Should the corporate welfare recipients at Boeing and Caterpillar be drug-tested??

From the greatness that is Reason Magazine:

Here's the state of Republican economic policy today: A $35 billion federal loan-guarantee program for wind and solar companies is scandalous "crony capitalism" that must be shut down and investigated.


But a $100 billion federal loan guarantee program mostly benefiting Boeing and Caterpillar should be expanded by 40 percent. [...]

There's more....

On Wednesday, a large majority of Republican congressmen voted to reauthorize [the Export-Import Bank] (whose current charter expires later this month) and increase to $140 billion the legal limit on taxpayer exposure from Ex-Im financing. Currently, taxpayers are exposed to nearly $100 billion in Ex-Im loans and loan guarantees.

By supporting Ex-Im, instead of trying to kill it, Republicans aren't merely calling into question the concept of free enterprise, they are passing up the chance to make President Obama's corporate welfare a central theme of the 2012 election.

You pay for all of this.  Not the government.  You.  Your money.  Why aren't you out in the streets banging pots and pans together????

Hit this link for a long, long list of pieces in Reason that attempt to sound the alarm about the Import/Export Bank.  Man, talk about Socialism.....

Here's a list of Reason pieces on Corporate Welfare.  Man, talk about Socialism....

Here's a pic of all the insane crap the Republicans have introduced over the last few years.  (BTW, blocking the American Jobs Act was a benefit to humanity.  Taking money from people by force and giving it to people for unproductive busywork is not a net gain.) 

"Small-Government Republican" - the funniest three words in the English language.  Well, maybe with one exception....check out the last question. 
 

Why You Shouldn't Hire Anyone In The United States Of America

Barack Obama has has sent Congress a ridiculous "To Do" List, a ragtag collection of feel-good proposals to help the economy, help the unemployed, and mostly to help Washington bureaucrats. 

All of them would be unnecessary if he'd just do the right thing and resign in disgrace. 

Here's #1 on the list:

Reward American Jobs, Eliminate Tax Incentives To Ship Jobs Overseas: Attract and keep good jobs in the United State sby passing legislation that gives companies a new 20 percent tax credit for the cost of moving their operations back to the U.S. Congress should pay for this credit by eliminating tax incentives that allow companies to deduct the costs of moving their business abroad.


If Congress doesn't vote in favor of this stuff, they'll be known as the "do-nothing Congress".  They're already the "do-nothing Congress".  They haven't passed a budget in more than three years, and for two of those years, they were controlled by Democrats.  Since 2010, the House has been Republican, but the Senate has been Democrat.  And it looks like the Dems still run the show. 

Enough about that.  Here's something from the world of reality.  This is what it's like for an employer in Obama's America:

My employer, Jukt Micronics, runs wood, metal and plastic shops in Texas.  I run a warehouse and shipping operation for them where my employees receive, assemble, and transport products made overseas. 

The total product mix is probably 60% manufactured in the U.S., 40% imported from outside of the U.S. 

Before we started outsourcing, we had about 300 employees in the U.S.  

After we started going overseas to purchase the easy stuff, we grew to 600 U.S. employees.  It's funny how that works, isn't it? 

We've now dropped to about 500 U.S. employees, primarily because of the Thief In Chief in the White House. 

The guy who runs our wood operation, who I'll call "Woodchuck", is a great person.  He is a wood god. 

About a week ago, Woodchuck got a complaint about a nighshift employee sleeping on the job.

Woodchuck checked the video cameras, and sure enough, the dude was driving to remote corners of the wood shop on a forklift, kicking back and catching some serious naps. 

Woodchuck fired him. 

The employee, who I'll call "Snoozy", filed for unemployment compensation, saying that he was unjustly terminated. 

The case actually went to a Texas Workforce Commission hearing.  We were armed with the videos, and expected an easy victory. 

The TWC lifer asked Woodchuck if he ever posted signs in the factory about NO SLEEPING ON THE JOB, or NO SLEEPING ON FORKLIFTS. 

Woodchuck replied that he had not.  (He also doesn't have signs about NO SHITTING ON THE BREAKROOM FLOOR, and NO RAPING EMPLOYEES ON THE SLIDING TABLE SAW). 

Because of this glaring oversight we lost the case.  Jukt Micronics will have to pay for Snoozy's unemployment compensation for up to 99 weeks. 

