Dear Third Way centrist Clinton-school lawmakers who voted for NAFTA and MFN status for China,
You are staggering idiots. I hope the rust that haunts every hard-working, honest town in the Midwest attaches itself to your hands and your foreheads like a Biblical plague.
That is all.
Your nemesis,
Ben Phenicie
P.S. I now have evidence from your precious academic think tanks. Don't you dare bother driving around our ruined towns to take an actual look. Just read this, it's safer.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-26/free-trade-with-china-wasn-t-such-a-great-idea
Monday, April 25, 2016
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Stop Bashing Trump, You Fake Republicans
In a weirdly suicidal move, Republicans are now attacking their one great hope, Donald Trump.
I'm aware that Donald Trump is not perfect. In his frankness he can be abrasive. And lately, his campaign has not been at its most disciplined. Grouchy, sour grapes "Republicans" have emerged from the woodwork to attack him. The liberals who control the government propaganda apparatus, education, and most of the media, have come to pile on, distorting Trump's statements and making him appear foolish.
Donald Trump is under attack because he is not part of the traditional Republican Party political establishment. However, the traditional Republican Party political establishment has been ineffective at combating Democratic ideas for over a century, and does not deserve to continue steering the party. Trump, by speaking his mind and actually formulating policies designed to benefit the majority of Americans, is a breath of fresh air. He far more genuinely represents the party's base, and election results, before the Brutus-like knife Trump has gotten in the back in Wisconsin, have proven it. Republicans, like pharisee priests, hate him for it.
I don't want to vote for Ted Cruz, whose campaign lied and said that Trump's and Ben Carson's campaigns had been suspended on the day of the Iowa caucuses. Kasich seems like an honorable man, but has not done the heavy lifting of generating the name recognition and national exposure needed to take on Hillary Clinton. Of the remaining Republicans, Trump has the best chance of winning - but Republicans it seems have a bizarre desire to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by trying to either force a Cruz nomination through a - no doubt legal - machination of the delegate selection and convention process, or by running an oddball candidate like William Cristol or Paul Ryan after a brokered convention. However, Cruz, Cristol, and the rest of the establishment have overseen a regime that brought about the disastrous Affordable Care Act, vast welfare dependency, and the oncoming end of education as we know it with the advent of Common Core.
"Wait," you say, "those are mostly Democratic policies." Precisely. The Republican establishment made an Obama presidency possible by foisting ideas that drove George W. Bush's approval ratings below 30%. In this environment, it was impossible for Republicans to win. Those same steersmen are still at the helm, although the struggle to regain control continues.
I urge anyone reading this to vote for Donald Trump. I am aware of his faults. The political process is not always pretty, but our nation is at stake. Four or eight years of Hillary Clinton will continue our slide into mediocrity, dependency, irrelevancy, malaise, and ultimately, subjugation.
I'm aware that Donald Trump is not perfect. In his frankness he can be abrasive. And lately, his campaign has not been at its most disciplined. Grouchy, sour grapes "Republicans" have emerged from the woodwork to attack him. The liberals who control the government propaganda apparatus, education, and most of the media, have come to pile on, distorting Trump's statements and making him appear foolish.
Donald Trump is under attack because he is not part of the traditional Republican Party political establishment. However, the traditional Republican Party political establishment has been ineffective at combating Democratic ideas for over a century, and does not deserve to continue steering the party. Trump, by speaking his mind and actually formulating policies designed to benefit the majority of Americans, is a breath of fresh air. He far more genuinely represents the party's base, and election results, before the Brutus-like knife Trump has gotten in the back in Wisconsin, have proven it. Republicans, like pharisee priests, hate him for it.
I don't want to vote for Ted Cruz, whose campaign lied and said that Trump's and Ben Carson's campaigns had been suspended on the day of the Iowa caucuses. Kasich seems like an honorable man, but has not done the heavy lifting of generating the name recognition and national exposure needed to take on Hillary Clinton. Of the remaining Republicans, Trump has the best chance of winning - but Republicans it seems have a bizarre desire to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by trying to either force a Cruz nomination through a - no doubt legal - machination of the delegate selection and convention process, or by running an oddball candidate like William Cristol or Paul Ryan after a brokered convention. However, Cruz, Cristol, and the rest of the establishment have overseen a regime that brought about the disastrous Affordable Care Act, vast welfare dependency, and the oncoming end of education as we know it with the advent of Common Core.
