Only a Liberal…

Conservatives decided to engage in the intellectually dishonest debate tactic of taking a liberal out of context. Of all the times that Conservatives have been taken out of context, or been (falsely) accused of taking others out of context, they finally did. Whether the liberal outlets jumped on it, I don’t know, as they have in the past every time they have parotted the reports of Media Matters telling them Rush was a racist, with zero proof.

So follow the timeline… White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said this…

[T]wo of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Teresa, not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most to most to basically deliver a simple point which is ‘you’re going to make choices; you’re going to challenge; you’re going to say why not; you’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before

Understandably, conservative pundits jumped on this, and rightly so. She compared Mother Theresa to Mao. Any intelligent person can see her point, but its like celebrating the ambition of Hitler. Mao killed millions. The fact that he was ambitious is not a reason to admire him.

But then the conservatives went too far. In an attempt to ride the “Mao Tse-Tung” wave, they jumped on another quote by an Obama appointee, Ron Bloom, from last year:

We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun

I agree with this statement. I agree with it the same as I would agree with Hitler if he said the earth orbitted the sun. Political power is similar to criminal power. People get what they want regardless of laws and ethics. The fact that Mao Tse-Tung thinks it and Ron Bloom agrees does not make Ron Bloom a communist. To pretend it does is childish and lowers conservatives to the intellectual level of most liberals: childish and weaponless. Ron Bloom is not a communist because he recognizes the reality of politics. He IS probably a communist because of the statement he said right before he mentioned Mao:

Generally speaking we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense.

Now this is the statement that Hannity and Beck should have focused on. Not the shit about Mao. I realize they were going with the Anita Dun/Mao theme, but I have no interest in themes. It was a stupid. This is the kind of shit Olbermann does. Ron Bloom is a moron, and likely a socialist or a communist with his anti-free-market nonsense, not his occasional agreement with a stopped clock (Mao).

Stick to the facts, and keep your good record going. You weren’t taking Jeremiah out of context so don’t start doing it now.

I’m reading the current issue of Golf magazine…

Fifty years ago Fidel Castro took power in Cuba. Two years later, after losing a golf match to Che Guevera, the dictator bulldozed most of the country’s courses.

Liberals are constantly celebrating Fidel Castro. What would have been the reaction if George W. Bush had been losing a chess match to Dick Cheney, and decided he was gonna flip the chess board? The guy bulldozed all the golf courses. For what?

Despite the ruthless dictatorship of Fidel Castro, American politicians and celebrities routinely jump at the chance to celebrate or praise him.

Representative Diane Watson (D):

You can think whatever you want about Fidel Castro but I can tell that he was one of the brightest leaders that I have ever met.

Rep. Laura Richardson (D):

He looked directly into my eyes! Then he asked: how can we help President Obama? Fidel Castro really wants President Obama to succeed!

Rep. Barbara Lee (D):

It was quite a moment to behold! Fidel Castro was very engaging and very energetic.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D):

He’s one of the most amazing human beings I’ve ever met!

Rep. Bobby Rush (D):

Raul Castro was a very engaging, down-to-earth and kind man, someone who I would favor as a neighbor. It was almost like listening to an old friend… In my household I told Castro he is known as the ultimate survivor.

The guy destroyed an entire sport for no apparent reason. He incarcerates people with AIDS as well as homosexuals. Reports of torture, State department listing Cuba on the terrorist list, yet Democrats still find themselves celebrating Fidel Castro. How does this happen?

The answer is simple. Liberals hate America in its current form. They hate it, and anyone who opposes it is a friend to them. The media speaks highly of Hugo Chavez, despite his vicious hatred of the Venezuelan media (ask the radio stations he shut down). Michael Moore celebrates the Cuban health care system in one movie and attacks capitalism in another, despite making MILLIONS off the very movies he made attacking the very system that allows him to make those millions.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. To a liberal, Bush is a war criminal and Castro is “bright” and “engaging” and “energetic.” Could this be classified as a psychiatric disorder? I’m not a psychiatrist, but these inconsistencies on the left are troubling.

I’m sorry it took a story about golf for me to comment on Fidel Castro, but I found the story illustrative of what happens when you don’t live in the freedom liberals so take for granted.

Washington Times has an article on it. I tend to dislike Michael Savage’s pattern of calling a spade a vicious, evil, pedophile spade (I exaggerate a tad), but when he compared President Bush to Hitler when talking about all these bailouts, I find it very hard to disagree. Liberal kooks were right for the wrong reasons, and premature in their Bush/Hitler comparison. The argument that “I don’t want to bail them out, but extreme times call for extreme measures” could have easily come out of Hitler’s mouth. The notion that government politicians know how to help deal with extreme measures other than war should be dismissed at the door.

