If Government Was Responsible For Jack Gilchrist’s Success In Business, Then Government Is EQUALLY Responsible For James Holmes’ Mass Murder Spree

I’ve written a couple of articles that have featured Obama’s idiotic worldview summed up by “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that” remark.  And I’ve received quite a few comments from liberals pointing out that Obama is right.  Why?  Because Jack Gilchrist went to public school and even got a government education loan.

Well, okay.  Government is responsible for our success.

Mind you, Government is equally responsible for damn near every single murder, every single rape, every single gang banging criminal, heck, every single criminal of every stripe, every single scumbag and every single slimeball in America.

Let’s take James Holmes.  Did you know that James Holmes went to a public school?

CASTROVILLE — Adam Martinez and Chris Elkins, Castroville Elementary School classmates of accused Colorado shooter James Holmes, were in shock over the weekend, unable to reconcile their childhood memories of a young man they both agreed was “an exemplary person — he never gave any trouble, and never got in trouble himself.”

Did you know that James Holmes received a government grant for his PhD studies?

James Holmes, the suspect in the Dark Knight Rises shooting rampage at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater that killed 12 people and wounded 58 others, received a prestigious taxpayer-funded stipend from the National Institutes of Health that covered his graduate school tuition.

The federal government education grant that James Holmes received totaled $26,000 and “paid his tuition for the highly competitive neuroscience program at the University of Colorado in Denver,” reports CBS News.

I know this is getting pretty creepy, but did you know James Holmes actually drove on public roads?  Did you know that he even used a public road to get to his kill zone the night of his murder spree?

Ready to strike, on Thursday evening Holmes drove the five miles from his home next to the faculty complex to the multi-screen Century 16 cinema in a sprawling shopping mall.
 
There he bought a ticket for the midnight screening of Dark Knight Rises, the new Batman film, went into the auditorium with other excited cinema-goers, but slipped straight out the back into the car park though the emergency exit, leaving the door lodged slightly ajar.
 
Holmes changed into his body-armour and moved back into the cinema to launch his real-life rampage just as a cacophonous shooting scene erupted on the screen.

Oh, my gosh, I just thought of something that completes the picture: I’ll bet you anything you want to bet me that James Holmes used the internet.

Horrors, I was right:

Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes bought his 6,000-round arsenal legally and easily over the Internet, police said as Holmes was to appear in court Monday.

Holmes, 24, accused of killing 12 people and injuring 58 others inside an Aurora, Colo., movie theater Friday, ordered 3,000 rounds of handgun ammunition, 3,000 rounds for an assault rifle and 350 shells for a 12-gauge shotgun almost as easily as a person orders a book from Amazon.com, police told The New York Times.

He spent an estimated $3,000 at the online sites in the four months before the shooting, police told the newspaper.

My God.  Obama killed those people.  Just as surely as Obama took credit for successful business owners like Jack Gilchrist!!!!

What did Obama say in claiming that Government was responsible for the success of business owners who therefore ought to render unto Obama more in taxes?

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together. (Applause.)

It’s all there.  Public schools, check.  Roads, check.  Government education programs, check.  The Internet, check.

Let’s replay fellow liberal Democrat ideologue Elizabeth Warren (when she’s not being a fake American Indian to dishonestly benefit from the politically correct racist point system of liberalism) to see how she dovetails with Obama:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” Warren said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.”

Let me rewrite this to describe James Holmes:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is anti-human warfare, this is whatever,’” Warren said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got to be a mass murdering psycho on his own. Nobody.

“You built a ‘house bomb’ out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your guns and your ammunition and your explosives and your murder suit to the movie theater on the roads the rest of us paid for; you bought your homicide supplies from workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your ‘house bomb’ because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize all of your guns and ammunition and bombs and your death suit, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.”

Notice that my modified version of Elizabeth Warren’s – as idiotic as it sounds – is every bit as true as the original idiot Warren version???

Barack Obama and the Democrat Party – the same people who are trying to take credit for the success of business owners – are every bit as responsible for James Holmes and every single murdering psycho and every single rapist and every single criminal, etc., etc., etc. as they are for those business owners.  Because all these slimbags and many others benefitted from those public schools, those public roads, those government loans, the internet and the police and fire departments just as much as business owners like Jack Gilchrist ever did.  That is simply a fact.

If you’re saying, “That’s crazy!”  Please understand that if the left is right about business owners, then precisely what I’m saying follows.  Because please find me the murder, rapist, gangbanger, child molester, etc. etc. etc. etc., who never went to a public school, or who never used a public road or bridge, or who never got any kind of government loan or grant, or who never used the internet and I could show you ten thousand who DID.

What the left is trying to claim to justify their messiah Obama is not merely wrong; it is flat-out demonic.

The left is bombarding the airwaves and the blogosphere with claims that business people owe their success to the government.  Why?  Because after all the government gave them education or assistance and built roads and the internet for them.  But by their very “logic” that liberals are claiming credit for every success, they are EVERY BIT AS RESPONSIBLE for every evil thing under the sun.  Because the same stuff that Obama is claiming credit for that gave us successful business owners such as Jack Gilchrist IS THE SAME DAMN STUFF that James Holmes used.

One liberal gave me a link that had the following:

After-all, it is government , we the people, that built the roads, airports, water plants, Internet, and other infrastructure businesses are dependent on. Taxpayers, we the people via teachers and other professions provided the knowledge that allowed the entrepreneur to innovate. […]

After-all, it is government , we the people, that built the roads, airports, water plants, Internet, and other infrastructure businesses are dependent on. Taxpayers, we the people via teachers and other professions provided the knowledge that allowed the entrepreneur to innovate.

The video is a highly edited version of Jack Gilchrist admitting what every single homo sapiens on the planet would acknowledge.  And yet the left cites it as if it’s some kind of giant admission.  Yes, dumbass, I know that.  I also know that James Holmes got the same things.  Please claim him, too.

The next liberal then says:

If you see the unedited remarks the president made and not the edited version Faux news showed you will see what the president was talking about and it was not building your buisiness it was the infrastructure to get your buisiness going like the roads which someone else built, the internet, schools etc.

