Capitalist on Strike!

Our elected officials in the federal government have ceased to protect the rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution, and I feel that, as an American Citizen, I have a responsibility to defend it. According to Article IV, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” With the passage of the spending bill, unceasing bail-outs, and unabashed government intervention into the private sector and states’ business, it has become clear by each new precedent established that we are quickly accepting the encroachment of a tyrannical form of socialism, which was abhored and wisely prohibited by our founding fathers. Our Republican form of government has given way to mob-rule. As Americans, we now find ourselves living under an oppressive regime which steals from one constituency to give to another.

There once was a rag-tag militia who fought a bloody revolution, thereby defeating the most powerful empire in the history of the world, over a level of taxation and government meddling that would seem shockingly benign to modern day Americans, who think nothing of turning over more than half of their life’s labor to the Federal Government. The oppressive conditions and circumstances which moved our founders to violence, seen through modern eyes would probably appear to be a utopian society designed by Rush Limbaugh. The invasion never came in the middle of the night. We haven’t been rounded up and placed in camps by a Red Army. Nonetheless, we have arrived at a place where our Constitution has become an inconvenient relic, and the wisdom inherent in the Declaration of Independence has been pawned in exchange for the nebulous demagoguery of a puppet.

I am just an ordinary citizen who feels like I have to act. Our elected representatives had more than enough time to take a stand against the encroachment of socialism. Republicans, who claim to be the party of small government and individual liberty, had 8 years in power and rather than halting or reversing the growth of government, greatly inflated its size. If the Republicans had an ounce of fortitude left in them, they could have taken a stand against this spending bill, which amounts to no more than unconstitutional theft and a distribution of the spoils of victory to a party bent on power. Of course, there was the matter of the three very disloyal Benedict Arnolds, but our elected officials have more power at their disposal than a vote, or meetings behind closed doors. They have a pulpit, and they have chosen to remain silent. How can we take a stand against socialism, when our leaders find it too politically incorrect to say the word? Our Republican form of government is being destroyed, and we don’t even have the courage to call the enemy by its name! I’m calling on all Americans to join me in Washington D.C. on July 4, 2009. On that date, we, as Americans, will take a stand against socialism. Our elected officials are apparently too worried about their own re-election to take a strong, public stand against tyranny, so we will take matters into our own hands. As a nation, we need a collective reminder of why we celebrate the Fourth of July before we find ourselves without a reason to celebrate. I will be posting the details of the protest soon at www.standagainstsocialism.com. I hope you’ll join me.

Boortz has summed up the change we can believe in quite well, as usual.

Normally, this blog helps me to relieve stress by putting my feelings on paper, but there are times when I become too angry to even write. This has been one of those weeks. There’s not one single thing I can get outraged about, because there are just too many to choose from. My anger is so blinding that I’m finding it hard to focus on anything. I feel like I’ve just stepped inside a very bad, dystopic, post-apocalyptic movie, and instead of disciplining my words, I’m just going to vent.

Every day something occurs that should be shocking to most people, yet the world keeps on ticking and nobody in the media says a word. For one, why the hell are there now more Republicans in the HOR signed on to vote for this socialist establishment bill now that the wasteful STD abomination is now back in? This provision had created a national laughing stock of the bill on its way out of the gate. Now, they’ve put it back in and there’s no outrage?

Next on my list is the three Benedict Arnolds in the Senate: the “tax cuts” that they gleefully “negotiated” behind closed doors like little ugly, zitty pre-teens who had finally been invited to the popular girl’s sleepover…well, they threw those out and added more spending. Why are they still voting for it? The Democrats must be laughing their collective asses off. Those two whores were easier to deflower than Paris Hilton after an 8 martini lunch. Arlen Specter said he wouldn’t stand for the government invasion into medical privacy in the bill, yet he’s voting for it. Not that I had any doubt that his testicles had long since shriveled up and fallen off. Why the pretense of this prolonged “battle” over the stimulus bill when the “compromise” that was negotiated was thrown out in the end. They just bent over and took it.

This bill is a blatant power grab by Democrats to ensure they remain in power for the forseeable future, consolidate plans for nationalized health care, and create a permanent voting majority who don’t pay any taxes. We will have 51% of the population who vote money away from the other 49% (In case you missed history class, Jefferson called that “mob rule.”) Where are the tax cuts for people making under $250,000? What? They must be somewhere? Surely our president isn’t just a pandering, lying demagogue? Oh wait, that’s exactly what he is: a pandering, lying, demagogue who is an embarassment to the Republic. Under this bill, there are no tax cuts for anyone making over $75,000. All of you who voted for him have made your beds.

