Category: Human Interest

These people think George Orwell’s 1984 is an instruction manual

If you have not read 1984, you should, but here is a synopsis about what at that time was seen as a work of fiction that reflected a world gone mad. Basically Orwell created a dystopian world run by “Big Brother”, an entity that pretends to run this upside down world for the betterment of all people, but really is only out for the elite few (basically every collectivist system in history), where amongst other things the “Ministry of Truth” twists language to suit whatever the agenda du jour of the masters is. Stories change, often and blatantly, without regard for the obvious contradictions and abuse, so the masters can get what they want from the sheep.

Queue in the latest instance of our own Obama Administration’s “Ministry of Truth”, and man have we had a few doozies from these people, where they now are relabeling criminals and criminal activity. I admit that when I saw this piece for the first time I double checked to make sure it was not a belated April first joke or some publication from whatever site finally replaced the now DNC controlled Onion as the latest site for sarcastic, ironic, and moronic news. It tuns out that it is for real. Sure, the claim is that this relabeling is to give people a second chance, but me, I see it as another chess move in the much greater game where the left wants to specifically use the power of government restore voting right to criminals, whom would predominantly vote for them.

Whatever your feelings about criminality in this country, you have to admit that we have a problem with our leadership at this time. On the one hand they are criminalizing all sorts of albeit stupid but not criminal behaviors the left dislikes, and yet here we have the administration going out of its way to destigmatize real criminals and crime. Personally I, if I for a second believed that we could get a system where if drugs were decriminalized the government wouldn’t make people like me pay for the cost of the nanny state safety net that they would create, would decriminalize drug use. But rape and robbery, armed or otherwise, are serious crimes I feel far stronger about. I don’t mind people making personal choices about associating or interacting with people convicted of these sorts of crimes, but I have serious reservations about government pushing people into that, and doing so at such an Orwellian level, just so they can eventually tell us they will give these people the ability to vote (for them) again.

NYT caught shilling for Shillary

In case you didn’t get to see it, the NYT ran a hit-piece on Trump titled “Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private“, where they used quotes from women to basically paint the picture that Trump was a cad. Unfortunately for the scumbags at the NYT that feel obligated to shill for democrats, and for Hillary Clinton in particular, one of the people they “misquoted” (that is me being sarcastic, because I have no doubt they lied on purpose) decided to fight back.

I guess the idiots at the NYT felt that they could lie with impunity and that since nobody in the DNC controlled media would give these people they were lying about a forum to call them out. By the time the truth comes out, it is too late because people made the wrong choices already. Let me point out that this is a tactic used to not just elect, but reelect Obama by the DNC controlled media, and thus considered very effective by these propagandists. I guess they got unlucky that one of the people they chose to lie about not only had the avenue to get the truth out, but chose to do so. Maybe people in the LSM that want to make a name for themselves should find some of these other women quoted, and see if their story checks out. My guess is that the lot of it was fabricated by the scumbags at the NYT.

Let me be clear that I wouldn’t mind real investigation into people running for high office’s personal behavior, if I for a second believed that the media actually meant to just inform the public. But the problem is that whenever you get one of the SJW hit pieces it tends to be replete with falsehoods and always targets non-democrats to push an ideology that basically is evil. If the shitheads in the LSM had vetted Obama with the same expediency and faked rigor they felt was necessary to undermine candidates like Palin, Romney, and now Trump (see a pattern there yet?), and applied the same rigor to any democrat, I think we would never see another democrat winning any election. You might think Trump is a blowhard and likely to make a mediocre president like I do, but then again, I am willing to bet money that he can’t sink to the level of Obama, and for that matter the stupidity of Sanders or the criminal behavior of any of the Clintons.

BTW, I have some advice for the NYT and rest of the DNC controlled media about finding men that treat women like sex objects and shit: if you want to do a serious hit piece, one based on truth and that targets a real scumbag that abuses women, write about Bill Clinton. No need to make up any facts there to show how much of a lowlife that dude is. But nobody at the NYT, or in the LSM for that matter, seems interested in actually writing objective pieces about members of the DNC, where we have real despicable and law breaking activity going on constantly, precisely because they feel they are protected by the media.

That idiotic pay gap thingy..

