I Want Your Money

Oliver Stone goes after the Tea Party

Everyones favorite anti-American Hollywood stud Oliver Ston loves violent, authoritarian revolutionaries like Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, but the peaceful, pro-freedom revolutionaries in his own country get nothing but mockery from this guy:

To be called "ignorant" by someone who compares the Tea Party movement to the KKK is fine in my book. When the heck is Hollywood going to learn? Good luck on that next film Mr. Stone.

More college students identifying themselves as Republicans

If the eligibilty to vote for President of the United States was limited to only college students, and the choice was between Barack Obama or Ronald Reagan, who do you think would win? Wait -- that's a stupid question. Instead, how much do you think Obama would win by? I'd say a whole lot; wouldn't you?

But the good news -- if you're a fan of Reagan, that is -- is that the tide is turning against Obama on college campuses all across America. Why, don't just take my word for it:

[A new study] which analyzed voter registration among young voters said more 18- to 29-year-olds are identifying themselves as Republicans, while fewer are registering with the Democratic Party...

According to the study, two years ago young voters identified themselves more as Democrats than Republicans, 62 percent to 30 percent. Now, a young voter is still more likely to be a Democrat, but the gap is closing. By the end of 2009, 54 percent were Democrats, while 40 percent were Republicans.

Young people turning against Democrats? Pigs must be flying somewhere!

What ever could be the cause of this political shift? Well, how about young people are starting to realize that there's a good chance bogus social welfare programs they are forced to pay into, like Social Security, might very well not be around by the time they become eligible to reap the benefits. In other words, they're realizing that they're being treated like slaves, in the sense that their work is forcefully taken from them without just recompense.

But, like the study says, the tide is turning. This ol' country might just have a chance.

Bill Maher Denounces America, Praises European Socialism

Behind that annoying little smirk of his, and the continual statement that Americans are "stupid," Bill Maher, like the rest of the liberal ruling class, is simply a socialist:

"European socialism" is a watered down version of fascism that most definitely does not work. Don't believe me? Take a look at Europe's unemployment, debt, and economic stagnation, which did not begin when Democrats took over Congress in 2006 as in our case, but many decades ago.

Senate Democrats punt on tax vote

Imagine this: you're a big-time network TV producer, and one day your boss (yes, even big-time network TV producers have bosses) comes up and says "Hey, if we don't act soon, our contract with Coca-Cola will run out. Should we let it run out? Or should we renew it?"

At this point in the analogy, you have two options: renew the contract, or let it expire. Actually, I guess you have a third option:  ignore the issue for as long as you can. But you're a hard-working big-time network TV producer, so you're not the kind of person to just pass the buck. Right? So you would make a decision either way; whichever option you determined would be best for your company. Let's see how Congress fared in a similar situation:

Senate Democrats huddled behind closed doors for one hour on Thursday trying to figure out what to do about the expiring Bush tax cuts. With no consensus emerging, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decided to postpone a vote until after the election.

In other words, they decided to pass the buck for as long as possible; until it begins to hurt them politically to do so. It's a decision no hard-working man (or woman) would have made; they would have put their foot down and said "We're making the right decision regardless of what it means for our political careers." That's probably what our big-time network TV producer would have done.

But maybe I'm worrying too much. We're not talking about important people like network TV producers; just important people like Senators, who are only powerful enough to throw us in jail for the rest of our lives.

Why is the sin tax always the scapegoat?

It's been going on from the liberal side of this country for awhile now, they have been steadily jacking up taxes by stealth via sin taxes:

Concerned about the national debt? Alarmed by politicians' inability to balance budgets? Worried that certain programs will be cut? If so, Uncle Sam needs you … to smoke like it's a Mad Men episode, drink booze like a frat boy, gamble like a high-roller and glug soda like a parched child.

The more we indulge in these supposedly sinful activities, the more Big Government profits at our expense. How can we complain when they're only taxing us for our own good? Meanwhile, the definition of "sinful" steadily expands to include more and more activity:

In the past fiscal year, 11 states have increased cigarette taxes, while five states upped their gas taxes. (Yes, even driving is seen as a sin in some quarters today.) Earlier this year, Colorado stopped exempting sugary drinks and fatty snacks from a 2.9% sales tax, while Washington state hiked taxes on beer and soda. And the proposals keep coming: Californians will vote in November whether to legalize and tax marijuana, more than 130 Maryland General Assembly candidates have signed a pledge to vote for a 10-cent tax on all alcoholic drinks, and in Oregon, the Public Health Division is pushing for a soda tax.

All of these taxes will hit the poor harder than the rich, there is no denying that. Remember when Obama was elected on the promise that he would cut taxes for 95% of Americans? One of his first acts on taking office was to sign into law a huge hike in federal tobacco taxes. Most smokers make less than $36,000 a year. But most Americans don't consider that a tax raise because it isn't taken directly out of their paycheck.

Here's an idea I was surprised to read in USA Today:

If politicians continue to enact sin taxes, voters should recommend a new sin tax, one that taxes lawmakers who use cheap tactics to avoid making the tough budgeting decisions. Because when it comes to vices that impact the long-term welfare of the nation, that's a sin much more destructive than driving a gas-guzzling vehicle or enjoying a Coke.

But if you think sin taxes are misleading, wait until the liberals get their beloved value added tax.

Hey White House economic team, how’s that stimulus workin’ out for ya?

You would think that an economic policy which "created or saved 2 million jobs" would at least be able to save the jobs of those who created it. But, we learn something new from the Obama administration every day:

President Obama's top economic adviser, Lawrence H. Summers, will step down as director of the National Economic Council... The departure of Summers, 55, will complete the turnover of three of Obama's four top economic advisers as the administration struggles with the political fallout of a stubbornly weak economy.

Ah, liberal media bias! It's unavoidable! A "stubbornly weak" economy -- as if it's the economy's fault, not the administration's. Pshaw.

Imagine this: It's 2007 and George W. Bush, with the blessings of his team of advisors, launches the "Iraq Surge" strategy. 1 year later, the situation in Iraq has not improved, and 3 of his top 4 military advisors have resigned. 

Would the media not be all over his case? Claiming how "incompetent" he is, and how poor of a job he does at surrounding himself with the right people? Of course they would! Yet almost the same situation under Obama and they're totally willing to play the excuse card: it's not his fault, it's the economy's fault.

Well, we'll see in 2012 where the country really thinks the fault lies. And I have a feeling it won't be good for Obama.

Exhausted of Defending Obama?

Welcome to the world you have created for us Obama supporters: 

Give it a few more years for Obama to hack away at the economy and all of this will seem pale in comparison. I have to hand it to the woman though, at least she is being honest. If I was a supporter of Obama I would be exhausted at this point as well.

The rich will stay silent no longer; and we love it!

It's always struck me as odd that rich people don't stand up for themselves in the face of attack. I mean, you'll hear and see pundits on cable news and columnists in newspapers maligning them left and right, moaning that they have too much freedom and that they're allowed to keep too much of what they earn, yet the rich never respond. Why? Maybe they're too busy getting richer, which is a good thing. (Because they can only get richer by making others' lives better. Hooray for capitalism!)

But today is different. Today we have a real response from a real rich person. I'm not kidding:

My family isn't wealthy. I have no funded retirement plan save Social Security, if it is there when I need it. I have no guarantee of permanent health care. I am paying off school loans for our three children. A meaningful number of my friends have lost their jobs, and all who are still employed, including my family, have taken significant pay reductions...

Apparently our president thinks that living in America is so wonderful that we will never leave, despite being directly attacked and held responsible for the political class's inability to constrain its desire to buy votes with our money. He should think again.

You go, rich person! Vote with your feet. Threaten to leave; and if you really want to, do it. There will be no better signal to Washington that they better start treating all Americans, even rich ones, equally before the law. Because what's "equal" or fair about stealing greater amounts of income from those that earn more? -- i.e., the progressive income tax.

Even if you don't think you have what it takes to run a business or to get rich beyond your wildest dreams, don't denigrate those that feel otherwise. It's like the old saying goes: You'll never see a poor person give anyone a job.

Obama advisor John Holdren wants to “De-develop” America

I can't imagine why many people in America believe some of Obama's advisors have a communist agenda. Science Czar John Holdren wants to "use the free market" to "de-develop the United States."

"A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States," Holdren wrote along with Paul and Anne H. Ehrlich in the "recommendations" concluding their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.

The economic effects of "de-developing" America is supposed to create jobs how? 

However, Holdren's scheme isn't all about suppressing economic activity. Let us not forget that with most things liberal wealth redistribution comes into play:

"Resources must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries," Holdren and his co-authors wrote. "This effort must be largely political, especially with regard to our overexploitation of world resources, but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being."

Perhaps some of you have been to a country with a similar economy and an equitable distribution of wealth. It doesn't exist anymore, but it used to be called the Soviet Union.

Keep in mind Holdren and friends still sing the same evil tune of radical population control and a drastically reduced standard of living.

CNSNews.com recently asked Holdren what he meant by de-developing America:

Holdren responded: "What we meant by that was stopping the kinds of activities that are destroying the environment and replacing them with activities that would produce both prosperity and environmental quality. Thanks a lot."

CNSNews.com then asked: "And how do you plan on implementing that?"

"Through the free market economy," Holdren said.

Comical no?

LA spends $2 million per stimulus job created

When a business sells a unit of a good or service at a loss, a funny phrase that's commonly thrown around is "we'll make up for it with volume"; which is made even more funnier because some people, like Paul Krugman, actually think that that's true. Well, maybe that makes it "scarier," not "funnier." Either way.

