Sunday, December 20, 2009

Worker's Motherland, a progressive song for the Midwinter Festival

To the tune of Winter Wonderland

Shift bells ring, are you listening,
In the streets, blood is glistening.
Revolution in sight,
We're toiling tonight.
Progressing to the workers' motherland.

Gone away is our history,
Here to stay is equal misery.
We sing labor's song,
As we go along,
Progressing to the workers' motherland.

In the meadow we can build a snowman,
Then pretend that he is Chairman Mao.
He'll say: Are you orphans?
We'll say: No man,
But we can do the job,
Just show us how.

Later on, we'll conspire,
As we dream by the fire
To face unafraid,
The plans that we've made,
Progressing to the workers' motherland.

In the meadow we can build a gulag,
And pretend that it's full of the rich.
We'll starve teabaggers right there in the gulag,
Until the mass graves fill up the new ditch.

When it snows, ain't it thrilling,
Tracking down bourgeois and killing?
We'll murder and slay, the Soviet way,
Progressing to the workers' motherland.

Everybody sing along with the progressive lyrics!

Updated: Replaced “Josef Stalin” in the second line
of the third stanza with “Chairman Mao” for better poetic meter.
Adjusted rhyme in fourth line to fit.


Technorati Tags: , , , , ,


Friday, December 18, 2009

Talk about the Weather

What do 'weather,' 'climate,' and 'climate change' mean? says that the noun weather has these meanings.
1. the state of the atmosphere with respect to wind, temperature, cloudiness, moisture, pressure, etc.
2. a strong wind or storm or strong winds and storms collectively: We've had some real weather this spring.
3. a weathercast: The radio announcer will read the weather right after the commercial.
4. Usually, weathers. changes or vicissitudes in one's lot or fortunes: She remained a good friend in all weathers.

Climate has these meanings.

1. the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
2. a region or area characterized by a given climate: to move to a warm climate.
3. the prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of a group, period, or place: a climate of political unrest.

And climate change? The first meaning of climate gives the game away. Since climate is the composite of weather within and across years and other cycles, weather is by definition the change in climate: climate change.

So when people use the words climate change it is our responsibility as awake and aware sentient human beings to cut through the crap and intentional befuddlement and replace that mealy mouthed phrase with the shorter and clearer word: weather.

Sound fair? Let's try it with Obama's speech to Copenhagen, sourced from the HuffPo.
Good morning. It's an honor to for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come together here in Copenhagen because weather poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you - like me - were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, weather will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know.

So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge - the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of weather is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance.

I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today.

As the world's largest economy and the world's second largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing weather, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That is why we have renewed our leadership within international climate negotiations, and worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And that is why we have taken bold action at home - by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.

These actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet our global responsibilities. We are convinced that changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America's economic future - that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. And we are convinced that changing the way we use energy is essential to America's national security, because it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help us deal with some of the dangers posed by weather.

So America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen. But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we act together. That is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to take certain steps, and to hold each other accountable for our commitments.

After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear.

First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on weather. I'm pleased that many of us have already done so, and I'm confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.

Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to weather. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if - and only if - it is part of the broader accord that I have just described.

Mitigation. Transparency. And financing. It is a clear formula - one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord - one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.

The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. This is not a perfect agreement, and no country would get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world's fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.

We know the fault lines because we've been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be a part of an historic endeavor - one that makes life better for our children and grandchildren.

Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year - all while the danger of weather grows until it is irreversible.

There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say. Now, I believe that it's time for the nations and people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.

We must choose action over inaction; the future over the past - with courage and faith, let us meet our responsibility to our people, and to the future of our planet. Thank you.
That took the magic out of the speech didn't it? Now, with just one simple phrase replaced with its truthful synonym, it is ridiculous and laughable.

This replacement of these code words and phrases with more truthful words could be expanded. For instance, because CO2 is caused by humans in two ways, breathing and economic activity, 'emissions reductions' and similar phrases are code for 'government coercion to reduce human population and economic activity.' 'Collective action' is code for 'governmental coercion by means of force.' And so on.

Or we could continue doing what Democrats, communists, and other progressives do and get involved in appeals to emotion that are entirely free of reason and scientific method.

Finally: Listen to Red Lorry Yellow Lorry to get a glimmer of what the left feels about this and every other catastrophe in their pessimistic, Chicken Little conception of the doomed World.

Talk about the weather - RLYL
Uploaded by cariboudunor. - Watch more music videos, in HD!


Technorati Tags: , , , ,


Monday, December 14, 2009

The Fraser Letter on Healthcare High-jack

This is a letter that has been going around the Internet. It is an Indianapolis doctor's letter to Sen. Bayh about the Bill (probably HR 3200)

Note: Dr. Stephen E. Frazer, MD practices as an anesthesiologist in Indianapolis , IN
Here is a letter I sent to Senator Bayh. Feel free to copy it and send it around to all other representatives. -- Stephen Fraser

July 23, 2009
Senator Bayh,

As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the health care bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government's proposed involvement in the patient-physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a health care system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our health care system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.

