Category Archives: Civil Liberties

Obama did say “You didn’t build that” and worse…Part IV

 

So Obama did say you didn’t build your business, government did.  This is just about as evil and stupid as it getsand any claim that Romney is just as bad is just stupid.

But this is really just the tip of the iceberg.

Why?

Because Obama makes statements like this:

I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back. Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

Dear God in Heaven!  EVERY INDUSTRY!

Because you want this debacle to be the standard of all industry…don’t you?

So we’re all supposed to run businesses like GM

Bloated union salaries.  CEOs that are answerable not to boards and shareholders but to czars and wanna-be dictators.  Practices that violate the bedrock principles of capitalism and screw shareholders out of their investment.    No really the stock is in near free fall.   Run your company to near bankruptcy by building overpriced green death traps that explode and that no one wants to buy.   Lose your government investment somewhere in the realm of 25 Billion Dollars.   A company that while going under is investing 600 Million in a British soccer team…???  And that is just a highlight of the problems with GM.   This company has become so dysfunctional from top to bottom that the millisecond government help stops it will crumble like a house of cards in a hurricane.

God help us.  If we ran every company in the nation like this cluster!@#$ the Dark Ages would look advanced by the time Obama was done.

So why does Obama want to run every industry like GM…hmmm…let’s see.  That would mean that the government would own a large portion of the every company and the president would have the ability to fire every CEO and would have the power to appoint his people to run every industry.

Hey what do you call that where the government owns and runs every business?

It starts with an S….um…shit for brains…serious deluded…senseless…stupid…all good answers…but no, I think the word I’m looking for is SOCIALISM.

His words, not mine.

Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

He wants to do the same thing he did with the auto industry, a complete government take over and revoking of basic principles, with every industry.

Go on, I really want to hear from liberals how that isn’t a textbook definition of socialism.  Government ownership and control of every industry.

Granted you could go with he’s a blithering idiot and doesn’t know what the hell he’s saying, which I fully am willing to buy…but that is just as much an argument against him being allowed to go back for four more years.

But while I do believe Obama makes Forrest Gump look like Sherlock Holmes, I believe he meant and understood (well as well as Obama’s limited mind can understand anything).  He wants to control everything.  I don’t know if it’s because he believes he can make it better (to hell with the lack of evidence) or because he wants to destroy the whole system.  It doesn’t matter.  He does want to be in control of everything, of every aspect of government and industry.  And just ignoring the horrific despotic and unconstitutional overtones of that idea…let’s not forget that he has wrecked GM and it will go down within the next few years, only it will be worth less when we sell off the parts to other car companies, it will have hurt every taxpayer who has to eat the loss, and this whole debacle will have delayed real growth and real recovery.  (And all of this ignores that eventually the courts will find that the Obama administration broke numerous laws in screwing over the bond holders which will cost the government a massive bundle of cash to boot).

This is true of GM and of industry Obama has or wants to get his hands on.  This is true not only of Obama but of government in general.  And Obama wants more government.

To hell with just “You didn’t build that” he wants complete socialism.

And half the country doesn’t see a problem with this?

A final point.  Even though Obama is clearly a socialist (and an idiot, and an asshole, and a wannabe tyrant…and worse), many conservatives are still clamoring and screaming about the fact that Romney isn’t going to war against Obama, about him being too cowardly or being too nice and calling Obama out as the socialist he is. Yeah because Reagan won the election calling Carter a communist anti-Semite whose utter lack of intelligence makes you question how much inbreeding is going on down in Georgia…oh wait, no, Reagan ran a quiet campaign on the issues.  Romney is running an intelligent campaign to win by a landslide, not a campaign to make the base feel good about itself; he’s running to make sure conservative ideals become policy, not to just spout conservative platitudes.  He’s sitting quietly right now raking in cash, while Obama burns through his entire reserve just to keep the polls static.  Romney will spend his money in the last months when it will actually have an effect on Election Day, while Obama will be broke by October.   Besides with Obama saying crazy shit like this, why would you need to campaign, Obama’s mouth is already the best campaigner for Romney there is.

1 Comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Occupy Wall Street, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

Obama did say, “You didn’t build that” and worse…Part III

 

“They might be giants, and we might be pygmies; but we stand on the shoulders of giants, so we can see farther.” Attributed to Sir Isaac Newton

So just to recap, Obama did actually say that government is responsible for all of your success and this is perhaps the dumbest idea in history.

Liberals will try and deflect from this by pointing out that Romney said the following at the Salt Lake Olympics:

Hand it to liberals to take a quote out of context…and still miss the point of what they’re taking out of context.

Well first off this, unlike the “You didn’t build that” comment is slightly out of context.  But before we get to context let’s just deal with the quote the liberals chose…as even that isn’t the same thing as Obama’s dipshit statement.

Let’s see what words does Romney use in that quotes.  Encouraged.  Guided.  None of which is equivalent to “You didn’t do that others did that.”   “All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them up.”  Which of course brings us back to the quote I have started each part of this series with: “but we stand on the shoulders of giants, so we can see farther.”  Those who stand on the shoulders, on the groundwork others have built have done something those people couldn’t.  They have done something that almost no one else could.

But is thanking someone equivalent to you didn’t do that?  No.  Look at the front or back of any book there is a long list of thanks and acknowledgements by the author to the people who helped them.  But just because people may have helped in deep and meaningful ways, it is the author’s name on the dust jacket because they’re the one who did the vast majority of the work, they’re the ones who created something out of nothing, they’re the ones who poured their soul out, worked long hours, fought the impulse to give up and created something.  And this is true of ANY entrepreneur, any Olympian, any person who accomplishes anything. They may have help and they should thank those individuals who helped them…but no sane person mistakes the kind of help individuals offer to one another for the actual accomplishment itself.

But ignoring that there is even a massive gulf between the two quotes out of context, let’s look actually at the full quote and see how while “You didn’t build that” wasn’t taken out of context, the Romney one kind of is.

“Tonight we cheer the Olympians, who only yesterday were children themselves,” Romney said. “As we watch them over the next 16 days, we affirm that our aspirations, and those of our children and grandchildren, can become reality. We salute you Olympians – both because you dreamed and because you paid the price to make your dreams real. You guys pushed yourself, drove yourself, sacrificed, trained and competed time and again at winning and losing.” …

“You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your own power,” said Romney, who on Friday will attend the Opening Ceremonies of this year’s Summer Olympics. “For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right!.”

Remember how the full context of Obama’s statement was that it doesn’t matter if you’re smart or worked hard because lots of people are smart and lots of people worked hard…and I guess the implication is that they all fail if government isn’t there to decide who wins and who loses. Everything preceding Obama’s statement was “You are not good enough.  You cannot do it on your own.  Your intellect and drive are worthless unless government decides you should win.”  Well notice the context of Romney’s quote.  He starts off telling the Olympians they did do that.  “We salute you Olympians – both because you dreamed and because you paid the price to make your dreams real.”  (And don’t even get me started on how Obama wouldn’t understand the idea of paying the price for your dreams…he is a man who has had everything in his life handed to him without effort…which is why he believes you didn’t build that, he didn’t.)

“We salute you Olympians” Did Obama anywhere in his speech say we should salute the businessman who create products and services for us to buy or whose business creates jobs and wealth?  Does he say anywhere we should applaud them for taking a risk that could have lost them everything?  Does he say we should be in awe of them sometimes, like now when they’re keeping their businesses alive when they have a piece of shit President doing everything in his power (both through legal and illegal means) to try and destroy them?  Nope he doesn’t.  Romney starts his speech acknowledging that it is the individual who accomplished something that deserves credit first and foremost.  Obama doesn’t even understand that this should be anywhere on the list.

“You guys pushed yourself, drove yourself, sacrificed, trained and competed time and again at winning and losing.”  Romney recognizes that it is the individual who chooses to push themselves and the individual who works to achieve their goal. The greatest parents and coaches in the world in the best facilities in the world can’t do a thing if the person isn’t willing to drive themselves.  Compare that to “Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.”  In Obama’s world you don’t push yourself to achieve, you’re “allowed” to achieve because government, all powerful government, deigns that you may achieve at their sufferance.

So in answer to question that some truly idiotic liberal put on that picture above “Why is it ok for Mitt to remind elite athletes that they didn’t do it alone, but when Obama says the same of business people, the Right throws a hissy fit?”  Because what Mitt and Barry are saying are not equivalent.  Because there is a difference between you had help in achieving your dream and you didn’t do it, the government did it for you.  Because one embraces what the individual is capable of and one denies the ability to shape your own life.  Because one glorifies what man is capable of and one denies he is capable of anything.  Because one is the basis of a system that provides freedom for the individual and one is the basis for the slavery of the collective.  Maybe that’s why we’re getting into a “hissy fit” as idiotic liberals put it (intelligent people might call it justified righteous indignation). Because we can tell the difference between ideas and recognize their consequences.

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Capitalism, character, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Taxes

The Conservative New Ager and The Snark Who Hunts Back Review The Dark Knight Rises: A Tale of Heroes, Politics and Death

This last week we (The Snark Who Hunts Back and The Conservative New Ager) went to go see The Dark Knight Rises together for the second time (the first being a trilogy marathon on opening night). We delayed writing a blog then because it became obvious there was so much we would have to see it again to fully appreciate the depth…and even on a second viewing we realized there is more than a single blog here.

But let’s get the overture out of the way. The final piece of this spectacular trilogy, like almost all of director Christopher Nolan’s recent work is thematically based off a work of literature…A Tale of Two Cities, in the case of The Dark Knight Rises. And while it might be hard to find the undercurrents of Othello in The Dark Knight, Faust in The Prestige, or Zorro in Batman Begins (which for symmetry should be renamed The Dark Knight Begins).

But it’s not just literary, it’s political…or at least it appears to be. The Dark Knight seemed pretty obviously a defense of the War on Terror, and The Dark Knight Rises seems a pretty striking assault on the morals of leftist economics. Now Nolan claims that his works aren’t political (a common defense by those who want to survive in a hostile political environment) and Occupy Wall Street thugs think they’re really smart in pointing out that the movie was written before OWS so it can’t be about them (this poor argument ignores that their rhetoric of evil has been spouted by the left quite vehemently in the last few years and also they clearly are so ignorant of the history of their own ideas that they don’t know their filth was spouted by demagogues in ancient Athens, and shown to be stupid then…so just because Nolan didn’t know about OWS doesn’t mean he wasn’t responding to the evil)…and even if Nolan is telling the truth that he didn’t intend it to a political statement (which I doubt) it works too well as one not to make some comments about the philosophy of the work.

Now ignoring the message of the trilogy taken as a whole (that’s another blog for another time) we think there are three main philosophical statements to this film: The nature of heroism, the politics of progressivism, envy and “social justice”, and the fear of death.

The Nature of the Hero

“A hero can be anyone. Even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat over a little boy’s shoulder to let him know the world hadn’t ended.”

One of the more unbelievable complaints I’ve heard about The Dark Knight Rises was that it made it look like the common man can’t do anything for themselves, that they need the rich to save them. Never mind the fact that, by the end, Bruce Wayne barely had a cent to his name or that his money certainly didn’t help him climb out of the pit. We would just want to know if the person who made the complaint was even watching the same movie that we saw with our friends.

Not long after Bruce Wayne loses all his money, due to Bane’s attack on the stock exchange, he has a conversation with John Blake, a police officer who knows Wayne’s identity as Batman. Wayne tells Blake that the whole point of Batman was that he could be anyone, Batman was meant to be an inspiration to the people of Gotham, something that is repeated in both of the previous movies.

In Batman Begins Bruce Wayne tell Alfred:

“People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy. And I can’t do that as Bruce Wayne. As a man I’m just flesh and blood, I can be ignored, destroyed. But a symbol….as a symbol I can be incorruptible, everlasting…..”

In The Dark Knight, the Joker asks the fake Batman, Brian what batman means to him. Brian answers “He’s a symbol … that we don’t have to be afraid of scum like you”. And the whole point of Batman, as we see come to fruition at the beginning of The Dark Knight Rises, was not to create a legion of caped crusaders, but an army of men like Harvey Dent (before his psychotic break) and Jim Gordon—a group of people willing to stand up for what is right.

But we digress. The point is what made the average person a hero in The Dark Knight Rises.

At no point did John Blake, Commissioner Gordon, or the other members of the resistance, sit down and go ‘well, I’m just a common person, I’m just going to wait for the government or Batman to come save us’ (except for the character of Foley, who was rightly called out for being a coward). They worked tirelessly to find a way out on their own, they realized they were on their own the moment Bane took over the city and began to look for ways to free the city’s police force from the sewers.

When Batman did come back, in an a miraculous 11th hour miracle, they didn’t wait for him to clean up the mess. The police banded together and marched on Bane’s army, many of them dying in the fighting to save their city.