In the future, any person or party who supports any kind of tax reform, or the fair tax, will be forced to campaign on “raising taxes on the poor.” Good luck winning an election when 51% of the population is on the take. I encourage anyone reading this to go back and read our Constitution. Read the Declaration of Independence. Read the Federalist Papers. You’ll find hundreds of warnings against this type of government, yet we’re blindly following the pied piper to our ultimate doom. Find anything that this administration is doing that is in line with our founding principles. This is a socialist takeover of our government, and nobody in power even has the guts to use the WORD, much less stand up against its encroachment. As a country, we were not founded on protecting the collective, or protecting the rights of favored minorities. “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” - Ayn Rand

Liberals can’t rest because they’re constantly overwhelmed with guilt. Capitalism doesn’t work because poor people exist, and they think if they can just redistribute a magical amount of money, that we can all be prosperous. The part they can’t ever seem to get is that this form of government has never worked, and it will never work, because parasites, when allowed unchecked access to their host, will always eventually kill the host. Winston Churchill once said that the “inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” Are we really volunteering ourselves to be history’s next bad example? Do we really need to prove to the world once again that this form of government won’t work? We can’t have equity by force while enjoying the freedom to pursue happiness. Liberals all like to champion “created equal,” but you can’t show me a situation in which one woman was forced to give 50% of her total lifetime income to the government while another woman and her 5 illegitimate kids lived free on the government dime and call that equality. Last time I checked, being born into a system whereby one is forced to live for the financial benefit of another is defined as slavery, not equality.

The disgusting part of this scenario isn’t that we have a politician bent on consolidating power for himself and his party. There will always be those who seek power at the destruction of the rights of others, and Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are just three bright, shining examples. That was supposed to be the “neat and novel” thing about our government…that we had checks and balances to prevent the overly ambitious from denying individual rights. We were supposed to govern ourselves, remember? The great TJ once said, “Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.” Well, there’s an angel who walks among men whom we now call president, so maybe Jefferson was just naive.

There’s apparently not one Senator or Representative in Congress today who has the courage to stand up and defend our nation from this road to ultimate ruin. You thought George Bush spent too much money? Inflated the deficit over 8 years? Nobody seems to be the least bit concerned about the deficit now, even though we’re about to spend what took GWB 8 years to do in a matter of weeks. Weeks. Yes, you only have one vote as a senator or representative, but you have a pulpit. Stand up and say something, please! Let’s force the dialogue. Can we at least call the President and Democratic Congress out on being socialists? Then, just maybe, we can have an honest dialogue about whether to just ditch this whole “Republican form of government under a Constitution” thing to become a socialist form of government. There might just be a few of us lurking around here who are willing to stand up and fight for our rights. Lindsey Graham has been pretty outspoken, but he hasn’t taken a real stand. What about the guy from Utah who sleeps on a cot, Jason Chaffetz? He’s gotten a great deal of attention lately…he’d be the perfect guy to take a stand. And finally, last but not least, there’s Judd Gregg. What a wasted opportunity to talk about what this administration is doing to destroy our Republic. What could have been a historic stand against despotism turned into a disgraceful episode of kissing Obama’s ass.

There’s talk all over the place now about the “fairness doctrine,” and for those of you who pointed at me during the election and said “well, Obama said he wouldn’t support it.” Put your shocked face on, he lied, and get ready for it. It’s coming. You would think liberal hypocrisy would get old, but I’m still somehow surprisingly shocked at each encounter. These folks are all about freedom of speech as long as it involves burning the flag or using government funds to display the figure of Christ smeared with feces, but when it comes to an area where they can’t compete, they turn to the government to level the playing field. Can’t really fault them for behavior so utterly consistent with their ideology, though, can you? They want to control what opinions are espoused on the radio because their party can’t win in a forum where logic and reason are used to analyze the issues of the day. The Democratic base isn’t interested in listening to a debate over capitalism vs. socialism, or Keynes vs. Smith, because they’re too busy getting in line to ask Obama for a new kitchen and bathtub.

