Saturday, December 31, 2011

Who are the rich 1 percent that Occupy Wall Street hates so much?

The protests which began as and are identified as “Occupy Wall Street” are protests against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, and greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly that of the financial services sector—on government.

The protesters' slogan We are the 99% is how they refer to what they perceive as a growing difference in wealth in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.

Those patriots in the Occupy (insert location) movement have inspired a critical look at those whiney, rich fat cats on Wall Street and in corporate America that the protesters despise so.

Here are some examples of the excessive salaries these people are paid: Philippe P. Dauman, CEO of Viacom, made $84.5 million last year. Leslie Moonves, of the CBS Corporation, got $56.9 million; Michael White of DirecTV was paid $32.9 million; Brian L. Roberts of the Comcast Corporation and Robert A. Iger of the Walt Disney Company, $28 million; and Gregg W. Steinhafel of Target, $23.5 million.

Who needs that much money, anyway? All that those people do is run businesses, and all businesses do is take people’s money, right? They are the 1 percent that OWS so patriotically protests against.

It’s just so unfair that these corporate bigwigs rake in millions when the rest of us struggle along barely making ends meet. Contrast those astronomical salaries and the conspicuous consumption that they allow, and then contrast it with the plight of those poor athletes, entertainers and journalists who are in the 99 percent.

Leading all athletes in total compensation with $62,294,116, of which $60,000,000 is in endorsements, is golfer Tiger Woods. On the Sports Illustrated Fortunate 50, leading the list of salaried earnings is the Atlanta Falcon’s Matt Ryan with $32,250,000, while the lowest on the list is Chris Bosh of the Miami Heat, with piddling $14,500,000 in salary.

According to Vanity Fair magazine, the list of people working in the salt mines of Hollywood lists James Cameron as the richest man in that hellish ghetto in 2010 with total earnings of $257 million, mostly from the box office and DVD sales of his Oscar-winning movie.

“The Tourist” star Johnny Depp grabbed the second spot on the Top 40 list of top-earning stars, directors and producers. The list estimated Depp's haul for the year at $100 million, excluding other non-film–related income.

And what about those fabulous folks who sing for a living? has published a list of the highest earners in the music world over the last 12 months, and in that group are: U2 at $130 million; AC/DC - $114 million; Bruce Springsteen - $70 million; Britney Spears - $64 million; Jay-Z - $63 million and Lady Gaga - $62 million. Seventeen year-old teeny bopper heartthrob Justin Bieber banked a cool $53 million last year.

Katie Couric made around $15 million a year when she anchored “CBS Evening News,” leading television news people. Diane Sawyer is raking in $12 million a year for her anchor job at “Good Morning America.” NBC “Today” co-anchor Matt Lauer draws $12 million while his co-host Meredith Vieira and NBC’s Brian Williams make about $10 million a year each. However, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann is dissed with a measly $4 million.

And how much do those high-profile liberals make – other than the aforementioned news folk – who are so good at telling the rest of us how to live?

Actor Alec Baldwin has a net worth of $65 million, and makes $300,000 per episode of “30 Rock.” Morgan Freeman gets $5-10 million per picture and has net worth $150 - 200 million. Gadfly movie producer Michael Moore has a net worth of $50 million. Tom Hanks earned $35 million last year, “Saturday Night Live’s” Tina Fey, $13 million, while Joy Behar, the co-host of “The View” and host of “The Joy Behar Show,” has a net worth of $8 million.

Relative to political party affiliation, those greedy Republicans lead the way in net worth, right? Well, no, according to Forbes magazine’s Top 20 list. Seventeen of the top 20 are Democrats, including Bill Gates, 56 billion; Warren Buffett, $50.0 billion; Wal-Mart’s Jim Walton, 20.1 billion Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, $13.5 billion; Lawrence Ellison, Oracle co-founder, $39.5 billion; Googles’ Larry Page, $15 billion.

So, big salaries aren’t restricted to Wall Street and corporate fat cats; there are lots of other fat cats, too. And when you add up all the athletes, entertainers and others making big bucks, Wall Street and the corporate world come in a distant second. But maybe it’s just how they make their money that makes it obscene when they collect a huge salary.

But why is it a bad thing warranting scorn and hatred to run a large company that provides jobs to thousands of people, and provides income to thousands more who own stock outright or in a retirement program or other investment?

We can hold different opinions on which of these folks contributes the most to society: the person that runs a company that provides jobs to thousands of people; the actor that plays the lead in an Oscar-winning film; the rock and roll screamer who sells millions of records. Whichever we might think provides the greatest service, we need to recognize and admit that each of them does something that people willingly spend their money on, and that is how they got rich. They made a good movie, a good CD, or a useful and desirable product. They didn’t just wake up one day and find a pot of gold beside their bed.

Economist Dr. Walter Williams defends one of the liberals’ most hated American icons, Wal-Mart. “Look at how Wal-Mart Stores generated wealth for the Walton family of Christy ($25 billion), Jim ($21 billion), Alice ($21 billion) and Robson ($21 billion). The Walton family's wealth is not a result of ill-gotten gains, but the result of Wal-Mart's revenue, $422 billion in 2010. The blame for this unjust concentration of wealth rests with those hundreds of millions of shoppers worldwide who voluntarily enter Wal-Mart premises and leave dollars, pounds and pesos.” Wal-Mart and its owners were made rich voluntarily by the other 99 percent.

And, in closing, a question: If the GOP is the party that exists to serve its Wall Street masters, then why does Wall Street give most of its money to the Democrats?

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Campaign reveals good ideas from Republican presidential candidates

The Republican debates certainly have been, well, interesting. The candidates have managed to dredge up all kinds of dirt on each other, and talk liberally about each other’s shortcomings.

Political insiders tell us that it’s good to get all the dirt and negatives out now, so that whoever wins the nomination won’t have all of that coming out during the more critical campaign. Maybe so.

They say politics is a dirty game. But really, politics isn’t inherently dirty; the players are dirty, and the public perceives this, according to a bipartisan survey commissioned by the Project on Campaign Conduct. Of those surveyed:
     • 59% believe that all or most candidates deliberately twist the truth.
     • 39% believe that all or most candidates deliberately lie to voters.
     • 43% believe that most or all candidates deliberately make unfair attacks    

        on their opponents.
     • 67% say they can trust the government in Washington only some of the 

        time or never.
     • 87% are concerned about the level of personal attacks in today's political 


Does negative campaigning work; is mudslinging effective? Herman Cain is the most visible recent target of mudslinging, being accused by three women of having made unwanted advances, and another alleging a long-term affair. Are these charges true? Who knows, other than the women making the accusations and Mr. Cain. But have you noticed that since he suspended his campaign, you don’t hear much from those women?

