Header Picture

Header Picture

Monday, July 30, 2012

How To Argue With A Liberal, Part XXVII: In This Installment A Person Who Doesn't Even Know Me Wishes For My Death

In today's episode we'll review what happens when an innocent libertarian blogger (me) writes a post (#RomneyShambles - Reason and Intelligence Take A Beating In the Twitterverse - July 26, 2012)
about how the entire United Kingdom and Democrat Party in the United States got upset over what they thought Mitt Romney said about the London Olympics. In reality Romney just reiterated what the Brits have been saying all along, but no one can pass up even a marginal excuse for a good snit nowadays. Among the hate-tweets and hate-email I received, one fellow in particular really allowed me to rent space in his head. His name is Steve, I'll keep his Twitter handle secret to a) spare you the intellectual violence; and b) not give Steve the attention he so desperately craves.

Over the weekend I learned that English people take themselves, their Olympics, and opening ceremonies very seriously and that no one is allowed to not like anything they do, much less make fun of it. I'm okay with that -- it just makes making fun of it all the more fun for me, but I'm concerned with how the American press unfairly treats American people they don't like and how their American audience hangs on their every word without ever considering thinking on their own.

Here's a sampling of some of the more intelligent things Steve as he barraged me with his rage. According to Steve, who describes himself as a "programmer, LIBERAL Obama fan," (emphasis his) I am a/an:
  • "condescending, arrogant, self-angrandizing jerk (I pointed out to Steve that I am 'self-aggrandzing' because I didn't think 'self-angrandizing" was actually a thing, but Steve just got even madder
  • "putz"
  • "jerk"
  • "goddamn terrorist pig"
  • "pathetic joke"
  • "asshole"
  • "stupid f:-)"
  • "idiot"
  • "f:-)ing liar"
Not being content with name calling, Steve also had the following advice for me:
  • go rape poor people
  • F:-) off and die
  • die
  • die
In case he hadn't gotten his point across, Steve also said he "despised me" and that my "ego is larger than my brain." At this point I began to think that maybe Steve was in reality my ex-wife posing as a liberal computer jockey off his meds, but then I realized my ex-wife could never string that many words together without adding a demand for money.

In between his nasty little tweets Steve also attacked me in detail. Remember, until this point I had simply voiced my opinion about Mitt Romney and how upset the entire world was over soemthing he hadn't actually said.

Here's Steve's first thoughtful response

My replies are italicized
How could any rational person NOT be angry at Wrong Wing thugs in the House who choose terrorist tactics to threaten America core components like our Good Faith and Credit? GOP Tea Party advocates adhere unrelentingly to a threat to not raise the Debt Ceiling for political leverage. Except that continually raising the debt ceiling -- without cutting spending -- is an incredibly irresponsible thing to do if we are wise enough to think about future generations of Americans instead of just our measely selves. Wrong Wing thugs is Steve's incredibly original term for Right Wing thugs. See what he did there? Brilliance!

 Not raising the DC will cause America to default on obligations ALREADY INCURRED. A subsequent lowering of our credit rating will wreak financial damage across the globe, engendering suffering for hundreds of millions. Except Steve, and your mom and dad should've taught you this, when you find you've spent too much money and incurred too much debt, the only responsible way to clear the debt is to reduce spending going forward. Econ 101, dude.

GOP policies inflict near-seditious lies upon a President working hard to overcome an inherited financial disaster from Bush which GOP steadfastly denies. This was prompted because I challenged Steve to explain his  points without blaming Bush. He couldn't do that. I wonder if Steve ever called George Bush 'Hitler'?
After birther nonsense; Allen West shrill cries of Congressional Communists; Bachman's equally incredible claim of Muslim conspiracies at the highest levels at the State Department; McConnell's non-feasance in the Senate; Boehner's inability to control dangerous extremists threatening America at it's core; drug addicts gushing hate speech, frequently uncoded; Palin, Gohmert, Issa, et. al., how much civility do you expect? Didja notice that according to Steve, Barack Obama and any Democrat, living or dead, are completely innocent? This is very childish, even for a Democrat. The 'drug addicts gushing hate speech' is Steve's slam at Rush Limbaugh, and his much-lublicized bout with painkillers -- ten years ago. He assumes I must listen to Rush because I disagree with him -- I don't, I work for a living and I've outlined in previous columns how destructive I think talk radio and the media in general is. But to Steve, the world is very simple -- hence his take on things is equally so.

GOP policy, Fox News (your propaganda vessel) & your Junkie Thought Police all support No Tolerance for Terrorists. If our terrific President said something nice about a Muslim, Rove and his Lee Atwater clones would sneer derisively about 'weak-ass Libtards too dumb to know who the enemy is', in chorus with all your Usual Suspects. First of all, any adult who blindly calls a leader 'terrific' is dangerous -- to himself and me. I like that Steve assumes, because I disagree with him, that I watch Fox News. Too bad Steve never took the time to get to know me and my viewing habits before wishing for me to die. I do however love the Lee Atwater reference! Way to bring the 80s into the argument Stevie boy!

You want me to be polite to GOP thugs in the house who want to wreck the global economy without understanding the consequences of their actions? You want this so you can continue to support the David and Charles Koch's unmitigated desire to acquire more wealth and power at the expense of the elderly, the poor, the vulnerable and now most of what used to be called the Middle Class? It's laughable that anyone how lives outside of their mom's basement would actually think the Koch brothers are as powerful as Rachel Maddow and Bill Maher say they are. One question, how the hell does anyone acquire wealth from the poor, when by defintion the poor have no wealth to acquire?

As I would say to any other terrorist, "Burn in Hell, you insane, remorseless bastard. You deserve no better." And all this because my opinion differs from his.

Here's the second missive Steve wrote in between sending me messages hoping for my death:
McConnell is guilty of non-feasance. Don't correct when I'm right and you're wrong. These are my views. As you must to maintain your standing with the baggers, I'm speaking in 'talking points'. Thinking maybe Steve was a harmless guy who could take a joke, I teasingly corrected him that McConnell was guilty of malfeasance. This enraged Steve. I then asked Steve why he didn't think Harry Reid wasn't guilty of nonfeasance for not passing a budget in three years. Steve hasn't gotten back to me on that one.

I am speaking, correctly, what I feel. You call them talking points because you've heard them so frequently, because they are fact -- which you must attempt to discredit to maintain fealty with the baggers. If feelings were truth, everday would be Christmas and unicorns would be hat racks. I did in fact accuse Steve of slinging talking points at me, because that was all he'd been slinging -- in between his namecalling and his hopes for my death. Steve's reference to 'bagger' is Democrat Party homophobic slang for "Tea Party member." I am neither, but this doesn't matter to angry people like Steve, who obviously fear homosexuals and Republicans alike.

I repeat myself so you see it twice. I'm clearly not getting through, past your Fox Veil of lies. See above.

The only point I might have made with you is the contempt with which I hold you and yours. I feel sorry for Steve. He takes his politics way too seriously for an ill-informed guy who spends his time parroting the words of others in between hoping for other people to die, all the while hoping his mom doesn't knock on the basement door and ask him to take out the trash or something.