Liberal hypocrisy, ah the redundancy. The same people who will fight to the death so that a 12 year old girl should have an “all-u-can-abort” pass without any requirement whatsoever that she inform her parents, are all about allowing the government to have unlimited access to your medical records. Where’s the ACLU? Hmmm, somehow I imagine this will be one fight they’ll conveniently fail to take up. I can only imagine the unbridled, white-hot liberal hysteria had this been Bush’s idea, secretly slipped into an “economic stimulus” plan by an anonymous Republican author in the middle of the night. While we’re playing the “if this had been Bush” game, imagine again, if you will, the unbridled, white-hot liberal hysteria had Bush entrusted the census to Karl Rove. I can literally hear the screams coming from the alternate reality.

If this generation is ready for a revolution, count me in.

I meant to post this last week, because this article cracked me up. In a nutshell, this sycophantic AP writer chided Bush for not eating out enough and praised Obama for eating out frequently and having good taste in food. By good taste, he means that Obama has a penchant for expensive, locally grown, organic, sustainable fru-fru cuisine.

In the article, top chefs express excitement that the Obamas’ good taste in food will put a spotlight on healthier, sustainable produce. Rick Bayless, famed chef and owner of two Chicago hot spot eateries that I now regret patronizing, exclaimed that “everyone’s going to want to be like the Obamas” when people catch on to what they’re eating.

Go ahead and take a moment to keep the vomit from spewing out of your nose. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m a sucker for juicy, locally grown, organic heirloom tomatoes topped with aged balsamic viniagrette and fat slices of hormone-free buffalo mozzarella, but I can’t usually shell out 15$ for a snack. Most days, I’d absolutely prefer 8 juicy slices of mercury-free tuna sashimi flown in from Hawaii that morning, but I usually have to settle for Chick-fil-A at lunch. Most Americans simply can’t afford to “be like the Obamas.”

These chefs are calling on Obama to reform the department of Agriculture to put the hurt on large farms who mass produce low quality food. I say, let’s just cut to the chase. Let’s just nationalize the food supply, starting with the restaurant industry. Obama believes that the government can do a better job than the private sector at providing a teacher for your child and a doctor for curing what ails you, so why not let them provide us with a chef who can provide tastier, healthier food that ALL Americans can afford.

I, for one, am ready for change I can really sink my teeth into. Get ready, because under the new plan, Chick-fil-A, like the Asian place and every other restaurant, will get checks from the government every month, in exchange for complying with certain government regulations. In keeping with government tradition, funding, of course, is absolutely not dependent upon performance.

Just think, with a little help and guidance from the government, Chick-fil-A can afford to sell an 8 pack of high-grade, heart healthy tuna sashimi for $4.95. Think of how this could impact the obesity epidemic, not to mention the fact that they’ll steal customers left and right from that Asian place.

McDonald’s has been accused of single-handedly fattening up America. Well now, with their government subsidy, they can afford to serve a lean, hormone-free wagyu beef steak for $2.95. This will undoubtedly take customers away from Bin 36, their much pricier Chicago competitor. Captain D’s: can you say S-Car-Go? Krystal: now home of the 49 cent beef carpaccio sandwich.

In other news, and this is a real shocker, I heard through the grapevine that Wendy’s has a different idea to outsmart the competition. What is their plan, you ask? Quail on the menu? Actually, no. Wendy’s is smart enough to realize that they’re going to get a check every month no matter what they serve, how many customers they attract, and have basically decided that they don’t give two s***s how Zagat rates their food. Forget wagyu beef, do you know how much that stuff costs? Wendy’s is going to use recycled rat meat, the cheapest form of protein they could use while complying with the food pyramid regulations. The rat meat is sustainable and is collected via a rat recycling program from local households. The fiber for the meal is gleaned from recycled peanut hull shavings, the use of which was formerly restricted to low-quality pet food. Everyone wins, especially the environment. The only thing that sucks is that…

ALL THE FOOD NOW TASTES LIKE ABSOLUTE GARBAGE!

At first, Wendy’s didn’t get a lot of customers, until all the other restaurants caught on and started serving the same crap. Some of the restaurants were sued because people got food poisoning. Thanks to the restaurant workers union, they had basically become unfireable and had begun to exhibit an all-around terrible work ethic. Without fear of losing customers to the competition, there was no need for “innovative cuisine” and most of the restaurants ceased being profitable. People just started to eat at home, despite the fact that costs at the grocery store had skyrocketed thanks to government regulations enacted to save the restaurant industry. People just quit eating out, even though they were forced to subsidize the restaurant industry whether they ate out or not.

