Sunday, December 30

Dem-controlled senate extends "awful" Bush law

Hey, remember when, after 2800 people were killed on 9/11, the Bush administration introduced--and congress passed--a law that allowed the gummint to wiretap calls between the U.S. and certain foreign countries?

Remember how the NYT and WaPo screamed that this was the End of the World, a ghastly invasion of our privacy, a coup by the eeebil Booosh and his Wepubwican Wascals? They wailed that it was an intolerable blow to freedom, to our right to privacy, our right to...well, you name it. It was just *awful* what Boosh and the Rethugs had done.

Remember all the screaming and headlines and gnashing of teeth?

Actually you prolly don't, unless you're one of the five percent of us who actually follow politics in detail and keep our own records. But no matter.

Guess what happened last Friday? The U.S. senate passed a bill extending these same provisions for another five years. Vote was 73-23.

Uh, wait...don't the Democrats have majority control of the senate? Why yes, yes they do.

But if that's true, and if this measure was so *awful* when Boosh introduced it, how the hell did it pass the senate with virtually all Democrats voting for it?

Gosh, that's a total mystery, citizen.

No, wait: There's absolutely no double-standard there, citizen, and you are not to ask any more questions about this non-event that we thought had been disappeared down the memory hole.

To help make the Democrat-approved extension of the *awful*, terrible, freedom-smashing law a non-event, here's the headline the WaPo used: "Senate approves measure to renew controversial surveillance authority."

Yeah, dat's da ticket...it's merely "controversial."


"We have always been at war with Eastasia."--Washington Post

(Wonder if anyone under 25 knows what this is from?)

Saturday, December 29

UK's socialized medicine six times deadlier than guns in the U.S.

Liberal and most Democrats whine "Guns BAD! Way awful, terrible BAAAAD! Need to ban 'em, NOW!"

But the same folks are just tickled over the prospect of "single-payer health care" (i.e. government runs the whole deal, like the National Health Service of the UK).

Okay, libs, which kills more people *per capita*: guns in the U.S. or the UK's National Health Service?

According to a just-published study by a London medical school, in 2009 obvious, needless errors by NHS personnel are estimated to have killed 11,859 people. The UK has a population 66 million, for a per-capita rate of about 0.00018.

In the U.S. all killings by guns--including suicide and accidents--kill roughly 10,000 per year, out of a population of 312 million. That's a rate of 0.000032.

In other words, the risk of being killed due to negligence by the NHS is almost six times greater than dying by gunshot in the U.S.

But by all means, let's ban guns and get national/socialized health care here!

Jesse Jackson: "Chicago has no gun culture"

Jesse Jackson (sr.) was recently interviewed on CNN about the record number of gun deaths in Chicago this year (500 homicides, 87% by gun).

Chicago is tied for having the strictest anti-gun laws in the nation.  So if strict gun-limiting laws work--that is, using liberal logic--you'd think Chicago would have a lower rate of gun deaths. Since this isn't the case, the interviewer asked Jackson what made him think that even stricter gun laws would make things better.

Jackson's answer was classic lib:  Dodge, bob, weave, deflect, try to change the subject. But in trying to do this he uttered some pearls of liberal logic over the air, such as: Unlike Newtown, CT, "Chicago has no gun culture."

"No gun culture"?  In Chicago, the city that was home to Al Capone, Frank Nitti, the Valentine's Day massacre and a gazillion mob hits?

Jackson explained his statement: “It’s not gun violence. It’s also poverty and lack of education and lack of dreams, where people think killing is the only way out,” he concluded.

Ah, okay, now I got it:  It's not guns causing the violence, but rather thugs shooting other thugs because they simply have no other choice, since "killing is the only way out." 

That's certainly a good narrative.  Not sure whether it trumps the standard Left-wing trope of "guns just get up on their own and kill people" but it's worth pushing.  Anything to shake the federal money tree for yet another few million.

Seems to me that claiming thugs kill because they think "killing is the only way out" is almost like saying they're all just victims of a heartless system.

But hey, let Chicago try even stricter gun laws and see if that stops the tidal wave of murders there.

I'm pretty sure it won't have any positive result. But it'd make liberals feel so good about themselves.

Friday, December 28

Laws work--it's why we don't have any murders. Wait...

Did you ever drink alcohol before you turned 18?

Wait...wasn't that illegal?

You mean to tell me you *ignored the law* and did it anyway? OMG!

