Speech Nazis
March 24th, 2012
Conservatives and Liberals who try to shut down points of view they disagree with are pricks.
Obviously this piece was sparked by the Rush Limbaugh controversy where he called Sandra Fluke (pronounced Fluk) a slut. Liberals immediately called for an apology because they were so outraged that an entertainer called a woman a slut. The media made a big deal out of it, boycotts ensued, a few sponsors were lost and an apology was issued by Rush. The guy has been on the radio for almost 40 years and for most of his career he has done 3 hours of talk radio a day. I estimate he has done over 800 trillion hours of radio. To put that in perspective, think of a really big number. All the left has on him is calling a woman connected to a sexual issue a slut. He immediately took it back right after he said it and later issued a formal apology. But that's not good enough. These silly people on twitter are working in shifts spouting an endless assault on Rush's sponsors. Their previous attempts to discredit him were pathetic. Here's an example of some of their recent work.
Some on the conservative side then became outraged because of an apparent double standard because Bill Mahr, Louis C.K. and Ed Schultz said similar or worse things about conservatives Sarah Palin and Laura Ingraham. They began their own boycotting campaigns and twitter buzzed with activity. At the time I was going to start my own boycotting campaign designed to boycott the companies that dropped their sponsorship... but I had to go to work. Also, skateboarding and my work with dyslexic homeless teens takes up a lot of my time and boycotts look like a lot of work, yawn.
Here's the point. If you don't like what you are hearing you can listen to something else. One of the great things about the United States is, because of freedom of speech, there are thousands of choices in music, political opinion, movies, authors and pornography. If you are offended by one form of pornography, you can always choose another form. That is the way it should be. A lot of people like to argue that boycotting an entertainer's sponsors should be allowed because it is the free market at work. I find this argument technically correct, but mean spirited. If you are trying to shut down entertainment choices, you're a dick. Rush Limbaugh has fans, Louis C.K. has fans and even Bill Mahr and Ed Schultz have fans. Are you going to be such a prick that because you don't enjoy something you think no one should be able to have it? You are free to do whatever you want, and I am free to call you a prick.
This country is great because of the first amendment. In the spirit of the first amendment I invite Liberals to say whatever they want about me or conservative women. I probably won't listen and I definitely won't care. You will not stop the conservative cause by acting like stereotypical conservatives, quite the contrary.
~RC
Tweet, Connect, Call Me A Slut.
Obama Should Thank Republicans
February 14th, 2012
Everything is all better now. The unemployment rate is decreasing and Obama's approval rating is back to a manageable level. Obama and his progressive posse should be thanking Republicans.
Obama promised the unemployment rate would not surpass 8% if the stimulus was passed. In 2010 the unemployment rate skyrocketed to over 10%. When Republicans made historic gains in congress in 2010 things started to get better.
Here are the official unemployment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Obama's extravaganza of spending and economic reforms put the economy in an state of unpredictability. This is why no one was hiring. In fact businesses were laying people off by the thousands. Business owners were skittish because they didn't know what law or taxes would come next to fuck up everything.
Enter a Republican House majority.
First, Republicans used their influence to extend the Bush tax cuts to everyone. Republicans argued that extending the cuts would provide a little certainty and allow employers to hire again. Then, they forced a debate on raising the debt ceiling. This was a major step. Republicans put an end to 4 years of bailouts, stimuli, giveaways and poor policy. This shift in the government dynamic is absolutely what started this recovery.
The consequence to all this good work by Republicans is now Obama's approval numbers are up and he could get re-elected. What the fuck? How many times do Republicans need to save this country from bad Democrat legislatures? It's like the whole Clinton presidency all over again.
Vote Republican. We can still pull out of this mess.
~RC
Comment, Tweet, Give Obama credit.
Mitt Romney: Serial Killer?
February 5th, 2012
Making a connection between the Zodiac killer and Mitt Romney may seem a little silly.
At first.
Mitt Romney was born Willard Mitt Romney in Detroit Michigan on March 12th, 1947. His middle name Mitt allegedly comes from his father's cousin who played pro-football, a violent sport where men force each other down with violent "hits."
Willard "Mitt" Romney went to Stanford University in Stanford, California from 1965-1966. In July 1966, Romney fled Stanford and went to France to work as a Mormon missionary. That was only 3 months before the Zodiac murders began mere minutes away from Stanford.
Whether or not Mitt Romney had some sort of evil sex murder pact with the Zodiac killer cannot be said with certainty but there must be a reason why current Republican nominee front runner fled California mere weeks before the Zodiac Killer began his murderous rampage. Mitt Romney's connection to the worst serial killer in California's history remains murky.
A source who will remain unnamed said, "Mitt knows something about this that he's not talking about. It's pretty convenient that he left California right before the murders began. He has a lot of explaining to do."
Does Romney know something he isn't talking about? Did Mitt Romney know and love the Zodiac Killer? Does the Romney family's history of violence have anything to do with this? Why was Romney in such a hurry to go to France? Why is Mitt so quiet on this subject?
~RC
Tweet, Comment, Stab
Don't Believe the Hype: You Probably Suck
January 30th, 2012
The Wall Street Journal did a piece on another uncomfortable reality for the Progressive movement. The "Self Esteem Movement" isn't working.
"A growing body of research over three decades shows that easy, unearned praise does not help students but instead interferes with significant learning opportunities. As schools ratchet up academic standards for all students, new buzzwords are "persistence," "risk-taking" and "resilience" - each implying more sweat and strain than fuzzy, warm feelings" (Chandler, 2012).
"In an oft-cited 2006 study by the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, U.S. eighth-graders had only a middling performance on an international math exam, but they registered high levels of confidence. They were more likely than higher performing students from other countries, such as Singapore and South Korea, to report that they "usually do well in mathematics" (Chandler, 2012).
Progressive assumption #1; high self-esteem should be promoted in people no matter how undeserving.
The self-esteem movement began in 1986 and was the product of Democrat California assemblyman John Vasconcellos. The whole idea was to increase childhood self-esteem as a way of improving society. California created the Task Force to Promote Self-esteem, Personal and Social Responsibility and the idea grew throughout the American education system like a virus moves through Paris Hilton.
Progressive assumption #2; the fundamental human concern for others' welfare makes progress possible.
This is a common dangerous liberal assumption that allowed school boards across the country to adopt deeply flawed policies. Because the teachers believed the cause of improving the self-esteem of children is so altruistic, no one questioned the idea behind it. Their good intentions did not create a good outcome.
