Friday, July 27, 2012

Party Before Country: How Mitt Romney Wins

Aside from the fact that Mitt Romney ran as a Republican in Massachusetts, nothing in his background suggests that he is conservative or Republican in the sense that, say, a senator or representative from Alabama or South Carolina is conservative or Republican.  And for that matter, even those guys have a terrible track record from a fiscal perspective over the past thirty years.  20 of the past 32 years have seen Republican presidents and even a few Republican majorities in Congress, and yet the national debt still went from $1 trillion to $16 trillion.

For whatever reason, the American people continue to persist in the fatally flawed notion that Republicans are better than Democrats when it comes to fiscal responsibility.  The facts don't bear that out: the debt increased 189% under Ronald Reagan, 55.6% under George H.W. Bush, 36% under Bill Clinton, and 89% under George W. Bush.  The debt has gone up by some 45% thus far under Barack Obama. In other words, the Republican presidents were so prolific in heaping up debt that as an overall percentage, the Democrats look better on paper even though Barack Obama's dollar amount of added debt exceeds that of George W. Bush.

Republicans make Democrat deficit explosions possible.

The debt matters.  It matters because eventually the bill comes due in the form of higher yields on Treasuries, and those higher costs to service our debt are passed on to American consumers in the form of higher interest rates for mortgages, student loans, car loans, and credit card debt.  The more money you spend on costs to service your debt, the less money you have to pay off your debt or to purchase actual goods.

What no one wants to say about debt in this economy is that it is crippling to our national security.  Sooner or later, the twin legacies of that debt will be felt together: higher prices due to inflation based monetary policies that are artificially holding interest rates in check will pair with those higher interest rates to devastate American families further.  When the next attack comes to American shores, and it will, we won't be able to afford to go halfway around the world to address our enemies.  We won't be able to afford to continue to fund the most advanced defense and intelligence apparatus here at home to prevent another 9/11.

The economy is the foundation of America's strength.  America's strength does not come from guns, bullets, and bombs.  It comes from an economy that provides unparalleled opportunities to Americans in spite of government interference and ineptitude.  Were it not for our economy and its advances in productivity over the last 33 years, Americans would be destitute with a rate of inflation that took a dollar from 1981 and turned it into 33 cents today.

The Republican Party talks a good game, but it still enables job-killing regulation and deregulation to be passed.  Allowing banks to gamble in the stock market and in the derivatives markets with federally insured deposits was absurd on its face, but that is exactly what the federal government under a Republican Congress did when it passed Gramm Leach Bliley and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act.  Passing yet another layer of regulation when the problems of our economy were due to regulatory non-enforcement wasn't the answer to Enron and Worldcom, but our Congress did just that with Republican help when it passed Sarbanes-Oxley into law. That law was signed by a Republican president.

Projected to cost just $91,000 in annual compliance for a business, it has increased in cost over 40 times to over $4 million.  That's money that can't be used to invest in capital, or to start new projects that would require hiring more employees.

To put it plainly, we can't afford this Republican Party anymore.  They don't defend our jobs.  They don't defend our economy.  They buy into an interpretation of free market economics where fraud is corrected by the market rather than headed off before it can damage the entire market through sensible oversight. We spend hundreds of billions on a national defense apparatus to defend our homeland, but we spend just billions on the economic defense apparatus that makes everything, including our military strength, possible.

As a result, Enron could book future projected profits as current profits. Its profit projections were whatever Jeff Skilling and Andrew Fastow said they were.  Charlatanism and snake oil sophistry have no place in a free market, but the Republican Party has repeatedly opposed any attempt to prevent such conduct by regulators tasked with identifying and preventing fraud.  What is more galling than anything about Enron is that federal regulators approved mark to market accounting at Enron.  They stamped it with the imprimatur of legitimacy, and an entire company lost its way and eventually its existence.

What is all the more worse is the con that is foisted on Americans when Republicans and ideologues insist that our market economy is in fact free.  It is not.  It is one of the most regulated, taxed, and onerously burdened markets in the world.  We lead the world in corporate income taxes, which is silly enough because corporations only externalize the cost of the taxes they pay to their consumers and their employees in the form of higher prices and lower wages.

The answer is not more regulation, it is enforcement of the obvious.  Laws against fraud already exist, and the tragedy of our marketplace is that no one is enforcing those laws.  You can pile regulations and laws on top of each other, but if there is no enforcement, crises will continue.  What will continue alongside those crises are higher costs, fewer job opportunities, and taxpayer funded bailouts.

Today, America is at a crossroads.  Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are, for all intents and purposes, the same candidate where their records are concerned.  We can't afford four more years of the same failed policies and strategies that have defined us over the past thirty years.  No more bailouts. No more lax enforcement of the laws designed to prevent nuclear threats to our economy.  No more free lunches for corporations and the twenty percent of Americans who have negative tax rates.

There is a candidate whose record stands in marked contrast to the two aforementioned men. His name is Gary Johnson.  He cut the size of New Mexico government, and he slashed taxes 14 times without raising them in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1.  He used his veto more than any other governor in the country over his tenure.  He stood for parental choice in education with his proposal for a school voucher program. He's an ardent defender of the Second Amendment, and he personally advocated for concealed carry.

He's a fiscal conservative and an actual limited government Republican, and you know all your need to know about the Republican Party by the fact that they would not let him on the stage.  Instead, Gary Johnson had to go and fight for and win the Libertarian Party's nomination because his party would not have a pro-liberty, pro-fiscal responsibility, pro-gun candidate on the stage to challenge the establishment choice of Mitt Romney.

Today, Americans feel as though they must vote for Mitt Romney by default in order to prevent Barack Obama from having a second term in office. This is a false choice foisted on Americans by a Republican Party that asks Americans to put party before country and common sense.  Nothing about Mitt Romney's fiscal record as governor of Massachusetts, including his long term capital bond debt increases, suggests that he will govern any differently than Barack Obama.  Gary Johnson's record indicates that he will govern with fiscal prudence, because he already did as governor of New Mexico.

Most Americans who are supporting Romney don't even like him or his past record, and with good reason.  He's a former governor who provided taxpayer subsidized abortions as part of Romneycare, whereas Gary Johnson's positions are clearly consistent with traditional limited government Republican beliefs: government cannot be anything other than neutral on social issues at the federal level. No federal funding for clinics performing stem cell research.  No federal funding for abortion.  No abortion after viability.  No federal definitions of marriage.

At long last, Americans have a choice in their presidential elections, a choice with a viable record and executive experience as a state governor.  That choice is Gary Johnson.  The only reason Johnson won't win is if Americans continue to put the party that has left them and their interests behind with job killing regulation, a corrupt lack of enforcement in our financial sector, and federal bailouts of private enterprise ahead of what is best for their country.  The Republican Party has lost its way entirely.  It's time to leave the GOP to its own demise for now and vote in the best interests of your country for the one available candidate whose record suggests he will govern with long overdue fiscal prudence and restraint from the White House.

Gary Johnson is a candidate you can feel good about supporting. His positions on gun control, abortion, taxes, spending, foreign policy, and entitlement reform are consistent with liberty and limited government.  Mitt Romney is simply the default alternative to Barack Obama, and do you want to gamble with your country's future by electing a man whose record in Massachusetts suggests that he won't be any different from Barack Obama?

Gary Johnson isn't going to make excuses.  He didn't complain about the mess he inherited in New Mexico, nor did he blame the legislature.  He simply went out and did what he said he would do.  He balanced the budget, he cut taxes, and he eliminated government jobs.  Can you honestly say that you think Mitt Romney won't be blaming Congress for his lack of achievement, should he be elected in November?

The time has come to reject a party ahead of country approach to our problems, to divorce ourselves from the idea that the Republican Party is the only way.  It is the only way, if you make it the only way.  America was not established for her citizens to grovel before a party establishment.  America was established for the partisans to grovel before her citizens.  The Republican Party has forgotten this, and the Democratic Party never learned this in the first place.  In November, we have a chance to strike a blow for our liberty, our interests, and our principles by voting for a candidate with a record of supporting those liberties, interests, and principles.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Re-Elect Barack Obama: Vote Romney!