I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID Health card' will be issued!

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer.

Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.'

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)

Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!)
Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)

Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)
Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)

Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records.

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that!)

Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that's not Socialism!)

Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally-- the value of humans.)

Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.

Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)

Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)

Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want -- rationing.)

Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)

Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!' Unbelievable!

Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)

Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult." (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)

Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!)

Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; & nbsp;guiding you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.')

Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)

Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.

Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.

Furthermore, if you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor-patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.


Stephen E. Fraser, MD


Technorati Tags: , , , ,


Monday, November 23, 2009

Have You Seen this Senator?

Mary Landrieu was last seen taking a $300 Million Bribe in order to pass a bill to spend 2 or 3 Trillion dollars (exact numbers are hazy) in spending of money that nobody has in order to force everyone in the US to drop their health insurance and accept Universal Medicaid. Freezers no longer being safe to hide illegally obtained money, she is believed to have put it in a big cookie jar.

Seriously, isn't BRIBERY supposed to be illegal? Why isn't Landrieu being clapped in chains along with Reid, who offered her the bribe?


Technorati Tags: , , , ,


Monday, November 16, 2009

Juan Legal and Jose Illegal

This parable has been making the rounds on the Internet. Even if the numbers aren't exactly right, they are just an illustration of the problem, not a description of it down to the penny.

You have two families: "Juan Legal-Immigrant" and "Jose Illegal-Immigrant". Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California.

Juan Legal-Immigrant works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal-Immigrant also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".

Ready? Now pay attention...

Juan Legal-Immigrant: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Juan Legal-Immigrant now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal-Immigrant: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal-Immigrant pays no taxes. Jose Illegal-Immigrant now has $31,200.00.

Juan Legal-Immigrant pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Juan Legal-Immigrant now has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal-Immigrant has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal-Immigrant still has $31,200.00.

Juan Legal-Immigrant makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Juan Legal-Immigrant pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Juan Legal-Immigrant now has $18,031.00.

Jose Illegal-Immigrant has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal-Immigrant still has $31,200.00.

Juan Legal-Immigrant pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Juan Legal-Immigrant now has $9,631.00.

Jose Illegal-Immigrant receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal-Immigrant pays $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal-Immigrant still has $ 31,200.00.

Juan Legal-Immigrant pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Juan Legal-Immigrant now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal-Immigrant says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.d

Juan Legal-Immigrant has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

Jose Illegal-Immigrant has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.

Juan Legal-Immigrant now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

Jose Illegal-Immigrant has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Juan Legal-Immigrant's and Jose Illegal-Immigrant's children both attend the same school. Juan Legal-Immigrant pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal-Immigrant's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal-Immigrant's children have an after school ESL program. Juan Legal-Immigrant's children go home.

Juan Legal-Immigrant and Jose Illegal-Immigrant both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Juan paid for them and Jose did not.


Jose Illegal-Immigrant gets all the benefits of being a US citizen but doesn't pay any of the costs. He did not obey the laws and paid criminals to smuggle himself and his family across the line, enriching the same coyotes and drug criminals who prey on his community. By his actions he is a parasite on the United States and damages other Americans who are legal residents and citizens. Worst of all to self-reliant Americans of all sorts, he is not self-reliant. He and his family are free-loaders. Everyone else has to pull their weight because he declines to.

Isn't this the exact same reason why Democrats want to take away the private market healthcare insurance enjoyed by 87% of Americans and put everyone on universal Medicaid? Because there are a few who don't buy insurance themselves?


Technorati Tags: , ,


Saturday, October 17, 2009

Movie Review: Where the Wild Things Have Relationship Problems

where-the-wild-things-are-spike-jonze-gandolfini-review-sendakjpg-7461d8aa6f517189_largeThis review will not take long. Darling wife and I took our three young children and a neighbor kid from across the street to a movie followed by Five Guys for burgers.

We saw Where the Wild Things Are, Spike Jonze's tragically flawed adaptation of the Maurice Sendak classic. Perhaps you like watching depressing movies about relationship problems between people who refuse, idiotic, to change. Then you might like this movie. Perhaps you like watching a movie with the message that your friends are waiting until you slip up, at which time they will eat you up, cannibal-like. Then you might like this movie. Perhaps you like movies that speak the unselfconscious symbolic language of children while carrying a lesson that relationships cannot last, that marriage ends in divorce and mutual alienation, that only relationships between simpletons like Ira and Judith can last, and that on a more basic level relationships are just a bummer. Then you might like this movie. Or perhaps, like me, you recognize the seductive beauty of the movie, and hate it for the psychic poison it delivers to the defenseless minds of kids.

We will not be buying it on DVD.

Did I mention that while rushing to the bathroom to pee, our 4 year old Sugarlump vomited her popcorn all the way down the carpeted hallway behind the theater? And that after cleaning up and returning to our seats she curled up in her daddy's lap and went to sleep? That made the rest of the movie more bearable.

We finished the evening at Five Guys with the best burgers and fries the kids ever ate. That's what they said. Evening saved.