The value placed on intention over consequence is also seen at the core of Progressive economic philosophy. The road of massive spending and massive entitlements leads to major problems yet Progressives still push for more government spending out of a misguided concern for human welfare. It's a nice idea that the rich can pay all the taxes and the people who work hard but just don't make as much can get a break. It does not matter to Progressives that the outcome ends up hurting more people than they intended to help.
Progressive assumption #3; bad human behavior, such as violence, is the product not of flawed people but of evil institutions that encourage people to act selfishly and to harm others.
The Progressives may be right on this one. Progressive institutions are cultivating violent and selfish behavior. In Florida State Professor Roy Baumeister's book, "Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty," he discusses the correlation between criminals and self-esteem.
"Violence ensues when people feel that their favorable views of themselves are threatened or disputed by others. As a result, people whose self-esteem is high but lacks a firm basis in genuine accomplishment are especially prone to be violent, because they are most likely to have their narcissistic bubble burst" (Baumeister, 1996).
This is exactly what the Self-esteem Movement of the 80's and 90's promoted, high self-esteem without accomplishment.
Some Progressive wack-pie had a breakthrough in therapy in the 80s and now an entire generation of Americans is filled with over-confident violent criminal idiots. That sounds about right.
~RC
Works Cited
Baumeister, R. (1996). Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co.
Chandler, M. A. (2012, January 15). In schools, self-esteem boosting is losing favor to rigor, finer-tuned
praise. Retrieved January 29th, 2012, from The Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/in-schools-self-esteem-boosting-is-losing-
favor-to-rigor-finer-tuned-praise/2012/01/11/gIQAXFnF1P_story.html
Tweet, Comment, Connect
Government Atrocities: Skate Parks
January 29th, 2012
The government screws everything up. When it comes to skate parks, this is especially true.
Politicians get contributions from local business' like contractors in exchange for their support; the politicians give those companies preference when it comes to public building projects. Most of these companies have no business building skate parks and no brains for designing them. This is the worst kind of crony capitalism because it endangers the public in a very direct way. No amount of padding can protect a child from these bureaucratic atrocities.
A popular feature in Thrasher Magazine is their "Certified Piece of Suck" skate park contest. In it they document the worst of the worst in public skate parks.
It is always better to build your own park or go to a private park. I know at least 7 privately owned skate parks in the Minneapolis area that put the skate parks in Thrasher's notorious contest to shame. They are all designed by skateboarders, for skateboarders. If you have a problem with the park, you can tell an understanding owner who speaks your language. If the owner can't please his skateboarding customers, he will not make money or sustain his costs. When a skateboarder hates their local public park they get to go complain to a bureaucrat who isn't motivated to please them. The government worker will make the same amount of money whether or not they listen or care.
There are exceptions to this rule. I've heard of skateboarders spending countless hours fighting with their local city councils for a say in design and construction.
Sometimes the skaters win and they get a good park.
But most of the time the local cement contractor wins and builds things like this.
In the time it takes to try to deal with your city council you could build your own park. Get friends together, pool your resources, and construct it yourselves. It doesn't take much to build something functional. The skills you gain by building a skate park on your own are much more valuable than the skills you gain learning to deal with government bureaucrats.
The government has shown consistent incompetence with the simple task of designing and constructing a skate park. Why should we trust them to take over the entire healthcare system? Why should we trust them to regulate Wall Street? Why should we trust them to regulate agriculture? We the people are supposed to believe the government has our best interests in mind when the build things like this?
Don't rely on the government. You can do better for yourself than anyone else. You can build whatever you imagine.
~RC
Tweet, Comment, Connect, Do a 540
Snopes.com Is A Tool Of Deception
January 21st, 2012
As previously demonstrated, the internet is full of half-truths and flat out lies. It’s a good thing to carefully research the facts given to you by political pundits to seperate fact from fiction. Websites like Snopes.com meticulously go through political discourse objectively to separate fact from fiction. Or is that last sentence just a load of lemur crap?
At Snopes.com they claim objectivity about their owners thusly:
“Barbara Mikkelson is a Canadian citizen and as such cannot vote in U.S. elections, register an affiliation with a U.S. political party, or donate to any U.S. political campaign or candidate. David Mikkelson is an American citizen whose participation in U.S. politics has never extended beyond periodically exercising his civic duty at the ballot box. As FactCheck confirmed in April 2009, David is a registered independent who has never donated to, or worked on behalf of, any political campaign or party. The Mikkelsons are wholly apolitical, vastly preferring their quiet scholarly lives in the company of their five cats to any political considerations” (Snopes.com).
This is where another layer of political deception over the collective consciousness exists. Snopes.com pretends to uncover “urban legends.” Snopes.com is a tool of leftist big-government propaganda. The proof is in the objective analysis of their website.
Here is their analysis of a supposed racist quote attributed to Rush Limbaugh:
“They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?” This statement has been indirectly referenced as something Rush Limbaugh once said on the air since at least as far back as 2000. But we have found no documenting source for it” (Snopes.com).
When a Nigerian is trying to scam Americans they will label the claim “FALSE” (Snopes.com). When Rush Limbaugh is said to say something that hurts his personal reputation, Snopes.com says, “we have found no documenting source for it.” That’s real objectivity, Snopes.con.
Another COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS analysis by snopes.com:
“Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela – who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing. “ Media Matters documents this statement (with an audio clip) as one made by Rush Limbaugh in the course of his radio program” (Snopes.com).
This is a quote attributed to Rush and somehow this qualifies as worthy of Snopes.com’s attention. What is Rush actually saying here? He is making the point that he always makes. The greatest chance at true equality and true “social justice” is through capitalism, not communism. Snopes.com seems to think that somehow Nelson Mandela has achieved deity status and his ideas being attacked are worthy of “urban legend” status.
Another dead give-away to snopes.com leftist slant is the fact that they use Media Matters as a reliable source. Media Matters is a merchant of half-truths and flawed logic. This has been documented by theradconservative.com . Any website that claims to be THE fact checker of urban legends would not use Media Matters as a source unless it had some hell bent liberal agenda. Media Matters exists as an attack vehicle to Fox News.
It’s true. Fox News has predominantly conservative commentators. The confusion that the left capitalizes on is the failure to distinguish commentary from hard news. Sean Hannity does commentary. He is a conservative Republican. Shephard Smith does hard news. Only Allah knows where his political loyalties lie. I think he’s into sports, and working out.
Anyone operating under the illusion that Snopes.com is the premiere fact-checker of the internet is merely drowning in another matrix of illusion.