Yes, stupid, we understand.  The same roads, the same internet, the same schools that James Holmes got.  [Feel free to notice that this idiot is claiming credit for the success of businesses while not even being capable of spelling the word “business” correctly].

After a couple of liberals who decided simple personal attacks was the way to go, the next lefty offered this:

Not only did Obama say that businesses had help from many along the way, and that they didn’t build the roads and bridges, etc. that businesses need in order to function, but Romney agreed with him. Yet Romney still chose to edit Obama’s remarks to make it look as though a business owner didn’t build his own business. And as it turns out, Jack Gilchrist most definitely benefited from government help, receiving millions in government loans and contracts.

Yes, yes, dumbass, Romney knows that the government has built some stuff.  And he probably also knows that James Holmes used it all along the way to being a mass murdering zombie.  Please credit the government for the killings.

And again the liberals who had nothing more than personal attacks, we have this:

1. YOUR parents sent you to public school. If you have a problem with that blame YOUR PARENTS.

2. The fact remains that unless you are independentely weathly like say,.. Mitt Romney you will at some point need help opening your business. Loans from the bank are guaranteed by…(shocker I know) THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Jack Gilchrists dad may have put taken out a second mortagage on his house, but that doesn’t change the fact that he may have ALSO gotten a loan from the government.

And the last one I got:

Michael, so what do you have to say now that it’s been shown he DIDN’T do it on his own but with some government loans? Hypocrite is as hypocrite does.

And, okay.  As I documented, liberals should proudly embrace James Holmes and say, “What a wonderful product of all the stuff we’re claiming credit for.”  Public school, check.  Public road, check.  Internet, check.  GIANT GRANT FROM GOVERNMENT, CHECK.  Go down that list again.  We have the Democrat Party to thank for every mass murderer, every rapist, every pedophile, every gang banger, every criminal, every slimebag.  Every vile insect that preys upon American society got to where they are because of big government.  And that is according to the very same argument that liberals are using to argue that business owners got to where they are because of big government.

Let me go back to James Holmes.  I heard Greg Gutfeld make a funny but true comment about the insanity defense and how contrived it is.  Gutfeld said that it’s funny, but the murderers who claim they’re insane after their crimes somehow never claimed insanity for anything GOOD they did.  And that’s exactly how liberalism is: they have a religious view of the Government that makes it only responsible for everything GOOD.  And they will NEVER own up to anything bad unless they can say, “Bush did it.”  When you’re talking to liberals, you are talking to insane, pathological people who simply cannot think outside of their disturbed, warped, diseased little brains.

So, here’s the deal.  If a liberal says, “The government gave us schools,” YOU say, “James Holmes went to a public school.  Obama’s a murderer.”

If a liberal says, “The government gave us roads,” YOU say, “James Holmes used public roads to kill people.  Obama is a murderer.”

If a liberal says, “The government gives us loans and grants,” YOU say, “James Holmes got government grants and used the money to buy his arsenal.  Obama is a murderer.”

If a liberal says, “The government gave us the internet,” YOU say, “James Holmes used the internet to buy his arsenal.  Obama is a murderer.”

It’s that simple.  It’s a matter of using “idiot judo” to use the sheer stupidity of Democrats against them.

What the hell happened to this country?  How did business owners become successful?  I’ll tell you: they were successful because they studied harder, and worked harder, and took risks to make their dreams come true, and displayed personal responsibility for themselves, and took personal initiative for their own lives, and made good decisions, and practiced fiscal responsibility, and basically did everything that the Democrat Party is trying to destroy today.  Democrats want to tax the success of successful business owners and redistribute the fruits of that success so they can dole it out to failures to reward failure and ultimately so they can buy the votes of failures.

The Democrat Party has just taken stupid to an entirely new level.  The Democrat machine has become like a giant reciprocating engine of moral idiocy that just keeps getting dumber and dumber and dumber with every downward stroke and particularly with every single speech from Obama.

Obama’s ‘If You’ve Got A Business, You Didn’t Build That’ Is Incoherent Marxist Pabulum. Period.

Obama was campaigning in Roanoke, Virginia when this little “spread the wealth around” beauty popped out of him.  (And keep in mind this came out of “a man who never created or ran so much as a candy store”).

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  (Applause.)

     If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

     The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  That’s how we funded the GI Bill.  That’s how we created the middle class.  That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  That’s how we invented the Internet.  That’s how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea.  You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.  (Applause.)

So all these issues go back to that first campaign that I talked about, because everything has to do with how do we help middle-class families, working people, strivers, doers — how do we help them succeed?  How do we make sure that their hard work pays off?  That’s what I’ve been thinking about the entire time I’ve been President.

Now, over the next four months, the other side is going to spend more money than we’ve even seen in history.  And they don’t really have a good argument for how they would do better, but they’re thinking they can win the election if they just remind people that a lot of people are still out of work, and the economy is not growing as fast as it needs to, and it’s all Obama’s fault.  That’s basically their pitch.

The spirit of Obama’s words boils down to EXACTLY what I said about this demon-possessed man in a piece I wrote nearly two years ago titled “Obama’s Government As God Believes It Owns Everything The People Earn.”  To wit: we owe the government EVERYTHING.  We are NOTHING without the government; we are ENTIRELY produced and shaped by government and we could do absolutely nothing to better ourselves apart from politicians and bureaucrats.  The only difference between rich, successful people and poor, unsuccessful people is that the former are better at taking advantage of the benefits of government.  And therefore the Government frankly ought to basically own us and it own absolutely everything we produce – such that whatever the Government DOESN’T take in taxes from us is literally considered a COST to Government.   But Government in its deity is gracious and mercifully allows us otherwise pathologically helpless descendents of monkeys to keep some of what we earned entirely because of all the many Government blessings.

Obama’s remark produces this question: is America a people who have a government or is America a government that has a people?  Obama very firmly believes the latter.

Let me first explain why Obama’s words are just incoherent pabulum.  Obama starts yapping about roads and bridges that were built by government.  But there’s an obvious question: where did the government get the funds to build those roads and bridges?  And is it seriously Obama’s assertion that “the Government” climbed aboard the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria and was the very first entity to stride onto the beach of the New World???

