Archive for July, 2012

Chic-Fil-A boycott

Posted by Troy on 30th July 2012 in Current Events, Political

Here comes the question: should you boycott a business just because their owners have different values than you?  Well, of course, it depends on who you ask.  The gay marriage crowd definitely thinks you should, and those who are against gay marriage think otherwise.  I think it really depends.  If you buy someone’s services, you are, in essence, funding whatever it is that they contribute to.  I should imagine that everyone would call for a boycott if it turned out that McDonald’s was donating money to NAMBLA.  Just think about your friends.  You might have a friend who turns out to have a different opinion on capital gains tax.  You might think his position is stupid, but it’s probably not enough to cause you to break off your friendship.  However, if it turns out that your friend is a member of the KKK, you are probably going to stop hanging out with him.  As such, if Chic-fil-a’s position is that important to you…yes, you should boycott.  However, if the only reason youa re boycotting is because some pundit tells you to, you’re being an idiot and you should learn to think for yourself.

Long Live the Constitution!

China, Doping, and State Sponsored Athletes

Posted by Troy on 29th July 2012 in Human Nature, Uncategorized

Ye Shiwen, Chinese swimmer, just outswam Ryan Lochte (based on time).  So this means one of two things: either 1) the Feminists should rejoice!  Obviously there are no differences between men and women, and all men and women sports should be merged into one classification.  Or 2) (more likely) the Chinese are doping.  Have you noticed that the Chinese have been fielding more and more tall people?  The Chinese have, historically, been the smallest people on the planet.  Of course, forced growth can be caused by merely introducing Zinc to the young.  This could be done in a number of ways.  I still don’t believe their gymnasts were old enough in Beijing.

A government with an agenda is a scary thing.  We should always be concerned when we see goosestepping.  It’s disgraceful when an individual athlete decides to cheat.  It’s a shameful thing, but it is disgusting when a State sponsors cheating.  It is disgusting because, typically, they are forcing the athletes to destroy their bodies to advance their propaganda goals, and it is disgusting because any government that is willing to destroy the health of their citizens merely to advance such propaganda has completely lost sense of their humanity.

Even if they are not doping, I abhor all State sponsored athletes at the Olympics.  It is unfair to compare those who sacrifice their spare time and other things to those who are paid by their State to train.

Long Live the Constitution

Communist Manifesto

Posted by Troy on 28th July 2012 in Entertainment

I’m calling this entertainment because it’s a total joke.  Bear in mind, this is the same work that has inspired many loonies to go on killing sprees and for some of the most murderous and tyrannical governments to be formed.  While this books is pretty much pure trash, it is a worthy read so that you can see just how stupid this theory is.  Also, you will see the dangers between the modern Left and where it will inevitably lead.

First of all, the thing that I will always remember from this book will be Carl Marx’s allegation that that bourgeoisie is just interested in money and wife swapping.  Wife swapping?!  Ha ha ha!!!!  That’s your intellectual argument, huh?  Diggin’ deep!  Next is the allegation that capitalism leads to a lack of individuality.  What the hell planet is he living on?  There is no country on the face of the planet more diverse than America.  We have so many different types of interests, clothing, foods, books, movies, and on and on and on!  Then there is the argument that capitalism destroys the family.  What?  communism destroys the family.  In capitalist societies, families must remain close because your family IS your safety net.  There is no government handout.  If you lose your job, you have to turn to friends and family to help you.  As such, you would tend to be nicer to such people.  He also never says what they will replace capitalism with.  Not really.  They say that the State would take over the means of production, but it would stand to reason that the State would have to have a similar way of doing business if we are going to continue hiring as many people.  Also, he claims that capitalism merely pays enough to keep you alive.  What do communists pay exactly?  Do you see a bunch of mansions in communist countries?  They seem pretty good at paying the bare minimum.  Isn’t that their creed?  We’ll give you what you need as long as you do as you’re told?

Next, I would like to destroy the entire premise of his work.  We’ve seen what Communism is, and we can draw some conclusions here.  First, his premise is that the history of the world comes down to the haves and the have-nots.  It is a battle between rich and poor.  He is wrong.  It isn’t about the rich and the poor.  Money is only an indicator.  He comes closer when he says it’s between the oppressed and the oppressor.  He just incorrectly links it to money.  No, it comes down to power.  All of nature comes down to this.  The powerful will do what it takes to secure more for themselves.  Money is just an indicator of the end result of a difference in power.  That brings me to the second point.  If he was right, communist countries would not have rich people.  They would have a uniform level of wealth.  Instead, what we see is that the political class is the oppressor and lives in opulence.  Of course, a lot of communists would point out that these mansions and fine clothes and food and whatever is paid for by the State and is owned by the State, and as such, there are not rich.  Ha.  No, rights to use the property is the same as owning the property.  Don’t be stupid.  If I let you live in a mansion and drive a Lamborgini, I think you’d take the deal, right?

