Friday, February 27, 2009

Where's My Money? ('cause it's not in my wallet)

Perhaps in better times, the Obama administration's decision to resume funding abortions in other countries might be the issue.

However, when the United States is faced with an almost unfathomable budget deficit and economic depression, the issue is really nothing more than this:

Why in the hell is the Obama administration funding ANYTHING in other countries?

Seriously, if my best friends knew that I owed more money than I made, then they would be real d-bags to come to me for a handout.

If I faced having to default on my mortgage to fund some stranger's medical procedure (how's that for a nice euphemism for killing babies?), would you accuse me of anything wrong for choosing to pay my own damn mortgage?

Bless You, Ron Paul

Listen to Ron Paul and know who you passed over in favor of Barabas (who didn't even win!).

Note that Bernanke states that he will concede the point to free market thinkers if the result is inflated prices.

Note also that Barney Frank cuts Rep. Paul off just before the good doctor goes for the jugular.

Note: I discovered this clip on Robert Murphy's blog, Free Advice.

My Optimistic Wife and My Pessimistic Self

I upset my wife today, when I noted that one of my retirement investments lost over 10% of its value in only the last two weeks and that we have put a few thousand more into it than we currently have on the ledger.

She replied with a charming, "Well, on the bright side, our current contributions are getting more for their money, so when things get better we'll see a rapid increase!"

Sometimes she's such the Pollyanna, and while that's one of the reasons that I love her so much, this time it annoyed me.

I responded to her "silver lining" approach with a scathing analysis of how much worse things could and probably will get--that even if we break even or beyond, the devaluation of the dollar will mean that we end up behind nonetheless.

She asked me why I'm always so down on things.

I asked her what about trends and the history of the matter suggests that I should be optimistic.

She had no answer, so her mood turned sour.

It'll be sleep on the couch for me, tonight.

Business hours are over, baby!

Jaywalker Hero II

Yesterday, I posted about the bus driver who saved three lives by pushing them away from a speeding vehicle only to be hit himself and to suffer severe internal injuries.

The Colorado State Patrol rewarded his heroics by citing him for jaywalking (he was, of course, helping the old ladies across a busy road, during a snowstorm, and he apparently wasn't at a crosswalk--so I guess he should have let them cross alone and die?).

New developments:

The State Patrol said in a statement that it withdrew the citation "after examining the ... circumstances" and consulting with prosecutors. A patrol spokesman didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.

The patrol initially said that despite Moffett's intentions, jaywalking contributed to the accident.

Give me a break! The State Patrol withdrew the citation because of the public backlash. It took all of two nanoseconds for them to realize that they'd pulled a real dick-ish move.

However, look at the last sentence. They still try to save face by noting that the hero had indeed jaywalked and that if he hadn't jaywalked, then he wouldn't have been in an accident.

True, very true. Had he sat in his bus and watched the old ladies cross, then he would not have been injured at all.

The old ladies would have been killed, of course, but, hell, they were frickin' jaywalking!

Thursday, February 26, 2009

The most recent adjective attached to Obama's plans are "ambitious."

Be forewarned that in history and literature, "ambitious" is attached to many things unsavory: MacBeth, Lebensraum, Communism, NBC's "Joey," etc.

What the liberal press defines as "ambitious," a more prudent definition should be "foolish."

I would say "unprecedented," but, unfortunately, it's not unprecedented.

History proves, however, that similar "ambitions" have led to disasters...
So newspapers across the country are closing shop. According to John Morton of Morton Research Inc.. "This is not a good time to try to sell a newspaper. This deep recession for newspapers doesn’t make these particularly compelling properties to buyers.”

Newsflash for newspapers:

It's not a recession for newspapers. It is the end.

Like the telegraph, you have been replaced by something faster and, ultimately, less expensive.

So help me God, if you ask for a "bailout," then my reader (yes, that's singular--alas) on the west coast will scream as loud as I, in which case the vibrations will carry from Renton, WA, to Issaquah, WA , and Metro Detroit, MI, to Hillsdale, MI.

Sure, there's quite some space in between, but I doubt that the corn and the cattle (or the Bears's fans) are cognizant enough to notice.

How's that for magnitude?

Oh, just shut up, BAR. We know that your voice might carry farther than Warren, but be serious. In the absence of JD's 9:08 A.M. brew, what are the chances of you making a difference?

