Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Let Me Be Clear

Well ... now it all makes sense.

When Obama says something, his context is whatever he says it is later.  Even if he's being very clear and telling us he is being very clear when he says something.  So no matter what he says, if you don't like it, he didn't say it.  He meant something else, and if you say he didn't, he will immediately try to correct the interpretation that was given.

Almost as if he is speaking a different language that sounds almost exactly like English and actually makes sense to the listener, but the meanings of the words are just totally different.  It's a sort of political Fourier Transform that maybe only Democrats can hear.

Let's take, for instance, Candidate Obama during the 2008 campaign before the Presidential Election speaking at AIPAC.

So, you see, when he says "Let me be clear ..." and goes on to say "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided", he means something completely different than when Mitt Romney said "A nation has the capacity to choose its own capital city, and Jerusalem is Israel's capital" .

Whitehouse spokesperson Josh Ernest said  of Romney's words, "our view is that that is a different position than this administration holds."  Which clears the whole thing up, then, right?  Now we know exactly what their view is.  (is that their view on their position, or their view on Romney's position?  Because it would be really odd to take a view on your own position ... kind of gets into infinite mirror reflection territory, but given their elevated "sort of God" mode of thinking ... )

See, when pressed on that position after his speech, Obama said "this is an example of when we had some poor phrasing in the speech."   (this also gives us insight into his view that you don't do anything on your own.  That way you don't have to take responsibility for it... unless we want you to pay more taxes on it, of course.... none of which he meant when he didn't say what he said about not building that, because, you know, he was taken out of context.

Again, no wonder we took him "out of context" a week or so ago because he was speaking that Non-English English that doesn't mean what it says when he says it, it means what he says it says later.  Only it's hard to decide whether he means what he says it says later when he says what he says it said, because he might have to further explain later what he really meant when he said what he said he said he said ... and ... (oh, hell, this is making my head hurt).

So yes, in this case Obama went on to explain what he really meant when he said "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided"  that he really meant that "we don't want barbed wire running through Jerusalem similar to the way it was prior to the '67 war".

As Glenn, Pat, and Stu pointed out this morning, this is indeed very poor phrasing.  One would certainly expect at least a reference to "barbed wire" in the original quote from the most awesomest speaker, evah when he apparently did not mean that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel... well, you see that he said it will "remain" the Capital of Israel ... which of course means it is not now and yet it will remain the capital as a continuation of the capital that it isn't now.  You see, he didn't exactly say it is the Capital of Israel.  I mean, people, please!  Stop taking the President out of context!

And so, you see, when he said
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
What he really meant was ... well who the hell could possibly know what he really meant?  Given what he meant when he said "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided" -- I mean, we can't even really be sure he was even talking about Jerusalem, here, can we?

Could be he was just trying to say
The great fall of the offwall entailed at such short notice the pftjschute of Finnegan, erse solid man, that the humptyhillhead of humself prumptly sends an unquiring one well to the west in quest of his tumptytumtoes: and their upturnpikepointandplace is at the knock out in the park where oranges have been laid to rust upon the green since dev-linsfirst loved livvy. 
Seriously, people, how ignorant can you be?

Saturday, July 28, 2012


Oh, I think Mr. Beck hit on a great new term.


American In Name Only


So, I'm sitting through Glenn Beck's "Restoring Love".   Fairly "evangelical" for my taste, but you know, I kinda like that about Glenn.  He's not afraid.  He stands up for what he believes, and projects it outward.  Kind of inspiring, really.

And as I was sitting here listening to him saying, basically, "we're all in this together" and to serve each other and such, which of course sounds an awful lot like what the Elizabeth Warrens and Barack Obama's of the world are saying.

And I know they're using the same language Christians have always used... and that that's no accident.  And then you ask yourself ... what is the difference?


Our founders recognized aloud and repeatedly that our rights came from God.  And why is that important?  It is important because it means that no man, no human or group of humans can give them to us.

As a matter of fact (and this is what our progressive brethren don't get) anything that requires another human being to do something for you against his will is not a right at all.

And yet that does not negate our responsibilities to each other, especially to our families and triple for our children.

But why?  Because the state says so?   Because Uncle Joe says so?  Because you said so?


Put your faith in an external deity, and you've got yourself a standard to live up to.   Put your faith in yourself, and you become a self-serving bastard.   Put your faith in a state, and you become a slave.

So whether you believe God created Man or that Man invented God.... Man needs God.  Very badly.

It is the difference between choosing to serve, and being forced to serve.  Even those who believe God created Man -- at least Christians do ... believe that God wanted us to choose good, and didn't just create robots who did as they were programmed.  As a matter of fact, he wanted us to choose good in spite of our programming.  Free will.  God wanted us to be free.

So yes, we are all in this together.  If each of us choose to be in this together.  And we are in this together with whom we choose to be in this together.

Or we are not free.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

They Want To Give Back

Obama (et al):

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back
Me: But they can.  http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

So if they can, and nobody's stopping them,  and it's fairly easy.  and they're not ....

I dunno, I think in my book that means that they really don't want to.

Teh Government Invented The Internet Meme

Offered up as proof that we need government in this era of justifying extracting more and more money from the private sector to further grow our 3.6 trillion dollar a year (running trillion plus deficits, adding to a $15 trillion debt and 120 trillion in unfunded liabilities) is that hey, no government, no internet.

How do you like us now?  [thrusts hat out for additional taxes]

Well what's wrong with this argument?  I recently linked an article that points out that the internet itself was not "invented" by the government, but actually by Xerox.   Now, the embryo of the protocol that the internet actually uses was developed by a government worker to serve a particular government purpose.  But that purpose wasn't to "create" an information superhighway where we could all log on and tweet pictures of our wieners between Amazon orders.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, just for those who don't seem to be listening.   We need government like we need lots of other things. We need it specifically for law and order - to protect our natural rights from violations by others including from their use of the government to violate our natural rights.  And government isn't this ethereal thing that does nothing.  It has internal processes just like any other business.

