A 1-In-100 Blogger

Defending Capitalism from a Misinformed Democrat

2012-11-02T14:21:00.001-07:00

Democrats will say the craziest things when talking politics. Liberal mathematicians forget math, liberal engineers forfeit logic, and liberal economists will relinquish statistics when it comes to defending their political base. If all else fails, they may even resort to tactics of Saul Alinsky. To defeat Romney, however, whose record is so squeaky clean it drives the liberal media nuts, they must treat him as though he's been President the last four years.

Despite four years of Obama's disastrous economic policy, democrats are attempting to deflect blame from Obama by pretending the economic mess was created by (gasp!) ...Romney? They'll quote their favorite bias liberal news source and spout things like: "Sounds like Romney reeeeeally cares about American jobs..."

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the biggest spender of them all?

Below is a real conversation that took place between a misinformed democrat and my brother, Chris. Unbeknownst to the misinformed democrat, Chris just so happens to hold a degree in political science and probably knows more about how the liberal mind works than democrats themselves. After all, the left is always in denial about their true intentions. Only recently under Barack Obama have liberals become more open about their appreciation for socialism.

It's sad, really, but the truth.

So after a random drive by email from a misinformed democrat lands in my brother's inbox, he reads it and is essentially told that it's somehow Romney's fault that our economy is in the tank. Chris then did what any well informed conservative would want to do: He took it upon himself to defend capitalism. No insults. Just the clear, honest facts.

Chris responds to drive-by email: "Blaming Romney for not saving jobs that were already lost?"

Misinformed democrat rants in reply: "To be clear, I do think Romney is part of the problem, but, I blame millionaires like Romney who use their money to create this economic climate."

Chris: "Capitalism isn't the enemy, neither are millionaires. I think this country could use more of both."

This frustrates the misinformed democrat. So he resorts to a liberals most basic defense mechanism: Accuse conservative's of what the left is actually up to.

Misinformed democrat: "You say jobs already lost...? If you think you have a valid point (rather than repeating some buzz phrases), I would love to hear it."

Misinformed democrat doesn't stop there. He continues by regurgitating buzz phrases from liberal campaign commercials:

Companies like VC Bain acquire American companies, take out insurance policies betting against their success (forced failure), inevitably after this forced failure collecting millions in insurance $$$, find cheaper labor in China ((surprise surprise) where workers are paid pennies to the dollar for their labor) ship all these American jobs over-seas (wonder why middle American families can't find work).

Successful businessman demonized by big government

Chris's response is brilliant, laid out in full, below:

I do have a valid point and will try to remove all buzz phrases from my explanation. I will even try to use your example (Sensata) even though Romney was 6 years removed from Bain by the time they acquired the business.

So you don’t like private equity firms in general, including the people running those companies. Why? There is nothing immoral about what these institutions do. I don’t think you and I will agree on that. You said it yourself, “fuck capitalism.” Regardless, I will attempt to help you understand where I am coming from when I said jobs were already lost. It all has to do with the concept of “creative destruction.” I sent you the link to a very good explanation of how creative destruction benefits society. You either disagreed with the concept, didn’t read it, or didn’t understand it. Which is it?

Companies come to Bain when they need capital. It means they are either in trouble or need help growing. By the time Bain steps in the purchase a company (i.e. provide capital), the underlying business model is either on the verge of bankruptcy or is otherwise unhealthy. In the US our expensive labor costs have forced businesses and factories to make unavoidable tough choices. That means the jobs are already at risk of being lost unless the business can be saved. That’s why I suggested the jobs were already lost. Not every business is savable (hence the need for insurance). If a business is pulling in profits hand over fist they don’t need Bain’s money to survive. Companies need private equity firms to survive and grow and there’s nothing immoral about the relationship.

Private equity firms acquire companies (not just American) ONLY if they think they can make money from the acquisition. There’s few exceptions (like tax shelters – perfectly legal and nothing immoral). It’s also common and necessary to take out insurance policies on large financial investments. When you have millions of dollars at risk it’s insane not to hedge your bets, that’s something most companies do. The insurance company selling the insurance policy doesn’t do it out of the kindness of their hearts. Their goal is to make money selling the insurance. They don’t make money insuring “forced failures.” That’s why they use actuaries and teams of researchers to evaluate business plans, financial numbers, and market conditions to assess risk. How much Bain is charged for the insurance policy is based on the riskiness of the plan. Both parties in this transaction are acting in their own interests. There’s nothing immoral about the insurance policies.

If you disagree with this then I’m not convinced you understand the role private equity plays in the economy, or perhaps you disagree with the merits of what they do for society. When you complain about shipping jobs overseas it ignores the fact that the economy isn’t a zero-sum game. When assets are re-allocated (sold) overseas, the money made from the sale is redirected to fund more companies pursuing profits (and creating new jobs along the way). Some companies fail, but one way or another the private equity firm is going to extract the remaining value of the failed business and re-risk it on new business ventures and opportunities. Out with the old, in with the new. That’s creative destruction and there’s nothing immoral about it.

Even though I hate arguing against anecdotal evidence like this I looked into Sensata, apparently Texas Instruments sold the company to Bain in 2006 (around 6 years after Romney left Bain.) So why did TI sell if it was such a great business? Private equity firms get involved when companies are in trouble. Texas Instruments wouldn’t have sold Sensata if they were making too much money from the business unit. Sensata may be the “standalone global leader in sensors and controls”, their products may be the most advanced on the market, but unless their profit margins are growing the business is considered unhealthy. Anything less than growing profit margins will result in stagnation and decline. Society is much better off allowing the private equity firms to purchase and reallocate business resources because it ultimately ends up funding and creating newer and modern jobs. The dollars Bain made by selling assets overseas could be the same dollars funding Aaron Averbuch’s startup company. Not only is there nothing immoral about it, but the organic nature of the markets cyclical process requires no government intervention or taxpayer subsidies to create new jobs.

When government intervenes and attempts to save jobs it almost always backfires (SEE: GM). Instead of going out of business (or reorganizing the business in bankruptcy court), inefficient (and politically connected) producers hang on, at a high cost to consumers or taxpayers. Right now our economy is flush with crony capitalism, government and businesses are trading favors based on personal relationships and political connections instead of profitable enterprise. When government intervenes to pick the winners and losers, the losers end up producing at a cost to taxpayers instead of producing for a profit for themselves and paying taxes into the system. And the “winners” end up going out of business because their competitors have the unfair advantage of a helping hand from the government. That is immoral and worthy of criticism because it removes the incentive for entrepreneurs to risk assets creating new businesses. This is what is creating our dismal economic climate and explains why middle American families can’t find work.

