Category Archives: Michele Bachmann

An open letter to those who oppose Romney

Dear Romney Opponents,
I get it. I really do.
In 2008 I was splitting my time between an 80 hour a week job and trying to write a book…I’ll bet you have a personal life and job and didn’t have a lot of free time on your hands also…who did, the economy was collapsing and we were all working our hardest to make sure that if cuts came wherever we were working we would be the last man standing and our lazy coworkers would not. So while we all knew we hated McCain we just got into the habit of buying his statements that Romney was a liberal, a flip-flopper, or whatever else we hate him for.

And this election cycle came around and we just fell into the pre-worn habit of disliking the man. I understand. I wanted Rudy. And when he didn’t run, I wanted Michele Bachmann. And because of this I just fell back on my preconceived notions of Romney without doing any research.

But after Iowa I had a choice to make. I knew I couldn’t support Paul, I love his statements on economics, but the man is psychotic. So who was left? And then I started doing some research.

I really began learning that I really hated Newt and Santorum. But I’m not going to go into why I dislike them. I’m the kind of person who if I don’t like candidates I don’t vote or I do write-ins. I don’t vote for the lesser of two evils, I only vote for people I support.

So I begrudgingly started looking into Mitt Romney fully expecting all my worst suspicions to be confirmed. That he was Obama-lite, that he was a flip-flopper on every issue, that he was not a conservative in any way.

But as I started doing research. I started with the all videos that show the things I knew I would dislike about him. His support of liberal policies and big government.

And strangely I found that this wasn’t the case. I found that Romneycare was a much more conservative alternative to what the liberal legislature in Massachusetts wanted to do with the state, which was basically put the whole thing under government control and just eliminate the private sector. I found that the worst aspects of it were done over his objection and veto or put in after he left office.

I found that the “flip flops” were all quotes taken out of context and when I went back to find the full speech or full statement his ideas were always consistent and logical, it was simply taking sound bites out of context with a man who has an inability to talk in sound bites (and is that really a bad thing? A man whose thought can’t be reduced to a little quip?)

I found every action, every choice, every move and every decision was a conservative one. I found that a man of character and experience who doesn’t come off with oodles of charisma because he’s got a secure hold of his personal psyche that he doesn’t need to seek self-aggrandizement. I found a man of achievement who can get things done that is simultaneously pragmatic in the long term and conservative.

And here I am going to challenge you. Do real research yourself. Go back and find the actual articles printed at the time of his governorship, find the whole speeches, discover what really happened. I promise you if you do, even with the compromises he made with liberals you will see that no conservative in history could have gotten a better deal given the circumstances.

I get it. I bought the McCain BS too out of lack of time and habit. But I promise you, take a day, one whole day of real research and reading, and you won’t find yourself settling for Romney, or holding your nose and voting for him because we need to get rid of Obama. If you do the research and really look over what this man has done, you will vote FOR him, not just against someone else.

I could include a lot of links in this post, but I don’t want you going to, what some will claim are, my cherry picked sources. I want you to do the research yourself. Don’t go to blogs, or opinion articles, or new articles written in the last few months. Really do some research, go and find the real information on Bain, on the Olympics, on his time in Massachusetts. Find the full speeches and read the full text. Pull up all the Paul/Newt/Santorum attack ads and look for the information they’re hitting Romney on. I promise you every single time you leave liking Romney more and hating the others as cheap mudslingers.

Romney is a conservative. Romney is what this country needs.

15 Comments

Filed under Conservative, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, politics

What does Santorum think of women?…he hates them.

This kind of speaks for itself…

“I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat,” Santorum added. “And I think that’s not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.”

Want to read more blatantly misogynist statements from Santorum…try his book where he says women can only be happy by staying home.

Or think back to all the times he was dismissive of Michele Bachmann.

This man apparently believes that women should be weak, stupid, barefoot and pregnant. That’ not hyperbole, that’s not slander, that’s not even a mild exaggeration. This man is throw back to a time and place when women were chattel and kept out of sight.

1 Comment

Filed under Election 2012, GOP, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum

A word from Paul Ryan on what this election means…

I love Paul Ryan …

He doesn’t go over all of these issues but this is what we need to make this election, and every election at every level about:

Here is your choice

The Individual or the group?

Low Taxes or the government saying it knows more about spending money than you do?

Small Government or a welfare state?

Opportunity with the possibility of failure or stagnation and equality in misery?

Economic Liberalism/Economic Freedom/Capitalism (which always works) or Keynesianism/Krugman/Marx (which has never worked)?

Rules or loopholes?

Inequality of joys or equality of suffering?

Do you have the right to do with your body and your life what you want so long as it harms no one or does the government get to say what you can say, do and think?

The right to live your life or being merely safe at a subsistence level?

The right to fail and learn or to be taken care of like a child?

The personal responsibility to help yourself and others or the letting someone else do it for you?

Is the Constitution the highest law of the land or just more of guidelines?

The national responsibility to defend the weak from tyranny or letting others fall and say it’s not our problem?

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness or existence, control, and the guarantee of subsistence?

I’m not saying that one or any of the current GOP candidates fits this bill perfectly, although some come closers than others (*cough*Bachmann*cough*…that will sound better on the podcast)…but these are principles of America vs. those of the what now passes for Europe (although the UK might just pull out and join us in principle, God bless David Cameron).  Every time, every election, every level.  We are at a cross roads and we cannot afford to choose anything but America.

Leave a comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Founding, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Health Care, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Michele Bachmann, Natural Rights, Obama, Taxes

Which is worse breaking the 11th commandment or being insane?

For Ron Paul you don’t have to make a choice.

(Full disclosure, as my regular readers know I’m supporting Bachmann right now).

Certainly most of these charges are valid and damning.  And it would make a good argument against against Newt Gingrich…until you see the part where it says “Ron Paul 2012.”

