Hanging On to Holder

It amazes me that the Eric Holder Justice Department persists in a coverup of its role in the Gun Walking treason that led to the death of at least one American border agent and dozens or even hundreds of Mexicans in Mexico.

Congressman Issa is now threatening Holder with Contempt of Congress as he continues to get stonewalled.

Even more amazing is how this scandal is on a slow brew that just might boil over in October 2012, just in time for a landslide win by the Republican nominee.

Yet Obama holds on to Holder. Run, Barry, Run to the 2013 pain cave.

Obama Destroys Jobs and the Economy in More Ways Than One

I have tried many times to describe in artful ways how the big-government policies of would-be tyrants like Barack Obama slowly and sometimes quickly suck the lifeblood out of a nation. See for example, Obama’s Fascism: Impose Central Control (Obamacare) And Then Grant Waivers.

But death by government bureaucrat is sometimes so subtle (while being deadly nonetheless) that it can be largely invisible to citizens, particularly those whose utopian fantasies of benevolent central power blind them in myriad ways.

While researching Barack Obama’s role in the government’s harassment of Boeing, I came across the following paragraph in a piece by Joe Nocera in which he wrote with outrage about Barack Obama’s and the NLRB’s role in restraining Boeing from operating its new $750 million manufacturing plant in South Carolina (Occupy Wall Street: “Jobs Destroyer“).

That is what is so jarring about this case — and not just for Boeing. Without any warning, the rules have changed. Uncertainty has replaced certainty. Other companies have to start wondering what other rules could soon change. It becomes a reason to hold back on hiring. <source>

What I love about this paragraph is that it highlights the central malignancy of governments run by petty tyrants, namely that citizens do not know whose head King Henry will chop off next, and that they therefore become paralyzed.

This uncertainty causes everyone to freeze in place lest they make a wrong move and pay the ultimate price (or a lesser, but still painful, price — who knows?).

Nocera drills right in on the actual fact of what this paralysis costs us: companies postpone hiring decisions, and a million other decisions for that matter, while they try to ascertain which way Caesar is leaning. The Manchurian would have us believe that the jobless recovery is someone else’s fault, but we know that it is the direct result of his disastrous policies alongside his imposition of rule by exception, which is impossible to predict and plan for (when do laws matter and when do they not?) and furthermore leads companies down the rat hole of wasting precious capital on currying favor at court instead of hiring workers and increasing the nation’s wealth.

And isn’t the capricious behavior of tyrants the very reason the Founding Fathers of the United States created a “nation of laws, not men”? They did so because people in positions of power without accountability inevitably destroy wealth and society as their own emotional needs overwhelm all reason. Laws based on inalienable rights are not only a higher standard of governance, they are more durable and unchanging and provide the foundation on which a free people can live and plan for the future.

One more thing I loved about Nocera’s piece is that he functions as the citizen who dares to point out that the king is wearing no clothes, in this specific case on Barack Obama’s role in the NLRB’s action against Boeing. This is crucial when fighting tyrants, because tyrants need the cloak of deception and obfuscation to keep their grip on power. But Nocera will have none of it:

When he was asked about the Boeing case earlier this summer, President Obama said that the N.L.R.B. is an independent agency and that his hands were tied. That may be true, though it’s worth pointing out that most of its top executives are his appointees.

There you have it: the tyrant installs his own henchmen in key positions so that he can control society through them as well as through himself and yet also maintain a measure of deniability when accountability comes calling.

If you are a Democrat, are you going to stand for this?

Krugman’s Credibility, and Other Jokes

I call Paul Krugman “Fauxiconman” for obvious reasons (he’s a fake economist, more media creation than actual member of the profession, and he’s a con artist, though perhaps among the worst in history because he fools only those afflicted with Liberal fantasies of utopia — and how hard can that be?).

He wrote a sentence in a recent article critiquing the Republican response to the Manchurian’s State of the Union that made me literally laugh out loud, though he did not mean to be funny:

Although Apple is now America’s biggest corporation as measured by market value, it employs only 43,000 people in the United States, a tenth as many as General Motors employed when it was the largest American firm. <source>

That phrase: “…employs only 43,000 people…” really hit my funny bone. What a fool this man is. Forty three thousand people is a big number no matter how you look at it or what you compare it to.

But to compare it to General Motors circa 1960? News flash for Paul: the era of big manufacturing of cars in the USA is in long-term secular decline, no doubt aided and abetted by repeated union shakedowns of corporate treasuries over the decades, and to chase after it while ignoring other growth sectors is worse than stupid: it is cruel.

No surprises here.

Occupy White House: “Jobs Destroyer”

 

 

Hugo Chavez Next for Will Ferrell?