Ever smoke weed?  Wasn't weed illegal everywhere in the U.S. until a few years ago?

You mean to tell me you ignored that law too?

Y'know, I hear murder is illegal. Same for robbery, car theft, embezzlement, assault...the list is quite long. And yet everyone knows those things happen every day, right?

This is not in any way news to rational adults.

Yet liberals believe that passing even more laws limiting gun ownership or sales will reduce crime.  Presumably because people determined to rob or murder will miraculously obey a law regarding gun purchases.

Makes perfect sense--at least to liberals, leftists and "progressives."

I wish that just once some leftist/Dem/"progressive" would be candid and say "Even if this new law we're pushing doesn't reduce gun deaths, we're determined to pass it anyway because guns are scary and dangerous and no civilian should be allowed to own one!"

Thursday, December 27

EPA ignores federal judges--again

Does the name Carol Browner ring a bell?

If you keep an eye on politics, it should:  She was an aide to senator Al Gore who was later appointed by perjuring serial rapist Bill Clinton to head the EPA. Remember?

Here's something you almost certainly do not know: After the EPA was sued during her tenure--including allegations that emails between top executives would reveal a pattern of lawbreaking--a federal judge ordered the agency to preserve all agency email records.

Just hours later, Browner ordered the hard-drive of her office computer reformatted--and that all backup tapes be destroyed.

She then claimed she wasn't trying to destroy any evidence--it was all just a mistake!

Oh yeah. Seriously.

Fast-forward to the next Democratic administration: Does the name Richard Windsor ring a bell?

Probably not, since it was a false name used on emails actually sent by...Obama's head of the EPA, Lisa Jackson.

Why, you may wonder, would the head of the EPA use a false name on emails?  Well according to plaintiffs in the most recent lawsuit, the use of false names was part of an organized scheme under which top EPA officials could discuss official business but hide the emails from citizen lawsuits alleging violations of federal law by the same officials!

Cute, huh.  If you should by greatest chance succeed in getting a judge to agree to order the EPA to turn over emails of the director and her henchmen--all by name, of course--the bureaucrats can avoid providing the crucial ones.  Because oh! that email wasn't from "Lisa Jackson" but from "Richard Windsor," see?

Obeying laws is for us commoners, not for government employees, see.

Brit loony leftist encounters thugs; humor follows--but no learning

George Monbiot is a leftist/"progressive" writer--basically crazy, and wants you to salute and disarm. Oh, and stop driving, cuz, you know, *Global Warming!*

Here's his latest experience:
A group of us had occupied a piece of land on St George’s Hill in Surrey, in the hope of establishing a “common treasury for all.” Our aim had been to rekindle interest in land reform. It had been going well – we had placated the police, started to generate plenty of public interest – when two young lads with bull terriers arrived in an old van. Everyone was welcome at the site and, as they were travellers, one of the groups marginalised by the concentration of control and ownership of land in Britain, we went out of our way to accommodate them. They must have thought they had died and gone to heaven.

Almost as soon as they arrived they began twocking stuff. A radio journalist left his equipment in his hired car. They smashed the side window. Someone saw them bundling the [stolen loot] into their lorry. There was a confrontation –  They wound their dogs up, making them snap and snarl at the other occupiers. At night they roamed the camp, [dogs] straining at the leash, cans of Special Brew in their free hands, shouting “fucking hippies, we’re going to burn you in your tents!”

We had no idea how to handle them without offending our agonised liberal consciences. They saw this and exploited it ruthlessly.
They saw this and exploited it ruthlessly.

Whoa, who could possibly have guessed that result?

What's funny is how Monbiot sounds so surprised that his good intentions didn't prevail over the baser goals of thugs.  But that won't stop him from trying his damndest to see that government takes away your guns, then your knives and swords, then clubs--everything that you could possibly use to defend you and your loved ones from the thuggery he's just experienced.

Moonbats never learn.  But that doesn't stop 'em from passing laws telling you how to live.

Wednesday, December 26

Palestinian official: We'll keep the "honor killing" defense, thanks

The legal adviser to Palestinian/Muslim honcho Mahmoud Abbas says his boss doesn't plan to change laws that let men who claim "honor killing" as a defense for murdering women get off with virtually no penalty, his legal adviser says.

"Why change it? This would cause serious problems," Hassan al-Ouri said.  Amazingly, he went on to add that eliminating the "honor killing" defense "would not benefit women."

