When Politicians Talk Numbers: A Counter-Stupid Primer

This has most certainly been a year of numbers.  When not side-tracked by discussing the epidemic of rape-pregnancy (you would think that 9 out of 10 pregnancies were the result of rape as much as it was discussed) this year's campaign was about the economy and the numbers.  A trillion dollars here a few billion dollars there and so on.

The key to this is that it is largely all a bunch of B.S.

Oh make no mistake The United States of America has been running a One Trillion Dollar deficit. But when you hear a politician talk about their plans to fix it?  Get on your hip waders.  This goes for pro-tax Democrats and pro-cut Republicans.  Let's not forget the media either, they are complicit in this as well.

Let's look at what Republicans are proposing.  According to Reuters in "Fiscal Cliff" negotiations the Republicans proposed "steep" cuts of $600 billion dollars.  Democrats are mad as hell about this, because it "guts" (one of the many favorite terms of politicians) so many programs.  I mean out of our $3.7 TRILLION "budget" (one hasn't been passed since Obama took office) $600 billion makes quite the dent in our $1 trillion deficit, right?

Oh wait.  That $600 billion we were just talking about?  It's $600 billion over ten years.  So in actuality, it is $60 billion per year against $1 trillion per year in deficits.  That's 6% of the deficit.  That's like leaving a $1.20 tip on a $20 meal.  What's more ridiculous than that?  The Obama and Democrats response to it.  The $60 billion is against $3.7 trillion in yearly spending.  That's 1.6%. That's leaving a $0.32 tip on a $20 meal.  It's $0.016 on the dollar.  And Obama and Democrats are going on about they're "gutting" this or that and the elderly dying and eating dog food.  The media goes right along with it (the Democrats and media do a great job of forming an echo chamber of BS).

The Republicans aren't out of the woods here though.  They have the same reaction anytime cuts are proposed regarding defense spending.  The so-called fiscal cliff is going to "gut" $500 billion from defense spending!!!  Oh wait, it's over ten years, so it's actually $50 billion.  Out of $700 billion per year.  Or 7%, still not an acceptable tip.

But what about Barack Obama?  What's he proposing?  Obama has some very definite ideas.  Obama wants to get those pesky "millionaires and billionaires" and make them pay their fair share!  Yeah, Warren Buffet even came out and said that Obama needs to raise those tax rates.  And it's going to raise $800 billion!!!  Oops.  Again, that's over ten years.  $80 billion per year, on a $1 trillion deficit.  But wait!  There's more!  That's going to give Obama wiggle room for Obama to "invest" (can't say stimulus) another $200 billion in spending.  Or as we've established here $20 billion per year, right?  Wrong.

That's right, Obama wants to "fix the deficit" by raising $80 billion per year in taxes (read not even a dent) then spend another $200 billion per year!  Let that sink in.  Got it?  Good.

From this we establish a couple of rules whenever politicians and their lap dogs in the media talk numbers.

Rule 1#: Spending figures are quoted per year.

Rule 2#: Spending/budget cuts, revenue and tax increases (and tax cuts for that matter) are always quoted over ten years.

Keep this in mind when listening to these jokers.

The Liberal War on the Middle Class.

As the fiscal cliff looms, both parties are arguing about how to go about raising revenue and addressing taxes.  Republicans are echoing the Romney plan of keeping rates the same while cutting out loopholes.  President Barack Obama is deadset on seeing rates go up on the "millionaires and billionaires" that don't "need" tax breaks.  No doubt such a tax increase will be met with only the most superficial in spending cuts.

Saul Alinsky, whom Obama has studied and followed, taught that the best way to bring about communism is to destroy the middle class.  That's exactly what is at stake.  Following Alinsky's "freeze it, personalize it, polarize it" method, Obama has picked the "1%" as the target.  We are meant to view this group as the really, really wealthy.  Currently the number is $250,000 per year in income and up.  These are the people to be subjected to the top marginal rate that is going up.  The sole purpose of this is to crush small businesses and hard working people who have made good, NOT to address the uber rich.

