Category Archives: Gay Rights

I hate Obama Conspiracy Theories

Maybe it’s a reaction against my teen years where I was utterly infatuated with the X-files and all ideas that surrounded it, or maybe it’s because those plot lines made more sense than some of the crap I’m hearing now, but I find Obama conspiracy theories pointless and stupid.

Let’s run through some of them…

“Some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”…and some men are just blithering idiots…Obama is in this latter category.

He was born in Kenya…he could have been born on Mars; it is still not a worse point than the fact that this man has not done a single thing to help improve the economy.  Yes economies go up and down on their own and Congresses and Presidents don’t have absolute control over them, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are certain things that could have been done to reduce the severity of this recession, Obama did none of them.  And even if he wasn’t eligible to run for the presidency, this absolute failure of leadership is a far greater damning point than a mere technicality.

That Barrack Obama Sr. isn’t really is his father…he could be the son of Hitler and it would still not negate the fact that every action by this president has hurt the economy.  Every thing he has done with the economy has been to hurt it in the short run and hurt it in the long run.  Now he could have done even worse things, but I don’t think he is doing it because he wants to ruin the economy, he and his people are just that dumb.  And

If only Obama wanted to earn a million dollars.

incompetence of that level should never have been let in the White House, let alone re-elected, to hell with who is parents are.

That he’s really a Muslim…he could be a Satanist, it doesn’t change the fact that in reality the only thing he really does believe in is himself.  The man has an ego that makes Caligula, Napoleon and Mao put together look humble.  He puts portraits of himself all over the White House, he puts himself in every president’s biography, he acts like he is unbeatable and he never deigns to actually talk to people in Congress.  He has written 2 biographies and he is not yet 60 or accomplished anything of value.  I don’t care what religion he professes, the only god he believes in is himself.  And while I don’t trust people with low self-esteem, megalomaniacal narcissists are even more worrisome and definitely should not be allowed into positions of power.

Every person in this picture is an idiot. Only one of them isn’t bright enough to actually leave a mark on history for good or ill. Guess which one.

That and Rev. Jeremiah Wright planned a massive socialist take over…or maybe it was a take over by blacks…or maybe by zombies for all I care…or whoever was in his past that you want to critique…none of that compares to the insanity of his current associations.  A corrupt hack as Attorney General, a jackbooted fascist as Homeland Security Secretary, an incompetent twit in HHS, a tax evading moron in Treasury, and two of the worst Supreme Court Justices ever…need I go on?  This man has an inability to surround himself with qualified people.  No president has ever possessed the experience and intelligence to know everything about every part of the government, but some presidents do possess the ability to find qualified people who, in turn, have the qualifications to run their section of the government.  Obama has failed on every point (I mean the most qualified person he has is Hillary, how sad is that?)…and this is far more important than which church he went to for years.

As dumb as he is, and as much as I loathe him, I still don’t think he rises to this level of evil.

That Obama is seeking to make the US subservient to the UN  and is going to sign treaties that will eliminate the Constitution…uh-huh…the UN and what army?  I think Obama’s idiocy on foreign policy, his stupidity in declaring the war on terror over, his supporting every Islamic government he can (not because he’s a Muslim, but because he’s an idiot who wants to not appear as being anti-Muslim…please tell me how that’s working in America’s favor), his destroying the military readiness are all more important than whoever make believe conspiracies you can think of.

That he’s really the Manchurian Candidate, planted by George Soros years ago…ummm….if he was going to make a play for absolute control, wouldn’t he have done so by now?  I mean by the time the opposition has a leader to rally around any fascist type takeover becomes near impossible.  This is kind of why most dictators quickly kill all their opposition…right now the right could unite around Romney, Ryan, Christie or a few others.  If there was a plan to take over it’s the worst plan of all time…and more importantly I think Obama’s actual disregard and ignorance of the Constitution, as shown by his fiat rule by executive order, and his gross misunderstanding of state’s rights and limited government, are far more dangerous than any supposed communist plan.

That Obama has a gay lover…oh, like I care…there have been what four maybe five presidents in the last hundred  who haven’t had a mistress or two, and it has no bearing on whether they were a good president or not.  I’d worry more about his failure to uphold his Oath of Office more than whether or not he’s upholding his wedding vows.

He’s not bright enough to plot Armageddon.

That’s he planning a takeover of the government, ruin the economy, declare permanent marshal law, suspend elections, disband Congress, a coup d’état, yaddah yaddah yaddah…this one has to be my favorite.  So I am supposed to believe that a man of unspeakable arrogance and astounding stupidity is simultaneously a villainous mastermind of such caliber that he makes Lex Luthor and Ernst Stavro Blofeld look like amateurs, that he has planned a coup and kept all the major details secret within a government so bloated and useless it can’t keep any of its departments in line.  Yeah, no contradiction there.  Or that a military that is not doing much to hide it’s abject dislike for Obama is going to sit by and let him take over…and that there is a gun for almost every man, woman and child in this country which pretty much prevents government takeover.  You know, I’ll worry more about his absolute inability to balance a budget or even recognize that the growing debt is a problem.  Obama is not a villainous mastermind bent on world conquest, he’s a buffoon well in over his head and wouldn’t know where to begin if he wanted to take over (as evidenced by his laughable campaign).

The fact of this matter is that this man’s character, intelligence and actions as president are all you need to convict him of being unfit to serve one term, let alone two.

So why is a certain part of the right so obsessed with Obama conspiracy theories and scandals when we could crucify this jackass a dozen times over on real issues.  Well I think the answer is Palin Derangement Syndrome.  Palin Derangement Syndrome?  The habit of the media to obsess about Palin to the point where they will make crap up about her when just ignoring her would be better? Yes that.  PDS is caused in fact by two things. The first one is that Palin supporters are following a dimwitted unprincipled narcissist who is good at creating a cult of personality among morons who don’t care for facts but love meaningless platitudes from a cult leader.  The second is that Obama supporters are following a dimwitted unprincipled narcissist who is good at creating a cult of personality among morons who don’t care for facts but love meaningless platitudes from a cult leader.  Both sides aren’t quite competent enough to trade in facts (for instance, liberals could have ripped Palin apart with conservatives for her saying in the VP debate that the solution to education problems was to throw more money at it, but as facts elude them they’d rather trade in questionable personal attacks)…the same applies to those who trade in conspiracy theories against Obama, they’re not the brightest bulbs in the box.  Both parties have them.  (Although you’ll notice that while they were strong enough to catapult Obama over the more qualified Clinton, they were not powerful enough to elevate their beloved Santorum.)  If you put Obama and Palin in a room and they didn’t have their cults of personality backing them, the appropriate soundtrack to this moment would be “Dueling Banjoes”…but since they do have their respective cults mindlessly following them “O Fortuna” might be a more appropriate set piece.

So they attack our Cult leader with obsessive drivel, and our idiots attack their Cult leader with obsessive drivel.

Meanwhile if we don’t want to look like a bunch of buffoons, want to win the independents, and really want Obama out of office.  Let’s be honest here, Obama has only ever won two elections.  A Senate race against Alan Keyes and a Presidential race against John McCain.  Quite frankly you could have run sock puppets against Keyes and McCain and they would have won.  We’ve got a great candidate this time, let’s not ruin it by sounding like a bunch of dimwitted Democrats more concerned with rumor and conspiracies than with reality and facts.

Focus on the issues.  Focus on the failures of the last 4 years.  Focus on Romney’s superb record of intelligence and leadership.

Focus on those three things and we win.  Focus on birth certificates and ancient friendships and outdated statements and we lose.  I’d like to win this time as we can’t afford another 4 years of this dimwitted jackass.

4 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Atheism, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Death, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, Foreign Policy, Gay Rights, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immigration, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Obama Ceasar, People Are Stupid, politics, Rick Santorum, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, War on Terrorism

Obama’s Short-Sighted Campaign and his Idiotic Stand on Gay Marriage

Obama and his team are running a laughably pathetic campaign.  It’s mildly to be expected, the thrill is gone, and you’d have to be dumber than Joe Biden to want to run on that record.  But still, there are some dumb moments…like

Is Newsweek trying to hurt Obama?…also I think Lincoln actually has right to that title.

claiming the New York Times is biased against Obama…uh-huh.

