Sunday, September 26

Obama lies--again. Episode 240.

One of the things the world learned from the Nazi's in WW2 was that although people are skeptical of small lies, if you tell a huge lie and repeat it often enough a lot of people will believe it--because it's hard to believe that someone would fabricate an outrageously huge lie.

Obama and the Democrats seem to have learned this.

The issue is the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts on December 31. The GOP wants to extend them or make them permanent, while the Dems only want the tax cuts extended to those making less than $250,000 per year.

Now I make a lot less than that, so I don't have a problem either way. But I have a fierce problem with politicians who lie--as Obama did, quoted on the leftist site Politico:

Obama said the jobs bill he just signed will cut taxes for small businesses, but that because the parties can’t agree on the Bush-era tax cuts, “we’re in danger of seeing a lapse in tax breaks.”

“A lot of people didn’t notice that they were getting a tax break,” he said. “That’s going to lapse if we don’t renew it, and Republicans are proposing to eliminate it.”

Did you get the last phrase? According to Obama the Republicans want to "eliminate" an existing "tax break" that everyone was/is getting. (Ozero would never credit Bush for the Bush tax cuts, of course.)

The truth, of course, is exactly the reverse: the GOP wants to extend the tax cuts to all taxpayers, while the Dems don't. There's no way on earth that one could rationally summarize this as "Republicans want to eliminate" the tax cuts.

Just one more piece of evidence that Obie and the Dems will lie outrageously--because they always get a free pass from the MSM on it.

Democrats must think you're stupid.

Democrats must think Americans are stupid.

That's the only conclusion I can come up with after House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer blamed the Senate for failing to act to extend the Bush tax cuts. Hoyer later admitted that the House--with their 79-vote majority of Democrat party members--would "probably not" get around to considering whether to extend the tax cuts before adjourning at the end of the year.

Okay, if you haven't been following the story closely this may not make sense. So here's the summary:

Way back in June of 2001, when Bush was prez (remember those good times? So long ago...), he advocated--and congress passed--a package of across-the-board tax cuts designed to encourage consumer spending and job growth--as all tax cuts do. But in order to get the bill passed, the GOP had to agree that the cuts would expire on 1 Jan, 2011 unless a future Congress voted to extend the measure.

So here we are about 3 months before the scheduled expiration date, and the Republicans have asked the Democrats--who, you may recall, have strong majorities in both House and Senate-- to extend the cuts. The Dems don't want to do this, but also don't want to be seen as raising your taxes (which would be the effect if the cuts expire).

Voting against an extension would give GOP candidates a huge campaign advantage ("My opponent--the incumbent Democrat--voted against extending the tax cuts, which means you're gonna have to pay more in taxes...")

What to do, what to do?

Aha! Simply use their huge majority to refuse to let any part of this question come up for a floor vote!

Clever, huh? By refusing to bring the question to a vote, the Dems avoid giving the GOP an issue to beat 'em with.

Instead they'll wait til after the November election--at which time incumbent Dems who lost can vote against any extension without fear of consequences (since they will have already lost).

Of course they can't admit that strategy either, since it would probably strike most voters as too cynical. So they'll pretend to be so overloaded with work that they just can't possibly spare the time until after January 1st.

But don't feel sorry for the bastards--because amazingly, they've come up with a way to use the tax issue to actually help Dem candidates in the election: They're telling their media friends that the Republicans are blocking a bill to extend the cuts.

Yes, you read that right. in the world could the GOP--with only 178 votes compared to the Dems 257--could block anything? (You were wondering that, right?) Great question. That's one of the reasons you probably won't see a video of a Dem representative actually making the "GOP is blocking a vote" claim: It would leave the speaker open to devastating campaign counterattacks saying exactly what I just wrote.

Instead you'll see stories by their allies in the MFM saying exactly the same thing. Because the media can print or broadcast anything they like--no matter how outrageously false or stupid--without fear of anyone calling them on it.

The only people who call them on falsehoods are right here on the Internet--and of course everyone knows that nothing you read on the net is true, right?

