# Category Archives: Unions

## Basic Math for Liberals

I am tired of arguing with idiots about unemployment numbers.  Stupid people (liberals) seem to think that so long as the unemployment numbers drop that this shows the economy is growing. Now I know those of you who know something about economics and statistics are about to have an aneurism over how stupid that is, but let me go over the basics of how we get unemployment numbers…and what you should really be looking at.

Now I’m going to try and use round numbers to help make this as simple as possible (and I’m going to gloss over a few complexities so we can get to the heart of the matter).

Let’s say you have a population of 200,000 people.

100,000 people want a job.  That means you have a job participation rate of 50%.

Now let’s say that 95,000 of those people looking for a job have a job, and 5,000 of those people don’t have a job.  That means your unemployment is 5%.  And let’s say of those 95,000 employed, 5,000 (5% of the those in the work force) of those are working at part time jobs but want full time jobs.  These people are called underemployed. The underemployment rate is the unemployment rate plus those who are underemployed.  (Under employment is usually calculated as the percent of underemployed plus the rate of unemployment, but to keep the numbers separate and simple we won’t add them together here).

Now, what idiots look at is the unemployment rate.  This is dumb, and let me explain why.

Let’s say the government does something monumentally stupid (so, status quo) like raise the minimum wage.  This will cause employers to pull back on hiring.  The first thing that will happen is that employers will either through firing the most inept or through simple attrition (when somebody leaves you don’t fill their position).  This will cause the unemployment numbers to go up.  Let’s say that there are now only 94,000 jobs, or an unemployment rate of 6%.  And idiots will be rightfully concerned…but not for long.

Why?  Because the first ones hit by minimum wage increases are young people who, without experience aren’t worth the higher wage the employer has to pay, and older people. Those who have a business are not willing to put in the money for training as it will not work as a long term investment.  And since these groups know they can’t get a job they will either continue living with mom and dad or go live with their kids and just stop looking for work.  Let’s say 2,000 people just give up looking for work. So that now means you have 98,000 looking for work, and 94,000 with a job.  Guess what unemployment is DOWN TO 4.1%  !!!! Isn’t that great! Raising the minimum wage lowered unemployment from 5% to 4.1%!!!  Of course since the participation rate dropped form 50% to 49%, that means that 1,000 fewer people are employed now, but the unemployment number dropped!

And then it gets worse. The rise in minimum wage causes inflation (as it always does) and that means companies that aren’t employing minimum wage positions will have to lay off employees or use attrition practices.  So they lay off 1,000 employees. Now we’re at 98,000 looking for work and 93,000 employed.  Back to 5.1% unemployment.  But don’t worry those 1,000 will soon find minimum wage jobs and kick out 1,000 other less qualified people from those jobs. So now you instead of 5,000 people underemployed, you now have 6,000. Underemployment has jumped from 5% to 8.8%!  But don’t worry because another 1,000 people are probably going to give up looking for work (probably more actually but let’s keep the numbers nice and round).  So now only 97,000 want to be employed.  Oh look unemployment back to 4.1% and underemployment is now only 6.1%.  It’s a miracle the unemployment numbers and underemployment numbers dropped.  Things must be doing great!

But no.  In this situation while the unemployment rate started at 5% and dropped to 4.1%, that masks the fact that there are 2,000 fewer jobs. And a 1,000 more people are earning less than they would like.  (And let’s ignore the inflation that’s going on and the fact that most of the other employed people probably aren’t getting raises – but their personal costs just went up.)

So we can see the unemployment rate is very misleading and what is important, first and foremost is the participation rate and followed by that the underemployment rate.

So when Obama touts the unemployment numbers are down keep in mind a few things.

The participation rate is at its lowest level since 1978! From a peak of just over 67% we are down to just over 63% (a 4% drop, keep in mind my example only included a 1% drop).  And this drop in participation does not seem to have come anywhere near to an end.

Second keep in mind that underemployment (this is the calculation of both those underemployed and those unemployed) has gone from 7.0% in 2000 () to 17.4% (a 10% increase, and my example only had 1.1% increase).

So don’t tell me that the economy is doing well because the unemployment number is down. It’s not.  It’s doing terribly.

And it’s not just raising minimum wage that does this (and yes raising minimum wage always does this)…it’s regulations and taxes and oversight and red tape.  All government action increases the factors that make employers want to hire fewer employees. And this may be not so great for depriving people of income, hope, and jobs….but as we’ve seen it can be great for getting the unemployment numbers down. I mean if everyone would just give up looking for work, we could have 0% unemployment.

## Detroit, liberalism at its finest

Sadly, he doesn’t have a city….he has a country.

The fall of this city reads like the story of the Twentieth Century Motor Company.  Large government spends, overregulates, gives into unions at every turn, hampers business at every opportunity, a deference to cronyism without any concern for free markets, corruption, all leading to the destruction of a city that still has all the infrastructure necessary for growth. And the worst part is that this can be easily, EASILY reversed.  Lower taxes, remove regulations, gut the bureaucracy, open up school choice, tell the unions exactly where they stick all their whiny demands.  It would be a slow growth at first, and the city would need to redirect every single cent they get to police to clean up the dangerous streets of Detroit first (although allowing open carry and remove the restrictions that allows law abiding citizens to procure weapons to protect themselves could solve that problem, criminals tend to go where the targets are easy and a well armed populace is not that) and fix the crumbling infrastructure second.  If the city did these things and let the free market and individual choice drive the way the city would be thriving again within a decade.

But we know they won’t do that.  And so the city will continue to decay.

But I’m sure if you asked idiots like Paul Krugman or Barry the answer would clearly be that we just didn’t spend enough money and we didn’t regulate enough.  Because that’s always the problem for liberals.  Government is never the problem and always the solution, even though they don’t have a single shred of evidence to back that claim up.

## Capitalism: The ONLY hope of Mankind

Capitalism is the only system that has been shown to raise people out of poverty. It is the only system that benefits the rich, the middle class, and the poor. It is the only system that can bring a nation out of destitution. It is the only system that works long term. It is the only system compatible with human nature. It is the only system of economics that is ethical. It is the only system of economics that is sustainable because only capitalism creates and encourages the innovation and imagination needs to deal with the constant slew of problems that life brings.

You can either be in favor of Capitalism or you can be an idiot who knows nothing about economics, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, human nature, politics, reason, logic or facts.

Let me say again…You can either be in favor of Capitalism or you can be an idiot who knows nothing about economics, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, human nature, politics, reason, logic or facts. That is all.

## Progressives want more fair pay acts to create equality…that will be neither fair nor equal…

So the latest pointless legislation to come from idiots on the left is the  ‘Paycheck Fairness Act’:

Mikulski and DeLauro said the Paycheck Fairness Act would also allow women to seek punitive damages for pay discrimination, establish a grant program to strengthen salary negotiation and other workplace skills and require the Department of Labor to enhance outreach and training efforts to eliminate pay disparities.

Oh great more laws to enforce “fairness” between wages because of the myth that women earn less than men.

Yes because government programs, grants, Federal involvement in negations, and regulations will result in far more equal pay.  This equal pay will of course come in the form of more unemployed people because grants, programs, regulations and overreach tends to result in the contraction of the economy.  And everyone is equal when you don’t have a job.  But don’t worry we have the Obama and his Jobs Council to help find those people new jobs…oh, wait, we don’t.

But at least we have the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to protect us.  Obama said so in his inauguration.

Okay let’s first talk about the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act…or as I call it bullshit.  What is it really?  It’s a bone to the trial lawyers who now have legal cover to sue for perceived injustices that are decades old.  It’s the exact opposite of the tort reform we so dearly need.   Because it has nothing to do with equal pay.

But back to the myth that men make more than women.  It’s only true if you ignore all relevant detail.  It’s like saying that people in their 40’s make more than people in their 20’s and blaming age discrimination.  Factually the wage gap is true, but it ignores all the relevant reasons as to why it’s true.

Did you know that women in their 20’s make more money than their male counterparts in the same field?

Did you know that when you correct for experience and education and the job then women of any age earn more?  (See Thomas Sowell’s book Economic Facts and Fallacies for more on this) It’s just that women take these large swaths of time off from their careers…the Obama administration can find no explanation but sexism for the time women take off from their jobs.

Since women in their 20′s are making more than men in their 20′s, actually if you had equal work for equal pay it means most men should be making more…hmmm…..oh wait because we’ve put in card check and unfair practices at the federal labor board everyone will be in a unions with a few year whether they want to be or not.  Thus we will all be getting paid the same, irrespective of education, work, merit, seniority or skill.

Or consider the fact that 93% of all workplace fatalities are men.  Did anyone want to talk about workplace equality for this?  Or did anyone want to consider this suggest that men are statistically taking more dangerous jobs which pay more for the risk, thus accounting for the discrepancy between wages when you consider ALL MEN and ALL WOMEN.