The latest major misstep is that Obama is now for gay marriage.  Well, kinda (he thinks it’s a state’s rights issues).  Sorta (he’s not going to push for the Defense of Marriage Act to be overturned).

Now before I lay into Obama for how stupid a move this was, let’s make a few things clear.  First, I have no dog in the gay marriage fight.  I think both sides are stupid.  Marriage is a religious institution and should not be in any legal code.  Legal codes should offer civil unions to any two adults that want one.  That would protect the religious institution from government meddling and would give everyone equality under the law….but as of yet it appears the majority of the nation is squabbling over two options, both equally stupid.  Second, you’re a moron’s moron, if you’re voting for or against Romney or Obama for their positions on gay marriage.  Really you’re just about as dumb as it gets. The economy, foreign policy, the size of government, the sacrosanct nature of the Constitution and private property, healthcare reform, immigration reform, all of these are far, far more important whether or not the government issues a piece of paper when two people love each other (yes there are private property issues entangled with the concept of marriage, but last time I checked Romney seems willing to endorse civil unions that cover all those private property rights, and Obama seems viciously opposed to private property rights for straight couples, gay couples, and single people of all orientations).  So for liberals who are voting for Obama because of this stance, you’re idiots.  And for conservatives who are now voting for Romney (after your first choice, the ever psychotic Rick Santorum dropped out) only because he says marriage is between a man and a woman, you’re also idiots.

Okay, that said, let’s deal with the pragmatic realities of this choice.

First off, let’s dismiss this as Obama making a principled choice.  If it was a principled choice, then the pragmatics of how it will affect his reelection wouldn’t be important, but it’s not a principled stand.  As my friend, The Snark Who Hunts Back, points out it’s a little hypocritical for Obama to say that this is a state’s rights issue when he has opposed the 10th Amendment at every turn (healthcare, enforcing federal immigration laws, voter laws, just to name a few).  And the fact that one in six of Obama’s high dollar bundler’s being gay also makes this ring a little hollow.  (And keep in mind it appears he did this to make a mere 60 million dollars…not exactly a high price for a politician).  (The actual number is about $12 million so far but I figure that the long term effect is going to be in the ballpark of $60 million, but I’ll admit this is a guess).

So if this isn’t a principled move, it’s a political one.  And a very dumb one at that.  One of Romney’s remaining problems was with the marginally unstable Santorum supporters who weren’t going to vote for a Mormon who passed gay marriage in Massachusetts. But low and behold Obama just gave this wacky bunch who considers social issues to be more important than those pesky economic and foreign policy issues that might actually have an effect on their lives a big reason to vote against Obama, even if they’re not still utterly thrilled with an economic conservative like Romney.  So what Obama just did there is shore up Romney’s base.  Did it shore up Obama’s base…not really, the people who this might have made a difference for were already going to vote for him.  So Obama gained $60 million and by that probably saved Romney $150 million in ads designed to appeal to the Santorum-voter base and not alienate the middle.

Gosh…how can I best kill my base and help Romney’s?

So instead of wasting all that money, he just had to have a throwaway line at a college graduation and he shored up the all the Santorum voters who were still on the fence.    “But Romney said he believes that marriage is between a man and a women, won’t that offend the middle?”  I doubt it.   While it’s not a 50-48 split in favor of gay marriage  that’s of an “anyone asked” poll, and registered voters are more conservative than “anyone asked” polls, and likely voters are more conservative than registered voters…so of the voting populace it’s probably still against gay marriage.  Further I think that of those 50% who are in favor of gay marriage, a heavy plurality if not a majority, can say, “I understand this is an issue with lots of religious, spiritual and personal values tied into it” and won’t have a knee jerk reaction against Romney who is in favor of civil unions.

This also hurts Obama.  Why?  Well because of those all important African-American and Hispanic votes.  Yes these are voting blocs that tend liberal, but they are also very socially conservative and very against gay marriage.  African-Americans in North Carolina voted 2 to 1 against gay marriage  and it was these two groups that killed gay marriage in California.  So will this mean that they will now vote for Romney?  Not necessarily, but these are two voting blocs with historically low turnout and if you cross them on an issue like this that statistically they’re very impassioned about it creates the distinct possibility that they may just stay home and not vote (which was already a major threat with African-American voters this election cycle, so this is tipping them over the edge to not vote). Overall I would say that this will translate to a around a 1 point advantage to Romney overall.  Not a lot, but let’s remember how many votes decided Florida.  It is a point that Obama couldn’t lose.

Granted there is a bit of guess work here, but I feel comfortable that my analysis is accurate.

So what does this do to the Electoral College?  Most pundits are pointing out that most of the swing states are socially conservative states.  Well, when you figure in the likely voter polls (as I did here), and that this shores up the Romney base and hurts the Obama base, I would say it moves Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota back into the toss up category and will probably give Romney the South.  So my guess is that if we took likely voter polls right now it would be somewhere in the ballpark of Obama 187 electoral votes to Romney’s 248 (meaning Romney would have to win Ohio and one other state, or some combination that leads to 22 votes).

This wasn’t a principled or pragmatic move.

And it gets worse for Obama.

RealClearPolitics has the current Senate battle at 46 Democrat, 46 Republican, 8 toss up.  This will probably move anywhere from 4-6 Senate seats from toss-up to lean Republican as most of those toss-up states are socially conservative.  And it could move 1-2 from leaning Democrat to toss up and 1-2 from likely Democrat to only lean Democrat.  In short Obama, in a tight election for control of the House may have just placed the straw that broke the jackass’ back.

Now you could say I’m reading too much into how this will effect the Senate, and you may be right, but if it convinces some of Obama’s base to stay home, as I think it will, this will hurt the Senate votes, especially in states where Romney is expected to win as Democrats will have even further reason not to go vote.  I’m not saying this move guarantees a 60 vote Republican Senate, but it certainly won’t hurt.  (And this will help the battle for GOP control of the House as well).

Again, if you’re voting against Obama and the Democrats only because of the gay marriage issue you’re an idiot.  But the fact of the matter is that both parties seemed filled with people who prove the rule that “People are Stupid” and right, wrong or indifferent you have to take the actions of these idiots when you’re in a leadership position (screw angelic, if all men were intelligent and rational no government would be needed).   Obama made a very stupid move not for principle but for a short-term gain that will hurt him in the long run.  Ignore what side of the gay marriage debate you’re on, this shows that this man is not a good leader.

The Teleprompter made me do it!

1 Comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immagration, Illegal Immigration, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics

RAMBLINGS from ConservativeCathy: Real Conservative Values

I was compiling a list of numerous topics (SOPA, Economy, Defense, etc.) and listing what I could find as the most representative statements from both Romney and Santorum.  I was doing this as my research indicates that Romney is more conservative (fiscally, constitutionally) than Santorum.  But as I became more aware that it would be impossible for anyone to logically/rationally say that Santorum (or Gingrich for that matter) was more conservative than Romney (or conservative at all) a light bulb went off in my head.  This is not an issue of just putting facts in front of people it is a problem with word definition.  My son and I often have long debates over what is meant or interpreted by a phrase or word.

The actual definition will not help explain my beliefs so I am presenting my political party platform (would prefer if the Republicans adopted something like this) so when I say conservative you know exactly where I stand.

Below is what I would like to see as a conservative platform that I believe that most groups can get behind.  I would encourage an open rational discussion from others.

This country has direction and a guide in our country that must be followed – The Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  This should be taught in detail in public schools so that all grow up with an understanding of the original intent.  For me the ideal party platform is based on the belief that the Founders meant what they said and it was to be interpreted for areas that they had no knowledge of at the time but not that it is to be interpreted for all new laws people want to see.  That is what amendments are for.

That my party stops using the term “democratic” improperly as we are a democratically elected representative Republic and all should actually understand that concept and why that was chosen.