~RC
Works Cited
Snopes.com. (n.d.). About snopes.com. Retrieved January 20, 2012, from Snopes.com:
http://www.snopes.com/info/aboutus.asp
Snopes.com. (n.d.). Bal Aire Mansion. Retrieved January 20, 2012, from Snopes.com:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/architecture/belairmansion.asp
Snopes.com. (n.d.). Bone Voyage. Retrieved January 20, 2012, from Snopes.com:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp
Comment, Tweet, Connect
BACHMANN SUPPORTER FOR ROMNEY
January 13th, 2012
There’s been a lot of Romney hating going on when it is clear. Romney is going to be the Republican nominee. I am perplexed to see tweets from my conservative friends starting to say things like, "We need to stop Mitt Romney." This kind of thinking is destructive.
I am a strong supporter of Michele Bachmann. I had the privelege of voting for the Congresswoman twice in Minnesota. Bachmann is a solid conservative, receiving a perfect 100% conservative rating by conservative.org. Here's a short video of her grilling Timothy Geitner on the constitutionality of the actions by the treasury.
She is striking, charismatic, charming, brilliant and most important, trustworthy. Michele Bachmann did not vote for the stimulus package, more importantly she opposed all the major spending increases by Bush. She is the kind of fiscal hawk that would have been a gift to our economy. She would have made a great President.
Michele Bachmann failed to win the nomination. I was not angry. I did not write nasty tweets about her competition. I took it like a man and started loading my guns for the eventual nominee. I am focused on defeating Barack Obama. If Romney is the guy, let’s do this.
We place too much importance on the president. Aside from Ron Paul, all the Republican candidates are similar in foreign policy, and that is really the main important power of the president. The president cannot make laws.
The President of the United States can only be as conservative in legislation as his congress lets him be. Medicare Part D, the minimum wage raise and the bailouts were all done with a Democrat legislature. They had Bush by the nuts, threatening to cut off funding for the Iraq war. Bush considered himself a conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, and like Reagan he was at the mercy of a big spending Democrat controlled congress.
There’s a point to be made here about Romney as well. When Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts he faced steep Democrat majorities in both houses of the Massachusetts legislature. He was still able to eliminate a 3 billion dollar state deficit. It isn’t fair to pin every liberal policy enacted in Massachusetts under Romney, on Romney. Just like it isn’t fair to do the same to Reagan or Bush.
I always hear, “politics is about compromise.” That is true with a divided government. It’s not a bad idea to choose a candidate who has a track record of governing well with steep opposition from his congress.
Romney 2012
~RC
Comment, Tweet, Connect
PETA'S CONSERVATIVE AGENDA
January 10th, 2012
Usually I find PETA to be disgusting. Throwing blood on old ladies is the only reason I need to think you’re a nut-pie. That being said, I love animals. I often comment to friends on how bizarrely sensitive I am to the suffering of animals. I’ve been and continue to be the proud friend of many wonderful furry characters. I miss you Bootsie.
I was looking through the liberal sites trying to get some outrage flowing when I came across this on PETA’s web site:
“Most of these barbaric and senseless experiments are funded by the federal government using the public’s tax dollars and by health charities, including the American Cancer Society, the Muscular Dystrophy Association and the March of Dimes who are wasting precious dollars on cruel, irrelevant experiments on animals instead of spending the money on promising human-based research” (PETA, 2011).
This is a place where PETA and the conservative movement find common ground. Republicans hate government spending and tax dollars are being used to fund animal testing. Can we, as conservatives, agree with PETA and end these government-funded atrocities? Yes we can!
“The National Institutes of Health on Thursday suspended all new grants for biomedical and behavioral research on chimpanzees and accepted the first uniform criteria for assessing the necessity of such research. Those guidelines require that the research be necessary for human health, and that there be no other way to accomplish it” (Gorman, 2011).
“In making the announcement, Dr. Francis S. Collins, the director of the N.I.H., said that chimps, as the closest human relatives, deserve “special consideration and respect” and that the agency was accepting the recommendations released earlier in the day by an expert committee of the Institute of Medicine, which concluded that most research on chimpanzees was unnecessary” (Gorman, 2011).
Most of the research was “unnecessary.” That is crazy. The government, by their own admission, was doing unnecessary tests on animals with our tax dollars. What else do they spend our money on that most of us would find deplorable?
The idea that PETA should only be engaged and supported by liberals for liberal causes is dismissive of plenty of issues like this where conservatives win. Sure we are fierce supporters of hunting rights, which PETA clearly opposes, but why not try to come together on the things we agree on first? PETA is against their tax dollars being used to fund experiments on animals. Let’s appreciate this and build bridges.
Too often we only look for the differences between liberalism and conservatism and fail to see the things that make us the same. It’s getting real hard to find places in the budget that everyone would cut. If liberals put all animal testing grants on the chopping block, it would be cut.
~RC
Works Cited
Gorman, J. (2011, December 15). U.S. Will Not Finance New Research on Chimps. Retrieved January 9,
2012, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/science/chimps-in-medical-research.html?_r=1
PETA. (2011). Animal Testing 101. Retrieved December 30th, 2011, from Peta:
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-101.aspx
Comment, Connect, Tweet
Trickle Down Misery
January 2nd, 2012
If the Occupy protests had a message, it was that millionaires should pay more taxes. Most millionaires in this country are successful because of hard work. Most of them own businesses that they started without any inheritance. This fact escapes the leftist echo chamber. To the left, most millionaires sit in penthouses while doing cocaine and collecting dividends from “old money.”
“The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets Of America’s Wealth”, published in 1996, was a #1 best seller in the 90’s and remained on The New York Times’ Best Seller List for over 3 years. The book was an in depth sociological study of millionaires in The United States and was written by Dr. Thomas J. Stanley and Dr. William D. Danko.
They found:
“Most of the affluent households in America are business owners, including self-employed professionals. Twenty percent of the affluent households in America are headed by retirees. Of the remaining 80%, more than two thirds are headed by self-employed owners of businesses” (Stanley. & Danko, 1996).
“Fewer than 20 percent (of millionaires) inherited 10% or more of their wealth” (Stanley. & Danko, 1996).
More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance” (Stanley. & Danko, 1996).
If you increase the taxes of millionaires they can off-set the hit. Millionaires are savvy business people. They can install wage freezes, hiring freezes or reduce their overhead by cutting their workforce. They can raise revenue by raising the prices of their goods and services.
If millionaires feel overtaxed they could simply stop working.
