Was listening to reports about the judge's ruling on the Arizona immigration law all day and still don't have a really clear idea about it. Apparently the judge didn't nullify the entire law, just the useful parts of it.
Then it occurred to me: Arizona has been alinskied.
One of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals says, "pick a target; freeze it; personalize it; polarize it." That's exactly what happened to Arizona.
First of all, the immigration law Arizona is trying to implement isn't very extreme and doesn't interfere with federal law. The federal law actually gives law enforcement more latitude to profile people and demand to see the papers of anyone who looks funny to federal law enforcement types. Under federal law, people don't have to be breaking any laws, or even suspected of breaking any OTHER laws but immigration laws. Under the Arizona law, a cop can only ask for citizenship papers or a green card if he's stopped a person for some other reason, some other type of violation. Arizona's law is well within federal parameters. So why pick on Arizona?
Well, according to Alinsky, why not?
Then you freeze the target, like catching a deer in the headlights. Make your accusation, It doesn't have to be based on anything like truth. It just has to upset people. Claim that Arizona is proposing some fascist scheme to round up and shoot down anyone suspected of being Mexican. Yeah, that's pretty damn ridiculous, but the object is not to tell the truth necessarily, but to enrage people.
Then personalize it. Go ahead, invite Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to the White House. It's all her fault. And, on the other side is that poor innocent dad who just wanted to take his kids out for ice cream, according to the Comrade, and who gets harrassed by the cops for looking like a Mexican. Personalization on both sides. Jan Brewer, the mean white authority figure and the poor dad who has an accent or something, who only wants to get his kids an ice cream cone. A-w-w-w-w.
Then polarize it. This is the fun part, as far as the marxists are concerned. Where Arizona used to be full of Americans and illegal aliens, now it's full of bully gringos and set-upon people of Mexican descent who just want to make a living. The gringos, of course, are all rich capitalists coming down hard on hungry, pathetic illegals. And also vicious "coyotes" and drug smugglers, but the Comrade and his friends choose to disregard that part of the story. becuase it doesn't suit their purposes.
And now there's hatred and conflict. This is exactly what the Comrade was going for, as in, "Let's go see if we can rustle up some injustice so we can get someone to vote for us."
Load of crap, no?
And what I find particularly interesting is that 60% to 70% of the American public stands behind Arizona. Even within Arizona, a majority of Latino citizens (of the documented kind) stand behind Arizona.
But apparently the Comrade is willing to alienate 60% of the population to maybe scrape together a coalition of self-decscribe "victim" voters who will run with the radical democrats.
I don't think that strategy will work, but we'll see in November. Certainly, we can't have two and half more years of this kind of bullshit. It's destroying American social institutions as surely as the Comrade's marxist economics are deliberately destroying the American economy.
What's really pretty sad are the Latinos who take any of this seriously, as well as the whites who get riled up over it. It's just Saul Alinsky games, the Comrade's political playground.
Just refuse to play, and Save the republic.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Propaganda or art?
It comes to my attention -- once again -- that Oliver Stone is an idiot. It would be one thing if his work was worth anything, but he's just kind of a paper cut-out and so is his work. Like, I do believe Jane Fonda and Angelina Jolie are very good actresses, even though they seem extremely naive and misguided when it comes to politics. And Angelina Jolie is just insufferably pompous in that very calculating way that liberals adopt (including Oliver Stone.) I'd still go see their movies, for the plot, their performance, etc. I think Steven Spielberg is a fantastic director, probably one of the best to ever live, though I don't think we'd donate to the same political candidates. Oliver Stone, however, has always struck me as something of a fraud.
Was going to say, I haven't seen that many Oliver Stone movies, but actually, I have, when I think about it. They just aren't all that memorable. "Platoon" was OK, but even in that, Stone's grand debut as it were, I thought Willem Dafoe's likability carried the whole thing. And Tom Berenger is terrific, even as a bad guy. Not much plot to speak of. The good and bad guys were entirely unsubtley obvious; they could have been wearing white and black hats. Possibly they were. Stone was only hoping to document "the horror of war," and Charlie Sheen's performance did that -- in a way.
On the other hand, if you're involved in a bloody war with a ruthless enemy, would you rather your squadron leader was an easy-going dope-smoker or a hard-ass disciplinarian? Maybe Ollie didn't see enough actual combat when he was in Vietnam. It's a possibility. I knew a guy who's tour of Vietnam consisted of three days. He didn't do combat; he was a clerk. Then his plane was shot down taking off from Da Nang and he was the only survivor. I doubt ol' Ollie Stone experienced even that much of real combat, or he'd appreciate the need for mental alertness and chain-of-command. Or maybe he's just a blockhead.
And it's no secret that "war is all hell." In fact, it was General W.T. Sherman who pointed out that obvious fact, and unlike Oliver Stone, I don't believe Sherman felt he was revealing anything new and shocking.
"Scarface" was stupid. Al Pacino was very good, but the plot was stupid. At the end, the walls of the drug lord's marble palace are running with blood. It kinda brought to mind "The Amityville Horror." I mean, suddenly, the whole thing turns into sort of a cartoon. Then it's hard to take any of it seriously.
"Greed" was also kinda stupid. But then, I truly believe that "Greed is good." In real life, it's also counterbalanced by other peoples' greed and by competitors, but Ollie Stone doesn't take that into account. No, for Ollie, it's all about exploiting the union guy -- who, in reality, makes more than most people for doing less and also has a pretty secure pension, now underwritten by the federal government.
I saw parts of the movie about JFK's assassination and thought it was really ludicrous -- not the theme of it, which I didn't see enough to discern, or possibly it was just a kind of unintelligible hash. But the whole style of it was typical Oliver Stone -- sort of cobbled together shopworn cliches and stereotypes, and everything way over the top. Oliver Stone has never seemed capable of any kind of original thought, emotion, or genuine insight into human behavior. He leaves that up to the actors he works with, and they've been pretty good. In fact, in most cases, they've carried the movies.
The other day, Oliver Stone made some kind of comment about how Hitler might have been a Frankenstein, "but there was also a Dr. Frankenstein," he said. Yeah, Ollie, there was also a Dr. Hitler, doing all kinds of medical experiments on Jews, children, and other victims, or are we overlooking that horrible truth for the sake of promoting your stupid movies? And you point to Wall Street types as "greedy"? Wall Street, after all, has to deliver something of value. This doesn't seem to be required of Hollywood film makers anymore, unless you're really into brainless special FX and explosions for their own sake.
When I was a kid, a family member was in the military in Germany. This was within 10 - 15 years of the end of WWII. I remember a paperback book being in the house. It was just your standard 3"x5" paperback, with a black-and-white photo on the cover and wide orange bands on the top and bottom. The title and author's name -- I would imagine -- were printed in the orange bands, the title in that Olde-English-looking fancy type. It was "Butchers of Berlin" or something like that.
So one day I actually opened up this book and flipped through it. This family member had brought it back with him from Germany, I assume. Middle of the book were a number of black-and-white photographs on glossy paper. Photos taken by GI's as they marched into and occupied Germany. Photos of emaciated bodies piled in careless heaps. Piles of bones. The ovens. Things like that. I remember there was one of woman smiling and holding some kind of a whip, and I assumed she was one of the perps rather than a victim. I guess I was probably eight to ten years old. Had to ask my mom, what the hell was that all about? I mean, I'd been exposed to Dracula and the Wolfman, but this stuff was real.
Anyway, I've never been a fan of Hitler or Nazi Germany. And I've never been able to seriously consider that the Holocaust was just all made up. In high school, a good friend of mind used to go to a hair salon in Skokie. The lady who owned the salon had numbers tattooed on her arm. The five-digit number included a "seven" with a line drawn across the stem, European-style. The first time I ever saw that. I never heard the hairdresser talk about her past, though, and was too overwhelmed to acknowledge that I even saw the tattoo.
And now ol' Ollie has a movie out about Hugo Chavez and the rape of Venezuela. Yeah, it is a rape, and according to reviews and Stone's own admissions in one interview -- the victim really enjoys it.
Did ol' Ollie actually talk to anyone in Venezuela but that wily, ugly little monkey-man in the red shirt with the big guns around him? And actually, wasn't it fat-ass mockumentary maker Michael Moore and mediocre actor Sean Penn who popularized kissing the asses of vicious and violent dictators? Doing their public relations for them. I do believe even Cameron Diaz got there before Oliver Stone, carrying around a handbag that featured a red marxist star in Argentina. The Argentinians didn't appreciate it. Wonder if anyone bothered to explain all that nasty stuff to sweet young Cameron. And now here comes Oliver Stone, hopping on the radical-liberal politcally correct bandwagon once again. Just following the trend. Going with the flow and pretending to be some kind of maestro.
But you don't even need to see Oliver Stone's movies to know he's a phony. Did you ever see the guy talk? He's so studiously lofty, so careful to choose his words, his thinking so labored. He works so hard to appear profound, and then he comes out with some over-used platitude that may or may not be relevant to the question. It's all a pose. You just have to strike the right posture. Then drivel can pour out of your mouth and no one will notice -- they'll all be wondering who cuts (or doesn't) your hair. That's the really important thing.
Stone is supposed to be doing something like "The Secret History of America." I can't imagine what a mess he'll make of that. He has so little depth, such limited ability. I certainly won't disturb myself to see it. I won't even expend the energy required to actively boycott. I just won't pursue witnessing anything more from him, just in case someone drags out a DVD at a party or something -- which ain't likley. He just isn't worth it. Quite probably, Stone and the rest are just auditioning for the role of the Comrade's Entertainment Czar. That just may be the next big bill.
Save the republic.
Was going to say, I haven't seen that many Oliver Stone movies, but actually, I have, when I think about it. They just aren't all that memorable. "Platoon" was OK, but even in that, Stone's grand debut as it were, I thought Willem Dafoe's likability carried the whole thing. And Tom Berenger is terrific, even as a bad guy. Not much plot to speak of. The good and bad guys were entirely unsubtley obvious; they could have been wearing white and black hats. Possibly they were. Stone was only hoping to document "the horror of war," and Charlie Sheen's performance did that -- in a way.
On the other hand, if you're involved in a bloody war with a ruthless enemy, would you rather your squadron leader was an easy-going dope-smoker or a hard-ass disciplinarian? Maybe Ollie didn't see enough actual combat when he was in Vietnam. It's a possibility. I knew a guy who's tour of Vietnam consisted of three days. He didn't do combat; he was a clerk. Then his plane was shot down taking off from Da Nang and he was the only survivor. I doubt ol' Ollie Stone experienced even that much of real combat, or he'd appreciate the need for mental alertness and chain-of-command. Or maybe he's just a blockhead.
And it's no secret that "war is all hell." In fact, it was General W.T. Sherman who pointed out that obvious fact, and unlike Oliver Stone, I don't believe Sherman felt he was revealing anything new and shocking.
"Scarface" was stupid. Al Pacino was very good, but the plot was stupid. At the end, the walls of the drug lord's marble palace are running with blood. It kinda brought to mind "The Amityville Horror." I mean, suddenly, the whole thing turns into sort of a cartoon. Then it's hard to take any of it seriously.