So the government, like the power industry and like any other sector of society, does things, and it tries to improve the way its internal workings operate to enhance things, make things better, and more efficient for itself.   Things it comes up with are no different than things someone comes up with at Boeing.   Someone will ultimately see that thing, and say "hey, what if I use THAT with THIS OTHER THING to do THIS?".

The point here being that it's not like if person A didn't come up with it, no other person B would ever have come up with it.  It's ludicrous to think otherwise.  Things get invented in response to need.

Would we have an internet had it not been for the government?  I say, yes.   Someone else  in some other industry would have had a need similar to the need the government had for such a protocol, and it would have been designed, and others would have built on it.

Roads, I say, are a different story.   Roads involve personal property rights of (depending on the road) tens, hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people.   When the concept of "eminent domain" is brought up, roads are the first thing that come to mind.   Not condemning personal property and giving it to someone else who will develop it and increase its value as a tax base.

Roads also provide an agreed upon literally [in general] public route that does not mean cutting across others' property.   They are exactly the kind of thing we need government for, mainly for the myriad legal implications of laying one down in the first place.  Even if somebody at Boeing came up with the concept of a system of interconnected roads, it would have no authority to build them.   The internet -- different story, outside of (same argument) the existing utility rights-of-way ... the legalese. 

Long and short of it is, just because something was done by the government doesn't mean it couldn't or wouldn't have been done by someone in the private sector.   "The Government Invented The Internet" is not just wrong, it's a straw man anyway.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Oooh, we DID strike a nerve

New Obama ad:

Full Context:
We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more ... 
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. 
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. 
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. 
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”
Let's break it down.

We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…

I smell fuzzy math and smokes and mirrors, but let's just take him at his word on this, even though we know it's complete bullshit.  We don't even have a budget to cut (what are we, up to 1,150 days without one?)

We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …

See the chart to the right.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back.

and there's nothing stopping them.  They can, as was the way before the advent of Big Government, start their own foundations, or ... they can simply give to Big Government.  Write a check.  Simple as that.

 -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. 

In other words, you didn't get there because you're smart.  We're all smart.  You didn't get there because you worked hard.  We all work hard. (how did they get there and I didn't, then, exactly?) And since infrastructure that everybody pays at least a little bit for probably assisted in making you successful, we The Collective lay claim to some of your profits.   Note that they will never say how much of your profits they are entitled to.  But of course, look at the chart above.  They're already paying the bulk of the taxes.  How much more do we expect?  Give us a number!  They won't.  Because it will never be enough to cover what they want tomorrow.   In addition, a point I've made over and over, they also provide the revenue streams that provide the jobs that pay us to pay our taxes and build infrastructure.   No businesses, no revenue, no jobs, no taxes, no infrastructure.  No roads.

The government built the roads?   I've got news for you, Barack.  By your own self-defeating argument -- you didn't build those!

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. 

More of the same.  Since you had help, we can demand whatever portion of your profits we see fit.  Collectivism.

His "out of context" schtick might apply to this bit:

Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. 

If you focus on those two sentences alone, and included the stuttering pause after "business", yes, he could very well be talking specifically about the roads. I do note that he said "that" instead of "those", which, in the larger context is probably revealing as to the fact that he meant it exactly the way it came out. When you look at the WHOLE context, he reveals his collectivist mindset, which is, in fact, still "you didn't build that", 'we' did, and 'we' are entitled to your profit".  It's clear as day to anybody with eyes and ears.

The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. 

Uhhhhh ... sure.  The government "invented" the internet, and built it out so that businesses could succeed.  Riiiight.   Only, not so much.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together

and therefore We the Collective are entitled to your profits.

There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. 

And we pay for those, again, through our taxes, and the business owners pay for those through their taxes, which they pay more of, and they also pay us the money that we use to pay our taxes.  So .... your point is .... you want more, basically.

That’s how we funded the GI Bill.

Which is a separate argument.

That’s how we created the middle class. 

The hell you did.

That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.

Again ... separate argument.   If Californians wanted a bridge over the bay badly enough, they would have paid for it.  And it's not like power companies can't build hydroelectric dams without the government funding them.

We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”

Oh.  And here I thought it was to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and  to the best of your ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States so that We the People can have the liberty to succeed or fail in a myriad of voluntary ways.

Silly me.

The fact of the matter is we on this side of the political aisle are fully aware that we do things together.  But not because the government tells us to.   We created a limited government primarily to protect our life, liberty, and property.  The rest is up to us.

Sowell on Obama and Progressivism

"While the Obama administration is not the root cause of the ominous dangers that face this country at home and abroad, it is the embodiment, the personification, and the culmination of dangerous trends that began decades ago." - Thomas Sowell

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Someone Else Made That Happen

It is true, as Sunny pointed out, that we cannot do most things that we do in modern society without using something that others made or did.

 But I prefer to look at it from a Milton Friedman point of view, the libertarian "pencil" argument for the free market, not the "hey, we all chipped in to this government pool that made things that facilitated your product or service" argument. The fundamental difference is the libertarian argument is that we all cooperate voluntarily, without even really knowing necessarily that the tree I just cut will be used for a pencil or a two-by-four or to start a fire in someone's fireplace. It's just a spontaneous order, not directed by any government agency or agencies, that gets the job done ... and it asks nothing from anyone.

The "the government made it happen" argument suffers from a few fundamental problems. One, the government couldn't make it happen without businesses. In other words, it's really a self-defeating argument in the end. That should be enough to end the argument right there.  But secondly, the Government didn't "build the roads" to facilitate business succeeding. It did it to facilitate everyone's ability to go places and perhaps take things with them. They're for everybody, and everybody pays for them ... especially businesses, who not only pay a bunch of taxes but pay the rest of us who paid our taxes to build the roads. Which is back to the first argument.

