MoveOn Dot Org Propaganda

A friend forwarded me an email from MoveOn.org. It goes like this:

Dear MoveOn member,

In every campaign, there is a turning point, and Mitt Romney's 47% speech may be it.

A hidden camera caught Mitt Romney telling his rich donors that nearly half our country—47% of Americans—are freeloaders mooching off the government:

"My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

People everywhere are outraged and offended. This is a HUGE opportunity to persuade undecided voters that Romney is the wrong choice for president. There's no shortcut—we need to get as many volunteers as possible in swing states talking to voters about Romney's comments right away.

They think this is Romney's bitter clingers moment? That's weak. Hey MoveOn propagandist: freeloaders mooching off the government is your term. But Mitt Romney is right. The takers will not go for Romney's message of responsibility and self-reliance, but the producers will. We're still the 53%!

Here is the full text of Mitt Romney's statement:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax. [M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

What part of that statement is offensive to hard working producers? What part of that statement is not offensive to moochers and takers? Let the voting begin!

Thanks to Maddie for sending me this.

Zing!

In an interview yesterday, Barack Hussein Obama said,

The fact that we haven't been able to change the tone in Washington is disappointing. The most important lesson I've learned is you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside.

Upon hearing that, Mitt Romney quipped,

The president today threw in the white flag of surrender again. He said he can’t change Washington from inside, he can only change it from outside. Well, we’re going to give him that chance in November. He’s going outside!

I hope he doesn't let the screen door hit him in the keister on the way out.

Mocking Mormons: OK; Mocking Muslims: Bad

In and article in the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens says, 

So let's get this straight: In the consensus view of modern American liberalism, it is hilarious to mock Mormons and Mormonism but outrageous to mock Muslims and Islam. Why? Maybe it's because nobody has ever been harmed, much less killed, making fun of Mormons. (Read more...)

It does look like a double standard, doesn't it?

We Are the 53 Percent!

A friend sent me something he received via email:

Here's some food for thought: Barack Hussein Obama was raised by a single mother -- government assistance; he went to college -- government loans; he worked on projects in Chicago -- government paid; became a senator -- government paid; became president -- government paid, and he will retire with a government pension. This man has depended on government assistance his entire life, and the Democrats are criticizing Mitt Romney for saying that 47% of our population depends on the government to support them. Go figure. Just my own thoughts. I wish I could let the country be aware of my thoughts.

The thing that the Democrats have their panties in a twist about is where Mitt Romney went on to say, "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." Even though he explains what he means by "not to worry", the Dems are trying to twist his words into not caring about the disadvantaged. Of course anyone with a functioning CPU (brain) understands that he means not to concern himself with convincing them -- which he says in the very same breath. Duh.

What are the odds that he will convince the takers that they are not entitled to your earnings? They've been told all their lives that they are! They've been indoctrinated with the idea that keeping what you earn is selfish. I think taking what someone else earns is more selfish, although I do believe in charity. I just don't think it's government's job to be in the charity business, or to redistribute the wealth. Wealth redistributes itself! Government can only interfere with the process. 

Thanks to Rogers for the email.

Nouns Are Labels

a well-known label

A few of us were discussing a local politician's claim that he doesn't like to "apply labels". Well, we all label things! That’s what nouns are for. They speed up the conversations by assigning a name to something, instead of having to describe it every time we  want to talk about it: house, car, dog, cat, black, white, racist, homophobe, islamophobe, bigot, liar.

The only time labels are a bad thing is when they are used to deceive. For example, calling someone a liar when they are merely mistaken (e.g., WMD’s in Iraq); calling someone a racist when we criticize the political principles of a man who happens to be black; calling someone a homophobe when we object to someone’s lifestyle; calling someone an islamophobe when we criticize a demonstrably toxic culture and belief system. When labels are used to suppress important topics of discussion, instead of to facilitate debate, then they're bad.

Sometimes people deliberately mis-label themselves: “Progressives” embraced Marxism and communism in the first half of the 20th century. Their principles were strongly repudiated during WWII, and so they rebranded themselves as “Liberals”, which is nearly the exact opposite of what they really are: Illiberals. The founders were liberals, but because the ‘progressives’ hijacked the word “liberal”, we now have to call the founders and their present day followers “classical liberals”. The word “libertarian” almost nails it, except that the “Libertarian” party has sullied that name, because they have a few pretty wacky beliefs too.

Labels are fine as long as we define our terms honestly. Labels are a shorthand for big concepts.

Kakistocracy Report

Hello fellow anti-kakistocrats, this post is to announce that I am changing the name of this blog from "Rage Against the Kakistocracy" to "Kakistocracy Report". I mean, who needs all that rage, anyway? The Islamists are all enraged, and look where that's getting them. Occupy Wall Street are all enraged, and look where that's getting them. I don't need all that rage. My blood pressure is high enough already. I think "Kakistocracy Report" is pithier and easier to remember. It's not as grumpy.

I had originally modeled the name after the musical group, "Rage Against the Machine". I replaced "Machine" with "Kakistocracy", which I imagined to be equivalent, even though the original band members were raging against capitalism and the American work ethic. It was my way of getting even. There was a parody act who called himself, "Lounge Against the Machine". Maybe "Lounge Against the Kakistocracy" would work too. Some other names I considered include, "Kakistocracy Retort" and "Kakistocracy Update" (K.U., get it? My initials). Too clever by half, I decided. "Kakistocracy Report" it is. Same bat time, same bat channel (http://antikakistocrat.blogspot.com).