"Greed" was also kinda stupid. But then, I truly believe that "Greed is good." In real life, it's also counterbalanced by other peoples' greed and by competitors, but Ollie Stone doesn't take that into account. No, for Ollie, it's all about exploiting the union guy -- who, in reality, makes more than most people for doing less and also has a pretty secure pension, now underwritten by the federal government.
I saw parts of the movie about JFK's assassination and thought it was really ludicrous -- not the theme of it, which I didn't see enough to discern, or possibly it was just a kind of unintelligible hash. But the whole style of it was typical Oliver Stone -- sort of cobbled together shopworn cliches and stereotypes, and everything way over the top. Oliver Stone has never seemed capable of any kind of original thought, emotion, or genuine insight into human behavior. He leaves that up to the actors he works with, and they've been pretty good. In fact, in most cases, they've carried the movies.
The other day, Oliver Stone made some kind of comment about how Hitler might have been a Frankenstein, "but there was also a Dr. Frankenstein," he said. Yeah, Ollie, there was also a Dr. Hitler, doing all kinds of medical experiments on Jews, children, and other victims, or are we overlooking that horrible truth for the sake of promoting your stupid movies? And you point to Wall Street types as "greedy"? Wall Street, after all, has to deliver something of value. This doesn't seem to be required of Hollywood film makers anymore, unless you're really into brainless special FX and explosions for their own sake.
When I was a kid, a family member was in the military in Germany. This was within 10 - 15 years of the end of WWII. I remember a paperback book being in the house. It was just your standard 3"x5" paperback, with a black-and-white photo on the cover and wide orange bands on the top and bottom. The title and author's name -- I would imagine -- were printed in the orange bands, the title in that Olde-English-looking fancy type. It was "Butchers of Berlin" or something like that.
So one day I actually opened up this book and flipped through it. This family member had brought it back with him from Germany, I assume. Middle of the book were a number of black-and-white photographs on glossy paper. Photos taken by GI's as they marched into and occupied Germany. Photos of emaciated bodies piled in careless heaps. Piles of bones. The ovens. Things like that. I remember there was one of woman smiling and holding some kind of a whip, and I assumed she was one of the perps rather than a victim. I guess I was probably eight to ten years old. Had to ask my mom, what the hell was that all about? I mean, I'd been exposed to Dracula and the Wolfman, but this stuff was real.
Anyway, I've never been a fan of Hitler or Nazi Germany. And I've never been able to seriously consider that the Holocaust was just all made up. In high school, a good friend of mind used to go to a hair salon in Skokie. The lady who owned the salon had numbers tattooed on her arm. The five-digit number included a "seven" with a line drawn across the stem, European-style. The first time I ever saw that. I never heard the hairdresser talk about her past, though, and was too overwhelmed to acknowledge that I even saw the tattoo.
And now ol' Ollie has a movie out about Hugo Chavez and the rape of Venezuela. Yeah, it is a rape, and according to reviews and Stone's own admissions in one interview -- the victim really enjoys it.
Did ol' Ollie actually talk to anyone in Venezuela but that wily, ugly little monkey-man in the red shirt with the big guns around him? And actually, wasn't it fat-ass mockumentary maker Michael Moore and mediocre actor Sean Penn who popularized kissing the asses of vicious and violent dictators? Doing their public relations for them. I do believe even Cameron Diaz got there before Oliver Stone, carrying around a handbag that featured a red marxist star in Argentina. The Argentinians didn't appreciate it. Wonder if anyone bothered to explain all that nasty stuff to sweet young Cameron. And now here comes Oliver Stone, hopping on the radical-liberal politcally correct bandwagon once again. Just following the trend. Going with the flow and pretending to be some kind of maestro.
But you don't even need to see Oliver Stone's movies to know he's a phony. Did you ever see the guy talk? He's so studiously lofty, so careful to choose his words, his thinking so labored. He works so hard to appear profound, and then he comes out with some over-used platitude that may or may not be relevant to the question. It's all a pose. You just have to strike the right posture. Then drivel can pour out of your mouth and no one will notice -- they'll all be wondering who cuts (or doesn't) your hair. That's the really important thing.
Stone is supposed to be doing something like "The Secret History of America." I can't imagine what a mess he'll make of that. He has so little depth, such limited ability. I certainly won't disturb myself to see it. I won't even expend the energy required to actively boycott. I just won't pursue witnessing anything more from him, just in case someone drags out a DVD at a party or something -- which ain't likley. He just isn't worth it. Quite probably, Stone and the rest are just auditioning for the role of the Comrade's Entertainment Czar. That just may be the next big bill.
Save the republic.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
The medical-financial complex, a work-in-progress
Just briefly....
The Washington Post newspaper did a three-part series on how the government-intelligence-military (etc etc) network conglomerate thing has gotten out of hand. Didn't read the series, but I'm sure it's probably mostly true.
But it seems to be whining about what was called the "industrial-military complex" in the 1960s. This was a knot of government and private interests, supposedly closely and diabolically interlinked, and all fomenting continuous war -- especially in Vietnam -- to keep themselves employed.
Apparently the Post berates the fact that the whole intelligence thing is made up dozens, if not hundreds, of tiny bureaus, accountable to no one, and all with some little bit of authority to make rules and regulations that bind on the population.
What I'd like to see is the Washington Post ponder the idea that with socialized medicine, a similar mess of unaccountable and even unintelligible bureaus are right now in the process of being established in the health care industry.
Similarly, finance and commerce in general are now going to be subject to the whims and fancies of a bunch of additional appointed bureaucrats -- most of which probably have never been in business -- who are accountable to who-knows, yet who can make decisions and write regulations that bind on the rest of the nation. Actually, this tangle of private and government interlocking interests has existed for quite some time -- this is where Tim Geithner has spent his entire career. And look at the wonders it has done for the economy so far. Expect more of the same.
We see this happening now -- this kudzu-like growth of government -- and I suspect the Washington Post, which at heart really loves the idea of Big Government, doesn't see the negativity it will spawn. However, nice to know that when the Post looks through its rear-view mirror, it recognizes a useless, expensive, and probably very dangerous rat's nest. They just can't look forward far enough to see a couple more of these briar-patch bureaucracies in the making.
Save the republic.
The Washington Post newspaper did a three-part series on how the government-intelligence-military (etc etc) network conglomerate thing has gotten out of hand. Didn't read the series, but I'm sure it's probably mostly true.
But it seems to be whining about what was called the "industrial-military complex" in the 1960s. This was a knot of government and private interests, supposedly closely and diabolically interlinked, and all fomenting continuous war -- especially in Vietnam -- to keep themselves employed.
Apparently the Post berates the fact that the whole intelligence thing is made up dozens, if not hundreds, of tiny bureaus, accountable to no one, and all with some little bit of authority to make rules and regulations that bind on the population.
What I'd like to see is the Washington Post ponder the idea that with socialized medicine, a similar mess of unaccountable and even unintelligible bureaus are right now in the process of being established in the health care industry.
Similarly, finance and commerce in general are now going to be subject to the whims and fancies of a bunch of additional appointed bureaucrats -- most of which probably have never been in business -- who are accountable to who-knows, yet who can make decisions and write regulations that bind on the rest of the nation. Actually, this tangle of private and government interlocking interests has existed for quite some time -- this is where Tim Geithner has spent his entire career. And look at the wonders it has done for the economy so far. Expect more of the same.
We see this happening now -- this kudzu-like growth of government -- and I suspect the Washington Post, which at heart really loves the idea of Big Government, doesn't see the negativity it will spawn. However, nice to know that when the Post looks through its rear-view mirror, it recognizes a useless, expensive, and probably very dangerous rat's nest. They just can't look forward far enough to see a couple more of these briar-patch bureaucracies in the making.
Save the republic.
What do you do about bad laws?
A few months ago the movie "Judgment at Nuremburg" was on, with Spencer Tracy as a retired US judge chairing a panel of judges trying Nazi officials for war crimes. Also, the same idea was presented in "A Few Good Men," with Tom Cruise, Demi Moore, Kevin Bacon, et. al.
The question is: If you are subject to a bad law, or a bad command in the case of "A Few Good Men," do you obey it? Usually disobeying carries severe consequences, but obeying may bring about much, much worse results.
The USA, because it's the USA and exceptional, has always taken the position that if you're ordered to do something you know to be wrong, you have a personal responsibility to disobey. Maybe you're "just following orders" in times and places like Nazi Germany, but the USA has always held that personal conscience is more important than the whims of a dictator or a runaway government. I mean, Quakers are exempted from combat, and up until socialized medicine, public funds were not used for abortions. I mean, that was the American posture on this kind of thing.
So what do we do about socialized medicine and all the provisions in the Financial Ruin act? Do we obey? I don't know how we can. The kind of governmental over-reach and anal-compulsive regulation in both these bills pretty much stands the USA on its head. They violate everything the USA stands for. They strip US citizens of our liberty, our capacity to make our own decisions. We're supposed to just go, "Yavol!" salute, click our heels, and hand over all of our cash and Fritos.
Have you noticed there seems to be an unusual number of earthquakes lately? Personally, I think it's the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves. I mean really, an earthquake in Washington, DC? Charleston, SC, suffered a similar and very serious quake in the 1870's or thereabouts. I always figured that was John C. Calhoun (one of the fathers of secession) a little teed off about Reconstruction.
Anyway, I shouldn't joke because this is a very serious issue. How can you comply with laws that you find personally morally repugnant? Can you take the Fifth Amendment somehow? "I'm sorry, but I just can't help pay for killing unborn babies and denying health care to the elderly."
Or take this even further.... If taxes and other required expenses, like for socialized medicine, actually prove to be detrimental to your well-being, isn't that kinda like requiring citizens to shoot themselves in the face or something? What if you can't pay? What if it's a choice between paying your taxes -- including funding socialized medicine -- or paying your rent? Can you send the feds a pound of flesh instead? One way to lose a little weight, too.
OK, take the macro view that Little Paulie Krugman and Robert (Third) Reich are so fond of. Even from their lofty, ivory tower perspective, a heavy tax burden does not and cannot stimulate the economy. If the government steals everyone's money -- either by actually swooping down and robbing your wages even before you get a paycheck, or by the government having to borrow so much that it crowds out private borrowers, or because half-baked regulations contrived by economic dunces add a crushing amount of labor and expense to...everything -- all of that can't do anything but depress economic growth. No one has anything to invest as the cost of doing business increases. And "investment" here includes "investing" in the corner grocery store to buy potatoes for dinner. Unless they actually do have a money tree in the back yard, everyone goes out of business, except the government.
And because the government has no source of income except taxpayers, eventually it also goes out of business. To quote that wonderful quote from Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money." It's self-destructive. It not only kills the goose that lays the golden eggs, it also has the goose for dinner. Once. And then it's gone.
Bad laws are laws that are destructive to human liberty and human life. Socialized Medicine and Financial Ruin are very bad laws.
