Here you’ll find astonishing levels of lies, ignorance, hypocrisy and conniving doublespeak from America’s grand Sith Lordess.

For anyone brave enough to read her vicious tripe, do so with this thought in mind:

Every dollar spent by government equals more than a dollar stolen from productive citizens. Every job “created” by government spending is more than a job destroyed in the private sector. Every supposed benefit from government spending comes with an even greater offsetting detriment to taxpayers. Apart from the protection of individual rights accomplished by police, military, and courts, government spending equals destruction of wealth and productivity - every time, in every place, in any context, for any purpose.

Prosperity can only arise as the summation of voluntary individual achievement, a tenet which Pelosi and her ilk stand in diametric opposition to. Don’t trust a single word uttered by this Marxist hag.

Most of the irrationality spewed in congress is standard vote-buying rhetoric lacking of intellectual substance, and unworthy of mention; but occasionally there are statements which justice demands we challenge.

How about this humdinger from Alan Grayson:

I have a friend of a friend (also an opponent of socialized medicine), whose four siblings were cooked to death in the Holocaust, who could offer a slightly different perspective for Mr. Alan Grayson.

There is only one aspect where his obscene analogy holds any hint of merit - the current state of American medicine is indeed a state-sponsored effort destroying life and prosperity.

But, we all know that’s not what he’s referring to.

His implication is that not having someone else pay for your healthcare is the moral equivalent of being persecuted, enslaved and murdered, and that anyone who opposes socialized medicine is guilty of such. This classless bureaucrat equates the burden of self-reliance with facing genocide. This incredible statement, intended as an argument from intimidation, is a complete moral inversion and a slap in the face of any human being who values life.

Even in the political cesspool resulting from today’s cultural rot, for a political figure expected to convey character, integrity, honesty, and intelligence, to so carelessly diminish the most unspeakable evil in modern history is an embarrassingly juvenile feat of malicious ignorance.

This man should offend all Americans and has no business posing as a supposed leader of this country.

Please let him know if you share my sentiments.

Office of Congressman Alan Grayson
455 N. Garland Ave., Ste. 402
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407) 841-1757
Fax: (407) 841-1754

I won’t grant it the benefit of linking to it, but I must comment that the mock “PSA” recently produced by moveon.org, featuring a gaggle of hollywood drones, is one of the most superficial, outrageously fallacious, and economically ignorant displays of human stupidity that I’ve seen in some time - a message which accurately reflects the de facto ideological debris surfacing from the bowels of American pop culture.

It’s chock-full of mostly shopworn rhetoric, but there are a few exceptionally erroneous humdingers - the most stunning of which is this sarcastic mind-bender:

“…what’s so American about competition?”

He’s partially correct, there is nothing American about what he refers to as “competition”, i.e., nationalizing an industry, but referring to such as competition is an (intentionally) obscene misuse of the word.

His incredibly distorted implication is that competition is American, and the healthcare market is lacking competition (which it is only to the extent that government intervention has facilitated). His sarcastic portrayal of a stereotypically “greedy” insurance exec (a supposed free-market advocate) dismissing the need for increased competition is intended to A) condemn businessmen as exploitative predators, B) highlight the supposedly un-American essence of the “free-market” as represented by the greedy exec, and C) suggest that anyone who doesn’t advocate “reform” is un-American.

These conniving insinuations are united by condescending sarcasm in order to justify the need of (even more) Government intervention. Let’s unpack this irrational nonsense.

Competition is a vital economic aspect that can exist only to the extent that a market is free of coercion. Government intervention, i.e, reduction of freedom, can only decrease competition. There is no way to legislate competition. Competition is a dynamic which reflects a sum of individual choices. Those choices present an unyielding potential for the loss or gain of market share, if the market is free, i.e., void of unnatural barriers to entry for new competition. If an insurance company had rates that were unnecessarily high, or coverage that customers deemed inadequate, then another firm could seize the opportunity to earn the business of any customers who unsatisfied with their insurance coverage. The only way that a company can escape acknowledging that constant threat of competition is through some barrier to market entry. The only entity that can legally pose such a barrier is Government - the only entity which can regulate and tax businesses by force.