Millionaires like Romney put their money back into the market. If you want to get mad at millionaires, direct it towards the ones that sit on their money instead of risking it on new businesses creating jobs. Private equity firms in the US are not inherently evil or immoral, they also DON’T have the ability to create an economic climate like you suggest. Gov’t policies, monetary policy, tax policy, and international trade policy all play a much larger role in shaping the economic climate than a private equity firm. Since Romney has not been in a position to shape any of these policy arenas I find it difficult to understand how you can blame him or private equity in general for the economic climate. Govt housing policy, govt mandated mortgage-lending standards, and loose monetary policy is what fueled the housing boom and the bust in 2008. Not private equity.

"If you've got a business, you didn't build that! Somebody else made it happen."

Misinformed democrat is shocked, totally dismayed. Bitter, vitriolic anger at capitalism overwhelms him.

Misinformed democrat: "Immorality in private equity exists."

And Chris defends:

Explain to me where the immorality in private equity exists. At what point does the private equity firm become the evil monster you see. You claim everything I wrote is just my opinion, but I don’t think that’s true. I only stated whether I thought it was immoral or not, the rest of the explanation was not opinionated at all. I explained step by step what happens when private equity takes over a company. What am I wrong about?

If immorality exists in one of these common business practices please elaborate. Or is your assertion that the individual steps on their own are not immoral, but the ultimate consequence of losing jobs is immoral?

You wanted to bring up how Bain loads these companies up with massive amounts of debt before the “forced failure,” but that ignores the fact that SOMEONE had to loan the company the money. Did Bain dupe the bank that secured the business loan to the company?

When does the immoral behavior occur?

Is the Private Equity firm immoral when they risk capital investing in a business?
Is the Private Equity firm immoral when they secure a business loan from a bank? (load them up with debt…?)
Is the Private Equity firm immoral when they buy an insurance policy to hedge their bet? (Forced failure…?)
Is the Private Equity firm immoral when they collect on the policy? (Business fails despite the capital injection…?)
Is the Private Equity firm immoral when they are forced to deal with the carcass of a failed business (selling factory assets overseas…?)
Is the Private Equity firm immoral because they couldn’t save a business? Because they didn’t try hard enough? Because they were able to make a profit regardless of the jobs lost?
Is the Private Equity firm immoral when they extract the remaining value of the failed business and re-risk it on new business ventures and opportunities?
Is the Private Equity firm immoral because they did not seek government handouts to subsidize an inefficient business model?
Does immorality exist in the economic pain experienced by the town with the closed factory? Because the private equity firm does not share the economic pain? Would it matter whether the employees received severance packages when the factory was closed?

At what point in the relationship between Bain and Sensata did immorality occur?

Capitalism isn't the problem, it's the solution.

Guest post from "iChris," (@iRidiculous).

Image credit: RushLimbaugh.com

President Obama: Four More Years!

2011-04-12T18:49:00.000-07:00

America needs more changing?

...Four more years?!

President Barack Obama's first ad of 2012.

Terrorism Caught On Tape: SEIU, Busted?

2011-03-23T11:53:00.000-07:00

Audio recordings revealed on March 22, 2011, captured disturbing evidence of radical leftists plotting to deliberately wage war on American capitalism. Former SEIU boss, Steven Lerner, was caught on tape revealing a plan to cause a financial meltdown and disrupt America's economy with terrorism. Glenn Beck has described it as a "clear case of economic terrorism."

Observably, the liberal media has remained silent, ignoring shocking evidence of terrorism against the United States. Luckily, The Blaze has revealed the left's economic terrorism playbook. The plan by union leaders and those with similar agendas is, by definition, economic warfare (terrorism).

A coalition of unions, community groups, lawmakers and students have set in motion a plan to take down United States capitalism and redistribute the wealth and power to union leaders. Glenn Beck broke the story on The Glenn Beck Program when he described the following:

"I called in all of the producers. I called in all the heads of my company, and we sat in a room and we listened to Americans describe how they were going to take down a major U.S. bank in May and how they were going to collapse the stock market and bring on a second economic collapse, how this could not appear to be coordinated and could not appear to be coordinated or union‑backed, how the unions were dead and the only way to really restart the unions is to collapse the system."

Lerner is also heard saying that leftist leaders must convince their followers that the country is not broke, but that the wealth is all in the hands of the rich. One of the participants at the forum was socialist anarchist Francis Fox Piven, who, along with professor Richard Cloward during the 1960s formulated a plan that became known as the 'Cloward-Piven Strategy' to bring about 'social justice' by deliberately overloading the American economic system to the point that it collapses under its weight. It is then that real 'change' can be accomplished.

The most disturbing part about all of these reports is the silence from the liberal media. Is it that they do not recognize a shocking, important story even when it has potential to strike at the heart of our economy? Or is it that they simply do not care to report such stories of terrorism? Does the liberal media side with the terrorists? I doubt it, but their actions certainly suggest so. This is no small story, after all, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is the same gang of thugs that has a pending civil lawsuit filed against them under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

The complaint alleges that the SEIU, in face to face meetings, threatened Sodexo USA’s executives that it would harm Sodexo USA’s business unless they gave in to the union, and then carried out its threats through egregious behavior, including:

throwing plastic roaches onto food being served by Sodexo USA at a high profile event;
scaring hospital patients by insinuating that Sodexo USA food contained bugs, rat droppings, mold and flies;
lying to interfere with Sodexo USA business and sneaking into elementary schools to avoid security;
violating lobbying laws to steer business away from Sodexo USA, even at the risk of costing Sodexo USA employees their jobs; and
harassing Sodexo USA employees by threatening to accuse them of wrongdoing.

The SEIU is perhaps the most powerful gang in the United States today. Their "fat-cat" union leaders are corrupt terrorists, as caught on tape and depicted by Steven Lerner, and the tactics they use to disrupt the American economy or the operations of businesses has gone too far. If you haven't listened to the audio tape of Steven Lerner describing their plan, which is by definition economic terrorism, watch the videos below.

Full version of discussion:

The most famous piece of video in EIB history

2011-01-14T18:55:00.000-08:00

This is hilarious! I've never seen this video before. It's what RushLimbaugh.com said is, "The most famous piece of video in EIB history." In this video, Rush Limbaugh is discussing one of the great democrat memorials of the past, which occurred in 1996 when Bill Clinton was talking to a Pennsylvania minister by the name of Tony Campolo. I won't go into more details than that, so I've posted the video here for you all to enjoy.

I present to you a video called, Clinton's Tear for Ron Brown.

Ooh-rah R. Lee Ermey!

2010-12-29T22:53:00.000-08:00

I can tell you right now, the mainstream media isn't going to like this one. John Nolte over at Big Hollywood formulated some predictions and likely reactions we'll see from The Vast Left-Wing Blacklist Machine, sure to rise up over this video clip of R. Lee Ermey. Nolte's four predictions are as follows.

