"Romney Hood": Even a Blind Squirrel...

finds a nut every now and then.  After years of one asinine blunder and gaff after another from the President who should never stray from the teleprompter that got him elected, at long last Obama hits one out of the park.  Don't get me wrong... it was never his intent, but in this one case, his staggering ignorance has led him to a dead on accurate analogy.  When he labeled Mitt "Romney Hood", he nailed it right on the head.  Granted, his logic was flawed and pathetically inaccurate as usual, but ironically his stupidity led him to the perfect conclusion. 

Who was Robin Hood?  The common misconception is that Robin Hood robbed from the rich and gave that money to the poor.  Not true.  Robin Hood was a victim of a tyrannical government who, effectively through "eminent domain" on steroids, stole his family's property.  He was a wealthy patriot who was punished for his father's refusal to bow to the monarchy.  In retaliation, Robin Hood targeted tax collectors representing the monarchy who were stealing money from the private citizens who earned it through blood sweat and tears.  He then returned this wealth to its rightful owners... the citizens who earned it.  This isn't the redistribution of wealth model that Obama subscribes to. 

Prince John was certainly a "redistributionist" at heart.  He stole from those who worked and produced and transferred that wealth to the lazy parasites who held the power in their political structure.  Obama and the liberals steal from the hard working people who actually earn their wealth and redistributes it to his base of "takers" who have grown so large in numbers, that they in fact hold the lions share of political power today. 

In Obama's own example, he is in fact Prince John, stealing from those who earned their money through the power of the tax collector.  So if Obama wants to go with the Robin Hood analogy, great.  Yes, Romney and his band of Merry Conservatives will be fighting an out of control government that has more in common with a monarchy or dictatorship than it does with a constitutional republic.  He'll be fighting to ensure that the people (all of them) get to keep more of what they earned.   Sounds like the simplest of all possible illustrations of what separates the two ideological camps. 

Hell, it was made into a Disney cartoon, so it can easily be understood by even the ignorant masses who are so easily swayed with asinine and even disgusting campaign ads (see the DNC homepage for examples).

So to those who believe that Obama is truly one of the most ignorant empty suits ever elected to public office, I can't say that you're wrong.  But that doesn't mean you can't appreciate genius when it's on display, even if it was a complete accident. 

Sleep well Sheople... Barack has the Flock!

 

The "Buffett Rule" for Dummies!

So... How did we get here.   Pitting one race against another?  Fine.  Playing one social class against another?  Of course.  Fabricating a war on women, crying out against a ludicrous position that no conservative has taken.  Sounds familiar.  Frightening the elderly with scare tactics designed to obfuscate the obvious and ensure their allegiance to the status quo in the face unquestionable economic collapse?  We would expect nothing less.  These are the core tenets of the Democratic platform, and they comprise the bulk of the arsenal with which they and their main stream media minions routinely assault the American public.  And unfortunately, they find success with this formula more often than not.

So, is the Progressive Left to blame for the mire in which America finds itself after generations of submission to their agenda?  While many conservatives would obviously say "yes", it's unfortunately not that simple.  Blaming Progressives for our slow (albeit accelerating at a frightening pace) decline into socialist decay is easy.  And for the part they've played, it is obviously blame well-placed.  But to say they drove us to this point alone would be myopic and more than hypocritical.  The truth is, anyone with a shred of critical reasoning skills can see through the asinine premise of most Progressive philosophies.  The fact that they've been allowed to get this far is a testament to one of two inherent flaws in the modern American people as a whole... laziness, ignorance, or both. 

For generations, Americans have slowly surrendered their liberty in exchange for one hollow promise after another.  While I’m the first to appreciate the value of a good deal, it takes a special brand of moron to enter into an agreement without fully understanding the cost.  And while it’s one thing to fall victim to a well-crafted lie, it’s quite another to allow yourself to be fooled by an argument so ridiculous that the only explanation for your error is either clinical mental retardation, or a willing suspension of disbelief.  That’s right... it’s easier to allow yourself to be lied to and believe you’ll be taken care of by some benevolent Sugar Daddy than to admit there are hard choices to be made, life isn’t always fair, and the only true secret to success is hard work, sacrifice and personal responsibility.  While this deal with the Devil has been made 1,000 times throughout the history of this country, it’s not enough to claim ignorance any longer.  We no longer have the luxury of looking the other way and simply choosing to believe everything will be OK.  This country, with $16 trillion in debt and untold multiples of that figure looming in long-term obligations that will never be met, is on the edge of a very deep, very dark chasm, and happy thoughts and pixie dust aren’t going to help us fly when we finally step off the ledge.

