Category Archives: Unjust legislation

Liberals engage in voter fraud often and we need Voter ID to stop it

As good fortune had it, Puggy arrived on Election Day. He’d been on the street for less than an hour when a white van pulled up next to him. The driver, an older man, said something in Spanish and showed him a ten-dollar bill. Puggy, assuming the man wanted a blow job, said “Not interested.” The man immediately switched to English and explained that all Puggy had to do, for the ten, was vote.

“I’m not from here,” said Puggy.

“No problem,” said the man.

So Puggy got into the van. En route to the polling place, the older man picked up seven other voters, all men, some quite aromatic. At the polling place, they all walked right inside and the man told them what to do. The poll workers did not seem to have any problem with this.

When it was Puggy’s turn to vote, he gave his name, per instructions, as Albert Green, which he spelled “Allbert Gren.” The real Albert Green was a person who had died in 1991 but still voted often in Miami. Puggy cast Mr. Green’s ballot for a mayoral candidate named Carlos somebody, then went outside and collected his ten, which looked like a million dollars in his hand.

Puggy had never voted for anything before, but on that magical day, riding around in the white van, he voted in the Miami mayoral election four times at four different polling places. He got ten dollars each for the first three times, but the fourth time, the van man said the price was now five, and Puggy said OK. He felt he had already gotten a lot from the city of Miami, and he didn’t mind giving something back.

—Dave Barry, Big Trouble*

Liberals are whining about Voter ID laws lately and this is only going to get worse.

Why?  Because as they slip further and further out of power (as it appears they are really doing at this point ) then that’s all they’ll have to get to stay in power…after all this is the party that engaged in voter fraud right in the middle of its convention when corrupt L.A. mayor Villaraigosa called an overwhelming nay vote a yay vote (now some Republicans have unfairly hit the Democrats saying they were voting against putting God into the platform…this is untrue, they were voting against recognizing the capital of Israel because the Democratic party is clearly made up of anti-Semites).

Democratic cheating is a time honored tradition.  From Jim Crow laws to Joe Kennedy buying the election for his son, Democrats believe that you should vote early, vote often, and keep voting after you die.

However, despite the voter fraud and intimidation actions of ACORN and the New Black Panthers (both ignored by Eric

Attorney General and all around piece of scum Eric Holder’s bestest best friends, the New Black Panthers, caught on tape engaging in voter intimidation. Yes that’s him holding a pipe in his hands right in front of a polling place.  Holder treated this like he treats all real illegal actions, he did nothing…after all there were cartel to arm, potheads to prosecute, and constitutions to be shredded.

Holder), Democrats make silly claims like “Voter fraud doesn’t really occur.”

Okay let’s put that to the test.

A NAACP member in Mississippi was convicted of casting a dead person’s ballot. 

A Democratic candidate in Maryland had to withdraw from the race because it was shown she engaged in voter fraud.

A Democrat in Arkansas plead guilty to voter fraud.

Voter fraud in New York and Florida has already been discovered with absentee ballots. 

A ballot measure that will allow the inherently biased-toward-the-left open primaries in Arizona is believed to be on the ballot only because of voter fraud. 

Even NPR admits that right now there is just short of 2 million dead people on the voter rolls.

You can get another person’s ballot without any effort

The SEIU was involved in voter fraud in the Wisconsin recall.

 

Also it appears California union members voted in the Wisconsin elections.

And there was major voting fraud in Pennsylvania. 

And that’s just stuff from this year.

It doesn’t take much effort to find recent cases of voter fraud in 46 states. 

And this is ignoring a history of voter fraud throughout the country.

 

Then you have California Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez…she won the seat by 928 votes…a Congressional committee without really trying found 748 of those votes were cast by illegal immigrants (am I the only person who thinks finding over 700 illegal votes in one congressional district on only a cursory look is something that should have received national attention and calls for strict Voter ID laws from the federal level)…but in true liberal fashion that shouldn’t be enough to call the whole election into question

And being bluntly honest, if not for voter fraud, Al Franken would not be in the U.S. Senate.  (Just typing that sentence makes me sick.  That dimwitted hack should never have been allowed near any representative body.)

The fact of the matter is that cases of voter fraud are hard to find proof of and harder to convict on…so if you can find as many cases as are just shown here…then you guarantee there are a lot more.

So the fact is that there is voter fraud going on…to what degree it’s hard to tell.  But given the flexible way the DNC handled voice votes, the flexible way liberals historically deal with truth, the flexible morals of groups like ACORN, and the money that people like Soros ship to such groups it’s possible   And keep in mind this is the party that pays people to protest and ignored the heinous crimes of Occupy because it furthers their cause…is paying people to vote all that much further?

So how do we fix this?  Now the easiest way would be to end the secret ballot and tie every ballot to a name…it would be very easy to determine if your ballot was tampered with or submitted by someone who wasn’t you.  But this cure would be worse than the disease as it will lead to kind of voter intimidation that we fear card check brings with union votes.  I bring this up only because some well meaning but short sighted people on the internet were suggesting this as a cure for the voter fraud problem.

So the next most likely solution is Voter ID.

Voter ID is actually the only other way, besides getting rid of the secret ballot, to solve the election fraud problem because there is no other way to check for fraud.  (I mean guess we could come up with punishment so horrible and so Draconian that even the most corrupt would be afraid to even try…but I, like the rest of the civilized world, am firmly against making people listen to Obama speeches put on an endless loop as this violates the most basic and fundamental human rights).  Without some kind of basic check that you’re who you say you are there is absolutely no way to stop people from voting as other people.

(Now actually I think the voter rolls should be cleared out every few years and everyone needs to re-register every two years, which would help reduce the number of voters who have moved to a new state along with the dead and inactive…and while that would be effective to vastly reduce the opportunity for fraud, liberals will throw all the same arguments against it that they do against voter ID so there is no particular reason we should view them separately.**)

Why is voter ID effective?  Because it’s much harder to fake an ID than it is to say you’re such and such at this or that address (which is almost always in the public record).  It’s easy to get hold of this information in mass numbers.  It’s unbelievably hard to fake the number of ID’s it would take to swing a vote in a state with voter ID…to the point that I would say that it is not even remotely cost effective (not to mention that it increases the number of people in the criminal venture exponentially and leaves a far greater paper and evidence trail).  Voter ID laws won’t necessarily stop all Voter fraud, but what they will do is make it so that it becomes virtually unthinkable to try and sway an election through fraud without being easily caught in the attempt.

But liberals make all these silly arguments.  “It’s really hard.”  WTF?  Almost every teenager I know has an ID by the time they’re 15 (and as a High School English teacher, I know a quite a few teenagers)…if a teenager who can’t drive, can manage this, really how hard can it be?   “It costs too much money and therefore it’s a poll tax!”  Okay first of all, how exactly do you go through life without an ID?  I personally don’t get it.  There are so many things you need an ID to do, I don’t see how it doesn’t cost you more to not get an ID.  But ignoring that, I know of no state that has Voter ID laws that doesn’t have a corresponding system that allows for low income citizens to get free ID’s.  There–problem solved.  Will you have to fill out some extra paper work?  Yes.  But guess what, voting shouldn’t be easy, anything easy is not treated as valuable…and I find the right to determine the fate of my nation a fairly valuable thing.  “It’s not constitutional.” Yes, yes it is.  Please read Crawford v. Marion County Election Boardwhere the Supreme Court even said it’s constitutional***.  “It’s racist.”  Um…it’s only hurting minorities if they were incapable of going to fill out paperwork on their own, most conservatives don’t believe this****, it’s the liberals who seem to think this will stop minorities from voting (I guess because they think minorities are too stupid to get ID’s).

Look, let me speak on behalf of the most conservatives here, we don’t want to stop any ethnic group from voting, we want to stop liberals from stealing elections via illegal ballots being cast.  We don’t think minorities are the problem, we think liberals are.

But let’s say fact and reason don’t hold any sway for you and you still say that voting is a constitutional right and that ID laws are a violation of that right. Then let me try this thought experiment. Voting and owning a gun are both constitutional rights. Both have the power to protect my life if used well or ruin the lives of myself and others if used in- appropriately. In the hands of idiots who don’t know what they’re doing both can lead to unspeakable harm and evil.  In the hands of informed citizens both are a strong bulwark against tyranny and bad government.  Liberals would scream bloody murder if I said I shouldn’t have to show an ID to buy a gun, and I agree with them, I do believe you should have to show ID for a gun.  It’s too dangerous to sell without some kind of ID check.  You should have to show ID to get a gun even though it’s a constitutional right.

Yet these same liberals scream bloody murder if I say you should have to show an ID to vote.  It doesn’t follow.  If you are willing to say one requires an ID then you can’t say that you can’t require an ID for another because “it’s a constitutional right.”  Especially because, let’s be honest here, in the wrong hands a gun is only dangerous as long as it holds bullets and can only harm a limited amount of people (it might be a tragedy but it’s a limited one).  A vote, and especially a rigged election, can harm thousands, millions…and if it is any office with power of foreign policy, billions.  Tell me again why guns are so important that we need to check ID but that voting isn’t?

Voter fraud is real.  ID check is the single greatest way to counter it.  There are no legitimate arguments against. It needs to be implemented in all 50 states.

*It may be a fictional representation, but it’s a representation of what actually goes on.

**While arguments could be made that better and more informed voting would occur if we raised the voting age again (maybe to 30…I know very few people in their 20’s mature enough to be allowed to decide the fate of the nation…if you want to have a specific exception for soldier, fine, but this blanket 18-year-old shit is easily the one of the dumbest Amendments in the whole Constitution.

***Yes, I have said on numerous cases the Supreme Court has not made the right call.  I don’t however claim that just because the court is wrong that their mentally challenged ruling doesn’t have the force of law.  And so even if you disagree with Crawford it’s the law.

****I say most because there are pieces of shit in every party.  The main difference is that the Republican Party has some fringe elements (we’re trying to deport them to the libertarians as quickly as we can)…the Democratic Party through welfare, affirmative action, resistance to education reform, etc., supports racism as a major plank of the party platform.