Other reviews: NYT, Tech Banyan, Entertainment Weekly, HuffPo, NRO


Technorati Tags: , ,


Friday, October 16, 2009

Moncton's Warning: Beware Copenhagen in December!

All hands alert!

I don't have anything to add because this is so shattering there is nothing that can be added. If this extract scares you then you have to read the whole thing. And then we all shall have to do something.

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who founded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.


And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.
Read the treaty. Read the rest of Lord Moncton's remarks. If this is signed and passed, it will be the greatest act of BETRAYAL that has ever been committed on the American people. We all must act, every one of us, doing whatever we can.

This must not stand!


Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,


Thursday, October 15, 2009

Limbaugh the Sequel: Is it Possible to Embarrass the NFL?

After the NFL has made a mockery of itself by obsequiously scraping its forehead against the ground on which DeMaurice Smith, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton walk, it is up to NFL fans to find out if it is possible for the NFL to be embarrassed any more. Remember, this is the league that welcomes people convicted of homicide, rape, burglary, wife-beating and dog-fighting back into the players' ranks. Yet it is also the league that refuses to let a conservative radio personality and lover of the game of football become a minority owner of a team, using vile, racist quotes invented out of whole cloth to smear him.

The question begs to be asked. Can fans embarrass the hell out of the NFL? Not by throwing ice-balls at opposing teams; Not by booing lustily at little kids; Not by wearing nothing but body paint on their torsos in midwinter; But can fans embarrass the hell out of the NFL by making a spectacle of rejecting the new NFL determination to goose-step to the drumbeat of the race hustlers and slanderers of the progressive left?

Some have proposed cutting up team jerseys and sending the pieces to Roger Goodell's office. Some have proposed canceling your NFL Sunday Ticket. Those are good, and they hit at the wallets of these hypocritical leftist slimeballs, but they are not embarrassing enough. Embarrassing an organization as big and wealthy as the NFL with all its television time and bootlicking local sports reporters requires strategic planning.

Don't just cut up your stuff. Don't just cancel. Make a spectacle of it!

How to Make a Spectacle

Let's say you have an NFL collectible. A coffee cup signed by Steve McNair. A jersey signed by OJ Simpson. A drink cozy or cooler that used to belong to Bret Favre. A framed limited edition photo of Joe Namath. You get the idea.

Choose one item that wouldn't kill you to destroy it. Ready? Get out your video camera. Film yourself getting ready.

Start by expressing what you believe in your heart:
  • in America's freedoms.
  • a man has the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty.
  • vile accusations need to be proved, and if unproved are nothing more than slander and libel.They should not be passed on by so-called journalists without any even minimal level of checking or vetting.
  • people have the right to use their money in any legal way they like.
  • we should judge a man, not by his political party, not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.
  • our own experiences are better guides than wild rumors spread on the internet.
  • the NFL has crossed its fans with its pandering, slavish subservience to those who slandered and libeled a man who was making a good faith business offer to get into the NFL owners' business. This is the same NFL, mind you, that happily welcomes dog-torturers, wife-beaters, rapists, and those convicted of homicide back to the players' ranks.
Isn't sports about truthful calls, fair play, and trust? Clearly this league has no respect for the truth. Clearly it has no respect for fair play. Clearly it cannot be trusted. And if it cannot be trusted, how can its games be trusted?

Film yourself saying those things in your own words. Film this whole process. That is how you multiply your protest and make a spectacle of it. Upload the whole package to Youtube. Send faxes, letters, emails to your local newspaper and TV station letting them know what you are doing.

Announce that for the reasons given you are going to destroy this valuable NFL artifact. But you are selling the right to save it or destroy it on Ebay in case there are other people who care about this. Make a long bidding period, 2 weeks or longer if you can. Sell the fate of the collectible to the highest bidder, who can either bid to have you destroy it (run it over with the biggest, meanest looking vehicle you can find, or have it torn to pieces by wild animals or by being torn in half by two big pickup trucks with trailer hitches), or buy it from you to save it from destruction. Start the bidding at $1 with a reserve of the cash value of the item and no buy-it-now price.

Did you send the announcement to your local newspapers and TV stations? Do it.

Film the plans and the destruction on video. Upload it to Youtube if the local news doesn't pick it up. Blog about it.

Embarrass the hell out of Roger Goodell!
Technorati Tags: , , , ,


Saturday, October 10, 2009

Why do Federal workers make so much money?

The Business Insider asks the question that is almost never asked.
An interesting detail from John Mauldin's latest economic note:

The average federal worker makes $75,419 a year, while the average in the private sector is $39,751.

Why is that, exactly?  Is it because Federal workers are 80% better than private-sector workers?

Somehow I doubt it. I think it has more to do with progressives giving taxpayer money away to other progressives, just like their progressive universities give honorary degrees away to other progressives.


Technorati Tags: , ,


Central Concepts from David Cameron's Speech to the Conservative Party

The Guardian recently analyzed David Cameron's speech to the British Conservative Party Conference for the popularity of his applause lines. I've extracted in popularity order all the lines that got more than 15 seconds of applause, while excluding the introduction. The interesting thing to me is that all the most popular lines are based specifically on conservative principles.