So now we have to deal with the modern day communist.  These are people who refuse to see the truth.  They claim the past communist countries weren’t really communists, that they perverted communism to their own ends.  They just don’t see that it’s just about power, and that is the truth since the beginning of time.

The other reason you should read this book is the discussion on Socialism which Marx said would lead to Communism, and they are right.  Just look at our system.  We no long aid the poor.  In the real historical sense, you should be unable to afford shelter and three meals a day to be considered poor.  Notice, I said “shelter,” not a house.  I’m including slums here.  The historical precedence for being poor is that you can’t afford these two things.  Instead, we give people money that can afford TV, cable, electricity (honestly here), telephone service, cell phones, Nikes, Doritos and Coke (instead of eggs and potatoes here…damn cheap stuff), and a whole bunch of stuff that you could do without.  As we’ve done this, we’ve created a permanent pool of leeches that will never do anything more than just exist.  We’ve also made it impossible to take away any of these entitlements without them rioting.  As we’ve expanded these system of permanent leeches, we’ve increased the number of rioters.  Great.  As more people are on the toll, more people choose to be on the toll.  Also, we continue to expand what it means to be poor.  Now it’s not just you can’t eat, it’s if you can’t afford a damn smartphone.  So, as this system grows and grows, the terror that is communism lies around the  corner.  Sadly, this permanent underclass is not the most educated in the world.  They can fall prey to the pied piper that is Carl Marx.

Long Live the Constitution!

Ak-47s belong the the hands of soldiers, not criminals

Posted by Troy on 26th July 2012 in Current Events, Political

Obama begins his attack on the the Second Amendment.  I imagine the Left is fit to be tied.  They thought the public would demand more gun control after the Fast and the Furious.  It didn’t materialize.  Then they thought, surely after Gabby Giffords!  Nope, sorry.  Finally this!  This has to be the moment of truth!!!!  Not even now.  After each of these events, gun sales actually increased.  Imagine that!  It appears that Americans love their right to keep and bear arms.

According to Obama, AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not criminals.  First, he needs to learn about the military.  He’s the Commander in Chief.  I’m sure he can arrange a field trip to a military base.  We use M-16s.  Communists use the AK-47…I can understand why he’s confused, actually.  His premise is that only militaries and criminals use these weapons.  There’s a third group that he always forgets to account for:  law abiding gun owners.  The vast majority of AK-47s are owned by law abiding citizens.  Why should their rights be infringed upon?  His argument is based solely upon the concept that criminals are only willing to use AK-47s to commit their crimes.  Obama is assuming that they would be unwilling to switch over to a different type of rifle or use a shotgun.  This is why gun control opponents say that the end result of gun control must be the illegalization of all guns because, if not, what the hell is the point?

And a note to Fascist Mayor Bloomburg:  If the police of America went on strike until more gun control was enacted, I promise you, you would not see more gun control.  What you would most definitely see is every citizen that could afford guns buying them.  You would also see the pure rape of all those communities that have denied their citizens the right to defend themselves.

Long Live the Constitution!

Why you should not vote for Obama

Posted by Troy on 25th July 2012 in Political

As someone who is concerned for the future of the country, I want to explain why you should not vote for Obama, and I hope you share this with your friends.  I will try to explain what all he has done over the course of his first term in office.

1)  He tried to try the 9/11 terrorist in New York.  They pressed hard for this for months.  Only the extreme, overwhelming outrage of the voting public stopped them from doing this.

2)  He said he would close Gitmo, and he didn’t.  What this basically means is that he said one thing and did another.  Closing this base could have been done instantly if he wanted to.  He said what his base wanted to hear and then did the other.  This is akin of if a Republican President claimed he would stop gun control and then passed the assault weapons ban.  It’s a betrayal, but his base doesn’t seem to care.  Why is that?

3)  He did the auto bailout.  A lot of people claim this is a positive for him because he saved the auto industry, but he did no such thing.  He saved the Unions.  If we hadn’t had bailed them out, the auto companies would have gone bankrupt, some other company would have bought the company, and they would be able to renegotiate the terms of the labor contracts that are killing these companies slowly…so they are going to go bankrupt again in a few years.  They save the unions at the cost of the shareholders, bond holders, and taxpayers.  Yipee.

