Karl Marx - The Communist Manifesto
Ted Kaczynski - The Unabomber's Manifesto
Paul Krugman - The Twinkie Manifesto
Ted Kaczynski - The Unabomber's Manifesto
Paul Krugman - The Twinkie Manifesto
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Some thoughts on the limits of limitlessness
First thought: Tim Geithner is an idiot. This is merely further proof: "Treasury Secretary Geithner: Lift Debt Limit to Infinity"
If Congress simply stopped limiting the amount the U.S. could legally borrow, in the current regime of spending without budgeting, there would be no legal limit on what Congress and the Administration could spend money on. They'd just borrow and spend with no checks or balances, or even authorizations.
The only real limit would be the market's willingness to buy U.S. debt. But that is a real and catastrophic limit. The recognition of that limit is what led Congress to try the debt ceiling gimmick to impose a modicum of self-discipline.
The fact that Congress can neither stop spending money nor refuse to raise the limit makes the whole thing a political charade. The limit doesn't really exist because everyone knows it will be raised when necessary and that spending will not abate.
So, we wait until not even the Chinese will buy our debt, then we become Greece to the 10th power.
Tim Geithner is an idiot, but he isn't the only one.
If Congress simply stopped limiting the amount the U.S. could legally borrow, in the current regime of spending without budgeting, there would be no legal limit on what Congress and the Administration could spend money on. They'd just borrow and spend with no checks or balances, or even authorizations.
The only real limit would be the market's willingness to buy U.S. debt. But that is a real and catastrophic limit. The recognition of that limit is what led Congress to try the debt ceiling gimmick to impose a modicum of self-discipline.
The fact that Congress can neither stop spending money nor refuse to raise the limit makes the whole thing a political charade. The limit doesn't really exist because everyone knows it will be raised when necessary and that spending will not abate.
So, we wait until not even the Chinese will buy our debt, then we become Greece to the 10th power.
Tim Geithner is an idiot, but he isn't the only one.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
The list gets longer every day
The list of impeachable or incarceratable offenses by the members of the ruling regime grows day-by-day.
Today's culprit, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson:
Congress demands EPA’s secret email accounts
Jackson is accused of using an alias email account to evade open record laws and to avoid disclosure of the unethical, insidious and potentially illegal actions in which she and her agency are engaged. Judging from the Washington Times article, and an earlier one in the Washington Post, it was nearly official policy to use personal email accounts, like gmail, to hide information from congressional oversight potential legal fights.
I didn't see any articles that indicates Sliver suffered any legal ramifications. He merely lost his job for allegedly advising subordinates to evade open government laws and potential congressional attention by using unsecure personal email accounts.
Meanwhile the layers continue to be pealed back on the rotten onion that is Benghazi.
Meanwhile clear instances of voter fraud in Ohio and Philadelphia and perhaps Florida and elsewhere will never be investigated by the most politicized Justice Department in the history of the Nation.
Meanwhile, the (mal)administration refuses to perform its constitutional duty to defend DOMA
While it refuses to enforce immigration laws, thereby effectively enacting a law never passed by Congress
Meanwhile, Operation Fast and Furious questions remain unanswered regarding when the Attorney General and the White House knew guns were being shipped to Mexican drug cartels by the hundreds if not thousands, and why they didn't do anything to stop it before Border Patrol agents and hundereds of Mexican citizen were killed with those same guns.
And the list could go on, if I had more time.
Today's culprit, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson:
Congress demands EPA’s secret email accounts
Jackson is accused of using an alias email account to evade open record laws and to avoid disclosure of the unethical, insidious and potentially illegal actions in which she and her agency are engaged. Judging from the Washington Times article, and an earlier one in the Washington Post, it was nearly official policy to use personal email accounts, like gmail, to hide information from congressional oversight potential legal fights.
I didn't see any articles that indicates Sliver suffered any legal ramifications. He merely lost his job for allegedly advising subordinates to evade open government laws and potential congressional attention by using unsecure personal email accounts.
