Category: Nanny State

This is how the left sees the system work

Sure, I can refer to this Washington Times editorial piece and stick to the fact that, again, the very asshole leftists that want to disarm the people so they can become even more horribly tyrannical in their ways, are violating the second amendment of the constitution, but in doing so I would be missing the forest for the trees. The big lesson here isn’t that these assholes exempted themselves from gun control laws they foisted on the plebes, but the following bigger problem:

The California state Senate voted 28-8 Wednesday to exempt itself from the pointless gun-control laws that apply to the rest of the populace. Legislators apparently think they alone are worthy to pack heat on the streets for personal protection, and the masses ought to wait until the police arrive.

This is just one of many bills Golden State politicians used this legislative session to set themselves apart from the little people, the ones who pay their inflated salaries.

And this double standards when it comes to the people vs. the political aristocracy doesn’t stop with the blue states like California, but is now central to the entire political machine of this country. Wherever you turn, blue state credentialed politicians have straddled the productive with draconian legislation and fiscal responsibilities, while exempting themselves from them. In many cases they have blatantly passed laws to specifically make this the case, but in most cases, what you have is them simply enforcing the laws against the little people and their political enemies while keeping themselves exempt from that.

What is my proof, you ask? Well, if the law applied equally to us all, Obama would have been indicted for doing what Nixon couldn’t – sick the IRS against his political enemies – and the woman running for president on the Demcoratic ticket would be doing it like this:

This is what Hillary's campaign should look like

This is what Hillary’s campaign should look like

UPDATE: Yeah, she has been lying through her teeth about how bad what she did was:

Once again Hillary’s been caught lying about her criminal mishandling of classified national security information. Recall that Ms. Clinton swears none of the emails which passed through her off-the-record email server system was ever marked classified.

Uh oh. Au contraire, madam, once again you are exposed as a liar.

Fox News gets the credit. In an exclusive report published June 11, Fox News revealed that one of Ms. Clinton’s emails had a “portion marking” that identified the specific information contained in the “portion” as being classified. That means the information was sensitive and was legally protected.

The information had the lowest level of classification, Confidential. It discussed a phone call with the president of Malawi, Joyce Banda. Fox News included an information-rich screen shot of the email.

I wonder how much of that stuff that was “accidentally destroyed” makes this all look like peanuts. Actually, no I am not. I know they got rid of it because it was incriminating, and playing this game where we give them the benefit of doubt is long pas its expiration date.

Here cometh the next dark age?

As someone that has always been fascinated by history and the fact that humanity never learns the lessons of the past and seems doomed to repeat the same mistakes, I admit that I have been feeling, for a while now, that the people in charge of this country in particular, but the western nations in general, have been taken us into a direction that will have serious and far reaching negative global implications. When you articulate this, especially to the believers of our credentialed new political aristocracy and the left in general, you get lambasted as someone that must have some kind of vile reasons for opposing the destruction they are inflicting with their failed ideology, and ideology that seems to remain immune to the consequences and results of the failed and often horribly failed policies it keeps engendering. To the true believers amongst that bunch what counts are the feeling and their intentions, and never the results.

To those that simply take advantage of the stupidity and naivete of the true believers, the only results that count are the ones that allow them to get more power and steal more from the productive. So when you find someone that waxes eloquently about this prescient and relevant, it is a good thing and a breath of fresh air, albeit one I suspect will fall on deaf ears of the collectivists and their agenda. Jakub Grygiel at the American Interests has a great piece titled “The Stages of Grief at the Frontier“. I recommend you read the whole thing, but here is his conclusion, and it is an important warning:

Severinus’s story parallels our times (with all the necessary caveats). The stages of geopolitical grief are not as vivid today as in this story, but doubts are growing about the resilience of U.S. power and Washington’s commitment (under the current Administration or future ones) to allies. As U.S. power retrenches or is questioned, the frontier regions then experiences a series of adjustments. Insouciance about how security arises gives way to shock and panic when the security provider vanishes; then, self-delusion follows, as people convince themselves that security will sustain itself or that the threat is not real; and finally, if lucky to be fortified by a firm belief in something more than material goods or the satisfaction of one’s own transient preferences, the polity may find a reason to defend itself. The West may be going through all three stages at the same time, as many seem to put faith in the automatic harmony of international relations, do not necessarily believe in the dangerous nature of geopolitical competition with assertive rivals, and—perhaps most worrisome, and different from Severinus’s tale—do not seem to find a strong reason to devote resources to sustain the order from which they benefit.