1 Comment

Filed under Books, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, politics, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation

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 have the whole speech here, but let’s pull the whole section, of the “You didn’t build that “speech out.  [Emphasis added]

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.  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 education, cut basic research, voucherize Medicare, and you’re still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut.  That’s not a deficit reduction plan.  That’s a deficit expansion plan.  I’ve got a different idea.  I do believe we can cut — we’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently.  Not every government program works the way it’s supposed to.  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.  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.  So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way.  We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.  We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more.  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.  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.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  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.  The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  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. So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  That’s how we funded the GI Bill.  That’s how we created the middle class.  That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  That’s how we invented the Internet.  That’s how we sent a man to the moon.  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.  You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

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!

 We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.

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. 

Ah the great sentence.  And you know what I love about this?  I copied this directly off the White House transcript.  They are the ones who made these two separate sentences.  Thus basic rules of grammar the “that” in the second half of the sentence refers to the “business” not the “road and bridges” in the previous sentence.  But maybe the person typing it up is as dumb as the person who delivered it.  Maybe they were supposed to be one sentence: “Somebody invested in roads and bridges–If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.”  Nope that doesn’t work either.  “That” is singular, like “a business”—“road and bridges” are plural, if he had been referring to the roads and bridges he would have said “you didn’t build those.”  The nature of parallelism in the use of pronouns is kind of built into the brain (even if it’s not hardwired at birth, by the time you’re as old as Obama it’s hardwired) and if he had meant the road and bridges he would have said “those.”  He didn’t.

So he really did say “You didn’t build your business.”

Somebody else made that happen. 

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.

3 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Founding, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Ronald Reagan, Taxes, Teacher's Union, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s take a look at the 12 points.

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

The darling of lunatics the nation over.

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

12.  Electability – Romney is electable.

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

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

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

27 Comments

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

A Conservative New Ager’s Take on Abortion

So social conservatives (closet liberals who want the government to control one aspect of your lives instead of another) have been really hyping the latest Gallup poll. I mean did you know that people who identify themselves as

Did we forget we’re conservatives and we want to limit the power of the federal government?

“pro-choice” are down to the all time low of a mere 41%!  41%!  Only 41% of the nation wants to keep abortion legal…oh wait, if you actually read the whole thing (reading is something that is not big with liberals and social conservatives) then you’d see it’s not that simple.

Actually only 20% of the country wants to completely ban it from the country. 25% want it legal under any condition (and 25% I think is more than 20%)…and 52% want it legal under some circumstances.  (As always there is a portion of the country, 3%, that has no opinion on anything…I love this 3-5% that goes through life without any opinions on anything).  Now obviously some of those 52% would only make it legal under the rape/incest clause that everyone always puts into every abortion law and some would probably be willing to allow any level of abortion so long as not a single tax payer dollar is paid for it.


But since this is such an overrated issue in America, one that seems to drive idiots on both sides to exclude a million vastly more importantly issues to the point that they will vote only on this issue that most of the American public will vote on even thought it never will have a single effect on their life.  Does that mean I don’t have an opinion on abortion, no as a New Ager and Conservative, I do, and they’re the same opinion: I’m for it.

I can see the look on your face right now…how does being a conservative mean you’re for the legal right of abortion.  I’m going to leave  you with that confusion for just a moment while I go through the spiritual side first, as this is slightly more important.

I start with the spiritual side because abortion is tied up a lot in what it is to be human, and whether or not it’s wrong to kill something that is or is not yet human.  I recently saw a book that preposterously tried to use Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy to argue against abortion.  While there were numerous errors, the crux of the argument was that because a fetus has a full genetic code of a human being, it’s human, and therefore abortion is murder.—the book made no further argument to prove that a fetus is human.  A scraping of skin cells, a vial of blood, and a corpse also have a full genetic code, so if you do anything to these apparently, by what I can only assume was supposed to be an educated argument against abortion, you’re also committing murder.

I bring this up only to show what the central problem in this argument is:  What is human life?  And when you have the answer to that question, you have the answer to the “question of when does life begin?”

Now an intelligent person realizes that a human is more than just an animal with a certain genetic code, no, what makes humans humans and not just mere animals is our souls.  When the soul is present in the body of a homo sapien you have a human being, when it leaves you have a corpse…before the soul takes up residence, you have something that could become human, but is still lacking the single most important quality of human existence.

Okay, so if it’s the presence of the soul, when does the soul take residence?  Well if you read the Bible it seems to associate the soul with breath, so that might suggest the soul takes up residence only upon birth…but we’re not really going to deal with Judeo-Christian beliefs, we’re New Agers, we try for more.

Now in most studies of life-after-death and reincarnation, which I think it’s safe to say, the idea that there is more than a single body surrounding your body but several “etheric” shells that are each shed  through the process of death (see the Tibetan Book of the Dead for a more complete discussion) but conversely these bodies take time to form.  And from what little science can glean from life-after-death and reincarnation studies (see Life After Death by Chopra and Evidence of the Afterlife by Long) and tradition (see God Talks with Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita by Yogananda) the soul is not directly tied to the body until well into the third trimester, sometimes not taking full residence up until birth itself.  (This does however vary).  However, as any New Ager is likely to believe evidence from respected mediums, it appears that the souls attached to fetuses that may be aborted know what they’re getting into and bear no ill will if the fetus is aborted (see Talking to Heaven by Van Praagh).

Thus the best way to describe the soul’s relationship to the body before birth is  at best a lease with an option to buy, with a not so hidden clause in the lease where the owner may terminate the lease and the house if they so choose.   So in this respect it is not murder and certainly in favor of abortion.

The second spiritual reason deals with the mother.  Karmically, the soul of the mother who is considering an abortion has at some point before her own birth chosen to face a situation where this choice will be required to make this choice.  She may be in need of learning to put others before herself and thus keeping the child would be the best choice spiritually…or she may have come off of lives of servitude and self-denial and thus must learn that her needs, wants, and dreams are important too and should not be shoved aside, in which case having the abortion might be the best thing for her soul.  I am not enlightened enough to know who is in which situation and feel that legislating what is a powerful karmic choice (that is not murder, as I have shown) is arrogance of the rankest sort.  Will everyone make the right choice that is best for their soul?  No.  But that is the point of life making good choices and seeing the fruit of those choices so that we may repeat them, and making bad choices and learning from our mistakes.  To use law to subvert free will and spiritual growth is a perversion of what government is supposed to do.

Finally I am for abortion because I hate some of the alternatives.  And I’m going to be a little callous here.  The point of life is either to grow as a person or in some cases to not grow so much ourselves, but to be a teacher for those around us.  I tend to think that many children who are born with severe mental problems are in this latter category.  They come to teach those around them compassion.  But there are also those I think that trap themselves in a lemon of a brain as punishment for some karmic reason—think about it, being a fully functional soul, capable of reaching enlightenment, trapped in a brain and body that doesn’t function, doesn’t respond, and won’t allow you to express yourself and learn…that’s about as close to the definition of hell as I can think of…and I will never condemn a human soul to that if I have any say about it.  Now I understand why people of faiths other than mine might look at my personal desire to abort a child with a severe mental handicap as cruel, and I can see their point of view, but please have the courtesy to see mine.

Okay all that said, my wacky New Age beliefs are certainly not going to convince any conservative with more main line religious views.   And they certainly won’t do anything to convince psycho’s like Rick Santorum, who even in his “I’m dropping out of the race” speech felt the need to point out that his views on abortion were the all important part of his campaign (and you wonder why you didn’t get anywhere don’t you Ricky?):

“We did focus a lot on the families and dignity of moral life that is America. I know Joe Klein will be upset about this, but one of my favorite articles was one that he wrote, where his headline was ‘Rick Santorum’s inconvenient truths.’We talked about things that maybe we should talk about more but they get shoved say aside in the public discourse. We carried around our copy of the Constitution.”

Well aside from the fact that Rick Santorum’s copy of the Constitution is different than anyone else’s and looks like slightly more Draconian than Leviticus, we as conservatives do like the Constitution, and we like economic facts (unlike liberal economics fantasies).  And those beliefs very clearly dictate a support for the basic rights to an abortion.

How so?

Well let’s first deal with the Constitution.  What I or anyone else does with thier doctor is private as we are the ones paying them for a service.  I am engaged in commerce.  And every conservative holds that the federal government has no right to legislate on commerce that doesn’t cross state lines.  We believe that all of the government’s current invasions into intrastate commerce are inherently unconstitutional…so why is this act of commerce different than others?  It isn’t.  Any conservative who is arguing for a Constitutional Amendment giving the federal government the power to legislate intrastate commerce is arguing for opening a Pandora’s Box that we will never be able to close.  Remember, we’re conservatives– we want the government out of the economy, not to give them a Constitutional back door into it.

You want to deal with abortion at a state level, fine.  But first stop arguing for an expansion of federal powers like you’re a filthy liberal.

Then comes the economic facts.

Fact 1:  Making things illegal has never stopped the market; it only creates a black market.

What does this mean?  Well, aside from the extreme image of back alleys and clothes hangers (I think overdoses on birth control are more likely…not to mention that the upper middle class and rich can always get a D&C at their OBGYN, just as they did before Roe) it means you’ll still have abortions being performed by doctors.  Now I don’t think that, like with most black markets, you’ll see an increase in demand, but you will see an increase in supply.  Doctors who don’t do abortions now because they can always refer a patient to someone else will take a stand and start doing them so I doubt you’ll see any major decrease in numbers in abortions from accidental pregnancies (I’ll get to why I make this distinction in a minute)

Fact 2: Black Markets can’t be regulated and are open to more corruption.

Which do you think stops more abortions a 48 hour waiting period or making it a blackmarket under absolutely no regulation?  Having to see a sonogram of the fetus or going to a doctor’s office in the dead of night for a procedure that is done as quickly as is humanly possible?  Banning late-term abortions or making the whole thing a thriving underground industry?

An intelligent person knows that regulation is a greater killer of any industry as most people are willing to jump through preposterous legal hoops before they consider illegal means.   And I think most people are open to sane requirements like having to view a sonogram or having a waiting period or banning late-term abortions…whereas underground markets are a free for all.