Nobody’s perfect, of course, as is more than amply illustrated by President Barack Obama, whose dismal performance has disappointed nearly everyone at one time or another and left the nation in the economic doldrums. The Republican field also has weaknesses, as we learn daily. However, despite the mudslinging that covers up nearly everything else, there are some good ideas from people who have much to offer in the way of experience and accomplishments.

Rick Perry served five years as a pilot in the United States Air Force, was elected Lieutenant Governor of Texas in 1998 and assumed the governorship in December 2000 when then-governor George W. Bush resigned to become President of the United States. He has served as Governor of Texas ever since, and the state has been at the top of all states in job creation and for low unemployment rates through the current downturn.

Gov. Perry wants a part-time, bi-annual Congress. This would be a return to the original concept of citizen legislators. That change would save a good bit of money on the operation of Congress, and having Representatives and Senators who live and work in the real world certainly couldn’t hurt.

Just imagine all of the laws they couldn’t pass with that schedule, the legislative mischief that we would avoid, and the insider trading that Congresspersons could no longer indulge in.

He also wants to impose 18-year term limits on the federal judiciary, which sounds like a reasonable idea. Why should judges enjoy lifetime tenure when neither the president nor members of Congress do? Congress should not be a career choice, and neither should the federal judiciary.

Newt Gingrich earned a history PhD from Tulane University and taught college history and geography before entering politics and being elected to the House of Representatives. Rising to become Speaker of the House, he engineered the first Republican majority to be re-elected in 68 years. Among the first pieces of legislation passed by Congress with Mr. Gingrich as Speaker was the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, which subjected members of Congress to the same laws that apply to businesses and their employees. He led the way in Congress and negotiated with President Bill Clinton to pass welfare reform, and led the House when it produced the first balanced budget in 30 years.

Mr. Gingrich’s ideas are frequently criticized, even ridiculed, and it is true that the man has dozens of ideas and not all of them are equally great ideas, It is common for his critics to take what he says out of context, or to deliberately misstate the premise of his ideas.

He thinks teaching kids about work and responsibility by paying them to work in their school assisting janitors, librarians and office staff makes sense. Given how many Americans have to be taken care of by taxpayers because they are unprepared to get and hold a job, helping young people develop a work ethic and learn the value of earning their own way can’t hurt, and would go a long way toward reversing the dependency that the big government folks in Washington so dutifully cultivate.

Perhaps Mr. Gingrich’s and Gov. Perry’s ideas need fine-tuning or modification, but it certainly cannot hurt to consider reforming how our government operates, or finding ways to help young people learn the value of work.

All the Republican candidates have baggage; they are human, after all. But we are not electing a savior. We tried that in 2008, and it did not come out well. We are electing a president who will be , like the rest of us, a fallible human being. What we want is someone who has a record of accomplishment, and some productive ideas to make things better. 

Please leave a comment

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Thinking about mountains and molehills, and tempests and teapots

America’s fairly recent infection by hyper-sensitivity rises to fever pitch at this time of the year, when Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, and also the secular celebration of Christmas – which, incidentally, is not limited to Christians – and Jewish Americans celebrate Chanukah, the Festival of Lights. Since there are far more Christians in the US (78 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian) than those of other faiths, or those who claim no religion, things associated with Christianity and Christmas attract the most attention.

People get upset by all manner of things, such as someone saying or doing the “wrong thing.” And, at this time of year the sight of religious objects like a cross, a nativity scene, or a menorah gets some folks upset. But those things have no inherent power; they can’t hurt anyone or turn people into zombies. Nevertheless, people run to the courts to have those objects removed.

The infection has reached the point where one person or a few people who are “offended” by something can now deny hundreds or even thousands of people the opportunity to enjoy whatever that something is. It is the tyranny of the minority.

People are too easily offended these days, and in response to the rising instances of offense being taken by someone or some group, the nannies in governments coast-to-coast have decreed that anything and everything that might give offense to anyone should be forever banished from the Earth.

The nannies are now said to be contemplating adding an Eleventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not offend another soul, for if thou shalt give offense, thou shalt be really, really sorry.” The nannies also advocate the creation, passage and ratification of an Eleventh Amendment in the Bill of Rights: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against offenses real and imagined, shall not be violated, under pain of death, or something just as bad.”

One object viewed as terribly offensive is a cross erected in the Mojave National Preserve in the desert on the California-Nevada border near Las Vegas, put there nearly 80 years ago as a memorial for veterans of World War I by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The VFW originally owned the land on which the memorial was erected, but later donated it to the federal government.

The sensitivity police at the American Civil Liberties Union mounted a legal challenge to the cross sitting there in the desert, perhaps at the behest of an offended descendent of a defeated Central Powers soldier. Or maybe just because it was a cross, in a desert.

The ACLU bases its objections on the principle of separation of church and state, as if the mere presence of a religious symbol on government property somehow conveys the idea that whatever government body owns that property embraces whatever religion the symbol represents. The concept separating religion and government has come to command great respect – reverence, if you will – as if it actually was part of the US Constitution, which it is not. If only the property rights and other guarantees of liberty in the Bill of Rights, like our right to keep and bear arms, commanded as much respect.

The hullabaloo arising from religious symbols appearing in places where some people don’t like them is sort of puzzling. Most folks understand that placing crosses, menorahs, the star and crescent or the Festivus pole on government property really does not mean the government actually endorses or promotes the beliefs represented by the symbol. There is nothing frightening or threatening in the mere appearance of religious symbols, where ever they appear.

Religion has been a key force in this nation since before its creation, and adherence by generations past to the dominant religious principles provided a crucial stabilizing cultural influence, without which the nation would have floundered, and likely would have failed. What the various symbols, so feared by some, represent is nothing more than that reality being demonstrated through natural and traditional activities, nothing more. As we see happening now, our disintegrating culture parallels the increasing hostility toward religion.