In any case, the Dem talking point is that they really really want to extend the Bush tax cuts, and are ready right now-- right this second!--to take up a bill to that effect. But the Dems feel it's just not fair to extend the cuts to the Evil Rich, while the GOP--eternal friend of the Rich and enemy of the Common Man don'tcha' know--insists that the tax cuts be extended for everyone.

And the average Dem voter thinks, "Y'know, that's just what I'd expect: The Repubs would rather not extend tax cuts to anybody instead of letting the Dems raise taxes on the rich." And he'll be mad at the Republicans.

And sure enough, we're seeing headlines like "Obama tax cut extension now jeered by GOP; Election-year standoff looms" (Chicago Tribune, Sept 13 2010.) Click on the link to see for yourself. Key sentences:
President Obama is pushing for a permanent middle-class tax cut, but only if Bush-era cuts for top earners are eliminated....Democrats are using [the disagreement] to portray themselves both as champions of the middle class and as deficit hawks, because, they say, GOP proposals would depress government revenues.
Too cute, huh. And the GOP can't win this kind of dirty fight, because 90-some percent of newspapers and TV networks back the Democrats. If congress does come to an agreement on extending the Bush tax cuts, the Dems will take full credit, and their friends in the MFM will help them sell the outrageous lie. And if the Repubs end up conceding on extending the tax cuts to the rich, the Dems and MFM will take credit for holding firm to their bedrock principle that the rich deserve to be forced to pay ever-higher taxes. "For the children, y'know..."

Here's Hoyer again, this time quoted in that staunchly pro-Democrat blog, "The Hill." Note how he talks about a "Republican increase in taxes on the middle class," but isn't asked to explain, and of course doesn't volunteer any details:

Democrats have "absolutely pledged by the end of the year" to counter what he called a "Republican increase in taxes on the middle class" -- as the Bush tax cuts had an expiration built in.

"There will be no increase in middle-income taxes," Hoyer vowed.

This is a perfect execution of the MFM beard: Imply that the Republicans are actually pushing to increase taxes, and count on your friends in the media not to question you.

Sure do wish the GOP would stop playing nicey-nicey with their lying, throat-cutting opponents. Unfortunately it'll never happen. Something about Principles.

Govt wants more in the middle-class, so....

Instapundit had an analysis that seems dead-on. (I've edited it a bit):
The government wants to increase the number of folks in the middle-class. How? By giving the poor the things that middle class people have: If middle-class people go to college and own homes, then surely if more people go to college and own a home we’ll have more middle-class people, right?

But home ownership and college don’t cause people to be middle-class. Rather, they’re markers for possessing the kinds of traits — self-discipline, good work habits, the ability to defer gratification, etc.—that let you enter-- and stay in-- the middle class.

Subsidizing the markers doesn’t produce those key traits. If anything, it undermines them.
The founding fathers seemed to understand this key point. Unfortunately, today's politicians and bureaucrats don't.

The idea that deadbeats and crack-heads could be turned into solid, mortgage-paying citizens simply by forcing banks to give them a mortgage loan should be seen as the utter delusion that it clearly is. Unfortunately the Democrats--the people who devised and ramrodded this insane notion into law--have almost succeeded in burying their culpability.

If we forget the lesson, we'll simply doom ourselves to repeat it again a couple of decades from now.

Perhaps November will see the public throwing ignorant, misguided pols out of office wholesale.

Saturday, September 25

Our tax system explained as beer

A classmate from pilot training days emailed this. Normally I don't pass these on but this is too spot-on. It was written by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., a professor of economics. (I've edited it slightly.):


Suppose that every day ten men go out for beer and the tab for the entire group is $100. If they paid the bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

The ten men enjoyed their beer every day, and even the richest guy was content with the arrangement. Then one day the owner said, "Since you're such good customers, I'm going to discount your daily tab 20 bucks." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men--those who were paying something for their beer? How could they divide the $20 windfall equitably?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to drink.

The bar owner suggested reducing each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and suggested that each should now pay as follows:

Instead of paying a buck, the fifth man--like the first four--would pay nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The rich get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

At that point the nine angry men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the tab!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the largest share of taxes, at the highest rate, will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, or attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

A story about unintended consequences

One of the things wrong with the federal government--perhaps the major thing--is that after various pols succeeded in violating the Constitution and didn't get shot for that accomplishment, at that point the federal government had effectively no limits on what it could do.