Worst Congress ever; worst Republican Party ever; worst lying thugs ever. Your smug certitude is bewildering. Enjoy your confused views of reality. I have nothing for you, least of all interest in your views, beliefs or admiration for my passion. I agree with him that this Congress is the worst ever (tied for last place with all of the other ones since 1911). I am also no fan of the Republican Party, but Steve is too busy being narrow-minded and thin-skinned to understand either. My "smug certitude" would of course be bewildering to someone who is as blinded by rage as Steve is -- that, and the fact that I know what I'm talking about, which is problematic to people like Steve who don't. How's that for smug certitude? When I told Steve I admired his passion, he didn't get that I was making fun of him. Probably because he was just so damned passionately hoping for my death.

You are a member of a gang of lying thugs attacking what America USED to stand for before the Koch filth bought SCOTUS with Citizens United. It's destroying American democracy; I'm sure you think it's a wonderful new direction for the country. For some reason -- even though Steve and his gang of Democrats win in the Supreme Court way more than regular Americans do -- Steve thinks the Koch brothers have bribed the Supreme Court Justices into voting with George Bush and Dick Cheney or something. I didn't bother to point out the silliness of Steve's statement. Steve is obviously an Occupy Wall Street kind of guy, and well, we all know by now how seriously we should take those people.

The Far Wrong are a destructive and self-destructive force in America. I look forward to their continuing efforts to destroy themselves. "Extremism and thoroughness in defense of decency is no vice." (Restrain your desire to tell me you admire my political references; I'm not in the business of currying the favor of enemies to my country.) Steve closes his rant with a paraphrase of Barry Goldwater, presumably just to show me how up on his 1964 Presidential Campaign references he is. Fair play to ya for sharing your smartitude, but I hate to tell you this Steve, it's not just your country, and you don't have sole proprietorship over it.
In all fairness, I instigated Steve's rage by telling him I would explain my points to him after he put his big boy pants on. This was after he sent me a tweet calling me one of the names listed above when he got his feelings hurt by my post about Mitt's Olympic "slam." Apparently Steve's big boy pants consist of a hissy fit, a tantrum, and a slight wet spot on the seat.

Now, most of you regular Americans (non-Occupy Wall Street, non-Obamabots) encounter raving, heathen, Democrat barbarians like Steve on a regular basis. Their viciousness causes you to recoil and hide your opinions away.

To this I say: Have fun with them instead! Here's how:
  • Reply with questions about previous statements only
  • Point out talking points when they sling them, it let's them know you know the propaganda too
  • Ask them to explain the talking points in detail, as if you actually want help understanding them
  • Don't resort to name calling
  • Always, always, always point out grammatical and spelling errors -- it drives them mad
  • Give them false praise (like admiring their passion) -- they hate that kind of condescension
  • Don't waste time trying to educate people like Steve, the view from their mom's basement is a narrow one with no room for actual facts
These are the people who are working fervently to get Barack Obama re-elected -- that alone should be reason enough for civil members of society to vote against the President. Anger and rage are the personal problems of people like Steve -- we can't let their misguided knowledge of freedom and liberty become our problems any longer.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

#RomneyShambles - Reason and Intelligence Take Another Beating in the Twitterverse

The hashtag #RomneyShambles is exploding on Twitter as I type this. On both sides of the Atlantic, people are up in arms that Mitt Romney offended the London Olympic Games.

This hashtag was apparently sparked by the Huffington Post and the piece it ran on Romney's quotes about the London Olympics.

Here's some Twitter comments to show you how, just, I don't know, angry people are:

@AFNeil: Romney has funny way of making friends and influencing people. Slagging off Britain not sure fire way to success

@Nursey1994: Dear Mr Romney, how nice of u to insult your host country. Sod off back home then... And loose

@SheSheGo: If Mitt Romney is THIS incompetent and inept at conducting a campaign, how can he possibly run the United States of America?

@professor_dave: Romney achieves what no amount of BBC propaganda could - uniting the Brits behind London Olympics!

Let's look at what Romney actually said, without the histrionics:
"You know it's hard to know just how well it will turn out. There are a few things that were disconcerting. The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials - that obviously is not something which is encouraging."
"Do they come together and celebrate the Olympic moment? That's something which we only find out once the Games actually begin."

Here's what Nick Buckles, chief of the firm running London Olympic security had to say:

Security preparations for the upcoming games are in a "complete shambles." - July 17

I know when it comes to foreign people coming in and pointing out a country's domestic acne people tend to get somewhat thin skinned. And certainly, when it comes to politics today, people's first response seems to be limited to being horribly offended like we're a bunch of 8th Grade girls at a sleepover, but really, people -- We're supposed to be offended by someone's observations now?


I mean, I get that some people hate Romney because of his politics, and I myself have a few things (or a lot of things) that I disagree with the ol' Romster on, but for crying out loud, he didn't say anything here that was even mildly offensive.

I can see people in the UK getting their crumpets in a twist, maybe if I think real hard, but people in this country getting offended over this are just showing how ignorant they are.

The Point of the Obama "You Didn't Build That" Speech Everyone Is Missing

Mitt Romney's campaign is having some fun over Barack Obama telling an audience of wide-eyed Presidential followers that horrible, ugly, mean-spirited, and greedy rich people "didn't build that." Obama, realizing that he offended a whole bunch of regular American voters and taxpayers with his ill-advised words has been busy walking back his comments, mocking those of us who heard his words for misunderstanding what he really meant. To this humble disliker of abusers of authority, Obama's smarmy and calm tones in his walk back commercials are more sickening than the actual words he uttered in Ohio.

But we're all ignoring a few comments Obama made that can't be walked back. Words that to me are far more indicative of Obama's view of the world (Obama Tell Successful People "You Didn't Buld That." Successful People Beg to Differ (July 16, 2012).

President Obama's unwalk-backable actual words:
"I'm always struck by people who think 'well it must be because I was just so smart.' There are a lot of smart people out there. 'It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.' Let me tell ya something, there are a whole bunch of hard working people out there. If you are successful somebody along the line gave you some help."
Let's take a look at Obama's own, actual, not-misunderstood-by-me words, line-by-line.

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

Even without the image of Obama's smarmy, sarcastic grin as he spewed this sentence, his words are offensive. I can think of a few really smart people who built businesses that mediocre-intelligenced people who ate this line up could never have built. I know a guy who owns a successful restaurant, and even though I am generally brilliant and enjoy food, he is way the hell smarter than me when it comes to selling it.

This is a throw away feel good line to make who never put any effort into increasing their smartness level feel good about how they're obviously just as smart as smart people. To the dumb people who had trouble with the preceding sentence it means: Obama thinks you're awesome just the way you are, and he loves you so much he wants you to vote for him.

There are a lot of smart people out there.

I know, right?! I'm just as smart as Steve Jobs, especially now that he's room temperature, and it's about the time the President of the United States of America celebrated my intellectual mediocrity!

It must be because I worked hard than everybody else.

What Obama misses here as he plays to his audience is that it's not just hard work that makes a person successful -- any successful person will tell you that. It's a combination of working smart and diligently, and being prepared to seize an opportunity when it stumbles across your path. Obama's audience hates successful people because they were lucky. There really is no such thing as luck in the business world. Luck favors the prepared, so Obama's audience should mad at it themselves for not being properly prepared for success.

Oh yeah? you say mockingly, What about all the rich kids whose parents gave them a head start?