Selina Kyle, despite telling Batman that she was leaving the city as soon as she destroyed the debris blocking the tunnel, turned around and risked her life to fight for the city and to save Batman’s life.

Lucius Fox risked death and drowning , trying to find a way to stop the nuclear bomb from detonating.

Even Ra’s al Ghul (don’t you hate it when you agree with the words, if not the actions, of a villain?) says, during Bruce’s training, “The training is nothing! The will is everything! The will to act.”

The heroes who kept Gotham alive while Batman fought his way out of the pit

Every one of these people, training or no, had the will to act. They were all willing to give everything for their city, for their freedom. What could possibly be more heroic than that?

Fancy toys, nice cars, and a cool suit will only get you so far if you don’t have the will to do what is necessary, even when what is necessary may end your life.

Heroism isn’t about money, toys, or good looks; it’s a state of mind and living life, not with no fear of death, but with a willingness to die to defend others and defend your beliefs.

You may not be a superhero, but anyone can be a hero. That’s what The Dark Knight Rises shows us about heroism.

Politics, Socialism and evils of envy

“Repression is the only lasting philosophy. The dark deference of fear and slavery, my friend, will keep the dogs obedient to the whip, as long as this roof shuts out the sky.'”—A Tale of Two Cities*

You would have to have been pretty dense not to get that this movie was thematically inspired by A Tale of Two Cities. Even Dickens, for all of his sickeningly naïve progressive rhetoric, had an inkling of the evil of the French Revolution. A quick review of history if it’s been too long since that high school history class. Louis XVI in response to economic woes and civil unrest had given the public everything they wanted: an assembly, power of due process of law, and abdicated much of the absolute power of the monarchy. And while many where happy with these changes, the ignorant rabble who were open to the rhetoric of the most extreme thought it wasn’t enough. They stormed the Bastille, arrested Louis and his wife (who if you actually study history was not the vapid slut a layman’s understand of history tries to depict her as), and placed power in the hands of radicals like Robespierre and Marat. The Terror, Madam Guillotine, rivers of blood, atrocities on a scale that wouldn’t be seen again in France until the Nazi’s allowed the French to revel in their anti-Semitism. (A similar pattern would be seen when the Russians replaced the Tsar with a democratic government…but soon got rid of that in favor of a psychotically evil government).

She learned to hate her “ideal” world quickly enough.

This history lesson is important because this is the same pattern Nolan shows in Gotham. For all of it’s corruption in the first two films, Gotham at the beginning of The Dark Knight Rises was a city that had everything it wanted: Clean streets, an efficient police force (a city of 12 million with only 3,000 uniformed officers means an obscenely low crime rate), a healthy economy (the city could afford multiple simultaneous construction projects by Dagget, that means an incredibly good tax base, ergo strong economy…and football stadiums aren’t packed to the brim with every last seat filled during hard times), a mayor who has survived for over 8 years in office (usually a sign of prosperity) Even Selina Kyle’s words of decrying inequality ring hollow, he “old town” (suggestive of the gutter) apartment is hardly a shabby SRO or the slum heap of “the narrows” from the first film—and while in Batman Begins criminals could carry on with their nefarious dealings out in the open, or hide them in the vast slums, this is a Gotham where there are so few places to hide your activities you literally have skulk in the sewers (everywhere else is too bright and too well off to hide such activities)…Like the French they had everything they had asked for. And, like France, it took only a little fear and few mad men to stir the lowest rungs of society and bring about anarchy.
There are of course differences between A Tale of Two Cities and the Revolution it describes and the events of The Dark Knight Rises. The Bastille was stormed not to free prisoners (there were hardly any left in the Bastille by the time of the Revolution) but to gain weapons to take over the city. And even if you buy the myth of the Storming of the Bastille, the prisoners released from the Bastille were primarily political prisoners…not hardened thugs of organized crime. The fact that the Dent Law in The Dark Knight Rises was passed because there was a martyr to push through the law, does not change the fact that it, like all three-strikes laws and mandatory sentencing laws, are a particular point of hatred for the progressive who think it’s unfair that people who do evil and horrific things should, heaven forbid, be locked up where they can’t do any harm. But be it the Bastille and the release of a mere seven political prisoners or the opening of Blackgate Prison and letting a host of violent criminals go free, the result was ironically the same: The Terror.

The terror: a system where justice and trials are a mockery and the innocent are held as guilty for crimes they never committed…and where there is only one punishment: death. The terror, a system that provides so much that it makes everyone so equal that they are all starving and tearing at each other for daily sustenance (or like the Soviet Union or Gotham you could have food imported from the capitalistic society because you can’t produce any on your own). The terror: the utopia every half brained progressive idealist praises, only to lead to their own downfall.

In the real French Revolution the villain was Robespierre who used high rhetoric to justify rank thugery as a progressive march to fraternity and equality. In A Tale of Two Cities the villain was Madame De Farge, a woman so hell bent on avenging her family’s murders that she will see the whole world burn to get her pound of flesh. Nolan gives us both villains in the form of Bane and Talia al Ghul. Which of course leads us into the villainy of their perverse understanding of economics.

Let me spout the politics of envy and class warfare knowing it will only lead to your eventual destruction!

Before we get into showing how Nolan destroys the ideals of progressivism by showing what it brings, let’s dismiss one semi-intelligent objection: Bane and Talia don’t believe in progressivism, they’re trying to show how it is a failed system and how people must reject it. That’s not entirely an incorrect point…but what you need to also realize is that just because the villains may be a tool they don’t really believe in doesn’t mean that it isn’t showing the flaws of progressivism…and that just because they don’t believe in progressivism doesn’t mean they’re capitalist. Point in fact, the entire League of Shadows from Ra’s Al Ghul’s first words to Talia’s last is a world view based on feudalism and cronyism. The League believes it should be the one who decides who shall be successful and who shall fail. Bane says as much when he tells Wayne, “I learned here that there can be no true despair without hope. So, as I terrorize Gotham, I will feed its people hope to poison their souls. I will let them believe they can survive so that you can watch them clamoring over each other to “stay in the sun.” You can watch me torture an entire city and when you have truly understood the depth of your failure, we will fulfill Ra’s al Ghul’s destiny… We will destroy Gotham and then, when it is done and Gotham is ashes, then you have my permission to die.” As we stated above they rule through terror, not reason, not ethics, not law, justice—they dress their words up in the clothes of these higher ideals but their actions show them to be as hollow and lacking in substance on the inside as any scarecrow (especially if said Scarecrow sets himself up as the instrument of justice).

Politically speaking, there is much that is applicable to our current political situation in our country. Now, to be fair, I don’t believe that Christopher Nolan’s intent was to create a modern political allegory. This movie was written and being filmed long before the Occupy Wall Street movement, which shares many of the villains sentiments, began.

During the first few weeks of the Occupy movement we both remember having many conversations about the similarities between that movement and the early days of the French Revolution. Which is why the connection between The Dark Knight Rises and OWS comes so easily.

The views of Occupy Wall Street were shown almost perfectly in Bane’s and Catwoman’s words, as well as the actions of the people who jump at the chance to drag the rich out and punish them for their success.

Bane’s entire speech outside of Black Gate Prison is so reminiscent of something from a ‘mic check’ at Occupy Wall Street

“We take power from the corrupt, who, for generations, have kept you down with myths of…opportunity and we give it back to you, the people. Gotham is yours, none shall interfere, do as you please. We’ll start by storming Black Gate and freeing the oppressed…an army will be raised, the powerful will be ripped from their decadence and cast out into the cold where we all have endured, courts will be convened, spoils will be enjoyed…”

-Bane (apologies for mistakes, I was working from a VERY scratchy audio clip)

and for those of you who remember the scenes that accompanied the final lines of that speech, the violence is so similar to the rioting at Occupy Oakland that is was almost frightening, especially when you realize that this movie was written months before any of that every happened.

Selina Kyle (Catwoman) starts out with the same exact rhetoric as many an Occupy Wall Street supporter. In a conversation with Bruce Wayne she says “You think this is gonna last? There’s a storm coming Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches. ‘Cause when it hits, you’re all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large, and leave so little for the rest of us.”

Though after her betrayal of Batman she appears to change her tone in a way that OWS never did. Upon entering a home that had been ransacked after Bane’s Black Gate speech she comments on the fact that ‘this used to be someone’s home’ when she looks at a smashed family photo. Her friend says ‘now it’s everyone’s home.’ Kyle, unlike just about everyone in OWS who only has to look to the failure of the Soviet Union, the collapse of Greece or the repression of China and North Korea to know what a failed system socialism, when she saw what her ideals brought about very quickly had no problem seeing their evil and abandoning them.

The Dark Knight Rises shows what happens when give us capitalisms for anarchy or socialism. You have perversion of justice. You have to survive on the handouts and scraps provided to you. There is no growth. No prosperity. No civilization. Only blood and the terror.

Now on to a slightly more hilarious turn of events.

Shortly before the movie came out the Obama campaign (and liberals in general) noticed something they thought they could use as a brilliant attack against Romney.

Did you know that Romney had a business named Bain Capital?

Bain/Bane…get it?**

One of these guys is someone rich who could easily leave others to fend for themselves but doesn’t…the other is named Bane. Which one reminds you the most of the presidential challengert?

“It has been observed that movies can reflect the national mood,” said Democratic advisor and former Clinton aide Christopher Lehane. “Whether it is spelled Bain and being put out by the Obama campaign or Bane and being out by Hollywood, the narratives are similar: a highly intelligent villain with offshore interests and a past both are seeking to cover up who had a powerful father and is set on pillaging society,” he added.

As the Friday release date has neared, liberal blogs were the first to connect Batman’s toughest foe with Romney’s firm.

– Christopher Lehane (via Washington Examiner)

Yeah, they actually did that.

Hilariously, when Rush Limbaugh dared to point out the name similarities, liberal bloggers thought he was being insane and completely ignored that their side was the one who made the comparison first.

Luckily conservatives had a fellow conservative Chuck Dixon, comic book creator, and coincidentally, the co-creator of the villain Bane, to smack some sense into liberals.

In an interview with ComicBook.com Dixon had this to say.

“The idea that there’s some kind of liberal agenda behind the use of Bane in the new movie is silly…I refuted this within hours of the article in the Washington Examiner suggesting that Bane would be tied to Bain Capital and Mitt Romney appearing. Bane was created by me and Graham Nolan and we are lifelong conservatives and as far from left-wing mouthpieces as you are likely to find in comics…As for his appearance in The Dark Knight Rises, Bane is a force for evil and the destruction of the status quo. He’s far more akin to an Occupy Wall Street type if you’re looking to cast him politically. And if there ever was a Bruce Wayne running for the White House it would have to be Romney.”

-Chuck Dixon (Via ComicBook.com)

Romney is Bruce Wayne? That’s the best pseudo-endorsement I’ve heard all year. If I wasn’t voting for Romney before, I sure am now.

The Fear of Death

Blind Prisoner: You do not fear death. You think this makes you strong. It makes you weak.
Bruce Wayne: Why?
Blind Prisoner: How can you move faster than possible, fight longer than possible without the most powerful impulse of the spirit: the fear of death.
Bruce Wayne: I do fear death. I fear dying in here, while my city burns, and there’s no one there to save it.
Blind Prisoner: Then make the climb.
Bruce Wayne: How?
Blind Prisoner: As the child did. Without the rope. Then fear will find you again.

Now on the Conservative New Ager we have a fairly low opinion of the fear of death. In numerous blogs it has been ridiculed as the foolish, childish, ignorant paralytic it is. However, it must be admitted, that in the rush of these blogs to point out that “Wise men at their end know [death] is right” and that it is nothing to be feared but merely a natural part of life, that the wise also “do not go gentle into that good night.”

Bruce Wayne doesn’t fear death for the first half of the movie, that is true. He is not hindered by the fears that he once was. The problem is that in this attempt to rid himself of fear he went too far and rid himself of the desire for life as well. While the movie only uses the phrase “fear death” it might seem that it is encouraging people to embrace fear. But from context the movie is not telling people to embrace the paralyzing fear of death because it is this fear that encourages the federal government and the people of Gotham to stand ideally by, and the fear that causes Modine’s Foley to hide, while a terrorist takes over the city. Rather, the movie is encouraging a balance—that the proper way is to rid one’s self of the paralyzing fear of death of Wayne did in the first film, but to maintain the love of live, and the appreciation of death and knowledge that each moment could be your last and must be fought for, that comes with this love of life. It is only this appreciation of death, that pushes Wayne to make a jump that he could not otherwise make, because he knows that if he is to live he must push himself—and he cannot push himself without both the knowledge that there is no turning back or without the desire to do something other than seek his own end.