“Who is the prototypical American Millionaire? What would he tell you about himself?”
“We have a ‘go-to-hell fund.’ We have accumulated enough
wealth to live without working for ten or more years.” (Stanley. & Danko, 1996).
Increased taxes are passed on to everyone. Trickle down misery. When taxes are raised on Millionaires, everyone takes the hit.
~RC
Works Cited
Stanley., T. J., & Danko, W. D. (1996). The Millionainre Next Door. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc.
Comment? Tweet?
Debt Wrong: Media Matters
January 1st, 2012
I understand cause and effect. Countries like England went down the road of spending as a means of economic stimulus. What they ended up with, was massive debt.
“Topping the European debt league is Greece with 142.8% government debt to GDP ratio, followed by Italy (119.0%), Belgium (96.8%) Ireland (96.2%), Portugal (93.0%), Germany (83.2%), France (81.7%) Hungary (80.2%) and the United Kingdom (80.0%)” (CNN, 2011).
European bureaucrats convinced themselves and their constituents that government spending would stimulate the economy into producing enough tax revenue to pay for itself. They were wrong.
It is disgusting, dishonest, and discraceful how hard Media Matters is pushing government spending as this country’s salvation. They run a constant drip of pieces with titles like:
"Right-Wing Media Use CBO Director's Testimony To Launch Bogus Attack On Stimulus" (Media Matters 2011)
"Memo To Politifact: Conservatives Lie About The Stimulus All The Time" (Media Matters 2011)
"Krauthammer Repeats Myth That Stimulus 'Achieved Practically Nothing'" (Media Matters 2011)
The justification for this economic philosophy comes from John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was a British Economist whose macro-economic theories heavily influenced the world. Keynes theories themselves are sound. The problem comes when the theories are misapplied.
CNN Money interviewed Allan Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon University. Meltzer has been referred to as, “one of the most influential monetarists of the past 50 years.” (CNN Money, 2010) He was an economic advisor for President Reagan and worked in the Department of Treasury during the Kennedy Administration.
This is what Meltzer said regarding the implementation of John Maynard Keynes’ economic principles in the Obama administration:
“He (Keynes) would roll over in his grave if he could see the things being done in his name. Keynes was opposed to large structural deficits. He thought they chilled rather than stimulated the economy. It’s true that we are stuck with large structural deficits now. The goal should be to reduce the deficits, not to take on new spending that makes them worse” (CNN Money, 2010).
So yes, in a sense Obama’s stimulus is stimulating one part of the economy and creating jobs. The problem is this is being done at the expense of other parts of the economy. The left’s job creation numbers do not take into account jobs being lost in another part of the economy. This is like announcing to everyone on the sinking Titanic that everything will be ok because some of the boat is still working fine. This administration has been like a hull-piercing iceberg. We are sinking in debt.
~RC
Comment? Tweet?
Works Cited
CNN. (2011, July 21). European public debt at a glance. Retrieved December 31, 2011, from CNN.com:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/06/19/europe.debt.explainer/index.html
CNN Money. (2010, February 5). How Obama got Keynes wrong. Retrieved December 31, 2011, from
CNN.com:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/04/news/economy/meltzer_keynes.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2010020511&iid=EL
Media Matters. (2011)
Wrong Again, Media Matters
December 31st, 2011
I had a strange encounter with Media Matters, “Senior Fellow”, Eric Boehlert. He was lamenting the delusion that the mainstream media is only jumping on shifts in Obama’s approval rating when they trend downward. Boehlert, a consistent partisan Obama zombie, was cheerleading Obama’s “strong” approval rating of 47%.
This impressed “The Propaganda Czar” enough to tweet thus:
“remember, when Obama's Gallup numbers dipped below 40% it was BREAKING NEWS. today he's 47% w/ Gallup; pundits (and Fox!) yawn; #cantwin” (Boehlert December 26th, 2011 12:16pm).
“Senior Fellow” Boehlert, in his infinite incompetence, could not wait to champion the rise in Obama’s approval rating. He was happy. At last, the brilliant action of Barack Obama was about to pay off.
On December 30th, Gallup made an update:
"President Obama’s job-approval rating has slid back to 41 percent after a brief surge in popularity last week, the latest Gallup poll revealed yesterday." (MILLER, 2011)
Wrong again, Boehlert.
The greatest institution on this blue and green mass of insanity did a little bit regarding our good friend Mr. Boehlert. It really sheds light on the motivation and mentality of the “fellows” at Media Matters.
Can you blame him? Liberals are starved for good news. Obama’s bastardized Keynesian policies are not paying off. The liberal apologists, like Boehlert, are dead set on driving this economy into the gutter with rhetoric that masks the harsh reality of the hole we have dug for ourselves. I say we because WE are all in this together. TOGETHER, we will dig ourselves out.
~RC
It Is The Corporations, Man
December 26th, 2011
Corporations cannot force you to use their product or service. If you don’t want to watch Fox News you can always change the channel to MSNBC. We only have one government. We are forced to be the consumers of its laws.
We can’t decrease the power of the corporation by increasing the power of the government. Campaign contributions are given to congressmen by lobbyists who represent corporations to influence lawmaking. This is a fact. There is no getting around this.
The best way to reduce the power these corporations have over the legislative process is to support candidates who want smaller government. It is insane to think you can limit corporation’s power by increasing the power of their main weapon, government.
When Barack Obama started enacting his legislation it became clear. He wasn’t the man standing against the corporations for the little man. He was standing on the side of his corporate donors against the corporations who did not donate to his campaign.
Candidate Obama had this to say on February 10th, 2007:
“the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests,” “turned our government into a game only they can afford to play. (Schulte, 2011)
That seems to be much different from President Obama who pays back his campaign contributors big.
“nearly 200 of his biggest donors have landed plum government jobs and advisory posts, won federal contracts worth millions of dollars for their business interests or attended numerous elite White House meetings or social events…” (Schulte, 2011)
(Donald H.) ”Gips, a vice president of Colorado-based Level 3 Communications, delivered more than $500,000 in contributions for the Obama war chest, while two other company executives collected at least $150,000 more.” (Schulte, 2011)
“Obama named him ambassador to South Africa. Meanwhile, Level 3 Communications, in which Gips retained stock, received millions of dollars of government stimulus contracts for broadband projects in six states.” (Schulte, 2011)
That is small potatoes compared to federally mandated health insurance. If the Supreme Court decides that the government can force a citizen to buy a product, imagine what the lobbyists would try to force us to buy. They could force all U.S. citizens to buy any product if it were for the greater good. If the government mandated that every U.S. citizen buy and wear a helmet at all times thousands of lives would be saved every year. Do you want to be forced to wear a helmet everywhere? That is equally justifiable as a law forcing citizens to buy health insurance. It is ironic that the supposed biggest anti-corporate candidate is trying to be the president who increases corporate power the most.
