I Would Love to See This Guy Have the Balls to Write Something Like this About Islam

Larry Doyle of the Huffington Post wrote a hate filled pathetic article calling Catholicism a cult which engages in cannibalism, amongst other things, in order to criticize Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum. I'm not bringing attention to this to say that he can't say this sort of thing, it is a private website and it can spew whatever hatred it wants. I'd just like to make the point that a) Christianity is the acceptable whipping boy of the left, which holds up abortion as a sacrament, admires atheism, irreligion and moral incertitude; and b) Mr. Doyle would never dare say this kind of thing about Islam, because he would fear for his life, meaning his rant is not particularly courageous or bold, only stupid. Whether or not the Huffington Post should apologize is up to them. Even the President feels multiple apologies were necessary in the face of the destruction of Korans as Afghans execute American soldiers and riot in the streets killing their own people as well. Everyone remember Salman Rushdie?

Call Me Old Fashioned, But Maybe You Should Just Stop Having Sex

A Georgetown law school student (paying $63,000.00 in tuition) testified to Congress how horrible it is that she doesn't get free contraception under her health insurance program. Maybe she should just stop screwing and the same for her partner. What idiotic world do we live in that suddenly contraception is a right? Have sex all you want, but there are consequences to every action and contraception is a product, not a right. Why is Congress even wasting time listening to this crap? Oh, yeah, President Obama has decided it's a right. For a supposed constitutional scholar, he may want to read the document some time.

French is Now the Official Language of the Democratic Party

The French are known for, and proud of, the "barricade tradition" and protests. Students and unions in France often call for general strikes to cripple the country whenever their bread is stale or the dryer didn't quite get their socks dry enough. The Democrats appear to have adopted this tradition whole-heartedly. First, the Wisconsin Democrats fled the state to avoid a vote on provisions limiting the bargaining power of public employee unions. Then, Democrats fleed from Indiana (strangely apparently vacationing with the Wisconsin Democrats) to avoid a right to work bill that would prevent unions from forcing employees in certain occupations to join and pay dues (notice the theme of group rights (union) over individual rights (employee)). Now, nearly a year later, Iowa Democrats have decided not to stay in Iowa to avoid a vote on two bills, one which would enshrine the language of the Second Amendment in the State Constitution (GASP!!!!) and allow people to use guns in defense of mortal threat and violent felonies (FOR SHAME!!!!) (strangely, being against these concepts fits right in with the French tradition of gun ownership being only for criminals and elites).

So I say, "Vive, les stupides!" It makes me wonder why liberals got upset when Congressman Alan West (R. Fla.) said they could take their message outside the United States. It seems in keeping with their traditions at this point. I'm almost giddy at the thought of a Republican Congress resulting in former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D. Cal.) threatening to leave the United States to block legislation.

I'm Holding Out for President Obama's Red Bull Energy Policy, Because Then I Can Mix it With Jaeger

This is actually about a week old, but Charles Krauthammer's commentary on President Obama's algae alternative fuel speech is classic. I'm reminded of a scene from the cartoon Futurama where a stock broker gets hit on the head and tells his client to buy waffles. That's probably a more practical idea than saying algae is a better short term energy solution than opening up federal lands to drilling.

Oh, and if you haven't been paying attention, despite President Obama's claims that production is up in the United States (which is accurate), to say that he deserves credit for this borders on a psychotic need to lie. Under President Obama, lands controlled by the federal government have declined steeply as leases and permits have been slowed and revoked. Let's not forget, this President has so little respect for the other branches of government that he was held in contempt of court not once, but twice, for continuing what I like to call the Moronatorium, to cut of production in the Gulf.

This is a man whose Secretary of Energy, Stephen Chu (living proof that physicists should be required to have real jobs first or at least read Milton Freidman), wants to raise gas prices to the level of Europe, i.e. $7-8 per gallon. This is a man who said his energy policy would necessarily make the cost of electricity skyrocket.

Luckily, he's a champion of the poor and middle class, who apparently don't use gasoline or electricity. By the way, if he wants everyone driving electric (i.e. coal powered) cars, and electricity rates would skyrocket under his cap and trade ideas right along with gas prices...logic fails me on this one. Actually, it doesn't, logic fails him and those who would support him.

Can I Have That Straight, Without the Twist

As I often enjoy....wait, enjoy is the wrong word...as I often do, because if you don't read every side of an argument, you're the most likely one to say something stupid, I was perusing the left hand side of the media realm this evening and stumbled across a pretty decent 3/4 of an article on the Huffington Post. It wasn't that long ago that Arianna Huffington was a darling of the conservative movement, appearing on, of all things, Bill Maher's libertarian leaning show on ABC, Politically Incorrect. That was apparently before both of them became pod people and discarded independent thought for Statist dogma.