1. Patrick Goldstein of the L.A. Times will write something that attempts to diminish Ermey and his resume into nothing more than a disgruntled has-been/never-was with an ax to grind:

Some right-wing actor who once did voice work on a failed cartoon series….

2. Most film sites will declare Ermey crazy, unglued, addled, unhinged… You get the idea. We’ve seen it all before.

3. MSNBC will run the clip and paint Ermey’s call to “rise up” as a Tea Party-ish call for violence.

4. Mediate will run the clip and still find a way to turn it into an anti-Palin story.

So, what's the big deal? R. Lee Ermey spoke out against the Obama regime!

R. Lee Ermey is one tough patriot - and a Glenn Beck fan, too! Appearing on behalf of Toys 4 Tots and USO, he totally rips into President Obama! Here's the clip:

Ooh-rah R. Lee Ermey! Semper Fi!

JibJab Says: 'So Long to Ya, 2010'

2010-12-19T21:36:00.000-08:00

Personalize funny videos and birthday eCards at JibJab!

Obama's Private Army Courting TSA?

2010-11-23T18:27:00.000-08:00

Obama's private army has found another opportunity to take advantage of a poor security policy, unions are now courting TSA for a potential takeover. Unions want to replace TSA as the new security personnel for airports within the United States. I have a prediction, too, on which union is courting TSA. It's got to be a union which has the backing of Barack Obama and has a goal to become a national civilian military force.

The last time such an opportunity arose was following an incident in downtown Seattle, after surveillance video caught security personnel do nothing as they watch a 15 year old girl get beaten and mugged in a transit tunnel. It was Obama's SEIU shock troops who quickly jumped on the chance to unionize Seattle's Transit Tunnel security. If the SEIU would attempt a takeover of Seattle's Transit Tunnel security in their goal to paint the nation purple, surely these union bosses could also see that a unionized TSA under the umbrella of Homeland Security is their best opportunity to gain power as Obama's civilian military force.

I bet I'm not alone in my thinking, either. Glenn Beck seems to be on the same page as I am. Beck says this TSA story is not going away any time soon. Here's his statement on why:

This is as much of a play on the TSA as it is on you! Make the people hate the TSA and then the TSA employees are going to beg for somebody to protect them and represent them. And they'll run right into the arms of the union.

This story just gets more interesting, and I'm sure rumors may run wild until all is revealed. We live in very weird times. The post-Obama era, perhaps this is what it's like to be on the Road to Serfdom. Very odd, indeed. So I'll leave you with this short segment from The Glenn Beck Program.

Czar-At-Large Brian Sack takes a look at the new TSA guidelines. Czar-At-Large is a weekly production made exclusively for the Insider Extreme.

TSA: Wanna Fly? Drop Your Fly.

2010-11-22T18:48:00.000-08:00

Considering the recent TSA screening controversy, holiday travelers are well aware that flying somewhere for Thanksgiving will bring forth new pre-flight experiences. Or else. Travelers at the airport will experience aggressive and demanding contact in certain special places, and other uncomfortable human interactions. These interactions will redefine how we perceive baggage handlers -err, TSA security officers and other creepy but discreet strangers.

The most intriguing prediction as to why TSA is intrusively groping travelers was brought to my attention by Rush Limbaugh. To him it looks like a good cop/bad cop tactic being played here. Rush Limbaugh says the pat-downs are to force us into the scanners.

"We're being good cop/bad copped here. The bad cops are the pat-downs. The good cop is gonna be the scanning. You wait and see. I got this nailed."

Limbaugh thinks he nailed it. I think so, too.

Why Liberals Spin the Meaning of Thanksgiving

2010-11-19T14:51:00.000-08:00

Thanksgiving is a time for prayer, tradition and sharing. Thanksgiving is giving thanks to God, prosperity and the power of free enterprise. It's really that simple. Yet, liberals routinely spin the meaning of Thanksgiving, so I've decided to write a blog entry to offer one of many explanations as to why they do it.

The true story of Thanksgiving is not the same history lesson taught in public schools and in college universities across the United States. It is an unfortunate fact that the progressive agenda, which has infiltrated America's education system with the help of labor unions, avoid history lessons that explain why American's really give thanks on Thanksgiving, according to American history.

One reason is that liberal textbook publishers want to avoid controversy, in turn publishing politically correct but factually inaccurate material. Big Labor unions feed students a white-washed, non-controversial, over-simplified version of America's history and its most important historical figures. Another reason why liberals disdain the real story of Thanksgiving is that a significant lesson in socialism was learned by the Pilgrims during this point in American history. An important history lesson on the failures of socialism has since been devalued and removed from the classroom environment, thanks to the progressive agenda.

For the past two generations, professors of political science and of history have concentrated on equipping students with skills for performing empirical research and teaching mathematical models that purport to describe political affairs. Leading history departments have emphasized social history and issues of race, class and gender at the expense of constitutional history, diplomatic history and military history. To emphasize social values and issues of race, class and gender, progressives incorrectly teach students that the holiday of Thanksgiving is giving thanks strictly to the Indians who once predominantly populated the North American region.

It is true that local Wampanoag Indians taught the colonists (Pilgrims) how to grow fish for cod and skin beavers for coats, and how to corn (maize) and other local crops unfamiliar to the Pilgrims. The Indians helped the newcomers master hunting and fishing. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper. This is where history gets blurred by progressives; liberals will have you believe the story ends here, and that the Indians provided the Pilgrims with everything they needed to prosper, but this notion cannot be further from the truth.

Even after learning how to fish and grow corn, the Pilgrims were still hindered by the Social Contract they had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London, which called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. The Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what today is described as socialism, and they learned of its failures long before Karl Marx was born.

The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So, William Bradford's community unharnessed the power of free enterprise by invoking the capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. Bradford wrote in his diary on the success of capitalist principles and supply-side economics.

He wrote, "This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been."

In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves. Because they harvested bountiful crops of corn, barley, beans and pumpkins, the colonists had much to be thankful for in the fall of 1621. In the autumn of 1621, the Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony held their first Thanksgiving. They invited their Wampanoag benefactors who arrived with deer to roast with the turkeys and other wild game offered by the colonists. After all, the colonists had learned how to cook cranberries and different kinds of corn and squash dishes from the Indians.

Year after year, following the first Thanksgiving celebration, many of the original colonists continued to celebrate days of thanksgiving for a bountiful autumn harvest and the blessings of freedom God had bestowed on them. These truths were harnessed by the power of certain unalienable rights endowed by their Creator, freedoms that have since been enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Why liberals spin the meaning of thanksgiving is easier to notice when one understands the true nature of the democratic agenda: progressives are motivated by a philosophical belief that socialism is inevitable and that the U.S. Constitution is outdated. Liberals simply cannot celebrate Thanksgiving without degenerating the real meaning of the holiday. One can imagine how difficult it is for liberals to celebrate a day that is based on remembering the failures of a political philosophy they believe is inevitable and wish would just hurry-up and takeover the United States government.