Fortunately, we have a phenomenal opportunity for an awakening in America.  The lies have never been so audacious, and the plausibility of the progressive argument so unbelievably frail.  If the American public can’t see through the Piper’s, er... Obama’s latest attempt at class warfare, then it’s time to fold up the tent and call it a day.  It will mean that the public has finally either become so dependent on Government crack that it can’t be saved, or that it’s so stupid that the notions of self reliance and personal responsibility are officially extinct. So what is this opportunity?  Why, the Buffett Rule of course.  The banner that Obama has proudly decided to wave at the forward guard of his Progressive march toward reelection.  Obama and the left hide behind the subtle distinction between tax rates and taxes paid and assume Americans are too stupid to realize the difference.  And they assume that if they can keep the 99% crowd whining loudly enough, no one will actually realize how ludicrous his argument truly is.  But unfortunately for Obama and the left, there are some arguments so simple that a single picture can undo months of chest-thumping propaganda and lies.  All of the Come to Jesus speeches in the world can't refute what a couple of simple images can illustrate so clearly that even the most numbed of American minds is capable of understanding.  So let's take a look at all that needs to be said.

Myth Number 1:  The rich aren't paying their fair share! 

Assuming his secretary pays the maximum taxes for her income bracket with absolutely NO deductions whatsoever (which isn't possible, but what the hell... willing suspension of disbelief, right?), he paid a minimum of 66 times what she did in taxes last year.  Keep in mind that this does not include whatever he paid in state taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, taxes on autos, boats or anything else.  I want Obama to look at this picture and tell the American people that the rich aren't paying their fair share.  And as you look at this figure, keep one thing in mind.  Warren's poor mistreated secretary?  At $300K - $500K in annual income, she's part of the freakin' 1% herself.  And STILL he paid 66 times what she did.  And if you assume she paid the typical effective tax rate of the average person with the average deductions, he'd have paid approximately 112 times as much as she did.  

Myth Number 2:  The way to control our deficit and debt is by taking more from the rich!

If we continue with our trend of accepting assumptions dictated by the left without challenge, the graphic to the right represents the increase in annual income anticipated as a result of Obama's Buffett rule, as compared to the annual deficit as it sits today.  

 



If in fact we instead choose to rely on the non-partisan US Congress Joint Committee on Taxation, then the graphic to the left represents the increase in annual income anticipated as a result of Obama's Buffett Rule, as compared to the annual deficit as it sits today.  

So, under the circumstances, I'd imagine Mitt Romney might have a few questions for Mr. Obama when those debates roll around.  A couple that come to mind right now might be:

Yeah, Barry, we got it.  You don't like rich people.  You think it's their duty as Americans to turn over their wealth to you and your minions because you can spend it much more effectively than they can.  Parents have no right to pass their savings on to their children, as that wealth belongs to you.  Got it.  So Warren pays somewhere between 66 and 112 times what his wealthy "1% secretary" pays, and half of this country pays nothing at all.  Given those facts, could you please define "fair" for us?

Mr. President.  We understand that your response to the question of what to do about the Federal deficit is to tax the rich.  Got it.  So let's say we do that.  Once we've effectively punished the wealthy for the audacity to actually succeed, done our best to throw a wet blanket on the fire that powers the engine of innovation... investment capital that is... and brought in the revenue you project, we're left with just one critical question.  What do we do about the Federal deficit?  