Combine unlimited power with the types of idiots who infest Washington, and who could possibly think anything could go wrong?

Okay, that was hyperbole: I suspect there are lots of smart folks in DC. But if that's true, how do so many astoninshingly stupid or harmful provisions wind up getting passed into law?

The answer--and the reason I said "idiots" in DC--is that the people inserting the provisions either don't understand the effects of the things they're inserting; or else they do, and are doing it deliberately, to please a big donor or voting block.

Here's an example of the former: From the earliest days of aviation, private aviation in the U.S. was a thriving, innovative engine. In the 1960's and 70's, American companies produced most of the general-aviation aircraft on the planet. But then in the mid-70's a congressman flying in a private plane went down in Alaska and it took several weeks to find the wreckage.

This led some well-intentioned inventors to note that if private planes were equipped with battery-powered, crash-rugged radio beacons, activated automatically in a crash, then rescuers could simply home on the signal to find the survivors, if any.

Hey, who could possibly be against a deal like that?

And it was thus duly passed into law that after a given date, all general-aviation aircraft had to be so equipped.

Of course this increased the cost of such airplanes. But who could object? After all, the percentage increase was small. And only rich folks bought an airplane anyway, so they wouldn't even notice the increase. [/sarc]

Problem is, when you added dozens of such regulatory requirements, and the cost of "product-liability" insurance due to huge damage awards made by juries eager to punish companies even when pilots did stupid, fatal things, you ended up with planes so expensive that few could afford to buy 'em.

And over time the general-aviation industry shrank to a shadow of its former size, even as the GA industries in other countries boomed.

Instead of mandating emergency locator radios, the government could have done nothing, and let buyers and charter operators decide for themselves whether to spring for the cost of a potentially lifesaving safety device. But the folks in DC don't believe people can be trusted to look out for themselves. So their solution--as always--was to make the devices mandatory.

It's highly unlikely that anyone in the chain that passed this law ever considered its ultimate effects on the GA industry. After all, any such effects would be somebody else's problem.

Now multiply this by ten thousand: A few congressional staffers have decided that it's just not fair that some Americans have access to high-speed internet service while others don't. Solution? Force taxpayers to fund installation of expensive fiber-optic networks in places too poor to afford it themselves.

If some students can't afford laptop computers, some politician (many, actually) will pass a bill or rule ordering taxpayers to provide them.

A teachers' union demands that their (largely taxpayer-funded) insurance plan cover Viagra. Two milliseconds later jailed prisoners complain that they should be provided with Viagra, at taxpayer expense, since the courts have ruled that they're entitled to free medical care and Viagra is just another medicine.

Imagine if government didn't have the power to force any of this on taxpayers.

Oh, that's right: According to the Constitution, it doesn't.

Sure would be nice if there was a way to force government back into the original, Constitutional constraints.

Wednesday, September 22

Obama mis-states history

Journalists and Democrats say Obama's brilliant. But his speeches have included some real howlers--lines that would have had the speaker labeled an idiot if uttered by a Republican.

In the latest example, Obie was speaking to the congressional Hispanic caucus:
Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans...
Mexicans were here before America was even an idea, Barrack?

Let's review: The U.S. declared its independence from Great Britain in, umm, 1776. Sometime around July, if I recall correctly. You may have read about it at some point during that fabled Ivy League education of yours. Then again...

Now, I didn't get an Ivy education, but if I recall correctly, Mexico was a Spanish possession in 1776. Mexico declared independence from Spain in September of 1810. They were Spaniards until September 27, 1821 when Mexico was recognized as an independent nation.

So I'm having a hard time seeing how your statement could be anything other than ignorance or a deliberate mis-statement to make a stronger (but false) point.

Of course no one expects Democrat politicians to tell the truth, so no "journalist" bothered to ask you about this or write anything critical.

But imagine the immediate howls of scornful laughter from the MSM if Bush, Reagan or Palin had said this!