The greedy insurance executive portrayed has no control over competition short of leveraging government force in some manner. So, if there is any lack of legitimate competition, it can only be as a result of government acting beyond its proper scope - protecting individual rights.

In fact, the market is not free, and that is the exact cause for its dysfunctional state today.

The second, more ridiculous fallacy presented is the implication that further government intervention can remedy the claimed lack of competition. This absurd contradiction suggests using illogical means to achieve fallacious ends. There is no conceivable scenario where socializing a market could possibly incite more competition than completely de-regulating the same market. Competition is driven by the sum of consumer choices. Socializing, by definition, spends consumers money apart from their discretion. Socializing a market is the antithetical destroyer of competition - just as we see in the stagnant debacle known as our “public” schools - which can hardly be described as a competitive market. How could there be any substantive competition when “customers” (as the IRS likes to refer to taxpayers) are forced to pay into the government system. In order for would-be competitors to even exist, much less compete, they’d have to stay afloat considering both a forced, artificial decrease in demand since the “customer” has already been persuaded at gunpoint to choose another vendor, as well as the main “competitor” they’re up against (government) is effectively immune to market influence, i.e., can operate at a loss, since his customers are guaranteed and his funding is the unlimited virtual piggy-bank known as the treasury. How can one compete with an entity which holds the power to legally force customers to unconditionally pay for services and can arbitrarily charge as little or as much as they want?

Forcing consumers to pay for services from a “producer” immune to customer satisfaction - this is what Turk, as a perfect caricature of pragmatic, collectivist ignorance, means by competition.

Free-market competition is American - the enslavement and looting of an entire nation is not.

How can one distinguish such similar manifestations of irrationality?

Our media has yet again dug up the wearisome bastion of pragmatist irrationality to enlighten us with more of his wholly predictable socio-political analysis.

“I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American,” Carter told “NBC Nightly News.” “I live in the South, and I’ve seen the South come a long way, and I’ve seen the rest of the country that shares the South’s attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans.”

“That racism inclination still exists, and I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people — not just in the South but around the country — that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It’s an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply,” Carter said.

Being as collectivist as they come, Carter cannot begin to grasp the abstract concept that some people don’t view man in terms of groups - let alone on such a crudely obtuse metric of assessment as a man’s race. We have no way of knowing if Carter’s racist charge is an honest (yet debilitated) assessment, or if he merely intends to obfuscate and undermine any opposition with the time-tested art of smearing.

” He grouped Wilson’s shout of “You lie!” during Obama’s speech in that category, according to AP. “I think it’s based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president,” he said.

According to whom? Or is this just Carter’s projected hunch? There may be a sliver of mindless brutes who’d utter such nonsense, but I’d be shocked if a staunch, charismatic republican who happened to be black would not have received the same percentage of the country’s vote as did McCain.

This conflict is predominately about ideals, not skin color. Granted the ideals in opposition are seldom to be explicitly defined, the lingering sense-of-life rooted in freedom and rights, retained by a portion of Americans, is what’s fueling this rebellion. I think it goes without saying I’d vote for a candidate who promoted Capitalist ideals regardless of his race, sex, religion, age, where he was born, how many wives he has, how many cats he has, how many guns he has, where he lives, where he wants to live, what he drinks, what he smokes, what he snorts, or any other imaginable attribute - so long as he understood individual rights and the proper role of Government, he’ll have my adamant financial and ideological support.

It’s an insult to all Americans for Carter to insinuate that they’re incapable of separating a candidate’s genetic lineage from his political philosophy.

Again, is this the honest opinion of a senile collectivist, or an argument from intimidation?

Next, we get this inspiring bromide from Jimmy.