Yes when you consider all men to all women men make more.  But when you look at the same job for two people with the same education and years of experience, women make more.

Women you want to make more?  Take jobs that pay more and don’t take off time to have children.  That’s all you have to do, value income more than a job you may enjoy and value income more than having a family.  Statistically that’s all you have to do and you will make more than your male counterparts.  You don’t need legislation.

(Of course if we took that route we might have to acknowledge things like Obama’s economics have hurt women more than men, or that Obama is funneling guns and combat jets to countries that treat women as little more than slaves, or that one of the few places women are paid less than men is Obama’s Administration, or that the real war on women might be gender selective abortions pushed by Planned Parenthood and defended by Democrats*)

In the end this is just another BS law by the left using government to infantilize people and make them feel entirely dependent on a government to protect them and take care of them.

*I’m pro-choice but I think even pro-choice people can admit that gender selective abortion are really sick…although ironically the people who would have such an abortion are the last people I would ever want to raise a child–it’s the sad irony of all abortion.

***t

## Reflections on the Election: Why I was wrong, Why Obama Won, and what the GOP needs to do. Part II

So as I explained in the last part there are reasons that we can’t beat Obama at his game right now.  His data mine is geared to categorizing people by demographics of gender and race, things that can’t be changed, and then he plays to these groups based on promising them things (the fact that his gifts really hurt most of these groups in the long run is only secondary).

So how do we win?

Well first let’s take a look at a few things.

When you compare the 2008 numbers to the 2012* numbers you find that Romney beat McCain’s total numbers and he did much better than McCain in 32 states (possibly more as some states still haven’t certified).  The three states that saw the biggest loss in GOP numbers were New Jersey, New York (and Sandy might be partially to blame for those two) and California—all three liberal bastions where conservatives may have seen no reason to come out.

Obama did worse in all but 4 states.  (Again, maybe a couple more when the counting is done, but it’s still pathetic).

The next thing to look at is that Romney did better with almost every group (except Latinos) than McCain, including young African Americans (which offers hope that this voting block is beginning to realize they’re being used and exploited).

But we can’t rest on that for obvious reasons.

So what I see are the larger things that we, as individuals, may not have a lot of control over…and the smaller things we can do.

Now as the great Dirty Sex & Politics points out we do need to rebrand ourselves.

And as many of the right have pointed out we need conservative media and conservative politicians to confront the liberal propaganda and spin even more.

And we also need to learn to not fall into all these stupid traps liberals set.

Now this last one is probably the easiest.  Most of the liberal traps deal with social issues (The libertarians did 600,000 voters better in 2012 than 2008, now, granted that’s a lot of anti-war liberal cowards, but it’s still something we can try and poach).  So everyone needs to remember this line and pass it on when it comes to any social policy at the federal level:

“I do not support that personally, but I am a conservative which means I support limited federal government and the Tenth Amendment.   While I don’t support that issue personally, it is not the place of the federal government to pick a side one way or the other, that is for individual states to decide and I will stop any attempt by the federal government to intrude on this issue.

And on issues where this can’t help but involve federal issues, the federal government must follow what the majority of the states are doing at the time. “

There you can be against drugs, gay marriage, abortion…but since we believe in the 10th Amendment we don’t think it’s the role of the federal government and will not do anything where the states chose in a way that contradicts our beliefs.  Social conservatives, this still allows you to not betray any of your values, but it also upholds your values of state’s rights…oh and it will allow us to win more elections.

You might want to tell me I’m wrong on this, but look at these exit poll numbers.

Blanket opposition to abortion isn’t going to win.  Ever again.  Now making it a state’s rights issue can win and you can prevent your tax dollars from funding anything…but just a blanket opposition is stupid.  The majority support abortion, the exit polls numbers and Gallup confirm this.

We need Voter ID laws in every state.  Better checks to make sure we don’t have false registrations (and Draconian punishments for turning in false registrations or “losing” the registrations of people aren’t for the party you like).  We need laws to clear the voter rolls every 2 to 4 years.  We need to dump these voting machines which seem to be a little too prone to leftist cheating and go back to paper ballots.  And we need laws ensuring that military will be counted no matter what.

Now really long term I would love it if we could get a lot of blue states to split their electoral votes, but that’s a pipe dream.  And really long term I think we need to look into overturning the 26th Amendment.  Yes, it seemed all nice and fuzzy and right to give 18 year olds the vote when we had the draft…but honestly, have you met most 18 year olds?  I mean we don’t trust these idiots with alcohol or rental cars…but we trust them with the future of the nation?  Yeah there are exceptions, and I’m more than willing to say anyone who has served or is serving their nation has the right to vote…but honestly, I think we need to move the age up to 30.  I mean just look at these numbers.  People under 30 are statistically idiots.

And of course we need the GOP to put some money into voter turn out at all levels, not just relying on the Presidential candidate to do it…which seemed to be their really dumb move this year.

Finally, the conservatives in power need to hold the line.

That means that the debt ceiling does not get raised (unless maybe we adopt the Ryan budget and overturn Obamacare).

That means we don’t make compromises unless we get something we really want or it gets us halfway to our goals….

…oh so you want to raise taxes on the rich.  And we want to get rid of loopholes and lower those taxes. We’ll meet you halfway and get rid of all loopholes for those making over \$250K. (That way we just have to worry about lowering the rate when we get in).

…oh you want big public work programs and amnesty for all the illegal immigrants (oh I’m sorry we can’t use that term anymore, migrant felons)…okay then we want real immigration reform in exchange for amnesty and we’ll let you have a big public works project building a big damn wall on the southern border.

You know compromises like that.

As for the sequestration…I’m not that concerned about it honestly.  Yes it will cut military spending, and in the short run this is problematic.  But honestly the smaller military that this dimwit has at his disposal, that’s probably for the best.

These simple things will help us stay true to our values but make us more likely to win, reduce the liberal chance to cheat, and get us what we actually want.

This needs to be the plan the GOP holds to because it is the plan that will work.

But what can we do as individuals?  I’ll deal with that in the third part.

*I’m going to spare you the chart with all the state by state numbers unless anyone asks for it.

## Stupid Liberal of the Day…Our old friend Paul Krugman

I’d say he’s the dumbest person to ever get a Nobel Prize…but have you seen some of the crap they’ve given it out to in the last couple of decades?

Paul Krugman is at it again.  After having to make up lies to try and face off against Senator Rand Paul  (He claimed the federal workforce is down under Obama…as blatant a lie as you can get…state and local employment is down, federal employment is up, way up) he further shows off his idiocy with a brand new rant of lies and desperation to keep Obama in power.

In “Obstruct and Exploit” he makes the rather farcical claim that the economy is not the fault of the Democrats (the Democrats who control the Senate and refuse to pass the budget) as good people and the Republicans are evil obstructionists.

Actually he makes several bizarre claims…like that Romney is a Keynesian who wants to use military spending to create jobs.  Paul, I know you’re a dimwitted hack, but do you know how to listen to speeches or how to read policy papers?  Romney is concerned primarily about defense spending because with Chinese expansion in the Pacific, a resurgent al-Qaeda from the Arab Spring, and Putin wanting to reestablish the Soviet Empire you’d have to be as dumb as Ron Paul or Neville Chamberlain to not see that maybe we might need an American military to deal with problems that are obviously coming.  The fact that cutting defense would cut jobs merely tangential to the discussion, but true.  The goal of Romney’s policies with defense spending are to protect America and Classical Liberalism in general, not to create jobs.  But you’d have to actually read his statements to know that.

But let’s actually deal with the heart of his argument.  You can’t blame Obama because his ideas have been stopped at every turn (let’s ignore that Obama had a Democratic Congress for two years and only did things that ruined the economy…yes I’m sure Obama would have suddenly come up with good ideas if his party was still in power…).  For instance Obama has the American Jobs Act, which Krugman implies would have saved America.  (Again let’s ignore that not all of Obama’s Democrats voted for the bill.)  As Krugman points out “Obama proposed boosting the economy with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases,” (and let’s ignore the 5.6% tax increase on the wealthy that was in the bill so we can’t call it a tax cut, chalk another lie up to Paul Krugman).  I’m personally stunned just at the statement lower taxes and raise spending…cause the raising of our debt even further is a bright idea how Paul?  Show me cut taxes and cut spending and cut regulation and then you might have a plan that would work.

But let’s go over the AJA to see what it has in it.  That Krugman in his infinite idiocy thinks would work…and for fun let’s compare the points from the Romney plan.

So here are the points of the bill according to the White House web page  (and keep in mind this bill may be dead, but these are Obama’s ideas and this is what he will have in a second term so it is relevant even if this bill died).

• Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses:
• A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages
• Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year

So let me get this straight here, further making Social Security unsound is a good thing?  Yes I love having more money, and I would love if we were to privatize the whole thing, just paying off on benefits for everyone who is going to be on Social Security in the next 10 years…but that’s not what this is.  It’s keeping the same Ponzi scheme but simply making it more insolvent.  Good plan genius.  You know I like the extra money, and I hate social security…but under this plan it will cost me and future generations more in the long run.

