The Class-Filled Classless Utopia

To the left...

Whites = white skin regardless of ethnic background
African-Americans = black skin regardless of ethnic background
Asian-Americans = slanted eyes regardless of ethnic background
Latinos = Spanish speaking regardless of ethnic background

and now it just hit me that...

LGBT = anyone who isn't straight regardless of sexual orientation

It's all about broad class, isn't it? I thought gay was men, lesbians women, etc, but apparently if you're anything but straight you're part of the LGBT class. Politically, it works wonders to get people organized. Individual rights-wise... it destroys people's individuality through mass peer pressure. That's why if you tell a lefty that you're gay and conservative, they look shocked. Same goes for black and GOP or any other combination that doesn't equal minority and Democrat. Like ethnicity, the left fail to realize there are lines between gays, lesbians, bis and transgenders. Human nature is to be tribal and these tribal lines appear in all things.

That's why I read GayPatriot. You get a non-party directed view of gay conservatives and their issues with both sides. Read it. You'll love it if you love freedom.

The NPR’s Firing of Juan Williams: The Authoritarian Left at their Best

Poor Juan Williams. Recently, he found out that if you stray the slightest bit off message, the far left will destroy you. They’ve been known to eat their young in these situations in the past. Juan has also experienced what journalists and commentators on the right have experienced for years – left-wing outlets taking one line out of context and painting the person as a racist, a bigot or intolerant. Apparently, those on the left do not like what stares back at them when they look in the mirror. Juan has now come to this realization, and he told George Stephanopoulos that he “always thought the right wing were ones that were inflexible and intolerant and now I’m coming to realize that the orthodoxy at NPR, its representing the left.” (*)

The NPR has fired their only black, objective journalist; and the reason went far beyond his comment about Muslims that was taken completely out of context. The issue that they so desperately try to hide is the fact that Juan works for and makes regular appearances on the Fox News Channel. After all, leftists cannot attempt to indoctrinate the public about how the network is heavily biased, which makes it the furthest thing from “fair and balanced” if Juan Williams shows up there! Their attempts have had no success, as Fox destroys leftist media outlets ratings wise; and they don’t need taxpayer dollars to do so. The only people who currently hold this extremely ignorant view are people who have not watched Fox News outside of Media Matters clips that appear on “You Tube,” as the network employs a very long list of left-wing contributors who appear regularly on commentary programs.

I disagree with Juan more often than I agree, but he is one of few journalists on the left who have integrity and objectivity. Unfortunately, that’s what gets you into trouble with the George Soros’ of the world. Juan’s firing shows just how much of a tizzy the authoritarian left is currently in; and at times like these, they show their true INTOLARENT colors. I disagree often with conservatives and have been engaged in fierce debates, but there is only one group of people who will go to the gutter as NPR CEO, Vivian Schiller, did when she questioned Juan Williams’ psychiatric health. If she made the right decision, then why assassinate the man’s character? It was also noteworthy to see how she slipped and pathetically tried to cover herself when she said that Juan’s statement was “not compatible with a news analyst on NPR,” which she quickly changed to “the role of a news analyst on NPR’s air.” See her comments along with Bill O’Reilly’s interview below:

The O'Reilly Factor 10/21/10

Juan Williams firing was the most COWARDLY action I’ve seen by the left in some time, and unfortunately Mr. Williams had to learn the hard way. It is impossible to have a logical, rational conversation with these people about very complex issues. I’ve seen it first hand at Liberty Café, my Facebook political discussion group. Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg (who to my surprise came to Williams’ defense) walked off their own set, when they became too entangled in their web of political correctness. Frankly, it’s beyond embarrassing when people who preach tolerance can take their degree of intolerance to an unprecedented level.

George Soros can continue to pump millions of dollars into the NPR, Media Matters and all other left-wing outlets; but his efforts will be for naught. The authoritarian left cannot hide who they really are; and when they have two out of three branches of government monopolized, their ideas as well as their leadership will be challenged and criticized. Now we have seen how they respond to criticism by attempting to silence and publically degrade all who oppose them.

Since the NPR is receiving plenty of money from George Soros, I think it’s time that this supposed “non-biased” organization stop receiving TAX DOLLARS. I expect legislation to be introduced in Congress immediately. It is quite clear who the NPR and all public television networks take their marching orders from. I’m all for the existence of left-wing media outlets; I just demand that they get PRIVATE funding.

I extend major kudos to those on the left who defied their zealot leaders and came to Mr. Williams’ defense and called this action for what it really was. I also would like to see Fox News make room for Mr. Williams’ to have his own television show in addition to the promotion he just received.

*http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/10/juan-williams-i-dont-have-a-psychiatrist-npr-ceo-low.html

Beyond Repair

There are some things in history that you can't take back. The Roman exile of Jews from the Holy Land. The Fall of Constantinople. The Leauge of Nations. Nevile Chamberlain.

We've crossed this point with Iran. For months, nay years, the West has had a multitude of chances to remove Iran as a international threat. Having it as a regional threat was no biggie. It's been one since 1979. But for some odd reason, probably fueled by leftist internationalism, anti-war hysterics and other utopian ideals, the West has allowed this backwards, may I said crudely “pigf**king” nation, to evade, deny and spit in the face of international power so it can create the atom bomb.

This is nothing against the Iranian people. They've always been a very civilized, very metropolitan people, even when up against our Greek forefathers. The Iranian people have shown they do not want this 7th century theocracy as their government, but Western betaness and Iranian force has overridden the will of a proud people.

Like the fall of the Holy City of Constantinople, Western navel gazing and Western apathy has created a scenario where barbarians have gained the ability to influence the entire globe and not just their rustic corner of the planet. Few people outside those addicted to foreign policy have any clue of the consequences of Iran and Russia fueling the Bushehr reactor.