At that point you’re looking at it and saying…”hmmm.  on the one hand Newt appears to be a hypocrite, a pragmatic one that will say whatever will gain him power at the time, but a hypocrite nonetheless.  Versus Ron Paul, a man who doesn’t see anything wrong with letting Iran having a nuke. ” Iran, a country led by the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad, two Holocaust deniers who are religious zealots and certifiably insane…because I can’t possibly see anything wrong with that.  Any person with half of a functioning brain (clearly not Ron Paul) knows that the people in charge of Iran are so insane they will use a nuclear weapon against the Israel and the U.S. the consequences be damned, because they don’t think there will be consequences, because they think Allah is on their side, and thus they won’t be harmed for carrying out his will.  When Paul mentions the Chinese and the Russians as having more nukes, he seems to fail to realize there is difference between just being evil and being evil AND batshit insane!  Ron Paul makes Neville Chamberlain look like a genius of foreign policy who plans for the long term outcome of events.

Keep in mind that this is also a man who has interesting book releases. While other candidates release autobiographies or books on policy…no not Ron Paul, Ron has a cookbook.  It’s a cookbook.  IT’S A COOKBOOK!  (sorry couldn’t resist).

Yes this indeed is the man who I want running the country.  A man who doesn’t feel he can tell evil lunatics whether or not they can have a weapon of genocide…but he can tell you how to eat.

 

But here is the thing, as hypocritical as Newt is, he’s still better than Obama. Ron Paul and his eagerness to hurtle us toward WWIII through appeasing all of the world’s villains…I’m not quite sure that his foreign policy wouldn’t be worse for America than Obama’s economic policy.

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Election 2012, Foreign Policy, Michele Bachmann, politics

Democrats are just as crazy as their leader…

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

Today, on CNN she made the following statement…

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

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

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

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

“PLANNED AND EXECUTED THE ATTACK!”

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

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

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

2 Comments

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

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

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

Government is not the enemy.

Well he lost me here

  Not always.

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

 Don’t believe that right-wing malarkey.

As opposed to liberal bullshit?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Many of these programs were expanded under the Obama administration with the much-maligned stimulus package.

Hmm..so we subsidized poverty and poverty grew…who would have guessed

 Now many of those expansions are scheduled to expire

Thank God!

 and a new crop of callous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 alternatives to economic policy

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

 which invariably means the rich would get more  and pay less

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

 and the poor would pay more get less

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Obama administration is far from perfect,

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

  and government is not beyond becoming bloated and being abused,

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

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

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

Leave a comment

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

Theories… and one of the many reasons Rick Perry shouldn’t be elected

I hit environmentalists yesterday, it’s only fair to get a few punches into the other side today.

So the idiot known as Rick Perry (In case you’re wondering I do believe in the 11th Commandment, I just don’t think it applies to RINOS) has brought the stupid argument of “evolution is only a theory” up again (or at least I’ve heard it over and over again over the last few weeks). Thank you moron for once again showing how nobody understands science. At least Bachmann consistently says her religious beliefs are not her top priorities right now and then hammers away on the economy, foreign policy, and strict constructivist interpretation of the Constitution. But no, not Perry. Let’s talk creationism. Even, let’s say you agree with Perry, you have to admit, making such a statement clearly lacks a certain sense of common sense and priorities. It horrifies me that this man is currently in the lead. (Yes I do like that he called Social Security a Ponzi scheme, although it is unfair to Ponzi schemes as those you joined voluntarily, Social Security just steals my money).

So let’s deal with what the word theory means in science. It means we have an idea that seems to explain everything about what we’re looking at, but we can’t quite come up with an experiment to test the falsifiability of that idea. That’s it. It means we can’t engineer an experiment to prove it right or wrong. Now in a million years after we’ve written volumes of history and documented changes in almost all the species in the world we’ll be able to demonstrate that evolution does in fact exist…but until then it’s a theory. But let’s look at some other theories to show you what a theory is and why you should trust in some theories (the ones with, you know, proof) and ignore others (possibly the ones that require you to deny basic facts of existence).

Gravity. The dripping pipe
Gravity is a theory…or more accurately exactly what gravity is is a theory. Right now the theory states that mass curves space-time around it creating depressions in reality that other mass falls into. This replaced Newton’s idea that mass attracts mass. This replaced Aristotle’s idea that heavy stuff falls down and lighter stuff constantly tries to rise and only through the acts of the gods does it not just completely separate like oil and water in a glass (I love Aristotle, and will defend his philosophy any day, and while some of his science now sounds silly all I will say to that idea is that did anyone in 500 B.C. have a better idea? No. Don’t knock him when he was centuries ahead of anyone else…and it took two millennia to come up with something better). However back to what the theory is now—the curve in space-time. This seems to work for now. Although Newton seemed to work pretty well when he came up with it, and Aristotle’s was effective enough that no one needed to rewrite it for 2,000 years. But we can prove that light bends around really big objects, the curving space thing makes sense for now. For now which is why it’s only a theory. It is all kind of dependent on things actually having mass, which those bright guys at CERN seem to be having trouble proving. (Yes that’s right they can’t find the particle which is supposed to give things mass, which means either our understanding of quantum particles is bunk, or they need to do more experiments. Let’s hope they come up with something because most of my actions every day are based on the idea that things have mass…I’d hate to be proven wrong.)

I put this one in here because no denies that gravity exists. It’s a theory because we don’t understand WHY or HOW it works, even if we know it works. Thus you have to understand that lots of things in science can be called theories even if their existence is a fact. As theories go gravity is like a loose pipe (the kind that you get a drop out of every couple of days)—it’s perfectly functional, you don’t notice the problems unless you really know what to look for and you probably will never have to replace it.

Evolution however is a theory that leaks like a sieve.
And to deny this is foolish. There are a lot of holes in evolution. We all know this. There lots of gaps in the evolutionary record for just about every single species. What do you expect? We’re relying on a process of turning bone into stone for our records. It’s not an exact process with a high rate of success.

Further there are obvious problems with modern evolutionary theory. Even though I believe in it, punctuated equilibrium just has the slight taste of duct tape and bailing wire on the theory. And there are those gaping holes called how did life start? And how exactly did a highly evolved chimp suddenly become sentient?

However for all these holes that have yet to be plugged with proof, evolution is the only theory that satisfactorily describes evidence in genetics, geology, the fossil record, carbon dating, biology, and have half dozen other fields. We have gas in the fossil record, yes, but strangely we have species Y in the fossil record, and it looks like a halfway point between species X and species Z and low and behold the carbon dating says that it existed right in between the times that those other two species existed. And we have thousands of examples of this! You don’t have to be a Nobel laureate to put one and one together and get two.

