Common Sense Conservatism: Unemployment

New unemployment numbers are in, and the national rate held firm at 9.5% while the state with the worst rate broke its own record. Nevada, the hardest hit state in the nation when it comes to foreclosures and per capita bankruptcies, has led the nation in unemployment since it overtook Michigan in May. Unemployment in Nevada rose to 14.3% in July, while unemployment in Nevada’s largest city, Las Vegas, rose to 14.8%. July marks the 16th consecutive month Nevada’s unemployment rate has increased. Ignored in all of this is underemployment, which includes those who are working part-time due to a lack of full-time jobs, and is estimated at 18.4% nationally, and 21.5% in Nevada. Unemployment among teens is at 26.1%, while underemployment for African-Americans is estimated at 25% and unemployment for Black teens hit 40.6% in July.

In light of these facts, different people have different views on how to solve the problem. Democrats in Washington, along with President Obama, are committed to a strategy that includes stimulus packages and federal spending to boost the economy. Republicans in Washington disagree, and prefer options that include keeping taxes low and creating incentives for businesses to hire. These differences have turned into an ideological battle where Republicans call Democrats “socialists,” and “Marxists,” while Democrats call Republicans “obstructionists,” and “for the rich.” Name-calling may be an effective way to damage your opponent politically, but it doesn’t do much to educate Americans on the issues, or explain why there is such disagreement.

One of those points of disagreement is the extension of unemployment benefits. Every time Democrats try to pass bills to extend unemployment benefits, Republicans say “No.” And every time Republicans say “No,” they are labeled “insensitive,” “cold-hearted,” etc. So what’s wrong with Republicans? Why do they “hate the unemployed,” as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow claims?

Two things are important to consider here. First, Democrats passed H.R. 2920, the Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010 (PAYGO), in February. Under PAYGO, any new spending or tax cuts must be budget-neutral, or offset by cuts elsewhere (Read: New spending must be paid for before it is passed). Democrats in the House passed the unemployment extension without paying for it with an equivalent amount of cuts, ignoring their own statute, and blaming Republicans for wanting to follow it.

Second, many Americans currently receiving unemployment benefits today are doing so based on wages they were earning when the economy was much better. The result is that their unemployment earnings are often higher than jobs are currently paying. As an example, let’s say Mary was laid off in Nevada while making $700/week. She is currently receiving roughly $350 per week in unemployment benefits, just under the $362/week cap. Looking for work today, Mary may not accept a job unless it comes with a paycheck higher than her unemployment check. Currently in Nevada, minimum wage is $8.25/hr. for jobs that do not offer health insurance, and $7.25 for those that do. This means Mary needs to find a job that pays $8.75 in order to make more than unemployment pays her to stay home. That doesn’t factor in the cost to get to work, like gas for the car. Employers simply aren’t able to pay employees today the same wages as they did one or two years ago, and unemployed workers have no real incentive to take a job that doesn’t pay more than unemployment.

Now, when Democrats extend unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 99 weeks, which they have done, it enables people to remain on unemployment for close to two years. There’s no doubt that unemployment is needed, especially at a time when jobs are hard to find. However, I’ve seen many examples of people turning down jobs because they don’t pay as much as their unemployment benefits. To make matters worse, all you need to do to collect unemployment here in Nevada is visit a website weekly to file your claim. You have to answer some questions, but you never have to meet with anyone to prove you’re actually out looking for a job, let alone not turning them down. Nevada is practically bankrupt, and there’s virtually no accountability in the unemployment system.

So do Republicans “hate the unemployed,” as Rachel Maddow suggests? Or rather, do Republicans see the financial strain caused by indefinite unemployment benefits? Perhaps Republicans understand that revenues won’t return to state governments and profits won’t return to businesses until people start returning to work – and a 99-week safety net isn’t exactly motivation. Now unemployment is hardly a vacation. It’s demoralizing, and extremely challenging to make ends meet on such a meager income. However, there are jobs out there, and we need to make sure we are not rewarding people who pass them up to remain on unemployment. That part is not cold-hearted. It’s fiscally responsible.

Republicans are often hit hardest for favoring tax cuts and incentives for businesses. Democrats have convinced people that any benefits for businesses, small or large, only help rich people. However, the opposite is true. Small businesses in America represent 99.7% of all employers, and have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs over the last decade. If these businesses are not hiring today, it is because they are afraid to spend the money, not knowing what the future holds. Every tax we add to the shoulders of job creators in this country will result in more lay-offs, less new jobs, and higher costs passed on to consumers, all at the worst possible time.

Perhaps the most frustrating part of the unemployment issue is how Democrats have politicized it. Let’s be clear: Democrats have a super-majority in the House of Representatives. They can pass ANYTHING they want, as the Republicans do not have the votes to stop them. That means if Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats wanted to pass Polish as the official language of America, they COULD! PERIOD! In fact, the only reasons Democrats CAN’T pass everything they want is that conservative Democrats who won in the 2008 Obama wave now represent traditionally Republican districts, and don’t want to lose in November. So let’s get off this narrative that Republicans are obstructionists. The truth is that Democrats prefer to have Republicans support their unpopular bills like Health Care Reform, Cap and Trade, and others, so they’re not alone in receiving heat from voters come November. If listening to the American people is considered obstructionism, we have a problem.