In less than five years, this all means...

This means Hezbullah now has nuclear weapons backing their demands on beautiful Lebanon.
This means Hamas has nuclear weapons beside its run down Gaza Strip.
This means Iran can dictate world policy.
This means the West cannot attack Iran.
This means fanatics must be taken seriously.
This means the Middle East, no matter what major power resides, is now Iran's.

I write this warning like a apocalyptic fanatic, but I tell you I am not. Look back to Hitler, not in crimes but in appeasement. Look back to Western apathy to the Holy Byzantine Empire and its centuries long fight against Muslim fanaticism. Western ignorance or Western sympathy for the imperialistic Muslim nations of said times ALWAYS ended in imperialistic Muslim dominance of the region.

This is nothing against moderate Muslims. I have a ton of respect for your religion, more than most know, but Iran is not your symbol, archon or leader. It is the enemy of civilized Islam. It is the enemy of civilization itself. Yet, our weakened, hateful West has taken upon itself to author its own demise.

We live in an awesome world. Most of us will live to see 2050, if not after. But, sadly, with the actions of today's leaders, 2050 will be a much harder, violent world than anyone could imagine.

100 years ago, in 1910, the world was still unstable. Empires fought, people died and revolution spread.

I will bet my honor, my faith and the respect of those who read this seriously that by 2020, like 1920, the world will be re-shapen by the ignorance, the stupidity, the statism and the utopianism of today's leaders.

Give the world five years, all the signs will be there.

Give the world ten years, and you can't miss it.

We'll all live to see these days. Alas, we'll all want to return to the year of post war, when international cooperation in the guise of the UN was still believed in.

On Everything: A New Series on Politics, Culture, Religion and Everything Else...

...WITH CUTE ANIMALS!!!!!

F*cking Hispanics, How Do They Work?

(Title referencing this)

Oh, dear.

Oh my, oh my.

One of the leaders of the most ethical Congress in history just said:

"I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK? Do I need to say more?"

How exactly does a white man in a position of vast power within the United States government get away with saying something like that?

Oh yeah, he's a Democrat.

It wasn't too long ago Reid said Obama was a light-skinned African-American with no "negro dialect" unless he wanted to have one.

And just over a year or so ago he attacked Utah for voting Republican over and over and over calling them stupid.

The man has a knack for sounding like a out-of-touch, racialist, defeatist elitist snob.

And want to know the reason why no one on the left is calling him out on this racially charged words?

Because they believe it.

The leftist narrative on race is that everybody but whites should vote Democrat. Blacks vote Democrat because LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed (with Republican help). Hispanics vote Democrat because César Chávez was man of the people (who opposed illegal immigration on the same economic grounds that many on the right do).

I think the narrative goes something like this:

All minorities should vote Democratic because its the party that respects family values of your native culture! Unless you're Asian, you guys already have it too good >:-/

Black Baptist? We'll call the Tea Party racist if you vote for gay marriage. Oh, wait, you didn't vote against Prop 8? Well, it's okay, we'll blame the Mormons.

Latino Catholic? Could you...? No? That's okay. We won't say anything. We'll blame it on “hate... buring white hot white hate!”.

Islamist Muslim? Ah, you don't like gays either. No matter. That mosque at Ground Zero backed by foreign money should build some bridges between you and the gay community anyway.

Hindu? Oh, okay. I'm sorry about that. We had no idea Julia Roberts would... I understand you're very angry, but... I know Pretty Woman was quite offensive... I know she looks like a horse... Please calm down, sir!

Muinduistic? ... ... ... Damn, could we get some Wiccans or college students or something to start that up for us?

Nevermind! Come, join the party that opposes everything you believe in! If we can't win you over with principle, we can win you over with handouts!

(Excuse me, what about white Christians? Many of us have some moderate suggestions about the gay marriage issue.)

Go away bigots! Shoo! Go kill a Jew or something.

No, Mr. Islamist Muslim, no!!!!! Sit down! You cannot go with them.

Questions, Questions

A long while back we asked friends to ask questions about conservatism and libertarianism. Since it's slow here, I thought I'd post one of the questions and the answer I gave.

***

Q: Why do libertarians align themselves with the religious right, given the differences in the philosophy and ideas about the role of the state?

Let me reverse it for a moment: why do liberals align themselves with socialists and communists given the differences in the philosophy and ideas about the role of the state?

The quick answer for both questions is political pragmatism and political necessity.

Libertarians (or libertarian conservatives, classical liberals, etc) like Michelle and I are not exactly the majority. I'd say maybe a quarter of the GOP believes as we do, probably less. Independents probably have more libertarian conservatives percentage wise. For GOP libertarians like myself, compromising is the name of the game. To get what you want in the political game, you have to work with people you may not necessarily like. This isn't like our president, his problem is that he compromises with his ideology, not with people, and then shoves it through Congress.

Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill is an example of this strategy. A common view between the far-left and libertarians, libertarian conservatives and some center-rights is that the Fed requires a lot of auditing and pruning. The left sees it as a capitalist tool of oppression, and that's their right to believe such nonsense. We, on the other hand, see the Fed as, at minimum, a overenthusiastic engineer playing god with the economy. At most, its an unconstitutional and immoral monopoly on currency that has brought on some of the worst economic collapses since the birth of the Republic. Guess who was the bill's co-sponsor? Leftist nut Representative Alan Grayson of Florida. This man has thrown out bombs like it was a G20 protest. He's even gone so far to barge in on local GOP meetings at restaurants, accusing them of following him and harassing him. He's crazy, but he's also a darling of the far-left and has some clout. Rep. Paul needed Rep. Grayson to get the bill moving, even if they hate totally opposite views on society and the state.