"Wait," you say, "those are mostly Democratic policies." Precisely. The Republican establishment made an Obama presidency possible by foisting ideas that drove George W. Bush's approval ratings below 30%. In this environment, it was impossible for Republicans to win. Those same steersmen are still at the helm, although the struggle to regain control continues.
I urge anyone reading this to vote for Donald Trump. I am aware of his faults. The political process is not always pretty, but our nation is at stake. Four or eight years of Hillary Clinton will continue our slide into mediocrity, dependency, irrelevancy, malaise, and ultimately, subjugation.
Minimum Wage is as Ludicrous as Taxing the People Who Make It
Today, millions of people will punch in for work at honest, simple, yet often-times challenging jobs in retail, restaurants, industry, and other places around the economy. They will be paid at least $7.40 per hour, as the Federal government mandates. They will be taxed at what the talking heads tell us is a reasonable rate. They will then, through a Rube Golberg morass of paperwork, "file their taxes" sometime next year, probably in February, March, or April, after the Internal Revenue Service mails them their W-2 forms. In the meantime, the Federal government will have held their money for the better part of a year - to say nothing of the taxes they paid in January, February and March, which will have been held for even longer. Even a bank would pay a tiny fraction of a percent of interest. Many investments pay even more. The Federal government will pay no interest whatsoever, and indeed, will deny these people, who work for a living, the use of their money. The Federal government will use this money for purposes ranging from the legitimate - the public defense and the several Constitutional things the government still does - to the ludicrous. This is a travesty and this practice, which denies an individual the use of their money that the government has no need of, and indeed, is planning to simply refund them, should be abolished.
A related evil is minimum wage, a grossly unconstitutional limit to what an employer can pay an employee. Minimum wage creates generational poverty by systematically locking inexperienced workers out of the best possible source of practical education - a job. The reckless and dangerous argument that minimum wage should be increased will only compound this problem. All work has dignity, and individual people should have the chance to work at whatever the best rate they can negotiate is. If it is below $7.40 an hour, then it is better for someone to get a job and work their way up then to languish on the patchwork of public assistance programs that the liberal establishment has cobbled together.
A related evil is minimum wage, a grossly unconstitutional limit to what an employer can pay an employee. Minimum wage creates generational poverty by systematically locking inexperienced workers out of the best possible source of practical education - a job. The reckless and dangerous argument that minimum wage should be increased will only compound this problem. All work has dignity, and individual people should have the chance to work at whatever the best rate they can negotiate is. If it is below $7.40 an hour, then it is better for someone to get a job and work their way up then to languish on the patchwork of public assistance programs that the liberal establishment has cobbled together.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Republicans Play Checkers, Democrats Play Chess
The Republican Party, despite having better policy ideas 97.4% of the time, has been losing ground politically to the Democrats for a hundred years because the Democrats have developed more sophisticated approaches to politics both intellectually and culturally. This refinement has been especially noticeable over the past 50 years, since the advent of the Civil Rights legislation of 1964 - the time when the Democrats, having murdered, maimed, and oppressed black Americans throughout their entire history as a political party, suddenly decided that they were the thought-children of Fredrick Douglass and Harriet Tubman.
(This specific switch will be explored more in the future, but read Ann Coulter's Mugged for the eye-opening truth.)
Do not kid yourself by looking at which party has controlled Congress and the Presidency. Democrats have far more effectively shaped the political culture and have defined the terms of the debate, especially since Franklin Roosevelt positioned unconstitutional actions that have drained America of its strength as being a benefit to individual people. Many of these programs now see their fullest expression today, and include food stamps, social security disability and the Department of Education.
Republican presidents like Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and both George Bushes have simply been allowed to move about a landscape shaped, delineated, and populated by Democratic paradigms. Only Ronald Reagan truly re-shaped the debate, and, while his efforts were admirable, even he only slowed the decay that the Democratic party has subjected the country to since that party's inception.
Democrats control education, the media, and the government welfare apparatus. Through these implements, they have shaped the public perception to their whims, and so fostered a public that is partially or wholly dependent on them. This is their plan - to create an endless cycle of dependency and mediocrity. Individual ambition, expression, liberty and indeed, life itself, are secondary to these goals. It is a mundane version of what Aldous Huxley imagined in the Brave New World.
But the Democrats lack metacognition. While perhaps dimly aware that they are driving the country over a cliff - you can see it occasionally in President Obama's posture and deep sighs - he is too intelligent to fully believe himself - they carry on with an apres moi, le deluge mentality - "after me, the downfall - but I don't need to worry about it. It won't be on my watch. I'm a decent fellow who sticks up for the working poor."