4)  Cash for clunkers was a waste of taxpayer funds.  It destroyed perfectly good cars.  It cost more pollution to build a new car than it does to keep driving a “clunker.”  It cut into the used car market so that the poor had less cars they could afford as well.

5)  Stimulus, stimulus, stimulus.  He claims that Keynesian economics work, but Keynes wrote about government spending when those governments had surpluses.  Instead, he created a pool of money with little oversight and corruption that increased our debt dramatically.

6)  In exchange for driving us further into debt with China, we were supposed to maintain an unemployment rate of under 8%.  It’s still over 8% and would be well over 10% if we still had the same labor participation rate we had in 2008.

7)  He engages in class warfare.  Read the Communist Manifesto.  It’s us vs them.

8)  He divides us over any criteria he can come up with: sex, race, religion, region, and class.

9)  He engaged the military without congressional approval in Libya.

10)  I don’t care what the Supreme Court says, the individual mandate is unconstitutional.  If they make a law that you have to buy a new car every single year or pay a $1,000 fine, do you think that is a legal law?  Hell no.  Need I remind you that Plessy vs Ferguson was wrong.  It’s a legal OPINION.  Sometimes they are wrong.  They were wrong in this case and see my other posts on this matter.

11)  He gets little credit for killing Osama.  If we weren’t in Afghanistan and didn’t do the interrogations that Bush ordered, we wouldn’t have gotten him.  Besides, any President would have made that call.  Not doing so would have been political suicide.  Not committing political suicide is not a daring decision.

12)  Eric Holder.  Need I say more?

13)  The administration knowingly let drug cartels from Mexico buy guns and take them across the boarder to reinforce their designs on gun control.

14)  The administration has to continually plead the Fifth.  It’s their only defense.

15)  The President offered someone a job to drop out of a Primary so that Specter could get his seat back (in payment for turning coat).  This is extremely illegal.

16)  The President lies all the time and isn’t good at it.  Basic body language tells you.  Watch when he scratches his nose.  At least be good at it!

17)  In 2008, he admitted raising the capital gains rate would lower tax revenues and hurt the economy, but he is for it because it is the “fair thing to do.”  Wow.  Class warfare anyone?

18)  If he can’t appoint who he wants, he declares that Congress is in recess and appoints them anyway, perverting the Constitution.

19)  If you are white and from the South, you’re the devil.  Pure and simple.  His first two years in the Presidency made me sick with that nonsense.

20)  If you’re against these things: drone strikes against US citizens.

21)  Despite all the talk, when push came to shove, he renewed the Patriot Act.

22)  He’s tripled the money supply.  Hello, inflation!  Coming up.

23)  Our AAA bond rating is gone!  Gone!!!!!

24)  Michele Obama tries to tell us how to eat even though she has no problem shoveling food into her own gaping maw.

25)  Why was our President and his wife trying to get the Olympics in Chicago while our military leaders needed to talk to him about Afghanistan?  Priorities people!

26)  How many vacations does the First Family need to take?  How about a staycation in these troubled times?

27)  Have you tried to fly lately?  He’s ramped up the TSA, and now we have to get felt up or irradiated if we want to get on a plane.

28)  He’s for religious freedom…unless of course it gets in the way of his ideology.  In which case, screw your God.

29)  He takes a stance for gay marriage, but won’t do jack for them because he just wants their vote and their money.

30)  He undermines our immigration laws by talk of the Dream Act, etc, which is just for votes and is unfair to all those who came here legally.

31)  He is all about multi-national operations and gives up our sovereignty whenever he can.

32)  He commits our money to Palestine.  Last time I checked, only Congress can control where the money goes.

33)  He spits in Israel’s face whenever he can.

34)  He’s afraid of China and won’t do jack to stop them.

35)  His credit card protection bill gives the government the right to check out your purchases whenever they want to.

36)  Even he admits that under his energy plan, electricity costs will skyrocket.  The media refuses to report on this even though he openly admits it.

37)  He smoked pot and did coke when he was growing up, but hey, it’s cool ’cause it’s Obama.

38)  He grew up with a communist mother in a foreign country and befriended a communist for a mentor growing up and in college.  His values are not our values.  Period.  He has surrounded himself with Socialists and Communists all his life.  If Romney surrounded himself with KKK members, do you think the media would write it off?  Hell no.  If all your friends are druggies, you’re probably a druggie.