I am so disappointed. I really like Will Ferrell’s comedic brilliance, particularly in movies like Old School and Wedding Crashers, and also his turn as “The Architect of the Matrix” at the MTV Music Video Awards (perhaps his greatest role ever?).

But now that I’ve heard about this, I’m afraid I’ll have negative associations with him forever more:

Add Will Ferrell to the list of Hollywood types raising big bucks for President Barack Obama. The funny man is co-hosting a $35,800 per ticket fundraiser on Feb. 15 at the Los Angeles home of William and Lee Bell. <source>

Now I can understand that most of Hollywood is Liberal, and I can understand that the Democratic Party has its members and that the world needs the balance of opposing points of view. But what I cannot understand is how any Democrat could actively support Barack Hussein Obama.

Why, Will, Why? Highway Crossing Frog?

I guess we have to file this development in the X Files (unexplained phenomenon), along with how Sean Penn could embrace dictator Hugo Chavez, and how Barack Obama could embrace Hugo Chavez. For all we know, Will is on a plane to Venezuela to perform at the fascist’s next birthday party.

But here is the real question: will this $35,800 per plate fundraiser be disrupted by the Occupy movement? Just think about how much money that is, and all those 1%ers shelling it out for the chance to be entertained by Will Ferrell and to aid the re-election of a man who rewarded Wall Street crooks and obstructed Wall Street reform.

Really Will, mouth shut, ears open: you are supporting a man who hates the United States and is actively trying to destroy it. Ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly, you are an accomplice to an attempted murder of the greatest nation the world has ever known. Free your mind, Will, free your mind.

American Suicide: New Mexico Drivers’ Licenses for Illegals

Yes, some states in our crazy country allow illegal immigrants to obtain drivers’ licenses, which as we all know allow a person to board an airplane and otherwise appear legitimate. Certain Liberal insanities such as this can not be imagined by the sane among us because it hurts an otherwise healthy brain: imagine you are at the DMV and an illegal walks in and applies for a license…you think “where is law enforcement? An illegal has presented himself, where is ICE?”…and then you see the person walking out with the same license you just got your American daughter…..

Actually, don’t imagine this because the cognitive dissonance is too painful and dangerous.

Anyway, some patriots still exist:

SANTA FE – Four illegal foreign nationals, including the ring leader who is accused of charging $6,000 per individual to fraudulently obtain a New Mexico driver’s license, have been indicted on felony criminal charges. This is the sixth incident in the last seven months involving criminal operators bringing out-of-state illegal immigrants to New Mexico for the sole purpose of obtaining a license. <source>

Here we see something good: our nation of laws is still operating and functional, but also we see evidence of something Conservatives warn about all the time, which is the magnetic effect of sanctioned lawlessness. Because New Mexico allows this insanity, illegals from all over the country flock there to get their credentials.

Following in the steps of American Hero Jan Brewer, the Governor of New Mexico is fighting to protect American sovereignty:

“We just cannot ignore this problem any longer as more and more illegal immigrants continue to flood New Mexico to obtain a driver’s license,” said Governor Susana Martinez. “I urge the Senate to do the right thing and pass the bill that stops issuing drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants. New Mexicans are demanding this action and it’s time to act in the interest of public safety and national security.”

I love the phrase “…cannot ignore the problem…”. The sad truth is that no one actually ignores this lawlessness: people either consciously support and encourage it, in a kind of American suicide otherwise known as treason, or they fight against it.

I know which side I am on, and as a citizen it is the only side one can be on.

And by the way, I find it interesting that two women, Martinez and Brewer, are fighting the good fight, while Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich, George Bush, and Rick Perry speak and act as those who would willingly surrender our borders and sovereignty.

That is some girl power that just might save the Union. Are you listening Janet??

I Think I’m In Love With Jan

What can you say about a woman who would defend America’s border when no one else will?

A woman who would defend it knowing she will be wrongly and unfairly branded as a racist?

And who would get in the face of a certain Impostor who hates the United States and is doing everything he can to destroy it, including filing a lawsuit against her state?

Just look at this picture taken yesterday in Arizona: it is real and unedited:

A Leader Confronts a Destroyer

That is Governor Jan Brewer, American hero, talking to Barack Hussein Obama. Reporters saw her heated exchange with mr. Obama and wanted to know what the fuss was about. Instead of putting my own words in cartoon dialog bubbles above her head, I’ll let her recount what she actually said, with pointed finger no less (my heart is swooning…).

Asked moments later what the conversation was about, Brewer, a Republican, said: “He was a little disturbed about my book.”

Brewer recently published a book, “Scorpions for Breakfast,” something of a memoir of her years growing up and defends her signing of Arizona’s controversial law cracking down on illegal immigrants, which Obama opposes.