The entire thing is a shell game.  Obama consistently uses himself and Warren Buffet as examples and justification for raising the top marginal rate.  The rub is, neither are subject to the top marginal income tax rate.  That rate is for "earned" income.  Income generated through your toil, or business, etc.  Not investment income.  Investment income is taxed at the capital gains rate.  Warren Buffet, George Soros, Bill Gates, et al. may see rates go from 15% to 20%.

Further, think about the idea that a lawyer pulling in $250,000 from his practice is the same as Bill Gates.  Let that sink in.  The increased top marginal rate will not have an effect on the likes of Bill Gates, but that guy with the small business?  He's getting hosed.

But hey, we're getting all of this benefit out of the extra income, right?  Actually no.  The middle and upper middle class get no "assistance" from the government.  What about education?  Or infrastructure?  Look at the stimulus package for our infrastructure.  The extra money was spent on signs advertising the Obama stimulus.  What about education?  Ever notice how we continually spend more and more on education with fewer and fewer results?  But we're getting rid of the deficit, right?  The deficit is currently $1 Trillion.  The Obama tax raises project revenue of $1 Trillion... over ten years.  One tenth of the deficit.

So what is the net effect of this?

-The wealthy will stay wealthy.
-The small business owner and working professional will take the hit.
-Any chance of wealth accumulation for the middle class will be removed.
-The middle class will be knocked down a peg.
-The poor will become more dependent.

You were warned...

Thoughts on the 2012 Defeat

I had a plan on Tuesday.  Get home from work, set up shop in my bedroom (laptop, iPad, TV) and watch the election unfold.  We've been living under the rule of Barack Obama for four years and it's been a disaster.  From a terrible economy, to international disasters like Benghazi, Barack Obama has been a failure.  For me Mitt Romney was the best guy we had in 2012 AND in 2008.  Mitt Romney is a good and decent man, and the Left could not find a single bit of dirt on him.  A year ago I thought that Obama would be a one term President.  Over the summer I had my doubts that we were going to beat him, followed by hope after the debates and better poll numbers.  By eight o'clock on Tuesday, I knew we'd lost.

So just what the hell happened?  Honestly, I don't know.  I've heard from all over the web, radio and TV from all manner of different commentators.  Mitt was too far to the Right, Mitt wasn't far enough to the Right.  The Republican Party needs to be "more inclusive" or it needs to double down on deportation.

Looking at the election results I noticed that TEA Party favorites, Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin, Allen West and Mia Love were all defeated.  Granted West's race is likely going to get recounted, but it doesn't look good.

With that in mind, my first thought was this: "The Conservative Revolution is over."  How is that possible as Mitt Romney wasn't the most conservative candidate?  It's true he was the establishment candidate.  But, despite Romney not being the first choice of the TEA Party, he was successfully portrayed to BE the TEA Party by the Left and media.  Add in the defeats of real TEA Party candidates.  Regardless of what policies were going to be the choices were successfully portrayed as such: option 1) smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes, less spending, more use of natural resources, but you are going to have to work; or option 2) larger, more intrusive government, higher taxes, more spending, and you may or may not work, but you're going to get yours, because Obama's going to give it to you, don't worry about where it comes from.

America took the blue pill.  That's what's saddened me the most.  The idea that America rejected its own founding and its own dream for Obama Phones and EBT cards and the thanks of cool celebrities.

Republican turnout this time around was less than 2008.  I didn't see that coming.  There are a lot of people on the Right who refused to vote for Romney for various reasons (Mormon, not Right enough, Ron Paul supporters, etc.) who lodged protest votes by voting for others or just staying home.  Congratulations!  You got Obama re-elected, how's that going to work for you.

Here are what I consider to be some lessons learned on how we lost and what to do, if anything.

Character Assassination.  Obama ran his entire 2008 campaign off of blaming Bush.  He ran his first term off of blaming Bush.  He ran his entire 2012 campaign off of blaming Bush and characterizing Mitt Romney as Bush incarnate.  It has long been held by Republicans that it is best not to get dragged into the mud over these attacks.  Bush has allowed his name and presidency to be slandered for 12 years, without a response.  Mitt Romney allowed himself to be slandered for four years.  The lesson learned, the mud sticks.  What can we do?  Respond, don't let it become the story.  There is a fine line between responding to libel and slander and letting it become the story.  It's too late now, but Bush should have defended himself and we should have defended him.  Bush presided over 6 years of growth, 5% unemployment and increased government revenue.  But no one knows it.