So, to lull the American people into accepting socialism, their solution is simple: change the meaning of Thanksgiving. In the classroom and also seen in liberal television shows, movies, commercials and other mediums of propaganda, liberals and public union teachers stray from fact to instead emphasize social history and issues of race, class and gender at the expense of constitutional history, diplomatic history and military history. And there you have it; now you know why, at least partially, liberals spin the meaning of Thanksgiving.

Washington State Tea Partier Approved

2010-10-07T21:05:00.000-07:00

I've blogged about my previous participation in Seattle's Tax Day Tea Parties, both in 2009 and 2010. I also know that I'm just one person and a single Tea Partier of millions across this great nation; among the many blogs on the Internet, I am a 1-in-100 blogger. Previously I wrote about my approval of Dino Rossi, and now I'd like to present a Washington State Tea Partier approved list of legislation on the voter ballot for November 2, 1020.

What's the most important piece of legislation on the ballot this November?

The progressive agenda, SEIU thugs and other local labor unions have been trying this one for years: get Washington voters to approve a statewide Income Tax. This time, they're trying to trick voters into believing the income tax will only be enforced "on the wealthy." It sounds a lot like that socialist, 'spread the wealth around' legislation President Obama keeps talking about. The problem is that in two years all it will take is a simple majority to increase this income tax to all workers living in Washington, regardless of how much money you earn. Washington state has had a Democratic Supermajority for over 10 years, so every voter can count on their own income getting taxed in two years if 1098 passes. Any tax decreases promised in replacement of an income tax will all rise again, which is a consistent theme under Democratic control.

Defeating 1098 is my #1 hope-to-see result coming out of the November 2010 elections. This and a Dino Rossi win, of course.

My next approved vote is a Yes on 1107 - but why, you may ask?

I support a yes vote because 1107 repeals the costly and arbitrary new tax hikes on thousands of common food and beverage products.

Earlier this year our state’s Democrat-controlled Legislature decided one of the solutions to the budget crisis was to increase sales taxes on candy and bottled water, increase the excise tax on soda and increase Business and Occupation taxes for certain food processors. It is my belief, however, that Washington state doesn't have a problem of taxes being too low, it is that our government has a spending problem. Dino Rossi said it best when discussing the problem of government debt and its affect on our economy:

The problem isn’t that taxes are too low; it’s that spending is too high.

Lastly, this Washington state Tea Partier approves a Yes to 1100 vote - but why, you may ask?

Initiative 1100 ends the Prohibition-era state monopoly on liquor sales, ends price gouging (the current 51.9 percent markup on all liquor), allows the competition of the private sector to bring lower prices, and brings more choice and convenience to the consumer as well as creates private jobs while reducing taxpayer costly state workers.

Rise of the Tea Party; Dino Rossi to Save Washington?

2010-09-17T12:41:00.000-07:00

Can Dino Rossi save Washington state? It's apparent to me, just by looking at recent Rossi vs Murray poll data, there are some Tea Party patriots in WA who are unsure about the positive impact Dino Rossi can have in the pacific northwest. Others might say Dino Rossi doesn't share the same 'fire' that Clint Didier had before unsuccessfully becoming one of the top two candidates for the 2010 Midterm Elections.

To be quite honest, I voted for Didier, so I cannot blame local Tea Party activists for being upset over his loss in the primaries; but to bow out and give up simply because your favorite candidate didn't win the first time around is the worst possible thing a voter can do. After all, Maria Cantwell is due in 2012, and I hope to see Clint Didier make a return -- and hopefully take her progressive agenda out of power, too. Likewise, I hope Dino Rossi wins because I know he will be excellent as a U.S. Senator, and he will help the Tea Party Movement achieve its objectives. He's on our side, truth be told.

At first, as someone who is involved in the rise of the tea party, I too was worried that Dino Rossi may not be able to save Washington without the same wants and desires as Clint Didier -- who is a favorite of the Tea Party Movement. I didn't know whether or not Rossi shared the same political philosophy as Didier. But after doing more research and closely following the 2010 midterm elections, if Patty Murray loses against Dino Rossi for U.S. Senate, I have every reason to believe he will do good things. Why, you ask? Here's what we know of the two candidates, Murray and Rossi:

Patty Murray supports ObamaCare; she voted for it. Murray supports bank bailouts, too; in fact, just yesterday she voted for another $30 billion taxpayer funded bailout for banks. Patty Murray also still believes global warming is all our fault and will vote for a cap and trade scheme designed to funnel money from one big business to another, at the same time raising taxes and energy costs for everybody.

After 18 years of Patty Murray's progressive policies, what does she have to show for: $1.34 trillion state budget deficit and almost 9 percent unemployment rate. This is her fault. She and Maria Cantwell are the problem.

The choice is simple: a vote for Patty Murray is a vote for Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and Harry Reid.

Dino Rossi opposes ObamaCare and has expressed opposition to President Barack Obama's appointment of socialist Donald Berwick as the new leader of health care rationing and wealth redistribution. Rossi knows that Berwick will use health care bureaucracy to redistribute wealth and health care services, and Rossi has made it clear that he will do whatever he can to fix the mess Patty Murray helped to create.

Dino Rossi is against bank bailouts, he in no way supports cap and trade, and will lower taxes to create economic and job growth for both the United States and Washington state.

So why on earth would anyone vote for Patty Murray?

Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray are like evil twin sister acting as Obama's left index finger, like puppets, moving this country closer to socialism than it has ever been before. It's time for positive change to bring this country back to our Founding Fathers Constitutional premise, and these are the reasons why I believe in my heart that Dino Rossi can and will save Washington.

Give Dino Rossi the chance to show us he can stop the madness, and I think he will prove voters right.

Referee 'Disallows' USA Goal in World Cup

2010-06-18T16:00:00.000-07:00

This is the most annoying thing of the day: Referee 'Disallows' USA goal in World Cup. If you didn't watch it Live, or if you haven't seen video or pictures of it, then you might ask 'what was the reason given'? Since I am admittedly no soccer (or fútbol) expert, here's the video and you tell me what reason should be given for the referee's decision to disallow what looks like a perfectly well executed goal.

So here's my thoughts (it should be noted that I watched the game live early this morning): First issue I have with referee Koman Coulibaly's blatantly poor call against Team USA is simply with how bad it looks on FIFA, "the international governing body of football." The referee's decision to disallow the goal, therefor, also reflects poorly on the legitimacy of the World Cup in general.

Maurice Edu scored what would have been the third and winning goal for Team USA. Edu blasted in a free kick from Landon Donovan in the 85th minute, a game changer since it would have made the score 3 - 2 with Team USA in the lead. Yet somehow referee Koman Coulibaly finds reason to disallow the goal, keeping the game a tie and stealing from Team USA the greatest comeback victory in history for the World Cup. Not to mention Team USA is now in the position of being very unlikely to move on to the next round of the World Cup tournament.