And lastly, the core reason the "you didn't build that" argument is being used here is to justify taking yet more money from someone. And you can bet your bottom dollar, so to speak, that if they get an additional 5% this time around, it won't be enough next year, and the same psuedo populist class warfare argument in disguise will be used to shake them down for yet more .... and so on, and so on, and so on.

So a pox on all that. Sunny made the sandwich, dammit.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

"I Meant Roads and Bridges"

Heh.   It must be having an effect on his campaign if he brought it up.
So, yeah, technically, that particular sentence which came out poorly in a grammatical sense... I buy he was refering directly to roads and bridges.  But it is quite clear from the full context around the sentence and the many times this argument has been made by him and his cohorts -- is that BECAUSE you didn't build the roads and bridges, and you USE the roads and bridges, we are justified in confiscating as much of your profits as we think is "fair".  In other words, "you didn't build that".   Huh.  Exactly the way it came out.
And they will never say how much that is, because if they get a dollar today, they'll want two tomorrow, and three the next day, and so on, and so on, and so on.
So at best, I'd call it a revealing slip of the tongue, what he and his academically infused ilk might perhaps call Freuedian.

Update:  This rather illustrative photo has been circulating.  North Korea builds roads, too.

Friday, July 20, 2012

The "Taxer" Movement

Oh, Romney's tax returns. 

The Obama Administration has already shown us how we should treat tax dodgers, so we know just how much this means to them in the end.   Why won't the Romneys release more information than they already have????

It's a trap ... a battle Romney can't win.  No matter what Romney produces, it will be gone over with a fine-toothed comb for any hint of something that might have been sort of like, if you looked at it under the right light with glasses distorted in a particular way ... like impropriety.  And even if they don't find anything they can make stick by repeating allegations ad nauseum on our 24 hour news channels as the Top Story ... the top story would then be that he lied on his returns and he's hiding something.

Update: Found this excellent
cartoon making the same point.
So I'll tell you what ... as a compromise, have Romney show 5 more years of tax returns than he already has, to match the number Obama released ... and Obama drops the executive privilege grant over Operation Fast and Furious.   Because you know, it's equally important to know if Romney *might* possibly have some of his wealth in offshore bank accounts to shelter it from confiscatory tax policies, say, like when John Kerry docked his yacht in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts to avoid paying taxes on it and was still considered fit to hold the office by Democrats (of course, he hurriedly paid the half million in taxes once the dodge was discovered -- but you an bet Romney would get no such courtesy from the media) ... yes, that's just as important and significant as passing off hundreds and hundreds of untraceable weapons to Mexican drug cartels without the consent or even knowledge of the eventually shocked and outraged Mexican government ... which ended up killing 300 Mexicans and at least one US border agent ...

But no ... let's see if we can goad the Romneys into coughing up fodder for the Democrats' surrogates in the news media to comb through by spending the next 109 days talking about anything ... anything ... but this administration's OWN record.

Because THAT .... is a losing proposition.  And they know it.

Deadly Bastards

Talking to a buddy of mine about the Aurora shooting.  Horribly, horribly tragic.   These things always disturb me to the core.

And Brian Ross and George Stephanolpulous reach for new lows in "Journalism", and they can just go straight to Hell, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.   Get out of my sight.

You know what? There are evil bastards in the world. Always have been and we're not going to change that. Some people just don't give a damn, and no amount of positive self-esteem re-enforcement in grammar school will fix it. So we're just going to have to deal with the occasional nut who will do shit like this. And personally, I think the best way to deal with it is to make sure that when such a crazy bastard goes to execute his grand plan, to ensure he won't get very far because there's at least 10 people in the room with guns of their own who AREN'T crazy bastards, but ... Sheep Dogs, basically. Protectors. Responsible adults who *DO* give a damn.

Which will, in turn, reduce (but not eliminate) the number of crazy bastards who will try, because they will see that their chances of succeeding ... being the only one in the room with a gun ... to cause the tragedy they wish to perpetrate ... have dropped significantly after a few of his predecessors are dropped before they get very far.

New Favorite

Thursday, July 19, 2012


Oh, and I've got a name for the people who will continue to beat the drum for Romney to release more tax returns because they think he's hiding something, yeah .... that he's probably a felon like Obama says he is.  Oh yeah.


Double entendre intended.  ;-)

The "But Sometime in the 60's, the Parties Switched" Meme

Very often, when a typical modern lib actually pays attention to me when I point out which party is actually the party of Racism, they will come back with, "yeah, but sometime in the 60's the parties switched sides."

They offer no explanation of why or how this supposedly happened.  Apparently, it's just a mystery.  One we just should take their word for, too.

I have an explanation for what happened.  But it's not what they say happened.

What happened was after the Republicans were successful in passing civil rights legislation in the 1960's, the Democratic Party stopped officially championing racism.

This didn't make racists disappear overnight.

Since the 1930's, however, the progressive wing of the Democratic party had worked very hard at carving out demographics for special treatment by the government -- to woo their votes.   One of these demographics was, and is, our Afro-American brethren.

Republicans, named after the ideal of a Republic, which is a Constitutionally confined democracy with built-in checks and balances to protect the people from government, primarily, but also to protect the people from misgoverning themselves ... began with the root ideals of equal protection under the law.   Their goal was to free our brothers from the burden of unequal protection.

When Republicans overwhelmingly passed Civil Rights legislation in the 1960's over the Democrats' efforts and against the racists desires, the racists had to make an ironic choice.  Go with the people who wanted to grant the people they hated special treatment under the law, or go with the people who championed equal treatment under the law.  That was their choice.