Want to see an article that should have stopped after the third paragraph? Well, here is a “Science Daily” article titled Young women in STEM fields earn up to one-third less than men which says exactly the opposite of the title’s claim. From the article:

One year after they graduate, women with Ph.D.s in science and engineering fields earn 31 percent less than do men, according to a new study using previously unavailable data.

The pay gap dropped to 11 percent when researchers took into account that women tended to graduate with degrees in fields that generally pay less than fields in which men got their degrees.

The rest of the pay gap disappeared when the researchers controlled for whether women were married and had children.

Seriously, you should have ended the article right here and the title correct title would have been that gender pay gap, at least according to this study, is a myth. But of course, since there is no money to be gotten by finding that this myth the SJW types in government fork over oodles of money for is bunk, they decide to contradict their own findings with politically motivated clap-trap.

“There’s a dramatic difference in how much early career men and women in the sciences are paid,” said Bruce Weinberg, co-author of the study and professor of economics at The Ohio State University.

“We can get a sense of some of the reasons behind the pay gap, but our study can’t speak to whether any of the gap is due to discrimination. Our results do suggest some lack of family-friendliness for women in these careers.”

WTF? Your first three paragraphs make it plenty clear that when you try to do an apple to apple comparison and control for type of degree and for choices related to family life, that there is no gap. It is fairly obvious to anyone that applies statistical methodology to any analysis of these claims that when you account for the types of careers women favor or life choices they make, that the entire gap argument vanishes. So then, why are we still getting a long winded article if it is obvious there really isn’t any nefarious reasons for this difference? Well here it is:

The importance of helpful family policies is supported by the fact that single and childless women tended to have less of a pay gap than those who were married and those who had children. About equal percentages of men and women were married or partnered. And more men than women in the study (24 versus 19 percent) had children. But it was the married women with children who saw the lower pay.

“Our results show a larger child-gap in salary among women Ph.D.s than among men,” Weinberg said.

Reading between the lines it is obvious that the study’s authors seem to feel that making the choice to focus on family and children shouldn’t impact women’s earning potential. Sure you can think this is quite noble since family units, and especially the children, are so important, but to me it is ludicrous. Lets start out by noting that these crusaders are currently only asking that employers pay women for less productivity than men. I wonder if they would demand the same for men that decide to stay at home and be the one dealing with the children. Somehow I don’t believe that is the priority of these SJW types, but it could well be that the end goal isn’t to make employers just pay more for less productive women, but to pay more for less productive people in general. The laws of economics and human nature be damned.

Look, like I told the crazy SJW type from the HR department of my company a few weeks ago during her rant about how unfair it was that the guys in the IT department made so much more money than she did, the reason is in the details. While she felt here women’s studies major and political history (WTF is this even) minor at an expensive school should earn her the same as the guys that got real engineering or computer science degrees at whatever institutions, employers who pay for the work obviously felt it was not worth the same. Similarly, if she took time of to spend it with her cats while these guys were totally career oriented, it wouldn’t be fair for either the employer or the guys that she ended up being paid more simply because of her plumbing.

Of course, she really didn’t like that reality and got all huffy at me and even insinuated I needed some PC reeducation, at which point I simply told her that I had no problem saying what I just said to her, even though she was in HR, because the value of the work I did was so important to my employer that I doubted they would make a fuss about it. After all, if they did, I could pack up and head somewhere else, because my particular skills, especially when combined with my work ethics and track record of producing results, were in very high demand.

My advice to people that feel they are not getting compensated enough was always to see how valuable the employer really felt about what they did and how quickly they could find somewhere else to work. In most cases, when you add value, they will pay you for that value. if not, someone else will. The gap comes when your productivity factors in, both because of your learned skills (degree and work experience) and the effort they get from you (are you there and working hard, or are you in need of taking time off too often).

This shit ain’t that complicated man. Of course, you factor in the government meddling, and everything goes out the window…

Study makes the wrong conclusion.