Oh, and at the bacterial level where a generation lasts about 30 minutes, we actually can document and prove that species will evolve into new species. It would just be madness to think that if it works in single cell asexual reproduction to think that the more chaotic, more changeable, sexual reproduction of larger species would lead to similar changes.

Do we understand how every mechanism in evolution works? Hell no. Does it fill in all the gaps in the fossil record? Nope. Can you tell me the exact decent of chimp to man and all the sub species it was in between and at what time it existed? Nope, and I don’t have to. I’m sure the timeline will be rewritten a thousand times over the next thousand years, and species we thought evolved from one species will be found to have actually evolved from another species. But to say that evolution isn’t a fact is preposterous. The only other explanation for the evidence at present is that God is just a prick and wanted to screw with us. If that’s the case I really hate God and refuse to follow, obey, or even listen to such an asshole. But since I have a pretty reasonable justification for God not being a sociopath…well that just leaves evolution.

Now I will however say that at present the theory does have some gaping holes. As I said it doesn’t explain how random chemicals suddenly became self-replicating DNA. It doesn’t explain how sentience came about. It doesn’t explain the platypus (there is no way in hell that thing wasn’t intentionally designed as a joke).

Evolution with Intelligent Design, back to the leaky pipe.
Let me begin by saying that the term “Intelligent Design” has been applied to two different theories. One I will call Rational Intelligent Design and one I will call the Idiot’s Intelligent Design. (Can you guess which side I’m on?)

Idiot’s Intelligent Design is probably what you think of when you hear Intelligent Design. It’s preposterous pseudo-Creationist argument that God personally caused every single change in every single species over history. Not gently nudged here or there. Every change was because God said so. And it was all designed with creating a world for humans in mind. What the people who argue in favor of this don’t realize is that this makes God just a shitty planner. What was that whole side track with the dinosaurs for if God had his hand in everything? What the hell was the purpose of creating spiders! And cockroaches! No sane deity would ever create those for the fun of it.

Now rational Intelligent Design simply states that you need God at about 4 places. 1. Jump starting the big bang. 2. Turning those random amino acids into self replicating DNA. 3. Designing the platypus as the universe’s greatest joke. 4. Sentience comes to a highly evolved chimp. It boils down to the idea that God said “Let there be evolution!” and then you had the big bang…and then he added souls to the first sufficiently evolved creature. It’s basically what Deists were arguing a couple hundred years ago. There is a God, but he set up a bunch of rules for the universe to run itself. Probably because he’s more concerned with our souls than the specifics of how the classroom our souls exist in came about. This rational version of intelligent design simply plugs up some of the biggest holes in the theory of evolution…you know the few parts where science has yet to come up with a satisfactory answer. Don’t like it? Come up with a better answer. (And not Richard Dawkins’ crappy “aliens” could have created life on Earth…which begs the question, “What created the aliens?”…I get the feeling for an idiot like Dawkins it’s turtles all the way down.)

The Big Bang…a little leakier than evolution.

There is nothing that adequately explains red shift and background radiation like the Big Bang theory. However there are a lot of unanswered questions even when you use the theory. Again, until something better comes along, this is actually a good theory…but it is intellectual dishonesty to say that it’s a strong theory given on what shaky premises it’s based on. That doesn’t make it wrong; it just makes it a weak theory. It’s got a lot of problems. For instance Einstein first believed it required something called the cosmological constant (trust me you would get bored if I fully explained it), then he thought that was a stupid idea…but now it’s coming back into style. It’s actually a really big piece of explaining the mystery that is the universe and science can’t figure out if it exists or doesn’t. There are some holes in this theory. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, just means it’s got a ways to go.

And here is the turning point…here is where theories start going from this is based in science and seems to fit 99% of the data to wer’re just making this stuff up as we go.
Then you have the myth of Global Warming.
Actually global warming is a fact as it happens every year around May here in the Northern Hemisphere. I’m talking about the theory that man’s advancement and burning of fossil fuels has caused the earth to get really warmer, I mean really colder, I mean that weather has gotten really weird…even though it actually looks like what weather has always looked like. But ignore those facts. Ignore that in the past, long before Industrialization, it got hotter and colder than our records in the last hundred years all without the help of man-made green house gases, thus scientifically we didn’t need to add anything.  Ignore the sun. Ignore that some glaciers are still getting bigger. Ignore that the current trends that do exists started long before the industrial boom of this century, ignore that the sea levels are not rising, ignore everything that contradicts blind faith in this religion—err, I mean this scientific theory. As holes in scientific theories go, Man Made Climate Change is like taking a McDonald’s coffee cup, tearing out the bottom of the cup, putting the cup on your lap and pouring a freshly brewed pot of coffee into your cup. And then demanding someone else pay for whatever medical bills your idiocy brought about.

And finally we have Rick Perry’s favorite theory….