As for the religious right, don't be so quick to assume the religious right is an enemy of libertarianism. Not all libertarians are socially liberal, as much as being one is a popular notion of libertarianism. While video game bans, gay marriage bans and other socially conservative causes push the buttons of most libertarians, the religious right is also a champion of real religious freedom and not the anti-liberty associationism that we have now. Of course, one must watch out for the religious right's laxity on small government issues. More than once has it tossed out federalism or free markets for pork for churches.

Leftist Mythology and Real Faith

A story:

'Before beginning my talk I want to tell you a story about Moses. When
he struck the rock and it brought forth water, he thought, 'What a good
opportunity to have a bath!'

He removed his clothes, put them aside on the rock and entered the
water. When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished.
An Israeli had stolen them.'

The Israeli representative jumped up furiously and shouted, 'What are
you talking about? There were no Israelis there then!'

The Palestinian representative smiled and said:
'And now that we have made that quite clear, I will begin my speech.'

Sounds great, huh? The Israeli just got owned by history. A liberal responded to it with:

“How about we don't care what an old book of myths says about who owns or should own the land?

That being said, I wish [the] story was true.”

Ah, the great answer to the debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Why not ignore the religious claims and just blindly support the Palestinian's great historical ownage. This has pretty much been the left's view on the conflict since Israeli's creation 60 years ago. Ignore legitimate Jewish claims to their ancient homeland. Ignore the ethnic history. Ignore the political claims. The Palestinians are the underdogs, so they're the ones to support.

Aside from over 5000 years of Jewish history in the region (that's 3700 years before Islam), the ethnic similarities between the two warring parties and the decades of Jewish political organization under secular Zionism before the birth of Israel, yeah, that answer pretty much has the entire thing down.

To dismiss faith has been part of the left's agenda since the mid-1900s. Before that, the Progressives were quite religious. Woodrow Wilson based his proto-fascism on, among many things, Christian supremacy. It was the infection of hardcore Marxism that turned formerly pious eugenicists into atheistic fire-starters. Since that time, faith is decadent and evil (see: Dawkins vs. the Catholic Church), and science has become not just a method of investigation, but an ideology (see: Dawkins and Darwin, any atheist). If you think a pompous priest is annoying, wait until you meet a atheist leftist from community college. Gah!

Anyway, liberals, socialist, communists, and pretty much any other left-wing ideology, have this century and a half-long mythology running their political religion. Marx was a genius, not a anti-Semitic Jew who failed in pretty much all his predictions. Wilson was a visionary, not a theocratic tyrant who re-segregated the government and had a true imperialistic vision for America. FDR was a God, not a racist who imprisoned Asian citizens based solely on their race, or a horrible economist who prolonged the Depression and created a culture of dependency and currency inflation. Kennedy was a leftist, not the anti-Communist, pro-free market, “pro-war” president he actually way. LBJ's Great Society sunk minorities into poverty and dependency. Carter's peace overtures killed more people than saved. Clinton's deficit was actually the Republican Congress'. If I had the time and the attention span, a whole book could be written on the myths of the left.

The left believes in these things because, sadly, they have no real faith. They don't cross that line between reason and beyond reason, they straddle it. People of faith believe in things beyond human beings. They believe in the redeeming power of Jesus, or the mercy of G-d, or the righteousness of Allah, or the enlightenment of Buddha. They believe beyond people into the realm of revelation and the soul. They believe, and this is key, in something that TRANSCENDES human nature and act upon that belief. Altruism, as close as one can get to it, is never based on reason, even for those claiming strict atheism. Transcendence beyond our nature is a religious idea. Those atheistic leftists who support indulgence of base instincts like promiscuity, early sexual experimentation, primitivism and the like are much closer to true atheism than those who claim to not believe, but also call on our higher faculties (ie. Against our selfish nature) to give up wealth and economic freedom for others.

Unlike the left's myth of religion, faith and reason are NOT opposites. Of course, you'll encounter those who deny reason because of faith: creationists, Islamists, global warming fanatics; but those people aren't exactly the mainstream of human thought. Science grew within countless religious cultures. A Muslim created algebra. A Catholic created astronomy. An Orthodox Christian founded an alphabet now used by hundreds of millions. A Christian founded modern physics. Science, much to the chagrin of the left, has flourished due to, not in spite of, religious faith. That's not to say that religious INSTITUTIONS haven't interfered with scientific endeavors, but simply believing in God does not discount someone from being a scientist.

Leftist atheists love to shove it in your face that everyone else is stupid. Studies about creationists are their favorite. It's creationists this and God that. If you have faith, you're on the wrong side of history. And amusingly, if you ask a leftist about global warming, they tell you the “science is settled”, which spits in the face of the very idea of science. Or ask about John Kennedy, as I described above. Ask any number of historical or philosophical ideas, and you'll get a pre-engineered response about it from most. Say Hitler, you get right-winger. Say USSR, you'll hear not real communism. Like the religious fanatics in Islam and Protestantism, they're knee jerks will knock you out of your reason chair. But don't tell them they aren't reasonable... because they are... because they say so. And to dispute it is being closed minded.

Sheesh.

To Boldly Go Where Every Liberal Has Gone Before...

White House defending NASA's new Build-A-Bear program:

“The President has always said that he wants NASA to engage with the world’s best scientists and engineers as we work together to push the boundaries of exploration. Meeting that mandate requires NASA to partner with countries around the world like Russia and Japan, as well as collaboration with Israel and with many Muslim-majority countries. The space race began as a global competition, but, today, it is a global collaboration.”

The BP Oil Spill: Beyond Populism

Environmental disasters certainly draw their share of populist drivel, and the media on both the left and the right did not disappoint regarding what could be the worst environmental disaster in history. Fortunately, we here at Generation Patriot are interested in the truths that those who possess the power to inform people are not interested in reporting. The focus will be to gloss some reality over the useless populist nonsense that is circulating all over the airwaves, newspapers and blogospheres.