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you read the title of this post correctly. Re-elect Barack Obama by voting for Mitt Romney.  Now, before you get angry and stop reading any further, I promise you that I'm going to use the records of both men side by side to make the argument that voting for Mitt Romney is arguably tantamount to voting for four more years of Barack Obama.

Let's take a look at how both men cite Ronald Reagan. First, Barack Obama: 

And now, Mitt Romney: 
Barack Obama is right: Ronald Reagan would not through a Republican primary today, because Mitt Romney would have outspent him to buy the nomination and because the Republican establishment would have endorsed someone like George H.W. Bush over Reagan.  But today, Mitt Romney, 18 years after explicitly disavowing Reagan, can appeal to Reagan's legacy as a means of legitimating his campaign for the Republican nomination for president.  Who else lies to that extent?  Barack Obama.  
Just take a look: 
Now, take a look at what Reagan actually said as a whole in the same speech that Obama and others have selectively excerpted to make it seem as though Reagan was just talking about closing tax loopholes for wealthy Americans: 
"It's also good for society when everyone pays something, when everyone pays a contribution. After all, we're all citizens, equal in the eyes of the law, and equal in the eyes of God."  Hardly a ringing endorsement of a tax code that exempts fully 49.5% of Americans from any federal tax liability whatsoever, with the bottom quintile having a negative tax rate while the wealthiest 20% of Americans foot 90% of the tax burden.  
So, we've established that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both disingenuous men who appeal to the ghost of Reagan when it suits them, albeit dishonestly as hell.  
Our next point regards religious freedom, or the First Amendment, which reads as follows: 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Even with the support of the Catholic left, many of whom broke ranks with the bishops to support Obamacare and who insisted that the ACA would not force Catholic institutions to provide contraception or abortion pills, President Obama decided to allow regulations to be written to do just that.   As a result, Catholics are now suing to prevent the regulations from going into effect, because those regulations would in effect prohibit the free exercise of their religious beliefs and force them to go against their own consciences.  

 In December 2005, Mitt Romney did the same thing by ordering Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts to provide the morning after pill.  Romneycare provided abortions for poor women with co-pays of $100, $50, and $0. When it comes to using the coercive power of government to force religious organizations to provide services and products that directly conflict with their defining convictions, Mitt and Barack are the same.

 President Obama likes to point to the falling unemployment rate as proof that his stimulus plan and jobs policies have worked, but the reality of the matter is that most of credit should go to a contracting labor force.  You see, workers who stop looking for work (which is what you do eventually in an economy where there isn't enough work to go around, as in our economy with six applicants per job) aren't counted in the unemployment statistics.

 Mitt Romney likes to advertise a falling unemployment rate as a sign of his success in Massachusetts, but the truth was that workers in Massachusetts voted with their feet.  Between July 2002 and July 2006, 222,000 more residents left the state than came into it.  This is your jobs miracle, and your drop in unemployment from 5.6 to 4.7 percent.  Massachusetts was 47th in the nation in job creation, even though Mitt's aides are now running about advertising a 30th place ranking based on their own statistical calculation as opposed to the federal calculations. Mitt and Barack on jobs: winning the war on the unemployment rate by getting workers to drop out of the employment race altogether.  One and the same, America!  

 When it comes debt, Barack Obama is the all-time champ at the federal level. The United States is now stretching into its fifth straight year of trillion dollar deficits, and two trillion dollar deficits are now plausible.  However, Mitt Romney left Massachusetts residents with $10,504 in per capita bond debt.  That made Massachusetts the top state in terms of debt over his tenure.  It's like WWE wrestling: Barack is the Heavyweight champion of debt, and Mitt is the Intercontinental champion of debt.  When these two settle their differences in November, one of them will win the Heavyweight belt while America will incur four more years of heavyweight debt!  Winning!

 The fact of the matter is that for all intents and purposes, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have held the same or similar positions on everything from abortions for minors without parental consent to religious employers and institutions being forced to provide abortion pills.  They've also had similar track records on employment and debt.  While Massachusetts state constitution required a balanced budget, Mitt Romney evaded yearly deficits by doing what every other governor had done: he accrued debt through long-term bonds.  $2.7 billion worth, to be exact. 

Romney likes to present himself as a real change for Massachusetts, but he was actually pretty similar to his predecessors. In other words, there's nothing to indicate that Romney will be any different than Barack Obama in the White House.  If Romney is elected as president, he won't be forced to balance the budget every year because he has no constitutional requirement to do so.  He can just add his debt up front. 

 But let's take a look at the signature legislative accomplishment that binds both Romney and Obama: healthcare reform centered around an individual mandate.  The minimal bronze plan purchased through the Commonwealth Connector in Massachusetts has gone from $175 monthly to $275 from 2007-2012.  That's hardly a roaring success for cost containment and affordable healthcare.  Additionally, Massachusetts now spends 54% of its budget on healthcare costs, given its spending on Medicaid and subsidies for health insurance plans.  

In other words, Romneycare hasn't contained healthcare costs a bit. Contrast that with what we now know about Obamacare, which is that the cost of family premiums will hit half of median family income by 2021.  We also know that 1 out of 10 employers will be dropping coverage, which means that families and individuals are going to be going into federal exchanges.  This in turn means that more people will be federally subsidized for the cost of their healthcare.  That means more debt at the federal level. 

 You can also consider that the Romney campaign is now having to answer questions about one difficult fact: Romneycare contained a program known as the Health Safety Net, which enabled uninsured immigrants to walk into any hospital or clinic and receive subsidized care at little or no cost without regard to their legal or illegal status.  Sounds a lot like Obamacare, doesn't it? 

 There's also the matter of the Bush tax cuts, which Romney said he disagreed with in a private meeting with Massachusetts legislators.  So did Barack Obama, by the way. 

 The facts are what they are, and America can vote to re-elect Barack Obama by voting for Mitt Romney. After all, their records in power are nearly identical in many respects: less religious freedom, abortions for minors, taxpayer subsidized healthcare for illegal aliens, fuzzy statistical methods to lower the unemployment rate, rising healthcare costs as a result of their reform legislation, and opposing the Bush tax cuts while denigrating or praising the Reagan-Bush era as it suits their electability or political purposes.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Roundup: To Stupidity and Beyond!

Roundup continues to chronicle the stupidity of human endeavors with today's edition of To Stupidity and Beyond, which begins with Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania saying that tax hikes are inevitable because of an approaching "fiscal cliff."  It's amazing that the fiscal cliff never involves eliminating an actual department of the federal government, or that such fiscal concerns ever motivate Nancy Pelosi to cut back on her government jet travel with its six figure booze tab.  No, no, no, the rich need to pay their fair share, even as the top 20% of Americans foot 90% of the tax burden in this country while some 49.5% of Americans don't pay any federal income tax at all. What about their fair share?  Why is it zilch?

As a result of the Republican Party's feckless conduct on this issue, nearly $600 billion in spending cuts and tax hikes will go into effect in January 2013.  At a time when unemployment is in the mid-20 percent range, you want to raise taxes on the very people who invest in new businesses that drive our economy, which is already suffocating under regulation like Sarbanes-Oxley.  If you want to see how effective Sarbanes-Oxley has been, I have four words for you: Bear Stearns Lehman Brothers.

However, Pat Toomey is staring the fiscal cliff that Republicans enabled by participating in a super committee to solve the deficit. Stunningly enough, it didn't solve the deficit, and staggeringly enough, the $600 million in spending cuts and tax hikes won't solve the deficit, either.   One thing will, and that one thing is three straight elections of kicking incumbent Congressmen to curb.  However, the Democrats are all in on going over the fiscal cliff, with former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean saying on Squawk Box that Democrats should go over the fiscal cliff.

Actually, since we have over $170 trillion in unfunded long-term obligations in addition to our $16 trillion in debt and $2.5 trillion in IOUs to Social Security, we've been over the fiscal cliff for a while now. The question is when are we going to feel impact?  How irresponsible is it of the Democratic Party to advocate taking the entire country over a fiscal cliff just to deny tax relief to the wealthy, who already foot the overwhelming majority of the tax bill in this country just so the natural constituency of the Democratic Party, the 49.5% of Americans who don't pay any federal incomes taxes, can feel as though they're sticking it to the wealthy yet again? The bottom 20% of American taxpayers pay a negative tax rate.  That means that they effectively get money from other Americans for simply existing.