"Capitalism is on the verge of death"--Ahmadinejad

(Reuters)-- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday told a U.N. General Assembly session on poverty that capitalism was on the verge of death and that it was time for a new economic system.

In light of this sophisticated, insightful observation by a man known for his analysis in the fields of economics and government, I suggest the U.S. rep to the UN [spit] say this:
A few days ago the president of Iran said capitalism was on the verge of death. Since the rest of the world seems to think he's a smart guy, the U.S. government has decided to believe him. Accordingly, since we're so near the end, we've decided to end all foreign aid--including the millions of tons of food the U.S. has historically given to countries stricken by drought or floods.

So if you're a resident of such a country, and have been expecting the customary aid from the U.S., it's not coming. If this causes you any problems, feel free to voice your complaints to the president of Iran, since he's the one who warned us that capitalism was nearing its end.
Too bad no one in government has the stones to authorize that speech.

Tuesday, September 21

You can't say "jihad"--unless you're criticizing the GOP

Dem Senator Ted Kaufman on CNBC, concerning the debate in congress over whether to extend the "Bush tax cuts" to everyone, or just to those making less than X per year: "This is like a holy jihad to keep the tax cuts going."

Funny how the administration has banned the use of the word "jihad" by the government when it's associated with Islamic terrorism, but top Democratic senators have no problem using the same word to describe efforts by Republicans to cut taxes.

Frankly, I think the best GOP strategy would be to STOP opposing Democratic efforts to end the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 per year. That might make some of the top Dem donors--the ultimate fat-cats--re-think their support of Marxist policies, and might eventually result in more support of free market candidates.

Sunday, September 19

Howard Dean to Dems: "Don't ever answer tough questions"

As we all know, lots of events talked about on the Net are overhyped. This next one isn't, and it's one of those things you absolutely have to see to believe.

It's a vid of former head of the Democratic National Committee and Dem presidential candidate Howard Dean giving a lecture to a group of students in Austria on how Dems can defeat the GOP and conservatism in the U.S.:

Just don't answer any questions you don't like.
One of the solutions--talkin' about immigration-- is Don't let them set the agenda. We always do this on the Left. We're too damn honest. We think we have to answer the question. You don't ever have to answer the question.

You should answer the question that they should have asked you, not the one they did ask you.

And the one they should have asked you is the one you *like*.

We're gonna talk about what we wanna' talk about. We're gonna talk about jobs, fixing the health care system, balancing the budget. And you can't trust the right wing to balance the budget. Because all they care about is the banks. They don't care about *you.

[Smiles broadly] Now tell me that's not gonna sell in Austria, 'cause I think it will. It sure as hell is gonna sell in the United States.

[voice raised and spoken as single words:] Change the subject! Make them talk about what *you* want to talk about. And be relentless. Don't let anybody else set the agenda, ever. You don't have to respond to them.

This is the governing philosophy of liberals and Democrats laid bare: If someone at a town-hall meeting dares to ask you why your pet theories and programs don't work, just change the subject.

And this is exactly what we've been seeing at town-hall sessions staged by Dem congresscritters: They parry tough questions with "This is *my* meeting, not yours, and you're out of order." Sometimes a beefy security type with a menacing look looms over the questioner.

What do you suppose the reaction from the MSM would have been if Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman had been caught on tape giving the exact same speech?

But since it's a Dem saying this, no air time whatsoever, and no print stories. (The speech was made in May of this year.)

Thursday, September 16

Iranian Ayatollah rules dogs are evil

Islam has always considered dogs 'unclean.' But now 86-year-old Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi, a member of Iran's all-powerful Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, has issued an official ruling to that effect.

Shirazi went on to condemn Iranian dog owners for “blindly imitating the West” and warned that their infatuation would lead to “evil outcomes.”

As a result, the Islamic government has ordered police to confiscate dogs from city residents found walking them in public.

The confiscated dogs are killed.

Tell me one more time, Leftists and Democrats, why we should tolerate these people.

Remind me once again why you believe it's just fine to allow Muslims to establish parallel Sharia law tribunals in this country.

Explain to me one more time why all cultures are equal.

Tuesday, September 14

Dialog? Do we have a shared basis for one?