The theory of creationism. The idea that we should treat the Bible as scientific evidence, that the Earth is only a little over 6,000 years old, that the dinosaurs were wiped out by Noah’s flood and that all species were not only created in a single day by a divine creator, but that Noah was able to get all those species on his boat. (Given the millions upon millions of species in the world, you can see why there was no room for the unicorns). As scientific theories go, and yes there are people who seem to treat this as a scientific theory, Rick Perry among them, this thing has holes in it that I could drive an aircraft carrier fleet through. You have to ignore carbon dating (in other words basic chemistry), the millions of years it took the light from certain stars to reach us (in other words basic physics), the numerous levels of fossils and soil deposits (in other words basic geology), and the numerous similarities between species and that evolution at the single cell level for bacteria and viruses isn’t a theory it’s a provable fact (in other words basic biology)…in other words I’m not quite sure that there is any hard science you don’t have to ignore to believe in creationism. Now you are more than free to believe all those sciences are wrong, and that God has a really sick sense of humor in trying to fool you with all that hard data that contradicts the Biblical interpretation (oh I should mention this is not just Judeo-Christians, I know a Hindu who devoutly believes their religion’s creation myths without questions) but don’t expect me to respect your intellect at any level. And certainly don’t expect me to vote for an idiot like you if you are actually going to brag about having this claptrap taught in the schools. I’m sorry but Johnny Cochran had a stronger case than the case against evolution. Just because the minutia of theory hasn’t been worked out, much like there is minutia in gravity that doesn’t fit our exact theory of what it is, doesn’t mean that the broad strokes aren’t correct. On the one side you have a pile of evidence from numerous branches of science and personal experience that even if there is a God (which there is) he doesn’t get involved in gigantic ways, on the other side you have a book, a contradictory, heavily rewritten over the course of time, primarily allegorical book. Hmm… tough call on which one is a stronger scientific theory.  God gave me reason, I think he expected me to use it.  I have no problem teaching the holes in the theory of evolution, but teaching fables other than just mentioning the fact, some people disregard all scientific evidence and believe whatever they believe, fine….but teaching Creationism? I don’t think Intelligent Design (which I believe in) should be taught at the high school level, because it deals with complexities that are usually beyond the scope of a high school classroom—to bring it up would waste time that should be spent studying species taxonomy and cell biology and how organ systems work.

I’m trying to think of a theory more preposterous…and the only thing I can think of is Keynesian Economics…but that’s social science not the hard sciences, so we’ll save that for another day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservative, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Environmentalism, Faith, God, Long Term Thinking, Michele Bachmann, People Are Stupid, Religion

Two things are happening on Thursday that I loathe with a fiery passion

What are the two things I hate?

The first is Obama and his worthless speech.

In a move of genius the Republican Party is planning no TV response to Obama’s job’s plan. It’s a clear statement on what they know the president has to propose: nothing. He will have nothing tomorrow other than platitudes, talking points, and doublespeak. And nothing doesn’t require a response. And they won’t dignify it with an immediate response.

However, while it will be a deftly executed move on Thursday night, it needs to be followed within the week by a real plan to improve the economy and pass it through the House with all due haste. I suggest they start with the things proposed here.  It will die in the Senate, where every liberal can be on record as being opposed to capitalism, a free market, real growth and prosperity, or if the Senate has any sense of self preservation Comrade-in-Chief Obama will veto it. It doesn’t matter, as long as this socialist is in the White House real growth is impossible because he will try to regulate everything to death. Real growth beginning on January 20th 2013. However, the House Republicans need to pass their own sweeping economic plan to show that the Republican Party actually stands for something, actually has principles, actually has a spine and actually has a pair (Right now the only person I can apply all of those appellations to in the GOP primary field is Bachmann, especially that last one). The House, the Senate, and the White House can be won or lost in the next week. If the Republican Party shows it actually stands for Conservative economic values and is willing to back that up with votes, they win. End of story. Every time Republicans have run on being true fiscal conservatives they win—they lose when they play to the center, play to compromise, play to compassionate conservatism and play to social conservatism. They win when they have the balls to defend capitalism. I pray that I see they have learned this lesson in the coming month.

However that is not going to be the main thrust of this blog. Why? Well because I’m about to piss off just about every single conservative I know.

What’s the second thing I hate?

Football. The great sport of socialism. 

Let’s ignore for the moment that football is rank barbarism, outdone only by the true viciousness of boxing and the UFC, that plays to the absolute worst within the human soul. Let’s ignore that most football players should be behind bars not worshiped as icons (even forgetting the massive list of assaults, attempted murder and various other felonies…and just focusing on the fact that they let a man who gets his jollies by torturing dogs play this sport! And the rest of the league didn’t walk in disgust stating they would not play with such a disgusting sociopath! That should tell you the ethical quality of football players. I wonder if a child rapist could play if he could throw the ball the entire length of the field?) Ignore the fact that the majority of these players have an IQ that makes most rocks look like rocket scientist and thus should be the last people we have society look up to. Ignore the fact that that I would say it’s a safe bet that 90% of them are on steroids. Ignore all of that. I hate football because no sport so represents the ideals of socialism more and no sport steals my hard earned money to glorify its crude barbarism more than football. Yes this is a capitalistic problem with football, not just a snob’s problem with it.

(I’m going to make some comparisons to other sports in here which I believe to be correct, but if not, please inform me and I will make corrections. I watch only baseball games when sitting in the stadium and the Olympics on TV, so sports really isn’t my best subject).

How does football resemble socialism? First, almost every team sport does its obsession of working together over individual performance (some more than others, football being the sport where the individual can have the least effect…on the other end of the spectrum you have baseball where every single pitch comes down to a battle between two individuals). But more so than just the nature of team sports let’s look at the professional level sport. Football makes a lot of money from TV revenue…which it then pays in EQUAL shares to all of the teams. Doesn’t matter which team draws in more viewers, doesn’t matter which team invested more into the stadium or the players…everyone takes an equal cut. From each according to his ability to each according to his need. Everyone benefits from the Super Bowl, whether they made it there or not. How socialistic (I have no idea how other sports handle TV proceeds, but even if they’re all doing this it’s quite socialistic in its nature). Oh, and the best team gets last pick in the draft. That’s right you’re punished for being good. Oh and there’s salary caps which means you can’t pay people what you would pay them if you could (I think all football players are overpaid, but that doesn’t mean I don’t support their right to make as much money as possible if someone is willing to pay for it). Doesn’t sound like capitalism to me.

But these are private corporations and they have the right to run their organizations however they see fit. Let’s talk about where their socialist values begin to hurt me and you.

Oh and dare we forget that most of those stadiums were built with city bonds, or city exemptions to this or that or all taxes, or various other forms of corporate welfare. The idea is that the city will make back its money from tax revenue of increased ticket sales, increase restaurant use around the stadium and increased tourism. This is never the case. Even if they were getting close to even breaking even, most cities then have to deal with threats by team owners to move if they aren’t offered a new set of tax breaks and incentives. Pure corporate welfare. And nothing but that. And as you know I blame corporate welfare as one of the main causes for making our economic system unstable. This is city tax money being wasted to subsidize multi-million dollars businesses. My tax payer money. Your tax payer money. If you like the sport so much, pay for it in increased ticket prices. But don’t demand I subsidize your entertainment. I would love to see more Shakespeare plays put on, but I will never ask that your tax payer dollars go to support my preference; any good capitalist should understand the reverse is true. And any good socialist can go to hell.