How is that a fair share? No one in the Republican Party is making this simple argument.  The reason is staggering: Americans now believe, after a century's worth of implementing Marxist planks like a progressive income tax and a central bank, that they can justifiably vote themselves the money of others.  The idea that their power to vote is limited those enumerated areas of authority outlined by the Constitution is foreign to most Americans, who feel as if they are entitled to take virtually any amount of money from those who have it.

 And now, in this era of intellectual and fiscal incoherence, people like Howard Dean want to talk about going off of a fiscal cliff.  I could not agree more.  The Republican Party needs to get its knives out and get into a street fight with the same scorched earth, nihilist approach shown by the Democrats.  Don't worry about electoral chances, or anything else: simple obstructionism will suffice. Shut the federal government down. Not for days, not for weeks, for months and possibly even a year.  No more extensions, no more temporary band aids to cover the lack of a budget.  Go to war and shut it all down.

This is not ideological. It's the idea that one's earnings, one's wages and income and capital gains, are one's property.  If the Republican Party cannot find the passion within itself to defend individual property from the constant depredations of Democrats and other parasitic forms of life, then it has no business whatsoever continuing to exist as a viable partisan entity.

A civil war between the Americans who pay income taxes and the Americans who do not, especially the 20% who have a negative tax rate, is long overdue.  It is time to reject the notion that transferring wealth from one party to another is a legitimate purpose of this federal government.  Moreover,  it is time to actually have this fight and to have it all the way to its conclusion. If Pat Toomey and his Republican colleagues in Congress can't get fired up about defending the property of individual Americans, they don't belong in elected office.

And make no mistake about it, it is beyond time to start defending the wages and capital gains of American citizens as their property, and to start saying that individual property is not available for redistribution by the United States federal government. It's time for ordinary Americans who make money and pay taxes to start looking at their wages with a newfound militancy, and to resist being forced to subsidize the lives of those who don't pay any taxes at all.  As for the rest of America, those 49.5% who don't pay income taxes and the 20% who get tax refunds on taxes they don't even pay, it's time for those folks to start considering that America needs their fair share.

 Moving on, the New York Daily News has issued its indictment of Aurora shooter James Holmes's co-conspirators: NRA honcho Wayne LaPierre, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney, as well as millions of American gun fanatics:
Standing at Holmes’ side as he murdered 12 and wounded 59 were the millions of zealots who would sooner see blood flow and lives end than have to check a box on a gun registration form. In a vain claim of innocence, the fanatics will say Holmes is a monster and a maniac, that he fired and fired and fired as a man possessed. Each protestation clamps their fingers with his around the trigger. Because they made sure that virtually everyone, Holmes included, has unfettered legal access to heavy weaponry. And they made sure he was permitted by law to drive to the kill scene with a fully loaded arsenal. Such is the conscienceless extremism of America’s gun lovers that they accept wholesale slaughter as akin to a fatal highway pileup. Accidents happen, in their grotesque view, and so do mass killings by firearms.
Left unspoken by the New York Daily News is that it is unlawful in the State of Colorado to have a firearm other than a handgun in a vehicle unless the chamber is unloaded.  It's unlawful to even possess a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance.  It is a known fact that James Holmes probably violated the former law and definitely violated the latter law, since he was under the influence of 100 mg of Vicodin at the time of the shooting. The Daily News also manages to appeal to the Columbine shootings in its histrionic editorial harangue, even though Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold committed numerous felony violations of federal law in the weeks and months leading up to the Columbine shootings.

It is indisputable that the Harris and Klebold violated both the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968 with their activities, not to mention Colorado laws prohibiting minor possession of a handgun without permission from a parent or legal guardian, or while not under the control of a parent, legal guardian, or grandparent.  The laws were sufficient to render Harris and Klebold's activities illegal, and what is all the more egregious about Columbine is that Jefferson County Sheriff's investigator Michael Guerra had drafted an affidavit to seek a warrant after reading on Harris's website that he was in possession of pipe bombs.

 Harris's site also contained death threats against his former friend Brooks Brown, along with a hit list of individuals he wanted to target.  A year and two months before Harris and Klebold carried out their threats and massacred their classmates, they were both arrested for theft and placed in a juvenile diversion program.  While in the program, Klebold failed a urine test, and Harris continued to maintain a section of his website detailing the guns and bombs he and Klebold were accumulating!

 In other words, laws don't work to prevent anything if you don't enforce them, and the New York Daily News and other liberal left-wing outlets who inevitably appeal to public outrage for support of assault weapons bans and increased gun control ignore reality and the facts when they cite incidents like Columbine to bolster their arguments.  Michael Guerra should be in jail right now as an accessory to murder. However, if you want to see the utter disingenuous quality of the gun control lobby, watch the video below of Eric Holder saying that Americans need to be conditioned into opposing guns.

The NAACP finds itself under scrutiny in Galveston, TX after some 47% of its registration forms were flagged as suspicious and possibly fraudulent.  From Rant Political, and Galveston County Tax Assessor Cheryl Johnson:
In the course of two weeks we received about 1300 registration applications, over 174 received from just three groups – the Voter Participation Center, the LCV Education Fund and the NAACP.  Of the 174 received from these groups, roughly 10% were voters already registered but with a slight variation of their legal name or address, which could have resulted in voters being registered multiple times.
Johnson broke down the number of flagged registrations by group to find out that NAACP's registrations were by and large the most flagged of all: 47%.  Next in line was the Voter Participation Center at 28%. You know the Voter Participation Center by its old name: ACORN. The groups Johnson flagged are all using the same form, and all of the forms include a yellow Post It instructing voters to check or fill in certain boxes.  Given the testimony of Anita Moncrief as to these methods being taught by ACORN, it would appear that the phoenix has risen from the ashes yet again in time for the 2012 elections.

 Our final Roundup item today comes to us courtesy of Iran, which is moving to legalize marriages for girls as young as nine years of age. According to Ali Isfenani, to restrict the marriage age by banning marriages to nine year old girls would be contrary to Islam and Sharia law.  So much fail, courtesy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which exports terror and upholds pedophilia as religious tradition.  And that's your Roundup for Wednesday.  

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Why a Vote for Mitt Romney is Wrong in One Paragraph

"Yes, vote for Gary Johnson or Ron Paul and you may lose.  Vote for Mitt Romney and you may win, at least for awhile.  And dying in your beds many years from now, with your children and grandchildren in government mandated daycares learning sexual mores that conflict with your personal values, and your guns confiscated, and your universal single payer healthcare resulting in treatment delays of a year or more for certain tests or procedures, and your incomes taxed at over 50% to pay for social programs and massive deficits, and the devalued money in your pocket barely sufficient to pay the rent in your government subsidized housing, let alone the food you can barely sustain yourself with due to the fact that it is laden with antibiotics, hormones, and is genetically modified, causing your children begin to develop sexually at seven and eight years of age, will you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance to come back here as young or even middle aged men and women, and tell our enemies who support ever expanding government power and its natural consequences, that they may take our lives and give us false choices with nominees like Mitt Romney, but they will never take our freedom!"

Why Mitt Romney is Stealing Gary Johnson's Vote

After watching the explosion of petulant, churlish resentment from Republican and self-identified voters   over the fact that Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson is seeking to be admitted into the presidential debates, I have decided to stop being civil about the Romney campaign.

For starters, if you think that Mitt Romney is the best possible candidate, and he cannot withstand the threat that the presence of Gary Johnson at a debate presents to his campaign, that says it all about your confidence in Mitt Romney's candidacy.  Don't blame Gary Johnson for standing in marked contrast to Mitt Romney's record and his campaign positions as an actual fiscal conservative and true advocate of limited government.  Blame Mitt Romney for failing to stand as a fiscal conservative and a true advocate of limited government.