I talked to a voter today who told me the Republican Party was “The Party of ‘No’,” and that they oppose everything President Obama tries to do because he’s black. Earlier this week, the following statistics were featured in a National Republican Senatorial Committee ad:

* 57% think Democrat Agenda is “extreme.” (Rasmussen Poll, 8/11/10)
* 60% favor repeal of ObamaCare. (Rasmussen Poll, 8/16/10)
* 56% disapprove of Obama’s job performance. (Rasmussen Poll, 8/16/10)
* 61% favor Arizona-like law in their state. (Rasmussen Poll, 7/8/10)
* 68% oppose Ground Zero Mosque. (CNN Poll, 8/11/10)
* 65% angry at Federal Government policies. (Rasmussen Poll, 8/16/10)
* 65% say America is on the wrong track. (Rasmussen Poll, 8/11/10)

With these numbers, why shouldn’t Republicans be “The Party of ‘No’?” This clearly illustrates that President Obama and the Democrats currently controlling Washington are in direct opposition to the American people, regardless of skin color.

But it’s not this voter’s fault she feels that way. It’s what the media has been telling her for two years, every chance they get. It’s the standard attack from the Democrat Party. Whether it’s the Mosque at Ground Zero, unemployment benefit extensions, terrorism, immigration, gay marriage, health care, energy issues, education issues – if a Republican has an opinion on it, he or she is labeled a:

Choose One: [racist, homophobe, xenophobe, elitist, bigot, Islamophobe, fearmonger, hatemonger, warmonger]

…who hates…

Choose One: [Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Muslims, the poor, children, women, the elderly, the middle-class]

Pay attention next time, and you’ll see it for yourself. The attack is always the same, and it is never based on the actual issue. That needs to change. We have to talk about the issues and work together to do what is best for our country. We need to educate voters on the issues, so Americans can make the right decisions based on accurate information. And we must start using logic, and not emotion, to determine the direction our country takes as we move forward.

As for unemployment, remember: The government has no money. The only money it has comes from taxpayers. When a private company creates a job it is paid for with profits. When the government creates one, it is paid for by YOU.

Hopeful Thinking

So what do you think about Biden’s remarks?

Vice President Joe Biden, rallying the home team as his party’s most energetic cheerleader, predicted Friday that Democrats would hold their majorities in the House and Senate this fall. Biden’s bold punditry came amid a spate of bad economic news and President Obama’s declining approval rating.

Speaking to the Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting in St. Louis, the vice president mocked the rival “Republican tea party,” which he said is “offering more of the past, but on steroids.” If “it weren’t illegal,” he said, ” I’d make book” on the odds of Democrats hanging on in the midterm elections this November……

Next Nov. 3, Biden predicted “there will be in Washington, D.C., a Democratic majority in the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate. That will be the case.” The anger of voters is understandable given the high joblessness and weak economic recovery, he said. But the vice president said he likes the odds when the choice is between Democrats and a “Republican tea party… out of step with where the American people are.”

I guess the question is……who is more out of step?  I really thought that the Democrats and the Obama administration were more “out of touch” with the American populace, but evidently, the Democrats are trying to make this into a Tea Party thing.  The Tea Party folks are obviously extremist (as Biden et al would claim) despite the fact that they are a multi-racial, independent group of folks just tired of Washington BS.

Biden’s remarks are just one of many declaring war on average Americans who are fed up with Washington types, defict spending and runaway federal government.  The Tea Party isn’t Republican.  It represents the first time in many years that ordinary Americans have asserted themselves against the ridiculous crap going on in DC.  Biden and his liberal ilk are making a serious mistake by alienating these people.  But I always love it when ole Joe opens his yap.  It’s better for us.

Liberals Getting Sloppier (Yes, it’s possible!)


The biggest hindrance to Democracy is untruth.  Especially when we are supposed to be able to rely on human decency and our media for information and objective opinion.  If liberals weren’t so sloppy at the lies they tell and tricks they pull, they could pose a real danger to our freedom.

The first example involved a “man” by the name of David Weigel who showed up at a political event held for Kentucky.  He posed as a racist Republican who was a supporter of Rand Paul.  But when the cameramen got word of his trick from the other side (members supporting the liberal actually bragged about what he was doing), the cameraman had a conversation with him both as a Rand Paul supporter and then caught him marching and chanting for the liberal later on that day. 

With so much emphasis liberals have placed on the Tea Party (not to mention the NAACP), you would think this story would show up somewhere on CNN.  Yes, I know millions of Americans are out of work, losing their homes, and Michelle is enjoying one heck of a taxpayer-funded getaway to Spain, but you’d think after all that has happened with regard to the Tea Party, they’d have time for such raw footage.

Rick Sanchez of CNN has the time to entertain a piece of “raw” video on Sarah Palin which was brought to light by an Alaskan blogger who has been obsessed with the Governor for the past three years. 

The video — which Palin herself has responded to on Facebook today — depicts Palin “rolling her eyes” at a “teacher” by the name of Kathleen Gustafson.  The “teacher” turned out to be a “theater tech” and sits on the Board of Directors of the town’s local “Family Planning Clinic.”

It’s funny knowing this and then listen to her begin by telling Palin she swore on her “precious Bible” to serve the state then implied that Palin left for personal gain.  If she’s a board-member of a Family Planning Clinic and uses the Bible in such an angry context, I find it hard to believe Ms. Gustafson was a Palin supporter to begin with. 

