Truth, Lies and In Between

And now, for something on the lighter side:

Sometimes you just can’t argue with good ol’ Texas logic.

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year-old Texas rancher whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man.

Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our President. The old rancher said, ‘Well, ya know, Obama is a ‘post turtle.’

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a ‘post turtle’ was. The old rancher said, ‘When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a ‘post turtle’.

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face, so he continued to explain.

‘You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there in the first place.”

At least there is one that still has a clue.

This is from Michelle Malkin’s site:

Hensarling: “If we lose our ability to fail, we will soon lose our ability to succeed.

Thank you, GOP Rep. Jeb Hensarling, for defending core conservative principles:

Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, today issued the following statement on the agreement reached by House and Senate negotiators on the Paulson plan, and his intentions on the final bill:

“My top responsibility as an elected official is to protect the families and people who trusted me to represent their interests in Washington. I do not take lightly the critical nature of the credit crisis that our capital markets face today and the grave situation that every American will face should our credit markets freeze and remain frozen. Inaction has never been an option, but the Paulson plan should have never been the only option.

“In my heart and in my mind, I believe that this plan is fraught with unintended consequences, would force generations of taxpayers to pick up the tab for Wall Street losses, and could permanently and fundamentally change the role of government in the American free enterprise system. Once the government socializes losses, it will soon socialize profits. If we lose our ability to fail, we will soon lose our ability to succeed. If we bail out risky behavior, we will soon see even riskier behavior.

More

Thank God that the latest bail out BS has been crushed.

I’ll do more on it later.

Right now though, it is a victory for capitalism.

Here’s a good shot at Obama over at Confederate Yankee:

He really isn’t one of us.

Alien Obama

Professor David Demming lets cultural incongruity Barack Obama have it with both barrels:

When Obama refers to “my Muslim faith,” the verbal gaffe resonates as a Freudian slip because of Obama’s thinly veiled hatred for this country’s unique culture and institutions. Obama sat for 20 years in a church where the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr preached “goddamn America.” He only resigned from the congregation when it became politically expedient to do so. When earlier this year, Michelle Obama said “for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country,” can we conclude that her husband disagrees? Is it not remarkable that Michelle Obama can be so small-minded as to find nothing in the history of the United States that merits her admiration but the personal success of her husband?

What is Barack Obama for? His campaign motto is “change.” But even a 6-year-old child understands that “change” can be either good or bad. Lacking specifics, the invocation of “change” as policy is completely empty. As we witness Obama’s minions mindlessly endorse the meaningless maxim of “change,” it only can call to mind the barnyard animals in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” chanting “four legs good, two legs bad!”

The choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate has been devastating for the Obama campaign precisely because she is everything Obama is not. Palin is not ashamed of her culture or country. She is not embarrassed by being an American, but naively embraces her birthright. Unassisted by affirmative action, Palin has risen to national prominence on the basis of her character, intelligence and natural gifts. In a word, she has guts. This is a woman who is proud of her country, not because it has granted her personal success, but because she respects what America stands for: freedom, opportunity, and individualism.

Obama is a vapid demagogue, a hollow man that despises American culture. He is ill-suited to be president of the United States. As the weeks pass, more Americans will come to this realization and elect McCain/Palin in a landslide.

And he’s right: Barack Obama’s life story, half-lived and half-told in two self-aggrandizing auto-biographies, is not the story of America or of Americans, but the story of a “citizen of the world.” Barack Obama cannot hold quintessential American values because he has not lived a live that celebrates or even respects American culture.

More

Good article over at NRO:

The Undefended City

No despair.

By Bill Whittle

When I first got to college, back in the last few weeks of the Seventies, I finally got a chance to see an ordinary game of Dungeons and Dragons. My immediate inclination was to play as a Paladin: the pinnacle of Lawful Good, a character required to dash in and fight overwhelmingly powerful evil forces anywhere and at whatever odds. These contests were short, depressing and hilarious, but all D&D really came down to in the end was slaying small monsters, taking their gold, buying slightly better gear and then slaying slightly larger monsters. Why not just save some time and become a Vorpal Sword distributor? Then you get the weapons and the gold, and people bring them both to you. And so a larval conservative was born. And I never played again.