In any case, I was reading this article regarding Rick Santorum's comments on JFK's speech on separation of church and state and I'll be darned if I didn't agree with almost every bit of it until the tail end. I've written several times about the questionable proposition of an actual separation of church and state (or the language supporting such an idea), as it defies the actual language in the Constitution, as is pointed out by the author of this article as well as he rightly points out that after the passage of the Constitution, some states had official religions. After all, we have also recently had a decision that effectively says religious discrimination is appropriate for churches. It is the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE, that the federal government should not establish a religion.

We may all remember that many of the original colonists came to the West to escape religious persecution because the Anglican Church (not Catholic mind you) was the official church of England (as apparently Henry VIII didn't much care for being confined to hell because of the Pope, so he executed his wives rather than divorce).

Yet, at the end of this well reasoned article, the author turns to the unreasoned and unsupported proposition that the First Amendment was meant to shield the United States from Catholicism. He further concludes that the First Amendment is not a constraint on government, but rather the Catholic church.

Such a conclusion is ludicrous. We cannot twist the facts to come to conclusions which simply serve our own purposes. We have to be honest and straight or this nation will fail.

The Party of Division and Race Baiting Launches Another Class Based Salvo

To celebrate Black History Month, President Barack Obama has launched his "African Americans for Barack Obama" campaign, urging blacks to volunteer and help out his campaign.  Particularly irksome is his plea to have African Americans pressure their local churches to support his campaign, especially given that advocacy of a particular candidate or party is a violation of the tax exempt status of churches.  As with most Statists, President Obama doesn't see individuals, he sees groups and voting blocs.  I wonder what would happen if Mitt Romney announced his "Whites for Romney" initiative?  

There is nothing more damaging to this country than the movement towards groups over individuals.  Statists believe that the group has rights, not the individual.  That's why it makes sense to President Obama and his administration that women as a group somehow have a right to be provided free "day after" abortion pills while the individual who's religious freedom is imposed upon must be forced to provide the very product that violates their conscience.

But then, I have to say, when it comes to actions taken by President Obama, if its color he sees, color me unsurprised.

The Unabashed Hypocrisy of the President

Two stories in the Washington Examiner came to my attention today and show a great example of the President's attitude of hypocrisy. The first story noted that the President's campaign promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term is still being touted on his website, despite the fact that his proposed budget for the coming year actually increases deficit spending from the first year of his presidency. This despite the President having shown absolutely no inclination to reduce government growth. I still hate promises to cut deficit spending though, since they essentially amount to saying that you promise to spend not quite as much money that you don't have.

The second story notes that, as the President rallied with union workers at a Washington Boeing plant, he praised Boeing's opening of a South Carolina plant that his NLRB sued to try and force them to open in a state that would require union membership at the plant. South Carolina is a right to work state, so the unions can't force every hire to join and automatically donate to the union. The NLRB had brought the suit on behalf of the Washington union which had been causing problems for that Boeing plant due to their machinist strikes. You have to love an organization that shuts down your business then complains when you prefer to deal with someone else so that you can continue to do your business. That's like a supplier refusing to sell you parts then suing when you buy parts from another supplier. See Unions are no longer pro-labor, they are only pro-organized labor.

In either case, I think both of these stories give a bit of insight on the hypocrisy of this President and his lack of respect for the intelligence of the average person that he will so blatantly promote positions he clearly doesn't support as long as it benefits him.

President Obama's Suicide Pact with America

President Obama released his proposed budget for 2013 recently. Let's just say it seems familiar. Despite his promise to cut the deficit (not the debt mind you) in half by the end of his administration, he has been part of a government that has run, at his suggestion, record deficits of over $1 trillion each year. Well, no sense backing down from that now. President Obama's 2013 proposed budget puts the government in another $1 trillion hole (OK, $1.33 trillion, but hey, what's a few hundred billion dollars between friends). All this despite hiking taxes on everything but people specializing in reconstructive surgery of raccoon anal sphincters (whether or not the raccoons themselves will see a tax raise remains unknown, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi responded she would have to pass it to know when asked).

It's hard not to look at the path that this President and his Democratic compatriots have taken in the last three years and see anything but an intent to destroy the economic structure of the United States. Here's why. President Obama is not particularly smart (I know that runs against the grain, but I'm just basing that opinion off of the man's ability to speak off script combined with a refusal to release his college records and the lack of any published works despite being the editor of the Harvard Law Review), but he's also not an idiot. This means that, unlike the aforementioned Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D. Fantasyland) he knows that one dollar of government spending doesn't magically reproduce into $2.50 in economic spending.

