Tag Archives: President Obama

Ohhhh….He Misspoke!!!

So last week I was in Las Vegas for a trade show. It is always fun to see my customers and co-workers who live in other states.  But if I’m being completely honest, there is an aspect of trade shows that give me the heebeegeebees.  As much as I hate to admit it, I’m not a huge fan of shaking hands.  I don’t mind it so much, as long as I have my 55 gallon vat of hand sanitizer within arms length.  But when you see someone walking toward you, inappropriately scratch themselves, cough into their hand, pick something out of their teeth, make sure their cold sore is still attached, and then extend their paw for you to shake…ewwwwww …gross.  As a professional I, of course, take the germ infested appendage.  You wouldn’t be able to tell from my calm, cool demeanor on the outside, but know on the inside I’m screaming like a ten year old girl, and diving head first into my large “Tub O’ sanitizer.”  Whenever I’m at a restaurant and see the signs in the restroom that proudly display “Employee’s must wash hands before returning to work,” I’m always tempted to write underneath it, “If an employee is unavailable please feel free to wash your own.”

Anyways.  A lot happened when I was out of town.  In years past I would have had a laptop with me and could have ranted, this year I had my phone with me and didn’t want to give my thumbs this much of a work out.

Big Deal

Last week the New York Times printed an editorial that defended Obama’s “you can keep your insurance” line by saying “Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that.”  Isn’t that cute of the New York Times?  He merely “misspoke.”  Misspoke like 40 times.  This week the New York Times is calling it an “Incorrect promise.”  (Eye roll)  Honestly, things like that make me wish I was born with more middle fingers.  I guess President Obama also misspoke when he said you would be able to keep your doctors, that premiums would be less, that families would save $2500/year, that only 5% are affected by the new health care law, and of course, you can easily enroll by phone in 25 minutes.  He probably also “misspoke” when he talked about transparency, no middle-class tax hikes, shovel ready jobs, 5 million green tech jobs, “you didn’t build that,” the private sector doing fine, and about Benghazi being caused by a video.  Then of course there is the Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius?  Did she “misspeak” when she assured us the website would be ready, that it shut down due to heavy traffic, that it is secure, that she didn’t know the enrollment numbers, and my personal favorite, that enrolling herself in Obamacare is illegal?  Naaaaa…I doubt it.  It’s probably just “Bad Apple insurance companies” who are screwing up the country.

What I meant

“Misspoke”.  It would be kinda cute if it wasn’t destroying our nation.  I remember when it was called LYING.

In the recent Parade Magazine former president Jimmy Carter said, “His major accomplishment was Obamacare, and the implementation of it now is questionable at best.” Just last month he said: “Compared to when I left the White House, the difference is twice as great as it was between the richest people and the poorest people. And the middle class has now become more like poor people than they were 30 years ago.”   Jimmy said that.  Carter, who up to this point was the most disastrous president in the last half century. Under Carter’s economy the labor participation rate hit a rock bottom 63.4%. But even this is better than the current rate of 63.2%. The lowest it’s been in 35 years.  Under President Obama, a record 90 million Americans now eligible to work are jobless.


Now even Bill Clinton is saying the Health Care Law Should Be Changed To Allow People To Keep Their Plans.  With Clinton now speaking out against it, watch how fast other Democrats distance themselves from it.  Hey, where was Clinton in 2010 when Senate Democrats unanimously rejected a Republican resolution that would have grandfathered people from losing the insurance they like?  Currently the talking point is “only 5%” will be losing their insurance (5% of the population is over 16 million people), and that doesn’t include the mind-blowing 93 million the HHS estimates will lose their insurance after the employer mandate kicks in.

Hmmmmm…It seem like it was just last month that people who wanted to delay or change Obamacare were called “legislative arsonists” and “terrorists” who were “holding the country hostage.” This month… they’re called Democrats.

LIFEZILLA:  A funny thing happened on the way to my potential…..


Lying King





As you may or may not know last week the best and brightest conservative minds met in Washington D.C. for the 43rd annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference).

I did not attend.  I know, I know.  You would think by now they would be asking me to attend, but they didn’t (…sigh…)

I did watch several speakers.  What I saw was AWESOME.

The highlights (of the three I watched) were Ted Cruz’s keynote speech, Marco Rubio, and Allen West.