But on this point football isn’t that different from other sports (may their unethical un-capitalistic owners all burn in hell). So I know I still haven’t proven that football is more socialistic than any other sport.

So let’s go down a level from the professional level. Even if cities, states, and the federal government banned corporate welfare in all forms (which they should all do) football would still be socialistically sucking off the teat of the taxpayer. Why do I say this? Well there’s the college level. Just about every single state funded university in the contiguous United States has a football team. And as economist Thomas Sowell points out in his book “Economic Facts and Fallacies” just about every college in America is running its sports program in the red. As the biggest sports at any college are football and basketball, that pretty much means that these sports (with their million dollar coaches, and hundred thousand dollar scouts, and thousand dollar scholarships, and bonuses on the side) are costing colleges more money than they take in. Most state universities run more off of state (i.e. taxpayer) funds than they do off of real tuition. Well why not increase ticket prices. Maybe because they know if they make any more increases in prices then ticket sales will drop incredibly and they’ll make even less, and lowering the price won’t help ticket sales enough either. They’re already at optimum pricing; if they make any change in pricing they lose even more money. But that means that football and basketball at the college level are failing businesses. They don’t provide profits to the college, they provide a loss. But the argument goes, having sports brings in more donations from alumni! Really? What do most of those donations go to? Sports. So that means that these are losing money even when they’re being subsidized by donation. Sounds like a great business model. But let’s say that the other donations that come in make up the difference and the college doesn’t come out behind. First I would say that people who are going to donate for a library or a new science wing might have donated whether you have a football team or not. Second I would say, colleges need less donations anyway, as most of that money is now going to subsidize professors doing research (often in the liberal arts…I love Shakespeare, but really how many articles on him do we need?) and not teaching! Perhaps if colleges were not getting so much free cash they would cut T.A’s and make the professors actually teach their own classes. I can’t see how this would be bad for the students, actually being taught by people who know more. Further this might mean that fewer jocks were skated through classes (don’t even try to feign outrage, you know it happens) which devalues the degree of everyone who earned their education. There are only a few colleges to point to, but every college I know of that has dropped its football program has been able to drastically increase its endowment and the quality of its teaching….granted I’m working off a very small sample but just the suggestion of that fact implies we should at least try it on a larger scale. If dropping football leads to better education, then don’t we own this country a better educated populace?

Further keep in mind that it’s your tax payer dollars that go to subsidize this loosing investment in schools. So the city is subsiding this sport, as well as the state through the college. Are you beginning to wonder if this is this is a business model worth keeping? Or maybe that it exists only through government handouts.

But the socialism doesn’t end there!

You probably forgot about high schools. High schools which will cut teachers, books, fine arts, new facilities, pay raises to attract better educators (but sadly never the pay of school superintendents and principles, i.e. the most useless people on any school campus) before they cut football. At a high school level basketball doesn’t take much funding for up keep (you already need a gymnasium, which often doubles as your auditorium anyway) so you were already going to spend that money. But football is different. Football takes money for equipment (which brings to mind a quote from one of my favorite author’s “I just think it’s rather odd that a nation that prides itself on its virility should feel compelled to strap on forty pounds of protective gear just in order to play rugby.” And he’s right, rugby at least has the decency to admit its barbarity.), equipment which could fund a whole new set of microscopes for a biology class, a new set of books for an English class, possibly enough to pay a teacher to take on an extra period and actually teach more (I know it’s a radical thought that schools might be there to teach!). More skating of students (I personally have had it suggested to me that I shouldn’t flunk a football player…I did it anyway and the coward didn’t have the guts to do anything about it at the time, but the fact is that football players are skated through school to this day). Oh and let’s talk about the cost of football fields. They’re expensive. And they often have to be done every couple of years. (But the idiocy of most boards will say, we can’t do Astroturf it’s too expensive…to hell if the cost of redoing the field even twice out does the cost of Astroturf, thinking that far out would force school boards to think past the next election, which is utterly impossible for skilled politicians in Congress, you have no hope with the idiots who get on schools boards…especially since the teacher’s unions spend millions nationwide to prevent intelligent people from getting on school boards.) And those stadiums are also expensive to build and maintain…and they almost never make their money back. That’s all money coming out of your pocket again as a tax payer!

As a tax payer you pay for the local high school’s football program, the college football program, and the professional league. And if you actually like the sport you pay even more for the cable station and the stadium tickets. But for those of us who hate the sport, we still get to pay for it! Don’t tell me this isn’t socialist.

In 2010, 106 million people watched the Super Bowl! That’s the highest rated number of viewers ever. Let’s say that there was another 40 million football fans who didn’t watch because their team wasn’t playing (which is stupid because people who don’t regularly watch football watch the Super Bowl, but I’ll give you 40 million). That’s a 146 million football fans. There are 312 million people in the country currently (half of 312 is 156) so not even half of the country watches football. So the majority of taxpayers are subsidizing the entertainment of the minority. Have you ever been upset hearing that your taxpayer money is going to pay for sacrilegious images of the Virgin Mary covered in dung, or for useless modern art paintings of a giant dot on canvas, or for PBS and NPR? Or do you get upset at how many tax breaks Hollywood gets for producing movies that I am hesitant to call dung, because I could use dung as a fuel source or as fertilizer…I’m not quite sure that half of what Hollywood puts out is even as useful as that! How is that different from funding rank barbarism? Some people find that worthless modern art shit entertaining, some people find football entertaining. The government shouldn’t be paying for a dime either way.

I am willing to pay more for movies that are good because I love movies and I believe not a cent of tax payer money should go to this kind of corporate welfare. (And I would even pay more for a baseball ticket, because I think the first thing the MLB would do if it no longer had subsidies would be to fire all its current players and bring up the minors which would actually lead to more class and grace in the game and less vain showmanship). Are you willing to pay more for your football ticket? And if not will you continue to demand I pay so that you can be entertained? If so, how can you say that is anything but socialism?