The parties didn't switch sides.  Many of the dwindling number of racists may have.  But ... why?

I happen to know some people who are very staunch Democrats today who are clearly quite racist.  But I'd say for the most part a majority of the racists probably jumped from the Democratic party to the Republican party for the reason described above.

This was a step up for them, whether they meant it to be or not.

Because now they had to align themselves with people whose core beliefs (I know, Republicans aren't a party of saints -- they stray from it, but it remains a core principle) are rooted in equal protection and equal treatment.

The Democrats remain the party of unequal treatment.  They're primarily the ones who want us split into factions they can pit against one another to create artificial coalitions that end up serving nobody's long-term interests but the politicians themselves.

So yeah, we got racists on our side of the street now, but they joined us, we didn't join them.  And to join us, they're going to have to alter their behavior, because we won't tolerate behavior contrary to our principles.  That is not to say we won't tolerate people.   But we won't tolerate the behavior.

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Like I said, it's a step up for them.

The "Out Of Context" Meme

The meme is what triggered my last post, but I want to expound a bit more.

I have to say it is with a bit of schadenfreude that I see our collectivist Alinsky-breathed brethren wincing at the ridicule (Alinsky Rule #5) pointed directly at them, as they are much more used to being the ones dishing it out.

I say this after looking at an anonymous commenter on this fun post (an extensive collection of "you didn't build that" posters ridiculing the President)
Anonymous said...
You are intentionally taking that out of context and you know it. Obama was talking about the roads and bridges, and critical infrastructure. The reason companies are able to be the economic engines they are today is because of government contractors building roads, etc.
Anonymous said...

context motherf*cker.
do you understand it?

So they're lashing back with "you took him out of context!!!!"

Well.  They never do that.   And frankly I don't like it when our side does it, and it does sometimes.   But not with anything like the frequency and force as their side does -- amplified through its many media channels.

Hey, Sarah Palin said she can see Russia from her house and she thinks that qualifies her to be Vice President.    Hahahahahaha!

Of course she said or argued nothing of the sort.  It was a small anecdotal detail in a larger argument that she did not, in fact, have zero foreign policy experience.   The state she governed bordered a pretty large and adversarial nation.   She had to be aware of, and practice -- diplomacy on that stage.

I watched the tape of Obama, and what he said the other day when he said "you didn't build that."   The "out of context" claim is that he was talking about the roads.   And he was.   But in the larger arena of his overall argument, even leaving the roads and bridges out, it's still in context.  the fact of the matter is is that he was using the fact that an individual successful person didn't build the roads to argue that, in fact, the successful person really didn't build his business.  Since the roads and bridges have been socialized, so must your profits be if you use them.  I'm sure they think they have a winning argument here, and a lot of people (suceptible to class warfare arguments) did buy it back when Elizabeth Warren yapped the same clap-trap out of her collectivist gap.

But the roads are there for everybody, not just the successful.   And the successful are successful because they provide something the public wants or needs, and we are willing to pay for it.   The roads that allow them to sell are the roads that allow us to buy. 

It's not like they just went out and hijacked the roads for themselves, nefariously delivering their goods and picking our pockets on their way out of town.  If the roads are there for everyone, why isn't everyone rich?  Hmmmm.... 

But what really built the roads is the market.  The market produced the money that was collected in taxes.  And most of the taxes are collected from ... the successful.  Hmmmm.....

On top of that, since roads have to go across property, the government pretty much has to be involved.   And it's not like there's a big government road building company out there.  No, the government is there to plan out where roads are going to go, who is going to have to move, and take care of the legal negotiations, and yes, We the People go ahead and give money to the government to build the roads.   Besides, very few roads are built exclusively for any single person's use, nor, in fact, for any group of people.  And those that are are typically built by those who wanted it in the first place.  It all kind of makes sense that the government is heavily involved in building roads that cut across multiple properties, multiple townships, multiple counties, and multiple states.   Imagine a single company trying to build a road - gaining the property rights  and handling the negotiations for the thousands or perhaps millions or tens of millions of people it will affect?

I've got no problem with the government building roads.  That's why I'm not a "L"ibertarian.  I use the lowercase, and as an adjective.

What Obama is doing here (and what Elizabeth Warren did and I'll bet you bucks to bagels that his words aren't far from his Communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis) is making yet another rationalization as to why he should be able to take more of other peoples' money from them.  It never ends.  They're constantly money mining -- and I'm not talking about just to keep paying for what they've done so far, but to pay for more and more and more and more stuff.  No amount of money will ever be enough.  If tomorrow all of the rich people just said "F*ck it, let's just give them what they're asking for today", the same leftists will still be demonizing them tomorrow with the same class warfare and same rationalization that your money is really our money -- to get yet additioal money do what they want to do tomorrow.   It will never.  Ever.  End.  Ever.

And what do they care?  It's not their money.  It's not like they have to budget or anything.

Maybe that's why they think the rich must be robbing somebody to be rich.  It's the only way we get our money, so ...

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

You Guys Didn't Build That

I had posted this cartoon on facebook, and a friend of a friend commented on how fun it was to take quotes completely out of context and run with it.   Well, they would know.  They'd never do that with, say, Sarah Palin and a "task from God" or anything like that.

Time to Stop an Echo.

It's not out of context. Obama didn't say entirely what he meant to say -- which was to paraphrase what that psuedo American Indian woman Elizabeth Warren had said months ago ... but it's the same thing, and it's what he's been peddling all along and still is today.

Yes, government is necessary to protect life, liberty, and property - the three natural rights. And without it setting consistent expectations for the rule of law, success would be limited to plunder. But those rules are the same for everybody, or they should be. No bailouts if you fail, no plundering if you succeed.