Populist Rant No. 1: BP makes billions of dollars, therefore, this greedy oil giant must pay for all cleanup and then some!

This is the Bill O’Reilly special. Not a night goes by where he doesn’t inform his viewers on just how much money BP makes, and how glad he is that the company will have to pony up billions of dollars. Before we delve into the heart of this ill informed statement, let me begin by saying that I am not suggesting that BP should not be liable, nor am I an apologist for Tony Hayward or BP. BP, under the leadership of Tony Hayward, has been a horribly run company. According to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) records, BP has one of the worst U.S. safety records of any oil company. Over the past five years, BP has admitted to breaking several U.S. environmental and safety laws and has paid $373 million in fines to avoid prosecution. Therefore, I have no sympathy for Mr. Hayward nor the incompetent managers and leadership below him. BP must compensate all who were victimized by the oil spill. In addition, I fully support a criminal investigation and individual prosecution if gross negligence can be proven.

The problem with this statement is the failure to realize who really pays for this disaster. Does Mr. O’Reilly really believe that someone will turn Tony Hayward and other BP execs upside down until all of the coins fall out of their pockets? Does he really think Tony Hayward will have to sell his yacht to compensate the victims? Is he concerned at all about the rule of law – an essential element to a free society? If one has a modicum of knowledge of who, or should I say what, really owns a corporation, the gross ignorance is glaring. Among BP’s top ten shareholders are the following institutions: Bank of America, State Farm Insurance, T. Rowe Price, Wells Fargo and Vanguard. (1) What do all of these institutions have in common? They play a role in YOUR retirement, and the performance of these companies heavily impacts the world economy. Therefore, YOU pay for the mess…you who had nothing to do with the decisions made…you, who were most likely just driving to work the day the well exploded, are going to pay. It is tragic enough to see the environmental impact of this spill; to see people lose their livelihood as well as seeing the economic impact the spill will have on states for years to come – some that just finally recovered from all of the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. However, the innocent people who ultimately pay for this disaster are the tragedy that has gone unaddressed. While President Obama is looking for someone’s ass to kick, and people are urging the government to shakedown BP with no regard for rule of law; do keep in mind just who they are shaking down. Got that Mr. O’Reilly?

Populist Rant No. 2: Unfettered capitalism is to blame and self-policing simply does not work.

This one is my favorite. My friends at the Guardian and many other left-wing progressive publications out there have people coming out in droves railing against a system that has given them their living (notwithstanding the fact that unfettered capitalism does not exist anywhere in the world).

If “unfettered capitalism” or economic liberalism existed, there would not be hundreds of pages of government regulations that govern deepwater drilling alone. There would be no restrictions on drilling apart from safety hazards; and the government would not be involved or, at the very least, MINIMALLY involved in the facets of business.

The major mistake my progressive friends always make is that they confuse statism with capitalism. The BP oil spill was not self-policing gone bad. BP simply drilled where the government told them to drill…where the government gave them the most ECONOMIC INCENTIVE to drill. Unfettered capitalism? I think not. Much like every other economic disaster (the housing debacle being the most recent), the government is always at the root, and the oil spill is no exception.

Has anyone seen the mainstream media report on the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (DWRRA) of 2005? This was a government program signed into law by President Clinton that actually INCENTIVIZED risky deep water (minimum depth of 200 meters) drilling by implementing a royalty-relief program that relieves eligible leases from paying royalties on defined amounts of deep-water petroleum production over Federal Outer Continental Shelf lands. In addition, a law was passed to cap liability at $75 million. (2) (What a blow to lefties who were hoping I would have mentioned George H.W. Bush’s name, but do not despair. I will get to him momentarily.) Although the DWRRA expired in 2000, it was merely expanded to promote further interest in deep water drilling. We have the government incentivizing risk on THEIR continental shelves and capping liability if damage occurs. If anyone is interested in just how much royalty incentive there was, page 14 of the Department of Energy Report has an outline.

President Obama’s moratorium on offshore drilling is not the first, unfortunately. Moratoriums have a long history of preventing drilling in far less risky areas where accidents can be quickly contained and keep damage to a minimum. Going back 20 years, President Bush (I said I would get to him), imposed a moratorium that banned offshore drilling in the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico. President Clinton then extended this moratorium until, ironically, 2012. In retrospect, can we say that government involvement and regulation caused the oil spill? Sure we can!

If economic liberalism existed, laws such as the DWRRA would not exist. Oil companies would be free assess their own risk, assume ALL costs and be fully liable for any damage. It is absolutely comical to see members of Congress humiliating Tony Hayward and the media tearing into BP, when it was these very same lawmakers who had absolutely no problem taking money from oil lobbyists and enacting into law the very policies that caused this disaster. It never ceases to amaze me how government always gets a “get out of jail free card;” but hopefully, this has cleared up the difference between statism and capitalism. More regulation anyone?

Populist Rant No. 3: This is President Obama’s Katrina.

I would like to see Obama suck it up with a straw, but people on the right need to stop this absurdity because it contradicts their ideology – that is if they truly believe that the federal government’s powers should be limited in scope. It should be no surprise, whatsoever, that the federal government would demonstrate gross incompetence. The federal government shouldn’t have the power to act. The silly rants from the left after Hurricane Katrina were to be expected, as these people believe that the government is all knowing and can solve any problem better than the shoddy private sector.