Once we accept the above premise then we go back to the 1st amendment and follow it where religion is concerned.  All religions are allowed and proper as long as they do no harm to others.  You cannot preach hate inciting violence just like you cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theater.  You can preach any other belief you want.  Let’s deal with the 2 particular issues the Republican Party has taken to heart (unfortunately).

ABORTION.  I do not want to discuss whether or why you support or do not support this.  I again refer you to the Constitution – The government has no right to be involved in this type of decision.  Row v. Wade and how it is being interpreted is not going to be overturned (even by the right wing appointed justices).  The federal government should not and has no authority to fund this type of service – period.  Regardless how I feel about 3rd trimester abortions the federal government does not have the authority to make laws regarding this.  Now I could make a suggestion that an amendment to the Constitution be made regarding how life is determined by scientifically stating when a fetus becomes viable – but I am sure that would cause others to start the debate again.  Back to the Constitution this is your only option as the federal government does not have the right to interfere in the doctor patient relationship and what occurs within that relationship – that would be a state issue.  Socially speaking if parents were actually doing their jobs this might actually affect this discussion.

Now the other big issue GAY PEOPLE.  This is a religious issue and can be discussed within the religion.   I do not consider believing that God is against gays as hate (stupid but not hate – I think Jesus promoted love and I think judgment is God’s purview) as long as your beliefs do not cause action against someone else.  Again this comes back to what I said previously you could believe anything you want as long as you do not harm to anyone else.  Now you can hold things like “Gay Parades” to the same decency standards that exist for other parades.  I think that sex should not be discussed in public schools until (I was going to say High School – my age showing here) Middle School.  This discussion should be biologically based only.  School is not the place to be making judgments one way or the other – except I think that scientifically and biologically schools can state that abstinence is the only 100% workable format.  Again I ask why are parents not doing their job?  I rather like Cris’ format for government only being involved in civil unions and marriage being a religious ceremony. But again this is a states right’s issue unless you all agree on an amendment to the Constitution.  Which I think needs to be done as it is becoming federal when crossing state lines which of course it will.  Maybe we can all agree on the civil union and work from there.

This is a rather long discussion but I also want reiterated here that all government buildings belong to the people so all religious displays should be legal as long as government is not paying for them.  This country is a majority of Christians and so we celebrate Christmas (it is a Federal Holiday), we do celebrate Easter, we also celebrate Halloween, Cinco de Mayo and St. Patrick’s Day.  So it is what it is.  These celebrations do not hurt someone who does not believe in them so get over it as long as your tax dollars are not being used to support any celebration (Chicago is exempt for St. Patrick’s day – such a long tradition).

We really need an amendment for a balanced budget along with an amendment for the budget to be capped.  I think that you can debate how to cap it but once we start following the Constitution the budget will not be as high except that we also need an amendment ensuring that federal deficit takes priority in budgeting plans (meaning it needs to be paid off ).  The only reason that we should ever allow debt again would be for war or maybe you can suggest something I can not think of but it should be pretty great.

We will not be in the business of assisting people as that is a state or local government’s place – except of course all of our military need to receive all of the care that is needed for them and I do mean the BEST of care possible. I really do not think this is the area where cuts are made except for inefficiencies/beauracracies.

Since I am a realist and do not see Social Security being overturned as unconstitutional (as it is) we need to come up with a plan that supports savings accounts/stocks etc.  Pick an age and make it 50 years and older or 45 – I do not care and everyone below will need to continue paying taxes to fulfill the current agreement for that age up to death. For everyone else it from now on it will be a choice – a savings account with your state government, a savings account that you can not access until you retire (whatever age but you can not work anymore – you can invest but not work) or invest in stock market/mutual funds that again are not accessible or any combination of the 3.  This will be totally tax free.  So now citizens are personally responsible for their own lives.

I think we need to actually clarify our economic system so that it cannot change with the wind and have an amendment to the Constitution stating that we are a capitalistic country and believe in unrestricted free trade.  That cronyism eliminated as far as is legally possible and that the rules of capitalism (contract law, property rights, laws against fraud and theft, be considered sacrosanct and inviolable).

We need an amendment to the Constitution stating that every citizen has the right to work and not be forced to join and pay a union.  Also added into that all government positions cannot be unionized.

We need to support minimum standards for all grade levels and have a national test for those standards.  All states can do their own thing with public schools as I propose the Department of Education is eliminated but all students must meet the standards we desire for our citizens.  Keep in mind that I believe that you do not lower standards but always raise them and eventually more people will achieve them.  We need an electorate that understands our government and Constitution, can read to a 12th grade level, do basic math (multiplication tables in their head to 12’s), know how to count money without a machine, understand basic English grammar and how to write at a 12th grade level, need to understand the actual history of our country and a general understanding of world history – particularly how it affects current events as with a little study you become aware of how things repeat themselves (might that be because no one ever learns or hears about the lesson?) and science.  Again religious beliefs have no place in the school except that you can believe what ever you want but need to understand what others in the scientific community are doing and why whether you accept that or not.  Our platform should be clear in stating that school is not for preaching anyone’s belief system – again that is what parents are for!   Also that our platform clarifies that government is not there to promote whatever the latest scientific trend is.  Oh and by the way I do not think that government should be concerned with nutrition pyramids or picking foods for us but I would support offering physical activity requirements in public schools – whatever happened to Kennedy’s physical program?

All insurance can go across state lines and federal standards will be set for insurance companies (based on protecting the consumer not giving them something)

A federal fund will be set up for states to borrow from for emergencies at the going interest rate.  The loan will be based on percentage of costs and will not fulfill all that is necessary as again citizens must accept personal responsibility for choice in life such as where to live.

The federal government stops funding anything not allotted to it in the Constitution (just about everything we are currently involved in).

We do not financially assist another country unless there is a real time return for that – can’t think of that occurring other than rebuilding after wining a war.

There is so much more but I think I make my point – social issues belong in the social market not the government.  Freedom is paramount as long as you hurt no one – or your rights extend to where they touch mine but not beyond.  Personal responsibility is the guide for all laws and regulations.

I think that any reasonable person would see that Romney would have no issues with agreeing on most of these points (if not all) and Santorum would have issues with most of them.  To me that clarifies the issue as to whom is conservative and whom is not.  Gingrich would also have issues as it would not allow him as President to have those BIG IDEAS as they have nothing to do with the Federal Government.

And while I am rambling I have a point to make regarding the Moon site that Gingrich and his followers want – am I the only person to remember that there is an international treaty that states that no country can do anything proprietary on the Moon?

So any of you who want to join and support my platform, add to it or clarify it let me know and those who have issues with it – let’s discuss it rationally.

2 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Aristotle, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Debt Budget, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Founding, Free Will, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, GOP, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Religion, Rick Santorum, Tea Party, Teaching, Uncategorized, Unions, Welfare

More stupid and evil quotes from Santorum…

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

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

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

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

Where to begin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the real question is who is the True Conservative?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB 1359 which states:

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

A.  A PERSON IS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IN ANY CIVIL ACTION FOR WRONGFUL BIRTH BASED ON A CLAIM THAT, BUT FOR AN ACT OR OMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT, A CHILD OR CHILDREN WOULD NOT OR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BORN.

B.  A PERSON IS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IN ANY CIVIL ACTION FOR WRONGFUL LIFE BASED ON A CLAIM THAT, BUT FOR AN ACT OR OMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT, THE PERSON BRINGING THE ACTION WOULD NOT OR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BORN.

C.  THIS SECTION APPLIES TO ANY CLAIM REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE CHILD IS BORN HEALTHY OR WITH A BIRTH DEFECT OR OTHER ADVERSE MEDICAL CONDITION. 

D.  THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR AN INTENTIONAL OR GROSSLY NEGLIGENT ACT OR OMISSION, INCLUDING AN ACT OR OMISSION THAT VIOLATES A CRIMINAL LAW.

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

Or try this one HB 2625.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Comment

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

The Prop 8 Decision and Why It Hurts Gay Rights

So the Prop 8 Court decision came in a few weeks ago and along with the Birth Control Mandate helped push Rick Santorum up in the polls.

And the gay rights community rejoiced.  Which I found odd, as usually, people don’t rejoice in  their own downfall (ignoring the Obama inauguration and mythical behavior of Nero).  Wait, ruling that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional is bad for gay rights?  Yeah it is.