Many liberals will argue that the national debt is irrelevant (see, e.g., Democratic strategist Bob Beckel and Professor Marc Lamont Hill) because, as America operates on a system of fiat currency rather than tying the value of the dollar to something real such as gold (as it was for the first 200 or so years of this country) means that if the debt becomes an issue we can simply devalue the currency through printing more money. I love when liberals argue this point, because it is the most anti-poor strategy that could possibly exist. Why? Devaluing the currency means rampant inflation, which essentially results in a redistribution of wealth from people who depend on cash to those who invest in commodities. Think of oil. Traded in US dollars, if the currency devalues, oil goes up in value relative to dollars, while the ability of the person holding dollars to buy refined gasoline decreases, meaning that the guy who has to buy gas to go to work can't afford it, while the guy running OPEC has doubled his investment. Thanks liberals. (Greg Gutfeld was probably right when saying most conservative policies seek to eliminate poverty while liberal policies seek to eliminate the poor, such as abortion for all).

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the President knows these things and is not so ignorant as to simply discard them. If that is true, and he is not a flaming retard, it's hard to believe that this pattern represents anything other than the purposeful destruction of the United States economic system (which he's been pretty clear about not being a fan of, after all).

So this November, if you find yourself leaning towards voting for President Obama over anyone not named Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Mussolini, make sure you strap on that vest and that your trigger is working properly so you can enter that suicide pact with the President.

Chicago East

Chicago, Illinois, is well known for being one of the most corrupt cities in America, if not the most corrupt. No suprise, then, that President Obama, who claims Chicago as home, has shown a penchant for crony capitalism and corruption despite his claims of having the most open administration in history. I have detailed some of this corruption before in dealing with the GE connections and connections to lobbyists ushered in the back door of the White House in order to keep them off the books.

More recently scrutiny has been leveled towards the administration for its engagement in venture capitalism with "green energy" projects such as Solyndra which have failed resulting in the loss of publicly backed loans. Now, the Washington Post, not exactly a conservative paper, reports that $3.9 billion in public funds to 21 companies with ties to the Obama adminstration. This exemplifies the problem with a government that believes its proper role is to finance private corporations and pick winners and losers in the economy. Corruption is inevitible when power is exercised without checks or limitations. The solution is simple, returning to the constitutional boundaries given to government by our founders. When government doesn't run your life or your business, you won't feel the need to buy off an official to get a leg up.

Today's Recommended Reading

Ann Coulter who I believe is compromising her principles to support Mitt Romney because she believes he is the only remaining candidate who can beat President Obama (which sadly, is appearing more and more true) writes an interesting article distinguishing "Romenycare" from "Obamacare".

The Truth About Lies

I try very hard to ensure that anything I post on this blog is accurate. Not only that, I try to ensure that it is true. Of course, there is no way to truly verify an opinion, but allow me to explain. When I link to an article that I am using as a fact reference upon which I form my opinion, I usually have looked to make sure that it is reported not only on that particular web page, but also elsewhere, and, if possible, I go to the original source to verify whatever it may be and to place it in context. When I say that President Obama advocates an energy policy that would necessarily cause electricity rates to skyrocket, I don't want you to rely on me, I want you to see him say exactly that. Why do I mention this, you ask? (OK, you probably didn't ask, but really, that's a rhetorical device after all, and you're a jerk for pointing it out.)

I have noticed in the past and continuing, the practice of people supporting their arguments or accusing others of being incorrect by simply taking something completely out of context. This was once the exclusive realm of those in the media and politics but, with the expansion of techniques of communication and social media, it is now far more prevalent among the population at large. It wasn't a good trend before and it certainly isn't a good one now because it presents a difficulty in reaching what matters most : the truth.

We can disagree on what remedy is best for society but we first have to agree on the underlying truth of the problems we are discussing. We can't correctly quote Albert Einstein saying "God doesn't play dice" for the proposition that he believed in God (I'm not sure if he did or not). He was referring to, in conversation with Neils Bohr, the randomness of quantum physics (e.g. Schroedinger's cat). We can't (recent example on a friend's Facebook page) utilize quotes that are without attribution or taken out of context to promote the idea that the founding father's of this country were somehow atheists or deists when they espoused Christian ideals. Specifically the quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson that "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature", which the Thomas Jefferson Foundation has been unable to find in any of his writings.

I can admit when I am wrong and abide the opinions of those who I do not agree with on the sole condition that we do not lie and, if we find that we have made a mistake and misrepresented something to be a fact which is not, to simply admit the mistake and step back to reconsider the argument. We will never have the ability to come together in this country if we will not concede those things which are facts (though, going back to the quantum physics angle, there may be no facts, but I digress, I think you get my point).