Today complaints about religious symbols, particularly nativity scenes at this time of the year, are routine. This mania has more recently spread to people and businesses that merely wish folks a “merry Christmas” or a “happy Chanukah.” The nannies prefer the bland and inoffensive phrase “happy holidays.” This is understandable: Nothing is more offensive than someone wishing you well.

But in America if we don’t like or believe in Christmas, that’s okay. The First Amendment says that we are free to be, or to not be religious. So, a nativity, even if it’s on government property, doesn’t require anyone to look at it, if they’d rather not. No one is obligated by religious symbols to do anything, or believe anything in particular. Why do people allow themselves to be manipulated and offended by the appearance of inanimate objects?

When someone wishes you a “merry Christmas,” have the grace to accept their good wishes, and perhaps even respond with a polite “thank you.”

Merry Christmas! Happy Chanukah!

Please leave a comment

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

“Over-taxing taxes” and “unfair fairness” define the United States

One of the more interesting topics in the US today is how to tax people and how much to take from them. Some believe that the tax system needs to be dramatically overhauled. Others think the wealthiest Americans can and should pay an even higher percentage of their income to the taxman.

There is a strong feeling that our tax system is hopelessly messed up and desperately needs to be overhauled so that it raises enough revenue to operate our government as it was designed, which is to say limited in size and scope, and that tax rates do not punish one group of Americans while absolving another group of its responsibility to contribute to the support of its government.

As currently configured our tax system creates inequality while attempting to make everyone equal, and robs the economy of billions of dollars due to its complexity. The two sections of tax code, one written by the IRS and the other written by Congress, comprise nearly 17,000 pages. You can buy your own copy for just $1,153.

A study by The Laffer Center for Supply-Side Economics explains that $431 billion, or 30 percent of the total income tax collected, goes just to comply with and administer the US income tax system. The Internal Revenue Service spends $12.4 billion for administrative costs, and another $9.3 billion for comprehensive audits. Americans spend $31.5 billion on compliance.

Our government and the cost of running it have grown proportionately as the statist idea that government should do more and more for the citizenry has taken hold. According to Michigan-based, one in six Americans receives government assistance. Medicaid roles rose to 50 million in 2010 from 42 million in 2007, and the number of Food Stamp recipients hit an all-time high of 44.2 million in January, up 4.7 million from last year. Is it really true that all of those millions of people require the monetary support of taxpayers?

Plainly, this situation is out of control, and getting worse.
In order to fund the government’s crazy spending addiction President Barack Obama and his liberal, big-government comrades want the “rich” paying more in taxes, a position he repeatedly states just to be certain his fawning followers do not forget. In a recent speech Mr. Obama used the word “fair” umpteen times in one form or another: fair share; fair play; fair shot. There’s nothing like fomenting a little class envy to get the voters all excited.

Naturally, Mr. Obama doesn’t tell us precisely what he thinks “fair” is, perhaps because it’s easier to get people all worked up with generalities, as he did in the 2008 presidential campaign. But we know from experience that he means the wealthy will be called upon to bear an even greater “fair share” of the nation’s burdens than they already do.

Cato Institute senior fellow Richard Rahn wrote in The Washington Times that whereas the top one percent of taxpayers earns just 20 percent of total income, it pays 38 percent of all income taxes; the top 10 percent earns 46 percent of total income, but pays 70 percent of income taxes. Conversely, the bottom 50 percent earns 13 percent of total income, but pays less than three percent of income taxes. Most of us agree that at some low earnings level people do not make enough to warrant taxing them, but currently 47 percent of American households pay no income taxes, and some of them actually receive money from the government. Their fair share is apparently zero dollars, or less than zero. What stake do these people have in how politicians behave? Instead of criticizing the wealthy, they should be thanking them for paying their share of the government’s huge cost.

Where tax rates are concerned, a “fair rate” depends upon who you are and how much you earn. But the term “fair” implies the treating of all sides alike. After all, isn’t what’s good for the goose, good for the gander?

Well, no; not in America today.

If the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners are allowed to expire, as the president and other liberals want, the highest rate will return to 39.6 percent. Having Uncle Sam take four of every 10 dollars you earn seems like a lot. What’s the point of getting a good education, learning a valuable skill and working to get a good paying job if the federal government is going to take nearly half of it?

And how many people now advocating that the rich pay 40 percent of their earnings in federal income taxes would support that rate if they had to pay it? It’s a very safe bet that not many would. But when it’s the other guy, well, that’s different.

So, in order to come closer to funding its spending addiction, the government punishes the wealthiest Americans, who are frequently the most productive and the biggest spending citizens, with immorally high taxes on their income. Given the dismal record of government for efficiency and frugality, that money would accomplish far more good left in the hands of those who earned it.

Please leave a comment

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Dangerous Executive Orders Still on the Books

From Godfather Politics:

Executive Orders (EO) have been used by presidents since the days of George Washington. The first EO addressed Washington’s normal household expenses which ones were to be accepted and paid by the Treasury Department. Pretty innocuous. The FBI was formed under an executive order by Teddy Roosevelt on July 26, 1908. The first time it was used to make a law was in 1916 by President Woodrow Wilson. It was said to be an ‘emergency’ measure and Congress was encouraged to validate it. They did and now the door was now open to ignore the Constitution. This is the same method used by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 to close all the banks in the country. Americans were ordered to turn in all their gold to local banks.

The general purpose of an executive order is to provide the President with a mechanism for executing laws passed by Congress, not control of lives. These EOs are issued by the President as directives to agencies responsible for implementing laws.

However, some presidents take Executive Orders too far confusing EO with executive lawmaking. This “rule by executive order” observation was made no clearer than by Paul Begala, a former Bill Clinton aide: “Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kind of cool.”

While Begala thought this action “cool,” others did not. House Majority Leader Dick Armey said, “With the stroke of a pen, he may have done irreparable harm to individual rights and liberties.” He went on to add, “President Clinton seems bent on using his powers until someone says stop. President Clinton is running roughshod over our Constitution.”

Anti-Hoarding Laws and Executive Orders

Congress has 30 days to object to an Executive Order (EO) before it becomes law. No objections were raised against these Command and Control emergency “Readiness Laws” when they were put in place. Has the emergency arrived that needs them and are they slowly being introduced?

Bill Clinton grouped together the following EOs under EO #12919 released on June 6, 1994. These are the tools used to shred the Constitution and take away your rights under its protection:

10995 — Federal seizure of all communications media in the US (tested last month).