The Record.  All of these guys have records.  It amazes me how many people give Obama a pass on the 2008 recession.  He was a Senator, he helped block the audits of Fannie and Freddie that Bush wanted and could have prevented a lot of this damage.  Obama ran this time on how he couldn't get anything done because of obstructionist Republicans.  Never mind that for two years Obama got everything he wanted because he had a House majority and filibuster proof Senate.  He got everything he wanted to two years, and things got worse.

The Ground Game.  The Democrat Party are the masters of the ground game.  There are a couple of things about this.  Democrats are the owners of the dependency class, think Obama phone lady.  They are getting their needs met by Democrats, getting paid and they don't have a job to go to.  On top of that, Democrats pay protesters, organizers and other "volunteers."  Republicans on the other hand don't get that free volunteer force.  We don't have union thugs paid, indirectly by the government, to campaign for us either.  We need to get the vote out.  The Republican Party needs to start paying people on the ground and you need to volunteer.

The Cheating.  I have no doubt there was plenty of cheating going on.  Between thousands of voter registrations being shredded, and GOP election judges being assaulted and thrown out, intimidation, wonky machines switching votes, and precinct workers allowing unregistered people in to vote there is no doubt some votes were stolen.  My advice to everyone, and get this out to your friends.  Don't register to vote via voter registration drives.  Period.  Be proactive, make sure you are registered.  If you are not, register.  You can do most of this online.  Work in a precinct and be watchful.  Call it in if you see something.

The Digital Game.  We are losing the war on Facebook and Twitter.  We need to be more aggressive and get more content out there.  It's an uphill battle simply because mindless celebrities get more attention online and they all fall Democrat.  They're so cool.

The Pandering.  Conservatives don't pander.  Conservatism knows no race.  But that's not what people want to hear.  While there is no homogenous "white" identity, there is one for blacks, latinos, etc.  We need to start pandering and letting them know, for example, how Democrat policies hurt blacks, exclusively and how Republican policies will help blacks, exclusively, and so on.  This does not mean the big lobby groups.  Republicans will not get traction there.  They need to go into the communities.

Unite.  Democrats unite behind their candidate no matter what.  The Republican Party has been splintered for some time now, even dating back to Reagan.  This is because Republicans value their principles more than winning.  The hard question is do you want to compromise on some of your principles or all of them.  That's the choice.

The Media.  This is the gorilla in the room and the biggest threat.  If there was any doubt before, there should not be any now.  The news organizations have been covering for Barack Obama since 2004.  He is a media darling and he will not be the last.  From the economy to Benghazi, the media has been propping Obama up.  Not only will they not report on Democrats, they will amplify the most bogus things against Republicans.  Periodically, the media will take on a pet Republican, for the purposes of dutifully being the "voice of reason" only to crush them when they get too ambitious.  I call this the "McCain Rule."  We are in an uphill battle here.  Yeah, Fox News is a Republican cheerleader channel, but it gets a fraction of the viewers as the alphabet networks.

In closing I thought that there was no way America would re-elect this President.  I thought that we were fooled the first time and that we would wake up.  But alas we did not.  We have the President we deserve.  I have friends and family who voted for Obama, they will not get my pity when their lives get worse.

The Ethical Problem of Public Sector Unions in Politics...

Or how the Democrat Party funds its campaigns on the taxpayer dime.

Some might think that I am simply picking on unions this week.  I was thinking about this premise while reading about how the SEIU astroturfs protesters to show up at Romney events for eleven bucks an hour.  So while the MSM slanders the TEA Party as "astroturf" and "teabaggers" people are admitting on film that they are paid to protest on behalf of the SEIU and, by extension, Barack Obama.

If you think that's greasy, keep reading.

Public sector unions are nothing more than taxpayer funded, campaign fronts for the Democrat Party.  This isn't something as innocent as a taxpayer/citizen donating to a campaign, or even the practice of a union taking dues from Democrats and Republicans and donating to Democrats.  These are campaign contributions that are being taken from the United States Treasury, and your pocket whether you want it to or not.

