Tuesday, July 22, 2014

We Got 43 Problems.......and Obama is Only One

I am sure most of you have this versions of this meme elsewhere on the internet asking you if miss having George W. Bush, the nation's 43rd President, as the head of the Executive Branch of the US Government.  Well George, HELL NO I DON'T MISS YOU.  In fact because of your ineptitude, terrible policies, and overall suckitude as President, we ended up with President Obama in this first place.  I say the same to you as I will say to the current guy in Office......."Good Riddance".  

Of course posting this sort of opening paragraph will likely get myself expelled from the right and put into a socialist boot camp where I am surrounded by the Krugmans, Olbermann's and Matthew's of the world.  But some things need to be pointed out.  Primarily that the failures of the Bush years in terms of anything substantive have a direct effect on the nation including and especially the fact that Barack Obama got elected in the first place.  Unfortunately for too many on the right, they can't seem to comprehend and grasp the fact that criticizing the 43rd President of the United States doesn't meaning acceptance of the 44th President and his policies.  In fact, the opposite is true.  

While the Obama years have no been picnic, the Bush years were actually pretty bad too.  For a Capitalist such as myself seeing government spending go from $2 trillion a year at the start of the Bush years to $3 trillion year at the end of his term is really depressing.  Meanwhile a small manageable deficit ballooned to almost $500 billion by the end of his term.  While Obama did drastically increase the deficit, this still LEAVES NO EXCUSE for the excess spending of the Bush administration, especially when he had 6 years of a GOP Congress to supposedly work with to decrease the role of the Federal government.  Then again, perhaps our children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children will have no problem paying off our debts.  

What Bush left us was an increased entitlement state in the form of food stamp increases, increased big farm handouts, and another entitlement generational theft program in Medicare Part D.  Bush expanded the Federal involvement in education with his disastrous No Child Left Behind program (as PJ O'Rourke quipped, "What if they deserved to be left behind?").  Federal spending in education was drastically increased, more nationalized testing was introduced, and not one kid got smarter because of it.  Not one major spending program was cut and Bush only vetoed one minor spending bill in his time in office. 

This is to say nothing of his disastrous foreign policy misadventures.  Look, let me go on the record to say that the war in Afghanistan was completely and wholly necessary.  This is just in case any of you dumbass truthers begin to think I am one of you.  We were attacked on 9/11 and we need to go after the son of bitches who attacked us.  However, while the beginning of the mission was a complete success, Bush and his buddies decided to focus on Iraq.  Which was entirely stupid and totally against the idea of the Global War on Terror.  While Saddam was certainly no nice guy and he did have a stupid name, shifting focus on Iraq was completely and utterly dumb.  Iraq was pretty much a secular place, one of the few in that part of the world, it probably would have been a good idea to keep all the secular countries in the Islamic world, secular.  Lest they end up in the hands of Islamists.  (Obama could learn this lesson too).    

There are several other reasons that the invasion was dumb, with the first being the fact that we really hadn't completed the mission in Afghanistan.  You see this really pisses me off and the release of Sergeant Bergdahl actually reminded me of this fact.  It is absolutely and utterly ridiculous that there is still a Taliban leadership for any President to still be able to negotiate with.  There should be almost no Taliban left, PERIOD.  This is part of the failure of the Bush adventure, which is that the people who allowed the terrorists to operate freely on their soil are still alive and kicking to do who knows what next.  The Taliban are making some waves in Pakistan..........that Pakistan with the Nuclear (nook-ler) weapons.  I am sure that will end well.  

Of course, the actual Iraq incursion was completely botched too.  None of the "big" promises really ever came to fruition.  There was no major WMD program in Iraq.   There was a ton of sectarian violence and continues to this day.  Democracy hasn't exactly prospered.....unless you think that one sect consolidating all the power to themselves with the help of Iran is a prosperous democracy.  It was the Bush administration that put a guy in power who is not only friendly to Iran but owes Iran for protecting his ass during his exile from Iraq in the 1980's.  

Now Iraq has descended into chaos.  Now, it doesn't help that Obama isn't exactly the strongest leader in terms of actually doing stuff, like being President.  But, ultimately this comes down to the failure of the 43rd President.  Bush essentially set the timetable for withdrawal, didn't get a Status of Forces agreement from Iraq, and didn't demand that Nouri al-Maliki not be a complete asshole when we left. The latter are important because they basically hamstrung whoever was going to replace Bush.  The SOFA is important because if troops had stayed in Iraq they could possibly be subject to prosecution in an Iraq court.  I am sure all the Bush apologists would totally not get on Obama if he had kept troops and a soldiers was forced to go on trial in an Iraqi courtroom. (Sarcasm).  Plus the fact that al-Maliki has been a complete asshole to the Sunni's and pretty much ensured another civil war would break-out and you can see why the situation is total shit.