I was quite baffled when I saw the title for a study posted on science daily that reported that “Skepticism about climate change may be linked to concerns about economy” because while I am certain that in good economic times people are less resistant to government fleecing, I still have a hard time believing people would buy the AGW lies. from the article I see the following declaration:

Americans may be more likely to accept the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change and its potentially devastating effects if they believe the economy is strong and stable, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

I could not fathom any study that would produce these results, and immediately suspected some kind of bullshit. My first inclination was that they very likely had loaded questions designed to illicit responses that would allow them to make this ludicrous claim. After all, there is a historical precedent that most people are willing to tolerate a heavier hand from Uncle Sam, the one going straight into their pockets where they keep their money, when their own income and potential for income looks good. I can see a study rigged to use that mechanism to make this idiotic claim that resistance to this nonsense and the political agenda is economic, but I wanted details, so I decided to take a closer look at the article, and the answer was right there. This was a bunch of bullshit wrapped in pretty paper to sell another lie. let’s start with this:

In an experiment conducted online, 187 Americans ranging from 18 to 70 years old watched a newscast with skeptical commentary about a NASA documentary on climate change. Participants who more enthusiastically supported the capitalist system were more dubious about climate change, and they misremembered facts from the newscast about the severity of climate change. Conversely, participants who were more critical of the capitalist system and more interested in social change recalled the information about climate change as being even more severe than the facts that were presented.

So first off, let me point out that the “mischaracterization” made by this idiot author about how supporters of the capitalist system were more likely to “misremember facts” or “not grasp the severity of the problem”, was nothing but his biased attempt to discredit people that pointed out what they were shown was a pile of bullshit. The likely scenario is that these people, less ruled by fucking feelings, pointed out that this cult is based on a well orchestrated campaign of falsehoods, flawed models and systems, manipulation of the facts and data to create a desired results, a peer review circle jerk, the demonization of anyone not willing to let them get away with this shit, and that not a single one of the horribly exaggerated effects have come to pass, isn’t “misremembering” or “not seeing the gravity of the situation”, but pointing out why this thing is a scam. Cultists don’t like that.

I also am not surprised people that saw the inherent value of the capitalist system were less prone to bullshit than their collectivist counterparts, because it has always been obvious to me that collectivists tend to be ruled by emotion and emotional appeal. Show a bunch of collectivist twits a fictional piece like Al Gore’s idiotic movie, hilariously titled “An inconvenient truth” of all things, that proposes draconian collectivism to deal with the coming apocalypse, and one shouldn’t be surprised these twits gobble up that shit sandwich either.

Anyway, back to the point here. The study, as practically every one of these pro AGW propaganda pieces tends to do, made a totally wrong conclusion from what they saw. The conclusion they should have made was that people inclined to believe the unwashed masses have a right to use government force to steal from the productive to benefit themselves are far more likely to buy a pack of lies when it pushes their agenda, while those that don’t buy theft by government and totalitarianism as good, are far less likely to fall for that bullshit.

Next we get the following doozy:

In another experiment, with 57 college students, participants were divided into two groups: One read a statement that the federal government had very broad power to influence the economy and the availability of jobs; the other, a statement that the government’s power was limited. The participants then read a news article that recounted some errors that were inadvertently included in a scientific report on climate change. Participants who thought the economy had a strong influence on their lives were more skeptical about climate change and were less likely to remember facts from the news article about the severity of climate change.

In a third experiment, with 203 college students, one group listened to a podcast that reported the U.S. economy had recovered from the recession, another group heard the recession was continuing, and a control group didn’t hear any podcast. All of the participants then watched a NASA documentary about scientific evidence of climate change before completing a survey about their support for the current U.S. economic system. Participants who more strongly endorsed the legitimacy of the economic system were more likely to believe in the severity of climate change only when they thought the economy was strong and stable.

Let me start by pointing out that when you pick a bunch of college students that are not in engineering, math, physics, chemistry, medicine, accounting, or something that actually involves not just regurgitating bullshit liberal dogma, for their opinion on things scientific, you shouldn’t be surprised to see the stupidity the experimenters did. I am sorry, but “Studies” or “Poli Sci” majors are neither hard science types nor – yes it is my opinion – really learning anything of value outside an artificial world created by the grand collectivist machine. They are a plague on the universe. I should have probably at the point of the realization how unscientific this scientifc study was, just moved on to something less brain damaging than this idiocy, but I couldn’t pass the opportunity to showcase what we are dealing with here.

In the first example, where they used some college students that were likely some 7 year geniuses of the humanities fields, we should begin with the fact that nobody with any common sense would buy the idiocy that government, by its very nature, has any form of control on economic activity, other than to impede, degrade, or piss away tons of tax payer dollars on it. But it remains baffling to me that this experiment led to the conclusion that good economic metrics influence people to dismiss the AGW bullshit. Again, I see that the correlation here isn’t faith in good economic times over AGW dystopia as much as how much more inclined someone was to accept the AGW nonsense as gospel if they lacked a solid grasp of economics and the impact of government on that activity.