Occasionally someone will try and bring up the idea that football is the only thing keeping these kids in school. Huh? If that’s all that’s keeping them in school, trust me they’re not really learning in their classes (remember all the skating I referenced) and they certainly aren’t conducive to a healthy learning environment for other students who may actually give a rat’s ass about education.

And don’t even try and bring up the idea of the scholar-athlete to me. There are scholar-athletes…but less than one in a thousand of them are football players.

I would have no problem if all levels of football paid for themselves. I still wouldn’t watch it, but I wouldn’t be as viscerally opposed to it as I am now. (Hell I might not even have a problem if the subsidies for high school and college were put up for public referendum and passed by a healthy margin). Right now it’s a socialist sink hole stealing money from me. If you want football, then you pay for it. I won’t ask you to pay for my snobby operas and plays (and any tax payer money that is going to that should be cut) and I would appreciate if you not rob from me to pay for your entertainment.

But the question is if professional football had to pay for itself, if college football had to pay for itself (and that includes paying for its own scholarships through ticket sales and donations), and if high school football programs had to pay for themselves (especially when there are far, far fewer football scholarships available, thus lowering the demand for high school football, thus lowering the pool from which the professionals can draw from), do you really think that this sport could survive? I don’t think it could. And if that thought disgusts you, remember you should be a capitalist and demand that only businesses that can support themselves through their own means…or do you still demand I support your entertainment through my taxes?

If you are a capitalist, which is likely if you read this blog, then you understand to have any integrity you must stand on principle and oppose these government subsidies at all levels, even if you love the sport, it has no business taking tax payer money to support itself.

Now I will admit that this is partly informed by personal bias. Some of the most disgusting and most unethical people I have known as a teacher were also the biggest supporters of those school football programs, and I can’t deny that I see a correlation between these two. But still before you bring my personal bias into this, can you deny that modern football exists in great degree due to its socialistic subsidizing by the government.

And one final question. The government seems hell-bent on supporting football (it’s doing it at three different levels!) one has to ask why? Is it just that most communities think football is so important….or it is because government understands, as the Caesars did, that if you give the people their bread and circuses they won’t pay as much attention to evils committed by the government. Just a thought.

Leave a comment

Filed under Art, Bill Maher, Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Education, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Michele Bachmann, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Teacher's Union, Teaching, Unions, Unjust legislation

Laws for Conservatives to Pass: Executive Order Oversight

One of the things that makes me like Michele Bachmann is that she has said that if elected one of the first things she is going to do is go through all of Obama’s executive orders and throw out most of them. After all, Obama has been giving executive orders that not only are not popular, that put the whole nation under some loose kind of rendition  (yeah, you nearly forgot about that one didn’t you), executive orders creating more czars than a Bolshevik could possibly deal with, putting in rules specifically rejected by Congress on the deportation of illegal aliens , and of course an executive order that will allow the EPA to shut down power plants.

There's a check or balance missing somewhere here

Let’s see he can veto any law he wants, and now apparently he can write any law he wants on his own, and dare we forget he has the audacity to tell the Supreme Court that it doesn’t have the right to interpret the Constitution differently from him…what do you call it when a single person has all the powers of government invested in themselves?

Now some very, very foolish people have argued that the right of executive orders needs to be done away with. That’s insane. The executive office could never operate if it did not have the ability to issue orders on how to carry out laws. However executive orders are meant to clarify how laws will be carried out, not to write new ones, and certainly not to trump the power of the legislative branch.

Now I would prefer this to be a Constitutional Amendment, and will probably argue for that when I get around to writing a book on all the Constitutional changes that need to be made (but that is years off right now) but for right now it seems that this might only require a law (it may require a Constitutional Amendment, but I’d love to see Obama try to defend some of the shit he’s done with these orders publicly). Congress needs to pass a law that says that any executive order can be taken up by the Senate and voted down by a majority vote. This would return some of the power to the Senate, as the upper house of the legislative branch is supposed to have over the powers of the Presidency in order to check rampant insanity (like what we see with Obama), and offer just another check and balance to the system. Remember it was never supposed to be efficient or powerful.

Now as far as I can tell such a law wouldn’t require a Constitutional amendment since the power of executive orders isn’t exactly a power granted to the president in the first place. So Congress reasserting its right to be the sole legislative authority shouldn’t be a stretch constitutionally (although as I said, this might just make a good amendment anyway).

I think the Senate should have the right to look at any executive order and decide whether it is in line with the laws they have already passed. And if not the right to vote it down. If an executive order isn’t brought up within a year of it being issued it will just be assumed to have passed the bar.

Notice what you’re arguing if you don’t like this. You’re saying that a President can just issue orders of how the entirety of the federal government will act and behave and no one has the right to overrule him. That’s effectively a law, a law without any checks and balances involved in its creation. To give one branch, literally one man, that much power is beyond insane.

For generation this power has mostly been used only to fill in the grey area that comes in with enforcing most laws…but then there came Obama who decided that he should just legislate from the Oval Office whenever he felt like it. This is insane. Even if you agree with everything Obama has done, you have to know that someday a conservative will return to the White House, that’s inevitable, do you want someone you disagree with to have this much uncontrolled, unchecked, unfettered power? I don’t trust Obama, but even if you do, can you honestly say you trust every single person who will ever hold that office to not use that power like a dictator? I doubt it. There needs to be a check on this power. And since it is effectively a law, but one that the legislative branch did not pass, it should be held to a lower standard (only half of one branch has to vote it down).

Yes executive orders are a necessary part of the system. But it is a power that can easily be abused and it needs to be curtailed

3 Comments

Filed under Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Declaration, Economics, Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism, Founding, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immagration, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Michele Bachmann, Natural Rights, Obama, Tyranny, Unjust legislation

Is Obama a flake?

Chris Wallace asked Bachmann if she was a flake.  He should have said “How do you respond to the extreme element of your critics who claim you’re a flake.”  But there is someone who might just be a flake….

…now if Bachmman, or any Republican had said something this stupid would the media have just ignored it, or would it have been front page humiliation?