I'll go to my grave believing that the ridiculous number of people collecting unemployment is a campaign strategy.  Increasing the duration of unemployement compensation is a campaign strategy.  (I've lost some compensation claims that I know I'd have won five or six years ago.  One instance involves firing someone for Indecent Exposure.  There were multiple witnesses to the crime.  And Jukt Micronics now has to pay the perverted sonofabitch unemployment for 99 weeks because I supposedly threatened the guy.) 

If Barack Obama wants to bring jobs back to the U.S., there are some simple ways to do it.  He could make the U.S. a less hostile place for employers.  He could stop rigging the tax code in favor of people who do things that he likes.  He could resign. 

When I get to work today, I'm putting signs up about NO SLEEPING ON THE JOB and NO SLEEPING ON FORKLIFTS, just to be safe.  And I'm going to explain why. 

Anyone who hires someone in the United States is taking a huge, huge risk. 

Heterosexual Marriage Is A Sin

This is starting to piss me off.  Here's the ABC News website:

A proposed amendment to North Carolina’s constitution which would make marriage between a man and woman the only legal union recognized by the state has passed a statewide vote, the Associated Press reports.

The referendum- North Carolina Amendment One- goes a step beyond outlawing same-sex marriage, which was already illegal in the state. The law decrees that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State”- meaning that civil unions and potentially other types of domestic partnerships will no longer be legally recognized.

Here's more:

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council- a conservative Christian organization- released a statement applauding the vote.

“We applaud North Carolina voters for joining voters in 31 other states upholding the historic and natural definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman” the statement said. “At every opportunity, the American people have demonstrated a deep appreciation for the unique benefits that marriage between a man and a woman brings to families and society. They recognize that marriage is the only kind of union that results in natural procreation and keeps a mother and father together to raise the children produced by their union.”

Yeah, I think it's best that a child have two parents.  If a child has more than one sister and one brother, it might be best to have four parents just to help keep everybody fed and clothed. 

If a child is going to Texas A&M, it might be best for the kid to have six parents:  A mother, a father, a banker, a lottery winner, Bill Gates, and an illegal immigrant getting paid under the table, just to help pay for all the A&M fees and services. 

But back to the point raised by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which needs refuting.....  The Bible says that heterosexual marriage is not the ideal condition for Christians.  I repeat:  "He on She" marriage is not the ideal condition for Christians. 

This billboard is a lie. 

If you take the Apostle Paul seriously, and if you believe he was divinely inspired and not just blogging, heterosexual activity within the confines of heterosexual marriage falls short of perfection.  Therefore heterosexual sex is a "sin", just like gay sex, lesbian sex, rape, pedophilia, bestiality, and forcing children to watch the John Edwards sex video are all supposedly sins.  Sin is anything that falls short of the ideal, anything less than perfection. 

Paul said so.  Here's the man himself:

I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. (1 Corinthians 7:7-8)

The man has spoken.  Remaning single is the ideal.  Anything else falls short of perfection.  And elsewhere in the Bible, sin is "falling short of the glory of God".  To top it off, here's James 4:17.....

¹⁷ If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.

What you should do, according to Paul, is to remain single.  If you know what you should do (remain single) and fail, then you have sinned. 

(Note to my friend Mike Coyne, who is seriously considering falling into sin this fall....Don't do it !!!) 

Yet fundamentalist preachers do weddings all the time.  Strange. 

There are a few other problems in the biblical view of marriage (only one of these is defended at great length at the Family Research Council website). 

See, there are multiple types of marriage authorized in the "Bible".  One of the interesting ones is detailed in Deuteronomy 22:28. 

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

There are others.  The book of Judges, Chapter 19, has a long story about the responsibilities of concubines.  You can have a wife and a Ho, and if the Ho is a disappointment you can chop her into smaller pieces and send the dismembered whore parts all over Israel.  Look it up. 

Here's a helpful chart for every man who doesn't have the spiritual strength to remain celibate and single, and who wishes to sin by marrying a woman. 

Paul was the last "divinely inspired" person to write on this issue.  He said don't get married.  To anybody. 

I still don't understand why the Family Research Council is so opposed to gay marriage and not all the other kinds. 

Adrian Murray on Immigration

My friend Adrian Murray....

Tea Party Patriot....

9-12 leader....

and great, great guy....,

keeps knocking them out of the park, but only on Facebook.  That's why I can't just link to his stuff. 

Here he goes with something on immigration:

Line up a dozen Republican politicians seeking public office, ask them what their answer is to the 12 million or more illegal immigrants in America and in remarkable display of political courage, they’ll dodge the question. The answer is usually something along the lines of: “We can’t address that issue until we fix the border. Once the border is fixed/sealed/guarded/mined/booby-trapped we can work on solutions to those already here.” You may even be treated to the phrase, “Path to citizenship.”