Then take into consideration that Gustafson lives in the same town of Homer, Alaska as Shannyn Moore does.  Shannyn Moore is President of the Palin Derangement Syndrome Society.  For years, she’s “investigated” the Governor (falsely said Palin was under investigation by the FBI and cried victim when Palin’s attorney threatened lawsuit for it) and has entertained Levi Johnston.  We all know by now how credible he turned out to be.

C’mon liberals!  Are we really supposed to believe that this woman — an unhinged lefty — was standing up and holding a sign that said “Worst Governor Ever!” and happened to be accompanied by her own cameraman and just happens to live in the same town as Shannyn Moore (population of Homer is just over 5,000) all by coincidence?

Immediately Shannyn Moore posted two articles on this, uploaded the video to youtube, copied and pasted her article to the Huffington Post (which drew over 10,000 comments from other lefties suffering from Palin Derangement Syndrome) and sent it to CNN.

This is the same woman who appeared on “Countdown” with Keith Olbermann where she was introduced to his regular 12 viewers.

The indignant “teacher” is not very impressive.  It is a well-documented fact that Palin-haters in Alaska filed numerous ethics violations costing taxpayers $2M and Palin $500K in defense fees.  She resigned to dis-empower them and give Alaska a Governor who could devote the time to them without those interruptions.  Somehow the “teacher” is unable to comprehend this and yet she wants us to believe that parents trust her with guiding their children?

This was Shannyn Moore’s weakest attempt at investigative blogging as it took conservative bloggers about three minutes to solve this.  The homely “Girl from Homer” is getting desperate.

CNN should report these developments but I won’t hold my breath.


As noted by “jerry” who I also believe is posing as “robert” on other conservative blogs, Gustafson does work for a school.  Though the title is “theater tech” as I stated before (hardly the reading-writing-arithmetic type).  And “jerry” denies Ms. Gustafson being President of the local family planning facility but does acknowledge she sits on the board. 

Since Shannyn Moore fought so hard for her right to report rumors when she was going around telling others that Palin was being investigated by the FBI, I have appropriately changed the paragraphs which questioned Gustafson’s teaching credentials. 

Lastly, she injected herself into the public arena by protesting and certainly should be subjected to the same scrutiny and specificity as Joe-the-Plumber was.

More Fuel In The Fire


I inserted the above vid so you guys can remember Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA).  She and Rep Charlie Rangel (D-NY) are the two latest poster-children of Democrat corruption in DC.  We’ve followed Rangel’s corruption lately, but Waters is next in line.

A second House Democrat, Rep. Maxine Waters of California, could face an ethics trial this fall, further complicating the election outlook for the party as it battles to retain its majority.People familiar with the investigation, who were not authorized to be quoted about charges before they are made public, say the allegations could be announced next week. The House ethics committee declined Friday to make any public statement on the matter.

Waters, 71, has been under investigation for a possible conflict of interest involving a bank that was seeking federal aid. Her husband owned stock in the bank and had served on its board……

Waters came under scrutiny after former Treasury Department officials said she helped arrange a meeting between regulators and executives at Boston-based OneUnited Bank without mentioning her husband’s financial ties to the institution.

Democrats mercilessly used US Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) and his scandal involving his pursuit of male Congressional pages as an issue in the 2006 Congressional elections.  Nevermind that Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) was chasing male aide ass.  That was glossed over, and he resigned.  Now Pelosi has Waters and Rangel. Nancy Pelosi swore that she would guide the most ethical congress in memory when she took over after those 2006 elections.  She was going to “drain the swamps.”  Yeah right!  There is so much ethically wrong about her boys and girls in Congress.  The question is – will the GOPers use this against her in the same manner that Foley was used against Republicans in 2006?

Congressional scandal has a major impact.  Rep. Dan Rostenkowsi (D-IL) and his bunch were riddled with scandal and were exposed.  That led to the 1994 GOP takeover in Congress.  Foley’s indiscretion coupled with Bush fatigue led to the Dem takeover in 2006.  Now we have the likes of Massa, Waters and Rangel (not to mention Sen. Roland Burris D-IL) on top of voter anger concerning Obama’s inept, criminal handling of this nation’s governance. This could be a tipping-point.

Issue In Alabama

Dick Morris lists Alabama US Rep. Bobby Bright as one of the”‘Dead Men Walking” (the  most vulnerable Democrats in the US House) in his book Take Back America.  Bright is a prime example of the deception created by Pelosi and her minions.  According to Morris, Bright supports the Dems 71% of the time.  Morris says,

Though he had a good record as mayor of Montgomery, Alabama, his major contribution to politics today is keeping the likes of Pelosi and Charlie Rangel in power – while doing his party leaders’ bidding more than two-thirds of the time.  He’s a liberal posing as a moderate to fool the voters into keeping him in office.

This is a district that voted 63% for McCain in 2008.  No need to keep Bright in power.    This from the Washington Post.

The reaction from the right is positive. “Bobby, I’m a Barry Goldwater right-wing conservative,” Kiwanis old-timer and retired Air Force officer Doug Speight said at the breakfast.

“I’m sorry to hear that,” Bright said.

“Well, I also support Bobby Bright,” Speight replied.

“Good man,” Bright said.

Speight, who queried the lawmaker on Arizona’s immigration law, said he likes Bright because he is a “Republican masquerading as a Democrat.”

Or more like a Democrat posing as a Republican in order to save his hide.  All the time, he is keeping Nancy in power.