Seriously, why bailout an industry that is no longer useful enough to remain solvent?

It doesn't matter how many jobs are lost in the wake. What matters is if someone resolves to move on to something that is actually solvent.

Nothing comes from nothing.

Insolvency comes from insolvency.

Seriously, the talk nowadays is about growing cotton in the Arctic.

"Damn, this business sucks. We've lost our socks in it!"

"Better invest more, then!"

If I'm not mistaken, this is the kind of logic that defines a compulsive gambler...
My greatest fear is that Obama and the other socialists in congress will stay in office long enough for things to turn around (as they tend to do so, historically, following economic panics).

This is my fear because people are stupid enough to think that Obama and socialists will be responsible for the turn around.

Why do I fear this?

Obama practically plagiarizes F.D.R., and F.D.R. is the second worst-president (if you use the oath of office specifically and the constitution generally as a standard) next to Lincoln.

What's so bad about Lincoln?

If you didn't support his line, and you opposed it vocally, you were dead (e.g. Confederates) or in jail (e.g. those imprisoned by Lincoln's unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus).
I decline to submit to the demagoguery that suggests that Obama can spin gold from lead or any other element.

Nothing comes from nothing.

Crappy ideas lead to crappy results.

So you thought that the last 8 years were bad?

Fasten your seatbelts.

It didn't work in the Weimar Republic after World War I, and it won't work in the United States now.

Be prepared to wallpaper your home with dollars because it will be cheaper than buying wallpaper.

That's what happened in Germany when the government decided to print money for its way out of economic turmoil, and that's exactly where we're headed.
You people turned away Ron Paul because

1) He wasn't "flashy"

2) He didn't comfort you with B.S.

3) He dared to suggest that YOU should be responsible for YOURSELF.

Now we're in quite a mess.

We have "flashy" president.

He comforts us with B.S.

And he dares to suggest that you are not responsible for yourself, but the federal government is--and the feds will come to your rescue (since they've done so well in Iraq).

Thank God that Ron Paul didn't win.
Obama has declared "A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise."

How so?

By proposing the largest budget in the United States history at the same time that you admit that the United States is in its greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression?

Mr. Obama, you are not change. You are more of the same, but perhaps worse because the proles believe that you have answers.

(Another) Cure for AIDS

I couldn't help but notice that Obama recently appointed a new head for the White House AIDS Policy Office.

I assume that this is a paid position, so I'm left wondering why, in these hard times (in any times, really), we should pay for such a thing.

Seriously, AIDS policy shouldn't cost a dime and shouldn't require an office or officers.

I would be glad to donate the following policy to the president, to be used in lieu of having to waste resources.

First, here's the position: AIDS is bad, as is the HIV that causes AIDS.

Now here's the policy: Every so often, mention in speeches that people should avoid unprotected sex with strangers and/or sharing hypodermic needles.

Here's what's awesome: if the people listen, then the number of new AIDS cases will decrease dramatically!

But what if people don't listen?

Then it's their own freaking fault!

Law and Order in Colorado

So let me get this straight. A 58 year-old bus driver stops, and two elderly ladies step off.

The driver decides not to let them cross the street alone during a snowstorm, so he and another passenger jump out to assist them.

As they approach the other side of the street, the driver notices a pickup truck speeding recklessly toward them.

He pushes the two ladies and the other man to safety but is himself struck by the careening pickup.

He wakes up in intensive care, having suffered head trauma, multiple fractures, a dislocated shoulder, and a damaged spleen. [1]

Shortly after learning of his injuries and being told that he had probably saved the lives of the two elderly women, he also learns that the Colorado State Patrol had issued him a ticket for jaywalking.

Let me be the first--or at least the first of whom I am aware--to issue the following statement to the Colorado State Patrol.


Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Al Sharpton Is a Loser Who Makes His Living By Complaining About Everything

The Rev. Al Sharpton refuses to accept the apologies of the New York Post for its portrayal of Obama as a Chimp.

Of course he doesn't accept the apologies. Sharpton's entire career is based upon being grossly offended by virtually everything.

I wonder how pissed-off he'd be if he knew that, just yesterday, I ordered steak fajitas with no BLACK beans.

Seriously, this guy is such a whining A-hole that he probably blames white people every time that he gets diarrhea.