This is an area where we see a lot of overlapping in ideas between The Tea Party movement and the Occupy movement. Both movements completely acknowledge the major flaw in our government that allows lobbyists to undermine the legislative process. The Tea Party’s solution just makes the most sense: Reduce the government's control over business and therefore business’ control over government and our lives.
Works CitedSchulte, F. (2011, June 15). Top Barack Obama donors net government jobs. Retrieved December 25, 2011, from Politico.com: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56993.html
~RC
Comments?
Barney's Mammaries
December 19th, 2011
Kim Jong Il is Dead…tired of people saying he’s dead. He’s alive people, I had breakfast with him this morning at Denny’s.
Let’s get to the political news that really matters. Jesus Christ. Did you see what Barney Frank is sporting? Straight up man boobs. Clearly he has begun some sort of gender reassessment regimen. He recently announced that he will not be seeking reelection. It was speculated that this was because of the steep decline in support of Democrats. Now it is clear; Barney Frank is about to be Bernadette Frank.
I say good for Barney Frank. Be who you want. I’m not here to tell you who to be. It is a mistake to classify tolerance of gays with Democrats and intolerance of gays with Republicans. Take my friend Chris Barron (not the Spin Doctors lead singer) for example, he happens to be one of the strongest conservative political minds of his generation. He is the chairman of GOPROUD, a conservative gay organization. Back to the point. We're just having fun here. Here’s Barney Frank’s man boobs!
~RC
Comments?
Liberals Are Like Mistreated Puppies
December 15th, 2011
Have you seen that video of the dogs that were kept in cages their entire life and walked on grass for the first time? It is moving. I admit it, I'm not made of steel. The Green Lantern is the man of steel. No, it was Batman. Yes, Batman is the man of steel.
Those poor animals felt safe in their cage because it was the only life they knew. Once the cage was opened, it took a few minutes for the puppies to even try to step outside onto the grass for the first time.
I bawled.
This is the best analogy for when liberals turn into conservatives. It's true. Conservatives are like the Puppies' Liberators. The puppies' new friends handled their transition to freedom with caring. They did not force, they simply opened the door and waited. Conservatism is to liberals, what freedom is to those puppies. They always felt safe inside their cells. That is the only life they have ever known.
Like the puppies, Liberals have been mistreated. They trusted the wrong people, at the wrong time, and were let down. It is important that conservatives treat the transition from liberalism to conservatism with the same respect. Liberals need to make the decision on their own. It is important that we handle disagreements like the puppies’ new friends. Once they decide to step on the cool grass, they are never the same.
Warning: This video will make you cry. If it does not make you cry, you are probably some kind of psychopathic weirdo and should get checked by a licensed physician.
Link to Video
~RC
Comments?
Newt Gingrich Is Especially Qualified To Be President
December 13th, 2011
Clinton deserves as much credit for balancing the budget
in the 90’s as the cigar gets for the Monica Lewinsky
scandal. Republicans were in control of both houses of congress
when the budget was balanced. A major factor in balancing
that budget was the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Not only is
that the greatest name for anything to come out of
Washington, it worked.
The act was described by the government as:
"a comprehensive bipartisan welfare reform plan
that will dramatically change the nation's
welfare system into one that requires work in
exchange for time-limited assistance. The law
contains strong work requirements, a performance
bonus to reward states for moving welfare
recipients into jobs, state maintenance of effort
requirements, comprehensive child support
enforcement, and supports for families moving
from welfare to work -- including increased
funding for child care and guaranteed medical
coverage,"
The impact of the act was analyzed by Heather Boushey,
Economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.
She found that welfare cases dropped significantly,
5.5% of U.S. households in 1994, to 2.1% of households
in 2001. (Boushey, 2001) One single piece of
legislation cut the welfare population in half.
Newt Gingrich and the Republican controlled congress
in the 90’s achieved this. In order to appear more
conservative, Bill Clinton made a campaign promise
that he would, “end welfare as we know it.” Having
no intention of fulfilling his promise, (see Barack
Obama’s promise to cut the deficit in half by 2010)
Clinton began to concentrate on Health Care Reform.
Enter Newt Gingrich. Newt accused the POTUS of
stalling on welfare reform and announced that the
Republican controlled congress could do it in 90
days. The Republican congress did just that and
Bill Clinton made the smartest move of his presidency
by signing that bill. The 90’s economy roared on
and Clinton was re-elected.
The so called Economic Recovery Act of 2009 reversed
main provisions in the bill that proved to be so effective.
The National Review did a
piece highlighting the changes
and what they mean.
“Given that the states will receive $4 from the federal
government for every $1 they add to their welfare budgets,
even conservative governors will feel pressure to inflate
their welfare rolls in order to wring every dollar they can
out of Washington. And there are early rumblings about
removing the already weak work requirements that rounded
out the Clinton-era reforms.
The Democrats are stuffing years’ worth of legislation
into their “stimulus” bill. They are operating in the
legislative shadows, evading scrutiny and debate, while
enacting an expansion of the welfare state that would
never survive a more considered process. Obama’s
right-hand man, Rahm Emanuel, put it bluntly if cynically:
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Obama
obviously intends to make the most of this one as he proves
that he is, after all, the Second Coming–of Lyndon
Baines Johnson.” (The National Review, 2009)
This is not good. Most people in this country today are
clueless to how much the government has expanded under
Barack Obama. This is the perfect example of how Barack
Obama is not a moderate, bi-partisan, unifier. He took
the most well-intentioned, by-partisan and effective piece
of legislation, and crapped all over it.
On the other side we have Newt Gingrich,
a guy who has been there. His leadership
as Speaker of The House of Representatives
led to the last balanced budget and he had
to drag Clinton there the whole way.
Imagine what America could accomplish with
a guy like that as president.
In today’s climate of imbecilic super committees
failing to even slow the growth of spending over
10 years, we need a President who has been there and done that. We could return to the Gingrich-lead
Clinton policies of the 1990’s that gave us a balanced
budget and a thriving economy, or we can continue on
Obama’s path of unsustainability and unaccountability.
We need Newt Gingrich as The President of The United
States of America.
Works Cited
Boushey, H. (2001, September 27).