Let me explain since I know there must be some confusion.

Basic human psychology is that people hate being forced to do something.  They really hate it.  But when they think they’re doing it themselves they’ll embrace doing that thing that they hated only a minute ago and go even a step further.  Think about the American Revolution, we started a war on a 2 cent tax on per metric ton of a breakfast beverage because it was forced on us but when it was our own representatives doing it, hell, let’s tax everything to death!  (A little hyperbolic, I’ll admit, but I think you get the point).   People are stubborn by nature, but Americans especially have a “bet me” attitude.  Another example, when was alcohol consumption highest?  When it was illegal.  To this day when does the alcohol intake for most people drop radically? The day after they turn 21…when it’s no longer a chance to stick it to the man, it loses a little something.

So what does this have to do with gay rights?  Well let me state a few things up front.  I think it is safe to say that the idea of complete equality in civil unions (as you know I advocate for getting rid of marriage and having both gay and straight couples have civil unions because marriage is a religious concept and thus the government shouldn’t be involved) is not a question of “if” but a question of “when.”  So long as Obama doesn’t finish the job of utterly destroying the world economy and sending us back a hundred years, I think it’s safe to say that in a hundred years gay rights battles will be an issues you read about in history books and occasionally hear Grandpa and Grandma (or any combination thereof) talk about.  But a hundred years is about 4 generations from now and while the question is not “if”, it is a question of “when.”  When? Will we have to wait those 4 generations or will it only be 1 generation?  Well, if the gay rights movement keeps trying to use the courts it will be all 4, because, as I said people hate having thing forced on them, even if that thing is in itself reasonable.

Don’t believe me.  Let’s look at some time lines:

1993 Hawaii Supreme Court finds that a statue limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional

Sept. 1996 Clinton signs Defense of Marriage Act

Dec 1996 Hawaiian  judge rules in favor of marriage being applied to same-sex couples

Nov 1998 Hawaii and Alaska voters approve of constitutional amendments to limit marriage to opposite sex couples.

Dec 1999 Vermont Court rules same-sex couples can’t be denied benefits granted to opposite-sex couples

Nov 2000 Nebraska approves constitutional amendments to limit marriage to opposite sex couples.

Nov 2002 Nevada does the same

2003 Massachusetts declares legislature has to enact same-sex marriage (on a side note, between this and Romney’s dealings with the legislature…what the hell kind of constitution do they have in the commonwealth?  The balance of powers seems completely out of whack)

2004 Massachusetts approves same-sex marriage (and San Francisco and Portland try to jump on the band wagon via fiat, but are shot down)

Aug 2004 Missouri joins the ranks of burdening their Constitution with silly marriage amendment

Sept 2004 Louisiana joins in the insanity

Nov 2004 Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, N. Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah join in the free for all.

April 2005 Kansas joins in the act

May 2005 District judge rules Nebraska version Unconstitutional (he is later overturned)

Nov 2005 Texas joins the club

June 2006 so does Alabama

Nov 2006 Colorado, Idaho, S. Carolina, S. Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin join in

May 2008 California Supreme Court rules the state ban is unconstitutional.  Marriages start in June.

Sept 2010 New Hampshire judges also order same-sex marriage

Nov 2008 California (prop 8), Arizona, Florida put in Constitutional bans.

I could go over more but I think you get the drift.  If you notice the way I group them every major act against gay rights and gay marriage is preceded by a court action in favor of gay rights.  Every action has an opposite reaction, and in politics it is always an unequal reaction.

But guess what, you never see this reaction when a state by popular vote or by legislative vote expands the equality of same-sex couples or even votes in gay marriage.  Because that is the will of the people, not legislation from the bench.

Think about it.  California, possibly the most liberal state in the nation voted in Prop 8.  Back in 1997 two-thirds of the state wanted an expansion of rights to gay couples.  California where half a dozen laws passed by the legislature expanding the rights of gay couples met with nary a complaint except from the radical fringe.    Yet this is the same California, that is 2008 voted to ban gay marriage by 52%.  Did a mass of rejects from Rick Santorum’s congregation suddenly get voting rights in the most liberal state in the nation…or did we see people give a very predictable reaction to having a court shove something down their throat that they weren’t ready for.

Should there be perfect equality?  Yeah.  Are people who violently oppose gay rights idiots?  Without question.  But right, wrong, or indifferent these are beliefs that are based on religion and tradition and habit.  They take time to change and forcing that change will only result in a violent backlash as we have seen with EVERY court decision in favor of gay rights.

The gay rights movement better pray that the Supreme Court takes the Prop 8 case and that they uphold Prop 8…because if they don’t, you will see a federal Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as a man and a woman clear both the House and the Senate without much debate and you will see it ratified by three-quarters of the states.  If California is willing to pass such a ban, do you really think any of the other states will put up much of a fight?  And it will take generations to get that stain of an amendment overturned.

Winning the Prop 8 case is Pyrrhic victory if it results in losing the war.

So am I suggesting that the gay rights movement just roll over?  No.  But fighting in the courts will only lead to disaster.  So what should the movement be focused on?  Well, for one stop trying to force the movement down people’s throats in other areas.  California mandating that gay history be taught  in public schools is insulting at the high school level (to single out people as being worthy of being mentioned for being a minority is just stupid no matter the minority, they’re either important to history or not, and if they are, usually their minority status is not important to what they did, and if it is, then that’s part of history and should be brought up)…but in elementary school  it’s just insane.  Most parents don’t want their elementary school children knowning heterosexual sex exists let alone gay sex, but go ahead make enemies of the middle class by forcing this into elementary schools.  I’m sure that will work great long term.

Leave the courts and laws alone for the moment.  It’s only going to breed negative reaction.  It would be better to focus on science and the social aspect.

By science I mean looking into the real cause of homosexuality and bisexuality.  I’ve searched, some studies I’ve seen suggest that the majority of humanity is bisexual and it’s just socialization that pushes a person one way or another (which would bizarrely give that stupid therapy shit some credence in a roundabout way, which no matter how silly the therapy is, you have to admit that would be ironic) and others that say it’s only a very small segment of society.  And while there seems to be some leads on genetics for male homosexuality, the cause of female homosexuality is still elusive.  From a scientific point of view, those are some friggin’ big gaps…ones that allow bigots to doubt (keep in mind these are the same people who can see fossils of 15 species that show a clear development over time but because number 16 is missing you can’t say 17 evolved from the others…I know they’re stupid, but fewer gaps you have the more of them you’ll peel off).  Facts help your case (and also debunking some of the pseudoscience I found on the web saying that there is no genetic component…I’m not going to include links because I was screaming at the computer screen and for me gay rights is a minor issue in the grand scheme of thing…I can only imagine if you were drawn to this blog because you were interested in the topic).  Facts will help win the middle which is what the movement needs.

And by social I mean, go with that “we’re just like you” campaign and get rid of the gay pride parades.  Really, like the court cases, those parades aren’t doing anyone any favors.  All those parades do is make the gay rights movement seem the counterbalance to the nutjobs from Westboro, it makes it seem to the general public that both sides are crazy.  That is not helping.  It needs to be clear Westboro Baptists=f’ing insane, gay rights movement=not insane people.  Do that you win.

Look, just recently the general public is finally in favor of gay marriage, according to Gallup but it’s not a large margin.  And if the movement continues demanding to force things before people are ready it will only result in those gains being temporarily destroyed.  I understand wanting it now.  I understand having to deal with the idiots who are close minded being infuriating.  But it is what is.  And not dealing in reality, showing a little patience (even if ethically you shouldn’t have to) will get you what you want sooner, then a tactical withdrawal is better than ruining everything, creating a federal amendment against your goals and giving idiots like Rick Santorum a platform to run on.

8 Comments

Filed under Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, politics

Marriage, Religion and Society… (And in a roundabout way, another reason why Santorum’s a jackass)

Ugh…I hate social issues.  I would love it if everyone could just keep their personal lives personal and not worry about what other people are doing so long as they’re not hurting anyone.  And while I am quite the civil libertarian in caring about other people’s lives it might have something to do that my personal life could not be more bland and conservative…which may be why I couldn’t care about other people’s lives.

