Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

31 December 2011

Ring Out The New, Ring In The Old

December 31, 2011 7:00 A.M.

No, hang on, that should be the other way around, shouldn’t it? Not as far as 2011 was concerned. The year began with a tea-powered Republican caucus taking control of the House of Representatives and pledging to rein in spendaholic government. It ended with President Obama making a pro forma request for a mere $1.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. This will raise government debt to $16.4 trillion — a new world record! If only until he demands the next debt-ceiling increase in three months’ time.

At the end of 2011, America, like much of the rest of the Western world, has dug deeper into a cocoon of denial. Tens of millions of Americans remain unaware that this nation is broke — broker than any nation has ever been. A few days before Christmas, we sailed across the psychological Rubicon and joined the club of nations whose government debt now exceeds their total GDP. It barely raised a murmur — and those who took the trouble to address the issue noted complacently that our 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio is a mere two-thirds of Greece’s. That’s true, but at a certain point per capita comparisons are less relevant than the sheer hard dollar sums: Greece owes a few rinky-dink billions; America owes more money than anyone has ever owed anybody ever.

Public debt has increased by 67 percent over the last three years, and too many Americans refuse even to see it as a problem. For most of us, “$16.4 trillion” has no real meaning, any more than “$17.9 trillion” or “$28.3 trillion” or “$147.8 bazillion.” It doesn’t even have much meaning for the guys spending the dough: Look into the eyes of Barack Obama or Harry Reid or Barney Frank, and you realize that, even as they’re borrowing all this money, they have no serious intention of paying any of it back. That’s to say, there is no politically plausible scenario under which the 16.4 trillion is reduced to 13.7 trillion, and then 7.9 trillion, and eventually 173 dollars and 48 cents. At the deepest levels within our governing structures, we are committed to living beyond our means on a scale no civilization has ever done.

Our most enlightened citizens think it’s rather vulgar and boorish to obsess about debt. The urbane, educated, Western progressive would rather “save the planet,” a cause which offers the grandiose narcissism that, say, reforming Medicare lacks. So, for example, a pipeline delivering Canadian energy from Alberta to Texas is blocked by the president on no grounds whatsoever except that the very thought of it is an aesthetic affront to the moneyed Sierra Club types who infest his fundraisers. The offending energy, of course, does not simply get mothballed in the Canadian attic: The Dominion’s prime minister has already pointed out that they’ll sell it to the Chinese, whose Politburo lacks our exquisitely refined revulsion at economic dynamism, and indeed seems increasingly amused by it. Pace the ecopalyptics, the planet will be just fine: Would it kill you to try saving your country, or state, or municipality?

Last January, the BBC’s Brian Milligan inaugurated the new year by driving an electric Mini from London to Edinburgh taking advantage of the many government-subsidized charge posts en route. It took him four days, which works out to an average speed of six miles per hour — or longer than it would have taken on a stagecoach in the mid–19th century. This was hailed as a great triumph by the environmentalists. I mean, c’mon, what’s the hurry?

What indeed? In September, the tenth anniversary of a murderous strike at the heart of America’s most glittering city was commemorated at a building site: The Empire State Building was finished in 18 months during a depression, but in the 21st century the global superpower cannot put up two replacement skyscrapers within a decade. The 9/11 memorial museum was supposed to open on the eleventh anniversary, this coming September. On Thursday, Mayor Bloomberg announced that there is “no chance of it being open on time.” No big deal. What’s one more endlessly delayed, inefficient, over-bureaucratized construction project in a sclerotic republic?

Barely had the 9/11 observances ended than America’s gilded if somewhat long-in-the-tooth youth took to the streets of Lower Manhattan to launch “Occupy Wall Street.” The young certainly should be mad about something: After all, it’s their future that got looted to bribe the present. As things stand, they’ll end their days in an impoverished, violent, disease-ridden swamp of dysfunction that would be all but unrecognizable to Americans of the mid–20th century — and, if that’s not reason to take to the streets, what is? Alas, our somnolent youth are also laboring under the misapprehension that advanced Western societies still have somebody to stick it to. The total combined wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans is $1.5 trillion. So, if you confiscated the lot, it would barely cover one Obama debt-ceiling increase. Nevertheless, America’s student princes’ main demand was that someone else should pick up the six-figure tab for their leisurely half-decade varsity of Social Justice studies. Lest sticking it to the Man by demanding the Man write them a large check sound insufficiently idealistic, they also wanted a trillion dollars for “ecological restoration.” Hey, why not? What difference is another lousy trill gonna make?