What came first, the chicken or the egg?  I don’t know what YOUR answer is, but Obama’s answer is “The Government came first, and that’s all that really matters.”

Obama’s rant depends entirely upon the assumption that government didn’t even exist at all until Karl Marx invented it.  It depends upon the straw man demagoguery that Republicans are nihilistic anarchists who have actually been trying to dissolve all government.  It depends on the narrative that only Democrats and only Obama want to have ANY government at all.  And that is why quite literally every single success of government in history actually becomes the result of Obama’s policies that Republicans want to stop.

It’s an incredibly weak and idiotic point, and so it isn’t that surprising that Obama would reach to some profoundly contradictory examples to try to substantiate it.

Government gave us the internet.  So of course therefore rich people should be taxed at whatever the hell rate Obama says they should.

Well, “government” didn’t create the internet.  In actual point of fact, the Department of Defense created the internet.  This is a significant distinction because while Obama is massively expanding “Government,” he is in fact annihilating the actual department that created the internet:

“The President signed and supported cuts in the defense budget of close to a trillion dollars that his own Secretary of Defense has said—we’re talking about Leon Panetta, here—are devastating to the military and equivalent to shooting ourselves in the head. This was done with no strategic analysis of the needs of national security and no plan for how to implement the cuts. Even now we don’t know the details of how the cuts are going to be implemented. We do know that they’re planning to cut 200,000 troops. Given the state of the economy, it’s equivalent to laying them off and the military is sending them to the unemployment lines.”

Fact: Obama has said that he will veto any attempt to roll back the massive cuts to the military that gave us the internet.

Fact: Somewhere between 1.1 and 1.5 MILLION defense industry jobs are going to be lost if Obama gets his way and the trillion-dollar cuts of sequestration gut the military that gave us the internet.

Fact: the military didn’t build the damn internet “so that all the companies could make money off the Internet,” you damn disgrace to the presidency; the military built the internet to network computers so that the United States could further protect itself against attack and regain a technological edge that had been lost to the Russians.

[Update, July 23: Even I didn’t realize how wrong Obama was.  It turns out it wasn’t even the MILITARY that created the internet; it was private sector innovators who paved the way to the internet].

Obama says, “That’s how we sent a man to the moon.”  That was a good thing, was it?

I’ve written a couple of articles about the utter and complete devastation to NASA that has befallen that agency in “the age of Obama.”

Space Program: Obama’s Strategy To Turn America Into Banana Republic Moving Like Clockwork

When American Greatness Is Gone, And When NASA = ‘National Aeronautics and Sharia Administration’

Lest We Forget: OBAMA Is America’s Sputnik Moment

Right now, as it stands, Obama has OUTSOURCED the government sector that put a man on the moon TO THE DAMN RUSSIANS.  Obama canceled NASA’s space program and now we are paying the Russians something like $63 million per seat to go into space.  And Obama threw the men and women who basically put that man on the moon that he boasted about out of work.

You need to understand, Obama’s never-before-seen expansion of government into Government isn’t going to create the next internet and it won’t put the first man on Mars.  Rather, it will put a man on his couch on permanent welfare for life as long as he votes Democrat and as long as we don’t run out of somebody else’s money.  Obama’s Government is only intended to massively, MASSIVELY, MASSIVELY expand government dependency of a class of redistribution-loving welfare-sucking pigmy people.  Obama’s policy is not the means to the next great thing; it is the END of greatness.

When Obama pitches roads and bridges and the Hoover Damn and the Golden Gate Bridge, you can actually decipher that as code for “Barack Obama is the most recklessly failed leader who ever lived.”  Remember the “storytelling” that Obama relied on to sell his massive $862 billion stimulus that will actually cost the American people $3.27 TRILLION?  “Shovel-ready jobs”???  Remember that???  Obama’s “storytelling” now is just the same damn bogus “storytelling” he has been selling since he passed that turd stimulus: “Let’s Spend Billions to Fix What the Stimulus Was Supposed to Fix.”  So we went from the “story” of “shovel-ready jobs” to the new “storyline” of “Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected.” to the next “storyline” of “construction workers ready to get dirty right now.”

Let me just round file that “storytelling” into a “How the hell can you be that stupid?” alert.

Obama wants to take credit for public schools, does he?  The public education system has utterly and comprehensively failed American children who are left “waiting for Superman” because government and unions have seized childrens’ futures.  The only reason that public schools continue to exist is because liberals turned the public school system into a monopoly that benefits liberals.  An organization I serve provides monthly support to a Christian private school.  That school is located in a state (California) that is in the bottom ten percentile of schools in the nation for SAT scores.  That school is located in a county (Riverside) that is in the bottom ten percentile of schools in California for SAT scores.  And that Christian school is in the ninetieth percentile in the entire nation for SAT scores.  And politicians and bureaucrats like Barack Obama WILL NOT allow parents to use their tax money to attend such a school; rather they will force most American children to rot in these government schools that are frankly more like prisons today than centers of learning.

Let me simply assure you that Barack Obama is dead frigging WRONG about “without Government there would be no schools!” and present the fact that kids who have escaped Obama’s wildly failed government schools are running circles around the mindless drones that are increasingly being pumped out by union-owned indoctrination factories a.k.a. public schools.

Public schools aren’t a blessing; they are a curse.  Even liberals like Juan Williams have decried the way Democrats have done everything possible to keep disadvantaged children from being able to escape the black hole-orbit of government schools by allowing voucher systems.  Democrats want what their teachers union campaign supporters want: a system whereby unions parasitically exploit the education system to the appalling detriment of children for their cynical political advantage.

Let’s go over the punchline of the sick, twisted, perverted joke Obama is playing on the American people again:

“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

I’ve known quite a few people who started their own businesses.  And what I’ve encountered proves that Barack Obama is a liar without shame.  Because the small business owners I have known were people who risked virtually everything they had built in their lives to borrow enough money to start their businesses.  Because the small business owners I have known were people who worked upwards of a hundred hours a week – basically seven days a week – to get their businesses off the ground.  Because the small business owners I have known were self-made men and women who scratched and then carved out a niche for themselves with the government being FAR more of a burden and hindrance than it ever was a blessing to them.