Bright said Arizona’s new immigration law “attacks our Constitution” because, he says, it could encourage racial profiling. Yet his solution is not to fight the law in court, but to devote billions more in federal money to secure the border. “Arizona is right there on the front line,” he said. “They are experiencing horrible crime every day. Not just periodically, but every day. The people elected their local leaders to do something.”

Talking out of both sides of his mouth.  Support Pelosi’s embrace of illegals, but talk up a good game for the red necks.  The dude has spent too much time in DC.

Similarly, Bright won’t push to repeal the health-care law because measures he likes, such as protections for people with preexisting conditions, would be lost.


It amazes me that Bobby Bright is even in consideration.  The Cook Political Report  calls this a race a toss-up leaning Dem.  His challenger, Martha Roby, should be able to make some dents with GOP national support.  Bright’s statements concerning immigration and health care give Roby some fodder.

Roby’s website is  Give if you can.  Bobby Bright is a pretender.  It’s frustrating that people like him who propose to support conservative values – elect Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker.  Bright is a phony.  He is a politician beholden to his party.  Imagine the smoke-filled backroom.  He is there.  Pelosi tells him – “It’s ok to vote against me sometimes as long as you keep me in power.”

Folks in Alabama 2 – don’t kid yourselves.  This is the worst kind of politician imaginable.  He is a whore – only concerned with his own well-being while playing lip-service to your conservative values.  Vote him the hell out of office.

Libertarian Pacifism: A Pacifism by Any Other Name Wouldn’t Smell as Sweet

Note:  This post is not aimed at all Libertarians.  There are some Libertarians who are not pacifist.  I am only discussing those who advocate pacifism while hiding behind the Constitution.  I am in agreement with many who state that wars should be declared and stated with a clear purpose by our government; to do anything less and drag a war out longer than necessary is, in and of itself, immoral.  This post isn’t meant to be a discussion on war-gaming.  It is, instead, a philosophical post.

Ayn Rand correctly identified the source of all conflicts in the world when she said:

Wars are the second greatest evil that human societies can perpetrate. (The first is dictatorship, the enslavement of their own citizens, which is the cause of wars.)

As long as there are societies on earth who endorse collectivism or dictatorships in any form, whether secular or theocratic, then there will always be wars.  Collectivism is any system of governance defined as that which demands the sacrifice of the individual to the collective with altruism (or in some cases simply the psychosis of its dictator) as its justification. 

My inspiration for this post came after reading an article entitled Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.  Mr. DiLorenzo utilizes the term “Neo-con” quite a bit.  I want to state upfront that the proliferation of all these new terms, Neo-Con, Neo-Liberal, Neo-Keynesian, Neo-Communist, Neo-Fascist, are simply attempts at continued muddying of the real argument which is between collectivism vs. individualism.  That is the only descriptive consideration that matters when discussing man’s inalienable right to be free; the rest is simply meant to confuse people’s minds and complicate the issues.

Let’s be frank–there is no discernible difference between Libertarian pacifism and Left-Wing pacifism.  Pacifism is pacifism and the justifications for it no matter from which group it arises are equally misguided.  Ayn Rand had this to say about pacifism:

The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.

Leftists justify their pacifism usually by intoning their committment to peace.  Peace cannot be achieved by the absence of all conflict.  It can only be achieved by the destruction of all collectivism.  Human existence is defined by conflict; the hiring of one person over another who is better qualified, the victory of this hockey team over that hockey team, the victim of a robbery or rape who pulls his gun against his victimizer in order to defend the value which is his or her’s continued existence.  Those who wish to pretend that in order to live one’s life by trying to ignore conflict simply because they don’t like it–will never learn how to achieve the greatest value of all which is their life and by default their happiness. 

Pacifist Libertarians tend to justify their pacifism on the grounds that all cultures are equally valuable and have the right to exist on their own terms without interference from other cultures.  However, the notion of multiculturalism is equally flawed in its premises.  The idea that all cultures are equal in their value necessarily demands that you therefore believe all collectivist cultures have value.  You cannot claim, as many Libertarians do, to stand for individual freedom while at the same time trying to justify the existence of collectivist cultures; that is called “wanting to have your cake and eat it too.”  That is a demand reality imposes on any individual who wants to stand for individual freedom.

From the article Diversity and Multiculturalism:  The New Racism at The Ayn Rand Institute:

Advocates of “diversity” are true racists in the basic meaning of that term: they see the world through colored lenses, colored by race and gender. To the multiculturalist, race is what counts—for values, for thinking, for human identity in general. No wonder racism is increasing: color blindness is now considered evil, if not impossible. No wonder people don’t treat each other as individuals: to the multiculturalist, they aren’t.

Advocates of “diversity” claim it will teach students to tolerate and celebrate their differences. But the “differences” they have in mind are racial differences, which means we’re being urged to glorify race, which means we’re being asked to institutionalize separatism. “Racial identity” erects an unbridgeable gulf between people, as though they were different species, with nothing fundamental in common. If that were true—if “racial identity” determined one’s values and thinking methods—there would be no possibility for understanding or cooperation among people of different races.

Some ask, “What about America’s melting-pot?  Isn’t that multiculturalism?”  No.  It’s not.  America was devised by its Founders to elevate the individual over the government.  All other nations throughout history elevated the government over the individual.  Freedom of the individual over the government provides a country where all men, of all cultures, backgrounds, and religions come to be free “as individuals” within the American culture of individual freedom.  Can they uphold their roots and honor and celebrate them?  Absolutely.  But, America is not defined by those various cultural roots–she is defined by the individual which is, in and of itself, a “culture.”