Underneath the patchouli and pneumatic drumming, the starry-eyed young share the same cobwebbed parochial assumptions of permanence as their grandparents: We’re gayer, greener, and groovier, but other than that it’s still 1950 and we’ve got more money than anybody else on the planet, so why get hung up about a few trillion here and a few trillion there? In a mere half century, the richest nation on earth became the brokest nation in history, but the attitudes and assumptions of half the population and 90 percent of the ruling class remain unchanged.

Auld acquaintance can be forgot, for a while. But eventually even the most complacent and myopic societies get reacquainted with reality. For anyone who cares about the future of America and the broader West, the most important task in 2012 is to puncture the cocoon of denial. Instead, the governing class obsesses on trivia: just to pluck at random from recent Californian legislative proposals, a ban on non-fitted sheets in motels, mandatory gay history for first graders, car seats for children up to the age of eight. Why not up to the age of 38? Just to be on the safe side. And all this in an ever more insolvent jurisdiction that every year drives ever more of its productive class to flee its borders.

Tens of millions of Americans have yet to understand that the can can no longer be kicked down the road, because we’re all out of road. The pavement ends, and there’s just a long drop into the abyss. And, even in a state-compliant car seat, you’ll land with a bump. At this stage in a critical election cycle, we ought to be arguing about how many government departments to close, how many government programs to end, how many millions of government regulations to do away with. Instead, one party remains committed to encrusting even more barnacles to America’s rusting hulk, while the other is far too wary of harshing the electorate’s mellow.

The sooner we recognize the 20th-century entitlement state is over, the sooner we can ring in something new. The longer we delay ringing out the old, the worse it will be. Happy New Year?

— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is the author of After America: Get Ready for Armageddon. ©2011 Mark Steyn


If the idiots in Washington and the entitlement class keep it up, it won't matter if the Mayans are correct or not, we'll be toast regardless.  T-O-A-S-T.


Obama Bumper Sticker Removal Kit




video





30 December 2011

So Stupid, It Makes My Hair Hurt!







Ron Paul: All Aboard! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaaa! Mental Wounds Still Screaming! Driving Me Insane I'm Going Off The Rails On My Crazy Train! (And I Want To Take You Along For The Ride)



Music to read by sans bat head (yeah, you knew it was coming):

 

 

   

 

"We've seen a lot of financial tyrannies from Washington in this century.  This one could take the cake!   And popping out of the cake, with a big Surprise!, will be an IRS agent with an AK-47.  ...  It will be that bad.  And it will only be the beginning.  Won't you let me send you my brand new report, Surviving The New Money?  It normally costs $50, but I want to hurry it to you, at absolutely no charge. ... I uncovered the New Money plans during my last term in the U.S. Congress., and I held the ugly new bills in my hands.  I can tell you they made --  my skin crawl!  These totalitarian bills were tinted pink and blue and brown, and blighted with holograms, diffraction gratings, metal and plastic threads and chemical alarms.  It wasn't money for a free people. ...  For just $99, get all this wealth-saving intelligence:  1) Surviving the New Money ($50); 2) The monthly Ron Paul Investment Letter ($99); 3) The monthly Ron Paul Political Report ($50); 4) The unlisted phone number of my Financial Hotline for fast breaking news ($25); 5) My manual for investors, The Ron Paul Primer.  A $224 value for $99!  ...  Please help me help you survive the new money!"

 

- Signed Ron Paul, circa 1993

 

 

If you call now, Ron Paul will throw in a Ronco Pocket Fisherman©, a box of Alex Jones' Whacker Jacks, and a new roll of tinfoil in your choice of red, white or blue!  Call 1.800.IAM.ANUT. 

  


 

 

 

 

 


Gold?  Silver? Oil?  9mm rounds?  Canned goods?  Prefabricated fallout shelters?  Probably all of the above.

