Capitalist on Strike!

Liberals will most certainly not be pleased at the divisive, inflammatory rhetoric of the comments from Al Qaeda’s #2. No pun intended.

I wonder of Obama wants to sit down with this guy.

So I’ve been harping on to all my friends and family lately that we need a literacy test or some other kind of citizenship test because most of the voters who determine our national policy either have no stake in government whatsoever or are completely uninformed about the candidates and/or issues. The results of Zogby’s latest poll may inspire feelings of wanting to jump off of a very tall building, so if you haven’t already heard the anecdotal evidence presented by Howard Stern on the stupidity of Obama supporters, prime yourself with a little laughter first:

OK, all set? The results of Zogby’s latest poll suggest that Obama voters aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed. Hold on a sec, I need to put on my surprise face. OK, let’s continue.

Some of my favorites:
36.5% of Obama voters thought Republicans are in control of both Houses of Congress.
86.9% of Obama voters thought Sarah Palin actually said that she could see Russia from her house.
Only 23.4% of Obama voters knew that Obama claimed to have campaigned in 57 states.
Only 28.2% of Obama voters correctly identified Joe Biden as having had to drop out of a previous political campaign because he plagiarized speeches.
Only 17.4% of Obama voters knew that Obama had won his first election by getting all of his opponents kicked off the ballot.
Only 11.6% of Obama voters recognized that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket.
56.1% of Obama supporters were unaware that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground.
81% of Obama supporters were aware that he wanted the government to redistribute the wealth (Excellent! Mob rule in HD!)

Do not despair! In a moment I’ll ask all of you to join me in giving a huge round of applause to the media for the wonderful job they did campaigning for, I mean covering the Obama campaign, but there is some light at the end of the tunnel that I should probably mention, purely for the sake of being fair and balanced. The election of the President of the United States was not determined by a completely uneducated and ignorant mob. There was one issue, absolutely critical to national security and the direction of the nation in general, about which almost all Obamatons were informed. In fact, they were more correctly informed on this issue than any others in the entire survey.

93.8% of Obama supporters knew that Sarah Palin had a pregnant teenage daughter.

Now you can all join me in that round of applause. What the hell, I think this actually warrants a standing ovation.

Official survey results

Added 11/19/08:Interview with John Ziegler, who commissioned the Zogby poll

As a recruiter, these stories are near and dear to my heart. Products of that wonderful government education some of us pay for…

There is a lot going on these Orwellian times that makes my blood boil, but any mention of the Fairness Doctrine is number two on the all time temperature scale, registering just beneath how I felt around 11 p.m. on election night. Feelings of murderous rage towards my fellow man would be putting it mildly.

I’m in the process of plotting my escape from this dying country, but I swear on all that is good in this world that if people who dare to call themselves Americans get the “Fascist Doctrine” reinstated I might spontaneously combust before I can make my exit.

“Media Matters” is the fascist organization that is busy signing up new members to be alerted whenever Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity says something “unfair” about liberals, so that once the fairness doctrine is reinstated, these minions can flood the switchboards with their complaints in order to become such a hassle to broadcasters that they eventually shut down the program (rather than being forced to fill half of their air time with the opposing viewpoint, which has obviously shown not to be profitable for most radio stations. Left wing talk shows usually fail.)

Here are some of the things these “right wing lunatics” have said to get Media Matters’ panties in a wad, according to www.mediamatters.com. I’m going to have a little fun with this one, since it’s Friday. I will attempt to offer a preview of what’s coming to a radio station near you by attempting to offer a fair and balanced counterpoint to the dispicable, right-wing hate speech that follows:

Lee Rodgers: On the September 17 broadcast of his KSFO radio show, Rodgers said that “the female leadership of the Democratic Party” is made up of “ugly skanks.” He also stated: “Sarah Palin’s good-looking and they hate that.” He also declared: “I think we have to ask: Would you like Sarah Palin better if she got pregnant again and did have an abortion, because it’s obvious, with a lot of liberal women, killing babies is the main priority they have.”
Liberal Counterpoint: The female leaders of the Democratic party are beautiful and chaste. Sarah Palin is ugly and killing babies is only one of many priorities that a lot of liberal women have.