In May 2011, in response to protests over the killing of university student Aya Baradiya in Hebron, Abbas had pledged to amend the law to impose stiffer penalties for "honor killing."

Palestinian/Muslim politicians will say anything, promise anything, to sway public opinion to their side, even when they have no intention whatsoever of honoring the promise.  This sleazy, underhanded tactic is a formal part of Islamic doctrine, called "taqqiya" (spelling varies due to phonetic transliteration of arabic characters).

Oh, wait:  Doesn't Obama do the same thing?  "Your health insurance premiums won't go up under my plan."  "We'll have more doctors under my plan."  "My plan will reduce the total cost of health care in the United States."

Lies.  All lies.  But they sure sounded great, didn't they?   Spoken with seeming sincerity, very persuasively--spoken with chin tilted way up, eyes almost closed.  Guy would fit right in with Muslim leaders around the world.

Friday, December 21

"Gun confiscation is the only way to reduce crime!" Wait...what?

Thirty-odd years ago the town of Kennesaw, Georgia, (an Atlanta suburb) passed a city ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their home.

As crime soared in nearby Atlanta, author David Kopel claims the unusual requirement reduced the rate of home burglaries there quite dramatically: In the first year after passage home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance to 26 in 1983, then to 11 in 1984. The overall crime rate fell more than 50% between 1982 and 2005.

In the recent Leftist frenzy to demonize guns you'd think a town that had made owning a gun essentially mandatory would be the center of a firestorm of media hysteria. But guess what? It isn’t. In fact I haven't seen a major media outlet even mention Kennesaw. Have you?

The reason is that Kennesaw proves that having firearms in virtually every home actually improves safety and security. But of course this isn't the message the media want you to hear. They want you to believe that guns cause violence.

The facts tell a different story. 

Interestingly, it didn't take a flurry of shootouts in Kennesaw for criminals to get the message, but just the simple knowledge that every homeowner was almost certainly armed. The bad guys didn’t make the residents prove it. Just knowing every homeowner was almost certainly armed prompted crooks to switch to easier targets.

In a rational society the Kennesaw example would be widely discussed and analyzed.

In the U.S--home of leftist/proggy media--it will be ignored.

The creed of leftist media: "Ignore all news that goes against The Narrative."

ATF agent's gun found at scene of Mexican shootout

A powerful semi-automatic handgun, originally restricted to military and law enforcement customers, was recovered by Mexican police at the scene of a Nov. 23 shootout between a Mexican drug cartel and the Mexican military.

Records show the gun was purchased in January 2010 by George Gillett, the former No. 2 in the ATF office in Phoenix. Gillett now works at ATF headquarters in Washington.

According to the records Gillett bought the gun at a Phoenix gun store. On the federal form used to buy the gun, Gillett gave his address as the ATF office address but added “Apt 940.” On a subsequent purchase Gillett listed his address as a strip mall.

ATF regulations require buyers use their residential address.

If anyone in the lying media had an ounce of objectivity, they'd ask the nation's attorney-general, Eric Holder, how this gun managed to end up at the Mexican shootout. Was it stolen from the ATF agent? If so, did he report it being stolen?

If there's a police report to that effect, I'd go over it with a fuckin' microscope, because any administration brazen enough to sell 3000 guns to Mexican drug cartels--even as they whined about needing tighter controls on gun sales!!--wouldn't bat an eye at having a police source generate a recent "theft" report to cover their ass.

Is there *anything* the Obama administration wouldn't do, no matter how illegal?

Islamic cleric: Don't say Merry Christmas !

From  Al Arabiya:
Indonesia’s top Muslim clerical body said on Wednesday that it is best for Muslims to avoid saying greetings such as “Merry Christmas.”

“It’s better if they don’t say ‘Merry Christmas,’” said Council Chairman Ma’ruf Amin [quoted in the] Jakarta Globe. “It’s still up for debate whether it’s halal or haram, so better steer clear of it.
But you can say ‘Happy New Year. ”
This is the level of thought we're dealing with in every Islamic-dominated crap-hole around the globe.

Shooting unarmed women giving polio vaccine in Pakistan.

Shooting unarmed 15-year-old school girls who had the temerity to favor schooling for girls.

Throwing acid in the face of women who have the audacity to appear with face uncovered.

But hey, don't worry:  Your betters in the elite media assure you that "all cultures and religions are equal."