Many people don’t realize it, but the fall of the Roman Empire in Europe led to centuries of brutal chaos and repression as the entity that provided order, albeit through its own use of force, evaporated. Whatever prosperity, wealth, and knowledge had been created all but disappeared as people reverted to savage behavior and basically resorted to fighting over an ever dwindling pool of resources and wealth. It took over a millennium for things to start righting themselves, and even after that, we had far more darkness than light until the twentieth century and another series of empires produced the stability and conditions for those that create (and for you collectivists that creation is never by government because the only thing government can provide is a system that delivers stability, with clear rules that apply to all, and government then stays out of the way of their people) to be able to bring us prosperity.

I can talk about this till I am blue in the face, but the thing has been beaten to death, so i will leave you with a quote from someone I think said it just right:

“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

― Robert A. Heinlein

Get ready for the dark times. I am sure the collectivists will tell us it was not their fault because they meant well. According to them Nirvana on earth is just a question of time, but every time they have tried it we end up with something horrible and the collectivists telling us that things went wrong because the wrong people were in charge and/or it was implemented incorrectly. Their idiotic belief that they can override human nature, the laws of economics, and reality to have us all act like an insect colony be damned.

Free shit! Now vote for us…

In a blatantly obvious effort to just buy votes, President Obama has decided that he will make the Social Security system insolvent even faster. Yeah, leftards love the idea that Obama will hand out more free shit:

President Barack Obama called for expanding Social Security on Wednesday, prompting progressive groups to declare victory after they tangled with him over a plan to save costs in the entitlement program three years ago.

After all, I was going to say I predict, but that requires I have a chance to be wrong about something I am gonna say, so I am just going to say what these morons will make as the go-to argument for taking this idiotic step: “you can just pick the pockets of the productive and rich some more, can’t you?”. And as I point out:

“And not only do we need to strengthen its long-term health, it’s time we finally made Social Security more generous and increased its benefits so that today’s retirees and future generations get the dignified retirement that they’ve earned,” Obama said in an economic call to arms in Elkhart, Indiana. “We could start paying for it by asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute a little bit more.”

Yeah, sure, “a little bit more”. That will do it. The facts be damned. This boondoggle is already running a massive deficit, and the truth is that even that number is bullshit, because that substantial deficit is made smaller by an accounting trick that ignores the massive $10 trillion discrepancy caused by government borrowing money from SS to fund other social spending over a couple of decasdes, and replacing it with worthless IOUs that will basically have to be paid off by US tax payers.

It will take a fucking ton more than picking the pockets of the rich to overcome the existing problem, let alone finding enough money to allow the system to pay up even more like the “free shit” democrat voting block likes and wants. But Obama knows he can say this shit, and heck, even push it through a spineless congress, and never have to be held accountable for it. Someone else can be blamed and hated when the whole thing collapses, and I bet Obama will say that things were doing just great – and get the DNC parrots in the LSM to go along with that whopper of a lie – when he decided to nail yet another stake into that vampire.

This is the shit that passes for great political action these days. We truly deserve the end to this once great country. How far we have fallen.

Transparency!

While the DNC controlled media has done its damned best to help the crooks in charge look decent, occasionally the truth slips out:

John Crane, 60, who spent 25 years in government before he was fired as an assistant Defense Department inspector general in 2013, went public with a series of accusations that key officials in the watchdog’s office retaliated against whistleblowers, destroyed permanent records and altered audits under political pressure.

He has filed those charges with the Office of Special Counsel, which so far has referred one to the Justice Department for detailed investigation, though others may soon follow.

Crane’s name and case appear in a new book, Bravehearts: Whistle-Blowing in the Age of Snowden (Hot Books, 2016), by Mark Hertsgaard, excerpted in the British newspaper The Guardian and the German magazine Der Spiegel.

In an interview with Government Executive on Sunday, Crane challenged the criticism by many top U.S. officials who say Edward Snowden, the former Booz Allen Hamilton employee who worked as a National Security Agency contractor, could have taken his complaint through official channels. In 2013, Snowden flew to Hong Kong, leaked classified documents exposing U.S. surveillance programs and ultimately took refuge in Russia.

“Edward Snowden and his decision not to go through the whistleblower process indicate a larger failure within DoD IG,” Crane said. “Snowden did not go through the IG because he saw what had happened to Thomas Drake,” he added.