Quite the Ramble Based on My Previous Post

In my previous post, I advocated secession and even suggested the possibility of violence being necessary to establish a just government.

My purpose was to get someone up in arms against me, but since no one took me to task, I will attack my own argument.

First off, I do not disavow the possible necessity of secession, but I have much more hope (i.e. the opiate of the desperate) than I let on that secession may be unnecessary. I don't rule it out, it's just that secession will mean violence, and lots of it.

Now on to violence. Bob has pointed out--and I think that it's a great point--that a violent revolution will only spawn a violent resolution. One we take up arms, then we begin to do things contrary to our principles, and once we assume power we use the very violence that got us there to keep us there. This is blatantly true in a seemingly endless supply of examples, including

1) Cromwell's overthrow of Charles I. He had the king beheaded, declared England a free republic, and appointed himself "Lord Protector of England" (a euphemism for military dictator). His disdain for hereditary monarchy was so great that, as he grew ill and approached death, he arranged for his nearly limitless powers--he ruled via his control of the army--to be transferred to his son).

2.) Napoleon Bonaparte gained fame fighting for the "Liberty, equality, and fraternity" promised by the French revolutionaries. As his powers grew, he eventually crowned himself emperor (at his coronation, he took the crown from the Pope and placed it upon his own head!).

3.) Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin proved that no matter how terrible were the Tsar's powers, a violent revolution could (and did) result in something much worse.

The bottom line is that every time that men have organized and taken up arms to fight for freedom and won, they end up using their new powers to destroy the very freedoms for which they fought.

This is true even in the case of the United States.

At first things were good. The British signed the Treaty of Paris (1783) and recognized the United States as sovereign.

The thirteen states were themselves largely sovereign, held together by "a firm league of friendship with each other" (quoted from The Articles of Confederation--the first Constitution for the United States. According to the Articles, the national government had very few powers--none of the powers that had so tyrannized the colonies in decades past (how's that for learning from history?).

However, there were forces at work, well organized forces, led by Alexander Hamilton, who sought to establish an American Empire in the likeness of the British Empire (which we had so recently fought).

Hamilton and his allies exploited the economic turmoil of the time, which could only be expected given the costs of the war and whatnot, in order to convene a convention supposedly to "revise" the Articles.

Instead, the Articles were thrown out and a new Constitution was born.

Unfortunately, while the vast bulk of this Constitution was good and within the guidelines of the Revolution, the Constitution included a few relatively ambiguous clauses.

These clauses, when interpreted "loosely," greatly expanded the national government's powers--to the extent that the Federal government today is exponentially more tyrannical than the Parliament was in the 1770s.

Among the Constitution's drawbacks is in Article I, Section 8 (the part that grants powers to Congress).

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 says that Congress has the right to regulate trade between the states, with foreign countries and the various Indian nations.

Under a loose construction, this clause is the reason why the government is involved in every aspect of economic activity.

California's legislature now has before it a bill that would legalize marijuana production, distribution, and consumption--to be taxed, of course. However, since Congress has assumed the power to regulate trade (under I.8.3), it will be a meaningless gesture to pass the bill.

This is accepted as fact even though the Constitution states that Congress has the power to regulate trade between the states. Nowhere in California's bill does it mention exporting marijuana to other states or importing it from other states, foreign countries, or the various Indian Nations.

This should mean that the Federal government cannot stop California.

But it doesn't because a leviathan was created in Philadelphia, and the patriot Patrick Henry knew it from the start when he refused to be a delegate for Virginia, stating "I smell a rat in Philadelphia that reeks of monarchy."

The men who fought the Revolution learned that, if you want to accomplish something, then you needed violence for it.

Therefore, they turned to a Constitution that established a strong federal government capable of exerting vast quantities of violence.

In the early 1830s, South Carolina nullified a ridiculously high protective tariff designed to benefit Northern manufacturers at the expense of everyone else. The President responded by threatening to invade South Carolina in order to collect the tax by force.

So much for the Boston Tea Party.

And this is why we cannot shoot our way into freedom. I said earlier that secession means violence, but it must not be from us. We must be willing to suffer the violence, like Gandhi, like Martin Luther King, Jr. in order to show the justness of our cause.

This is, of course, why I would rather not secede. I have no desire to stick my hand into the fire.