And there you have it my fellow Americans.  The rich aren't paying their fair share?  The way to fix our deficit problem and get the economy on track is to tax the rich?  If you can can make those statements out loud, while looking at the graphics above without laughing, vomiting, putting your fist through a wall, or doing all three simultaneously, then you deserve the America that is waiting for you just beyond that ledge.  And on the way down, don't blame Obama, Pelosi, or any of the other Progressive Pied Pipers.  If you can't see through this pathetic crap, then they're not pushing you over the edge.  Ignorance is now off the table, and willing suspension of disbelief is all that is left (sorry, in spite of California's best efforts to prove me wrong, we just can't have that many clinically retarded folks out there).  If you allow them to lie to your face and still you do nothing, then you're joined hand in hand and taking the leap together, and you deserve the fate that awaits you at the bottom of that chasm.

Pride In America Is Offensive And Must Be Snuffed Out?

There have been signs all around for decades that America is headed for disaster.  We've taken one baby step after another toward the neutered, socialist, multi-cultural vision of America that has occupied the hopes and dreams of the progressive left for generations.  Steps so small, and so seemingly trivial, that they're often unnoticed by the mainstream, or even dismissed as the concerns of a paranoid fringe on the right.  But every now and then, the left tires with the baby steps and begins to take leaps instead.  For the first time in a long time, the left gained unbridled control over the House, the Senate, and the Executive branch, and what ensued was the clearest demonstration imaginable of the true designs the left has for the future of this country.  Fortunately, because they simply couldn't help themselves when confronted with that much power, left wing idealogues like Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, Reid and Obama showed their hand too soon, and America was slapped out of its malaise.  The 2010 elections were, hopefully, a signaling of the turning of the tide that will culminate in a conservative tsunami in 2012 and beyond.  Unfortunately, while the American people do have the ability to "right" what's wrong in this country through the ballot box, there is a wildcard that most simply haven't accounted for.  A variable with infinitely more power than misguided freaks like Pelosi could ever hope to amass.  And, unfortunately, it's a threat that cannot be addressed at the ballot box.  That threat is judicial activism, and, both sadly and ironically, it's on disgusting display on Veterans Day of all days.

Miguel Rodriquez, Asst. Principal

U. S. District Court Judge James Ware has ruled that the Morgan Hill School District acted within its rights in stripping the constitutional rights of American citizens to proudly wear clothing displaying the American flag.  Last year, on Cinco de Mayo, several students at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, CA decided to counter the displays of Mexican pride by hispanics in the school by donning their own source of pride... t-shirts including the American flag.  In response, the assistant principal of the school, Miguel Rodriguez,  required the boys to either change their clothes or wear them inside out.  Why?  Well according to school officials, they were afraid of violent response from the hispanic students.  So just to summarize this as simply as possible, the First Amendment rights of American school kids have been stripped to avoid a violent response by other students, many of whom are not even citizens with a legal right to be in this country.  As ridiculous as this sounds, it's sadly the kind of stupidity and misguided politically correct garbage we've all grown to expect from those running our public schools - especially in a left wing cesspool like California.  But to have a Federal judge actually green light the denial of an American student's rights, using the possibility of a criminal response by other students is by far the greater concern.

Students with violence-inciting shirts

So tell me, what is the logical extension of this argument?  If a college student who lost his father on 9/11 might be offended by the presence of an openly Muslim group on campus, should all displays of the Muslim faith be banned from campus for fear of an angry response?  If a group of white supremists on a High School campus in Alabama might respond violently, should all t-shirts donning the face of Martin Luther King be banned as a precaution?  When did it become not only acceptable, but now constitutionally feasible, to tell an American student that he has to hide his pride in his country because the citizens and/or refugees of another country might be offended?

Time to wake up yet???

While some might see this as a travesty of justice, I personally choose to look at it as a positive.  Just as America responded when the true face of the left was revealed in 2009, I believe she will respond to this disgusting display of judicial activism as well.  Baby steps are easy to miss, but when the rights of Americans are trampled this obscenely, those baby steps are more like a boot on the throat... and that's something really tough for even the most passive of Americans to ignore.

So Bloomberg Feels Gates is Worthy... Jobs Isn't?!?