Meanwhile the layers continue to be pealed back on the rotten onion that is Benghazi.
Meanwhile clear instances of voter fraud in Ohio and Philadelphia and perhaps Florida and elsewhere will never be investigated by the most politicized Justice Department in the history of the Nation.
Meanwhile, the (mal)administration refuses to perform its constitutional duty to defend DOMA
While it refuses to enforce immigration laws, thereby effectively enacting a law never passed by Congress
Meanwhile, Operation Fast and Furious questions remain unanswered regarding when the Attorney General and the White House knew guns were being shipped to Mexican drug cartels by the hundreds if not thousands, and why they didn't do anything to stop it before Border Patrol agents and hundereds of Mexican citizen were killed with those same guns.
And the list could go on, if I had more time.
My BS Meter is off the Scales
Washington Times Headline: "White House says it didn’t edit Benghazi talking points"
"On Friday, Mr. Petraeus told a congressional committee investigating the Libya attack that the CIA’s references to “Al Qaeda involvement” were stripped from his agency’s original talking points."
David Petraeus had to be feeling heat following the Benghazi debacle. CIA contractors killed in an al Qaeda attack is bad enough. The possibility that the unseemly things they were doing would become public is worse. We now know that he was under investigation for something unseemly in his personal life at the time as well. We don't know, yet, if the FBI investigation was used by someone to coerce him to shade his statements to shift attention away from administration malfeasance in Libya.
But by the time he testified last week, it seems his boils had all been popped. His affair was made public, he lost his job, he suffered personal dishonor, and the investigation turned to whether classified information may have been compromised in the course of his affair. About the only thing that could make things worse for him would be to be found in contempt of Congress.
So, he had no reason to lie on Friday.
But that's what the White House expects us to believe.
White House national security council spokesman Ben Rhodes "told reporters the only change made by the White House to the CIA’s initial reports was to change the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility.”
“Other than that, we worked off of the [talking] points that were provided by the intelligence community,” Mr. Rhodes told reporters traveling aboard Air Force One with President Obama on a trip to southeast Asia. “So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made within the intelligence community. If there were adjustments made to them within the intelligence community, that’s common, and that’s something they would have done themselves within the intelligence community.”
When a propagandist for the regime uses the same phrase FOUR TIMES IN THREE SENTENCES, you can be sure his purpose is to plant an idea in your head, not to convey truthful facts.
"On Friday, Mr. Petraeus told a congressional committee investigating the Libya attack that the CIA’s references to “Al Qaeda involvement” were stripped from his agency’s original talking points."
David Petraeus had to be feeling heat following the Benghazi debacle. CIA contractors killed in an al Qaeda attack is bad enough. The possibility that the unseemly things they were doing would become public is worse. We now know that he was under investigation for something unseemly in his personal life at the time as well. We don't know, yet, if the FBI investigation was used by someone to coerce him to shade his statements to shift attention away from administration malfeasance in Libya.
But by the time he testified last week, it seems his boils had all been popped. His affair was made public, he lost his job, he suffered personal dishonor, and the investigation turned to whether classified information may have been compromised in the course of his affair. About the only thing that could make things worse for him would be to be found in contempt of Congress.
So, he had no reason to lie on Friday.
But that's what the White House expects us to believe.
White House national security council spokesman Ben Rhodes "told reporters the only change made by the White House to the CIA’s initial reports was to change the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility.”
“Other than that, we worked off of the [talking] points that were provided by the intelligence community,” Mr. Rhodes told reporters traveling aboard Air Force One with President Obama on a trip to southeast Asia. “So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made within the intelligence community. If there were adjustments made to them within the intelligence community, that’s common, and that’s something they would have done themselves within the intelligence community.”
When a propagandist for the regime uses the same phrase FOUR TIMES IN THREE SENTENCES, you can be sure his purpose is to plant an idea in your head, not to convey truthful facts.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
The Adventures of Harry Reid Across the 8th Dimension
Alexander Bolton reports in The Hill: "Senate Democrats, feeling confident from their net gain of two seats in last week’s election, say any deficit-reduction package negotiated in the coming weeks must include stimulus measures."