“The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state. And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect.”

I suppose Carter would also prescribe Jewish citizens being hauled off to Nazi gas chambers by the Gestapo afford Hitler the same respect?

Respect is a form of esteem granted to another individual based on shared values and in appreciation of his character and integrity, not a automatic and causeless emotion granted by hierarchy of command, and certainly not a permanent emotional blank check immune to continual scrutiny, and covering any tyrannical whim. Respect and obedience are two entirely different concepts. Respect is earned. Obedience is volitional.

The other noteworthy tidbit in this piece is this quote by Michael Steele, chair of the Republican National Committee (whom the group-think author very quickly identifies racially).

“Injecting race into the debate over critical issues facing American families doesn’t create jobs, reform our health care system or reduce the growing deficit. It only divides Americans rather than uniting us to find solutions to challenges facing our nation,”

For some reason, I’m guessing the solutions Steele alludes to don’t include complete deregulation of health care, abolishing the welfare state, and establishing a strict separation of Government from our economy as a whole. When one party’s play of the “race” card is met with the other playing the “create jobs” card, we’re in bad shape.

Related Reads:
Is Disagreement with Obama Racism?

(edited 09.29.09 to add related links)

Yep, the next chapter in the most blatant story of economic ignorance in history gets under way. Anti-trust, the American hallmark of self-destructive and senseless tyranny, is rearing its obnoxious head again - this time to aggravate Apple and AT&T.

The Department of Justice has started an informal review of the exclusive arrangements that limit handsets such as Apple’s iPhone to particular wireless communications companies, according to people familiar with the matter.

The inquiry follows consolidation in the US wireless industry that has left four operators accounting for more than 90 per cent of the country’s wireless subscribers. This has left them with the market power to carve out exclusive deals with makers of the most popular handsets, making it hard for smaller rivals to compete and leading to higher prices for mobile services, according to rivals. [emphasis added]

Hmmm, so the resources and market position that AT&T and Apple have earned should be sacrificed to the needs of smaller rivals? Only in altruist-collectivist-statist-wonderland.

Apple, as the creator and producer of the iPhone, has the right to sell it to whomever under whatever terms they choose. Likewise, AT&T has the right to distribute and market products of their choosing; also according to whatever terms they choose. In sum, Apple and AT&T have the right to work together under whatever terms they agree upon. Any law that trumps their right to do so is unjust, irrational, subjective law.

So long as a market is left free from Government intervention, new competitors will step in if prices are set higher than the market will tolerate. If AT&T’s exclusive contract to sell the iPhone is leveraged to charge more than the market will bear, other competitors like Google and Blackberry will have an opportunity to seize a share of the market. Apple’s rightful purpose in business is to make money, not to provide phones as a charitable cause. Likewise, AT&T’s purpose is to make money, not to dole out phone service to the needy. If any relationship between these two companies results in prices that are higher than what the market will bear, consumers will spend their money elsewhere.

Thanks you meddling idiots, but we can take care of ourselves - no brilliant Government intervention is necessary.

A parable depicting the rise of tyranny being cloaked in supposed benevolence - should sound very familiar. Source unknown.

A chemistry professor at a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country’s government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, ‘Do you know how to catch wild pigs?’ The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. ‘You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again.

You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat; you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught.

Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. While we continually lose our freedoms — just a little at a time.

• Reiterating the fact that a dollar can only be spent once, i.e., that A is A, the current staff of lords announced the shocking revelation that their entitlement piggy-bank of looted wealth isn’t immune to the economic disaster they’ve heaved on the world.
• Unions are learning first hand that a business can’t operate at a loss and still make money, i.e., the law of causality, and that even their precious bully friend Uncle Sam will throw them under the bus when he’s desperate.
• Interesting… Our economy is circling the drain, but somehow there’s still enough loot to fund research into homosexual activity in Argentina and teach Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly. I’m sure these funds were selflessly donated from the salaries of our esteemed members of congress.
• Importing far more than Chinese goods, Puritan Statists in Minnesota found a new way to tackle online gambling.
• The anointed have discovered that Soda Taxes would fulfill paternalistic nanny-state cravings and fund socialized medicine. What a crafty bunch!