I know lots of stories of kids who came from wealthy backgrounds who squandered away every opportunity they had with bad decisions or coke buys, and I know lots of stories of people who came from utter poverty and made successes of themselves. Stop with the generalizations of everything you don't understand, I reply equally mockingly.

Let me tell ya something, there are a whole bunch of hard working people out there.

The line every true Democrat and union-dues-paying person in the world just lives to hear. This is the essence of class warfare and divisiveness. Obama is telling you that it's okay to hate successful people because you work hard at your job and nobody ever paid you a million dollars. This is just egregious pandering coming from the mouth of the leader of every American, and you people who applauded this line should hang your heads in shame.

Nobody but yourself makes you successful. And success should never be measured against what others have. That is the road to hell. Rely on yourself and measure your success by your own heart.

If you are successful somebody along the line gave you some help.

Right, and in the case of teachers, they got paid, so the help they gave was a part of a transaction between two people. And in spite of what many teachers will tell you , they choose the profession and the salary.

In the case of mentors and benefactors, of which Obama apparently has quite a few, they offered their help in return for some other intangible benefit they were hoping to derive from offering it. Obama's audience loved hearing their leader tell them that nobody gets anywhere without help, but I hear his words and conclude that Obama feels a great deal of guilt over being led by the hand through his whole life. He feels he wouldn't have achieved a thing on his own, so to cover his own shortcomings he preaches to the choir that no one achieves anything without being led by others.

The helpful interaction of people with each other is called society. Stop denigrating society for what it does naturally because it makes you and your candidate feel good.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Boston Mayor Tom Menino Is Totally Against Even Thinking About Not Supporting Gay Marriage

Dan Cathy, president of privately-owned Chick-Fil-A told the Baptist Press last week that "We [Chick-Fil-A as a corporate entity] are very much supportive of the family the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business." Here are Mr. Cathy's complete comments that have been seized by angry people everywhere as an attack on Gay rights and Gay marriage:
The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners. It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.

“That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries,” Cathy added.
Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

“We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized.

“We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Since that interview, Cathy has been called a homophobe and Chick-Fil-A has been assailed for being anti-Gay. Why? Because he has a religious belief that guides him down a different path from people who support Gay marriage. By that bit of logic, all you people who want Chick-Fil-A run out of business because you are angry at Cathy's words are by definition anti-Christian. Wriggle as you might kids, using the logic of the day, that's what it means.

Boston Mayor Tom Menino (D), who I have never made fun of before today, told the Boston Herald, “Chick-Fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the City of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.” (Emphasis mine)

Well, Mayor Menino is almost as inane as his counter-part down I-95 in New York. After reading Cathy's comments in toto my only conclusion is that Menino either didn't bother to read the quotes, or he had nothing better to do and was looking to get his name in the news.
What Mayor Menino said is that he is against the firmly held beliefs of a Christian company and he is against Christian companies that are comfortable with their beliefs doing business in his fair city. Read Cathy's words again if you still don't get it.

As far as I can tell, the Chick-Fil-A cow doesn't discriminate
when it comes to serving others.

For the record: I like Chick-Fil-A. I think the cow is awesome and they have the best chicken salad sandwich this side of my favorite Jewish deli in Montreal. I have even eaten in a Chick-Fil-A with a person of Gay minority group status and we were able to eat in piece. No Alabama crackers, religious zealots, mad cows or awnry minimum wage workers came over and gave my friend of Gay extraction a hassle for eating his sandwich whilst being Gay. Chick-Fil-A isn't anti-Gay when it comes to serving customers and hiring people, the people of Chick-Fil-A just believe certain things based on their relationship with God.

So, Mayor Menino, stop being a horse's ass and playing up to the press with your dumb media whoring. Who knows? An unemployed person of Gay heritage might even aspire to manage a fast food restaurant someday, and they may get their start at a Boston Chick-Fil-A.

While we're at it, let's look at how "open" Boston is.
  • Washington Capitals winger Joel Ward scored the game winning goal against the Boston Bruins in a playoff game on April 6, 2012. People in Boston were mad, not because Ward scored a goal against the beloved home town team, but because of the color of his skin. Check out Deadspin.com's list of racist Boston tweets, but don't bother complaining to me if you're offended by what you read. I would suggest contacting Mayor Menino to question him about the "openness of his city" instead.
  • In 1976, black attorney Theodore  Landsmark was attacked by a group of white teenagers as walked near Boston's City Hall. One of the teens used a flagpole, with an American flag attached, as a lance to spear Landsmark. Landsmark survived, but there were other casualties and deaths, both from white-on-black and black-on-white attacks as Boston tried to desegregate its school system. The violence largely occurred from 1974 to 1984.
It would be foolish of me to impugn Mayor Menino's record on race relations based on incidents that happened before he took office, but it's also foolish for Menino to tell me that his is an "open" city.

Boston Mayor Tom Menino sporting some hockey gear and
hanging with Boston's angry Bruin.
Photo copyright Metro.US

Let's look at a recent study on Boston and race.

In a 2005 study published by the UCLA Civil Rights Project:
  • 80% African-Americans and 50% of Hispanics said racial discrimination in Metro Boston is a somewhat or very serious problem
  • Almost 70% of Hispanics and 85% of African-Americans believe members of their group miss out on good housing because they fear they will not be welcome in a particular community
  • Over 50% of African-Americans and almost 40% of Hispanics say they are treated with less respect, offered worse service, called names or insulted, or confronted with another form of day-to-day discrimination at least a few times a month in the Metro Boston area
  • African-Americans and Hispanics in Metro Boston report personal discrimination in employment more often than in housing

Photo by Stanley Forman, Boston Herald American
I am in no way holding Boston Mayor Tom Menino responsible for Boston's history of racism, but I am left to wonder, is Menino standing up for Gay rights by fabricating the totality of a statement on religious views by Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy, or is Menino letting his overt anti-Christian bias show? Menino also needs to take a look at the discrimination against other minorities in his fair city before he spouts more non-sense about Boston being "open" and in the "forefront of inclusion."

I for one am not in the business of figuring out God's plan, and until the day someone is barred from eating or working at a Chick-Fil-A because of the social group they inhabit, their relationship with God is none of my business.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Once Again, Michael Bloomberg Proves Why Statists Need To Be Laughed At Then Voted Out

Mike Bloomberg, that salt hating, non-smoking, prostrate-too-swollen-for-a-Big-Gulp mayor of New York City has walked back on his dopey comments from Monday night urging the nation's police to go on strike until every last one of us is safe from everything.

Mayor Mike appeared Piers Morgan's CNN show and obviously felt comfortable enough -- because no one watches that horrible show -- to spew his inane brain droppings about gun control. Unfortunately for Mike, the LA Times was tuned in.

This is what America's favorite nanny-stater had to say about solving the problem of violence in America:
I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say, ‘We're going to go on strike. We're not going to protect you. Unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe.’”
New York's Mayor Mike Bloomberg is working tirelessly to
protect you from yourself, and that makes him hot and sweaty,
and no one likes a hot and sweaty nanny, so Mike had his
flunkies install this window air conditioner in his
Mayoral SUV. I felt too embarrassed for the member of Mike's
detail to publish a picture of him plugging the AC unit in
outside of a very important Mayoral function, but it gets
plugged in at every stop -- to keep his car from breaking the
law by idling too long.