Why bring it up? Well, this morning I read this:

The Los Angeles City Controller said on Thursday the city's use of its share of the $800 billion federal stimulus fund has been disappointing. The city received $111 million in stimulus under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) approved by the Congress more than year ago. "I'm disappointed that we've only created or retained 55 jobs after receiving $111 million," says Wendy Greuel, the city's controller, while releasing an audit report.

Let's just punch that into our calculator: $111 million divided by 55 jobs equals... $2.018 million per job. Umm, did I do that right? Two-freaking-million dollars per job? What the heck kinds of jobs are worth two-freaking-million dollars to taxpayers? Unless the titles of the jobs created are something like "Senior Mechanic, Teleportation Device" or "President, Instant Orgasm Machine Department", I think we're getting sorely ripped off. And if our money is being stolen and wasted on government-created jobs, that means we're losing out on jobs created in the private sector, AKA real jobs.

But maybe I'm worrying too much. Even though each job costs absurdly more to taxpayers than what it's worth, the government has a plan: they'll make up for it volume.

The Tea Party is for real and the media hates it

Tell me: how many American political movements do you know of that went from inception to office in about a year? I can think of only one: the Tea Party movement. But what does that mean? Are we really in a special time right now, politically speaking? Will the Tea Party movement actually achieve its goal of reducing the size of the federal government and restoring states' and individual rights? Or will it lose its way, as our country has in the past?

I don't know the answer to that one; but I do know that the Tea Party movement is in full swing. But don't just take my word for it:

Tea Party favorites won two primary elections over more mainstream Republicans on Tuesday... former Gov. Robert Ehrlich won the Republican gubernatorial primary in Maryland... In Delaware, conservative political commentator Christine O'Donnell easily defeated nine-time U.S. Rep. Mike Castle... In New York, conservative Carl Paladino defeated Rick Lazio in the Republican gubernatorial... 

And guess how the establishment feels about the Tea Party victories? They hate it! Take, for example, the very first sentence in the article I cited above: "Tea Party favorites won two primary elections over more mainstream Republicans on Tuesday..." What the heck does that term mean, more mainstream? News flash: they lost their elections, which means that more people voted against them than for them, which means that the mainstream didn't support them. So how can you be the least popular candidate in a race but be mainstream at the same time? I guess that's why we need the uber-wise media to tell us things: because we're just too stupid to figure it out on our own.

But don't let the media get you down, kids. Freedom and prosperity are on the way. Stay positive.

NY Times Attack on Boehner Revealed as False

As Obama rallies his loyal liberal minions against John Boehner, the NY Times accused him of wallowing in lobbyist cash. However, leave it to the Washington Examiner to point out the following:

• Nancy Pelosi has raised almost twice as much money from lobbyists this election as Boehner has.

• At least 18 House Democrats have raised more lobbyist cash this election than Boehner has.

• Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have pocketed more lobbyist cash in the past 18 months than Boehner has raised in the past 6 elections, combined.

The NY Times spins that Boehner's ties to lobbyists "seem especially deep." Passing off the way things "seem" as factual reporting. In reality, Boehner has pocketed under $40,000 this election cycle — compared to Pelousy's $71,000. Since 1999, Boehner has received $299,490…

For comparison, Harry Reid, Blanche Lincoln, and Chuck Schumer have each raised more money from lobbyists in this cycle alone.

As usual, the NY Times counts on people to accept its word without referencing any actual facts. The problem is, ever more people are figuring out that our ruling class does not mean us well, and are finding ways around official reality to get at the truth. 

County sues farmer for growing too many crops

In the 1930s the United States government, through the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), brought about the most widespread famine our country has ever seen. The purpose of the AAA was benign, as liberal policies always are: to improve farmers' lives. However, the implementation was disastrous, and so economically-flawed that Paul Krugman would probably have written glowingly about it. The government thought that if they forced farmers to grow less, the prices of existing crops would rise, and farmers would be better off. Huh?

Enter 2010, seventy-some-odd years after the end of the New Deal. You'd think by now we'd have learned from our mistakes, right? Wrong! Check it:

DeKalb County is suing a local farmer for growing too many vegetables, but he said he will fight the charges in the ongoing battle neighbors call “Cabbagegate”... [he] faces nearly $5,000 in fines.

"Too many vegetables": ha! In whose opinion, exactly? Some councilman, who knows nothing of the farmer, and nothing of the market's desire for such vegetables? But he thinks he's entitled to force his will upon him simply because a group of people elected him in the past?

It's like some famous, long-dead person said: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Let's check our intentions at the door and worry about results, can't we?

Obama admits to lying about raising healthcare costs

Just how little does the average American pay attention to politics? So much so that a leader can flat out admit to lying to everyone - and no one will even care. Here's Obama admitting that he knew perfectly well ObamaCare would raise healthcare costs, because "We didn't think we were going to cover 30 million people for free":

Here is Obama BEFORE ObamaCare passed promising it would lower healthcare costs:

Yet Americans are still asked to believe that putting the healthcare industry in a pit of red tape will magically save this country money? If you thought healthcare was expensive before, just wait until it's free.

Obama’s new economic advisor is just as clueless as the old one

At this point in President Obama's administration, with the economy doing this bad, and no signs that anything is likely to improve soon, the only reasonable question left is: Are Democrats doing all this on purpose, or are they just that stupid? Because as things get worse, it's not like they're trying anything new. Take this, for example:

At a press conference today, President Obama announced the appointment of Austan Goolsbee as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, saying he has "complete confidence" in Goolsbee's ability to take on the position.

Guess how much private sector experience Austan Goolsbee has. 10 years? Lower. 5 years? Keep going. 1 year? Still too high!

Goolsbee has no private sector experience (that I could find), just like Christina Romer before him, just like Peter Orszag, just like every economic "guru" in, or formerly-in, the administration. You'd think if President Obama wanted some valuable advice on the economy, he would ask someone who actually knows a thing or two about the economy. But nope, he'll keep trucking away with his Keynesian nonsense that only holds up in classrooms of Ivy League graduate schools across the country, meanwhile denying all of the empirical data that proves his ideology completely wrong.

Albert Einstein once said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I think that means it's now safe to call the Obama administration officially insane.

Dems break from Obama’s new economic plan

Democrats have always had a herd mentality; which makes sense, because the core of what Democrats believe in is: look to someone else to solve your problems. Usually, that "someone else" is "the government." So with news today that some Democrats are breaking from the herd and opposing Obama's new economic plans, I knew that there was trouble in paradise. And by "paradise" I mean "Washington, DC", which is kind of like the opposite of paradise. Anyway:

Within 24 hours of Obama's major address in Ohio on Thursday, a Democratic senator, three House Democrats and another two Democrats vying for open House seats all distanced themselves from Obama's economic plan.

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)... was the first to oppose Obama's proposal. "I will not support additional spending in a second stimulus package," Bennet said in a statement Wednesday.... Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI) said he supports extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans... Rep. John Salazar (D-CO) also expressed doubts, saying he is "skeptical of new spending."... And Rep. Jason Altmire (D), a perennial target for the GOP in PA 04, distanced himself from the Democratic leadership on the economy even before Obama's speech... Stephene Moore (D)... went so far as to release a statement opposing the plan, as did attorney Jon Hulburd (D)...

Well, if Democrats are opposing Obama's plan of spend-more-tax-more, what sort of plan will they be supporting? Could it be... spend-less-tax-less?! Could it be... the return of trickle-down/supply-side/voodoo economics?! Yes, it could be!

In some universe, in some dimension, somewhere, right now Ronald Reagan has a big, fat smile on his face.

Obama and Reagan, together again

Here at I Want Your Money we just love whenever Obama and Reagan get together! (Hint: see our film.) And get together they did today... well, sort of. Just read:

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

I'm not sure what that sentence speaks more to: that Obama has spent an absurd amount of money, or that the dollar has plunged so low in value since the dawn of our country. Actually, I'm thinking the latter.

Not that I don't believe Obama has spent way too much money; he has. But the time between George Washington and Ronald Reagan is 204 years (1980-1776). Let me repeat that: 204 years. It should not be humanly possible for one administration to spend more in 19 months than all others did over the course of 204 years. One last time: 204 years.

The only way it is possible is because our dollars are barely worth the paper they're printed on. Think about this: what costs $1 today costed 8 cents in the year 1800. In other words, the dollar was 12.5 times more valuable back then. How long will that trend continue? Until it takes a hundred bucks to buy a gallon of milk?

And trust me: if it ever gets that bad, milk will be the last of your concerns.

You can’t teach an old socialist new tricks

There's an old medical practice called "bloodletting," which involved curing a patient's illness by removing as much blood as possible from his body. If much blood was removed and the illness remained, well, that meant the only thing left to do was remove more blood. (Of course, we now know that bloodletting is nothing but a load of phony science, just like alchemy.)

There's a contemporary economic practice called "stimulus," which involves curing a country's economic woes by removing as much money as possible from the private sector and spending it through the public sector. If much money is transferred and the economic woes remain, well, that means the only thing left to do is transfer more money. (Of course, we now know that stimulus is the basis of a solid modern graduate-level education in economics, just like monetary policies.)

And on that note, here's today's news:

A combative President Barack Obama rolled out a long-term jobs program Monday that would exceed $50 billion to rebuild roads, railways and runways...

After spending $787 billion and seeing no positive results, you think the administration might be moving on to "try" something else to fix the economy. But nope -- just like the old-time doctors and their bloodletting, the new-time economists are too caught up in their ways to step back and examine the whole picture objectively.

Oh, one more thing: bloodletting actually killed many patients, because humans only have a finite amount of blood to lose before they die. Another thing that's finite: the private sector.