These paradigms which have come to dominate American thought must be shattered. If they are not, our country will likely fall into ruin or subjugation within five to eight decades.
(This specific switch will be explored more in the future, but read Ann Coulter's Mugged for the eye-opening truth.)
Do not kid yourself by looking at which party has controlled Congress and the Presidency. Democrats have far more effectively shaped the political culture and have defined the terms of the debate, especially since Franklin Roosevelt positioned unconstitutional actions that have drained America of its strength as being a benefit to individual people. Many of these programs now see their fullest expression today, and include food stamps, social security disability and the Department of Education.
Republican presidents like Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and both George Bushes have simply been allowed to move about a landscape shaped, delineated, and populated by Democratic paradigms. Only Ronald Reagan truly re-shaped the debate, and, while his efforts were admirable, even he only slowed the decay that the Democratic party has subjected the country to since that party's inception.
Democrats control education, the media, and the government welfare apparatus. Through these implements, they have shaped the public perception to their whims, and so fostered a public that is partially or wholly dependent on them. This is their plan - to create an endless cycle of dependency and mediocrity. Individual ambition, expression, liberty and indeed, life itself, are secondary to these goals. It is a mundane version of what Aldous Huxley imagined in the Brave New World.
But the Democrats lack metacognition. While perhaps dimly aware that they are driving the country over a cliff - you can see it occasionally in President Obama's posture and deep sighs - he is too intelligent to fully believe himself - they carry on with an apres moi, le deluge mentality - "after me, the downfall - but I don't need to worry about it. It won't be on my watch. I'm a decent fellow who sticks up for the working poor."
These paradigms which have come to dominate American thought must be shattered. If they are not, our country will likely fall into ruin or subjugation within five to eight decades.
Four Unelected Tyrannical Warlords on the Supreme Court Vote to Allow Armed Plunder of Teachers
Today, four unelected warlords in Washington, DC, voted to stick guns in the faces of thousands of teachers so that union thugs could empty their pockets. After the government-backed, armed union thugs have done this, those same thugs will use the money to further their policies of armed seizure of people's money, either through exorbitant, unearned "wages" enforced against taxpayers at gunpoint, or the even more efficient (for them) way of simply siphoning 'union dues' from people who are not even in unions. The government's collectivist propaganda wing sums it up nicely here:
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/03/29/472297953/with-supreme-court-tie-teachers-unions-dodge-a-bullet
Ironic, of course, that they speak about teacher's union "dodging" a bullet, when the government's military-police establishment is precisely what enforces union plundering. Unions gained power in the 1870's because people were working themselves to death. They were comprised of people who did hard, manual labor for what was barely a living wage. They had some kind of tiny, fractional point at the time, since the work was difficult, dangerous, and performed entirely in the private sector, where the public was not asked to subsidize worker's wages. Jobs like steel working come to mind. I suppose you could find a right to collective bargaining in the Constitution by putting a microscope on the right to free assembly and the fact of equal protection under law. However, the knife should cut both ways, and "scabs", a term I love - I would be happy to be a scab to earn money for my family - could simply cross the picket line and make their own deal.
Unions today will have none of this, and in contrast to the past, many unionized jobs, like teaching, are not manual labor jobs and are, in fact, paid for by tax dollars. It is ludicrous for a collectivized special interest group to plunder the public at will by demanding wages that are well above what the market would pay them. It is ludicrous to the squared for them to pilfer their fellow man by extracting dues from people *who aren't even in the union,* but that is precisely what the Supreme Court has allowed today. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg came into your home and stole your television, she would at least be arrested. The union gang leaders who she voted to support *are paid by taxpayers and non-union workers to support these kinds of policies for their jobs.*
People wonder why this country gets so polarized at election time. It is because a tiny group of union leaders, journalists, government elites, and academics have built a paradigm of lies so all-encompassing that millions of people believe that outright plunder and extortion by groups like the National Education Association is somehow supporting the 'middle class.'