Belmont Club has been considering all the calls by Lefties and a few American Muslims (Rauf) for "dialog" about the Ground-Zero mosque. Whereupon a commenter noted,

To have a discourse there has to be some shared notion of reality, rationality, cause and effect, logic. Lacking some common parameters for the understanding of the universe there can be no discourse. Unless it is considered “discourse” to babble along with the mad in a madhouse.


The Muslim world believes that freedom and democracy are evil.

How do you have a dialog from that starting point?

It's as if one side said, "Life is evil, and we hate it, and we all can't wait to die and get our 72 virgins." How the hell do you dialog with that?

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I don't see how it's possible. Nor do I see how any rational being could possibly believe you could have a rational dialog with such a mindset.

Saturday, September 11

9/11 anniversary, part 2

If you're over 27 or so, you're old enough to have a reasonably cogent recollection of the attacks of 9/11. And if so I have a question for you:

Do you know of a single head-of-state of a Muslim nation who offered condolences to Americans after the murder of 3,000 or so?

I don't either.

Instead, we have video of Muslims in Gaza, Jordan and Egypt (and undoubtedly Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia and others) celebrating in the streets, cheering and passing out candy.

Believe it or not, I'm not angry at those who celebrated...because they were simply reacting as they had been taught. As far as they knew, they were reacting in exactly the "right" way.

I mention the reaction not to condemn the ignorant masses, but to show that not a single leader of a Muslim country had the stones to buck the "party line" spouted by the imams.

Perhaps the heads of Muslim states were (and are) as mindless as their people--a possibility I do not discount at all. Or perhaps they were (and are) simply afraid to buck the teachings of the militant imams.

Makes no difference either way: It shows you what we're up against here in WW3.

Friday, September 10

Nine years ago: WW3 began.

This anniversary of the attack on the United States by Muslim fanatics seems like a good time to take stock of what's happened since then, to see whether the situation is less or more serious.

First: I'm pretty sure most rational adults realize that the notion of "collective guilt" is a non-starter. That is, it's wrong to blame all people of a given creed or nationality for the sins of a few fanatics. So please keep this in mind when reading the rest of this post.

Second: There's no doubt at all that the next World War has started. The fact that most Americans don't recognize it is irrelevant. (They will, sooner or later.) Reason we're at war is that the seminal, founding document of Islam--that would be the Koran (or whichever English transliteration of Arabic script you prefer)--commands devout Muslims to convert the entire world--every person and every government--to Islam.

There is no way to compromise with such an order. Devout Muslims aren't about to suddenly wake up and say, "Uh, about that 'convert-the-world' thingy: We've decided that's not what they really meant." Which means all the "degrees of freedom" in the problem are on this side of the pond: either you give in to their demands (convert), or they'll kill you.

Yes, it really does say that in the Koran. (And for the ninth time, yes, I know there's a third option. Let the Muslims explain it to you. Most of you won't like it.)

So...where does that leave us? As I see it (take that as you wish) we have just two options: Either we defeat Islam...utterly, overwhelmingly, irrevocably--or...resign ourselves to being killed.

Yeah, definite buzz-kill, I know.

Now: The only way we have a chance of defeating what I'll call "militant Islam" is to unite in making this national policy, whether formally announced or not.

What won't work is if the tolerance-wailers or Ivy-educated fools or pacifists or what-have-you get to keep on whining about "they're just like us, it's wrong to be opposed to them, we must always tolerate divers--bullshit bullshit bullshit."

I don't doubt that most of these people have good intentions. Doesn't change the conclusion an iota: If they are able to grab the spotlight, microphone, et cetera, they will almost certainly be able to persuade roughly half of voters that Islam is really peaceful and it's just absolutely awful that we would even think of making opposing those wonderful folks a national policy.

In which case we're dead.

Are you really ready for your daughters to have to wear the veil in public; ready for music to be banned; ready to stay at home unless you have a male family member escorting you; ready to have to go to prayers five times a day? I'm pretty sure most of you aren't--not only no but hell no.