“With that screechy, fingernails-on-the-blackboard voice of hers, it is impossible for Hillary Clinton to deliver a great speech.”
Liberal Counterpoint: When Hillary Clinton speaks, an angel gets her wings. Her voice is like silk.

“Well, some women may be offended by this, but here’s another dose of reality. We have a lot of women in this country who get knocked up and they don’t have a husband. In effect, the government becomes Daddy in terms of paying the bills. And that accounts — that’s not all of it, but that accounts for a large part of that vote.”
Liberal Counterpoint: The idea that women are getting pregnant out of wedlock is a lie, and the government doesn’t support irresponsibility by using taxpayer dollars to support unwed mothers. Unwed, knocked-up mothers tend to vote Republican.

Neal Boortz:“[W]hy is it that the people who are being affected by the floods in Iowa and the upper Midwest, why is it that they seem to be so much more capable of taking care of themselves and handling this disaster than were the people of Katrina in New Orleans?” Boortz continued, “I think the answer’s pretty clear, is that up there in that part of the country, you find a great deal of self-sufficiency. Down there in New Orleans, it was basically a parasite class totally dependent on government for their existence.” Boortz described this as being a “cultural issue, not a racial issue.”
Liberal Counterpoint: The victims of Katrina were perfectly self-sufficient, living completely independent of any form of economic aid from the government. They were perfectly capable of taking care of themselves and showed the world how self-sufficient they were when disaster struck, unlike the parasites in Iowa who will probably continue to use the flood as an excuse to remain dependent on government aid for the rest of their lives.

Quinn and Rose:On the November 6 broadcast of The War Room with Quinn & Rose, Quinn compared “slave[s] in the Old South” to welfare recipients today, stating that the “difference” is that “[t]he slave had to work for” the benefits Quinn said they received. Quinn said: “You know, if you were a slave in the old South, what did you get as a slave? You got free room and board, you got free money, and you got rewarded for having children because that was just, you know, tomorrow’s slave. So, you got a free house, you got free money, and you got rewarded for having children. Can I ask a question? How’s that different from welfare? You get a free house, you get free food, and you get rewarded for having children. Oh, wait a minute, hold on a second. There is a difference: The slave had to work for it.”
Liberal Counterpoint: Slaves did not get free room and board in exchange for forced labor, and they were not rewarded for having children. Welfare recipients work very hard for the free room and board they’re provided by the government. They are not rewarded for having children. On the contrary, once a person has one child on welfare, benefits are never increased for having more children. The government would never aid and abet a modern day form of slavery in exchange for votes.

On the October 21 broadcast of The War Room, while reading from an opinion column by conservative blogger Scott Johnson that discussed the history of taxation and property rights in the United States, Quinn declared: “Originally, if you didn’t own land, you didn’t vote, and there was a good reason for it: because those without property will always vote away the property of other people unto themselves, and that’s the beginning of the end.” Quinn added: “But, oh no, that was — that was just too mean-spirited.” Moments earlier, Quinn said, “Now — I mean, I can hear the appeal to the masses: ‘It’s not fair, it’s not the American way that you don’t get to vote,’ but let me ask you a question: If I don’t own anything, what kind of a problem do I have with voting for a measure — a tax, a law — that takes somebody else’s property and gives it to me? I have no stake in personal property ownership ’cause I don’t have any. Now, back in the day, when this was the law of the land, anybody who wanted to vote needed to step up to the plate, achieve, get a stake in America, and then vote.”
Liberal Counterpoint: It is ridiculous to assume that if all people had to do in order to take property away from their fellow man was go to the ballot box and vote a certain way, that they would do something like that! People are wise and will vote on what’s best for the nation, not what’s best for themselves.