The Washington Times has this to say about Obama’s stunning idiocy:

“If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” Mr. Obama continued. “Somebody else made that happen.” This claim would come as a surprise to the small-business owners who have invested their lives and life savings in making a go of it. It would be a shock to inventors and innovators who have been the drivers of America’s technological edge. It does make sense, however, coming from someone who has never had a job that didn’t depend on patronage and has spent his entire career getting ahead on identity and charisma instead of creativity and achievement.

“We succeed because we do things together,” the president chimed. He neglected to mention that lately, too much togetherness has been a source of failure. The type of relationships that help lead to success in life, the personal and professional bonds of trust and fellowship, aren’t what Mr. Obama is selling. He’s trying to pitch the idea that everyone in business should be required to take on government as a partner, with himself as a member of the board. He’s discarding the capitalist notion of free association and replacing it with the socialist idea of forced oversight by the state. The anemic economy, high unemployment and skyrocketing debt that are the products of his policies don’t deter Mr. Obama. He envisions a golden age in the future by repeating the failed policies of the past.

The government Mr. Obama worships isn’t a source of economic growth. It retards innovation, prevents jobs from being created and halts business expansion. Government under current management has become the greatest threat to initiative, creativity and wealth generation in American history. Mr. Obama thinks there is no finer force for good than his administration, but it’s a wrecking ball to prosperity. His Cabinet has the least collective private-sector experience of any Cabinet ever. This is the group that thinks unemployment checks and food stamps create jobs, that the public sector creates prosperity and that raising taxes on the productive to transfer it to the unproductive will create growth. The wonder is not that the economy is doing so poorly, but that it hasn’t collapsed altogether.

Mr. Obama has no business talking about business. He has never created anything substantive and doesn’t understand those who have made it their life’s work. This president only invented the stories and people he made up for his purported autobiography, assuming somebody else didn’t make that happen.

When you consider what small businesses really are and what they have to overcome in order to succeed, you will understand that Obama’s statements are quite simply demonic.

Update, 7/18/12: I’ve already had liberals say that “Obama didn’t say what he very clearly actually said.”  So let’s show an even clearer version of Obama’s gobblygook to see that what Obama is saying has already been spread through every single liberal roach in the nest:

Elizabeth Warren, pseudo-Native American who lied to falsely advance herself:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” Warren said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.”

That is the SAME argument that Obama was making – and it couldn’t be clearer.  The assertion is that “nobody in this country who got rich on his own.”  Those are the exact words.  And why would Democrats say that?  Because Government built the roads, that’s why.  And therefore the Government is responsible for ALL the wealth that was created.  And therefore those who ONLY succeeded because of Government owe the Government EVERYTHING.  EVERYBODY owes the Government EVERYTHING.  Which is a statement of pure Marxism and which if taken to its logical conclusion justifes the Government in taking over EVERYTHING.

Let me give you a couple of quick examples of where evil ideas like this lead:

1) Liberals say that health care is a universal right that everyone should have and nobody (but rich people) should have to pay for.  Okay.  What about housing?  How is it that health care is a universal right but housing isn’t?  Don’t I have the right to live in a house that somebody else should have to pay for?  What about food?  Why the hell am I forced to pay for my own food when Obama should be giving it to me?  Wht about clothing?  What about transportation?  What about fuel for my transportation?  If health care is a universal right, then ALL of the others and many more things become universal rights.  Becaue there is no way in hell that you can say that everyone has the universal right to health care but nobody ought to have the universal right to housing, to food, to clothing, to transportation, etc. etc. etc.  And the logically necessary conclusion to the first “universal right” is a totalitarian Marxist state in which the State owns you and owns everything around you.

2) A particular example comes from Rahm Emanuel who is taking Obama’s abrogation of illegal immigration to the next logical level.  Obama’s former chief of staff and now Chicago Mayor Emanuel is saying that Obama didn’t go far enough in refusing to enforce federal laws that were passed by Congress and signed into law by a president of the United States.  Emanuel has an out-of-control murder rate that proves that liberalism equals lawlessness.  So he’s in a tight spot and has to get Hispanic voters on his side.  And so now he’s saying he’s more liberal than Obama; Emanuel is a better liberal who can out-liberal the liberal-in-chief.  So Emanuel will go even further in abrogating the law to win his base than Obama went to win his.  And there is simply no end to that.  Until you get to a pure Marxist State for which the Constitution and the constitutional framework of separation of powers is utterly meaningless.

To further attack Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama’s idiotic Marxist rhetoric, both the rich and the poor get to take equal advantage of all the government services.  If you call the cops, does the 911 operator ask you if you are rich and hang up on you if you’re not?  If you pull out of the driveway, does a cop demand your IRS information so that you can show that you are wealthy enough to use the damn road?  It is a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.  And in point of fact the rich paid a much, MUCH bigger share for those roads and those police than the poor ever did.  You are simply a liar if you suggest otherwise.

But some people playing on that level playing field took independent initiative which Marxists around the world hate.  They wanted to better themselves.  And Democrats like Obama and Warren can’t have any of that.  If you take risks, buy a business, work like hell to grow that business, spend all of your energy and time investing yourself and your creativity into that business, well, to quote Obama: “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.”  The welfare-sucking Democrat parasite deserves as much of the wealth produced by your business as you do.  Why?  Because the government built the roads and hired the police and so that business owner built nothing and therefore deserves nothing.

And you will necessarily get Marxism unless and until people start saying, “That is a lie from the devil.  We can’t go there.  We WON’T go there.  We will vote out Obama and Warren and absolutely everybody who believes the hell that they believe.”

You need to understand something: liberalism is half-ass Marxism that will be taken to full-fledge Marxism the moment the left truly is able to take power. 

There’s a problem with Marxism that few liberals bother to think about in their Utopian visions of a world in which everyone has a universal right to everything that Government can provide.  Allow me to quote the question and the Marxist answer that was developed out of necessity because their original premises were so wildly wrong and evil:

Why work?
 