And what the hell has happened to Americans? Tea Partiers aside, does anyone actually believe that this crap legislation can work? Their viability is so far beyond the realm of possibility, you have to wonder what those in favor of them are really after. But I think we know.
At any rate, shoving the macro view into the ditch at the side of the road, where it properly belongs, let's look at the micro view -- so-called supply-side economics. This is you and me going to work, taking our pay and going shopping. Both activities are getting increasingly unlikely. But without these activities, the economy doesn't function at all. Can't function. There is no Santa Claus.
So what do we do with these bad laws? Just obey and starve to death? Destroy our families' futures? Distract ourselves by trying to catch a glimpse of Lindsey Lohan's fingernail text art while the nation collapses?
This government is trying to force us all to do wrong things, self-destructive things that will eventually undermine the US Constitution and the USA as a sovereign nation.
How can we do that? I mean honestly, how do you convince yourself to just stop thinking, shut up, and go along with it?
Save the republic.
The question is: If you are subject to a bad law, or a bad command in the case of "A Few Good Men," do you obey it? Usually disobeying carries severe consequences, but obeying may bring about much, much worse results.
The USA, because it's the USA and exceptional, has always taken the position that if you're ordered to do something you know to be wrong, you have a personal responsibility to disobey. Maybe you're "just following orders" in times and places like Nazi Germany, but the USA has always held that personal conscience is more important than the whims of a dictator or a runaway government. I mean, Quakers are exempted from combat, and up until socialized medicine, public funds were not used for abortions. I mean, that was the American posture on this kind of thing.
So what do we do about socialized medicine and all the provisions in the Financial Ruin act? Do we obey? I don't know how we can. The kind of governmental over-reach and anal-compulsive regulation in both these bills pretty much stands the USA on its head. They violate everything the USA stands for. They strip US citizens of our liberty, our capacity to make our own decisions. We're supposed to just go, "Yavol!" salute, click our heels, and hand over all of our cash and Fritos.
Have you noticed there seems to be an unusual number of earthquakes lately? Personally, I think it's the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves. I mean really, an earthquake in Washington, DC? Charleston, SC, suffered a similar and very serious quake in the 1870's or thereabouts. I always figured that was John C. Calhoun (one of the fathers of secession) a little teed off about Reconstruction.
Anyway, I shouldn't joke because this is a very serious issue. How can you comply with laws that you find personally morally repugnant? Can you take the Fifth Amendment somehow? "I'm sorry, but I just can't help pay for killing unborn babies and denying health care to the elderly."
Or take this even further.... If taxes and other required expenses, like for socialized medicine, actually prove to be detrimental to your well-being, isn't that kinda like requiring citizens to shoot themselves in the face or something? What if you can't pay? What if it's a choice between paying your taxes -- including funding socialized medicine -- or paying your rent? Can you send the feds a pound of flesh instead? One way to lose a little weight, too.
OK, take the macro view that Little Paulie Krugman and Robert (Third) Reich are so fond of. Even from their lofty, ivory tower perspective, a heavy tax burden does not and cannot stimulate the economy. If the government steals everyone's money -- either by actually swooping down and robbing your wages even before you get a paycheck, or by the government having to borrow so much that it crowds out private borrowers, or because half-baked regulations contrived by economic dunces add a crushing amount of labor and expense to...everything -- all of that can't do anything but depress economic growth. No one has anything to invest as the cost of doing business increases. And "investment" here includes "investing" in the corner grocery store to buy potatoes for dinner. Unless they actually do have a money tree in the back yard, everyone goes out of business, except the government.
And because the government has no source of income except taxpayers, eventually it also goes out of business. To quote that wonderful quote from Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money." It's self-destructive. It not only kills the goose that lays the golden eggs, it also has the goose for dinner. Once. And then it's gone.
Bad laws are laws that are destructive to human liberty and human life. Socialized Medicine and Financial Ruin are very bad laws.
And what the hell has happened to Americans? Tea Partiers aside, does anyone actually believe that this crap legislation can work? Their viability is so far beyond the realm of possibility, you have to wonder what those in favor of them are really after. But I think we know.
At any rate, shoving the macro view into the ditch at the side of the road, where it properly belongs, let's look at the micro view -- so-called supply-side economics. This is you and me going to work, taking our pay and going shopping. Both activities are getting increasingly unlikely. But without these activities, the economy doesn't function at all. Can't function. There is no Santa Claus.
So what do we do with these bad laws? Just obey and starve to death? Destroy our families' futures? Distract ourselves by trying to catch a glimpse of Lindsey Lohan's fingernail text art while the nation collapses?
This government is trying to force us all to do wrong things, self-destructive things that will eventually undermine the US Constitution and the USA as a sovereign nation.
How can we do that? I mean honestly, how do you convince yourself to just stop thinking, shut up, and go along with it?
Save the republic.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
DOJ on Socialized medicine: Whatever works; to hell with the Constitution
Competing against against the Comrade's attempts to shame Republicans into voting in favor of more unfunded spending were reports that the Dept. of Justice is defending the constitutionality of socialized medicine by claiming that forcing citizens to buy health insurance is a tax. The Constitution allows taxes, etc. etc.
The Big Lie aspect of this was run on Fox, via a rather lengthy interview with the Comrade by George Stephanopolos, who asked the Comrade several times if forcing people to buy insurance was a tax. The Comrade sluffed it off... Silly George... Of course it's not a tax. (Neon sign going off above his head: I'M PROBABLY THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS LIAR IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE.)
From further details I've been able to glean, apparently forcing someone to buy insurance isn't itself a tax, but the penalty for NOT buying it is a tax -- and it will be collected by the IRS.
Another reason to just ignore these idiots.
And for what it's worth, forcing someone to buy insurance is most definitely NOT a tax, no matter what you threaten to do to them for buying/not buying. First of all, you don't pay the insurance premium to any government at any level. Second, it wasn't introduced, debated, or passed as a tax bill, which fall under certain specific rules of the Constitution.
A few more facts come to light about socialized medicine. The bill gives grants to states, and apparently the government already has doled out funds to Pennsylvania and to New Mexico to support facilities that will offer abortions.
Poor Bart Stupak, who seemed so sincere when he sold out his anti-abortion conscience to vote for this legislation. He must feel like a total abused moron right now. And he should. You can't trust these people, Bart. Max Baucus has learned this very same lesson.
In a report that was in the New York Times, several insurers said that they can only meet the cost and options requirements of socialized health care policies by severely narrowing the list of doctors and hospitals their insured can use.
So, no, Virginia, you probably will not be able to keep your own private doctor.
A few weeks ago, someone beside myself noticed that the socialized medicine bill eventually phases out all existing health insurance policies. This is because while an insured person can add a family member to an existing policy, if other terms of the policy change, it has to be rewritten, and according to the socialized medicine law, it has to rewritten along the guidelines provided by the federal government and approved by the federal government. It will likely be a very different policy.
And I hope everyone is aware that the health insurance your employer provides, if he does, will be regarded as part of your "income" and will be taxed accordingly. So if you make, say, $30,000.00 per year and your company-paid insurance is $5,000.00 per year, you'll have to pay income tax on $35,000.00.
See any benefits from this yet?
And let's for a moment pretend it IS a tax. You have to buy a policy for maybe $3,000 to $5,000 per year. That is one hell of a tax increase.
And you know what, if it IS a tax, the bill that was passed DID NOT originate in the House of Representatives, as all tax bills must. What was passed was the Senate bill, with modifications from the House. So it would be unconstitutional on those grounds.
It also wasn't presented or debated as a tax bill. So is the DOJ arguing, in effect, that the whole bill was just one big deception on congress? What kind of a case is that?
The whole thing is really, basically, a knife in the back to all US citizens and even worse to those who surrendered their principles and beliefs to vote in favor of it.
Nice, huh? Get the feeling that the government is being run by a bunch of lying, power-hungry thugs and criminals?
Also want to comment very briefly on the muslims trying to build a mosque right next door to where the World Trade Center used to be. You know, dogs, bears, and other critters shit to mark their territory. I suspect this is something like that.
Personally, I'd prefer that they don't shit in my country, and certainly not where their compadres murdered so many people, but that's just me.
Save the republic.
The Big Lie aspect of this was run on Fox, via a rather lengthy interview with the Comrade by George Stephanopolos, who asked the Comrade several times if forcing people to buy insurance was a tax. The Comrade sluffed it off... Silly George... Of course it's not a tax. (Neon sign going off above his head: I'M PROBABLY THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS LIAR IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE.)
From further details I've been able to glean, apparently forcing someone to buy insurance isn't itself a tax, but the penalty for NOT buying it is a tax -- and it will be collected by the IRS.
Another reason to just ignore these idiots.
And for what it's worth, forcing someone to buy insurance is most definitely NOT a tax, no matter what you threaten to do to them for buying/not buying. First of all, you don't pay the insurance premium to any government at any level. Second, it wasn't introduced, debated, or passed as a tax bill, which fall under certain specific rules of the Constitution.
A few more facts come to light about socialized medicine. The bill gives grants to states, and apparently the government already has doled out funds to Pennsylvania and to New Mexico to support facilities that will offer abortions.
Poor Bart Stupak, who seemed so sincere when he sold out his anti-abortion conscience to vote for this legislation. He must feel like a total abused moron right now. And he should. You can't trust these people, Bart. Max Baucus has learned this very same lesson.
In a report that was in the New York Times, several insurers said that they can only meet the cost and options requirements of socialized health care policies by severely narrowing the list of doctors and hospitals their insured can use.
So, no, Virginia, you probably will not be able to keep your own private doctor.
A few weeks ago, someone beside myself noticed that the socialized medicine bill eventually phases out all existing health insurance policies. This is because while an insured person can add a family member to an existing policy, if other terms of the policy change, it has to be rewritten, and according to the socialized medicine law, it has to rewritten along the guidelines provided by the federal government and approved by the federal government. It will likely be a very different policy.
And I hope everyone is aware that the health insurance your employer provides, if he does, will be regarded as part of your "income" and will be taxed accordingly. So if you make, say, $30,000.00 per year and your company-paid insurance is $5,000.00 per year, you'll have to pay income tax on $35,000.00.
See any benefits from this yet?
And let's for a moment pretend it IS a tax. You have to buy a policy for maybe $3,000 to $5,000 per year. That is one hell of a tax increase.
And you know what, if it IS a tax, the bill that was passed DID NOT originate in the House of Representatives, as all tax bills must. What was passed was the Senate bill, with modifications from the House. So it would be unconstitutional on those grounds.
It also wasn't presented or debated as a tax bill. So is the DOJ arguing, in effect, that the whole bill was just one big deception on congress? What kind of a case is that?
The whole thing is really, basically, a knife in the back to all US citizens and even worse to those who surrendered their principles and beliefs to vote in favor of it.
Nice, huh? Get the feeling that the government is being run by a bunch of lying, power-hungry thugs and criminals?
Also want to comment very briefly on the muslims trying to build a mosque right next door to where the World Trade Center used to be. You know, dogs, bears, and other critters shit to mark their territory. I suspect this is something like that.