No, Bush didn’t kill any Jews, but is the word Hitler always off limits except when speaking of genocide? I think not. The government has shown time and time again it is incapable of solving problems. Everyone thinks that if a market crashes, the market is broken and something ostensibly outside the market has to fix it. This is kindergarten insanity.

Numerous television pundits say we have to bailout the auto companies. Why? If they failed, subsidizing failure solves nothing. Let them fail, and someone more efficient and profitable will fill that market niche. The government arbitrarily deciding who gets money and who doesn’t is breathtaking, and any American who understands the suicide of socialism needs to get angry. These bailouts are legalized robbery. Grand theft bank account.

Some quick links…

“We’ve been guided by a Republican administration who believes in this simplistic notion that people that have wealth are entitled to keep it” -Jim Moran (see video)

Fairness doctrine: Schumer compares political speech to pornography

If you think its over-reacting to say socialism is taking over the country, think again. Jim Moran won 70% of the vote in his district. People obviously agree with his sentiments, which are DEAD WRONG. His policy one private wealth is unalduterated THEFT. This is not a republican/democrat debate. It is Marxism, plain and simple.

As for Schumer, he equates political speech to pornography. He would have you believe that political bias is the same as inappropriate sexual content. Absurd partisan nonsense.

The United States is already socialist in many respects. Bill Gates pays more in taxes per year than I do. Why? Does he get more benefits from the government than I do? Not one cent. He uses roads, has access to the fire department and police, same as I do, yet he pays magnitudes more money than I do. He probably sends 50% or so of his money to the government every year. I send closer to 25%.

Even if we bumped his rate back to 25%, it would still be unfair. He’s still paying a ton more taxes than me. Why does he have to pay a percentage of his income, which is higher than mine, when we receive exactly the same services from the government? It’s to redistribute wealth. Socialism/Marxism is already alive and well in America. You’ve just all accepted the status quo. If you do, fine, but dont call what we have capitalism.

Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto: “In the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable:..a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

**Click HERE to signup and get your free special report on why you can’t vote for Obama.

Obama said something today that should piss off everyone. He was talking about the high profits of Exxon Mobil this quarter, over $14 billion. Obama actually said, “That’s your money.” Senator Obama, NO IT ISN’T. Exxon Mobil offered a product, gasoline, at a price and millions of Americans chose to buy it. The money belongs to Exxon. Obama believes or wants you to believe Exxon’s money belongs to everyone. That is Marxism. Unadulterated Marxism.

Comments like this are typical of Obama, and he made similar, idiotic comments of demagoguery in his Wednesday infomercial before the final game of the World Series.

• he’ll create “5 million clean enery jobs that can never be outsourced”

Unless he’s gonna create 5 million new government jobs, the President has ZERO authority to regulate the actions of a private entity. So either he wants to expand his own powers, or he thinks government isn’t big enough. Not to mention the statistical fact that domestic jobs have also been increasing despite outsourcing. Outsourcing does not reduce American jobs, as counterintuitive as that is.

• “I will tap our natural gas reserves”

Yet another example of his assumption at your ignorance of the powers of the President. If he wants to help others tap our natural gas reserves, perhaps he could try to get some legislation passed that got the environmentlists out of the way of private companies that have the ability to tap the reserves.

• Claims he will use veto line-items in the budget that he considers earmarks or wasteful

He’s just flat-out lying. The President does not have line-item veto power. He will either let these items through as every president before him has done, or he will be overridden by Congress, who won’t let him veto every single budget.

• He’ll “remember soldiers are sons and daughters” as President

The President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the world. Obama’s job would be to protect 300 million sons and daughters. Decisions must be made quickly and unemotionally, and any president who hesitates to send a son or daughter to die to protect ten other sons and daughters, 100 sons and daughters, 1000 sons and daughters, does not have the temperance or maturity to lead this country.

• “In six days, we can choose hope over fear and unity over division…”

Obama is currently at 49.9% in the polls, 1% less than George W. Bush got in 2004. I guess Bush had more unity.

• “John McCain and Sarah Palin they call [spreading the wealth around] socialistic. You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.” (from a speech 2 days after the 10/29 infomercial)

They appear to have made selfishness a virtue around the same time you made socialism popular. I hate to use a presently overused cliche, but Obama is trying to put lipstick on socialism and call it something else. Socialism and Marxism have definitions; they have concrete meanings, as does capitalism. Obama does not get to modify their definitions simply because a large portion of the country are easily pleased by demagoguery and class warfare.

Folks, he’s not even hiding it anymore. I know you want out of Iraq now, but at what price?

Whatever word you want to use to describe Barack Obama, there is no doubt he supports wealth-redistribution. Marxists, socialists, and communists alike think of wealth as though it is no different than oxygen. The fact that some people have more of it than others is not fair to them. The problem with wealth redistribution consists of two incorrect assumptions:

1. Taking money from the rich “helps” the poor
2. There is no difference in value to the community between two people who work

Taking money from the rich actually HURTS poor people. Econ 101: you can’t tax a corporation. All costs of a corporation must be included in the price of its product. You raise taxes on big business, they simply raise the price of their product, and anyone who buys it suffers. Taxing businesses is a hidden sales tax on the consumer.

Another way for a business to get their tax money back is by doing more with less, as in less employees. Putting a luxury tax on yachts may make you feel better about soaking that rich bastard, but it will result in decreased yacht sales across the board. Rich guy says, “eh I dont need a yacht” or “I dont need a 2nd yacht!” Rich guy is still rich, but some yacht-making craftsmen will see his work disappear. You may not like “trickle-down” economics, but I don’t like that beer makes me fat. Tough shit.

Filthy rich CEOs create jobs

As for the difference of value between one person’s work and another’s, the work of a CEO or VP of sales can produce contracts and capital to produce more jobs, while the work of the entry-level employee cannot. The CEO comes up with a good idea and fronts his own money to the entry-level employee to help him achieve a goal. Rich businessmen may be in it for the money, but their desire for it creates amazing byproducts. Their prosperity helps create prosperity for others.

Steve Jobs invested millions of dollars into a touch screen cell phone that could have bombed. The incentive to make billions from it is what made him take the risk. What happened? The iPhone is a huge succes, and as a result, Apple Corporate had to hire thousands of engineers, sales people, Apple Store had to open new branches, hire more Apple Geniuses. AT&T increased their customer base when people bought and signed up for service with the iPhone, causing them to open more branches, hire more people. Both companies probably had to hire new HR employees to handle all the new employees. Is Steve Jobs an evil businessman? Did his money and prosperity not get back to the “people”?

In this financial crisis, people have gotten fed up with rich businesses making “too much” money, so they want the government to take care of it. Americans are appalled that some CEO made $200 million, and they want people like Obama to take it away. Obama is happy to oblige, but just because Obama might be able to get his buddies to pass legislation stealing that CEOs contractually agreed upon compensation does not change the fact that it is stealing. You take all the crazy incomes of all the Wall Street CEOs, and give them back to the American people, it will be about $20 a person. Does that solve your financial woes? Why not let that CEO keep it and wait for him to invest it in the market, or in a new company that creates hundreds or thousands of new jobs?

The myth of Robin Hood

Robin Hood did not steal money from a rich businessman. He stole it from a rich dictator, who decided the levels of taxation with no concern or council from the people. Barack Obama would like you to think he is Robin, when in fact he is King John.

Obama did not pitch a shutout in the competition for spouting liberal, and sometimes communist, nonsense. My rough score in that department was Obama 9, McCain 3.

O: “If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust”
IF?! Would you consider our invasion of Europe “ineffective” intervention in the Holocaust? How did this guy get nominated?
O: “Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan.”
August 2007, Obama said, “There are terrorists holed up in [Pakistan's] mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans,” he said. “They are plotting to strike again… If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
ACTUALLY SENATOR, YOU DID. If the actionable intelligence simply confirms bin Laden’s presence in the mountains, you have two options: bomb every square inch of the mountains, or invade Pakistan. So you either lied, or you threatened to bomb Pakistan.

O: “Prosperity isn’t going to trickle down”
Barack, you war on big business ignores the fact that big business is where jobs come from. I realize you want the government to employ everyone, but if you liberals actually succeeded in putting Exxon out of business, 106,000 people would lose their livelihood.
O: “Tax cuts for 95% of Americans”
Americans in the top 5% of adjusted gross income pay over 60% of all taxes. Barack Obama claims that’s not enough. Did you know that 33% of everyone who files taxes don’t pay any taxes? So Barack can only lower taxes for 67% of Americans WHO FILE taxes. He pulls number out of his ass.
O: “Need bailout so people can stay in their houses”
He wants the bailout so people can stay in “their” houses. The reason we need the bailout is because these people can’t afford the house. If they can’t afford the house, why should they get to stay? Is he saying every American has the right to own a home? Preposterous! And the houses aren’t “theirs” anymore. The second they stop paying for it makes them squatters.

Mc: “Fighting against climate change”
McCain being the RINO liberal he is. We have much bigger problems, John. But I’ve covered this topic extensively in my past posts on the global warming crisis FARCE. Click the global warming category in the right column.

O: “Oil companies have 68 million acres of land; use them or lose them”
Why Barack Obama thinks the land oil companies own is any of his friggin business is beyond my comprehension. They’re paying all the bills and taxes for their land, so why is it anyone’s business what they use it for? Obama is essentially threatening to take land from private entities arbitrarily. Totalitarian, communist claptrap.

O: “Americans buying American cars instead of foreign cars”
Hey Barry, let’s just stop importing anything. No more foreign televisions, or clothes. Good luck with that approach. Not to mention that many parts in American cars are foreign parts. The auto industry is global, not American versus non-American.
Mc: “Reset mortgages to new value with $300 billion bill”
The government deciding what the price of houses should actually be is so anti-American, I can’t believe John McCain actually said it out loud. Homebuyer agreed to pay the mortgage amount, seller accepted. End of discussion. The homebuyer could have said no, homebuyer said yes; SCREW THAT HOMEOWNER. We start bailing out people who can’t afford what they buy, everyone will see no reason to ever live below their means.
Mc: “Traveled the world and seen the devastation of greenhouse gases”
You can’t “see” the devastation. Even Al Gore doesn’t claim there’s damage right now except maybe the Arctic, but that there will be damage real, real soon. McCain’s pandering here, and its why conservatives have never been excited about him.

O: “3% of world oil, 25% of oil use”
Correct, according to Nationmaster.com, the U.S. represents 25.2% of the world’s oil consumption. But comparing it to the 3% number is irrelevant to arguing that we should cut back our use. Logic would dictate if we use 25% of the world’s fuel, we should produce 25% of the world’s wealth. Turns out 25.2% oil consumption by the U.S. results in 25.5% of the world’s GDP. As usual, liberals only use statistics that look good for them. Our oil use is quite fair.

O: “Healthcare is a right”
This is communism. Americans have the right to pursue happiness, not the right to have happiness. The founders were careful with their wording to clarify no one is entitled to happiness, but that no one should be singled out for prevention of the pursuit. Do we have the right to have a full head of hair? Do we have the right to be beautiful? I suppose any family with 2 adults has the right to have 2 cars, or should they have to make due with 1, to be fair to those who can’t afford 2?

I overheard someone talking about healthcare, saying that its absolutely unacceptable that medical care would be for profit. The majority of liberals would agree with this, so I ask you, why on god’s green earth would anyone ever go to medical school? Why bother spending your 20s studying 24/7 to make the same amount as an accountant who stopped studying at age 22?

In the breathless pursuit of diverse acceptance, UK’s Chief Justice Nicholas Phillips declared that there is nothing wrong with legal matters being dictaed by laws “other than British law.” Golly gosh, I’m so enlightened that I’ll even say my own laws could be nonsense. I guarantee you that although feminists tend to be liberal and/or communist, they (sure as god made little green apples) get off the bus at Sharia law.

This is why I hate liberals and communists (although I would argue in many instances, the line between those two is very blurry). There is this obsession with seeming to be uber-enlightened about all cultures. Lord Phillips is essentially saying that British law is not necessarily better than other laws, Sharia being the comparison in this case. To be fair, he said the Sharia tenets that allow stoning and cutting people’s hands off are not acceptable, but the mere acknowledgment simply accepts the premise that British law is not good enough. He is giving credibility and respect to a despicable, fascist, sexist set of rules made in the stone ages.

Hey Lord Phillips, if Hitler gave money to charity, I don’t think any sane person would go to him as an expert on compassion. Yet, you wanna give jurisprudence to a culture that thinks women shouldn’t be allowed to pray when menstruating or wear whatever clothing they see fit simply because they’re not totally insane when it comes to business contracts. Muslim women aren’t even allowed to wear that stupid wig you Brits still wear. You, sir, are an intellectually lazy moron, and you are a disgrace to the robe and that ridiculous wig. This insane vacuum of logic known as liberalism is killing us slowly. I’m so sick of it.