So now consider this: Most of you didn't want nationalized health care. How did that work out? Oh, right: now we have it. Most of you didn't want to give the banks and Wall Street roughly $300 billion of the $800 billion "stimulus" bill (a.k.a. "porkulus"), but that passed too. Point is that Democratic pols--and the RINOs who vote with them--will sacrifice the best interests of this country in a heartbeat if it lets them remain in power just one more day.

And you know that's absolutely true.

The pols will put a finger in the wind, and if it's 51/49 for not fighting the war, that's what they'll vote for.

If you don't want that, the only solution is to vote 'em out in November.

And by such a tidal wave, such a landslide, that the cheating bastards can't cheat enough to claim a win.

One more thing: Don't get taken over by hate.

Let me explain: As most of you--and certainly all Christians--know, hate is corrosive. It will kill you. So it's vital to your health that you not hate Muslims or Islam. Even if we end up choosing to turn half a dozen Muslim cities into glowing radioactive glass.

For example, today we don't hate the Germans or the Japanese. After all, it wasn't the fault of those living today that some of their ancestors decided to to war. And I suspect most soldiers didn't even hate their enemy: For most, it was a job that had to be done--nothing personal.

So it is now: You shouldn't hate Muslims. But if, after you do everything possible to get them to see the light, a handful of them persist in their determination to harm you or your family, I don't think Christianity requires you to meekly submit to slaughter.

In other words, you can either vote to kill them, or do your part, without being un-Christian.

Just keep in mind: It's not motivated or driven by hate. In fact, it's perfectly reasonable to feel conflicted and a twinge of regret, as most of you would if you had to shoot an attacking cougar or bear: "Sorry about that, but also sorry you (the animal) made a bad choice."

That is all.

Dems whining "We must be tolerant"

You've probably heard something about a guy in Florida who had announced he and his tiny congregation were gonna burn some copies of the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11. This announcement ignited a firestorm, with Muslims from several nations screaming bloody murder.

As the controversy continues, a number of liberal Democrats are rushing to speak out against the proposed burning, on a number of grounds. But the most interesting, I think, is the claim by the liberal speakers and authors that "We're a tolerant nation, so we must be tolerant."

But of course the left/liberal speakers never mean we should be tolerant of some guy's odd idea to burn the Koran, but that we should continue to welcome Muslims to the U.S., and to approve obviously symbolic building proposals like the Ground Zero mosque.

I understand where these guys (those screaming for tolerance) are coming from. After all, a tolerant society has room for a lot of wildly diverse folks. But at some point I think the folks pushing tolerance are gonna have to re-think the idea of tolerance when it comes to orthodox Islam. That would be the strain that wants to conquer the entire world and "give" everyone on earth the choice of either converting to Islam or being killed.

(Yes, yes, I know there's a third option. But let the Islamists explain it and see how attractive it sounds to most Americans.)

Would Dems have pushed for the U.S. to "tolerate" Hitler's third reich? Then why do we bow and scrape to hostile Muslim regimes today?

Tuesday, September 7

Who creates jobs? And why aren't they obeying orders!

With unemployment officially at 9.6 percent, millions of Americans are looking for jobs. And even more--who were laid off from their "real" job--have taken lower-paying jobs to keep food on the table.

As the party firmly in control of both houses of congress and the presidency, the Democrats have been wringing their hands over this state of affairs. They claim to be mystified by why so many companies laid off employees, and aren't hiring more than a trickle of new ones.

What they just can't quite seem to understand is this:

Most jobs don't come from Government (at least not yet, thank God), and those that do result in a net loss of tax revenue.

The only jobs that result in a net increase of tax revenue are those created by the "private sector"--i.e. da eeeevil businessmens.

Almost everyone in a developed country works for someone else. A small percentage are self-employed, and an even smaller percentage can afford to hire employees. So basically, job creation hinges on the initiative, creativity and willingness to take risks of a very small number of people.

So let's see now...what have Dems done that might encourage--or discourage--this tiny handful of potential job creators? Hmmm.... Well, they wanted to let the across-the-board Bush tax cuts expire. If I'm just barely breaking even and you raise my taxes, how can I afford to hire more people?