39)  He doesn’t understand war or the military.  Everything’s a political concern for him.  Either a war is worth fighting or it isn’t.  If it is, do everything to win.  Overwhelming power and get it over with.  If it’s not, then call it a day and come home.  Otherwise you’re just wasting time, money, and lives.

40)  When he gets off the teleprompter, the guy is an idiot.  I’ve never heard so many “ugh ugh ugh”s in my life.  He’s not eloquent.  He just has a good speaking voice.

Long Live the Constitution!

The silliness of tracking ammunition sales

Posted by Troy on 24th July 2012 in Current Events, Political

Well, it would appear that the general public isn’t biting for more gun control, so the Left is trying to pull back their reach.  Now they just want to get back to assault weapons ban and track ammo sales.  In particular, they claim that most police captains and sheriffs favor an assault weapons ban and tracking ammo sales.  I do not know if that’s true or not, but it doesn’t matter.  As with anything else, the police have a tendency to want to claim more power for themselves (just like everyone else in this world).  This is why they don’t like being videotaped even if they aren’t doing anything wrong.  It’s just their nature.  That’s why we have the expression, “Who’s watching the watchmen?”  I am not trash talking cops.  The vast majority do a great job, and they put their lives on the line to keep the peace.

I doubt there is any statistics to make this scientific, but the vast majority of these crazy nutjobs have read the Communist Manifesto.  Since the bulk of assault weapon owners will not commit a crime and the bulk of Communist Manifesto readers will not commit a crime, could you justify tracking everyone that buys a copy of the Communist Manifesto?  Why not?  Because it’s silly?  Because it’s inappropriate to track 9,999 innocent people’s transactions and purchases to catch one guy?  Yeah, those are good points.  Good points indeed.

There are legitimate reasons for stockpiling ammo right now.  The world’s going to Hell, and a lot of people want to prepare for doomsday.  Do you think they’re going to shoot people up?  No, probably not.  So why hassle them?  Maybe they just bought a new gun and want to do a lot of target practice.  The fact of the matter is, this guy could have purchased 100 bullets and had the same effect.  He didn’t have to buy 6,000 rounds.  He’s a nutjob.  One box of ammo is technically enough to go on a typical workplace rampage.  So what’s the threshold?  It’s retarded.  It’s just more Big Brother crap that’s hiding behind necessity.  As William Pitt said, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

The whole assault weapons ban is silliness.  We could call it, “The really cool looking weapons ban” (stealing a little from Glenn Beck there).  Is a AK-47 any more effective at killing someone than a 12 gauge shotgun?  At close range, the shotgun is way more dangerous.  Is it more effective than two 9 mm pistols?  Again, at close range, the pistols are probably more effective.  Unless you are sniping people, a rifle is an inefficient weapon.  If you are sniping, there are better sniping rifles out there than the AK-47 (such as a .306).  We tried an assault weapons ban before, and it had no effect on crime rate.  Why?  Well, maybe because criminals will either buy it on the black market or just use a different gun.  Yeah, that does make sense.

You know how fewer people could have been shot?  If the entire front roll of that theater had rushed the guy, at most 2 people would have been shot, and they may have just been wounded.  This is life, not a video game.  It’s harder to shoot at people when you have ten men rushing you.  When you hit someone, they typically don’t just drop dead like they do in video games.  We need to do more of this.  Again, I point to that 70 year old at Virginia Tech.  If 5 eighteen-year-olds had followed his lead, the shooter would have been taken down there and then.

Long Live the Constitution!

You didn’t do that! – Explaining Obama’s Understanding of Economics

Posted by Troy on 23rd July 2012 in Current Events, Political

Of course, the easiest thing to do would be to say, “He doesn’t understand the economy” or “He thinks that the government is responsible for businesses.”  I could do that, but I won’t.  I’ll be fair, and I will explain what he meant…and then I’ll tear it apart.

He isn’t saying that the entrepreneurs didn’t build their businesses.  What he is saying is that those businesses couldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the fact that roads exist which allow people to buy their goods and services and schools that teach employees and the like.  And he is right.  If we didn’t have schools and roads and things, our modern day society would be impossible.  We would probably still be agrarian.  However, he still doesn’t get it.