And most of your kids believe them.

Tuesday, December 18

An idea to end gun violence??

Obviously the school shooting in CT was a tragedy, and everyone wants it to not have happened.

So predictably, within an hour or two after the story broke, the usual suspects were clamoring for tighter gun control laws. 

Only one problem:  The nut who did the shooting didn't get the guns he used from a gun show, or a dealer, or mail-order.  Instead he grabbed his mother's gun, fatally shot her, then took the rest of her arsenal.

Awfully hard to stop something like that by passing a law.

Oh, and last I heard there were already laws against shooting people.  But in every case where someone shoots someone else, they totally ignore that clear, well-known law.  But somehow if congress passes just one more law to do...[fill in the blank]...criminals and crazy people will suddenly start obeying the law.  It's a miracle.

Of course, Obama could change the equation by issuing an executive order confiscating all guns and banning all sales.  If the Left wants to end gun violence, that's a plan to get behind and push hard.  Because what better time to do it than in the first few months after the last election he'll have to face?

Faux negotiations to avoid the "fiscal cliff"

I've been watching the *breathless* network news reports about the fast-approaching "fiscal cliff."  According to the MSM we're witnessing a grueling negotiating battle between Obama and the Republican speaker of the house, John Boehner.  And the stakes are--well, they're incredibly big.  Enormous.

The problem, the media assure us, is that Boehner and the repubs are fighting to keep the Fairness President from raising taxes to a Fair level on zillionaires.  And they imply that if the repubs don't get their way, they're willing to let the Bush tax cuts expire *for everyone.*  In other words, they'd opt to raise taxes on everyone rather allow the prez to raise taxes a measly percent or two on zillionaires.

Hey, does this sound like a no-brainer or what?

Of course with this sort of setup it's an obvious no-win for the Repubs.  Which was and is the point, eh?

If Boehner had any smarts he could turn the tables by reaching out to the so-called dextro-sphere and asking them to get the truth out:  The "tax increase" is actually letting the Bush tax cuts expire--as congress provided back when they were first passed.  Boehner should make it clear that he's agreed to an increase in tax rates on those making over a million a year but Obama has rejected the offer.

Thus it's the Dems who are willing to throw the middle-class under the bus on taxes.  And it's especially telling that just a few months ago the proposal to raise tax rates on millionaires was being pushed by none other than...former Dem speaker Nancy Pelousi.

But suddenly that's no longer a good deal.  Why not?

Simple:  Obama has the Lying Media running cover for him.  So the only thing voters will hear is that the Repubs would prefer to force everyone to pay more taxes rather than allowing Obama to raise taxes on what the Lying Media claim is the Repub's favored constituents, the zillionaires.

The media will depict Boehner and the repubs as caring only for the rich in any case, so his best tactic is to stop talking about opposing higher taxes for the well-to-do and instead declare that the repubs only goal is on cutting spending, period. Because last I heard, the House had to approve spending.

But of course that was way back when congress actually passed a budget--something the Dem-controlled senate hasn't done for three years. So...maybe not.

Also, we all know the repubs never stand up to the MSM.  So the result will be...no *actual* spending cuts.  But the MSM will breathlessly report that Obama was forced..*forced*..to compromise and agree to token spending cuts in order to get the FAIR tax hike on everyone making over $300,000 or whatever.

Of course the spending "cuts" will never happen, but the MSM doesn't give a damn about that--their only goal is to be able to claim their god-king *compromised*. Which is thought to be good.

Oh, and I'm not in that bracket so I don't much care on that score, but I hate to see the country spend its way to disaster.

Saturday, December 15

Why is the Left suddenly saying bad things about Susan Rice?