Even taking Elizabeth at her word, though, the rich DO pay for the infrastructure out of proportion with the rest of us. When the top 10% of earners pay 70% of the federal taxes ... under what definition of "fair" is it that we vilify them and claim they got there on our backs and that they should pay even more than the more that they're already paying?

No, what would be "fair" would be a flat tax. Everybody pays the same rate. With a flat tax rate, the rich pay more, because they make more. The lie that's being peddled here is that they don't already. They do. They not only pay more, they pay at a higher rate than most of us.

Once you decide that an equal rate isn't "fair", what is "fair" becomes pretty arbitrary. Because the problem isn't revenue, the problem is spending, and the problem is spending because people are willing to spend other people's money in wasteful ways that they wouldn't spend it if it were their own. People want more stuff - they vote for it, and then look for someone else to pay for it. Not only are they disconnected from the spending, they are disconnected with the fact that you get less of what you tax and more of what you subsidize. The more you tax production, the less production you get. The less production you get, the less wealth is generated. The fewer jobs are generated. And the kicker for the government is that the REVENUE ... GOES .... DOWN .... (Which Obama admitted during the 2008 debates, but he basically said he didn't care.  ) so now there's even less government money to help the people who are now out of work. It sows the seeds of our demise.

He even contradicted himself in his own speech. Even though he implicitly acknowledged that you get less revenue, he turned right around and talked about all of the things we need to "invest" in ... which takes money. Which we would have less of under his "fairness" plan.

I know this is a lot more complicated than the frivolous ideology of "Hope", and "Change" -- but nobody said reality isn't complicated.

To which our facebook commented that it was an oversimplification to say that reducing taxes increases revenue.  Sigh.  Fill him in some more.  Not that I'll convince him.  But that's not what stopping echoes is really about.  But ok.  In for a penny, in for a pound:

Sure it's an oversimplification. 0%*$Whatever=$0, so clearly reducing taxes to zero means no revenue. And, of course, I'm sure you'll acknowledge that a tax rate of 100% (something considered not unreasonable by none other than Obama's father) would make a huge, one-time increase in revenue, but then there would be nothing left to tax next year.

Unless somebody produced something. But why would they? It's just going to be taken away.
Which is the basis of the Laffer curve. Everyone agrees there's a curve. Reasonable people can argue over where the "sweet spot" is, but that top rate has been as high as 94% IN THIS COUNTRY (1944). In 1932 it jumped from 25% to 63% (what happened in 1932? Why did the depression last longer than any other recession? What role did the high tax rates sold as the solution play in perpetuating the problem?)

The top tax rate was never below 70% from 1936 to 1980 (What happened in 1980? When people tell you taxes were higher under Reagan than they were under Clinton, what historical context is used? "None" is the answer to that.)

But going to the cut from the debate I included the link to above, in each instance, when the capital gains tax rate was dropped, revenues increased. So apparently 15% isn't too low. And increasing it back to 20% or 28% conversely would move revenue down on the curve. Obama did not disagree with this, then turned around and said we needed to "invest" in things (that cost revenue) and used that to justify raising the capital gains tax rate, because it's "fair". What kind of sense does that make?

Never mind that it's counterproductive. But the purpose of taxes isn't "fairness" -- it's to fund government. And how we do that can be fair, or it can be unfair. And our government was instituted for very specific purposes, not to be an ever-expanding social behemoth. In addition to that, raising rates on one group of people isn't "fair", it's the opposite of "fair". Fair would be "flat" (yes, another oversimplification because I, like my Fair Tax proponent friends, acknowledge that people need a minimum amount to feed and clothe and house themselves -- however, I could still argue against not taxing them at all. If we all know how much we're getting taxed, we will plan accordingly, and so will our employers -- who, after all, are buying our services.)

But otherwise, if "flat" isn't "fair", what *is* fair and who gets to decide that? Nobody in the tax-raising business will *ever* say how much is fair. What's "fair" to them is what they want today, but don't get comfortable, we'll be back tomorrow when we want more.

As to job creators being the "only" economic generators, not even the most serious of the conservative writers on the subject (Hayek, et. al.) argue that. They do argue that the private sector, under free-market conditions, is the most effective economic generator from an efficiency standpoint and from a diversity of product standpoint. More needs and wants are satisfied and more wealth is created under an unplanned, citizen-driven free market system than under government-planned public sector systems. That is shown again and again and again.

And not only is it the most effective, it's also the most moral. Nobody has a right to force another to do something for him. If health care is a right, then someone *must* provide it. Ergo, health care is not a right. Further, if someone *must* provide it, the terms *must* be dictated by a third party. But in a free market system, there are those who need health care and those who provide it, and they agree on the terms between themselves (although the attitude that iinsurance = a prepaid health plan has gotten in the way of this) to the mutual benefit of each ... and no, "benefit" is not always monetary. Charity is a personal thing. Forced charity isn't charity at all. And real charity happens all the time. It used to happen more before the government started on its quest to monopolize it.

And we've gone broke doing it.

No amount of tax-raising on the rich will even put a dent in that. 

Only economic prosperity can pull us out of it. And economic prosperity is NOT driven by the public sector.



Class Warfare - Nobody Got Rich on Their Own

When the [Chinese] Cultural Revolution began in 1966 (a movement to sweep away all the evils of the old class system), in many areas the descendants of the landowning class were buried alive, even though most of the landowners themselves were already dead. No one was spared: neither the old nor the young, nor even the women and children. People said, just as there is no love without cause, so there is no hatred without reason. 

Where did this spirit of enmity towards the children of the landowning class come from?