That was the attitude I took into The Lord of the Rings when the first of the trilogy appeared in 2001, just a few months after the Two Towers actually did fall and the idea of good and evil suddenly became — to me and no doubt to you too — a great deal less ironic and a great deal more real.

And in other news, or is it?

Loyal Clintonites Run Obama Economic Policy

Wed, 09/24/2008 – 14:54 — Judicial Watch Blog

Barack Obama’s famous change motto is tough to swallow considering his arsenal of economic policy advisers consists of Clinton Administration veterans, including a disgraced Treasury Deputy Secretary ousted for lying to Congress to cover up a record-keeping scandal.

There’s a reason the Illinois senator and his one-time nemesis, the New York senator, are referred to as economic twins; they share the same shady economic advisers that operated the Clinton White House when Hillary was First Lady. She brought them on board for her failed presidential campaign and now Obama swears by them.

Let’s start with Roger Altman, the investment banker and longtime Clinton friend who got booted as Deputy Treasury Secretary in 1994 for illegally intervening in a federal investigation of a failed Arkansas bank with ties to the Clintons. Altman also broke federal rules of confidentiality by giving the Clintons inside information about the probe then lying to a Senate Banking Committee about his illegal actions. At the time Altman headed the Treasury agency (Resolution Trust Corporation) charged with cleaning up the nation’s Savings and Loans crisis.

More

And more proof it was the friggin’ Democrats. This comes from a… Democrat.

Posted at News Busters:

Fox News Blames Democrats for Financial Crisis, Bill Clinton Agrees

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
September 25, 2008 – 11:25 ET

Going very much against the media meme that the current financial crisis is all George W. Bush and the Republicans’ fault, Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC’s Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been “resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” (video available here, relevant section at 2:45).

Whether he knew it or not, Clinton was going against virtually all press outlets that have been pointing fingers at Republicans since this crisis began, and likely much to the dismay of such folk actually agreed with a Fox News segment aired on Tuesday’s “Special Report”.

There’s a video posted at the site as well.

More

Here’s a good one! I’ve been harping about this for years!

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Bill would boot U.N. from U.S.
Tancredo cites anti-American, anti-Jewish grandstanding

Posted: September 24, 2008
11:06 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – With the clock ticking on his final days in Congress, Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., a former presidential candidate, is introducing a flurry of controversial legislation – the latest, a bid to kick the United Nations out of the U.S.

“The U.N. has coddled brutal dictators, anti-Semites, state sponsors of terrorism, and nuclear proliferators – while excluding democratic countries from membership and turning a blind eye to humanitarian tragedies and gross violations of human rights around the globe,” Tancredo said. “The U.N.’s continued presence in the United States is an embarrassment to our nation, and the time has come for this ineffective organization to pack its bags and hit the road.”

This week Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is back in New York to address the U.N. His speech has drawn thousands of protesters in New York City.

More

Just a quick round up of the net. Class was interesting, but since it was ITIL version 2, it will likely be useless to me.

Nice piece over at Ace of Spades:

Obama, The Disappearing Man: The More the Public Gets to Know Him, The Less There Is To See

Christopher Hitchens asks: “Why is Obama so vapid, hesitant, and gutless?“

Uh, is that a trick question?

Obama acts like an aimless twit because that’s what he is. There is no “deeper Barack.” Sure, he does fine on the topics he’s rehearsed a hundred times (race, healthcare, race, anti-Bush, race, Iraq, oh and race), but give him something new to to think about and he defaults: “Present.”

That’s what happened with Georgia. He gives a statement that he probably read on a bumper sticker: “War is bad for humans and other living things.” Then revises it after his advisers have a chance to write up a few position papers (cribbing from McCain) and run a few polls.

That’s what happened this past weekend with the financial bailouts. First he sounded like a fourth grader aping a tour guide on Capitol Hill: “Congress has an important role to play.” Then, after declaring that now is not the time for specific details to fix the problem he was mocked on Leno. And today he has his advisers have a six point plan.

More

The real racists are the liberal assholes that support Obama. Anyone that keeps bringing up the race issue that is non-existent is a friggin’ racist douche bag. In other words, the Democrats are a bunch of racist assholes.

Their mantra of hate just switched from hating blacks outright, to needing their votes to continue the hate in other ways, such as the BS that is welfare.

Here’s more on the subject from Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler:

Is It STILL “Racism Week?”

Good G-d, but the poor flailing donks must be desperate for material. After more than a week of trying, once again, to drag racism kicking and screaming into the campaign since the Republicans that they’ve been accusing of wanting to do so continue to stubbornly refuse to live down to liberal standards, one of the New York Obama Times’ editorial hacks once again drags the carcass of the old nag out of the barn for yet another beating:

It was not that long ago that black people in the Deep South could be beaten or killed for seeking the right to vote, talking back to the wrong white man or failing to give way on the sidewalk.

“Not long ago” if you’re the same age as Robert KKK Byrd, that is, which precious few people are. Most of his contemporaries passed away around the end of the Civil War, leaving poor old Bobby to carry on the fight against the nigras all by himself.

More

Time for the left to finally shut the fuck up. These two were traitors and got what they deserved.

Case closed: The Rosenbergs were Soviet spies

A startling confession again proves their guilt. Now it’s time for their left-wing defenders to acknowledge it.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed 55 years ago, on June 19, 1953. But last week, they were back in the headlines when Morton Sobell, the co-defendant in their famous espionage trial, finally admitted that he and his friend, Julius, had both been Soviet agents.

It was a stunning admission; Sobell, now 91 years old, had adamantly maintained his innocence for more than half a century. After his comments were published, even the Rosenbergs’ children, Robert and Michael Meeropol, were left with little hope to hang on to — and this week, in comments unlike any they’ve made previously, the brothers acknowledged having reached the difficult conclusion that their father was, indeed, a spy. “I don’t have any reason to doubt Morty,” Michael Meeropol told Sam Roberts of the New York Times.

With these latest events, the end has arrived for the legions of the American left wing that have argued relentlessly for more than half a century that the Rosenbergs were victims, framed by a hostile, fear-mongering U.S. government. Since the couple’s trial, the left has portrayed them as martyrs for civil liberties, righteous dissenters whose chief crime was to express their constitutionally protected political beliefs. In the end, the left has argued, the two communists were put to death not for spying but for their unpopular opinions, at a time when the Truman and Eisenhower administrations were seeking to stem opposition to their anti-Soviet foreign policy during the Cold War.

More

And now, to the current “crisis” in the markets. This may hurt your head.

This is a great piece from a professor

For my MBA students: some scattered links on the current financial problems

I currently teach several sections per year of economics for MBA students. My MBA students are a joy to teach: they are energetic, curious, engaged, and motivated. (And even better, they laugh at my jokes. Most of the time.)

But this term, even before the first midterm exam, there has been some sotto voce grumbling.

Why is he messing around with indifference curves when financial history is being made? When the World As We Know It is Ending?

I know. I’m finally interested in economics and want to learn what’s going on, but Newmark’s doing . . . other stuff.

My defense, which I plan to offer my students this week, is two-fold:

1. My university has a fine finance faculty–the MBAs will take at least one course in finance–and it seems both proper and efficient to let those folks discuss the issue.

2. It’s too early. A lot of what we–economists as well as everybody else–think we know about the current trouble could change depending on what happens in the months and years to come.

But perhaps those are cop-outs. And there is one economics-related aspect of the mess that I am intensely interested in, even if I’m far from the best person to address it.

There will be a huge fight, just as there was about the Great Depression, over whether the current mess was caused by “free markets”. The sneering and jeering have already begun: “The Free Market: A False Idol After All?” (Peter S. Goodman, NY Times); “Americans May Be Losing Faith in Free Markets” (Peter G. Gosselin, LA Times); “Capitalism’s Reality Check” (E. J. Dionne, Washington Post).

It is hard to overstate how important the outcome of this fight will be for public policy in the United States and throughout the world. And while, as noted, it’s early, let me declare my bias: by instinct, training, and experience, I believe free markets work well the vast majority of the time. To coin a phrase, based on one from one of my favorite authors, Ernest Hemingway, “Markets are a fine thing, and worth fighting for.”

More

And more cluelessness from the One. If he were any more clueless, he might be a Senator, oh, wait, he is…then again, maybe I should look at classifying him for what he really is:

Right now I have been calling B. Hussein Obama a moron. Maybe I should down grade him to an imbecile?