Awesome, awesome, awesome.

I especially loved it when the conservative minds took the gloves off and REALLY started capping on President Obama’s policies and how they are detrimental to the country.

Reality Based

In my little brain- and I admit it’s little – here are my favorite quotes about what should be screamingly obvious (unless you’re a liberal) about the current tax system:

“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

Then there was a BRILLIANT slam to President Obama and the Democrats regarding unemployment:

“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

“The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive.”

To stimulate the economy this is what they suggested:

“[We will present a bill that will] include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand … The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy.”


And I swear to you, I almost stood up and cheered when I heard:

“You cannot negotiate with people who say what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable.”

And then, of course, I was so proud when a speech was concluded with “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”  It was such an awesome CPAC.  And…er….wait a minute.

Oh. My. Gosh.  I am so embarrassed.  I had my notes all mixed up.  Those quotes weren’t from CPAC.  They were from John F. Kennedy.  Well, you’ll forgive me, after all Kennedy was a great conservative Republ….what?  He was a Democrat?

WOW.  Look how much the Democrats have changed.  I doubt Kennedy would even recognize his own party.  Those quotes from Kennedy are WAAAAAAY different from such revealing quotes as:

“The conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs.” – Jerry Brown

On the subject of rape on college campuses, (or would it be “campi”?) Rep. Joe Salazar said women don’t need guns, “It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, its why we have the whistles.”  It makes you wonder why women would spend any time in a “rape zone.”  Wait a minute, why the hell do we have “rape zones” in the first place?!?!?

“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re passing legislation that will cover 300 million American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.” – Congressman John Dingell

About the 2nd Amendment Al Sharpton said, “People do not have the right to unregulated rights in this country.”

And my personal favorite, Congressman Hank Johnson on Guam: “My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.”

But, of course, it’s the Republicans who have changed.  It makes me laugh.  Of course I have no right to talk.  After all, I use words like ‘perpendicular’ when I language at people so they think I’m good with vocabularying.


LIFEZILLA:  I’d exercise, but I’m still trying to perfect my “before” picture.



The Straw Man President

By Josh Loveless 2014 Candidate for U.S. Congress (State of Texas, 3rd District)


Many who don’t know me well might be surprised to learn that in high school I was quite the accomplished debater and orator.  I have box full of local, state, and national awards, trophies, and medals somewhere in storage.  And that doesn’t include the ones that my team mate and I earned while practically refilling an entire trophy cabinet by ourselves over two years.

For those who’ve never tried it, debate is an art form.  It is built on logic, but is effused with human emotion.  It can be both highly infuriating and highly rewarding in the same moment.  I had a formidable reputation as a result of having brought some of the best debaters in the state to tears.  Sometimes these were tears of frustration, and at other times tears of laughter.  But I learned something very important during those debates:

Truth, logic, and right thinking don’t always win the public.

It’s a sad, but a true fact.  The best debaters learn very early on that even though facts and logical argumentation are important, they’re not nearly as important as style, dramatic presentation, and conveying conviction.  It’s something you are forced to take into your core.  This is because you will be forced (and often) to defend a position you do not agree with, one that may even be diametrically opposed to your beliefs.  It was in these debates that I am sad to say I was the most effective.

I did this by creating very specific arguments that were intentionally infuriating logical fallacies, so effective that they could not be ignored.  My opponents would then attack these arguments while ignoring certain facts, or making themselves look ridiculous.  In debate, or in philosophy, this is known as a straw man.  The Brits across the pond call it an Aunt Sally.  The structure of a straw man goes like this:

You take position 1 (For example: Excessive eating of calories can lead to obesity, therefore we should limit the number of calories we eat).

Opponent takes position 2, an intentionally distorted version of position 1 (For example:  If people don’t eat enough calories they could starve, therefore your true desire is to starve people to death).

There are many ways to make this work, this is just the most basic example.  You can read more about straw men arguments in all their flavors here on Wikipedia.

The Scarecrow scared

Notice that in the straw man used above your opponent never actually addresses your contention or conclusion.  The facts and logic are ignored and the argument instead becomes about you, or your fight with an imaginary opponent.  That is the real trick to winning with straw men.  When you know you are using a logical fallacy to win, you have to make that fallacy so personal, so salacious, and so insidious that your opponent appears to have no choice but to address it.