I'm not going to wade into the politics of gun control and lunatics murdering people, but Bloomberg did. For the sitting mayor of a major US city to call on a nationwide police strike in order to further his own political agenda is not just stupid, it's dangerously stupid.

This latest tragedy has once again brought the issue of gun control into forefront of the public discourse. No correct-thinking 2nd Amendment supporter can truthfully say they are not troubled by the amount of armament the lunatics amongst are able to acquire, and no correct-thinking anti-gun person can truthfully contend that banning guns from society will stop criminals from getting guns or lunatics from spreading their evil. This is an issue for reflection and civil discourse, not political hand-wringing and finger pointing.

Blaming mass shootings on a supposed gun culture in the United States is like blaming the World Trade Center attacks on an aviation culture within the insane radical branch of Islam. You can't be intellectually honest and do either.

Mr. Mayor,

You've done some good things, and you've done some stupid things. Calling for the police to strike nationwide to get your political point across is the stupidest thing you -- or any other politician -- could have done in the wake of the horrors in Aurora.

Walking your statements back only proves you'll do what is politically expedient but does not change your core belief that guns are the root of violence in this country.

Sorry Mike, I couldn't help myself. It's disgraceful for any
elected official -- no matter how bad he sweats -- to
pay a government employee to plug in thewindow
air conditioner in his SUV.

I bring Mike's AC unit into the discussion because I get
a little tired of know-it-all do-gooders in government preaching
the simplistic solutions to problems while they treat
themselves like Pharaohs. 

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Liberty Redux: The Cloward-Piven Strategy and the Purposeful Deceit of the American People

This piece was originally published July 25, 2011.

Please read Obama, the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and the New World Order by Kurt Nimmo (March 10, 2009) to get a different insight as to why our president seems so utterly incapable of acting to move our economy forward.

There can be only two reasons for this:
  1. He is a completely incompetent fool who has no idea how his own country succeeds or fails
  2. There actually is something to the radical Left's implementation of the Cloward-Piven Strategy

To those of you who decide not to read the article, the Cloward-Piven Strategy was first postulated in 1966 by a pair of Columbia University professors. The strategy calls for the intense swelling of welfare rolls in order to crush the US economic system under the burden of entitlements. Once the system was collapsed, the Federal government would then privatize much of the economy and institute a system of guaranteed income for all. This would be accomplished through a series of false or manufactured crisis' that would require large government actions to solve.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy is a strategy of presenting false crisis with no solution, most famously endorsed by Rahm Emanual, Obama's first Chief of Staff, who was famously quoted as saying:
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that -- it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

I'm not a conspiracy guy because I don't think there are enough bright people in government to actually pull off a conspiracy, but that being said, you give me another reason why Obama and the Democrat party hold the no-sensical economic positions they hold.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Bruce Springsteen: Man Of The People, Unless Of Course The People Interfere With His Hyde Park Encore

In today's episode, I will commit the cardinal sin of being from New Jersey and criticising Bruce Springsteen.

To prove I am from New Jersey I will now tell the obligatory Bruce Springsteen story that every proper New Jerseyan has:
In 1993 I stopped at a red light as I drove past a restaurant in Freehold where Bruce was sitting outside having a beer. He waved at me.
Now, back to the important stuff.

On Saturday, Bruuuuuuuuuuuce played an outdoor concert in London's Hyde Park in front of 65,000 people. John Fogerty sat in, as did Tom Morello from Rage Against the Machine. But, way more important than those two guys, Paul McCartney joined Bruuuuuuuuuuuce for some Beatles tunes at the end of the show.

Unfortunately, Bruuuuuuuuuuuce decided to ignore the concert promoter's licence that stipulated the show had to end at 11:30 PM. The concert promoter then shut the PA system down about ten minutes after the curfew whilst Bruuuuuuuuuuuce and Sir Paul rocked out to "Twist and Shout."

Little Miami Steven Van Sandt was so miffed, he took to Twitter:
"English cops may be the only individuals left on earth that wouldn't want to hear one more from Bruce Springsteen and Paul McCartney!"

"When did England become a police state?"

Unfortunately, Steve, the cops didn't pull the plug.

Even London's odd mayor, Boris Johnson, described the move to abruptly end the concert to comply with the promoter's license as "excessively efficacious." Johnson's quote has absolutely nothing to do with this story, but seriously, I couldn't not include it.

Springsteen often writes about the plight of the little guy, the unknown, the blue collar stiff who is trying to make it through another day. Presumably guys like the ones Springsteen writes about don't need sleep on Saturday nights, even if they have to get up and go work their crappy jobs on Sunday morning. In Bruuuuuuuuuuuce's world, I guess nobody works on Sunday morning.

Springsteen is a political guy too, donating money and resources to causes he believes in, which is admirable.

But apparently, Bruuuuuuuuuuce could care less how much noise he makes in a neighborhood when he's trying to kick out his jams. Everyone involved in that show, including Springsteen's tour and stage managers, and possibly even The Boss himself knew about the curfew, but it's the cops and concert promoter who are taking the heat for Springsteen's inconsideration.

The concert promoter was obviously pretty concerned about the loss of its license to interrupt rockers of this stature, so we can all be pretty sure everyone knew about the 11:30 curfew before the show started. But apparently Springsteen's crew wasn't too concerned about the future of the promoter's business to care.

So, let's review...
  • Springsteen's show ran longer that it was licensed to run but it's the "English cops" fault the show was terminated
  • The promoter waited ten minutes beyond the licensed time, but Bruuuuuuuuuuce was having a good time, so really, I mean, you can't interrupt the Boss...ever
  • According to the Springsteen fans of the world, neighborhood people, including kids, and maybe even some blue collar stiffs, can put up with whatever inconvenience Bruuuuuuuuuuce feels is appropriate
  • Logistics like traffic control, police overtime, street closures and public safety should really take a backseat when Bruuuuuuuuuuuce is playing "Twist and Shout" with a guy whose best band broke up 42 years ago
My point? Just because you're a big rock star and you claim to be for the little guy, doesn't mean you can do whatever the hell you want wherever you want. To me this is just another example of a leftist ignoring and flaunting laws that inconvenience them.

Now excuse me while I go listen to The Ghost of Tom Joad.

Monday, July 16, 2012

Obama Tells Successful People "You Didn't Build That." Successful People Beg To Differ

Attention Liberals, Democrats and Obamabots: Don't bother sending me messages explaining what Obama meant. I understand how this whole government/citizen relationship thing is supposed to work. Keep your dopey, condescending comments to yourself on this one, because you're only going to make yourself sound ridiculous as you attempt to defend the indefensible.

In a variation on Obama's constant theme of not taking personal responsibility for anything, the President would now like you to believe that other people are responsible for your success. Apparently he got this idea from everyone's favorite Native American, Elizaberth Warren, who first put forth the ridiculous notion that success only happens because of the government, last year during her unsuccessful Senate bid.

This is video of Obama's speech Friday in Roanoke, VA, where the President told another enraptured audience that successful people only got that way because of all the unsuccessful people out there who made it happen.

I posted the part of the speech that matters, without any editing of the video itself. Here are the points the mainstream media will avoid like the plague.