G. Gordon Liddy: “[T]he problem that I have is with people who come over here and instead of wanting to become Americans, you know, fly the American flag, learn English, and so forth, they want to fly the Mexican flag, they want to speak Spanish, you know, and other varieties of illegal alien.” Liddy later added: “They want to reconquer America, they say.”
Liberal Counterpoint: People who come to the United States love America for the freedom and prosperity she provides. They would never carry over an allegiance to the countries from which they fled, or a love for a form of government under which they were unable to experience any modicum of prosperity, and they especially wouldn’t fly their flags here. That would be counter-intuitive. They also make every effort to speak English, which is why it’s almost impossible to distinguish. linguistically, between a U.S. Citizen from a Mexican Immigrant. Finally, the idea that there is any sentiment amongst the Mexican population in the Unites States to reconquer America is proposterous. If there were, some ad agency somewhere would have capitalized on it already.

In an Absolute World

The problem is…the truth hurts, and the truth is often offensive. While there is an amendment to the Constitution that guarantees your right to free speech, there is no amendment that protects you from being offended. That’s why people have the freedom of choice. If something is offensive, one can change the channel. Boycott the radio station. Organize a grassroots campaign to boycott the radio’s sponsors. I always thought Liberals were supposed to be so pro-choice? I guess that only applies to the decision of whether or not to dislodge and discard a growing fetus. Changing the channel on a radio station? People shouldn’t be burdened with such an immense responsibility, nor should they be trusted to make the right decision. Let’s leave that in the government’s hands.

So, housin’ is a human right. Hmmm. This picture was taken in New Orleans, where many people are still struggling to get back on their feet after Hurricane Katrina, which hit Louisiana in August of 2005. Over three years ago.

Let’s discuss what the term “human rights” means. Our founding fathers asserted in the Declaration of Independence that we have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

In addition, The Preamble to the Constitution states:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Finally, the fifth amendment to the constitution states that Americans cannot be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

During the historical period in which these documents were created, and throughout history, people have argued about what defines and constitutes natural rights vs. legal rights. The aforementioned documents are our founding fathers attempt to translate what they believed were our natural rights into legal rights.

If you define housing as a natural right for an individual, then you must mean that that person is born into the world with the right to live in a house or shelter of some sort. As far as I know, the earth didn’t originate from the cosmos dotted with houses, trailers, huts, housing projects, etc. Houses are built by man. So when you say you have the right to housing, you’re saying you have the right to live in a house built by another man. But what about that man’s natural rights? Suddenly that man’s “rights” now include “duties,” meaning that he is born into the earth with the responsibility to build a house for another man.

The same is true for “welfare,” or “health care.” Any potential benefit that requires the servitude of one man for the enjoyment of another man goes against our founding principles as a nation, and according to our founding philosophy, man’s natural, or human rights.

There may be people on this earth who follow such a preposterous line of reasoning, that man is essentially born into slavery, but the experiment that was the United States of America was created with a particular framework in mind. “Material security” in any form was never a promise of our form of government, because our founders valued individual freedom over security. They so believed in this idea that a small, ragtag, untrained, out-armed grassroots militia was able to defeat the largest military power on earth in order to make these natural rights the law of the land.

You see, many of these men had known slavery before. They lived under a form of government where law was handed down by a King, who by definition derived his powers directly from God. You were what you were born into, and there was no way to “work your way up.” If you were born into a class that required you to build and maintain the Lord’s Manor (his house), then that’s what you did.

As an American, I am not supposed to have to build anyone’s Manor, even if the “Manor” is a housing project. Liberty and security. Don’t those two words just seem to go together? They both have such warm, fuzzy connotations. It would be nice to have our cake and eat it too, but liberty and security are at odds in any governmental system. That’s why our founding fathers wrote of pursuing happiness rather than having happiness. That’s why they wrote of promoting the general welfare rather than providing for it. By nature, one man’s security cannot be guaranteed without necessarily infringing upon another man’s liberty.

Americans and by extension, our leaders, have been gradually chipping away at the blessings of liberty in order to build golden calves for the cult-worship of security. We’re clamoring for bailouts because we’re terrified of bankruptcy. We want free health care because we’re terrified we won’t be able to pay for it ourselves. We want to specify what words people can say where because we’re terrified of being offended. We want to take away our neighbor’s guns because we’re too afraid of the responsibility of defending ourselves.

