The real insanity comes from the legislative branch. Sane people might want to get California’s budget under control, lure businesses back, reduce unemployment, make the cities safer. Something along those lines…but not the lunatics in California.

Let’s look at some of the things that California has busied itself with while the state went to hell.

Well first you have the fact that they decided to tax all the business that Amazon.com did in the state. This was a tax designed to go against Amazon and its business within the state, to tax them, to hurt them. It was backed by businesses whose bottom line was hurt by Amazon and designed to make it so bad that they would not be able to do business in the state—rather than lowering their prices to compete, Amazon would have to raise its prices just to stay profitable. Who suffers here? Amazon obviously, but also the consumer who no longer can find things at cheaper prices online. That’s right, the socialists in the legislature of California conspired with businesses to price gouge consumers. Do you begin to see why capitalists scoff at claims of maintaining fairness by government officials?

This law is unpopular in California. So much so that there is a move to have it overturned by the voters in a special election. In response to its unpopular nature what do the liberals in the state capital do? They move to have the laws referendum votes change to make sure that their business killing, job destroying, consumer hurting law will not be overturned. How wonderfully democratic of them. Did I say democratic? I meant fascist.

Also there seems to be no end to new business regulations coming out of California. Because being one of the five worst states for businesses isn’t enough…apparently the geniuses in California think that the only way to improve the economy is to be the most business unfriendly area in the world! Maybe that will help bring money back into the state.

But why stop with regulating businesses, when you can regulate individuals as well. If you’re a parent who wants to go out for the night and so you just hire the sixteen year old down the block to look after the kids, guess what, in California you and the sixteen year old babysitter will soon be criminals. Yes, that’s right you can now only hire adults, you have to pay them an hourly wage, have them keep an official time card, pay all the social-security/unemployment/and all other taxes for a full time employee, provide breaks and you must pay them at least minimum wage. Well if you thought teenagers were having a hard time before this in finding a job, apparently in California the goal is 0% for all teenagers. So teenagers won’t have any money to buy stuff, and parents won’t ever be going to movies or restaurants again which will kill the dining and entertainment industries even more. Not to mention is the state telling you who you are allowed to trust your children too, you personally as a parent should have no rights in this area whatsoever, the state knows best.

But the insanity doesn’t even come close to stopping there!

California is about to completely ban Styrofoam! Yes no more Styrofoam plates or cups in any restaurant or store. None whatsoever. This will of course be great for the environment because as we all know Styrofoam takes 700 years to biodegrade. Let’s ignore the fact that wax covered paper, which is what Styrofoam will be replaced by takes 400 years to biodegrade, require more money, over twice the energy (so a larger carbon footprint if you cared about such things), over ten times more chemicals to create (you think wood is naturally that color or consistency) and has far more chemical byproducts in its creation that are all harmful to the environment. To hell if Styrofoam is vastly more friendly to the environment when you actually take everything that is required to make it into account. We need to ban it because we follow the religion of environmentalism which can never be questioned by those little things called facts. This is California the state that destroyed hundreds of farms in central California all to defend an ugly fish no one ever heard of and so evolutionally backward that it can only exist in central California and will die at the drop of a hat. (Has anyone ever explained to environmentalists that the environment is almost designed to get rid of species that can’t adapt and to protect every single species is actually working against the very mechanism of evolution?)

Oh and why stop there? Let’s release thousands upon thousands of convicted felons back onto the streets. I’m sure that will do wonders for the state.

And dare we forget what California is doing to make great strides in education. Let’s make sure that we teach Gay History. But in addition to making sure that we bring up all the gay people in history, we can’t bring anything negative about any single gay person in history. (I’m not sure if this means we have to just ignore Roman history or if we have to portray all the Roman Emperors as saintly figures who wouldn’t ever do anything wrong…but either version seems somehow wrong). Did I miss a memo? Are gay people these magical people who are incapable of doing anything wrong? Because, for all his literary genius I recall that Oscar Wilde was quite the asshole, as was Michelangelo and J. Edgar Hoover. Yes, they’re all people who should be covered in any halfway competent History course, but to whitewash their acts just because they’re gay smacks a bit of 1984. Last time I checked gay people had morons and geniuses, those who were saintly and those who unspeakably evil, nice and cruel, charitable and stingy…why? because they’re human. Sexual orientation does not change the fact that you are a member of the human collective. If your acts are spectacular enough, for good or for evil, that they merit being brought up in a history course they should be brought up. Whether you’re gay, bi, straight, asexual or some category I’m forgetting, if you did something worthy of making history you get put into history, who cares who you’re attracted to. Or as my friend The Snark Who Hunts Back put it “Sorry, I was unaware I had a separate history from straight people.”