We’ve been hearing this for fifty years. Likely, we’ll hear it for another fifty. Like so many issues, if we didn’t have an illegal immigrant problem, politicians would have to invent one. (This piece is not meant to unfairly single out Republicans. It’s just that the Democrats would gladly apologize to Gaia and hand the country back to the Seminoles and the Apaches, so there’s just no point in dragging their ideas into the mix.)

Fortunately for most of us, our ancestors came to America long before numbskulls ruled the roost. Can you imagine what it would have been like 100 or 150 years ago if the solutions to immigration being talked about now were official policy then? For much of America’s first century the borders were wide open. No one had identification or passports or had to undergo retina scans and full body cavity searches to get into the country. They either walked across the border or down a gangplank. Voila. New Americans.

But what if, when the great waves of migration began from Europe in the 19th century, the existing American population, descendant mainly from English and German stock, had the same mentality we have today? Would calls have gone out to seal the ports to protect American sovereignty? Would politicians demand that a navy be built to intercept passenger ships on the high seas and turn them back to their country of origin? Would candidates for office run on platforms of rounding up the new arrivals and shipping them back to Europe? “Just look at them, these wretches who inhabit the filthy tenements of Manhattan, with their strange languages and even stranger customs. They won’t even assimilate, choosing instead to stay with their own kind creating their own communities like Chinatown, Greek Town, Little Italy. Look at them: there are Poles and Slavs and Gypsies and Italians and Jews. Jews! They’re not even Christians, for the love of Pete. And have you seen what the filthy Irish have done to Boston? Completely overrun it they have, with their pale little redheaded children and their Catholic priests and nuns. But we can’t deal with the ones that are here until we find a way to seal off the Atlantic coast.”

Ah, to transport 21st century politicians back to 1880. And leave them there.

Of course, we do not have to guess what our forebears did in regards to new immigrants to America. It’s part of America’s history. To put it succinctly, they welcomed them. They embraced them. They made them citizens. By 1892 the waves of immigrants grew so intense the federal government opened Ellis Island in New York to process the new arrivals. Over the next 62 years, some 12 million new Americans passed through its doors and went on to build the greatest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

So what’s the problem today?

Answer that question by asking another one: Since the great migration today is by land from the south rather than by sea from the east, where is the Ellis Island of the southern border? Are these people welcome or not?

Wrap your mind around that for a while and you’ll see that we do not have a serious immigration policy in this country. We have a political football which both sides like to kick back and forth because it allows them to play their political bases like human yoyos. The problem will never get resolved until we cultivate politicians with some spine.

There’s a certain word that begins with “A” which no politician would dare propose concerning the millions of undocumented immigrants already here, even though it is precisely the same prescription used by our forebears who, when faced with a similar issue, used their heads and did what was right, not what was politically expedient.

They welcomed the new arrivals and created the means for them to become citizens.
 
(Go here to get a copy of Adrian's book "Common Ground America", and check out the political program he's trying to establish.  He's also got some good ideas about spreading the Texas holiday "Juneteenth" to the rest of the nation.)
 
For better or worse, Obama has almost made illegal immigration a non-issue.  Keeping illegal immigrants out of the United States is now about as difficult as keeping illegal immigrants out of North Korea.   
 

Joe Biden on Gay Marriage. Maybe. Kinda. Sorta.

Whether it's on Facebook, at a bar, or at a social event, I really, really, really enjoy needling my gay'n'lesbian friends about Barack Obama's opposition to gay marriage. 
He's the highest-ranking gay marriage opponent in the United States.  They support him just the same.  I'll never understand why. 

(Just for the record, I'm not gay.  But some of the guys I dance with are.) 

I caught this on TIVO last night.  On "Meet The Press", David Gregory was repeatedly asking Joe Biden about his position on gay marriage.  All the goofy ol' dude had to do was say "I'm for it" or "I'm against it". 

But then....

Biden told wonderful, heart-warming anecdotes.  He told about kids bringing flowers.  He talked about equality.  He did everything but answer the question.  He let loose such an astounding cliche-burdened fog of Bidenesque flatulence that I kept thinking about getting my clothes out of the dryer, getting something to eat, or helping The Aggie give some dachshunds a flea bath.  I never heard any endorsement of gay marriage.  I intended to post this interview as more proof that this Democrat administration isn't in favor of gay marriage any more than the Republicans are.  The interview ended with me thinking Biden hadn't really changed his position on gay/lesbian marriage.  I swear to God, I was going to post this thing and send a link to every male in Tarrant County who really cares about his window treatments. 