There is plenty of criticism to go around. From the fact that Obama’s team of experts is comprised of lawyers (rather than experts who possess the expertise in dealing with a problem of this magnitude) to his delay in meeting with BP executives, to his failure to repeal the Jones Act (which would allow private firms and foreign nations to assist) to his overall poor leadership skills – all are legit criticisms, but let’s look at the bigger picture. Do we really want centralized planning to handle a disaster of this magnitude? Come on people – THINK! I would like to see him on the golf course and basketball court for the rest of his term.

The oil spill is no more President Obama’s problem than Hurricane Katrina was George Bush’s problem. Due to these types of inane political blame games, Americans have become more and more reliant on federal assistance. We have people standing around waiting for the government to act. Conversely, we have people who want to take action, but cannot due to the bureaucratic red tape that coincides with centralized planning. Worst of all, local officials such as New Orleans mayor, Ray Nagin, were completely let off the hook for their incompetence; and the same will be true for the current disaster.

The issue of the federal government trampling all over constitutional rights is the matter in which the right should be actively engaged. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the federal government has the power to oversee an oil spill, and no one should be advocating for Obama to act apart from enabling private companies and LOCAL governments to do whatever is necessary to contain the damage. Instead, many are caught up in silly partisan politics.

Populist Rant No. 4: We need to stop our unquenchable thirst for oil and move to alternative energy now!

To all of my environmentally conscious friends whose love for Mother Earth is admirable, but horribly misguided, this one’s for you!

Let’s begin by addressing why it seems our thirst for oil is unquenchable. While I’m not going to list the hundreds of products that are made from crude oil (but you can look some of them up here), I will attempt to direct a little humor at our misguided friends. Oil consumption goes far beyond energy use. This is the most commonly overlooked fact by “green” conscious people. Calls for solar energy, wind turbines, natural gas (which still requires drilling) and hybrid cars not only have their own drawbacks, but do not provide a replacement for the hundreds of products that are made from crude oil. Let’s use a very staunch green advocate as an example – someone who really goes the distance. He lives in a house that draws on solar panels for heating. Little does he know that producing polysilicon, which is necessary for building solar panels, results in the dumping of a byproduct of polysilicon called silicon tetrachloride. Silicon tetrachloride is a highly toxic substance that poses many environmental hazards. He refuses to own a car, not even a hybrid, so he chooses to bike to work. If I told him he was sitting on and peddling crude oil, (from the tires, to the pedals, to the seat) and the oil he saves amounts to a mere couple of drops in a tank, he might just walk. The trouble there is the shoes he’s wearing are made from crude oil as well, and look out for any clothing with polyester including those nice little green bags he uses to carry his groceries (if made from polypropylene)! I hope he knows how to iron, but then again, that consumes electricity. We cannot discard that dirty coal, but then again, if the wind is not blowing in the right direction… So rather than walking to work barefoot in wrinkly cotton clothing, then coming home from the grocery store balancing the groceries on his head; let’s just acknowledge the reasons for crude oil consumption.

In all seriousness, do I believe there should be investment in alternative energy? Yes. Should we drive cars that maximize gas mileage and cut down on consumption? Yes, but market should ultimately dictate demand. All of the incentive in the world exists to find viable alternative solutions to crude oil since he or she will be our next billionaire. The government does not need to be involved, as the government has already proven that impending disaster looms when it does get involved. Legislation such as cap and trade will do absolutely nothing to speed along innovation, but it will do plenty to harm the economy and contribute to unemployment. One must understand the economic chain of events that high energy prices will trigger – higher costs of all goods being one of them.

To sum up a very lengthy article, I’m more than annoyed that so many people all over the political spectrum have missed the bigger picture on a very serious disaster. The focus needs to be on the consequences of knee-jerk, politically charged reactions and an educated awareness of the role crude oil plays in not only a vibrant economy, but the vast majority of people’s livelihoods. It is my hope that the spill will be cleaned up as soon as possible and our readers would consider donating to the many charities that help the victims, wildlife and cleanup efforts.



(1)http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=BP+Major+Holders
(2)http://www.mms.gov/econ/PDFs/DWRRA.pdf

Skin So Thin I Can See His Ovaries

From NRO:

President Obama yesterday: "Before I was even inaugurated, the congressional leaders of the other party got together and made a calculation that if I failed, they’d win. So when I went to meet with them about the need for a Recovery Act, in the midst of crisis, they announced they were against it before I even arrived at the meeting."

The Weekly Standard demolished that idea a while ago.

What really happened is this: Obama spoke to the House Republican conference on the morning of January 27, 2009. The night before, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had already introduced the stimulus bill that she and David Obey drafted with no input from Republicans at all. It was a totally partisan bill. Boehner didn’t put out a statement, but what he told Republicans leaked. What he said was that Republicans would oppose this bill, and he said Obama should override it and work with Republicans on a bipartisan stimulus. Republicans weren’t opposing an Obama bill. They were opposing a partisan bill drafted by House Democrats (which Obama embraced soon afterwards).

The Truth About the Israeli Boat Raid

Don't let the MSM or the far left run this story. This video

and this report spell out what really happened.

Navy commandoes slid down to the vessel one by one, yet then the unexpected occurred: The passengers that awaited them on the deck pulled out bats, clubs, and slingshots with glass marbles, assaulting each soldier as he disembarked. The fighters were nabbed one by one and were beaten up badly, yet they attempted to fight back.

However, to their misfortune, they were only equipped with paintball rifles used to disperse minor protests, such as the ones held in Bilin. The paintballs obviously made no impression on the activists, who kept on beating the troops up and even attempted to wrest away their weapons.

One soldier who came to the aid of a comrade was captured by the rioters and sustained severe blows. The commandoes were equipped with handguns but were told they should only use them in the face of life-threatening situations. When they came down from the chopper, they kept on shouting to each other “don’t shoot, don’t shoot,” even though they sustained numerous blows.

Dangerous Words

Are you frickin' kidding me?

The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."