And then of course, as a final thought we can’t forget how wonderfully patriotic this film is. Okay maybe not so much in it showing the President to be a sniveling coward who gives into terrorist demands (patriotic or not that might be an accurate assessment)…or in how cowardly the bureaucracy is when they blow the bridge condemning many to die (again might be an accurate conservative message). But you will notice that the people of Gotham (not the scum the who follow Bain mind you, but the people who are terrorized by them) stand for “The Star Spangled Banner” and the only person shown to not have his hand over his heart is the scummy mayor (who apparently is close to an even scummier Congressmen…again perhaps an accurate assessment of current events). And along with the police it is these people who fight against Bain. And you’ll notice that on the day of the battle even a British director like Nolan knows to show the tattered remains of the flag still flying, still offering hope, and as a symbol that on that day evil will fall. Finally the last words about Gotham, which they say is America’s greatest city, is that it will rise from the ashes of this act of terrorism…you would have to be pretty dense not to see this as a reference to New York, and a testament to how quickly America did pick itself up.

You don’t owe these people anymore. You’ve given them everything.

Not everything. Not Yet.

And the sad fact is that we’ve only scratched the surface of this film…

*On a side note, it should be said that, for all of Dickens’ flaws, A Tale of Two Cities is Dickens’ best work…too bad he stole half the plot from Victor Hugo’s Ninety-Three.

** Oh and if you want to to play the silly let’s compare political figures to fictional ones…I see your Bane/Bain…and raise you…
(Romney Ryan photos thanks to Heather Parsons)
 

4 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Atlas Shrugged, Capitalism, Charity, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Death, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Individualism, Literature, Long Term Thinking, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Natural Rights, NeoConservative, Obama, Occupy Wall Street, Patriotism, Paul Ryan, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Purpose of Life, Taxes, Tyranny, virtue, War on Terrorism

Liberal Desperation & Paul Ryan

The left has no facts to hit Ryan with…so they’re just going to smear him. SOP for Obama.

Liberals are going just crazy about Paul Ryan.  For the last couple of years the left has been trying destroy Paul Ryan.  They haven’t succeeded too well.
So now they’re getting desperate and hacks like Robert Reich (over-pompous Berkley Professor and terrible Secretary of Labor under Clinton…here’s just one of his disasters) are calling Ryan’s Plan social Darwinism.

“Paul Ryan exemplifies the social Darwinism at the core of today’s Republican Party: Reward the rich, penalize the poor, let everyone else fend for themselves. Dog eat dog.”

Now this brings up two points.  The first is that Reich (and many other liberals who have also developed an affinity for the term) is misusing the phrase “Social Darwinism”.  The second is that he’s lying about Ryan’s plan.

Let’s deal with the social Darwinism thing first.

Merriam-Webster defines Social Darwinism as:

 

an extension of Darwinism to social phenomena; specifically: a sociological theory that socio-cultural advance is the product of intergroup conflict and competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for existence

And the Oxford Dictionary defines it as

the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform.

I also checked a few history textbooks and they all agree with these two definitions.  And every legitimate source ties the term to a theory that justified racism. And I don’t mean liberals modern definition of racism where liberals call you a racist if you say Israel’s culture of Classical Liberalism, hard work and innovation is what makes it more successful than Palestine’s culture of vicious irrational hatred, idiocy, and the glorification of butchers…no, the racism of Social Darwinism is that people of ethnic groups are biologically superior or inferior to others.

Further Reich’s argument that Social Darwinism is “let everyone else fend for themselves. Dog eat dog” ignores that Social Darwinism was always in practice more along the lines of Jim Crow laws (where people were not allowed to fend for themselves but rather had artificial burdens placed on them…thank the Democratic party for that invention), nor was it “dog eat dog” as “dog eat dog” would have allowed the oppressed groups be it in South Africa, British controlled India, or post-Civil War South to defend themselves with the same rights as anyone else.  Now Social Darwinism might include “Reward the rich, penalize the poor” if you change rich to privileged and poor to oppressed…but otherwise the whole sentence is just riddled with contradictory terms.

And this ignores that none of this is applicable to Ryan’s plan in the least.  But even ignoring that for the moment, the clear point here is that if Reich actually does know what the term Social Darwinism means (and it is a technical term that can’t just change with the changing fashion) then he is implying that there is something racist about Ryan’s plan.  I’d dare Reich to show me something racist in the plan but as there isn’t I’ll not force the dunce to back up his own statement.

So Reich is either an idiot and doesn’t know the meaning of words (certainly a possibility) or he is trying the tried and true DNC tactic of race-baiting by implying your opponent is a racist.  Your call, either is possible, both are despicable.

However one other fact that makes race-baiting a possibility is how other liberal leaning groups are treating Ryan. For an example I go to The Onion (which used to have some funny stuff on Bush…but now is so completely slanted to the left instead of doing what a comic should, attack everyone, has just become dull).

In The Onion’s article Focus: Who Is Paul Ryan?”there is this fun piece:

“Vice Presidential Vetting Process: Was asked if he was gay about 47 different ways”

Which is a not subtle way to both imply that he’s gay and Romney’s a homophobe (which gets them to get the undercurrent of homophobia in the culture against Ryan and the surface hatred of homophobia from the left against Romney…let’s ignore it was mainly the left who were the chief members of hounding Romney’s foreign policy aide who happened to be gay out of his position by making it impossible to do his job as every question was about his orientation).  So liberals will have all the fun in the world trying to hurt someone else by calling them gay, but if you eat at Chick-fil-a you’re a Neanderthal who wants to burn gays at the stake and must be imprisoned.  Hypocrisy and double standards much?*

Okay now let’s deal with Ryan’s plan.  You may want to familiarize yourself with it again.  (I’ve also included some videos at the end.)

I’m going to deal in broad strokes because there are differences between the 2011 and 2012 version of his budget bills (the latter watered down to try and get it past the Senate so Obama would have to veto it…good thing for Obama, Harry Reid illegally refuses to have a vote on it) and because there will definitely be differences between those two bills and what President Romney will send to Congress in 2013…and getting bogged down in details that I can’t guarantee will exist is just silly.

The first is does Paul Ryan’s plan destroy Medicare?  Liberals kept saying it did, hell they’re still saying.  And left-of-center Polifact called that “THE LIE OF YEAR FOR 2011!”

Does he lower taxes on the rich?  Yes.  He lowers taxes on everyone!  How is that a bad thing?

Now a consistent complaint by Democrats is that Ryan’s plan didn’t give details on deductions he would eliminate and exactly where the lines would be in the tax bracket changes.  This just goes to show how stupid Democrats are. Paul Ryan is on the Budget committee…the Ways and Means committee deals with loopholes and deductions.  Now I know liberals are used to a dictator in training who rules by fiat and thinks he’s all three branches and all three parts of the Trinity rolled into one, but we Republicans like doing things legally.  And legally Ryan’s committee can’t make those calls.   Now he has said that if it were up to him he just get rid of deductions for high earners (which is what both liberals and conservatives want…although conservatives want tax cuts accompanying that).

Is it “reward the rich and punish the poor” as Reich claims?  No.  It’s reward everyone both through tax cuts and then through the economic boom that will come from the extra money being put into the system.

Is it “let everyone else fend for themselves? Dog eat dog”?  No, it is save Medicare…and if you let him have at it he and Romney would reform and save Medicaid, Social Security, and Welfare so that they do their job rather than waste our money.

Does it strip money from education? No it just doesn’t grow those programs.

Is it an irrational plan?  Not in the least.  In fact someone called it “entirely legitimate proposal”…oh that would be Barry who said that.

The fact of the matter is that there are no legitimate, economic based complaints against the Ryan plan.







*Just in case you’re wondering doesn’t this make my making fun of Rick Santorum in numerous cases implying he is a self-hating closet case make me a hypocrite?  Nope.  I in my heart of hearts believe Rick Santorum is a self-hating closet case and I believe this is an important point because it explains why social issues are the only thing he cares about to the exclusion of any and all relevant issues.  It’s his self-hating behavior that makes him irrational and unfit to lead.  You’d (A) have a hard time convincing me of the same about Paul Ryan and (B) Ryan’s focus is economics, economics, and economics…he’s a social conservative, but his passion is economics so even if you believe it were true (I’m still not sure what you would be basing that on) it wouldn’t be relevant to his actions, unlike sweater-vest boy.

3 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, Paul Ryan, politics, Taxes, Welfare

Romney at VFW: America the Hope of the Earth



But remember we’re arrogant

But remember we’re not special in the world

And let’s not forget that we believe in American exceptionalism like Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism (yeah thanks Barry for comparing us to that excuse for a nation)…and that we should apologize to the butchers who kill our men but not when you slander a man and accuse him of felonies when you have not even an iota of proof (by the way we have tons of proof, the least of which is your Executive Privelage order, that shows you actually were complicit in the string of felonies known as Fast and Furious)…and that we should support every revolution backed by Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood (Syria, Lybia, Tunisa, Egypt) but let people in Iran who want democracy to be murdered.
I’m ready for a change, how about you?

Also, Mitt is going to meet with anti-Communist figher Lech Walesa and the great Tony Blair, two men who understand what America is, and Obama isn’t (by the way Walesa has refused to meet with Obama).



1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Israel, Mitt Romney, Obama, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny

The Most Patriotic Film Ever: State of the Union

“I can be interested in the county, without being interested in politics.”

State of the Union?  Haven’t heard of it have you?  (If you have you have to admit you’re in the minority on this).  Which is odd—it’s Tracy and Hepburn!  How can you miss Tracy and Hepburn?  And in a Capra film too!  It also stars Angela Lansbury as the woman trying to break our eternal couple up, and control Tracy…Lansbury always plays the villain, be it the communist mother in Manchurian Candidate or the weekly serial killer who always frames others for her crimes in Murder She Wrote (there’s no other way to explain the body count), she always plays the villain…

So since you probably are not familiar with the plot, let me quickly sum up. Estranged husband and wife Grant and Mary Matthews are thrown together when Grant decides to move from a highly successful business career to taking a chance at running for President in 1948.  But first he has to get the Republican nomination.  At first he speaks from his heart…but when swayed by Lansbury’s Kay Thorndyke, the other woman, and a W.R. Hearst-esque media baron, he begins to play the games of politics he had previously hated.  Here we see Capra in full swing detailing the cynicism of voting bloc politics, of playing one minority off against other, of making deals for votes.  This nearly destroys him, and his chances for election, until he’s brought back to his senses by his loving wife. Whether he wins or not, the movie doesn’t cover.

It’s a good story, but what makes this film so patriotic is that Matthews at several points makes comments on what does and doesn’t work in America. The character of Matthews is actually given to making some very detailed speeches, (which I sadly could not find clips of on youtube, found a couple edited to seem to benefit liberal positions alone, but not the full speech).  It is in these speeches that you see the virtue of America praised, and our flaws acknowledged and combated.

Matthews: Well the next time you’re up there, Mr. Conover, look down.  Look down on Pittsburgh, for example, what do you see?

Spike: Smoke

Mathews: That’s right, smoke.  From the steel mills.   Miles and miles of steel mills.  But you see something else, too, don’t you?  Farms, factories, lumber, mines, railroads, business, management, labor.  Not one able to exist alone, but together, working together with courage and imagination.  That makes America.  That’s a great picture from the air.  Yeah but come down to Earth and walk into one of those meetings like that one in Cleveland, and what do you find? Farmers, cattlemen, lumbermen, business, labor, they were all there.  All working together?  In a pig’s eye.  All scared to death, all fighting each other.  Each out for the biggest bite in the apple.  Well, there aren’t that many bites in the apple.

[…]

Because you politicians instead of helping pull the country together are helping to pull it part, just to get votes.  To labor you promise higher wages and lower prices.  To business, higher prices and lower wages.  To the rich you say, “Let’s cut taxes”.  To the poor, “Soak the rich”.  To the veterans cheaper housing.  To the builders uncontrolled prices. [Italics added]

Notice that here the win-win mentality of rational self-interest and capitalism is stated.  That capitalism is dependant on numerous individuals working together, out of their own rational self-interest, but together.  Rather than the greed and irrational, short-sighted self-interest of “what’s in it for me politics” of promising this group or that group something.  Notice this is in 1948, before the post-war boom, before the boom of the early 60’s before the boom of the 80’s and 90’s…and yet it foresees that our “courage and imagination” are the things that will bring about this great prosperity.  It subtly implies the truth, that while socialism simply divides the apple between this group or that, it is capitalism and capitalism alone that creates wealth (not just distributes it) so that there is actually an apple for everyone.

Or when he goes to see the White House while considering his run, a man chides him for bluntly stating the White House needs a new paint job:

Bystander: Do you know who lives in that historic mansion [the White House]?