However, what if we all did so? Or what if enough of us did so?

Henry David Thoreau may have been right when he wrote, in "Civil Disobedience," that the only thing necessary to accomplish the revolution is for every man to withhold his loyalty to the state. Once the soldier refuses to fire and the taxman declines to collect, the tyrant will be on his knees.

We need no fire any shots.

We must not fire any shots, even in self-defense.

We must suffer, and we must be strong.

This is not my nature--my typical reaction to insult and injury is to insult and injure my assailant--but it is the best way.

It is the only way.

Pax tecum.

FYI: I.8.18 is also particularly odious, especially under a loose construction. "Necessary and proper"--could you be more ambiguous? Then again, it was Napoleon who said "A Constitution should be short and obscure."

Ours is both.


Q: Why don't we secede?

A: 1) Lincoln made it cool and "patriotic" to kill secessionists by the hundreds of thousands.

A: 2) The mass of people are too ignorant/stupid to realize what they are supporting.

Give me a viable secessionist movement, and I will don the stars and bars, for this is no longer the country established by the founding fathers. It reeks of Marx, and I fear it will soon be polluted with Stalin and Mao.

Simon and Garfunkel should have written and sang, "Where have you gone, Thomas Jefferson / Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you..."

This is not treason. It is patriotism of the utmost. Our founding fathers were proud Englishmen of the British Empire--until the government in London turned into a leviathan.

Ask yourself, what would Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, James Madison, et al. say?

Look only to what they did and supported.

My friend, Bob, says that we can accomplish this without arms, but even God Himself has seen the right time to use force against evil.

Hell, even Alexander Hamilton would be horrified by the current trends.

My greatest wish is for a peaceful return to constitutional/limited government. This is an absolutely necessary change.

What must happen if an absolutely necessary change becomes impossible to accomplish by peaceful means?

I tremble at the thought, but I know the meaning of necessary.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Screw the Weak 2

I will never again purchase a car manufactured by GM or Chrysler. They've already stuck their hands in my pockets without my permission (and given me nothing for it), and now they want to do it again.

No business has a natural right to exist. Businesses exist because they are solvent, because they supply what is in demand at a reasonable price and with reasonable quality. If GM and/or Chrysler cannot do so, then they should go out of business.

Thus far, Ford has not asked for any of my money (i.e. federal "bailout" money). This makes me a Ford man.

In the mid 1800s, the demand for beaver pelts decreased, leaving mountain men (e.g. trappers) without a source of income.

There was no bailout.

What did they do? They changed businesses. They took their skills, their knowledge of the terrain and indigenous peoples, to change industries. They became guides to the wagon trains that followed the various trails across the prairies and over the Rocky Mountains.

When an industry dies, it is not necessarily a bad thing. People will have to make important decisions and change their lifestyles/ways of making a living. However, history shows that people will do this when they have to do so.

Let them do so.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Always the Naysayer?

I recently chatted with my next-door neighbor and a friend of his. Naturally, the conversation shifted to politics, and my neighbor gently warned his friend, "Don't get this guy started!"

Of course, this led to his friend asking me, sarcastically, if I was one of those guys who rips on Obama's ideas before we even have time to see if the ideas work or not.

I thought that my counter was rather good, so I now present it to you.

Let's say that the case isn't politics or economics, but medicine; and the person in question is not Obama, but a doctor.

So you go to the doctor because you've been feeling quite ill. After a battery of tests and a thorough survey, it becomes clear that your problems stem from consuming far too much alcohol on a regular basis.

Now suppose the doctor suggested, for treatment, that I try increasing my consumption of alcohol.

Better yet, let's say that the doctor pulled out a scalpel and a large bowl because he planned on bleeding me.

Honestly, I know that neither of these treatments will cure me of my ills. Should I just go along and either a.) drink more or b.) have the "bad blood" drained from my system? Should I wait to see if his destined-for-failure plans will fail before I criticize both the treatments and the doctor?

Of course I shouldn't, and that's why I rant against Obama's economic stimulus package.

My neighbor's friend just kind of chuckled and said, "Well, can't you at least hope that you're wrong?"

I let it drop.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Education Stimulus Package

By all accounts of those with a vested interest in there being a "crisis" in American education, there is, indeed, a "crisis" (surprise!).