[...]

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.

So what do we call it, genius? Radical extremism? That's more vauge than Islamism or Jihadists. The wrongers of Islam? What name would fit the politically correct (and dangerous) view of the Obama administration on the issue of radicalized Muslim terrorists?

The fact is that Islamism is an ideology with religion at its core. It has political (imperalism) and social (Sharia) aspects to it as well, but when people quote the Koran in videos of exploding trucks or terroristic threats, one may think religion has to do with it. Or are we to assume every dark skinned person is a devout Muslim and its just part of their culture? Kind of like how the Left assumes every white conservative is a Baptist bigot driven by "hate" and "greed".

Honestly, I want to know how the Obama White House wants us to identify this religiously-driven ideology?

Keeping Your President In Line

I plan on a longer post on this subject, but as a filler read this:

One of the guys, a physically imposing 6’7″ laid back dude, had a hot girlfriend – let’s call her Kay – with a great personality. She was every guy’s dream girlfriend. One night, all of us were sitting around in the living room splayed across dirty couches watching TV when Kay started gossiping about inconsequential private matters involving her boyfriend and his family. She meant no harm by it, and we weren’t really paying attention, but he obviously didn’t like the idea of her revealing personal details from his life. Out of the blue, he thundered

“SHUT THE FUCK UP KAY!!”

Now, don't you want to be Mr. 6'7” when you read this:

Asked if he agrees with President Calderon's view that the Arizona immigration law "that is forcing our people to face discrimination," President Obama said in the Rose Garden just now that it "has the potential of being applied in a discriminatory fashion."

He said a "fair reading" of the law -- suggesting that he has read the legislation, unlike his Attorney General as of last week -- indicates those who are at risk of being deemed possibly illegal could face "harassment" and that the judgments law enforcement would need to make to apply the law are "troublesome."

or this:

The State Department on Tuesday defended a top-ranking diplomat who expressed regret to China last week about Arizona's immigration law during a discussion on human rights in Washington. Spokesman P.J. Crowley, in an interview with Fox News, disputed the notion that Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner was apologizing to China, saying he was actually "standing up" for America by describing how debate functions in a "civil society."

But he echoed other top Obama administration officials in describing the law as a gateway to "racial profiling" and doubled down on Posner's comments to the Chinese. 

I don't think I need to repeat what every American should be thinking about our President and his minions. Kay, you're not alone in having a big mouth.

Word Police: That's So Gay

I know I'm very late to this, but hey, I'm here. And GP will probably get a buttload of hits for some of the words I'm going to use in this post. Hmm....

***

For a long time, “gay” meant happy, elated and so forth. Shakespeare used it. Now its the identifier of homosexuals, specifically male homosexuals. Lo and behold, the thought police come out in force to make you feel guilty for co-opting a word they recently co-opted.

Meet thinkb4youspeak.com.

*shudder*

The simple truth is that THEY'RE JUST KIDS. KIDS WILL SAY OFFENSIVE, STUPID THINGS.

When I grew up it was “Jew”. You were “jewish” if you were cheap. You acted like a “jew” if you acted (GASP!) “gay”. Kids pick up on words and mutate them to their end... kind of like the Left (something I'm working on for a future, giant post). For God's sake, male white kids still go around calling each other “nigger” because the biggest market for black gangsta rap is young, middle class white kids. Even more disgusting is that the biggest market for stripper-inspired club music is pre-pubescent girls.

Anyway, jumping on them for using “gay” is stupid, totalitarian and, frankly, makes you a douche. But that's my opinion, you totalitarian douche!

Honestly, give “gay” 30-50 years and it'll mutate again.. It'll probably end up being a word for frivolous:

“Your honor, this lawsuit brought against my client is beyond gay. The plaintiffs have no grounds.”


“John Edwards was a lawyer that took many gay cases.”


“It is the finding of this court that the ACLU bring supremely gay issues to these chambers.”


“The President's new supreme court pick has a history of taking gay cases and making them gayer.”

And just because I can:

God bless America. May it be gay!

Target: 401(k)s

Human Events

In February, the White House released its “Annual Report on the Middle Class” containing new regulations favored by Big Labor including a bailout of critically underfunded union pension plans through “retirement security” options.

The radical solution most favored by Big Labor is the seizure of private 401(k) plans for government disbursement -- which lets them off the hook for their collapsing retirement scheme. And, of course, the Obama administration is eager to accommodate their buddies.

Vice President Joe Biden floated the idea, called “Guaranteed Retirement Accounts” (GRAs), in the February “Middle Class” report.

In conjunction with the report’s release, the Obama administration jointly issued through the Departments of Labor and Treasury a “Request for Information” regarding the “annuitization” of 401(k) plans through “Lifetime Income Options” in the form of a notice to the public of proposed issuance of rules and regulations. (pdf)

No Sheeples

As you can see, the cover of Time magazine, dated December 18, 2009 began propagandizing 401(K) plans as untenable as a prelude the White House “Annual Report on the Middle Class”.

From an article published at Human Events, we are now learning that the Obama regime is seeking to drag Americans down into poverty via economic tinkering with a plan to seize private 401(K) plans.

Individual retirement accounts, whether private or corporate, have been accumulating money which is tax free. The Triumvirate of Fearless Reader, Pelosi and Reid see this as you getting “free” money and they are slobbering to get their hands on accounts that total hundreds of billions of dollars.

In February of this year, the White House released its “Annual Report on the Middle Class” containing new regulations favored by Big Labor including a bailout of critically underfunded union pension plans through “retirement security” options. (See the embedded document below.) The idea seems to be that the government would "guarantee" some sort of retirement for all, unions and non-union workers alike, with the funds collected from the once-private retirement plans.

[...]