This is also why getting out of and staying out of Iraq is probably a good idea.  All we would be doing there is sitting in the middle of a crossfire between Iranian backed Shiites and Syrian/Iraqi's Sunni's who are still arguing about something that happen like 1300 years ago.   I am sure the fathers and mothers of US soldiers would sleep well knowing that they are middle of a "debate" between followers of Abu Bakr and Ali (not the Cassius Clay one).  I, myself, will be wondering when the hell this Democracy in the Middle East is going to spring up, and preferably Democracies that don't stone gays or women who say no at any point in their lives.  Perhaps this is another Bush fable, just like the rest of them.  At the end of the day, this is Bush's failure and no amount of revisionist history or mealy mouth excuses will change that.  Just like when our healthcare system fails, it will be Obama's fault.  

The problem for the Bush apologists is that there is simply too much dogshit for them to be able to cover up to protect the legacy of the 43rd President.  No matter how they spin it, the Bush legacy will be the following:
  • Failure to prevent 9/11 (Yes Clinton deserves a lot of blame, but still the 9/11 Commission report isn't W.'s favorite book at this moment).
  • A united country after 9/11 (Psst, this is a positive, it's not all that bad)
  • Squandering that unity with Iraq
  • Pretty much failing to create that great Democracy in Iraq
  • Almost losing a whole city (Not really his fault, but not his finest hour either)
  • Huge deficits
  • Tax Cuts (Psst, this is another positive, except for idiot liberals)
  • The economic collapse of 2007-2008
Again, some of things are out of Bush's control.  However, some are his fault or at the very least he contributed to the problem.  The economic collapse is a good example of this.  Mr. Bush definitely contributed to the housing bubble by following liberal policies.  Bush signed the American Dream Downpayment Act, which basically gave money to otherwise unqualified buyers to pay down payments and closing costs on their homes.  I am sure you can imagine how many of those people got foreclosed on from 2006-2009.  There was the Zero Downpayment initiative, of which the name should give anyone who is not a complete and utter socialist, pause.  I am sure you can imagine how many of those people got foreclosed on from 2006-2009.  Then there was the Single Family Affordable Housing Tax and well you get the drift.  Just looking at the names of these programs I would think that these were programs championed and started by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and of course Barack Obama.  Nope, these were championed by none other than George W. Bush.  Again, some of the problems came from Clinton, Carter, LBJ, etc., but 43 exasperated these problems with his own dumbass touches.  No amount of spit shine can wipe away this shit.  

The list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on.  From the Patriot Act, increased surveillance of American citizens, abuses in the IRS, abuses in the DOJ, embassy bombings, etc. you really get the feeling that W. and Obama were identical twins separated at birth.  Which of course we have no idea, since Bush hasn't released his birth certificate.  Hey, I found a difference, Obama released his and Bush hasn't.  "Where the Birth Certificate Georgy Boy?"

So why am I writing all this?  It seems a waste, right?  Bush is no longer President, why?  The reason is simple.  For the right to be taken seriously again, one of the first steps (among many) is to acknowledge the mistakes and failures of the past, including and especially during the Bush years.  We must bow our heads in shame, apologize to America, and ask for forgiveness for Bush's utter failure.  This is not only important for winning elections in the future, but important for when the next time the GOP is in power, so that the GOP will not only have majorities but the political capital to govern.  

"But criticizing our own is a sign of weakness?"

No it is not, it is a sign of strength.  It a sign of maturity.  It is a sign of seriousness.  Here are a couple of uncomfortable facts for both liberals and conservatives to ponder:
  • There are a ton of liberals/progressives/Democrats who refuse to criticize Obama simply because he has a D next to his name and even some who refuse to criticize him because he is black
  • There are a ton of conservatives/tea-partiers/Republicans who refuse to criticize Bush II simply because he has a R next to his name and even some who refuse to criticize him because he is a "Good Christian"
I am sure I probably angered some people who are reading these facts, particularly the 2nd bullet point, but it needs to be said.  The fact is, while the right rightly criticizes liberals who can't seem to see past Obama's race, there are/were just as many on the right who refuse to see past Bush's genuine faith.  Both are short sighted and wrong for the country.  Political maturity demands that we question, criticize, and support when warranted no matter what a person's party, religion, race, gender, sexual orientation etc. is.  

At the end of the day, it comes down to this very simple fact.  The Bush years were not good ones for the Republic.  While there were some positive strides made, such as the Bush tax cuts, there were too many failures and too many good ideas (Social Security reform, immigration reform, etc.) not pursued fervently enough to do anything other than to look at the Bush years as a failure for the party, the movement, and the nation as a whole.  The worst part is that because of the problems of 43, the United States of America was given another problem, 44, and his name is Barack Obama.  