So in Bloomberg's latest - Gates is worth of being idolized, while Jobs is not?  While the author's approach is clear, I believe Mr. Wessell would be well-served to learn the difference between "simple", and "simplistic".  His pedestrian approach of "Gates is about charity, while Jobs was about business" has got to be one of the most shallow, short-sighted "analysis" (and it is certainly a stretch to give this article that much credence) I've read to date. 

While he, and other simple minds who live by the "what have you done for me lately" creed, point to Gates as an icon of the "right kind" of rich person, one need only look at history and view the situation from a slightly broader perspective than these folks seem capable of to see the parallels between Gates vs. Jobs and Liberal vs. Conservative.   I know, given Jobs views, that seems like a stretch, but stick with me for a moment on this one.  I believe too many people focus too much on "the gadgets" and on Jobs singular focus on building a successful business. While he was certainly a genius in that space, gadgets were not his legacy, and he DID change the world for the better, and possibly more than Gates ever will. Gates approach from a philanthropy standpoint is admirable, and I'm taking nothing from that. But his business approach was to wipe out competition at every turn.  That fact simply can't be dismissed. 

I'm a devout capitalist, and I don't have a problem aggressive business practices, but I do find it ironic that the liberal left appears to put Gates on a pedestal. His philosophy was to destroy other business for decades, amass one of the greatest stores of wealth on the planet, and then decide how HE felt HE  should change the world through HIS charity. Jobs, on the other hand, revolutionized the way people do business. He developed Apple, and specifically those "gadgets", which so many seem to point to in an effort to trivialize his legacy, as a platform for innovation upon which millions of other ambitious minds built their businesses. For as many business as Gates destroyed, Jobs likely created 1000x the number of wealthy people throughout the world. To truly understand the impact of Steve Jobs and his philosophy, you'd have to measure both the philanthropy and the economic impact stemming from the success of thousands of people who changed their station in life and built businesses that will take care of them, their families, the families of their employees, and so on. How much charitable work has been done by the thousands of people who now have the means to contribute, who would never have been in that position without Steve Jobs.

As I said, it's a matter of perspective. IMO, although Jobs was clearly a liberal, I consider his impact, if not his philosophy, to be the core of conservatism. He wasn't one that looked to the government for solutions. He may never be known as the philanthropist that Bill Gates was known to be, but there are millions of people who have been positively impacted by the tsunami of innovation that he created. Bill Gates gave away some of his money, and should be applauded for doing so. But Steve Jobs gave people the tools to create their own wealth, and forgive me for saying it... but I will idolize him for that.

You Mean Democrats are Pro-Abortion?!?!

 Catholic Bishops Cry Foul as Sugar Daddy's Eyes Wander

Boo hooo.  When you crawl into bed with a fickle partner, you don't get to cry foul when their tastes change and they start asking for something you don't want to give. The church has gotten its way on this (and it's not a position I disagree with, by the way) for decades. Now the administration changes, and the Bishops are upset. You mean politics change? You mean different sides of the aisle have opposing views and that can translate into conflicting priorities? Well, here's a news flash for ya... quit acting like the federal government's kept woman and you won't have to put up with their demands. The church has no business getting government handouts... that's what those vaults of gold and other wealth stored over the last two millennia is supposed to be for. But you wouldn't want to spend that when you can just support a democratic agenda and have the privilege of spending someone else's money, right? A bit of a dichotomy, isn't it? The church has a social welfare agenda, so it supports the social welfare party. But it also has a social conservative mindset when it comes to moral issues, but the Democratic party is the party promoting an agenda of open sexuality, homosexuality and abortion. Oh crap! What do they do?

Well, their money comes from the government, and from their followers/donors. Their followers are ever increasingly coming from the poor, the uneducated... Catholicism is now effectively battling it out with the Muslims for number one position in the 3rd world. They promote open borders for the same reason the Democrats do... because that's where their new members are coming from. They support democrats, because that's where the money comes from for their social agenda. They've looked the other way for generations as the Democratic party has enabled the killing of millions of unborn children, because that's where the money comes from. They've stood by as all Christian symbols are stripped from every aspect of our lives in the name of "religious freedom".  They helped to elect a President who proclaims to the world that "America is not a Christian nation".  And now, after generations of serving as the whore of the Democratic left, the Bishops are upset because the Progressives, who have no sense of loyalty to the church (why would they... who's loyal to a whore), change the rules and demand compliance with THEIR social agenda. Seriously? This crap is actually comical.