0:05: "But you know what, I'm not gonna see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to people like me and Mr. Romney, and people who don't need 'em."
With this statement, President Obama tries to convince us that everything comes from the government, and that prosperity only happens because of government spending. He fails to mention that government only has money as a result of the taxes that people pay...because they are prosperous.
0:17: "So I'm going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. We've already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts, we can make another trillion, or trillion two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little more."
If you believe that raising taxes on "the wealthy" is going to reduce a multi-trillion dollar deficit I will tell you right now that you are a not a very bright person, or maybe even an idiot.
For Obama to seriously submit he has cut the deficit by a trillion dollars is absurd. At best, the deficits he has run up would have been $5.7 trillion instead of $4.7 trillion. In short, not spending money you wanted to spend does not count against money you cut from your total debt. 
0:32: "A guy named Bill Clinton" created 23 million new jobs by raising taxes on the wealthy.
Bill Clinton, who disagrees with Obama on raising taxes on "the wealthy" rode the tech bubble that inflated job figures and tax revenues. When the tech bubble burst, Bill Clinton's surplus disappeared too. Luckily for Clinton, the tech bubble burst after he was out of office, so the simple view has remained that Clinton was a financial genius, but the fact is, not understanding the bubble is a partial reason we find ourselves where we are now.
0:45: "We created a lot of millionaires."
The argument could be made that Obama is referring to "we" as all of us -- the country in general. He's not, he's referring to the government and its policies at the time. By your logic for agreeing with Obama's faulty statement, the government is also responsible for destroying the wealth of a lot of people. You can't have it both ways.
0:49: "There are a lot of wealthy Americans who agree with me."
George Clooney and Sarah Jessica Parker are not creators. They speak the lines another person has written and have good hygiene. They can agree with Obama all they want, but they are not wealth creators. Warren Buffett has been used by Obama and the Democrats as an example of a rich guy who hates his money, but trust me, Warren Buffett is not going out of his way to pay more taxes, and one rich guy does not "a lot" make. George Soros agrees with Obama, but then again, George Soros made his money banking on diminshing currecny values.
0:58: "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own.
If the cheers of the audience for this line don't convince you that Obama is playing the class warfare card to his core audience of people who want the government to be the fount of all, then stop reading here because there is no help for you.
1:05: "I'm always struck by people who think 'well it must be because I'm just so smart.'"
Coming from a guy who won't release his college transcripts and who admits he relied on a benefactor (whom he refuses to name) because he didn't have the drive to work his way through school, this statement is not at all surprising. To the rest of us who work hard to better ourselves and our families by getting an education and working hard, this statement is also offensive in the extreme.
1:13: "It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something, there are a lot of hard working people out there."
That's life kids, some people get rich, some people don't. Hating the guy who got rich because you didn't is like hating the Earth because it rained on your birthday -- it might make you feel good for a few seconds, but it doesn't increase your wealth, or make the rain go away. It does however increase the wealth of the "leader" who panders to unhappiness by encouraging the ignorant who don't understand success to hate those who do.
1:22: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help...there was a great teacher somewhere in your life."
And that teacher was paid for, presumably, by the local and state taxes the wealthy person's parents paid because of their hard work while the now wealthy person was growing up. Unless of course that wealthy person is a Kennedy, then they were rich because of illegal activities during Prohibition, but I digress. Back on track, the teacher, who got paid to do a job, did his or her job with passion and concern, and that's why they went into teaching in the first place. If somebody gets paid to do a job -- and do the job well, we shouldn't have to cheer for them too.
1:31: "Somebody helped create this unbelievable American system we have that helped you thrive."
And they helped create it by working hard, striving to succeed and not relying on government handouts.
1:40: "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. You didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
He says this under the stupid assumption that people get wealthy in a vacuum. This is just simply too childish to be the actual words of an adult. Sadly, they are.
People paid taxes from the fruits of their hard work expecting a decent infrastructure in return. and in fact, Mr. President, the taxes I pay every single day of my life better be going toward continuing to "build that." If not, then sir you are doing nothing more than stealing from me for the benefit of others.
1:49: The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
This is just so fast and loose with the facts that it is actually factually incorrect. First of all, the Internet wasn't "invented," it was developed and evolved over twenty years of cooperation between private enterprise, university consortiums and certain Federal agencies, among them DOD and NASA. Al Gore, Uncle Sam, or Barack Obama did not invent the Internet so all of these companies could make money off of it. Supporting somebody who actually beleives this nonsense says more about you than it does about him.
2:00: "The point is, is that when we succeed we succeed because of our individual initiative but also because we do things together.
Unless you're a party hack partisan, then you don't do anything together because you're afraid of the ego hit compromise might cause.
2:07: "There's some things, like fighting fires we don't do on our own. I mean imagine, if everybody had their own fire service. That'd be a hard way to organize fightin' fires. So we say to ourselves, since the founding of this country, 'You know what? There's some things we do better together."
Where am I, sociology in my first semester at the local community college? What a stupid way to make the case that we need to raise taxes to pay for government services. This is just such a stupid statement and pandering argument, that I have to apologize to myself for having to waste my precious time on it.
Of course, as a society, we have decided to have certain services handled by government entities. Unfortunately for Obama, in this lame example, those entities are not typically Federal they are State and local, and I'm disheartened he doesn't understand the difference. Raising Federal taxes on the "wealthy" will not pay for one more firefighter (or his pension( in my town. As a society, we also never joined together in agreement to allow union firefighters, and other union government workers, to work for twenty years and then retire on the public's money so they can go off and earn money from a second career. This was forced on us by ignorant politicians and greedy union representatives and members, but lest we all wind up like Jimmy Hoffa, nobody is willing to call it what it is -- theft from the public till.
2:29: "That's how we funded the GI Bill."
When's the last time you heard somebody complain about the GI Bill?
2:31: "That's how we created the middle class."
We, in Obama's meaning "the government," did not create the middle class. The middle class created itself through the hard work and desires for a better life of uncounted millions of people who didn't depend on the government to help them reach the grave. This is an insult to every person, or every race, who worked hard to give their children a better life.
2:33: "That's how we built the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam."
That was before most of our tax revenues went to fund an insatiable military-industrial complex, and for free cell phones for people, and for pensions for union employees who retire at 46 years old.
2:36: That's how we invented the Internet.
There are a whole lot of private sector engineers who would argue this point, Mr. President. I being a former one whose job was shipped overseas count among them.
2:38: That's how we sent a man to the moon.
Except in your America we outsourced those jobs to Russia. I bet the thousands of unemployed engineers who formerly worked at NASA wish you would put some effort into making America a scientific contender once again.
2:40: "We rise or fall as one nation and as one People, and that's the reason I'm running for President. Because I still believe in that ideal. You're not alone. We're in this together."
Wait...what? Don't you already have the job? I mean, shouldn't you have a record of success at implementing your vision of the American ideal by now? Or does your record speak for itself?

Thursday, July 12, 2012

How To Argue With A Liberal: Part XXIII - Health Insurance Edition

I get a decent amount of hate email, hate tweets, and hate Facebook messages. Usually I read it all and move on, content in my knowledge that I have gotten some Statist angry. Occasionally a piece is so good that it automatically gets added to my "How To Argue With A Liberal" series.