Tack one more nail in the American coffin. The rights-trampling frenzy continues with restaurant and bar owners being the latest victim burnt on the collectivist mob-rule stake as The People’s Republic of North Carolina has finally passed their precious smoking ban.

A similar attempt failed a few years back, but the statist yearning to rule by force is insatiable. This debate emphasizes the typical degree of concrete-bound, irrational thinking that consumes most of our population. If we were to extract the essentials from the average opinion supporting this law, we’d discover a criteria template that could justify any law imaginable. However, when the facts are considered, the silly, evil, and obtuse nature of this law is abundantly clear.

Relevant Facts:

1. Freedom: In a rational, civilized society, individuals are free to choose which establishments they patronize. Virtually all supposed justifications for this pathetic abuse of power evade or ignore this fact completely.

2. Property Rights: In a rational, civilized society, property owners are free to determine their own smoking policies. This is the core issue at hand.

3. Role of Government: In a rational, civilized society, the proper role of Government is to protect individual rights from forceful encroachment. Instead, this law relies on initiation of force by Government.

4. Objective Law: In a rational, civilized society, laws and legal enforcement thereof should be based on rights. If an action doesn’t forcefully encroach on an individual’s right to life, liberty or property, or doesn’t objectively convey intent to do so, it shouldn’t be illegal. Whenever considering any law or regulation, justice demands we ask “whose right to what is being forcefully violated?”, and if there is no clear and objective answer, then justice is not the motive at hand. In this context, where smoking is permitted by the owner and other individuals are free to leave, no one’s rights are forcefully violated.

Irrelevant Misconceptions:

“The issue is smokers vs. non-smokers…”

This issue is about the rights of property owners. The owner of a restaurant or bar has the right to determine his own policies regarding smoking. This law imposes on the property owner, not the customers. See #2.

“When you serve the public you forfeit your property rights.”


Perhaps in a collectivized, mob-rule nation ignorant of the concept of rights, but not in a free country. Individuals conducting commerce are traders - not servants. They are offering a value in the form of a product or service that other traders can choose to consume or not, depending on whether they find the value offered as beneficial in proportion to the cost. These two individuals, the traders, are the only two who should rightly decide on the details pertaining to their barter. If a consumer is unhappy with the product or service offered they are free to seek consumption elsewhere, and the seller must adjust his offering to remain in business. The only proper function of Government in the barter is to enforce contractual obligations breached by force or fraud. Any other Government intervention in this voluntary transaction is illegitimate and a violation of one or both of the trader’s rights. Only the competition of a free-market can rightly and justly promote change in the seller’s offering. In a rational and just society, this rule applies to any and every aspect of the business and barter. The fact that we’ve set precedent for such encroachment with OSHA, FDA, zoning, wage and countless other regulations does not justify yet another blatant disregard for the sanctity of property rights. See #1-4.


“Smokers don’t have the right to smoke anywhere they choose.”

This is correct, but the decision to allow or prohibit smoking is up to the property owner and no one else. See #2.

“Do you smokers have the RIGHT to harm other people just because you think it’s ok to smoke around them?”

Of course not, there is no such thing as a right to harm others, but this question evades the fact that the “victim” is free to leave an environment where conditions (including second-hand smoke, noise, temperature, food quality etc.) aren’t suitable. See #1.

“This ban is guarding the public safety.”

See #1 and #4.

“It’s a darn shame that a law had to be passed to prevent the inconsiderate nicotine addicts from spreading their disease and stench while ruining ones meal.”

If their lack of consideration offends you, you’re free to leave. See #1 and #4.




“Studies show that {insert any fact supporting the negative impacts of second-hand smoke} is harmful.”