Meanwhile the Romney plan offers real tax cuts that will actually spur growth of business (i.e. job growth) and actually end up putting more money in your pocket.  (All points of Romney’s are taken from his 59 point plan and are italicized…Romney has a lot more than that plan…but I’m trying to be fair here and compare one bullet pointed plan to another…if I actually compared substantive proposals of Romney to what passes as substance from Obama it would just be more embarrassing for the President and Krugman)

Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below \$200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains

Eliminate the death tax

Pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system over the long term that includes lower,

flatter rates on a broader base

Reduce corporate income tax rate to 25 percent

• Extending 100% expensing into 2012
• Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.

So we’re going to force more banks to make more bad loans (probably to Obama cronies like every other Obama “investment”) and we’re then going to let them write off the investment they made with money that banks were forced to give them (and if every other Obama venture is any indication they’ll be allowed to pocket the money, declare bankruptcy and have the loans forgiven by Obama).  And as icing I’m sure Obama will blame the banks again for the effect on the economy.

And instead of regulations designed to help Obama supporters, Romney has real regulation reform in his plan that will help every business.

Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework

Amend Sarbanes-Oxley to relieve mid-size companies from onerous requirements

Initiate review and elimination of all Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy

Impose a regulatory cap of zero dollars on all federal agencies

Require congressional approval of all new “major” regulations

• A “Returning Heroes” hiring tax credit for veterans

Again picking winners and losers, not what the government should be doing.  Not improving the economy to actually create more jobs, we’re just going to make it a good call for businesses to fire their existing employees, hire new ones (probably at a lower rate) and a tax write off for it.  (Now the good news is most businesses won’t behave in this terrible fashion…except, you know, the kind of bastards who pay off Obama for crony connections).

Screw helping this group or that group, Romney has the reform that will kill the single biggest killer of jobs there is:

Repeal Obamacare

• Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, while keeping cops and firefighters on the job.
• Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country, supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas.

Yeah that’s it, we need the federal government getting involved in local and state matters.  Oh, and given the spectacular behavior of teachers in Chicago, getting an average of \$76,000 a year (before benefits) to get 80% of students to learn nothing…it’s clear that what the education system needs is new facilities and keeping all the current teachers…and not, you know fire all the union pieces of shit who offend the very profession of teaching by daring to call their pathetic behavior teaching.

You really want to help workers and really want to get better hiring practices for not only government but all employees try these points from the Romney plan:

Appoint to the NLRB experienced individuals with respect for the rule of law
Amend NLRA to explicitly protect the right of business owners to allocate their capital as they see fit

Amend NLRA to guarantee the secret ballot in every union certification election

Amend NLRA to guarantee that all pre-election campaigns last at least one month

Or maybe let states deal with their own problems.

Give states authority to manage retraining programs by block granting federal funds

• Immediate investments in infrastructure and a bipartisan National Infrastructure Bank

Oh great because the Fed wasn’t enough, you need a new bank to fund your own bad behavior even more.

You can talk infrastructure build up…or you can reduce the regulations that prevent the private sector from building that infrastructure, like in the Romney Plan

Establish fixed timetables for all resource development approvals

Create one-stop shop to streamline permitting process for approval of common activities

Implement fast-track procedures for companies with established safety records to conduct pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas

• A New “Project Rebuild”,

I’m sure that project is shovel ready and won’t be a waste like every other thing you’ve done.

I’ll take not killing a project that will actually create jobs and improve the economy over Obama’s shovel ready BS.

Support construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the United States

Holy shit, when did Internet become a right?  You want Internet you buy it or go to Starbucks like everyone else…I am not subsidizing everyone’s ability to access porn on high speed wifi

I’ll take energy over wifi any day

Open America’s energy reserves for development

The most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years:

Because people need more incentives not to go find a job.

A \$4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers

Again, trying to get businesses to just create jobs isn’t going to work.  You need to improve the fundamentals of an economy to create growth (which would include lowering taxes, lowering regulation, lowering government, lowering the deficit, strengthening the dollar, and getting free trade agreements—none of which this administration has done).

Or maybe you can be responsible for your own life

Facilitate the creation of Personal Re-employment Accounts

• Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers

So you mean I can’t take into account whether a person was fired or not in deciding whether they’re going to be a good employee…like every other form of “discrimination” legislation in the last 30 years this is just a pay off to the trial lawyers and will result in even less growth and less jobs.

Or instead of making more bad lawsuits you could have real Tort reform.

Reform legal liability system to prevent spurious litigation

• Expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults through a fund for successful approaches for subsidized employment, innovative training programs and summer/year-round jobs for youth.

“Subsidized employment.”   You’re kidding right?  You’re going to pay people to hire people.  (And keep in mind Obama was touting this plan as including tax cuts…so where exactly is the money for this coming from?  Oh I forgot Obama won’t be happy until the debt is three times the size of the GDP.)

But how about rather than subsidizing hiring people but actually making a climate where you can actually hire good people.

Support states in pursuing Right-to-Work laws

Reverse executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field toward organized labor

• Allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today’s near 4 percent interest rates

This would be a choice for the banks, not the government…which means the President is planning to control the banks even more and force them to do more stupid things…you know the behavior that got us into this mess.

There is no exact counterpart to this, but the fact is that Romney will not rule by fiat, like some people.

• 5Fully Paid for as Part of the President’s Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan.  To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. The President will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the President’s broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy.

The humor of this part speaks for itself.

But Romney does have some real plans on how to deal with the insane size of government

Immediately cut non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent
Reform and restructure Medicaid as block grant to states
Align wages and benefits of government workers with market rates
Reduce federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition

Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP
Undertake fundamental restructuring of government programs and services

Pursue a Balanced Budget Amendment

The fact of the matter is that Paul Krugman putting up Obama’s abysmal American Jobs Act as the better part of his proposed legislation shows you how unspeakably stupid Krugman is and how bereft of any real ideas Obama is.  Romney has real plans not just platitudes that have some conception of how the economy works.  Now I’ve breezed over a lot of Romney’s plans, I do this intentionally, I want you to go and do the research on your own and see for yourself that his plans are

## Final look at the Charlotte Web of Lies

Here are a few horrifying last looks at the DNC

And the views of the Democrat beloved Occupy

And this isn’t the first time we’ve seen vicious Anti-Semitism  is a hallmark of Occupy…and of the party that was offended by the idea of supporting Israel.

## Charlotte Web of Lies: The DNC Day 2

Day Two of the Charlotte Web of Lies leads to some real fun.

To recap in the last 48 hours we are worse off than we were 4 years again and we’re better off than we were 4 years ago, God doesn’t exist, God does exist, Jerusalem isn’t the capital of Israel, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, relations with Israel have never been better, relations with Israel have never been worse, Obama will be speaking in an open stadium, Obama will not speaking in an open stadium.  I know politicians like flip-flopping, but usually it’s that their positions change over years, months, sometimes weeks…this is the first time I have seen positions change with tide without having to invoke hyperbole.

Then of course there is that joke of an acceptance of the party platform, which seemed to have over half the delegates not accepting it because it wasn’t left enough but Villeregosa saying it has the needed two-thirds necessary to pass…this is what Democrats apparently consider democracy.

Tonight was a bit sparse on interesting points…yes there was the near constant drivel on Republicans are evil, Republicans are going to destroy medicare, Republicans want to skewer the poor, roast them on spits and eat their flayed carcasses…blah, blah, blah…

But what do you expect.

They had Elizabeth “Dances with Bullshit” Warren.

“Republicans say they don’t believe in government. Sure they do. They believe in government to help themselves and their powerful friends. After all, Mitt Romney’s the guy who said corporations are people.No, Gov. Romney, corporations are not people.”

Thank you Liz for showing you know less than nothing about history, law, or the nature of how an economy works.  The legal fiction of corporate personhood needs to exist for the economy to work…I dread what the world would be like without that particular legal fiction…but you could just look at what the world looked like before corporate personhood (i.e. what was the world like before the 1600’s).

“People have hearts,”

Except maybe Democrats who are willing to let Israel be destroyed in a second Holocaust, are willing to let the innocent  in Syria and Egypt be butchered by the close friends of this Democratic president, and we’re all more than willing to do nothing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur under a Republican president as well as do nothing in Rwanda, Somalia, and almost Bosnia (until Tony Blair dragged Clinton in).  Also as I recall the most recent study on charity shows it’s Republicans who give the most, not Democrats…but what do we heartless Republicans know about having a heart.  It is so much more important to rant and rave about giving and caring than to actually show it in action, often humbly and not seeking praise or attention.

“they have kids,”

You know I’m pro-choice…but given the Democrat’s party’s eagerness to fund every abortion they can, keep in mind they removed the line that abortions should be rare from the platform, this line rings a little hollow. Also this is just disingenuous from the party that is absolutely opposed to school choice and school reform.  You know the most important thing in helping kids.