10997 — Federal seizure of all electric power, fuels, minerals, public and private.

10998 — Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment (including what you are storing for emergencies in your home right now).

10999 — Federal seizure of all means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways.

11000 — Federal seizure of American people for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires (this happened before in Europe during the Nazi regime).

11001 — Federal seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private.

11002 — Empowers the Postmaster General to register every single person in the US.

11003 — Federal seizure of all airports and aircraft.

11004 — Federal seizure of all housing and finances and authority to establish forced relocation. Authority to designate areas to be abandoned as “unsafe,” establish new locations for populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds.

11005 — Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private.

11051 — Provides FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis (FEMA will be in control in case of “National Emergency”).

These EOs are not aimed at anti-hoarding but rather at seizure or confiscation of items and facilities “to provide a state of readiness in these resource areas with respect to all conditions of national emergency, including attack upon the United States.”

You’ll find most ‘seizure’ legislation ends with this phrase. These Executive Orders don’t define what specifically constitutes a national emergency…The specifics on hoarding are left up to the individual states.

Read more: Dangerous Executive Orders Still on the Books | Godfather Politics

Please leave a comment

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

San Francisco tries to legislate good judgment by using bad judgment

The Centers for Disease Control tells us that childhood obesity in the United States has more than tripled in the past 30 years, with the percentage of children aged 6–11 years who were obese increasing from 7 percent to nearly 20 percent from 1980 to 2008, and the percentage of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese increasing from 5 percent to 18 percent over the same period.

In an attempt to do for San Francisco’s children what the nannies at City Hall think should be done, and what city parents will not do, the city has deigned to improve the eating habits of young people by forbidding McDonald’s restaurants in the city from giving kids toys with their Happy Meals, unless those meals meet the city’s nutritional standard that includes more fruits and vegetables. It should be noted that lunches in the city’s schools don’t meet the new standards, either, but apparently targeting McDonald’s is considered more important.

This incident highlights a few of the results of liberalism run amok, among which are: the increasingly nanny-ish character of governments at all levels in the United States; the arrogance of government, which has yet again stuck its big nose into the operations of private businesses; and the utterly idiotic thought process – if something so goofy can be characterized as thought – behind this foolishness.

As it turns out, McDonald’s won this particular battle: It did not change the contents of its Happy Meal, and instead now charges a dime for the toy, if the customer wants a toy, and gives that dime to Ronald McDonald Charities: McDonald’s 1, San Fran 0.

The logical fallacy of this episode is best illustrated by examining the attitude of the person responsible for this particular bit of nannying, San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar. In an interview aired on Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show,” correspondent Aasif Mandvi questions Mr. Mar about the reasoning behind this action. “McDonald’s or Burger King use toys to lure kids,” Mr. Mar said. “The toys are attached to meals that are largely too sugary, fatty and high in salt content that is very bad for them. If there was no toy, the kids wouldn’t eat the meal,” he asserted, which assumes that neither kids nor adults actually like burgers, fries, milk shakes or any other fast food.

“So you’ve literally created a nanny state. ‘To get your toy you’re going to have to eat your fruit and vegetables,’” Mr. Mandvi suggested.

“No,” Mr. Mar, responded, ”we’re saying that we want healthier options in fast food companies in San Francisco, if they want to attach a toy to it.” He explained that most kids are not aware of this problem, although his daughter is. “My 10 year-old has … has had a number of Happy Meals growing up, but she’s wise enough to know that the food that she’s eating when she was younger is very unhealthy for her.”

“How did she figure that out?” Mr. Mandvi asked. To which Supervisor Mar responded, “I think she watched [the documentary] ‘Super Size Me’ with me.”

“So, she learned from her parents,” Mr. Mandvi said. To which Mr. Mar responded, “That’s a large part of it,” without even a hint that he understood the significance of what he had just said. Mr. Mandvi then asked if the city could just pass a law requiring Netflix to distribute the “Super Size Me” documentary to all of San Francisco’s parents so that every family would have the benefit of its healthy message, like the Mar family had.

Again, Mr. Mar’s answer indicated complete failure to understand the city’s action against McDonald’s: “You can’t force Netflix, a private company, to do something like that.” Then, responding to Mr. Mandvi’s marvelous expression of astonishment at that statement, he added, “We have no power to force Netflix, or a private company like that, to change a business practice.” But, Mr. Mandvi said, “on one hand you’re like, ‘you can’t do that,’ but on the other hand, you are doing that.”

Eric Mar does not appear to be intellectually deprived, but he obviously lacks the ability to see that his plan does precisely to McDonald’s what he states unequivocally that San Francisco cannot do to other businesses, like Netflix.

Dysfunctional logic is a common element of liberalism. Another common element is when people do not voluntarily do what liberals have decided is best for everyone, they are not above using force to get them to fall in line, with little or no regard for whether the actions they propose are sensible, fair, proper or even constitutional.

We see evidence of this penchant to force people to do things everywhere in our government, from the NLRB’s stopping Boeing from opening a new thousand-worker plant in South Carolina; to banning incandescent light bulbs in favor of expensive, mercury-laden CFLs; to keeping tens of thousands of workers on the unemployment line because the Obama administration doesn’t like fossil fuels, to telling farmers they stir up too much dust in their fields.

The nation will be fortunate if it is able to survive this onslaught of liberal nannying.

Please leave a comment

Sunday, December 04, 2011

The Top Ten Liberal Contradictions

It is admittedly difficult to hold this list to just 10 items, but The Patriot Update makes a very good effort.

Contradiction #1: Pro-Abortion vs. Anti-Capital Punishment

Liberals support the killing of unborn children in the name of convenience, choice, etc. These children have committed no crimes; however, if that child survives abortion and grows up to commit murder later in life, a Liberal will scream “injustice” if that person is sentenced to death.

Contradiction #2: Pro-Technology vs. Anti-Free Market

I love Apple products. I think Steve Jobs was a genius. I have a MacBook Pro, an iPad, and an iPhone 4s. Many liberals (especially Occupiers) love Apple products too. As a capitalist, I am consistent in purchasing Apple products. They are not. They build web sites to promote their socialist causes while using software and technology that is only made possible in a free market environment. Apple products would not (and could not) have been created in a socialist nation. There’s no way liberals could fight capitalism without the very tools capitalism provides!