If anything, the third experiment shows that the AGW cult is bull. Believers are far more likely to endorse the agenda while they felt they had little to lose and a lot to gain from the wealth transfer agenda behind the AGW movement. But as happens in real life, as soon as things got good for them, they were far likely to want that wealth transfer. Seriously, if you take a look at the supporters of Bernie Sanders and then at the supporters of Donald Trump, the big difference is the fact that the Sanders camp is comprised of people that are in deep debt and are looking for someone to bail them out (lots of jobless humanities students with big loan debt), while the other camp lacks that crowd.

These experiments should have concluded that collectivist are far more likely to like collectivist agendas when they gain from them, and much less likely to do anything but pay lip service to them when they find out they will foot the bill. Also that non-collectivists will focus on the reality of economics and human nature over some apocalyptic fantasies collectivists hope will convince people to let them fuck us all over.

That ain’t mayo, baby!

Talk about getting more than you paid for:

MAY 3–A woman last week contacted Florida cops to report that she believed a pair of chicken sandwiches purchased at KFC “contained semen,” according to a police report.

The unidentified customer went to the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office and told officials there that she bought the sandwiches from a Bradenton restaurant.

This reminds me of the girl in my junior year biology class that asked the teacher if cum had a high concentration of sugar (fructose) why it tasted salty, then realized she had just admitted to being a fun date. That or maybe this chick was just looking for a pay day.

I never worked in fast food, although I did a brief stint in a restaurant my parents owned, but I have plenty of friends that have told me stories that make it very clear that you avoid this stuff unless you can watch them make it. Sully was not available for comment…

I bet the LSM will not blame this on the crooks in charge…

Can I ask if you are surprised to find out that now that we have experienced Black Jesus’ “Hope and Fundamental Change” in action, that we are seeing European level of anemic economic performance and being snowed into thinking it is not the fault of the bullshit policies of these crooks? From the article:

The U.S. economy expanded in the first quarter at the slowest pace in two years as American consumers reined in spending and companies tightened their belts in response to weak global financial conditions and a plunge in oil prices.

Gross domestic product rose at a 0.5 percent annualized rate after a 1.4 percent fourth-quarter advance, Commerce Department data showed Thursday. The increase was less than the 0.7 percent median projection in a Bloomberg survey and marked the third straight disappointing start to a year.

Shaky global markets and oil’s tumble resulted in the biggest business-investment slump in almost seven years, and household purchases climbed the least since early 2015, the data showed. While Federal Reserve officials on Wednesday acknowledged the softness, they also indicated strong hiring and income gains have the potential to reignite consumer spending and propel economic growth.

First off, low oil prices, unless you are in the criminal green industry or in the oil business itself, are awesome for any business. Lower oil costs means lower fuel costs, which for every business that moves shit around means lower costs period, and more profits. Investments are slumping, not because of the drop in oil prices – I have made a killing myself investing in oil companies right now – but because too many people are catching on that the stock market rise is mostly from devaluation of the dollar (makes assets worth more on paper) and because there was nothing else that was safe to invest in. The problem is that since the 2008 crash any growth has come without a growth in employment numbers, and whenever it happened otherwise, because government pissed money propping up junk industries that will die sooner than later. We have had morons lie to us that the economy was growing when all it did was stay on life support while massive government spending and borrowing tried to hide that fact.

“The fact that personal consumption is a bit on the soft side is a disappointment, especially in light of the low gasoline prices,” said Thomas Costerg, senior economist at Standard Chartered Bank in New York, who correctly projected first-quarter growth. “Consumption seems to be stuck in a low gear.”

Yeah, that slump happens because fewer people are employed you moron, hence less cash to spend, and those of us that are still employed realizing we better hide our money in assets that government can’t fuck us over for having. Yeah, I know the LSM has been touting the stupid unemployment numbers that totally hide the fact so many people have dropped off the rolls and so many more are working part time because they can’t get full time employment, but I remind you that when these numbers were lower during a republican president, they were then falsely touted as signs of an abysmal economy. We have that now, but because of Black Jesus and the fear of pointing out this Keynesian shit doesn’t work, nobody wants to say we are fucked.