From Richard Fernandez at PJM (edited):
After years of reporting that Susan Rice was the perfect candidate for Secretary of State and any criticism of her was either racist, misogynistic or both, the Left wing press outlets have suddenly brought her down with a volley of personal invective
Republicans on the Hill had basically limited their critique of Rice to her misleading statements following the Benghazi attack. Liberals, on the other hand, made it personal. Dana Milbank suggested Rice had an attitude problem. Maureen Dowd said Rice was too ambitious and unprincipled for her own good–or the country’s.
Yesterday at the Daily Beast, Lloyd Grove launched a bizarre attack on Rice that accused her of having a personality disorder. The left has also been driving the less personal attacks as well. Howard French said Rice’s Africa legacy is the further empowerment of dictators. Human Rights Watch’s Tom Malinowski knocked Rice for essentially enabling atrocities in Congo.
It’s almost as if they had set out to destroy Rice in concert; with pieces aimed at each and every one of the political bailiwicks in which she might claim support.  There was a remarkable sameness in the points suddenly raised against Rice by an avalanche of leaks and criticism and personal sniping that semingly came out of nowhere.
Jacob Heilbrunn of the Daily Beast now informs us that Rice was nothing more than a hack whose sole qualification was an eagerness to please superiors. Other than that she was a cipher.
Throughout, her most distinguishing trait seems to be an eagerness to please her superiors, which is entirely consistent with how she rode the escalator to success. Want to avoid declaring that genocide is taking place in Rwanda? Go to Rice. Want to fudge the facts in Libya? Rice is there again. Obama had it right when he observed that she “had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received.” But why, as Maureen Dowd asked, didn’t she question it? The answer is simple: because she rarely, if ever, questions authority. Instead she has made a career out of catering to it.
So what did Susan Rice do that would suddenly make so many elite opinion-shapers of the left suddenly start saying such awful things about her?  After all, to all appearances she's been a thoroughly loyal minion of King Barack, going on the Sunday talk shows to advance the story that the Benghazi attack was a reaction to a lousy video clip that had been on YouTube for six months.  Until a week ago she was reportedly the choice to be next Sec of State, and the Left's elite opinion-shapers couldn't praise her highly enough.

So what happened in a week to suddenly cause these same elite leftists to start saying such bad things about her?  The most likely explanation is that Obama and company want her discredited just in case she were to suddenly realize how cynically she'd been used by her boss, and decide to tell what she knows.

Republicans would still have a field day with the revelations, but if the word is out to the elite journos that Rice is discredited, the story would get zero air-time in the MSM--and thus wouldn't hurt the Democrats.

This is standard operating procedure for pols who effectively control the media.  The classic example is a pair of photos of Joseph Stalin walking along a river:  In the one released to the press he's leading a retinue, but he's the only one in front.  Years later the original photo was found--and showed a short man walking beside him a few inches away.

The short man so obviously close to Stalin was later accused of crimes against the state and executed.  Clearly, Stalin didn't want anyone to have any evidence that the man had been one of his trusted advisers and henchmen, and so he was airbrushed out of the pic.

But this is America.  Couldn't happen here.

Thursday, December 13

Teen fatally shoots 22-yr-old mom--over cigarettes

Last Saturday afternoon a young Pennsylvania couple bought cigarettes at a convenience store and started walking home.  Whereupon they were accosted by three teenage males, who repeatedly asked the couple to give them cigarettes.

The couple declined and continued walking home.  The teenagers kept up the harassment until the couple arrived home--at which point the young woman told the teens to "get a job" if they wanted cigarettes.

One of the teens--apparently outraged by the effrontery of this remark--pulled a gun and fatally shot the young mother.

Oh, and a few hours after killing the young woman, the shooter posted a photo of himself on a social website, brandishing a pair of guns. 

This happened in Beaver Falls, PA.  Last Saturday.  Oh, and the killer and the young mother he shot to death were of different races.

Remember a year or so ago when a neighborhood-watch guy in Florida fatally shot an unarmed teenager?  Remember the absolute torrent of outraged, breathless stories about that shooting on the national news networks, and the cover stories in Time and other mags?  The story led all the newscasts for a couple of weeks.

As I write this it's Thursday--four full days after the Pennsylvania shooting of the young mother--and the only hint of this story I've seen is on an obscure website.

Gee, wouldn't you think this story would be even more gripping than the Florida one?  After all, the victim was a young mother, and unlike the Florida shooting she wasn't sitting on the shooter's chest beating him bloody.  So using the same standards as the mainstream media used in the Trayvon Martin shooting you'd think the story about the young mother gunned down for suggesting that a teenager get a job would lead the newscasts for days.  Anti-gun-rights bozos like Bob Costas should be breathlessly preaching on the eeeebils of gunz.

But surprise!--almost no mention beyond Pittsburgh local news.  Oh, London's "Daily Mail" ran a story.  But not much here in the U.S.

And imagine how the lying media would have reacted if George Zimmerman had posted a pic of himself brandishing weapons a few hours after his altercation.  But in the Pennsylvania killing, even this added outrage didn't provoke the national media to comment.