Monday, July 14, 2014

Your Hobby........Not My Lobby

As most of you are probably aware, recently the Supreme Court decided a case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby in which the court in a contentious 5-4 decision decided that the Obamacare contraception mandate violated the free exercise of religion of the Hobby Lobby Corporation.  The court agreed that the mandate, which says that health plans are required to cover contraception at no charge to the insured, was a proper compelling state interest.  However, the government failed to show that the mandate was the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.  In layman's terms Hobby Lobby did not have to cover the 4 methods of contraception they felt were abortion inducing in their health plan.  

Of course, as you can suspect this decision drove liberals absolutely insane.  They went completely apeshit over the decision and criticized the 5 Justices, who happened to be all men who decided the majority.  At the same time, liberals heralded Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent and championing her as the voice of women not just in the US, but all over the planet and probably the planet Vulcan too.  For liberals the decision was anti-woman, while at the same time pro-corporation.  Women would be denied their birth control and reproductive freedom.  They felt that the Supreme Court gave corporations person hood once again.  Of course none of these things are true, but how often do most liberals care about the truth.  

Let me go on the record as saying that the author of this little blog is:
  • Pro Choice on Abortion
  • Believes very strongly in reproductive freedom
  • Believes that all forms of contraception should be legal, including the 4 forms that Hobby Lobby was concerned about
  • Don't actually think that the 4 drugs are abortion inducing....based on science
  • Doesn't believe that just telling everyone to wait until marriage is practical or smart
  • Absolutely believes that social conservatives like that asshole Rick Santorum are bad for America
  • Thinks that Rush Limbaugh was being a complete shithead when talking about Sandra Fluke mostly because it was clear that he didn't actually listen to her testimony
  • Not a prude in any sense of the word
  • Actually believes that most women's health plans SHOULD (not through force) cover most types of contraception
Thus, it would hard to classify myself as the typical defender of this decision.  Many on the right, particularly social conservatives, would likely find some of these positions trouble, especially the first and last bullet points.  Oh well, I am not really looking for anyone's approval anyway, and the point of this post is to simply state why the hell liberals are completely wrong on this.  

The reality is that not only is the left wrong as to the law, the Bill of Rights, etc., but they are completely wrong on the principle.  You see, for all the carping that liberals do about being pro-choice, they conveniently forget to be Pro-Choice on..........well just about most issues outside of abortion, with this being a prime example.  First off, no one actually denied access to any form of contraception.  All forms are still available from your local pharmacist.  In fact, even the 4 forms of contraception at issue ARE STILL AVAILABLE FREE OF CHARGE TO WOMEN WHO WORK AT HOBBY LOBBY.  Yes, that is right, not one women who works for this Christian owned business will actually have to pay out of pocket for their contraception.  Secondly, even if there were no FREE access to contraception, that would still mean that there was access to the drugs/devices, it is just that would have to pay out of pocket for them.  I mean the government doesn't provide me with steak and lobster, yet I can walk into many fine dining establishments or Red Lobster and get steak and lobster by using my Visa.  There is still access, you useless twits.

The fact that liberal idiots can't distinguish the difference between denying access and denying FREE access is revealing into the character and make-up of the typical modern day liberal.  They can talk about choice, free expression, and freedom all they want but it is hollow when coming from the mouths of these people.  When it comes time to practice actual choice, actual free expression and actual liberty, you are only granted these rights if you agree with the liberal position.  Thus if you choose to have an abortion, a liberal is certainly ok with it.  If you choose to own a gun, most liberals are against it.  If you are gay and wish to get married, a liberal is good with that.  If you don't believe in being forced to join a union, well you are a liberals worst enemy.  The list of liberal hypocrisy in choice goes on and on and on and on and on.  The reality is that there is no such thing as an pro-choice liberal progressive because no such thing exists.  They don't realize that choice is not just about your views on Abortion, but all political, ideological, and economic issues.  You can't claim to be pro-choice while sitting there dictating that a business or insurance plan MUST cover something by law.

Simply put, these pro-choice liberals aren't mad that Hobby Lobby is restricting access to something, because they aren't, they are mad that a business is allowed to make choices for themselves in the first place.  Hell, they are really just mad that other people CHOOSE to make choices which differ from the choices they make themselves.  Look at the hate gun owners receive from liberals for simply CHOOSING to protect themselves with a firearm.  Or look at how liberals react to a speaker on a college campus who simply CHOOSES to express themselves and offer a differing opinion on a subject that disagrees with liberal world-view.  Finally look at how liberals react to a company like Wal-Mart who CHOOSES (along with their workers) to not collectively bargain.  