David Cameron's conference speech, 2009

Speech order
Applause, seconds

48 And when we look back we will say not that the government made it happen... ...not that the minister made it happen... ...but the businesswoman made it happen... ...the police officer made it happen... ...the father made it happen... ...the teacher made it happen. You made it happen. 166.68
9 Let everyone in this hall show their appreciation to the men and women who fight for us 50.12
23 Thirty years ago this party won an election fighting against 98 per cent tax rates on the richest. Today I want us to show even more anger about 96 per cent tax rates on the poorest. 40.59
26 Excuse me? Who made the poorest poorer? Who left youth unemployment higher? Who made inequality greater? No, not the wicked Tories… you, Labour: you're the ones that did this to our society. So don't you dare lecture us about poverty. You have failed and it falls to us, the modern Conservative Party to fight for the poorest who you have let down. 36.56
43 And if we win the election, we will have as the strongest voice for our country's interests, the man who is leading our campaign for a referendum, the man who will be our new British Foreign Secretary: William Hague. 19.53
16 Next year, Gordon Brown will spend more money on the interest on our debt than on schools. More than on law and order, more than on child poverty. So I say to the Labour Party and the trades unions just tell me what is compassionate, what is progressive about spending more on debt interest than on helping the poorest children in our country? 19.15
36 So when I see Ed Balls blow hundreds of millions on so-called "curriculum development" on consultancies, on quangos like the QCDA and BECTA like every other parent with a child at a state school I want to say: This is my child, it's my money, give it to my headteacher instead of wasting it in Whitehall. 17.47
29 We've got to stop treating children like adults and adults like children. 17.43
18 Pensioners don't want pity. They just want to know that if they've lived responsibly, they'll be looked after in their old age. 16.91
35 Today let us honour their memory and send our thoughts and best wishes to all those, including Margaret Tebbit, who still bear the scars of that terrible night. 16.06
41 That's why ID cards, 42 days and Labour's surveillance state are so utterly unacceptable and why we will sweep the whole rotten edifice away. 15.75
12 I know what sustains me the most. She is sitting right there and I'm incredibly proud to call her my wife. 15.69
21 we will give back to the Bank of England its power to regulate the City powers that should never have been taken away. 15.5
20 In Britain today, there are entrepreneurs everywhere – they just don't know it yet. Success stories everywhere – they just haven't been written yet. We must be the people who release that potential. 15.38
34 The police aren't on the streets because they're busy complying with ten different inspection regimes. The police say the CPS isn't charging people…because they have to hit targets to reduce the number of unsuccessful trials. And the prisons aren't rehabilitating offenders…because they're focused on meeting thirty-three different performance indicators. This all needs to change. 15.04

I'm not going to worry about the exact duration of the applause lines. For instance, the most popular line measured by applause duration was the very last line in the speech. The audience wasn't necessarily applauding for that line, but for the whole speech. On the other hand, no politician would conclude a speech to his own convention with a line that was not guaranteed to resonate with the listeners.

Paraphrased, here are what the popular applause lines in the speech were all about.
  1. The government will not fix things; the people will fix things. Individual freedom.
  2. We appreciate our military who fight for us. National self-defense.
  3. Taxes don't just hurt rich people; they hurt poor people too. Taxes are too high.
  4. The failures of the bureaucracy must be blamed on the people who controlled the bureaucracy when they failed. That has always been the Left. Personal responsibility.
  5. Our country's freedom is endangered by the EU; our best leader in opposition to creeping EU dominance will be my foreign minister. Rule of law and a representative government.
  6. A crippling national debt created to benefit unions destroys our country's safety nets for the poorest among us. Prudence.
  7. Too much so-called education money is spent on consultants and politically connected NGOs. Prudence.
  8. We need to stop treating children like adults and adults like children. Individual freedom, rights and responsibilities.
  9. Retired workers don't want pity and government handouts, just to get the pensions they have earned. Rule of law.
  10. Let us honor those who have suffered. Kindness.
  11. Government surveillance and regulation has gone too far and we will sweep it out. Individual freedom. Rule of law.
  12. My wife sustains me. Marriage and family.
  13. Banks have been prevented by City government from making prudent financial decisions and we will stop this. Free market. Rule of law.
  14. We will unleash the entrepreneurs and new businesses that have been kept down by the left. Free market. Individual freedom.
  15. Police aren't on the streets because they are complying with politically correct paperwork that prevents them from keeping the streets safe. This needs to change. Prudence.
And finally, the top line that wasn't quite 15 seconds was, "This big government has reached the end of the road." This is classic red meat, though not so much a statement of principle.

In my opinion, these lines express ideas that are popular in the US as well, not just among US conservatives but among independents and even Democrats. Conservatives in the US need to take these popular lines and use them, or lines like them.

In related news, a word cloud for Cameron's speech can be found here.


Technorati Tags: , , , , ,


Friday, October 9, 2009

10/9/09 list of interesting articles

Heading up the news today, Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for What again? AP analyzes something for once.