Matthews: Yeah the spirit of all those who fought for human dignity lives there.  Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Christ, Paul, St. Francis, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Joan of Arc, Martin Luther, Plato, Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Pasteur, Newton, Galileo, Edison, Franklin, Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Crispus Attucks, Lafayette, Garibaldi, Bolivar, Kosciusko.  The martyrs, the saints, and the poets.  Civilizations past and present. Man’s whole history. His evolution from worm to animal to Einstein, his long search for God, all those things live in that noble dwelling, but I still say it needs painting.

And of course the central point of the movie is when after giving an off camera speech filleting big labor he prepares to give an equally harsh speech against what would be called big business then, but now we use the more correct term cronyism. (Please note that in 1948 almost everything he says is the action we should have taken…from a man this principled however, the speech would be different on a few points, so please keep the times in mind as you read it).

Matthews: Those men [labor bosses] in there are the kind of men who are responsible for the wildcat strikes.  If I can make them see something bigger than their own jobs as head of their own locals and what little power they get from that…Why? What did I say to them? I just said that when the members stop running the unions, the unions start running the members.

[…]

Matthews: I’m going to tell them they do a lot of yapping about communism but as long as they think about high profits instead of high production, they’re playing the communist game.  High production is the way to kill high prices.

Conover: They want high prices.

M: High prices means inflation. Inflation today means depression tomorrow.  And a depression in these United State is exactly the ace card Moscow is waiting to draw.

C: They don’t want to hear these things.

M: They’re gonna hear them.  They’re going to hear that capitalism itself is being challenged.  If it doesn’t survive, it’s because men like themselves haven’t the guts or the imagination to make it survive.

C: You can’t talk to that crowd this way you’ll antagonize them.

All right.  So what?  So I’ll antagonize them.  I yelled my head off about labor, didn’t I, and its responsibilities.  Well, I’m going to lay it right on the line about industry too.  Now look here Jim, you know just as well as I do that there are men at that banquet who’ll be rooting for a depression, just so they can slap labor’s ears back.

C: And I suppose you have a few well-chosen words to say about tax reduction.

M: You better not worry so much about tax reduction until we accomplish some of the things we have to accomplish.  I’m going to tell the wealthiest nation in the world it is a failure unless it’s also the healthiest nation in the world.  That means the highest medical care for the lowest income groups.  And that goes for housing, too.  The one thing this nation is not rich enough to afford is not having a roof over our heads.  And I’m going to tell them the American Dream is not making money.  It is the well being and the freedom of the individual throughout the world from Patagonia to Detroit.  We can’t be an island of plenty in a world of starvation.  We have to send, food, clothing, machinery, and money to the bitter, impoverished people of the world.  Try to recreate their self-respect.  Give them the desire again for individual freedom.  And I’m gonna tell them that as long as dictatorships remain in the world, we better remain well armed.  Because the next time we’re not going to get two years to get ready.  They’re gonna jump us overnight.  And I’m gonna tell them that there’s only one government which is capable of handling the atomic control, world disarmament, world employment, world peace, and that’s a world government.  The people of thirteen states started the United States of America.  Well, I think the people of that many nations are ready to start a United States of the World.  With or with out Russia.  And I mean a “United” States of the World.  With one Bill of Rights.  One international law. One international currency.  One international citizenship. And I’m gonna tell them that the brotherhood of man is not just an idealistic dream, but a practical necessity if man is going to survive. [Italics added]

Here he correctly realizes that there are two sides to both labor and business.  In labor there are actual workers, and there are the corrupt union bosses who fleece their members, pad their pockets, and make ungodly campaign contributions to politicians who allow them to repeat the cycle. A bit prophetic in his critique of labor isn’t he?  I would never advocate for ending unions (except for public employees and professional), they serve an important function, but today they have become worse than the caricatured robber barons they were supposedly formed to end.

Meanwhile in business there are real businessmen like Matthews who enjoy making a great product and enjoy making profit off that great product (the heroes of an Ayn Rand novel) and there are those who like cronyism, who as this movie makes clear are very un-capitalistically for high tariffs, anti-free trade, protectionist legislation against competition from new inventions, and low taxes ON THEIR INDUSTRY (GE, GM, Google, Goldman Sachs, and basically all the biggest Obama contributors).  And I’ll forgive Matthews’ statement about not lowering taxes before we have paid for what we need to do, at least he’s advocating balanced budgets, and 10 years before Rand, 15 before Goldwater, 20 before Milton Friedman, and before Laffer and Reagan it’s forgivable to not know the truth and facts of supply-side economics (at least implicitly he understands the heart of supply-side economics by putting the focus on high production).  And before anyone thinks I’m giving up my conservative roots by praising his call for the healthiest nation and housing for all…go back and read your Hayek and Friedman…you need a safety net, it just should be at the local, not federal level (and in 1948, I can assume a Republican defines “the lowest income groups” as the bottom 5% not the modern Democratic definition of the “the lowest income groups” as the other 99%).

And I have to love the admission that America is not a nation of isolationists, as some would now have you believe.  We are the beacon of freedom in the world and that comes with a responsibility to spread freedom.  There’s a throwaway joke early on “After all Senator Fosdick was an isolationist.  I think he should be isolated.”  This was the correct view of isolationism: it doesn’t and can’t work.  Not just on pragmatic reasons, but on ethical ones.

And you’ll also notice that the ideal world government presented is one of a union of free nations, that will advocate and push for liberty around the world, not just throwing everyone into one body and being run through with corruption.

This is close to the kind of speech I want to hear now. Praising America’s greatness and condemning those who see it only as a way to make a quick buck for themselves and screw everyone else.

The movie is also quick to condemn the evils of identity politics and condemn those who trade in it (I’m looking at you Democratic Party).  It is expressed best by “Spike” McManous, a reporter sent to keep an eye on Matthews, “In Conover’s eyes a lazy people, an ignorant people, a prejudiced people are not free.”  And he’s sadly right; people who are lazy, ignorant, and prejudiced are always slave to those who would exploit those flaws.  And that is why it is the responsibility of Americans to keep themselves informed and reasonable…but it is also the responsibility of politicians to not to play to such disgusting habits.

And at the end of the film, when, after making a dozen crooked deals, Matthews realizes his sins, he takes to the air and gives an impromptu speech baring his soul and again showing what is great about this nation.

I had the right idea when I started to talk to you people of America. The idea that you voters, you farmers, you businessmen, you working men, you ordinary citizens of whatever party, are not the selfish scum that venal politicians make you out to be. I thought I could speak my peace straight out and forward. I thought I could tell you that this country of ours is young, it’s not old. That we’ve just begun to grow. That all we need is courage, and from out of that courage will come a greatness greater than we ever dreamed. I wanted to tell you that we Americans are the hope of the world, and the secret of our great plenty is freedom, and we’ve got to share that secret and that plenty with the other nations of the world. And I wanted to tell you that we face a great problem, because when people are cold and hungry and scared, they gather together in panicky herds, ready to be led by communists and fascists who promise them bread for freedom, and deliver neither.  [Italics added]

A sobering reminder we still need to this day.

As he says, we are a young nation.

Today we are 236 years old. 236 years old…just for comparison at 236 years the Roman Republic had managed to come up with a crappy constitution, get the city burned to the ground by Gaul’s and conquer most of Italy (which sounds impressive until you realize that France was once able to conquer most of Italy, and if France can do it, well…) and at 236 England had done…well…um….nothing. Same story for France. Certainly none of them were the center of the world at 236. Oh and before you ask none of these countries had art at 236 let alone jazz, rock’n’roll, Frank Lloyd Wright, almost all film, Faulkner, Twain, Hawthorne, Frost, Gibran, Whitman. Not bad for only 236 years.  None of these others were economic powerhouses, or beacons of any ideal. And that’s at 236 for nations that would leave an undisputed mark on history.  We’ve already begun to make our mark and it is one of spreading liberty, freedom, capitalism, and all that speaks to the best in human nature.

This movie, possibly more than any other, reminds me of what a great nation this can be, and what we are capable of.  It reminds me of our greatness that was, is, and will be if we just embrace the best within us and do away with the rest.

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Foreign Policy, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Natural Rights, NeoConservative, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Taxes, Tyranny

The Roberts Courts leaves us going…huh?…And how to solve the problem.

What the hell were they thinking?  If that statue could get up she would be lopping off head with that sword.

You know there are supremely bad Supreme Court calls–Swann v. Charolotte-Mechlenburg County Board of Education, which created racial busing; Gibbons v. Ogden, which gave the government too much power in regulating commerce; South Dakota v. Dole, which gave the federal government the right to control internal state matters; Kelo, which abolished private property rights–and there are truly evil Supreme Court calls (Dred Scott, Plessey, Korematsu…actually Kelo belongs in this category)…there are even well intentioned but just supremely stupid calls like Brown v Board of Education whose answer to government overreach of power was to give the government more power or Roe which for all the right reasons created the most useless headache in American history.

And then there is this shit which has me going WTF.

So let me get this straight. The Commerce Clause is limited, and the Obamacare isn’t Constitutional under the Commerce Clause. This would be nice if we interpreted this decision as over turning judicial BS like Gibbons and Wickard v Filburn which have always given the government the right to regulate all commerce (which the Founders never intended and were quite against) not just interstate commerce. And if this ruling is used to strike down such socialistic abuses of the federal government and restore us to a more capitalistic society, then great.

But while that is a correct interpretation of the Commerce Clause…Roberts and his idiotic liberal friends find an interpretation of the taxing clause to be so insane I have to ask if LSD has been put in the Supreme Court drinking water.

Here is everything the Constitution has to say about taxes:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (This clause changed by the 16th Amendment)

AMENDMENT XVI : The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Now, I’m not a Constitutional scholar, but I’m well read and can reason for myself. Most of the points about taxes have no bearing on this debate. The only relevant parts are the last two lines. Article 1 Section 9 denying all taxes but in direct proportion to the census and Amendment giving the federal government the right to tax income. Now stop me if I’m wrong here, but nowhere does it say they can tax me for not doing something. Further the 16th Amendment only gives the right to tax income, not punish, not impose fees. The government does have the right to impose fees and charges under the Commerce Clause, but we’ve already dealt with the fact that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.

The 16th Amendment gives the right to tax income and income alone. I don’t see the right to tax actions or more importantly the lack of action. So please explain to me how this court decision does not give almost infinite power to compel obedience through the taxing clause instead of the commerce clause.

Now some conservative commentators have been trying to defend Roberts’ actions, as if stripping the Commerce Clause alone was a great thing. But what profit it conservatives if they should gain the commerce clause but lose capitalism? Roberts took us one step forward and 10 steps back. Excuse me if I’m not thrilled. What the hell was Robert’s thinking?

If they can “tax” me for not buying insurance, what else can I be taxed for? Can I be “taxed” for owning a foreign made car every year (after all we have to give Government Motors running)? Can I be taxed every year for not joining a union? Can I be taxed for not giving money to his divine holiness Barack Obama’s campaign? Where is the limit to taxing power Roberts and his ilk created today?

And how is a “tax” for non-action not in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments guarantee I will not be deprived of property without Due Process? How is a fine designed to coerce action, which by nature must be unusually high, not in violation of the 8th Amendment’s statement that excessive fines will not be imposed. How is all of this not in violation of the general idea of the Constitution as a document to limit government power, not give carte blanche?

So Roberts is an idiot. And please don’t come off with your “you’re Constitutional scholar” crap unless you can tell me where the government has the right to tax me into compliance with their laws. I may not be a Constitutional scholar, but I am a citizen and it is not only my right, it is my responsibility to know the Constitution and question the action of government officials.

Now with the theoretical and long term problems this could present in that it now gives the government power to tax you into slavery…let’s deal with the pragmatic results and long term solutions…

First off, Obama just lost the election. One of the few things he had going for him was saying that he never raised taxes on the middle class (a lie, but he could get out of it by technicality). That technicality just ended. It’s a tax and he’s putting it right on the backs of the middle class.

And given how unpopular this law is, it’s not a shock that Romney has raised over 2 million since the Supreme Court came out with its brainless call this morning.

Instead of Romney having one issue to run on, the economy, he now has two to run on the economy and Obamacare. (Now add the fact that Egypt is probably going to do something psychotically evil and Europe is about to collapse, he’ll also have foreign policy to run on before November). Obama was at best running neck and neck this morning…now the conservative base is energized like never before, independents have something to fear, and the Tea Party has been given a shot of atropine to the heart. It’s over Barry.

Also a short term pragmatic effect is that this will kill any possibility of economic growth before November. Some businesses might have been hiring with hope that Obamacare was about to be overturned. That won’t happen now. Businesses aren’t stupid and they’re not going to take a risk on what they can’t afford…they will wait until November and see what happens rather than commit economic suicide and saddle themselves with employees they can’t afford. This in turn will help Romney win, but expect a few more months of hardship economically.