I think it goes without saying that labor unions align with Democrats.  Even more so, unions that represent public employees.  In case you haven't noticed the SEIU is fully and violently behind Barack Obama and the Democrat Party 100%.  As a result, all members of the SEIU have their dues go toward these campaigns, whether they are a Democrat or not.  Afterall, its not like government workers have a choice of whether to join the union or not.

This practice is shady enough when it is the poor hospital and hotel workers who are bullied and intimidated into the SEIU and other such unions.  What makes it so much worse in the public sector is that the donations are coming in the form of dues taken from salaries of public sector employees.  These salaries, of course, come the treasury of either the US Government or the state for which the people are employed.

One of four things the Democrat Party excels at is growing government (the others are spending, taxing and appeasing our enemies).  Growth of government means more government employees, etc.

More government employees = more unions members = more dues = campaign money to Democrats.

Ironically, anyone can come to this logical conclusion by following Vladimir Lenin's advice to "follow the money."

Congratulations people, you're donating to Barack Obama whether you want to or not.

Myths of Unionization and Minimum Wage.

As with every election season the air waves and Internet is full talking heads and politicians stumping about how the economy should be run.  To this day I don't why Democrats and Republicans don't get along.  After all, both are for "jobs," "a strong middle class" and "fixing the economy."  Of course while making the case for their version of these things "the other guy" wants to "destroy" jobs, the middle class and the economy.

A couple of polarizing topics that will come up is unions and the minimum wage.  Many people, myself included have gone into the reasons why increases to the minimum wage and unions (especially public sector unions) actually damage the economy.  Simply put, minimum wage increases drive up the cost of goods and services at every level and these increases are passed on to the consumer.  Your dollar means less.  With a legally mandated working conditions, safety guidelines, workday, etc. unions aren't exactly fighting for safer working conditions or keeping the workers from getting screwed.  Today, the only thing on the table for unions is negotiating more pay and benefits for less work.  Less work per worker means more employees. This also translates to more expensive goods and services.

These cases have been made over and over again with no real change in dialog.  As with every election cycle the Left is going to one of their default tactics.  Scaring the crap out of people.

There are two prevalent myths about unions and minimum wage.  Both of which state that without unions and minimum wages the workers will be pushed into poverty while rich fat cats, who no doubt look like the guy from Monopoly will fornicate with super models on top of stacks of cash.

The last couple years right-to-work laws have been coming up in several states.  Right-to-work laws essentially state that a person does not have to pay union dues or participate in unions as a condition of employment.  This has been deemed by the Left as a "war on workers."  The idea is that if unions don't prevail we will be have our wages or salaries cut, we'll lose all of our benefits and be shoved off to the poor house.

I have one question: Are you a member of a union?

If you are an American, there is an 88.2% chance the answer to that question is "no."  Statistically speaking, only 11.8% workers are in a union (6.9% of private sector employees and 40.7% of public sector employees).  Union membership continues to decrease every year.  The fact of the matter is that workers do not want to be in a union.  But to hear the unions, not belonging to a union means you are about to become a serf.  That being said, if you were to look at Toyota and GM what you will find is very telling.  Non-unionized Toyota workers get paid more than unionized GM workers.  While GM has a pension retirement plan, that is the primary source of GM's financial woes.  They are contractually obligated to spend on pensions first, cars second.  This results in poor quality products, which translates in to few cars sold, less revenue and on until they go bankrupt or bailed out.

Similarly, we have the minimum wage.  Without the minimum wage we'd all be paid pennies a day just like in China, or whatever.  We've all heard this boogeyman story.  If we don't raise the minimum wage, why we'll all be in the poor house.  Then corporate big wigs will fornicate with supermodels on stacks of cash while we all starve.  And yes, said corporate big wigs look like the guy from Monopoly.

This is inaccurate.  We are a consumer driven society.  Everyone has stuff they need to buy, stuff they can sell.  But what if you're not a business owner?  Or don't have oil shooting out of the ground in your backyard?  What can you sell?  Yourself.  Your work, actually.  When you go to work at a job, any job, you are selling your labor.  Your job is a contract between you and your employer for you to carry out certain tasks for a specified period of time.  As part of the agreement you are paid as per your contract.