This reality has permeated this administration across the board: anyone that pointed out how fucked up things had gotten was hammered for doing so. From the VA whistle blowers to those that spoke out about the crap the Obama controlled agencies were doing either in operation “Fast & Furious” or at the IRS, where they targeted enemies of the administration for political reasons, the Obama admin has set new records in punishing those that dared point out that things were real bad for us all.

I remember the BDS infected fuckwads making me defend Boosh when they levied these idiotic accusations against him, and yet today, when we really have a tyrannical government punishing dissent, these fuckers – like the anti-war pinkos – are nowhere to be found.

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.

Another example of why people are bucking the establishment

For the last 7 plus years, a substantial swat of republicans both in the House and Senate ran and won their respective elections on a platform of blocking the Obama agenda, and especially the big spending and big government growing machine, only to disappoint. Case in point, this shit:

The U.S. Senate’s first spending bill of 2016 allocates $261 million more than President Barack Obama requested and lacks significant conservative amendments, but it still sailed to passage Thursday in the Republican-led chamber.

An overwhelming number of senators on both sides of the aisle approved the energy and water development appropriations bill, by a vote of 90-8. Conservatives had objected to the higher spending levels and lack of policy riders in the weeks leading up to the vote.

In the end, it didn’t seem to matter.

It’s a victory for Republican leadership and an initial step toward achieving their goal of funding the federal government by passing 12 appropriations bills.

Why the fuck pretend you are going to buck the left’s big government, ever growing nanny-state, when at every fucking opportunity the entrenched and entitled party leadership seems to do exactly the opposite? It would be one thing to find yourself in the minority and being outvoted by the collectivists, but when you up the ante and choose to fund government by some $261 million more dollars than was even requested by the hopenchange candidate, something is fucking wrong. Really fucking wrong. Why in creation’s name would the leadership do something as idiotic as this when so many of their supporters label the over spending by government and the need to get both that spending and the deficit/debt under control as a top priority? well, here you go:

Moving legislation and avoiding fights has been a top election year priority for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Kentucky Republican wants the Senate to prove that Republicans can govern by avoiding a one-and-done omnibus spending package at the end of the year.

The fucking bootlickers want to impress the DNC controlled media, because I am certain that their constituency, including everyone else that understands one of our biggest problem has been the ridiculous amount of growth in government and the over spending, are not going to be impressed by their oneupmanship of the nanny state party leadership. At least some people were against this crap:

Sen. Mike Lee described the legislation as “simply unacceptable in a time of rising debt and slower economic growth.”

The Utah Republican told The Daily Signal that “we’re never going to get our nation’s rising deficits under control until we can stick to our previous agreements on spending levels,” referring to the limits set in the 2011 Budget Control Act.

Voting no along with Lee were seven other Republicans: Ted Cruz of Texas, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Arthur Heller of Nevada, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., did not vote.

And they wonder why more and more people are bucking the establishment and looking for outsiders instead of members the consummate political aristocracy which all seem to be corrupt to one degree or another, regardless of party affiliation. Selling yourself as the less corrupt party isn’t going to work much anymore..

Pro-collectivist media can’t avoid making exuses

It came as no surprise to me that after a decade plus of favorable pro-collectivist media coverage of shit-holes that took hard left turns we found out Venezuela was following in the footsteps of illustrious collectivist success stories like Cuba, North Korea, or Zimbabwe. What is less known is that the other South American country that had also taken a hard left turn and was touted as a great success story, Brazil, is also heading in the same direction now that blatant corruption and mismanagement practices have come to the world’s attention.

As is always the case with progressive governments, the pretense that the shit they do is to help the less fortunate is just that: pretense. What they are really doing is creating a system that will allow the political aristocracy and those few lucky enough to be connected to them, to rob the people blind. The new masters tend to be worse than the old ones, and while they can temporarily hide the rot, eventually economic and human nature reality asserts itself. Big and powerful government, especially one that has successfully disarmed the masses and then pretends their wealth transfer schemes are to help the less fortunate, sooner than later results in abused people. Yeah, I know that this piece specifically was written about the Arab world, but the article does speak of other corruption failures in general. The problem with people that advocate for collectivism is the fact that they seem to miss that corruption is the norm, and having little or none of it, is actually an outlier. And the bigger an autocratic government that abrogates the duty of creating economic justice becomes, both in terms of actual size and the amount of money it now forces through its hands, the more corruption you will get.