“they get jobs,”

this one’s too easy, but I have to anyway…they get jobs?  Not under this president!

“they get sick,”

Well I’m certainly sick of your pointless drivel.

“they cry, they dance.”

I will be dancing and crying tears of joy come the night of November 6th when the asshole is voted out of office.

“They live, they love, and they die.”

They’ll be doing a lot more of the last one if we have Obamacare.

“And that matters. That matters because we don’t run this country for corporations, we run it for people.”

They run this country.  Because that doesn’t have any disturbing totalitarian overtones…no, none whatsoever.

“And that’s why we need Barack Obama.”…to take a long walk off a short pier.

Sandra “Julia” Fluke was dull and whiny as usual from her first words:

“Some of you may remember that earlier this year, Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception”

No Sandra you were locked out of a hearing on religious freedom…something you know nothing about, so you had no right to be there. It went downhill from there.  It was all whiny drivel about the freedom to get birth control…the law student apparently has never heard of the Griswold v. Connecticut which guarantees the right to buy birth control (just not to have others provide it for you) and (and you’d be an idiot to think you’d get ¾’s of the states to pass an amendment against that or to think that even conservative judges are about to overturn that one).  So really this is about as made up an issue as you can get.

I could make fun of every dimwitted line of Nancy Pelosi’s speech…but I think it’s more fun that she was caught this weekend saying that the secret to Democrat victory in the House is gerrymandering.

And then there was pathological liar, user and abuser of women (not to mention sometimes rapist…yeah between him and Kennedy it shows they really love women) Bill Clinton.

“A man who ran for President to change the course of an already weak economy and then just six weeks before the election, saw it suffer the biggest collapse since the Great Depression.”

And you don’t think that sudden drop might have been caused by the fact that every business could read the writing on the wall, that Socialism-boy was going to win, and it might be time to batten down for a long storm.  But it would take intelligence to see a correlation between those two events.

“A man who stopped the slide into depression”

The Dems seem to really like the word depression all of a sudden.  Not that there is a single iota of data to suggest we were on the verge of a depression…but it’s fun to see how the economic troubles of 2008, while  a fixed moment in history, have somehow gotten steadily worse as time goes on.

“I want to nominate a man cool on the outside but burning for America on the inside.”

I would too Bill.  You’ll have to settle for someone who is inept on the outside and burning with rage against America on the inside.

“A man who had the good sense to marry Michelle Obama.”

You know, if you were to just read that line on paper without knowing the context, but knowing what a vicious, hateful creature Michelle is, you might think this was an insult.

“In Tampa, we heard a lot of talk about how the President and the Democrats don’t believe in free enterprise and individual initiative, how we want everyone to be dependent on the government, how bad we are for the economy. […]

“We Democrats think the country works better with a strong middle class, real opportunities for poor people to work their way into it and a relentless focus on the future, with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think “we’re all in this together” is a better philosophy than “you’re on your own.”

So you don’t believe in free enterprise and the individual.  You just said as much Bill.  You see the economy as “with business and government working together” we see it as business and individuals working together.  And then of course we get to the fact that Democratic policies hurt middle class and ruin opportunities for poor people.  Really what it is the Democrats believe that “we’re in this together and if I can’t succeed then you can’t succeed” where the Republicans are “Grow up, you must reap what you sow, individuals may help you, but government isn’t there to be your parent.

“Who’s right? Well since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What’s the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!”

Convenient he leaves out the economic powerhouse of Eisenhower.   Also nice that he leaves in Kennedy with his cut taxes pro-growth policies that would be more at home in the GOP these days.  But of those Republicans he mentions, Nixon, Ford, and the Bushes were big government liberals in policy.  And most of that job growth you list bill came from Kennedy’s tax cuts or you riding the wave of Reagan plus a Republican Congress.  But why should facts matter.  Who is right?  Well that all depends on what the definition of “right” is?  If “right” means you’re actually going to tie your conclusion to facts and reality then it’s not you or Obama.

“It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics.”

Yes and it’s a damn good thing Republicans were there to end Democrat supported Jim Crow.  Now if only your party could support education reform that would lead to true equality of opportunity.

“I am grateful to President George W. Bush for PEPFAR, which is saving the lives of millions of people in poor countries and to both Presidents Bush for the work we’ve done together after the South Asia tsunami, Hurricane

That’s the basic argument right there.

Katrina and the Haitian earthquake.  Through my foundation, in America and around the world, I work with Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are focused on solving problems and seizing opportunities, not fighting each other.”

That’s the self aggrandizing egocentric Bill Clinton I remember.  The kind of man who could exploit a young woman for his sexual gratification and never feel a qualm about it.  Kind of reminds me of the ego of someone else.

“They think government is the enemy, and compromise is weakness.”

Big intrusive government is the enemy.  I think someone realized that when they said “the era of big government is over.”  And real compromise isn’t weakness (like when Democrats made suggestions on how to improve the Ryan plan and Ryan not only didn’t fight them but eagerly put those changes in)…it’s the media and modern left’s definition of compromise: “Do everything we say, get nothing you want or you’re an obstructionist who doesn’t believe in compromise.” We have do not problem with rational compromise, we have a problem with strong-arming masquerading as rationality.  And yes we do have our more line in the sand moments, but only because we’ve seen it’s the only way to get half of what we want, anything less and you bulldoze over the RINO faction of our party.

“One of the main reasons America should re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to cooperation.”

I mean just look at the billions he’s given lunatics in Egypt to fund their massacre of women, gays, Christians and Jews. Very cooperative on our part.

“He appointed Republican Secretaries of Defense,”

Technically he just asked the Bush Secretary of Defense to stay on so he wouldn’t have to show his liberal foreign policy too soon.

“President Obama’s record on national security is a tribute to his strength, and judgment, and to his preference for inclusion and partnership over partisanship.”

You know if you ignore Iran with a nuke, betraying Israel, Obama and Alexrod personally leaking classified information, not supporting the democratic uprising in Iran, letting Tunisia, Lybia, and Egypt fall to people more psychotic than before, not doing anything in Syria, and of course wanting to be more flexible with Vladamir…nope nothing to complain about his foreign policy.

“He also tried to work with Congressional Republicans on Health Care, debt reduction, and jobs, but that didn’t work out so well.”

Because he’s a crazy socialist and took a my-way-or-the-highway attitude to all of those things and offered no compromise on anything.

“Probably because, as the Senate Republican leader, in a remarkable moment of candor, said two years before the election, their number one priority was not to put America back to work, but to put President Obama out of work”

Bill, he said nothing about not wanting America to get jobs…he said we need to get rid of Obama, probably because Obama is the single greatest impediment to growth there could ever be.  We want growth. We want jobs.  We want to earn piles of money and we want everyone to have the opportunity to earn as much as they want…but that isn’t going to happen as long as Socialist-in-Chief is around.  Bill, you were annoying, this guy is destructive.

“In Tampa, the Republican argument against the President’s re-election was pretty simple: we left him a total mess, he hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.”

Actually I believe the line is that our party for too long was in the hands of pseudo-liberal compassionate conservative who basically acted like Democrats, they in collusion with the Democrats screwed everything up since 1992 and now real conservatives are back.  But this brings up a general flaw in the Democratic party logic.  They claim the Tea Party is the new extreme wing of right.  But they claim that the Tea Party is going to do the same things that the old liberal wing did to screw things up.  Unless you’re a Democrat you can’t logically have it both ways.

“I like the argument for President Obama’s re-election a lot better. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators.”

Bill you’re mixing up Reagan and Obama.  Reagan laid out the road for prosperity and fixed the country in three years. Obama keeps laying the road for total destruction, and low and behold we’re on it.

I may not agree with Newt on everything…but it was Newt who got the 90’s working, not Bill

“Though employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend and even housing prices are picking up a bit, too many people don’t feel it.”

Employment isn’t growing, and what growth there is is in underemployment.  Banks are loaning only because Obama is strong-arming them, like you did, which is creating a new problem.  And I hate to tell you this, but houses are still overpriced.  The high prices are not a sign of a healthy economy they’re a sign of another bubble.

“I experienced the same thing in 1994 and early 1995. Our policies were working and the economy was growing but most people didn’t feel it yet. By 1996, the economy was roaring, halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history.”

Maybe because you worked with the Republican Congress, instead of refusing to pass a budget.

“President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. No President – not me or any of my predecessors could have repaired all the damage in just four years.”

Reagan could have.  Reagan did.  The Carter Economy was much worse than what Obama inherited.  And yet by turning to capitalism instead of socialism, things seemed to work out.

I’m done…Clinton keeps lying and distorting and making crap up.  It’s Slick Willie, did you expect anything else…but dear God did this run long.

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

But this is really just the tip of the iceberg.

Why?