The problem is, people really think they can have both. Until recently, we’ve been at a point where the sacrifice of liberty in our day to day lives hadn’t yet reached the point to cause us enough discomfort for us to realize what was missing. People have just assumed, “this is America,” and bad things don’t happen here. We’ll never have a dictator, because we’re too smart to be swayed en masse like those silly Germans who believed everything Hitler told them. We don’t need guns anymore, because the police will make us safe. We have so much money, so why can’t we just spread the wealth around? Do we not have hearts for those who don’t have as much? Americans are too f***ing comfortable, and most of us aren’t going to wake up until Liberty has already left the building. She’s on her way out the door as we speak.

Sometimes I feel like I’m in a nightmare from which I cannot wake. If anyone has read the novel Atlas Shrugged, then you are familiar with the eerie feeling that we’re living out the end game of the novel as we speak.

The Auto Industry Bailout? I don’t even know where to begin. My business isn’t doing so well right now, and many others in the recruiting field are feeling the squeeze right now. You see, what happens to people who make a living out of filling jobs when jobs disappear? They’re no longer necessary. Competition for jobs tends to increase to such a level that companies don’t need to pay a headhunter to go out and find a qualified applicant. Hopefully we’ve done a good enough job with financial planning to survive the slowdown and socialist initiatives currently on the table which will, I’m sure, drive the economy into the ground. I’m sure, however, that many in our business will be forced to seek other lines of work, and I believe this is what should happen to many workers in the auto-industry as well.

The problem is, calories in vs. calories out. What? Was my browser just hijacked to Oprah.com? No, but it’s a good metaphor for why these companies are going bankrupt. It’s not that they don’t have a good product, and it’s not that these companies aren’t making money (they’re making shitloads of it).

Let’s say all the people on the GM payroll are all cells in one big organism that is starving to death despite what seems like sufficient food intake. So, this organism goes to the dr. and asks for help.

The Dr. takes a look at the organism, looks at a bunch of different slides of cells from its body, and comes up with a diagnosis. “GM,” the dr. says, “You appear to be infected with multiple parasites. You’re eating more than enough food to survive, and I’m guessing by your caloric intake you’d probably be quite overweight if it weren’t for the demands being placed on your body by these parasites.”

So, the Dr. tells GM that there are several options available to him. Some of the parasites can be eliminated and some can be shrunk to a more manageable level using certain medications. The Dr. also told him about a controversial new procedure in which he would be injected with competing, beneficial parasites that would seek out and destroy most of the more destructive parasites. These new parasites would still take a toll on the host, but they consume so much less than the other parasites that it would allow GM to start putting on weight again so that he would eventually recover.

GM thinks long and hard about this and puts his head in his hands, scarcely able to handle the weight of the diagnosis he’s just been given. After some time, he lifts his head up and says, “Doc, just give me some more food. I don’t want to hurt the parasites.”

The doctor advises him that this is only a quick fix, and that he will continue to deteriorate while the parasites, left untreated, will continue to grow. Sadly, he didn’t listen, but the doctor was so moved by GM’s plight that he personally drove the man to McDonald’s and bought him one of everything on the menu. At least he could sleep well that night knowing he had bought the man a few more days. Plus, GM had already told him that the Dr. down the street wouldn’t give him any food because he refused to assist in GM’s suicide. He had just bought himself a regular patient.

The US Auto industry is a ponzi scheme and a perfect microcosm of socialism. There are too many undeserved benefits going out, and not enough productivity coming in. There are people who work at non-union plants in the US and abroad who make about half of what union workers in the exact same role make. That basically sets up a situation where the company is paying two workers salary when it should only be paying for one. When you have a growing number of people who haven’t worked for 30 years who are still getting a check every month and a workforce that continues to produce less while demanding more money year after year, something’s gotta give. When the company doesn’t have the option of hiring workers with the exact same skills who would do the job for less, they’re screwed. You only have to look at the performance of the Big 3 vs. the companies in the US and other countries who aren’t being strangled by unions to understand this dynamic.