Contradiction #3: Pro-Homosexual vs. Pro-Muslim

Muslims want to kill homosexuals. Yet, Liberals promote the Homosexual agenda and Shariah Law. If the Muslims take over the United States, they will start by expunging the land of Homosexuals and Liberals. (Please see my conclusion to explain why Liberals really hold to these two contradictory positions.)

Contradiction #4: Pro-Darwinian Evolution vs. Anti-Human Domination

Most liberals believe in Darwinian evolution, as opposed to special Creation by God. They believe that all species arose naturally through a concept known as “survival of the fittest.” The weak die out and the strong survive. Yet, Liberals spend so much time (and other people’s money) fighting to protect endangered species, rare ecosystems, wet lands, etc. Isn’t this incredibly inconsistent? After all, evolutionists believe many species died out over millions of years because of natural selection. As consistent evolutionists, shouldn’t they be happy that humans are now dominating the planet and all sub-species? Incidentally, as a Christian, I believe God requires us to be good stewards of the environment (not tree huggers). But I can hold my position consistently.

Contradiction #5: Christianity vs. All Other Religions

Liberals want religious freedom for all religions except Christianity. “Take down that cross… No nativity scenes on public property… No prayer at high school graduation ceremonies!” The list goes on, all in the name of “tolerance.” Isn’t it ironic that Christianity is the only religion that tolerates others? Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us to love our enemies, not to kill them. The Koran, however, teaches Muslims to kill the infidels!

Read Obama’s Thanksgiving Address Fails to Mention God on

Contradiction #6: Pro-Education vs. Anti-School Choice

Liberals like to pride themselves on being intellectuals and supporters of education. They claim that conservatives and Republicans are against education. Laughable. If education is so important, why do liberals force everyone to pay taxes to support the failing public education system when private and home-schooling are so much more effective? The answer is easy. They can only brainwash our children to become atheists and socialists in the public schools.

You must watch the documentary, Indoctrination: Public Schools and the Decline of Christianity in America.

Contradiction #7: Hateful vs. Anti-Hate

Liberals claim that anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle is promoting “hate.” Do you want to see real hate? Just read for yourself the hate-filled comments on our first episode of PolitiChicks.TV, where we discussed homosexuality in America. Not one hateful word was said against homosexuals on this show. Not one. In fact, Victoria Jackson stated, “I love gays!” The only hate I found was from the thousands of liberals who were commenting. 99% of all hate is spewed from the Left.

Read Are You a Member of a Hate Group on

Contradiction #8: Pro-Women vs. Anti-Sarah Palin

The left says they’re for women’s rights. So why did they attempt to destroy Sarah Palin and her beautiful family in 2008 when she was chosen as John McCain’s running mate? The left says they’re pro-choice, but they are against educating a woman before she goes into an Abortion clinic. Liberals undermine the marriage, the very institution where women are honored by fidelity and womanhood is celebrated. And if a conservative women succeeds outside the home, they are told they should stay at home.

Contradiction #9: Racism

If Liberals aren’t racist, why do they evaluate and categorize everyone by the color of their skin? Why are they so angry when Blacks leave the Democrat plantation and achieve the American Dream? Why do they continue to promote abortion when far more blacks are killed by abortion than whites? Why do they continue to promote social programs that enslave blacks at poverty level?

Contradiction #10: Pro-Jew vs. Anti-Israel

Liberals say they are pro-Jew. So, why do they hate the nation of Israel? Why are so many Jews members and supporters of the Democrat Party? This is one of most mind-boggling of liberal contradictions.

Conclusion: There are many more liberal contradictions which could be listed. Why do liberals hold beliefs that appear to be self-contradictory? The answer is simple: All liberal positions are ultimately Anti-God to the core. Islam and homosexuality are not supported by the Bible. The Bible promotes personal responsibility, private property, and an ultimate standard for right and wrong. Liberals hold positions that are counter to the Word of God or at best they twist the Word of God to support their positions. This is the only way one can explain the top ten Liberal contradictions.

Please leave a comment

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Occupy Wall Street gives honest and legitimate protest a bad name

The ability to speak one’s mind and protest things one doesn’t agree with, particularly the actions of government, was one of the rights considered so important by early Americans that several of the states insisted on a special statement guaranteeing those rights before they would ratify the U.S. Constitution. The resulting Bill of Rights guaranteed this right in its first Amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Trouble arises, however, when those peaceably assembled and speaking freely – like participants in a protest such as Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and its various incarnations – are so focused on their complaints and on their right to express their displeasure that they ignore their responsibility as good citizens to behave sensibly and obey the law.

This is what has occurred with the OWS movement that has spread across the country: participants either are ignorant of the laws and don’t understand there are limits to “assembling,” or they just don’t care. While exercising their right to assemble, they interfered with the rights of others. The right to peaceably assemble does not allow protesters to deny other people their rights, no matter how important the issue they are protesting. Protesters may not prevent people from traveling on a street or sidewalk, or from entering buildings, or using public spaces.

And when protesters took up residence at the protest sites in tents and sleeping bags they crossed the line separating peaceful protesters from slovenly trespassers. Stories are common of protesters urinating and defecating on streets and sidewalks, leaving massive amounts of trash behind, and indulging in violent behavior, including assault and rape. One gets the idea that sex, drugs and rock-n-roll have become the order of the day. The Woodstock Generation has returned.

What happened to the righteous anger at the greedy bankers and corporate bigwigs, the hated one percent? When night falls, the focus apparently changes from “work” to “play.”

All of the irresponsible behavior and lawlessness has cost 18 cities where protests have been taking place $13 million, money that these cities were obligated to spend, because the police had to be on site, due to the lawlessness and bad behavior, and the mess had to be cleaned up because it presented a health hazard. For officials to simply look the other way would have been irresponsible and therefore unacceptable.

The protesters, of course, don’t like the police interfering in their fun and games, and they apparently have the support of allies in the media.

A recent TV news story showed a group of young people on a college campus, sitting down with arms linked, being sprayed with pepper spray by a police officer like he was watering plants. The story generated a great deal of sympathy for the protesters and great anger against the police.

As often happens in the mainstream media, however, the TV coverage told only part of the story. As it turns out, the protesters had been given ample warning that police would use pepper spray if they did not obey the order, and the alternative to spraying them was for police to forcibly drag the protesters away, which arguably could have been worse, particularly if the protesters resisted.