But because of Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber (otherwise known as Obama and Santorum, I’m not sure which is which) and their ilk there will be no end to the discussion of these otherwise stupid topics for weeks if not months….no, no let’s not talk about saving the economy or dealing with absolute evil abroad, birth control and gay marriage is far more important than whether or not there will actually be a first world society in a generation. Far more important.

I’ve dealt with Obama’s overstep of executive authority in the guise of an attack on religious freedom so I guess it is now time to once again take on Santorum.  Of course that’s a whole mess of issues right there.  Well…let’s go to a few quotes:

“Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.”

“Two people who may like each other or may love each other who are same-sex, is that a special relationship? Yes it is, but it is not the same relationship that benefits society like a marriage between a man and a woman[.]”

“The basic building block of a society is not an individual. It’s the family. That’s the basic unit of society.”

“Do they have a right? Should society do their best to make sure that that child has the best opportunity to be raised by that mother and father? The answer is yes.”

…and if you think those quotes have a distinct communist/collectivist call for 1984, Brave New World, or Anthem I wouldn’t blame you.  Really I’m fascinated to hear that marriage has nothing to do with love (makes you wonder what his home life is like…I’ve got an idea let’s see if his wife or daughters ever smile while on camera in a way that isn’t obviously forced to see how happy that home life is.)  So in Rick Santorum’s mind you are here only to have children to propagate society and we give special privileges to these breeders…(It makes you really frightened of his call to TRIPLE the tax credit for children…because in a time when any right thinking conservative wants to lower taxes and CLOSE all loopholes, he wants to open loopholes with a crowbar so as to encourage massive overpopulation because it’s working so well for the third world).   Okay we can agree that Rick Santorum doesn’t have a single neuron firing in that head of his.  But that still doesn’t put the general issue of marriage off the table even if I’m Santorum is lord high king of the idiots.  So let’s talk marriage…

Yes marriage is an important function of society.  Rick is wrong about it being the basis of society, that has always been and always will be the individual…but individuals need human companionship (usually in the form of friendship and marriage, and if they’re one in the same, then you’re blessed).  Now is marriage only for the “uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society”?  Not really.  People were having children and caring for them long before marriage, although marriage does help raising them, certainly, no one would argue that.  But it is not having a mother and father that helps, it’s having two parents that helps (increased income, increased ability for child care, increased experience) and anyone who thinks that gay people make bad parents isn’t just crazy, they’re flying in the face of a boat load of research (Just one example here).  But raising children isn’t the only thing marriage is for.  If Santorum wanted to ever crack a history book (which I don’t think he has ever done given his perverted views on the Founding Fathers view of liberty ) he might learn that property rights have traditionally had far more to do with marriage than children do…but that would require Santorum to care about property rights, which are an individual right and as he has much respect for individual rights as any communist or Asharite.  And while history is filled with moments where society progressed just fine without any strict government rules on marriage I would be foolish to say that marriage isn’t a great support for society.  However if Santorum and his followers think that gay marriage is a danger to marriage, or even if it’s that  relevant in the face of other government hits at marriage, then they’re idiots.

Granted, as I’ve said before, I would like the federal government and all the states to say that marriage is a religious institution and thus strike the term marriage from every law on the books…civil unions for everyone!  It’s up to your church whether to call what you have a marriage or not, not the government.  This has the advantage of A.) not letting government dictate what a religion can do (we’ll come back to this) (social conservatives get what they want) B.) Everyone will be equal (social liberals get what they want) C.)Nobody gets to win (because I hate people who think social issues are a function of government) and D.) Jackasses like Santorum will have to shut up (everybody on the planet wins).  All the legal privileges of the marriage could be easily transferred to these civil unions, but as it lacks the name it lacks the attack on a religious institution that expanding it encompasses.

But I will still admit that marriage, and a two parent family is important to a functioning society. You’d be a damn fool to deny that…but then again both social conservatives and social liberals are damn fools given how they act. Social liberals are idiots for what they’ve already done to weaken those social structures (and I’ll get to that in just a minute) and social conservatives are idiots for fighting a defensive war against gay marriage (which has nothing to do with the strength of the social institution, but it is very visible which suggest that their cause is more cynical demagoguery than heartfelt concern) rather than an offensive war against the liberal policies that actually have done harm to marriage and society.

But back to my statement about liberals actually having done some stuff have actually done to undermine the social institution of marriage (hint gay marriage isn’t going to be anywhere on this list).

Welfare and the Great Society.  Let’s pay unwed mothers money for having children.  That makes sense.  Because every economist from any school, be it Keynesian, Chicago or Austrian, will tell you that when you subsidize a behavior or product you get more of it.  Subsidize unwed children, guess what, you de-incentivize actually getting married or waiting until marriage to have children.  (This would also be tied to my opinion that Rick Santorum’s idea to triple the child tax credit when we have an over population problem is, well, brainless).  Really brain dead is that we pay for anything more than the first pregnancy.  I can see an argument for a safety net to help women who have had an accident, been dumped by the loser who got them pregnant, and need some help…one time is an accident (although I would prefer these to be run by counties and cities…not a distant bureaucracy in states and at the federal level).  But not two times.  And definitely not more than two.

Now if social conservatives really wanted to care about the well being of children and the defense of marriage as a social institution they would once again push for welfare reforms.  One that cut people off after the first pregnancy, ones that vigorously track down deadbeat dads (I wouldn’t mind upping what the minimum monthly payment is and bringing back debtors prison for those who won’t pay).  Or requiring the welfare recipients attend GED or job training to help ensure they get off welfare if they want to continue getting their check.  Or how about this one—we’ll keep track of every dollar you get in welfare payments you get from the government and the minute you start making over let’s say $25,000 a year the government will deduct 1% of your check until you’ve paid back what you took out, interest free because we’re not monsters (and the percentage of your check would go up slightly say 3% at $30,000 so forth and so on) this way no would ever view welfare as a free ride, thus removing many of the incentives for taking it.  But right now I’m hearing more about those evil, evil gays (who seem to be decent parents and no worse as couples than their straight counterparts) as what is ruining marriage.  Yeah couldn’t be the financial incentives against being married when having children.

Oh and speaking of financial incentives, why is that the call to end the marriage penalty at all levels has kind of disappeared?  As I recall the law passed under Bush to end the marriage penalty had a sunset date…isn’t that coming up?  How about this, offer a tax discount for those who get married.  Watch people get married and stay married when there are real financial incentives to do so.  Will some people get married for reasons other than love?  Probably, but how is that different from right now?  If you want to promote something don’t punish it.  But you haven’t heard that from social conservatives, now have you.  Hell, given the fact that children of single parent households have a higher likelihood of committing a crime, then financially incentivizing marriage would probably pay for the reduction in revenue via a drop in paying for imprisonment (among a whole mountain of secondary benefits, that was just the first one that came to me, trust me it would pay for itself ten times over).

I could go on, how Social Security and Medicare encourage people to dump bonds with their parents when they got old rather than bringing them into the household in a more stable extended family, how the government support for the liberal Teacher’s unions worked to destroy parental responsibility in raising their children, and a few other programs…but I think you get the point.  If social conservatives really cared about the state of marriage and the social benefits that the family brings there are things they could be doing that would be incredibly effective in strengthening the social institution.  But they would rather focus on something that has NOTHING to do with the strength of marriage.  (And liberals don’t go feeling self-satisfied about that last sentence, you actually have done some damage to the social institution of marriage, just because the conservatives are idiots and not calling you on it doesn’t make you less guilty.

Now social conservatives will probably come back with some stupid “gay marriage is the straw that will break the camel’s back” kind of argument.  But as we know in this case I think social conservatives are idiots.  If they really cared about the state of marriage and the need of married couple to properly raise children they would be attacking the liberal entitlement culture and not worrying about what gay people do.