The worst part of this anti-choice liberalism is that it so permeates liberal thought on economics and how businesses should conduct themselves.  Aside from the anti-choice government mandates that liberals love, such as minimum wage laws and collective bargaining laws, the anti-choice liberal seems to want to involve themselves in every decision that a business makes.  Want to be able as a restaurant to offer a smoking section, you can't because of "pro-choice" liberals.  Want to serve trans fats in that restaurant, you can't because of "pro-choice" liberals.  Want to offer your workers HSA's instead of typical health insurance plans, you can't because of "pro-choice" liberals.  Want to offer real world experience through unpaid internships, you can't because of "pro-choice" liberals.  Again, the list goes on and on and on and on and on.

What this real boils down to is that liberals aren't afraid of losing access to abortion or contraception, they simply want to FORCE everyone else to pay for it.  Rather than letting businesses choose what incentives, pay, benefits, etc., they have to force businesses and everyone for that matter to accept their rules, their regulations, and most of all, their right to have someone ELSE pay for something they want.  (Not realizing that nothing is really free and in the end they ARE paying for it, one way or another).  Thus, today's liberals have determined that free access to contraception is what all of society needs, thus all of society, all businesses, and all people must pay for this free access whether we want to or not.  DOES THIS SOUND LIKE PRO-CHOICE TO YOU?

Liberals used the Twitter hashtag #NotMyBoss'sBusiness after the decision to try make some idiotic point about how their boss shouldn't being involved in health care decisions.  I would actually agree with this principle, if liberals weren't so fucking stupid.  If liberals actually realized that by having government mandate everything that their employer must do for "good of the employee" including what they must cover in terms of insurance, that they essentially made it their boss's business.  You can't honestly sit there and say "Well, you as my boss, must do this for me or else I will get the government after you" while at the same time saying that "It isn't my boss's business".  Well which is it, you dumbshits?  You can't have it both ways.  If you boss is paying for something, in this case health insurance, guess what IT IS YOUR BOSS'S BUSINESS.  Again, I am not advocating that employers start getting into the reproductive or other health decisions of an employee.  I am merely saying that liberal employees can't have it both ways.

Liberals also can't see the difference between that douchenozzle Rick Santorum and rational people like myself who are either conservative, libertarian, or simply not a progressive liberal.  Whereas, that shithead Lil Ricky Santorum pretty much wants to go back to a time before Griswold vs. Connecticut, rational folks with IQ's above 35 like myself, believe in a modern system of choice where a person is able to freely choose which products they would like to consume.  At the same time, they are ultimately also responsible for purchasing those products themselves unless they can get their employer to freely agree to pay for them.  Meanwhile, liberals want the ability to choose to use certain products, but they want to FORCE you to pay for that usage, and if you don't pay for it, you are blocking access to it.

At the end of the day, the uproar over the Hobby Lobby decision reveals less about the Supreme Court and where it is heading, instead revealing more about the state of modern day liberalism in this country.  Liberalism is less about people being able to make choices, and more about people, businesses, and society as a whole being forced to make the "choices" that liberals to be made.  Furthermore, it is also about everyone else being forced to subsidize those choices, all in the name of "choice."  The Hobby Lobby decision and its aftermath is a good indicator of the anti-choice, anti-freedom, anti-liberty agenda of the modern progressive liberal movement.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Arsenic Laced Tea-Party

In today's world of American politics, there are few things more talked about, more analyzed, and stir more passion (either for or against) than the Tea-Party.  In fact outside of President Obama, I think there is no subject more scrutinized and talk about than the Tea-Party in American politics.  Whether or not you feel the Tea-Party is a good force in American politics depends on your politic views, your ideology, your loyalty to party, and your views on the types of tactics and strategy you see fit to achieve a political means.  The Tea-Party is a complicated and diverse subject in and of itself, yet it is also pretty simple to figure where your opinion lies on the Tea-Party.

First, we must state that the Tea-Party is not a single organization, but rather a loose confederation of different people and groups claiming the Tea-Party mantle.  Sure, there are a few larger Tea-Party groups, but there is no one Tea-Party.  In many ways in the rest of this blog, I will be talking in broad general terms, rather about specific tea-party groups.

According to most tea-party groups, the tea-party stands for:

  • Limited Constitutionally based Federal Government
  • Free Markets
  • Low Taxes and balanced budget
  • Federalism (or "States Rights')
  • Rejection of Obamacare
For the most part, all tea-party groups CLAIM to be for these 5 points.  For someone like myself, these points align with most of my political philosophy.  As a capitalist, I believe in the free market, low, taxes, low regulation, and consequently a limited government.  Thus you would think I fully supported the tea-party and for a time, I did.  I thought the tea-party was a positive force in American politics, even if it was a little rough around the edges and even if it wasn't aligned with my libertarian views on social issues.  