However, I have a better solution than the traditional "pump money through bureaucratic channels," and that is to enact an education stimulus package.

Billy's grades suck because he doesn't turn in his homework?

Under the stipulation of my stimulus package, Billy will receive credit for the work that he didn't do.

Jessica's grades suck because she doesn't study for tests?

No problem. My stimulus package will award her a passing grade.

Unlike Obama's economic stimulus package--which he very publicly has stated will not be a "quick fix" for the economy, if it even helps the economy at all (which Obama does imply between the lines; he just says that doing nothing is a worse alternative than trying anything)--my education stimulus package promises real results, really fast.

As soon as next week, students who were previously failing will either be passing or on the road to passing.

Critics say that my plan is ridiculous, that I'm merely increasing grades without actual learning. What they don't understand is that these increased grades are backed by increased learning.

You see, some students have really high grades, like 98% or even better. I don't think that it's too much to ask for them to give, say 5-10% to a more deserving, underprivileged student.

And if that's not enough, my plan allows us to borrow grades from future students. Among the current kindergartners, there are many who will eventually earn 98% and such on grades. If we can use their future points toward scores today, we can boost today's scores even higher. This will result in more students having good grades, which means more students in college, which means better jobs for everyone.

Effectively, my education stimulus package will accomplish all of its goals AND save the economy.

So, how about it, Obama? Make me the offer, and I promise not to decline an appointment to your cabinet.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

The Onion News Network

Warning: the following video clip contains gratuitous--however hilariously--profanity.

The Onion News Network: FDA Approves Depressant Drug for the Annoyingly Cheerful

Backtracking Clips

I enjoyed listening to the "backtracking" on some famous tunes.

"Backtracking" is when musicians place backwards messages on their recordings. When played in reverse, there's some kind of message.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

I'm Tired of Junk Mail

After so many messages in my junk folder how could I ignore it anymore?

Yes, if I don't post for awhile then it must be because my penis is greatly enhanced.

Recent Event

Just yesterday, I found myself driving home from work. The clock was on, for I had to pick up my two eldest kids from school.

I was driving about 58 MPH down a 50 MPH stretch of road..

Whoa, if you're from the law-enforcement community, then I wish to amend my statement.

I was traveling at about 48 MPH down a 50 MPH stretch of road--and I had my seat belt on too, damn you, and I was NOT listening to NWA's "F*** the Police."

Nonetheless, the story proceeds as follows:

I'm tooling down the street (in my six-fo), when all of a sudden my wheel jerks and things get really bumpy.

My first thought was that I blew a tire.

My second thought was that Al Quaida had fired an RPG at men and missed only narrowly.

I used Occam's razor to conclude that I indeed had a blown-out tire, so I flipped on my hazards, slowed down, and made my way to the right hand shoulder.

However, there is no shoulder on the street--at least where I was--, so I drove a few dozen yards to where the street had a turn onto a perpendicular street, and there I stopped.

I emerged from the car, and it took less than a glance to see that, indeed, my tire had blown.

It was at this moment that I said several words that I chose not to repeat on this blog. If you wish to hear them, then go to Youtube and look up George Carlin's Seven Words You Can't Say on TV:

The main problem (at this point) was that the blown tire was on the driver's side.

This meant that, in order to change the tire, I would have to be positioned in harm's way.

I mulled it over, considering how much I was worth to my family in terms of insurance, but finally decided that I could not bear to miss the series finale of The Office, so I called the cops.

I told them that I had a flat tire and that I was on a busy road, so I would appreciate an officer behind me with his lights on so that I could change my tire with less fear of death.

10 minutes later, the officer arrived.

When I showed him my tire, he said, "Jesus Christ!"

That is enough to say how screwed up was my tire.

So I changed the tire, said, "Thank you," to the officer, and drove away--a mere six miles from home.

However, about three miles later, I felt a jerk/shimmy that reminded me of thirty-minutes before.

I said some un-utterable words and phrases as I pulled over to the shoulder (thank God, this road had a shoulder!).

I stepped out of my car and took a look at the spare that I had put on no more than 8 minutes earlier.

It was blown. Kaput. Demolished.

It's at this point that I shouldn't even imply that I said some bad words.

That's how bad those words were.

They said things about you, your mother, and your infant child.

I was pissed!