Christina Romer: “Blah blah blah, I’m a liar, blah blah blah”

You ever listen to someone talk, and you know they're lying, and you know they know they're lying, and you think to yourself "Why are we doing this whole song-and-dance in the first place?" Well, that's how I felt after hearing former White House economic advisor Christina Romer speak about her recently-departed job (okay, I didn't "hear" her, I "read" her; but still):

"I think that if you look at the difficult situation that we're in, thank heavens we did the spending and the tax cuts we did in the Recovery Act," said Romer... She thinks the bailout of big banks and Wall Street firms was the right thing to do."It was the right decision," said Romer, "and it's what prevented a great depression."

Wow, really? So let me get this straight: government spending saved us from a "great depression." But government can only spend what it steals takes; so Mrs. Romer believes that if people were left free to spend their own money, as opposed to having a government bureaucrat thousands of miles away spend it for them, the nation would fall into a "great depression." 

Because somehow, somewhere during the process of trading, the process of voluntary exchange between multiple parties in which all parties benefit, a "great depression" can occur. Where exactly? No answer. How exactly? No answer.

No, Christina Romer is just a government bureaucrat, doing all that she can to justify her own existence. But she couldn't play the game as well as her cronies could -- Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, just to name a few -- that's why she's packing up shop and heading back to academia.

And it's sad because Mrs. Romer has a history of being a fine economist, which is the reason why I know she knows she's full of it. But, whatever. She's gone.

And so are our chances of entering the next "great depression."

Christian Science Monitor asks “Does compassion have a place in economics?”

Check your brain at the door: the media wants to tell us something:

"The unemployment-insurance program involves a balance between compassion—providing for persons temporarily without work—and efficiency. The loss in efficiency results partly because the program subsidizes unemployment, causing insufficient job-search, job-acceptance and levels of employment... it is reasonable during a recession to adopt a more generous unemployment-insurance program."

I'm confused. So "compassion" is defined as a "generous unemployment-insurance program." That means it's "compassionate" to steal money from those with incomes in order to give to those who do not have incomes. How is that compassionate? I would think compassion would be if someone voluntarily gave up X percentage of their income; but I find no compassionate whatsoever when someone puts a (metaphorical) gun to your head demanding the same X percentage.

So go ahead, Christian Science Monitor -- ask me your silly little question.

"Does compassion have a place in economics?"

No.

Liberal Media Puts Their Money Where Their Mouths Are

Some stories are so unsurprising — like this confirmation that the mainstream media heavily supported Obama's journey to the White House:

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. …

President Obama received 710 such contributions worth a total of $461,898, for an average contribution of $651 from the network employees. Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain received only 39 contributions totaling $26,926, for an average donation of $709.

Ninety-six contributions by broadcast network employees to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senate and House campaign committees totaled $217,881.

Thirty-eight contributions by broadcast network employees to the Republican National Committee and the Republican Senate and House campaign committees totaled $23,805.

There is no way an unqualified candidate could be made President of the United States without having the support of the establishment media. Any sort of impartial media would have examined the candidate based on their qualifications and reported as such.

The good news is that with Obama's presidency going down at a record pace, he is likely to bring the left-wing elites who dominate the media with him. After confirming their belief in him as presidential material, how could they expect anyone to ever believe them again?

Newsweek slams Republican plan to fix economy

Newsweek sucks. There, I said it.

I mean, you'd think after watching their circulation numbers drop like the percentage of Americans who don't think Obama is a Muslim, and after being sold for one freaking dollar, the radically-left Newsweek would change its ways, and instead of regurgitating typical liberal talking points they would explore the full spectrum of American political ideologies.

Nope.

Here's their latest, a rant against Republican economic solutions:

Nothing is more important to Republican politicians these days than jobs and the deficit... There's only one problem... the things that Republicans have said they want to do won't actually boost employment or reduce deficits. In fact, much the opposite... [we] found that if Republicans were in charge from January 2009 onward... the projected 2010–2020 deficits would be larger than they are under Obama, and fewer people would probably be employed.

And the rest of the piece? "Blah blah blah, government is good; blah blah blah, freedom is bad."

To Newsweek -- and every other liberal media outlet -- the idea that an American citizen should be allowed to keep his earnings so that he might spend it only on things he wants and never on things he doesn't want is as crazy as believing Lindsey Lohan will clean up her life. But guess what? Lindsey Lohan just might clean up her life. And economic freedom causes prosperity, as well.

So keep writing liberal trash, Newsweek, filled with utopian government falsehoods; because unlike you, we don't demand control over what people do with their lives.

Keynesianism = the slow death of an economy

You know what? I'm not even going to make a catchy intro to today's news. It's just that bad. Let's get right to it:

The government is about to confirm what many people have felt for some time: The economy barely has a pulse. The Commerce Department on Friday will revise its estimate for economic growth in the April-to-June period and Wall Street economists forecast it will be cut almost in half, to a 1.4 percent annual rate from 2.4 percent.

Yikes. Who would have thought that stealing people's money and spending it on near-worthless pet projects like bridges, museums, and teachers union pensions -- something referred to by liberals as a "stimulus" -- would grind the economy to a halt? (Duh.)

Our economy is not going to improve anytime soon -- that's not the issue. The issue is: looking forward, will liberals realize the error in their ways? Will they renounce Keynesianism for the garbage that it is? Or instead will they, like Paul Krugman surely will, double-down on their ideology and claim that "Well, the stimulus just wasn't big enough."

I think I know the answer -- and it's not the answer I'm looking forward to.

Stallone on “The Expendables” Movie - America apologizes too much

Liberals don't like it when we think in terms of right and wrong, because they are wrong and they know it. Forcing them to do so makes them feel as though their actions may actually be harming the country they claim to love so much. This is why they try to blur the distinction with the "nuance" they so prize — and also why they can't stand movies like Sylvester Stallone's new "The Expendables."

As for the message that has gotten under critics' skin,

"It's pretty straight forward," Stallone said. "You're bad, you gotta go."

Doesn't sound that bad to me? In fact - I agree with Stallone. If you're a "good guy" you have nothing to worry about in America.

Stallone … doesn't apologize for creating characters that are proud Americans and offers the observation that: "America apologizes too much."

It looks like "The Expendables" will be tops at the box office again this weekend. Maybe the libs dominating Hollywood will take a clue.

Liberals just don’t get Middle America

You know, for a group of people who consider themselves to be "sooooo open-minded," liberals have a hard time grasping some very basic concepts. For example, the concept that, out of a country of roughly 300 million people, over half the US population does not live in major metropolitan areas like New York City or Los Angeles.

Why do I bring this up? Check out how the bewildered Left feels about our upcoming flick:

While the concept of the right-leaning documentary isn't exactly unheard of, there isn't a lot of precedence for wide theatrical release. "I find this unusual," said veteran publicist Fredell Pogidin, who has overseen the Oscar campaigns of top documentary filmmakers for years. "Documentaries typically get most of their play in the top 10 markets. I don't know how you get a documentary into small-town America."

Gee, ya don't think "small-town America" has theaters, too?!

Hollywood insiders like "veteran publicist" Fredell Pogidin think every documentary is doomed to fall in smaller markets. Why? I guess because the poor ol' backwards folk located between New York and California just don't have the mental capacities to understand the wisdoms of Al Gore and Michael Moore, right?

Wrong! Documentaries have historically failed in smaller markets because they don't appeal to the people that inhabit smaller markets. News flash: the farmer in Des Moines, Iowa doesn't want to hear about how evil America is, or how much his farming is contributing to global destruction. He cares about two things: raising his family, and making money; neither of which have been portrayed favorably in recent Hollywood documentaries.

That's why I Want Your Money has a sporting chance at cracking those smaller markets and turning Hollywood around. For one, the movie is really good -- you gotta see it. And two, it portrays not only America as a country favorably, but the individual as well. That means small-town farmers, policemen, teachers, and doctors get the same treatment as Major League Baseball players, Hollywood producers, and even *gasp* politicians. It's a rare breath of fresh air.

So while the Left scratch their heads, we'll be celebrating as Americans from all parts of the country visit their local theaters to watch our little production. Hopefully, we'll be just the first of many "right-wing" documentaries coming your way.

Got a blog? Big Government wants your money

There is no productive activity that the elites in government won't smother with their illogical approach to the economy. The politicians running Philadelphia into the ground are now taxing blogs.

Marilyn Bess has made $50 over the past few years from her microblog MS Philly Organic and contributions to ehow.com:

In May, the city sent Bess a letter demanding that she pay $300, the price of a business privilege license. "The real kick in the pants is that I don't even have a full-time job, so for the city to tell me to pony up $300 for a business privilege license, pay wage tax, business privilege tax, net profits tax on a handful of money is outrageous," Bess says. It would be one thing if Bess' website were, well, an actual business, or if the amount of money the city wanted didn't outpace her earnings six-fold. Sure, the city has its rules; and yes, cash-strapped cities can't very well ignore potential sources of income. But at the same time, there must be some room for discretion and common sense.

However, if Big Government had any discretion or common sense, it wouldn't spend itself into the situation of having to loot its citizen's:

When Bess pressed her case to officials with the city's now-closed tax amnesty program, she says, "I was told to hire an accountant." She's not alone. After dutifully reporting even the smallest profits on their tax filings this year, a number — though no one knows exactly what that number is — of Philadelphia bloggers were dispatched letters informing them that they owe $300 for a privilege license, plus taxes on any profits they made. … Even though small-time bloggers aren't exactly raking in the dough, the city requires privilege licenses for any business engaged in any "activity for profit," says tax attorney Michael Mandale of Center City law firm Mandale Kaufmann. This applies "whether or not they earned a profit during the preceding year," he adds.

The result is that the vast majority of Philly bloggers probably have to pay more in taxes and fees than they generate in revenue. The power to tax is the power to destroy — and in this case, to silence.