Personally, I'd prefer that they don't shit in my country, and certainly not where their compadres murdered so many people, but that's just me.
Save the republic.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
The nation's capitol, Washington OCD
I love The American Spectator. That's a magazine, now online, edited by Emmet Terrell. For many years I was a subscriber, then decided if I continued following politics at all, I'd probably die prematurely of a heart attack, so failed to renew. Now I read it online all the time. Kinda hoping I will die suddenly of a heart attack, rather than be subjected to socialized medicine.
Just now, the magazine is featuring an article called "America's Ruling Class & The Perils of Revolution" in its July-August, 2010 issue. You must read this. Not only is it a very astute assessment of the nation, it's very nicely written by a professor from Boston University. But Emmett Terrell could edit me any time. Everything in the magazine has a certain lucidity. I'd read it just as a writer to learn a few things. And, of course, the comments left after every article are the best and most intelligent poltitical discussion you can find in America.
At any rate, read the article. I almost emailed it to Pazzo Pelosi, but then figured she'd have trouble with it -- too many multi-syllabic words.
I deliberately didn't write this blog for a couple days, giving myself time to overcome the onset of panic and rage engendered by the congress passing the Financial Ruin act. It seems that Scott Brown (I for Idiot?-MA) and the Twit Sisters (T for Twit-ME) voted in favor, giving that piece of trash a majority.
Following the example of his fearless leader, Thomas Dudd, who co-authored the bill with Barny Fudd, actually stood up in public and said something like, "We'll find out what's in it when it goes into effect."
My God, parented by Dudd & Fudd. What else do you need to know?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are undisturbed by the Financial Ruin act, they alone spared from the bloodletting aimed at most other financial institutions. Fannie and Freddie, which CAUSED the current recession. Everyone but Fannie and Freddie needs tighter controls and government oversight, and 2,300 pages of new regulations.
Do you ever feel like yor're in the middle of a nightmare and just can't wake up?
Every time I think the so-called "Political Class" can't get any more stupid, they surprise me with their daring and audacity. It is really stunning. They are so blindly ignorant, yet so convinced of their superiority. They're so stupid, they don't even recognize that we all know they're stupid. They don't have the scope to see beyond the narrow limits of their own intelligence, you see. Kinda like I doubt a goldfish could appreciate Beethoven. Time to toddle their little butts out of town. Back to their sandboxes.
As for Scott Brown. how is he any different from liberal Mahtha, his opponent in Massachusetts? Well, he posed nude once. And the Down East Twit Sisters. Aren't they on the wrong side of the aisle? I mean, really? Should the Republicans continue to fund their campaigns? If you call yourself a Republican but vote like a socialist, what good are ya? Apparently they traded their votes for the publicity Maine will enjoy because the Comrade spent two days there vacationing.
Yup. Maine needs the tourism. Not like the Gulf Coast.
In other news... I'm beginning to worry about the availability of my food supply. The Comradessa has recently suggested taking Coca-Cola away from your kids and giving them water instead. She says, "They'll get used to it." Yeah, well, two things: 1) She has Marines to give them water; 2) I'm shocked! shocked! that the Comradessa would soil herself and children with anything that comes from a plastic bottle. I doubt they would stoop to drink anything directly from the kitchen faucet.
When is Michelle's birthday? I'd like to send her a bacon cheeseburger and a chocolate shake. She can experience how the other half lives, and I guarantee, after a big sloppy burger from Steak-n-Shake, and a milk shake made from genu-wine dairy products, there's just no going back.
I wonder if she's aware that the Comrade smokes.
I'm truly very curious about that. Does he have to go stand in the rain, 100 feet from the Rose Garden, or what? Just wonder how they handle that. Secret Service people follow him around with those little battery-operated fans? Maybe he has to blow all the smoke into a plastic bag that is then shipped to a steel-making city in China and released into the generally polluted atmosphere. Or maybe France. Whaddaya think?
Saw on Fox that in one bill or another, there is a provision designed specifically to give grants to shops like 7-11 and other mini-marts to install refrigeratorated shelving so that they can offer fresh produce. You know, I think the free market has already determined that people who buy lunch at a mini-mart would generally prefer a bag of Cheetohs and a Slurpee or they'd go to a grocery store.
I love fruit and vegetables. I really do. I've been on so many diets that prohibit them that I truly enjoy the sweetness of onions and carrots, broccoli, brussel sprouts, and/or asparagus in a creamy cheese sauce... nectarines, bananas, oranges (but not orange juice, due to a bad experience with screwdriver cocktails.)
Anyway, does this strike anyone else as manic micro-management? And I do mean "manic" in its clinical sense. Or how about having to get a test to measure your body mass index that will be included on your "permanent record." Oh-oh, you're a little tubby. No health care for you!
Good grief what a bunch of goofuses, ya know? Really, these are people who have to lock their doors five or six times, carefully counted. They floss their teeth a dozen times per day, can't wear anything wtih an odd number of buttons, and carry Baby-Wipes with them everywhere to clean off the chair before they sit down. OCD rules!
Perhaps all they really need is to adjust their medication.
Save the republic.
Just now, the magazine is featuring an article called "America's Ruling Class & The Perils of Revolution" in its July-August, 2010 issue. You must read this. Not only is it a very astute assessment of the nation, it's very nicely written by a professor from Boston University. But Emmett Terrell could edit me any time. Everything in the magazine has a certain lucidity. I'd read it just as a writer to learn a few things. And, of course, the comments left after every article are the best and most intelligent poltitical discussion you can find in America.
At any rate, read the article. I almost emailed it to Pazzo Pelosi, but then figured she'd have trouble with it -- too many multi-syllabic words.
I deliberately didn't write this blog for a couple days, giving myself time to overcome the onset of panic and rage engendered by the congress passing the Financial Ruin act. It seems that Scott Brown (I for Idiot?-MA) and the Twit Sisters (T for Twit-ME) voted in favor, giving that piece of trash a majority.
Following the example of his fearless leader, Thomas Dudd, who co-authored the bill with Barny Fudd, actually stood up in public and said something like, "We'll find out what's in it when it goes into effect."
My God, parented by Dudd & Fudd. What else do you need to know?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are undisturbed by the Financial Ruin act, they alone spared from the bloodletting aimed at most other financial institutions. Fannie and Freddie, which CAUSED the current recession. Everyone but Fannie and Freddie needs tighter controls and government oversight, and 2,300 pages of new regulations.
Do you ever feel like yor're in the middle of a nightmare and just can't wake up?
Every time I think the so-called "Political Class" can't get any more stupid, they surprise me with their daring and audacity. It is really stunning. They are so blindly ignorant, yet so convinced of their superiority. They're so stupid, they don't even recognize that we all know they're stupid. They don't have the scope to see beyond the narrow limits of their own intelligence, you see. Kinda like I doubt a goldfish could appreciate Beethoven. Time to toddle their little butts out of town. Back to their sandboxes.
As for Scott Brown. how is he any different from liberal Mahtha, his opponent in Massachusetts? Well, he posed nude once. And the Down East Twit Sisters. Aren't they on the wrong side of the aisle? I mean, really? Should the Republicans continue to fund their campaigns? If you call yourself a Republican but vote like a socialist, what good are ya? Apparently they traded their votes for the publicity Maine will enjoy because the Comrade spent two days there vacationing.
Yup. Maine needs the tourism. Not like the Gulf Coast.
In other news... I'm beginning to worry about the availability of my food supply. The Comradessa has recently suggested taking Coca-Cola away from your kids and giving them water instead. She says, "They'll get used to it." Yeah, well, two things: 1) She has Marines to give them water; 2) I'm shocked! shocked! that the Comradessa would soil herself and children with anything that comes from a plastic bottle. I doubt they would stoop to drink anything directly from the kitchen faucet.
When is Michelle's birthday? I'd like to send her a bacon cheeseburger and a chocolate shake. She can experience how the other half lives, and I guarantee, after a big sloppy burger from Steak-n-Shake, and a milk shake made from genu-wine dairy products, there's just no going back.
I wonder if she's aware that the Comrade smokes.
I'm truly very curious about that. Does he have to go stand in the rain, 100 feet from the Rose Garden, or what? Just wonder how they handle that. Secret Service people follow him around with those little battery-operated fans? Maybe he has to blow all the smoke into a plastic bag that is then shipped to a steel-making city in China and released into the generally polluted atmosphere. Or maybe France. Whaddaya think?
Saw on Fox that in one bill or another, there is a provision designed specifically to give grants to shops like 7-11 and other mini-marts to install refrigeratorated shelving so that they can offer fresh produce. You know, I think the free market has already determined that people who buy lunch at a mini-mart would generally prefer a bag of Cheetohs and a Slurpee or they'd go to a grocery store.
I love fruit and vegetables. I really do. I've been on so many diets that prohibit them that I truly enjoy the sweetness of onions and carrots, broccoli, brussel sprouts, and/or asparagus in a creamy cheese sauce... nectarines, bananas, oranges (but not orange juice, due to a bad experience with screwdriver cocktails.)
Anyway, does this strike anyone else as manic micro-management? And I do mean "manic" in its clinical sense. Or how about having to get a test to measure your body mass index that will be included on your "permanent record." Oh-oh, you're a little tubby. No health care for you!
Good grief what a bunch of goofuses, ya know? Really, these are people who have to lock their doors five or six times, carefully counted. They floss their teeth a dozen times per day, can't wear anything wtih an odd number of buttons, and carry Baby-Wipes with them everywhere to clean off the chair before they sit down. OCD rules!
Perhaps all they really need is to adjust their medication.
Save the republic.
Friday, July 16, 2010
You know what? Just ignore it
I don't want to go into too much detail here. I mean, otherwise I could go to jail. Debtor's prison. Maybe they'll sell me into bondage and send me to... what place is worse than the USA anymore?
Well, I still own my old house. I had a bid on it for a short sale. The bank dorked around for five months, I moved anticipating a change of ownership, and then the bank set a pretty high price for the property and rejected the bid I had. But.... they said I'd have until July 15 to find another buyer before they started foreclosure.
Go ahead. Foreclose.
I called them. Now they want to know if I want them to foreclose or what?
Got some stark blank-faced form letters on very cheap copy paper from a government agency. They threatened to seize my property.
Go ahead. Seize my property. I'd love to see the feds and the bank in a little tug-o-war. Might be fun. I also have a very old car and a bunch of stuff I'm embarrassed to offer to the Salvation Army. Maybe they'll haul that way for me, too.
So I called the government agency. "Are you going to seize my property?" They weren't aware that I owed them anything. The person I spoke to said to disregard the notice, it's just something that gets sent out automatically.
So I found the magic secret to a happy life: Just ignore the bastards.
I did thank the lady at the government agency for the way the feds have handled the economy.
What a bunch of damnfools. They just lie and bully. If you ignore them, they won't do anything.
So, just wanted to pass that along. Don't worry about your mortgage, bills, money you may/may not owe the feds. If you don't tell them, they won't know about it. They're just big machines that print out stuff that gets automatically mailed. To keep the Post Office busy presumably.