How about Obama's war record?

"Classy" White House calls Joe Scarborough an A---hole for laughing at President Pantywaist's Nobel Peace Prize

Tom Coburn proposes to dump Political Science research funding since it's pure Marxist propaganda. I can live with that. Marxists protest.

Safe Schools Czar wrote forward to the compleat idiot's guide to pedophilia. I fixed the book title to clarify it.

Too late to watch, an actual documentary actually airing on PBS actually praised capitalism actually lifts poor from poverty, actually defeats tyranny

Youtube seminar on basic online video production/shooting the video

White House advisor on Muslim affairs says Sharia law not such a bad idea

Al Qaeda Video on how to Make a Butt Bomb

Cass Sunstein defends communism, says America too racist for socialism and its universal racism

Karl Marx, the end of the world, and communist eschatology

Kevin Jennings vs. Mark Foley: Battle of the Pederasts

Another case of actual vote fraud, this time from a transvestite prostitute and con-man who ACORN got to vote nine times in the same election

NASA bombs the moon. Take that moon monsters!

Global Taxation without Representation: G20 Discusses Taxing the Whole World

White House finally admits its obvious unreasoning, deranged hatred for Fox News


Thursday, October 8, 2009

Is the Fix in for Boeing on the Tanker Competition?

Quin Hillyer seems to think so, and so writes in the American Spectator.

The Pentagon is playing dirty pool on behalf of the already-dirtiest pool players from Boeing, with regard to the huge (179-plane, about $40 billion) air refueling tanker contract that Northrop Grumman Corp. and EADS won fair and square last year before it was stolen away from them.

As a reminder: The swiping occurred after Boeing launched an unprecedented and underhanded political-hardball campaign after Northrop won the contract with a bigger, more versatile, more efficient plane. Boeing's bid also was some $3 billion more expensive (or $42 million more expensive per plane) than Northrop's for just the first 64 planes. And Northrop's offering would support, it believably claims, some 48,000 American jobs at 230 supplier companies in 49 states, compared to 44,000 new jobs that Boeing claimed it would create. The Northrop plane also could start coming off the production lines sooner than Boeing's, by all accounts.

Yet after Boeing strong-armed politicians and the Pentagon, the Seattle- and Chicago-based company filed a formal protest, alleging more than 100 irregularities in what already had been the most open, public, analyzed contract award in Pentagon history. (The award actually itself was a re-do; at first the Air Force was to lease planes from Boeing, but Sen. John McCain led an investigation which found such serious shenanigans that several Boeing executives and Air Force personnel were convicted in a sort of kickback scheme.

The rebid was a pure partisan decision that favored Democrat Washington state over Republican Alabama and Mississippi, still recovering from Hurricanes Ivan and Katrina. And with the newly issued rules preventing the Northrop bid from being evaluated for its greater capability while giving Northrop's pricing data to Boeing without reciprocating to Northrop with Boeing's pricing data, it is clear that the bid is as dirty and unfair as the Air Force can make it. Will people go to jail again over Boeing's shenanigans? Maybe, maybe not. Democrats seem to get away scot free with these things. Should they? I'm leaning to yes.

And yes, I still work for Northrop Grumman, though not for the tanker effort. I work in the same region that would supply the workers for this project, so no doubt some of my neighbors would work there. I'm blogging this on my own time. And yes, I'm bitter. I see another decision that was made on the basis of facts overturned because of dirty Democrat party politics. And it makes me sick for my country.


Technorati Tags: , , , , ,


10/8/09 List of Interesting Articles

Jobless rate will affect Democrats' 2010 Prospects. Duh.

Maxine Waters says Charlie Rangle isn't alone: Many Democrats are Crooks

US Senate healthcare plan (Baucuscare) would cost $829 Billion and cut 10-year deficit by $81 Billion. For those who can't add, this means it will increase taxpayer costs and fees by $910 Billion. (behind member firewall)

The Taliban bombed the Indian embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, killing 17 and injuring more than 60

In an interesting segue from the previous story, according to Attorney General and projecting coward Eric Holder, Violence is the 'American Problem'

Israeli Foreign Minister astonishes world with bracing splash of reality: people who think Israel and Palestinians can reach a deal "do not understand reality and are sowing illusions."

UN Climate report confuses Arctic with Antarctic

Dems running away from the Ghost of Speeches Past

Scrappleface: Obama to lobby academy for Michael Moore Oscar

Baucuscare will raise marginal tax rate to 70% or higher, on people between 1x and 2x the poverty level

Have Environmentalists ever actually been for anything they claim they are for? Their hated fast breeder reactors would have reduced pollution by 35%


Wednesday, October 7, 2009

10/7/09 Roundup of Interesting Stuff

Yes, Virginia, ACORN threw out all Republican voter registrations as invalid because "there is no such thing as a black republican"

Kerry-Lugar Bill is incredibly insulting to Pakistan. "Allies" in Pakistan are not happy.

Iraqis are getting cynical about voting. Fear the "turbans" will take over and steal the people's freedom away soon enough.