The fact remains that the majority of people earn more than the minimum wage.  The logic that if we don't have a minimum wages means that we will all earn nothing is flawed.  If the minimum wage were the only thing keeping us from earning pennies a day, then it stands to reason that we'd all be earning the minimum wage.  As as stated that is obviously not the case.

Why is this?  The answer is simple.  Free market, supply and demand.  When it comes to the supply of labor, we the people are in control.  We determine what we are willing to do for what price.  The minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour.  Let's take two occupations, grocery bagger and logger.  The grocery bagger makes minimum wage and the logger makes much more.  The question becomes, if they both paid $7.25 per hour, which would you do?

If every job paid the minimum wage no one would dig coal, cut down trees or drive trucks.  But what about cushy white collar jobs?  While not physically demanding, white collar jobs come with a level of stress.  Again, who would go to school for ten years to become a doctor if it only paid minimum wage?

At the end of the day, don't let yourself be cowed by these arguments.

My Reactions to the Reactions to the Most Recent Middle East Meltdown.

Disclaimer:  As a courtesy to the idiots and dishonest floating around out there I want to be clear: I do not endorse violence, I don't wish harm to anyone, and anyone reading should not take it as such.

Full Disclosure:  I was initially going to call this post, "Is it time to for Christians to behead those who insult Christ?"  Another idea was, "Proof violence makes the world go 'round."

The original title was a throwback to a very common phrase thrown around at rallies for the "Religion of Peace."

This is not an isolated occurrence...

On September 11, 2012 the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked and four Americans, including the US Ambassador to Libya, were murdered.  At the same time the US Embassy in Egypt was also attacked.  We're told that this is all because of a YouTube video.  We nearly saw the same thing a while back when a Florida preacher threatened to burn a copy of the Koran.  I could get into how there is evidence that the attacks were coordinated by al Qaeda.  I could get into the bungled handling by the Obama Administration (shocker!).  But that's not why I'm writing today.  There will be time for that.

Initially, the media settled on bashing Mitt Romney for speaking out on the issue.  If you haven't seen video of Romney's statements, I highly recommend you do so.  It gives you a glimpse of how much better handled US foreign policy could be.  I'm of the opinion that someone had to make a statement since the current President was too busy campaigning and touting how much money he's raised.

But once it was clear the attacks on Romney were a losing proposition, the media and left have gone to their default.  That is conceding and apologizing for American rights.  The issue, to them, is not that we have thousands to millions of people who will run amok at the slightest provocation.  At best, they line the streets and trample each other to death.  At worst they go on killing sprees and burn their own cities down.  No that's not the issue.  The issue is that someone would dare insult their prophet.  As I am typing this, the man is in hiding and the federal government is scrambling to find a way to go after this man.  First amendment be damned!  We must appease to stop the temper tantrum.

No doubt around the Internet, or around your sphere of influence, or even on TV you've heard how "radical Christians" are just as bad (if not worse!) as radical Muslims.  You know those radical Christians like chicken sandwich peddlers with the audacity to say they support man/women marriages...

This is of course is complete and total B.S.  Are there crazies in the name of Christ?  Sure, but Christian Radicals are your local tee-ball team compared to Radical Islam's NY Yankees.  A quick Google search for "radical christians attack" shows the second result for a news story where Muslims are killing Christians.  The top result is for wikipedia's "christian terrorism" article.  Citing such recent examples as the Spanish Inquisition.  It's very telling.  The fact of the matter is that Christians simply are not as violent, radical and volatile as our Muslim counterparts (this includes the most "radical" Christians).

Let's face facts, the offending YouTube video was, well a YouTube video.  Christians have an entire multi-billion dollar apparatus that dedicates its time to mocking Christianity.  The entertainment industry, the Democrat Party, the media.  All of these folks take no issue with mocking and denigrating Christianity.  The very people hand-wringing, apologizing for and denouncing the man and his rights that made that video possible call insults to Christ "art."

pictured: "art."  and yes that is urine.

All this, and these phonies want to thump their chests and pronounce who "edgy," "provocative" and "politically incorrect" they are.  How brave of you to mock the savior of a group of people who are going to react by verbally disagreeing then running off to a bake sale for injured vets or something.  Maybe they'll volunteer at a soup kitchen or have a knitting club too!