The awfulness and disgrace of this referee's call doesn't end there. This brings me to the second issue I have with this refs decision to disallow a perfectly legal goal. Video and photos of Maurice Edu's goal show that Michael Bradley was being held onto by a Slovenian inside the penalty box, which would result in a penalty kick for Bradley regardless of whether or not Edu was offsides.

My interest in soccer and especially the World Cup is was certainly growing; for me personally, I'll admit, I have watched from start to finish two live Seattle Sounders soccer games on TV. This was only a few weeks prior to the World Cup, so there's a chance I only watched those games in anticipation for the 'Big games' on the world stage. In either case, this would mark the second World Cup that I've watched more closely than others. Age could also be a factor here. But after a high stakes World Cup game like this, with a horrible game and tournament changing call like that, by a referee willing to wrongfully 'disallow' the USA from potentially moving on to the next round of the playoffs is a disgrace and it shames the game of fútbol worldwide.

No wonder America doesn't love fútbol; it all makes sense. Is the World Cup always rigged like this? Where's the red challenge flag? I demand accountability in the World Cup, not bias refs with too much power to change a game.

We Con the World; We Con the People

2010-06-04T09:30:00.000-07:00

The Flotilla choir presents: We Con the World.

Turkish 'aid to Gaza' song, with Captain Stabbing and friends.

Israeli Commandos Raid 'Freedom Flotilla'

2010-06-03T16:36:00.000-07:00

After reading the breaking news story of a raid by Israeli commandos on a boat called 'Freedom Flotilla', I first perceived it as a disturbing case of violence against "peaceful," non-violent activists on a peace ship. Later on in the day, on my way home from work the day of the Israeli raid on the ship, I heard on the radio some more "news" covering the event. It was from CBS government news, and they reported that Obama voiced "deep regret" over the loss of life in this incident, and condemned the incident as a tragedy against humanitarians. The liberal mainstream media was on top of the story like Obama is on taxpayers, and they all made sure to condemn Israel as the bad guy. In spite of the liberal media's strong insistence on boldly claiming Israel as the bad buy, something inside of me asked a simple but important question: What were the real motivations behind the 'freedom flotilla'?

Sure, if I didn't care to find out the truth and only listened to the CBS soundbite on the radio or only read the story from msnbc.com, a news organization bailed out and essentially run by the U.S. government, I would probably want to condemn Israel as well. MSNBC opted to headline a photo of a different event, too, picturing a protester being dragged by police officers. What perception of Israel's ship raid is MSNBC trying to give people? The liberal media condemned Israel; Obama joined international outrage on the issue and mourned the violent passengers on board the freedom flotilla who were killed during the Israeli ship raid. The group of people on board 'freedom flotilla' and their mission on that bloody day are in fact funded by terrorist organizations (IHH and 'Free Gaza'). Yet, oddly, MSNBC wrote the following propaganda piece on the incident:

International condemnation was swift and harsh as Israel scrambled to explain how what was meant to be a simple takeover of a civilian vessel went so badly awry. [...] Passengers reached at an Israeli hospital and journalists aboard the ship accused the soldiers of using excessive force.

Now that we got the spin and liberal version of the story, what actually happened? I'll let the videos do the talking, ridding myself and the truth of any bias whatsoever.

Different views and camera filters...

These non-violent, peaceful activists aboard freedom flotilla were caught on video, seen throwing flash grenades, a Molotov cocktail, and using metal rods and pipes to attack the Israeli commandos. At first, what did the Israeli commandos use for self-defense? Paintball guns. Hmm... sounds like MSNBC missed the mark on this one. O'Bama? You too?

In the early hours of the 31st of May 2010, the question remains: why did IDF soldiers board the ship? IDF soldiers boarded the ships of the "Free Gaza" Freedom Flotilla, after the ships refused to redirect their course. The IDF soldiers were armed with non-lethal paintball guns, as I mentioned earlier, and pistols -- ordered to be used only as a last resort. The activists are seen in the first video waiving around metal rods and chains later used to attack the soldiers with. They're also seen throwing a flash grenade into the boat of Israeli commandos.

When the Israeli commandos boarded the ship, large groups of innocent, peaceful passengers surrounded the soldiers and beat them with metal poles and chairs, and threw one soldier over the side of the ship. MSNBC spun this incident by saying the soldiers were "jumping" overboard the ship on their own free will. The videos show another story.

Some passengers grabbed pistols from the IDF soldiers and opened fire. In a preplanned and premeditated attack against the Israeli soldiers, the protesters, even before these "non-violent, peaceful activists" began opening fire on the IDF soldiers, these people on board the ship lynched the soldiers with knives, metal rods and stole two of their pistols. As a result of the attacks, seven IDF soldiers were injured, and nine of the passengers were killed.

The Free Gaza Flotilla publicly insisted their intentions were non-violent, however their violent attack on the IDF soldiers was clearly premeditated. They had knives, metal rods, flash grenades, Molotov cocktails and other items ready to use. So, now that we know the real story behind the commandos from Israel raiding Freedom Flotilla, you tell me, who should really be condemned and who are the ones acting in self-defense?

Recommended Further Readings
Glenn Beck: The story of Israel
Glenn Beck: America's changing view on Israel

Obama Administration and Joe Sestak's Job Offer

2010-05-27T21:51:00.000-07:00

Is there a political scandal brewing? Joe Sestak's job offer from the Obama administration is being called by many sources 'Jobsgate'. There's a growing awareness about the Jobsgate scandal where someone in the Obama Administration offered Congressman Joe Sestak a federal job in exchange for his withdrawal from the primary against incumbent U.S. Senator Arlen Specter.

If the allegations were true, the unknown question to be answered is simple: Who knew what when?

I guess we'll just have to wait for Obama's 'official' explanation on the alleged Sestak job offer, which is coming 'shortly', only months after Congressman Joe Sestak admitted that the Obama administration offered him a job in exchange for political favors.

To be continued....waiting on the 'official' explanation. No matter if it's a truth or lie, apparently we will get an explanation straight from the source; we will hear it from The One.

Did You Plug the Hole Yet, Daddy?

2010-05-27T20:40:00.000-07:00

Did you plug the hole yet, daddy? Mr. President, Barack Obama, the oil spill is a disaster and your leadership is nowhere to be found. This live video feed of the oil spill shows us the answer to my question: Nope.

Obama, the oil spill is still spewing oil, and nobody's in charge of cleanup after more than a month of lackluster relief for this environmental disaster.

On to other things: I've been waaaay busy lately, thus the delay in new blog entries. My economy got better! After months of no luck job-hunting upon graduating with a bachelors degree from the University of Washington, I finally found a great job!