Thank God for Vaclav Klaus, the only man in the way of the EU steamroller

Archbishop Chaput discusses why it was wrong for Notre Dame to honor Obama with an honorary degree

Egypt killed all the country's pigs because of swine flu fears, and to spite their Christian owners. Now what to do with all the daily garbage the pigs used to eat?

"Let me dispel these ridiculous rumors once and for all and set the record straight: Under my plan, seniors are going to be killed the way they want to be killed, end of story," said the president, who acknowledged that "wiping out" the nation's elderly population has always been his No. 1 priority. "If your grandmother would rather be euthanized in the privacy of her own home than be gutted and hanged on a high school soccer field, she is entitled to that right."

A Sarbanes-Oxley to Cripple American Small Business

50 Examples of Government Waste

Vox Day agrees with George Will about Barack Obama

The French Battle Flag looks like the flag of Benin with a white background

Go for Capitalism or Go for Broke: Michael Moore vs. Michael Covel

What went wrong with Congress?

Ay Caramba! Kevin Jennings wants Pro-Homosexual Curriculum for Kindergartens

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. The coming storm.


Technorati Tags: ,


Why Settle for the Lesser of Two Evils?

President Barack C'thul'hu Obama

From iowahawk's NEA grant-fest.


Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Political Pressure to fall in line with Cap and Trade increasing

The US Chamber of Commerce is pushing for a "scopes monkey trial" of climate change pseudo-science. This has triggered ever more conformist pressure on the group to give up its adherence to the principles of non-manipulated data, unrestricted peer review, and the truth. The Washington Monthly has gone "all in" on climate change legislation, & trumpets that anyone who has seen that climate change science is not science is a atheist vis a vis the Ecopagan religion and must be punished.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,


Monday, September 28, 2009

Spongebob does the Hamster Dance

You need to have an extremely silly sense of humor to enjoy this more than once.


Hickory Dickory Dock Variants

I'm always looking for rhymes to say to my daughters to amuse them. Luckily for me, and for them I suppose, they are still amused by my silly rhymes.

Hickory dickory dock
The mouse went up the clock
The clock struck one
The mouse came down
Hickory dickory dock.

Hickory dickory doo
The mouse ran up the flue
Down came the rain
Washed mouse down the drain
Hickory dickory doo

Hickory dickory ding
The mouse went up something
A noise was made
The mouse was afraid
Hickory dickory ding

Hickory dickory doll
The mouse went to the mall
Bought a magazine
Couldn't read a thing
Hickory dickory doll

Hickory dickory dudes
The mouse went to the woods
Met a hungry dog
Hid deep in a log
Hickory dickory dudes

Hickory dickory doll (yes again)
The mouse went up the wall
The ceiling was there
He fell down through the air
Hickory dickory doll

Hickory dickory diddle
The mouse danced to the fiddle
Under a dancing boot
The mouse was kaput
Hickory dickory diddle

Hickory dickory day
The mousy passed away
Poor little ex mouse
In the mouse's big house
Hickory dickory day


Technorati Tags: , ,


Saturday, September 26, 2009

Hank Jr. Never Sang about Country Boys like this!

Life ain't nothing but a funny funny riddle
Obama's ears are not so little
Mmm mmm mmm
Thank God I'm a country boy.


Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Umm, you know all that climate data that proves global warming, well, nobody's had it for 20+ years

Imagine you are a climate researcher who has been assembling the data that is used to support claims of global warming. Or imagine you are Phil Jones from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. Or imagine you are a scientific fraud. Did I write "or"? I meant "and."

Before we get into the sleazy details let's talk about science.

The scientific method that has produced such incredible progress over the last five hundred years depends on peer review, rigorously reproducible experiments, and transparent access to the original data as well as all operations performed on it. Factor analysis, time series analysis and other techniques lead to theories about cause and effect. Empirical data from experimental results indicates numerical relationships. Results are tested and vetted by many methods, including statistical analysis of the data for measurement bias. The result is that scientific theories are never proved. Two things can happen to them.
  • Theories can be accepted as good enough for a while; until
  • They get disproved.
In science, breakthroughs are made by disproving old theories that were good enough for a long time, and replacing them with new or refined theories.

Where experiments are feasible, new experiments are performed to vet results. In order for the scientific method to work for theories in which experiments are not feasible (such as weather science), the original data must be kept. A reliable record of all mathematical transformations must also be kept. To depart from this method by inventing or manipulating data is usually enough to make a pariah of a scientist. But there are certain scientists who, because of the faddishness and political correctness of their results, get a pass when they violate every standard of scientific research.

But the fact of the matter is those so-called scientists are frauds, and so are their supporters.