That's the real meat of this.  The Bill Maher's of the world mock Christians because they have a great deal of confidence that no one is going cut their throats over it.  There will be no bombs, no shooting, no beheadings.  None of that will happen.  Period.

Make no mistake, they don't hold Islam in higher regard than Christianity.  They are afraid, plain and simple.  They are scared enough that not only will they will not insult Islam, but they will also sell out their rights and the rights of others.  They are practically begging to rescind the freedom of speech when it pertains to Islam.  They want so bad to offend someone, but not someone who will retaliate.  In short they are bullies and cowards.

Mitt Romney's Taxes or... Barack Can't Run on His Record

There is all this talk about Mitt Romney's taxes.  Demands that he release his tax returns, to prove that he paid taxes.  Make no mistake, everyone demanding his taxes be released knows he paid taxes.  They just want everyone to see how much he made and how he took advantage of different deductions, adjustments and credits.  I guess we're supposed to begrudge Mitt Romney for being smart and successful.  I find it funny that it is coming from the guy who fought tooth and nail to avoid releasing his birth certificate and still hasn't released his college transcripts.


This is just more class warfare tactics.  If Romney's taxes were questionable, the IRS would have been all over.  That's what they do.  So, if Romney's taxes were legal and let's say he paid $0 in taxes, what does that mean?  Did he break the law?  Is it illegal? Is it wrong?  Does it make him "stingy?"  Actually no.

In order for Mitt Romney to have a low tax rate, he would have to take advantage of certain deductions, adjustments and credits on his taxes.  These "loopholes" are ways for the government to steer our behavior to get what government wants, and reward us with lower taxes.  We are basically, helping the government and cutting government out as the middle man.  Why should the government subsidize something when they can just encourage us to buy it?  The government wants us to drive more fuel efficient cars?  Boom.  There's a loophole for that.  Government wants us give to charity?  Boom.  There's a loophole for that.  Solar panels on your house?  Simply buying a house?  Loopholes for those as well.

So why don't the rest of us get these?  Short answer: we do.  These loopholes are available to us all.  The lesson you learn real quick is that the amount you need to donate to charity to max out that loophole is A LOT.  The amount of medical expenses you need to rack up to max out that deduction is A LOT.  Hybrids are more expensive.  Solar panels are expensive.  Buying a house is expensive.  Student loans are expensive.  If you were to legally take every loophole you could, you'd go broke.

Think about this.  If I want to deduct healthcare expenses.  In order to deduct that it has to be more than 7.5% of my AGI (it goes up to 10% as part of Barack's, "no middle class tax increases" line.  Make no mistake, this is a tax increase on the middle class).  If my AGI is $40,000 that means I have to have $3,001 in medical expenses to qualify.  So let's say I rack up $6,001 in medical expenses.  What does this loophole yield?  $750.  That's it.  If I was just going for the loophole I spent $6,001 to get out of $750 in taxes.  If I didn't need medical care, I'd just prefer to keep the six grand and pay the $750 in taxes.

At the end of the day, this issue has already been addressed.

From Judge Learned Hand, "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury.  There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.  Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."

And from the Supreme Court in Gregory v. Helvering, "The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his [or her] taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."

In other words, it is completely legal and OK to not pay taxes if you do so legally.

Hitler was a Dog Lover, or the Politics of Mutual Exclusion

Or perhaps I should call this, "How journalistic partisanship has ruined journalism."  By extension it has ruined us.

In recent weeks we have had a series of high profile, tragic, shootings.  There was the Colorado movie theater shooting and now the shooting at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin.  I'm sure everyone knows the story.  The thing that I find frustrating aside from the fact that these things happened anyway is the reporting.

If you've been paying attention, you've already heard it.  If not, then I apologize for being late to the game.  Within a couple of hours of the Aurora shooting, ABC's Brian Ross went on the air and said that James Holmes was a member of the TEA Party.  Keep in mind that at that point we didn't even know the exact number of people murdered or injured, but Mr. Ross darn sure knew that the murderer was a TEA Party member.  Of course this was false, and a backward pseudo-apology was issued.