Thankfully, I’ve heard that there is a new sherriff in town. The president campaigned on increasing federal funding for the restaurant industry. He’s going to launch a government task-force to study the industry, write about what’s wrong with it, and give grants to people who have good ideas on how to make the food more palatable. I’m sure that if the restaurant industry is just pumped full of enough cash, the food will eventually be delicious AND nutritious. Hey, it worked for our public schools!

This topic has given me so much material, I don’t even know where to begin. Let’s start with calling for Barack Obama to demand that the $142 billion in increased federal funding for education be removed from the stimulus package. One could hardly make the argument that our schools are successful. Federal spending has increased by 138% since 1985 without an increase in test scores or graduation rates. I have a Master’s Degree in Education and have been in the belly of the beast in terms of the “solutions” academia is busy formulating on how to save our schools. Honestly, I have to cite this two year attempted brainwashing attempt as having turned me libertarian. If you want a good solid case study in how eliminating competition ruins any endeavor, take a deep, long look at our socialized educational system. It was a truly scary experience. Back to my point: there is no evidence anywhere that increased federal funding of education has helped our students to become better educated. Quite the opposite is true. America is gradually being dumbed down at an alarming rate. Obama should be thankful for this, considering he was elected by a group of people, the majority of whom believed the Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress before the election of 2008. I guess this must be behind his motivation to increase spending on public education: keep the people dumb and they’ll keep lining up to vote for him. I’m going to add more research to this post, since it is a subject so “near and dear” to me, so stay tuned.

Third in line to the presidency. Awesome.

This is how it happens, ladies and gentleman. Welcome to socialism. First, the government “bails out” corporate America, then it decides how these corporations are run. Apparently, the government thinks the best way to run a corporation is to limit executive salaries. Brilliant. Top talent exit here. Then we can have government appointees run these corporations straight into the ground like, for example, our wonderful public school system. This is just surreal. Make no mistake, though. This is just step one. What happens when GM can’t get a CEO because of the paycaps? GM will complain to Congress. There is a crisis! A crisis and we must act quickly! Let’s just do something temporary…like hmmmm, maybe we’ll put a cap on all salaries in the auto industry, just to level the playing field until we get through the CRISIS. Or, maybe it won’t be that drastic…am I getting too Orwellian? Maybe we’ll just raise the tax rate to 90% for all income over 500K. FDR was the first to raise marginal tax rates to 90% and Obama seems to be a big fan of his.
Update 3:41 p.m.: You know, I just had to add to this. Obama said that Americans are upset because executives are being rewarded for failure, and that’s not going to happen anymore under his watch. Just what the hell does he think a bailout is? What the hell is welfare? What are failing schools which continue to receive funding year after year? His entire ideology is based on rewarding failure. I can’t believe he actually made that statement without a hint of irony.

I’ve been watching Obama speak on a regular basis for quite a while. Granted, I do feel like vomiting every time he opens his smug, patronizing mouth, and tend to argue and shout at the tv, but I digress. Throughout my life, I’ve had friends tell me I should be an interrogator or investigator, because I can smell dishonesty in other people like a bloodhound tracking a scent and can spot inconsistencies and contradictions as soon as one strikes my ears. As a headhunter, I’ve really had the opportunity to hone my BS meter over the past few years. So, it’s taken me a while but I’ve identified Obama’s favorite phrase to use when he is uncomfortable answering a question truthfully. It’s “This is what I’ll say…” It usually follows after a journalist backs him into a logical corner and traps him, which appears to be shockingly easy, given how intelligent and articulate he’s supposed to be. I just saw him interviewed by Fox News’s Chris Wallace. Obama, of course, had to discuss the Daschle debacle when asked, and though I don’t have access to the transcript just yet, Obama went into detail about how it “became clear to him” that (by standing by Daschle) they would be sending two sets of messages to the American people. Now, here’s a sidebar: the official story is that, as of yesterday, Obama stood by Daschle, and today Daschle woke up and had a come to Jesus moment while reading the NY Times. Then, according to the story, Daschle wrote a letter to Obama asking for his name to be withdrawn. I was under the assumption that Obama stood by him until Daschle made the decision, so it was funny yet predictable to me that he also wanted to take moral credit for his withdrawal. Yesterday, Obama was completely fine that Daschle didn’t pay his taxes until he was nominated, while today it was clear to him that they were sending the wrong message to the American people. What?? Who actually has a thought process like this, honestly? Yesterday, I thought it was fine and moral to appoint a bank robber to chief of police. Today, I realized it was hypocritical and came to my senses. I was in the middle of yelling out the inconsistency to the tv, when Wallace apparently heard me (awesome, I’m finally getting loud enough) and called him out on it. I think he asked something to the effect of “so, you played an active role in having him resign,” and Obama immediately cut Wallace off with a denial. When Wallace pressed the issue, Obama got visually miffed and said, with both hands raised in the air (another giveaway, I think) “This is what I’ll say,” and then spouted what I’m sure is a bunch of bullshit. When Obama is calm, he busily digs a hole to China with his “thumbfist,”, and when he gets stressed out both hands start flying out. It’s as if his thumb-fist can no longer contain his BS and both hands are required to protect him. See for yourself. Next time you’re watching a press conference with the chosen one, wait for the “This is what I’ll say,” and then brace yourself for the BS. Now, I’m not claiming to have caught him in some kind of lie of critical importance. When I heard Daschle wrote him a letter withdrawing himself, I laughed. These neat little patronizing storylines that they give us really make me want to puke, but I think this example is effective to show how he acts when he’s put in a corner.

Neal Boortz posted an excellent summary of a recent report from the Heritage Foundation. Take the time to read the whole report, but Neal did a great job with the Cliff’s Notes version:

“Most government spending has historically reduced productivity and long-term economic growth due to:

Public Finance Review reported that “higher total government expenditure, no matter how financed, is associated with a lower growth rate of real per capita gross state product.”
The Quarterly Journal of Economics reported that “the ratio of real government consumption expenditure to real GDP had a negative associa­tion with growth and investment,” and “growth is inversely related to the share of government consumption in GDP, but insignificantly related to the share of public investment.”
A Journal of Macroeconomics study discovered that “the coefficient of the additive terms of the government-size variable indicates that a 1% increase in government size decreases the rate of economic growth by 0.143%.”
Public Choice reported that “a one percent in­crease in government spending as a percent of GDP (from, say, 30 to 31%) would raise the un­employment rate by approximately .36 of one percent (from, say, 8 to 8.36 percent).”

Maybe if we as a nation didn’t suffer from an incredible case of historical Alzheimer’s, we wouldn’t have to keep re-learning this stuff over and over again. Shout out to government schools.

Ladies and Gentleman: Fasten your duct tape and get ready for the Fairness Doctrine.  The fascists couldn’t even wait a week after their new King was sworn in to launch an attack on free speech.  Yes, the same people who champion the right to burn the American flag have taken it upon themselves, in the middle of an economic crisis, to publicly attack Rush Limbaugh.  I encourage you to really take a minute to digest this information.  This isn’t Jeanine Garofolo, Sean Penn, and Kanye West hiring a big NY PR firm to launch a brown ribbon awareness campaign against right-wing “hate speech.”  This is the President and Congress.

I LOVE to sound like a broken record, but I can only imagine the outcry had the Republican Congress under George W. Bush made such a statement against Al Franken.  It’s an ineffective comparison, of course, because Al Franken couldn’t garner a radio audience if he broadcasted live abortions, but you get the picture.  

What we’re seeing here, and let’s just go ahead and recap: During the first week of a new American president taking office, he advises the US Congress against listening to the opinions of a radio talk-show host in order to hasten legislation proposed to increase the size of government and redistribute wealth from the tax-paying engines of the economy to citizens who don’t pay taxes.  In the same week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an online attack against the same host in which they take a comment of his completely out of context in order to twist its meaning.  When you arrive at their homepage, there is a picture of Limbaugh with the caption “I hope he fails.” Limbaugh’s actual comments:

“RUSH: I got a request here from a major American print publication. “Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal.” Now, we’re caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your “hope.” My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, “Well, I hope he succeeds. We’ve got to give him a chance.” Why? They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it. (END TRANSCRIPT)

OK, people. Put down your Kool-Aid long enough for your liver to process the toxic delusions circulating through your miserable little bodies. Hoping that Obama fails at turning the US into the USSR is anything but un-American. It’s truly telling that in almost every blog or link to this story I’ve found on the web, Limbaugh’s rant against big government is oddly left out. On the other hand, when we’re discussing liberal peon reasoning capabilities, I have to constantly remind myself that a straw man is so much easier for them to attempt to burn than the real man…Limbaugh’s sheer physical size would make such an undertaking prohibitive at best, his arguments notwithstanding.