I will agree with Mr. DiLorenzo’s statements, as well as Ms. Rand’s statements, that many times war is used to justify the theft of liberty by a nation against its own people.  He says:

Of course, all of this high-handed talk about the Republican Party supposedly being “the party of great moral ideas” is also a convenient smokescreen for the economic greed that is its real motivation, and has been ever since the party first gained power. As Rothbard further explained: “On the economic level, the Republicans [in 1860] adopted the Whig program of statism and big government: protective tariffs, subsidies to big business, strong central government, large-scale public works, and cheap credit spurred by government.” It hasn’t changed much since.

I am in complete agreement with this assessment; both parties are guilty of crony capitalism which is the politically correct term for Fascism.  The only difference is–the Democrats are more open about it while the Republicans like to pretend they are not engaged in it.  Presidents Wilson, FDR and George W. Bush, to name a few, were all guilty of growing government under their administrations during a time of war.  I have no argument with that assertion.  What I do challenge is the notion that a  nation’s citizens cannot demand limited government at home, which necessarily entails separation of the state and economics for the same reasons and same purpose we have separation of church and state, while at the same time protecting itself from threats over-seas.  Many Libertarians say that’s what they want too but then reveal themselves by saying the phrase “protecting itself from threats over-seas” means “bring the troops home from everywhere and cease and desist active conflict”.  Yes.  That’s called “pacifism”.  If you are not actively fighting but instead you are sitting on your weapons–that is pacifism.  If your enemy has already declared war (which the Islamists have) and you are not acknowledging the need to fight back actively–that is pacifism.  If you are not fighting–you are being “passive.”     

What complicates America’s situation is–we are not living in a fully free society under true laissez-fair capitalism.  That is the reason we keep growing government every time we find it necessary to wage a battle against collectivist threats from elsewhere.  I submit, it most certainly is possible to have and maintain limited government and fight necessary wars against collectivists who threaten their free-state neighbors.  The pacifist Libertarians promote the false premise that war must necessarily equal big-government.  These are mutually exclusive concepts; they are not dependent on each other for their existence–necessarily.  A free-nation can remain an economically free nation under laissez-faire capitalism and fight a war to defend itself; the keyword is defend —in other words–not subjugate–which is what tyrannical nations feel it necessary to do against their neighbors when losing their grip on power.  The promotion of the idea that a free nation engaged in a war to defend itself will necessarily result in the growth of its government–is simply a false premise.  Whether that free nation’s leaders grow government or not is another matter entirely and those issues can be dealt with apart from the issue of war itself.

Another aspect that is problematic for America is that we have spread ourselves too thin.  I am in complete agreement with most Libertarians who assert we have too many troops stationed in too many areas of the world where we should no longer be; the Middle East is not one of them, however.  There is no discernible difference between Adolph Hitler, a secular collectivist, and the collectivist theocratic tyrants of the Middle East.  Hitler was driven by national socialism and his irrational hatred for the Jews.  The collectivist theocrats of the Middle East are driven, not only for their hatred of Israel (take note also a free-society–though with a similarly mixed economy like the U.S.), but also by the notion they are doing the will of their God by fighting the infidels for the purpose of creating the conditions of the return of the Twelfth Imam.  Libertarians often state that the Islamists hate us because we are “occupying their land”–but, they rarely, if ever, address the theocratic reasons the Islamists give us in their own words as to why they are fighting us.  Usually the Libertarian will just say, “Those are just words” or “That’s just an excuse”.  Ironically, those are the same excuses the Left-Wing pacifists give in regards to their reasons for upholding pacifist ideas.

All collectivist societies need war to uphold their control on their populations.  That is why it is so imperative that America beat back the march towards statism in our own country and restore true laissez-fair capitalism as opposed to the mixed disaster we currently employ.  If America’s leaders are indeed using war as an excuse to uphold crony capitalism then that is an issue we as citizens need to confront them with; it doesn’t necessarily translate into “therefore, we can’t fight necessary wars anymore.”  From Ayn Rand:

Observe that the major wars of history were started by the more controlled economies of the time against the freer ones. For instance, World War I was started by monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia, who dragged in their freer allies. World War II was started by the alliance of Nazi Germany with Soviet Russia and their joint attack on Poland.

By no means am I implying that it is the duty of America to transform all of the collectivist societies of the world into bastions of free-market capitalism–no matter how appealing that notion may be.  In fact, that is the only way there ever will be peace in the world–the supremacy of free capitalist societies upholding freedom of the individual.  What I am saying, however, is that it is the duty of the American government, indeed it is the one primary duty of any government of a free-society, to protect its citizens from collectivist tyrants who now need to turn their attention to warring with the free-societies around them in order to maintain their power and hold over their own citizens.  By no means am I even suggesting that the citizens of our country who do have problems with armed conflict from a moral or religious perspective should not be allowed to reserve their tax dollars from being used for that purpose just as those who don’t approve of abortion shouldn’t be forced to have their tax dollars used for that purpose.  However, we do not have that ideal system at the moment and that is a discussion for another time.