In what alternate reality does borrowing and spending MORE money reduce deficits?
as an aside, Harry Reid does look like a Red Lectroid, doesn't he?
In what alternate reality does borrowing and spending MORE money reduce deficits?
Monday, November 12, 2012
If the GOP thows me under the bus, I won't be on their bus
Eric Ericson at RedState warns the GOP establishment against doing what it will very likely do: throw Social Conservatives under the bus.
And why it is a very stupid thing to do.
"What’s really going on here is that the people who voted Republican, but who disagree with pro-lifers and defenders of marriage, have decided it must be those issues. They can’t see how what happened actually happened unless it happened because the issues on which they disagree with the base played a role."
Yeah. That does make sense. While there are vestiges of the old Republican party still bouncing around in the Establishment, to a very large degree, Neo-Cons have become the GOP Establishment. Neo-Cons, as you may recall, were originally Liberals who disagreed with their fellow Leftists on anti-Communism. They were (are) Liberal on everything but national defense, Capitalism and Israel. And what were Mitt Romney's main talking points? Taxes, Israel, and saving the Defense budget. While the GOP platform is strongly Pro-Life and pro family, the candidates selected by the party tend to soft-pedal and trim on social issues.
"The problem is not social conservatism. The problem is social conservatives have gotten so used to thinking of themselves as the majority they’ve forgotten how to speak to those who are not and defend against those who accuse them of being fringe, most particularly the press. Couple that with Mitt Romney’s campaign making a conscious decision to not fight back on the cultural front and you have a bunch of Republicans convinced, despite the facts, that if only the social conservatives would go away all would be fine."
This explains something that's bothered me for a few days.
The majority of Americans favor restrictions on abortion and oppose government funding of abortion;
Yet, they elected the most pro-abortion president in the history of the world
The majority of Americans oppose redefinition of marriage;
Yet they elected the president who will most likely force it on the republic.
The majority of Americans do belong to a church;
Yet they elected the first president to intentionally, blatantly and unappologetically shred the concept of Free Exercise of Religion.
Because Mitt Romney let himself be defined as the man who wanted to cut taxes for the rich and was afraid or unwilling to defend Life, Marriage and Religion in the public square.
If the GOP Neo-Con establishment does in fact abandon the social issues, it'll lose me. I'm not willing to support a party that really is the defender of plutocrats and Randians. And I have no desire to be a member of the permanent minority.
It isn't necessary, though. This election offered one of the starkest examples of the two concepts of government at issue in this country. Obama explicitly embodies the idea that government is the core of society. Romney and Ryan made a fair representation of the idea that government is merely a framework which allows society to function fairly and efficiently.
I'm willing to fight for that principle of limited government. That principle is sound enough to encompass both Social and Fiscal conservatism. It can be expressed in words the electorate understands and accepts. But if the Establishment GOP is unwilling to do that, and merely continues to argue for lower taxes and less regulations because - well because; while conceding on issues of culture that are vital to the continued health of our society, then I am leaving.
Can the Republican Establishment fight for these principles? I can.
Seven Principles Of The Constitution Party:
■Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
■Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
■Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
■Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
■Constitution And Bill Of Rights: interpreted according to the actual intent of the founding fathers;
■State's Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people.
■American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.
And why it is a very stupid thing to do.
"What’s really going on here is that the people who voted Republican, but who disagree with pro-lifers and defenders of marriage, have decided it must be those issues. They can’t see how what happened actually happened unless it happened because the issues on which they disagree with the base played a role."
Yeah. That does make sense. While there are vestiges of the old Republican party still bouncing around in the Establishment, to a very large degree, Neo-Cons have become the GOP Establishment. Neo-Cons, as you may recall, were originally Liberals who disagreed with their fellow Leftists on anti-Communism. They were (are) Liberal on everything but national defense, Capitalism and Israel. And what were Mitt Romney's main talking points? Taxes, Israel, and saving the Defense budget. While the GOP platform is strongly Pro-Life and pro family, the candidates selected by the party tend to soft-pedal and trim on social issues.