For example, take China, which is still run by an authoritarian government that decided not to stick to the letter of marxist dogma. While the Wiki article tries its best to show how fucked up China is because of this corruption, it, because of the bias of the Wiki organization in general, does a lot to apologize and conceal that the problem there is the authoritarian and collectivist system that creates the framework that allows this corruption. When your government is all powerful and has its hands in everything, you can bet it will result in abuse and corruption by the very elite put in charge. Pick your country, check out how authoritative and big their government is, then look at how much wealth redistribution power said government has, and you will find corruption.

But back to what I wanted to point out: AP writing an article that tries hard to not tie the corruption now evident to the ideology or failures in Brazil. From the article:

Brazil’s Senate voted on Thursday to put leftist President Dilma Rousseff on trial in a historic decision brought on by a deep recession and a corruption scandal that will now confront her successor, Vice President Michel Temer.

With Rousseff to be suspended during the Senate trial for allegedly breaking budget rules, the centrist Temer will take the helm of a country that again finds itself mired in political and economic volatility after a recent decade of prosperity.

The 55-22 vote ends more than 13 years of rule by the left-wing Workers Party, which rose from Brazil’s labor movement and helped pull millions of people out of poverty before seeing many of its leaders tainted by corruption investigations.

My interpretation of this nonsense is that it almost sounds like AP is trying hard to tell readers we should give the corrupt officials a pass because they meant well. After all, they helped the poor people! I constantly see MSM stories saying how well off people in Brazil have it because of the wealth redistribution schemes of the leftists, but when I look the stuff that sticks with me is the rampant crime, the fact that economic promises are not materializing, and how despite the claims that the poor are better off, I see very few things that really show that to be the case. Especially when you look at the future. That’s not just me however, as this verya rticle points out:

In addition to the gaping deficit, equal to more than 10 percent of its annual economic output, Brazil is suffering from rising unemployment, plummeting investment and a projected economic contraction of more than 3 percent this year.

Basically the Brazilian success story was to borrow and print money, over spend, and put polities in practice that drastically hamper economic growth and result in rampant unemployment. Shit they are even looking at an economic contraction. Does this not sound kind of like the Obama economic plan to spend us out of a recession and even into prosperity? Don’t worry though, because the PA tells us people are on top of the crisis;

“Only major reforms can keep Brazil from moving from crisis to crisis,” says Eduardo Giannetti da Fonseca, an economist and author in São Paulo who has written extensively about the country’s socioeconomic problems.

While I am not very familiar with this individual, the fact that he is the one AP chose to quote tells me this guy is very likely to be the Brazilian Paul Krugman, whose usual retort when confronted with the failures of Keynesian wealth transfer schemes, advises that the the problem was not the fact that borrowing/printing more money/spending money you don’t have can’t buy your prosperity, but that government didn’t borrow/print/spend enough money. This shit doesn’t work. It never has, and never will, but the collectivist driven media still wants you to have faith in this crap. This AP article sure goes a long way to try and avoid making the point that these leftist SJW wealth redistribution policies failed Brazil despite the temporary bump they produced obvious.

Another tidbit from the article that I found interesting was the following:

Brazilian markets have for weeks rallied as investors welcomed the likely dismissal of a president they believe crippled the economy, but were largely unchanged on Wednesday.

Note that the AP avoids saying why investors felt Rousseff crippled the economy. One could come away thinking the only problem was the endemic corruption, but the fact is that this was just one of the symptoms of the real problem: the Keynesian economic practices leftists resort to in times of trouble to hide the problems caused by their wealth transfer schemes. Brazil is on the same path as Venezuela right now, only it might be slower to reach the end state because they didn’t choose to have a dictator hold all the power like the Venezuelan’s did. This shit don’t work people.

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…

Angry loser being a douche

Whether you like the republican nominee Trump or the more than likely democrat that has rigged they system in her favor Clinton, I bet if you are like me you are happy that this asshole got crushed. Sure he is right on about Clinton being a crime boss, and if you are part of the establishment that liked the status quo and didn’t want Trump, you are going to say what he said about Trump, but we are lucky he isn’t the nominee either. And I am sure this bitter douche doesn’t even get it. The fact is that things have gotten so bad that we need to tear the establishment down if we want to give this country a chance.