Okay so let’s ask how do we deal with this long term?

Well the first thing is we need to overturn Obamacare.

It needs to be replaced with tort reform to make care cheaper, reform of regulations in the FDA and drug companies to make the drugs cheaper, allowing insurance companies to cross state lines which will lower costs across the board. Further we need real immigration reform (1) to get rid of the illegals who are living off the taxpayer dole and who have been responsible for massive ER and medical provider closures throughout the country and massive state debts and (2) to further help attract those who are qualified medical care providers which we are short of right now.

As to the two popular points of Obamacare the covering of children until 26 and the preexisting condition coverage, both are actually easily fixed. You can require that insurance companies offer coverage of children until they are 26 for premiums to be paid by the parents. Most insurance companies are already saying they’re going to offer the 26 thing even if Obamacare is overturned…why? Because they get to justify raising their premiums to cover a segment of the population that next to never need medical attention. Better to make it an optional idea and then only if your parents want to pay are you still covered (even if they offered it for an extra 50 they’d still make a profit…the real question is are you such a whining college drop out that your parents aren’t going to waste the money on your useless liberal ass).

As for preexisting conditions, we all know why insurance companies don’t like to take them on. They’re going to pay more money for your care and thus not make a profit. They’re in business to make a profit. Your doctor is in business to make a profit. Every sane person is out to make a profit. Only the insane and evil are self-sacrificing. Now what we can do is write laws that, if you have a preexisting condition they get to charge you more, which is only fair as I would say the majority of preexisting conditions are at least partly caused by behavior and lifestyle…and that if you have a preexisting condition you agree to pay for that policy for a specified amount of time (say 15 years) which guarantees that you won’t just stop insurance once you get the treatment you need (the reason why taking on preexisting conditions is usually a loss) and that if you kick the bucket your insurance company is the first creditor to be paid off. This is both a just way to deal with the situation and it takes much of the risk out of taking on preexisting conditions.

However just solving the problem of Obamacare isn’t the only problem.

We still have the problem that the Supreme Court just expanded the powers of the government to what the Founding Fathers would have shot people over.

Now there is the fact that I can hope Romney will appoint better people than Bush did. But that still doesn’t fix the problem entirely.

And I know that getting a constitutional amendment passed is near impossible these days but we have to push for these if this nation is to survive.

  • We need an Amendment overturning this decision and Kelo reaffirming that private property is sacrosanct and that private property rights are one of the most central reasons for government to exist in the first place.
  • We need an Amendment limiting the government’s taxing power to only taxing actual monetary transactions (which bars them from taxing you for NOT doing something). I would prefer changing the whole thing to only being able to tax sales and abolish the income tax, but I’ll take barring them from not taxing me for not doing something.
  • We need an Amendment limiting the power of the Commerce Clause to ONLY commerce that crosses state lines (not theoretically could cross, not commerce that is tangentially involved in interstate, ONLY COMMERCE THAT CROSSES STATE LINES).

And we probably need something reaffirming the sacrosanct nature of a contract…but that’s tangential to this argument.

I know just the laws of tort reform and repealing Obamacare are going to be huge hurdles in and of themselves…but we need to focus on Amendments like this more than anything else or we risk legislation like this and bad court decisions like this every time the nation goes stupid and elects a liberal.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Taxes, Tea Party, Tyranny, Welfare

The Most Patriotic Films #11 To Kill A Mockingbird

Now, gentlemen, in this country, our courts are the great levelers. In our courts, all men are created equal. I’m no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and of our jury system – that’s no ideal to me. That is a living, working reality! Now I am confident that you gentlemen will review, without passion, the evidence that you have heard, come to a decision and restore this man to his family. In the name of GOD, do your duty. In the name of God, believe… Tom Robinson.

 

Okay first off, I’ll admit the central theme of this film is not the greatness of America, there is no denying that, but the theme is there.

 

First off this is a great patriotic film, because as I have said before we Americans are able to admit our mistakes, own up to them, learn from them and then move on.  And this film makes clear some of our worst behavior without giving a blanket indictment to all Americans past, present and future.

 

Think about it, which other countries are so open about their flaws?

 

I looked around and I couldn’t find that there were any monuments in England to their treatment of Catholics or to their actions in India (I could be wrong and if I am please tell me).  And if you go to Japan try and find public acknowledgement of Nanking, Bataan, or Pearl Harbor…that has some very interesting selective amnesia.  And let’s not forget Russia seems on the verge of re-embracing their darkest days.  But as America is a nation that does not believe in pedigree or the idea that the sins (or virtues) of the father automatically fall to the son, we aren’t told to feel personally guilty for the actions of our ancestors (like the German education system seems to be based on a near daily dose of “We are terrible evil people”—I’m sorry but the children nowadays, while they should knows what happened, shouldn’t be made to feel guilty about something they didn’t do).  Only America has, more or less, a history of admitting their flaws and mistakes but not dwelling and wallowing in them—just as an individual should.  Yes there are people in this nation that want to make us likes the dregs of Europe either denying our wrongs or wallowing in them as if no redemption is possible, but these people never seem to gain any long term traction because ignorance and guilt are not the American way.

 

Now, as the opening quote suggests, this is a movie tied heavily to our legal system. Its flaws and its strengths.  Atticus’ speech speaks to the hopes of its strengths.  Its flawed verdict speaks to the weakness of depending on people who are by nature imperfect for justice (but you come up with a better system).  But I think there is a point missed in all the injustice here.  The majority of the people act within the rules of the law.  Atticus of course always follows the law to the letter (even to the point where he thought he would have to bring his son to court for murder charges)—but it is not just Atticus.  The Judge of the story, who could have given any lawyer to Tom Robbinson, ensures he gets the one lawyer in town who will not allow a man he knows to be innocent to be railroaded without even mounting a defense. Further the character of Sheriff Tate when limited by the rules of the law charges a man he doesn’t believe to be innocent, because a complaint has been filed and it is not for the police to determine guilt or innocence…but when it is in his legal power to determine what happened he makes it quite clear “Bob Ewell fell on his knife”…Arthur “Boo” Radley Who?  For all the flaws of the legal system shown in this film, it is shown that it is a system worthy of following in this nation because even when it has gross injustices it is still better than the alternative. (Further let us not forget this film was made in the 1960’s and worked as a powerful piece of propaganda to help pass civil rights reform that ended the kind of injustice seen in this film.

A man who stands up for what he believes in, even in the face of certain violence,is almost always to be admired (so long as his cause is right and just…which is a given in with Atticus.)

And then there is Atticus Finch.  A heroes hero whom we all wish we could be more like.  And he is a distinctly America kind of hero. He doesn’t care about what the community at large thinks, he doesn’t care what his neighbors say, he doesn’t care when he personally is threatened.  He care about his children and what is right.  There is no other consideration for the opinion of community or loyalty to society, only what is right.  Some countries may ask devotion to “king and country” others demand obedience to race or religion…but America is the nation that glorifies loyalty to self, to reason, and to right. Which is the reason why we love Atticus and admire him so deeply.

Also, a very subtle theme that is tied to the core of America is that action and principle must go hand in hand.  Yes Atticus Finch is a man of morals and virtue and character that we should all aspire to.  His guiding light of  “The main one is that if I didn’t, I couldn’t hold my head up in town. I couldn’t even tell you or Jem not to do somethin’ again” is a belief that far too many are lacking in the modern world (clearly no one in France or Greece has any conception of this kind of thinking).  But the fact of the matter is that there is a certain lack of action in his moral. He stands tall when a piece of filth like Ewell spits in his face and doesn’t give in to the provocation to fight…which if it were just Atticus who was in jeopardy would be fine…but he failed to take into account that Ewell had a history of attacking the defenseless and innocent. Which is why it is Boo Radley who shows the very American propensity for knowing that sometimes you have to put evil people down and make sure they can never get back up again.

 

—-

 

 

Oh, and not on the issue of patriotism…but a fun fact.  There is a portion of the movie (and it’s in the book too) about the arrogance of teachers who think that they know everything because they’ve been to college and that parents know nothing.  One might call it ironic that this is a book almost every English teacher loves, even though it is insulting the arrogant mentality of most teachers…but they would have to be bright enough to get that point, and, at the least most of the union hacks certainly are nowhere near that bright.

 

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Civil Liberties, Education, Faith, Fear, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Patriotism, politics, Racism

The Patriotic Films #13 Red Dawn

“I never saw the Eckert Brothers again. In time, this war – like every other war – ended. But I never forgot. And I come to this place often, when no one else does. … In the early days of World War 3, guerillas – mostly children – placed the names of their lost upon this rock. They fought here alone and gave up their lives, so that this nation should not perish from the earth.”

Let me start off by saying I’m not going to be defending the exceedingly high production standards or the Oscar quality performances seen in this film.  To do so would just be dishonest.  This is a B flick that became a cult classic.  (And I’m just going to ignore all the logistics and tactical issues).    (It will be interesting to see if the remake can maintain the same pro-American theme which is so unpopular in modern Hollywood).  But this is a beloved film of my youth and you know how those films always stay with you.

But it does show that America (more embodied in our teenage protagonists than the townspeople who behave in a strangely un-American fashion) does not roll over in the face of greater odds (or at least that was the intent, I really do have a problem with how the town seems to be rather passive…but I get that wasn’t the point of the film).

It’s either really bad writing or a very high opinion of America (or both), but you have to admit this small band is not only extremely good at laying traps and taking out superior forces…but they are truly spectacular at scavenging. Military camouflage for different season, fully automatic weapons, RPG’s—the very thing that turned the tide against the Soviets in Afghanistan and which has to be provided by us—the heroes of this film really know how to raid the good caravans and for great military equipment.

And while I’m on the topic keep in mind that this movie was made at the same time the very same thing was going on in Afghanistan, but not with such spectacular results.  The only reason the Afghani insurgents did well was American support, and I think writers were trying to show that Americans don’t necessarily need foreign support to defend their own nation.  (Oh, before someone chides me by saying backing the Afghan forces was a bad idea, it wasn’t. What was a bad idea was not going in after the Soviets left and helping them to rebuild their nation, rather preferring to let butchers and psychopaths take control of the nation.  What was Wilson’s quote “These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world…and then we fucked up the end game.”* Thank Bush Senior for turning a nation that could have become a first world nation and ally into a complete clusterfuck.  It must be a genetic thing that the Bush’s have no ability to see the long game.)

But back to Red Dawn.

One of my favorite lines in the film is when they are about to execute the Soviet solider whom they had captured calls out, “This violates the Geneva convention.”  It’s laughable.  From a man who had participated in the killing of civilians as reprisals for the acts of others.  From a man from a nation that has killed more innocent people than any nation in history, begging for following the rules of civilized society (also, it’s not a violation of the convention, guerillas aren’t covered by the convention and thus they don’t have to abide by it…but Communists aren’t real big on a actual understanding of law and natural rights).  Quite frankly, given what heartless genocidal lunatics the Soviets were (and it looks like they’re hoping for a comeback with strongman Putin) it only reminds me of a line from another film from my childhood, “You who are without mercy, now beg for it?” (Kudos, if you know the film).

Of course Red Dawn also points out that there are certain difference between America and most of Europe. When getting news from their downed Air Force Colonel, they ask

“What about Europe?”

…and get the response…

“I guess they figured twice in one century was enough. They’re sitting this one out. All except England, and they won’t last very long.”

And it’s sad how so true this is.  Most of Europe were cowards in helping us take down a dictator (except for a lot of Eastern Europe, I wonder if it might have something to do with the fact that Eastern Europe understands why dictators MUST be opposed) and for all their high handed morality in not helping with wars, they were also strangely silent in helping to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan.  Like the entire Greek population, most of Europe is motivated by short-sighted grasping and looking out for their own ends without any consideration of morality, a hallmark of their beloved socialist systems (as opposed to Capitalism which is self-interest tempered by foresight, reason and ethics).

Of course I do need to bring up a couple points about what bothers me more over the years…

Now there are a couple of problems that do need to be dealt with.  The first, which I assume was simply the nature of needing to have a movie in the first place.  Do you know how many privately owned guns there are in America, and especially in the Midwest which is where they claimed the Soviets were able to take a foot-hold.  I’d like to see someone try an invasion like this.  In a nation as well armed as the United States it would probably not go nearly as well as this movie suggested it would.