Here’s how to tell the difference:

Any child with an IQ of above 70 was considered “normal,” while kids above 130 are considered “gifted.” To deal with kids below 70, psychologists invented a nomenclature of retardation. Those with IQs between 51 and 70 were called morons. Morons had adequate learning skills to complete menial tasks and communicate. I placed him in this category because he can learn and communicate. Obviously, his handlers are able to teach him new tricks and he can communicate through a teleprompter.

Imbeciles, with IQs between 26 and 50, never progressed past a mental age of about six.

I think maybe he really belongs here. Without handlers and a teleprompter, he sounds rather childish at best.

Don’t make me reclassify your ass to idiot.

And the lowest of all were the idiots, with IQs between 0 and 24, who were characterized by poor motor skill, extremely limited communication, and little response to stimulus.

This comes from Michael J. Totten’s website:

Al Qaeda’s Defeat in Iraq

Senator Barack Obama’s answer to Katie Couric’s question a few days ago about why he thinks there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since September 11, 2001, was bizarre.

“Well,” he said, “I think that the initial invasion into Afghanistan disrupted al Qaeda. And that was the right thing to do. I mean, we had to knock out those safe havens. And that, I think, weakened them. We did some work in strengthening our homeland security apparatus here. Obviously, the average person knows that when they go to the airport, because they are goin’ through taking off their shoes … all that. The problem is when we got distracted by Iraq. We gave al Qaeda time to reconstitute itself.” [Emphasis added.]

Jennifer Rubin correctly noted that Couric asked Obama why the U.S. has not been attacked, but let’s leave that aside. The notion that “we gave Al Qaeda time to reconstitute itself” is breathtakingly ahistorical.

More

The Only Weapon Left

From Atlah

Palin Slams Expose the Real Democrats

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

For two weeks, Democrats and their media allies have leveled scorching fire at Sarah Palin. It’s not having much effect, but they keep at it anyway.

The latest Fox News poll shows Palin with a 54-27 favorable/unfavorable ratio, which compares well with Barack Obama’s 57-36, John McCain’s 60-33 and Joe Biden’s 51-29. (Of the four, she’s the most popular).

Why do Democrats feel so threatened? They’ve even stopped attacking McCain and President Bush to launch a vicious and sexist barrage at her that would normally make a feminist angry and a Democrat blush.

Basically, it’s this: John McCain only endangers Democratic chances of victory this November, but Sarah Palin is an existential threat to the Democratic Party.

She threatens a core element of the party’s base — women.

When African-Americans like Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, or Condi Rice rise to prominence as a Republican, they endanger the Democratic coalition. So would a Republican labor leader.

And so, above all, does the woman Republican running for vice president.

More

Good one over at Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

Does This Asshat Have Anything Original?

Over at Confederate Yankee

The Outing of Barack Obama

If you can warp time to imagine Richard Nixon consorting with Eric Robert Rudolph for more than 20 years on public policy issues, then you can begin to understand the relationship between Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama and one of the men who made him in Chicago machine politics, Bill Ayers. What you may not be able to understand is why Obama’s campaign is apparently working with Ayers to suppress the extent of their relationship.

Who was Bill Ayers?

Ayers was a founder and leader of the Weather Underground, a terrorist group that declared war upon the United States, bombed government buildings, murdered law enforcement officers during armed robberies, fire-bombed a judge’s home, and had planned what could have been the largest terrorist mass murder in America prior to 9/11. That attack was only thwarted by the premature detonation of massive roofing nail-studded pipe bombs by Ayer’s girlfriend and fellow terrorist, Diana Oughton, bombs destined for a non-commissioned officers dance at Fort Dix. The blast of just some of the pipe bombs leveled a four-story Greenwich Village townhouse; four more nail-studded bombs were recovered in the rubble, along with 57 sticks of dynamite. The anti-personnel bombs created by the Weathermen were designed to kill hundreds.

Over at Little Green Footballs

Krauthammer: Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe

Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 7:11:38 pm PST

Charles agrees with me that Charlie doesn’t know the real meaning of the “Bush Doctrine.” And Charles should know; he coined the term: Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?” She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Have a good Saturday.

Your Gun Rights Are in Danger Unless You Register to Vote!

Don’t Wait for Barack Obama to Ban Your Guns – Register to Vote Today!