I ended up having to call AAA (since I didn't have anymore freakin' spares), and they arranged for a tow truck to take me to a tire dealer (it only took 90 minutes!).

At any rate, I got a new tire and made it home a full three hours late.

Michael Phelps

Of Michael Phelps' recent marijuana fiasco, the Richland County sheriff's office has said,

"We're not releasing any additional information. We are investigating, and if we determine that illegal activity has occurred, we will bring charges."

Before you bring charges, answer me this: Who in the "F" was hurt? No one? Nobody was deprived of life, liberty, or property?


Then don't press charges, assholes. I don't care what the law says, it's wrong if it punishes victimless acts.

If you disagree with my position, then you must also disagree with the men and women of the underground railroad who violated federal laws in order to rescue men, women, and children from the horrors of slavery.

Seriously, look at the freaking law. If you assisted in the escape of a slave, then you were in violation of federal law. The penalty became even more severe after Henry Clay's Compromise of 1850.

Just enforce the law blindly, is that what you dare to advocate?

Hell, then if der furer declares this evening Kristalnacht, then let us all grab stones and do our civic duty.

By the way, Seth Meyers of Saturday Night Live had by far the best rant on this topic. See at

Monday, February 09, 2009

A Breath of Cool Air

In today's prime-time press conference, reporters hurled many questions at president Obama, including--according to

— Afghanistan: He said it was too early to give a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country.

— Iran: He is "looking for openings" in the coming months to start face-to-face talks.

— Bank bailout: He was not sure if the government would need more than the remaining $350 billion of bank bailout funds to restore the ailing U.S. financial system. He said his first task would be making sure those funds were spent wisely and with transparency.

— Alex Rodriguez: Obama described the baseball star's admission that he used a banned substance "depressing news on top of what’s been a flurry of depressing items when it comes to major league baseball."

All I can say is thank God. Obama has expressed his views on A-Rod.

Tonight I will sleep like a baby, but tomorrow Obama must speak to the inexplicable fame of David Archuleta.

Sunday, February 08, 2009

Mia Culpa?

Why aren't you alarmed that President Obama has appointed, as his Secretary of the Treasury, a man who has failed to pay his taxes?

This SOB is now in charge of the people who will bust YOU if you fail to give them every cent to which they (wrongfully) feel entitled.

He dismisses his "crime" (hell yes, it's in quotations. Since when has handing your money over to a well-armed and aggressive mugger for the sake of your own safety been considered anything else?") as something akin to a mere oversight.

Should I be audited and incur "unfortunate" results, can I claim a mere oversight?

Of course I can't.

I would be nailed to the wall and then some.

The moral of this story: The federal government of today is not manned by the men who fought the revolution.

When you pledge allegiance, you make a grave mistake.

If you disagree, then every German should have been prosecuted at Nuremberg.

How Many Jobs Lost?

Listen to the Speaker of the House claim the 500,000,000 Americans have lost their jobs.

This statement fascinates me, since in 2009 the U.S. population was estimated at just over 300,000.

Unless this figure includes the fact that I have (or would have)been rejected as a model for Speedos, a weight-loss guru, or spokesman for more government (i.e Pelosi is counting more than one job per person in the United States), it must mean that Pelosi and the like have no damn clue what their talking about, or that they wish to make the problem seem worse than it actually is.

Whichever is true, the implications are alarming.

By the way, there is a good reason for the Speedo company's rejection of my sponsorship...

Thanks to Robert Murphy for leading me to this clip.

Did You Just Recommend a Revolution?

Hell yes, the previous post is a call to revolution. Damn mortality for robbing us o Samuel Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and the like.

The only reason that I am not on the lines right now is that I am not, alone, equal to the task.

Give me a Washington, and I'll fight for a nation.

Saturday, February 07, 2009

Malorem Est Cupiditas

Can we at least agree on this point?

Men and women elected to high offices do so more upon their political connections and willingness to make empty promises (i.e. say what people want to hear) than their qualities and actual ability to execute their promises.

If you are a thinking person, then I will assume that you agree with my cynical (but nonetheless valid) assessment.

Assuming that I am correct, then consider that the men and women appointed to carry out the federal government's "oversights" are appointed and approved by men and women who were elected more upon their political connections and willingness to make empty promises.

If you are a thinking person, then I will assume that you follow this line of logic.