It’s absolutely absurd, but the democrats, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, etc. don’t care about what works or what doesn’t work. They care about their precious voting block-the unions. The Unions will continue to feast on the Big 3 until there is nothing left but bones. And with Card Check? They’ll just have more hosts to devour.

This bailout isn’t going to save the auto industry, but retirees will keep their bloated benefits, workers will continue to be paid double what they should, and the Democrats will stay in business. Parasites aren’t evil; they’re just taking advantage of an advantageous system. If I could find a recruiting firm who was willing pay me double or triple the going rate whether I fill the position or not, you’d better believe they’d have my resume in a matter of minutes. Who knows, if I were able to land a cushy job like that…I may even send a dollar to the Obama ’12 campaign.

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” -Ayn Rand

Well, we don’t require anyone to actually understand the issues at stake in an election, so I don’t see why the mentally ill, mentally disabled (i.e. someone with an IQ of less than 75), those in the midst of a psychotic break, etc. should be prevented from voting.  Came across this article today and below are some of my intemperate thoughts on the matter.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/31/mentally.ill.voting.ap/index.html

My favorite section of the article:

“Part of the problem is that we haven’t proven that we are a voting block to be reckoned with,” Decker said. “People go after the Hispanic vote, they go after the black vote, but people haven’t figured out that people with disabilities are very dependent on government programs and have an interest in who’s running the government.”

So, if we are going to use this line of logic, I propose allowing children to vote.  Hell, even babies should be given the right to vote.  As soon as they’ve developed the sensorimotor skills sufficiently to hold a pen in their hand, we should physically carry them to the polls.  After all, babies are the most dependent class of potential voters.  I can just picture the Democrats using their same fear-mongering tactics against innocent, impressionable babies.  “If you vote for the Republican you’re mother’s teats will dry up and you’ll starve to death.”  “Republicans will force you to get a job.”  “Republicans want to take away your right to learn to walk.  They would keep you crawling and in servitude like they did with the slaves.”  Oh wait, the Republicans didn’t do that, nevermind.  The only drawback of granting babies the right to vote, and the Democrats would have to really polish up the teleprompter on this one, would be that babies would probably tend to be pro-life.  I’m just sayin’. 

I can just picture Acorn volunteers driving buses around neighborhoods, strapped to the hilt with carseats, promising pacifiers, woobies, etc. to lure babies to the polls.

You know, now that I think about it, what about our friends in the animal kingdom?  Many scientists believe that some breeds of dogs such as the golden retriever and german shepherd actually function at the intellectual level of a 5 year old.  If there’s a mentally disabled voter who functions at the level of a 5 year old, then why the hell shouldn’t my two golden retrievers be allowed to vote?  I know they think they “need” more food than what I’m giving them, and they’d also like to have the right to go out and about without a leash.  Perhaps they’re also a constituency to be reckoned with.  Again, I predict they’d probably lean democratic.  All you’d have to do is stir up fear about their food supply and they’d turn out in droves.

Now that I’m thinking, what about the most intelligent primates?  I’ve watched the Discovery Chanel and Bonobo Apes and Chimpanzees are pretty f***ing smart, if you ask me.  They obviously rank above Golden Retrievers in terms of intelligence, and unlike dogs, they can hold a pen, so we wouldn’t have years of legislation and political infighting about opposable thumb discrimination and having to listen to slogans such as “my bark is my ‘write’.”  I’m sure there is a team of scientists out there somewhere that can prove that these creatures can function as well as some mentally ill humans.  Think about it: Chimpanzees and Bonobo’s would be an outright gift to the Democratic Party.  After all, they’ve been persecuted and forced to live in zoos for centuries.  Don’t they have the right to live in a home?  Once they vote themselves out of the zoo, perhaps Democrats can strongarm banking institutions to loosen their standards so that more primates could be a part of the American Dream.  Don’t want a Bonobo Ape living in your neighborhood?  Afraid they might tear your baby’s head off and crap on it while your baby is peacefully trying to make it to the polls?  Well, then you’re just a bigoted species-centric bastard. 