If you let it stand that you wish to murder people by limiting what they eat until starvation, well then everything else you say for the rest of the debate is suspect.  Thus you end up attacking something that isn’t real, or in other words a man made of straw.  The more calm, cool, and collected your opponent is when delivering the fallacy, the more likely people are to believe it is true.  The debate then becomes a matter of emotion, while fact and logic are forgotten (at least until it is most convenient).

You’ve probably recognized straw man tactics before in our national discourse.  It’s the oldest trick in the politician’s playbook.  Make no mistake, this tactic is used by both sides of the aisle.  However, I am shocked by how excessive the use of straw men has become, especially by our president.

Barack Obama’s entire 2012 campaign against Mitt Romney was a series of straw man arguments that were propped up by the press.  Here’s an example:

Mitt Romney chooses not to release complete versions of his tax returns for a small number of years.  The Obama campaign (and surrogate Harry Reid) first says this is dishonest, and then begins to ‘calmly’ imply that the reason is clearly because Romney is a tax cheat and a felon.  Instead of debating the merits of Romney’s proposals, or Obama’s record, the national discussion turned to Mr. Romney’s supposed crimes.  It even went so far that media elitists issued rewards for anyone willing to release Romney’s financial documents or implicate him in a crime.

Since winning the election the logical fallacies have not been mitigated, instead they appear to have multiplied.  The President has made straw men out of nearly every major issue facing America today.  His entire Inaugural Address was a series of these types of arguments, even sometimes contradicting himself.  The following quote is merely one example:

“We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit (true). But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future (fallacy),”- Barack Obama (parenthetical comments were added by me).

This argument implies that his political opponents have taken a position stating we must in fact choose between our children or our grandparents; that conservatives are ‘chomping at the bit’ to sacrifice one for the other.  This entire premise is false.  Congressional Republicans are not currently seeking any repeal of entitlement programs with the exception of Obamacare.  They are however suggesting that we must shore up the weaknesses of these programs; reign in the spending, and make them more effective.  Or contrariwise we can do nothing and watch them fail.  That is the real argument facing America.

As a seasoned debater I can tell you there are typically three situations in which someone will use a straw man argument:

  1. You do not understand your opponent’s argument, or have no logical or evidentiary counterargument that can stand on its own.  You strongly believe you are right, but don’t know how to back it up.   To win you must instead crush your opponent by making him or her so emotional that no one listens to the actual argument.
  2. You wish to distract your opponent.  During the distraction you may submit an occasional, potentially valid, position (usually some sort of heavy disadvantage) that is lost on your opponent because they are too focused on the insidiousness of the straw man.
  3. You are forced to defend a position you don’t believe and you know what you truly believe is unacceptable to the judging party.

It is my opinion that all three of these reasons are the drivers behind the way Obama addresses his opponents.    It is his intention to crush Republicans and win the argument, regardless of the consequences.   The ends justify the means.

Despite their potential effectiveness there is a serious danger in using straw men.  If your opponent or the judging party is trained to recognize these types of attacks you lose complete credibility.  You in fact become a man made of straw to them because you clearly have no valid counterargument, you clearly do not express your core beliefs.  Any straw man can be easily burned to the ground or blown away.

Barack Obama is a man clearly made of straw arguments.  Not in his two campaigns, nor in the last four years, has he offered a single acceptable plan for tackling our nation’s biggest problems (even to his own party).  The U.S. Senate hasn’t passed a budget in over four years.  That doesn’t mean it hasn’t debated a budget.  The White House has submitted a proposed budget each of these years, and each year it has been so thoroughly rejected by both parties that it is a running gag.  In fact, Obama’s last budget proposal was rejected by the Senate 99-0.  Not a single vote in the affirmative, not even from Harry Reid.

Republicans need to learn how to address these straw men in the correct way.  To win against these kinds of tactics we first have to learn to recognize them.  Once we see the straw man we must never, ever, take the bait and debate the fallacy.  Instead we need to clearly point out that the President has said nothing.  That he has not addressed the problem surrounding the argument, and has clearly offered no plan to abate it.  We need to show the people what is actually in the President’ proposals, calmly and coolly, and then let the American people decide if they like them.