A few points:  Unlike his newsletters, which were written in the first person and bore his name, we are told he didn't write them.  Well, he might have written them, but only because Murray Rothbard invaded his body as a snatcher and wrote them when the good doctor was sleeping between "birthin' dem babies."  Like his books, which were also written in the first person and bore his name and unlike his newsletters, which were also written in the first person and bore his name, these statements are obviously his.  Lew Rockwell did not brainjack him and force him to spout these idiocies using psychokinesis.  I mean, duh, Paul Pot's not wearing his tinfoil hat!  How could he pickup the transmissions from the Wizard of Lew behind the curtain?

Hold on!  What am I thinking???  This is a double-face palm moment!  He didn't need the tinfoil hat. Paulsamic Vinegar Mom obviously failed to kill all of the "chemtrails" and Lew'Oz was able to hijack them and circumvent the MK-ULTRA codes.  So, the barium and aluminum found in the aerosol of the chemtrail was manipulated and the mindcontrol programmes were reset so that Lew'Oz could communicate to Dr Paul through the air unseen by anyone in the room nor detected by electromagnetic fields, wireless internet, satellite signals, microwaves, cable channels and Transformers' walkie-talkies.   Look, Mum!  No tinfoil needed!

Sheesh!  Sometimes, I can be so weapons grade stupid!






Of course, if you really want a tinfoil hat-worthy eye roll, queue up the clip to the 8:40 mark of the video clip above for a chance to hear Paul Pot literally say, verbatim and without irony:


“Yeah, well, that sure is a sign that [Rick Perry] is very much involved in the international conspiracy!”


Paul might be a borderline paranoid schizophrenic, himself, or he might just be a cynical, old crank, who likes the veneration of and the money he receives from paranoid schizophrenics, but he isn't stupid.  He realises that his conspiracies do not play well with the mainstream of the American public.  Sex sells.  Crazy?  Not so much.  He knows how crazy his conspiracy theories about Bilderbergers, the New Money is gonna git ya!, the Illuminatus, blah, blah, blah, are.  He has to, doesn't he?






Anyhoo, Alex Jones initially asks him to what nefarious shenanigans might the Bilderbergers be up behind the scenes.  At first, the "good doctor' demurs and gives a typical Ron Paul non-answer answer, but if you have ever listened to Alex Jones, you would know that only Obama's Massive Radio and Internet Kill Switch can get him off of a tangent.  He asks him again and again, to the effect, "What do you think the Bildersbergers are doing?" "What is the elite up to:  are they trying to set up a dictatorship or have they so drunkenly overspent that they can't stop eating Goyim babes?"  "Don't you think that George Bush is getting ready to impose a totalitarian dictatorship upon the country just like Hitler and Stalin did?"  When he can no longer evade with his filibustered bullshit, Paul Pot offers up the old stand-by:  the Illuminatus conspiracy and then goes for the red meat ring!


George Bush is coming to take every patriotic American's guns away and, if they are surrendered, he will -- personally -- pry the weapons out of the descendant of Washington, Jefferson and Madison's cold, dead hands!!!


By the way, is it just me or does Alex Jones always sound like he is a panting dog?
 
We know that Ron Paul is the King of Non Sequiturs.  Just take a look at his batshit crazy debate response to Michelle Bachmann in Iowa.   Watch his flapping arms and darting eyes.  Sheesh, if his hair could have stood on end, I think that it would have:






BACHMANN:  And with all due respect to Ron Paul, I think I have never heard a more dangerous answer for American security than the one that we just heard from Ron Paul. And I’ll tell you the reason why.

And the reason — the reason — the reason why I would say that is because we know, without a shadow of a doubt, that Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally, Israel, off the face of the map, and they’ve stated they will use it against the United States of America.

Look no further than the Iranian constitution, which states unequivocally that their admission — their mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually to set up a worldwide caliphate. We would be fools and knaves to ignore their purpose and their plan.

PAUL: Obviously, I would like to see a lot less nuclear weapons. I - - I don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I would like to reduce them, because there would be less chance of war. But to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals, but they don't come here to kill us because we're free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden? I mean, that's absurd. If you think that is the reason, we have no chance of winning this. They come here and explicitly explain it to us. The CIA has explained it to us. It said they come here and they want to do us harm because we're bombing them.

Can someone point out where she said anything about declaring war on 1.2 billion Muslims?  Does Ron Paul know that not all Muslims live in Iran?    Does Ron Paul even understand why the one, the only, the Grand Poobah himself, the Ayatollah Khomeinei, banned the group known as The Hojjatieh Mahdatieh Society* in Iran?