Obama and the Dems also hit business-people with a law that says you have to provide health insurance to every single employee or pay a substantial fine. Again, a new financial "tax" or burden that didn't exist before. No surprise that small businesses are uneasy.

Obama and the Dems essentially confiscated scores of GM and Chrysler dealerships when the government took control of GM and sold Chrysler shortly after Obama took office. (Most of the seized dealerships were owned by Republicans--what a coincidence!) This unconstitutional action leads rational people to conclude that the U.S. government is not a bit restrained by the Constitution, and can seize your property at any time without filing suit. All that's needed is a cooperative congress.

So...bottom line: If you wonder why businesses aren't hiring many people, the unconstitutional policies of the Obama administration and a totally Democrat-controlled congress are most of the reason.

Sunday, September 5

Anti-war protests? Not with Dems in control, thanks.

Seen any stories about American anti-war protests recently?


Remember all the stories--both network news and in print--about huge anti-war protests in American cities back when Bush was president ? ("Half a million people ...")

Did the war stop and we just didn't hear about it? No? Then what could have happened to all the anti-war folks?

Oh, dat's it: Da Booshies had 'em all rounded up and thrown in prison in...umm... was it Kazakhstan? Or was it Zimbabwe? Anyway, one of those two.

Or maybe not. Turns out that even the core anti-war protest organizers recognize there's a big diff in enthusiasm now that Democrats control both the White House and congress (by a huge and undefeatable majority).
“We don’t have a very vibrant anti-war movement anymore,” lamented Medea Benjamin, founder of Code Pink, one of the anti-war movement’s most visible organizations. “The issues have not changed very much. [you wouldn't think "the issues" had changed at all!] … Now we have a surge [in Afghanistan] that we would have been furious about under George Bush, yet it’s hard to mobilize people under Obama.
Gosh, I wonder why? Almost makes you think that 98 percent of those who were supposedly anti-war were actually mainly against Bush and the conservatives. Otherwise, you'd think that the pressure on Dem politicians to stop the fighting would constantly be increasing.

But it's all gone bye-bye. Go figure. Guess the motivation was mostly anti-conservative and anti-Bush after all.

h/t Weasel Zippers

"Islamolepsy"--classic psychological response

A Canadian author writes that the West is suffering from "Islamolepsy"--the self-styled opinion-makers and elite residents of Manhattan penthouse or Georgetown digs are catatonic when it comes to the threat from Islam.

Most seem to truly believe there's no problem. After all, most of them regard religion with distaste--if not outright contempt. And they've never been hurt or threatened for doing so. Thus they've unconsciously concluded that religious people must be peaceful and gentle.

So it follows logically--to them--that Islam can't be as bad as a few nutters are saying it is. (They rationalize 9/11 as being caused by the Bush administration.)

The Canadian does note that a few "elites" almost certainly do know that Islam represents an existential threat, but they don't speak up. Part of the reason is undoubtedly the herd mentality: Bucking the concensus view of their peers will get them kicked off the "A"-list for party invitations.

But there's another reason that's worth examining--because we've all experienced it to some extent, and it probably affects us all to some degree [italics below are mine]:

What we are observing, I suspect, is the onset of a debilitating disorder which manifests as a seizure of the mental organ, a lack of elasticity in responding to complex and threatening situations. It is as if the mind has been paralyzed by a variant form of cataleptic fit, characterized by fixity of posture, obliviousness to external stimuli, loss of control, and diminished sensitivity to pain. The malady is induced by profound emotional shock accompanied by withdrawal from reality — an unconscious way, perhaps, of amortizing the great multicultural blunder for which we are responsible but cannot admit to ourselves. Knowing subliminally that we have been instrumental in soliciting our own ruin, and too weak to respond decisively, the only asylum that remains is a species of dementia that shields us from the truth.

In other words, those who suffer from the distemper, as it emerges in the social and political sphere, are simply unable to acknowledge, absorb, and confront the magnitude of what is transpiring before their very eyes. They cannot discriminate among the external stimuli or recognize them for what they are. Suicide bombings, terrorist strikes, multiple casualties, stealth jihad, assaults, ...a billion-strong adversary riding the wave of the future — it is all too much for our Islamoleptic media, intelligentsia, entertainers, and political masters to fully take in. It appears they have sought refuge from the unassimilable in a classic fugue state...
I think this is right on target.