All of this said, why in the hell do so many Americans think that the economy will by saved by men and women who owe their status more to political connections and willingness to make empty promises?

There is an old saying that liars, even when they tell the truth, are not believed. (This is the lesson of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf").

And yet, voters consistently vote for liars.

This means that democracy is corrupt and destined for failure--inasmuch as we define failure as the inability to protect people's rights to life, liberty, and property.

However, history shows that monarchy and oligarchy also fail.

While to many this might seem like a winless situation (hence Churchill's famous quip that democracy is the worst form of government--except for all of the others), the truth is that the lesson is one perhaps too obvious for commoners to grasp.

Government itself, with its powers to regulate human action, is the culprit.

For centuries it has been said that greed is the root of all evil. Look at your tax returns, and tell me that your government is not the epitome of greed.

You want to buy a cola? Pay the government.

You want to own property? Pay the government.

You want to make a living for yourself by being gainfully employed? Pay the government.

You want to be left alone to your own wits? Become part of the government.

Why else have so many of Obama's appointees been recently nailed for tax evasion?

The United States government is sick and should be allowed to die. In fact, I recommend euthanasia.

The United States' Constitution is still good, however. So let the government die and let us bring forth an order for the ages that was new in the late 18th Century but has not been conceived of since mid-1865.
I would have respected Obama more if he had refused to take the constitutional oath of office because he has no intention of being bound by or bound to protect the Constitution.

Where are the Sons of Liberty today? Tell me, and I'll likely join their ranks.

Thursday, February 05, 2009


From The Boston Globe

As a rebuke to congressmen who stand in the way of Obama's economic stimulus plan, the still Christ-figure Obama said, "We can't delay and we can't go back to the same worn-out ideas that led us here in the first place," Obama said. "Let me be clear: those ideas have been tested, and they have failed."

"The time for talk is over. The time for action is now," Obama added, challenging lawmakers in both parties to "rise to this moment."

The joke is that what Obama plans is simply more of the same on steroids. What hasn't been tried in a long damn time is straightforward laissez-faire stlye economics coupled with sound hard-money policy.

Bob's analogy in the article below still hold's solid. Obama wants to take blood from our legs to inject into our arms. This will not stop the allergic reaction/infection that so plagues us.

Where are you, Jim Beam? Only you seem to listen--at only six bucks a pint...

The more that Obama talks, the more that I endeavor to stimulate the sour-mash whisky industry in Kentucky.

A Good Plan

Thank goodness for the breath of fresh air. Well done, Bob.

While the mindless masses say to the ridiculous, "Yes we can!" they will look upon these suggestions and, just as mindlessly, say, "No we won't!"

This is why God established the natural law of fermentation...

The Love of a Child

I'm pretty certain that my youngest just said, "I love you," to me--though it came out "ohaihe wowou!" He followed the comment with the offer of a hug and kiss, further cementing my certainty that he indeed said what I thought he said.

However, after the hug, he pointed to his crotch and said, "Poo-poo."

Bleak Horizon

According to most articles that I read these days, the U.S. economy will take quite some time to recover its losses--up to a decade.

Of course, nitwits. Congress and King Obama I plan on pulling the same crap that kept the U.S. in a prolonged depression throughout the 1930s, so what else should we expect?

Obama: "Hey let's try this because last time we tried it it didn't work at all and things were bad for a long time."

Congress: "Brilliant!"

The general public: "Yes we can!"

Sunday, February 01, 2009

Black is In!

I stole this from Murdock's post. Forgive me, but I nearly pissed my pants while watching it.

May Such Men Burn

I cannot feel badly for a man who kills his wife and kids because he has lost his job.

Of course, I feel badly for the victims.

However, to try to let this guy off because of how "hard" these days are (economically) is to say something awful.

Times were hard in Germany in the early-mid 1930s. Hitler seemed to be the answer. Do we accept this?

Do we excuse cold-blooded murder due to economic desperation?

I think not.

Therefore, do not sit back and think "How tragic, if only the government could have done more to prevent this" when you hear such stories.

Think, "What a worthless piece of crap to think that his whole family should die just because he is an unemployable asshole."

And what if he's a good man who just can't find employment?

Well, a good man wouldn't freaking kill his family.

Enough said?

Bill of Rights