PAUL:  If she thinks we live in a dangerous world, she ought to think back when I was drafted in the 1962 with nuclear missiles in Cuba. And Kennedy calls Khrushchev and talks to them, and talks them out of this so we don’t have a nuclear exchange.

Yikes!  I am not a conspiracy theorist and I have poked fun at some of the Pauliacs for their well-known love of conspiracy theories with my claim to have solved the mystery of the man on the grassy knoll in Dallas on 22 November 1966, but I'm beginning to wonder if L. Ron Hubbard didn't write all of the history books and newspapers that Paul Pot has ever read.  President Kennedy didn't call Khrushchev and talk him out of a nuclear exchange.  First of all, obviously, Paul has no clue as to the fact that Khrushchev thought that Kennedy was a joke and had made a complete fool of him the previous year in Vienna.   Secondly, there was never any phone call.   In fact, while there were negotiations between emissaries, it was not dialogue that prompted Khrushchev to issue a message on Radio Moscow on 28 October advising the world that the USSR was stepping back from the precipice.  Rather, it was the United States' advisory to NATO that "the situation is growing shorter... the United States may find it necessary within a very short time in its interest and that of its fellow nations in the Western Hemisphere to take whatever military action may be necessary" in the early morning hours of 27 October, followed by the CIA's notification that missiles in Cuba were ready and the American Navy's dropping of depth charges on a Soviet submarine carrying nuclear-tipped missiles at the quarantine line that caused the shoe-banger to blink.  Following Moscow's statement, the Kennedy administration agreed to withdraw the Jupiter missiles in Turkey in exchange for the removal of the Soviet bombers from Cuba.  While it appeared that Kennedy emerged victorious at the time, it was later felt that Castro was strengthened by the crisis.  For certain, there are some liberals that do not consider JFK a brilliant president nor either the Vienna or the Cuban Missile Crisis a détente coup ... or should that be a coup détente?  :-)


 Those, who refuse to learn history and the law, are doomed to fall for Ron Paul's bullshit.

- Moi


Now, remember, this is the man, who wants to be the Commander in Chief of the United States' Military.  Shouldn't he, at least, know something about military history?  Seriously, it is embarrassing.  The Cuban Missile Crisis happened long before I was born and I know more about it than the guy, who was drafted during it.  If he wanted to use an example of a President that used dialogue to diffuse a situation with the Soviet Union, he could have used Reagan.  Of course, that would be problematic since he once compared him to Stalin.
 

 


It is not merely that Paul Pot gets vexatious in his ill-fitting, cheap suit when he fundamentally disagrees with the underlying premise posed in a question.  Just as his devotees, he goes out of his way to to try and embarrass or humiliate the questioner.  You'll also notice something else about him:  He doth project too much.  He said this about Michelle Bachmann (I am not a supporter so please spare me the "shilling" emails) to Jay Leno:


"She doesn't like Muslims.  She hates Muslims. She hates them. She wants to go get them."


But, have you ever paid close attention to how Ron Paul speaks about minorities or other groups -- other than the newsletters that he didn't read or write or know about for 10 years even though he was hawking them in 1995?   He says that he doesn't see people in "collective groups" -- that it is something that is an anathema to his ideology.  OK.  Well, let's see:






"Maybe this is part of the 'knock down Ron Paul' (effort) because he's gaining grounds with the blacks.  I'm getting more support right now, more votes from the blacks because they understand what I'm talking about and they trust me."
 
- Ron Paul


Whoa!  Wait!  "The blacks"?!?!?!  Isn't that like a "collective group"?  Isn't "them" a group?


"I don't see people in collective groups." - Ron Paul

"The blacks." - Ron Paul


Where have I heard the phrase "the blacks" used in connection with Ron Paul?  Hmmm.  Let me scratch my head and think here.  Since Paul Pot has no "record" of racism, according to the Paulistinians, it might take a while.  Give me a few moments ... or hours ... or days ... it might even take years or forever because the Paulistinians swear nothing exists and they could be right.   Not!  Psych!


“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.” 