Because Obama makes statements like this:

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

Dear God in Heaven!  EVERY INDUSTRY!

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

So we’re all supposed to run businesses like GM

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

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

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

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

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

His words, not mine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I was actually worried that with all the chaos of work and my untimely writer’s block I would miss my chance to comment fully on Obama’s “You didn’t build that comment”…but thankfully for me the Democrats haven’t just admitted that he said what he said and he keeps making it worse and worse for himself.

Also the fact is that this was perhaps the dumbest thing to say in a campaign (next to admitting you’re getting foreign policy advice from a five-year-old)…and as Charles Krauthammer has rightly pointed out, this line should be played over and over again to make it absolutely clear where Obama stands.

So let’s deal with the first claim that Obama was taken out of context.

Now I figure most of my readers are bright enough to see that yes he is quite blatantly saying that government is the reason you are successful, but let’s tear it apart line for line just in case someone didn’t get that.

Now, one last thing — one of the biggest differences is how we pay down our debt and our deficit.  My opponent, Mr. Romney’s plan is he wants to cut taxes another \$5 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts.

So let me get this straight.  Obama is in favor of TARP.  He’s in favor of stimulus.  And he’s in favor of even more spending.  Trillions of dollars worth.  Supposedly because spending money will help the economy. But cutting out the hideously inefficient middle man of the federal government will make putting more money in the system less efficient.  But taking money out of the system to spend it (and sending billions of those dollars to terrorist like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt).  This is the thing I never get about liberalism or Keynesian  ideas, the market is known for creating businesses that create wealth (Staples, Burger King, AMC theater…yeah that selection of businesses might not be that random) whereas the government builds bridges to nowhere, spends money on Solyndra, and sends money to despots to help them kill people and a thousand other ways that actually work to destroy wealth…on a very good day government spending leaves the amount of wealth created as neutral…on most days it destroys wealth.  On the same average day capitalism creates wealth.  So if I have a choice of where that money should go, to the private sector which has a history of creating wealth or to government which has a history of destroying it…hmmm tough call.

And does anyone else notice the sheer insanity of this portion when weighed against the next central point of the speech.  Here Obama is touting paying down the debt (that would be the debt that, if he tries really hard, he could very well double before he leaves in January) and in the next section he’s talking about the need to build more infrastructure projects.  I know liberals have problems with math but you can’t spend a dollar on both infrastructure and the deficit.  Doesn’t work.  At least Republicans have the argument of the Laffer Curve: that if you decrease the tax burden the economy will grow and your tax revenue will be the same as when it was at a the higher tax burden…you may disagree with the idea of the Laffer Curve (to hell if it’s been proven over and over again in country after country ) but don’t you dare make fun of my understanding of economics when you’re saying you can spend the same dollar in two (hell, with Obama 10) different places at the same time.

Of course pointing out this basic contradiction in the message from one part of the speech to the next I’m sure is taking it “out of context.”

Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that — if you’re actually saying you’re bringing down the deficit — is to cut transportation,

Cut transportation?  Great.  Let’s sell the boondoggle that is Amtrack.  (Which has lost almost a billion over the last 10 years on food alone ).  And hell I’m sure if we privatized the TSA the whole system would be cheaper and more efficient and people might fly more.

cut education,

Cut education?  Good. The federal government shouldn’t be involved in education spending because it either goes to utterly useless research, the coffers of the unions or for programs that have nothing to do with education of children.

cut basic research,

Basic research? Wouldn’t that be the responsibility of the private sector?  Oh yeah, we always tout the advances of the space race as government funded research gone well…but we ignore that those were the days we either outsourced everything to the private sector or to Nazi war criminals…the private sector can do research on its own and while there aren’t any particularly bright war criminals left, I’m not sure it’s worth the cost even if there were still a few lying around.  In the last 40 years what has government research given us?  Not much.

voucherize Medicare,

Cool!   You mean actually make it efficient and provide what people want?  Cool.

and you’re still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this \$5 trillion tax cut.

Again, you cut taxes and revenues stay the same.  It’s why Clinton had enough money to start paying down the deficit, because Reagan cut taxes and let the next three presidents ride on the benefits…and before him Kennedy cut taxes and found the exact same thing to be true.

That’s not a deficit reduction plan.  That’s a deficit expansion plan.  I’ve got a different idea.

“I’m going to spend another trillion on worthless green companies that are going to fail and lose all your money.  That’s my plan and I’m sticking to it!”

I do believe we can cut — we’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.

And if you believe that he’s made a trillion in cuts while the deficit has grown by almost six trillion…well  (A) you are very stupid and (B) call me I have a bridge to sell you.

If I cut my budget by a \$1,000 during the year and find myself \$6,000 further in debt by the end of the year…I didn’t really cut much did I?  (Especially when your revenue has been increasing over that time,  even in inflation adjusted dollars…yes there was a revenue dropoff from FY 2008 to FY 2009, but there have been increases in revenue every year since and the jackass’ spending keeps outpacing that growth in receipts)

We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently.

You had 4 years. You expanded the scope, size and power of every single department with the exception of defense.  Go on…name for me a program that you want to cut.  Name one.  Hell name one non-defense program you have cut.  Pardon me if your attempt at sounding like a conservative rings hollow.

Not every government program works the way it’s supposed to.

Name one that does.  They all need to be cut.  Every single department could do with a 10% budget cut right off the top (even DOD which, if nothing else, has billions in useless pork construction and research projects).

And frankly, government can’t solve every problem.  If somebody doesn’t want to be helped, government can’t always help them.  Parents — we can put more money into schools, but if your kids don’t want to learn it’s hard to teach them.

This line should actually be more disturbing than “You didn’t build that.”  You’ll notice here that is not just a government power to help, but it appears to be the government’s primary function to help people, and if you don’t succeed it’s because you didn’t let government help you…you dirty, disrespectful, evil child….how dare you refuse to let government help you.

Notice the implication here is that we’re all children and bratty ones at that if we don’t allow government to run our lives.

Also the line about schools and money is just out of place.  Yes, money makes no difference to education.  Kids can learn from low income schools, or not learn from schools rolling in dough…but this would have to be the first time I’d ever heard Obama talking about parental and student responsibility over shoveling more money to the teacher’s union—this would be the first time I’d ever heard Obama not view tax payer money as the panacea of all problems…but isn’t this the Obama who berated us all for wanting to cut federal funding for education like two minutes ago?…oh I’m sorry looking at the whole of the argument and the contradictions throughout must again be “taking things out of context.”

But you know what; I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them.

Again are you spending money (liberals say “invest” when they mean waste taxpayer money) or are you going to pay down the deficit, one or the other.  Also taking money from people seems to have done so well during the last 4 years, I’m sure taking more will do even more wonders.  You know Barry you should listen to this guy who said raising taxes in a recession would be a really dumb idea…oh, that was you.  Inconsistency is a big thing with Barry.

So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way.

Again didn’t just a sentence ago wasn’t he talking about “investment.”  PICK ONE, GOD DAMN IT!

Even if this lie were true…they weren’t enough.

We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more.

Yeah because taking more money out of the system is a great idea.  Even Keynes would slap the shit out of you for suggesting raising taxes during a recession…in case you’re wondering I think Friedman would get a crowbar and Hayek would get a pair of pliers and a blowtorch and both would go medieval on his ass.

And, by the way, we’ve tried that before — a guy named Bill Clinton did it.  We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine.  We created a lot of millionaires.  There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back.

I’m sure if Clinton was being really honest right about now his first words would be “who is this ‘we’ shit?”  Second, let us not forget that the great Clinton economy, which again more because of the long term effects of Reagan, was also partly due to the low regulation, better (not great) spending of the Republican controlled congress, and that Clinton put a lot money in short term loans that cut the deficit temporarily but screwed us in the long term…and welfare reform (which, Barack, you just gutted) http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/12/obama-guts-welfare-reform/

They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.

You didn’t build that. Keep this point in mind.

I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.

Oh, Barry, no one with a brain thinks you’re smart.  In fact I think you’re so fucking dumb you make Carter look competent by comparison.

There are a lot of smart people out there.

Well, there are if we’re using you as the standard for smart.

It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.

Again, I’m not entirely sure if you’ve ever worked a day in your life.   But the government still didn’t come out with idea of

Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

Yeah and they loathe you taking money out of their wallets and destroying opportunities with your oppressive policies.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.

Yes, dipshit, everyone receives help.  Everyone has people around them willing to help them.  The question isn’t whether there was someone there to help you, the question is did you have the intelligence, the will and the work ethic to use that help.

There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.

Okay, as a teacher let me deal with this part in a little more detail and this will require a bit of tangent…but it will have a point.

I am a great teacher.  Not good.  Great.  I have the rarest of rare abilities in teaching to be able to get students to push themselves to their limits and push their own limits farther than they could ever believe themselves possible of.  Any teacher can “teach” higher level students and have them learn facts and skills; I can push them and force them to think.  One student once said “You have taught me more in 9 weeks than I have learned in 17 years.”  And if you track down some of my students, they will tell you that this paragraph is actually quite humble.  Why do I bring this up?  Because as good as I am, if any of my students ever become successful, I know I am not responsible.  I have helped, I have probably made it easier for them to succeed, made it possible to achieve success a little sooner, or perhaps aided in pushing their success just a step or two further…but I would never claim responsibility for any of my student’s success.  Their success is because of their will, their virtue, and their work.  And Obama disgraces and cheapens, my work, and the work of every good teacher, by saying we are responsible for our student’s success.

Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.

Yeah, the American system: capitalism.  You provide a system of laws that prevent theft, fraud and protect the earned property gains of work, and you get out of the way.

Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.

No.  Again the THAT is referring to the business, and no, no one else built a business but themselves.  And this argument completely ignored the fact that those road and those bridges, and those teachers*, and whatever else the government provided were there for everyone.

And that these benefits exist because of those business for creating the wealth and providing the jobs.

The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

And it sat there. The networks he talks about were created in the early 70’s. Just as the silicon chip was created in the early 50’s.  And both were sponsored by government research and they both did nothing for two decades under government control.  Just silicon chips had Steve Jobs who realized you could make money off it. And the personal computer was born. And for the same reason, the modern internet was born out of a capitalistic desire to create wealth.

But but but, they wouldn’t have been able to do that if the government hadn’t laid the ground work, some whiner will say…I’m going to go into this in more detail in the second part of this series, but please keep in mind the early electric grid infrastructure was private, AT&T built an entire private infrastructure that was so good that the government felt it needed to be broken up in the 1980’s, that all the baby bells created a private cell phone tower infrastructure.  If those crappy networks the government had created weren’t around to build off of, I promise you some computer geek would have developed it on their own because there was money to be made in the idea.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

Actually human psychology says it has more to do with competition and the drive that comes from it.

But yes most human success is because people willingly join together to achieve a common goal…notice the willingly, a concept opposed to the government which is designed around a principle of coercion.

There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

Not hard to imagine.  History is filled with it.  Also there were town fire brigades, long before there was federal government.  People can do things without you Barack, in fact, while there are a few things that the federal government should do, I can safely say that this entire planet can do just about everything better without Barack…and it can do most things better without the government, than with.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.

The founders of this nation would loathe everything you do, jackass.

That’s how we funded the GI Bill.

Not to be overly cynical here, but I think we helped fund the GI Bill by (A) not driving up the cost of college to insane levels as we’ve done in recent years and (B) by bombing the shit out just about every other industrialized nation on Earth, thus making the U.S. the only ballgame in town for a road to economic growth.  I don’t mean to say there was anything unethical in our bombing of the Axis, there wasn’t (in fact I think we should have done some more, again for ethical reasons*), but it certainly didn’t hurt our economic outlook for the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s.

That’s how we created the middle class.

Again, who is this ‘we shit?  The middle class created themselves through hard work, intelligence, and will.  It is the government that has at every turn in the last century hampered their growth.

That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.

I find it interesting that he mentions the Golden Gate.  A project conceived entirely by a state legislature (no federal funding at all) and mostly bankrolled by Amadeo Giannini, founder of Bank of America.

That’s how we invented the Internet.

The private sector invented the internet. The government invented a system that sat for 20 years doing nothing.

That’s how we sent a man to the moon.

Again, mostly due to the genius of private contractors…who were backed up by corrupt deals made by the government.

We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea.

I keep reading this sentence and I keep failing to see how the basics of economics (principles which Obama regularly ignores) has anything to do with his running for president.  Yes, with the nature of economics we do tend to rise and fall together (which begs the question why do you want to over tax the successful causing them to fall…which would cause everyone to fall).  But even if you ignore that it’s Obama, who loathes capitalism, saying this it still makes no sense.  The first point doesn’t demand the second point, no matter who is saying it…at least for anyone in U.S. history.

You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

Well, jackass, if you’re president, I am on my own, or damn near it, because the entire apparatus of the government will certainly be against me.

## God Bless Citizens United v. FEC

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

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

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

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

(I love Downfall parodies, they’re hilarious)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s look at this argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Liberal or Conservative, Romney Critics aren’t that bright…

Conservatives can be a dumb bunch at times.  From the social conservative for whom there is nothing conservative about using government to run other people’s lives (how exactly is that different from liberals?).  Then you have the Ron Paul section of the party a bunch of cowardly isolationists who like to hold to an extreme view of an idealist economic philosophy (Austrian economics have many good points, but they are extremists who don’t want to worry about real world problems on in their little ideals).   And we certainly have our share of RINOS who want to be loved more by their liberal friends than having any fidelity to reason, truth or justice.  Not that liberals aren’t stupid (good lord they are) nor are true libertarians less insane than Ron Paul Republicans…but we conservatives have our share of idiots, no doubt.  And one can often see this stupidity in such publications as very inappropriately named “American Thinker” which seems to appeal to all strands of conservative idiocy.

For instance in a time when Republicans need to close ranks around Romney…hell even if you can’t see that he is in every way the inheritor of Reagan’s legacy, we’re fighting against the second-coming of Jimmy Carter meets FDR meets Benedict Arnold!    It’s time to close ranks.  But no, no, let’s let idiots complain about Romney on supposedly conservative web sites…and let’s let them use liberal talking points to do it.  Like this article “Mitt Flunks Education 101” by Robert Weissberg who as far as I can tell is a moron.  Why do I say that?  Well, going back over some of his other articles he states as a complaint against the election system that is designed to elect moderates like Romney (who really isn’t a moderate) and that “The system is supposed to produce moderation, not “full-strength” candidate [sic] such as Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.”   I’m not sure when “full strength” became a synonym for “f*cking psychopath,” (not to mention homophone in Ricky and anti-Semite in Ron) but the use of the term really makes me doubt Weissberg’s intellectual credentials.

But it’s this hack’s work attacking Mitt’s education plan that I want to deal with today.  Why because it’s all the liberal BS talking points on education in one place.

1.  The genius begins his complaints of six things wrong with Romney’s stance on education with something that isn’t even a proposal, rather Romney simply offering a statement of fact.

“He begins by calling the gap between whites and minorities (assumed to be blacks and Hispanics) ‘the civil rights issue of our era.’  This gap may, in fact, be a civil rights issue, but nobody, regardless of ideology, has any solid idea on how to close it.”

Um, actually genius, the solution would be in the next five points.  Although if you want a specific point to address the gap in minority scores then we could look at the one thing Bush got right in education reform—complaining about “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”  I’m a teacher and trust me, there are many in education who are bigots and simply think that if minorities get a C then that’s the best they can do.  I actually once had an argument with a school administrator over who to give an award for academic achievement to—I wanted to give it to a high performing AP student, this administrator wanted to give it to a C student and his actual argument was “Yeah but she’s white, this kid is Hispanic do you know how hard it must be to get a C.”  Took everything I had not to punch the asshole in the face.  And it’s not just race, there are low expectations on gender and income level as well, despite the fact that I have learned you can push any kid from any background to any level so long as you have high expectations and the student is willing to learn.  But even though recognizing this as a problem, the only solution to this problem lies in points 2-6.

2.  Romney, quite intelligently, supports Vouchers and Charters, the idiot complaining about Romney seems to think they don’t work…and I love how he quotes a report, from a newspaper (I’m sure they’re qualified to run this kind of high level analysis), that shows charters don’t outperform regular schools.  (Let’s ignore that charters appeal to lower end students which removing them from the pool raises the public school numbers…and shows charters can bring the worst up to average level).  Heaven forbid we should look at real data that shows some charters do work.  I’ll be the first to admit that not all charters work, but the fun thing about charters is that unlike public schools, if they don’t work, they close and are replaced by something else.  I would also point out that it is simply impossible to judge any school until it has been in operation for at least 3 years—I’ve been involved in opening a school from the ground up, your first year you take whatever type of student you can get and have to deal with a myriad of education deficiencies caused by previous public school incompetence…it takes time to identify and put in systems to correct the most common problems and set up a culture in the school that encourages success, but once in place that culture is effective and hard to destroy. In the real world the same capitalistic market forces that create high quality low price goods for us, create high quality low priced education when competition is allowed to flourish.

The genius ends his critique of charters with what I assume is attempt at wit “Where are all the Bain Capital accountants to calculate gains versus losses?”  Ummm….as the people at Bain are quite good at what they do I would assume they put the profits as far exceeding the losses.

It gets even funnier however when you read this guy’s follow up article on what Mitt should do for education.  Weissberg says “Then dismantle all the Department of Education one-size-fits-all mandates on testing and proficiency.  And on and on.  In an instant, teachers could teach, not battle Mickey Mouse rules, and students will benefit.”  So what Mitt should do is let schools be free from the rules to experiment and try new things to see what works without overbearing control from above…which, in the real world is called, charter schools.  So advocating charter schools is dumb, because what we really need is charter schools.   Man, Weissberg, you are such a genius!