Patrick J. Michaels of NRO has the story in all its deplorable, results-falsifying glory at Watts Up With That.
In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”

Putting together such a record isn’t at all easy. Weather stations weren’t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

Guess what comes next? Every time a scientist wants to examine the data and make sure it is good, Phil Jones refuses. A few scientists who are properly deferential get bits of data. But the scientific method cannot operate without peer review from scientists who look for problems. How can the science be improved if it cannot be examined? After deflecting requests for data with all sorts of weak excuses (read the article for a number of good laughs), Jones eventually admitted that he and his partner never kept the original data. From the beginning of their work in 1979, they only kept data after they had adjusted it by unknown and inexplicable methods. They adjusted new data before including it in their existing, adjusted data. And then they threw the new original data away. Read what Jones wrote:

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

In other words, they threw away the original data and falsified the data they kept.

Though the story of the falsified global warming data does not prove that human activity has changed global climate, it is clear that the IPCC's climate data shows signs of human activity. Unfortunately for the climate change hypothesis, it shows signs of human activity in falsifying the data.

Combine this with the 2007 discovery that NASA climate activist James Hansen's computer models that showed increasing temperatures from 1998 to 2006 suffered from a Y2K bug and were completely wrong (see the graph at the right showing a sudden leap in measurements on midnight 12/31/1999) and things don't look too peachy for claims that human activity, let alone cow farts and backyard barbequeues, are changing the world's climate.

Tangentially, we have the fact that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is one of the two most critical components of the cycle of life, along with its partner atmospheric Oxygen (O2). Plants breathe in CO2 and breathe out O2. Animals breathe in O2 and breathe out CO2. Water is also part of the cycle. But the respiration of the two great kingdoms of life, the animal and vegetable kingdoms, depends on CO2. Increasing amounts of CO2 are causing the greening of the Sahara desert. Is this one of the bad effects of CO2 that we should be worried about? Increased quantities of atmospheric CO2 make plants healthier and increase their numbers. Increasing numbers of healthier plants create more O2 for animals to breathe and more animal fodder for animals to eat. If increased quantities of CO2 will strengthen the cycle of life, decreased quantities will weaken the cycle. The cycle of life goes round and round, either growing or dying away, and the greenies who advocate CO2 restrictions claim to be on the side of animals and plants. Yet green goals will reduce the numbers of plants and animals and make them less healthy.

So here we have a climate scientist who admits that he does not follow the scientific method, and advocates of plant and animal life whose goals are to have less of both. I do not claim to know everything that is going on, but I know enough to ask one more question.

What is the real game?


Technorati Tags: , , ,


Tort Reform in Mississippi

Real good article by David Freddoso here.


Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Who Pays Corporate Taxes?

At bottom a corporation is simply a legal fiction that allows a business or other concern to be treated as if it were a person. Since it is a fictional person, the taxman treats it like a real person when it comes time to pay taxes, and charges it a tax rate similar to the rate charged real people.

Is this a good idea?

Corporations are employers, buyers of raw goods, producers of finished goods, convenient holding companies for capital goods, and when times are good also sources of returns for investors. If the cost of raw goods plus the cost of production and sales is less than the sales price then the corporation makes a gross profit. Out of this gross profit come the wages of the workers and managers, further capital investments to improve the productivity of workers, and returns for investors. What happens when government reaches into a corporation and takes out a tax? Specifically, who actually pays corporate taxes with his or her reduced take-home pay?

When taxes increase to a business several things happen.
  • First, it cuts wages by reducing worker hours, giving pay cuts, or denying pay raises. This is almost always the first recourse, because variable costs like labor are the easiest expenses for any business concern to cut. The Washington Post reports that 70-92% of corporate taxes are paid by reducing employees' pay.
  • Second, the corporation hires tax accountants, lawyers, consultants, and even lobbyists to cut its tax load.
  • Third, the corporation reduces maintenance and capital investment, which will slow down the corporation's future growth and may cause it to fail at some future time if its competitors do business from places where their taxes are lower and they can increase their productivity faster.
  • Fourth, it tries to charge customers more.
  • Fifth, it tries to replace its raw materials with cheaper alternatives.
  • Sixth, it may engage in cost cutting measures on peripheral activities to do things like save energy, replace computers over a longer cycle, or reduce paperwork costs. These typically only produce minor savings as competent businesses are already cheap about peripheral activities.
  • Seventh, it may lower returns to investors, making its stock less valuable
Are any of these results of corporate taxes good things, or do they all damage workers, investors, and other businesses? Since corporate taxes mostly work by taking money out of the pockets of employees, with less impact on highly valued employees and greater impact on employees as their value to the company decreases, aren't corporate taxes simply an extremely regressive tax that has disparate impact on entry level, unskilled, and disabled workers?

Let's talk about this in a way that everyone can understand. The average employed married American worker makes about $50K and pays taxes at the 15% marginal rate. If he or she works for a for-profit corporation, then the impact of the corporate tax is to reduce his or her gross salary by 70% of 34%, or 23.8% (assuming a fairly successful small business). I’m choosing the lowest impacts I can find in the tax tables and I’m playing a little loose with adding and subtracting percentages, but the result is that I’m understating what happens, not overstating it. The average might be higher. That means the average worker would make 23.8% more money if there weren't any corporate tax. It also at least doubles the federal tax that the average worker pays. For a worker making $50,000 that is a $12,000 raise that won't happen because the government stole it away in the dark of night! Does the average worker making $50K receive more value from the government than he or she would get from that $12,000 that was cunningly taken out of his pocket? Or is it simply a sneaky way for the government to siphon money out of the economy with a "corporate tax" without workers realizing they are the ones who are being robbed?

