Category Archives: Uncategorized

More Lies About Congressman Paul Ryan

Below I posted a nice little lie I found circulating on Facebook.  Maybe we should deconstruct this one by one.  Oh wait, no need to.  Turns out The Weekly Standard already did!

1) Lilly Ledbetter eh?  Well it turns out there are reasons that men earn more than women.  In fact, as it turns out….young unmarried women with no kids make more money than their young male counterparts!

“Young women in their 20s who don’t have children, who are not married, are actually earning more than comparable young men,” Hymowitz said.
Farrell said they’re actually earning 117 percent more — meaning women in that group earn 17 cents more on every dollar a man of the same age makes.”

2)  He’s pro-life, so is half the country.  As for the hospital thing?  This goes back to the debate about a doctor/pharmacist’s conscience vs. state intrusion & regulation.

3) As stated by Congressman Mike Pence:

“The Pence Amendment would simply prevent any funds under Title X from going to Planned Parenthood. It would not reduce the total amount of funds available for family planning. Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. There are a number of federally funded clinics across the nation that offer beneficial services including patient counseling, breast cancer screenings, HIV prevention education, and many more. According to their last annual report, Title X funds helped over 4.7 million women prevent pregnancy by a variety of ethical methods such as abstinence education and birth control. There are many clinics funded by Title X that offer ethical family planning services – without providing abortions.”

4) Out and out lie. In fact:

 “Ryan does not favor banning contraception, nor has he ever voted to ban contraception. In the modern era, there hasn’t been any legislation offered by anyone in Congress to ban birth control.”

“In fact, Ryan, like other conservative Republicans in the House, has voted for hundreds of millions of dollars in contraceptive funding for low-income women through the program Title X. “

5) Again, here is The Weekly Standard:

“Today, Mother Jones reporter Stephanie Mencimer claims that the same bill, the Sanctity of Life Act, would ban in-vitro fertilization. That claim is also false. Mencimer has been made aware of this fact, but she has not yet issued a retraction.”

Folks, we’ve seen just a handful of outrageous lies about Congressman Paul Ryan.  We have a failed president who cannot point to his own accomplishments, instead he turns to his media friends and special interest surrogates to distract and distort.  Are you really more interested in tax returns than you are about the debt crisis your children will inherit?  What’s more important to you: Ann Romney’s pet horse or your employment prospects?  Rich peoples’ tax rates or Obama’s friends cutting crony deals to fund their companies with taxpayer (aka. YOUR) dollars?  I think any reasonable person would choose the latter in each of these questions.

 

And sure enough, you’re not building that anymore.

The Kauffman Foundation, which has been tracking the rate of business startups since 1980, reports that they’ve hit an all time low:

Where Have All the Young Firms Gone?

More News Bias

First we saw sloppy reporting from ABC News, now Chuck Todd of NBC admits his poll was total crap.  I realize this is a little off topic, but it appears the mainstream media is in the tank for pro-statist forces.

Banning guns makes the problem worse

As the initial shock over James Holmes’ midnight massacre subsides, the inevitable chorus of demands for tougher gun control laws is on the rise. But outrage is not a rational argument and the fact that this tragedy occurred changes nothing about the rational, evidence-based case for the private ownership and concealed carry of firearms.

Let’s keep the following facts in mind before we go demanding changes to the law:

  • We have known for at least 16 years (since John R. Lott’s 1996 study) been that taking guns out of the hands of lawful owners leads to more assault. Florida legalized concealed carry in 1997 and the murder rate declined 39% over the next 10 years because criminals were afraid that their marks might be armed.
  • Many things are correlated to homicide rate, but the strictness of a country’s gun control laws aren’t among them — income inequality, poor lack of medical care, and a large trade in illegal drugs (Fajnzylber et al, 2002) are. Gun control is a sideshow to the real problems that cause America’s problem with violent crime.
  • If you think that a willing killer is going to be deterred because he has to buy a gun from his weed dealer instead of from Walmart… well, no study to cite here, you’re just out of your mind, because even a stoner is willing to buy from that guy. In a country with 88 guns per 100 people, gun control laws will leave firearms in the hands of all the wrong people.