In a challenging paper, Shapiro and Stiglitz (1984) argued that – despite imperfect monitoring – work incentives are preserved in Western economies because those caught shirking face the threat of unemployment and loss of income. The ‘No Shirking Condition’ they derive for wages constitutes the effective labour supply curve for the economy – with labour demand given by its marginal productivity. We apply the same broad logic to the Soviet system in CEPR DP 6621 – but with two significant alterations. First, in deriving the No Shirking Condition for labour supply, custodial sentences replace spells of unemployment-on-benefit as the ‘worker-discipline device’, so the supply price of labour falls not with the numbers of unemployed but with the population of the Gulag. Second, wages are set below the marginal productivity of labour as the dictator exercises monopsony power in the labour market to maximise investible funds.

… The state commands a goodly share of national resources, but wages are pushed down to ‘efficiency’ levels – just high enough to prevent shirking. No-one is unemployed, but many are in labour camps.
 
Ironically, the outcome for labour is as if it faced a greedy capitalist who wanted to maximise profits and had the market power to do so. More than that, the state employer can also manipulate the living and working conditions for those not in civilian employment to further its own ends. To increase investment, for example, prison conditions can be made harsher – so as to lower the supply price of civilian labour and reduce consumption. Where this may lead is what Solzhenitsyn (1963) describes – from first-hand experience – in One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.

You need to understand that everything Obama stands for is a system in which the rich are discouraged from working harder because they are not allowed – and do not deserve – to keep the fruits of what they risked more and worked harder to earn. 

So why work harder at all?  Why even work?  After all, if business owners didn’t build their businesses, who can truly be said to build anything?  Why bother to work to build anything at all?

The penultimate result of that kind of thinking is the Marxist solution.  You will work harder not because we will reward you for working harder – that contradicts our liberal philosophy that some deserve more than others.  No, you will work harder because the State requires that you work harder and you will work harder because otherwise we will put you in a gulag and MAKE you work harder.

That is the logical outcome of where Obama is heading.  History has already proven that time and again.

Let’s see what small business owner Jack Gilchrist says about Obama’s telling him he and his family didn’t build their business:

The Obama Administration’s Clueless Response To The Egypt Crisis

If you look at Obama’s frankly miserable polls, you find that Obama is doing better on the Egypt crisis than any other issue:

February 9, 2011
Obama’s Approval Rating on Deficit Sinks to New Low
Egypt ranks among issues on which Obama is best rated
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ — President Barack Obama’s approval rating for handling the federal budget deficit has gone from bad to worse in recent months, even as his ratings on all other major national issues have generally held steady. Currently, 27% of Americans approve of Obama on the deficit, down from 32% in November, while 68% disapprove.

Overall, Obama is doing much better on international issues than domestic ones. Among eight issues on which Obama was rated in the new poll, Americans give the president the highest approval ratings on foreign affairs and the situations in Egypt and Afghanistan. The deficit, the economy, and taxes rank among his lowest ratings, alongside healthcare policy.

And you find that 47% of those surveyed approved of Obama’s handling of Egypt.  Versus the 27% who approve of his handling of the deficit and the 37% who approve of his handling of the economy.

What is amazing is just what a remarkably incompetent job Obama has done in even his best rated issue.

Obama’s foolish mishandling of Egypt began before most of the rest of the nation knew anything about it.  The CIA said, “We warned of instability.”  And they warned Obama that the Mubarak regime could fall last year.  And like the kid who didn’t bother to start his term paper until the day after it was due, Obama did nothing.

Obama wasn’t “ahead” of the crisis in Egypt; he was so woefully behind and so hostile to actual positive reform it is almost funny.

After the crisis erupted with hundreds of thousands of Egyptians protesting in the streets, the Obama administration offered this pearl of ethical insight:

When asked if Mubarak was a dictator, Biden responded … I would not refer to him as a dictator.”

Said Obama administration observation came out the same day that dictator Mubarak shut down the entire internet in Egypt.

Then there was this penetrating analysis of the stability of the Mubarak regime by Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

The language coming out of the Obama Administration has verged on the bizarre as Egypt lurched into another political showdown in the streets on Friday…

“Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people,” Secretary Clinton said earlier this week…

And as Dr. Phil often asks delusional morons, “How’s that working out for you?”

Then you have Obama’s director of National Intelligence with this unbelievably stupid misrepresentation of reality:

“The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’…is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam,” Clapper said. “They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera…..In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.”

The Brotherhood uses the slogan, “Islam is the answer,” and generally advocates for government in accordance with Islamic principles. The movement has as a broad goal unifying what it perceives as Muslim lands, from Spain to Indonesia, as a “caliphate.”

James Clapper has simply got to go.  Clearly someone “clapped” his little light bulf off, and no one thought to clap it back on again.

What was the motto of this “largely secular” organization again?

“Allah is our objective.
The Prophet is our leader.
Qur’an is our law.
Jihad is our way.
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

I’m sure that sounds “largely secular” to any drooling imbecile you might happen to ask.

That said, if we put drooling imbecile’s in charge of our mainstream media, we’d probably see an improvement.  A lot of the media have depicted the Muslim Brotherhood as though it were the Salvation Army.

What does the FBI have to say about the Muslim Brotherhood?

Muslim Brotherhood, the banned opposition political outfit in Egypt, supports terrorism according to FBI Director Robert Muller. Muller made the statement during a Congressional hearing on Thursday where lawmakers said that the group is using peaceful protests in Egypt to grab power.

 “Elements of the Muslim Brotherhood here and overseas have supported terrorism,” Muller said in response to a question at a hearing on “Worldwide Threats” by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Muller, who refrained to give any further information in an open session, said that the United States has no relationship with Muslim Brotherhood.

What else can we know about the Muslim Brotherhood?

the Muslim Brotherhood or Ikhwan Al Muslimun in Arabic, is frequently mentioned in relation to groups such as Hamas and Al Qaeda. And, although today they may be best known as the largest independent bloc in the Egyptian parliament, they are nearly always invoked as the origins for extremist visions of Islam that root today’s jihadist movements.

The Muslim Brotherhood were the prototypical terrorist organization, in the same way that the Italian Mafia was the prototypical criminal gang organization.  I would submit that it has become rather like the Sinn Féin to the Irish Republican Army.  It is the political and propaganda wing of the armed terrorist movement.