And I could go on and on…$150 additional tax for people who live in rural areas to pay for protection from fires that the fire service “accidentally” sets every year, SWAT teams sent to arrest people for selling milk, forcing all teachers to join the teacher’s union, not legalizing a major business in the form of pot use and then taxing the shit out of it, (this list could go on for pages) and dare we forget the banning of Happy meals and anti-Semitic push by the Nazis* who run San Francisco to ban circumcisions (thank god that one failed).

The state is insane! Completely, totally, certifiably, bat shit insane!

Which brings me back to the title of this blog “and why the Luthor plan may be the only way to save the state.” What’s the Luthor plan you ask? Well you probably already know it, you were just hoping I wasn’t going to go here. Most of the lunatics in California are concentrated in two areas Los Angeles and San Francisco, with a few other pockets scattered up and down the coast. In other words the loonies all seem to be west of the San Andres Fault line. What’s the Luthor plan? Well, as you may recall from the movie, it’s the idea that we need to place several large nuclear weapons on the San Andres, detonate them, and let that part of the state fall into the ocean. Good riddance. Yeah, that Luthor plan.

I’m of course joking, but can you really say that there is any logical way of dealing with insanity at this level?

*You may think that my calling the people who run San Francisco Nazi’s is just petty name calling. It’s not. They were making a law to ban a Jewish practice and enforce it with full fascist use of the law. That’s not hyperbole or name calling, using laws to hurt Jews demands that they be called what they are.

2 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Carter, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Education, Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism, First Amendment, Gay Rights, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immagration, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Teacher's Union, Teaching, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

Deja Vu

It’s the anniversary of Dim Jimmy Carter’s Malaise speech (you know the one where he said that America was on the downfall and would never again be great…right before we became the world’s only superpower and had an economic boom and took down the Soviet Union…all made possible by firing the little Anti-Semite named Carter).

But history has a tendency to repeat itself…

Thanks to Laura Ingram for putting this together.

Leave a comment

Filed under Carter, Economics, Obama

Obama’s Intellectual Ancestor

Dim Jimmy Carter apparently is taking his information on history from the same reliable sources where he gets advice on nuclear proliferation policy (although I doubt most 6 year olds say anything as dumb as what comes out of this idiots mouth).

This isn’t even close to a major issue but I will never forgo a chance to kick this Anti-Semite when he’s down.

So his latest act of incompetence is saying that he only lost the presidential election in 1980 because of a third party candidate. This is a fascinating revision of history as Jimmy got 41% and the third party candidate (Anderson) got 6.6% …and Reagan got 50.7 %. Someone should tell Jimmy that 41+6.6 (47.6) is not more than 50.7…but all you have to do is look at how Democrats think they can spend what they don’t have to understand that Democrats all failed math. (And you could argue that some states were close calls, and the third party destroyed Jimmy in the electoral college, but if you want to even try that I would suggest you look at the fact that Reagan had nearly a 20 point lead in California and would have won California even if there wasn’t a third party candidate. And as anyone who looks at politics knows, a Democrat can’t win without California and its massive number of electoral votes–45 in 1980). Even if you assume every vote for the third party candidate would have gone to the 2nd worst president in the history of the Union (three guesses as to who I think is the worst), which is a big assumption, Jimmy still would have lost the electoral college by a wide margin (340-198). Jimmy is just a moron’s moron and like his compatriots who do not live in the real world (Obama, Krugman) should just shut up before he further embarrasses this country.

This just shows what a petty excuse Jimmy is. He is still so sore that the entire nation voted his little excuse of a presidency out that he has to live in a dream world rather than admit he was beaten by a better man.

But is it any shock that he would want to make up a fantasy world. After all, what did his Presidency give us? He let the Soviets destroy the early stages of democracy and capitalism in Afghanistan. He let Iran fall to a religious tyranny. He passed the Community Reinvestment Act which would later be used to force banks to give home loans to people who couldn’t afford them in the 90’s and early 2000’s…gee I hope none of those things ever came back to bite us in the ass.

And shame on Matthews for not calling him on his incredibly bad math. I know Chris gets chills up his legs whenever liberals spew lies and hot air, but this is basic math.

For those who might doubt my statements on the numbers of Reagan’s win:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1980

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/presidential/presidential_election_1980.html

http://www.presidentelect.org/e1980.html#map

I also verified these numbers in a few politics books.

Leave a comment

Filed under Carter, Obama

Karma catches up to everyone

Jimmy Carter is in the hospital.

Couldn’t have happened to a nicer dimwitted, treasonous, America hating, anti-semitic bastard.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Carter, Evils of Liberalism