4 Comments

Filed under Election 2012, Michele Bachmann, Obama

In (what’s the opposite of defense?) of Ron Paul

So Jon Stewart is apparently upset about the media ignoring Ron Paul. He seems to think that ignoring this lunatic is something wrong. His proof… Ron Paul is doing well in the polls.

First let me point out that I doubt Ron Paul will ever go above those numbers. Paul’s supporters are a hard core bunch. They latch on easily and stick like a lamprey until they have no other option…but he does not appeal to anyone but that core bunch. Ever!

Stewart claims that Ron Paul is the original Tea Partier and that all others like Bachmann are merely new comers to the party. This is a terrible misrepresentation. I think that if some darling of the Tea Party, Bachmann, Christie, Ryan or Rubio were given complete control of the country without any opposition and a Supreme Court and Congress that would just rubber stamp everything they wanted, somewhere around 40% of the government would be gone in 8 years, with perhaps long term legislation to get rid of another 30% within the next 10-15 years. If Paul got that same deal 95% of the federal government would be gone in the first year of his term (even die hard libertarians can usually see why such a radical shock would be bad for the economy…hell even Ron’s son seems to think his dad is a little crazy).

Ron Paul isn’t so much a Tea Partier, as he is the GOP answer to Dennis Kucinich. A loveable lunatic who says things his side thinks need to be said, but not the kind of person you actually want to give any real power to.

And I think most of the media understand that while he has his hard core following there is not a snowball’s chance in Hell of him getting more (God please do not let humanity disappoint me once again on this point) and thus there is no real chance of him winning the nomination (unless perhaps Satan himself intervenes) and thus no chance of him facing off with Obama. This is as it should be. Ron Paul needs to be in the House as a strong voice of a particular ideology…I might even go as far to say that he might need to have one of the lower GOP positions within the House. (And if we gave him the Speakership it would be a complete disaster, but it would make CSPAN the funniest sitcom on TV).

But more importantly, is the reason why we can’t let Ron Paul ever get near the White House. His foreign policy beliefs.

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

(Yes, I had to go there.)

But more importantly it is that this man has no ethical compass. Yes Iran and Israel are equally good. Huh? I worry about someone who can’t make any distinction between them, yeah maybe with Israel their economy sucks and they’ve got some problems but they’re not psychoville hellbent on destroying the free world. You know there is a lot of grey in the world, but sometimes there is also black and white, and when you don’t recognize that you shouldn’t be allowed to pretend you’re a leader. But it might not just be that he doesn’t see anything wrong with Iran, it may be he supports their goals. I browsed Paul’s book “Liberty Defined” in Barnes and Noble a couple of weeks ago (I had no intention of buying it and giving Paul a cent, but I thought I should take a look at it). My favorite part (and by favorite I mean the part for which I would most like to see Paul thrown into a dark cell and never let out) was his section on “Zionism.” (Because everybody uses the word Zionism…oh wait, no, it seems almost exclusively used by the same people who buy “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”) In it he talks about hearing a Palestinian “refugee” coming to speak at his school when he was young and talking about all the terrible things that happened to Palestinians because of those evil, evil Jews. And because they said the Jews were evil it must be true. That nice Mr. Goebbels wouldn’t lie to us, would he? You know I might be willing to forgive a young Ron Paul not knowing that 90% of the so-called atrocities against Palestinians to be a lie as vile as any Riefenstahl movie and the other 10% was defensive measures in response to barbaric terrorism on the part of the, you guessed it, the Palestinians. I could forgive young Paul for this mistake. I cannot forgive Congressman Paul who now has access to the truth for believing such BS. Either he’s an idiot, or he is intentionally ignoring the facts because he has problems with the people of Israel. I don’t think it’s only because of their less than capitalistic economy that Ron Paul doesn’t like the Israeli’s.

Then he also likes to go off on all the problems the U.S. has caused in our sometimes less spectacular foreign policy. Yes we’ve made some major blunders in our interventionist behavior. And we’ve gotten involved in wars we shouldn’t have (Libya comes to mind). But you know what, that’s still better than when we didn’t get involved. Last time I checked when we didn’t get involved you had 6 million+ dead Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and other minorities (although I doubt Paul actually thinks of that as a loss) in Europe (not even counting the dead British, French, and other allied members who fought in war) and millions tortured and killed by Japanese in China, Korea and the South Pacific. Somehow I find American blundering on its worst day to be somewhat better than that. But that’s just me, and every sane person, who understands that, as P.J. O’Rourke put it, “Evil is an outreach program.” And dear god do we have a lot of countries in the world that could easily be classified as evil. This country already has enough blood on its hands; we don’t need the callous indifference of Ron Paul to add more.

These crazy at best beliefs may be why the media doesn’t give Ron Paul a lot of attention…because he isn’t worth it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Election 2012, Foreign Policy, Michele Bachmann, Problems with the GOP

Some quick GOP election thoughts 8/16

1.  Bachmann needs to replace some of her people.  Her stands on actual policy are consistent, logical, and she stands by what she says.  But these minor little gaffes she keeps making are getting silly.  Now I think everybody is making gaffes like this (for instance has anyone noticed Obama can’t pronounce the word Pakistan…Pakeeeeeeestan) and that there is a double-standard being held to Bachmann.  You may remember that every small flaw that Hillary had was front page news.  The media is a bunch of misogynists, and they are proving that once again.  However, that doesn’t excuse the fact that this is now the 2nd gaffe with an American icon.  Yes these facts are minor and pointless, but Bachmann needs to understand, right, wrong or indifferent she is being held to a higher standard and needs these gaffes to stop.

2.  I was wrong, Rick Perry is not going after the nutty-Christian voters that went for Huckabee.  Perry is challenging Ron Paul for the full-blown batshit crazy voters.  I don’t want Perry or Paul as president…however I think we should have a debate between these two and put it on Pay Per View…we could pay off a healthy chunk of the debt with that freak-show.