Up next, why the Court decisions on Prop. 8 is actually the last thing the gay community should want because it’s going to hurt them…because the social liberal also need to be hit (with a peppering of insults against the right)

Leave a comment

Filed under Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, Free Will, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum, Taxes, Welfare

Bachmann shows class and character again…

LINK TO THE PODCAST

Bachmann Shows Class and Character

So gay rights activist didn’t do themselves any favors today. Hot on the heels of a great video that made the rounds on Facebook last week showing that gay people can raise children just as well as straight people…

…there is a new video that destroys all the good the last one did and shows that gay people are as human as everyone else, and can be absolutely terrible parents just as straight people can be terrible parents.

Take a look.

Now it may be hard to hear but the kid says “My mom is gay and she doesn’t need fixing.”
Sadly, the kid is very, very wrong.
Does his mom need fixing because she’s gay. Good lord no. But she does need fixing.
She needs fixing because instead of having the guts to challenge Bachmann on her own, to go and face Bachmann woman to woman, she uses the coward’s way out and uses a child as a body shield.
Clearly this child has been coached to say this. So this mother chooses rather than to take a stand and actually get into an argument with someone (and hell it’s an argument where almost* ALL the facts are on her side, it would have been far more embarrassing to Bachmann to have her challenged with a real opponent) she chooses to have her child speak for her because she is too afraid to justify her own life on her own. Such rank cowardice is sickening, and that she would use her child is worse.  And it’s quite frankly an insult to gay rights as it makes it appear it is a concept that can only be defended when you use cheap tricks.
I’m sorry, children should not be used as puppets in political and social debates. (But then again the left and it’s Occupy Wall Street kin are known for using children as human shield)

While children should be brought to political events and shown how a good citizen is involved (although given the massive amounts of crime and violence anyone who brings a child to an Occupy Wall Street event is clearly guilty of endangering a child), they should not be used as the mouth pieces for your political statements. Grow a spine and make your own comments.

But again thank you for showing that gay parents are just like straight parents—they can be complete asses or they can be great.

And kudos to Michele Bachmann for having the class and intelligence to realize that this child is just being used as a pawn. She gives the mother a dirty look (likely for being such a piss poor parent that would exploit their child for a political end…and bring a video recorder along for the ride, real classy, clearly the best interest of the child is always at the forefront of this parent’s mind) but for also saying goodbye to the child with a smile showing him that she bares him no animosity.
Also I love how this shows they don’t know who their enemy is. Bachmann has stated she’s not going to get in the way of states that choose to allow gay marriage. In fact how many times in the last year has Bachmann brought this issues up, as far as I know it’s only brought up by other people and she responds…as far as I can tell it’s not an issues that is important to her policy agenda one way or the other. A Bachmann presidency would likely see an expansion of states who allow it (if for no other reason than she would be a great lighting rod for the movement to use and encourage people to vote gay marraige or civil unions in, meanwhile she would allow state laws to be implemented…unlike say another President who feels that any state that doesn’t agree with him should be sued out of existence in complete violation of the Constitution) . Why not try going after Perry and Santorum who don’t understand states rights?  Or how about Obama’s miserable track record for gay rights?

*Those gay pride parades are a disgrace and really the gay community needs to drop that insanity and just go with the “we’re human and just like everyone else” line.


Oh, and before anyone misunderstands what offensive statement I’m making here, let me be clear, the fact that this woman in a terrible parent has absolutely nothing to do with her being gay…it has to do with her being liberal.

Leave a comment

Filed under Evils of Liberalism, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Government is useless, Michele Bachmann, Obama, Occupy Wall Street, politics

Why I support Bachmann

So the other day a friend of mine posted the following insightful comment on facebook:

Why is everyone so upset about candidates trying to do away with the Department of Education?

It was an intelligent comment as it is a worthless federal department. But it strangely got this response:

maybe because that’s what Bachmann supports and so the perfectly reasonable [sic] people in this country know immediately it’s a bad idea…

Now I’ll grant that this second comment came from someone who has always struck me as having the I.Q. of turnip, but it does seem that this a widely held belief that Bachmann is a moron. But what is this based on? (Besides the fact that there is misogynistic hatred of women in this country which I have already talked about at length.)

Well we have two odd pop culture gaffes. The kind of flubs we all make where we reach for one name and our brain pulls out another, or where we associate one place with something entirely unrelated. These flubs had nothing to do with policy and in fact any person who talks all day without a script probably makes a dozen of these a day (or if you’re Obama you just stand there going uh, uh, uh, until someone brings the teleprompter out).

Then there is her religion. Yes she went to a religious school for her J.D. and passed the bar…oh and then she got another Masters Degree from William and Mary…you try getting into William and Mary see how easy it is (all this while raising children).

But she’s religious! Yeah, so are a lot of people. Is she wrong in her opinion on the nature of homosexuality? Of course she is. But you’ll notice that unlike lunatics like Perry or Santorum she doesn’t feel the need to legislate it. In fact she said:

In New York State, they have passed the law at the legislative level, and, under the 10th Amendment, the states have the right to set the laws that they want to set. […]
That is up to the people of New York. I think that it’s best to allow the people to decide this issue. I think it’s best if there is an amendment on the ballot, where the people can weigh in.

Yes, she has said that there should be a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage…but you’ll notice that she only mentions that when she’s directly questioned, all she wants to talk about, given the choice, is the economy and national defense…and really do you think she’s so stupid as to think that such an amendment has a snowball’s chance in hell of passing? I doubt it. Listen to what she says, it’s a throw away line to keep the base happy, she doesn’t seem to put major energy into promoting it…not like the amount of energy the media puts into keeping this issue alive.  And keep in mind I have very little reason to support a highly religious candidate (being a Pagan and all), so if I’m not worried about her religious beliefs, you shouldn’t be either.

And yes her husband is nuts. But we’re electing a President not their spouse…if we judged presidents by their spouses…uh…well that might not be best the policy…and don’t just think of first ladies for the last century…think of the spouses of some of the people who lost. If we choose presidents by how likeable and honorable their spouses were, we’d have President John Edwards right now. I want you to think about that.

But let’s see here what has she said that’s made sense:

Well there was:

“I believe absolutely every American benefits by this magnificent country. Absolutely every American should pay something, even if it’s a dollar.”

Yes, not caring about “fair share” but actual justice, what a concept.

“I also want to completely abolish the tax code. I want to flatten the tax for all of Americans, simplify that tax for all of Americans. And that creates job growth, which is exactly what we need to have.”

“Because to be able to fuel the fire for this economy, again, it is the tax code, but it doesn’t end with the tax code. It’s the regulatory burden that costs us $1.8 trillion every year, but it’s more than that cost. It’s jobs that are lost. “

“ So we need to repeal “Obama-care,” repeal the jobs and housing destruction act known as Dodd-Frank. President Obama’s plan has been a plan for destruction of this economy and failure. “

Clear understanding of classical liberal economic policies…much better than any of the other candidates with maybe the exception of Newt.

“I will build it on the entire border, and I’ll tell you why. Every year, it costs this country $113 billion in the costs that we put out to pay for illegal aliens. It costs the state and local government of that amount $82 billion. For every household of an American citizen, it costs us $1,000 a year. We are robbing the household of Americans who can’t afford that.

“ I will build the fence. I will enforce English as the official language of the United States government. “
“And every — every person who comes into this country will have to agree that they will not receive taxpayer-subsidized benefits of any American citizen…

No tap dancing and a clear understanding what it needed to fix the problem.

She is also the only candidate who seems to understand the difference between what the President does and what Congress does. Other candidates make claims about what Congress will pass, they give specifics on legislation they will have no control over, this leads to some of her statements being a little vague, but only because unlike the rest of these losers she seems to understand the President is not a law unto himself (or herself). And she seems to understand what the Constitution says and what can be legislated and what can’t without first getting an Amendment.

She understands that Israel is our “greatest ally” and that the President of Iran is a “genocidal maniac.” Something the current occupant of the White House has no clue about.