It is too much of a generalization, and probably partially inaccurate, to say that the OWS folks don’t understand how their country works, have refused to take part in being responsible for their own well-being, then expect others to take care of them. But there is a strong undercurrent of that present in the movement, and when the public became aware of this, support for the movement began to dissolve.

The protesters blame Wall Street and the big banks for the current economic trouble, and a good bit of the blame is rightly theirs. But businesses have to operate in the environment that exists, and the environment that the OWS protesters so despise was created by government, not Wall Street. Rules and regulations for banking not only made it possible for the housing bubble to expand and then burst, but virtually made it certain that this would happen.

The protester’s poor understanding of the US economy and current economic conditions, and their illogically focused anger has produced an incoherent message and harmful actions. The holiday shopping period is what turns a bad year into a successful one for many retailers. Yet, the movement sought to subvert Black Friday shopping activities, which would harm a lot of the people the movement claims to represent, the 99 percent.

But cooler heads prevailed. Millions of Americans – acting in their own best interest, in the best tradition of free market economics – ignored the irrational pleadings of the OWS protesters, and flooded retail outlets last Friday, producing a six percent increase over Black Friday numbers from last year.

That doesn’t signal a healing economy, that goal won’t be met until sensible economic policies are put in place. But it is a good sign.

Please leave a comment

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Watching the decline of the late, great United States of America

The idea that America is in a steep decline is wide-spread among people old enough to know what our country was like before the 1970s. The country had been in decline for a while, but back then it was a slow process. Then liberalism burst forth, the flower children and their fairy tale ideal of peace and love came along. There is nothing wrong with peace and love and other liberal ideals, but their implementation is nearly always unrealistic and mostly makes things worse.

The foolish thinking that blossomed in the mid-60s and 70s, and continues today, produced ideas and policies that have accelerated the decline. All of this is completely unrecognized by the vast majority of younger souls who don’t know, either through experience or through education, what the United States was all about, and what made it special among the nations of the world.

People came to the English colonies for different reasons, and there were many things the colonists did not agree on. But as time passed, the growing sense of nationhood was strong enough to surmount those disagreements. The colonists came to see themselves as Americans, not as British subjects who lived in America, and the sense of unity, self-reliance and national independence had grown so strong that the colonists rose to armed rebellion against the English Crown, citing a long list of grievances and abuses in the Declaration of Independence.

Here is how history professor Dr. John Ferling described the revolution: “... the American Revolution was the birthday of a new world. The new epoch that they wished to create was one that would sweep monarchs and titled nobility from power, loosen the bonds of society, and open the way to greater opportunities, so that a man could rise as high as his merits could take him.”

“That age left us with two documents that remain crucial today,” Dr. Ferling wrote, “the Constitution, our fundamental charter, and the Declaration of Independence, with its ringing message of liberty – with many notable participants who continue to inspire, from the obvious Founding Fathers to obscure farmers, workers, and soldiers who struggled and sacrificed to win Independence and achieve the new world.”

The American Revolution and the formation of a government whose scope and power were strictly limited by the United States Constitution set the country on a course that over the next 150 years led to its being the freest, most successful nation in history, a magnificent accomplishment.

It’s too bad we haven’t had the good sense to honor the wisdom and sacrifices of our Founders by maintaining that system. Having traveled a long way down the road of decline we now stare straight into the face of the possible collapse of the American idea; our once great republic is on the precipice of disintegrating into another failed effort at big-government socialism.

We’ve lost our good sense and our soul. We have failed to teach the young of recent generations why America is special, its values and ideals, how it works, and why it was set up the way that it was. Instead we have taught them that families and commitment are not important; that there is no downside to having children out of wedlock to grow up without a father; that it is permissible for people to sit on their backsides and expect to be taken care of. We are able to fund only 60 percent of everything the government does by taxing the earnings of the people, but only half of them contribute. And we borrow the rest, mounting up a colossal, murderous debt in the process.

Instead of preparing our children to exist in an unforgiving and often unfriendly world, we have taught them that how they feel about themselves is more important than learning to cope with adversity, that hurting someone’s feelings or making them uncomfortable is worse than nearly anything else, and that politically incorrect thoughts must be punished.

We no longer recognize that some things are wrong, absolutely. We attempt to excuse the worst behavior, like pedophilia, by trying to blame it not on the evil predator but on some overwhelming force, and excuse violent crime not as the fault of the criminal, but of the society in which he grew up.

We have abandoned the ideas of limited government, honor and integrity in government, fiscal responsibility and personal freedom. The government tells us what light bulbs we can buy, what kind of energy we should use, where we can open businesses, and what kind of food we should eat. It takes Joe’s home and land and sells them to Mary for Mary’s personal benefit. It is enormous, expensive, wasteful, inefficient, abusive and corrupt.

Worst of all, we have lost our heart. We no longer believe that America is at its best when its people are allowed to be free and produce on their own merit and initiative, not because of the government, and often in spite of it.
We have traded our freedom for the false comfort and the bondage of Big Brother.

Perhaps because of our stupidity and our faithlessness we deserve the horrible future we are racing toward.

Please leave a comment

Sunday, November 20, 2011

A Thanksgiving in the future

“Winston, come into the dining room, it’s time to eat,” Julia yelled to her husband. “In a minute, honey, it’s a tie score,” he answered. Actually, Winston wasn’t very interested in the traditional holiday football game between Detroit and Washington.

Ever since the government passed the Civility in Sports Statute of 2017, outlawing tackle football for its “unseemly violence” and the “bad example it sets for the rest of the world,” Winston was far less of a football fan than he used to be. Two-hand touch wasn’t nearly as exciting.

Yet it wasn’t the game that Winston was uninterested in. It was more the thought of eating another Tofu Turkey. Even though it was the best type of VeggieMeat available after the government revised the American Anti-Obesity Act of 2018, adding fowl to the list of federally forbidden foods, (which already included potatoes, cranberry sauce and mincemeat pie), it wasn’t anything like real turkey. And, ever since the government officially changed the name of “Thanksgiving Day” to “A National Day of Atonement” in 2020 to officially acknowledge the Pilgrims’ historically brutal treatment of Native Americans, the holiday had lost a lot of its luster.