An executive for a large Midwestern company has said, “I would pull every dime out of my 401(K), pay the taxes and penalties and stick the cash in my mattress before I would let those (expletive deleted) have it!”

Imagine how much windfall revenue would accrue to the federal government if the American people all did that. Could that be the plan?

Slouching towards November, they are.

The Marbury Myth

A must read.

Thus, Marbury-style judicial review is very limited in scope. It is restricted to cases in which Congress has unconstitutionally meddled with the Court’s functions. This is surely why the case was largely ignored by courts and legal commentators as a precedent for judicial review until the late 19th century. The Court itself didn’t notice that Marbury had anything to do with judicial review until 1887, and even then it misread the case as authorizing judicial review of state law — which Marbury had nothing to do with. It was not until 1895 that the Court first cited Marbury as a precedent for judicial review of national law, despite having invalidated some 20 congressional acts by that time. Stop and think for a moment about what this means: The case that is used as the leading precedent for modern judicial supremacy was not even regarded as an instance of judicial review until 92 years after it was decided!

Matt Yglesias and Authenticity

Apparently, being an authentic Jewish comes with a political condition...

Along with Jonah Goldberg, one of the main guys who gets my goat is Eric Cantor. There’s something unseemly about seeing fellow Jews turn into rightwingers.

Kudos NRO.

Avatar, the Authenticity Fetish and Illegal Immigration

Avatar is a good movie. The action is crisp, the acting par, the visuals stunning and most of the science fiction believable. What bothered me about it, other than the sledgehammer style of message deliverance, was the Na'vi, the pure and innocent native race on moon Pandora. While Dances with Wolves and other Indian-perspective movies portray human tribes with varying degrees of accuracy, they're still human beings. In Avatar, the Na'vi had a real psychic connection to nature, not the religiously implied connection that various real indigenous cultures have. While I can imagine giant space ships, floating minerals and even the Avatar-mind transferring program, what I could not digest was that the Na'vi had their own Avatar program through their psychic connection with their moon. This demolishes the very message that Cameron thinks he's giving to the world. Humanity doesn't have the collective mind. It doesn't have psychic powers. There is no coincidental organic equivalent to the electrical technology we have. I bring this up because Avatar's director, James Cameron, had a very narrow and very ideological reason for creating Avatar, to push the message of radical environmentalism and its promiscuous mother called authenticity.

Base environmentalism isn't a bad thing. I'm an environmentalist in that I love being out in nature, I think we should keep our national parks and we should do our best to not pollute the air, sea and land. I think global warming is mostly a natural cycle (our last mini-ice age was only 500 years ago), I don't think the impact of our industrial world has been zero. We've done some carbon “damage”, but nowhere near the amount to create giant floods that'll kill only the poor and brown, as Matthew Ygelisis likes to bray.

The thing is about radical environmentalism, the environmentalism of the far left, of Al Gore, of the eco-terrorists, and of James Cameron, is that it isn't a science based or even a Romanticism based ideology. Today's radical environmentalism is based on the fetish of authenticity, an idea that's born Marxist schools of ethnic, religious and psychological idiocy. One can't simply create better technology for fuel or heating, or TVs that use less energy than they did 5 years ago; the entire nation must change to a more “authentic” (aka, a more indigenous) style civilization. While energy corporations and university scientists work making coal cleaner, drilling safer and hydrogen the next gasoline, the radicals want cars off the road, trucks in garages and bikes mandatory. While most of the country and Western civilization wants greener products and cleaner air within the capitalist system, people like James Cameron (who can afford to make his giant house entirely green) are pushing for a environmental revolution that excises capitalism, individualism and technology from civilization. Instead of a movie where human civilization is saved by new technology, innovation and hard work, Cameron made a movie that doomed humanity (Western civilization) to its (perceived) self-induced misery. Instead of saving our race (civilization), Cameron wants us to abandon it for a more authentically environmental one. Yet, the one he gives us in Avatar, is physically impossible to have. Such is the far-left ideology in all things: impossible.

This relates to immigration in that the authenticity drive that makes sane middle-class people buy inauthentic and expensive yuppie-weaved dreamcatchers is the same authenticity that convinces them that every illegal immigrant that crosses the border is the authentic salt of the earth, unlike the pudgy American. Ask an open borders advocate and you'll get a bookshelf of explanations of how America and capitalism pushes these people to come to America for work, but we shouldn't ask them to assimilate to American culture, values or even language. That would de-autheniticize them and then they'd lose their roots (aka, ideological and psychological usefulness to the Left) to the soulless system. America doesn't have a culture, just consumerism, that's why its inauthentic! Really, how can you slap a guilt trip on the country when the people you say you're fighting for are happier buying McDonalds and sipping a Pasbt than participating in a round table on the Latino-American situation in the Southwest spoken entirely in Aztec?

There's nothing wrong with having a multitude of cultures in America, as long as those cultures assimilate to the few things all Americans assimilate to: individual rights and English. It's not that hard. First, you must respect, not believe in, but respect that in a free country people will not agree with you. That means agreeing to disagree, not shouting down, pieing or any other kind of violence against your political rivals. College students seem to have a hard time learning something many of their “protected” understand. Second, you must be able to communicate. Millions of ex-pats in dozens of countries have learned this. You don't have to be Muslim when living in the UAE, but it sure as hell helps to learn Arabic and not break the social taboos. In many nations, that's the norm, but not in the West. In England you can call for the death of Jews, but don't put up the Union Jack, it may offend someone. In America, at least in some places, being for a border wall is racism (who cares if it stops human trafficing, drug smuggling and tens of thousands of deaths a year), but promoting a racial purge of whites (which includes a few dozen or more ethnicities) in the Southwest is authentic tribal pride.