Businesses are also aware of the existing shitstorm and the potential doubling down of this shitstorm. Can you blame them when you have a party where the 2 candidates, one a criminal and the other a prime example of life’s losers with a grudge against his betters, competing about whom will steal the most from the productive sector to buy votes with? If I was one of these companies, I would definitely be looking at how to hide assets. Especially when the LSM never reports on how full of shit these vote buying collectivist scumbags really are screwing us. Bernie, whom sadly is the lesser of the donkey evils, wants to give us free college, but nobody points out how well government controlled free lower education has worked out for us. The criminal on the other hand is trying to out communist the communist. Who do you think will pay for all this free shit?

None of this stops the cheerleaders from trying to convince the serfs that despite the abysmal reality, that improvement they have been telling us was just around the corner or had arrived, for more than 7 years now, is just around the corner:

The dismal performance in the first quarter, however, is unlikely to carry over in the spring, most economists contend. They view the labor market as a better indicator of where the economy is headed than the more backward-looking GDP report and they point to strong job creation early in the year as evidence that growth is stable.

The case for a spring rebound will get the first big test next week when the government issues the employment report for April. Economists predict an increase of around 200,000 new jobs, matching recent gains. Only a big shortfall in new jobs is likely to set off alarms about the second quarter.

Here is my bet on how this plays out: they tell us that we have finally made it, only to revise the numbers – always downward and indicating things are terrible -some months later. And when they do this, it will all be “unexpected”. And we are all supposed to believe them despite the fact that we have seen this same shit for close to 8 years now. We have never recovered, and if you look at home ownership trends, it is obvious that these morons have been lying to us. The real estate sector doing well is basically Chinese oligarchs gobbling up everything still of value. And for all their talk about social justice and sticking it to the “haves”, the Obama SJW machine seems to have really created some serious imbalance between the rich and the poor, but definitely not in the direction they pretend they want to move it. The fact is that friends of the crime syndicate in power now are rolling in the dough, while others are not doing so well.

Things suck because the people in charge have made it far worse. That’s the facts, Jack.

This is gonna piss off the proles

I am not stupid enough to believe that I need to find me a radioactive spider so I can become a webslinger, but I always felt some people, and in particular those with an agenda, exaggerated the risk of radiation. After all, radiation is everywhere. Sure Earth is blessed with a magnetic system that shields us from the brunt of the ugly stuff the sun throws at us, but the entire cosmos is about radiation, and a lot of it is not in the visible spectrum and considered to be quite harmful.

The fact of the matter is that radiation is with us at all time. Most people don’t know it, but the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Storage site was torpedoed by some devious and evil scumbags that demanded the radiation from the site be below the natural radiation occurring from the granite bed rock that was going to provide the ecological stability for the site. Yes, the earth produces radiation naturally, and we are exposed to it. I remember reading, a long time ago I admit, that many scientists believe radiation played a critical role in creating the complex organic molecules that produced life. And while the common belief is that radiation is so evil that after a nuclear war only roaches would inherit the earth, I always pointed out that since we had no reliable and measurable experience here – the effects of radiation in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and even the Nevada dessert where they tested nukes, seem to have really been exaggerated IMO – this was all conjecture.

Well, it looks like Chernobyl is now causing people to rethink radiation as well. Like with all things, what kills you isn’t that you are exposed to it, but how much of it you are exposed to. As I have already pointed out when having discussions about one topic or another around pollution, quantity is king. Shit, even too much water, a substance that is absolutely necessary for life as we know it, kills you! I remember some moron at work telling me all the men in Boston would soon grow boobs because some stupid Boston Globe article had pointed out all the water in Boston was contaminated with female hormones. I dug and found out that while they had found this contamination, it was like 3 particles per billion, meaning that someone would need to drink the equivalent of 3 lifetimes worth of water consumption for the average human to end up with the equivalent of a single hormone treatment dose. No dudes with tits there, man.

We know a lot less than we think we do, and we are learning that fact every day that science makes a new potential discovery like this one. Now beware of the Chernobyl man. I hear Khan came from something like that! Just kidding. He was the product of experimentation after the NHS doctors went on strike because of low pay and insane work hours demanded by penny pinching government bureaucrats that think doctors should earn the same amount of money as turd polishers do (all labor is worth the same!).