Barack Obama Has Supported:

	A Total Ban on Handguns
	A Ban on the Sale or Transfer of All Semi-Auto Firearms
	A Ban on Right-to-Carry Permits
	A Ban on Firearms Kept in the Home
	And More —

“So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them….”
— Barack Obama, April 2, 2008
Barack Obama has made it clear – he believes gun owners are dangerous and that guns should be banned.  If he is elected President, he could name new Supreme Court Justices who will try to overturn the recent court decision and strip our rights away.

Protect your rights.  Protecting your rights has never been more important. Register to vote today!

Great article over at the UK Telegraph.

Sarah Palin is not such a small-town girl after all

By James Bennett

It is clear that few in America, let alone Britain, have any idea what to make of Sarah Palin. The Republicans’ vice-presidential candidate confounds the commentators because they don’t understand the forces that shaped her in the remote state of Alaska.

Thus, most coverage dwells on exotica – the moose shooting, her Eskimo husband – combined with befuddlement at how a woman can go from being mayor of a town of 9,000, to governor, to prospective VP within the space of a few years.

The first myth to slay is that she is a political neophyte who has come from nowhere. In fact, she and her husband have, for decades, run a company in the highly politicized commercial fishing industry, where holding on to a license requires considerable nous and networking skills.

Her rise from parent-teacher association to city council gave her a natural political base in her home town of Wasilla. Going on to become mayor was a natural progression. Wasilla’s population of 9,000 would be a small town in Britain, and even in most American states.

But Wasilla is the fifth-largest city in Alaska, which meant that Palin was an important player in state politics.

Her husband’s status in the Yup’ik Eskimo tribe, of which he is a full, or “enrolled” member, connected her to another influential faction: the large and wealthy (because of their right to oil revenues) native tribes.

All of this gave her a base from which to launch her 2002 campaign for lieutenant (deputy) governor of Alaska.

She lost that, but collected a powerful enough following to be placated with a seat on, and subsequently the chairmanship of, the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which launched her into the politics of Alaska’s energy industry.

Palin quickly realised that Alaska had the potential to become a much bigger player in global energy politics, a conviction that grew as the price of oil rose. Alaska had been in hock to oil companies since major production began in the mid-1970s.

As with most poor, distant places that suddenly receive great natural-resource wealth, the first generation of politicians were mesmerised by the magnificence of the crumbs falling from the table. Palin was the first of the next generation to realise that Alaska should have a place at that table.

Her first target was an absurd bureaucratic tangle that for 30 years had kept the state from exporting its gas to the other 48 states. She set an agenda that centred on three mutually supportive objectives: cleaning up state politics, building a new gas pipeline, and increasing the state’s share of energy revenues.

This agenda, pursued throughout Palin’s commission tenure, culminated in her run for governor in 2006. By this time, she had already begun rooting out corruption and making enemies, but also establishing her bona fides as a reformer.

With this base, she surprised many by steamrollering first the Republican incumbent governor, and second, the Democratic former governor, in the election.

Far from being a reprise of Mr Smith Goes to Washington, Palin was a clear-eyed politician who, from the day she took office, knew exactly what she had to do and whose toes she would step on to do it.

More

Don’t know whom to credit with this, but I received it in an email and decided to put it here.

A Little Gun History Lesson

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

—————————

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952,

some 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

—————————-

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, some 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

—————————–

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

——————————

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

With Guns………….We Are ‘Citizens’.

Without Them……..We Are ‘Subjects’.

During W.W. II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.

It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends!

The Bill of No Rights from Lewis Napper:

We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal, commie, pinko bedwetters.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen color TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone—not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and kill you.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You don’t have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won’t lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you’d like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and funny hat.

ARTICLE IX: You don’t have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities in education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness—which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

Good one from John Stossel:

Green Jobs

Governments create no wealth. They only move it around while taking a cut for their trouble. So any jobs created over here come at the expense of jobs that would have been created over there. Overlooking this fact is known as the broken-window fallacy. The French economist Frederic Bastiat pointed out that a broken shop window will create work for a glassmaker, but that work comes only at the expense of the cook or tailor the shopkeeper would have patronized if he didn’t have to replace the window.

Creating jobs is not difficult for government officials. Pharaohs created thousands of jobs by building pyramids. Our government could create jobs by paying people to dig holes and then fill them up. Would actual wealth be created? Of course not. It would be destroyed. It’s like arguing the hurricanes create jobs. After all, the destruction is followed by rebuilding. But does anyone seriously believe that replacing destroyed buildings creates wealth?

More