American culture may not be as glamorous as the Sioux (don't tell that to the Pawnee) or the Na'vi. We may not have religious connections to the soil (well, none that don't involve that evil faith of Christianity) or dances we can show off to other cultures (well, we did, but body grinding, head banging and jazzercise kind of drowned them out), but we do have a real culture. We have a mindset (individualism), a rich history (all the way back to England and the Netherlands, and that's just the WASPs) and customs (WAZZZZZUP! Fo' shizzle! Hello!). Our culture is just as authentic as any other, but supporting the dominant culture, no matter how little it asks you to give to join with it, doesn't fit with the underdog obsession of the Left. There must be an opposite to us, if only to shove in the face of the ignorant fools (whites, males, Southerners, white male Southerners... their wives too!) that someone thinks differently. There's a reason straight parades or white pride parades (as in cultural past, not racial/biological hate) are looked down upon, but gay pride parades (both the simple and the sexually explicit) and anti-American, far-left Aztlan parades are encouraged by almost every level of government to show their "understanding" of the "authenticity" of whatever Marxist claptrap they've been teaching at UCLA.

Authenticity is a psychological fantasy. Authenticity is rebellious dominant culture children, like James Cameron, playing make believe to sate some hole in their psyche that could be plugged by the Bible or Kant or some other, less superficial philosophy. Most of all, authenticity isn't reality. In reality, the Sioux conquered the Pawnee, the Na'vi apparently hate gays and humans (you find neither in Avatar at the end) and the MS-13 members dragging along their drug mules (aka, people) aren't exactly the best example of Mexican culture. That would be the legal immigrants. In reality, the safest way to import people into the country isn't by the death trap called the Mexican border, but through legal channels, which absolutely need to be fixed. The best way of stopping illegal immigration, drug trafficking and cross-border gang violence isn't "understanding", but building the damn border wall. We will save more lives, help more Latinos and promote a "better world" if we do everything we can to stop the lucrative criminal enterprises that exploit our unattended border.

When you watch a movie about natives or think that how much more fun it would be to be in another culture, read a bit. You'll realize that the Last Samurai was about a deranged soldier supporting the last gasp of a violent caste system, or that the bad guys in Roots are not only the white slave trader, but the native and Arab ones that sold to the Europeans. In my own case, the Spartans, a culture I have affinity for, murdered their babies if they were sick or deformed, and were one of the most xenophobic of Greek peoples. I know it may not fit one's daydreaming, but that's how the world is and we have to recognize it.

Reality bites. Sorry, James.

It's All Over, Man. All Over.

 "It's all over man. We're finished. Game over man." - Stewie Griffin

In the lingo of the International Monetary Fund, the future of the world hinges on "rebalancing and consolidation," antiseptic words that would not seem to raise a fuss.

Who doesn't want more balance in their life?

But the translation is a bit ruder, something on the order of: "Suck it up. The party's over."

[...]

"Rebalancing" is an idea that most everyone endorses -- including the technicians at the fund and President Obama and the leaders of the G-20 group of economically powerful nations. In broad strokes, it means curbing what has been a massive transfer of capital from nations that consume more than they produce, such as the United States, to nations that produce more than they consume, such as China.

The imbalance has been key to China's modernization: The country buys U.S. government bonds by the tens of billions to keep the dollar stronger than it would be and to keep its domestic currency -- and its exports -- cheaper. Looked at one way, the flow of U.S. debt to the People's Bank of China has acted like a giant, collective credit card, underwriting consumers across the United States and driving the business models of major retailers such as Wal-Mart.

The message from the IMF is that the card is about maxed out and that the imbalance in trade flows needs to be corrected.

How to do it? One way is for China -- or Asian exporters, more generally -- to let their currencies rise on world markets. The other way, which IMF economist Blanchard raised this week, would be to devalue the dollar, the euro and other developed-world currencies.

[...]

"Fiscal consolidation" is another idea promoted by IMF leaders. Again, the aim seems unobjectionable: The United States and other developed-world governments ran record deficits during the crisis, both to pay for stimulus programs and because tax and other receipts cratered. Across the developed world, the IMF says, government debt will rise from about 80 percent of economic output before the crisis to roughly 115 percent of output in 2014.

That's considered a dangerous trajectory, and IMF officials say that by next year, governments need to announce "credible" plans to cut their annual deficits, turn them into surpluses and start paying off what is owed.

The level of the correction needed is large, perhaps 10 percent of gross domestic product. In the United States, that would amount to roughly $1.4 trillion annually, to be cut from government programs or raised through new taxes.

Look on the bright side: if we don't change, the economy collapses and we get smaller government through lack of power. If we do change, a culture of thriftiness may return. If we raise taxes without cuts, the collapse will be quicker. If we raise taxes and cut, maybe we'll make it through without a huge financial collapse. In all these options, the government is going to shrink.

So with Iran getting nuclear power status soon and the United States shrinking eventually to the first among equals in geo-politics, we also get to enjoy the government doing its best to prop up its 60 year Ponzi scheme which will end up with us where we want to be except with bigger problems than if they'd just effing cut spending.

Yay.

The Law Prof on Arizona's New Law

Reason strikes again!

Nothing in the law authorizes stopping people because of their skin color. The law simply provides guidelines as to what is permissible in accordance with federal law, and the procedures that should be used.

Could the law be abused? Sure, so can any law.

Claims of "driving while black" and other racial profiling have abounded for decades. But we don't eliminate the enforcement of traffic laws just because some police racially profile; instead we educate and discipline police who use racially neutral traffic laws for racial purposes. Why should the immigration laws be any different?

If you want to argue that the law is not sound on civil liberties grounds, do so. If you want to argue that as a matter of public policy local governments should not enforce the immigration laws, then make that argument.

But the one argument which is not legitimate is that the law is racist. Because it is not.