On May 16, I wrote a piece entitled "A Tale of Two Catholic Universities: Georgetown and Franciscan." Nearly a full two months after publishing this piece I got a comment on it that deserves sharing. It was calm, matter-of-fact, friendly, and unusually non-combative. It was also snarky, rife with condescension and terribly off-base. I've seen them before: The well-thought-out social media defense of Statist demands made by Statist volunteers.

To review, the piece contrasted the difference between the way Georgetown University and Franciscan University are handling Executive Orders and Federal mandates regarding health insurance for students using the actual words of the representatives of the respective universities.

Let's take a look at the lengthy reply from "JPR." To accomplish this, JPR's comments will be in bold and my replies, retorts and sarcastic comments are bullet-pointed below each statement.


Here is a fact check: No one is mandated to get insurance that will cover abortions. You are not "forced" to stay on your parents insurance until you are 26.

  • The word "abortion" only appears quoted from the statement from Franciscan University referring to "abortion-causing medications," so your fact-check is factually in error
  • Nowhere do I assert that students are "forced" to stay on their parents health insurance until they are 26. If you had actually read the piece you would have understood I was commenting that because of the Federal mandates that Franciscan rejected via their faith, students would then be forced by rising costs to rely on their parents for something they were paying for independently. Big difference. Read the piece
"The essential health benefits package must cover the following general categories of services:

Prescription drugs

(Note contraceptive services is not listed above)
  • I deleted covered areas that were not germane to the argument, but the last time I checked, contraception for women was available only through prescription. So, fact checker, you're wrong. 
"A state may prohibit qualified health plans offered through the exchange from covering abortions.

Special rules relating to coverage of abortion services:

This title shall not be construed to require a plan to cover abortion services as part of the essential benefits package. If a plan covers elective abortion services, it may not use any funds attributable to subsidies provided through the Exchange to pay for them and must collect a separate payment from enrollees for the actuarial value of those services. State insurance commissioners shall insure that health plans comply with the requirement that plans segregate funds for abortion services."
  • Again, nowhere in the piece do I write about abortion services other than to quote what Franciscan University's position is. You are spending a lot of time on something that isn't even covered in the article. If you had read it, instead of trolling via Google for pieces to comment on, you would know that, and you would have wasted less of our time.
Also, just because you are now able to stay on your parents insurance, that does not mean you have to. Whether or not you are on your parents' health insurance has no bearing on your adulthood, that is a non-sequitur.
  • Except that if you read the piece you would realize the point being made was one of affordability. The "non-sequitur" you refer to is this statement I wrote: "I remember when 26 year-olds were adults, but that's grist for another mill." By the time you're 26 years-old you should probably be looking to be independent -- financially, emotionally and physically -- from your parents. If you're not, that's your problem (as well as your poor parents'), not the Federal government's. Fact check: If you actually read the piece, that statement would be understood as not being a non-sequitur, but rather an editorial statement completely in line with the revolving sentiment of this blog you claim to enjoy so much.
This Is the Part I Love The Most!

For a blog titled "Reality Based Libertarianism and Other Stuff", you ironically rely on an appeal to fear, tradition and religiously based social conservatism to make your "argument". If you are truly based in reality I would suggest not blindingly following social conservative ideals. Don't be a sheep and don't let party lines, define how you think when regarding topics like politics and healthcare law.
  • This is the condescending part I warned you readers about.
  • This is such an utterly stupid and partisan thing to say that I'm not sure whether to laugh or be sad that your brain functions this way. If you had read the piece you would've realized the point-of-view the piece was written from. To "fear" an over-reaching government that appeals to the dependent mind-set that has creeped into our society is a good thing, and it's something I write about constantly. To protect people's belief systems, whether they jibe with mine or not, is an enlightened approach to freedom and liberty that is in diametric opposition to the Statist view that anyone who believes differently than you is a dullard.
  • Your statement: "Don't be a sheep and don't let party lines define how you think when regarding topics like politics," is kind of dumb, don't you think? Here you are arguing straight down the party line and you're admonishing me not to let party lines influence what I think about politics. Really?
Also, it's all well and good that Catholics don't want abortions covered in their insurance, but many people do. Catering to any religion, even Christianity, goes against the very same 1st amendment you referenced in the beginning. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
  • All well and good as long as those Catholics don't try to force their beliefs on...themselves, right? 
  • Sadly you missed the point made here (probably because you didn't actually read the piece). Your logic is so warped and faulty that I'm beginning worry about you. The point here JPR, whoever you are, is that the Federal government is forcing a group of people to conform to its demands even though those demands are in opposition to the beliefs of the group. Before you whip out your sophomore year college Constitutional adjunct lecture on me, read this: Catholics opposing abortions presents no burden on people who want to have abortions.
  • Statists opposing the Catholic opposition to abortion place a  burden on Catholics. When governments place burdens on the people they govern, those people become subjects, not citizens.
To recap: You argued that the bill is wrong because it forces people to get health insurance that covers contraception. This is false. The majority of your writing is littered with logical fallacies and appeals to emotion/tradition/religous views, because of this, even if your false claim that abortion coverage is required of everyone, your argument would still fall apart logically. Try and keep it based in facts, because an argument can be made to the same point you are trying to make, just not the way you did it.
  • As I write this I realize I am engaging in a debate with a person who hasn't bothered to read the piece they're arguing about. This means you are most likely a political operative who has trolled Google looking for things to pontificate on. The fact that you were so completely, ridiculously nice also bears that out -- real objection from Statists usually end up with me being called a @#$%^&* @$$%^&*.
  • This last paragraph is insulting to your intelligence because you are countering an argument I never made. The next time you want to take me on, read the friggin' piece you are arguing about. Please.
  • Then there's this line of yours: Try and keep it based in facts, because an argument can be made to the same point you are trying to make, just not the way you did it. Well, thanks for the advice! Coming from someone who has clearly based your arguments on a pre-conceived notion of what you think I wrote, as opposed to arguing what I actually wrote, this bit of condescension just makes me smile.
Not content with offering a non-sequieter argument that had nothing to do with the piece JPR was arguing about, JPR then apologized for being wrong about something JPR was arguing about that had nothing to do with the piece JPR was arguing about in the first place.
July 11, 2012 6:13 PM

JPR said...

Wow. Well this is awkward. I needed to do a fact check of my own. I realize my mistake in not noting the document I referenced was old. My other comments on you using logical fallacies and the like still stand though. I do enjoy reading your blog, but this could have been written from a much better perspective. Also, it seems that, as long as I am not reading outdated articles, that religious institutions would not have to fund contraceptive coverage, but rather this is done between the individual and insurer seperately and that essentially the religiously affiliated employer or organization would not pay for this cost. I apologize for my mistake.
  • You used the tried and true trick of the liberal activist: Trying to butter me up by saying that you enjoy reading my blog on one hand, while you condescend about what you read on the other.
  • I submit that you've never seen this blog before it came up in your Google search last night.
  • Here's the two possibilities: 1) you enjoy reading the blog but are incapable of comprehending what the hell I am talking about, or 2) you found the blog through your Google search as part of your OFA volunteer shift and you're trying to come off as reasonable. Coming off as reasonable puts me in the position of acquiescence to your points, but because your points have nothing to do with what I wrote, you lost this debate.
  • Oh, and before you smugly say that my writing is so bad that you can't understand what the hell I am saying half the time, why do you contradict yourself by saying you enjoy reading my blog?
  • In conclusion, your insipid logic (and that of your political party) dismissed the complaints of the oppressed organization by claiming the transaction is between the insured and the insurance company. This logic is severely faulty because it doesn't take into account that to a spiritual person being a middle-man (between the patient and the insurance company) is the same thing as taking part in the transaction directly.