Pacifism is driven by guilt over the necessity of justifiable war.  It is an unearned guilt.  Many people are driven in their objection to war by the deaths of “innocent” people.  The truth of the matter is, any “innocent” deaths created in the Middle East by America and it’s allies–i.e. other free-societies–are not on the heads of America and its allies.  The deaths of those people are on the heads of the tyrannical collectivists who enslaved their people to begin with.  A free-nation, just as a free-individual, has the right to protect itself from the force of others who would impose their tyrannical will.  The death of innocent people in a war is no different than that of a woman stepping between you and the mugger you were aiming your gun at and who happened to get shot in the cross-fire.  The mugger’s death is called justice.  The woman’s death is called an “accident” and the guilt of that accidental death is not on the head of the one defending himself but instead lies with the mugger. Whether tyrannical force stems from a tyrannical dictator against it’s more free neighbors or from a mugger in Central Park against a jogger–is irrelevant.  The morality and ethics of the two situations are the same; and it always, without exception, boils down to the individual over the collective, and since capitalism is the only economic system which upholds the freedom of the individual it is only capitalism that can save the world from the constant threat of war.  From Capitalism:  The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand:

     Observe the nature of today’s alleged peace movements.  Professing love and concern for the survival of mankind, they keep screaming that the nuclear-weapons race should be stopped, that armed force should be abolished as a means of settling disputes among nations, and that war should be outlawed in the name of humanity.  Yet these same peace movements do not oppose dictatorships; the political views of their members range through all shades of the statist spectrum, from welfare statism to socialism to fascism to communism.  This means that they are opposed to the use of coercion by one nation against another, but not by the government of a nation against its own citizens; it means that they are opposed to the use of force against armed adversaries, but not against the disarmed.

It is those who, like our friends Cindy Sheehan and Sean Penn, uphold collectivist economics, socialism, communism, or fascism while at the same time preaching peace.  They hold the incorrect premise that we have wars because various populations are poor or subjugated by the more free societies.  Free societies under laissez-fair capitalism have no “need” for war since their citizens and government have plenty of creative fuel on which to draw derived from the very freedom of its citizens.  It is Cindy and Sean who are the hypocrites.  It is they who want to “have their cake and eat it too.”  Reality, from a philosophical perspective, cannot and will not ever allow opposing ideas to occupy the same philosophical space.  They want peace–but, they promote tyranny; and it will always be the reality of that dichotomy that will not let them, in the end, have their way.  It is they who are promoting tyranny.  It is they who stand with the likes of Hugo Chavez.  It is they who, by virtue of what they advocate, are actually continuing that which they say they hate the most–war.

The Big O

I posted here not too long ago about the MSM and liberals seeking to actively ignore the stupid things that Obama and his minions have said and done. Sheila “where are the pictures of the US flag on Mars” Jackson Lee (D-TX) has said so many idiotic things by now that I just weep for my home state when she opens her mouth. Hillary Clinton, with all the millions of dollars to spend on staff that one could ask for, couldn’t find anybody to help them translate the word “reset” into Russian properly and came off looking like a bumbling fool. Joe Biden doesn’t even have to flex his vocal chords anymore; if he merely opens his mouth, his foot lands in it.

Liberals have made much ado about Sarah Palin supposedly being an idiot. Pretty much the only two things they can point to are one interview in which she referred to Africa as a country – a faux pas we don’t actually have video footage of, at least not that I can find – and a later interview in which she couldn’t answer a question about which magazines she read to get her news. Hell, I couldn’t answer that question…I rarely read hard copy of anything these days. That’s what the Associated Press is online for!

Despite Obama saying he’d visited 57 states, mispronouncing “corpsman” twice, including in front of a group of sailors, not remembering the name of the soldier on the KIA bracelet he wore during the campaign (and has since disappeared), and making inappropriate jokes about the Special Olympics on Letterman, the liberals still think he’s endowed with intelligence that we cannot fathom.

And then…there’s this:


Better yet, there’s this:



I’m beginning to think there’s no hope for liberals. Logic really isn’t that difficult. It simply requires shutting off your emotions long enough to string together a series of coherent thoughts that don’t include the words, “conservatives are racist, hatemongering idiots!”

Why do I call him the Big O? Because members of the press, while traveling with him during his campaign, fawned over him like groupies backstage at a Nickelback concert. They all but threw their underwear at him. The videos I saw were just about the most gag-inducing display of superstar worship I think I’ve ever seen.

The Great American Double Standard, Redux

Just when I thought liberal Democrats couldn’t possibly be any more two-faced…

Linda McMahon, wife of WWE magnate Vince McMahon and a participant with both him and their daughter in the spectacle, is currently running as the GOP candidate in Connecticut. Today it has been reported that the state’s Democratic PAC has formed a new group: “Mothers Opposing McMahon.”

First of all, I’m not a wrestling fan. It’s fake. It’s a testosterone-soaked version of the longest soap opera ever and just seeing the commercials makes me gag on my own rising bile. Those who do watch it are not attractive to me in the least. The fact that it’s all a put-on aside, the “sport” (as Fox News described it…sarcasm?) is degrading to women and is marketed to children, finding the most popularity among young boys, girls who wish they were boys, and adult males who have little to no education and can’t tell that it’s fake. It’s one of the biggest embarrassments in American culture.

(To answer the question I know is on everyone’s mind, yes, I still support their right to do it.)

That said…McMahon’s spokesman Shawn McCoy fired back, but not in the way I would have expected: “I don’t think anybody considers it particularly newsworthy that a handful of Democratic operatives and activists held a press conference to announce they were not supporting the Republican candidate. The press conference was organized and paid for, after all, by the state Democratic Party.”

Oh, my. Shawn…I’m about to school you in how to deal with a liberal. The RIGHT WAY.