But then, after the usual Talking Heads forum, "Meet The Press" host David Gregory pulled MBC's Chuck Todd aside and said something like "Well, the Vice-President made the news today, didn't he?"  Todd agreed.  "Yes, he came out in favor of gay marriage."  Then they noted that President Obama is still "evolving" on this issue. 

WTF???  Biden came out in favor of gay marriage????

Listen to this vat of Barackaganda leaking out over the airwaves.  Listen to David Gregory repeatedly asking him for a simple yes or no.  Somewhere in there, Joe Biden supposedly comes out in favor of gay marriage.  I promise you, if Biden's handlers/trainers hadn't told Gregory that Biden was going public with his support of gay marriage, Gregory would've been just like me at the end of the interview, wondering where Biden had landed in relation to the fence. 



What courage.  What a man of principle.  I think.  Maybe.  Shit, I can't tell.  I'd rather listen to an NPR pledge drive than listen to this windbag. 

But speaking of courage and principle, here's how a real defender of civil liberties speaks out on the issue. 

Former New Mexico Governor (and the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate) Gary Johnson today assailed Sen. Rick Santorum for the ex-senator’s opposition to gay marriage equality and for Santorum’s past comments equating Gay marriage with polygamy, child molestation and bestiality. Johnson also offered criticism of President Barack Obama, who he said was “playing politics” with gay rights.


“Rick Santorum’s position is unconstitutional. The Constitution requires that all citizens be treated equally and makes no reference to gender in assuring those equal rights,” said Johnson. “By any fair measure, equal access to marriage for all Americans is a right — guaranteed by the Constitution. Senator Santorum’s claim that legally recognizing gay marriage would be no different than legalizing polygamy, child molestation or bestiality is repugnant and insulting to millions of gay Americans,” said the former New Mexico Governor.

Johnson had equally harsh criticism for President Barack Obama. “The New York Times reports that while President Obama gives lip service to gay equality, the President will not support gay marriage before the election because of the opposition of African Americans, as reflected in his polling, and the need to assure maximum support from African American voters in November,” said Johnson. “Instead the President sends out surrogates to imply that he will support gay marriage in a second term.

“President Obama did the same kind of dance around the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’. He promised to repeal it in his campaign, then dragged his feet on repealing it as President, even sending the Justice Department’s lawyers into court to defend it. Then when ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was finally repealed by Congress, he claimed victory and a promise fulfilled.

“As for Rick Santorum, at least he is consistent. He not only opposed the repeal of DADT, he has promised to return our military to the Dark Ages and reinstate it, and claims that repealing such a discriminatory policy has somehow been ‘detrimental’ to gays.

“I, for one, am tired of seeing candidates for president – including the President himself, play political games with people’s lives and happiness. Perhaps it’s time for a president who leads based upon principle instead of polls,” he said.

Hit the link above to read the whole thing.  That is how you support gay marriage. 

As for Obama, he's still "evolving".  Go here for a list of Tweets from the White House staff, watching Biden on TV and back-pedaling like circus monkeys. 

The Life Of Julia - Libertarian Remix

The Obama campaign has rolled out an unintentionally hilarious slideshow called "The Life Of Julia".  It shows the life of a woman through her government benefits.  If you have even the slightest interest in Victimology, you've gotta check it out.  I don't care who you are, or which hoss you support in this race.  This thing is funny.  The parody potential is massive.  For starters, just look at the first slide.  It touts the benefits of HeadStart?!??!!!   Really?  Even if the Department of Health And Human Services says HeadStart probably doesn't make a difference? 

Want to know what else is super creepy about this accursed thing? 

Tribalism. 

Not only can Julia not exist without help from Dear Leader, The Teleprompter Jesus, but she might also have some difficulties if she doesn't align herself with a tribe.  (In case you're new to my blog, I see religious, ethnic, and national tribalism as the #1 curse on humanity.)  Check out this drop-down menu from the Obama campaign at the beginning of the slideshow:

I honestly can't believe that the Democrats had the cajones to put LGBT Americans on their site.  Barack Obama is the highest ranking gay marriage opponent in the United States.  But enough about the obvious....Julia needs the government for almost everything, and she needs to be aligned with a special-interest group, right?  Right. 