Unfortunately, I discovered something along the way in these past 5 years.  The tea-party is made up of too many people who are:
  • A bunch of Rick Santorumish social conservatives
  • Not ideologically serious in any manner, other than simply opposing Obama
  • Not serious in actually reducing the size of government, balancing the budget, or even just coming up with a serious budget plan
  • Just focused on yelling and screaming about things without actually thinking about how to accomplish any legislative or political goals
  • Batshit insane crazy people who believe anything that is posted on the internet, care little for fact-checking anything, post stupid meme after stupid meme, and a bunch of ignorant birthers.  
Now I should point out, that not all that claim to be tea-party are this way.  In fact, there are many who are much less crazy than the type of people I described in the last bullet point and in the article in general.  Of course, at this point, I wouldn't really categorize these people as tea-party, but rather frustrated Republicans not sure how should proceed.  Furthermore, I don't see the tea-party as racist, though like in every group there are racist idiots.....like Cliven Bundy.

However, many of the most active tea-partiers, especially those on social media, do fit in this category.  They populate so-called tea-party groups on Facebook, they have blogs, and they tend to be the most vocal.  Screaming "usurper, RINO, and Cliven Bundy 2016."  Furthermore, too many in the tea-party silent in calling out the bullshit of some of their members.  They tend to think that calling someone for posting a false meme or story is a sign of weakness or support for Obama.  

The fact of the matter is, these people are not good for the right, not good for the GOP, not good for Capitalism, and not good for America.  Sure, they might be a little bit better than liberals on some things, but they are also going to be one of the top reasons that liberals continue to win elections in the near future (if that does happen).  The tea-party has became a poison to the very things they claim to represent and no amount of calling their blogs and Facebook groups "patriot" or waving "Don't Tread on Me" flags will change that.  

Why is this?  What happened?  Well for one, the tea-party tends to be older than the average voters and generally they are more likely to gravitate toward the social views of 'Lil Ricky Santorum and his merry band of big government social conservatives who believe that allowing "the gays" the same rights and privileges as everyone else will lead to more hurricanes, terrorist attacks, and Michael Bay movies for America.  They also believe a more open immigration policy is bad for the economy, which not only rejects common sense economics, but also what America is founded upon.  Too often, they are more than happy to see big government policies at the local, state and federal level, if it fits there own narrow social conservative worldview.  How bad is tea-party in this regard, many supported that doofus clown Lil Ricky Santorum during the primaries in 2012.  The same Lil Ricky who never saw a spending bill he didn't like.

Of course, the real problem is:
Most of the Tea Party is Just Not That Serious and Frankly Crazy.
I mean they are serious when it comes to railing about Obama, and I suppose railing about Obama is a worthwhile adventure.  But more times than not, they are railing about Obama for inconsequential or false things that have little to do with his Presidency or improving the Republic.  There is so much phony outrage amongst tea-partiers that it drowns out the legitimate outrage that most of the right and even center feel about what is going on in today's politics.  I don't know how many times I have seen stupid memes complaining about Obama's vacations (FYI Bush took way more vacations and spent more money on them than Obama has, where was the outrage) or what shirt he is wearing, or putting up his feet on a desk, or his wife's dress.  It is really stupid, insulting to America, and does no good politically.  Again, it merely comes off as complaining about Obama just to complain about Obama because you have nothing good to complain about.  (Of course, with Obama there IS PLENTY to complain about, legitimately).

"But despite this, the tea-party is good on policy, how can you not like that?"  Sure on the surface, the tea-party would seem to have great policy and a seriousness to enact that policy.  However, the bulk of the people who make up the rank and file tea-party are wholly clueless, not serious, and in many ways just as bad or worse than the establishment in DC.  Ask a rank and file tea-party member what they would cut from the budget.  They will simply say "Waste, Fraud, and Abuse", "Congressional pay", "Welfare to them illegals", and "Them women who have 8 kids on food stamps".  While it would seem that we could balance our budget based on doing this, the reality is you can't.  In fact, if you eliminated all of these things 100%, you would reduce the budget deficit by maybe 15-20% TOPS.  So where do you come up with the other over 80%.  That is where most of the tea-party fails and fails miserably.  Oh, and this was BEFORE Obamacare was fully enacted btw.

The fact of the matter to balance the federal budget in the near term and keep it balanced in the long term, you must be willing to do at least 2, if not 3 of the following things (and liberals need to pay attention to this too) along with at least partial if not full repeal of Obamacare:
  • Enact Social Security Reform including some means testing (Btw, Social Security IS a social welfare program)
  • Enact Medicare Reform, including some means testing (Btw, Medicare IS a social welfare program)
  • Reform Defense Spending (yes this means some cuts, but there are cuts that can be made responsibly without hurting national defense)
  • Raising Taxes (THE WORST OPTION)
That is the reality, if you are serious, you must deal with it.  The budget deficit in FY 2013 was $680 billion.  Total discretionary non defense spending for that year was $584 billion.  Now do the math.  Of course, there are other mandatory spending programs that could be pared down.  However, there is NO WAY, and I mean NO WAY you can have long term balanced budgets without touching any of the 3 spending bullets above without a significant tax increase.  Now try explaining to this to most rank and file tea-party members and they will simply scream, yell, curse, and holler without actually coming up with any relevant ideas on their own.  