LA builds the most expensive public school ever

Pop quiz: Assume there's a business called "Joe's Pencils," which has historically been the top pencil manufacturer of the United States. But as of recent, Joe's Pencils's revenue has been way down, so much so that they've had to lay off many workers and cut pay for many more. Joe's Pencils opens up a brand new state-of-the-art pencil factory, the most elaborate and expensive in the country. Question: What happens to Joe's Pencils?

A) Their misallocation of funds would probably put them out of business, or at least cause them to file for bankruptcy and restructure.
B) Absolutely nothing. They can legally steal from others to continue their existence.

Time's up! What'd you get? Obviously, the answer is A. (That was obvious, right?) Now replace "Joe's Pencils" with "Los Angeles public schools" and try again. What'd you get this time? Hey, I got B, too! 

Ready for the scary part? Here we go:

With [LA's Robert F. Kennedy community school featuring] the eye-popping price tag of $578 million, it will mark the inauguration of the nation's most expensive public school ever. The K-12 complex to house 4,200 students has raised eyebrows across the country as the creme de la creme of "Taj Mahal" schools, $100 million-plus campuses boasting both architectural panache and deluxe amenities.

(That the word "panache" can be used in the same sentence as "public school" makes me very suspicious.)

That's right, my hypothetical prefacing question isn't so far from reality after all. Actually, it is reality here in Los Angeles. The same Los Angeles, by the way, that's facing a yearly $285 million budget deficit. 

The reason the private sector functions so much more efficiently than the public sector is because it has a feedback mechanism, called "the market," which provides information about what to build and when to build it. The feedback mechanism in the public sector, called "elections," is much, much, much, much slower -- try "once every 4 years" vs. "every single second of every single day" -- and provides much, much, much, much less information than the market. But why worry about a "feedback" mechanism when you've got a "defense" mechanism? -- as the public sector does.

Scratch that: it's not a "defense" mechanism -- it's an "offense" mechanism. And it functions off of your money. Enjoy!

Obama’s economic mess brought to you by the letter W.

The main stream media is getting desperate in its attempts to blame W. for the economic havoc Obama currently has us sinking in. Did W. play a role in getting us in this mess? Yes - of course. But that doesn't mean the next leader can sit back and make the problem worse, all the while pointing his finger at the guy in charge before him. As we stumble toward the second dip of a recession that thanks to Obama's policies may become a depression, CNN came up with some clever psychological tactics — clever for CNN anyway:

What do you think? Am I over thinking things here, or was that a cheap shot?

I think a better letter would have been a giant O. You know, to symbolize the never ending circle of debt this administration has us driving in.

How many food outbreaks until we’re allowed to question the FDA?

Why is it that whenever there's some sort of recall -- tires, kids' toys, food, or whatever -- the private sector takes 100% of the blame, while the regulatory agencies in charge of, well, regulation, get off scot-free? I mean, "regulation" is a term that means (at least historically) "to make regular"; so if a "regulatory" agency isn't "making things regular," shouldn't it be considered a total failure?

Here's what got me on the tangent:

Hundreds of people have been sickened in a salmonella outbreak linked to eggs in four states and possibly more, health officials said Wednesday as a company dramatically expanded a recall to 380 million eggs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is working with state health departments to investigate the illnesses... The Food and Drug Administration also is investigating.

Gee, don't you feel so safe? -- knowing that well after an outbreak occurs the infallible CDC and FDA are on the case.

I know what you're thinking: What are you suggesting? That we get rid of federal regulatory agencies? Ding Ding! Someone get this really good-looking blog-reader a prize! (You are really good-looking, aren't you?)

Imagine a country without government regulation: would it be chaotic, with dangerous products abound and crises behind every corner? No sir! (Or ma'am.) A country without government regulation would instead have private regulation. And just as the reputations of producers hinge on the confidences of consumers willing to buy their products, so would the reputations of private regulatory firms. Think about it: if the FDA slips up and lets a dangerous product hit the market, what happens to the FDA? Abso-friggin-lutely nothing. If a private regulatory firm did the same, what would happen? Well, I can't say for sure, but said firm's reputation would suffer, maybe enough so that it would go out of business, leaving the market wide-open for a better, safer firm.

Government agencies, especially federal government agencies, are almost completely insulated from feedback; they have no reason and no need to do their jobs better, which means they develop no desire to do their jobs better. Is that the attitude you want from the people who ensure the quality of products you put in your mouth? (I'm talking here about "food," not "tires." But I guess you could put a tire in your mouth if you really wanted to.)

I guess it comes down to the same age-old question our country has always wrestled with: Should you be allowed to take care of yourself (individualism), or should you be forced to leave it up to people with guns (socialism)? 

Gee, when I phrase the question like that, the answer becomes crystal-clear, doesn't it? *wink*

‘Next Time Dems Call You Extreme, Show Them This Video’

I'm a sucker for a good ad, and boy o' boy do the Republican's have a good one on their hands. The new web video from NRSC showcasees just who is really the "extreme" party in America:

No one likes ideological politicians, and that's why Americans are fleeing Obama in droves. Will Americans rise up and send the Dems packing in November? Or will the Republicans lose steam and blow it in the bottom of the 9th?

What do you think?

Obama’s poll numbers reach new low: will he be a Jimmy Carter or a Ronald Reagan?

Before I begin, I want to preface this post with a confession: I don't give a damn about polls. Why? Well, because usually the issue at-hand being polled isn't subject to an agree-or-disagree vote; and by that I mean the truth is the truth, regardless of what 51% of the population thinks. I'm sure at one point that at least 51% of the world thought the earth was flat, or at least 51% of pre-Civil War America thought slavery was acceptable. Does that make things correct, or morally right? Certainly not. (See argumentum ad populum.)

Now, on to the news (from here and here):

More than half of Americans now disapprove of President Barack Obama's job performance... Gallup's tracking poll for Saturday through Monday found Obama's disapproval rating at 51 percent, a new high, the organization said Tuesday. For the third day in a row, the president's average approval rating was 42 percent, also a low for Obama.

... just 41 percent of those surveyed approve of the president's performance on the economy, down from 44 percent in April, while 56 percent disapprove. And 61 percent say the economy has gotten worse or stayed the same on Obama's watch.

Yikes! How will Barack's teleprompter explain this mess?

But before Obama opponents get excited or Obama supporters get discouraged, keep this in mind: Ronald Reagan's approval ratings hovered near 40% his entire second year of office, causing the Republicans to lose about 25 seats in the House. He entered his third year of office, 1983, with a a 35% approval rating. Yikes!

Of course, we know Reagan's ratings improved through the rest of his presidency -- he won the 1984 election by an absurd landslide -- so will Barack Obama do the same?

Ha! There's no way! Reagan's ratings improved because he increased freedom and prosperity for his constituents, not decreased it like Obama is doing, and plans on continuing to do. Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan. He's a Jimmy Carter; a President the people liked for a year, then realized he was terrible at the job so they fired him after 4 years and he became immediately irrelevant.

Don't you agree?

Joe Biden’s stimulus prediction was 100% WRONG!

Ok everyone hold onto your seats here, but it appears Joe Biden was wrong! Shocking, I know. After all Mr. Biden hasn't done anything in the past to make us think he's the sharpest tool in the shed, right? RIGHT?!

It just so turns out though that Joe Biden was VERY wrong on his stimulus prediction. In February 2009, Joe Biden made the promise that the stimulus would fix the economy in 18 months. That would mean the economy would be back on track in August 2010.

"This [stimulus] is about getting this out and spent in 18 months to create 3.5 million jobs," Biden said, adding the package contains provisions that "literally drop-kicks us out of this recession."

Someone should point out to the VP that the U.S. Department of Labor shows more than 3.3 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was enacted in February of 2009. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the unemployment rate held steady at 9.5 percent in July. The rate was approximately 7.7 percent when Obama signed the stimulus into law.

However I don't think the Republicans will gain any traction from pointing out anything Biden has said in the past. Nobody believes a word out of that idiot's mouth.

Can we get Biden on TV more? I always love when he opens his mouth, there's never a shortage of "whoopsies" with him.

Will Obama ever stop wasting our money on his cross-country excursions?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't remember George W. Bush or Bill Clinton constantly travelling around the country promoting their fellow partymen (that's not a real word, but it should be). Yet with Barack Obama, it seems like the guy is always in a different part of the USA promoting this-or-that part of his agenda or this-or-that Democratic candidate. But don't just take my word for it:

President Barack Obama is out to make sure his presence pays for Democrats, launching a three-day fundraising trip on Monday in which he will touch nearly every region of the nation and play up his economic agenda.

Obama will spend the heart of his Monday in Wisconsin... He will cap his day at a glitzy fundraiser in Los Angeles for congressional Democratic candidates... All together, Obama will visit Wisconsin, California, Washington, Ohio and Florida before returning to the nation 39;s capital Wednesday night.

Oh boy, a tour of the entire country all from the comfort of your own private jet! I guess not even a guy that doesn't particularly like his own country would turn that down.

But the question that immediately strikes me is: If your agenda is so correct, and if you're so popular as a President, then why the need to traverse the whole subcontinent just to get right in peoples' faces? I mean, they shouldn't need any face-to-face persuasion, right? They should already be on your side, geared up to pull the lever for their local Democrat come November. Could it be that Mr. Cool, Calm, and Collected is actually nervous for the upcoming election?! Gasp!

Oh, one more thing: guess who pays for all of the President's galavanting? That's right: you do. And at almost $70,000 per hour, Air Force One isn't the cheapest way to get around town. But I guess when you're a "public servant" the regular rules don't apply.

Especially rule #1: act like a damn servant.

James Caan comes out of the Hollywood liberal closet

Hopefully this is a peek of things to come out of Hollywood. For a long time Hollywood has been the heartbeat of liberal ideals and their death-lock on all things pop-culture. But as of last week liberal Hollywood has "lost" one of its most talented stars:

Veteran actor James Caan let people in on a little secret last week. After 46 successful years among Hollywood's most outspoken liberal stars, he's speaking up about breaking the mold.