Who pays corporate taxes? The answer is: if you work for a corporation, you do.
Technorati Tags: , , ,


Tuesday, September 15, 2009

The Snarky Economist

You have to read Thomas E. Woods' deliciously snarky response to an economic illiteratista who dubs himself "Che." Che's commentary is in bold, and his fisking by Woods follows.

If free market principles were allowed to rule, like Schiff wants, what that means is everything is based on maximizing profit.

At this point we are all supposed to gasp at what a terrible prospect this would be. After all, the track coach and Michael Moore have told us about the wickedness of "profits," so what more is there to say, really?

But as we've seen above, profit is simply society's way of ratifying a firm's past production decisions. It indicates what consumers want, and (by the process of imputation) the best process for producing it. Profits attract further investment in a given line of production, until the increased supply of goods in that industry brings the rate of return there back down to the level that exists elsewhere in the economy. This is how we ensure that our limited resources are not wasted, and that the most urgently desired goods are produced.

In the absence of profit as a driving force, how exactly would Che like to see resources allocated? We can either allow consumer preferences to guide production, or let the personal preferences of a monopolist (i.e., government) dictate what should be produced and how. When the question is posed this way, the choice is pretty clear, which is why the question is never posed this way.

Incidentally, would Che prefer to base economic decision making on maximizing losses instead? Would that be better?

There is so much more you have to read. Che was dumb, in his own way, but it was a completely different way than Che the Bloggista.


Technorati Tags: , ,


Thursday, September 10, 2009

Fact Check: Whose Economic Mess?

It's the mess of the Democrats in the Senate and House. Randal Hoven explains:
Who controls Congress might just make a difference in economic affairs - more than who is President.  (The President still wields primary power in foreign affairs, as both head of state and commander-in-chief.)  Examine the graph below, for example.  It shows the unemployment rate over the last 25 years.  (Data source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)  I color-coded the line to be red when the Senate was Republican, and blue when Democrat.

Senate control and unemployment

And yet Democrats, both those in power and those who voted for the hopechange express, continually claim that Obama is not and never will be responsible for the bad economy. They will always blame it on Bush, no matter how long it lasts or how bad Obama and the Reid-Pelosi Axis make it.


Technorati Tags: , ,


Monday, August 31, 2009

A vision of the future 20 years later if the healthcare highjack passes

The Democrat ducks will all say, "no thanks."


Technorati Tags: , ,


Tuesday, August 25, 2009

The Hell on Earth Series: Horowitz, Alinsky, Beck, Satan, and thee

The Lament Configuration is a portal to Hell from the Hellraiser movies The Lament Configuration is a portal to Hell from the Hellraiser movies
Every once in a while we need to remind ourselves that progressive neo-Jacobins, syndicalists, anarchists, revolutionaries, communists and fascists have stolen the name "liberal" and invented the fabulist lie "progressive" for what they do. Nobody likes their real names. Storybook demons don't like being summoned by their true names either. That is because using their true, or correct, name gives you power over them. For one thing, it does not allow you to be fooled by their deceptions. They, the neo-Jacobins, syndicalists, anarchists, revolutionaries, communists, socialists, progressives, and fascists believe that the state should take goods from one group and give goods to the other group. Yes, that is like a tribal society with eternal warfare between groups. They mistake the fact that some people have more money than others for a class structure, ignoring the truth that those who start poor and work hard end up rich. That is not a classist society. That is an economically and socially mobile society that rewards merit and effort. They are no more liberals than American conservatives are the same as traditional European Conservatives (monarchists who do not believe in free markets and transformational scientific innovation). American conservatives are the original liberals who believe in life, liberty and property, and all the other requirements for individual empowerment and the starvation of overweening state power. Neo-Jacobins et al believe in that overweening state power that crushes people underneath its hobnailed jackboots.

Hellraiser was just a movie. Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth was a bad one. But Hell describes a place that Lucifer created for himself, where he lives consumed with envy and self-pity. And Hell on Earth is a fair description of what Lucifer's most faithful recent disciple would have his followers create.

Saul Alinsky claimed to be a champion of the dispossessed against those who oppressed them. But he dedicated his masterwork to Lucifer, who created a Hell to live within. And so with everything that Alinsky and his disciples, such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, want to create in the world. They all want to create a Hell on Earth in which they and their Progressive buddies could lord it over the Have Nots while killing off the old Haves. They are at war with everything good, right, and true. And they want to replace everything good with their coercive state that will scourge us of our humanity and make us into perfect, communist robots.

David Horowitz wrote a series of posts that covered much of what he said last week when he appeared on the Glenn Beck show. Here they are:
America opened the Lament Configuration last November 4. Now we are in for it. Go and read Horowitz's warning.

h/t: derhoosier
Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,


  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by 2008

Back to TOP