The problem with Mitt Romney's campaign is that he ran for the wrong party's nomination.  It would have been appropriate for Mitt Romney to run in the Democratic primary, given his past record of big tax and fee increases, and his advocacy for government mandated and defined health insurance plans.

Mitt's Planned Parenthood questionnaire
Mitt Romney supported state funding for abortions while campaigning for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, he supported sex education for children in schools, and he even held a fundraiser at the home of Phil Frost, an executive of Teva Pharmaceuticals, the company that makes the morning after abortion pill.

Contrast that with Representative Ron Paul, who has always consistently been pro-life, or Rick Santorum, or even Newt Gingrich.  Mitt Romney is not pro-life, he supports the government ramming its ideology about sex down your child's throat in the form of sex-education classes, and he supported using your tax dollars to fund abortions.

Really, he's quite the conservative Republican on all of these issues. You can be proud to throw your support to a man whose positions aren't all that different from Barack Obama.

Mitt Romney also refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony Pro-life Pledge in 2011.  Under Romneycare, there is now a 0$ copay for elective surgical abortions.  It used to be a whopping $50, but that was after Romney's universal care legislation named Planned Parenthood to the advisory board.  He ordered Catholic hospitals to dispense morning after pills in late 2005.  Romney supported Massachusetts laws that enabled a minor to get an abortion by court order over the objection of their parents in 2002.

But let's say you're a social conservative who opposes gay marriage, and you object to Gary Johnson and Barack Obama's liberal positions on the issue.  To the left is a flyer for you to consider in which Mitt and his Lieutenant Governor wish gays a great Pride weekend.

How conservative of him!

Here's a link to videos of Mitt Romney making his views clear on everything from gun control to illegal immigration to the fact that he wasn't trying to return to Reagan-Bush. That's right, your GOP candidate looked at the Reagan-Bush years as something he wouldn't want to return to, because he wasn't even a Republican during those eight years. He was an independent because those years and that administration were so odious to him that he felt the need to distinguish himself!

Actually, let me just give you the video of Mitt Romney denying any Reagan-Bush loyalties way back when so you don't even have to click a link:

But there's more, with Mitt Romney predicting a nationwide mandate approach, which he thought was the best approach:

Today, America has an nationwide mandate approach, and as a result of that mandate approach, insurance premiums will rise to half of the median family income by 2021.  Way to go, Mitt!

Above is Mitt's stance on the Contract with America, where he criticizes it because he doesn't want one side to feel like a bunch of losers.  He wants to get together with them and work on these issues without picking teams, even if it means giving away the farm to the Ted Kennedys of the world.

Paul Singer, head of the hedge fund Elliot Management Group, and an ardent supporter of gay rights, is one of the major bundlers for Mitt Romney's Super PAC even today.  Singer provided the start  up funding for American Unity PAC to lobby Republicans to support gay marriage at the state level. You can feel comfortable that Mitt Romney and his money man Paul Singer are going to represent your conservative views in D.C. because Mitt is a Republican nominee and Republican nominees are instantly more conservative than anybody else.

As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt also pushed through $20 million in funding to start the Department of Early Education and Care, to provide government run daycare and preschool education.  He also appointed the likes of Bright Horizons' co-founder Linda Mason and Commissioner of Education David Driscoll, noted for his promotion of pro-gay programs like Safe Schools and his participation in a 2001 Youth Pride event.  To the right is a picture of Driscoll at the event.

I assume that you're going to explain to me how all of this means nothing now, because beating Barack Obama in 2012 means putting a candidate in his place who has supported damn near every single one of the programs and initiatives that Barack Obama has pushed in the past.  That'll show those liberals!

It was only after Romney knew he was going to run for president in 2008 that he bothered to veto the funding for the implementation of statewide government run and funded daycare, on the grounds that it would cost too much.  Because political future, ladies and gentlemen!  

But just in case you doubt Mitt's commitment to small government ideals, consider his mandatory parental orientation for kids in failing school districts:

… parents of children in our troubled schools need to get more involved. I propose to establish a mandatory parent preparation course to teach parents how they can support their child in school and how they can foster the discipline and hard work that are the cornerstone of education….  the state will fund full day kindergarten in every one of these districts that doesn't have it.

That's small government, Massachusetts' style, people!

But we're not done. Mitt didn't necessarily raise taxes, but he did allow taxes to go up on capital gains after a year's delay. During that year, Massachusetts citizens saved $250 million.  No word on why Mitt didn't fight to save them more money by fighting the automatic tax hike the next year.

But what Mitt did do was try to impose a $10 fee for a state certificate of blindness and $15 for an identification card for blind people. That's all kinds of Republican, right there.  In addition, Mitt wanted to charge $50 for tuberculosis tests in addition to their costs, and if you had tuberculosis, Mitt wanted to charge you another $400 for testing positive.  Romney also proposed a $100 biannual fee for first responders just for the privilege of flashing their lights, as well as doubling EMT certification frees from $75 to $150.  Certifying an ambulance for basic life support equipment went from $200 to $400.  Cremation inspections? He raised them from $50 to $75.  He tripled the gun licensing fee from $25 to $75.  Barber's licenses went from $45 to $68. Fees for nursing applications went from $75 to $100. Change your name? Pay $150, more than double the original $70 fee.

There wasn't anything Mitt didn't look at and say the state government shouldn't be taxing. Given the recent Tax Power logic of the Supreme Court's decision upholding the ACA, you should be very worried.

Do not give me or anyone else the bullshit line that a vote for someone other than Mitt Romney is a vote for Barack Obama. It isn't. It's just not a vote for a Republican Party that left advocates of small, limited government, low taxes, and real conservatism with no candidate in 2012.  Ron Paul would have been a better conservative candidate than Mitt Romney, given his prior record on both social and fiscal issues.  However, the fact that Ron Paul won't invade every country that insults us is taken as a sign of weakness.

Well, maybe Ron Paul doesn't want to pay $1 billion annually to the Taliban for safe passage of humanitarian convoys through Afghanistan.  Maybe he questions why fighting a bunch of uneducated, backwards, fanatical rifle shooters in Western Pakistan and Eastern Afghanistan should cost over $3 trillion in a decade.

But let me make it simple for you by re-writing a scene from Braveheart in a way that drives home the point that a vote for a candidate like Mitt Romney isn't any better than voting for four more years of Barack Obama.  As you insist that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for a candidate who can at least win, who isn't named Barack Obama, I reply with the following:

"Yes, vote for Gary Johnson or Ron Paul and you may lose.  Vote for Mitt Romney and you may win, at least for awhile.  And dying in your beds many years from now, with your children and grandchildren in government mandated daycares learning sexual mores that conflict with your personal values, and your guns confiscated, and your universal single payer healthcare resulting in treatment delays of a year or more for certain tests or procedures, and your incomes taxed at over 50% to pay for social programs and massive deficits, and the devalued money in your pocket barely sufficient to pay the rent in your government subsidized housing, let alone the food you can barely sustain yourself with due to the fact that it is laden with antibiotics, hormones, and is genetically modified, causing your children begin to develop sexually at seven and eight years of age, will you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance to come back here as young or even middle aged men and women, and tell our enemies who support ever expanding government power and its natural consequences, that they may take our lives and give us false choices with nominees like Mitt Romney, but they will never take our freedom!"

If Mitt Romney or Barack Obama win in 2012, it will be because you knelt before a party and gave into your fears, and America will be worse off for it in four years and in forty years because you did not possess the fortitude and the courage to take a chance and demand change by casting a meaningful vote for the available candidates who did stand for limited government and fiscal responsibility, as well as individual liberties.

This isn't about the lesser of two evils. It is about rejecting evil, period. It is about rejecting a partisan establishment that thinks it can give you a false choice and force you to hold your nose and cast a vote for a candidate you don't even believe in or agree with.  Reject this.  Love your country enough to fight for it by taking the path that demands courage, voting for an unlikely candidate whose success would stand as a historic achievement for pro-liberty Americans everywhere and for future generations who will be better off if Mitt Romney and Barack Obama both lose in November.