This should be required reading for any gun-hating, wannabe do-gooders!

 

Fantasy vs. Reality

I hate to move too far off topic, but I saw something interesting today.

 

Richard Nixon’s 1968 RNC Acceptance Speech

vs.

Oliver Stone’s Sinister Fantasy Version of Richard Nixon’s 1968 RNC Acceptance Speech

 

There’s not too much commentary to give on this, it’s just interesting to see how a harmless and fairly normal/patriotic speech given by a politician can be recreated and dramatized to make him look like a sinister scheme.  Sure President Nixon will go down in history with mixed results, but it’s very interesting to see the methods that can be used to alter the context of a speech without altering the content.

Remember that with great liberty, like taking creative license with history, comes great responsibility.  Don’t treat Oliver Stone’s political movies as history lessons (just Google his butchering of the JFK assassination), save it for the professionals.

Law of the Sea, Sunk for now.

When Sen. John Kerry’s spokesmouth announces that “rock-ribbed Republicans” support the same idea as John Kerry – you should be highly suspicious. In this case, “it” is the Law Of the Sea Treaty (“LOST”), the good news is it sounds like it is dead… for now.  The Chamber of Commerce, hardly a “freedom loving institution” is all for this massive expansion of tyranny, as is Kerry and the global corporatist movement. Somehow, it has been stalled since Reagan was president — and we are lucky enough to have it stalled again for another year.

The story of this treaty, and why it is so insidious, is that it takes the last frontier on earth – the seas beyond the coastal shelf – currently known as “International Waters” and assigns their ownership to… you guessed it, the UN. Furthermore, what that would do is allow the UN to collect revenue and taxes (for the first time in its history) independently of its own members’ contributions (which are mostly US and Europe dues anyway). If that doesn’t chill your spine, you are probably took a wrong turn on the internet before you got here.  The UN would be able to collect royalties on all kinds of products of the sea, including oil and gas. If you thought the Saudi princes were extravagant with their oil money, just wait until the UN gets its hands on all that cash.

This treaty comes up at least once every presidential term, and sometimes once each congress, and so far we’ve avoided signing it. Eventually it will get passed, just like a massive healthcare takeover, or eminent domain, or a massive expansion of the power of the government to tax, our liberties seem to be eroding, both fast and slow, every day. But at least this time, the tide has been stemmed. I’ll drink to that!

A government of laws, not of men

Critical to the theory and legitimacy of modern democratic government is the idea that no one is above the law. Thomas Paine wrote in his pamphlet Common Sense: “In America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.” John Adams codified this principle in the Massachusetts Constitution in 1780 by seeking to establish “a government of laws and not of men.” The Founders thought long and hard about the issue and realized that the only way to assure the “separate and equal station” of all people was to govern through objective laws that applied equally to everybody.

236 years on, have we truly upheld this principle of governing by laws rather than by the whims of powerful men? If the Supreme Court’s ruling on the “Affordable” Healthcare Act is any measure, we have failed completely, and jeopardized individual liberty in the process.

Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion is bizarre to say the least. The Affordable Healthcare Act legislates that Americans who don’t purchase health insurance will be forced to pay a penalty, an unprecedented act of Congressional compulsion — the first time that a law has ever penalized a private citizen’s decision not to engage in a commercial transaction. Sure, the state can force you to buy car insurance, but this is not the same – if you lose your job and you’re hard up, you can stop driving, cancel your insurance, and take the bus to your job interviews. The only way you can opt out of the Affordable Healthcare Act’s mandate is to stop breathing. From cradle to grave, they have you.

The defense made the case that this mandate was justifiable under the Constitution’s oft-cited Commerce Clause, under which considerable authority to regulate private commercial transactions has already been granted to Congress: “[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.” But this clause grants the power to regulate, not to compel, and the AHA compels: it creates commerce where commerce did not previously exist. John Roberts’ opinion upheld the view that the Commerce Clause doesn’t grant Congress the authority to penalize Americans who don’t purchase health insurance. Congress cannot order us to purchase a private service.