Or how about banning gender selective abortions?…which apparently are going on in this country.  Now while I’m sure we can all agree that anyone who would abort a fetus because it was the wrong gender is too sick to be allowed to have a child of either gender, I’ll simply settle for making it illegal to even ask for one…maybe with heavy jail time involved.

But if you just outlaw abortion en masse, you won’t have any of those controls.

Fact 3: Enforcement costs on black markets are insane.

As we saw with Prohibition and with the war on drugs, enforcing rules against a black market are prohibitively expensive.  Prohibitively expensive.  Not to mention making it a federal law requires federal enforcement…like we need another government agency getting involved with our medical choices.  Then you have the costs of prosecution, which I promise you will have a remarkably low conviction rate, and probably the cost of suing states which rightly believe this is a state’s rights issue and legalize it.  (Yes that would be the one benefit to outlawing abortion at a federal level, liberals would finally believe in state’s rights and the limits of federal power.)

Fact 4: A good portion of abortions now are caused by subsidies.

And the final fact that most conservatives miss.  Right now an unhealthy portion of abortions (especially late-term abortions) are because there are extra welfare benefits to being pregnant…get more money for a few months, abort the fetus (on the taxpayer dime), and keep the money without the hassle of a kid.  We subsidize abortion.

Now the majority of abortions are women for whom their pregnancy is an unplanned accident, they have an abortion, and probably are more careful in the future and never have another abortion.  Bully for them.  Unfortunately about 20% of women who have abortions are having 3+ in a life time I don’t have the figures on this group, but I’ll lay even money that Uncle Sam is picking up most of the tab for that 20%.  Why?  Because there is no cost for this idiotic kind of behavior.  Because Uncle Sam subsidizes it.  And as any economic conservative knows when you subsidize a behavior you get more of it.

So what should we do?  Well, eliminate all taxpayer money going to abortions.  (And if I had my druthers I would also ban any welfare support on a second unplanned pregnancy.  The first time was a mistake and I’m willing to be generous…the second time it’s stupidity on the part of the mother.)  This would dry up the well very quickly for those who are abusing the system.

So any conservative should know that making abortion illegal would only expand federal power and do nothing to stop abortions.  Come on guys, we’re supposed to be the rational party.

And thankfully, Mitt Romney has said he’s getting rid of all federal money for Planned Parenthood. If liberals are unhappy about this, they can donate their own money to Planned Parenthood…after all liberals say they’re not being taxed as much as they should be, so I’m sure they’ll be willing to put up their money to support an organization they find to be a worthy cause if the government won’t take their money for them.

Of course how do you get the more moderate liberals to support such a ban…you offer a blanket federal protection of a woman’s right to an abortion in the first two trimesters, probably in the form of a Constitutional Amendment, but with the provision that no tax payer money ever go to it.  Which I think brings us back to the implications of the poll that started this whole thing.

4 Comments

Filed under Aristotle, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Death, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Free Will, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, New Age, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Purpose of Life, Reincarnation, Religion, Spirituality, Unjust legislation

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.

5 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Taxes, Tea Party, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

The Sad Life of Julia Part III–The wacky college years

Our little Julia continues to be among the most worthless excuses for a human I’ve ever seen (not really, there are worse)

So now that we’ve covered her early life and adolescence let’s move onto her college years.


Ah, I remember the first time I had major surgery in my early 20’s, just like everyone I know…oh wait, no…most people don’t have surgery in their 20’s.  Assuming Obama took office when Julia was 3, that would mean he has been Fuehrer for 19 years so I can promise you that almost all private insurance companies have gone out of business as Obamacare is designed to put private companies out of business and have everyone go to government care  …but don’t worry most of the doctors and nurses will have already left the field long before the private insurance companies as there will be no way to make ends meet in the medical profession if Obamacare goes into full effect.  But don’t worry, long before this happens drug companies and medical supply companies will go out of business.  And have we talked about this thing called the adverse selection death spiral, which is as bad as it sounds, caused by Obamacare.   So Julia will be having her surgery in a government facility, being treated by third rate doctors (the first and second rate ones went to countries with fewer regulations on the medical field like Canada and the UK…maybe India will start importing doctors from America), being done on a very limited use of anesthetics and antibiotics.

So it’s actually a small miracle she makes it out of the hospital alive…truly God loves Julia, and of course, by God, I mean the divine Obama.

Let’s compare this to the Ryan plan or Romney’s proposals for health care.  You know the ones that would one up choice and competition, lower fraud, reduce prices, and improve quality all over.  Yes Julia and her parents would have to pay for her surgery…but it will be half of what it costs rights now and one-twentieth of what it would cost under Obamacare.  And God (and I don’t mean Barry) help Julia if the rationing board determines that her surgery isn’t worth the cost.

Well if there were any jobs left…which at this rate 110% of the populace will have dropped out of the work force by the time Julia is 23 and Obama has been ruling the People’s Republic of America for 20 years.  Of course with no one seeking jobs anymore the Department of Labor will declare 100% employment and praise Obama for his genius.

I’m curious about the fact that she’s starting her career two years before finishing college…but I’m just not going to touch this bizarre non-sequitur.

Okay let’s take 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.

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?   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 union by Julia’s 20’s whether they want to be or not.  Thus we will all be getting paid the same, irrespective of education, work, merit, seniority or skill.

But let’s see with lawyers suing up a storm expect everything to cost so much more which means even if Julia is making the same amount of money (which is odd as web design is often more of personal venture than a big corporation…but again let’s not get into the leaps of logic) it really doesn’t matter as with her inflated (caused by everything else Obama is doing to the economy) currency she will be able to buy even less!

I’m still a little confused, if she started her career 3 years ago and is still in the same field at 42…what was so important about college?  I think college is important, and when I have children it will be very clear that they will be going to college…but if you already have a career before finishing college and are making money off of it (and since she doesn’t switch careers between now and 42 she’s either making money or is very very stupid…oh wait)…but going to college has worked for a few like Paul Allen, Michael Dell, Ingvar Kamprad (IKEA), Larry Ellison (Oracle), Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mary Kay Ash, John D. Rockerfeller, Mark Zuckerberg, and Robert Jackson (Attorney General of the United States, Supreme Court Justice, and chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg trials…never finished college let alone Law School) and I’m not so much of a snob as to chide someone for not going to college if they can make their career work…

Anyone a bit disturbed by the fact that it’s taken Julia 7 years to graduate from college?  It doesn’t quite make sense.  I can only assume she studied computer engineering, as she’s a web designer, but 7 years?  Web design actually wouldn’t take even an AA…so does she have a MA (still a year too long) or a Ph.D. in computer engineering…if so Microsoft, Apple or a dozen other programming firms would have hired her on the spot and lavished her with money, benefits and stock options…but she’s only a poor web designer.  And since she is still dependent on Obama for the rest of her existence I can only conclude it took her 7 years to get her B.A. (now we’re seeing why she didn’t get any scholarships and needed Obama’s help to pay for college tuition…and not a very bright college either as they don’t know that flag code requires that flag goes on the LEFT of the podium if you are facing the podium).

Also, and I’m not entirely sure here, but isn’t “web design” something you can get done it 2 years at ITT Tech or DeVry?  7 years?  Really?

And yes Obama kept the interest rates low, making that money cheap.  Which any basic understanding of how an economy works means that money that could have gone for investment in business or industry and created jobs will go to fund Julia and other slackers like her in their 7 year quest to become Web Designers.  Hey, Barry, look up the term “opportunity cost” and ask yourself if it has any bearing on artificially lowering the interest rate on college loans.  Of course it’s a lie that her loans are more manageable, the college jacked up their prices to be on par with what Julia could borrow…it’s just that Julia is really hoping for a bailout from Obama soon, like he bails out everyone.

(I wonder if Barry also paid for the dye job to her hair as it has gone from an inhuman shade of blue to red for no explicable reason).

So rather than letting the Romney/Ryan plan burst the bubble on college costs and actually make it more affordable for a far greater portion of the country, we must keep those prices artificially inflated.

3 Comments

Filed under Atlas Shrugged, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, Obama Ceasar, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tea Party, Teaching, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

The Sad Life of Julia Part II: The teen years

Now Obama ignores Julia’s age from 4-16…probably because those are years that Julia will have to suffer under incompetent teachers who will teach her nothing due to Obama’s staunch opposition to school choice, vouchers, and charters and his complete subservience to treasonous teacher’s unions (yes I said treasonous…I’m a teacher, I’ve seen the effects of their constant protection of low standards and corruption among teachers and the education system in general…and they are actively working to ruin this nation…it’s either treason or stupidity of such a level it is effectively the same thing).

But let’s get back to the slides

 

Yeah, she may take classes she needs to take, but as her union Elementary school teachers never bothered to teacher her grammar or arithmetic, her union Middle school teachers never bothered to teach her algebra, the scientific method, basic logic or how write an essay, and her union High School teachers are just as stupid, the course may have the right name on it, but she still isn’t learning anything.

Also as Obama has continued to crack down on school choice, her parents could get her into a better school than the one she is in but she is not allowed to transfer there.  Which is a little odd as even very liberal Juan Williams acknowledges that school choice is the “civil rights issue or our time.”  Good thing President Romney will be for it so there is a chance that our Julia may get educated. 

Oh, by the way, since those “tax cuts for the rich” which are actually reforms of the tax code which would actually have the rich paying more (through the reduction of loopholes combined with a lowering of rates) never went through, the economy of America shrank even more.  Which means a lower tax base to provide for public education, which translates to having more kids in every class as no one can afford 20:1 ratios anymore which further ruins Julia’s education.  And Obama’s lack of action on border control continues to let billions of tax payer dollars be wasted on educating the children of criminal migrants (I’m told the term illegal alien is now racist).

(Also does anyone find it ironic that Obama is constantly bitching about tax cuts for the rich when he himself extended the Bush tax cuts and chose not to push for the tax increases from his own debt commission…not to mention his favorite new rule, the Buffett Rule comes from a man whose company avoids taxes and lets its upper management make bizarre anti-Semitic statements).

 

Now Julia is off to college and oooh a $10,000 credit…for 4 years…that’s $2,500 a year (yeah, it’s not 10 grand every year it’s total!)…that might cover books and a bit of room and board…won’t cover room and board in whole, won’t cover tuition.  I have to ask, if Head Start was such a winner program back in the early years and her school was part of “Race to the Top” as stated why isn’t she earning any merit scholarships?  Could it be that those programs don’t actually achieve any tangible results and haven’t helped Julia be anything but a waste of space and volume who needs government assistance to know a whole in the from?…well… I mean I’m a high school teacher who has dealt with a lot of seniors, trust me for a college bound woman who makes high grades there is money available.  Colleges offer scholarship money for a myriad of things (merit, athletics, need) and there are also private sources of scholarship…but in Obama’s world (who apparently has been in office for at least 15 years? Clearly the result of some kind of coup) there is only the government there to help you.  And of course there is the time honored tradition of community college, saving, and paying your own way.  No one can get into or pay for college on their own, they must have Obama.   What would we be without Obama?  How did we survive before he graced us with his presence?
But rather than talk about tax credits or the lack there of, or interest rates on those loans…let’s talk about why college costs so much….hmmm let’s see college costs have grown faster than inflation for over 20 years…hmm maybe it’s the increasing government loans (read subsidies) to students.  Well the general rule is that when you subsidize something the price goes up, and so it was with colleges.  The government says it will give loans and colleges increased their tuitions by almost the same amount of the government increase.  This in turn has not only increased college cost far above their benefits, but it has created a culture of pointless research and focused on “publish or die” rather than actual teaching being the focus of college…but why would you care about such things when you can give tax credits for over priced education that will only drive the cost of college up even more and probably decrease the quality of said education.

Oh, and let’s not forget that the majority of students need to take remedial English and math in college and probably more than that just to be capable of participating in college (that is where our current education system is)– and Julia has demonstrated that she is part of the majority and not the exception.  Maybe that has something to do with those union teachers putting how Julia feels about herself being a priority over actually being good at something.  And let’s not forget that the spate of anti-bullying laws will probably not do anything to take down the rate of bullying, but will certainly teach children to never stand up for themselves and always seek the protection of government.  Thanks Obama.

Government and unions have made education low quality and overpriced…Obama certainly didn’t cause this, but he is certainly doing everything in his power to make the quality of education worse and costs higher.

How else is Obama ruining Julia’s adolescence?  Well his economy destroying policies are certainly making it all but impossible for Julia to get a job.  (Now the best way to help Julia would be to end minimum wage laws…but I don’t see even Romney able to get that passed, so next best option would be to never raise them, which I think Romney will probably do…oh to all of you Paulbots who are about to complain that he tied Massachusetts minimum wage to inflation, please remember that the Massachusetts legislature wanted to raise it even more and the inflation thing was the most he could get to hold them back).  Of course Obama’s stimulus policies matched with Bernanke’s insanity over at the Fed will continue inflation to the point where the economy will hurt even more.  So not only will college cost a fortune but she won’t have jobs or experience to get a job to help pay for it.  Sucks to be Julia in her adolescent years.

Of course all of this is a bit silly to discuss because after 15 years of Obama’s policies (at a rate of 5 trillion in debt for every 3 years in office) we’ll be another $25 trillion in Debt (assuming China keep bankrolling us) which may very likely induce Weimar Republic level inflation.

So tomorrow we will deal with Julia’s college years…all 7 of them…no nowhere does it say why it takes Julia so long to finish college only later to become a web page designer (a field that historically requires no college education).

In the mean time I would like to introduce you to Dawn, the anti-Julia.  You remember when Obama said that Republicans are heartless and stupid for telling people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps “when they don’t have bootstraps”…well Dawn proves that when you don’t have bootstraps you make your own and then you pull yourself up by them…and if you do that then others (not government) will help you in your quest because people, especially Americans under capitalism, are the most charitable people in the world.

4 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Teacher's Union, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

Paul Krugman just keeps getting dumber…

It’s been a while a since I’ve read a Paul Krugman article.  I’ve been busy with a lot at work (hence the lack of a lot of blogs lately) and well, Paul’s line of drivel you have to be in the right mood for anyway.  But I had some free time yesterday and it appears that this moron’s moron thinks he’s in a position to critique Romney’s understanding of economics (Remind me Paul, how many businesses have you created and saved over the years…zero?  Fascinating.)

So, Krugman’s critique is twofold.  First the Romney campaign had a photo-op speech at a closed plant, which they admit was symbolic of the Obama administration, but actually this plant closed during the Bush years…and it’s unfair to blame Obama for the fact that the bad economy started under Bush but has gone into a tailspin under Obama.  This is an interesting critique, because even the Romney campaign says the plant was a symbolic image not a literal one, and Krugman is throwing a hissy fit as if Romney is blaming the Obama for this particular plant closing…and not you know, using the image as a symbol.

The second part of his argument is that it’s all Bush’s fault and Obama is not to blame for anything….

“Which brings me to another aspect of the amnesia campaign: Mr. Romney wants you to attribute all of the shortfalls in economic policy since 2009 (and some that happened in 2008) to the man in the White House, and forget both the role of Republican-controlled state governments and the fact that Mr. Obama has faced scorched-earth political opposition since his first day in office.”

That’s right.  He had his hands tied “since the first day in office.”  You know the first day where he had a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate.  You have no idea the hurdles you have to clear…especially when like 10 Republicans in the Senate are RINOs.  Is Krugman the worst liar ever…or just unbelievably stupid?

“But that’s not the critique Mr. Romney is making. Instead, he’s basically attacking Mr. Obama for not acting as if George Bush had been given a third term. Are the American people — and perhaps more to the point, the news media — forgetful enough for that attack to work? I guess we’ll find out.”

Actually, Paul, he’s attacking Obama (man of higher regulation, deficit spending, increased medical entitlements, stimulus, government takeover of industries, letting the Fed get away with crippling low interest rates and inflation, over and under regulation in the wrong areas, and giving into unions at every turn) for actually acting just like Bush (man of higher regulation, deficit spending, increased medical entitlements, stimulus, government takeover of industries, letting the Fed get away with crippling low interest rates and inflation, over and under regulation in the wrong areas, and giving into unions at every turn)!  The fact that many of Bush’s policies didn’t help the economy is because they were inherently Keynesian, like Obama’s and like yours.  I liked and supported Bush at first because I liked his rhetoric of lower regulation, tort reform and less spending…but the facts are that he didn’t do any of that and in the end was just a hint of things to come with Obama.  So yes it is Bush’s fault for the start of our economic problems (and his Democratic Congress…can’t forget to blame them too)…and it is Obama’s fault for looking at a forest fire and deciding to throw kerosene on it.

But does Krugman admit that this?  That his Keynesian BS policies are to blame?  Nope.  In fact did you know we should get down on our knees and thank Obama for saving us?

“This is especially true if you focus on private-sector jobs. Overall employment in the Obama years has been held back by mass layoffs of schoolteachers and other state and local government employees. But private-sector employment has recovered almost all the ground lost in the administration’s early months.”

This is really interesting as Bureau of labor statistics say that in 2008 there were 113 million private sector jobs  and now they say there are 110 million private sector jobs.  (I’d love  to show you a single chart than can map the private sector employment month by month through the Obama administration…but the labyrinth that is the Bureau of Labor Statistics is designed not to give you raw data, only the spin of the administration in power).  So 110 million is “private-sector employment has recovered almost all the ground lost” from 113 million…if you ignore 3 million people…and all the people who entered the workforce…and ignore that a lot of those are double counted as a lot more people who have jobs have two jobs right now…and if you ignore that a lot more of the 110 million is lower paid jobs than when we had 113 million.  So if you ignore all that we’ve completely recovered.  Oh and as to his thing about teacher’s getting fired, first, lots of teachers do need to be fired, but as I doubt Krugman is going to argue to get rid of union’s favorite “last hired, first fired” policies his words ring rather hollow…the most inept teachers are still on the payrolls and still need to be fired.  And Krugman himself is one to point out that all of those state and city loses have been matched if not exceeded by the growth of federal government employment (you know the one sector that should NEVER grow during a recession, depression…or really ever under any circumstances).

“I guess accusing Mr. Obama of not doing enough to promote recovery is a better argument than blaming him for the effects of Bush policies. However, it’s not much better, since Mr. Romney is essentially advocating a return to those very same Bush policies. And he’s hoping that you don’t remember how badly those policies worked.”

Actually Romney isn’t advocating returning to Bush’s big government, spending craze.  But let’s look at what Obama could have done, which had he done these things we would be well into real recovery by now.

Cut spending. If Obama had cut every Department and Office by 5% on day one (which Romney is going to do) and then set down to finding out what can be further cut and keep cutting until we actually didn’t spend more than we take in (which Romney has also promised to do) the dollar would be stronger, inflation would be lower and we wouldn’t be feeling as many ripples from much of Europe’s imminent collapse (and keep in mind it’s collapsing for doing all the things Krugman has always said we should do over here…except maybe Sweden which has been becoming more and more capitalistic and oddly enough more and more economically stable).

Lengthen the time for medical patents…instead of regulating drug companies and the companies that make the chemicals that are needed to make those drugs to the point where most of them are planning to leave American shores forever if this jackass is reelected, thus causing massive shortages in the nation’s drug supplies…if you had cut regulations and extended the time to hold a drug patent you would have spurred further investment into private R&D (you know the kind that actually yields results).

Letting insurance cross state lines…hmmm actually allow insurance companies to have to compete.  As I recall competition always lowers costs.  Which would be much, much better than a government take over which will skyrocket costs.

Pass right to work. Instead of kowtowing to the unions which drive up costs and produce some of the worst teachers conceivable, maybe passing a right to work law in this country (which I believe Romney wants…and on a side note Santorum, like Obama would fight to the death to stop).

Cutting Fannie and Freddie loose. Instead of wanting MORE sub-prime loans which caused the housing bubble…maybe we could fire sale what these two horribly disastrous companies own and bring some sanity and stability to the market.

Reducing or ending all student loan programs…like the housing market, the government has over inflated the cost of college.  College loan programs needed to be gradually reduced and then ended.  Yes this will probably kill funding into theoretical physics, causes causing T.A.’s to be a thing of the past, and make professors actually teach their courses instead of writing useless journal articles that no one reads…I’m just so broken up by this.  Oh it will likely reduce every college student’s tuition costs, which means the middle class will no longer enter the work force already under crippling debt.

Cut regulation…in general there are too many regulations on the books. You know that expression that ignorance of the law is no excuse…well that was in a day and age when most laws were seemingly common sense…at this point there is no way that every American is not violating 50 U.S. regulations that they know nothing about nor could conceivably know.  Regulation is a just and necessary function of the government, but what the government is doing these days isn’t regulation, it’s tyrannical insanity.

Cut the minimum wage (or just end it).  Yes I know this is a long long shot, and not even Romney is proposing this…but it would actually spur hiring, especially for low skill workers who could, oh I don’t know get skills and experience.

Drill.  ANWAR, oil shale, Keystone, drill, drill, drill.  Even if it doesn’t immediately boost production it lowers the fears that oil speculation thrives on.  If you know what that there will be supplies for years to come then prices in any commodities market goes down.

Support border patrol and sane immigration and guest worker programs.  The fact is that the open border breeds both crime from the cartels (which have been supplied with a great deal of firepower by Eric Holder and Barack Obama…who if they weren’t who they were, would be guilty of aiding and betting in murder…or at least you would be if you knowingly ran guns for the cartels) and it breeds massive government expense in healthcare costs for illegal immigrants (which have crippled some border states) and education costs for the children they bring.  This needs to stop. Close the border, and allow guest workers (not their families) to come in.

Support democracies not terrorists…oh and maybe if we supported democratic revolts (like the Iranian protesters Obama just let get slaughtered) and not fascist juntas (like the Arab Spring) it might help stabilize the world economy, which would always be good for us.

Lower the capital gains tax.  Hell, do away with it.  Any first year economics student could tell you how this will be the economic equivalent of shooting adrenaline into the heart…it takes a Nobel Prize winning Yale economist (and he won for research in microeconomics…he knows less than anything about macro) to not know this basic fact of reality.

Tort Reform—I can’t beat this drum enough. Tort Reform. Tort Reform. Tort Reform!  Kill the ABA and their ambulance chasers, reducing insurance and overhead costs at EVERY level of every industry…you think that might have a cascade effect to spur investment and the economy.

Let’s go back to Krugman’s statement:

“I guess accusing Mr. Obama of not doing enough to promote recovery is a better argument than blaming him for the effects of Bush policies.”  Actually I blame Bush for not doing a lot of this too.  I just think that Romney will try to do a lot of this, and assuming he gets a GOP House and Senate he will be able to accomplish a lot of it.

“However, it’s not much better, since Mr. Romney is essentially advocating a return to those very same Bush policies.”  Well there’s a lie if ever I heard one.  Please, Paul could you give me a specific Bush policy that Romney wants to return to?  Because I think Ryan’s plan that Romney has endorsed is about as un-Bush as you get.

“And he’s hoping that you don’t remember how badly those policies worked.”  No, he’s not hoping that.  He’s knows that “It’s about the economy…and we’re not stupid” like you are Paul.

4 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unjust legislation

A Week of Obama Peddling Lies. Part II:He also peddles slavery

Okay so we have already dealt with the fact that this week, as with every other week of his existence, Obama has clearly shown he knows nothing (possibly less than nothing) about economics.  But that’s not the worst part.  If it was just his idiocy I might not feel my blood pressure jump to unhealthy levels every time I’ve heard him speak this last week.  No the reason I’m insulted by Obama’s words is not his economic ignorance, but because it is a perverted and near evil vision of human nature and government.

So let’s review what he said.

Deep breaths.  He’ll be gone in January.  Deep breaths.

“In the United States of America, we are greater together than we are on our own.  This country advances when we keep that basic American promise — if you work hard, you can do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, put a little away for retirement.  And it doesn’t matter who you are, where you come from, what you look like.  That’s what has created this extraordinary country of ours.  That’s what we’re fighting for. That’s the choice in this election.”

First off there is no promise of success in America.  There is no promise of success in life.  There is only a promise of the right to “pursue happiness.”  But he is right that it is the choice of this election: whether you will have the opportunity to live, work hard and live the American dream (Romney) or whether your liberty, opportunity, choice are all eliminated for a generation or longer (Obama).

And he is also right about us being greater together than when we are on our own.  When we join together out of friendship, out of love, out of mutual consent and benefit, human beings, not just Americans, although we have at times mastered the art, we can reach unprecedented heights of achievement and happiness.  But this is when it is by mutual consent.  Not when it is forced on them by dictatorial fiat.  When people are forced to work together because a higher authority says they have to then you will find in terms of personal happiness and societal prosperity it would have been better for everyone to be on their own.  We rise only when we work together by choice…and the key part is the choice not the working together.

“Their philosophy is simple:  You are on your own.  You’re on your own.  If you are out of work, can’t find a job, tough luck, you’re on your own.  You don’t have health care, — that’s your problem — you’re on your own.  If you’re born into poverty, lift yourself up with your own bootstraps even if you don’t have boots.  You’re on your own.  They believe that’s their — that’s how American has advanced.  That’s the cramped, narrow conception they have of liberty.  And they are wrong.  They are wrong.”

It’s not a philosophy; it’s a fact of life.  You are and always will be a victim or benefactor of your choices.  And your choices are your own.  If you can’t work, can’t find a job, did you get the education, experience and recommendation that would put you in a safe position or did you expect Obama to provide for you…because if you did the later, let me tell you you’re on your own because Obama and the government can and never will be a trustworthy fall back.  You don’t have health care?  Again did you do everything to get it or did you expect others to just subsidize your life…because if you just expected others to provide you with everything you want, you’re on your own.  We believe that America has advanced because of talent and skill and drive and friendship…and keep in mind friendship and companionship is a major portion of life…but in that too you’re on your own to make friends who will be there for you, they cannot just be provided by government fiat.  Ours is a philosophy of liberty.  Obama you claim that we have a “cramped, narrow conception [of] liberty.  And they are wrong.” No ours is philosophy of wide ranging liberty that comes with the downside of liberty, the possibility of failure.  But we have a strong belief that even in failure people can learn and grow and better themselves.  You would rather eliminate liberty, eliminate the possibility of failure and replace it with the at best the certainty of mediocrity (in reality the certainty of failure and misery for all in the long run) because you don’t believe people can better themselves, you don’t believe people can bring themselves up by their bootstraps, even if they don’t have any, then you don’t believe in human potential.  You don’t’ think that success or failure is, in the end a result of one’s choices and attitudes, which it is, you believe that we are victims of society, victims of the system, victims of those in power, your mantra is “I am not the master of my fate, the government is the captain of my soul.”  And you have the unmitigated gall to call us cramped and narrow.

“And we’ve got to make sure that we’ve got a tax system that is actually fair.  Part of that is something I call the Buffett Rule.  It’s very simple:  If you are making more than $1 million a year — I’m not saying you have $1 million, I’m saying you’re making $1 million every year — then you shouldn’t pay a lower rate than your secretary.  That’s a pretty simple proposition.”

I dealt with why this was a bad pragmatic plan last time. Let’s talk about the principled reasons why this is dumb.  “Fair.”  Let’s make the tax code fair.  Children, whiny, spoiled children whine about “fair”—adults talk about justice.  What is justice? Well the simplest definition would be that everyone gets what they deserve.  So is the tax code just?  Nope. There are far too many loopholes and deductions where the government quite unjustly tries to pick winners and losers, and the taxes are too high.  It’s a double injustice.  Now if you wanted to talk about justice instead of fairness you would get rid of the loopholes and lower the rates (although true justice would require that everyone pays at least something as everyone benefits from government protections of a military, police and court system).  Raising the rate on people because they’ve done well isn’t just, it’s punishing success (but liberals don’t believe money is made through skill and drive but because of corruption in despite of all knowledge of human nature and history).  But if you really wanted justice and not just a whine of fair you would support the Ryan Plan.  Hell, since, as Ryan has put out numerous times, it’s up the Ways and Means Committee to decide the future of loopholes…how about eliminating all deductions after $200,000…and reduce them for income after $100,000.  Republicans would support that. Because it’s just or at least more just than what we have now.  But raising rates isn’t just…it’s not even fair as you’re talking about raising rates on capital gains (money that derives from income which has already been taxed, and then invested in companies which also pay corporate taxes, so yes let’s tax it a third time…and if you buy anything with it we’ll slap some sales tax on that too…oh yeah that’s fair).  But please continue whining about fair.

Of course Obama then makes it seem that letting people keep their money is stealing from veterans, letting people freeze to death (“Or a family that’s struggling to get by maybe is getting less home heating oil assistance.”), old people’s healthcare…along with unconstitutional payments for student loans. As if taxing is the only option, rather than smart cuts, intelligent regulation, efficiency, reduction of waste, and turning programs over to the states.  No, Obama has only a vision of tax or no tax.  No other option is available because he isn’t even concerned with justice or fairness.

And then we get to the all important (read horrific) passage:

I hear politicians talking about values in an election year.  I hear a lot about that.  Let me tell you about values.  Hard work, personal responsibility — those are values.   But looking out for one another — that’s a value.  The idea that we’re all in this together — I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper — that’s a value.  The idea that we think about the next generation and we’re taking care of our planet — that’s a value.

By value I can only assume he means the complete lack of sane human values.  Let’s ignore the bizarre choice of paraphrasing a Biblical murderer (we could spend days talking about the odd choice of quotes, but a Pagan like me commenting on Biblical quotes is a little odd).  First off looking out for one another might be personal value but compassion being a beautiful thing between individuals does not mean that it should or even can be transferred to the government.  But it’s not even that, Obama’s disgusting vision is that we help those who want to lie around and do nothing but get paid and work to destroy everything we believe in (like his unwavering support for the teacher’s unions or the billion and one-half dollars he wants to give to the Muslim Brotherhood, which by any sane administration would be declared a terrorist organization).  But then of course he uses the quote “I am my brother’s keeper.”  Do you know what needs keepers?  Inanimate property, animals, and slaves.  I, and every person on this planet are human beings—with the exception of small children and those with serious mental problems we don’t need keepers.  Keepers are for slaves, to tell you what you can and cannot buy (which I believe the Obama administration said it has the right to do), to tell you when and where you can go (which the Obama administration tried to do through it’s rewrite of NDAA) and what you can and cannot see (which the Obama administration tried to do with SOPA).