First, I worked in a supervisor position as a Crew Leader for the Census. I'll share more stories on that soon enough. What I can say is that I felt like I made a positive difference, knowing full well that taxpayer dollars were funding the Constitutionally mandated, necessary Census operation. About a month later, I got a much better job in the private industry working on salary. Funny how it seems like you're much more employable if you have a job. I can see why, though.

Anyhow, as my new routine settles down I'll be able to find more time for better blog entries. Barack Obama's oil spill, as a leaderless environmental disaster, I guess it reached its point where I had to comment on it.

Countdown to 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day'

2010-04-24T19:19:00.000-07:00

Fellow bloggers, unite! The countdown to "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" begins. In light of recent "veiled" threats aimed at the creators of the television show South Park (for depicting the prophet Mohammed in a bear suit) by bloggers on Revolution Muslim's website, we hearby deem May 20, 2010 as the first annual Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!

In other words: May 20th is to be recognized as Freedom of Speech Day.

Hot Air wrote yesterday about the story of someone at Dan Savage’s blog starting Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, and how Michael Moynihan at Reason also picked it up. Almost unilaterally, we all seem to agree on what to do after learning of this new day: "Now I feel obliged to help push it out there." Says Allah Pundit:

Cue the predictable media squealing that “you’ll only antagonize them!” Antagonism, actually, is an idea straight out of the Hirsi Ali playbook: Her point to Anderson Cooper in the clip I posted earlier was that only by sharing the risk of retaliation for blasphemy can the public help protect her, Parker, Stone and other insolent infidels. If each threat produces more blasphemers than it silences, then threats suddenly become counterproductive. Or at least, they do to rational minds. (A flaw in the theory?)

BigGovernment.com also discussed why Dan Savage declared May 20th “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day," a day in defense of Matt Stone and Trey Parker. The main reason for having this day is of course in defense of the first amendment of the Constitution. So, hopefully for those bloggers who stumble upon this blog entry and feel inspired to help -- you too can do your part on May 20th, Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!

Do your part to both water down the pool of targets and, of course, defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Comedy Central did not use their God given right to freedom of speech, a right that Americans are guaranteed under the first amendment of the Constitution. Instead, the television network cooperated with terrorists and pulled the episode. This, despite the wishes of Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, to air the original episode which depicts Mohammed in a bear suit.

My thoughts are if other religions are not exempt from such humor or mockery from American television networks, then surely Mohammed in a bear suit is fair game. Rightfully so, too. The countdown is already under way, the question is whether or not everybody will draw Mohammed on May 20th. Would you, fellow bloggers, help defend the first amendment, the Constitution, freedom of speech, and the hilarious Matt Stone and Trey Parker?

Obama's Education Propaganda in Textbooks

2010-04-18T12:22:00.000-07:00

Is it ethical to push a current political candidate's propaganda in textbooks for public education? For the year 2008, before getting elected President, Obama's education propaganda can be found in many textbooks across the United States. Media reports suggest Obama's propaganda was only pushed on school children, or for those in the public education system who are not quite old enough to vote yet. But that's not exactly true, because in my very own college-level Spanish class at the University of Washington Barack Obama somehow landed his name in my textbook.

I took this Spanish class during Obama's campaign year for President, at the UW. It's important to remember one thing: at that time nobody really knew much about Barack Obama, only that he was loved by liberals and a 2008 presidential candidate. With certainty, it can be said that I knew very little about Barack Obama in 2008 -- and yet, somehow, he found his way in my Spanish textbook. Before getting to the propaganda I was fed in college, let's review the current state of "Obamaganda."

Political propaganda to push candidate-Obama has been documented by many sources in the news media. NewsBusters ran a story about a mother of a Racine Unified School District 8th grade student in a Wisconsin public school. The woman was outraged about a textbook provided to her child, because it is supposedly "teaching about literature," but in reality is pushing Barack Obama's memoir Dreams from my Father.

Glenn Beck documented other sources of Obama's education propaganda, and how there is a concerted effort to indoctrinate your children with progressive propaganda. POLITICO reported on school districts from Maryland to Texas, which were fielding angry complaints from parents opposed to President Barack Obama’s back-to-school address.

The White House says Obama’s address is a sort of pep talk for the nation’s schoolchildren. But conservative commentators have criticized Obama for trying to “indoctrinate” students to his liberal beliefs, and some parents call it an improper mix of politics and education.

Apparently Obama called for students to write letters about how they can help the president. As a conservative, I can see exactly why these parents were upset.

Click to enlarge image

In 2008, as a conservative college student, one can probably understand why reading about Barack Obama in my Spanish textbook got me upset. You'll notice Obama's education propaganda ranges from outrageously obvious to unremittingly discrete. In this case, it was discrete but hoped to push an embellished message onto college students (voters) about a political candidate. Located in the Spanish class "Activity" section of the textbook (Actividad H), it reads:

Using a mix of males and females, think of four well-known people that you either admire, detest, hate, or respect. Jot down their names and then write how you feel about that person...

Click to enlarge image

Luckily for some college students who might still be confused on who to write about for an answer to the above question, the textbook provided a model (example) which can be used as a reference. One might expect an example about families or a family member in general, because in this chapter (lesson 4), students explore the topic of families. Let's take a look at the example provided for students to learn.

Modelos Barack Obama: Lo admiro porque es inteligente.

Translation: "Barack Obama: I admire him because he is intelligent."

So subtle, yet so very, very wrong... I'd be willing to bet at least half of the students who completed this activity wrote about the provided "model," Barack Obama. Although, most students probably twisted the words in the example, so as not to copy, and then wrote about some of the many other ways they adore "The One."

I can think of a thousand or more reasons why the provided "model" in this activity is unethical education propaganda, and why the authors of this textbook should be reprimanded for pushing a political candidate during the 2008 presidential campaigns. So, who are the authors of this textbook?

Bill VanPatten, who was, until recently, "Professor of Spanish and Second Language Acquisition at the University of Illinois at Chicago."

James F. Lee, who is a series editor for the McGraw-Hill Second Language Professional Series with Bill VanPatten.

Terry L. Ballman, a Professor of Spanish and founding faculty member and coordinator of Spanish/Languages at California State University, Channel Islands.

Andrew P. Farley, who received his Ph.D in Second Language Acquisition and Teacher Education (SLATE) from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Without jumping to conclusions, I'd just like to point out that two of the authors have ties to Chicago, Illinois. They have direct ties to the home state of Barack Obama. Is this a coincidence, and discrete but harmless case of political propaganda pushing Obama? You decide.

When Taxes Rise, Freedom Dies

2010-04-17T16:08:00.000-07:00

It's a fact that when taxes rise, freedom dies. Democrats have failed to understand this truth, so, twice I've attended a Tea Party protest. Last year I went to, and then wrote about, the 2009 Tax Day Tea Party in Seattle Washington. It was the first protest I've ever been to, and it was also the beginning of the Tea Party Movement. Showing my pride as an American patriot, I also attended the 2010 Tea Party in Seattle, on April 15. I imagine our Founding Fathers would be proud!