More than anything however, my biggest problem is the rather anti-American idea that it was just these kids.  Yes, I know it looked like they rounded up or killed half the town initially, and yes I know they had a throwaway line that from when Jed (Swayze) said he didn’t want to take on any more people…but the fact of the matter is that if you provide a rallying point, I would assume that you would see a good portion of Americans rise up should something like this ever happen.  History and the news tells us it’s damn near impossible to put down a guerilla revolt when the guerillas are fighting for oppression and tyranny…it should be damn impossible to do it if you actually have something to fight for, especially for a populace that didn’t grow up under tyranny.   I get that they were trying to show the character drama of what it was doing to these kids, but it does a disservice to the majority of the American populace whom I believe would never sit back and prefer to live on their knees than die on their feet.

*Before you ask Charlie Wilson’s War while a great story is about the man not the nation which is why it will not be officially on this list.  But I must ask, what happened to Democrats like Wilson who actually loved their nation and freedom?

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Art, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is useless, Individualism, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, NeoConservative, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny

Some thoughts on Foreign Policy

Sad how this is still very relevant (just add Beijing and Teheran to Moscow)(sorry about the music, I couldn’t find this part of the speech on it’s own)


Over the last 4 years:

A dictator has returned to the Russian Presidency

China is building it’s Navy and saber rattling

Pro-Democracy forces were slaughtered in Iran and the U.S. did nothing

Anti-American Islamists have taken over Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and are about to take over Syria (and yes these psychos

are worse the bastards they booted out)

We abandoned Iraq

Israel backstabbed at every opportunity

Pakistan is actively supporting Islamists

We are in talks to give Afghanistan back to he Taliban

But, it’s not our problem…just like Kaiser, the Red Army, the Fuhrer, the Ayatollah, Mao, Tojo, Ho, the Khmer Rogue, all of Africa were never our problem.

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, China, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Founding, Free Will, Goldwater, GOP, Individualism, Israel, Libya, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, NeoConservative, Obama, philosophy, politics, Ronald Reagan, War on Terrorism

Most Patriotic Movies #17 National Treasure

“To high treason.  That’s what these men were committing when they signed the Declaration. […] Here’s to the men who did what was considered wrong, in order to do what they knew was right…”

Okay it’s a silly and fun movie.  It’s lacking in depth and real history…oh who am I kidding it’s The DaVinci Code in America.  But that doesn’t change the fact that for all of historical inaccuracy (I’m being polite) it still places ideals of America first and foremost.

“Of all the ideas that became the United States, there’s a line here that’s at the heart of all of the others.  ‘When a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to render the under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security. ‘  People don’t talk that way anymore. […] It means that if there is something wrong those who have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action.”

Americans in the early days of the nation through the hay day of the Monroe Doctrine and off and on since WWII has understood this principle.  All men are created equal and their rights aren’t tied to a Declaration or border, they are inalienable to all…and you have if you wish to be ethical and have the power to do something, you do it or you are not ethical.  This is why our government was one that in the early days laid to waste three nations that engaged in piracy and extortion of all of Europe, not just for our own shipping rights, but because it was the right thing to do.  And this why this nation above all others believes in personal charity, because it is not the duty of some government bureaucrat to help people, it is the ethical responsibility of people to determine not just need but also worthiness so we do not throw away money on those who would waste it.

And it’s nice to see that this movie understands that ethics are not some bygone passé idea that along with chivalry we have move past, but rather the guiding light and loadstone of our lives.

I will be honest I cringed every time they touch the Declaration in the movie. I know it wasn’t the real thing, but even the thought of putting the Declaration in harm’s way was a horrifying idea to me.

The movie also makes clear the true value of the Declaration.  The sanctity of the idea of bringing it back to Independence Hall, the willingness to do anything to protect it, going so far as when Abigail agrees that dropping her (possibly killing her) was the correct move to save the Declaration.  Now maybe it’s just me who understands this reaction to the Declaration, but then again I choke when I read it aloud, but I cannot find any holy book on earth, even my beloved Course In Miracles or Bhagavad-Gita, that seems to divinely inspired as to recognize the value of individual human life and the power it has.  And this movie, through the character’s reverence for the document, at least shows that I’m not alone.

The movie also shows the American way of thought in the character’s dialogue:

Ben Gates: “No, but I hope it’s real. I mean I’ve dreamt it’s real since my grandfather told me about it. But I want to hold it.  I feel like I’m so close I can taste it. But I just…just want to know it’s not just something I my head or in my heart. “

Abigail Chase: “People don’t really talk that way you know”

Ben Gates: “I know.  But they think that way.”

Thinking in these grand idealistic ways is a distinctly American trait.

And finally, even the treasure itself becomes just another way to show the greatness of America in the film:

Agent Sandusky: The Templars and the Freemasons believed that the treasure was too great for any one man to have, not even a king. That’s why they went to such lengths to keep it hidden.

Ben Gates: That’s right. The founding fathers believed the same thing about government. I figure their solution will work for the treasure too.

Agent Sadusky: Give it to the people.

That we have entrusted the people of the republic with an awesome power and responsibility (maybe they should try living up to it once in a while).

Overall for all of simplicity and flaws, it is a deeply patriotic film.  I’ll be honest I was less impressed by the sequel…but I always have hopes for the third which they keep promising.

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Civil Liberties, Declaration, Equality, Faith, Founding, God, Happiness, Individualism, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Patriotism, politics

God Bless Citizens United v. FEC

So while liberals have been throwing hissy fits for over a year about the Citizen’s United (Really the creation of Super PACS owes a lot to various relegation and legislative changes and to just Citizens United v. the Federal Election Committee, but Democrats know their base doesn’t do well with complex ideas, so they just pick on Citizens United, and I always try and play in the opposition’s ballpark, so we’ll just refer to Citizens United). But the night of the Wisconsin recall hit a new level of pathetic from the left with the whimpering of possibly the whiniest human being on earth decrying the death of democracy.

You know personally my first inclination is to slap the little loser and tell him we’re a republic not a democracy. But we are a democratic-republic, and despite his inability to use words properly, the dimwit meant that the democratic feature of the republic died. He’s wrong, but what do you expect from idiots.

Now first off let’s deal with the lies. The Democrats claim they were outspent 7 to 1…if you actually look at real statistics the number is closet to 3 to 2 or 1.5 to 1. Now they were outspent, but it wasn’t by much.

Also I failed to notice that they complained all those years they had almost limitless funds from unions and big time contributors like George Soros, Warren Buffet, and 90% of Hollywood…not to mention the glory days before FOXNews and when you only had the Big 3 to get your info from…or the glory days before the internet and the news outlets were your only source of info…or the glory days before talk radio when there literally wasn’t any choice but what the mainstream media fed you. Let’s be honest there is just a lot of corruption on the left that they like to ignore…
…and some take it even worse than the whiner in Wisconsin…

(I love Downfall parodies, they’re hilarious)

But let’s ignore the minutia and get to the heart of the matter.

The central liberal argument is that Citizens United v. Federal Election Committeewas wrong—that money is not speech

Every so often they get something right as they did in Citizen’s United…now to overturn Kelo

and therefore cannot be protected under the First Amendment—that whoever has the most money always wins. The first point is just obviously stupid, but this is an argument from people who don’t get why we have to have the legal fiction of corporate personhood. They also don’t understand that your property rights are sacrosanct and under the theory of natural rights (which is kind of the basis of our entire legal system); that your property, including money, and what you do with it is an extension of your person legally, ergo spending money is speech if you choose it to be.

But let’s ignore the unspeakable idiocy of the argument that money isn’t speech. Let’s focus on what they’re saying about democracy, because that is even more laughable (or frightening).

The argument against Citizens United is based on the argument that who has the most money wins.

Let’s look at this argument.

Certainly if I have half a trillion dollars and my opposition has $10 I will probably win. But seldom in American politics are things so lopsided. And do you really think that if the Klan or the American Nazi Party had a trillion dollars they could actually get any real power in this nation? Logic tells us that at a certain point you can spend all the money you want and if the people hate you, you’re screwed. You just have to look at advertising…Hollywood occasionally spends the GNP of third world nations hyping some piece of crap that almost no one goes to see…if the logic of Citizen’s United opponents were applied then everyone should just follow the hype.

But let’s look at some extremes. On the one side did we forget that a felon in West Virginia and a challenger in Arkansas, both with no money to speak of, gave a sitting president a run for his money this year in the primary? Or on the other side let’s look at a man like George Soros. Now I don’t have to believe that Soros is some evil mastermind on the level of Lex Luthor or Ernst Stavro Blofeld to admit that (A) his politics are somewhere to left of the current French president’s and (B) through direct contributions and contributions to PACs like Moveon the man has dumped an obscene amount of money into U.S. elections. I don’t buy the conspiracy theories, but the fact is the man is very progressive and very giving of money to causes he believes in. As is his right. But here’s the funny thing…if the people who oppose Citizen’s United were right, then all the money he has spent combined with all the money unions have spent over the years then it should never have even been close in 2000 or 2004, and the country should already be so far left that Obama would look like Reagan right now. Strangely I failed to see the retirement age lowered to 50 or minimum wage raised to $20 an hour, universal public health care, or a 70% tax on income above $100,000 here in Sorosandia.

Money helps. No doubt about that. If you can get your message out it certainly is more effective. However in a day and age of twitter, blogs, and YouTube, it’s not just money that matters. It’s having a message that resonates with people…even if that message is the mentally retarded statements of “Yes we can” and “we are the ones we have been waiting for.”

But there’s a deeper problem than the common sense issue that money can’t buy everything in politics. It’s the implications of human nature.

Notice what is implicit in the argument that money is all that matters to democracy. Notice what is says if you believe that the person with the most money, not the better argument, always wins. It means that all people don’t have stupid and shortsighted moments, as I believe it means that people are incapable of rational thought. That they will follow the shiniest piece of polished metal provided by the person with the most money—that there is no rational thought, that no matter how extreme an idea, if it has money backing it, it will win. Ummm…if people are actually that dumb, then why do we have any democratic elements in our government? Democracy is based on the idea that the majority of the people, when put together will more often than not make the right choice, not because they believe the shiniest lie, but because reason will win the day with the majority of people more often than not. It is a premise based on the idea that a human being and human reason has value. If your argument is that money drives everything, then you must state you believe that humans on a whole have no ability to reason. Now is human reason perfect? Hell, no. That’s why we have always been a republic that limits the momentary whims of the masses and forces compromise and slow deliberation.

Now I will admit that human reason is not perfect, but taking money out of the equation will not solve the problem of imperfect reason being a driving force in our elections.

Now if you actually wanted a functioning democratic election, as the critics of Citizen United claim they want, what should they be arguing for?

Well, how about Voter ID check or clearing the voter rolls in every state every two years and making everyone re-register. You know to prevent fraud, and felons, and illegal immigrants from voting in mass numbers and making sure that the democratic principle of one man, one vote was actually allowed. As for making everyone re-register, if going down to the post office or going to a web site to pick up a form and sending it in is too much work for you, then dear God, you are not qualified to be deciding the future of this nation.

Or how about this one I know would never pass, but you would have to admit would get rid of the majority of influence of money in elections…require people to earn a high school diploma before they can vote. Okay liberals, get all the insults out now…I’m a racist, I’m a bigot, I’m closed minded, I don’t know anything about democracy, blah, blah, blah…I teach high school, I have been working in schools for nearly 14 years, and have been working consistently in alternative education with at risk youth for the last seven…do you have any idea how easy it is to get a high school diploma? Or a GED? I’m sorry but you seriously have to try to not pass high school. And I’m sorry given how much the income difference is between a high school diploma and having nothing, you’re an idiot’s idiot to not get a high school diploma. And when you put those two sentences together you realize that high school dropouts are actively trying to be an idiot’s idiot. Can’t imagine why I would want these losers voting. I mean who do you think falls most easily for flashy ads, the person with a bare bones education or the person who actively tried to remain ignorant. And if voting is really that important to you, getting a GED is not that difficult, really it’s not. If we were to institute this, you would find pandering by politicians drop quite a bit, and low and behold you might see better legislation.

Or you might go back to what the Founders correctly envisioned for the Senate: State legislatures and governors working together to nominate and elect the most qualified in the state (as opposed to the most popular) to the upper house of Congress. It would completely eliminate money’s influence on Senators themselves…and if people are so worried about SuperPAC money influencing federal elections…right now to influence the Senate you have to influence maybe 40 statewide elections (I figure about 60 seats are safe Republican or safe Democratic seats) going back to pre 17th Amendment republican ideals you would have to influence the same 40 state wide elections but this time for governors, plus influencing one to two houses of the state legislature. Even the most well funded SuperPacs would go bust before being able to make a dent in the long term. But to do that you would actually want to try and take out the influence of money…instead of say, hypocritically just wanting your traditional sources of money to be the only ones that counted.