The effects of the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act on
working families. Retrieved December 12,
2011, from Economic Policy Institute:
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_viewpoints_tanf_testimony/
The National Review. (2009, February 12). Ending Welfare Reform
as We Knew It. Retrieved December 12, 2011, from The National
Review Online: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226878/ending-welfare-reform-we-knew-it/editors
~RC
Comments?
William F. Buckley Jr. vs Ron Paul
December 11th, 2011
In 1988, conservative hero William F. Buckley hosted a show called “Firing Line”.
“Firing Line” lasted on Television 1,504 episodes for 33 years. From syndication
to PBS, “Firing Line” featured top intellectuals and news makers discussing the
hot issues of the day.
In 1988, Buckley’s guest was Ron Paul. This is a historic debate. William F. Buckley is widely considered one of the
fathers of The Conservative Movement and Ron Paul is considered one of the
fathers of The Libertarian Movement.
Buckley pinpoints major flaws in the libertarian philosophy. This is a great
debate for anyone interested in the similarities and differences between
conservative and libertarian beliefs.
~RC
Comments?
Occupy Wall Street vs. The Tea Party
November 28th, 2011
It is entertaining to see how liberals are
spinning
the Occupy Wall Street protests as if they
are somehow, as David Morris of The Colorado Springs Independent puts it "indeed a mirror image of the Tea
Party."
Indeed a mirror image, indeed Mr. Morris.
The idea that Occupy Wall Street protests or the protesters themselves are a mirror image of The Tea Party
is mentally handicapped. Occupy Wall Street protesters range from filthy hippies to filthy hipsters. One thing they all have in common is they are all bad at basic math. A typical Tea Party protester
has a job or runs a company and can do simple math.
David Morris goes on to say,
"OWS wants to rebuild and strengthen the safety net. The Tea Party wants to weaken it.
Aside from the obvious contradiction between the "Occupy"
protests and strenghtening the safety net, the idea that The Tea Party wants
to weaken the safety net is nonsensical. The reason The Tea Party exists is
to make sure our country stays on good fiscal footing. This country has been
operating paycheck to paycheck for too long. If we continue to ignore the massive
debt and defecits this country has, the safety net crashes, and we all fall.
I'm not going to fake objectivity. I am a conservative. My values are the values of The Tea Party. I think
the difference between OWS and The Tea Party is best explained
by looking at the goals of each movement.
Occupy Wall Street has shyed away from making any actual stances but one message stands out. "Rich people
and corporations should pay more in taxes."
The Tea Party has always been clear about their message. The "Tea" in The Tea Party actually stands for
"Taxed enough already". The Tea Party wants to stop the growth of government.
I think former Republican Speaker of the House Dick Army said it well when he said, "the shot across the bow
as taxpayers defend themselves against out of control government
spending". The government is not only too big, it is growing too fast.
Practically speaking, the government needs to stop growing in order to avoid significant financial meltdown.
The national debt clock is at, $15,061,252,141,492.73 and it is
growing at a rate of $3.98 billion dollars a day.
As we spend more and more, the government needs to either tax more, borrow more, or spend less. The Wall
Street Journal did a study on if we could
tax "the rich" to get to solvency.
They found:
Consider the Internal Revenue Service’s income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data
are available. The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and
capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated
all the taxable income of all the “millionaires and billionaires” Mr. Obama singled out. That yields
merely
about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion
deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.
Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That’s
five times Mr. Obama’s 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing
all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of
all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%.
And lets not forget people. We add almost 3 billion dollars to the deficit every day.
Enough. This vicious cycle ends one way. We need to stop the growth of government. Cut the fat. Outsource
government fuctions. Establish the flat tax and eliminate the IRS. Eliminate duplicitious regulatory agencies.(Fun Fact: Did you know there are
fifteen different agencies that oversee food safety laws?) Replace the Department of Education with a simple computer program. Hire
efficency experts from the corporate world to look at every function of government. These are all good ideas that could get us on our way to stopping the growth of government. Then, we shrink it.
~RC
Comments?
Skateboarding Is Inherently Conservative
.PNG)
November 24th, 2011
I'm glad skateboarding cannot be corrupted by socialism.
Think about it. Every trick you land is yours. If some kook can't pull
as many tricks as you, the government can't take them. Good skateboarders work hard to land tricks. Any given trick needs to be tried over and over.
Imagine the government coming by and taking that trick, and giving it to some poser who didn't work for it.
I bet you would be angry(people don't like you when you're angry). It’s
just like everything else, people who work for things, get things. It doesn't matter if it's skateboarding tricks or dollars. The government can take the cash but they'll never take...our skateboarding tricks!
Just imagine what would happen to skateboarding if the government could punish success like they do in business... Are you finished? Let me help you. Would Chris Cole be as good as he is, work as hard as he does, if he knew half of every trick he owned would be taken from him? The answer is no.
There may be a few Chris Coles out there, but skateboarding would just now be getting to 1980 skill levels. Competetion and simple reward for effort
is what pushes skateboarding, and that will never change. They can't take this from us.
~RC
Comments?
>
Raising Taxes Is Not The Answer
October 24th, 2011
Raising taxes is not the best way to reduce the deficit. Raising
taxes hurts growth. Therefore, the government will always expect more
tax revenue than it will collect. When growth is slowed, this country
loses jobs. Not only does the government lose on income tax revenue, but
will also lose revenue through unemployment benefits.
The goal should always be sustainable growth. This could be
achieved in a number of ways. The way that is tried and true is cutting
taxes. Specifically the capital gains tax and higher bracket income tax.
Also, cut corporate taxes. These measures have been shown to increase
tax revenues and lower the unemployment rate.
~RC
John Edwards: Jerk
July, 30th 2011
In National Enquirer story, John Edwards: Days of Rage, former Democratic
presidential candidate John Edwards’ collateral damage is discussed. The new
problem John Edwards faces is a large bill to the Federal Election Commission
in the amount of 2.3 million dollars. (Eguisquiza, 2011) This large payment is
a huge problem for John Edwards as his daughter, Cate Edwards, is about to have
a very expensive wedding.
An insider is quoted as saying, “She screamed at him, ‘You’ve ruined my wedding!”
(Eguisquiza, 2011) The insider is also quoted in the article as saying, “She broke
down and sobbed, telling her father that he’s ruined the family name and her mother
Elizabeth died heartbroken because of his affair.” (Eguisquiza, 2011) That statement
is referring to John Edwards’ admitted affair.