Now I’ll admit that I have a bit of an issue rooting for underdogs. I wanted Giuliani because I found him to be the perfect mix of conservative economics, moderate social policy, and neoconservative foreign policy. But I can’t get that so what choices do I have left:

Conservative Economics Neo Conservative Foreign policy Moderate Social Policy
Romney Theory yes, practice ? Yes No
Perry No No No
Santorum Yes No Hell No
Cain Yes He doesn’t even know what foreign policy is No
Huntsman No No ?
Paul Yes Hell No Nothing about this man is moderate
Newt Yes—kind of Yes—kind of Kind of, I guess
Bachman Yes Yes Not really, but it doesn’t seem to be her main thrust

And as Meatloaf said, “two out of three ain’t bad.” So I will continue to support Michele until I can’t.

But the fact that she wants to flatten the tax code ( I can’t trust Romney in this), remove regulations, overturn ObamaCare, abolish the Department of Education, drill for oil, close the border (I certainly can’t trust Perry for this), change anchor baby status, blow up the bad guys (Cain would screw things up, Huntsman would bow down to his Chinese overlords, and Paul would support starting up Auschwitz again), reform Social Security, and stay within the actual boundaries of the Constitution (I can’t trust Santorum for this). Michele is my candidate.

But please, if you think I’m stupid give me a reason.  Show me why I as a fiscal conservative and foreign policy neoconservative should support any other candidate on ethical and policy reasons.  I don’t want to hear about the fact that she can’t be elected, because she could be if people dropped the she can’t be elected argument.  And I suspect that in terms of policy you have nothing but misogyny.  But please prove me wrong.  I dare you.

5 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Gay Rights, GOP, Individualism, Michele Bachmann, Patriotism, politics, Rudy Giuliani, Unjust legislation, War on Terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Comments

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

Where do we stand with the GOP hopefuls?

So I hear that there’s a GOP debate coming up. Thank God, most of these so called candidates seemed to have dropped off the face of the Earth for the last few weeks. I’m so glad during a major battle over the future of the U.S. economy most of the candidates decided to act as presidential as Obama and not come out with a plan or even for the most part say where they stand. Yes, thank you guys for showing how much of a leader you will be.

Since this is becoming a very wide field of contenders (mostly losers) I’m only going to cover people who are averaging at least 10% in the Real Clear Politics average  (mostly losers…two of whom aren’t even declared candidates). Currently this list is Romney (I’m certainly not thrilled), Perry (religious wacko), Palin (amoral demagogue), Bachman (my second choice by default), and Giuliani (master tactician and the next president of the United States).

Can I get another option?

Let’s start with Romney who is still in front (damned if I know why). Gee it was so nice that during this whole budget debate this man was nowhere to be seen. No plan, no comment, no lending moral support to the GOP. That’s what you call a leader—a man who does not risk his neck to stand on principle.

What is it that I dislike about Romney? Is it that he believes Health Care is a right like any good liberal? Is it that it seems he opposes the 2nd Amendment like any good liberal? Is it that he believes the government can mandate you buy something (like health insurance) like any good liberal? Is it that he supports federal funding for abortions like any good liberal?Is it because he buys into the religion of global warming like any good liberal? Is it because he’s a tax and spend liberal?

I don’t know what it is about Romney…oh wait, I do…he’s a goddamn liberal! If he wants to go challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination, more power to him, but this idiot needs to leave the Republican Party now!

Let me put it this way, convincing me that Romney is conservative is about as effective as convincing me that this parrot is alive:

 

Unlike Newsweek I fully admit my picture choices are completely biased.

Running in second place we have Gov. Perry, who apparently decided that with Huckabee out he could easily slip into the radical-wacko Christian slot for the GOP. Wow, Romney and Perry are the front runners, the liberal wing of the party and the nutty Christian wing, the two wings that need to leave this party and never come back! For instance, Perry in addition to holding a big prayer vigil this week also felt the need to talk about abortion as a state’s rights issue but that he would support an amendment against it…and I think there’s something about gay marriage in there too. Yes, that makes sense, the economy is falling to pieces and we still have that little problem of Islamic Terrorism (and their partners in crime Chinese Tyranny) to worry about…but clearly abortion and gay marriage are the first things we need to deal with. I have no problem with Christians, even Christians who hold moral values antithetical to my own, but I have serious problems with idiots who think their religion is more important than things that actually matter. I have thousands of spiritual issues I think are important and society needs to change, but I guess not one of them is more important than the economy and blowing up evil people. Not one. The crazy Christian wing needs to realize this as well. Economy, foreign policy…right now just about nothing else matters. Perry clearly doesn’t get this.

She would sell her soul for a dime...yours for even less.

In fourth place we have Sarah “I will say anything to further my bank account” Palin. Her clever comment about if the Tea Party was acting as terrorists then Obama would love us aside, I abhor this woman’s lack of principles. I find it shocking that Republicans like this woman. But what’s not to like? The fact that as governor of Alaska she supported raising taxes on corporations? Perhaps that she blamed banks for the financial collapse and not the government for forcing them to make those bad loans. Or that her answer to education is to spend more, like any good liberal would say.  Seeking government subsidies to help pay for her TV show. Maybe it was her supporting pork like the bridge to nowhere.

Or then there’s that little thing about who she likes as a politician. She says she supports the Tea Party. Really? The Tea Party is against amnesty for illegal aliens, against raising taxes, against curtailing free speech, against growing government, against massive spending. All the darling projects of one bleeding heart liberal named John McCain. And Palin endorsed McCain in his run for the Senate. Can’t have it both ways. She either supports the ideals of the Tea Party or she supports the opposite of those ideals embodied in John McCain. She endorsed McCain….but actually she can have it both ways. Why? Because she has absolutely not a single shred of integrity or morals. She will go with any idea, any position, or any group if she thinks it will get her money or power. She’s a demagogue, nothing more. Certainly not stupid, because she has engineered her rise quite well, but certainly not a principled human being either.

Don't disappoint me Bachman

Then we come to Michele Bachman. My reluctant 2nd choice. My second choice because you have to admire her being the only one to take a stand on this debt debate. Take a stand, articulate it and not budge. I believe that’s called character. I agree with her hard line stance that government needs to cut; spending needs to be cut, the size and scope of the federal government needs to be cut. I’m also so what happy with this statement she made during her first debate on her opinion of states that are allowing gay marriage, “I’m running for the presidency of the United States. And I don’t see that it’s the role of a president to go into states and interfere with their state laws.” To me this says she understands that these religious issues are not as important as the economy.

Why am I reluctant? Because all those other comments she’s made about gays and about abortion. Makes me worry just a little about how much she would make them a priority in her administration…mind you not enough that if was between her and Romney or her and Perry or her and Obama I wouldn’t vote for her, but enough that I would still not be thrilled doing it. But there is a way out that will make me put away my reservations. All she has to do is take up GOProud, the real gay Republican organization, (not to be confused with the liberals who are the Log Cabin Republicans) meet with them, agree that gay rights are a state’s rights issue and thus not under the authority of the presidency, and just agree to disagree. (I’d be even more thrilled to hear her endorse my plan to strike the concept of marriage from the law books and leave that up to the churches…but I’m hopeful not delusional). She could even make an announcement with the honorary chair of GOProud’s advisory council, Ann Coulter, that way she would get both the moderate social part of the country and the hard line fiscal conservatives in one moment. Please Michele show me you’re far-sighted enough to realize this is in your and the country’s best interests.

And finally, my man, perhaps the second coming of Reagan to Obama’s second coming of Carter, Rudy Giuliani. The man is not even running yet and he’s already higher than most of the field! I am hoping for an entry into the field by the end of the month with the shock and tactical genius of Sun Tzu himself. And it appears from the signs I may not be wrong. 

Our greatest hope

I will hold out hope for the unstoppable force of Giuliani/Bachmann as long as I can.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, GOP, Illegal Immagration, Michele Bachmann, Obama, Problems with the GOP, Rudy Giuliani, Tea Party

The GOP, Gay Marriage, and the Need To Grow Up

The GOP needs to learn to prioritize

So apparently the Navy will not be going ahead with plans to allow chaplains to marry same sex couples, at least until “don’t ask, don’t tell” is officially ended, which isn’t going to be long. This was due in great part to the complaints of conservative members of Congress.