For the 2010 Tax Day Tea Party, I unfortunately misplaced the Flip Camcorder that I used to create the YouTube video of the Seattle Tea Party. Thus, I was stuck with my iPhone for this years Tea Party protest, which is unfortunate because it only takes average quality pictures. Regardless, the event was still a blast! From what I noticed at the rally it's quite possible more people showed up this year than last year, too: the Tea Party Movement is growing.

Without further ado, here's some excellent pictures from the Seattle Tea Party at Westlake Park!

All of the pictures included in this blog entry are from the April 15, 2010 Tax Day Tea Party in Seattle (Westlake Park). Below is the YouTube video I created from attending the 2009 Tea Party in Seattle; you'll notice, from the video, it seems like there were much less protest signs at the 2010 Tea Party rally. Although, I did my best to include photos of the most popular signs found at this years Tea Party protest. Hopefully you all agree!

The same patriotic aura was felt at both events; however, this years protest felt a little more toned down (in terms of protest signs) from the previous year. This could be due to the vicious lies about protesters that many leftists have tried claiming are a part of the Tea Party Movement. In either case, it's certainly a growing movement despite the lies to demonize Tea Party patriots.

Mad Friends with Eric Cartman

2010-04-09T17:37:00.000-07:00

Mad Friends with Eric Cartman aired on South Park, on an episode about Facebook and the importance of having the most popular people on your Friends list. To aid the South Park gang in their pursuit, Cartman took an approach much like Mad Money with Jim Cramer and launched his own podcast, Mad Friends.

Mad Money Web Editor Tom Brennan wrote about the South Park episode and headlined the story, "South Park Spoofs Cramer!"

Cartman used everything from Mad Money-style sound effects to our touch-screen charts to make his point. He cited catalysts and mergers as reason to friend or defriend someone. And he even rolled up his sleeves! Our favorite part, though, is news ticker at the bottom of the screen showing the percentage of friends gained and lost by people in town, along with their status updates.

After watching the clip I cannot agree more! In perfect South Park form, the execution is flawless and, of course, always funny. It left me wondering: why is it not surprising that Eric Cartman would use Facebook and people on your friends list like the stock market and stock picks?

Stock Market Ignores Big Government Tax Hikes

2010-04-07T23:42:00.000-07:00

Obama's lengthy term as President continues as his policies steamroll our economy. It's perplexing for me to watch how the stock market ignores big government tax hikes, which are an imminent effect of Obama's health care bill, and yet things in appearance seem to be looking up on Wall Street. Based on the skyrocketing unemployment levels, Main Street is certainly not enjoying the same perception of prosperity as Wall Street.

Since day one after Obama became President, the Democrats big government policies viciously attack small businesses, began a long-term process to redistribute the wealth to radicals who want to rule this country, and then voluntells the taxpayers and U.S. companies to pay for a portion of the bill. Another portion of the bill will be quietly but forcibly paid for by everyone with new big government regulations, with the addition of a European-style value-added tax system to help bring the deficits under control. Obama's new bureaucracies of change are a part of an overall plan to control the people, an agenda that comes with entitlements and deficits that will become a permanent burden caused by the Democrats European-style socialized health care takeover.

Congress and the Unions are of course exempt from ObamaCare. Socialist regimes reveal their true nature by the special treatment they give to their permanent ruling class; they deny such treatment for ordinary schleps like you and me. ObamaCare means a two-tier health care system. The book titled Animal Farm, a story about Socialism, reminds me about the process of change America is witnessing with ObamaCare, as Democrats are making the fundamental transformation of America a corrupt reality.

What's most troubling is the skyrocketing increase in unemployment we've seen since Obama became President of the United States. Even worse is how Obama reacts to higher unemployment. Democrats tell us "Get used to the new normal: 10% unemployment." Democrats believe it is their duty to manage America's decline and see to it that it happens, because they think we deserve to be a nation in decline.

The most confusing part about all of this, to me, is the reaction of the stock market. But I may have figured out what is causing Wall Street to rise as the majority Democrats dictate one new policy after another. It may explain why we've seen an odd rise in the stock market during Obama's presidency, even when he was accompanied by a Liberal Super-majority. One way to understand why the market is suggesting, confusingly, that our economy is getting better involves looking at the history of government intervention in the United States.

America's recent history of government intervention includes some short term 'bubble' effects in the stock market. Take for instance the Housing Bubble, which burst in 2007-08, and was caused by big government regulations that--at first--gave many reasons for Wall Street to rejoice. Wall Street's initial gains before the Subprime Mortgage crisis was of course due to short term benefits after banks were forced to take on new loans, which appeared to Wall Street like future revenue, but what was in reality considered 'bad debt' by today's standards. It was bad debt back then, too.

Because we all want to make money, if Obama's big government is going to force regulations onto our economy's back, of which may create a short term bubble in the health care and insurance industry, I suppose it makes sense to invest while the investing is hot. In fact, Cramer discussed on Mad Money why pessimism about America's long term outlook could be costing investors money in the short term. Wall Street is anticipating 30 million new customers will join the insurance industry once big government regulations begin to force, for the first time in America's history, consumers to purchase a product simply for being an American citizen. Of course the insurance companies should expect a short term gain from what looks like, in appearance, an onslaught of new customers. But is there a hidden dark side to Obama's health care bubble in the stock market?

One giant reason to believe any rise in the health care or insurance industry is a bubble in the stock market, and more likely just hot air, is because we all know a tidal wave of regulations, taxes, fees, bureaucracies, waiting lines, bankruptcies and seniors denied medical care are on the way. But it will take time for the negative effects of ObamaCare to start unraveling, because it won't become a full blown tax machine to stall the economy until 2014. The beginning of the Democrats mandated decline of America is but a small light at the end of a tunnel, inching closer each day as the stock market ignores big government tax hikes that will imminently arrive. The closer socialized health care gets to becoming an enforced law, the more we will pay in anticipation of Obama's fundamental change of America.

Until then, naysayers of Obama's health care reform will be demonized and attacked by the Democrats gone wild, and perhaps a stock market bubble will be on the rise.

Obama's Picture is Worth Ten Thousand Words

2010-03-30T12:35:00.000-07:00

Napoleon Bonaparte once said, "A picture is worth a thousand words." If this is true, Obama's picture is worth ten thousand words. This is a perfectly timed photograph of the president and his team, laughing hysterically together as they surround the giggling White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs.

This official White House photograph can be found here. It was taken on November 14, 2009, and has not been modified in any way.