See #1.

“An owner that accepts non-smokers does not reserve the right or choice to put the life of the non-smokers family in danger of death due to lung cancer to satisfy the addiction of a smoker.”

Their lives are only in danger if they choose to be present in such conditions. See #1.

These are only a handful of the common justifications used by advocates. As I hear new ones I’ll add them to the list along with a proper debunking.

Conclusions:

There is no just basis to support a smoking ban on private property - only emotion-driven rationalizations that undermine the rule of law, and scoff at the American essence. Objective law requires for an individual’s rights to be forcefully violated. So long as one’s presence in such establishment is voluntary, force is absent, and any legal intervention represents an injustice.

If all private restaurants and bars closed their doors (the appropriate response to this and any other meddling in business), how many days before this fascist tripe would be repealed? The first day they’d call their bluff. The second day they’d call an emergency session with expedited Governor sign-off so all the statist thugs in Raleigh would have a place to grab lunch, and this wretched idea would never be brought up again.

Do I look forward to the first Sunday morning I enjoy a completely smoke-free breakfast at Cracker Barrel? You bet I do. But, for that reality to come into fruition through an anti-American, rights-stomping, emotion-driven law is hideous. I’d rather endure smoky meals for the rest of my life to hang on to the smell of freedom than condone such a contemptible mob-rule measure. Precisely because this is happening in America, the first nation founded on justice and freedom, we truly are in the golden age of injustice.

Here’s another example, just as in all cases, showing the left is ideologically bankrupt.

As a result of the American economy and culture circling the drain, many citizens are fed up with the collectivist path our country has taken. Oppressive taxation, crippling regulation and the ever-growing statist cloud overcoming the US are taking their toll on individuals trying to live and prosper in the remnants of freedom. Resurrecting a pivotal link to American Revolution, citizens organized tax protests which appropriately took place on April 15th. Concerned individuals are taking an absolutely justified stand of self-preservation against an unprincipled and tyrannical government that shows no signs of letting up.

The result from our leftist media is not sincere consideration, professional discourse or any other objective commentary. Instead, acting precisely like the mouth-breathing idiots they portray all non-leftists to be, the greatest nation in the history of man is being annihilated and these anti-intellectual cheerleaders for death respond in the only way they can - by cracking ignorant wisecracks.

There is a very poignant conclusion to be drawn from this disgusting spectacle. As irrational pragmatists, leftists (altruist-collectivists) have no intellectual opposition to offer. None of their whims stand to reason, thus the ability to respond with any substantial thought is neutered. Emotional ad hominem is their only option. Adding sexual innuendo at least makes them look cool amongst their peers in addition to the primary purpose of diffusing any factually prudent discussion - nothing more than an evasive facade for changing the subject.

Unfortunately I stumbled upon this gem by Alan Blinder, which is either satirical journalism at its best or just another delusional leftist rant. His purpose is to challenge the purportedly mouth-breathing notion that Obama is socialist.

Considering an objective summary of Obama’s words, positions, history and actions, how anyone could question this fact is perplexing.

Ever since President Barack Obama released the budget last month, we have been hearing a fusillade of criticism claiming that the president, contrary to previous advertising, is not a centrist, but a “leftie” intent on leading the country down the path of socialism.

Let’s see. Socialism means public ownership and control of businesses, right? So which industries does the president propose to nationalize?

The short answer is all of them - I would venture to guess. But, he’s smart enough to know that such a transition cannot be thrown on the country in one fell swoop, so he’ll push just up to the point of chaos, back-peddle a bit, reposition, repeat. This is the standard tactic of prudency for aspiring tyrants.

Right off the bat we see Mr. Blinders obtuse definition of Socialism which he seems to be using in an extremely narrow sense. Are we to assume that by his standard a nation that is fully Socialized save one Grocery store in some American town is not Socialist?