The reason a documented liberal who advanced left wing policies as governor of Massachusetts is stealing the votes of those who want to vote for a fiscal, limited government candidate in November is because you as Americans cannot find it in yourself to believe that something more is possible if only you make it happen.  Believe, and go forward to make November a referendum on the forces of tyranny and big government who have had their way with this country to the tune of $16 trillion in debt, $2.5 trillion in liabilities to Social Security, and over $170 trillion in unfunded liabilities long term at the federal level alone.  Reject their 25% unemployment or underemployment and the failed stimulus that did not alleviate the suffering of millions of Americans who wanted nothing more than a job.

If Barack Obama wins in November, it will be because you voted for Mitt Romney.  Even if Obama leaves the White House next year, and Romney comes into it, the inexorable conclusion of a Romney presidency is more government, more spending, and more intrusion into the lives of Americans by the federal government.  It is an invitation for already overbearing state governments to go even farther in their abuse of individual liberties.

Mitt Romney won't steal Gary Johnson's or Ron Paul's vote. You are going to give it to him out of cowardice. And for what? So that he can pursue the same failed policies that gave us Barack Obama, the same policies that Barack Obama took to their logical conclusion with an individual mandate and deficit exploding spending policies.  Stand up for your country and reject both of the mainstream candidates for liberty, and show the world that there is still courage here in these United States.

Roundup: Stupidity Up, and a Speshul Comment

Roundup brings you the best and the brightest of the bottom of the barrel, and today's Stupidity Up is brought to you by the usual suspects: governments, mayors, police, individuals exercising no sense whatsoever.  It's also brought to you by individuals who don't necessarily get a lot of coverage at Screed of Momus, but they've earned a speshul comment today.

Our first example of Stupidity Up comes to us courtesy of the International Olympic Committee, which won't be publicly saluting or honoring the slain Israeli athletes of the Munich Olympics on the 40th anniversary of their deaths.  That is because IOC president Jacques Rogge, who competed at the Munich Olympics as fecklessly as he governs the IOC, isn't getting bribed by a bunch of rich Jews to honor the Israeli athletes slain by a Palestinian Black September cell.  Rogge only responds to bribes, you see, because he's a whore IOC bureaucrat, and if you want something besides a private ceremony honoring the Israeli athletes whose murderers danced publicly on television after their massacre was complete, you'd better pony up some cash.

Moving along, New York Mayor and totalitarian wannabe Mike Bloomberg is back in the news for his declaration that the police should go on strike until we give up our guns.  Bloomberg went on Piers Morgan, which is where virtually every soft-brained politico goes these days to rant about idiotic policy positions, and said the following:

Well, I would take it one step further. I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say we're gonna go on strike, we're not gonna protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe.
After all, police officers want to go home to their families, and we're doing everything we can to make their job more difficult, but, more importantly, more dangerous, by leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them and letting people who have those guns buy things like armor-piercing bullets. The only reason to have an armor-piercing bullet is to go through a bullet-resistant vest.

The only reason to have an armor-piercing bullet that can go through a bullet resistant vest is because men like James Holmes wear bullet resistant vests, and because we have politicians like Mike Bloomberg who like the idea of an unarmed populace because it would enable them to rule as they pleased without regard for our rights.  They could do wonderful things like tell us how many kids we could have, where we could work and to what end, establish maximum wage laws, and dictate the size of the soda we could drink.

However, because this is America, Bloomberg's storm troopers and Praetorian Guard members would find themselves faced with a heavily armed populace ready to repel his enforcement measures of tyrannical policies. Despite the fact that the police serve and protect the American people, and the fact that criminals in countries with gun control still manage to get guns, Mike Bloomberg thinks that law-abiding citizens with firearms are the problem.

And they are, if you're the type of Nazi who wants to regulate everything from the size of their soda to the content of their food.  Mike Bloomberg is most certainly that type of Nazi.

Mike should rename the group he co-founded for what it truly is: Mayors Against the Right to Bear Arms.

Let us pause for a moment to realize just how sterling the reasoning and logic employed by Mayor Bloomberg is by watching this video, which chronicles Bloomberg's attempt to remain green by installing a window unit A/C in his SUV.

People, this is the mayor of a major American city.  He's a billionaire, and this is his idea of remaining environmentally sound even though the experts say the emissions from the window unit are as bad as those from an idling SUV.  When Piers Morgan calls you as a fellow liberal stupid, you are in fact incredibly stupid.  It's a badge of honor for anyone else, but for you, it's a mark of shame.

Anytime Mike thinks that his opinion counts, he should reflect on the time he put a window unit in the side of his Suburban, and understand that Americans by and large think that he is an idiot and they have cause for thinking so.

Our final regular Roundup item comes to us courtesy of $474,534 political contributor Vinod Khosla, who has given 86% of his contributions to Democrats.  Now, lest you criticize the man for his unwise giving, consider that it did pay some dividends: $639,000.  That's how much the Air Force purchased of Khosla's alcohol to jet fuel at $59 to a gallon.  Khosla is the venture capital behind Gevo, Inc., the company that made the fuel, and he, like so many other Democratic pigs contributors is lining up at the trough for the next big boondoggle in the alternative energy sweepstakes conceived of and executed by the Obama Administration: a $510 million bonanza for alternative fuels manufacturers.

Mr. Khosla also backed Range Fuels, which received a government guaranteed $64 million loans before going bankrupt.

It's your money, America, or, to be more precise, your future debt to repay.  Seriously. You want to re-elect this guy?

And now it's time for our Speshul Comment.  Yesterday, I wrote a piece entitled Much Ado About Something: Mitt Romney's Taxes.  This is what that piece said two sentences in:

In what has become the most admirable feature of his campaign, he has refused to release the tax returns.

Six sentences in:
Instead of backtracking, Romney should stick to his guns and refuse to release the returns while using this issue as an opportunity to talk about the tax code and government regulation as it relates to jobs in our economy.
The piece went on to note the cost of tax compliance for American individuals and businesses in terms of jobs and dollars, and I argued that on this issue alone, Mitt Romney could make arguments that would win him the White House in November.  For this, I received the following feedback from the following two individuals: 

I give you the Mitt Romney Apologists, America.  I give you Republicans who will be Republicans no matter what, including if it involves voting for a flip-flopper like Romney who was pro-choice before he was pro-life, pro-gay rights before he was against gay rights, and pro-individual mandate before he was against the individual mandate.  The Republicans haven't nominated an actual Republican since Bob Dole in 1996, and before him I'd give you Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.

Note the reasoning of Johntherhino that guided Barack Obama to victory in 2008: if you don't vote for the nominee of the Republican Party, you're brainless.  Well, ladies and gentlemen, if you vote for the ex-governor of Massachusetts when Gary Johnson has the Libertarian nomination and is on every single state ballot for November, you're an idiot.  Stack the records of Romney and Johnson side by side, and Johnson is the Republican.  Who cut taxes and didn't raise state fees? Johnson. Who cut the size of their government?  Johnson.  Who was re-elected in a state with 2 to 1 registered Democrats? Johnson.  Who built a business from the ground up and turned it from 1 employee to over 1,000?  Johnson?  Who has a 100% success rate in business, as opposed to 33 failed business versus 40 or so that broke even or made money?  Gary Johnson.  Who was actually involved in the day to day management of his actual business, as opposed to just investing in somebody else's with leveraged money borrowed from a bank?  Gary Johnson.  Who left his state with surplus?  Gary Johnson.

It's not that I don't respect the right of others to support Mitt Romney.  I do. I don't make a big deal about it, nor do I castigate people for supporting Mitt Romney even though I feel that most of us are doing so out of a knee jerk reaction to support the Republican Party no matter what, or out of the flawed assumption that a vote for anyone else is a vote for Barack Obama. The Republican Party found a way to screw this election up. Were it not for Barack Obama's recent gaffes, Mitt Romney wouldn't stand a chance.  This guy hasn't been fired up about anything related to America for over a year now.

It took Barack Obama sticking his foot up his mouth for Romney to pull his head out of his ass and begin articulating a message that was on point and delivered with passion.  Loving America isn't something you can fake.  Whatever you want to say about Sarah Palin, her love of this country and her convictions about this country were obvious from Day One.  It's the same way with John McCain, Bob Dole, and Ronald Reagan.  Those people gave a shit about this country from Day One and they campaigned with passionate intensity the entire way through.