As long as you “depend” on the government, you should vote.  Outstanding.

Welcome to capitalistonstrike! I’m a 30 something small business owner and, like the heroes of Any Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, I have decided to officially go on strike. Why have I chosen to go on strike today? I believe the collective consciousness of our society, represented by our government and elected officials, has reached the tipping point into a socialist/communist ideology from which I don’t believe it is possible to return through channels that are currently available to US Citizens. My plan is to find a way to ensure that I will not have one more red cent taken from the efforts of my labor to provide for someone for whom individual responsibility and supporting one’s self are just big, scary words. If it means leaving the US, then so be it. I’m open to creative ideas, money laundering suggestions, etc., and if you want to talk me out of it or convince me I’ve got it all wrong, go for it! Right now I’m leaning towards the nation of Panama, as they have a pretty decent tax structure.

My thoughts on this election:
1. The “right to vote” is a joke. Whenever the outcome of an election can be decided by mob rule, one in which uneducated, ignorant parasites whose only stake in the outcome of an election is to secure a more favorable position at the government trough, the votes of the people who actually provide the slop are essentially worthless.

We should drop the whole pretense of having a “president”, “house,” or “senate,” and just have an annual mathematical referendum on what percent of whom’s income is distributed to whom. In other words, one’s “ability” and “need” would be quantified to make it quite simple for the morons of society to understand. Since most of those “in need” don’t understand basic math, it must be broken down into everyday terms and concepts that they can understand.

For example, instead of the citizens of the US waiting patiently beside their televisions to see who was elected “president,” they would wait late into the night to hear the following proclamation: “The citizens of the USA who make anywhere from nothing to $10,000 a year have voted that they “need” approximately 2 Louis Vuitton purses, 4 pairs of sparkling white Nike’s, one gold chain (4 oz.), and an 2 Ipods to “survive” this year. Citizens who make over $150,000 a year officially have the “ability” and responsibility to fork over 50% of their income so that those “in need” can survive. **Disclaimer (and this would run on the ticker of the cable news channels): owning 2 cars, a microwave, adequate clothing; meeting the physical requirements of morbid obesity; and/or currently living in government subsidized, air-conditioned housing cannot preclude a citizen from being categorized as “in need.” In addition, having $130,000 of overhead on a small business in no way excuses an “able” citizen from his responsibility to provide for citizens who are “in need.”

Just imagine what it would be like if we had this type of a referendum instead putting on this whole show of having “elected officials.” People wouldn’t have to deal with the abstract, outdated nature of a “President,” or a “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Having things clarified in more simple terms could cut through the clutter to what really matters, which is the answer to the question “HOW MUCH AM I GONNA GET THIS YEAR?” Upon hearing what they’ve won, I imagine that there would be sobs of joy, screams of ecstasy, physical fits of hysteria, and an almost “snake-handling-speaking-in-tongues” fervor amongst the contestants usually only reserved for the Superbowl or being an audience member for Oprah’s Favorite Things. If we did have such a system, people could sit back in complete orgasmic awe at the beauty of the “democratic process” at work. But all we have is an election. I guess we can only hope for change.

2. Seriously though, we really need to bring back literacy tests. Even if you’re going to skate past the idea that someone with no stake in the government whatsoever has the right to vote money away from their fellow citizens, shouldn’t they at least be required to show a modicum of knowledge about our country and its history in order to get their check? We expect immigrants (the legal ones) to our country to answer basic questions about the government before they can enjoy what used to be the privilege of living in this country, but it’s too much to ask of our own citizens? I listened to a radio talk show the other day, and they were interviewing Obama supporters, asking them questions such as “Are you still going to vote for Obama now that he’s chosen Sarah Palin as his runningmate?” “What about the fact that he’s announced that he’s pro-life?” “What about how he’s pledged to stay in Iraq indefinitely?” I almost projectile-vomited when I heard the answers. Thanks for playing, crackheads, you’ve just won us all a brand new Obama.

More to come…