The party that gives the most to charitable causes, largely through donations to the church (any church, not simply Catholic) is the Republican party (simple fact... check the studies). Through tithing, many Christians and Mormons actually give more of their income voluntarily to the church than 50% of the nation gives to the government in taxes.  The party of social conservatism (i.e. traditional marriage, anti-abortion, etc.) is the Republican party (or at least they're the closest thing to it in DC). So what does the Catholic church do? Stand beside those who freely give the most wealth to religious charities, those with similar moral values, and support them at the pulpit and the voting booth, or support the Sugar Daddy who's treated you like the whore that you are for decades in the hopes that you won't be cut off? They gambled... they lost.

What should happen is the Catholic church should disavow the Democratic party and only support those candidates - regardless of political affiliation -  who align with their moral values. They should stop taking taxpayer money and turn to their own members to fund their projects (rather than obscene Cathedrals serving as shrines to the Catholic church, not to God... just imagine how much good could have been done with the $190 million they spent on that monstrosity in Los Angeles a few years ago).  Hmmm... build a monument to ourselves in the heart of moral decay that is Los Angeles, or feed a half a million starving children in Africa for a year?  Choices, choices...

There is no good guy in this one. The church has no leg to stand on, as it sold it's soul a long time ago, and they have no room to bitch when the tap runs dry. And the government shouldn't be in the business of dictating which organization has the "right" moral compass to be eligible to receive taxpayer dollars. That money should never have been confiscated from the taxpayers in the first place. But in the end, we're talking about two of the most powerful, and most corrupt, entities on the planet... the Catholic church and the US Government. And when this collection of thieves and whores start to duke it out, there's little the rest of us can do but sit back and laugh (or cry... all a matter of perspective).

NPR - National Pakistani Radio?

As the nation finds itself in yet another ideological debate about the worthiness of NPR when it comes to Federal funding, I have to again wonder what the Sheople might think if they truly knew where their hard earned taxes were going.  Don't get me wrong... I'm physically sickened at the thought of money I could be saving for my children's education, or for my retirement, instead contributing to the salary of a left wing cow like Nina Totenburg.  With that said, NPR is only the tip of the iceberg that lies dead ahead, and Captain Obama seems all too happy to go down with this ship, while Pelosi and Reid lead the orchestra on the deck.

You see, when most folks hear the acronym NPR, the emotional reaction will vary wildly depending upon whether you're speaking to someone on the right, or on the left.  However, one assumption liberals and conservatives are typically able to agree upon is that the NPR we're referring to is in fact National Public Radio.  Unfortunately, under the care and feeding of big-government, one-world, open-society progressives like Pelosi, Reid and Obama, the role of the US Government has mushroomed and mutated from a Nanny State into a Nanny Planet.  Case in point:

Federal Grant Opportunity:  Pakistan Children's Television    
Total Cost to the Taxpayers:  $20,000,000
 

Himalayan Monal - Big Bird's Pakistani Protege

That's right Sheople.  I'm not sure what the Big Bird equivalent is for a stone-age country that serves as a safe harbor for both radical Muslim terrorists as well as billions in US foreign aid every year, but if it's the Himalayan Monal, it's one damned well-funded bird.  I would hope that regardless of whether you believe a big yellow bird that lives on Sesame Street should be feeding at the public trough, we can at least agree that sending $20,000,000 to a corrupt country hostile to the US for public children's broadcasting content is just a bit outside the purview of what the Federal government should be doing with our taxes.  Then again, I've been disappointed before. 

So Sheople,  as you sit back and watch the debate unfold, with Big Bird's feathery butt hanging in the balance, you might be wise to consider the fate of the guy who went Velociraptor hunting late in the first Jurassic Park movie.  Remember that look of confidence on his face as he lined up his sights on his target.  Remember how his expression changed as he realized he'd lost track of the other and it was about to devour him?

Sleep well Sheople.  Barack has the flock.