Fuck you Paul Ryan, it is

If you had any doubt that there really isn’t that much of a distinction between the political elites in DC that has driving the pro-Trump revolution, all you need to look at is Paul Ryan’s pittiful appeal to pretend sending money to blue model Puerto Rico isn’t a bail out. Puerto Rico is as blue model as you can get. It’s what the left is all about: spend too much, massive corruption, cronyism, and abuse of power to the max. Now they are downright broke and dying, just like most blue model stats on the continent, think Illinois and soon, California itself, and they are going to DC to ask US tax payers to bail them the fuck out:

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) blasted Wall Street investors on Wednesday as he tried to tamp down conservative discontent with a bill to assist Puerto Rico.

The GOP leader charged that “special money interest groups on Wall Street” are trying to sabotage the legislation by billing it as a “bailout.”

Ryan said that the government will be forced to actually bail out the island if Congress fails to act, predicting massive defaults on its bonds.
“Many big-money interest groups on Wall Street know this and have put a lot of money toward sabotaging this legislation in order to force a last-minute bailout upon Puerto Rico, putting U.S. taxpayers on the hook for their bad loans,” his office said in a lengthy statement. “They call this a bailout, because they know it is not. And a bailout is what they want.”

Ryan’s push comes as GOP leaders are trying to pull in enough support from both parties to clear legislation that would impose a fiscal oversight board on Puerto Rico and allow it to restructure some of its debts.

He dismissed “buzzwords and special interest ad campaigns” that describe the package as a bailout, and instead argued the House plan imposes much-needed fiscal rigor on the island while avoiding a messy set of defaults.

What a pile of crock. This is a bailout for a bunch of crooks that ran their protectorate’s economy and finances into the ground, and Paul Ryan blaming Wall Street for pointing that out is about as idiotic as it gets. Congress is starting with this bailout of Puerto Rico for a reason: doing it for Illinois, California, Massachusetts, Michigan or anyone of the other blue states looking at the looming bankruptcy their blue model tax-and-spend, free-for-all, vote-buying scam system first, would leave the tax payers that foot this bill for broken government systems no doubt that this was them bailing out failed blue model states, and then in a way that allows these blue states to keep doing the same stupid shit that got them broke and begging in the first place. No dice.

Fuck a Puerto Rico bailout. Tell them to tighten the belt and deal with the shit that happens. The blue model states on the mainland can then absorb the army of free-loaders that will move there to suck at the government’s teat, and their demise will be hastened as well. We all will win when the vote-buying blue political model implodes and we can do away with this shit, the pain it will cause notwithstanding. The sooner this house of cards collapses, the sooner we can burn down the nanny state.

Manhattan Institute article misses a key point..

A very good Manhattan Institute article titled Hillary & Bernie’s tax fantasies points out some very big problems with the left’s tax-and-spend approach to business. From the article:

Soak-the-rich proposals ignore history and wouldn’t raise nearly enough money to fund big spending plans.

If they stole every penny from anyone making over $100K a year, the collectivist government Hillary & Bernie promise wouldn’t be able to operate for more than a year anyway. Who would they steal money from after they robbed the productive? And the sad thing is that Hillary at least knows this. Bernie is a fucking loser and doesn’t care. It is about revenge for the fact that he couldn’t hold a real job or bag a real women. That is why, in practice, I firmly believe that the left wouldn’t do this (maybe Bernie would). So why this charade then?

Here is a question to ask Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders: What is the best tax rate to impose on high-income earners to ensure there is enough government revenue to pay for your trillion-dollar promises to voters?

Perhaps they think it is 83%, a rate that economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saezhypothesized in 2014 in a widely circulated paper. Or maybe it is 90%, which Sen. Sanders told CNBC last May was not out of the question. “Our job is not to think small,” Mr. Sanders elaborated in the Huffington Post a month later. “It is to think big.”

Progressives have often reminded us that the U.S. had such rates in the past. From 1936 to 1980, the highest federal income-tax rate was never below 70%, and the top rate exceeded 90% from 1951 to 1963. Under Ronald Reagan, the top federal rate declined to 28% by 1988 and has never reached 40% since.

The discussion of these rates can easily create the impression that the federal government collected far more money from “the rich” before the Reagan administration. And it can also leave another impression: There would be no downside to raising rates to 1950s levels, given that decade’s prosperity.

Neither impression would be correct. The effective tax rates actually paid by the highest income earners during the 1950s and early ’60s were far lower than the highest marginal rates. Few taxpayers reached the top brackets, the code was rife with loopholes, and capital gains were taxed at much lower rates.