Many of today’s top terrorist leaders, such as #2 overall al Qaeda leader Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, came out of the Muslim Brotherhood.  But that’s nothing, because the #1 overall leader of al Qaeda – Osama bin Laden – came out of it too.

And then there are the words of the current Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohammed Badie:

“Arab and Muslim regimes are betraying their people by failing to confront the Muslim’s real enemies, not only Israel but also the United States. Waging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded. Governments have no right to stop their people from fighting the United States. “They are disregarding Allah’s commandment to wage jihad for His sake with [their] money and [their] lives, so that Allah’s word will reign supreme” over all non-Muslims.”

DNI James Clapper came by his genuine moral idiocy honestly; he caught it from his commander-in-chief.

For the record, one of Obama’s invited guests for his 2009 Cairo speech was the Muslim Brotherhood.  Apparently, Obama wanted them to pursue “democracy” and take over the country.

Since the violence erupted and the Egyptian government began to melt down, Obama has made public statements that the Egyptian foreign ministry said “inflame the internal situation in Egypt.”  Which of course means more riots and more violence.  But that shouldn’t be too surprising, given the fact that we find from the Wikileaks documents that the Obama administration has been backing rebels in Egypt practially since George Bush started moving his furniture out of the White House.

Obama has – incredibly – welcomed a role for the Muslim Brotherhood and that organization’s seventy-year-long push for sharia law as the law of the land in Egypt.

That’s the craziest, most clueless and most incompetent thing of all about this story.

Mind you, Obama hasn’t given a damn that the Coptic Christians are excluded from participating in their government while he pushes for a role for the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood.  All that matters is that the beloved Muslim Brotherhood be included.  This is similar to Obama calling for a brand new mosque to be built near Ground Zero, while doing nothing to help rebuild an existing Greek Orthodox Christian church that got destroyed.  Why doesn’t Obama’s inclusiveness always have a way of excluding Christianity and including Islam?

There’s talk of democracy in Egypt.  It certainly could happen; but it’s totally theoretical at this point.  Right now the only democracy in the Middle East is Israel.  And this is how Israel feels about the situation on their western border:

(Reuters) – If Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday.

Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States as well as its major European allies appeared to be ready to dump a staunch strategic ally of three decades, simply to conform to the current ideology of political correctness.

Obama can either pat himself on the back or walk away from Egypt.  As things go well, Obama was absolutely central to everything (e.g., Chris Matthews having another tingle go up his leg: “it took Obama to have this happen“); as things go poorly, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it.  Meanwhile, Israel has to live next door to whatever happens.  And they’re bitter over Obama’s betrayal of both a historic ally (and just what is the point of being a U.S. ally when Backstabber Hussein Obama will throw you under the bus the nanosecond it’s convenient for him to do so???) and of Israel itself.

The funniest thing of all – after listening to Obama’s speech on the situation in Egypt, in which he inserted himself by using his “this is the moment, this is the time” refrain – was this from ABC’s Jake Tapper:

“Also worth keeping in mind: cant find anyone in O admin who thinks whatever comes next will be better for U.S. interests than Mubarak was”

While I believe that Egypt will not ultimately fall into the terrorist faction of the growing list of rogue Islamist regimes, I can assure you my belief has nothing to do with Barack Obama.

Rather, I would argue that if this is what Obama has done best, then it truly testifies to just how incredibly incompetent and contemptible Barack Obama truly is.

Sheer Moral Idiocy Of Obama Administration On Vivid Display In Egypt Crisis

Coming from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, via the Associated Press:

The language coming out of the Obama Administration has verged on the bizarre as Egypt lurched into another political showdown in the streets on Friday…

“Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people,” Secretary Clinton said earlier this week…

Anyone who has watched so much as five minutes of the completely out-of-control rioting and beatings in Egypt can only conclude that this woman and the administration she represents doesn’t have so much as the faintest inkling of a clue.

Coming from Vice President Joe Biden, via The Hill:

When asked if Mubarak was a dictator, Biden responded … I would not refer to him as a dictator.”

The same day Biden said the above, “president for life” Hosni Mubarak shut down the internet throughout Egypt.  Which was a pretty darned dictatorish thing for him to do.  Yesterday, paid pro-Mubarak thugs started bashing heads.  Very dictatorish of him.

Coming from President Barack Obama, via the Los Angeles Times:

The Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamist organization, in a reformed Egyptian government.

I mean, really, dude?  You actually thought that was a good idea???  I mean, that’s like supporting a role for groups such as the Nazis in a “reformed” German government.  That’s kind of like supporting the role of the Ku Klux Klan in a “reformed” Confederate government.  And, if anything, the qualifier, “But only if they promise to behave” is even more breathtakingly stupid. 

Let’s see, what was the Muslim Brotherhood’s motto again?

• Allah is our objective.
• The prophet is our leader.
• Qur’an is our law.
• Jihad is our way.
• Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

Oh, yeah.  Surely we can work with these guys.  We can have peace in our time dealing with them.

Mainstream media figures are actually giving Obama “credit” for the riots, burnings, beatings and murders in Egypt, saying it flowed from his 2009 speech in Cairo, if you can believe it.  When you are true moral idiots, you see good things as bad and you see bad things as good. 

For the record, one of Obama’s invited guests for that 2009 speech was the Muslim Brotherhood.  Apparently, Obama wanted them to pursue “democracy” and take over the country.

Obama talked about “the passion and dignity” of the Egyptian people as they demonstrated.  Obama told the protesting mob, “We hear your voices.”  Hours later of course, that same mob displayed its passion and dignity by turning violent.

The ironic thing about that – in addition to how totally clueless Obama revealed himself to be – is how President Obama never once spoke of the “passion and dignity” of American Tea Party protestors as they engaged in countless peaceful protests across the USA.  Nor has he ever YET bothered to hear their voices.  It literally seems that to garner Obama’s approval, a crowd has to be a violent foreign Muslim mob.