I didn't get that vibe from Romney.  I never have.  What I got from Mitt Romney was that he loved to be in charge.  He really, really, really wanted to be elected, and he really, really, really wants to be elected. That's not enough for me to support him.  It never will be.

What I get from Gary Johnson is quiet, determined conviction for America.  He's a proven fiscal conservative, a proven advocate of limited government, and he has a track record of executive experience that blows Mitt Romney away.  I've held my fire on Mitt Romney for a while now, and I've even written in his defense with Ragehammers in which I castigated Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for their pathetic left-wing stunts over his tax records.

I don't like Mitt Romney, but I absolutely despise the Left.  Defending Mitt Romney from unfair, misleading, and indecent attacks is the duty of every American who opposes or hates Leftism.  That's not the same thing as a free ride for Mitt Romney.  I've paired my defense of him with public support for Gary Johnson.  I understand that my candidate might lose in November, but I make my decision to vote based on what's best for my bottom line and my country.  Mitt Romney is not the candidate I'll support, because he's not a Republican.  He's not a conservative.  He's not a man who ever practiced fiscal restraint while governor.  He's not a man who ever took a hardline stance against big government while governor.

Just as George W. Bush gave us previously inconceivable deficits that paved the way for Barack Obama to give us year after year of trillion dollar deficits, Mitt Romney paved the way for Obamacare with his Romneycare.  He gave Obama a template to point to, a foundation to build upon and negate Republican objections.  It's unforgivable.  Brainless is supporting a man who, if elected as a Republican, has a prior record that contains every indication that he will govern like a Democrat when another candidate is out there that has a prior record containing sterling fiscal conservatism and limited government credentials.

I'm not going to do it, and if enough Americans could divorce themselves from the flawed idea that the Republican Party, which has turned its back on all of us with its big government legislation and overreach when it has held the White House and both majorities of Congress, is the only way forward.  It isn't.  It isn't, unless we make it so.  We can go somewhere else with our votes, because this time, this one election, we have an actual choice with a candidate who reflects the majoritarian sentiment that our national debt and out of control spending are problems that need to be addressed. We have a candidate who stands for limited government, who actually reduced the size and scope of authority of government while he held executive office. That candidate's name is Gary Johnson, and  it is precisely because I do have a brain and a love of my country that I will be voting for him in November.

I'm not going to bash Mitt Romney.  I'm not going to allow the American Left to hurl specious accusations at Mitt Romney without answering them.  The truth about Mitt Romney is bad enough, but it's the same bad truth that defines the American Left and the manner in which it governs. Think about that when you step into that booth and punch in your choices in November, people.  Think about voting the for the equal of two evils, whose tie-breaking characteristic is only the Republican nomination.

If you want to be speshul, punch that card or bubble in that circle or press that touchscreen for Mitt Romney. Go ahead. He might win.  He might win, but this country will lose yet again because the candidate who would have made the tough decisions for the long term didn't win.

Monday, July 23, 2012

Ragehammer: Homophobia and Chick fil A

Chick fil A, home of the legendary chicken sandwich that has warmed my heart and filled my stomach more times than I can count, now finds itself under siege by a bunch of fucking faggots.  I should preface my use of that term by saying that I'm on record as saying Jay Batman loves the gays, because I do.  I have many gay friends, and I fervently support gay marriage even though a substantial portion of my readers do not.  I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming goddamned majority of my readers don't support my positions on gay marriage (for), the death penalty (against), the pro-death movement (you call it choice, I call it death, tomato, to-mah-to), and state authority (I'm a fucking anarcho-capitalist who believes that societal order springs from one thing and one thing only: voluntary associations and interactions absent coercion; and I further believe in free markets for economies and morality).

Still, my readers have always been fucking good to me.  I average around 30,000 hits a month and I get tremendously positive feedback from 99.9% of the readers who give me feedback.  I get retweets and mentions out the ass on Twitter, with over 4,100 in the past 90 days according to Klout.  I rank in the top 10 Twitter users out of Lubbock, Texas.

My readers and I are bound by our mutual and raging hatred of all things Leftist, and I'm proud to be an American who thoroughly disavows the Left and attacks its methods every goddamned chance he gets.  We can agree to disagree on a lot of things, and gay marriage is one of those things that I've disagreed with many of my readers on time and time again.  My reason is simple: I fucking hate the idea of the federal government defining marriage, and I fucking hate the idea of any government defining marriage for consenting adults.

I'm not just pro-gay marriage, I'm pro-bigamy, and pro-polygamy.  If two or three or four or fourteen goddamned consenting adults want to get together and call it a fucking marriage, it's none of my fucking business. I'm a domestic extremist for liberty and individual choice, and if some poor, dumb, unfortunate son of a bitch wants a matching set of wives, one for each ear, it's not my place to intervene.  If some poor, dumb, unfortunate woman thinks that she can handle three husbands, it's not my fucking place to intervene.  The free market of morality and practical common sense will eventually sort it the fuck out.  The only thing I'd support is a requirement for partition agreements before marriage.  That way, no court has to sort out the property issues that will inevitably arise.

But I digress: Chick Fil A, home of the best fast food chicken sandwich in the history of humanity, finds itself under assault by a bunch of faggots and Ed Helms.  The reason is quite simple: Chick fil A president Dan Cathy went on the radio and said the following:

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."
I give less than half a shit what Dan Cathy's views on the family are, because his fucking chicken sandwich is so delicious I would buy it if Adolf Hitler were president of Chick fil A.  I would buy it and not even think twice about the miniscule amount of money Adolf might be donating to Christian Identity.  If Chick fil A is selling homophobia, then homophobia tastes pretty goddamned good.

Of course, no one in Hollywood or on the gay left is capable of separating a chicken sandwich from the chickenshit that came out of Dan Cathy's mouth on the radio, so a lot of faggots and queens got all pissy about it and had to threaten a fucking boycott.  Well, toss my fucking salad and call me a homophobe after I was nicknamed the Gay Avenger in Constitutional Law for my strident stance on Supreme Court decisions as they pertained to sodomy.

I love gay people because I know gay people, and they're just like me except for the whole dicks in the ass bit.  They drink beer, watch sci-fi, play chess, walk their dogs, go to work, go to law school, treat other people with a modicum of respect that is so lacking in our society full of punk ass people nowadays, and they go shoot guns at the range occasionally too.  They dance with women in clubs to throbbing dance music.  And they generally respect the right of others to disagree with them, so much so that one of my closest gay friends has point blank said that he doesn't want gay marriage.

In other words, they're like us. Their views on gay marriage run the spectrum from total opposition to civil unions to full support for gay marriage to apathy.  There are gay people who molest children, just as there are straight men like one of my uncles who molest children.  There are nice gay people, and there are asshole gay people.

And then there are the faggots, the gay people who get off on trying to be dicks to people who don't agree with them, who like to get up in the face of everything and everyone they perceive as an enemy.  These people make your dick hurt when you're around them, because they're so fucking sanctimonious and full of righteous fervor that you want to beat them in the face with your wang.  I refer to them as the fundies of gay, or, for short, faggots.  They're gay fundamentalists, and like religious fundamentalists, they make my fucking skin crawl with their brain-dead literalism and insistence that anyone who disagrees with their orthodoxy, even just a little bit, is a fucking complete bigot.

Suck my asshole, faggot.  Those goddamned chicken sandwiches are all anyone fucking cares about, and I am pissed off with God for creating Sunday every time I drive by a closed Chick fil A on a Sunday.  Nobody gives a flying fuck what Dan Cathy or any other member of Chick fil A's board thinks about gay marriage.  We're not making a political statement, we're eating a fucking chicken sandwich that happens to be delicious.

This same idiocy made my skin crawl back when the Southern Baptists wanted to boycott Disney for extending benefits to same-sex couples.  It's fundamentally fucking stupid to assume that everyone who buys a product or service from a particular company supports everything that the company promotes or tolerates. Yet that's what fundamentalists on both sides of the divide do over and over again, and they act like the rest of us aren't as fucking good or pure as they are if we don't go along with their fuckery.