It came from the fervent belief that those descendants of the landed class had relied upon exploitation to create their place int the world." - Mao Yushi

Continuing on the theme of "Fairness"

Tuesday, July 17, 2012


From RCP this afternoon.
“So, if somebody asks about taxes, nobody is really interested in hearing what precise marginal tax rate change would you like to see in the tax code. What they want to know is that our campaign stands for a fair, just approach to the tax code that says everybody has to chip in, and that it’s not right if a hedge fund manager is being taxed at a lower rate than his or her secretary. And, so that’s a values issues: Is the tax code fair?”  -  Barack Obama to campaign volunteers
And of course WE (the people in power) get to define what "fair" is, to take that pesky burden off of you, the people. That's right, we'll just tell you it's "fair" and you don't worry your pretty little heads over those facts and figures like precise marginal tax rates, and say, their historical effect on economic growth and job creation. It's about feeling. You feeling that it's "fair". And we're the experts, and we told you its "fair".

And remember, our administration will base policy on facts and not ideology. Facts, like the numbers we don't want to talk about, not ideology, which informs our definition of "fair".

If taxrates are not equal under the law, and they are not -- then what is "fair" is arbitrary.

The top 10% already pays 71% of the taxes everyone pays.  And yet the direction these people want to move to be "fair" (I guess that's "forward" in their eyes) toward them paying yet more in taxes.

This is why he must say things like "you didn't get successful on your own."  To justify grabbing more of their money to spend on political favors.

So it's Marxist ideology over facts, just as we'd predicted.

Get these people out of Washington ASAP!

Monday, July 09, 2012

What's Laudable About Bankruptcy?

In the LA Times, George Skelton discusses how Obamacare will likely further bankrupt California ... but still calls it "Laudible".


They Can't Help Themselves

I think they actually believe it.

Wife's watching a new detective show, "Perception".   In the show, to test whether this mentally ... off ... guy can act as a human lie detector by picking up on subtle vocal queues ... they have Bush speaking the left's infamous "16 Words"

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”
The character laughs, indicating that he is detecting a lie.  Then they play the testimony of their suspect, and the guy laughs again, so they go after him.

But the allegation that the famous "16 words" was a lie has been thoroughly debunked.  But the left still believes it.

This is not an old episode, this is 2012.

There are multiple sources of this, including information in Wilson's report which he later denied, but I'll just send the reader to Factcheck.Org.

After nearly a six-month investigation, a special panel reported to the British Parliament July 14 that British intelligence had indeed concluded back in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium. The review panel was headed by Lord Butler of Brockwell, who had been a cabinet secretary under five different Prime Ministers and who is currently master of University College, Oxford.

The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:
Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.
The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.
Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.

Sunday, July 08, 2012

Social Programs and the Tea Party

This cartoon from the St. Louis Post Dispatch showed up in our local newspaper, and I had to shake my head.  Side to side.

Earlier, a day or two after the Supreme Court decision to uphold Obamacare on the basis that it was a tax (again, it was specifically and vociferously sold as "not a tax", and knuckle-dragging Tea Partiers who characterized it as such were only doing so because they are racist .... ahem ....) from Huffington Post, entitled "Don't Like Obamacare?  Here are some countries you can move to."

My immediate response was, "Stomping our feet and threatening to move to another country isn't our schtick.  HuffPo has us confused with .... well ... themselves."  That's been the Left's schtick for a long time.

This cartoon, is, of course, saying the same thing. But I've never heard any Tea Partier threaten to move to another country for any reason.  And I hang around a lot of Tea Partiers.   Tea Partiers are Tea Partiers because they love America -- where you are in control of as much of your destiny as you can be.   That's not "America", the land within it's current borders.  America was America long before these 50 states existed.   America is the idea that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights, among those being life, liberty, and property (re-phrased as "the persuit of happiness -- anyone familiar with the history of the concept of natural law can see this plainly.)

On the other hand, I've heard lots of leftists threaten to move to another country when it is percieved something might not go their way.   Alas, they almost never follow through.

Why is it that the Left bemoans the imposition of American ideals elsewhere in the world, yet have no problem implementing their decidedly un-American ideals on ... Americans?   I  mean, they stand here among us loudly de-legitimizing our culture while simultaneously telling us all cultures are equally good and valid?  It "boggles the mind".

In the progressive mind, their laws getting passed amounts to forward progress.  (Towards what?  I always ask.  A cliff?  Moving any direction as long as you're facing that way is "forward".  It doesn't mean it's right.).   So in their minds, Obamacare "passed" and the Supreme Court decision "sealed" it, ensuring that America will "move forward" to where most of the other industrialized countries have already gone.   Hold that thought.

The cartoon does have an element of truth to it, in that many Tea Partiers are older Americans who have reached the age where they are relying on Social Security and Medicare ... two Big Government programs.   And it is an issue that the Left will bring up to silence older Americans who have recently either come to the realization that Big Government is ultimately a bad thing, or did not fully realize the extent to which they had allowed government to grow and left the gate wide open for more, more more

Few in the Tea Party would advocate yanking the rug from under these people by immediately abolishing these programs. Many people have relied on and planned upon promises by the government when making life decisions on where and how they will live in their retirement.   As a matter of fact, I imagine many would proabably like to keep them around for those who truly need a temporary helping hand. What we are saying is we need to stop making promises we can't keep, and doubly so when they undermine the incentive for individuals to pull their own weight.  But what we all agree on is this:  these programs are behemoths that we can't possibly pay for in their current forms, and as we look at them many of us have come to the realization that, taking human nature into account, this was bound to happen from the beginning.   When you create a giant pool of money, it attracts everyone from moochers to those who pedal influence with moochers, along with corruption.   And in a country the size of ours, a centrally-run charity system, or even a centrally run insurance system or retirement program -- is going to necesarily create a giant pool of money, far from its sources and far from its intended targets, that the hyenas and vultures and parasites of the world will flock to in droves, ever driving up its costs to the point where ....