From the picture, one can so easily imagine Team Obama had just finished plotting America's takeover. It strikes a similar pose to Andy Thomas's Big Dawgs Playin' Poker, painted to inspire false hope during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. In the Big Dawgs Playin' Poker painting, it includes two leftist radicals who once controlled the White House before Obama: Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Unfortunately for America, Barack Obama's socialist success trumps both of these president's. President Obama has successfully moved America further left and beyond the radical dreams of both Roosevelt and Wilson.

Clockwise from far left: presidents Carter, Kennedy, Clinton, Wilson, Johnson, Truman, Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt. Missing from painting: Barack Obama, standing tall to the right of Kennedy, laughing hysterically while he watches his predecessors play political games with the American people.

To think, all it took to fundamentally change the United States was a strategy inspired by deceit. After all, Obama's predecessors always failed to bring socialism to America. Due to these failures, Democrats launched a different kind of campaign for Barack Obama. Democrats first executed a methodical, flawless plan to illuminate Barack Obama as America's Superhero. The Mainstream media followed in lockstep formation behind the Democrats, censoring the truth about Obama's direct associations with the people and organizations which caused the financial collapse.

Obama campaigned on Conservative principles, misguidedly tricking millions of American's into voting for him based on bold lies of lowering taxes, and spurring economic growth and employment. We all know how that turned out. Laughing hysterically, Obama knows by the time the people realize he is a false hero, it will be too late to take back our liberty stolen from us by the federal government. The nation's heritage of freedom, as they say, is history.

Democrats Gone Wild!

2010-03-27T12:07:00.000-07:00

Have the Democrats gone wild? Because there are no rules for radicals, the Democrats are indeed running wild in America. Government spending is out of control. And in just a moment, I will show you THE most important chart of the century. The chart is similar to the M1 Multiplier, but it may be easier to understand just by looking at it.

If you're anything like me, you've probably voiced your political opinion against Obama's health care bill. Similarly, it's also likely you've been demonized by the Democrats, who will be the first to tell you that thinking Obama's agenda is anything but responsible is just an "extremist conspiracy theory." We've been demonized, attacked, and ignored by our government. We are the conservatives, a proud voice of a distant and once great nation.

The last time I checked, bold statements such as "Give me liberty, not debt!" is as far from extremist rhetoric that I can think of. Since when was asking for more freedom and less debt considered an extreme political opinion? What is so conspiracy-like about wanting smaller government and less taxes?

Democrats to Conservatives: You've convinced yourself of too much truth; you'll go blind in both eyes, deaf in both ears, and paralyzed from the neck down if you continue to question big government. Trust Obama, the government knows what is best for you. Let him make your medical decisions for you. You are getting very, very sleepy...

Is there proof Obama's spending is not working? I mentioned above how I'd provide a visual of the most important chart of the century. Before I show you the damage caused by Democrats gone wild, you must understand that America's debt problem has been increased to a scale of unfathomable proportions. ObamaCare looks to be the final nail in the coffin for America, and it will destructively cripple the economy.

Wait, that can't be right. From the chart, it looks like immediately after the Democrats began running wild, debt in the U.S. economy caused productivity to sink like a rock in water. That is, debt skyrocket in comparison to GDP.

Nate over at Swarm USA commented on the graphic above and he said, "This is a very simple chart. It takes the change in GDP and divides it by the change in Debt. What it shows is how much productivity is gained by infusing $1 of debt into our debt backed money system."

So there you have it. Proof the implication of Obama's policies is damaging our economy. Indeed, it's the image of Democrats gone wild!

Democrats Socialize America's Healthcare System

2010-03-21T21:07:00.000-07:00

Democrats in the US House of Representatives cast their health care vote on the Senate's bill, approving a government takeover to socialize America's health care system. Under ObamaCare, a federal law allows the government to takeover America's private health care system. Federal law now requires the government to run a socialist health care system, in a move that will cripple approximately 18% of the United States economy.

Barack Obama and the US government owns two of Detroit’s big three automakers, the world’s largest insurer AIG, the largest mortgage operations in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as a third of Citigroup. Now with the passage of ObamaCare, Barack Obama's fundamental change of the United States is complete. Democrats destroyed the finest health care system in the world, by three votes, 219 to 212. The socialist revolution wins, it was that easy.

The Democrats managed to bring socialism to the United States, and Obama fulfilled his most extreme promise to "fundamentally change America." One certainty about the health care bill are the consequences which will be felt by everyone, and the tax increases that will affect all American's. Under ObamaCare, recently passed on Sunday, March 21, a date which Drudge Report declared 'will live in infirmary,' Congress successfully gave rise to socialism in America.

Ronald Reagan's fiscally conservative voice is lost hope American's were once able to have, now becoming meaningless rhetoric speaking out against big government. The Tea Partiers useless defiance against the 'inevitable' universal health care system was a message not listened to by congressional democrats in office. ObamaCare will cripple America and our economy.

The problem with ObamaCare is that we're not united on this health care bill at all, and a mandate in it is unconstitutional. The problem is America loses; Socialism wins. It's a dark day in America and for our economy, which will be crippled for years to come. At least we can be confident in one thing: we know the root cause.

Over the next ten years, 'Atlas' along with all incentive-driven and hard working American's will shrug as ObamaCare increases everyone's taxes and slowly eats away at an already deteriorating US economy. It will, over time, slowly destroy what was once the greatest health care system on earth.

Is it just me, or do you also see a double-dip recession coming? This could be the big one. The 'great recession' could now last at least a decade, thanks to the socialist revolution and Barack Obama's destructive Social Contract.

Countdown To ObamaCare, Socialism

2010-03-20T15:27:00.000-07:00

The countdown to ObamaCare begins. We're 24 hours away from fundamentally changing America, and the government is about to takeover the current health care system and reform it to match Canada and Europe's socialist system. ObamaCare is socialism: an equally shared, redistributive system of government-quality health care.

The great socialist revolution is almost complete. Barack Obama's leftist organizations, ACORN and the SEIU, will always, forever have the last laugh after fundamentally transforming America's Constitution-based federal republic. The unions, as Obama's left and right workhorses, will soon successfully transform America into a socialist union, with a strong democratic tradition at home and abroad. The unions will win, scoring a huge victory for socialism, at the sacrafice of American taxpayers and state liberties. Will American's lose freedom that we must soon, tomorrow, say is liberty we once had?

The scariest part is that there's nothing American's can do to stop the revolution from successfully transforming America. We must sit back, watch, and wait for the takeover to begin.

The Pilgrims were facing the same grim scenario when they entered into the New World's first Social Contract with previous merchant-sponsors in London. Under socialism, all the Pilgrims had left was their faith. We will soon learn what William Bradford did long before Karl Marx was born, after the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what today is described as socialism. It will be a tragedy our Founding Fathers hoped to quell from ever happening in the United States. Atlas may soon be Shrugging.

Will it be too late to 'Change It Back' once ObamaCare is set in motion as a federal law?