It's called a bitch-slap, and it's all I have for those types.  Most Southern Baptists quietly went to Disney that summer, and most gays will quietly go enjoy their chicken sandwiches at Chick Fil A while Ed Helms and his League of Luciferian Faggots hop about on their ten foot tall dick shaped pogo sticks of self-righteousness.

I have full faith that in ten years, gay marriage will be legal and recognized in all fifty states plus the territories of the United States because Americans will come to realize that gay pride parades are in no way representative of the gay community. Seriously, most gay men and women look like slightly more stylish accountants.  On occasion, you meet the dandies, and aren't those guys just fun! They always have the good weed, and I know this because I smoked it with them in my late twenties.

But for right now, in the name of taking a stand for gay rights, a bunch of faggots will engage in faggotry that will only heap up resentment for the wider gay community among ordinary people who don't see the world in an ideologically polarized way.  They aren't uptight dickwads who measure their humanity by the chicken sandwich or chicken nugget combo they don't fucking eat to make a statement for human rights.  They're also the people who looked at Kony 2012 and said "That's fucking stupid."

Let's review successful boycotts that actually worked, shall we? Martin Luther King and his supporters went inside the all-white diners and sat down to make their point.  They didn't bitch on the outside while holding signs.  They went inside and sat the fuck down and got arrested.  Gay men and women aren't going to be arrested for going inside Chick fil A with their rainbow pins and sitting down to make a statement that they're normal, everyday Americans who eat more chikin.  They don't have to be assholes about it, they can just be dignified and fucking normal to drive home the point that viewing gays like exotic animals is completely fucking unfounded and goddamned illogical.

Gay people go to Chick fil A all the time because the food is great and the goddamned service is excellent.  Seriously, Chick fil A treats everyone well.  I've never had a bad experience in a Chick fil A in almost twenty years of eating its food.  I've walked in sweatshirts, in raggedy t-shirts, in suits and ties, and I was always treated well.  I've walked in with flaming gay men and butch lesbians, and we were always treated well.  I've walked in with Mormons, blacks, Satanists, Southern Baptists, Asians, Mexicans, and a fraternity brother who was half-black and half-white.  It made no fucking difference.

Imputing the beliefs of Dan Cathy or his family to the entire franchise as a basis for boycotting everyone of the 1,600 stores is fucking idiotic.  But these are the same faggots who set back gay rights twenty years with their shitty statements in the Eighties.  Take Thomas Victor O'Carroll, who identified as a pedophile and worked with gay rights organizations throughout his career, during which he achieved infamy for writing books like Paedophilia: The Radical Case, in which he advocated normalized sexual relationships with boys as young as seven years old.

Perhaps the Daniel Tsang edited The Age Taboo: Gay Male Sexuality, Power, and Consent with the following statement helped to advance the notion that gay men and women were just regular folks seeking to live regular lives:

"Boy-lovers... are not child molesters. The child abusers are... parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody." 

See, the fundamentalist assholes who think that their pure version of whatever is the only way manage to piss off just enough people who might be reached for a more moderate view to prevent an entire community of gay people from being looked at as, well, gay people.  That's because men like Tsang desperately want to link their pedophilia with fucking homosexuality in order for the latter to legitimate the former. It's bullshit, because men like Tsang and O'Carroll just want to exploit fucking children for their own gratification as opposed to having a relationship with someone their own age built on respect and commonalities in experience.  It's easier to manipulate and control a child.

It's the same bullshit that still follows most mainstream Southern Baptists around to this day, because their convention leaders used to endorse the Nazi regime in Germany.  Now, it's no more fair to impute guilt to those Southern Baptists who wouldn't dream of endorsing Anti-Semitic genocide than it is to impute guilt to those gay men and women who wouldn't dream of trying to manipulate a child into sex with candy and gifts.  Fundamentalist faggots on both extremes of the spectrum ruin a civil dialogue and a mature conversation for the rest of us all the fucking time.

They turn eating a chicken sandwich or watching a television show into a fucking political act or a referendum on one's spiritual or moral condition.  Fuck you, you cunts.  For starters, my relationship with God is my fucking business and His.  I don't have shit to prove to you or anybody else where that relationship is concerned.  The fact that I eat a chicken sandwich from a fast food chain does not mean that I am abdicating my commitment to gay marriage or gay rights.  The fact that millions of evangelical Christians eat at Chick fil A does not make them homophobic bigots.

Reasonable individuals who haven't given their fucking minds over ideology can see this, but fundamentalists cannot.  They exist in a state of polarization, and they have no fucking compunction about trying to force that state of polarization onto the rest of us by demanding that we demonstrate some artificial commitment to human rights or moral principles in the form of abstaining from a chicken sandwich or posting a Facebook status update. It's fucking idiotic, and I hate those faggots.  If Ed Helms and his Luciferian League of Faggots want to boycott something, they can boycott not getting down on their knees and kissing the asses of their fellow man.  Cunts.

Roundup: Keeping Stupid Alive

Today's edition of Roundup chronicles the best efforts of our government and our fellow man to do what they do best: keep the stupid alive.  Yes, we've got it all: a disbarred lawyer from West Virginia trying to practice law in North Carolina, a study that chronicles the obvious fact that a few rich people are keeping $21 trillion in tax havens (why in the hell would they do that?), skyrocketing rates of poverty and unemployment in the United States, and the sixty-six percent of Americans who blame someone other than President Obama for the skyrocketing poverty rate.

We begin with "criminal justice consultant" Grover C. Jones Jr. and his wife Patricia Jones dba Nationwide Criminal Justice aka Nationwide Criminal Justice & Human Rights Services fka Nationwide Criminal Justice Consulting Services Inc.  Grover and his affiliated entities, with their multiplicity of names are all in hot water with the North Carolina bar, which has a major problem with out of state disbarred lawyers offering legal services to inmates.

Jones and his wife were sending out brochures advertising a 'Second Chance for North Carolina Inmates'   which listed services ranging from habeas corpus to work-release to pardons and clemencies.  The wonder of it all is that Jones's license was annulled by the West Virginia bar. In 1979.

Not surprisingly, Jones tried to pull the highly unethical stunt of charging one inmates $4,500 to write a draft habeas petition, only to turn around and attempt to charge the inmate an additional $20,000 to complete the petition. When this failed, Jones and his wife tried to collect from the inmate's family.  The Joneses also hold out their organizations as non-profit entities, because nothing says stupid like rendering legal services through a non-profit entity that isn't actually registered as a non-profit entity.  Grover Jones, for the win, people...and he misses.

Our next item is a study that chronicles the stunningly obvious fact that wealthy people hate to pay taxes as much as anyone else.  As reported by the BBC, James Henry, the former chief economist for McKinsey, has written a study entitled The Price of Offshore Revisited for the Tax Justice Network in which he alleges that the rich have socked away anywhere from $21 trillion to $32 trillion in offshore tax havens.

I for one am fucking shocked. I'm shocked that the Tax Justice Network saw fit to study this issue given the fact that tax justice is apparently socking 20% of the United States taxpayers with 90% of the tax burden, as well as hammering the wealthy in other countries with the overwhelming burden of financing social welfare states with cradle to grave services.  Because freedom, and individual achievement, and responsibility, and hard work, and personal property, and privacy.

The Tax Justice Network advocates against tax havens as though it is their business what anyone else does with their money, how they spend it, and where they keep it.  It isn't, of course, but in keeping the stupid alive, the Tax Justice Network and the liberal class warfare philosophy they represent seem to think that other people's money is their concern.  It is, if you're a thief looking to finance your own life by taking the money and property of other people.  But if you aren't, it isn't.