"I'm an ultra conservative," he said at Moet & Chandon's 6th Annual Hollywshorts Film Festival Opening Night Celebration in Los Angeles.

"I'm not a G** damn Hollywood liberal, I'm not," he said...

Unlike the endless supply of liberal tinseltown moonbats, Caan doesn't feel the need to hold forth on every issue:

When Pop Tarts questioned him on California courts deeming Proposition 8, which bans same sex marriage, "unconstitutional," he preferred to keep his lips sealed.

"I don't want to comment on that. I'll let those other geniuses do that -- all those actors who like to find a stage to push their agendas," he said. "They don't have political science degrees... I certainly don't. I'll leave it to Sean Penn or Barbra Streisand to comment on that."

Kudos to you Mr. Caan for standing up for what you believe in! Being somewhat "connected" in the Hollywood crowd myself I know there are PLENTY other actors and actresses who feel the same way James does, but they just can't be as open about it.

But are things about to change? One can only hope....

Youth unemployment hits record high

Global youth unemployment has hit a record high following the financial crisis, the International Labor Organization said Thursday.

The report says 81 million out of 630 million 15-24 year olds around the world were unemployed at the end of 2009. This is the highest number ever recorded for that age group. Not only is this news depressing, but it's also not surprising. For decades now we have gone after businesses and the progressive countries of the world have done everything in their power to make employing a person a nightmare. Couple this with the "entitled" youth of America and other countries, and well...I think you get where that number comes from.

The world risks a "lost generation" of people who drop out of the job market, and either out of frustration or joy decide to never join it again. After all, if you live in a country where the basic necessities of life are considered a "right", why would you be surprised when some then want nothing more but those basic "rights" - paid for by someone else of course.

Is this a win or a loss for the liberals in America? The more people they can get hooked on government dependency, the more dependent voters they can capture. 

The idealistic youth of America played a large role in Obama being elected, perhaps a silver lining with this large unemployment number is a wake up call from them in the 2012 elections.

An informed youth, is an employed youth.

                                                                                         Meet the future.

More wealth redistribution, coming right up!

If you're anything like me you probably ask yourself, after hearing news of the next Democratic "solution" to this-or-that economic problem: "Are they just wrong? Or is there a layer of evil in there, as well?"

Because I've got news for you -- the next Democratic "solution" is just around the corner. And guess what it is? Ding ding! That's right: More redistribution of wealth! But don't just take my word for it:

The Obama administration is providing $3 billion to unemployed homeowners facing foreclosure in the nation's toughest job markets... California will get the largest share of money for the Treasury program, at $476 million. Florida is in line for nearly $239 million. Illinois will receive $166 million and Ohio will receive $149 million.

Let me translate: if you spent too much money on a house then lost your job, don't worry about it. The marvelously-benevolent Obama administration is going to force money away from those who didn't make the same financial mistakes as you, and use it to pay for your mortgage. Shucks, if only everything was this easy!

But there's just one small catch: giving unemployed people money for free is a major disincentive for them to find a job. And after a while, people that do have jobs will stop working hard, because why should they? The government will just steal whatever extra they earn. So they give up. And then everyone becomes poor. And only at that point will everyone finally be equal.

Just the way Obama wants it!

Obama debates himself on Afghanistan (video)

You know things are getting bad when the far-left leaning Huffington Post begins to turn on President Obama. I'd like to say that I feel bad for politicians because every word they say is being watched, and waited to be debated or blogged about by millions. However, suck it up.  You signed up for this.

The Huffington Post, which is normally one of Obama's blind supporters, has put up a video showing President Obama's recent comments on Afghanistan with remarks from 2007, in which then Senator Obama tore into the Bush administration's Iraq policy. Watch as Obama questions the practice of nation building and continuous war, and how he then goes onto literally debate with his future self:

Pretty amazing how quickly things turn when you're trying to get votes huh!? Even more amazing to watch a man speak from both sides of his mouth so badly that he can debate with himself.

Fed looking for more ways to ruin the economy

Just when you thought our economy might be finally on the rebound, here comes the Fed, rushing to save the day! And by "save the day" I mean "ruin the next decade," because that's how the Fed works -- its "recovery" policies are like sweeping all of the dirt in your room under your bed: sure, it might be a temporary fix, but you're only delaying the inevitable. Well, let's get to it:

A disappointing jobs report Friday has intensified speculation that the Federal Reserve could take steps this week to stimulate the faltering recovery. The Fed's most dramatic move would be to purchase new mortgage-backed securities or Treasury bonds to lower interest rates...

Look at that, "mortgage-backed securities." Remember those? Remember when you kept hearing the term "toxic assets" being bandied about? Well, just like the dirt in your bedroom, they haven't gone away -- they've merely been shuffled around. (My introductory analogy was better than you thought, eh?)

If economic-talk gives you headaches, allow me to explain things clearly for you: mortgage-backed securities are essentially contracts that have no chance of being fulfilled; in other words, worthless pieces of paper. The difference is that the contracts aren't held by average joes like you and me -- they're held by big, powerful banks that have old college frat buddies in Washington, DC. So if we held a contract that couldn't be paid off we'd (rightfully) be reprimanded somehow. But when they hold contracts that can't be paid off they sell it to their buddies at the Federal Reserve, who can then fulfill the terms of the contract by simply printing more dollars; which makes all of the other dollars in circulation -- all the ones that you, me, and the rest of the average joes have -- worth less. 

And yet, Democrats and big-government Republicans still get away with claiming that this is the path to recovery and prosperity. Pardon my French, but WTF?!??!

If you need to brush up on your economic knowledge, now is the time do it -- because there's not much time left. A good way to start is by seeing I Want Your Money. Do it. Now.

Big surprise: the economy is getting worse

Well, I guess I'll just get straight to the news:

U.S. employment fell for a second straight month in July as more temporary census jobs ended while private hiring rose less than expected, pointing to an anemic economic recovery...

The unemployment rate was unchanged at 9.5 percent in July for a second straight month, just below market expectations for a rise to 9.6 percent. The steady jobless rate largely reflected a drop in the labor force as discouraged workers gave up the search for jobs.

You know, the unemployment rate has always bothered me. The way it's calculated, if a worker has been out of a job for more than, say, 1 year, he is no longer considered unemployed. I guess he's considered "perma-unemployed." But how does that make sense? I mean, the guy still isn't working, right? So, eventually, he'll need to work again, right? (I understand that in some cases the person in question may be a millionaire retiring at an early age; but that's surely the exception, not the standard.)

So what's happening right now is that our economy is getting so bad that people have been out of work for more than 1 year, even though they want to be working. That means the unemployment rate doesn't really reflect the true job market. Economists say it's 9.5%? Ha! I guarantee once you add in the long-term unemployed workers it's closer to 15%. Can you say... "soup kitchens"?

But wait -- there's more bad news, this time from the idiotic, nonsensical, immoral Federal Reserve:

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has said the U.S. central bank could take steps to further ease monetary policy if the recovery were to falter.

Further ease monetary policy? Are you freaking kidding me?! We've had the easiest monetary policy for the past decade, as the federal funds rate barely topped 6% in 2001 and is now hovering near 0. What we need to do is jack the rate up to 20%, as Paul Volcker did during the Reagan administration. Only then will we curb the rampant inflation that's just around the corner.

But don't expect things to get better anytime soon. Because we'll be "Obama's America" for at least the next 2 more years.

Dems seek to raise taxes on red states

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, they reveal an astonishing proposal by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and four other members of new York's House caucus:

One irony of the tax increase that arrives on January 1st is that it will hit residents of high-income, Democratic-leaning states like California, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York the hardest. This is a problem for the pro-tax Democrats.

Enter New York Representative Jerrold Nadler, who wants to exempt his own six-figure constituents from the tax hike he supports. Mr. Nadler's bill would "Require the IRS to adjust tax brackets proportionally in regions where the average cost of living is higher than the national average."

In other words, the various tax brackets would apply to residents in certain regions at higher income levels versus other parts of the country. A family with an income of $50,000 or even $1 million in Manhattan would pay less federal income tax than a family with the same earnings in Omaha. The bill is called the Tax Equity Act, but a more accurate title would be the BLue State Tax Perference Act.

Here we go folks. We are spending WAY more money than we have, so the liberal machine is starting the tax monster up again. There is just one problem, they don't want to pay more taxes, they just want YOU to pay more taxes. This is what happens when progressive liberal spending takes hold in America. They have to find more sources of revenue, but don't want to pay themselves, and so the economic targeting begins.

Perhaps the people who support this bill should look at WHY it's so expensive to live in places like New York. The reason it's so expensive is because of high state and local taxes, union rules, and business regulations that make it MORE expensive to produce, sell, and buy products in those regions.

Why should someone in Oklahoma be punished for someone in California's bad decisions?

When you run out of other peoples money to spend, you start to get desperate. 

Missouri socks it to the federal government

Now now, old buddy, old pal; turn that frown upside down, because we're finally blogging about some good news!

Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a federal mandate to purchase health insurance, rebuking President Barack Obama's administration...

Look at that -- the concept of "states' rights" does still exist!

Alright, now stop celebrating. (Gee, that didn't last long.) Although the Missouri vote is a great sign of things to come -- one citizen described it as the "vote heard 'round the world" -- it certainly does not mean we're in the clear. Just like how the federal government is suing Arizona over its immigration law, expect the same to happen to any state that refuses to walk lockstep with Washington, DC. 