1 Comment

Filed under Election 2012, Michele Bachmann

Iowa Debate Recap: First Impressions

I don’t have a TV, let alone cable, so I’m mainly getting clips and segments of transcript (nobody seems to have a full transcript out yet)…but my first impression is that I was underwhelmed by this debate.  Romeny is still an ass.  Pawlenty too apparently. Huntsmen came off as mentally unstable (am I the only one who thought he was going to cry more than Glenn Beck?).  On economics I like Ron Paul, on foreign policy it becomes all too clear this man must never be allowed within 500 yards of the White House.  Santorum did us a favor by showing that Bachmann could be be a lot, lot crazier when it comes to religion.  I hope Cain and Gingrinch find jobs in the new administration, just not the main one.  But overall nothing new.

Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012, Michele Bachmann

Another Republican Weekly Round Up

So, we had possibly the world’s most boring debate this week. You know, usually, I am a firm believer in Regan’s 11th Commandment (“Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of your fellow Republican”) but the mutual appreciation society that we saw on CNN was rather boring…further the 11th Commandment doesn’t apply to shiftless socialists like Romney who are Republicans in name only (RINOs). Whatever this CNN debate was…it wasn’t an argument, which it should have been…

Michele Bachmann…One commentator called her the thinking person’s Sarah Palin. This is still an insult to Bachmann. She did better than anyone else on that stage and she is still my 2nd choice if Giuliani doesn’t get it. However, her statement that she wanted us out of Libya because they didn’t attack us does give me pause…we should want out of Libya because there is no pro-democracy force to support and we have no goal in mind as far as anyone can tell (oh, and we’re already over extended)…her answer makes me worry that she might adopt the “not our problem mentality” that so often gets the U.S. in trouble. But still she understands the economy is the most important thing, and she understands how to solve the problem correctly. Oh, and to date she is the only candidate I know of who says she will go through and review all of Obama’s executive orders (most of which are unconstitutional anyway) and revoke the ones that need to be.

Herman Cain–to call Cain’s statement about not wanting to put a Muslim in his administration is just stupid. Exactly who did they have in mind? I don’t know of any American Muslims in Politics who are Republican, certainly I know of none that are qualified for a cabinet level position…so who exactly are we worried about not getting a job they earned…or is it that the Democrats think you should put in minorities just for the sake of having minorities. Actually that sounds about as cynical and racist as I expect from most Dems. However, it did not strike me as if he has enough knowledge and background experience to be able to move from the board room to the Oval Office. I would still vote for him if he made it to the nomination, but he is still not filling me with an abundance of confidence.

Newt Gingrinch–Newt did fairly well. Too bad for him he already sunk his chances.

Gary Johnson. Who? Yeah I’m there too.

Ron Paul–Ron is fun as ever. Completely and totally wrong on all things foreign policy, but I love having him in the legislature.Just never in the executive.EVER!

Tim Pawlenty— “Obmneycare” was perhaps one of the most genius things I have heard to date in this campaign and it illustrates the clear perspective that Romney does not belong in this party or this race. It shows clearly that Romney would just be another 4 years of the stupid economic policies of Bush and Obama. But when Pawlenty had the chance to distinguish himself, to show he had a backbone, to show that he was a leader…he backed away from it.
Mitt Romney–and what a shock, Mitt continues to be the same old moderate that we knew and hated 4 years ago.

Rick Santorum—the smarmy ass continued to be a smarmy ass and continued to believe that social issues were somehow relevant in the face of trillion dollar deficits, growth killing taxation, and job killing regulation. I’d compare voting for Santorum to shooting oneself in the foot if it wasn’t more like putting the gun in your mouth and blowing out the back of your head.

John Huntsman–Obama’s Ambassador to China…the guy Obama picked to go kiss China’s ass and beg for more money…He may have been a good Governor but working with Obama suggests a major lack of character. And the fact that he increased spending in Utah during his tenure also not a good sign. And he believes in Global Warming…could he and Romney please just go establish the RINO party and leave the conservatives alone.

Sarah Palin–the media continues to stalk this worthless non-entity without a conscience. Like Romney she will back any plan, no matter how against the principles of conservatism as long as she get more money or press time. This trip, while it’s fun to watch the media squirm, shows how completely egocentric and self-deluded she is. And you know what?… I’ve already lived under an egocentric idiot for three years…I don’t need another term of that.

Rudy Giuliani–News is that he is meeting with Chris Christie and Rick Perry. Hopefully it is to get their endorsements. I envision Giuliani at the podium, flanked by Perry and Christie (two real fiscal conservatives), announcing his intent to run and eviscerate Romney and Obama (but I repeat myself).

Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012, Michele Bachmann

Another Weekly Republican Look

Giuliani
He’s in Front. Giuliani continues to be the perfect candidate. He thinks that economics and foreign policy are the most important things and he’s conservative on both. Can’t get better than that.

Romney
This video is wonderful, even though it’s trying to hit Romney for his defense of abortion. Actually, his support abortion rights might be one of the few things I agree with this man on…however listen to his reason for supporting abortion: “Because my mommy supports it.” Not exactly filling me with hope there Mitt in your ability to dress yourself let alone run a country.

(Note 6/6 this video has been taken down…probably the Romney campaign has something to do with it. Let me sum up what was in it Romney supports the health-care mandates, you know those unconstitutional ones, doesn’t believe in the right to bear arms, supports abortion but only because his mommy told him to, didn’t support Reagan, believes in the BS called global warming and carbon taxes…in short to call him a conservative is to make the word have no meaning).

Palin
She’s says she is conservative. She wants a bridge built to nowhere. She doesn’t want it built to nowhere. She’s for family values…doesn’t bother to teach them to her children (or was so draconian that rebellion was logically foreseeable…either way, not trusting her on social policy). She supports John McCain, the least conservative person I can think of. Worse McCain endorses her. Logically she is either a not conservative or just without values and will say whatever works for her bank account at the time.
The idea that a witch burns because she is made of wood has more logic to it…in fact that is on the logical level of anything Palin does

Oh and Chris Mattews now seems to be in love with Palin. This frightens me on numerous levels.

Bachmann continues to lay in wait building support and not make a fool of herself like, say Palin, Romney and Santorum.

Paul, Pawlenty, Santorum,Bolton, and Cain have been quiet this week.

Rick Perry might be in. Again I’m less than impressed.

Huckabee might come back.Why? Because he’s a vainglorious idiot who can’t make up his mind.

Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012, Michele Bachmann, Problems with the GOP