Governments do not build roads and schools so that businesses will flourish.  No, what really happens is that societies grow.  They start off as a mere village and progress to a town and then to a city and then to a metropolis.  At every step of the way, more people move in which creates more jobs in the area.  As the population grows, the GDP of that area increases.  As the GDP increases, the tax base increases.  As more taxes are taken in, the government can then decide how to best serve the interests of their neighborhood by spending their tax revenue on public works.  At first, it might be to improve the roads so that more businesses can move in.  It might be to improve the school system so that the quality of jobs will improve.  However, without a growing economy and population, none of these improvements would do anything nor could the improvements be afforded.  At the best of times, the government is a symbiote (a helper organism) for the citizens (and by extension, the economy).  Unfortunately, with the basic needs accounted for, the government may turn to wasting money by building statues, passing unnecessary laws, paying for government parties or spending money to “buy votes” or reward their backers.  When this occurs, the government becomes a parasite.

It is difficult to make this argument (that the businesses come first in this particular chicken or the egg debate) because there is no way to refute it.  Oh wait, there is!  Silly me.  You see, China built these massive, modern day cities.  They had just finished watching Field of Dreams and thought if they “build it, they will come.”  Well, they didn’t, and now they have these massive, expensive ghost cities.  Why?  Because they thought they could central plan growth, and you can’t.  Growth is determined by more factors than the human mind can process.  At best, we can project growth a couple of years in advance.  A city without a population is just a thing.  It’s a collection of buildings, not a society.  As such, who would ever want to move there?  So they remain dormant until the government figures out a way to force people to move where they don’t want to live (which they will eventually…I have full faith in the oppressive nature of the Chinese government).

No one has any problem with using tax dollars to pay for roads and defense and other legitimate functions of government.  Of course, a lot of the things Obama wants to use Federal funds to do should really be left up to the state and local governments to contend with.  Let’s assume though that the Federal government is the one that’s supposed to be in charge of all government spending.  He thinks that we should have the most modern infrastructure in the world.  Since China has high speed rail, we should have high speed rail.  Quick question:  Suppose you are rich, and your spouse is constantly saying, “Well, the Johns have a new car.  We need a new car that’s more expensive than theirs.  Oh, and the Smiths put in a new pool.  We need to put in one with a water slide.  Oh, and the Jacksons just upgraded their kitchen.  We have to buy a new kitchen.  Oh…and that car we bought last month?  The Crews family just bought an even newer one!  We have got to buy a new car or people are going to think we are poor!”  How long do you think it will take you to go broke?  China and India have been buying the newest infrastructure.  It makes sense that, for the moment, their infrastructure will be newer than ours and will probably be in better shape because they are just now getting around to building it.  However, if a bridge will be serviceable for twenty years, what is the logic of tearing it down and building a new one just to compete with China?  Even if the bridge needed to be replaced, it should probably fall to the state to build it, and there would be plenty of money to do it if we stopped wasting the money on crap that the government isn’t supposed to be doing!  Just look at how New Orleans spent money on other projects when they knew the levy needed repairs.

Of course, there is really only one answer for our problems.  We have to learn to say “No, thank you.”  We have to turn down the money that the government is offering us.  We have to say, “I know that I qualify for food stamps, but I don’t really need it.  I will just cut off my cable and not have a cell phone.  If I do that, I will be able to afford the food on my own.”  Will it be hard?  Absolutely.  Will it suck?  You bet.  But only when this mentality is embraced by the majority of Americans do we have any shot of getting out of this mess.  As long as we demand that cuts be made except when it comes to me, then politicians will not have the guts to cut anything at all.  We can still help those who need help, but those who could work must work.  We accept so many things as rights or as a standard of living that are really luxuries (cable, television in general, Coca-cola, etc).

Long Live the Constitution!

Gun Control and Mass Shootings

Posted by Troy on 22nd July 2012 in Current Events, Political

Before the bodies were even cold, the Left started using the recent shooting as an excuse to expand gun control.  So, are they justified?

I am a Libertarian by nature.  I prefer, to the largest degree possible, to preserve liberty.  This guy was determined to get a high body count.  If we eliminated guns all together, any idiot can go out and buy gas cans (or other materials) and make a crude bomb that is capable to killing many people.  The problem with laws like this is that it denies the underlying problem.  For instance, there are plenty of Conservatives that would like to make divorce illegal.  There are plenty of good reasons for doing so.  Protecting the child, sanctity of marriage, and forcing people to work out their problems among them.  Of course, this would be stupid as there are plenty of great reasons to get a divorce too.  The problem is that these people are trying to solve the symptom, not the problem.  There have been marriages since the dawn of time, so why do we see a sudden spike in divorce?  That’s that needs to be worked on, the underlying culture.  Likewise, if there is more gun violence, we need to look at the reason for it.  For instance, let’s assume that drug use is the cause of gun violence.  Okay, well, what’s the cause of drug use?  Well, let’s say that it’s low economic status.  Okay, well, what is causing this?  The biggest drivers for poverty is dropping out of school (something the kid has complete control over generally) and single parenthood.  So instead of working on gun laws (which will be mostly ineffective as they will just use a different gun or learn to make a bomb and do the exact same thing again), why don’t we work on getting kids to take education seriously and making men (typically) actual take real responsibility for raising their kids (even if they are absent)–money isn’t the most important thing that should come from a father.