Dear JPR,

Take some time and learn to understand other people before you start wagging your finger at them and telling them what's good for them. And, please, take that advice back to the Statists at OFA you volunteer for.

The basic tenet of being a libertarian is that I am not gifted with the knowledge of what is good for someone else. I know what my needs are and I trust you to know what your needs are. If your needs begin to infringe on my rights as a human being then your needs begin to oppress mine. I am against that.
I would suggest you actually take some time and start reading this blog on a regular basis. It will open your mind up to freedom, equality and liberty, and it might even help you be a better, more fulfilled person.

Your friend,

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

The 3/5 Compromise: It Isn't What You've Been Led To Believe It Is

Whenever I get into a discussion with a person who is angry about the institutional racism of the United States I am invariably told that the Founding Father's believed that African slaves were only worth 3/5 of a person. I always point out that that statement is a misunderstanding of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States at best and an ignorant way to perpetuate the myth of institutional racial division at worst.

Article I, Section 2:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].

What It Means
  • free Persons means the basic unindentured population
  • Service for a Term of Years mean indentured servants (who were most often British immigrants)
  • The Native American population was not counted
  • Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a free person
The House of Representatives is proportional -- the more people in a State the more Representatives the State gets in the House. During the drafting of the Constitution, southern slave-holding States were concerned that the northern non-slave States would over-power them by sheer numbers in the House. Likewise, the northern States were convinced that if southern States were allowed to count slaves as free people, the northern States would be overwhelmed by the pro-slavery South. The single issue of slavery almost nullified the United States of America before it was even able to draft a Constitution. During the debates in 1787, George Mason of Virginia argued:
"Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, providence punishes national sins by national calamities." *
* - It's important to note here that George Mason was a Founding Father: one of the rich white guys so often derided and ridiculed by today's enlightened liberals and race-baiters.

In contrast, John Rutledge from South Carolina argued that "religion and humanity have nothing to do with the questions" of whether the Constitution should protect slavery. He believed the slavery issue was nothing more than a property rights issue.**

** - Once again, painting history and people with a broad stroke is a fool's game.

The southern States were clear that they would not support a Constitution without explicit protections of slavery, and there was no chance of ratification without the support of the southern States. Hence the 3/5 Compromise. The northern States knew that the population of free (and pro-slavery) people would be drastically inflated if people who were only considered to be property were counted as free people.

Not Human, Just Chattel

A current flash point in the discussion of race and America's past is that African slaves were demeaningly considered to only be 3/5 human. This is not true. The demeaning part was the fact that African slaves were considered chattel -- non-human property. What the Framers were trying to accomplish was the founding of a country -- a country divided almost equally (by geography, not population) between supporters of slavery and those who were opposed to the practice.

Another way to look at the 3/5 compromise is that southern pro-slavery delegates wanted to count their chattel as human in order to secure a greater proportional representation in the House, while northern delegates feared that doing so would forever alter the course of the country as far as slavery was concerned. In other words, by counting African slaves as equal to the slaveholders and general population in the eyes of the representational government, African slaves would then be forced to be in voiceless agreement with the very same people who were considering them to be chattel.

The 3/5 compromise, while uncomfortable through a modern lens, held the country together and prevented African slaves from unwittingly championing the system -- through the votes of slaveholders -- that enslaved them.

A History of Racism

Institutional racism in the United States has been a point of conflict since the founding of the country, and no one with even a passing knowledge of US history can deny that. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was the first step on a path toward eradication of institutional racism in the United States -- a path that would take over 100 years to walk. The country fought to do the right thing from its founding, even if the hearts and minds of all of its people couldn't come to terms with the concept of freedom and equality for all.

The American system is a color-blind and ignorant of race work in progress. Sadly, the same cannot be said for many of the people -- from all races -- currently running the system and working on America's progress.

Monday, July 9, 2012

Vacation Wars: Obama Vs. Romney

BREAKING: Mitt Romney went on vacation last week. He's rich and rode a Waverunner and you shouldn't vote for him because he has money that he keeps overseas because taxes suck here.

BREAKING: Barack Obama canceled his annual vacation to Martha's Vineyard because he's really in touch with the suffering of the nation. We love him.

Ann and Mitt on a Waverunner.
You probably shouldn't vote for him because
not everybody can afford a Waverunner.
Romney spent time with his children and grandchildren, doing things that people do when they take vacations with the family, but he did take some time to answer some questions.

Unemployment was announced at 8.2% during Romney's vacation, and the press just thought it was horrible that he would flaunt his wealth while so many of us were eating Raman noodles and praying our food stamps would come so we could score a ham sandwich. An alert reporter asked him if it was a good idea to take a vacation while millions of Americans were suffering because of George Bush's policies, (well, that's not what he actually said, but we all know what he meant).
“You know I’m delighted to be able to take a vacation with my family,” Romney replied, "I think all Americas appreciate the memories they have with their children and their grandchildren. I hope more Americans are able to take vacations. And if I’m president of the United States, I’m going to work very hard to make sure we have good jobs for all Americans who want good jobs and as part of a good job the capacity to take a vacation now and then with their loved ones.”

Yeah, blah, blah, blah, another rich guy rubbing our noses in his wealth, or something. I'm not sure, but whatever he said, I'm sure he wants the middle class to lose their money to evil corporations and bankers. Or something. Whatever, I'm voting Obama.

Let's look at the two men on vacation:

Here's Barack and the girls on Martha's Vineyard two years ago,
eating a shaved ice and looking fantastic!
We love them!
If I had a dad, he would look like Obama, or at least I would wish he did.
Here's Mitt and Ann last week at Lake Winnepesaukee last week.
She looks annoyed, Mitt is hot and sweaty, the kid is fussy.
Friggin' rich people suck.
If I had a dad he would probably be all white and
pasty and eat vanilla ice cream just like Romney.
Clearly, based on the photographic evidence, we should vote for Obama.