Since the violence erupted and the Egyptian government began to melt down, Obama has made public statements that the Egyptian foreign ministry said “inflame the internal situation in Egypt.”  Which of course means more riots and more violence.  But that shouldn’t be too surprising, given the fact that we find from the Wikileaks documents that the Obama administration has been backing rebels in Egypt practially since Bush started moving his furniture out of the White House.

I have said earlier, and repeat here, my Bible-based belief that – for all of Obama’s stunning incompetence and incoherence – I believe that Egypt somehow will ultimately not turn into a full-fledged member of the radical jihadist crazy-for-death Muslim nations that will launch a full-scale genocidal war against nuclear-armed Israel.  That said, I am not giving Obama any credit whatsoever for the fact that Egypt will not degenerate into jihadist radicalism.  That issue was settled back in 1979, when Anwar Sadat literally sacrificed his life for peace with Israel.

Obama has tried to represent himself as having a Reaganesque “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” moment; but in reality it is far more like Jimmy Carter’s incredibly stupid act of taking Iran away from the pro-American Shah and giving it to the virulently anti-American Ayatollahs.

Mubarak Not Only Dictator Who Wants To Control Internet (Btw, Our Dictator’s Name Is Barack Too)

Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak is a dictator – that’s right, Vice President Biden, I said “dictator” – who just exercised his dictatorial control by shutting down the internet in Egypt.  From The Wall Street Journal:

In the face of mounting political unrest, Egypt took the unprecedented step of severing all Internet connections and shutting down its cellphone services—with the cooperation of international firms.

Egyptian authorities asked mobile operators to “turn down the network totally,” said Vittorio Colao, chief executive of U.K.-based Vodafone Group PLC, which owns 55% of Egypt’s largest carrier, Vodafone Egypt.

Mr. Colao, speaking Friday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, said the request was legitimate under Egyptian law, but he hoped the government would reverse course soon. […]

Other countries attempting to undermine or contain political uprisings in recent years—from Myanmar in 2007 to Iran and China in 2009—have also clamped down on Internet access and cellphone use.

But Egypt’s crackdown appears unique in both scale and synchronization, particularly for a country with such an advanced infrastructure with so many providers, according to Internet security experts.

“What’s shocking about this is that they didn’t just take down a certain domain name or block a website—they took the whole Internet down,” said Mr. Cowie.

Yes, Hosni Mubarak and the thugs in Myanmar are DICTATORS.  And dictators love to control and suppress information.

But don’t forget our dictator, whose name also happens to be Barack.  He wants to be a dictator, too:

Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet
Published August 28, 2009
FOXNews.com

A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a “kill switch” to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks — a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties.

Details of a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 emerged late Thursday, months after an initial version authored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., was blasted in Silicon Valley as dangerous government intrusion.

“In the original bill they empowered the president to essentially turn off the Internet in the case of a ‘cyber-emergency,’ which they didn’t define,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which represents the telecommunications industry.

“We think it’s a very bad idea … to put in legislation,” he told FOXNews.com.

Clinton said the new version of the bill that surfaced this week is improved from its first draft, but troubling language that was removed was replaced by vague language that could still offer the same powers to the president in case of an emergency.

“The current language is so unclear that we can’t be confident that the changes have actually been made,” he said.

The new legislation allows the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and make a plan to respond to the danger, according to an excerpt published online — a broad license that rights experts worry would give the president “amorphous powers” over private users.

But, hey, it gets even worse in the new and improved version being taken up by the Democrat-controlled Senate this year: now Obama can shut down the internet any vaguely-worded time Obama thinks its necessary without judges having any say-so in the matter:

According to a report Monday at CNET News, the bill will be back on the Senate agenda in the new year. But a revision introduced into the bill in December would exempt the law from judicial oversight. According to critics, this change would open the law to politically-motivated abuse by any administration, no matter how narrowly the law is interpreted.

“The country we’re seeking to protect is a country that respects the right of any individual to have their day in court,” Steve DelBianco, director of the NetChoice coalition, which represents online companies such as eBay and Yahoo, told CNET. “Yet this bill would deny that day in court to the owner of infrastructure.”

“Judicial review is our main concern,” he added. “A designation of critical information infrastructure brings with it huge obligations for upgrades and compliance.”

Under the proposed law, the Department of Homeland Security would draw up a list of Internet “critical infrastructure” it deems vital to the proper functioning of the web and US economy. The president would then be granted the power to order some part of that critical infrastructure to be shut down, in case of a “national cyberemergency.”

While the bill does lay down what constitutes “critical infrastructure,” critics say it’s not clear what constitutes a “national cyberemergency.” Nor is it clear what other powers the president may exert, aside from shutting down parts of the web.

Many people have the unfortunate tendency to fail to see just how quintessentially fascist this president, his party and the cozy liberal media-industrial news complex which undergird that political party truly are.  It wasn’t all that long ago that Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer compared conservative political speech to porn that should be regulated.  Democrats have been calling for some version of a “Fairness Doctrine” regulating and controlling (and even subsidizing leftwing journalists) political speech for years and years.  And the Tucson, Arizona shooting in which Democrats and the mainstream media immediately combined to demonize conservative speech – notwithstanding that conservatives had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the shooting – simply reinforces the mortal danger that free speech is in from the left these days.

All of the above are as fascist as they think they can get away with.  And they keep pushing the envelope toward more fascist big government totalitarianism.

Liberals and progressives want power.  And then they want more power.  And then they want more.  And more.

Frankly, they want to amass enough power so that, as Barack Obama himself put it:

“We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends…“

They want to control people’s lives so that they can be the sole determiners of who wins and who loses.  They want to amass enough power so that they are invulnerable to the will of the people.

As Democrat John Dingell put it:

“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

Obama wants dictatorial power so that he can become a better dictator.  And the only thing that is stopping him is a Constitution that Democrats constantly undermine and a finicky entity called “the people.”  Democrats have already reinterpreted the Constitution into meaninglessness, and the will of the people?

It’s not going so well for him now, but we’re only one election away from tyranny.

We’re sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed.  Please hang up and try your vote again.

Obama Wishes U.S. Could Be Like China

Hot Air jumped all over this stunningly revealing statement from Barack Obama. I figured I might as well pile on:

Everybody’s watching what’s going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics. Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business you’re starting to think, “Beijing looks like a pretty good option.”