I am proud to see that there is not a lot of support for further gun control.  That means that people understand that these are isolated incidents and should not be allowed to infringe upon our rights.

Long Live the Constitution!

The Amazing Spider-Man

Posted by Troy on 20th July 2012 in Entertainment

They said that this is the one hero that’s meant to be seen in 3D, and I have to agree.  Many times, the 3D aspect really doesn’t add to the enjoyment of your movie going experience, but in this case, the effects are cool enough to warrant the extra money for 3D.

Of course, there as to be a discussion of the differences between the original movies and the new one.  The original movie’s actors look more like the characters should based upon the comics.  However, the newer movie had better acting.  Sam Rami can be a bit campy.  It’s what he’s known for.  The new movie seems to have tried to remove any campy aspects.  The first movie had Spider-man’s webs be organic in nature whereas the new one goes to the unlikely scenario that a teenager could develop webshooters and fluid.  The most glaring difference is the change from “With great power comes great responsibility” to some speech about how having gifts and abilities makes you obligated to use them for the greater good.  Past that, the storyline is more or less the same origin story.

The fights scenes are awesome and entertaining to watch and truly make use of the 3D technology.

I’ve always preferred Marvel to DC.  Of course, the Batman movies are always analyzed by the social commentary they contain.  I don’t see any such commentary or moral (past the great responsibility stuff anyway), but I don’t really care.  I go to the movies to be entertained, and I was greatly entertained.

Romney and Bain Capital

Posted by Troy on 17th July 2012 in Current Events, Political

Obama has been attacking Romney on his time at Bain Capital.  This attack is two fold:  The first is that he claims that Bain outsourced all the jobs to India.  The second prong is that he lied to the voters or the SEC due to being listed as CEO (etc) on official documents.  I shall now address these attacks since Romney seems unable or unwilling to do so.

The first claim is silly.  Companies are made to make money.  There is literally no other reason to make a company.  If a company is not making the money, it will not continue to exist.  The fact of the matter is that investors reward companies based on the level of return they get on their money.  If one company is outsourcing and return 10% on their investor’s money and another company keeps their workers here and return 3%, what do you think investors will do?  I am willing to bet that they will invest in the first company.

Outsourcing is a matter of cost.  Once upon a time, we were the only economic superpower in the world.  We had all the money.  We bought more consumer goods than any other country.  Since it cost a lot and took a lot of time to make products back then, it was cost efficient to make the products here.  Since there was no other option, we could then force employers to pay a higher wage because they had to keep producing the goods here.  However, with the advent of more and more efficient machinery, decreases to barriers of trade, and faster transportation, it became easier for employers to move their jobs overseas.  So the Left (through Unions and minimum wage legislation) has increase the cost of hiring Americans.  Now that those barriers of trade have fallen, companies are going to outsource.  You can’t have both.  If you want low skill jobs to exist in America, you have to minimize the effects of minimum wage either by inflation or by protectionist tariffs.  Outsourcing is just the rational reaction to these laws.

The whole concept of the “he lied” argument is juvenile.  I’m waiting for both candidates to pull the “I’m rubber and you’re glue” defense.  I think that this whole argument means one of two things: 1) either Obama has literally no idea about corporate structure (which I wouldn’t be surprise given the fact that he’s never had a private sector job in his entire adult life) or 2) he believes that the American people are rubes who can’t think for themselves and will believe everything they are told.  I believe it is the second option.  I believe that Obama is a narcissist.  When I look at him, there is only one theory which explains his behavior.  I believe that he views himself as the messiah of the socialist/communist movement.  He is the one that has come to deliver them into power.

The Bain Capital/Outsourcing argument is bogus.  Don’t buy into it.  Don’t vote for Romney or Obama over this argument.  Basically, if you love big government, vote Obama.  If you want a smaller (but still way the Hell too big) government, vote for Romney.  That’s really the choice.

Long Live the Constitution!