To these members of Congress I can only ask that they either shut up for the rest of their time in Congress. (Or maybe we should ship them off to the Taliban or Uganda so they’ll be with likeminded people)

Really? Really? With Obama pushing socialist health care down our throats, with the Taliban still well entrenched in Afghanistan, with a third theater of action in Libya, with a massive debt, with a debate over the debt ceiling and cutting costs, with the Obama administration pushing the sub-prime mortgages that were the catalyst for our economic problems (believe me I’ll be talking about this one soon enough), with Obama seeming to edge towards amnesty, with ten-thousand issues that have more relevance on our lives the GOP wants to deal with gay marriage again? What the hell are these people thinking?

From a moral standpoint these idiots just need to grow up. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Now, I don’t support gay marriage per-se, but as I’ve stated before I don’t think the government should be sanctioning heterosexual marriage either—it’s a religious institution and the government should have nothing to do with it. Grow up people, this is not an issue.

From a pragmatic standpoint it becomes even worse. First, as I’ve pointed out even if there was some kind moral issue here (which there isn’t) there are a lot of other things that should be taking up Congress’s time. I know, foreign policy and economic stability are so boring, but sadly they’re what we have government for. We don’t have government for telling people what or where they can put their genitals because we are not Iran (also unlike Iran we don’t prosecute people for sorcery). But there is another, and I’ll admit, cynical pragmatic reason why this should not have been brought up. This is not going to win us any votes with the middle ground. This will however do its job at reinforcing the incorrect belief that the GOP is a bunch of psycho fundamentalist bigots. This is particularly annoying to those of us in the GOP who are, you know, sane and do not stay up at night worrying about whether gays can marry. Yeah, that will win elections.

Boehner needs to pull everyone in Congress into a room and make it clear that if it doesn’t deal with the economy, foreign policy, or getting rid of Obama it is not an issue.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Problems with the GOP

Why You’re Likely An Idiot If You Have An Opinion On Gay Marriage

Ever since November I have been subject to a string of my liberal friends bemoaning the fact that gay marriage bills didn’t pass or with news about new ones that are coming up. I have to hear numerous statement about how America is backwards and how this is a violation of civil rights…blah blah blah (I’m not trying to demean the argument…yet…I’m just trying to save space and we all know how this particular rant goes). On the flip side before November I had to listen to screeds from my conservative friends on how this was social engineering; how this was going too far, too fast; how this was forcing beliefs on people… blah blah blah. (I would like to point out here that if you knee-jerk associate the words “conservative” and “bigot” you are an idiot, most conservatives make rational arguments, or at least ones that sound rational on first glance).

Both sides have very legitimate points.

Both sides are stupid beyond words.

I’m going to attack the liberals first (this was a decision literally decided by coin toss, because I do hate both side on this argument). Is this a civil rights issue? Is it really? Power of attorney, hospital visitation, inheritance (with some glaring exception that I will admit) rights, joint property…that can all pretty much be obtained, even in places that don’t offer that under the civil partnerships. You might then claim that healthcare benefits aren’t usually guaranteed…and I’ll grant that, the legal requirement that demands employers give benefits to your spouse won’t be instituted unless your relationship is recognized as a marriage…but then again I argue forcing employers to give benefits to spouses is unethical, beyond the appropriate power of a government, and it hurts small businesses…. so the hell if I’m going to argue in favor of extending something I’m against. It would like arguing if one person has a malignant tumor then everyone should have one. Furthering economic suicide is usually not my thing.
So then the argument goes that you still deserve to be recognized as a married couple. Recognized by whom? You can have any piece of paper and the legal sanction you want and bigots are still going to be bigots. And you can lack a piece of paper and sane people will recognize your relationship as a marriage, legal or not. Maybe it’s the legal recognition you need. But let me say if you need a government’s recognition for any relationship you have with another human being—if you actually need the government’s permission to love a person (which is what this is asking for)—then you have some serious psychological issues. (I think applies more to the straight people who yell the loudest in favor of gay marriage, as opposed to many gay people I know who would rather just live their life and not give rat’s ass what the government thinks about them).
There are other arguments in favor of gay marriage, but I’ll save us some time. I think that they are primarily stupid too.
Social Conservatives (I differentiate here because I feel true conservatism just doesn’t care about an issue like this), your turn to be shown to be morons.
Honestly now, in a 100 years is gay marriage going to be legal everywhere? Yeah it is. Why fight the inevitable. Because gay marriage is an affront to marriage, the call goes…. to which I respond not any more than the divorce and adultery rates in this country among straight marriages. At this point one of two things happens either what I get here are some bizarre arguments about polygamy and bestiality—but really while I think gay marriage will eventually be accepted because in the end, (no one wants to deny two people who are love the right to be married because we can all understand that), I don’t think even a decent minority will ever be able to understand those other forms of relationships (and I use the word very loosely there) so I think we’re safe. … (and if a good portion of America could accept polygamy or bestiality then we will be having far more serious issues than who can marry whom). So most of the conservative arguments are pretty stupid (unless I heard someone make the economic healthcare argument, but I seem to be the only one who makes that, so conservatives are idiots too)…
…But I said one of two things happens. The other argument conservatives make is about social engineering. And this is a difficult point to dismiss because they’re not entirely wrong here. And let me explain what I mean. I don’t think most people would have a problem with homosexual marriage in a vacuum. But when you pile the rather tactless things called gay pride parades (the most insightful look at gay pride parades has ironically been done by The Onion), and teaching Kindergartner’s about homosexuality (because most of us don’t think it’s appropriate to teach children that young about anything even remotely related to sex), and the fact that pretty much 2/3’s of the people allowed on TV are crazy and do not represent the main stream beliefs of any group they claim to represent—including the people who advocate for gay rights, and a myriad of other programs and policies the movement for equality seems to come on a little strong. Human beings don’t like change, doesn’t matter if it’s logical or not, people resist change…they’ll begrudgingly go along if they see a rational reason for change, but when you give them a rational excuse not to (like the arguably radical insanity that the California Dept. of Education wants to add to elementary school education in teaching homosexuality) they’ll dig in their heels. Add into it claims that government is forcing churches to accept gay marriage…is it really that hard to understand why an average person would feel “Okay we need to slow down here.” And they dig in their heels and refuse to make any more changes. It’s a semi-rational response, it may not be completely right but it is understandable.
Moreover, after this happens then both sides decide to play a game of “Who can be the bigger idiot” because each side in this has all the maturity of a two year old… And they have to not so much get what they want, or even prove that they’re right, they just have to prove the other person wrong and force them to choke on being wrong…which of course leads to really rational behavior on both sides. Each trying to push the other further. The gay rights community pushes further, doing stupid things like denying funds to the funds to church run programs designed to help the less fortunate because the church in question doesn’t accept gay marriage (note this isn’t an argument that the government shouldn’t be giving money to churches or even in the welfare business at all its just that we won’t support those churches that will actually stand by their beliefs, and actually it comes off as trying to force churches to change their beliefs). This insanity leads to more insanity, which causes the conservatives to do stupid things like write stupid constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. We all know how this plays out.
And this little farce of name calling will go on until one side grows up and asks not so much of how to I make “them” lose, but asks how can we both win…
…And when you’re ready to grow up I already have the answer for you….

…. Wait for it…

…Civil Partnerships for everyone! We will strike the words marriage from every legal code in existence, in all 50 states, various territories, and all federal codes. Any two people can enter into a civil partnership because it will be little more than a basic legal contract. It will come with all the benefits of marriage but it will not be called marriage. Thus legally everyone is equal. Marriage will be a function of the church, and it’s up to your church to decide who it will marry and who it won’t. Now people can call their relationship a marriage if they want even if they haven’t had a church sanction it, because you have freedom of speech (how many people call themselves Christians without living up to a single tenet of the religion?) But no one is receiving a “sanctioned” religion outside of what churches approve…so no one should be saying marriage is being ruined…if anything it makes it only a religious act, which is what I thought it was supposed to be. Hell you could even get married without the legal paperwork…but in the end everyone has what they wanted. It’s a win/win.

But I predict both sides of this debate will continue to be idiots.

5 Comments

Filed under Gay Marriage, Gay Rights