This is not the only instance.  Last year there was Jarrod Lee Loughner ran amok and shot several people, including Gabby Giffords.  Shortly thereafter Politico ran this article all about how the DHS is investigating Loughner's "ties to a hate group" which turns out to be a website.  They make sure to mention that:

"The feds are reportedly probing whether shooting suspect Jared Lee Loughner has ties to what they describe as an anti-Semitic, anti-government hate group that has ads for tea party organizations on its website."

How ominous.  The two are obviously in bed with each other.  It's obvious.  That is if you are a child or an idiot.  I find it hard to believe that someone with the level of education to write for a major publication doesn't understand how Internet ads work.  Here's a quick primer, the ads you see on the Internet are based on a) keywords embedded by the webmaster to get the most amount of traffic; and b) the cached data on the visitor's computer.

It is almost certain that the journalist who wrote the article saw TEA Party ads on the site BECAUSE THEY WERE BROWSING FOR THE TEA PARTY!!!  I'm willing to bet they were browsing for the TEA Party to find the very link that their browsing habits produced in the form of a targeted ad.  It's a lock that their Google search bar holds the phrase, "jarrod lee loughner tea party."  Just as Brian Ross's obviously contained, "james holmes tea party."

This sort of thing happens all the time.  Whenever some madman goes on a killing spree there is a race to see if this this nutjob a righty or a lefty?

Now I am getting to the important part.

If some nutjob shoots up a bunch of people, or blows up a building, it doesn't matter if they are liberal or conservative, TEA Party or communist, Republican or Democrat.  Nutjobs and their political alignment, group affiliations aren't mutually exclusive.

Why?

Hitler was a dog lover, that's why.

When someone tries to make these ties between really bad people and their political affiliation they are actually trying to say that political ideology is to blame.  Another famous example is that serial killer John Wayne Gacy was a Democrat.  Here he is hanging out with Roslynn Carter:

That absolutely does not mean that Jimmy Carter has dead boys buried in the rose garden of the White House.

So again, Hitler was a dog lover.  By the line of thinking we have been exploring, that would mean that all dog lovers were genocidal maniacs.

Here is the most important part of what I am saying.  If someone is trying to make that connection we are talking about...  They are trying to pull the wool over your eyes.  They are attempting to manipulate you.

So remember, the next time someone tries to tell you that all Democrats are pervs because of Anthony Weiner; or because of Larry Craig, or some such.  Be sure to tell them that Hitler was a dog lover.

The Great Chicken Debate - Part 1

As you may or may not have heard, apparently Chick-Fil-A hates gay people.  Actually, that’s not true at all, despite what you may have heard.  Where does all this controversy come from?  Dan Cathy made the following statement to the Bapist Press:

“We are very much supportive or the family -- the biblical definition or the family unit.  We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives.  We give God thanks for that.”

Someone please tell me how that is an anti-gay, well, anything?  He is not bashing homosexuality, he’s not attacking anybody.  He is merely voicing his support for the idea of one man/woman marriage without divorce.  Where’s the problem with that?  Where is the intolerance?  I’ll tell you where the intolerance is in just a second.

What is Dan Cathy’s real sin?  It’s his lack of tolerance.  New tolerance, that is.  In more reasonable times tolerance meant something different than it means today.  In more reasonable times, tolerance meant that you “put up with” something that you didn’t necessarily agree with.  You “you lived” with it, you dealt with it.  Live and let live.

I am not a fan of wide brim baseball caps, I think they look stupid.  However, when I see people wearing them I don’t go out of my way to tell them they look like a d-bag.  I will not snatch it off their head and stomp it in the dirt.  I tolerate it.  When someone is driving under the speed limit, I either slow down or go around.  In other words, I tolerate it.  When my neighbor puts diarrhea brown siding on her house, I tolerate it.  I don’t say crap, even if that is what it looks like.

Were I intolerant of these things, wide brim hats would be stomped, slow drivers run off the road and ugly siding ripped off houses.

But that does not fit in with the newspeak version of tolerance.  Now tolerance is synonymous with advocate.  Dan Cathy didn’t bash gays, he didn’t never even mentioned gays in his statement.  But he failed to advocate homosexuality.  His failure to properly promote and support gay marriage means that he is “intolerant.”

As a result, the “tolerant” crowd have made themselves known by harassing, slandering and attempting to bankrupt, not only Chick-Fil-A but their employees as well.  Who’s intolerant again?