I think if we took this approach, never allowing the debate to become personal, I believe Obama’s policies would be rejected by the majority of Americans.  Instead, by attacking Obama personally, by getting overly emotional about our declining rights and values, we play right into his hands.  When we play into his hands the media is sure to make us look like the illogical, dangerous, fanatical, racist, war mongers his party has painted us into.

Straw Man 1



Checks and Balances – Are We Breaking the Scales?


By Josh Loveless – Candidate for U.S. Congress 2014

The close examination of nearly every document written by the founders of our great nation reveals a persuasive common refrain: That all men are created equal, and that despotism occurs when one person or group seeks to prop themselves up above the others.  It’s not just a phrase from the Declaration of Independence but rather a thematic supposition for the discourse of that age.

It is for this reason that our United States Constitution was written in the manner that it was.  It is in part also the cause of its genius.  The entire document, including the Bill of Rights, is a lesson in balance; a balance designed to protect equality.  Every phrase and every Article is intended to create a system of compromises, or as it’s often referred to, checks and balances.  Each power ceded to one person or group is checked by another.

The power of the federal government is balanced with the states, and all the states with the voice of the people.  The three branches of the federal government balance and check each other; three making it impossible to tip the scales.  This system of checks and balances is well known and largely understood by most Americans.  But what we often forget is the historical context by which they came about.

In the great Constitutional Convention of 1787 the delegates of the various states met together with the original intention of refining the existing governing document of the day, the Articles of Confederation.  However, some delegates came with the unwavering intention of replacing the Articles with a new government.  This was the beginning of many extraordinarily lengthy and furious debates.

It took an entire hot Philadelphia summer, from May to September, for the delegates to write and agree up on the Constitution.  The disagreements were hotter than the summer air, in so much so that the Constitution can really be called a document of compromises.  Nearly every governing rule contained in it is the result of some compromise; from the number of Senators, the splitting of the Congress into two houses, the powers of the President, the number of Supreme Court justices, and the election of the President through an Electoral College.

It is these compromises that in and of themselves create the checks and balances of the system.  Without compromise the Articles would have been unbalanced and the Constitution would have failed miserably.  226 years later the principles of compromise and protection of equality appear to be largely forgotten.  The lessons taught to us by our fore-fathers are essentially being ignored.

There are many examples of this irresponsible amnesia in our recent political discourse.  For example on Monday, January, 14 2013 President Obama complained, “America cannot afford another debate with this Congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they’ve already racked up”.  Less recently in response to a request by Republicans to discuss the 2009 stimulus bill, the President refused to listen to Republicans or debate the merits of the bill, simply stating, “I won”.

Not to be outdone by the uncompromising president, House Speaker John Boehner has also given up on debate.  During a particularly difficult negotiation over the recent Fiscal Cliff bill Boehner offered the President an increase in taxes and then asked, “What am I getting?”   The president replied, “You don’t get anything for it. I’m taking that anyway.”  After this exchange Boehner was quoted as saying he was “done meeting with President Obama one-on-one”, and that he would no longer participate in debate with the White House.


It is this exact lack of genuine discussion and compromise that has created many of the problems our nation faces today.  There is nothing wrong at all with having strong principles and standing on those principles.  But there is something terribly wrong in thinking that we, or our leaders, or our political parties, or our principles are the only right ones.  We are wrong to believe in the superiority of our ideas to exclusion of all others, such that we refuse to even listen to those who disagree.

Many of my conservative friends will probably vehemently disagree with that statement.  But if you do, I submit that it is a grave mistake.  They would perhaps argue that our situation has occurred BECAUSE we have compromised on our principles.  I disagree.  I would submit that in those cases, we haven’t compromised, but instead have surrendered these principles back and forth as often as we’ve changed our politicians.  I would submit that we have forgotten what compromise in context of the United States government certainly means.

The Constitution proves this point emphatically in my opinion.  From a Constitutional perspective compromise should not mean a surrender of one idea or principle to another.  Instead compromise can be a policy, a law, or an article that allows two seemingly conflicting principles to peacefully co-exist, to even work together for the common good.  It is that type of compromise that creates balance.  It is that type of balance that is endangered.