Obama was objecting to Brewer’s description of a meeting he and Brewer had at the White House, where she described Obama as lecturing her. In an interview in November Brewer described two tense meetings. The first took place before his commencement address at Arizona State University. “He did blow me off at ASU,” she said in the television interview in November.

She also described meeting the president at the White House in 2010 to talk about immigration. “I felt a little bit like I was being lectured to, and I was a little kid in a classroom, if you will, and he was this wise professor and I was this little kid, and this little kid knows what the problem is and I felt minimized to say the least.”

On the tarmac Wednesday, Brewer handed Obama an envelope with a handwritten invitation to return to Arizona to meet her for lunch and to join her for a visit to the border. <source>

You have to admire her, don’t you?

And that photo ought to become a poster for her next campaign; a picture is worth a thousand words.

Warren Buffett Hates Himself, and if you have money, He Hates You Too

Warren Buffett seems to be overcome with grief over his good fortune and is now in full self-flagellation. As is always the case with Liberals, his flogging just might kill us all even though we are innocent bystanders. The man hates wealth, and it makes perfect sense that he and Obama have fallen in love with each other. It also makes perfect sense that Buffett has not donated some of his $50 billion to the U.S. Treasury, because guilt only goes so far, apparently.

But back to his self-hatred.

Just look at this quote from Buffett about Mitt Romney’s wealth and tax rate:

“He makes his money the same way I make my money,” Buffett said. “He makes money by moving around big bucks, not by straining his back or going to work and cleaning toilets or whatever it may be. He makes it shoving around money.” <source>

WHAT?? So the only morally legitimate way to earn a living is to clean toilets? Is Buffett against all careers involving knowledge? If we don’t physically “strain our backs”, are we morally bankrupt?

And let me clear this up for those whose hearts ache over Romney’s low effective tax rate: there is a difference between the “income tax rate” and the “capital gains tax rate”, and this is intentional in the tax code because the capital gains tax rate is meant to encourage risk-taking (investment) in the economy and so it is set at a lower rate than the income tax rate. Wealthy men like Romney end up having much more investment income than “salaried” income, and so their overall rate is lower.

But Marxist Obama, and Warren Buffett, would have you believe that the wealthiest among us are getting away with earning salaries with tax rates that are half as much as the rest of us. This is FALSE and MISLEADING.

A Simple Story

Here’s a simple story to make it even more clear: an entrepreneur starts a business and needs investors to get it off the ground. Wealthy people could leave their money in the bank, or risk some of it by betting on startup companies. That tax code is structured so that if the wealthy person’s investment in a startup ends up being worth millions, the investment gain will be taxed at a much lower rate than if such millions had been earned through salaried work. This makes sense if (a) you realize that the capital invested has already been taxed once as income, (b) we as a society want our entrepreneurs to get funded so that they can grow businesses and hire a lot of workers, and (c) we want those with wealth to risk it in new ventures rather than leave it in the bank or in Switzerland.

It is estimated that nearly half of all jobs in the USA are made possible by very small businesses. But even big businesses need capital to grow, and so investment capital in businesses of all shapes and sizes is the great engine of capitalist wealth creation.

It is pure demagoguery to demonize those whose incomes are heavily weighted towards investment income. Their taxes are lower overall by design, and it is a good design. An essential design.

Unless we all want to be living in grass huts with mud floors. Or unless we want to destroy the United States.

Nominative Case Violation: Chris Berman

Chris Berman of ESPN became another victim of Nominative Case over-usage during his recap of the Baltimore / New England football game. Referring to the Patriots owner Robert Kraft, he said

“…It’s been an emotional year for he and his family…”

No, Chris, it’s been an emotional year for him and his family. You don’t think so? Read this mission:

This blog fights to preserve and defend the dative, accusative, and ablative cases inherent in the English language. This is because in the last 20 years otherwise educated people have feared that use of these cases makes them sound stupid, but they have it exactly backwards. While it is incorrect and stupid-sounding to say “Me and him threw the ball to each other”, it is also incorrect and uneducated to say “Dad threw the ball to he and I”. The correct construction is “Dad threw the ball to him and me”.

Tom Brady’s Legacy

Readers of this blog know that Tom Brady is the Charles Van Doren of our time. It makes me very happy to see how many “Tom Brady Cheats” searches there are on the internet (that lead people to my essays on the subject). It continues to show that although he may possess three Superbowl rings, he did not earn them and does not deserve them. Any credibility they may have had died when Roger Goodell destroyed the cheating tapes in his successful plot to keep us all in the dark about the extent of the Patriots’ fraudulent advantage during those years.

Other than willfully blind homers, we all know that at this point in his career, Tom Brady is no more than Dan Marino: a great quarterback with no rings.