What in the world could account for the amazing lack of national interest in a murder that had all the breathless hooks the media usually love--a young mother gunned down in her own yard by a shooter of a different race, over a non-threatening remark?

It's a complete mystery.

Wait...maybe it's not.

Tuesday, December 11

3/4ths of the higher taxes will go to new spending??

Federal gummint is now borrowing half of every dollar it spends.

That should outrage you and scare you.  But if you're one of the 51% who voted for the would-be Kenyan king, you don't think that's a big deal at all.

Instead, you're all wet over raising taxes on the rich.  We need to do that, Democrats tell you, because we Dems are all about fairness, see.  And it's only fair that the Rich pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.  So we're gonna tax Da Rich and use that revenue to pay down Barry's astronomical, unprecedented deficits and/or debt.  Right?

Ah...wait.  Of the $1.6 Trillion in new taxes, three-fourths of it will be used on NEW spending, rather than being used to reduce debt.

Clever, huh?

Let's replay the lying bastard's trickery to see how he did it:  During the presidency of George Bush, Obama said (more or less) "OMG!  Deficits BAD!!  Deficits as far as the eye can see!  Bad Bush!"  Then after he got elected, deficits suddenly weren't any big deal.

Then when he wanted to deliver a key promise to his corrupt base, suddenly "We NEED to raise taxes to reduce the nation's debt."  Then when the details emerge, turns out most of the increased revenue will go to NEW spending.

Consistency isn't critical, because the lying media will run cover for all Democrats.

Sunday, December 9

Egypt: Morsi thugs kill protesters

If you're like most Americans, events in Egypt don't strike you as particularly noteworthy.  Fair enough--the place is way around the other side of the globe, and isn't a military threat or an economic powerhouse, so...why should anything that happens there interest us?

But you should pay careful attention, because what's happening in Egypt is extremely significant to Americans for two reasons:  First, it shows whether Obama and his advisors are any good at analyzing and predicting trends in international events.

The event of interest is from last Wednesday, when thugs from the extreme Islamic Muslim Brotherhood beat protesters in Tahrir Square in Cairo.

According to the Egyptian news source at the above link, the thugs beat two protesters to death. 

The Islamist thugs are upset because the protesters are protesting a decree by Egypt's new president, Mohammed Morsi, giving himself virtually dictatorial powers.

They're in murder mode (as they always are) because Morsi belongs to the Brotherhood, and has quietly assured supporters that he intends to have Egypt governed by Sharia law.  Islamic fanatics (Morsi supporters) believe anyone disagreeing with this outcome must be beaten and/or killed.

This, dear reader, is the outcome of the so-called "Arab spring" that Obama, his minions at the State Department and various liberal pundits were touting so strongly.  They were wrong--and laughably, ludicrously, predictably so.

But who knows?  It may still happen that the forces of liberalism in Egypt will prevail.

Any bets?


Monday, December 3

National strategy to commit vote fraud?

Great article on vote fraud here.  And way down in the comments, a pearl of liberal disinformation:  Guy argues that the extensive, documented fraudulent attempts to register voters is totally no big deal...because it's not actually VOTE fraud!

He goes on to argue that all the registration documents filled out listing the would-be voter as Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck are simply efforts by hard-working operatives to inject humor into their job.

Not kidding.

Sunday, December 2

Politicians and reality: not much connection

In flying, if a pilot believes things are true when they really aren't, his chances of crashing increase exponentially.

So it is with politicians and voters here in the last month of 2012:  Most politicians seem to believe government is all-powerful and in control of everything and everyone else.  In particular, they seem to believe stable jobs will magically appear if they simply command it to be.

Silly people.  And silly voters if they believe such nonsense.

Oh sure, gummint can give billions of borrowed dollars to a few favored crony-owned businesses, but the effect is fleeting:  But of course crony-owned businesses are almost never financially sound, and after the public money is spent the business usually goes bankrupt--just as happened to Solyndra and a dozen others.

But of course low-information voters don't detect this--and even if they did, they wouldn't care.  The extent of their "analysis" is "What are you going to give ME?"

But low-information voters are only part of the problem:  Liberals like Francis Fox-Piven have been openly advocating overloading government with demands for cash in order to destroy it.  Seriously, she and Cloward literally, publically announced that's what they wanted.

Silly, silly people.  Whose policies will end up killing a lot of other people who were just minding their own business when the plane crashed.