Yes, there are some principles upon which we CANNOT compromise, and that we can accept no form of balancing power.  I would submit however that most of those issues are already settled.  Examples would be the need for a strong Federal government that does not allow states to secede.  Or, that every American is free, and equal, despite race, religion, or creed.  While not perfect, the major flaws in the Constitution have been addressed.

we the people

Instead, here are a few examples of principles we are choosing not to compromise on, in favor of angry, divisive, and often dishonest pretension:

Liberals traditionally believe in a strong government that constrains business, protects common citizens, and cares for our environment.  They are traditionally a party focused on compassion.   You may not agree with their conclusions about Global Warming for example, but can you in good conscience look out the window at smoggy skies, and filthy water and say we cannot do better?  We live in a time of great economic instability and wide-spread joblessness.  Is this not a time in which our government should find reasonable ways to have and encourage compassion?

Conservatives generally believe in limited government, constrained spending, and a powerful military.  In this age of runaway spending can our liberal friends not agree that more limits and constraints on government might be needed?  In an age of increasing global instability can we really argue against a strong centralized military?  Can conservatives not agree that a strong military isn’t necessarily an expensive one, and that military constraint can be equally powerful if properly implemented?

This is only scratching the surface of course.  For most issues currently facing the American people, the answer is yes, there is room for compromise.  In fact, I would submit that most Americans are still very much in the center on the big issues.  We are generally reasonable people.  Many of us are actually seeking for this kind of debate, for leaders who are willing to strike bargains that are universally beneficial.  We want to have a good and a reasonable public discourse of ideas.

But our political class, our media, and many or our own personal conversations have abandoned this standard, and in some cases have abandoned all reason.  George Washington in his Farewell Address prophetically warned our nation about party affiliations and the dangers of extremism and polarization.

“The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.”


It is this thought that should normalize our discourse, the thought that we protect individual liberty best by acting in concert.  Together, we have largely ignored this original American theme.  We have instead placed tremendous burdens (in the form of dishonest, rhetorical, “platitudinized”, angry discourse) on the platforms of the scale of American government.  In its inspired greatness this Constitutional scale is right now holding up under the tension.  But the chains that secure the scale’s platforms are straining and may soon burst.

Make no mistake; a break in this scale would have far reaching negative consequences.  We must soon remember who we are, and what we really stand for or risk the fall of our union.  We need to personally change the way we speak to each other and the way we debate.

And if we as a people place our leaders and our media instead upon the scales and find that they do not balance. If we find that they are unwilling to hold civil discourse on difficult topics.  Or if we find them so unbending as to reject sound compromise, then it is our duty as Americans to replace them.  That is our check and our balance against them.

To learn more about Josh Loveless and his campaign for U.S. House of Representatives visit:



Gun Control and Unicorns

Gun Control and Unicorns

So I was driving home from work and heard a sound bite of the President talking about gun control.  He said “If there is a step we can take that will save even one child from what happened in Newtown, we should.”  (Click here for the clip)

I’ll agree what happened in Newtown was a tragedy.  I wish it hadn’t happened.  That being said, the Presidents sound bite is typical of most things liberals say.  It sounds really, really good.  The problem is most of it isn’t grounded in reality.  They are just “foo foo” words which mean nothing, like “We saved or created a gazillion jobs.”  How do you measure a job that was “saved”?  How can you measure if a policy saved a child in a tragedy like Sandy Hook?  I’ll give you a hint:  Ya can’t.

On Tuesday, January 15 Toure’ on MSNBC said, “[We] need the president to save us from the gun epidemic.”  Gun epidemic?  Really, an epidemic?  I don’t think America has a “gun” epidemic, America has a “whiny little bitch” epidemic.

But “foo foo” words help the uninformed liberal feel better, that someone is doing something.  Of course not being informed is what keeps most liberals liberal.

Save Lives

You know how much I hate to cloud the issue with facts (see link for article) but someone has to.  The President wants to prevent things like what happened in Sandy Hook.  He wants to prevent mass public shootings.  So does every American.  If only there was a study that looked at public shootings and compared the various laws and frequency of the shootings.  Ohhhh, wouldn’t it be cool if such a study existed and concluded what the single best deterrent of public shootings is?

Oh look!!!  There was one.  You can download the study here.