The article also discusses Edwards’ legal trouble. The former presidential candidate
has been indicted on federal charges that he used campaign contributions to cover up
the affair with his admitted mistress, Rielle Hunter, and their illegitimate child.
This article relates to psychology because Cate Edwards’ apparent emotional outbursts
come after years of standing by her father’s side. It seems obvious that Cate has
definitely had a problem with her father’s behavior that she was unable to express in
a constructive manner. Her standing by her father’s side up until this point has proven
to be a way of repressing those feelings. Once her father’s corruption affected her
directly she blew up and other feelings came out.
This story is valid. Feelings need to be expressed in order to be purged. The way John
Edwards has treated his wife and family is nothing short of despicable. To stand by him
as her mother lay on her death bed must have been very difficult. It was only a matter
of time before she cracked. This insider quote sums up the whole issue, “Cate unleashed
years of pent-up anger, and John just took her tongue-lashing. There was nothing he could
say to her.” (Eguisquiza, 2011)
Works Cited
Eguisquiza, R. (2011, July 29). John Edwards: Days of Rage. Retrieved July 31, 2011, from National Enquirer:
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/john-edwards-days-rage-cate-ruined-wedding
~RC
Back To The Main Page
~RC
Comments?
Liberals Are Like Mistreated Puppies
December 15th, 2011
Have you seen that video of the dogs that were kept in cages their entire life and walked on grass for the first time? It is moving. I admit it, I'm not made of steel. The Green Lantern is the man of steel. No, it was Batman. Yes, Batman is the man of steel.
Those poor animals felt safe in their cage because it was the only life they knew. Once the cage was opened, it took a few minutes for the puppies to even try to step outside onto the grass for the first time.
I bawled.
This is the best analogy for when liberals turn into conservatives. It's true. Conservatives are like the Puppies' Liberators. The puppies' new friends handled their transition to freedom with caring. They did not force, they simply opened the door and waited. Conservatism is to liberals, what freedom is to those puppies. They always felt safe inside their cells. That is the only life they have ever known.
Like the puppies, Liberals have been mistreated. They trusted the wrong people, at the wrong time, and were let down. It is important that conservatives treat the transition from liberalism to conservatism with the same respect. Liberals need to make the decision on their own. It is important that we handle disagreements like the puppies’ new friends. Once they decide to step on the cool grass, they are never the same.
Warning: This video will make you cry. If it does not make you cry, you are probably some kind of psychopathic weirdo and should get checked by a licensed physician.
Link to Video
~RC
Comments?
Newt Gingrich Is Especially Qualified To Be President
December 13th, 2011
Clinton deserves as much credit for balancing the budget in the 90’s as the cigar gets for the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Republicans were in control of both houses of congress when the budget was balanced. A major factor in balancing that budget was the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Not only is that the greatest name for anything to come out of Washington, it worked.
The act was described by the government as:
"a comprehensive bipartisan welfare reform plan that will dramatically change the nation's welfare system into one that requires work in exchange for time-limited assistance. The law contains strong work requirements, a performance bonus to reward states for moving welfare recipients into jobs, state maintenance of effort requirements, comprehensive child support enforcement, and supports for families moving from welfare to work -- including increased funding for child care and guaranteed medical coverage,"
The impact of the act was analyzed by Heather Boushey, Economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. She found that welfare cases dropped significantly, 5.5% of U.S. households in 1994, to 2.1% of households in 2001. (Boushey, 2001) One single piece of legislation cut the welfare population in half.
Newt Gingrich and the Republican controlled congress in the 90’s achieved this. In order to appear more conservative, Bill Clinton made a campaign promise that he would, “end welfare as we know it.” Having no intention of fulfilling his promise, (see Barack Obama’s promise to cut the deficit in half by 2010) Clinton began to concentrate on Health Care Reform. Enter Newt Gingrich. Newt accused the POTUS of stalling on welfare reform and announced that the Republican controlled congress could do it in 90 days. The Republican congress did just that and Bill Clinton made the smartest move of his presidency by signing that bill. The 90’s economy roared on and Clinton was re-elected.
The so called Economic Recovery Act of 2009 reversed main provisions in the bill that proved to be so effective. The National Review did a piece highlighting the changes and what they mean.
“Given that the states will receive $4 from the federal government for every $1 they add to their welfare budgets, even conservative governors will feel pressure to inflate their welfare rolls in order to wring every dollar they can out of Washington. And there are early rumblings about removing the already weak work requirements that rounded out the Clinton-era reforms. The Democrats are stuffing years’ worth of legislation into their “stimulus” bill. They are operating in the legislative shadows, evading scrutiny and debate, while enacting an expansion of the welfare state that would never survive a more considered process. Obama’s right-hand man, Rahm Emanuel, put it bluntly if cynically: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Obama obviously intends to make the most of this one as he proves that he is, after all, the Second Coming–of Lyndon Baines Johnson.” (The National Review, 2009)
This is not good. Most people in this country today are clueless to how much the government has expanded under Barack Obama. This is the perfect example of how Barack Obama is not a moderate, bi-partisan, unifier. He took the most well-intentioned, by-partisan and effective piece of legislation, and crapped all over it.
On the other side we have Newt Gingrich, a guy who has been there. His leadership as Speaker of The House of Representatives led to the last balanced budget and he had to drag Clinton there the whole way. Imagine what America could accomplish with a guy like that as president.
In today’s climate of imbecilic super committees failing to even slow the growth of spending over 10 years, we need a President who has been there and done that. We could return to the Gingrich-lead Clinton policies of the 1990’s that gave us a balanced budget and a thriving economy, or we can continue on Obama’s path of unsustainability and unaccountability. We need Newt Gingrich as The President of The United States of America.
Works Cited
Boushey, H. (2001, September 27). The effects of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act on working families. Retrieved December 12, 2011, from Economic Policy Institute: http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_viewpoints_tanf_testimony/
The National Review. (2009, February 12). Ending Welfare Reform as We Knew It. Retrieved December 12, 2011, from The National Review Online: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226878/ending-welfare-reform-we-knew-it/editors
~RC
Comments?
William F. Buckley Jr. vs Ron Paul
December 11th, 2011
In 1988, conservative hero William F. Buckley hosted a show called “Firing Line”. “Firing Line” lasted on Television 1,504 episodes for 33 years. From syndication to PBS, “Firing Line” featured top intellectuals and news makers discussing the hot issues of the day.
In 1988, Buckley’s guest was Ron Paul. This is a historic debate. William F. Buckley is widely considered one of the fathers of The Conservative Movement and Ron Paul is considered one of the fathers of The Libertarian Movement.