Eating in the dining room was also a bit daunting. The unearthly gleam of government-mandated fluorescent light bulbs made the Tofu Turkey look even weirder than it actually was, and the room was always cold. Ever since Congress passed the Power Conservation Act of 2016, mandating all thermostats – which were monitored and controlled by the electric company – be kept at 68 degrees, every room on the north side of the house was barely tolerable throughout the entire winter.

Still, it was good getting together with family. Or, at least, most of the family. Winston missed his mother, who passed on in October, when she had used up her legal allotment of life-saving medical treatment. He had many heated conversations with the Regional Health Consortium (RHC), spawned when the private insurance market finally went bankrupt, and everyone was forced into the government health care program. And though he demanded she be kept on her treatment, it was a futile effort. “The RHC’s resources are limited,” explained the government bureaucrat Winston spoke with on the phone. “Your mother received all the benefits to which she was entitled. I’m sorry for your loss.”

Yet the family had a lot for which to be thankful, Winston thought, before remembering it was a Day of Atonement. At least he had his memories. He felt a twinge of sadness when he realized his children would never know what life was like in the Good Old Days, long before government promises to make life “fair for everyone” realized their full potential. Winston, like so many of his fellow Americans, never realized how much things could change when they didn’t happen all at once, but gradually, so people wouldn’t realize what was happening.
He wondered what might have happened if the public had stood up while there was still time, maybe back around 2011, when all the real nonsense began. “Maybe we wouldn’t be where we are today if we’d just said ‘enough is enough’ when we had the chance,” he thought.

Maybe so, Winston…maybe so.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Installment II: From the Human Events calendar

No. 304 of 365

Agree that JFK was one of our greatest presidents, part two. Ask your liberal friend which part of JFK's agenda he liked most: JFK's pledge to increase defense spending to close the "missile gap" with the Soviets, his supply-side tax cuts, his commitment to halt communism in Indochina, or his rousing anti-welfarist line, "Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country."

No. 307 of 365

Tell a joke: An elderly senator, exhausted and ill from enacting Obama's health-care plans, goes to the doctor. Doctor says: "I have bad news, good news, and bad news, Senator. The bad news is that you only have six months to live. But the good news is that there's an operation that is 100 percent successful in curing this illness." "That sounds great. So what's the other bad news?" asks the senator. Replies the doctor: "The Department of Health and Human Services says the first available slot is seven months from today."

No. 308 of 365

Tell them they're WRONG. Liberals hate being told they're wrong: a) because the truth is always painful; and b) because in their warped, liberal world, "right" and "wrong" are alien, almost forbidden concepts. That's why liberals prefer terms like "appropriate" and "inappropriate," because they're non-judgmental. So go ahead. Judge them. Because they're WRONG.

No. 312 of 365

Patiently explain to a liberal why their hero Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story depends on an entirely false premise—that capitalism is the same as corporatism. Most of Moore's targets in the movie are the unwieldy, corrupt corporations that his hero Obama has spent so much taxpayer money bribing and bailing out. They've got about as much to do with the free markets that conservatives favor as Michael Moore has with charm, wit, or healthy salads. And if he really has such a problem with capitalism, what was he doing allowing movie theaters to charge audiences eight bucks a ticket? Shouldn't he have used some of the vast fortune he has earned from books and movies railing against capitalism so that his vital public service announcement could be put out for free?

No. 313 of 365

Pick a fight with a liberal on: SELF-ESTEEM.
One of the great excuses made for the poorer performances by certain ethnic groups is their "lack of self-esteem"—which comes, of course, from the sense of inferiority imposed on them either consciously or unconsciously by the white, elitist, capitalist, male hegemony. Much of this stems from research conducted by black socialist Kenneth B. Clark using his infamous "doll" tests. He showed black children in segregated schools a black doll and a white doll and asked which they preferred. When a majority chose the white doll, he argued that segregated schooling lowered black self-esteem. But Clark was a professional grievance-monger and a fraud. What he did not mention was that in research he had conducted in integrated schools, black children were shown to be even more likely to choose the white doll over the black doll. Clark's junk sociology was the basis for sweeping legislation forcing integration in schools through wildly unpopular school busing programs that tore communities apart; and it's also responsible for more recent findings that American kids do worse than many of their international counterparts on academic tests—but think of themselves as being great, and much smarter than they really are. What self-esteem really is, is another liberal assault on a Christian virtue: namely, humility. We could all use a lot more of that.

No. 314 of 365

Pick a fight with a liberal on: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS.
Quote the "great"—and remember to use the air quotes—Walter Cronkite: "I think most newspaper men by definition have to be liberal; if they're not liberal, by my definition of it, they can hardly be good newspapermen."

No. 316 of 365

Tell a joke: Q. Why should liberals be buried 100 feet below the ground?

A. Because deep down they are really good people.

No. 318 of 365

Quote Competitive Enterprise Institute Founder Fred Smith Jr. "The threat posed by humans to the natural environment is nothing compared to the threat to humans posed by global environmental policy."

No. 319 of 365

Settle down your liberal friends for a festive game that will provide hours of fun. Give each of them a copy of the Obama administration's 86-page report (produced by Clinton-era appointees Togo West and Admiral Vernon Clark) on the Fort Hood massacre committed by an Islamist terrorist and see who can be the first to find a reference to Islam.

The grand fallacy of the administration’s
green energy compulsion

In the Obama administration’s great green energy scam the president has ignored or tried to over-power two economic factors. First, green energy is a luxury in an economic downturn, and second – and the more relevant factor – there is no significant free market demand for green energy.

Writing on, Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, notes the near manic devotion to all things green in the UK and Europe, documents what the economic downturn has done there, and notes that the green mania, in fact, contributed to their economic problems.

The first glimmers showed up a couple of years ago in Spain, he said. “The government — which [President Obama] cited as his environmental role model in his last presidential bid — sought to buy support with outrageous subsidies, in the form of power purchases, to anyone who put a solar panel on his roof in sunny Seville. The government spent much more than it took in [and] sold bonds it couldn’t back,” Mr. Michaels wrote, producing costs and debts far greater than the economic benefit obtained from the solar panels.

Then, in the United Kingdom a similar program produced the installation of tens of thousands of solar projects, since the Brits also appreciate a freebie when government offers it, even though the UK is one of the cloudiest places on the planet.