But don’t worry that the statement about freeing schools from “one-size-fits-all mandates on testing and proficiency” appears in paragraph 6 of his article on what Mitt should do.  In paragraph 8 we should “add nationally certified ‘super schools’ drawing on the top 1% or 2% as established by tough, no-nonsense tests.”  So testing is bad, what we need is testing.  Got it.

And you wonder why I find Mitt Romney critiques stupid?

3.  Next up he tries to hit Mitt for calling for Teacher Accountability.  And his proof that teacher accountability doesn’t work is that Mayor Bloomberg in New York has tried to do this and it’s been a disaster.  I’m shocked a big government statist like Bloomberg doesn’t effectively put into practice what should be a capitalist metric that is supposed to be controlled at a local level.  It’s like saying capitalism doesn’t work, because the economy didn’t do well under Obama.

Teacher Accountability should be an issue for principals and school boards, judging by open and fair, but local, criteria that can be adjusted to the needs of the individual school.  This will help address the needs of the students and reward those who meet those needs the best.  This is the advantage of charters, they have very local control. When controlled by a big government, pro-union, damn near fascist state like Bloomberg’s New York, of course it’s not going to work.  Duh.  More importantly Unions should not be in government – what exactly do they need protection from?  If schools were not protected by unions and worried about litigation we probably would not have as many teacher/student molestations as these people would lose their license and schools would tell other schools why they no longer work there – but that would never happen now under current conditions.

4.  Individual report cards for schools is apparently also a dumb idea of Mitt’s.  Yeah, why should parents know if the school their kid goes to is failing or not.  Why not?

According to Weissberg…because there’s been a lot of cheating involved.  So instead of coming up with rules and procedures to reduce cheating (outside proctors, not letting teacher’s proctor their own students, off site testing…you know all the things the SAT does) no, let’s just throw out any legitimate way to judge schools.  And again rather than look at where this has succeeded in raising the bar, let’s judge this by how Bloomberg has failed to implement it.  Schools need to be compared to minimum standards nationally along with all the local schools that should be in competition for a better way to make decisions.  This is how business does it – they have company standards and then they also compare along those lines to local competition.

5.  And Mitt is wrong for being anti union. “But unions are not the problem.”  Dipshit, unions are a huge portion of the problem.  Huge.  They are standing in the way of every major reform ever attempted.  There is a reason why everyone agrees the lawsuit against the California unions is likely to succeed…because the teacher’s unions protect bad teachers!  That is their only purpose.  To protect what is wrong in American education. And how does Weissberg show unions aren’t the problem?  Pro-union Massachusetts (which ironically also has school choice because of the efforts of a previous Governor…Mitt something or other) does better than anti-union South on school tests.  This is stupid because, first, as every state comes up with its own tests, or who gets tested in national tests, it never apples to apples comparisons; second, because, even I’ll admit socioeconomics is a greater predictor to performance than anything else (see point 1) and, last time I checked Massachusetts has better socioeconomics as a whole than most states in the South.  It would be like comparing a union public school in Beverly Hills against a non union charter in Watts and saying that because the charter school’s scores weren’t higher clearly the union isn’t to blame and charters don’t solve anything.  The rest of us realize that parents and culture are more important than school, school is supposed to be the stop gap against those forces which work against education, not merely a reflection of it (which Mr. Weissberg seems all too comfortable with).

And socioeconomics is an indicator only because the majority currently do not value education for their children and are not involved in their children’s lives, look to D.C. and those parents who cared and got their children into the better schools saw an improvement that has been substantiated in studies, despite low socioeconomics, thanks too…charters, vouchers, teacher accountability, grading schools, not having low expectations and…#6

6.  Finally he critiques Mitt’s push for parents to have the right to move their children out of failing schools.  Because why should you have any liberty, after all we live in a fascist/socialist regime where you have no rights, why should you question the government monopoly on education?  Oh, wait.   Why is school choice a bad thing?

“More important, again, past failure is crystal-clear.  Troubled students bring their troubled habits with them, and, more important, they typically undermine their new ‘good schools.’”

And while I’m sure that I’m just reading vehement implicit racism in that statement (the soft bigotry of low expectation), I’m sure no racism exists whatsoever in Mr. Wesissberg.  On the other hand as a charter teacher who has dealt with those students who bring their bad habits, I will simply say that good teachers, given time, are in the job of correcting bad habits and replacing them with good ones.

But Weissberg creates a preposterous example of what would happen if more students want to leave a school than there are slots for students in a good school…are we to shove some of the students that already go to the good school and force them into the bad?  This is stupid beyond belief.  We have lotteries for when there are not enough slots…and we would have more good schools if idiots didn’t oppose charters and vouchers.  Further, .  he is not accounting for the fact that even if there were no slots the schools that the parents want to leave would realize that they were losing students and would slowly need to compete – thus improve and they would realize – this will be a shock- but since the system is based on acquiring money (ADA) and they would need to improve so more people would want to bring their students to that school so they could make more money – what a concept.

Finally he complains that while Mitt’s idea to cut spending to the Department of Education is a good idea, it will fail because Mitt can’t pull it off…because Mitt has such a history of failure (so long as you ignore the history of success at Bain, the Olympics, Massachusetts…I mean if you just ignore the mountain of good stuff then Romney’s a complete failure at everything he does).

In the end Weissberg gives Romney an “F” on education.  Reason, logic, and common sense would give Weissberg a grade lower than “F” if such were possible.  In fact, saying this as someone from the trenches, Romney gets a “B” in education.  He’s saying the right things, identifying the problems and the correct solutions.  Now if he can actually pull it off, which will require a lot of fighting with liberals tooth and nail, then he gets an “A”.  And I think he will get an “A”, if the GOP backs him and ignores idiots like Weissberg.

Meanwhile you might want to read “A Chance for every Child” the 35 page proposal (because Mitt is always short on details) on what needs to be done about Education.

## 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.

## Romney’s “Lack of Specific Plans” or Romney The Man with A Plan

Recently I’ve been hearing from all sides things like, “Romney isn’t specific enough about what he’s going to do” “I don’t know what he would do in office” “He needs to be more clear about his plans” “he’s doing well for someone who hasn’t articulated a plan yet.”  I’ve heard it from the right, from the left, from the far right, from the far left, on Beck, on O’Reilly, on Blitzer, Maddow, Matthews, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, RealClearPolitics, DrudgeReport.  From pundits I love, from pundits I have no feelings about one way or another, from pundits I loathe with a fiery passion.  You name a media outlet I will show you someone who said Romney doesn’t have any specifics just vague generalities.

Are you people living in a goddamn cave? A sensory deprivation chamber?  The darkness of space, where no one can hear Mitt Romney’s extensive plans?

Ignoring that his speech can get pretty detailed…spoken words are imperfect…let’s look at the written record,

This man has more specific plans the media knows what do with. So rather than critique him on points, they just say he’s lacking specifics.

namely MittRomney.com.  Have you been to MittRomney.com, because it’s not your typical campaign website.  Typical campaign websites, even Obama’s, are a half-dozen or so issues, most of them covered by a paragraph or two with a general statement of goals, and maybe one or two pages with two or three more pages of detail for the really important things.

And then there is Mitt Romney.   This is the CEO of Bain.  The Savior of the Salt Lake Olympics.  The guy who balanced the Massachusetts’s budget without raising taxes. This is not only a guy who gets things done, he gets them done because he plans out what he is going to do.

And this kind of shows you why of the hundred deals Bain did, Obama can only find a few that were failures.  This man plans for EVERYTHING.

26 Topics!  And he didn’t just put a paragraph in each…no, I think he hired a Russian Novelist to fill these pages up.

This man covers every issues you could have questions about…

Let’s for instance go to the Jobs and Economic Growth page…

Not only does he have a link to a 5 page pdf that explains the 5 bills he will send to Congress on his first day and the 5 executive orders he will sign literally seconds after finishing the inaugural address (hell he might actually sign them during)

Screw the first 100 days, the first 100 hours is going to be productive under Romney.

How many Presidents do you know who has 5 bills and 5 executive orders ready to go day one?

But that’s not all…on that same page you have a link to the 160 page plan of Romney’s for the Economy called “Believe in America.”  Let me say that again 160 pages of details of what caused our problems, what Obama did wrong and pages 31-153 of how Romney is going to fix the problem.  And if you read it, it becomes pretty clear that this is the combined work of CEO’s and economists that know what they’re doing.   “But I don’t have time to read 120 pages of plans” bitch the same people who claim that he’s not specific.  Well lucky for you there is an Appendix of the 59 specific things he’s going to do.  But you don’t know what he’s going to do to you…he only gave you 59 specifics.

Yeah, after these 59 major things, I have no idea what Romney will do…

But it gets better.