Or how about this one: Get the government out of the economy. If you placed legitimate restrictions on how far the government can get into the economy, then guess what, all those businesses and business people wouldn’t care about elections. As long as the government has the power to pick winners and losers, you’d be a bit of an idiot to not do everything in your power to make sure you’re not the loser…but if you got the government out of the economy you get rid of the incentive to be so involved in elections…at which point why would business waste their hard earned profits on silly things like elections.

But the people who bitch about Citizens United don’t care about any of that…they’re just unhappy that now other people have a chance to fight their endless union coffers.

***
One last note on a pragmatic side issue. I’ve heard that nearly a trillion dollars will be spent on the 2012 election (when you count all the elections at all levels). Given how crappy the Obama economy is (and yes it is his fault, if it wasn’t for him we’d be in a full recovery by now) I want you to think how bad it would be if you took out a trillion dollars. Yes that trillion is going to a limited sector in the advertising business…but those people who get the money then spend it on other things and it moves through the economy…I want you to imagine what the economy would look like if you took yet another trillion out of GDP. Just a pragmatic consideration to keep in mind.

1 Comment

Filed under Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Tyranny, Unions

Most Patriotic Movies #23: Lifeboat

Connie: So we’re all going to fold up and die…just because that ersatz superman is gone.

C.J. Rittenhouse: My only regret is…that in the end…I joined a mob

Connie: Baloney.  We weren’t a mob when we killed him.  We were a mob when we sat around–prisoners of the man we saved–kowtowing to him, obeying him…practically “heiling” him, because he was kind enough and strong enough to take us to a concentration camp!

The story of nine people trapped on a lifeboat after their ship has been sunk by a Nazi submarine.  7 Americans, one British sailor, and the captain of the German submarine who was the only survivor after the sub itself was sunk in retaliatory fire.

This masterwork of Hitchcock is an allegory for society.  Each character is representative of a certain segment of society.  The German is representative of the thugs who would take control at any point in time.  The rest of the occupants represent the rest of society from the lower to upper classes.

I realize that, as a lesser known and older film, some of you might need a very general plot outline.  No need to worry about spoilers, because it is the character development and themes that are important to this film, the plot is just the vehicle through which these two are developed.

While the initial thought is to at first throw the Nazi overboard, “cooler” heads led by the distinctly upper-class passengers (paralleling the upper-class isolationism prevalent in the era) prevail in a call for justice and due process, and they don’t do the right thing and kill the Nazi.  This, no shocker, turns out to be a very bad call.  Because the minute there is a disaster (in this case a storm) the representative of the self-proclaimed master race takes over the ship (having done his fair share to already drive them off course, set the others against one another, and destroy their water supply).  However the reign of this mini-third Reich doesn’t last long for when in response to his killing of an invalid the six remaining members rise up against their tyrant and kill him.  Finally, after a period of hopelessness they begin again to fight to survive and are rescued almost as soon.

Why is this patriotic?

Rising up against the Führer

Because it shows that while we falter and fail sometimes, while we sometimes buy into the sweet talk of someone who promises us salvation, we never fall for it long.  It is the characters that represent the middle class, or as close as you can get when you only have nine people, who lead the charge to take down the tyrant. Yes the upper classes characters try to be the leader, and fail early on because of their arrogance…and yes the lower class characters talk a good game about democracy and right, but they yield almost faster than anyone…but it is that distinctly American middle class that when pushed far enough fights back with everything they have leaving no survivors in their path.

What’s the matter with us?  We not only let the Nazi do our rowing for us, but our thinking!

Because after getting rid of the Nazi they all give into self pity and fear that they will all die.  But it is the one character who clawed her way out of the slums and into a world of famous celebrity, that is the person who most exemplifies the American Dream of not being tied to the class you are born into, who finally rallies them all to still fight to live and find a way to make it through this.

And there are a hundred small little things that show the superiority of capitalism and democracy (but I can’t say as much that these are only American virtues…a lot of praise does need to go to Britain during this era as well…but it just seems wrong to lavish too much praise on my beloved British this close to the 4th).  And this movie is also not short on critique of what is wrong with our culture.  Racism, lack of spirituality, dishonesty, shallowness, materialism, and a myriad of other flaws are also on display.  But then again what other culture so readily is willing to admit its own flaws and shortcoming when looking for what makes it great?.

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Evils of Liberalism, Individualism, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny

Most Patriotic Films #24: 24

 

“You still have a life, Jack. You wanna be a real hero, here’s what you do. You get back down there and you put the pieces together. You find a way to forgive yourself for what happened to your wife. You make things right with your daughter, and you go on serving your country. That’d take some real guts.”

 

Now for those who didn’t watch this show religiously you might be under the impression that it is only about every terrorist in the world being methodically slaughtered by a man who makes Chuck Norris look like a cowering wimp.  And it certainly is that.  And for those who did watch it, it might have occurred to you that at a far deeper level this is a study in how much can even the strongest person take before they finally break (the answer is apparently a lot).

 

But for all the corrupt politicians and traitors, there is a core of patriotism at the center of this show.

 

Part of this patriotism comes in showing that many people who like to wrap themselves in the flag (politicians especially) are not always patriotic.  That it’s action not merely words that define a person.  And this is a very American theme…we don’t care for genealogy, or family history, or “storied pomp” what do you personally do?  This partly is shown by the fact that Jack Bauer is related to and trained by traitors and it still does not corrupt him.

 

“You took an oath. You made a promise to uphold the law. When you cross that line, it always starts off with a small step. Before you know it, you’re running as fast as you can in the wrong direction just to justify why you started in the first place. These laws were written by much smarter men than me. And in the end, I know that these laws have to be more important than the 15 people on the bus. I know that’s right. In my mind, I know that’s right. I just don’t think my heart could ever have lived with that. I guess the only advice I can give you is… try to make choices that you can live with.”

 

But of course the real patriotism is shown by Jack Bauer and the members of CTU who give repeatedly everything they have (their lives sometimes being the least of what they give, especially in Bauer’s case for whom the writers invent whole new meanings for the phrase “last full measure of devotion”) so that others may live and their nation remains safe.   Also as the quote above shows, unlike most of the world (not all but there certainly is a spirit of servile following in the behavior of a lot of nations) which simpers and looks to bureaucrats in the U.N. for treaties, sanctions, and rules…Americans for we tend to care more about what’s right and act on it than what others say we can and cannot do (again there are exceptions, a lot of them, but the ideal of America is a country that does do what’s right and one that will act unilaterally to stop tyranny if we have to).   Bauer’s motives are hardly shortsighted selfishness, though they are selfish (anytime you act because you could not live with yourself to do otherwise, is, inherently caring about yourself, and that’s a good thing…long term thinking leads to selfishness like that and that leads to happy people and societies that work)…his motives are for justice and for country (though certainly not for governments that betray both…and you’ll notice his fury is often the worst when directed at traitors).  And even with all he has given up for this country, he never seems to say it wasn’t worth it…which suggests what the true value of this nation’s ideals are worth.

 

Finally as with my point in Iron Man 2, there are few things quite so American as insulting our elected leaders on the floor of the legislature and call them out as the cowards they are (which is probably why we use the scene so often) as we see in this conversation…

 

Senator: Did you torture Mr. Haddad?

Jack: According to the definition set forth by the Geneva Convention, yes, I did.

Jack: Senator, why don’t I save you some time. It’s obvious your agenda is to discredit CTU—

Senator: My only agenda is to get to the truth!

Jack: I don’t think it is, sir.

Senator: Excuse me?!

Jack: Ibrahim Haddad had targeted a bus carrying 45 people, 10 of which were children. The truth, Senator, is that I stopped that attack from happening.

Senator: By torturing Mr. Haddad!

Jack: By doing what I deemed necessary to Protect innocent lives.

Senator: So basically, what you’re saying, Mr. Bauer, is that the ends justify the means, and that you are above the law!

Jack: For a combat soldier the difference between success and failure is your ability to adapt to your enemy. The people that I deal with, they don’t care about your rules. All they care about is a result. My job is to stop them from accomplishing their objectives. Am I above the law? No, sir. I am more than willing to be judged by the people you claim to represent. I will let them decide what price I should pay. But please, do not sit there with that smug look on your face and expect me to regret the decisions I have made. Because, sir, the truth is, I don’t.

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

Ron Paul vs. Mitt Romney…or Vicious Psychopath vs. True Conservative

Very recently I was asked why I hate Ron Paul so much.  Now it’s partly his racist anti-Semitic attitude.    Partly it’s his idiocy on foreign affairs.  Partly it’s his extreme idealism about economics that takes reality and history and ignores them.  And then there is his hypocrisy.  But most of all it’s his followers.

Paul vs Romney…the battle for the soul of the GOP between a lunatic and a conservative.

Paulbots are insane.  I understand focusing on your candidate’s strengths, that’s called intelligence.  But to deny minor flaws in  a candidate is intellectually dishonest…for instance, I will admit that I’m not the biggest fan of Mitt’s social policies, however, I don’t think that those will be his first priority as President and thus I’m not too worried about them.  You ever hear a Paulbot say anything even that negative about Ron Paul.  No, Ron walks on water.

Paulbots are psychotic.  Facts have no meaning to them.  You point out that Ron Paul’s newsletter was filled with numerous racist and Anti-Semitic statements.  They either tell you you’re a liar (even when you have proof) or say that he didn’t write those, it was just someone who wrote for the newsletter.  Okay that would mean that Ron Paul hired someone to speak in his name and was so poor an executive he chose vicious and unqualified people to work for him.  So he can’t even run a small business, i.e., he’s certainly not qualified to run a country.  And when the option is either Ron’s a racist or Ron is a bad leader it’s back to I’m a liar.    Because Ron walks on water.  Hallowed be his name.  His will be done in D.C. as on Earth.

And trust me I’ve got a million other things about Ron I’m going to go over.

This kind of mindless adoration has been seen before.  You saw it in Germany in the 1930’s.  You saw it Russia in 1918.  You saw it in the Manson Family.  You see it in Twilight fans.  And you definitely saw it in the Democratic Party from 2008 to the present.  And each and every time this mindless devotion to a person, idea or thing that is devoid of real substance leads to only disaster, chaos, and destruction.

But most of all this blind devotion to Ron Paul has made each and every Paulbot in the country more sanctimonious than Rick Santorum on his worst day.  For instance let’s go with this little article that seems to be attempting to go viral “Why I Am Endorsing Mitt Romney For President (And Not Ron Paul).”  There is wit, there is snark, there is rude sarcasm….this article which tries to insult Romney is none of those things– this is ignorance and arrogance deluded into thinking it is wisdom and humor.

The poorly planned/researched concept is that this idiot lists twelve things under the guise of supporting Mitt Romney, instead supposedly he tries to insult Romney and show that really Ron Paul is not the second coming of Christ, he is so much better than that.

Yes, why should I back a real conservative like Romney when I can back a friggin’ nutjob like Paul?

Problem is that in attempting wit the author shows himself to be utterly devoid of knowledge of anything other than talking points.  The author will of course claim it’s satire…but satire is using humor to bring facts to light…this article against Romney is an attempt at humor to make fun of people for being so stupid that they believe that 2+2=4 (when every Paulbot knows it’s 3).

Let’s take a look at the 12 points.

1. Consistency – Mitt Romney has been unwavering in his public devotion to the principles and issues that would help to advance the political career of Mitt Romney.

 

Oh, I get it Mitt Romney’s a flip flopper and Ron isn’t.  Except for the fact that Mitt Romney has changed his stance on one major issue abortion…and even that was more that he changed his priorities, he has always personally been opposed to abortion.  All other flip flops are talking points by the left, Santorum, and Paulbots taken out of context or just outright lies as I have shown here.

Meanwhile it is a fact that Ron “Dr. No” Paul puts in massive pork (Billions of dollars over his very long political career) all the while decrying that very use of pork spending and voting against it (knowing that his pork money is safe even if he votes against it).  That my friend is consistency.  That is character.

Let’s see how the two stack up on the next point.

2. Flexibility – Unlike Ron Paul who has been ridiculously rigid in his defense of the U.S. Constitution, personal liberty, a balanced budget and the sanctity of life (so much so that he earned the nickname “Dr. No” in Congress); Romney has shown that he is capable of rolling with the punches, going with the tide, changing with the times, and bending with the breeze.

 

Yes, Ron has been strict in his defense of the U.S. Constitution (except for the fact that he thinks we should tax the rich which while it may now be Constitutional is clearly against the intent of the Constitution), personal liberty (unless it’s personal liberty for people outside U.S. borders, if you’re outside the U.S. borders tyrants can be running a 2nd Holocaust and Ron couldn’t care less) , a balanced budget (despite his numerous instances of pork spending) and the sanctity of life (again except if it’s outside U.S. borders).   And in all of this time, 20 years in the House, unlike career politician Romney who has only served one term in one office, Ron has gotten exactly zero laws he proposed passed.