"The problem is not social conservatism. The problem is social conservatives have gotten so used to thinking of themselves as the majority they’ve forgotten how to speak to those who are not and defend against those who accuse them of being fringe, most particularly the press. Couple that with Mitt Romney’s campaign making a conscious decision to not fight back on the cultural front and you have a bunch of Republicans convinced, despite the facts, that if only the social conservatives would go away all would be fine."
This explains something that's bothered me for a few days.
The majority of Americans favor restrictions on abortion and oppose government funding of abortion;
Yet, they elected the most pro-abortion president in the history of the world
The majority of Americans oppose redefinition of marriage;
Yet they elected the president who will most likely force it on the republic.
The majority of Americans do belong to a church;
Yet they elected the first president to intentionally, blatantly and unappologetically shred the concept of Free Exercise of Religion.
Because Mitt Romney let himself be defined as the man who wanted to cut taxes for the rich and was afraid or unwilling to defend Life, Marriage and Religion in the public square.
If the GOP Neo-Con establishment does in fact abandon the social issues, it'll lose me. I'm not willing to support a party that really is the defender of plutocrats and Randians. And I have no desire to be a member of the permanent minority.
It isn't necessary, though. This election offered one of the starkest examples of the two concepts of government at issue in this country. Obama explicitly embodies the idea that government is the core of society. Romney and Ryan made a fair representation of the idea that government is merely a framework which allows society to function fairly and efficiently.
I'm willing to fight for that principle of limited government. That principle is sound enough to encompass both Social and Fiscal conservatism. It can be expressed in words the electorate understands and accepts. But if the Establishment GOP is unwilling to do that, and merely continues to argue for lower taxes and less regulations because - well because; while conceding on issues of culture that are vital to the continued health of our society, then I am leaving.
Can the Republican Establishment fight for these principles? I can.
Seven Principles Of The Constitution Party:
■Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
■Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
■Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
■Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
■Constitution And Bill Of Rights: interpreted according to the actual intent of the founding fathers;
■State's Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people.
■American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Demographics and "Comprehensive...reform"
I'm slowly weaning myself back into following political news. There was no way I could have stomached the gloating of the MSM and their clown clones like Bill Maher.
Now the trial balloons and foreshadowings are beginning to emanate out of Mordor on the Potomac. Meanwhile, wobbly Weepublicans (David Frum eg) are doing their best to throw Conservatism under the bus.
One of the most popular themes is that Conservative principles are doomed by demographics. Well, yes. When the Leftist policy is to promise targeted goodies to those who are stupid enough to vote for free stuff, the side that doesn't promise goodies to specific voting blocs may not fare well. The David Frums of the world forget that the side that promises a conservative amount of goodies doesn't fare any better.
The demographics predicted to destroy the Conservative movement as a political force in this country will also destroy that which the movement wishes to conserve (cf. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, U.S.).
But the tactical advantages of appealing to narrow interests is apparent. And of course, if you agree with Barrack Obama that "words mean things," then you can use words and phrases in vague ways to lead potential voters to believe things that may or may not be true. "Comprehensive...reform" is tailor-made for the Masters of Sophistry.
Leftist, Conservatives and even people who get their news from Jon Stewart can agree that this country is in dire need of reform: the health care industry, the tax code, regulation, the financial industry, the education establishment and on and on.
But when a Leftist says "comprehensive...reform," s/he means a comprehensive list of favors to client interest groups. When a conservative says it, he means addressing as many of the facets of the problem as possible.
In regard to immigration, when a Leftist, President Obama for instance, says he will work towards "comprehensive immigration reform," he knows his potential donors and votors understand him to mean:
What does this Conservative think of when considering Comprehensive Immigration Reform?