Have you ever looked at the national debt clock?   It is truly frightening.  You've heard of our $15 Trillion (and growing) national debt.   But that's just the money we owe other countries.  And the Fed, some, I believe as well, since under Obama we've taken to buying our own debt (which amounts to printing up money, devaluing our currency).   Look at the bottom line there.  In addition to our $15 Trillion in debt, we are almost $16 Trillion in the hole on Social Security alone.

And about that Medicare.  $82 Trillion in the hole.  No, that's not a typo.  Add perscription drug coverage to that and Social Security, and it goes to almost $120 TRILLION.   Then add our national debt.  $135 TRILLION.  And it's only growing.

And the biggest chunk of that is ... Medicare.   Our version of semi-socialized medicine.

So ... remember when I told you to hold that thought?  Yes, other industrialized countries have government-run, universal health care systems.  And they're going bankrupt, one after another.   And we're diving headlong into that with Obamacare, and we already have $100 TRILLION head start!

One of the reasons I joined the Tea Party, as much as one can "Join" it ... there is no official membership other than raising your hand and saying "count me in!"  is to help steer the conversation of those in the movement who know something's wrong and have an inkling what --- but who have not really come to grips that Social Security and Medicare are Big Government Programs.

One of the things the cartoon illustrates best is the moral hazard of relying on Big Government for your financial survival.   They've got you right where they want you when you realize its power has grown too large.

Race and Identity Politics and the Media

Let's talk about something a little less controversial today, shall we? ;-)

I was reading a pretty thoughtful article by Selena Zito via RCP.   I have no idea what Selena's politics are from reading this article - which is actually impressive these days.  But there are these recurring racial breakdowns that keep popping up in all of the media, and it bugs me.  And I think its coming into focus here.

It started when I read this sentence:
After the 2008 election, he began losing white voters almost immediately.
Now most on the left, and most in the media are on the left, would read this statement as "white" voters turning on a black president because they're "white".   Now they've done this before by extending the context to policies that favor government money flowing to the poor ... and the poor are presumably black, and that's why "white" voters turn on, say, Bill Clinton.   It's just more convenient now with a black president (half black, half white, but I digress)  because it cuts most of the strained rationalization out of the equation.

So that's what always pops into people's heads, largely because that's the way it is typically presented ... that "white" voters vote as some sort of block for "white" interests.  Whites may have helped vote the black man into office, but they quickly returned to their true "racist" roots.  

Sometimes the white vote breaks for democrats, sometimes it breaks for republicans.   When that happens, and I'll be generous here, it's typically 60/40 or closer.  But ...  the flip side of this equation is rarely mentioned.  Black voters do vote in an almost monolithic block for democrats.   Every.  Single time.  It's around 90%, and it doesn't change much.  It went up a bit for Obama.  But when you hear that Obama is losing support from black voters that just means it's down from 95% to maybe 92% or 90% or maybe even an appallingly low 89%.

Now... who is voting on the basis of race?

But the media insists on mental calisthenics to rationalize the race narrative.   For instance, if you're critical of Islam, you're a racist.  But of course, Islam isn't a race.  It's a religion, a worldview.   Yes, most of its adherents are not of European descent, but that is an artifact of history and geography, not of any manufactured racial divide.  The races that make up the global Muslim congregation range from Polynesian to Arab to Indian to Oriental.    If worldviews cannot be challenged because they reveal some sort of racial bias, civilization is in big, big trouble over the long haul (and demonstrably in the short haul as well).

If you're a conservative black man, for instance, Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas or Bob Parks or Larry Elder or Herman Cain or Condeleza Rice or Col West or any of a host of others ... you've somehow sold out to "whiteness" if you don't vote with the black block and instead go along with the wrong "half" of the "white block".

And then there's "white hispanic".

See how ridiculous this gets?

But let's turn to the supposed "white" block.   Who is in it?   What is "white"?   When we break down votes for analytical purposes, where do Asians get counted?   Oh.  With "whites".  How about the Indian vote?   Again, with "whites".   Polynesians.   "White".  Well there are a few groups that are clearly racially different from the presumed European descent that apparently "whites" haven't alienated over the color of their skin.  Until recently, Hispanics were lumped with "white", and it's the illegal immigration problem (or "solution", if you look at it from a political point of view ... if you can buy a few million votes from a block, you can turn a close election -- and this, after all, is what identity politics is really about).

If you look around you, with few exceptions, it's very clear that "white" America has no problem with people who "look" different because they "look" different.

It's more because they act different.   It's culture, not race.


A nation cannot long exist as a  unit without something of  a cohesive culture.   America has proven to be very adaptable when it comes to absorbing bits of other cultures ... into its own as immigrants themselves melt into ours.   But the error of multiculturalism is that it is ultimately incompatible with a nation.   If you don't identify as American first (no, "American" isn't a race, it's an idea, a worldview, a culture) and then as someone who came from a particular ancestry (which again, race shouldn't really have a lot to do with it ... culture, on the other hand, yes) then multiculturalism is pretty much a convenient way to fracture us into separate blocks to target with political power against each other.   We can thank FDR for mastering this in the 1930's, and we've been increasingly stuck with it ever since.

We've always had Americans of a more statist bent and Americans of a more libertarian bent, from the very beginning.   That had nothing to do with race, and the divide is still there among "white" voters, sloshing back and forth with the squishy middle -- and that squishy middle is what the divide and conquer tactics of identity politics is all about.

Tuesday, July 03, 2012

Yes. We Can.

There is no doubt that the upholding as a punitive tax is the worst part of the decision. The encoding of the idea that Congress can pass laws that penalize people for basically not behaving in a manner consistent with their desires.

While it is true what Roberts is saying here is, "If you don't like it, throw the bums out" --- which is what we intend to do, and it is also true that there is lots of precedent (which I don't like, by the way) for using the tax code to encourage or discourage certain behaviors, as far as I know up until now that meant a tax *break*, in other words, you pay *less* than the going rate. So he probably figured this wasn't doing anything which hasn't already been done, but I disagree.