Several years ago William Landes, of the University of Chicago and John Lott, of Yale, conducted a study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States.  The study looked at mass shootings between 1977 and 1995 and compared how the different legal changes affected their frequency and death toll in the various states.  They examined several of the policies being proposed now: waiting periods and background checks for guns.  They also examined the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.

Guess what they came up with?  Only one variable was shown to be effective in reducing the death rate in these crimes.  Any guesses what that is?   If you guessed concealed-carry laws you would be correct.

Now if I was a crazy person, and I was thinking about going and shooting a bunch of innocent people where would I go?  Well if history is an indication I wouldn’t plan my mass shooting at a gun show, or police station.  In fact when was the last time you even heard about a gun store being held up?  It doesn’t happen.  Why?  Because people who commit these crimes are crazy – not stupid.

They go to “gun free zones.”  Schools, churches, movie theaters.

Why does the media suppress the stories where armed citizens stop mass shooters?  Easy.  Those stories don’t fit the narrative that guns are bad.

Obama - Guns

Three examples:

I remember watching the news when the Portland mall shootings were taking place during the busy Christmas season.  I was grateful and amazed to learn the killer only killed two people.  Gratefully, concealed weapon owner Nick Meli didn’t notice the mall he was in was a gun-free zone and he had his gun with him.  As the murderer paused to reload Meli pointed his gun at the killer (he didn’t shoot because there were people behind the shooter).  The killer saw Meli, and turned his gun on himself.

The shooter in Aurora Colorado had seven movie theaters showing the Dark Knight within twenty minutes away from his apartment.  One theater was 1.2 miles away (three minutes).  Of the seven theaters only one didn’t allow concealed handguns into the theater (they only allow illegal handguns).  Any guesses which theater the killer chose?  I’ll give you a hint.  12 are dead and 58 are wounded, arguably because of the ban enforced on law abiding citizens.

On December 18, 2012, shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting, Jesus Manuel Garcia arrived at the Mayan Palace Theater, in San Antonio, Texas guns blazing as he shoots at the movie theater, a police car and bystanders.  As he entered the movie theater he was shot to death by an off-duty officer.   The only death was his own.  Good thing she, the off-duty officer, had a gun.

Harvard University concluded where gun ownership increases, violence and murder decrease, and the Landes-Lott study kind of concluded the same thing. Of course “foo foo words,” butterflies and unicorns are important too. That is if you don’t mind more mass killings.


LIFEZILLA:  Just because you have boobs doesn’t mean you’re better than I am.  Unless you’re a woman.




Why Work When You Can Get Lap Dances for Free

Why Work When You Can Get Lap Dances for Free

I don’t even know where to start.  It is days like this where I feel I wasn’t born with nearly enough middle fingers to full express my annoyance. I’m sincerely at least four middle fingers shy.

I just read a couple of articles.  The first is from the New York Post.  It bugged, bugged, bugged me, but not a “New York Times” kind of bug. After reading almost any article from the “Times” I feel like I just threw up in reverse.  This “Post” article just really ticked me off.

Apparently the New York Post, though the Freedom of Information Act received a data base of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) records from January 2011 to July 2012 and found dozens of cases were the Welfare recipients accessed their tax payer funded EBT cards for such lifesaving purchases as “liquor stores, X-rated video shops, hookah parlors and even strip clubs.”

We Accept Food Stamps

Oh yeah, you read that correctly.  People are using their EBT cards in Strip Clubs. Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute was quoted as saying, “This is morally scandalous.”  He continued, “I have nothing against strip clubs, but that’s not what benefits are for. I don’t blame [recipients]. If you are poor, it’s a crummy life and you want to have a drink or see a naked woman. I blame the people who are in charge of this.”

Ya think?

Now as a rule I do not judge other people (unless, of course, they’re stupid, ugly, smell bad, wear shoes with individual toes, listen to crappy music, or drive a smart car), but I sincerely think that unless you are physically or mentally unable to work, and you knowingly and willfully shift the burden of supporting your worthless ass to someone else and spend the taxpayers’ money on things like, oh I dunno, STRIPPERS and stuff, you’re a piece of crap.  I don’t want to necessarily quote myself, because it comes across as cocky and arrogant, but several months ago I wrote what can only be described as a brilliant article that touched on welfare abuse and government waste.  You can access the brilliant article HERE.