The fact of the matter is that this is only Obama getting lazy and showing his true colors.  I’m sorry but in the context of every power grab this man has made I can’t just think that this is a poor choice of words.  This is a man who believes that he and his fellow government bureaucrats need to be our keepers and keep us in line.  This speech makes clear that his idea of liberty is straight out 1984 that “slavery is liberty” and that we will only be happy and productive little kept people when we are under his control.  Nothing he has said or done give me any reason to believe that I should give him the benefit of the doubt here.  When he says keeper he means it.  He means that he thinks that we need to sacrifice our lives and our liberties to take care of each other.  He views what most of us would consider the sickest of dystopias as his utopia.

I’m not going to call for anything here.  There’s no need.  If he and his team keep acting like they have done this past week, they will be powerless as of November and gone by January.  However, just because I don’t fear anything this man can do doesn’t change the fact that evil needs to be called what it is.  I know my blog won’t exactly convince anyone on the left, but for my readers, who probably don’t take as hard-line a view in their rhetoric, when you’re talking to people keep this evil in mind.  Keep in mind he is opposed to the basic concept of liberty at all levels, and while maybe with a little more finesse than I am demonstrating, point it out to the people you talk to.  The problem isn’t Obama, the problem is this belief that life is made better only through government and control.

2 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

Stupid liberal quote of the day…Obama Budget Defense

“There’s pretty broad agreement that the time for austerity is not today” –White House Chief of Staff, Jack Lew defending this abysmal mess of a budget.

(By broad agreement he means Obama, Soros and that mentally retarded jackass at the New York Times, Paul Krugman…anyone who actually has a functioning brain was not included in “pretty broad agreement.”  In the real world I think there is pretty broad agreement Obama is out of his gourd.   )
15 Trillion dollars in debt already. A massively growing size of the government. The continued and destructive intrusions on the free market. The ever expanding entitlement state. (Do you think at the point that the government is attacking the Amish for selling milk it might have become too big)
Among other things it would include $800 Million for countries that were involved in the Arab Spring. Remind me which of those nations is not right now controlled by Islamists who are hell bent on destroying Israel and the U.S.? Name one, I dare you. I love that my tax money is going to support these butchers.

“It would take the economy in the wrong way” if we implemented austerity. Which wrong way would that be? Would that be the way where we stop picking winners and losers (usually making the losers temporary winners, but ending up with everyone being a loser) and allow the fundamentals and groundwork for lasting economic growth be created? Would that be the way where people are not dependant on the government for their existence. Would that be the way of prosperity, of freedom, of choice, of liberty and limited government?  Nope can’t have that.

My favorite part is this statement from center-left organization Politico: “But Obama would also go outside the box by creating new mandatory spending initiatives costing tens of billions of dollars and for the first time, openly tap war savings to fund his domestic agenda.” Even the left can’t deny what a boondoggle this pile of shit is.

And this is not the time for austerity?
In the Obama world no day is ever the day for austerity because there should be no limit to the size, power and extend of the government…not until the Ministry of Peace, Ministry of Plenty, Ministry of Love and Ministry of Truth have been fully established. Remember the Obama mantra “Ignorance is strength” “Freedom is slavery.”*

Meanwhile in the real world, every day since the 1990’s has been a day for austerity and every day we have not instituted it has been a failure and disgrace.

*And before you ask, no I do not think 1984 references are uncalled for here given the insanity of increased government spending at this point.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Obama Ceasar, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Taxes, Tyranny, Unjust legislation, Welfare

A final word on Christmas Charity Part I of II

So these last few weeks I’ve seen a lot of people talk about charity and generosity in reference to it being Christmas.  And a lot of what I’ve been reading on the internet and seeing in the media shows to me that once again people do not really understand charity (or any virtue for that matter…but that is a much larger undertaking which I will put off for the moment).

Now I’ve already gone over the psychological and spiritual benefits of Peter giving to Paul vs. the detriment that comes from robbing Peter to pay Paul in Republicans and Reincarnation, so I’m not going to go over ground I’ve already covered and bore you with that.

But I was doing my daily reading of news and op-eds on the net and ran across this little moment of insanity and evil “Christmas means the redistribution of wealth” by Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo .  It’s a fascinating if not horrendously perverse and monstrously evil article because it goes beyond the usual Robin Hood clap trap (because if you actually read the stories Robin steals from tax collectors and gives back to the people who earned the money in the first place).  It’s sad that liberal papers like the Washington Post have to dig so low just to fill their rags that they take the ranting of a guy who also argues that Queen Isabella, the one who created the Inquisition, be up for sainthood and defends Pope Pius XII, also known as Hitler’s Pope, as being “maligned” .  Honestly, I wouldn’t bother with this article if it wasn’t for the fact that I have heard shades of this argument for the last few months…and this article just puts all of these arguments in one big spot.

Obviously this twit is supposedly coming from a Catholic point of view (I use supposedly because there are many Catholics who don’t pervert the words of the Bible in the way this idiot does) and I’m coming from a New Age point of view, so I will be attacking a few of his premises on grounds of religious difference…on these points I ask that you only listen to my points before dismissing my side based on any religious beliefs you may have.  (Also there are going to be a few tangents because this man makes such random justifications for his beliefs that I have to also go all over the place to point out what a moron he is).

He starts out with:

“Jesus came to save the world.”

It’s a problem when I disagree with the first words you put to paper (it’s like reading the first words in Kant where you make the most preposterously idiotic, mentally retarded, and morally bankrupt statement that life isn’t about Happiness…when you start out with a false premise you know it’s all downhill from there.)  Why do I have a problem with this…well because if you actually read the Bible, and certainly if you believe in Christianity with its concept of Hell and eternal damnation, you have a view that he came to save some who would hear him and, eh, the rest of you know where you can go (John 12:46 “I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.”…and those of you who don’t believe…Also you might care to remember that it is “peace on Earth to men of good will” not “good will to [all] men”).  Also I thought he came to save souls, not the material world.  But this guy justifies his belief that the whole world is defined by quoting that famous passage of the Bible, “He’s got the whole world in his hands”  (okay he admits it’s from a “spiritual” as he puts it, not the Bible…but really, “spiritual” might even be a bit too complimentary. ) Really?  That’s the best you have?  He’s got the whole world in his hands.

Is this really a problem?  Yes and no.  I do believe that all the enlightened beings of history, Jesus of Nazareth included, came to save ALL humanity by helping them choose to free themselves from the delusions of this world and raise us to a higher spiritual level so he would be right if he meant save our souls.  But like most liberals he is a rank materialist who can see no value in anything other than the physical world around him and thus to him “save the world” means make our lives in the physical world, here and now, perfect (not to mention just ignoring the whole free will thing suggested by the condition “whosoever believes in me”).

And thus, for this crazy author, this means that we must have income in equality…because as he states

“Christmas 2011 comes on the eve of an election year when Catholic America is confronted with an escalation in society’s class divisions and a concentration of wealth worse than under the Roman Empire.”

(And I don’t even know where to start with that one…if you track his links back you’ll eventually come to an article that calculates the wealth of the elite in Rome (the city) versus the poverty of Rome (the empire), utterly forgets that there was a trading class of merchants throughout the empire which are more or less equivalent to the middle class,  ignores the vast amount of patronage and welfare programs in the empire…and completely forgets that Caesar has more money than all the Senators and Equestrians put together…I am still trying to put together all the data, and finding data on inequality in Greece, Rome, and the Dark Ages is near impossible, but distribution of income has never been more equal than the last 50 years of human history.  Also something to consider, the bottom 10% in America probably lives a life that Alexander and Augustus would have envied).

 “The idea that the world needs to be saved – and not just individuals — is contained in the doctrine of original sin as found in the teachings of St. Paul the Apostle. How can he say that a child who has just been born is a sinner? “

Ah, the heart of the matter, the heart of all liberalism (and the mis-named social conservatism…even though there is nothing conservative about it)… That people, at their heart are evil, they have to be saved by someone outside of themselves.  Now I will state that this is really the teachings of the Council of Nicaea (and a few other Council’s) rewrites and the not the words of Paul, but that’s an argument for another time.

As to his question about children and sin, well actually it’s called reincarnation genius…you know the dominant belief within Judaism at the time of Christ, the prevailing belief of every advanced civilization except post-Nicaean Christianity…might be something to that…but that’s neither here nor there really.  What we really have to deal with is the preposterous view of Original sin.  The idea that people are inherently evil and must be controlled.  Sounds kind of like liberalism doesn’t it: you’re evil and can’t be trusted to make the right choices, you’re corrupt and need to be controlled by something bigger than you.  Happy philosophy you have there.  Meanwhile I choose to take the side that there is divinity in the human soul, human reason, and humans were made in the image of God with all of his potential and reason within us if we choose to use it.  But I have hope for, faith in and love for humanity and you have a story about eating a piece of fruit…which sounds more like the acts of a rational God?  Also the teachings of original sin are attributed to 2nd century Bishop Irenaeus, not St. Paul…but as we already established this man clearly knows nothing about history.

To save time I’m going to skim over the next paragraph where he also shows he has a great grasp of history when he says…

[…] The evil person alone prospered in the Roman Empire. […]

…Because there were no just and good people before Jesus…Cicero, Aristotle, Cyrus the Great, not to mention thousands whose names weren’t recorded by history, never existed…before Jesus all life was apparently somehow a Hobbesian nightmare but yet still somehow managed to progress.  Am I the only person who didn’t get such a dark view of humanity from reading the words of Christ in the New Testament?

 “But Jesus changed that imbalance by substituting for selfishness Christian love of neighbor in Jesus’ name. The world’s original sin of favoring evil over good has been wiped away for those baptized into Jesus’ life and resurrection.”