Screaming and yelling about things is about the only thing that most of the tea-party is good for right now.  When it comes to actual governing, for the most part, the tea-party fails miserably.  This is embodied by Ted Cruz's insane government shutdown plan.  Mr Cruz is a Harvard graduate, but apparently Harvard grads don't need to be proficient in math.  Let's see the Dems control the Executive Branch and the Senate, thus when you want to defund the sitting President's signature piece of legislation, it is really difficult if not impossible.  NO PRESIDENT has/is/or will ever sign a budget defunding their own signature piece of legislation.  It won't happen.  Thus for the budget to defund Obamacare to be approved, you must be able to override the veto.  You need 2/3rds in each house for that to happen.  Thus you need 291 House Members and 67 Senators to do that.  The GOP controls the House, but only has 233 members.  The GOP is the minority party in the Senate with only 45 members.  Thus to override the veto, you would need 58 House Dems and 22 Senate Dems to vote along with you.  Now, for the those tea-partiers carping about the "leadership" in the GOP caving or selling-out, please name me 58 House Dems and 22 Senate Dems who are going to vote to defund their President's signature legislation.  Hell name me 10 Senate Dems WHO MIGHT?  IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN, PERIOD!!  Neither the Republican leadership nor Ted Cruz himself were willing to shut down the government long enough (which would have been at a point where seniors would have been unable to get their Social Security checks) to get Obama or the Dems to cave.  You can argue with it all you want, but that is the truth of the situation.

Thus all Ted Cruz and the tea-party did was an exercise in futility that led to a politically stupid government shutdown which helped Democrats and made the entire right seem anti-American obstructionists.  Frankly, Ted Cruz could learn a lot from Rand Paul, and even Mitch McConnell on how the American political process works.  Plus maybe he could learn some simple math along the way, that would help.  Unfortunately, the tea-party thinks that what Cruz did was great and politically savvy.  NO IT WAS QUITE SIMPLY IDIOTIC.

Finally, and I hate saying this, but it needs to be said.  The tea-party is simply made up of too many hatters (conspiracy idiots), moronic birthers, and people who need to learn to use Google to fact check the insane shit they post on the internet.  Seriously, the amount of the crazy shit I have read in tea-party groups is too much to comprehend.  Furthermore, any time you try to fact check these folks, they simply resort to calling everyone of being part of the liberal conspiracy, which includes Snopes, Google, Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, YouTube, and Facebook who are all secretly funded by George Soros who apparently controls everything that isn't controlled by Koch Brothers.  The ironic thing is they typically tend to complain about the liberal conspiracy on Facebook, which is part of the liberal conspiracy itself.  So maybe the tea-party is part of the liberal conspiracy.  Hmm, maybe I am onto something.  I better check with World Nut Daily and FreeDumpOutHouse, I mean World Net Daily and FreedomOutpost to find out.

Unfortunately, these people haven't figured it out yet.  Those on the right who continually post false shit all over the internet are just as much responsible for the dumbing down of American politics as the left.  You can sit there, yell, and scream about it as much as you want, but IT IS THE TRUTH, PERIOD.  You can't sit down on your computer and complain about "liberal bias" while you sit there and spam the internet with your unproven, unrealistic, batshit insane crap and expect to have any credibility.  At the end of the day, if all these conspiracy theories about Obama, FEMA camps, black helicopters aren't even being covered by Fox News, Daily Caller, National Review, Breitbart, etc. there is probably a good chance that it is just a stupid conspiracy theory.  But hey, I could be wrong, perhaps Obama will be showing up at my door to take away my guns, butter, American Pie, and Calder Cup ring.    

In all seriousness, the tea-party has ceased to become a positive political influence on the right or America in general due to its general un-seriousness, conspiracy minded bullshit, and the need to yell and scream constantly about this and that without prescribing anything substantive policy wise.  While not all tea-partiers are a part of the problem, and some aren't, there is just way too many so called tea-partiers who are a part of these problems that it simply renders the tea-party movement impotent.    