According to the article (the one from the Post), “Welfare recipients receive food stamps and cash assistance under the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Both benefits are accessed through an EBT card, but only cash assistance — meant for housing, utilities and household necessities — can be accessed at ATMs.”

In a COMPLETELY unrelated article from the “Wall Street Journal” Speaker of the House John Boehner said that at one point when he was talking to the President about the Fiscal Cliff the President said, “We don’t have a spending problem.”

Apparently the President believes the country just doesn’t have enough revenue (read taxes) coming in.  It makes me wonder who paid the bills in the Obama household before he became President.

Several months ago a Facebook friend of mine said this “I think the mistake most conservatives make is in thinking that austerity has ever worked once. It never has, the great depression was lengthened by austerity.”  It confused me at the time, because it went contrary to what I thought the word “austerity” meant.  I did a quick Wikipedia search and it turns out I did know what it means.  “In economics, austerity refers to a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided. Austerity policies are often used by governments to try to reduce their deficit spending and are sometimes coupled with increases in taxes to demonstrate long-term fiscal solvency to creditors.”  My question is in the last several years have we, the United States, ever tried deficit cutting?  I’m going to go out on a limb and say NO.

Here is food for thought: in a time where it is clearly acceptable for a news agency to post things like a map of law abiding gun owners imagine the uproar if a news agency did the same thing to welfare recipients?  Wouldn’t it be interesting to see the names, amounts and locations of the funds being spent?

I think raising taxes is a mistake.  But it happened.  Why aren’t the Democrats even trying to come to the table with entitlement reform?  Every year the number of Americans who receive government assistance increases.  President Obama is the “Food Stamp President.” But we are told we are in the middle of an economic recovery.  So why the increase in assistance?  Could it be to mask the pain?  If everyone has assistance and is able to “get by” wouldn’t they be less inclined to notice pesky things like food prices?  I don’t have a problem with a “hand up.”  I don’t have a problem with a safety net, I just don’t think it should be a hammock.


LIFEZILLA: If I typed as carelessly as I spoke then ;lksdafjk nh; ‘&8jjfsjkladfjsdf

1934 Cartoon




Buck Up Weary Camper!!

Buck Up Weary Camper!!

 So Tuesday night I turned off the TV at roughly “what’s the point o’clock.”  I was shocked and saddened that the country had chosen “Free Stuff” over Freedom.  In my little brain I was thinking that the only difference between parasites and liberals is that parasites understand that killing their host wouldn’t be good for them.  My last thought before falling asleep was, “Maybe the Mayans were right.”

But when I woke up I felt better.  Even though I had to endure a day of being mocked and ridiculed for posting my predictions (you can see now why I’m not a huge gambler when I go to Las Vegas).

I thought Mitt ran a good campaign. In retrospect he could have, and should have, done a little more.  But that is water under the bridge.  The question is, what do we do now?  Do we act like a bunch of pansies and sit in the corner, sucking our thumbs, or do we “gird up your loins, fresh courage take”?  (If you ask my wife my loins are ALWAYS girded.)

The road ahead is going to suck.  Money guru Steve Forbes is predicting a recession.  We have “Taxmageddon” coming the first of the year.  It will effect everyone.  The Huffington Post (hardly a right-leaning organization) has a good article on it.  Read more of about it here.  Seriously…go read it.

I’m betting if Romney had pointed out more often that President Obama has raise taxes more than any President in history, the media would have had to explain it.

I’m sure many in the GOP are freaking out.  I don’t think going to the left is the answer though.  We need to do a better job at explaining the principles.

Steve Forbes said:

“Where the Republican Party goes, is not abandoning its principles of freedom, but making sure that we articulate those principles,” he said.

“When Romney came under attack for Bain he was not very good in sending the essence of free-enterprise and freedom, and the idea that markets succeed by serving the needs and wants of other people. He never made the moral case. We have to have candidates that do.

“We have a very good bench in the party — a lot of good, young up-and-coming people so this is not the time to try to be mini-Democrats. This is the time to go to basic principles and figure out how to get these principles across to people and the policies that derive from those principles across to people — all different groups in America, and that is the way we have to go.

“Reagan did it. We have to do it again.”

In other words.  Buck up weary camper!!!  The fight has just begun.