And that's not a good thing. Why? Because who ultimately decides court cases like that? The Supreme Court. And who does the Supreme Court work for? The states? Ehhhh! Wrong! Try again! The Supreme Court exists within a branch of the federal government, giving the federal government an unfair advantage over any state that opposes it. That's why when the states ratified the Constitution way back when, they agreed to a federal government of limited scope with specifically enumerated powers -- not a centralized monstrosity like it is today.

But there I go again -- silly me -- referring to things like "founding documents" or the "Rule of Law." I forgot that in today's political climate, constitutionality doesn't matter -- only "warm, fuzzy emotions" do.

PS: I don't know what accent I was going for in the captioned picture above. You can decide for yourself.

Rep. Pete Stark: Federal Government Can Do Most Anything

The internet is a prime example of why Obama complains that there is too much access to information for people now a days. An informed citizenry is a tyrant's worst nightmare. Take for example the video below. In it a well informed young lady explains to Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) why ObamaCare is against the U.S. Constitution. Her question is a noble one, but what's scary is Stark's answer:

An elected official proclaims in front of voters that the Constitution is no longer valid, and that he and his fellow liberals have total power to inflict whatever they like upon us. This is the same man who once talked about peeing on his constituents' leg. 

Scary.

Scary to think this elected official has these beliefs, and here we are as a nation letting him get away with it. Although I must admit, as you watch the video you can almost see a tinge of doubt in his answer. It's as though he knows the liberals in office are about to lose their power grip on our nation, and that he may be looking for a new job in November. One can only hope...

AP uses absurd “Stress score” in economic analysis

If you've been asleep, living under a rock, or visiting a nearby planet for the past 3 years, the AP has some astonishing news for you: the US economy is not good. Check it out:

After easing for four months, the nation's economic stress worsened in June because more bankruptcies in the West and foreclosures outside the Sun Belt outweighed lower unemployment, according to The Associated Press' monthly analysis of conditions around the country... The AP's index found the average county's Stress score in June was 10.5, up from 10.3 in May.

Ah yes, that's just what we need -- a fancy mathematical "Stress score" (note the AP-approved capitalization) to tell us simple peons when the economy is sour. But this is the kind of thing liberals love. I'm sure the person who created the algorithm for the "Str ess score" feels really, really good about himself, and thinks he's done the world a huge favor. Kind of like Barack Obama.

And the AP is really into the "Stress score":

The AP's index calculates a score for each county and state from 1 to 100 based on unemployment, foreclosure and bankruptcy rates. A higher score indicates more economic stress. Under a rough rule of thumb, a county is considered stressed when its score exceeds 11.

Nevada, with a score of 21.93, again led the nation as it has for more than a year. It was followed by Michigan (16.52), California (16.32), Florida (15.6) and Arizona (15.13).The healthiest state was again North Dakota (4.83). Next came South Dakota (5.02), Nebraska (6.22), Vermont (6.5) and Wyoming (7.33).

Let me recap for you: red state = healthy, blue state = not healthy. Capeesh? (And no, the fact that Florida and Arizona have high Stress scores doesn't disprove my recap. The lands of Charlie Crist and John McCain can hardly be considered "red.")

There's only one indicator you should look to to determine how bad the economy is: your own happiness. Everything else is just silly.

Big government owns rain

Under liberal collectivist views, big government owns everything -- even rain:

Utah isn't alone though, politicians in Colorado have so kindly unclenched their fists, permitting their subjects to borrow some of the government rain that just so happened to fall on them:

In Colorado, two new laws were recently passed that exempt certain small-scale rainwater collection systems, like the kind people might install on their homes, from collection restrictions.

Prior to the passage of these new laws, Douglas County, Colorado, conducted a study on how rainwater collection affects aquifer and groundwater supplies. The study revealed that letting people collect rainwater on their properties actually reduces demand from water facilities and improves conservation. 

I don't mean to be rude, but "duh!". Of course allowing people to collect rainwater reduces demand on water facilities. I wonder how much tax dollars were spent for politicians to figure that one out. 

More importantly, if the government owns rain, what does it NOT feel entitled to? One could very easily then make the argument that government also owns air if that was the case. Bottom line is as long as we as a society allow our leaders to grow their power year over year, more and more situations like the one in the video will become the norm.

In closing:

China’s economic rise will splinter the Tea Party movement

For the first time in a long time, the right-leaning spectrum of American politics is united -- conservatives, libertarians, and other small-government-minded folks are working together to fend off the advances of an all-powerful, rapidly-growing federal government. But how long will it last? How long until one group splinters away and refuses to work with the rest?

My guess: not long. My reason: China. Read this snippet from a recent CNBC article and then I'll explain why:

China has overtaken Japan to become the world's second-largest economy, the fruit of three decades of rapid growth that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Depending on how fast its exchange rate rises, China is on course to overtake the United States and vault into the No.1 spot sometime around 2025, according to projections by the World Bank, Goldman Sachs and others.

Ah! Quick, start learning Mandarin! Just kidding -- the truth is that China's GDP per capita is a small fraction of the US's -- $6k vs. $46k -- but it gets exaggerated when multiplied by the billions of people living in China, versus the barely-300-million here. So China only has economic power on paper. Nothing to worry about.

Back to the right-leaning spectrum of American politics. It's only a matter of time until some conservative leader -- I'm looking straight at you, Pat Buchanan -- sounds the alarm about China and urges fellow conservatives to throw away their free-market ideology. And then the splintering begins -- because how can a party of small government claim to be such when it supports big-government policies of tariffs, embargoes, and trade regulations? Answer: it can't. (At least, it can't without being massively hypocritical.)

So that may be the Tea Party's last stop. When one group says "Yes! Capitalism works! We embrace it, we embrace freedom, and we want everyone to have the same opportunity for prosperity!" -- and another other group says "No! Capitalism only works in small pieces, and we want freedom for Americans to trade with Americans but no one else!"

And when that happens, which side will you be on? The pro-free-trade, pro-freedom side? Or the anti-free-trade, protectionist side? I will, of course, be on the former. I sure hope you'll join me.

Government Motors Buys Subprime Lender

It should come as no surprise that being 61% owned by the government, that GM is now applying the EXACT same ideas that caused this recession to their own company.  That's right, GM has purchased a subprime lender for $3.5 billion:

General Motors Co., the automaker 61 percent owned byt he U.S., is buying subprime lender AmeriCredit Corp. for $3.5 billion to help it reach more customers with leases and loans to borrow with faulty credit records.

Starting to sound familiar? Remember in 2008, the year Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, with assistance from the Community Reinvestment Act, ACORN, and leftist lawyers, were able to collapse the housing market. Sending our entire economy into a tailspin. Now the same strategy is being applied to the auto industry. To many liberal leaders the role of government is to get lower income people into cars and houses, regardless if that means someone else is paying the bills for them.

Can't afford a car? Who the hell cares!? The important thing is making sure you get the care, and if you can't pay the bill, don't worry -- the taxpayers will pay it for you.

Dems break out the big bucks for campaign season TV ads

If you own a television, I've got bad news for you: You'll soon be mobbed with Democratic campaign ads, as the AP reports that Dems are planning on spending close to $50 million in a desperate effort to not get clobbered come November.

Will it work? Nah. 'Tis a clobberin' they'll be receiving! (Say that last sentence in an Irish accent, please.)

But there's a more interesting tidbit of information in AP's story. Check it:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has a 2-to-1 edge over Republicans in campaign cash. Fundraising reports show the Democrats with $34 million banked, and the National Republican Congressional Committee with $17 million in cash on hand.

How could that be? How could Republicans -- the party of the über-rich; the party of yachts, country clubs, and cigars -- have only half the funds of Democrats -- the party of America's downtrodden; the working class; good ol' main street, USA?

Oh I know why -- because those stereotypes are exactly the opposite of where they should be. It's Democrats like John Kerry, the Clintons, and Al Gore that enjoy the high-life. It's Republicans like me (and hopefully you) that are overworked, underpaid, overtaxed, and under-appreciated.

But guess why those false stereotypes persist? Because Democrats enjoy a healthy advantage in media bias -- it's NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, (insert every liberal newspaper in the county here) vs. FOX News. And by "FOX News" I mean "a few commentators on FOX News." Oh, and we have talk radio, too. And this blog. But that's it.

So I'd recommend soon purchasing a DVR if you don't have one -- you know, the thing where you record live TV and watch it later -- because with all of the smiling, lying Democrats you'll be seeing during commercial breaks, you'll be dying for a fast-forward button.

Hal Rogers (R-KY) wants your money so his daughter can play with cheetahs

Between the back-and-forth of politics, the divisive debates our politicians frequently engage in, the FOX News and MSNBC anchors screaming at each other, there's one issue that fully unites America; there's one issue that every American -- Republicans, Democrats, and everything in between or outside of -- supports 100%. And that issue is: protecting cheetahs?

Wait a minute, what am I talking about? Cheetahs? Um, read this snippet about US Representative Hal Rogers while I try and figure out where I went wrong:

U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Somerset, is sponsoring a bill to give $5 million a year to conservation groups that work overseas on behalf of endangered "great cats and rare canids," such as cheetahs, lions and Ethiopian wolves.

(What's a canid?)

Alright, I've consulted with my fact-checkers, and it turns out that most Americans actually don't freaking care about cheetahs. Our best guess is that it's because, in America, there are no freaking cheetahs.

But we do have plenty of corrupt politicians! And, oh look, the conservation group most likely to benefit from Representative Rogers's new bill is run by his daughter Allison.

I would expect this sort of nepotistic (yes, that's a real word) behavior from a Democrat, but from a Republican? Well, I guess it's like Ann Coulter said: "There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats."

So smile! people of Kentucky, because your hard-earned cash is about to be redistributed to a Congressman's daughter under the guise of protecting an animal that lives thousands of miles away. Ain't life grand?

And you thought government didn't want your money. Pshaw...