Ed Morrissey had this to say by way of comment:

Well, as long as you forget about the oppressive Communist government and the lack of freedom and the Internet filtering and the re-education camps … China sounds really groovy.

Does Barack Obama understand the nature of the Beijing regime? The reason that the government can afford all of this spending is that they control the means of production and the wealth of the nation. They can confiscate what they want at will and spend it where they like. And in Beijing, they spent it where the cameras would be pointed.

Unfortunately, most of what the cameras see is just a facade, as Dale Franks points out at Q&O:The Chinese infrastructure that so enthralls Obama remains decades behind that of the US.  What infrastructure China manages to build, however, gets its energy from oil and coal, not from wind and solar.  China has become the highest emissions nation in the world and shows no sign of slowing itself down over concerns about anthropogenic climate change.  In fact, the air in Beijing is so bad that outdoor Olympics events almost had to be moved.

Meanwhile, the regime where Obama thinks the world would love to do business maintains itself through brutal oppression.  China blocked access to the Internet for international journalists despite promising to allow full access to reporters for the Games.  They arrested reporters covering peaceful protests.  And these are the actions they took while trying to make themselves look good.

If Obama wants us to build up American infrastructure, he can start by ending the flow of American wealth overseas for energy.  Create hundreds of thousands of jobs by building the American energy infrastructure through drilling in the OCS, ANWR, and interior shale formations.  Lower capital-gains tax rates to encourage more investment and generate more revenues (and jobs).

America needs a President who can see past the facades.  Obama has given every indication of gullibility, first with his pledge to conduct presidential-level diplomacy without preconditions with regimes like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, and now in declaring China the place to do business.  Obama isn’t at all ready to lead this nation; he’s not even ready to run a business, with thinking like this.

Barack Obama’s statement on China betrays a fundamentally stupid as well as fundamentally amoral understanding of both the economy and the world.

Is John McCain’s Computer Illiteracy a Problem?

Someone on the Huffington Post featured a video in which John McCain acknowledged that he was computer-illiterate, and asked:

This video appears to be from at least six weeks ago, but no one has really commented on it. Do we want a commander-in-chief who can’t use a computer without assistance?

Well, I suppose someone had better comment on it, then.

Perhaps we should simply crown Bill Gates as our king and be done with it? I mean, his computer know-how put both McCain’s and Obama’s computer knowledge to shame.

And just how much does Barack Obama know about computers? I haven’t heard of him wowing anyone with his mastery of all things silicon.

I find it a little funny that, throughout our nation’s history, we have believed military service was a vitally important aspect to a president’s development. And then when there is a candidate with incredible military experience running against one who never served, it’s trivial. But the ability to play video games on a computer (I frankly don’t even know what they expect a president to do with a computer that John McCain can’t do and Barack Obama can) – never important in our history – is suddenly a decisive weakness?

I look at it this way, aside from the fact that a president probably doesn’t spend a whole lot of time designing, building, or operating computers – but rather relies on the advice of professionals who do those things – there is something else to consider.

Maybe John McCain’s computer-illiteracy will motivate him to keep the government’s paws off the internet (excepting pursuing actual criminal activities).

You want to help build the internet? DON’T TAX IT. But that is tantamount to saying, “Don’t vote for Democrats.” They’re doing everything they can to tax every aspect of the internet that they can.

High-technology and butterflies have one thing in common. If you want them to grow and develop as best they can, leave them alone.

Ronald Reagan, describing Democrats to a “T,” once said: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.” Which is another way of saying Democrats are determined to pretty much kill successful industries and bail out the failed and useless ones.

So I’m actually kind of glad that John McCain doesn’t know diddley about something that government shouldn’t be doing diddley to mess with in the first place.

But I still find it more than amusing that this Huffington Post-er things that it is insignificant for a commander-in-chief of our armed forces to have served in the military – especially during wartime – but that it is somehow vitally important to know how to type a letter using Microsoft Word.

Are Conservatives Lonely On The Internet?

Am I the only conservative who often feels rather lonely on the internet?

There isn’t much in the way of official statistics out there. We have internet campaign donation figures that show Democrats are raising far more money online than Republicans.

I came across a study that found that far more liberals get their news from the Internet than do Republicans. And liberals are far more trusting than conservatives on the media across the board.

When I first started blogging – and I dare say to this very day – I have received far more comments from liberals than from conservatives. Which is kind of weird, considering that my blog is https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com. And the phrase “from a conservative perspective” immediately follows my blog title. It’s not like I’m trying to hide who I am or anything.

I’ve learned a few things.

I’ve learned that married people are far more likely to be conservatives than liberals.

I’ve learned that conservatives are far more likely to be raising children than liberals.

And both institutions leave a lot less time for surfing the internet, don’t they?

There also seems to be a rather clear bias on the Internet against conservatives. Recent stories have come out that Google has been actively discriminating against conservative sites.

But we conservatives have got to hang in there. If we don’t, we will lose the field.

An example is education. By and large, religious people – Christians especially – have been virtually shut out from academia. How did that happen?

Well, they largely did it to themselves. What we find is that for decades, even generations, Christians gave both their time and their money to their churches and to the mission fields, and secular humanists gave their time and their money to universities and to activist organizations such as the ACLU.

As a result, universities – following the money – took on a more and more secular humanist and liberal bent. Christians funded missionaries and preachers and secular humanists funded teachers and lawyers. In spite of the fact that universities in America were overwhelmingly founded by Christians for Christian purposes, universities betrayed their origins and turned against the very people who created them. There has recently been an increasingly successful effort by religious people to take back the field of education amongst all the pagans and infidels, but there is a long way to go.

Conservatives need to keep their foot in the door regarding the Internet, or we will find ourselves shut out. And once the door is closed – as was the case in education – it is very hard to force it open.

I hope you conservative bloggers keep fighting the good fight!

Just so you know, liberals are more likely to be unhappy, and more likely to be angry, according to studies. So that might explain all the vicious and mean-spirited comments you get.

So just remember this: you only have to be around liberals for a little while: they have to live with themselves all the time.