But then the opinion took a bizarre turn: Roberts held that Congress did have the power to enact this mandate as a tax. This is doublespeak of the baldest kind: no matter what Roberts calls it, the mandate is a penalty for non-compliance. To say that threatening to tax us if we don’t comply isn’t a way of ordering us to comply is utter nonsense.

So now the Court has upheld the law as a tax, even though it claims it’s not a tax, its advocates insisted it wasn’t a tax, and it fits none of the forms of taxation defined and permitted by the Constitution (direct, excise, and income). There is nothing constitutional about this mandate. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a god damned duck: this ruling is flimsy and illegitimate. To those who claim that the Court has the final say on what is constitutional, I say that the Court adjudicates only with the consent of the governed. We the people have given our consent to be governed only by law — not by men who break it for the sake of political convenience.

For this ruling is in fact a political decision. Roberts feared what the reaction of the AHA’s supporters would be if a conservative majority struck down a law so closely associated with the President and the Left. While he may have had good intentions in seeking to avoid a perception of bias, this was an act of weakness that betrayed both the letter and the spirit of the law which ensures all Americans equal treatment by the government. Enemies of the rule of law have now seen that if they push hard enough, even the Supreme Court will not stop them from trampling the Constitution, and having won this victory, they will undoubtedly test the limits again.

The Supreme Court sold out. It can no longer be trusted to uphold the Constitution when a vocal and powerful minority seeks to undermine it. Men are now dominant in our government, not laws, and woe to those who are different from the men in power — because nothing can stop them now.

News You Can Use (Really!)

The ACLU has launched a smartphone app that not only has a handy list of your rights, when stopped by the police, but it will also quickly and conveniently record audio and video in case you are unlawfully harassed or arrested. This is a great idea, its incredibly handy, and good on the ACLU for doing something concrete to protect our liberties.

Get the app here
http://www.aclu-nj.org/yourrights/the-app-place/

No iPhone version yet.

Famous Japanese Gazillion Hour Workweek on the decline

An interesting consequence of the global recession is that the Japanese are actually working less.

According to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, overtime labor hours have decreased by 45.8% and overtime pay by 44.7%. Not only have commuters increased between 5 and 6 p.m., more men are taking their coworkers home instead of bars for drinks – not exactly a welcome change for housewives.

This appears to be causing all sorts of strain in Japanese households where husbands and wives are actually finding themselves interacting with each other for the first time in years.

Marital dysfunction appears to be a consequence of postmodernity. It’s widely known that American marriages are plagued by infidelity and divorce. The Japanese suffer from fewer divorces, but their marital problems are just as pronounced–the husband and wife simply stop seeing or talking to each other.

Marriage is fundamentally broken in the world’s two largest economies. The Wolf believes that modern assumptions about the purpose of marital union lie at the root of this problem. Romantics seek their “perfect mate.” A quick review of profiles on Internet dating sites reveals the outrageously high standards we have for our suitors–standards which we ourselves probably cannot live up to. The search for “true love” is really a search for someone who will solve all your problems so that you don’t have to solve them yourself.

Burdened by expectations like these, how can any relationship hope to succeed? Individuals should examine their own lives and see if they are able to live up to the high standards they expect from their mates.

In defense of the right to furnish

Protesters in the south-eastern Chinese city of Nankang have overturned police cars and blocked roads over plans to more strictly enforce payment of taxes.

Officials in Nankang said several hundred protesters blocked a major road while others delivered a petition to a local government office.

[…]China’s official Xinhua news agency said the local government’s plan to more strictly enforce payment of taxes from the furniture makers and dealers has been suspended in the face of the opposition.

 

Reports on the precise nature of the issue being protested are mixed, and sometimes conflicting. It has something to do with the furniture industry in Jiangxi–taxes being raised, or taxes being enforced, or the industry being forcibly consolidated and nationalized by the government, or something.

In some regards, the People’s Republic of China is beginning to look more capitalist than America. But it has never been a bastion of individual rights — human, personal, political, or economic.

Riots of this nature have become so numerous that the Chinese government has given up on counting them. It no longer publishes statistics on how many occur. Coupled with burgeoning government deficits, soaring unemployment, and migration back to the impoverished inland provinces, the PRC is becoming a powder keg.

Sources: China Digital Times, Danwei, BBC News