Punching Stupid and Evil in the Face Since 1986!

"We are on strike, we the men of the mind. We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties."-John Galt

Saturday, January 23, 2016

Relying on that "conservative cred" will likely get you stabbed in the face. Again.

So many people calling out Trump for his lack of conservative cred. I don't disagree with many points made and as I haven't made up my mind who I will vote for (or if I will vote at all), I will listen to rational facts. However, I won't be lectured to and I won't cower in the face of those who think they know better than...well anyone who thinks differently about what is right for the country. In this decision, as in all decisions I've ever made in my life, I will chose for myself, based on the facts I as I see them. BUT, I do think the below beautifully spells out the problem with the argument that so many are making: (Mark Steyn)
"In contrast to the ebb and flow of eternally shifting multiparty systems, America has a rigid, inflexible two-party choice:
One party is supposed to be the party of big government, the other the party of small government. When the Big Government Party is in power, the government gets bigger, and, when the Small Government Party is in power, the government gets bigger.
One party is supposed to be the party of social liberalism, the other the party of social conservatism. When the Socially Liberal Party is in power, the country gets more liberal, and, when the Socially Conservative Party is in power, the country gets more liberal.
One party is supposed to be the party of foreign-policy doves, the other the party of foreign-policy hawks. When the doves are in power, America loses wars, and, when the hawks are in power, America loses wars."
And that, my friends is the problem. You may well be right that Trump (or Cruz or Fiorina or whatever candidates you hate) are "no goddamn conservative candidate" but I would argue (to use the hated Hillary Clinton line) -what difference does it make? As a tiny "one", of thousands who stood on the street, phone banked, organized events and fundraisers, and sacrificed more than I care to think about these long past 9 years, what did we really get? High unemployment, government controlled health insurance, unmitigated government overreach that only gets more "reachy" and a quality of life that is NOTHING compared to the time before Obama.....all the things the anti-Trumpers accuse Trump of supporting. The problem with that argument? These are all things we already have. Don't you see that? They argue Trump is no conservative because he has/did/does/will support these things, all the while, the "true conservatives" in the House and Senate have done no real thing to stop or even slow the tidal wave. In fact most of them support it in one way or another. So, the argument is you can't be for that guy because he is for those things, yet none of the elected conservatives are doing anything either? Well that's stupid. It disgusts me how much all those people did and sacrificed and worked for-getting people elected, trying to make them accountable, only to be sold down the river over and over again. The argument of the "smart thinkers" is this time it will be different if you'd just stop supporting the idiot. Well, sorry to break it to you, but the people don't agree. It would make me laugh....if it didn't stab me in the face. Again.
Someone I once knew said it's not a sprint, it's a marathon and that's right it is. But when people get screwed over and over, at some point you just quit caring. People out there in the regular world have jobs and struggle everyday. They have aging parents, dependant "kids" in their 20's (who struggle to even leave the nest, let alone stay out), failing small businesses, health problems, financial problems whatever. They don't have time to sit around and judge the conservative cred of someone. They want someone who they feel will get things done. I would venture most of them even know they might not be the right things, but what has striving to get the "right" candidate to do the right thing gotten them? They don't care about saving the party, or conservatism for that matter. They care about saving their own asses. Yes, you heard me right, they don't care what you think. Liberal policies and government overreach and illegal immigration have gotten so far out of control, there is nothing but panic out here in the "rest of the world". Some days it's real panic about feeding your entire family with what you can scrape out of the pantry to make a meal tonight. Some days it's panic about the checking account with 5 bucks and the $700 mortgage. They don't give a shit about conservative cred on those days. And frankly, why should they? Again I ask, what has fighting for conservatism actually gotten them these long last 8 years?
No President will alone save us and people who are rabid in their support of ANY candidate, in my opinion, are delusional. Presidents are people, not gods. The right person could possibly begin to turn the tide and possibly not. It could be too late. Everyone should get behind the candidate you think will do that, but to admonish others as wrong for having lost faith in those with "true conservative cred" is a mistake on your part. Until you can point to something real and far reaching that hasn't been compromised or bastardized by the very conservative cred you want to preserve so badly, don't talk to me about your bullshit.
I don't know if Trump is the right candidate. I don't know if it's Cruz or Carson or Fiorina or god forbid, Jeb Bush.....because there is NO FAITH in the system we have been given. None. I don't think any of them are the right candidate truth be told, because I don't believe there is such a leader these days. But if one of them wants to prove me wrong, I'm totally cool with that.
Reagan is dead. The 80's are dead. It's time to stop being wistful for what was and concentrate on what is. These are new times and politicians with "true conservative cred" have left us to wither on the vine for too many years. And don't take this post mean I don't support any of the candidates that call themselves "true conservative(s)" (though I'm more of a libertarian), I do. But I don't support someone just because they walk around with a big conservative button on their shirt or because some TV person told me to. I support the candidate that doesn't just hand out platitudes and pats on the head. Those guys can suck an egg.
So....good luck to the winner and do something worthwhile this time, ok? In the meantime, I'm going to spend the afternoon with my beautiful granddaughter tomorrow. She's 5 and when she says she's going to do something, she does it. Now that's some cred I can get behind.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Well, your glorious Net Neutrality Rules have been released......