Van Jones: Stop worrying about deficit, we can tax rich companies

Who wants a sneak peak into the mind of one of America's most raging liberals!?! 

I had the dis-honor of seeing Van Jones speak at Bentley University awhile back. In that speech he bashed oil companies, attacked businesses, and claimed America needed to start doing more to make up for its "evil" past. 

It appears though that even Van Jones has outdone himself this time:

Really Mr. Van Jones? Perhaps you didn't get the memo that American corporations currently face the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Or perhaps you forgot the tax tsunami that is on the horizon for Americans.

Regardless, Mr. Jones is a prime example of the thought process that got us into this mess in the first place. The liberal idea is that as long as their is wealth, it must be taxed. They see wealth as the enemy, when in reality wealth is the only thing that can save this country. Instead of encouraging, embracing, and helping wealth grow - liberals believe we need to tax it, attack it, and fear it. As long as we have leadership in power that believes wealth is the enemy, our country will continue to go into debt and eventually rot from the inside out. 

Our economy will only start to get better when businesses no longer have to fear the economic dictatorship of the left.

Prepare to be taxed to death…literally

Here it comes folks...

You think the economy is bad now? For decades politicians in America have spent our country into a hole that's going to take us decades to get out of. So what is the solution from the worst spender of them all (Obama)? Time to start taxing the American citizen to death, literally:

as of midnight Dec. 31, the death tax returns - at a rate of 55% on estates of $1 million or more. 

The main purpose of the death tax is to destroy family farms and make sure family businesses aren't being passed from one generation to the next. However, that's just the beginning of the taxes heading our way:

The lowest bracket for the personal income tax, for instance, moves up 50% - to 15% from 10%. The next lowest bracket - 25% - will rise to 28% and the old 28% bracket will be 31%. At the higher end, the 33% bracket is pushed to 36% and the 35% bracket becomes 39.6%. ...

The marriage penalty also makes a comback, and the capital gains tax will jump 33% - to 20% from 15%. The tax dividends will go all the way from 15% to 39.6% - a 164% increase. ...

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will cost taxpayers $115 billion next year alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and $2.6 trillion through 2020.

Then come the medical tax hikes, meant to finance the unwanted ObamaCare the messiah has bestowed upon us.

American leaders have learned that America won't rebel, so they have no real fear of taxing us to death. When does enough become enough? We have leadership in place that believes all problems can be solved by increasing the amount of money they take from its citizens. The reason they believe this is because they don't know what the real problem is - them.

In closing, here is Obama lying about taxes:

Hey America, I hope you like tax raises!

What do you think the ideal personal income tax rate is? 10%? 20%? How about 50% for the über-rich and 5% for the rest of us? Providing an answer to such a question may seem strange to you, as you may not feel qualified to determine just how much of a person's economic life belongs to the government, but that's exactly what our elected officials do. And I've got news for you: they're not qualified either.

Because no one is qualified to determine what percentage of the rewards your work yields does not belong to you. Such a qualification doesn't exist, no matter how many Harvard degrees or election winners believe otherwise.

Why the rant? Oh, only because taxes for all Americans, not just the wealthy, are about to go through the roof in 2011, when the Bush tax cuts expire. (Hey, remember when President Obama said "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime" and "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." Lies, lies, lies.)

The Death Tax will be making a return -- encouraging wealthy seniors to kick the bucket shortly before January 1, 2011 -- which means the government will be stealing 55% of estates worth more than $1 million from the estates' rightful heirs. The constitutional justification? Ha! Like that matters anymore.

Income taxes for everyone will rise:

The lowest bracket for the personal income tax, for instance, moves up 50% — to 15% from 10%. The next lowest bracket — 25% — will rise to 28%, and the old 28% bracket will be 31%. At the higher end, the 33% bracket is pushed to 36% and the 35% bracket becomes 39.6%.

Funny that the party of "main street" is increasing main street's taxes more than everyone else's, isn't it?

And the madness doesn't stop there: the marriage penalty returns, the capital gains rate jumps 33%, dividends taxes go up, and more. Read the full article if you really want to make yourself infuriated.

I'm racking my brain trying to figure out just how raising and reinstituting taxes is going to help America get out of its economic funk. Just kidding -- I know that the Democrat party, Barack Obama in particular, doesn't want America to get out of its economic funk. They think we deserve it; they think we should accept a lower quality of life.

Well, I've got something that they should accept -- that most of their careers as "public servants" will be over either in November of this year or 2012.

I Want Your Money, but you can keep your hot dogs

Economics is a very intimidating science. Some men spend their entire lives writing and thinking about it, wrestling with this-or-that theory on monetarism, econometrics, praxeology, and other seemingly-nebulous terms. Lucky for you -- you good-looking reader, you -- your humble author has an almost-unmatched insight into the world of economics; and I've determined that the entire pantheon of 300-plus years of economic thought can be encapsulated into one simple question:

What would you give for a hot dog?

That's right, a hot dog -- a frankfurter; a weiner; a moist sausage of soft, even texture and flavor, often made from meat slurry. (Thanks for the official definition, Wikipedia!) How valuable is a hot dog to you? Would you give $1 for it? Would you give $10 for it? Maybe you're a vegetarian, and you wouldn't give anything for it. Maybe you've just crossed the Sahara desert, haven't eaten for days, and you'd give your left ear for it. Maybe you're drunk at a baseball game and you've already given $15 for 15 hot dogs, but now you're so stuffed that you wouldn't even purchase one more if someone gave you $15.

My point is, I don't know how much you'd give for a hot dog. And, actually, you don't know how much you'd give for it either, because your hot-dog-preference-level changes wildly depending on the particular set of circumstances leading up to the time of a hot dog purchase. 

So if I don't know -- and I'm really smart, let me remind you -- and you don't know until the exact moment before the hot dog purchase, how could any government bureaucrat possibly know? The answer -- which, if it's not obvious to you at this point, I suggest you put down your copy of The Audacity of Hope and pay more attention -- is not only does a government bureaucrat not know, but they cannot know, due to the immeasurable amount of subjective calculations that must be made by you, you hot-dog lover, you.

And that, in a roundabout fashion, is what I Want Your Money is all about. What economic policy works best for the United States? Is it Obamanomics, where government takes arbitrary amounts of your money and spends it on arbitrary things? (In other words, where government presumes to know just how much a hot dog is worth not only to you but to everyone.) Or is it capitalism, where government keeps their hands off your money and lets you to decide what to purchase or invest? 

Is it a system of partial-slavery and forced-sacrifice? Or is it a system of freedom and liberty?

Is it a system where the man who produces the best hot dogs and therefore makes the most money should be punished, thereby discouraging success and rewarding failure? Or is it a system where the man who produces the best hot dogs and therefore makes the most money should be allowed to keep all that he has earned, thereby encouraging others to work as hard as he did in hopes of one day becoming the King of Hot Dogs themselves?

I think you know where I stand on the issue. But let me take one more stand: I Want Your Money will be debuting soon, and when it does, get your butt to a theater and educate yourself. Take a friend or twelve and let them get educated, too. And trust me, you'll be entertained just as much as you'll be educated. I mean, you'll see a freakin' cartoon boxing match between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. That's the good stuff kids go for.

And while you're at the theater, visit the food stand. Only at that exact moment will you be able to determine just how much you'd pay for a hot dog.

Obama reveals his dictator-like soul during radio address about jobless benefits

If, after you read this post, you need any more proof that our president, Barack Obama, is an anti-Constitutional, wannabe-authoritarian fool, then you're never going to get it. Which, in America, land of the free, is okay -- as long as you don't have the power to control my life.

Washington Post reports that President Obama is going to attack Republicans head-on over their opposition to extending jobless benefits to the unemployed. "Oooooh those nasty Republicans," he'll say. "They want to protect their rich cronies and leave the rest of us in the gutter!" Which is funny (or is it?), because that's precisely what Democrats do, not Republicans.

Now, to understand the opposition to jobless benefits you'll have to check your emotions at the door and put your thinking cap on -- something Democrats have no idea how to do. Question: what exactly is a jobless benefit? Answer: when government gives to those without jobs, either in liquid forms like che cks or food stamps, or in less liquid forms like extending health insurance coverage. Question: where do these benefits come from? Answer: well, considering the government produces nothing and redistributes everything, the only benefits that can be given must be taken from someone else. Question: how is it fair or Constitutional to take from one person and give to another? Answer: now you're thinking straight, my boy (or girl)!

So now you're starting to understand why Obama is an anti-Constitutional, wannabe-authoritarian fool: because he believes it to be just and admirable to damage one individual in hopes of repairing another. But it gets better (or worse, rather): check out this highly-revealing sentence he said about Republicans during a radio address over the weekend:

"They've got no problem spending money on tax breaks for folks at the top who don't need them and didn't even ask for them, but they object to helping folks laid off in this recession who really do need help."

Wow. Spending money on tax breaks. Think about the premise behind that statement: if a tax break is considered a government expenditure, it means that, by default, government owns every part of your economic life, and must "spend money" so that you may keep some of your income. So if a tax rate is 35%, Obama doesn't think that that means the government is taking 35% of your income -- he thinks it means that the government is already spending 65% of your income.

In other words, he doesn't believe in Natural Law, that people are free by default and form governments only to protect their liberties. He believes that people belong to government, that any rights "granted" by government are always up for debate, and can be taken away at any time. And who gets to decide which rights may stay and which must go? He does, of course.

I usually like to end blog posts with good news, because I'm forever an optimist, but not this time. We have a dictator in charge of the most powerful country in the history of the world. Things may get worse before they get better.

Don’t think that, since Climategate, the global warming debate is over

With our the government on the verge of passing the "biggest financial reform since the Great Depression," you'd think I'd have a few words to say about that. And I do have a few words: we're screwed. Moving on.