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/03/29/472297953/with-supreme-court-tie-teachers-unions-dodge-a-bullet
Ironic, of course, that they speak about teacher's union "dodging" a bullet, when the government's military-police establishment is precisely what enforces union plundering. Unions gained power in the 1870's because people were working themselves to death. They were comprised of people who did hard, manual labor for what was barely a living wage. They had some kind of tiny, fractional point at the time, since the work was difficult, dangerous, and performed entirely in the private sector, where the public was not asked to subsidize worker's wages. Jobs like steel working come to mind. I suppose you could find a right to collective bargaining in the Constitution by putting a microscope on the right to free assembly and the fact of equal protection under law. However, the knife should cut both ways, and "scabs", a term I love - I would be happy to be a scab to earn money for my family - could simply cross the picket line and make their own deal.
Unions today will have none of this, and in contrast to the past, many unionized jobs, like teaching, are not manual labor jobs and are, in fact, paid for by tax dollars. It is ludicrous for a collectivized special interest group to plunder the public at will by demanding wages that are well above what the market would pay them. It is ludicrous to the squared for them to pilfer their fellow man by extracting dues from people *who aren't even in the union,* but that is precisely what the Supreme Court has allowed today. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg came into your home and stole your television, she would at least be arrested. The union gang leaders who she voted to support *are paid by taxpayers and non-union workers to support these kinds of policies for their jobs.*
People wonder why this country gets so polarized at election time. It is because a tiny group of union leaders, journalists, government elites, and academics have built a paradigm of lies so all-encompassing that millions of people believe that outright plunder and extortion by groups like the National Education Association is somehow supporting the 'middle class.'
Monday, March 28, 2016
"Abortion" is a Made-up Word for the Murder of Children
Most conservatives fail to gain traction in the 'abortion' debate because we fight on a battleground carefully delineated by our opponents. This battleground is the words we use, which narrow the perceptions in the public mind and make the "abortion" issue - which is the slaughter of children - seem like any issue upon which reasonable people can disagree. The question of whether we should allow people, who happen to have a medical license and are allowed, by a horrific perversion of the word, to call themselves doctors, to engage in the wanton and brutal slaughter of over one million children each year, is not something on which there can be grounds for disagreement.
The murder of children is wrong, whatever we call it. It is not an issue like hydroelectric power v. coal power or even like immigration or health care. On those issues, perhaps the jury is out, but we have been deceived, mostly by ourselves, to believe that both sides in the 'abortion' debate are presenting reasonable arguments.
Consider, too, the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life." The manifest lopsidedness of these terms is another valley in which those against the murder of children crouch helplessly while pelted from above by arguments made by those supporting medically sanctioned murder. Why the anti-abortion camp has allowed itself to be saddled with such a milquetoast term is beyond me. Again, these terms merely frame the argument as if both sides are being reasonable. "Well," we can tell ourselves, "it's important to value life, and it's important to value choices. So both side have a point, and I guess they'll just have to debate it, while the Supreme Court conveniently sanctions the deaths of millions." Those who support the medical murder of children can only be delighted to have 'leveled' the playing field as such. What is called a pro-life position should be called a pro-child, or anti-murder position. The "pro-choice" movement should be labeled the "pro-child murder" movement. Of course, if these labels were applied, they would obliterate the fog of reasonableness surrounding the issue.
It is unreasonable to allow 'doctors' - all of whom should have their licenses stripped away and be convicted of murder - to kill millions of children. This is the simple fact. Anything else is just window-dressing.
The murder of children is wrong, whatever we call it. It is not an issue like hydroelectric power v. coal power or even like immigration or health care. On those issues, perhaps the jury is out, but we have been deceived, mostly by ourselves, to believe that both sides in the 'abortion' debate are presenting reasonable arguments.
Consider, too, the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life." The manifest lopsidedness of these terms is another valley in which those against the murder of children crouch helplessly while pelted from above by arguments made by those supporting medically sanctioned murder. Why the anti-abortion camp has allowed itself to be saddled with such a milquetoast term is beyond me. Again, these terms merely frame the argument as if both sides are being reasonable. "Well," we can tell ourselves, "it's important to value life, and it's important to value choices. So both side have a point, and I guess they'll just have to debate it, while the Supreme Court conveniently sanctions the deaths of millions." Those who support the medical murder of children can only be delighted to have 'leveled' the playing field as such. What is called a pro-life position should be called a pro-child, or anti-murder position. The "pro-choice" movement should be labeled the "pro-child murder" movement. Of course, if these labels were applied, they would obliterate the fog of reasonableness surrounding the issue.
It is unreasonable to allow 'doctors' - all of whom should have their licenses stripped away and be convicted of murder - to kill millions of children. This is the simple fact. Anything else is just window-dressing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)