This is insidiously different, in that it is literally a penalty tax ... a surcharge on .... a lack of desirable behavior.

This leaves "tyranny of a majority" wide open.

Don't despair, though ... we the people are still in charge if we take charge. It is fixable, over time. Amendments have been added, amendments have been repealed. Certainly laws can be repealed. Constitutional Conventions can be called. The founders gave us remedies within the context of the Constitution.

It's going to take a *lot* of education of our friends and neighbors, though, before this thing can be turned.

We've got two choices. Say "fuggit, it's fate, it's over", or try to make it right. What are you going to do?

I, for one, am not about to give up.

Did you know that we can actually float a constitutional amendment that would negate the Roberts opinion that the feds can use punitive taxes?

Yes. We can.

That's just a for instance.

You constantly hear from liberals that the Constitution is a "Living Document". It is. But not the way they mean it. The amendment process is a part of the Constitution. Every amendment is a part of the Constitution. The bill of rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. If we want punitive taxes by the feds to be unconstitutional ... it can be. Just need enough people to fight for it.

I'm not suggesting we bring this up now. We have bigger immediate fish to fry.

But it CAN be done.

Monday, July 02, 2012

Why does this man get paid?

The headline for Leonard Pitts, Jr's editorial in the Baltimore Sun is "On facts, lies, and Sarah Palin"

You know, the woman who is so ridiculous she's completely irrelevant  despite the fact that leftists pundits like Leonard can't seem to stop talking about her.

So, I think, I gotta click on this and see what the buzz is.

The buzz is this.   No, wait, first, let me ask you something.   If I said that someone might be left floating alone in the middle of an ocean, and later said that someone might be left alone in the middle of an immense, vast body of salt water generally defined by continental borders, would you say about my second description "Note that that's not actually what he said the first time?" -- when trying to make the point that I was wrong?

Leonard would.  Leonard did in this article.

He starts out quoting Palin:
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." --Sarah Palin, Aug. 7, 2009
Then followed with
Last week, Ms. Palin doubled down. "Though I was called a liar for calling it like it is," she posted, "many of these accusers finally saw that Obamacare did in fact create a panel of faceless bureaucrats who have the power to make life-and-death decisions about health-care funding." Note that that's not actually the claim she made in 2009. 
Oh no.  Totally different.  Why she didn't even use the word "death" right next to "panel"!

How much did you pay for that Journalism degree, Leonard?

This does illustrate one of the major differences in the way we look at the world and the way the self-worshiping,  self-labeled "progressives" of the world look at it.

They look at intents, we look at consequences.  The consequences are never their fault if they don't line up with their intents.  This is why they always attack us by assigning us evil intent.  They have good intent, we don't want to go along with their "solutions" ... the only possible explanation must be that we have evil intent.  That's the extent of their "nuanced' thought process.

In their world, theory rules and results are never their fault.  If the results aren't as prescribed by the text of their documents, why some external evil, probably those people who told them it wouldn't work, must be to blame.  No, definitely.  It's thosssssse people.   Of course we were right.   We said unemployment would drop with our plan, and they said it would go up.  Well it turned out that it technically did go up under our plan, but that only means we prevented it from going up even further!!!! QED.  You knuckle-dragging neanderthals!  Sarah Palin is ridiculous!  We know because of the thousands of articles that say she's ridiculous, most of which point to each other for support.

Of course, the fact of the matter is that Sarah never said it was explicitly in the bill.   She just noted that that's what will end up happening.   It is the end result of centrally controlled, centrally  funded health care. Hell, we're already halfway there anyway, that is largely what's wrong with the "system" today! Health Care is a commodity, and a dear one at that.   Taking the market out of it removes the natural forces of the free market method of dealing with its scarcity to creating further scarcity and dealing with having actual people who decide whether or not a procedure will be paid for.  Call it what you will.   Sarah called it "death panel", which may be inflammatory but it certainly isn't a lie.  It's the necessary outcome of what they're after -- a single-payer, centrally planned health care system. (<== three different videos linked)

Obama advisor Rahm Emanuel's brother Ezekiel (appointed to two key Obama administration positions) ... knew it when he wrote about centrally planned "solutions" to health care.

The rest of the article starts out by denying he was here to talk about what he detailed in thee his lead three paragraphs,  "But we are not here to discuss that", he snorts and then follows in that same paragraph and the next to discuss just that -- and brings it up yet again in a later paragraph to make his case that the side he opposes is composed of lying liars who don't care about fact, unlike his side, which is completely dedicated to the truth.

Like in 2009 when Obama and his cheerleaders repeatedly told us that the mandate in ACA was not a tax.  Ironically, Leonard plops right there in his own article deriding the hated lying liars being impervious to "facts"
Of course, "Obamacare," aka the Affordable Care Act, was upheld by the Supreme Court on Thursday, which must gratify Team Obama.
Not mentioned, of course, is that it was upheld as a tax, which Democrats repeatedly assured us it was not all through 2009.   I dunno, for "Lie of the Year", I think I'm gonna go with that one, unless the administration would like to continue arguing that it's not a tax, negating the only interpretation through which the court was willing to uphold it.

As for Death Panels themselves ... the evidence Leonard holds up as obvious is that the "non-partisan" Politiifact (run by journalists) said it was "The Lie of the Year".   Well hell, they say they're non-partisan so they must be right, and clearly nobody disputes them except those hicks clinging to their guns and Bibles.  Nobody disputes that.  At least, nobody we'll listen to.

Yeah, it's them damned conservatives who just won't swallow our plans and do as we say that are the problem.   We over here, why we're totally built on fact.


footnote:  He briefly mentions Glenn Beck's "claim" that conservatives founded the Civil Rights Movement as laughable.   Really?