Want to know about foreign policy?…well, where Obama’s got one page of vague generalities Romney’s got pages on every section of the world…

plus a page that lists ALL of Romney’s advisors on foreign policy and their qualifications.  I’ll admit I don’t know the names of most of these people…but from the lists of credentials and experience this is a who’s who of foreign policy experience.   Do you know who’s advising Obama…probably not, as he devotes only a page to economics and a page to defense.  Ooooh…two whole pages for the most important issues facing the nation at this point.
Romney also has an impressive list of judicial advisors… as opposed to the crack team of Obama’s that gave us Sotomayor and Kagan, possibly the two most incompetent justices in the history of the Court, save Earl Warren.

There are over 670 blog posts by Romney supporters and advisors, 30 articles written by Romney himself, nearly 800 press releases, and 32 video .  Yeah, that’s a real lack of information from Romney.

As for most of the other pages, they follow a pretty specific format.  They list basic principles, describe what Obama is doing wrong, and give SPECIFICS on what Romney will do.  Don’t believe me, go read for yourself.

I mean how can that compare to Obama’s eight whole issues (one of them a made up issue) with pages full of nothing…oh and there’s pandering to a lot of different minority groups.  They spend more time telling you about Michelle’s life than they do on how they’re going to fix the economy.  But remember it’s Romney who is short on specifics.  Oh, and Obama has a massive button that says “Espanol” (let’s forget that speaking fluent English is a requirement for naturalization…so exactly which legal voters aren’t speaking English?)  Clearly Romney is the candidate who is just dealing in platitudes and vagaries, changing his talking points with the wind.  Clearly.

So when you get a moment, drop by MittRomney.com and actually read some of the stuff there.  I know that sounds boring, but you really should.  Because if you do you will realize that not only is the comment that he doesn’t have specifics is insane as saying 2+2=5 (yes there are some lack of specifics where it comes to things that will actually be the purview of Congress to work out the details, but that would mean that Romney actually understands how laws are made, unlike Obama who thinks he rules by fiat).

Now, you can tell me that you don’t think Romney is being honest in what he says, you can tell me that you think his plans won’t work, but please stop this bullshit about him not having specifics.

## Facts vs. Emotion in Campaign Season

It’s interesting to watch how both campaigns are beginning to work. And as usual, the old battle lines are being drawn. Democrats are playing to lies, half truths, and emotion and Republicans are more or less playing to facts and patriotism.

Let’s take a look at what I mean by taking a look at 4 ads that came out this weekend. Obama and his team came out with this ad hitting Romney for closing a steel plant in

It starts with a former steelworker saying that his company GST Steel, which is kind of odd because if you had a great reputation for quality I don’t think the company would ever have been in a position where Bain Capital could have bought it out. But there I am using logic, silly me all that matters is that picture of the old guy putting on the hard hat. I should really feel sorry for him. Then we have David Foster, Lead Negotiator for workers at GST Steel, saying that it was Romney’s fault. Okay let’s deal with that point piece by piece. First GST Steel closed in 2001 two years after Romney left Bain. Second, the reason GST Steel was closed because Bain kept trying to make the plant work but as the union refused to compromise on ANYTHING there was no way to make the company profitable.  Also let’s not forget that Bain offered to buy employees out and offered to give them new jobs, albeit non-union jobs at the profitable steel company…more on that later.  So in reality it was the union’s refusal to negotiate that killed GST…hmm who was the chief union guy?…oh, that would be the “Lead Negotiator for workers at GST Steel” David Foster. So Foster’s claim that Romney was to blame comes off a little hollow as it was really Foster’s inability to put the well being of employees ahead of the well being of the union. “They closed it down without any concern for the families or the community”…after you know, years of trying to make it profitable. And they “made as much money off it as they could”! Dear God! What monsters! They actually tried to make a profit. Sick, sick people.

They terminated health and life insurance…strangely that’s what happens when you go out of business.

“It was like watching an old friend bleed to death.” And given that it was the employees and their union that refused to bargain which was what really killed this company, the image of standing there, watching your friend bleed to death, and not just doing nothing, but continuing to stab him repeatedly is a very fit image. If anyone is to blame it’s not Romney.

My union refused to negotiate. I refused to take a non-union job. It’s all Romney’s fault.

I love the “Those guys are all rich” complaint. Not only is Obama still playing to the most base and uneducated class warfare, but it shows how dumb some people are. You can have millions. Hell you might even have billions…but that money doesn’t last to just give out, if you’re not making a profit, then that money won’t last forever. The implication from that line is that Romney and all the other Bain executives should have gone bankrupt to keep funding a plant that wasn’t making money.

“We view Mitt Romney as a job destroyer” and I view you as someone who doesn’t do math very well. Why? Well, 750 employees (you have to love how they claim he destroyed thousands…the typical Democratic propensity for lack of accuracy in numbers ) lost their jobs because of what Bain did…now last time I checked 750 was less than 6,000…8 times less if my math is correct. Also fun fact, the GST Steel plant was reopened in 2004 with somewhat fewer workers…thus proving Mitt Romney’s point that sometimes you need to let industries go bankrupt so things can be reset, reorganized, and redone and come back stronger than ever…it’s a term in capitalism known as creative destruction. Although from the Obama ad you would never know the plant reopened.  And also what’s with all the pictures of houses collapsing like it’s a post-Apocalyptic landscape?

“How could you care for the average working person if you felt that way?” Well jackass, you care because you want to actually build something that will last, that will make a profit and that will not need the constant handout that this ad was asking for. And then this loser looks like he’s about to cry. This, I can only guess, is supposed to make us feel for him. I will admit it does make me feel something—it makes me feel like slapping this loser so hard he grows up. For god sakes, you lost a job, it happens to the best of us, man-the-fuck-up and go get another job, don’t cry like a baby and bitch about the mean businessman who didn’t want to bankrupt himself to keep your losing company alive.

Strangely there are no facts quoted, no numbers given, no quotes used (other than comment by Romney which have no bearing on this issue). Hell, GST Steel pensions were underfunded by \$44 million when it went bankrupt…that would have been a fact to use…of course I think all of that came after Romney left Bain and they were already stretching it as it was.

Meanwhile over on the Romney side, we have 6,000 jobs created…and again I think 6,000 is more than 750. You know if for every 750 fired we get 6,000 new jobs, bring on the massive firings (start with OSHA, TSA and the Post Office)! We’ll be at 3% unemployment in no time.

Now granted there aren’t a lot of facts in this one either (of course it’s not even half as long), but what facts there are are accurate (go back and watch the Obama ad again and see how many different numbers they use for how many people lost their jobs). And there is the fact that this is one of the companies that Bain helped out when Romney was in charge (as opposed to GST closing two years after Romney left).

The American Dream brought to you by Romney, Bain, and capitalism.

Also, instead of treating people as helpless who need Obama’s teat to survive, rather it shows hope and prosperity and that people can actually live on their own. The American Dream, which for most of us is to provide for ourselves through our work…for Obama it appears the American Dream means living high on the hog off of the rich and entitlement programs…just look at Julia.

Are they playing for emotion as well? Yeah, but you’ll notice it’s not hate and pity and vitriol, it’s hope for tangible things like a job and prosperity (rather than some ephemeral undefined “hope and change” that means nothing) and the best in us…

Also you have to love how Romney got this out less than 24 hours after Obama’s crappy ad…and Obama’s looks more professional. His campaign has clearly anticipated objections made by Obama and has the rebuttals already in the hopper. This is like watching a novice try and play Deep Blue.

But let’s look at how the groups that are not part of the official campaigns are working…

Please give me the quote where Romney threatened to end contraceptives…that would have been Santorum.
And insurance charges you more because the actuarial tables say you cost more…so to have equality it would just be that men would pay more (thanks)…I assume you want to make sure that car and home insurance companies stop it when they charge women less than men…because that would be unfair.

And he hasn’t threatened to get rid of Planned Parenthood …just public funding of it. If it’s so great a place, then I’m sure your rich liberal friends who want to be taxed more, will donate by the bucket load when Romney lowers their taxes.

And throwing women under the bus isn’t Romney’s style, MoveOn.org…it’s yours. Because let’s remember that MoveOn was formed to tell Republicans to Move On past Clinton’s numerous infidelities, because it was “just sex” (and sexual harassment lawsuit, accusation of rape, exploitation of a 20 year old woman who was incredibly naïve, perjury, suborning perjury, adultery…yeah it’s Republicans throwing women under a bus and waging a war on women).

Not one fact, not one reference, not one piece of truth. Everything I’ve come to expect from MoveOn.

Every one of Obama’s quotes are in context. Every fact is shown for quite a bit of time, and can be easily searched for. It’s interesting how, when the facts are on your side, you tend to use them.

Now, please don’t misunderstand me. Republicans are not saints, they are human, they come up with crappy misleading ads as well. But right now the GOP has the facts on their side and appears to be using them.