Don't worry. Be happy.
And migrate to your own personal cash economy. It's impossible to trace. And when the whole federal economy comes crashing down, it won't disturb your peace of mind. You'll already have your own little refuge and sanctuary and everyone else can just go to hell. And they will, most assuredly.
Save the republic.
Well, I still own my old house. I had a bid on it for a short sale. The bank dorked around for five months, I moved anticipating a change of ownership, and then the bank set a pretty high price for the property and rejected the bid I had. But.... they said I'd have until July 15 to find another buyer before they started foreclosure.
Go ahead. Foreclose.
I called them. Now they want to know if I want them to foreclose or what?
Got some stark blank-faced form letters on very cheap copy paper from a government agency. They threatened to seize my property.
Go ahead. Seize my property. I'd love to see the feds and the bank in a little tug-o-war. Might be fun. I also have a very old car and a bunch of stuff I'm embarrassed to offer to the Salvation Army. Maybe they'll haul that way for me, too.
So I called the government agency. "Are you going to seize my property?" They weren't aware that I owed them anything. The person I spoke to said to disregard the notice, it's just something that gets sent out automatically.
So I found the magic secret to a happy life: Just ignore the bastards.
I did thank the lady at the government agency for the way the feds have handled the economy.
What a bunch of damnfools. They just lie and bully. If you ignore them, they won't do anything.
So, just wanted to pass that along. Don't worry about your mortgage, bills, money you may/may not owe the feds. If you don't tell them, they won't know about it. They're just big machines that print out stuff that gets automatically mailed. To keep the Post Office busy presumably.
Don't worry. Be happy.
And migrate to your own personal cash economy. It's impossible to trace. And when the whole federal economy comes crashing down, it won't disturb your peace of mind. You'll already have your own little refuge and sanctuary and everyone else can just go to hell. And they will, most assuredly.
Save the republic.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Dopes kill hope
This just in... congress passed the Financial Ruin bill.
So don't expect economic recovery for many, many decades.
How could people so terminally stupid actully get elected? Something to ponder.
Save the republic -- if we still can.
So don't expect economic recovery for many, many decades.
How could people so terminally stupid actully get elected? Something to ponder.
Save the republic -- if we still can.
See how they run
A few brief comments....
Had to laugh. Robert Gibbs, p.r. flak for the White House, was on one of the Sunday political shows and announced that the dems are in trouble in the upcoming election. I didn't see the show, but apparently Gibbs suggested that the dems could very likely lose their majority in the House.
He's in trouble now. Pazzo Pelosi seems to have gone ballistic. I can see her, stamping her tiny cloven hoof and trying to arrange her Botox-paralyzed face into an expression of outrage. She seems to believe that if someone actually suggests OUT LOUD that the dems have not only bungled their jobs miserably and violated the Constitution unforgivably, but have ruined any hope of prosperity for the USA for the next two generations, that the dems might have some trouble raising money.
I mean, who in their right mind would voluntarily give those people any money? They'll just buy lots and lots of shoes with it, or start stockpiling licorice whips or something. Everything would be recorded as a campaign expense, of course. I mean, look back over the last 18 months. The dems are not exactly responsible when it comes to handling other peoples' money, are they?
And really, Pazzo, do you think the average rich political donor might have failed to notice that the dems haven't got the survival odds of a snowball in hell to retain their majority in the House? Honestly... does it take Robert Gibbs to inform people of that?
Oh well, we all know that Pazzo has some serious problems in recognizing and dealing with reality. And heaven help poor Robert Gibbs for leaking a fact that's obvious to anyone in the free world who pays attention to these things. She just doesn't want to give up the Speaker job and go back to some boring situation where she might be expected to produce something.
Oh, another big whopper, too. This one from the venerable NAACP. They've decided that they're going to join the New Black Panthers or something unless and until the Tea Party denounces the racists among its ranks. Specifically those racists who shouted the N-word and spit on people marching into the Capitol building to vote on socialized medicine.
The one problem -- those shouters and spitters don't seem to exist. A lot of people were taping and photographing that whole silly procession, Pazzo with her giant hammer, and no one managed to catch the spitting and shouting for the record. Any record, apparently. Media guy Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000.00 to anyone who could find evidence of this reported nastiness. No one has come forward yet.
But taking the lead from idiots like Pazzo Pelosi, the NAACP wants -- no DEMANDS -- that we all set aside our own perceptions and the known truth in favor of accepting their twisted and untrue version of things. Or else they won't like us.... and they'll call us racists.... and... and.... we'll just be sorry.
So, enough for now. I've been busy. Please click on the button in the margin where it offers Tea Party gear and stuff. I've added a few things. Curiously, not primarily political things. Did do a bunch of stuff for the Civil War, and mostly for the Confederate side. And I'm not on the Confederate side. I think I probably would have voted for Douglas. That's how much I know. I'll be adding to the Union stuff soon, trying to keep it all even.
Save the Republic.
Had to laugh. Robert Gibbs, p.r. flak for the White House, was on one of the Sunday political shows and announced that the dems are in trouble in the upcoming election. I didn't see the show, but apparently Gibbs suggested that the dems could very likely lose their majority in the House.
He's in trouble now. Pazzo Pelosi seems to have gone ballistic. I can see her, stamping her tiny cloven hoof and trying to arrange her Botox-paralyzed face into an expression of outrage. She seems to believe that if someone actually suggests OUT LOUD that the dems have not only bungled their jobs miserably and violated the Constitution unforgivably, but have ruined any hope of prosperity for the USA for the next two generations, that the dems might have some trouble raising money.
I mean, who in their right mind would voluntarily give those people any money? They'll just buy lots and lots of shoes with it, or start stockpiling licorice whips or something. Everything would be recorded as a campaign expense, of course. I mean, look back over the last 18 months. The dems are not exactly responsible when it comes to handling other peoples' money, are they?
And really, Pazzo, do you think the average rich political donor might have failed to notice that the dems haven't got the survival odds of a snowball in hell to retain their majority in the House? Honestly... does it take Robert Gibbs to inform people of that?
Oh well, we all know that Pazzo has some serious problems in recognizing and dealing with reality. And heaven help poor Robert Gibbs for leaking a fact that's obvious to anyone in the free world who pays attention to these things. She just doesn't want to give up the Speaker job and go back to some boring situation where she might be expected to produce something.
Oh, another big whopper, too. This one from the venerable NAACP. They've decided that they're going to join the New Black Panthers or something unless and until the Tea Party denounces the racists among its ranks. Specifically those racists who shouted the N-word and spit on people marching into the Capitol building to vote on socialized medicine.
The one problem -- those shouters and spitters don't seem to exist. A lot of people were taping and photographing that whole silly procession, Pazzo with her giant hammer, and no one managed to catch the spitting and shouting for the record. Any record, apparently. Media guy Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000.00 to anyone who could find evidence of this reported nastiness. No one has come forward yet.
But taking the lead from idiots like Pazzo Pelosi, the NAACP wants -- no DEMANDS -- that we all set aside our own perceptions and the known truth in favor of accepting their twisted and untrue version of things. Or else they won't like us.... and they'll call us racists.... and... and.... we'll just be sorry.
So, enough for now. I've been busy. Please click on the button in the margin where it offers Tea Party gear and stuff. I've added a few things. Curiously, not primarily political things. Did do a bunch of stuff for the Civil War, and mostly for the Confederate side. And I'm not on the Confederate side. I think I probably would have voted for Douglas. That's how much I know. I'll be adding to the Union stuff soon, trying to keep it all even.
Save the Republic.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
How many times do we have to have this argument?
If you ever read anything about how the USA was formed, you might notice that even 300 years ago, people had lots of concern about race. Only then it was slavery, because, due to a law established in the Colonie of Virginia in the 1600s, a line was drawn separating white indentured labor from black slaves. The main difference was that the indentures could eventually be free, while blacks were slaves forever. Matriarchal bloodlines determined if you were black or white. That is, if your mom was a black slave, or your dad's mom was a black slave, you were black and a slave.
One thing behind this was that Virginia, among other southern colonies, was founded through land grants from the British monarch. Guys like Sir Walter Raleigh were paid for their service to the Crown with huge tracts of land that they could cultivate or whatever. And some say Raleigh got land in North America to actually exile him in one way or another from the court. Sorta like being "kicked upstairs."
At any rate, making this land profitable required lots and lots of labor. Some early settlers tried to harness the North American Indian tribes as labor. Well, that didn't work. First of all, the Indians knew the land a whole lot better than the colonists did. Second, there were a thousands more Indians here than there were European settlers, even if the settlers had guns.
Indentures were generally whites who were in debt for one reason or another. Either their debtors sold them for the money owed, or they could even sell themselves, for a period usually of about seven or eight years. Very often, their masters found excuses for not freeing them, "You broke a rake. Two more years of labor," and stuff like that. And word got back to Europe, so indenture ended up being more or less an act of desperation. Like, a lot of Irish sold themselves to a ship's captain for passage to the New World, and when they arrived here, the captain sold this "bond" to someone here who needed a hired hand. Things were pretty bad in Ireland if indenture was regarded as a positive way out.
Black Africans didn't have friends and family back in Europe or in England to stick up for them. They were sold outright as property, not as indentured labor. Slave buyers also claimed that since blacks were from Africa, they were physically more capable than whites of laboring 12 hours a day in miserable, humid heat. The slave owners had lots of excuses and justifications like that.
Slavery existed in the northern colonies, too, to some extent, but the northern colonies had been established more along the lines of self-exiled religious communites or as trade centers, rather than as plantations supporting the Empire, and they didn't have quite the same demand for a huge and always available labor pool as the southern colonies did.
At the time of the troubles with England, mid-1700s, a lot of colonists wanted to eliminate slavery. Thomas Jefferson even wrote a few lines into the Declaration of Independence about how the British had brought the scourge of human bondage and black slavery to North America. Much of this was struck out of the final document, however -- they couldn't get a majority vote on it. And this failure was due as much to Yankee slave traders as it was to southern slave owners. Most of the Founding Fathers were against slavery on moral grounds, but they also felt compelled to respect the needs of the few who claimed to need slavery. And they all tended to agree that slavery was pretty much on its way out in the USA. It would simply wither away.
Later still, when the Constitution was being written, the Framers actually established 1808 as the time the slave trade would be prohibited. That is, as of 1808, US citizens wouldn't be allowed to import slaves into the US, and merchants ships flying under the USA flag weren't allowed to trade in slaves. Violations did happen, but generally, people did obey the law.
However, at almost this same time, the cotton gin was invented. Cotton had been a difficult crop. It needs special types of soil to thrive, needs constant attention and lots of labor to grow, and then the final, harvested product was full of tiny seeds that had to be pulled out before it could be spun into fiber and woven into textiles. The whole process was extremely time-consuming and expensive. The cotton gin, which quickly extracts the seeds, made cotton a very useful and practical fiber.