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Citizens United Against Citizens Opposing Citizens United

The Supreme Court and its decisions have always been the subject of controversy. Conservatives, libertarians and capitalists hugely criticized the Obamacare decision in which Justice John Roberts validated most of the law based on the Federal government's tax authority. Decisions on gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, crime and punishment, regulations, and federal power are often criticized by either the left or right based up on which "side" lost the decision. That these the court cases are so often the subject of intense scrutiny is not really surprising to anyone who pays attention to politics in America. 
Of course, one case that draws particular interest amongst the liberal left is the case Citizens United vs. FEC. The case involved a group that created a documentary criticizing Hillary Clinton and her record on abortion. (For the record, I do consider myself pro-choice). The documentary was to run on DirectTV. The FEC put a stop to commercials that ran highlighting the movie saying that they violated the McCain Feingold Act of 2002, specifically the part about electioneering communications so close to an election. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the FEC, and Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decided with a 5-4 majority making up the conservative bloc of the court, including Justice Kennedy, who is often the deciding vote in many close cases, that the rule prohibiting Citizens United from running their ad and documentary during the election season was unconstitutional. That "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." Basically, the First Amendment included not only the right of citizens to speak freely, but groups of citizens to speak freely, and even groups of citizens to speak freely anonymously. 
Of course, the liberal left was all up in arms about this decision. They claimed that corporations would control all the elections and that greedy capitalists will win every election, thus enslaving workers, poisoning our water, and forcing 7 year old children into factory jobs. The Koch brothers would control every facet of our lives and Sarah Palin would be elected President with Ann Coulter as VP. The level of hysteria reached even the highest level of government as President Obama famously chastised the decision in his State of the Union Address....in front of several Supreme Court members saying that foreign corporations will be able to control our elections. At which point, you could see Justice Alito mouthing the words "not true".  Of course, Alito was right, the decision said no such thing.  Liberals went on unhinged diatribes falsely claiming that the Supreme Court said that corporations are now people.  The decision said no such thing.  

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It should be that simple, the first amendment says "Congress shall make NO law" meaning Congress shall make no law.  It doesn't say Congress shall make NO law except for....., it doesn't say Congress shall make NO law pertaining only to this or that, it says CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.  It is right there is black and white, and frankly you have to be completely oblivious to the meaning of NO to understand this.  Of course basic understanding and reading comprehension seems to be out of style these days.  Liberals love to talk about the importance of education, but it seems that in this case, that the meaning of the simple word NO is a little too much for their minds.

"But the corporations this and the corporations that blah blah blah blah."  This is same tired trope that the left and some of the more clueless libertarians love making.  They think that corporations are going to control every election, that greedy capitalistic Republicans will get elected in every race, with the possible exception of Nancy Pelosi's district in California (I mean not even the dumbest liberal is stupid enough to think a Republican has a chance to win there), and create a free market dystopia with forced prayer and forced assault weapons training.

Yet when we actually see the results of the elections, this liberal hypothesis doesn't quite meet the smell test.  A lot of people spent money in the 2012 election, from various interest groups, unions, PAC's, and even the occasional corporation and businessman.  Liberals complaining that Mitt Romney hates the poor and wants to send your kids to a Chinese run Bain and Koch Brothers owned labor camp.  Meanwhile conservatives spent money to convince you that Barack Obama, Kenyan born Muslim usurper, who is personally going to show up at your doorstep with the UN to take your guns, your money, and send your kids to a Chinese run Soros owned labor camp.

But, at the end of the day, the corporations did not end up controlling the outcome of the election.  I mean the corporate backed, corporate guy from the big corporation lost.  Mitt Romney had ALL the money, and poor old Barack Obama had to rely on public access channels and the media (ironically enough run by corporations), yet on January 20th, 2013, Obama was sworn in for a 2nd term.  Of course, listening to the looney left, you would have never known that the Democrats won despite so this so called disadvantage.  Then again, the left will also ignore the large amounts of donations, PAC's, and interest groups that it has on its side.......including many who are parts of corporations.  Finally, the media, who for the most part is in the bag for Democrats is of course run by......you guessed it.....corporations.  

You see the liberals problem isn't necessarily with corporations.  It is with anyone who dares question their doctrine.  Any Republican, Tea-Partier, Libertarian, capitalist is automatically considered a corporate loving stooge who hates teachers, children, the poor, the elderly, and the sick.  They have no problem with the massive amounts of large money coming in from their special interest groups, whose primary concern is enriching themselves (no different than the corporations in reality) AND stifling any dissent.  They have no problem with corporations like GE (through MSNBC) and CBS corporation essentially running television ads for the Democrats through their "news" departments.  Nope, Democrats only have a problem with big money when they donate to the other side.

George Soros is the epitome of this.  There is no more greedy capitalist in this world than George Soros.  The same Soros who is known as the "Man who broke the Bank of England".  The guy who has been convicted of insider trading in France.  Yet, he is a darling of the left, supports many left causes, and donates TONS OF MONEY to influence elections in the US.  To be fair, I have no problem with Soros and his donating to political causes and candidates.  It's his money, and I believe he has that right despite my personal disagreement with his politics.  But that is the difference between myself and much of the left.  The left will do anything to shut down even the slightest bit of dissent from their doctrine.  Trying to ban "evil corporations" from politics is merely a part of this.