Parodies of this thing are all over the place.  Iowahawk's is greatness. Go there. 
 
Reason magazine is a much bigger outfit with a much bigger budget for these amusements, so I'm going to borrow most of their pics.  Go here to see the pics in context.   And please go here every day.  It's great stuff.

Here goes, from Reason:

Then, just 6 months later, disaster strikes Julia's family:

Julia turns 18, and is ready to take on the world !!!  (Be sure to check out Iowahawk's parody.  At this point, Iowahawk has Julia going to get a degree in Feminist Website Design.) 

Just seven years later, Julia graduates.  And like most recent graduates, she's a victim of Barackaganda. 

Julia's son goes to school.  There is no mention of Julia's sperm donor on the Obama website, BTW.  Who needs a Daddy when you've got a Big Brother? 

Thanks to the new, Weimer Germany-levels of government debt and inflation, Julia is able to start a business !!

Julia is now resigned to working the rest of her life, providing stimulus funds for Washington to send to supporters and campaign contributors.  A life well-spent and well-lived, Julia.  You have the thanks of a grateful nation.  The government was bribing you with your own money the whole time, but you didn't bitch about it.  Great job !!

Go here, to Reason Magazine, to see the actual stats backing up the jokes (also known as Obama and Romney policy statements.) 

One other thing - Here's a good breakdown of the Obama/Julia Victimization Slideshow from Hot Air. 

3 years old – Julia gets a new-and-improved Head Start, which a new HHS study shows won’t do anything for her anyway.

17 years old – Race to the Top improves Julia’s SAT scores. Is there any evidence at all to support that argument? Even so, she’s down the list from all of the home-schooled children and the charter- and private-school students who actually got an education rather than an NEA indoctrination. However, thanks to the NEA indoctrination, Julia is now better prepared for a life on the government dole.

18 years old – Julia’s family qualifies for a $10,000 tuition tax credit spread out over four years, while Obama’s student-loan subsidies drive tuition costs up even faster.

22 years old – Julia undergoes surgery, which has to be funded by her parents’ employers despite Julia being an adult, and which will be most likely delayed as providers decline in number thanks to the economics of ObamaCare.

23 years old — Thanks to the Lily Ledbetter Act, trial attorneys get rich by filing lawsuits against employers that otherwise wouldn’t have been brought, leaving fewer resources to hire Julia. No college job for our intrepid Julia!

25 years old – Julia finally gets her 4-year degree in seven years, thanks to the inability to handle the tuition bubble and the lack of work. However, the good news is that the $200,000 in student loans will only hang over her head for 20 years, while taxpayers like Julia end up paying for the costs of default.

27 years old – Julia wants to have sex for the first time in her life, apparently, and is looking for contraception. Her employer would provide it for free thanks to the ObamaCare HHS mandate … if she could only find a job.

31 years old – Julia gets pregnant, which tells you all you need to know about free contraception. Oddly, Julia hasn’t gotten married first, probably because the economy is so poor by this time with the huge entitlement debt crisis breaking that no one can conceive of putting a home together. Fortunately, ObamaCare makes pregnancy possible, because until Obama took office, no one ever got pregnant, since government support and approval for it didn’t exist.

37 years old – Julia’s son Zachary, named after his sperm donor, starts school. Head Start has long since disappeared, apparently, but Race to the Top still exists. Must be a marathon.

42 years old – Julia starts a business with an SBA loan, which also apparently never existed before Obama took office. Her student loans are just three years away from defaulting onto the backs to taxpayers, so that’s good news.

65 years old – My, how time flies! (Do women do nothing of value between 42 and 65?) Julia enrolls in Medicare, which ceased to exist decades earlier, thanks to the fact that Obama and Tim Geithner didn’t have a plan to address the debt crisis — all they knew was they didn’t like anyone else’s plan. You can get the cards at Spencer’s as a gag gift.

67 years old – Julia retires, since the entitlement collapse wiped out her business and the rest of the American economy. The timeline stops here, which suggests that the IPAB probably denied her care, as she was nothing but a drain on society by this time, and the few resources they have left had to be used to pay for face lifts for members of Congress.

There you have it — a timeline filled with government interventions in a fantasy lifetime, with absolutely no sense of the cost it would take to provide Government Nanny to Julia and the rest of the country. At least they picked the right name for their fantasy woman trapped in an all-encompassing government; Julia was the name of the lead female character in George Orwell’s 1984, after all.

Lord have mercy, I'm glad to be alive for all this.  Interesting times, interesting times.