And over the next 30 years or so after the gin was invented, slavery suddenly took on a different allure to plantation owners. It wasn't immoral anymore; rather slave owners were "lifting" ignorant savages into Christian civilization. The white owners were the noble and self-sacrificing shepherds of their flocks of unruly and incorrigible black slaves. Because slaves could no longer be imported legally, some places, like Virginia, where the land was largely depleted and played out, became "breeders" of slaves. They supplied the growing demand for slavery in the newly-opened lands in Alabama, Mississippi, and so forth.
The slave owners actually convinced themselves they were doing some kind of "noblesse oblige" thing by keeping slaves. They preached this from their pulpits, taught it to their children, and crowed about it to the Yankees, who were still shaking their heads (and righteous forefingers) at slave owners. But the subject of slavery remained controversial. For example, until about 1820, there was a more or less unwritten gag rule in the US congress that forbade any mention of slavery, pro or con, in those hallowed chambers.
OK, fast forward a bit to the opening of the Western Territories. Were they going to be slave or free? Much of the land in the West wasn't suitable for plantation agriculture, but the slave owners wanted new states in areas occupied by what's now Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, etc., to be admitted to the Union as slave states anyway. Why? To maintain the balance of power between free and slave in the Senate, in particular.
This is what brought the slavery controversy into focus and eventually caused the US Civil War.
The slave states seceded when Lincoln was elected, but they would have seceded had ANY Republican been elected. The Republican party was founded in 1848 largely by "westerners" (still east of the Rockies, though) who wanted to keep slavery out of the new states. Less than a month after the Republican victory in November, 1860, the slave states began their secession. Within three months, they had formed their own little country, the Confederate States of America.
Let's get this straight. "States' rights" as we regard this term today was not really an issue in secession. It was all about slavery. If you read the Congressional Globe, the Congressional Record of the day, references to "states rights" almost always were interchangeable with "slavery." Everybody knew and understood that at the time. Many churches, like the Baptists, even split into Northern and Southern conferences over the issue. Everyone understood it was all about slavery.
It was only after the CSA lost the Civil War that some people, lead in the main by Jubal Early, began serious work toward redeeming their nobility by claiming the war had been all about preserving "states rights" against an overweening federal government. It was their way of counteracting the Yankees "waving the bloody shirt" of the Civil War, which had become a political weapon and tactic. Former Confederates were among the first and most active historical revisionists in the USA, rewriting history to paint themselves as noble and stalwart, defending liberty against the evil Lincoln and the money-grubbing Republicans who only ever wanted to seize all the wealth of the slave south.
Blacks, of course, were stuck in the middle. They'd been not only enslaved by southern owners, but carefully and deliberately trained for a couple hundred years to submit to their condition and simply accept their status as inferiors. Many did take advantage of the freedoms they had gained at the end of the Civil War and through Reconstruction, but this window of opportunity was shut pretty quickly via Jim Crow laws and by what seems to be deliberately aggravated racial prejudice in many northern states. No one who knows history denies all this.
The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s put a legal end to Jim Crow and race-based discrimination. But that's on paper. I'm sure it still exists to some extent, but now it's an offense that can be prosecuted. And what happened? A sort of rejuvenated South, with all the energy, ideas, and determination of blacks, now free to vastly improve the economic and social development of the former slave states for themselves and everyone else. Even within my lifetime, the amorphous "South" was kinda regarded as backwards and retarded, full of toothless and cross-bred hillbillies, like something out of "Deliverance." That's not really true anymore.
I seriously believe it's people like the New (and old) Black Panthers and even Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson Sr. to a large extent who continue to perpetuate the myth of black inferiority. They're the ones who claim that blacks apparently can't make lives for themselves, are incapable of raising their own families, succeeding at business and other initiatives without the support and assistance of whites -- or of whatever "ruling class" straw man they create. These are the people who, nowadays, continue to teach blacks (and others) to accept their status as "victims" and petition to whites -- or someone -- for aid and mercy. It's people like the New Black Panthers, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson Sr. who've made a profession for themselves by capitalizing on this msery.
Personally, I don't buy any sort of racism -- from whites or blacks or anyone else. The New Black Panthers -- according to that sociopath with the billy club in Philadelphia -- seem to believe that now, with a black man in the White House, it's time to enslave whites. But this only indicates that they want to perpetuate a slave system of some kind. They don't believe in individual freedom, they still want governmental oppression. They're only arguing about who gets to be in charge.
This is not an accusation against all black people. That would be ridiculous. I believe most black Americans would NOT stand with the New Black Panthers or other radical marxist groups. They're primarily Americans, though they probably do have special insights into the impacts of racial and other kinds of prejudice. However, because of the USA's history with slavery, I'm really afraid many blacks may feel compelled to take the part of the New Black Panthers, et. al., simply because they're black. And I keep recalling a scene from Richard Wright's novel, The Invisibile Man, where the main character, a young black man, draws a parallel between the communist recruiter on the street corner with the man on another block who's selling paper cut-outs of black minstrel dancers that dance on a string.
It's racism all over again. What we all must do instead of this is to work toward securing and ensuring the rights of all of us as Americans. Just because the Comrade is black, doesn't make him a Messiah, unless you believe marxism is somehow compatible with human freedom -- which is most emphatically is not. Electing a black man as President of the USA was a "historical moment." But what's more important is that that black man is a dangerous political radical, dead-set on destroying the liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. And it really doesn't matter what color he is. We all stand to lose our freedom and our human rights.
Save the republic.
One thing behind this was that Virginia, among other southern colonies, was founded through land grants from the British monarch. Guys like Sir Walter Raleigh were paid for their service to the Crown with huge tracts of land that they could cultivate or whatever. And some say Raleigh got land in North America to actually exile him in one way or another from the court. Sorta like being "kicked upstairs."
At any rate, making this land profitable required lots and lots of labor. Some early settlers tried to harness the North American Indian tribes as labor. Well, that didn't work. First of all, the Indians knew the land a whole lot better than the colonists did. Second, there were a thousands more Indians here than there were European settlers, even if the settlers had guns.
Indentures were generally whites who were in debt for one reason or another. Either their debtors sold them for the money owed, or they could even sell themselves, for a period usually of about seven or eight years. Very often, their masters found excuses for not freeing them, "You broke a rake. Two more years of labor," and stuff like that. And word got back to Europe, so indenture ended up being more or less an act of desperation. Like, a lot of Irish sold themselves to a ship's captain for passage to the New World, and when they arrived here, the captain sold this "bond" to someone here who needed a hired hand. Things were pretty bad in Ireland if indenture was regarded as a positive way out.
Black Africans didn't have friends and family back in Europe or in England to stick up for them. They were sold outright as property, not as indentured labor. Slave buyers also claimed that since blacks were from Africa, they were physically more capable than whites of laboring 12 hours a day in miserable, humid heat. The slave owners had lots of excuses and justifications like that.
Slavery existed in the northern colonies, too, to some extent, but the northern colonies had been established more along the lines of self-exiled religious communites or as trade centers, rather than as plantations supporting the Empire, and they didn't have quite the same demand for a huge and always available labor pool as the southern colonies did.
At the time of the troubles with England, mid-1700s, a lot of colonists wanted to eliminate slavery. Thomas Jefferson even wrote a few lines into the Declaration of Independence about how the British had brought the scourge of human bondage and black slavery to North America. Much of this was struck out of the final document, however -- they couldn't get a majority vote on it. And this failure was due as much to Yankee slave traders as it was to southern slave owners. Most of the Founding Fathers were against slavery on moral grounds, but they also felt compelled to respect the needs of the few who claimed to need slavery. And they all tended to agree that slavery was pretty much on its way out in the USA. It would simply wither away.
Later still, when the Constitution was being written, the Framers actually established 1808 as the time the slave trade would be prohibited. That is, as of 1808, US citizens wouldn't be allowed to import slaves into the US, and merchants ships flying under the USA flag weren't allowed to trade in slaves. Violations did happen, but generally, people did obey the law.
However, at almost this same time, the cotton gin was invented. Cotton had been a difficult crop. It needs special types of soil to thrive, needs constant attention and lots of labor to grow, and then the final, harvested product was full of tiny seeds that had to be pulled out before it could be spun into fiber and woven into textiles. The whole process was extremely time-consuming and expensive. The cotton gin, which quickly extracts the seeds, made cotton a very useful and practical fiber.
And over the next 30 years or so after the gin was invented, slavery suddenly took on a different allure to plantation owners. It wasn't immoral anymore; rather slave owners were "lifting" ignorant savages into Christian civilization. The white owners were the noble and self-sacrificing shepherds of their flocks of unruly and incorrigible black slaves. Because slaves could no longer be imported legally, some places, like Virginia, where the land was largely depleted and played out, became "breeders" of slaves. They supplied the growing demand for slavery in the newly-opened lands in Alabama, Mississippi, and so forth.
The slave owners actually convinced themselves they were doing some kind of "noblesse oblige" thing by keeping slaves. They preached this from their pulpits, taught it to their children, and crowed about it to the Yankees, who were still shaking their heads (and righteous forefingers) at slave owners. But the subject of slavery remained controversial. For example, until about 1820, there was a more or less unwritten gag rule in the US congress that forbade any mention of slavery, pro or con, in those hallowed chambers.
OK, fast forward a bit to the opening of the Western Territories. Were they going to be slave or free? Much of the land in the West wasn't suitable for plantation agriculture, but the slave owners wanted new states in areas occupied by what's now Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, etc., to be admitted to the Union as slave states anyway. Why? To maintain the balance of power between free and slave in the Senate, in particular.
This is what brought the slavery controversy into focus and eventually caused the US Civil War.
The slave states seceded when Lincoln was elected, but they would have seceded had ANY Republican been elected. The Republican party was founded in 1848 largely by "westerners" (still east of the Rockies, though) who wanted to keep slavery out of the new states. Less than a month after the Republican victory in November, 1860, the slave states began their secession. Within three months, they had formed their own little country, the Confederate States of America.
Let's get this straight. "States' rights" as we regard this term today was not really an issue in secession. It was all about slavery. If you read the Congressional Globe, the Congressional Record of the day, references to "states rights" almost always were interchangeable with "slavery." Everybody knew and understood that at the time. Many churches, like the Baptists, even split into Northern and Southern conferences over the issue. Everyone understood it was all about slavery.
It was only after the CSA lost the Civil War that some people, lead in the main by Jubal Early, began serious work toward redeeming their nobility by claiming the war had been all about preserving "states rights" against an overweening federal government. It was their way of counteracting the Yankees "waving the bloody shirt" of the Civil War, which had become a political weapon and tactic. Former Confederates were among the first and most active historical revisionists in the USA, rewriting history to paint themselves as noble and stalwart, defending liberty against the evil Lincoln and the money-grubbing Republicans who only ever wanted to seize all the wealth of the slave south.
Blacks, of course, were stuck in the middle. They'd been not only enslaved by southern owners, but carefully and deliberately trained for a couple hundred years to submit to their condition and simply accept their status as inferiors. Many did take advantage of the freedoms they had gained at the end of the Civil War and through Reconstruction, but this window of opportunity was shut pretty quickly via Jim Crow laws and by what seems to be deliberately aggravated racial prejudice in many northern states. No one who knows history denies all this.