Let's talk about something that everyone else is not talking about, because it's usually there where you'll find truthful and honest information, as opposed to a politics-laden topic like financial reform. And I've found just the topic: global warming. (Yes, I'm aware global warming is rife with politics; but I would argue that, since Climategate, the topic has drifted away from politics back into science, because everyone is back to being extremely skeptical about everything. Which is good.)

So how hot was your June? If you live on the east coast, you'd probably answer "unbearably hot." But if you live on the west coast (like me) you'd probably answer "eh, it was a little chilly, actually." And you'd both be right, because the east coast had record-breaking highs, while the west coast had record-breaking lows. So how does that mesh with global warming?

Well, it turns out it was much hotter for more of the globe than it was colder, as the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (oh, that's what NOAA stands for) reports that last month was the hottest June ever for good ol' Planet Earth. And by "ever" they mean "since records have been kept, so only about 130 years."

Which brings me to the point I've been waiting 5 paragraphs to make: just because Climategate damaged the reputation, therefore claims, of the anthropogenic side of the global warming debate, doesn't mean that humans aren't causing the planet to get hotter. Don't get me wrong: I'm a global warming skeptic -- I doubt the planet is getting hotter at all, and if it is, I doubt that humans have anything to do with it. But first and foremost I'm a skeptic, so I could be totally wrong.

If you're on my side of the debate, you probably experienced a little (or a lot) of glee when news of Climategate broke, causing Al Gore and his cronies' reputations to plummet. But don't get caught up in the celebration and forget that, as relatively power-less humans, we don't know all of the temperatures for all parts of the Earth for all periods of time. In other words, we just don't know if global warming is real or not.

So remain skeptical. But in the meantime, get an air conditioner or two. Because it seems like it's going to be pretty damn hot for a while.

Will the new financial reform bill usher in the first food shortages since the Depression?

First it was fat-cat Wall Street bankers. Then it was medical insurance companies. Then it was police officers. Now it's... farmers. 

Sorry, Americans, but when it comes to who the Obama administration will attack -- who they will control through regulation and taxation -- there is no end to the list. Every profession is up for grabs. Every job can be deemed "not good for society." Every worker can be declared as an "enemy of the state" who earns "more than their fair share." (Don't you just hate that phrase?)

Here's why: The Wall Street Journal reported this morning that it is Main Street farmers who will potentially suffer the greatest from the effects of the almost-passed financial reform bill (which one columnist has wisely dubbed "The Lawyers' and Lobbyists' Full Employment Act).

Farmers frequently utilize the derivatives market to purchase futures contracts to guarantee minimum prices for future crop seasons. (There's a great explanation in the WSJ article explaining derivatives trading.) But with the new legislation, all derivatives trading will be tightly regulated -- due to the "evil" subprime mortgage derivatives that caused the financial turmoil of 2008 -- which means the derivatives market will be slower, less liquid, and more prone to government corruption.

How does that protect consumers? Beats me. But then again, I'm a really smart guy -- not a politician -- so I generally don't understand most legislation.

We've only had serious food shortages at one point in our country's history: during the Great Depression. And guess why those food shortages occurred? Because farmers were strictly regulated, taxed, and even subsidized by the New Deal. Here's a fun Depression-era tidbit: with the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933, the government paid farmers to reduce their crop areas. Seriously! Tax money was stolen from productive citizens and transferred to farmers so they would not work. And people wonder why the long lines for soup kitchens!

So enjoy your juicy burgers and fresh corn while you can, because food prices are going to skyrocket. And when that happens, you'll have nothing to enjoy but your single government-scoop of chicken noodle soup.

Hillary supporters punked by Obama tactics

Every time I see Hillary in the news I get the sense that she really isn't enjoying her new job as Secretary of State. Perhaps it's because in the 2008 Democrat primaries Hillary got a taste of the stolen elections that she used to talk about hating so much:

Hillary Democrats acknowledge that the main stream media is not only partisan, but it's sectarian. The DNC's BFF the main stream media decided that Obama should be President. Otherwise his tricks would have been all over the news from the start. This is why Hillary supporters are now dependant on Conservatives and Independents to spread the word on Obama's tactics.

My how the tables have turned no?

It appears even collectivists such as Hillary want clean elections when the dirty tricks are used against them. The truly disturbing aspect of this is that in the 2012 elections, after four years of ACORN and other corrupt organizations, the tricks pulled in 2008 will pale in comparison. The big question is will the main stream media go hand and hand with the corruption again? Or will they actually do their job and cover the news from all sides?

My gut is telling the the first part is more likely. What do you think?

Thanks for nothing, Scott Brown

Remember when Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate election? Remember when all of the pundits told us that it was a "repudiation" of the Obama agenda and Big Government in general? (Here, here, and here.)

Well, fast-forward a few months and what have we got: a successfully-passed health care bill, a cap-and-trade bill on the way, and a new financial regulation bill just around the corner. And guess who supports the new financial regulation bill? Ding-ding! We have a winner, folks! It's "Mr. Small Government" himself , Scott Brown.

Yes, that's right -- the last great hope for saving the country from the Obama agenda before 2012 actually fully supports the Obama agenda, and said the following about the proposed financial regulations bill:

"While it isn't perfect, I expect to support the bill when it comes up for a vote. It includes safeguards to help prevent another financial meltdown, ensures that consumers are protected, and it is paid for without new taxes."

Ugh. Another RINO idiot. 

The new bill includes "safeguards" to prevent another financial meltdown? My goodness, how many government "safeguards" do we need? The creation of the Federal Reserve was supposed to save us forever from economic disaster, yet the Great Depression fell less than 20 years after the Fed opened its doors. Which led to more "safeguards." Which led to future depressions/recessions/stagflations. Which led to more "safeguards." Which led to... I think you get the point.

And the new bill "protects consumers"? How? By making me less free? By making sure that some stupid government official has to oversee any large financial transactions I make? That doesn't protect me -- that inhibits me.

And the new bill is "paid for without new taxes"? Ha! That's the funniest part of his comment yet. Every new bill is paid for without new taxes. That is, until the full repercussions of the bill take effect and slowly eat away at our treasury. Wait -- do we even have a treasury anymore?

So thanks for nothing, Scott Brown. We thought you might have been one of us, but you've proved us wrong. In hindsight, you're probably just as bad as Martha Coakley would have been. But it's not that we're surprised. After all, you're a politician -- we expect you to be a liar.

Robert Gibbs is stumped…again.

Look it's not our fault Robert Gibbs is the most inept person in politics right now. My mom always told me to not pick on people who are a little bit "slow", but that doesn't mean someone else can't do it and then I just blog about it:

According to Obama, Arizona is interfering with the enforcement of federal immigration law by enforcing it. Excuse me, but WTF?

On the other hand you have liberal cities offering sanctuary to illegals and flaunting the fact that they defy the federal law, and in fact refuse to cooperate with officials. So the Obama administration goes after a state that wishes to enforce federal law, and won't even touch the states that OPENLY defy the federal law.

This is downright scary. We are either a country of laws, or we are not. It also further proves the point that Obama is stuck in campaign mode, and is more concerned with winning votes than protecting the very people he vowed to protect.

It's obvious Democrat rulers don't want immigration laws enforced. Why? Because the illegal immigration take over of parts of this country is key to their strategy for maintaining power.

I'm going to go ahead and say it -- the Democrats have openly become traitors to their own country.

Tough luck, tanning salons

I know what you're thinking: If this post is about tanning salons, I couldn't care less.

Yes, this post is about tanning salons, but wait -- don't go anywhere. It's a damn shame what's happening to the tanning salon industry right now and no one is sticking up for them because, well, it's the tanning salon industry we're talking about -- not something most Americans visit, see, or even think about. (Unless your name is Snookie.)

Here's what I'm talking about: the recently-passed health care bill contains a new 10% tax on all tanning salon transactions beginning today; and as everyone knows -- or should know -- if you tax something you get less of it. So the United States government -- a government (supposedly) for the people, of the people, and by the people -- decided that when it comes to tanning salons, less would be a good thing. So much for job creation.

And yet you don't care, because you don't work in the tanning salon industry. What, you think your industry is safe? Ha! Think again, manufacturers, police men, restaurant owners and employees, non-organic farmers, professional athletes, and people named "Steve." If government can legally arbitrarily attack one business or industry, it can attack any. That's what happens when governments are ruled by men, not by law. And without an authoritative founding document that clearly enumerates the limited powers of government, rule-by-men is what we get. (What's that? We do have a document that does that, but we don't abide by it anymore? Shucks.)

So ignore the "plight" of the tanning industry at your own peril, because your industry could be next.

Democrat-created internet sales tax bill on the way

How does the federal government steal my hard-earned money? Let me count the ways...

Well, I'm not actually going to count all the ways -- this is a blog post, not an Atlas Shrugged-size book. And, as soon as I finished counting all of the ways, I'm sure 13 more would be added to the list. Or if not 13, at least 1: Democrats are now pushing for a new internet sales tax. Which is totally Constitutional, because... ah, who am I kidding? Like the Constitution even matters anymore.

Democrat Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts has introduced the "Main Street Fairness Act," which would eliminate tax-free internet shopping forever. Mr. Delahunt thinks the act would protect local businesses who can't compete with large, online retailers, and help fund state and local communities. 

I guess Mr. Delahunt is unaware that every business has the opportunity to sell their goods online, so if a local mom-and-pop boutique is losing sales to an online competitor, it means they're just not that concerned about properly serving the needs of their customers. But why encourage good business practices when you can use the threat of government force to steal money from people? Hooray for socialism!

Because all the new bill would do is balloon the size of government at the expense of the individual, which is neither "fair" nor good for "Main Street." 

Maybe a more appropriate title would be the "Anti-individual Unfair Act"?