Of course, the actual Citizens United case had little to do with corporations.   Citizens United was not a corporate group, they were more of your run of the mill political advocacy group.  While the decision did say that corporations could use their funds for direct advocacy, or more importantly that the government COULD NOT ban corporations or any group from direct advocacy because the 1st amendment says SHALL MAKE NO LAW.  That is the point, Citizens United doesn't protect corporations, IT PROTECTS EVERYONE AND EVERY GROUP.  It even protects people and groups who wish to speak anomalously for fear of reprisal, if they so choose.  

Finally, in today's viral social media world, traditional modes of campaigning are being replaced by cheaper, more inclusive, and more far reaching means.  YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and blogs have given even the most amateur of political speakers a chance to have their voice heard.  Conservatives, libertarians, liberals, and socialists all have the ability to tell dozens, thousands, or millions of people why they have all the answers and why everyone else sucks.  Even yours truly has this ability.  Of course, most of the left will simply ignore this little fact, choosing to play the victim card and complaining about those evil corporations.....while complaining about them on platforms created by evil corporations.

At the end of the day, what Citizens United does is give Americans more speech.  People, organizations, communities, and other groups will have the ability to speak without fear of overstepping government's burdensome regulations on speech.  While it may make the campaign season more annoying with the endless amounts of commercials, it is clearly within the intent and meaning of the First Amendment.  We need more speech not less. 

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Why Am I Doing This to Myself?

This is my first post.  In my future posts in the coming days, weeks, months, years, or however long before I get tired of doing this, I will be writing about the earth shattering and frankly insane world of American politics.  The cold miserable awful hole that is American politics.  I will be focusing a little bit on the world of social media and politics, a world I am unfortunately all too familiar with.  I will delve into subjects both concerning ideology, but also electoral results.

A little bit about myself and my political background.  I identify myself as a capitalist, first and foremost.  Most people would identify me as a libertarian, conservative, or greedy scum sucking corporate pig.  The reality is that none of those labels really fit me, with the possible exception of the greedy scum sucking corporate pig part.  Thus I simply identify myself as a capitalist.  At one time, some, including myself, might have identified me with the tea-party, but somewhere along the way, the tea-party went batshit insane.

In 2008 and 2012, I did support Ron Paul for President in the GOP primaries, just to give you a little insight into my politics.  With that being said, I do often find myself at odds with the positions of Dr. Paul, and often myself at odds with some of his supporters.  While many of his supporters are very normal and actually very politically astute, too many are truthers and other sorts of people form the tin foil hat brigade who don't realize they are hurting the movement they represent.  In future posts, I will simply refer to all members of any tin foil hat brigade as HATTERS.  This includes truthers, birthers, chemtrailers, and anyone who thinks everything is a damn government conspiracy.  The image at the top of this page which says "Keep calm and quit hattin" is a sort of a slogan to represent my generally frustration at many of the Paul supporters.

Should he run in 2016, I do intend on supporting Rand Paul, and I clearly believe that in many ways he is a more polished and better candidate for national office than his dad.  In many ways, where his some of his dads views were way off-base, Rand has the right position.  I disagree with Rand on a number of things, but his candidacy is the closest we will get to perfect and still actually have a chance to win.  Of course, the aforementioned hatters will probably ruin any chance of any Paul, including Ron, Rand, or cousin Jimmy Jack Paul, of ever winning the Presidency.  They will do this by endlessly annoying the rest of the voting population with their stupid paranoid delusional crap.  

I do often vote for Republicans in elections, and I am currently registered Republican.  However, there are many times, including the 2012 general election where I don't vote for the GOP candidate.  There are a ton of things that frankly sicken me about the GOP, its leaders, and the right in general.  I think the GOP and its candidates are appalling when they focus on social issues.  The GOP is a dinosaur party badly in need of fresh ideas, fresh people who are NOT the tea-party types who seem to populate much of the right at this moment.  

Having said that, I despise a lot of what liberalism represents.  I think the common American liberal anti-capitalist view is not only a threat to freedom and liberty, but it is so damn annoying and whiny.  I believe there is no hope for the Democrat party and American liberalism in general.  Thus, that is why you might find criticizing the right more than the left, because with the right there is at least some hope.   Even when I agree with liberals on social issues, for instance, the liberals don't have the right principles.    

Finally, a little bit about the title of this blog.  One, I do think it is a little witty and kind of interesting.  Two, the title really represents my view on the state of American politics today.  The left is full of whiny clowns crying about corporations, wage inequality, and diversity (while completely ignoring the diversity of thought) while at the same time knowing very little about the subject they talk about.  Meanwhile, much of the right has gone batshit insane for the past few years, highlighted by the stupid, moronic, idiotic, morally bankrupt, fact-challenged birther movement.  Seriously, you will find out in future posts HOW MUCH I HATE BIRTHERS AND BIRTHERISM IN ALL ITS FORMS.  Thus the title of the blog reflects my generally disgust at much of what goes in today's American politics.