The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s put a legal end to Jim Crow and race-based discrimination. But that's on paper. I'm sure it still exists to some extent, but now it's an offense that can be prosecuted. And what happened? A sort of rejuvenated South, with all the energy, ideas, and determination of blacks, now free to vastly improve the economic and social development of the former slave states for themselves and everyone else. Even within my lifetime, the amorphous "South" was kinda regarded as backwards and retarded, full of toothless and cross-bred hillbillies, like something out of "Deliverance." That's not really true anymore.
I seriously believe it's people like the New (and old) Black Panthers and even Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson Sr. to a large extent who continue to perpetuate the myth of black inferiority. They're the ones who claim that blacks apparently can't make lives for themselves, are incapable of raising their own families, succeeding at business and other initiatives without the support and assistance of whites -- or of whatever "ruling class" straw man they create. These are the people who, nowadays, continue to teach blacks (and others) to accept their status as "victims" and petition to whites -- or someone -- for aid and mercy. It's people like the New Black Panthers, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson Sr. who've made a profession for themselves by capitalizing on this msery.
Personally, I don't buy any sort of racism -- from whites or blacks or anyone else. The New Black Panthers -- according to that sociopath with the billy club in Philadelphia -- seem to believe that now, with a black man in the White House, it's time to enslave whites. But this only indicates that they want to perpetuate a slave system of some kind. They don't believe in individual freedom, they still want governmental oppression. They're only arguing about who gets to be in charge.
This is not an accusation against all black people. That would be ridiculous. I believe most black Americans would NOT stand with the New Black Panthers or other radical marxist groups. They're primarily Americans, though they probably do have special insights into the impacts of racial and other kinds of prejudice. However, because of the USA's history with slavery, I'm really afraid many blacks may feel compelled to take the part of the New Black Panthers, et. al., simply because they're black. And I keep recalling a scene from Richard Wright's novel, The Invisibile Man, where the main character, a young black man, draws a parallel between the communist recruiter on the street corner with the man on another block who's selling paper cut-outs of black minstrel dancers that dance on a string.
It's racism all over again. What we all must do instead of this is to work toward securing and ensuring the rights of all of us as Americans. Just because the Comrade is black, doesn't make him a Messiah, unless you believe marxism is somehow compatible with human freedom -- which is most emphatically is not. Electing a black man as President of the USA was a "historical moment." But what's more important is that that black man is a dangerous political radical, dead-set on destroying the liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. And it really doesn't matter what color he is. We all stand to lose our freedom and our human rights.
Save the republic.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Dr. Deathwish takes control
So, interesting news item. Since congress is in recess, time for the Comrade to appoint a whole bunch of marxists to government posts. If the Comrade appointed them while congress was in session, these appointees would have to be vetted by the senate.
And who does he appoint? Some guy named Dr. Deathwish... or Deathwick... or Berwick... something like that. This is a man who actually made a public speech stating that he wanted to father the children of the UK's National Health Service. Dr. Deathwish loves rationing. He loves socialized medicine. He can't wait to start making those Nazi-like lists of just exactly who needs to go. He's bought a bottle of wine, a dozen roses, and has dimmed the lights. Now he'll start cutting.
Curiously, Max Baucus was pissed off about this. Not about Dr. Deathwish, necessarily, but about the Comrade appointing Deathwish before the senate could screen him. I mean, really, Max, do you think the Comrade wants this guy to stand up in front of the American public and talk about his sexual obsession with medical rationing? We'd probably think he was nuts -- or worse. Maybe a mass murderer in a nice suit, like Ted Bundy.
You might recall, Max Baucus had feelings for socialized medicine similar to those of Dr. Deathwish. Baucus was right in there knee-capping senators and whining (drunkenly) about the evil Republicans who refused to sign on to socialized medicine. I think the Comrade had Baucus over to the White House for the Superbowl, so Baucus got the impression he was an "insider." So as he sees it, the Comrade appointing Dr. Deathwish without running it by the senate first -- Baucus was just ignored. Just cut out of the loop. Just used and then thrown under the bus.
A word of advice: You're dealing with marxists, Max. What did you expect, really? These are ruthless, amoral people. All they want is power. And they don't intend to share it -- certainly not with the likes of your sorry ass. You're too easily bought.
Look at it this way: What would Saul Alinsky do?
Anyway, that's it for now. I'll post another poster -- the graphic kind -- today if I have time. Got lots of them and they're beautiful.
Save the republic.
And who does he appoint? Some guy named Dr. Deathwish... or Deathwick... or Berwick... something like that. This is a man who actually made a public speech stating that he wanted to father the children of the UK's National Health Service. Dr. Deathwish loves rationing. He loves socialized medicine. He can't wait to start making those Nazi-like lists of just exactly who needs to go. He's bought a bottle of wine, a dozen roses, and has dimmed the lights. Now he'll start cutting.
Curiously, Max Baucus was pissed off about this. Not about Dr. Deathwish, necessarily, but about the Comrade appointing Deathwish before the senate could screen him. I mean, really, Max, do you think the Comrade wants this guy to stand up in front of the American public and talk about his sexual obsession with medical rationing? We'd probably think he was nuts -- or worse. Maybe a mass murderer in a nice suit, like Ted Bundy.
You might recall, Max Baucus had feelings for socialized medicine similar to those of Dr. Deathwish. Baucus was right in there knee-capping senators and whining (drunkenly) about the evil Republicans who refused to sign on to socialized medicine. I think the Comrade had Baucus over to the White House for the Superbowl, so Baucus got the impression he was an "insider." So as he sees it, the Comrade appointing Dr. Deathwish without running it by the senate first -- Baucus was just ignored. Just cut out of the loop. Just used and then thrown under the bus.
A word of advice: You're dealing with marxists, Max. What did you expect, really? These are ruthless, amoral people. All they want is power. And they don't intend to share it -- certainly not with the likes of your sorry ass. You're too easily bought.
Look at it this way: What would Saul Alinsky do?
Anyway, that's it for now. I'll post another poster -- the graphic kind -- today if I have time. Got lots of them and they're beautiful.
Save the republic.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Well, they invented zero
Since the Comrade announced a few weeks back that he was cancelling the USA's space exploration initiatives, I've wondered, What's going to happen with NASA?
Now we know.
It's being "transformed" into a social services agency dedicated to making muslim nations feel good about their contributions to to math and science.
Arabs did invent zero. Not sure if they were muslims or what, all I heard was "Arabs." And zero is not an insignificant thing. Prior to zero, all western civilization had was Roman numerals. Those likely would not have led eventually to binary code. So zero is important.
And I'm sure muslims have done much more. Osama bn Ladn's family were engineers and building contractors -- big buildings. Don't know how much they actually createed, but surely they've built things -- in addition to knocking things down.
Hmmmm.... What else?..... Well, we've got Abracadabrajab building a nuclear bomb factory. That must count for something.
In other news, the US Dept. of Justice seems to to have completely lost its grip on reality. A couple interesting developments there. Let's see, they refused to prosecute the self-labeled "New Black Panthers" for voter intimidation in a very clear case that was even caught on video tape. The intimidation was directed apparently at white voters, or "crackers," who according to the Panthers in question, would soon find out what it was like to be ruled by a black man.
And now we know. Although I hesitate to assume that the Comrade is typical of most American blacks. He is, after all, a dedicated marxist. Not sure most other blacks are. Quite sure the New Black Panthers wouldn't even know the difference between being "ruled" by a marxist, or "governed" by someone like Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell, maybe? Of course, I'm also sure the Panthers wouldn't count Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell as "black." They don't even wear cartridge belts, let alone black berets.
On the other hand, the DOJ is prosecuting Arizona for defending the nation's borders, or at least Arizona's segment of the border.
So white people can't vote, and the feds are inviting in truckloads of drug dealers -- and I mean some really vicious and dangerous drug dealers. Well, maybe not inviting, but leaving the door open and the lights on to welcome them.
What conclusions can we draw from all of this?
Save the republic.
Now we know.
It's being "transformed" into a social services agency dedicated to making muslim nations feel good about their contributions to to math and science.
Arabs did invent zero. Not sure if they were muslims or what, all I heard was "Arabs." And zero is not an insignificant thing. Prior to zero, all western civilization had was Roman numerals. Those likely would not have led eventually to binary code. So zero is important.
And I'm sure muslims have done much more. Osama bn Ladn's family were engineers and building contractors -- big buildings. Don't know how much they actually createed, but surely they've built things -- in addition to knocking things down.
Hmmmm.... What else?..... Well, we've got Abracadabrajab building a nuclear bomb factory. That must count for something.
In other news, the US Dept. of Justice seems to to have completely lost its grip on reality. A couple interesting developments there. Let's see, they refused to prosecute the self-labeled "New Black Panthers" for voter intimidation in a very clear case that was even caught on video tape. The intimidation was directed apparently at white voters, or "crackers," who according to the Panthers in question, would soon find out what it was like to be ruled by a black man.
And now we know. Although I hesitate to assume that the Comrade is typical of most American blacks. He is, after all, a dedicated marxist. Not sure most other blacks are. Quite sure the New Black Panthers wouldn't even know the difference between being "ruled" by a marxist, or "governed" by someone like Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell, maybe? Of course, I'm also sure the Panthers wouldn't count Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell as "black." They don't even wear cartridge belts, let alone black berets.
On the other hand, the DOJ is prosecuting Arizona for defending the nation's borders, or at least Arizona's segment of the border.
So white people can't vote, and the feds are inviting in truckloads of drug dealers -- and I mean some really vicious and dangerous drug dealers. Well, maybe not inviting, but leaving the door open and the lights on to welcome them.
What conclusions can we draw from all of this?
Save the republic.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Look at it this way
So you're sitting around with the spouse and kids watching American Idol or something.
There's a knock at the door. You get up and answer it, and there's a bunch of people on the porch, including armed drug lords.
A smiling guy in a suit steps forward to explain:
"We're coming in to seize all your property, eliminate your job, and enslave your children."
The citizen shouts "No!" and slams the door.
The smiling guy outside then claims that the citizen must be one of those damn Republicans blocking progress and social justice.
Do you buy that argument?
Save the republic.
There's a knock at the door. You get up and answer it, and there's a bunch of people on the porch, including armed drug lords.
A smiling guy in a suit steps forward to explain:
"We're coming in to seize all your property, eliminate your job, and enslave your children."
The citizen shouts "No!" and slams the door.
The smiling guy outside then claims that the citizen must be one of those damn Republicans blocking progress and social justice.
Do you buy that argument?
Save the republic.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Anyone feel like celebrating this year?
Well, 4th of July. Watched History Channel's "The Revolution" for a while yesterday. It's an interesting series and actually goes into some of the detail of the battles of the Revolutionary War. Most accounts don't.
Firecrackers going off all night. OK. Five or six firecrackers: Awesome!! After that, kids, it just gets kinda boring, dontcha think?