John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network goes much further in the Guardian article on the subject, because he links the offshore deposits in tax havens to inequality in the world, rather than recognizing that government policies are exacerbating such inequality with their misguided attempts to achieve equality through redistributionist tax codes:
"These estimates reveal a staggering failure. Inequality is much, much worse than official statistics show, but politicians are still relying on trickle-down to transfer wealth to poorer people."
See, politicians shouldn't rely on trickle-down wealth, they should unleash the dam of wealth to drown poorer people by reforming the very tax codes that make depositing money at home less attractive than depositing it in offshore tax havens.  You know, the tax codes that appropriate the money you earned through work or wise investment strategies in order to waste it in government programs that never quite work as advertised.  Maybe while those governments are at it they can get rid of job-killing regulation like Sarbanes-Oxley, which was only supposed to result in $91,000 worth of compliance costs for businesses but instead led to over $4.3 million in costs.  That's only off by about 50 times.

These sorts of regulations, combined with idiotic tax codes, are the very reason companies don't expand their companies and seeking wider investment by going public.  As a result, people who are looking for work can't get any.  People who want more work than they currently have can't find such opportunities, because the good people of the Tax Justice Network and other like-minded organizations are busy constructing a more just, peaceful, and verdant world.

And in other news, our poverty level is about to hit its highest rate since 1965, when the Johnson Administration declared war on poverty and promptly proceeded to exacerbate it with their solutions.  What's more surprising is that only 34% of Americans blame a President whose economic policies haven't produced the results he and his subordinates claimed they would produce.  23% blame Congress, and 20% blame Wall Street despite the fact that congressional regulation and deregulation produced the conditions for the economic collapse.

Those congressional policies were supported by President Obama as a senator and as a candidate for the White House, given that his largest contributions came from the financial sector.  As President, he hasn't done much if anything to prevent yet another economic implosion, instead opting for the symbolic remedies of eliminating overdraft fees and so on and so forth.  You no longer have free checking as a result.

So it is that a President who has continually spouted rhetoric about how these items would fix things hasn't done anything to prevent federally insured banks from gambling with their customers' deposits on derivatives, even after they were burned to a crisp in 2007 for...gambling with their customers' deposits on derivatives.  You no longer have free checking, but at some point in the near future, you will be asked to foot the bill for yet another bailout.  President Obama, and the 66% of Americans who blame somebody else, keeping the stupid alive by missing the point entirely.

That's today's Roundup for Monday, July 23rd.

Much Ado About Something: Mitt Romney's Taxes

Mitt Romney, presumptive Republican nominee for president, has faced an avalanche of calls to release his tax returns for the past 12 years.  In what has become the most admirable feature of his campaign, he has refused to release the tax returns.  It took Mitt Romney over a year, but tax returns and President Obama's "you didn't build that" gaffe toward businesses gave Romney his groove and his identity as a candidate.

Romney came firing back with a speech that has been called the best of his campaign, and his wife showed admirable backbone in steadfastly reiterating that the Romneys will not release their tax returns no matter what.  This, despite the fact that formerly conservative publications like the National Review have called upon the Romneys to do just that.  Instead of backtracking, Romney should stick to his guns and refuse to release the returns while using this issue as an opportunity to talk about the tax code and government regulation as it relates to jobs in our economy.

America is at a crossroads.  Tax compliance costs Americans as individuals and businesses almost as much as the baseline budget of the Defense Department, and the tax code is so byzantine that even tax lawyers don't entirely understand it.  It's over three million words in length, and changes to the tax code occur daily.  It's also disastrously burdensome for small business, because corporations with assets of less than $1 million face $382 minimum in compliance costs for every $100 of tax they actually pay.  By comparison, their larger competitors who have more than $250 million in assets pay just $3 in compliance costs for every $100 they pay in income taxes.

In other words, the tax is disproportionately burdensome for small business owners, especially businesses with less than 20 employees who spent $1,304 per employee on compliance costs, as a 2004 study on the matter concluded.  This was almost twice the per-employee cost for an average large business.

Tax compliance is a parasite on the larger economy, as David Keating of the National Taxpayer Union found in 2009 when he examined the size of the tax compliance industry.  As noted by Arthur Laffer in an opinion editorial for the Wall Street Journal:

"According to his [Keating's] research, as of 2009 the income-tax industry employed "more workers than are employed at the five biggest employers among Fortune 500 companies—more than all the workers at Wal-Mart Stores, United Parcel Service, McDonald's, International Business Machines, and Citigroup combined.""
Laffer's own study estimated a thirty cent compliance cost for every dollar paid in taxes, for a grand total of $431 billion per year in compliance costs.  Most disturbing about Laffer's findings were the costs of compliance that he could not quantify:

"A complete accounting of compliance costs would also include the efficiency losses created when individuals and businesses invest in tax-avoidance activities that lower their tax liability at the expense of creating more jobs and economic growth. These lost opportunities are impossible to measure but could be the largest cost of all."
At a time when Gallup is tracking underemployment among U.S. workers who want full time work but cannot get it at a rate of 17.4%, and official unemployment of 8.1%, Mitt Romney could hammer the real cost of tax compliance and avoided tax liability to the American people in a manner that would decimate Barack Obama's re-election chances.

It isn't that the rich aren't paying taxes, of course. They pay the overwhelming amount of taxes in this country, but no matter how much they pay, their government has historically run deficits or squandered vast sums of money.  The fiscal history of our federal government over the past fifty years alone has been utterly abysmal.  In 1969, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon could not locate or account for how $20 billion of its procurement budget had been spent.  Additionally, the Pentagon could not account for some $30 billion worth of weapons and equipment for foreign orders.  Michael Parenti's book Democracy for the Few chronicles dozens of such instances throughout its various editions in print, and lest you think that things have gotten better, today's Pentagon is even worse, with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitting that his bureaucracy could not account for as much as $2.3 trillion in spending, along with 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin launch units.

This model of fiscal irresponsibility is present throughout the entire federal government, and yet Barack Obama and others who have come before him expect the wealthy in this country to foot the bill for their perpetual fiscal irresponsibility and terrible accounting.  The 1969 loss would be $298 billion in today's dollars, but it is utterly dwarfed by the more than a decade old $2.3 trillion loss of 2001.  The rhetoric of class warfare cannot cover up the fact that the richest government in the world, blessed as it is with the greatest tax receipts in human history, cannot manage to balance its accounts at all.  Why should any American citizen be in a rush to give this government more money?

In an attempt to cover their fiscal irresponsibility, politicians routinely accuse the rich of avoiding and evading taxes, despite the fact that those same politicians have the power to write the tax regulations and pass them into law, and despite the additional fact that those same politicians haven't been able to balance a budget in over four decades.  The blame does not lie with the wealthy in this country, it lies with the elected leaders, and no amount of heated rhetoric over wealth will coverup up the fact that America's elected representatives have betrayed the public stewardship that they were elected to exercise.

Mitt Romney has a message, and that message is the one written above.  Democrats have held majorities in both houses of Congress for far more years than Republicans over the last eighty years, and they have yet to bequeath us anything beyond massive deficits and corrupt tax breaks themselves.

Wealthy Americans shelter wealth overseas because it makes no sense to bring it back home where they'll face punitive tax rates just for moving their money to the United States. When self-preservation is mutually exclusive to the concept of patriotism, it's a sign that government rather than individuals is missing the point.  Governments are instituted among men to secure their rights, not to establish policies that run contrary to the right to life, to liberty, and to property.  Governments are not instituted to establish their own interests; rather, they are instituted to establish the interests of the people they represent as opposed to stirring one faction against the other in resentment.

The points Mitt Romney could make about government regulation and tax policy are myriad, and they have already been made in broadstrokes by men like Newt Gingrich.  Gingrich noted that the initial SEC estimate of compliance costs associated with Sarbanes-Oxley was just $91,000 annually, but it ballooned in real life to $4.36 million.  That's an increase of over 50 times, and before Sarbanes-Oxley, the time for a company to go public was around five years, while afterwards it had stretched to 12 years.

That's devastating for American competitiveness and investment, and many companies now choose to register on foreign stock exchanges as a result.  The effect on jobs cannot be overstated, and taken in concert with the job-killing tax code we have, Mitt Romney has an issue that he can clearly articulate to win in November.  Whether or not he will do so is another matter entirely.   For that matter, given the common ground he has with other Republican candidates like Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul on these two issues, the question is whether or not he will enlist them to fight as a unified front against Barack Obama's re-election campaign, and whether the respective egos of all three men can take a backseat to their desire to do what is best for their country.