 

This is really sick.  No educated and rational Christian seriously believes that only Christians are good people and the rest favor  “evil over good” as a general rule…and the fact that a major newspaper prints this twaddle is an insult to all the good that Christianity and Christians have ever done or thought.  I would like to remind this idiot that the commandment Jesus quotes from, Leviticus 19:18, commands you to love your neighbor as you love yourself (which actually is kind of selfish…rationally self interested, in between the two evils of narcissism, not caring about others, and altruism, not caring about yourself).

He then goes into, very poorly, a justification that since all individuals are sinful, society is sinful too, and that as individuals need to be saved, so does society…

 

“The concept of society’s structural sin that is suggested in Pauline teaching was crystallized in the theology of liberation when it appeared among Latin American theologians after the II Vatican Council. Based on a socio-economic secular analysis of history in secular academia, theologians like Father Gustavo Gutierrez spoke of structural sin. Upholding an unjust political and economic system would only perpetuate injustice, they argued. Good people could be trapped into a web of doing bad things because society fostered a way of acting that normalized immoral behavior.”

…If you need to reread that a few times, I’ll understand.  It’s terribly worded and poorly thought out, so it might take you a few times to get what he is trying to say (his fault for being a bad writer and thinker, not yours).   So society is evil and that causes good people to do bad things.  So again we have a very liberal view that there is no free will and people aren’t responsible for their own actions.  Now you probably glossed over that phrase “theology of liberation” because no explanation was given.  What is it?  I’ll tell you (and if you don’t believe me, go look it up yourself).  It’s the theory that Christ wanted everyone to spread the wealth around, even though he was friendly with some of the rich, and to spread it around by legal force if necessary, even though Christ had a I could care less “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” policy towards politics, and though he may have advised some to give up their riches (riches made off of slavery which was the economy of the time so certainly lacking the ethical basis for profit that capitalism allows, and always as a personal suggestion not as societal policy) he never demanded or forced anyone to spread the wealth around…yes clearly Christ wanted Marxism.  The theology of liberation is a belief in economic socialism, that you should worry about how much others have, rather than just doing your part to make the world around you better, you have to punish those who have done wrong…because the mote in the rich man’s eye is always more important than the board in yours…I’m sure Christ said that somewhere.  It also teaches that profit is of course evil, as all socialism and Marxism teaches…because we all remember that Christ praised the servant who buried money and made zero profit and condemned the servant who made lots of money…oh wait.  The long and short of it is, it’s Marist socialism dressed with a few out of context quotes of Christianity to try and get Christians behind it.  Further, did you notice how not once he held up even a shred of proof that capitalism is unjust (maybe because it’s pretty much the definition of justice) unlike the government controlled economy he advocates (which breeds the very injustice he says he opposes)?

The mere fact that he has to gloss over what it really is, shows even he knows what a house of cards his argument is.

“Detractors have caricatured Liberation Theology as advocating violent revolution against White capitalists. In contrast, based on the Just War Theory, theology restricted violence to a response against violent attack, reasoning that self-defense is legitimate when measured by the countervailing force trying to take away human life and liberty.”

First off St. Thomas Aquinas, who said that not all evil should be prevented by law because more often than not they will hurt the individual in their path toward grace (Summa Theologiae, I-II Qu96 Part 2) , is probably spinning in his grave right now that you have made a mockery of Just War Theory like that (Aquinas sets out three requirements for a Just War—proper authority, just cause, right goal—liberation theology lacks all three, Summa Theologiae, II-II Qu40 part 1 ).  Second, saying you follow Just War Theory and thus aren’t a violent bunch rings about as true as genocidal lunatics saying they practice a “religion of peace”…oh wait, in practice they’re a bunch of socialists too.  I’m seeing a theme here.

(The Declaration of Independence was founded on that same principle: armed revolution in defense of God-given rights is “as American as apple pie.”)

And Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin are now spinning in their graves that this idiot would dare put a belief that requires taking away people’s liberty and right to pursue Happiness, not to mention the sacrosanct right to property, and have the audacity to justify it by referencing the Declaration.  It’s a pity I’m not a Catholic, because if I was I could rest knowing that this ass’s only time not spent in hell would be when they were deciding if his heresy against the Bible (sixth concentric circle) or his treason to the U.S. (ninth) was the deciding factor in where he would spend eternity.

“Christmas 2011 is not a call to violent revolution.”

Why be violent when Obama is trying to make this law.  After all, technically you can be arrested and detained without counsel or trial if Obama doesn’t like you right now.

He goes on and on in with this drivel but there are two other quotes of his I would like to point out.

“This is the message of Pope Benedict XVI this year for World Peace. “We cannot ignore the fact that some currents of modern culture, built upon rationalist and individualist economic principles, have cut off the concept of justice from its transcendent roots, detaching it from charity and solidarity,” writes the pontiff, echoing an earlier Vatican Committee’s statement in support of the Occupy Wall Street movements around the world that protest laissez-faire Capitalism, the concentration of wealth and the economic philosophy of Ayn Rand. In place of these unfair social principles, the pope calls for “adequate mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth.”

 

Okay first off OWS isn’t protesting laissez-faire because we don’t have laissez-faire, haven’t had it in over a century…what they’re protesting is what is being mislabeled as crony capitalism, which I tend to call the first steps to socialism…and bizarrely enough the corruption they’re complaining about will only be helped by the socialism they’re asking for.  Second, Ayn Rand, really?  Friedman, Sowell, Hayek, Williams, Laffer, Von Misses, Smith.  The great philosophers of capitalism and you pick Ayn Rand (Rand is nice, but she is to economic theory what Dr. Seus is to reading…a good place to start but a terrible place to end.  This would be like critiquing English’s ability to create great literature and using Stephen King as example of why English can’t produce good literature).  Thirdly, we have an “adequate mechanism for redistribution of wealth”, it’s called capitalism, law, and merit and it says you get out of life what you put in.

“If Benedict XVI were a candidate for the presidency of the United States, his call for “redistribution of wealth” would be controversial. Can it be dismissed as left-wing socialism? No doubt enemies of Catholic social justice will tar the pontiff in this way. But the ideal “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need,” doesn’t originate with Marx. It comes from the Acts of the Apostles (4:34-35; 1:44-45).“

It is left wing socialism!  The current Pope is a pathetic replacement for his predecessor who actually fought to defend liberty…and it’s not tarring him, it’s applying reason to his statement and seeing them as wrong.  Hate to tell you this, but the Pope is not infallible (but then again this writing did come from the apologist for Hitler’s pope).  Ah and quoting two passages from Acts written by Luke, a guy who never met Christ (and was a vicious anti-Semite to boot) in describing how early Christian communities copies their Essence predecessors in sharing everything…this was of course before Paul came and turned it from a wacky cult to an actual religion.  A shame he couldn’t quote a single line from Christ to justify this as a Christian behavior.

I’m getting very tired of this moron…if you want even more detailed rebuttals go here

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Charity, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Happiness, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Love, New Age, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Purpose of Life, Religion, Republicans and Reincarnation, Spirituality, Tyranny, Unjust legislation, Welfare

Obama enemy of capitalism

PODCAST VERSION

Obama Enemy of Capitalism

 


‘But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. “–Obama on capitalism.

Yes Obama is right, deregulation, balanced budgets, low entitlements, and low taxes don’t ever work…so long as you ignore the economic prosperity of Hong Kong and Singapore, the economic growth of Sweden, Chile, and New Zealand in recent years, the booms of the industrial revolution in the U.S. and Britain, the U.S. Depression of 1920 (the reason you haven’t heard of it was deregulation and low taxes made it a very short depression) and the economic collapse of Soviet Russia and the E.U. In fact Obama is absolutely correct, all you have to do is ignore ALL of history and ALL sane macroeconomics theory…once you get rid of those little things hell it’s an easy thing to prove that low taxes and proper deregulation don’t work.

I say proper regulation because deregulating and lower taxes on the people who helped get you elected isn’t what we mean by capitalism, that comes under two different names (1) socialism or (2) crony capitalism…po-tay-to, po-tah-to…given this man’s great understanding of economics let’s call his whole second term off.

Clearly at this point any claim that this man is not a die-hard socialist is preposterous, he just said capitalism doesn’t work. He has made it clear that he doesn’t actually believe in the history of America where America prospers and prospers under capitalism and only really begins to slow down when letters like FDR and LBJ get involved (yes I’ve simplified that, trust me you do not want to read me going over 200+ years of economics). This man is a socialist.

And you have to love his statement, “And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker.” Actually the collected works of Smith, Friedman, Hayek, Von Misses, Sowell, WIlliams, Laffer and a whole host of other economists doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker all that well. Let me see if any of this works as a bumper sticker…”Lower taxes across the board will improve the flow of capital in the economy and allow for greater growth”. No, that’s a little long. Hmmm…what does work as a bumper sticker? What politician has been defined entirely by stupid phrases and bumper stickers? Hope. Change. Fair-share. Hmmmm….which side is defined by bumper sticker policy again? (Yeah both sides use bumper stickers…but the capitalists at least have really thick, well researched and thought out books behind them).

Oh and look what he has for proof “Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. ” That’s right because the Democrats continuing to hyper-inflate the real-estate market and the college tuition market and control the minimum wage and spend more than we took in and offer more entitlements and not pass Tort reform…yes all those efforts on behalf of socialism should clearly not be taken into account.  Nor should the much larger tax cuts by Kennedy and Reagan which boosted the economy even be looked at. No we should only look at tax cuts that didn’t have an immediate effect because that is all that matters in the economy. Again whose understanding of the economy could fit on a bumper sticker?

Then he goes onto say “Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class — things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.” This coming from the man who supported TARP and the Stimulus and all the other forms of creating that massive debt. No, no let’s not look at spending or regulation. It only has to do with tax cuts. That’s it. That’s the only thing that is possibly relevant to an economy. To hell if raising taxes won’t close the debt or even this year’s deficit. Do you also like how he implies that education, science and technology couldn’t even exist without the government? Without the government nothing could happen in this man’s mind. Yeah he’s not a socialist. Hell you couldn’t even get into the middle class without the government according to Obama. That’s right getting a high school diploma, making good choices and working hard has nothing to do with getting into the middle class…it’s all the government and nothing else.

“Remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running Congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight, and what did it get us?”

Of course. In the last decade we had very weak regulation. We only had rules that prevented insurance companies from crossing state lines and prevented competition…that’s very weak regulation. We had piles of laws, regulations, rules and lawyers to make sure that Banks had no choice but to offer loans to people who couldn’t possibly afford them. We had EPA regulations that forced entire sections of the California agricultural community to shut down all to save an ugly fish no one had ever heard of. We had OSHA rules that prevent productivity. We had a tax code that only benefitted the friends of politicians (GE and Warren Buffet anyone?) We prevented oil drilling in Alaska that would have been safe and forced drilling in the Gulf to be pushed out to more dangerous deep water drilling (remind me how that turned out). As for oversight, I’ll grant you that we had weak oversight, we’ve always had weak oversight. Mainly because the people who we should be looking at are contributing by the barrel load to Obama and the Democrats who controlled the Senate for the majority of the last 10 years and the House for quite a few of them. I love the basic argument of Democrats, since the last few decades of of pseudo-socialism in America has proved that capitalism doesn’t work, we need more socialism. Huh?

I love this one.
“[M]ortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn’t afford, a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy.” Tricked. They tricked people into taking these loans. It wasn’t like the law firm you worked Barrack actually sued banks in conjunction with the Clinton Justice Department when the banks tried to not give these people loans. No. It has absolutely nothing to do with laws like the CRA and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd actively preventing legislation by the Bush administration to have more oversight and deregulate the sector and thus stop forcing banks from making bad choices. Nothing to do with that at all. They tricked people. Those evil evil banks.

“We simply cannot return to this brand of “you’re on your own” economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. We know that it doesn’t result in a strong economy.” We know that? Really? Oh, I forgot we’re going to ignore all of human history that shows that it does work. That’s right how could I be so stupid? I forgot we have class warfare to maintain….and yes he then goes into 7 paragraphs on “inequality” and “fair share.” Despite the fact that this has no relevance in real economic discussions.

And who can forget these passages…

Today, even higher-skilled jobs, like accountants and middle management can be outsourced to countries like China or India. And if you’re somebody whose job can be done cheaper by a computer or someone in another country, you don’t have a lot of leverage with your employer when it comes to asking for better wages or better benefits, especially since fewer Americans today are part of a union

Today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in the places with the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, communicate with the rest of the world. And that’s why the over 1 million construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed, they shouldn’t be sitting at home with nothing to do. They should be rebuilding our roads and our bridges, laying down faster railroads and broadband, modernizing our schools — all the things other countries are already doing to attract good jobs and businesses to their shores.

So foreigners, growing markets, and technology are to blame…sounds like a Ron Paul ad doesn’t it? And apparently if we were all in unions everything would be fine (except you know for the fact that every industry with unions is complete crap right now…I’m sure it’s just a coincidence).  And he seems to forget that the infrastructure that he’s touting is often built by the companies that are leaving America not by the nations they’re leaving for…so if they’re leaving to spend money on building their own infrastructure at great cost,what is the reason they’re leaving…might it have something to do with high taxes and over regulation? And construction workers are out of work so let’s take carpenters and electricians who aren’t building homes and have them…build roads….wait did I read that right? Yes I did. He apparently thinks all construction workers are the same (they’re not) and even if someone did want to cross lines from one form of construction to another, Obama doesn’t seem to realize those pesky unions he touted just a second ago will not let that happen. Oh and this is all from a man who ensured there would be no new jobs for constructions workers by delaying a massive construction project (of a pipeline from Canada to the gulf) that would have created thousands of privates sector paid for jobs until after the election. Yes, clearly he cares about America construction workers being out of work.

I could go over the rest of the twaddle this man spouted but why bother. It only continues to show a complete ignorance of history, economics, human psychology, and long term thinking. I merely point out this paragraph from near the end of the speech:

“This isn’t about class warfare. This is about the nation’s welfare. It’s about making choices that benefit not just the people who’ve done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get into the middle class, and the economy as a whole.”

And whenever you hear a Democrat tell you it’s not about class warfare, trust me it’s about class warfare…class warfare that will only benefit those politicians and the corrupt who pay to keep them in power because they couldn’t survive in a real capitalist system.

….
And another look at how we don’t exactly have a capitalist system right now…

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Atlas Shrugged, Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Obama, Podcasts, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

Democrats Brand New Plan: Raise Taxes On Rich, No Spending Cuts

Say hello to the new Democratic plan, same as the old the Democratic plan

So the new Democratic plan, as laid out by resident scumbag Chuck Schumer is to raise taxes on the rich and cut nothing.  I’m glad the Democrats aren’t a broken record that have only one policy, but rather embrace a myriad of different ways to improve the economy and never stick to a plan after it has already failed the last 100 times it was tried. 

 

Senator Schumer, who has never met a tax hike or Constitutional violation he didn’t like  is suggesting this new tax hike on millionaires to offset the cost of continuing the tax break on the payroll tax we have all enjoyed for the last year.

And you know what, I like the payroll tax break.  Better that I get to keep my money than it goes to the Social Security system where it is guaranteed that I will never see it again.  I’m kind of like that; I prefer my money to remain in my wallet instead of the wallets of highway robbers.  I guess I’m just greedy.

But how about this we don’t need to raise taxes on anyone.  Do you know why?  Well first because Schumer’s tax those who make more than a million a year plan is just laughable.  You could tax everyone in the country who makes more than a million a year and still not have enough to shore up social security.

Let’s take a look. [2006 figures]  U.S. Census figures don’t list go above $250,000 a year but let’s use that.  After all $250,000 a year is rich and those bastards deserve to have everything taken from them anyway.  So there are 2.2 million households with an income of $250K or higher (There are 116 million households so this group is about the top 2% of the number of households).   The whole group has an average income of $448,687 (which if you take the time to think about it means most of them are below the million dollar mark, but they’re still evil rich bastards).  So the total income for this group is 987.1 Billion dollars.  So if Chuck put an additional 10% on their income that would yield 98.7 Billion next year.

 

But that won’t solve much.  You see Social Security was already taking in 29 Billion less than it was spending in March of 2010then in December of 2010 Obama signed the 2% Payroll tax holiday for a year, which is what Schumer wants to save.  That saved Americans about $100 Billion that wasn’t sent to the thieves at Social Security.  Oh wait, we were already spending more than we were taking in, then we cut income by a $100,000,000,000.00.  Hmmm and if Chuck got a 10% hike on everyone at $250,000 or more that would supply 99 Billion.

But Chuck only wants to tax those making over a million.  Which, since they’re a small portion of that top 2% means the tax rate will have to be even higher to make up the difference.  So we’re at what, a 20% increase?  30%?  And you’re still not making up for the initial $29 Billion shortfall that we started with before the payroll tax cut.

And let us not forget the baby boomers are starting to retire.  A massive generation of losers who expect to be taken care of.  Yeah I’m sure that won’t jack up costs.

And I’m sure a 30% tax increase on income won’t possibly slow down the economy at all.  No, not at all.

And it’s even more ridiculous as most people who make over a million a year make it through investments which is an entirely different type of income than the type Schumer is talking about.  So don’t worry Warren Buffet, your Democratic pals aren’t coming after a single cent of your income.

How about this, Chuck.  Instead of your plan which won’t work and is only there to stir up the class warfare, how about a plan that works.

If you’re on Social Security right now, you’re taking a 10% cut in benefits.  If you’re going on it in the next 3 years you’re taking a 15% cut.  If you’re not retiring in the next three years, guess what you’re really not retiring in the next three years because we’re raising the retirement age from 67 to 71…and look forward a 20% cut in benefits.  And if you’re under 50 right now you’re retirement age is 75 and a 25% cut in benefits.  This will get costs in line.

And then we should lower benefits for everyone 45 or younger even further but offer these people a privatized system that is self sustaining and not a ponzi-scheme like entitlement program.
But that would actually work.  And Chuck Schumer isn’t interested in things that work…he’s interested in things that get him and his ilk elected so they can be exempt from all payroll taxes and all insider trading laws.

2 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, politics, Social Security, Taxes, Tea Party, Unjust legislation, Welfare

Why I support Bachmann

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well there was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5 Comments

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

The Super Committee Failure is a good thing…

So the Super Committee failed.  Yay! Mandatory cuts at last! And Newt and Rand Paul are right that this is a good thing.  It’s only with future spending.  That’s bad.

Now some conservatives are having a knee jerk reaction to spending cuts in defense…but let’s be honest here.  We all know there’s waste.  We all know that there are useless expenditures.  There is the half a billion to buy a jet engine the DOD doesn’t want …and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.  Redundancy.  Poor spending programs.  Too many officers not enough enlisted. R&D in areas the military doesn’t actually want or know how to conduct (please go read a book entitled “The Pentagon Wars” by Col. James Burton if you want to how bad military R&D can get…and although it takes some liberties the movie also gives you a general idea of how bad it really is).  Knowing what I know about Federal spending I promise you if you got real accountants and real military personnel in there to go line by line over the budget, you could cut not just future spending but 10% of current spending AND have enough to buy every soldier brand new body armor.

 

And cuts to future spending in entitlement spending is a good thing.  But it’s certainly not enough.  Entitlement spending is like most government programs, it sounds good in theory, “let’s help the poor and needy”, but in fact all it does is make the situation worse.  You want to help the poor, cut the budgets for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, and Unemployment benefits by AT LEAST 50% over the next 10 years…not future spending actual spending because the more you cut the better people will actually be.  We spend $250,000 a year per poor person in America (the fact that they’re still poor tells you how much overhead we have in government waste)

Of course that’s still not enough.  We need to cut, cut, and cut some more until we can say that at least 15% if not 25% of each year’s federal budget is paying off the principle (not just the interest) on the debt.  Then and only then will you see real growth in the economy.

Leave a comment

Filed under Books, Books for Conservatives, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, politics, Social Security, Taxes, Tyranny, Unjust legislation, Welfare