The entire premise of their argument is that McMahon is unfit because of her participation in WWE, her daughter’s participation (including one episode where she slapped her daughter), and the degradation of women that goes on in the sport. Their video shows several clips of WWE “fights” in which women are made to crawl on all fours, bark, strip, and are viciously beaten by men. Between each clip is a complaint – about degrading women, violence against women, how Linda marketed it to children – meant to tear McMahon down by claiming that she has participated in such events.

With such a vast plethora of comebacks, the best her spokesman could come up with was some low-brow “Democratic conspiracy” retort?

Let’s talk about how much liberals and Democrats care about women’s rights and dignity.

Islamic Sharia objectifies women. It makes us property. In many different ways it literally says that women are intrinsically evil, we are all whores, we were put on Earth by satan to tempt perfect men, and that men are 100% more believable than women because of this. Women are to remain covered from head to foot at all times. According to Sharia, we’re not allowed to wear makeup, wear any manner of form-fitting clothing or, in more extreme cases, even get an education. That might help us become more inventive about tempting men, you see. If a woman is raped, she isn’t a victim; she is the perpetrator, and such a crime is often worthy of a mixture of lashes and prison. A woman does not dare accuse her husband of adultery – she would have to answer questions about why she isn’t giving him what he wants, making him look elsewhere for it. If a woman is accused by her husband, all he needs is two friends willing to lie in testimony and she can be executed – by stoning.

Where has the liberal outrage been over these bass-ackwards laws? Oh, yeah, that’s right…it’s their culture. Allah forbid we tell anybody that their culture is wrong, especially not these poor people. We owe them for Afghanistan and Iraq. They’ll defend the Palestinians despite nearly 8,000 rockets being fired into Israeli civilian homes, schools and businesses. Code Pink will lambast anybody calling themselves a Republican for supposed war crimes but they won’t utter one syllable against Islam for turning women into animals.

Sarah Palin is a fantastic example. Democrats and hard-left liberals had no trouble at all trashing her and her family. Much was made of Sarah’s newborn son Trig. Democrats ripped into that with rumors that Trig was actually daughter Bristol’s, and that Sarah was faking it so the family could save face with their uber-conservative constituents. Then, when it was discovered that Bristol really was preggers and was unmarried, it ruled out that rumor, so the real brutality began. They bashed Sarah for not having an abortion when they knew that Trig would be a special-needs child. David Letterman made lewd jokes about Sarah’s daughters being hit on by Yankees players. Obama made a crude reference to lipstick on a pig. Democrats themselves perpetrated these social crimes and not once did we hear a single one of their number say it was wrong.

They’ll engage in degrading remarks and acts against women and even defend them when it suits their purposes. Now that Linda McMahon is entering a race on the GOP ticket, they’re all over that self-righteousness about the dignity of women.

The duplicity is astounding.

Clinton’s Glaring Hypocrisy

When he was the president, we found out that he’d smoked weed as a youngster. When faced with the prospect of an American public that largely frowned upon illegal drug use, particularly after Nancy Reagan’s spectacular “Just Say No” campaign, he had to answer the allegations. He said he’d tried it – “but I never inhaled,” came the now-infamous reply. It was then that we got a glimpse into the real Bill Clinton: the consummate lawyer, willing to bend or twist anything that was said or done so that it didn’t look so bad.

Later things got worse. His philandering ways, touted to the press by two of the very women he’d victimized, were bantered about and questioned by Democrats and Republicans alike. Then a quiet rumble started that he hadn’t grown up; his misdeeds had continued right under Hillary’s nose. Rumor had it that he’d had a sexual affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. He stood up at a press conference and told all of America, with great conviction, “I did NOT…have…sexual relations with that woman – miss Lewinsky.” Later on it came out that she’d performed fellatio on him multiple times and he’d put a cigar in a place a cigar was never meant to go – then put it in his mouth. (What cracks me up about that are all the liberal anti-Bush protest signs that called for someone to give Bush a blow job so he could be impeached…that had almost nothing to do with it. He was impeached under accusation of perjury, not for his outrageous inability to keep it in his pants.)

During his campaign, he promised to end the military’s ban on gay and lesbian soldiers serving. Instead, once he was elected we got DADT and not so much as an apology. We just got excuses. Then Clinton, that stalwart champion of gay rights, signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law, all but guaranteeing homosexuals would never see their relationships recognized legally by the federal government. Oh, but he cared sooooo much about his gay and lesbian constituents. He was just determined to see that we were no longer second-class citizens. Good G-d, Ronald Reagan didn’t sign a single piece of anti-gay legislation into law and many of the gays I knew at the time he passed on celebrated his death with champagne!

Last year, Clinton said in an interview that if he’d still been in office the financial meltdown wouldn’t have happened. He blamed de-regulation on Republican Phil Gramm. Gramm did help write and push the legislation, but it couldn’t have been signed into law without Clinton’s approval – and he signed it on the first go. It’s been argued right here on this blog that Clinton only did it because he faced a “veto-proof majority.” I say horsehockey. Where was the protest? If that was the case, why didn’t he veto it and force the Republicans to hold an override vote? When you’re the president and you don’t believe in what Congress is giving you to sign into law (or remove from law, as it were), you don’t just give up when it looks bad. You stick to your guns so that everyone knows exactly what you think. That way, later on you can’t claim that it wasn’t clear what your stance was or what you would have done.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall has been partially blamed for the current crisis we’re in. That law would have stopped banks from taking far too many risks. The Community Reinvestment Act had already put us on the path; repealing Glass-Steagall, I think, hit the accelerator. Democrats worked alongside Republicans on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Nobody gave it much opposition. In light of that, I’m curious to know what Clinton would have done with Barney Frank, who was sleeping with the head of Freddie Mac at the time and dismissed then-president Bush’s speech about the perils that were about to befall us (not that I’m giving Bush a pass, he should’ve had a better contingency plan in place than TARP).