Buckley pinpoints major flaws in the libertarian philosophy. This is a great debate for anyone interested in the similarities and differences between conservative and libertarian beliefs.
~RC
Comments?
Occupy Wall Street vs. The Tea Party
November 28th, 2011
It is entertaining to see how liberals are spinning the Occupy Wall Street protests as if they are somehow, as David Morris of The Colorado Springs Independent puts it "indeed a mirror image of the Tea Party." Indeed a mirror image, indeed Mr. Morris.
The idea that Occupy Wall Street protests or the protesters themselves are a mirror image of The Tea Party is mentally handicapped. Occupy Wall Street protesters range from filthy hippies to filthy hipsters. One thing they all have in common is they are all bad at basic math. A typical Tea Party protester has a job or runs a company and can do simple math.
David Morris goes on to say,
"OWS wants to rebuild and strengthen the safety net. The Tea Party wants to weaken it.
Aside from the obvious contradiction between the "Occupy" protests and strenghtening the safety net, the idea that The Tea Party wants to weaken the safety net is nonsensical. The reason The Tea Party exists is to make sure our country stays on good fiscal footing. This country has been operating paycheck to paycheck for too long. If we continue to ignore the massive debt and defecits this country has, the safety net crashes, and we all fall.
I'm not going to fake objectivity. I am a conservative. My values are the values of The Tea Party. I think the difference between OWS and The Tea Party is best explained by looking at the goals of each movement.
Occupy Wall Street has shyed away from making any actual stances but one message stands out. "Rich people and corporations should pay more in taxes."
The Tea Party has always been clear about their message. The "Tea" in The Tea Party actually stands for "Taxed enough already". The Tea Party wants to stop the growth of government.
I think former Republican Speaker of the House Dick Army said it well when he said, "the shot across the bow as taxpayers defend themselves against out of control government spending". The government is not only too big, it is growing too fast. Practically speaking, the government needs to stop growing in order to avoid significant financial meltdown. The national debt clock is at, $15,061,252,141,492.73 and it is growing at a rate of $3.98 billion dollars a day. As we spend more and more, the government needs to either tax more, borrow more, or spend less. The Wall Street Journal did a study on if we could tax "the rich" to get to solvency.
They found:
Consider the Internal Revenue Service’s income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data are available. The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the “millionaires and billionaires” Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record. Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That’s five times Mr. Obama’s 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%.
And lets not forget people. We add almost 3 billion dollars to the deficit every day.
Enough. This vicious cycle ends one way. We need to stop the growth of government. Cut the fat. Outsource government fuctions. Establish the flat tax and eliminate the IRS. Eliminate duplicitious regulatory agencies.(Fun Fact: Did you know there are fifteen different agencies that oversee food safety laws?) Replace the Department of Education with a simple computer program. Hire efficency experts from the corporate world to look at every function of government. These are all good ideas that could get us on our way to stopping the growth of government. Then, we shrink it.
~RC
Comments?
Skateboarding Is Inherently Conservative
November 24th, 2011
I'm glad skateboarding cannot be corrupted by socialism. Think about it. Every trick you land is yours. If some kook can't pull as many tricks as you, the government can't take them. Good skateboarders work hard to land tricks. Any given trick needs to be tried over and over. Imagine the government coming by and taking that trick, and giving it to some poser who didn't work for it. I bet you would be angry(people don't like you when you're angry). It’s just like everything else, people who work for things, get things. It doesn't matter if it's skateboarding tricks or dollars. The government can take the cash but they'll never take...our skateboarding tricks!
Just imagine what would happen to skateboarding if the government could punish success like they do in business... Are you finished? Let me help you. Would Chris Cole be as good as he is, work as hard as he does, if he knew half of every trick he owned would be taken from him? The answer is no. There may be a few Chris Coles out there, but skateboarding would just now be getting to 1980 skill levels. Competetion and simple reward for effort is what pushes skateboarding, and that will never change. They can't take this from us.
~RC
Comments?
Raising Taxes Is Not The Answer
October 24th, 2011
Raising taxes is not the best way to reduce the deficit. Raising taxes hurts growth. Therefore, the government will always expect more tax revenue than it will collect. When growth is slowed, this country loses jobs. Not only does the government lose on income tax revenue, but will also lose revenue through unemployment benefits.
The goal should always be sustainable growth. This could be achieved in a number of ways. The way that is tried and true is cutting taxes. Specifically the capital gains tax and higher bracket income tax. Also, cut corporate taxes. These measures have been shown to increase tax revenues and lower the unemployment rate.
~RC
John Edwards: Jerk
July, 30th 2011
In National Enquirer story, John Edwards: Days of Rage, former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards’ collateral damage is discussed. The new problem John Edwards faces is a large bill to the Federal Election Commission in the amount of 2.3 million dollars. (Eguisquiza, 2011) This large payment is a huge problem for John Edwards as his daughter, Cate Edwards, is about to have a very expensive wedding. An insider is quoted as saying, “She screamed at him, ‘You’ve ruined my wedding!” (Eguisquiza, 2011) The insider is also quoted in the article as saying, “She broke down and sobbed, telling her father that he’s ruined the family name and her mother Elizabeth died heartbroken because of his affair.” (Eguisquiza, 2011) That statement is referring to John Edwards’ admitted affair. The article also discusses Edwards’ legal trouble. The former presidential candidate has been indicted on federal charges that he used campaign contributions to cover up the affair with his admitted mistress, Rielle Hunter, and their illegitimate child.
This article relates to psychology because Cate Edwards’ apparent emotional outbursts come after years of standing by her father’s side. It seems obvious that Cate has definitely had a problem with her father’s behavior that she was unable to express in a constructive manner. Her standing by her father’s side up until this point has proven to be a way of repressing those feelings. Once her father’s corruption affected her directly she blew up and other feelings came out. This story is valid. Feelings need to be expressed in order to be purged. The way John Edwards has treated his wife and family is nothing short of despicable. To stand by him as her mother lay on her death bed must have been very difficult. It was only a matter of time before she cracked. This insider quote sums up the whole issue, “Cate unleashed years of pent-up anger, and John just took her tongue-lashing. There was nothing he could say to her.” (Eguisquiza, 2011)
Works Cited
Eguisquiza, R. (2011, July 29). John Edwards: Days of Rage. Retrieved July 31, 2011, from National Enquirer: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/john-edwards-days-rage-cate-ruined-wedding
~RC