I've just started reading through the 'Net Neutrality Rules" this morning and you know what's funny? All this BS and RIGHT IN THE FIRST SECTION I find this:
"Likewise, innovation at the edge moves forward unabated. For example, 2010 was the first year that the majority of Netflix customers received their video content via online streaming rather than via DVDs in red envelopes. Today, Netflix sends the most peak downstream traffic in North America of any company. Other innovative service providers have experienced extraordinary growth— Etsy reports that it has grown from $314 million in merchandise sales in 2010 to $1.35 billion in merchandise sales in 2013. And, just as importantly, new kinds of innovative businesses are busy being born. In the video space alone, in just the last sixth months, CBS and HBO have announced new plans for streaming their content free of cable subscriptions; DISH has launched a new package of channels that includes ESPN, and Sony is not far behind; and Discovery Communications founder John Hendricks has announced a new over-the-top service providing bandwidth-intensive programming. This year, Amazon took home two Golden Globes for its new series “Transparent.”
Hmmm, all that before Net Neutrality and government interference.......what are they protecting against again????? It's so funny that in their own paper they tout how the Internet has grown and been wildly successful and in the same breath talk about how the government must step in. Yep, if you wanna ruin something, get the government involved.

More to come.......

Monday, February 2, 2015

5.46 million foreign work permits issued since 2009

If you're looking for a major reason why labor participation remains at 37 year lows for the entirety of the Obama Administration, you might want to take a look at their shadow immigration racket.
More than 5.46 million foreign nationals received work permits from the federal government since 2009, according to a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies. Data uncovered from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency reveal that approximately 982,000 work permits were given to illegal immigrants and other foreign nationals unqualified for admission, most of whom crossed the border without inspection. USCIS is the agency within the Department of Homeland Security responsible for issuing work permits and processing applications related to President Obama’s executive action on immigration. On Tuesday, the Senate is scheduled to vote on a bill that funds DHS, while blocking funding that would allow USCIS to implement the president’s executive action. 
The remarkable number of work permits granted by the federal government to law-breaking aliens better explains how all net jobs growth since 2007 has gone to immigrants. The government issued approximately 1.7 million work permits since 2009 to aliens whose status was not known, not recorded, or not disclosed by USCIS, according to the report. The report says employment is not authorized by law for approximately 1.2 million immigrants who collected work permits while having a temporary visa status. And the data show that approximately 1,200 new work permits went to unlawful entrants who were denied asylum, were suspected of using fraudulent documentation, were stowaways, or were refused at a port of entry.