Today, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) was laid to rest. He passed on at age 92. Bill Clinton stood to eulogize him and said, quote, “He once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollows from West Virginia. He was trying to get elected.” His words bring yet more hypocrisy forth. Byrd didn’t join the KKK because he was trying to get elected; he founded the Crab Orchard chapter himself, collected dues and fees for robes, and was summarily voted the head of the chapter by the group he’d formed. THAT was when one of the new members told him that he needed to get into politics – something he himself said he’d not thought of before.

When Strom Thurmond passed away, the headline in the New York Times read, “Strom Thurmond, Foe of Integration, Dies at 100.” This week, the headline read, “Robert Byrd, Pillar of the Senate, Dies at 92.” It is a hypocrisy that we should not tolerate, yet we will. Even the NAACP gave Byrd a pass, but they never gave one to Thurmond. Byrd once wrote in a letter to a fellow senator, “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

What was Thurmond’s big controversy? Well, it wasn’t the deep-seeded racism of Byrd. At least he never called another human being a “mongrel”. He, like Byrd, voted against desegregation. Get that? BOTH OF THEM VOTED AGAINST IT. Byrd was also quite vociferously against Clinton’s desire to allow us to serve openly in the military. Of DOMA, he said, “The drive for same-sex marriage is, in effect, an effort to make a sneak attack on society by encoding this aberrant behavior in legal form before society itself has decided it should be legal…Let us defend the oldest institution, the institution of marriage between male and female as set forth in the Holy Bible.” And the gay elite still call ME a self-loathing closet case for refusing to be a liberal Democrat? You must be joking.

Yet today, Bill Clinton proved as useless and as incapable of providing honest facts as he ever has been. He, along with all other Democrats, was willing to give Byrd a pass but they were never willing to give Thurmond a pass. The uproar of Democrats who harbored deep resentment of Republicans (at least in part) cost Trent Lott the Majority Leader post not long before Thurmond passed on.

Byrd is okay, though. And Clinton will never be held to account for his lies.

That Smarts!

I thought I’d seen it all. I am now sitting in stunned disbelief that the stupidity of liberalism has been challenged once more.

Peggy West, the 12th district representative of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors, didn’t bother just putting her foot in her mouth. Joe “this is a big effing deal” Biden does not have the accuracy that this woman does to score a direct hit between her tonsils. In a Board meeting to discuss Arizona’s SB 1070, West actually made the statement that Arizona is “a ways removed from the border.” No kidding. She actually said it. 6th district representative Joseph Rice seems to have needed to do everything in his power not to fall into fits of hysterical laughter as he does his best to give her a professional, friendly geography lesson:


Sad, isn’t it? Considering Arizona’s famously sweltering heat, it’s hard to imagine how any American can be so poor at geography that they can make a mistake this egregious. Arizona Senator John Kyl gave the best smackdown ever: he sent the good Supervisor a map. At least she knows how to Google it. That ought to tell her everything she needs to know.

Every time a liberal does something stupid, all I can think of are all the unforgiven faux pas made by conservatives in the past. To this day, I have not heard a liberal stop making fun of Dan Quayle’s “potatoe”. When Sarah Palin referred to Africa as a country, even though she may have meant to say continent or may have been referring to South Africa, liberals the world over jumped on it with both feet and still harp on it. Simply because of that, she’s a complete moron and to liberals that is a mortal sin.

In just a year and a half, though, we’ve lost track of the number of amazing blunders made by this extremely intelligent and talented liberal administration. Lest we forget…

New Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wanted to make an impression not only on the Russians but on the whole world by presenting Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov with a gag “reset” button – the only problem was that they put the wrong word on it. They actually had the Russian word for “overcharge” printed on it:


From saying that Roosevelt “got on TV” during the Great Depression to asking a disabled, wheelchair-bound veteran to stand at a campaign rally, Joe Biden has made so many dipshit gaffes that there are multiple video clip compilations on him:


Here’s the perfectly-articulated while horribly mispronounced “corpsman”. Not once, but TWICE – from Obama, that super-educated community organizer:



Not to be outdone, here’s Obama again…notice how he pauses to think about this before saying he’s visited “fifty….uh, seven” states:


Way back when I was a kid newly-elected president Bill Clinton and vice president Al Gore visited Monticello. This was back in 1993, and the single video that captured this gaffe fell down the same copyright rabbit hole that swallowed the Reginald Denny beating. Gore pointed at detailed wood-carved busts of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Paul Jones and Gilbert du Motier, the Marquis de Lafayette and said, with a straight face, “who are these guys?” I remember seeing it on the news and turning to my dad in complete incredulity, saying, “how can the vice president not know who they are?!?” I had never visited Monticello at that point in my life, but even at the age of 14 my father had deemed history so important that I knew exactly who they were.

Just remember, ladies and gentlemen…these are the intelligent people who the media would have us believe are going to save us all from ourselves. If a conservative administration had made this incredible mish-mash of glaring errors they’d have been tarred and feathered.