Saturday, September 4

Islam considers music a "social ill" ?

Our British friends are probably 20 years farther along the curve of Islamicization than the U.S., and it's instructive to see what they're experiencing. Because that's an excellent predictor of what Islamic pushers will try (and are trying) to do here.

In east London they've built a very large mosque, and the smooth talkers constantly speak about "building bridges to other faiths" and "reaching out." They profess a love for "tolerance" and "harmony." Except those terms evidently don't mean the same to them as they do to us. Example: they regard music as a "social ill":
the East London Mosque has hosted such notably tolerant and harmonious meetings as, for instance, the half-day conference on ‘social ills’ on 9 July last year. One of the “social ills” — with an entire session to itself — was “music,” described by one of the speakers, Haitham al-Haddad, as a “prohibited and fake message of love and peace.”

And as anyone who's been paying attention knows, Islam has some... unusual... ideas about how women should dress and behave.
...[and] there was the mosque’s even more tolerant and harmonious event with a man called Murtaza Khan – who told his audience that women who use perfume should be flogged...
These are just two small items, but they hint at what a society run by Islam, under Sharia law, would be like.

It's also instructive that the mainstream media in the U.K.--mainly the BBC--is doing the same thing as our MSM here: supporting and praising Islam, while portraying anyone who warns that it's actually a deadly threat to freedom as a bigot, xenophobe, rube, religious nut, stupid or similar.

Sound familiar?

If you think I'm being too hyperbolic, click on the link. It's an editorial by the editor of one of London's largest daily papers, and he blasts the BBC for doing what amounts to PR work for the East London mosque.

What they'd be saying if a Republican were prez...

A commenter at Ace's place noted that if a Republican was president, every lead story of every news broadcast would be about the awful depression, the huge unemployment.

We'd be hearing and reading endless stories about Grandma having to eat catfood, the homeless--and more wrenchingly, homeless children --dying of heat-stroke or in the freezing cold, the family that had to sell everything and move in with the parents because of unemployment and so on.

But with the Dems running things, what do we hear? That an uptick in the unemployment rate is a sign of recovery. We even have Time magazine putting out statements like this:
The unemployment rate, probably the most famous of economic gauges, may actually be a very bad indicator of how healthy the economy is.

Wow. They've always been liars, but it's getting so bad nowadays that any second I expect some liberal crap-weasel to publish something like "War is peace. Freedom is slavery." (Can't recall the third Orwellian saying from "1984.")

Thursday, September 2

ABC radio news spins higher unemployment for Dems

Happened to catch ABC radio's 9 a.m. news segment Friday morning. The lead story was the release of the latest unemployment figures.

The story was very up-beat: several sentences along the lines of "greatly improved" and "recovery well underway," but I noticed they never gave the actual percent unemployed.

Much later in the day I found the reason (as everyone can guess): The official, gubmint-calculated unemployment had increased from 9.5% to 9.6%.

Yet nowhere in its entire lead story did ABC "news" say that.

Maybe it's just me, but wouldn't you think that in the lead story of the broadcast--supposedly about the release of the latest figures on "X"-- an honest news organization would give the actual, you know, figure?

Wonder why ABC news didn't do that? You don't suppose that's because they're thoroughly in the tank for Democrats, do ya?

Nah, that couldn't be it. After all, all the "elites" keep telling us "there is no liberal bias in the media."

Update: Found this on a Time mag site:
The unemployment rate, probably the most famous of economic gauges, may actually be a very bad indicator of how healthy the economy is.

WOW! Here all along the MFM have been telling us that rising unemployment was DOOM, DEFEAT, DISPAIR!! Of course that was under George Bush.

Now that the Dems control every brance of the entire government, suddenly the unemployment rate "may actually be a very BAD indicator" of economic health !!

It's so wonderful how old problems--the ones under Republican administrations--suddenly become indicators of great new wonderfulness when the Dems are in charge.

Gee, wonder why that might be?