Meanwhile Romney who holds the record for vetoes (over 800) just goes with anything anyone said.  That’s right when the Massachusetts legislature wanted to nationalize healthcare and basically control the entire medical industry Romney let them…oh wait, no, he took the plan proposed by the hideously conservative Heritage Foundation and created Romneycare (which has nothing to do with ObamaCare) thus saving the private industry and the medical professional in his state.  And then he vetoed every liberal change to the law.  Did all of his vetoes get overturned?  Yes.  But he at least stopped them from killing healthcare in one fell swoop.

Like any politician in an executive position who has no power to legislate directly has he cut deals?  Yes.  Kind of what the Founders envisioned.  (Since you Paulbots love to praise Ron Paul the Constitutionalist…maybe you could actually read it sometime along with the owner’s manual “The Federalist Papers”…you might enjoy No. 10 where Madison goes into detail of how the system is designed to at times create compromise.   But, I know, reading is hard, and just chanting “RON PAUL REVOLUTION” is so easy…and really that chant does logically dismiss all argument against Ron.)

The fact is that Romney has always held true to his principles but realizes, unlike Ron, that getting half of what you want and making a deal is better than taking a stand and letting your opposition get everything and you get nothing.

 

3. Supporters – The top six donors to Romney’s campaign are banks (including Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, etc.). Who knows what is best for the average American? Why, multi-billionaire bankers, of course. Obviously Romney’s supporters have the kind of deep pockets that can not only pay for his campaign, but also buy the kind of Congress that will make SURE that America will have another TARP bailout if we need it.  On the other hand, 97% of Ron Paul’s donations come from individuals. His top three donor groups are the active military in the US Army, US Navy and US Air Force.

 

I love Ron Paul supporters, who are supposed to be libertarians, always hate banks and business on principle.  Not because they’re currently corrupt and sucking off the government teat, but because banks are evil by nature.  (When you combine this with the rampant anti-Semitism in Ron Paul’s beliefs, you have to wonder what percentage of Paulbots sleep with a copy of Paul’s Liberty Defined and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on their nightstands).

And it couldn’t be the very engines of a capitalist economy and the investors who know how to create a good economy might be backing the true capitalist?  Oh, no I forgot for people supporting a supposed follower of Austrian economics, Paulbots are often little more than socialist Occupy Wall Street whiners who want to engage in the class warfare of “Who knows what is best for the average American?”  I thought we were capitalists who believe that a good economy benefits all.  No, we should only care about the average American, only have laws to benefit the hoi polloi at the expense of the rich.  Damn rich people.  We’ll have none of those true capitalist laws that treat all equally.

Oh I like that 97% of Ron’s money comes from individuals. It’s true according to Open Secrets.org Ron has raised 37.7 Million from individual contributors (according to Open Secrets that’s 97% of his contributions.)

Meanwhile that evil evil Romney has only raised 97.1 Million from individual contributors or 99% of his cash. Wait…Romney is 2% higher on individual contributors.   Clearly the people are on the side of Ron and not Mitt.

Also I would like to mention that from what I know it’s considered poor form in the military to donate under you own name, usually it’s done under the name of spouses so as not to give the appearance of military support from active duty members.  But I’m sure it’s just cowards who are afraid of going to war.  Yeah, I said it.  If you’ re supporting a bigoted, anti-Semitic racist  who would let the world burn and are in the service, you are a complete disgrace to everyone who died in that uniform. Oh by the way, this is also an odd statement in the light of Romney’s overwhelming support by veterans and his endorsement by 50 Medal of Honor winners (only 81 winners are alive).    So please, don’t for a second spin facts to suggest that Paul is a man of the people and a darling of those who have served this nation (they deserve far better than to be associated with a little piece of shit like Paul) because he’s not.

4. Public image – With unrelenting national and international press coverage labeling him as the “frontrunner” (and now the “presumptive candidate”) Mitt Romney has tremendous credibility. He has pearly teeth, perfect hair, tailored suits and looks, well… “Presidential”. Ron Paul wears suits that could have come off the rack at J.C. Penney, has kind of a squeaky voice, talks for an hour without notes (let alone a teleprompter), and looks like your favorite uncle. You would never catch Mitt talking about things like “monetary policy”. Borrrrrrring!

 

Ever since the Nixon/Kennedy debates, right, wrong or indifferent looks have mattered.  It’s such a shame Romney lives in the real world…why would I want to support someone who is sane when I can back a person who doesn’t wish to demonstrate class, tact or self-respect when going in front of a national audience.  Here is Mitt talking about monetary policy and his plans for dealing with economic policy for 160 pages!   And yes I have heard Ron talk about monetary policy many times, however I don’t think I’ve ever caught him discussing monetary policy as if he actually understood it.  (Ron might be interested to know the gold standard only works if A.) there is enough gold for the size of the economy, which there isn’t anymore and B.) it only works if all the countries in the world are on the gold standard as well…but Ron would have to know something about foreign policy, which he doesn’t).

So public image Mitt:  Successful business man who is boring and knows what to do about the economy and has to have his handlers stop him from discussing his 59 point plan to solve the economy because they know it would bore most people to tears.  Reality is the same as the public image.

So public image Ron: A selfless public servant who knows what he’s talking about.  Reality: a lunatic who thinks the words “Gold standard” a magical spell that will solve everything.  Try it “Gold Standard.”  (No, don’t think that worked…?)

5. Freedom – Romney knows that the greatest threat to our freedoms are the “Islamo-fascists”. Not the Chinese, that manufacture everything that we consume and that we depend on to finance our national debt. Not the politicians, that treat the constitution like a blank piece of paper and the U.S. Treasury like their personal piggy bank.  [It’s drivel on about the Chinese and how you’re an idiot if you think terrorists are a threat]

 

Of course Islamo-facists aren’t a threat.  Ron Paul has said he wouldn’t have gone to war with the Nazi’s either.Ron doesn’t care about any form of evil overseas, not matter how horrific…and neither should you.  Like Ron you should

Show me anything that Ron Paul has said that even comes close to this understanding of what makes America great.

be a coward and you should show all the empathy of those “Good Germans” who sat by and did nothing.  And also remember Romney doesn’t care about the Chinese.  Even though one of the 5 things   he’s going to do on day one is impose sanctions for their illegal trade manipulations, and his grand standard for keeping budget items is “is it so important, so critical, that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?” which to a normal human being who can read means he wants to stop borrowing from China. Yeah, Romney doesn’t recognize the threat of China…but Ron Paul is right to ignore the fascists who have promised to kill us all and who are trying to get a nuke.  And in all likelihood – they would use it to obliterate Israel first and America second.

 

6 &7. Foreign Policy [I can’t even stand to copy this stupid shit at this point.  Short version: Ron is right to end all foreign aid, where as Romney wants to just give bushel loads to everyone].

 

I’d love to see where these Paulbots think Romney has said he’s going to increase foreign aid.  In fact, given his statement about deficits, I’m pretty sure Romney will try to cut a lot of foreign aid.  Of course what this really all comes down to is aid to Israel.  Paul and his supporters think it’s wrong that we give money and weapons to Israel which only prevents Iran from completing the Final Solution (a plan I’m sure just warms the cockles of Paul’s anti-Semitic heart).  Sane people like Romney know you don’t let the one stable democracy in a region fall, good people like Romney know you have to draw a line in the sand on principle of what is right and what is wrong (hey wasn’t that point 1 of this idiot’s rant?), and people of character know you don’t betray your allies.  Ron Paul is none of these.

8.  National debt – Romney is against it. How do we know? Because he said so a whole lot of times in a very convincing tone of voice. And just as soon as he is elected president he will show us how we can eliminate the budget deficit without raising any taxes, eliminating any cabinet departments, reducing military spending, or cutting Social Security, Medicare, or any other popular program. How will he do this? Well he hasn’t explained his whole program but it has something to do with getting rid of all of those federal regulations that are smothering small businesses like Goldman Sachs.

 

Again, did you miss the 160 page plan?  The 59 points in that plan?  The statements that he will cut federal workforces through heavy attrition?  The fact that he endorses the Ryan plan to solve Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security?  The fact that he balanced the Massachusetts budget, with a hostile legislature, and without raising taxes with a liberal Massachusetts legislature (which I think, if he were Catholic, would qualify as miracles 1,2 and 3 if he was ever up for beatification)?  Exactly where are you lacking details on how he’s going to get this done?

May I ask what Ron’s plan is?  Oh I forgot he’s going fire everyone (yeah I’m sure he’s going to get Congressional support for that), audit the Fed, and of course …”Gold Standard” (Maybe it works better if you wave your hands like you’re performing a magic trick while you say it).  Yeah, I’m sure that will work real well.

 

9. Immigration – Romney is the only candidate who has had the guts NOT to come out with a firm stand on this thorny issue.

 

 I don’t even get this one.  Romney has been for tighter border control, against the Dream Act, against tax payer money to illegals, opposes amnesty, is for self-deportation (which is working even right now) and guest worker programs for as long as I can remember.

What’s wrong with that common sense plan?  This idiot is just making crap up at this point.

10. Charisma – Romney has tons of it. Almost as much as Obama. Why is this important? Because in 2016, when the national debt has soared to record heights and unemployment is still in double digits it will take a lot of “charisma” to convince the voters to put him (or any other Republican) back in office.

 

I’ve learned to distrust politicians in sweaters…(kudos if you get the joke).

I have no comment.  The stupidity of this speaks for itself.

11. Economy – Romney is a businessman. [Edited because I can only inflict so much idiocy on you, the link is at the top if you want to read it all]

 

Yeah, Romney is a businessman.  One of the most successful in modern American history.  And if you took even 30 minutes to actually do research instead of trade in propaganda platitudes and talking points you would know he has business and executive experience, that he knows how to surround himself with competent people who both give good advice and do their jobs well.  On paper this is everything you want in a leader.

Now if there are specific problems you have with the 160 page plan and it’s 59 points, fine, I am more than willing and eager to engage in real debate, but this socialist claptrap has no place in serious discussions.

The genius then goes on to explain how the entire economy is made up of the Fed and banks.  That’s it.  There are Special Ed. children in elementary school that have a deeper understanding of the economy than this twit.

And then of course TARP.  Evil evil TARP.  And because Romney said he supported it, clearly he can’t be president. Yes TARP was a horribly conceived and horribly executed program…but to do nothing as libertarians seem to

The darling of lunatics the nation over.

suggest would have been equally stupid.  For years government conspired to force the financial sector to give out all those crappy loans (and yes they did force and threaten them with criminal and civil lawsuits if they didn’t give them out) so while the financial sector is not exactly saintly and has more than enough blame to go around on its own, the government is equally at fault.  But the libertarians argue that after you’ve stabbed someone in the kidney it’s their responsibility to heal themselves.  Huh?  Yes TARP should have been drastically smaller and shorter, it should have been more targeted and not an industry wide panacea, it should have probably been designed to cure the shock wave after one of the major banks went belly up to prevent a panic not preventing them all from failing, but you know what, not doing anything would have been as bad if not worse.  And yes Bush, Congress and the Fed deserve a lot of blame for not doing a more limited plan, but that does not mean an outsider who had no say at any level of the decision making process should take the blame for supporting what may be the lesser of two evils.  So I can’t fully hit Romney for being pragmatic and saying, yes we need TARP.

12.  Electability – Romney is electable.

This last one boils down to saying you can’t get Romney elected without Paul supporters.  Give into us now.  Sadly reality, which has little value to Paul supporters, tells a different story.  I go one of the most accurate polls in America on a likely voter poll.  Romney wins if Paul runs, Romney if Paul runs…the polls tend to show that Romney is going to win with or without Paulbot support….in fact Paul pulls more votes from Obama than he does from Romney.  Go for it Ron run!

Now, one may ask why I feel the need to insult Paul supporters so much.  Paul supporters think it’s because we think we need them for Romney to win.  We don’t.

I hit Paul supporters because they are the blind following idiots as this article has shown.  It lacks facts.  It lacks reason.  It lacks research.  It lacks wit.  And there is no way on God’s green Earth that I would ever be able to convince this lunatic, no facts, no reason, no words would ever convince him that he is backing a lunatic.  And I go back to my first point this is the devotion that got Obama in office…it won’t work for Paul, but the Democrats will try to pull from this business hating pacifist crowd next time…so every conservative needs to stop thinking Paulbots, especially the ones on the fence, not as funny little lunatics but as people who need to be challenged.  Because if those Paulbots who are on the fence are not shown facts and reason now, you can damn well expect them to follow whichever charlatan the Democrats run in 2016…to hell with the fact that the economy will have rebounded under Romney.

27 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, Budget, Capitalism, China, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, Foreign Policy, Founding, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immigration, Individualism, Israel, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Racism, Taxes, Tyranny, Unjust legislation