A more accurate gauge is to evaluate the extent that a nation considers individual rights as sacred pillars of freedom.

Socialism is the sacrifice of the individual to the collective. To the extent that such notion is a nation’s guiding premise, that country is Socialized. No, America isn’t fully Socialized. And no, Obama hasn’t yet prescribed full Socialization, but the very nature of such a society is recursive and self-perpetuating. Controls breed controls - and once the the footing is compromised, the path is downhill unless the fundamental philosophical thrust of the nation is altered.

Banking? Well, no. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner has made it clear that he opposes nationalizing banks, despite much outcry from the political left — and even some from the right — to do just that.

Again, no - banks aren’t fully nationalized, but the wedge is well in place. This, and the most recent administration have redistributed looted wealth in the form of subsidies to corporations. The subsidies came with invasive stipulations. The subsidies weren’t optional, but mandatory. Even if a slave owner limits his restrictive tenets to only a few prohibitions, he’s still in control.

What about health care? Doesn’t Mr. Obama want “socialized medicine”? No. He wants to reform the current system so that it costs less and covers more people. Disgracefully, the United States is the only advanced nation in the world that fails to cover every citizen — even though we spend vastly more on health care than other nations.

Some reformers want the U.S. to adopt a single-payer system like other countries, such as “socialist” Canada and England — which run firmly capitalist economies, by the way. But regardless of whether single-payer is a good idea, it’s not Mr. Obama’s. His health-insurance reform plan emphasizes choice (keeping what you have if you like it), greater efficiency (partly by utilizing information technology), and portability (your health coverage will follow you from job to job). Which part of that is socialist?

Exactly how can he reform it without violating the rights of all parties involved? What’s disgraceful is that America has sunk into the altruist-collectivist abyss so far as to condone and prescribe threatening one man’s life to support another - by force. And exactly why do you think we spend more? Because we’re already subsidizing the parasites in this country who won’t support themselves. Doing so on a wider and more explicit scale will only drive costs up and value down, not to mention the crippling effect that nationalization will have on the competitive and creative forces of innovation. To the extent that a man is rational, he will not work under compulsion.

As far as England and Canada (or any country in the world) being Capitalist, surely you jest Mr. Blinder?

As the law now stands, when a family that does not itemize deductions on its tax return donates $100 to its favorite charity, the donation costs the family $100. But when an itemizing family in the 25% bracket donates $100, it costs them only $75 after tax. And when an itemizer in the 35% bracket donates $100, the after-tax cost is only $65. Thus the richer you are, the less it costs. Is it socialistic to say that seems a little backwards?

Not necessarily socialist, but it’s preposterous to imply that an individual who diligently complies and attempts to wrangle our nightmarish tax code shouldn’t be rewarded. This is the same line of thought that claims it’s an injustice for an individual who doesn’t pay taxes to not get a tax refund.

So where does all this leave us on the road to socialism? If Mr. Obama is able to get all of these proposals through Congress, the U.S. will have a fully private banking system, propped up with temporary government support; a uniquely American health-care system that covers virtually everyone; and a somewhat more progressive income tax.

If this is socialism, then let’s make the most of it.

Fully private eh? Except for thousands of pages of regulations, a mandatory phony currency, and that pesky Federal Reserve pulling the strings that drive the whole show. Temporary huh? Would that be “income tax” temporary, or “public education” temporary? Uniquely American? Except that it’s rooted in the same poisonous altruist-collective nonsense that leads every subscribing country to stagnant mediocrity, poverty and ultimately destruction. Our particular blend of the freedom/statism concoction may be non-essentially unique, but the course will lead to the only possible destination - misery.

Mr. Blinder, if you prefer not to call our president a Socialist, how about this? He’s a collectivist thug that stands to contradict and trample every founding principle of America. Does not using the “S” word make you feel better?

His ideals, like yours, represent the cloudy, contradictory fog of nonsense that has the greatest nation in the history of mankind circling the drain.