Gun Sales Hinge on Obama Re-Election

A Wall Street Journal article has the headline, "Gun Sales Hinge on Obama Re-Election".

As Cabela's Inc. prepares the selection of guns it will sell for the holiday season and winter hunting, the outdoor-gear retailer has two plans: one if President Barack Obama is re-elected, and one if he isn't.

The Sidney, Neb.-based retailer and other companies in the guns-and-ammo business say if Mr. Obama wins a second term they are preparing for a surge in sales—the same as they saw after he was elected in 2008—from buyers fearful the president would back policies to make buying a gun more difficult. If Republican challenger Mitt Romney wins, though, the chain plans to stock more items such as waterproof boots and camouflage hunting gear. (Continue reading...)

So there you have it folks. If you're truly interested in reducing gun ownership, you need to vote for Romney, the boots and camo guy.

Obamanation

People have been forwarding in email, an interactive rendition of Barack Hussein Obama's  kakistocratic  presidential legacy. The painting, called "Obamanation" was created by the McNaughton Fine Art Company. I wouldn't call it fine art, exactly, but it is informative art. Hover your mouse over each shameful scene to read a description of the transgression.

I suppose the 'progressives' or the communists could make a similar painting, celebrating the choomster's "shining achievements" but I would probably would consider them shameful usurpation as well (e.g., ObamaCare). 

Responsibility Bites

Pick Up Another Case of Government While You're Out!

How much government would you purchase if it was at your discretion? It's like, "Hey honey, while you're at the mall, would you pick up another case of government? 'Cause I just can't get enough! I'm up to like three packs a day."

Pick any government project or program. Then ask yourself, "If I had to pay for this with my own money", (because you do), "would I buy this?" If the answer is no, then you need to tell your representatives to vote no. If they're representing you, that would be your vote, right?

It doesn't matter if it's a new sidewalk (nice to have), or that ginormous park that's in competition for funds with a much needed county jail. You might have the money to spare, but not all taxpayers do. And every level of government is in such a financial crisis that they really should be asking the tough questions even about legitimate government functions. But they're not, are they?

Rare Photo of Karl Marx with Barack Obama

Karl Marx (left), Barack Obama (right)

Honey, You Didn't Build That

These are the kind of hip parents that I bet every child wishes she had. Just as hip as choom-gangster Barack Hussein Obama, in fact.

"Did you make those Popsicle sticks?" That reminds me of Milton Friedman's treatise about free enterprise and making pencils.

Of course we didn't build all the components of our enterprise! We stand on the shoulders of giants. If government built some of the things we use to live our daily lives, save for a few exceptions, it is mainly because government has usurped the freedom and sapped the initiative for individuals to do it themselves.

The "You didn't build that" speech could easily be the stupidest thing that Barack Hussein Obama ever said. Stupid on its face, and stupid from a tactical standpoint. I can't think of anything that would raise the righteous indignation of the productive members of our society more than a preposterous statement like that one. Hey, choomster, even if we didn't build that personally, our taxes certainly did. My fair share, indeed. You're welcome, idiot.

Thanks to Lorraine for sending me the video.

All Your Government Are Belong To Us

This DNC video claims, "Government is the only thing that we all belong to".

Wrong-o, bucko! You have that exactly backwards. We don't belong to government; government belongs to us. We the People own the government. To secure our unalienable rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Government is not an instrument of conformity, entitlement or dependency.

The Democrats have made it abundantly clear that they don't understand, or that they reject this principle. Abraham Lincoln's Republican party used to understand this, and if the tea parties remain true to our mission, we might restore some of those values to our political parties. I certainly hope so.

I have news for you statists out there: All your government are belong to us!

Chuck Norris Warning for 2012

Chuck Norris notes that evangelical Christians were absent from the 2008 election in large numbers. If they had all voted, Barack Obama might not have been elected in 2008.

Make My Election Day

In honor of Empty Chair Day (not Labor Day, which I most assuredly do not celebrate), I made this sculpture in my front yard.

Make My Election Day

Eine Kleine Obamusic

Some good song parodies about Barack Hussein Obama are going viral on the interweb:

(Thanks to Dave and Maddie)

There are some good original tunes, too. This might not be your cup o' tea, but I think these guys are good (the hard rock starts about 1/3 of the way in):

(Thanks to Denny at Grouchy Old Cripple)

I might not look like it today, but I am a huge rock & roll fan. Like Paul Ryan's, my iPod goes from AC/DC to Zepplin, with a lot of Beatles, Creedence Clearwater Revival and Moody Blues in between.

Hiring a New CEO for The United States of America

I was speaking with a friend of mine yesterday, and we agreed that Mitt Romney might be the optimal presidential candidate for these times. He's no Ronald Reagan, but he might be a better fit for today's needs than Ronaldus Maximus himself. We're electing a new Chief Executive Officer for the USA. Mitt Romney has lots of experience being a CEO, both in and out of government, and he has a track record of success everywhere he went. What he lacks in founding principles, Paul Ryan provides.

Countless businesses replace their CEO when they're doing poorly, and find a new one that will take them in a better direction, and that's what this country must do, before Barack Obama has the flexibility to drive us right into oblivion.

Originally, I was not 100% behind the Republican presidential ticket, but after the selection of Paul Ryan, the convention speeches, and this conversation with my friend, I'd say I'm 99.5% behind it now.