The wastefulness of these programs became apparent, Mr. Michaels wrote, when the economy turned downward, and Spain announced a 40 percent reduction in wind power subsidies; the European Commission is questioning the wisdom of its go-it-alone global warming policies, citing loss of economic competitiveness; the British government gave up on its expensive carbon capture and storage facility; and Japan is reconsidering cutting carbon dioxide by 25 percent in the next 8 years, because of the wealth drain the plan produced.

Meanwhile, President Obama threw away a half-billion of your dollars supporting a failing solar panel company he called the “true engine of economic growth,” and executives of which just happened to be some of his financial supporters. The Solyndra debacle put thousands of people out of work, and wasted $535 million. It was the second time in his two and one-half years in office that Mr. Obama put job creation behind his statist ideological goals.

However, to be fair, it is not accurate to say that the administration completely ignored job creation. Diana Furchtgott-Roth is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributed an article to discussing green jobs training sponsored by the US Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration. She writes: “As of June 30, ETA had awarded $490 million of the $500 million provided by Congress for the program. The funds were awarded to state workforce agencies, community colleges, and nonprofits. Green jobs were defined as those ‘associated with products and services that use renewable energy resources, reduce pollution, and conserve natural resources.’"

She explained that some workers had been trained in green jobs such as “hybrid- and electric-car auto mechanics, weatherization of buildings, and solar panel installation,” while others “received job referrals, training in basic workforce readiness skills, and credentials and support services to overcome employment barriers.”

However, the grantees had spent only $163 million, about one-third of available funds. And what do we have to show for that? After six months, Ms. Furchtgott-Roth stated, only 1,336 trainees were still employed, at a cost of $121,257 per job.

Anyone thinking about forcing the United States to abandon its reliance on traditional energy production methods using fossil fuels and to instead adopt green energy technology ought to first be aware of some fundamental conditions. In typical liberal fashion, however, the administration neglected to indulge in thinking past the most fundamental questions to see the difficulties of pushing Mr. Obama’s dream on the American people.

H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and policy intern Wesley Dwyer, explain the things the doctrinaire Mr. Obama and his fellow travelers either neglected to investigate, or simply ignored.

First, they tell us that green technologies come with strings attached. While the administration thinks the answer to our energy problems is solar and wind power, both rely on rare earth elements, solar on tellurium and wind on neodymium. As it turns out, these elements are scarce everywhere on Earth.

Except in China. Consequently, China has a near monopoly on tellurium, and that makes it virtually impossible for American solar manufacturers to compete with Chinese firms. (See Solyndra, above)

And, as it turns out, the magnets used in turbines use the rare earth element neodymium. General Electric is one of the leaders developing wind energy technologies, and has to purchase all of its neodymium from China.

In addition to being “luxury” energy and being so expensive and inefficient that it cannot develop market demand, green energy is dependent upon materials available to a very high degree from only one country. Contrast that with oil, natural gas and coal, all of which are fairly abundant in domestic reserves, which makes it both easier and less expensive to acquire them, and protects us from being held hostage by China.

Please leave a comment

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Crazy stuff

The city of Jacksonville, NC has passed an ordinance requiring pro-lifers in groups as small as 2 people to obtain a permit in order to pray outside the local abortion clinic. When pro-lifers gathered on the public sidewalk in front of the abortion clinic, the police asked them to move and sited the ordinance. When asked to justify the ordinance, the police chief cited safety concerns in case a car ran off the street, jumped the curb and hit one of the protesters.

* * * * *

A Minnesota congressman has proposed federal legislation that would impose his state’s type of voter registration – which leads the nation in voter fraud cases – on the other 49 states, according to critics who have launched online campaigns to make people aware of the dangers of Rep. Keith Ellison’s H.R. 3316 and its companion H.R. 3317.

In a commentary promoting his H.R. 3316, which would banish all photo identification requirements, and H.R. 3317, which would allow people to walk into a polling location, register and vote immediately, Ellison said his intent is to curb “voter suppression.”

“The Same Day Registration Act would require states to provide for same day voter registration for a federal election. The Voter Access Protection Act would make sure election officials cannot require photo identification in order to cast a vote or register to vote,” he said.

* * * * *

A couple discovered a thief in their home recently after a man told a joke and heard a laugh upstairs.

* * * * *

Occupy Oakland has voted to deposit $20,000 with Wells Fargo & Co., just days after Occupy protesters shattered windows of one of the bank's downtown Oakland branches during the group's attempt to stage a general strike in the city.

The decision was posted at Occupy Oakland's website for its general assembly. According to the link, the group made the decision to deposit the $20,000 with Wells at a meeting Monday night.
Wells Fargo quickly trumpeted the decision.

"If this report is true, it demonstrates that even Occupy Oakland understands -- first-hand – the value and service that Wells Fargo provides its customers," Wells Fargo spokesman Ruben Pulido said in an email to the Oakland Tribune.

* * * * *

Crazy stuff emanates from all over, including from people who live and work in the White House (who ought to know better).

For example, Vice President Joe Biden said the following at an event in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “The other thing I’ve heard from my friends who oppose this – this whole jobs bill and this – that this is just temporary," Biden said. "Well let me tell you, it’s not temporary when that 911 call comes in and a woman’s being raped if a cop shows up in time to prevent the rape, it’s not temporary to that woman. It’s not temporary to the guy whose store is being held up and a gun is being pointed to his head. If a cop shows up and he’s not killed, that’s not temporary to that store owner. Give me a break, temporary! I wish these guys that thought it was temporary, I wish they had some notion what it’s like to be on the other side of a gun or a 200 pound man standing over you telling you to submit. Folks, it matters. It matters!”

Not exactly, Joe. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

* * * * *

One of Barack Obama’s great gifts is the ability to say things that are absolutely absurd and make them sound not only plausible, but inspiring. – Dr. Thomas Sowell

“The Republican plan says that what’s been standing in the way between us and full employment are laws that keep companies from polluting as much as they want,” President Obama said in a speech at the regional airport in Asheville, NC. “On the other hand, our plan [Obama’s plan] puts teachers, construction workers, firefighters and police officers back on the job.”

“That’s my plan. Then you’ve got their plan, which is, let’s have dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance. So far at least, I feel better about my plan.”

Yes, that’s right. Republicans and conservatives want dirtier air and dirtier water for their children and spouses, and fewer people with health insurance, so that they will suffer and die sooner.

It is terribly disturbing that a President of the United States would stoop to such idiotic rhetoric. But it is downright scary that so many Americans believe that crap.

Please leave a comment