President Obama's Vacation Schedule

That being said, let's look at Obama's vacation record, you know, just so we can be fair when we tear Romney apart for daring to spend his time and his own money enjoying his family.
  • August 2009, their first summer vacation as first family at Martha’s Vineyard. Unemployment rate = 9.6%
  • August 2009, Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Canyon. UE rate = 9.6%
  • Christmas 2009, Hawaii for non-sectarian holiday break. UE rate = 9.9%
  • March 2010, First Lady and daughter spend Spring Break in NYC. UE rate = 9.8%
  • May 2010, first family takes four-day trip to Chicago. UE rate = 9.6%
  • July 2010, first family vacations at Mount Desert Island, Maine. UE rate = 9.5%
  • August 2010, summer vacation at Martha’s Vineyard. UE = 9.6%
  • August 2010, First Lady and daughter Sasha vacation in Spain. UE rate = 9.6%
  • August 2010, President Obama celebrates his 49th birthday weekend alone in Chicago.* UE rate = 9.6%
  • August 2010, first family travels to Panama City Beach, Fla., for some beach time. UE rate = 9.6%
  • Christmas 2010, in Hawaii. UE rate = 9.4%
  • President’s Day 2011, first lady and daughters ski in Vail, CO. UE rate = 9.0%
  • June 2011, first lady, her mother and daughters travel to South Africa and Botswana. UE rate = 9.1%
  • August 2011, annual summer Martha’s Vineyard vacation. UE rate = 9.1%
  • Christmas 2011, annual holiday vacation in Hawaii. UE rate = 8.5%
  • President’s Day 2012, Michelle and the first daughters in Aspen, Colorado to ski. UE rate = 8.3%
*Personally, I could care less where Obama and his family take their vacations, how many vacations they take or what they do while on vacation, but I have to tell you, speaking as a family man, this birthday weekend alone in Chicago just seems a tad weird to me.

While we're at, let's look at a few other things:
  • Obama has also taken 23 trips to Camp David. One of those trips was as host to foreign dignitaries (during the G8 summit). GW took way more trips to Camp David, but he also hosted way more foreign dignitaries there.
  • Obama has played 100 games of golf as of June 17, 2012. Eisenhower was the king of Presidential Golf. Obama is the Prince.
  • Obama has attended 150 fundraisers. Nobody comes close to Obama when it comes to flying around and raising money.

In Conclusion

For the record, I will vote for Mitt Romney in November because even though I disagree with Romney on some issues, I disagree with him less than I do with Barack Obama. My point is to put the country back on the path to prosperity and individual freedom by degrees, how ever small the steps may be.

I could also care less where the President takes his vacations because I am not so dumb as to think the President of the United States doesn't work during his vacations. I also could care less what anybody does for their vacation, as long as you don't come to my house and make a lot of noise when I'm trying to watch Storage Wars. But, besides all that, you people are the ones who are obsessed with what Mitt Romney does during his vacation, so I just thought I'd add a little perspective to the dialogue. After all, the press corps** in this country have already decided that Mitt is bad so you're not going to get the full picture from them.

** Since this is a piece about President Obama, I have decided that you will pronounce the word "corps" as "corpse" while reading it.

Source material for this piece compiled additionally from:

Monday, July 2, 2012

Winning By Degrees: Where Ron Paul's Supporters Get It Wrong

If you are a Ron Paul supporter and you are basing your voting choice this November on your emotional dissatisfaction over the GOP primary outcome and the candidacy of Mitt Romney, please read this and pass it along to all of your friends who also support Paul. I'm urging you not to take the Democrat/Liberal path of emotionalism to the voting booth, but rather to look intellectually at the war we are in to save our country in the long view.

I am a fighter for freedom and libertarianism, but I did not support Ron Paul for President.

Here's a quick look at Paul's 2012 platform:
  1. Believes Healthcare is not a right but a commodity and should be treated as such. Government interference in the healthcare system directly and indirectly (via regulations and licensing) is to blame for the current unaffordability of healthcare in the USI 100% agree.
  2. Disagreed with US assassinations of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki on the grounds that the bin Laden operation violated Pakistani sovereignity and the al-Awlaki assassination set a dangerous precedent giving the US government free license to kill people it thinks are dangerous or bad. I 100% agree.    
  3. On immigration, Paul contends that if charities want to treat illegals they should be free to do so but Federal mandates forcing hospital emergency rooms to treat illegal aliens are a burden on treatment facilities and make illegal immigration enticing. I 100% agree.

  4. Believes the 14th Amendment (granting automatic birthright citizenship to children born in the US) should be amended to end birthright citizenship. I 100% agree.
  5. Believes the embargo of Cuba should be ended immediately, citing our ability to trade with and visit Vietnam, China and other Communist countries. He correctly states that it's time to let the people reach out and help end the Castro regime the government has proven incapable of ending. I 100% agree.
  6. Was against the war in Iraq on the grounds that it was Al Qaeda and not Iraq that attacked us on September 11, 2001, and that war should only be entered into to protect US citizens after a Congressional declaration has been made. I 100% agree.
  7. Against foreign intervention and believes US forces should be removed from Korea, Europe, and Japan, and that foreign aid to all countries should be considerably reduced where it is not eliminated, citing the overwhelming financial burden US foreign intervention places on its citizens. I 100% agree.
  8. Paul has called Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" that "is in bad shape." He alsos believes Social Security is un-Constitutional. I 100% agree. 
  9. Illegal drug addiction, Paul, a physician, believes should be treated as an illness, like alcoholism is. He correctly states that prohibition causes crime, and that the war on drugs has been a dismal failure. I 100% agree.
  10. Believes "the federal government has absolutely no [Constitutional] role in education regardless of what the Supreme Court has claimed." He correctly states that the way to improve education, reduce costs, and regain control of our schools from violence and drug abuse is to remove the centralized control of school systems and to return school curricula, funding, and administration back to the local community level. I 100% agree.
I could go on for another 2500 words, but I've made my point -- I pretty much agree with Ron Paul on just about all of his platform. In fact, I took an Internet test on my libertarianism and I scored a "97% agreement with Ron Paul" score. But then again, I was a libertarian before being a libertarian was a cool way to fight for the future of the country.

That being said, I did not support Ron Paul for President and I am glad I didn't.


New Jersey is a ridiculous cesspool of bad Democrat ideas, labor union corruption, and Liberal do-gooder condescension to people who are struggling to get by. New Jersey sucks. The taxes here are unbelievably high, the roads are falling apart, crime rates are criminal, and some parts of the state smell bad. In fact, things were so bad in New Jersey that even liberals knew it was time to do something, so we all got together a couple of years ago and elected Republican Chris Christie to be our governor.

Christie is loud, in-your-face, chubby, and focused on New Jersey's problems -- but he is no way a Conservative. He's not a RINO, but just barely. In short, he is exactly the non-Democrat, non-Liberal governor the State of New Jersey can handle right now. New Jersey is a failed Socialist experiment, so a true Constitutional libertarian would make everybody's head explode but mine.

But we're taking New Jersey back by degrees. Three years of balanced budgets with no tax increases is a good start.

You Can't Always Get What You Want, But Sometimes You Get What You Need

Ron Paul is pretty much right about pretty much everything he says, but America couldn't handle him right now. Can you imagine all the Julias whining about "women's health issues" and all the Jeremys asking us to pay their student loans if an actual adult like Ron Paul got elected?

Sure that's what we proper-thinking people who understand freedom and liberty want, but we have to man- and woman-up and understand we can't get everything we want all at once. We have to win by degrees. In short, we have to take the country back from the Democrats in the same way the Democrats took it away from us...a little at a time.

Ron Paul supporters and people unhappy with Mitt Romney, listen to me -- we have to win in November and we have to continue winning by degrees. Most of us want our country back right now without compromise, but that's a foolish path to take: There are more people who have been conditioned to believe Big Government is our salvation than there are people who know what a mistake that belief is. We have to help them see the light of liberty and freedom one step at a time.

Don't destroy what little chance we have left to save this country for our children and their children. Vote for the candidate who most closely represents your desire for a life free from government intereference and then hold his or her feet to the fire every chance you get.

We must win by degrees.