And when you read between the lines, that last paragraph, it becomes obvious why the left still thinks this absolutely idiotic idea has merit. Insane tax rates provide the political left with the greatest opportunity for graft. In the name of “social engineering” they would flood that system with loopholes to favor their preferred constituencies: lobbyists, mega crops, the ultra rich, and the people that vote for a living. If we went back to the tax rates of the 50s, it would come with a trough feeding frenzy by the lawmakers pushing this crap on the people, as one special interest after another lines up to buy their own bennies.

The only people really screwed would be the middle class. The left can’t operate their totalitarian command driven economy nanny state unless they get rid of the middle class, anyway. History shows us that you always end up with a 2 class system: the aristocracy in charge, and the serfs bearing the brunt of the horrible policies they are made to live under.

Nostalgia aside for a world that never existed, few people paid the top tax rates of the 1950s and early 1960s…

Meh, the political left doesn’t pine for any of that. They spout it to hide their real intention: to rob taxpayers fucking blind by making everyone line up to buy favors from them. In short, they think this move will enhance their ability to pick the winners and the losers even more while in the process lining their pockets. gangsters the lot of them.

Yeah sure, that was a great idea…

For those that still doubt the deal between the Obama administration and Iran was anything but disatrous for the world and beneficial to one of the planet’s most dangerous regimes, just pay attention to what Khameini had to say about it:

Iran’s top leader on Wednesday said missiles were key to the Islamic Republic’s future, offering support to the hardline Revolutionary Guards that have drawn criticism from the West for testing ballistic missiles.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei supported last year’s nuclear deal with world powers but has since called for Iran to avoid further rapprochement with the United States and its allies, and maintain its economic and military strength.

“Those who say the future is in negotiations, not in missiles, are either ignorant or traitors,” Khamenei, who has the final say on all matters of state, was quoted as saying by his website.

“If the Islamic Republic seeks negotiations but has no defensive power, it would have to back down against threats from any weak country.”

His comments may have been directed at former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the de facto leader of a more moderate political alliance, who last week tweeted “the future is in dialogue, not missiles”.

Some context. Iran is by some accounts the world’s most prolific terror enabler, and its leadership is hell bent on killing Jews and destroying Israel and The Great Satan (that is the US for some of you people that believe the bullshit about the bad guy being the US) to push their messianic end of world agenda. To do so they have decided, like North Korea, that the only thing that will give them protection and power to pursue their agenda is the ability to not just threaten nuclear destruction in the case of the Norks, but to be able to carry this out. Only a fool doubt’s Iran’s promise to rain death on its enemies.

Too many people chose to disregard and instead try to appease Hitler when he was very clear about what his end goal was, and while one can make the argument that not every tinpot dictatorship is on the way to a similar roadmap, Iran’s leader has been adamant and active in working towards their agenda. Just remember that every Arab state was fine living with a nuclear armed Israel and never bothered with their own need for a nuclear deterrent or offensive capability. Most, like the bulk of the European nations and Korea and Japan, accepted assurances from the US and whatever Atlantic or Pacific alliance existed that they would be protected and treated as part of whatever deterrent capability was available. Along comes Iran (which is not Arab) and gets its bomb going, only to be appeased by the Obama administration which has also gone to great extremes to piss on every US ally’s leg and tell them it was just warm rain, and now we have every single one of these Arab states suddenly telling the the world they are going to get their own bomb.

The great legacy of the Obama administration, other than to make GWB look like a genius president and a top foreign policy administration, will be the destabilization and nuclearization of the Middle East, very likely to be followed by a nuclear global conflict. But hey, like with everything the collectivist idiots believe in and do, what we will be told we should focus on to determine if they were successful and did good, is that they meant well. With people ruled by feelings and emotions and so focused on social justice, whatever that nonsense is presented to mean to the rest of us, results don’t matter. After all, they firmly believe that they can change not just the laws of nature and economics, but that what counts is that they meant well.

As I predicted Obama made the impossible possible and managed to make what amounted to at most a mediocre president across the board look like a fucking genius and statesman. Be honest. Don’t you miss the cowboy by now? I know most of the world does, even if they won’t admit it out of spite. We deserve the disaster headed our way after the left destroyed the very system that brought the west prosperity and peace in the name of their new government backed collectivist religion.