Another thing that you will notice about Paul Pot is that he does shuck-and-jive interview performances worthy of Ahmadinejad (paraphrasing):

In the West:


"Iran is a homonym country.  No, no, no!  We don't have any homosexuals in Iran.  I said HOMONYM.  We believe under the "Religion of Peace," but because we follow the Qur'an and the Hadiths, we -- just rarely and occasionally, you see -- have pieces of bodies as a result of beheadings, stonings, hangings to decapitation, if such happens, which it does on occasion, and what have you.  We also have to cut off the hands and feet of 'thieves,' as proscribed by the Qur'an in 5:33 and 5:38.  Yes, yes, yes, we do have to cut off the penises of criminals, but that is only if the organs are 'vile or impure.'   No, the clitoris and vulva are not considered necessary body parts.  When your baby's fingernails and hair grow, do you not cut them for they are unhealthy?"


In Iran:
  
   
"Death to the Great Satan and let's wipe the Little Satan off of the map. A wink, a nod, and a little maslahat-e nizam, Inshallah!"


And, Obama...


To Iowa voters:


"I believe in the power of prayer.  Through prayer, not only can we strengthen ourselves in adversity, but we can also find the empathy and the compassion and the will to deal with the problems that we do control.  What I pray for is the strength and the wisdom to be able to act on those things that I can control.  And that's what I think has been lacking sometimes in our government.  We've got to express those values through our government, not just through our religious institutions."


To his liberal, elite, swanky donors in San Francisco:


"And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."


If someone asks him,


"Should heroin be legalised?" 


or


"I know that you claim that the Constitution requires that Congress must declare war and I agree, but can you point out the clause in the document where it says the words 'The Congress of the United States hereby declares war on XYZ' must be used rather than 'The Congress of the United States hereby authorises the President of the United States to use any and all legal force, including warfare, against XYZ organisation' and, if it is a terrorist organisation armed with a nuclear weapon -- just humour me here for the sake of argument -- on whom would you serve this declaration and where?  At the United Nations?  The XYZ organisation's de facto embassy in neutral Switzerland or Kandahar?" 


or


"Congressman Paul, you know, even the Turks and Saudis are getting a little nervous about that nutter, Ahmadinejad, getting nukes and have pledged that they, too, will seek to acquire nuclear weapons, if Iran breaks out.  What do you think that we should do about the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and, for your comfort, just go ahead and assume that the 13th floor of the Middle East, Israel, (technically, it exists, but is labeled the 14th floor a/k/a Palestine) is non-existent, which is what the textbooks in Palestinian schools already do.  Oh, and one more thing, we have already gone down the, 'Let's be friends and talk it out route' with Obama and we've seen how 'productive' that's been."  


or


“Listen, Dr Paul, I understand that you believe that that Prog tyrant, Woodrow Wilson, was one of the proximate causes of World War II.  Gotcha.  I couldn't agree more.  But, dude, do you really believe that Germany wasn't our enemy in WWII even though it declared war on us first and would you have turned away the US St Louis like Franklin Delano Roosevelt?"


He is more than happy to give you answers that he knows will not only disappoint you, but downright piss you off and I actually thinks he likes doing it.  Yet, you have to see him tip-toe through the fruit loops to really get an appreciation of his "inner lawyer" -- and being a lawyer, I know a good "inner lawyer" when I see one.  He may have delivered 4,000 babies, but Allah knows how many conspiracy theories he has helped midwife with his nuance, doublespeak, dog whistles, non sequiturs, and out-and-out speculative lunacy.
 
He might be more than willing to tell a group of Jewish students that he would not have lifted a finger to stop the Holocaust, but he will go on and on about the "concentration camps" in Gaza:

"It’s our money and our weapons. But I think we encouraged it. Certainly, the president has said nothing to diminish it; matter of fact, he justifies it on moral grounds — ‘Oh, they have a right to do this!’ — without ever mentioning the tragedy of Gaza! You know, the real problems are there. To me, I look at it like a concentration camp, and, people are making homemade bombs, and [it's] like, they’re the aggressors?”
- Ron Paul, interviewed by Press TV*, 01.05.09


There are no "concentration camps" in Gaza.  No one is living on, at most, 300 grams of bread per day.

This was Auschwitz:






This is the new Gaza Mall that opened on 17 July 2010:







This was Buchenwald Hospital:







This is Gaza Hospital:






This was Bergen-Belsen:






This is Roots Restaurant in Gaza:






This was Treblinka: