Thursday, April 17, 2014

Salon now has third graders writing for them

Apparently with a straight face Matt Bruenig over at Salon has some profound words to share that are so abjectly stupid that I thought I was reading the Onion instead. At Salon, this is what apparently passes for journalism today. Matt Bruenig’s wrote that - wait for it - in order to make up for racial intolerance and inequality we need to take money from white people and give it to black people. I hate to break this to you Matt but this already exists today - it’s called the US tax code (more on that later). Here’s Matt in all his unbridled glory:

Even if racism were wiped out tomorrow and equal treatment became the norm, it would never cease being the case that the average white person has more wealth than the average black person. We could equalize everything else in society, and racial wealth inequality–plus all of the political power disparities that accompany such a thing–would continue into perpetuity.
Sorry Matt, I gotta stop you right there. What your are saying is that playing field were suddenly leveled (something I believe to be the case already, but let’s let him go with it) that there is an inherent bias that capital somehow will seek out whites and stay with them in perpetuity? Say what? How does that even make sense? Ok, sorry for the interruption here’s more:

Thus, those actually serious about righting the wrongs of enslavement and Jim Crow apartheid must support more drastic leveling efforts. Beefed up anti-discrimination, which is both necessary and good, will not be enough. Ideally, we could work towards reparations in the form of redistributing wealth along racial lines. With that an unlikely possibility though, we can at least think about ways to redistribute wealth more generally from those with wealth to those without it, something that would have a similar, albeit more attenuated, effect as reparations given who the wealthy and non-wealthy happen to be.
Good god, Marx and Engle couldn’t have put it any better. It’s not like we haven’t tried to do this before with varying degree of failure. From the 10’s of millions who died in the great Bolshevik experiment that dominated the last century to the watered down version we now see in the EU. But Bruenig has a better idea. This is what I love about articles like this. Bruenig makes his premise straight from the heart, no need to do any background reading to find some support for his nonsense. No, like most liberals, Matt doesn’t need to be bothered by icky facts such as this doozy:

86M Full-Time Private-Sector Workers Sustain 148M Benefit Takers
You read that right folks, for every full time taxpaying worker there are 1.7 on the dole. So when Bruenig bitches about wealth redistribution and his infantile solution is simply take from those who have (namely  whites) and give to those who don’t (presumably blacks) you have to ask just how much is too much? Now some of you may argue that getting paid a salary is not the same as wealth and I agree. But in order to obtain wealth somebody’s gotta go to work. It has to start somewhere right?

But the real point is this. While I would agree that there are disparities between the amount of wealth between races, the first thing I would do is ask why. Is it, as Bruenig suggest that capital has some sort of built in discrimination against blacks? Or, as I suspect, does it have more to do with culture? For example, 72% of black families are raised by one parent. 95% of black murders are perpetrated by another black. The black communities are a shambles (mostly due to liberals trying to help them) and almost all of them are on some sort of government assistance. Perhaps these statistics have more to do with where capital resides and less to do with skin color.

Exit hypothesis: If we could somehow wave a magic wand and redistribute wealth in the manner Bruenig suggest, how long would it take the wealth to re-accumulate to basically where it is now. My guess is that capital moves to where those who are willing to work and take risks and away from those who make bad decisions like having children before you can properly care for them and out of wedlock. Just a thought.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

As near as I can tell, in order to be a Democrat:..

You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

You have to believe that the same overpaid public school idiot who can’t teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese, North Koreans, or Iraqis 

You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay/transgender is natural.

You have to be against capital punishment but pro abortion on demand, in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but pasty, loony activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.

You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

You have to believe conservatives are racists, but that black people couldn't make it without your help.

You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge.

Friday, April 4, 2014

This just in - Chris Matthews is still a tool

Charles Koch wrote, what I thought , was a well thought out response to Hot Rod Harry's continued assault form the Senate floor in the wall street journal this week. He lays out the case that freedom of speech is essential to a free and open governance. If you'll remember Reid's  argument from the floor of the Senate was a full throated fist in the sky diatribe of how the Koch brothers were buying America. Notwithstanding that George Soros has poured in three times the amount the Koch brothers have given in the last three election cycles.

Not to be outdone, here is Chris Matthews insinuating that Charles Koch, a captain of industry, a self made billionaire can't string two words together. His evidence? The same evidence Reid had when he said Mitt Romney hadn't paid taxes in 10 years.

What a tool. Is it any wonder that Hardball is consistently beat out by Greta each night by 700,000 viewers.

With him spouting crap like this it's no wonder why his show is unwatchable.

President who hates babies says they should all have a chance at happiness

I swear you cannot make this stuff up. On Tuesday, Obama said this at a Planned Parenthood gala with apparently no hint of irony (emphasis mine):

“In the United States of America, every child should have every chance in life, every chance at happiness, and every chance at success,”
Yeah, every chance as long as the child has exited the womb. This man, whose support for abortion at any time during pregnancy, has the audacity to say this with a straight face? First of all, he is the first sitting president to address this group of mass murderers, second, he touts planned parenthood’s record of giving every child a chance at life! Oh the iroonneeee.

Keep in mind that in March 2003, then-Illinois’ State Senator Obama chaired the committee that considered the Born-Alive Infants Protection bill (SB 1082), which he voted to kill. And according to the National Right to Life Committee, the state legislation that Obama voted against is almost identical to the federal legislation that protects children who survive an abortion that became law in 2002.

According to Planned Parenthood’s latest report for fiscal year 2012-2013, women who aborted their unborn children at a Planned Parenthood-affiliated clinic totaled 327,166.

Well almost every child has a chance in life except of course for the over 50 million who have been aborted since Roe v. Wade that is.

How liberals can square this circle is beyond me. In the past, at least pro-abortion politicians had the sense to shy away from the issue by saying nonsense like keeping it legal, safe and rare. Now, Obama is openly cheering for the destruction of our children. Good work champ, good work indeed.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

They are going to run out of virgins

This just warms my heart. What do the Brits consider a weapon of mass destruction"? One talented soldier and ONE bullet!

Say Allah, who ordered these 432 virgins?

Oh, she of the angry perm - the greatest gift to bloggers.

I love how exacerbated she is at just how unreasonable she sees the Republicans at the 27 second mark.

Oh, so now DWS wants to get with the Republicans and come to some sort of compromise? You know, like she did when she helped rammed this the pile of horse excrement down the throats of Americans, where the Republicans were actually barred from any discussion when the bill was written.

Good luck with that one sister. You guys passed it, now you have to face the consequences come November.

What difference does it make Madam Secretary?

Only the difference between trusting that your elected officials are honest versus how instead they will spin events to help them in an election. 18 months after the events unfolded in Benghazi, a CIA officer confirmed that there were no protests before misleading Benghazi account given by the administration. This from the Washington Times (emphasis mine):

Before the Obama administration gave an (false) inaccurate narrative on national television that the Benghazi attacks grew from an anti-American protest, the CIA’s station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred, documents and interviews with current and former intelligence officials show.

The attack was “not an escalation of protests,” the station chief wrote to then-Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell in an email dated Sept. 15, 2012 — a full day before the White House sent Susan E. Rice to several Sunday talk shows to disseminate talking points claiming that the Benghazi attack began as a protest over an anti-Islam video.

Oopsy. Oh, and the good news? Guess who is scheduled to appear before the House Intelligence Committee tomorrow? That’s right, CIA Director Michael Morell who the station chief sent his e-mail to. This should be fun.

But here is what ticks me off. The American public is just finding out about this. The jaw-dropping incuriosity of the mainstream media continues to blow my mind. Think about it. On MSNBC, they have devoted no less than a gazillion hours to bridgegate (where as it turns out nobody died) and about three and a half minutes to the atrocious pre-election cover up the administration perpetrated following the Benghazi disaster, where, by the way, four Americans were actually murdered by terrorists.

In a just world Rice, Clinton and even the president would feel some level of shame for this atrocity, but since our electorate has the attention span of a clever garden slug my guess is that no one will pay a price.

The Liberal Way Ends in Detroit

To survive, Liberalism,  is wholly dependent upon a vast number of people who are entrenched in government dependency. Moreover, through generations of liberal manipulation, these people are now not capable of supporting themselves. But for liberalism to survive going forward, they have to come up with more and more victims to increase their numbers. Don’t believe me? Just look at each election cycle and how the liberals keep producing more and more “wars” on various people to rally more and more ‘victims’ to come into the fold. By wars, I mean the war on women, war on babies, war on gays, war on illegal immigrants, war on Gia, etc. Each cycle produces yet another cause where only the federal can solve the manufactured problem.

This leads to the real problem with liberalism. They have no principles, only the love of power. Do you think for one moment that Nancy Pelosi actually gives a rosy red fart for any of those so-called victims? Short answer is of course no. Her only reason to be is to bend the public to her will. To create the utopia that only she, and her ilk, are smart enough to envision.

As an example I give you Obamacare. I’ve said in the past, Obamacare is not about helping anyone, only about centralizing federal power. Remember the promise? Insure the uninsured, bend the cost care down, keep your doctor, and keep your plan yadda yadda yadda. Peolsi knew this horrible piece of legislation wouldn’t do any of those things. The real reason for Obamacare was to put even more Americans on the government dole, thus giving the centralized Feds even more power over the electorate.

Liberal’s very existence depends on there being a pool of serfs desperate for handouts distributed by Democrat overlords. If 90% of Americans were self-sufficient and refused to trade their dignity for a few scraps in the form of various welfare payouts, there would be no modern Democrat Party.

But here’s the rub folks. With each block of victims increasingly becoming dependent upon the government, it will put more and more pressure on the ever-decreasing tax base. And as the tax base dwindles the feds will have to borrow more and more to keep up with the ever increasing clamor for handouts. And that’s when we change the name of the country from The United States of America to simply Detroit.

I leave you with this quote from Alexis de Tocqueville:

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

Truer words where never spoken.