LIFEZILLA:  I used to think I was trapped inside a woman’s body…then I was born.

…And Then There’s The Truth

…And Then There’s The Truth

I want to start by saying that I WASN’T going to write about the President’s speech, I wasn’t going to write about the DNC at all.  But now I’m kinda glad I am.  First, you should know I watched more of the DNC than I did the RNC.  They used smaller words, so it was easier for me to understand.  And it was a relief that, in the times I was watching, no one mentioned the 16 trillion dollar debt once.  And, now that I think about it, I didn’t hear anyone mention the 42 months of over 8% unemployment, or the record 46 million Americans on food stamps.  Judging by the “Four more years” chant, the Democrats obviously feel we are better off with this President.  Wait a minute.  Maybe they were chanting about how much longer President Clinton’s speech would go.  Speaking of Clinton’s speech, it was obviously the best of the convention, I noticed it was laced with a LOT of history re-writing.

The only thing I intended to write about Obama’s speech I put as my Facebook status.

I know!!  Look at that face.  I was adorable, wasn’t I?

I was going to let it stand at that, but then…Well, I guess it doesn’t matter.

First off, President Obama’s speech was well delivered.  The man can talk.  That being said, it was full of crap.

In his speech Obama said, “I’ll use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work, rebuilding roads and bridges, schools and runways. After two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, it’s time to do some nation-building right here at home.”

Wait a minute.  That money is borrowed money.  Borrowed.  Can someone explain to me how you can “save” money that doesn’t exist?   It sounds to me as if he plans on continuing spending money we don’t have.  Or am I missing something?

Let me give a hypothetical.  Let’s say you are married to someone who loves to purchase things like…oh…I dunno, let’s say platters/dishes.  Let’s say she has 41 sets.  Not the holiday sets she stores out in the garage, but 41 sets in the house. You tell her she has to stop spending money on dishware.  She agrees, and is excited to “save money.”  You look at the balance sheet at the end of the month and you are still over spending.  You ask her if she is still spending on dishware.  She says, “No.  The money I’m saving by not buying dishware, I’m spending on shoes.”

That truly is not a personal example.  And that is EXACTLY what the Democrats are proposing.

Quick side note: As you know, I’m no mathematician.  I sucked at math in high school and have gotten progressively worse.  So if someone could verify this for me I would appreciate it.  As best as I can figure, Obama has been President for 1.6% of the time since we declared our independence. Yet he has incurred 33.6% of our total debt.

Is that right?

Obama also claims to cut the debt by $4 trillion dollars.  Really?  According to  The Daily Caller, “…the committee Republican staffers (suggest) the $4 trillion deficit reduction claim relies on three accounting gimmicks, namely applying $2.1 trillion saving in the Budget Control Act, claiming $843 billion in saving from war spending that was not going to be spent in the first place, and $394 billion based on the assumption that there will be a  Medicare reimbursement “doc fix.”

“When properly counted, $4 trillion in new alleged deficit reduction becomes less than $400 billion. There is no policy change to alter our disastrously unsustainable path.”

Obama then went on to talk about manufacturing.  He claims, “We can help big factories and small businesses double their exports, and if we choose this path, we can create a million new manufacturing jobs in the next four years.”

But the truth is manufacturing has lost over half a million jobs with him as President. And exactly what is his plan for doing that?

“And now you have a choice: We can give more tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, or we can start rewarding companies that open new plants and train new workers and create new jobs here in the United States of America.”  We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.  The world.  That alone is making business flee overseas.  Maybe that is what the President intends to export.

The NY Daily News says, “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s proposal is actually aimed at encouraging investment in the U.S., not overseas.  The U.S. currently has a global tax system that is filled with credits, exemptions and deductions that enable many companies to avoid U.S. taxes and provides an incentive for corporations to keep their profits in other countries. Whether Romney’s plan would spur investment in the U.S. is debatable, but it’s not a plan aimed at dispersing profits abroad.”

I could go on.  But really I need to stop.  I’m repressing my anger in the hope that one day I will be able to fuse the old bar of soap to the new bar of soap with nothing but blind rage.  If you have time the following are great articles on the subject.



LIFEZILLA:  I could write timely articles like the other guys.  Of course I could tattoo beautiful pictures of unicorns on my buttocks, but I’m not going to do that either.