Now the trial balloons and foreshadowings are beginning to emanate out of Mordor on the Potomac. Meanwhile, wobbly Weepublicans (David Frum eg) are doing their best to throw Conservatism under the bus.
One of the most popular themes is that Conservative principles are doomed by demographics. Well, yes. When the Leftist policy is to promise targeted goodies to those who are stupid enough to vote for free stuff, the side that doesn't promise goodies to specific voting blocs may not fare well. The David Frums of the world forget that the side that promises a conservative amount of goodies doesn't fare any better.
The demographics predicted to destroy the Conservative movement as a political force in this country will also destroy that which the movement wishes to conserve (cf. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, U.S.).
But the tactical advantages of appealing to narrow interests is apparent. And of course, if you agree with Barrack Obama that "words mean things," then you can use words and phrases in vague ways to lead potential voters to believe things that may or may not be true. "Comprehensive...reform" is tailor-made for the Masters of Sophistry.
Leftist, Conservatives and even people who get their news from Jon Stewart can agree that this country is in dire need of reform: the health care industry, the tax code, regulation, the financial industry, the education establishment and on and on.
But when a Leftist says "comprehensive...reform," s/he means a comprehensive list of favors to client interest groups. When a conservative says it, he means addressing as many of the facets of the problem as possible.
In regard to immigration, when a Leftist, President Obama for instance, says he will work towards "comprehensive immigration reform," he knows his potential donors and votors understand him to mean:
- Free ride amnesty for those who have already violated the immigration rules and sovereignty rights of this country
- Free education for them and their children
- Complete access to the social services provided by the taxes of legal citizens and resident aliens
- Low cost labor for businesses
- Enhanced returns for investors and bankers who invest in those businesses
- A sense of compassionate self-affirmation for 'caring' folk who care enough to force someone else to do something
- New clients for the minions of the bureaucratic state and their lampreys in the special interest industry
- New voters (where Democrats run the elections) for the Leftist candidates
What does this Conservative think of when considering Comprehensive Immigration Reform?
- Secure the U.S. border. I'd consider signs every 36" reading: "No tresspassing. Violators will be shot." That may be too extreme for American sensibilities. So, how about: No tresspassing. Violators will be immediately returned to the country from which they crossed the border. Or shot if they attempt to evade or resist.
- Rationalize the legal immigration system and reform the INS bureaucracy. We have a choice as to who we permit to reside in our country. We should make immigration attractive and as painless as possible for healthy, employed or employable, educated, skilled people from all over the world and nearly impossible for others.
- THEN address the existing illegal aliens in this country. All of them have broken US law. None of them should get off Scot free. Criminals are evicted immediately. Return will land them in internment camps in Alaska or West Texas or some other inhospitable place. Free-riders are the next priority. They will be given the opportunity to enjoy the social services of their country of origin. Return will cause them to be treated as criminals. Productive, law-abiding illegal aliens won't be actively pursued until the more immediate threats in their population have been dealt with. Nor will they get any preferences or breaks until the border is secure and the criminals are addressed. They may be given a break, but not a free pass. Certainly no illegal alien should get any preferrence over a legal immigrant. Fines and probation as a pre-condition to giving them an opportunity to normalize their immigration status would be appropriate. Any illegal aliens found after the above steps have been taken will be treated as criminal illegal aliens - evicted or interned.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Stay Strong!
I would just like to remind my Congressman and all of the members of the Republican caucus in the House and Senate: When the Democrats say they have a mandate from the American people because they received slightly more than 50% of the popular vote, they are wrong. They do not represent the country and their policies do not have the support of the American public. Only half. You represent fully 1/2 of the country. You have a responsibility to fight for the policies which 1/2 of the country supports: limited government, fiscal responsibility, Religious Liberty, the Right to Life, Free Markets and individual freedom to succeed or fail, to assist others in need without government mandate or coersion, a National Defense scaled to protect national interests and a foreign policy that has a clear vision of what the national interest is, the Rule of Law and the supremacy of the Natural Law endowed upon us by our Creator. Stay strong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)