Found some great posters. These can be printed out to about an 8.5"x11" size, and I'd be happy to sell them to people. May add them to my shop (see ad....) Nothing more patriotic than capitalism. Haven't figured out pricing or anything yet, but I'll try to feature some of these great graphics -- none by me, since I'm not an artist -- as I go along here.
Otherwise, I just don't feel patriotic. Rather, I feel the cold, dead hand of oppressive government closing around my throat.
Save the republic.
Firecrackers going off all night. OK. Five or six firecrackers: Awesome!! After that, kids, it just gets kinda boring, dontcha think?
Found some great posters. These can be printed out to about an 8.5"x11" size, and I'd be happy to sell them to people. May add them to my shop (see ad....) Nothing more patriotic than capitalism. Haven't figured out pricing or anything yet, but I'll try to feature some of these great graphics -- none by me, since I'm not an artist -- as I go along here.
Otherwise, I just don't feel patriotic. Rather, I feel the cold, dead hand of oppressive government closing around my throat.
Save the republic.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Comrade Pontificator claims US borders "unenforceable"
They keep running parts of the Comrade's speech on TV. I didn't see the whole thing. I find it actually extremely annoying to hear him say something like, "We Americans." He doesn't have a clue what America's all about. It just grates on my nerves, like if Hugo Chavez crashed my birthday party.
And no points on style. No one died and made the Comrade king -- though he doesn't seem to be remotely aware of the differences between US president, king of the world, Fuhrer, God, Jesus, or the Holy Ghost. So he shouldn't set himself up as a moral authority and tell me what to do and how I should feel. I'm far too intelligent to have ever voted for his sorry marxist ass and I actually know all the correct words to the Statue of Liberty poem. And believe in it.
Anyway, in addition to misquoting the poem from the Statue of Liberty, Comrade Pontificator claimed that US borders are "unenforceable."
If that's his view, maybe we need another chief executive. Someone who can actually get something done. And speak without a teleprompter.
If you look at international law, there are about five criteria that define any nation as "sovereign." One of them is the ability to define and defend its borders.
So, what? Is the Comrade about to abandon US sovereignty, throw us on the mercy of a hostile U.N. and claim that the USA just can't defend its borders anymore? We just kind of slop over the geography and Mexico does the same? No help for it. It's a 21st Century thing.
The truth is, the Comrade won't defend our borders. Not "can't," but "won't." The way he looks at it, if he makes this huge big mess, then he can hold the whole nation hostage until we agree to his silly shit, including amnesty for all the illegals -- just to ensure that he and his marxist pigs get SOME votes in upcoming election.
Just like he's holding the Gulf hostage -- disallows any clean-up -- until congress passes crap-n-tax and agrees to ban any of the USA's attempts to become energy-independent. The Comrade needs savages at the gates. The way he sees it, that's his constituency.
He learned politics in Chicago. Can you tell? I'm sure he listens to the Blagojevich trial every day, looking for tips on how to extort and twist arms. Or maybe that's Ram's job.
Here's an idea. Let's get rid of this jackass and get someone else who knows what they're doing and who actually likes and respects the USA. That would be a whole lot easier and it would help the nation.
And as far as I'm concerned, the Comrade can take California with him when he goes. Then we'd get rid of Pelosi, Waxman, Boxer, Maxine Waters, Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, the whole bucket of worms. Let's just give them all back to Mexico and see how they like living under the whims of a drug cartel. I suspect for many, it would be a dream come true. Then they's have a bunch of real peons to lord over, can nationalize everything to their little hearts' content, and leave the rest of us alone.
Sound like a plan?
Save the republic.
And no points on style. No one died and made the Comrade king -- though he doesn't seem to be remotely aware of the differences between US president, king of the world, Fuhrer, God, Jesus, or the Holy Ghost. So he shouldn't set himself up as a moral authority and tell me what to do and how I should feel. I'm far too intelligent to have ever voted for his sorry marxist ass and I actually know all the correct words to the Statue of Liberty poem. And believe in it.
Anyway, in addition to misquoting the poem from the Statue of Liberty, Comrade Pontificator claimed that US borders are "unenforceable."
If that's his view, maybe we need another chief executive. Someone who can actually get something done. And speak without a teleprompter.
If you look at international law, there are about five criteria that define any nation as "sovereign." One of them is the ability to define and defend its borders.
So, what? Is the Comrade about to abandon US sovereignty, throw us on the mercy of a hostile U.N. and claim that the USA just can't defend its borders anymore? We just kind of slop over the geography and Mexico does the same? No help for it. It's a 21st Century thing.
The truth is, the Comrade won't defend our borders. Not "can't," but "won't." The way he looks at it, if he makes this huge big mess, then he can hold the whole nation hostage until we agree to his silly shit, including amnesty for all the illegals -- just to ensure that he and his marxist pigs get SOME votes in upcoming election.
Just like he's holding the Gulf hostage -- disallows any clean-up -- until congress passes crap-n-tax and agrees to ban any of the USA's attempts to become energy-independent. The Comrade needs savages at the gates. The way he sees it, that's his constituency.
He learned politics in Chicago. Can you tell? I'm sure he listens to the Blagojevich trial every day, looking for tips on how to extort and twist arms. Or maybe that's Ram's job.
Here's an idea. Let's get rid of this jackass and get someone else who knows what they're doing and who actually likes and respects the USA. That would be a whole lot easier and it would help the nation.
And as far as I'm concerned, the Comrade can take California with him when he goes. Then we'd get rid of Pelosi, Waxman, Boxer, Maxine Waters, Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, the whole bucket of worms. Let's just give them all back to Mexico and see how they like living under the whims of a drug cartel. I suspect for many, it would be a dream come true. Then they's have a bunch of real peons to lord over, can nationalize everything to their little hearts' content, and leave the rest of us alone.
Sound like a plan?
Save the republic.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Throwing rocks in Racine
Put on the news in time today to hear that the Comrade was giving a speech in Racine, Wisconsin. From my home, I could just about throw a rock to Racine. 'Course, I wouldn't go anywhere to see the Comrade except to throw rocks.
Anyway, got to admit, the Comrade certainly has one hell of a nerve. He goes into a town with a 14% unemployment rate and crows about how well the stimulus is working.
Did he think the good people of Racine might not notice that they have no work?
What a clown.
And then he makes fun of John Boehner while he's there.
I like Boehner a whole lot better than I like the Comrade. I think Boehner actually likes the USA and is working to preserve its ideals and principles.
Boehner did recently suggest that the age at which people can begin to collect Social Security should be raised to 70, and according to one account, that Social Security might be reserved only for those who need it. That is, if you're retired and have a personal fortune (lucky you!), maybe you shouldn't qualify for Social Security.
I'm approaching retirement age pretty quickly. I've already given up the idea that I'll be able to collect Social Security. Or at least enough Social Security to actually live on, except in some hovel in the inner city, dodging bullets and drug dealers.
In fact, I don't know anyone my age who is actually seriously planning on retiring on Social Security. We're all making other plans, trying to start small businesses and so forth to keep earning some kind of income until we die. Some people I know have even taken an early retirement from their "day jobs" so that they can launch some other enterprise to support themselves. I don't even mind. I'd keep on working anyway. I like my work.
However, I can understand the other side -- people who feel ripped off for paying 15% of their income into Social Security ALL OF THEIR WORKING LIVES, only to be told, "Sorry, we spent the money." But that's congress for you. A collection of irresponsible assholes. Wish I had that 15% in a private investment fund. I'd be retired already.
But, of course, the buttheads in Washington know so much more than we do.
So, yeah, let's reform Social Security. Really reform it. Let's face the fact that it's unsustainable. It never was anything more than a Ponzi scheme. Truly. A genuine Ponzi scheme, just like that joker who scammed Wall Street all those years. Only if the feds do it, somehow it's not only legal, but is supposed to make some kinda sense.
No. It's a failure. No other outcome was ever possible.
Anyway, I'm writing a novel right now, my third. This one will be political; the others really arent't. Yeah, I get sick of politics. And I only write fiction about characters I can live with 24 hours per day, and who could live with a politician 24 hours per day? I'll be publishing it myself, as usual. The New York publishing establishment is run mainly by people who are most-likely to vote for the Comrade, and I'm quite sure they wouldn't be interested. Anyway, I wouldn't want them to make any money off of it.
By the way, exactly what is a "crazed sex poodle"? Does that mean the masseuse couldn't disengage Al Gore from her leg?
Not an image I'd care to spend much time on. Aren't you glad that jerk didn't get into office?
Save the republic.
Anyway, got to admit, the Comrade certainly has one hell of a nerve. He goes into a town with a 14% unemployment rate and crows about how well the stimulus is working.
Did he think the good people of Racine might not notice that they have no work?
What a clown.
And then he makes fun of John Boehner while he's there.
I like Boehner a whole lot better than I like the Comrade. I think Boehner actually likes the USA and is working to preserve its ideals and principles.
Boehner did recently suggest that the age at which people can begin to collect Social Security should be raised to 70, and according to one account, that Social Security might be reserved only for those who need it. That is, if you're retired and have a personal fortune (lucky you!), maybe you shouldn't qualify for Social Security.
I'm approaching retirement age pretty quickly. I've already given up the idea that I'll be able to collect Social Security. Or at least enough Social Security to actually live on, except in some hovel in the inner city, dodging bullets and drug dealers.
In fact, I don't know anyone my age who is actually seriously planning on retiring on Social Security. We're all making other plans, trying to start small businesses and so forth to keep earning some kind of income until we die. Some people I know have even taken an early retirement from their "day jobs" so that they can launch some other enterprise to support themselves. I don't even mind. I'd keep on working anyway. I like my work.
However, I can understand the other side -- people who feel ripped off for paying 15% of their income into Social Security ALL OF THEIR WORKING LIVES, only to be told, "Sorry, we spent the money." But that's congress for you. A collection of irresponsible assholes. Wish I had that 15% in a private investment fund. I'd be retired already.
But, of course, the buttheads in Washington know so much more than we do.
So, yeah, let's reform Social Security. Really reform it. Let's face the fact that it's unsustainable. It never was anything more than a Ponzi scheme. Truly. A genuine Ponzi scheme, just like that joker who scammed Wall Street all those years. Only if the feds do it, somehow it's not only legal, but is supposed to make some kinda sense.
No. It's a failure. No other outcome was ever possible.
Anyway, I'm writing a novel right now, my third. This one will be political; the others really arent't. Yeah, I get sick of politics. And I only write fiction about characters I can live with 24 hours per day, and who could live with a politician 24 hours per day? I'll be publishing it myself, as usual. The New York publishing establishment is run mainly by people who are most-likely to vote for the Comrade, and I'm quite sure they wouldn't be interested. Anyway, I wouldn't want them to make any money off of it.
By the way, exactly what is a "crazed sex poodle"? Does that mean the masseuse couldn't disengage Al Gore from her leg?
Not an image I'd care to spend much time on. Aren't you glad that jerk didn't get into office?
Save the republic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)