'Conservatives' who attack from the Left: stupid or slimy?

Got to be one or the other.  Which ever way it turns out, this form of campaigning should eliminate the attackers from the race, as the GOP does not have the luxury this time around of putting an idiot or a slimeball into the White House. 

Both Rick Perry, who is tossing around the term 'vulture capitalist' like rice at a wedding, and Newt Gingrich are both calling into question Mitt Romney's role as the CEO of Bain Capital, and accusing Mitt of bad deeds. 

If stupidity is the reason for these attacks, I find that awfully hard to swallow.  Both of these guys are 'big picture' conservatives, and know that venture capitalists are necessary in our economy; without them, things would grind to a halt in short order.  These are the guys who have the money to invest in enterprises, to include start ups, existing thriving companies and struggling companies.  And once they are owners, they want to put their money to work which maximizes their shareholders interests and the interests of the companies they now run.

And in this free market economy, sometimes it makes sense to shut some operations down that are a drag on the bottom line and redirect those assets elsewhere where they will better serve all concerned.  And of course that means that people get laid off from their unprofitable jobs.  This is how capitalism works. 

This is America, remember.  Nobody has the right to remain on a job that loses money for the boss in perpetuity.   For Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry to cherry pick a few companies that were downsized by Bain Capital, and to ignore the positives that were ultimately gained from reassigning assets is either slimy or just ignorant.  They know that a job that is created by this process does not really lend itself to a news crew and camera ready to film some news.  No, newly created jobs do not make news. 

What makes the news is the sad sack that was making typewriters who got bought out by some venture capitalist who closed the typewriter plant and started a computer chip plant with the proceeds.  That sad sack typewriter assembler lost his job, knows nothing of computer chips, and now is unemployed and is sobbing into the camera about what rotten mean sumbitches those guys who closed the plant are.  Cherry picking sob stories is what Democrats do.  This is a page right out of the Democrat Party playbook.  And these guys want to be the GOP nominee?

"Creative destruction," and without it, we would still be subsidizing buggy whip factories and typewriter factories and washboard factories. 

I think Newt and Rick Perry know this.  And accordingly, are not ignorant as to how these things work.  They are just not getting any traction with the voters, are getting desperate, and are now cherry picking any and all sad sack sob stories from laid off buggy whip factory workers. 

And this is just plain slimy.  Neither of these guys is presidential material. 

Liberals to Americans: 'Only 8.5% unemployment. Let there be dancing in the streets!'

When Barack Obama was elected in November, 2008, the unemployment rate was around 6.5% and rising, and one could assign this stat to the spectre of a Marxist taking over the Oval Office, and the business community was preparing for the long cold 4-year winter.  In a few months into the Obama administration, unemployment hit 10.1%, and hovered there for quite a while.  The causes of this downturn can be debated at another time, but the reality was that President Barack Obama promised that things would be all honey and roses if he were given the keys to the car. 

President Bush drove the car into the ditch, they said.  Unemployment was at an unacceptable 6.5%, and Barack Obama now has the keys.  Last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics put the unemployed figure at 8.5%, and we are all told that things have turned around.  Let there be dancing in the streets! 

Am I the only guy in this country that remembers that Democrats were bashing the Bush administration for the horrible numbers that reflected how desperate things were in America, and the worst numbers he ever chalked up during nearly all of his adminsistration until the last few months were well below 6%?  And we are now told that things are looking up: "ONLY 8.5% unemployment, Obama is now a shoo-in for re-election with numbers like this."

That is much like the following analogy: once upon a time,  a village historically held a celebration at harvest time, and 10 pigs were roasted, 100 chickens were put to the spit, and yet the elderly village chief was cursed by many because there were not 20 pigs roasted, and 200 chickens for everyone.  Then the elderly chief died, and a much more free wheeling, generous chief was hailed as the successor.  Of course, as the generous guy the new chief was, throughout the years going forward, he slaughtered most of the village pigs and chickens and passed them out to the neediest of the villagers, without thought as to how anyone would replace them.  In subsequent years, due to scarcity of pigs and chickens because of the new generous chief's profligate slaughter of the village animals, the annual celebration served up fewer and fewer pigs and chickens, and the last few years had to borrow pigs and chickens from other nearby villages to feed the villagers during the celebration.  Last year, only 2 pigs and 20 chickens were served at the 'feast.'

Time then came for a referendum on the new generous chief's leadership, and prior to this judgement by the villagers, the chief borrowed twice as many pigs and chickens for the celebration, and that year 4 pigs and 40 chickens were devoured by the hungry villagers.  Then, after the meager celebration was over, the chief declared 'let there be dancing in the streets, we have doubled our feasting from last year.  Happy days are here again!'  And the news was spread throughout the village that there should be dancing in the streets, the generous new chief had come through.  Let us keep him in control of the pigs and chickens for years to come!  Debt owed to the nearby villages was actually causing some serious PR problems with these other villages, but that information was not actively distributed to the local villagers, as that can could be kicked down the road, to be dealt with by some future chief.

And all the while, the generous chief and his managers simply assume that nobody remembers the days when the elderly and now departed old chief insured that the feast served up 10 pigs and 100 chickens.

Yes, the analogy is too long, but the point is this: liberals will have us all believe, contrary to our recent memories, that 8.5% unemployment is a really good thing, and that this good news is owing to our brilliant president's policies.  Once Barack Obama raises the debt ceiling by another 1.2 TRILLION dollars, we as a nation will be in debt over 16 TRILLION DOLLARS, and George Orwell could not have written this scenario with any more incredulity than is being spouted by liberals and the Democratic National Committee. 

"Let there be dancing in the streets," the liberals cry.  And let the debt and looming crisis be dealt with by a future administration, one that is responsible.  Or so that message seems to me.

Fredd's so evil, he wants old people to die...

Yep, that's me.  Can't stand old people.  They should all just die.  And don't make me come by and pick up the bodies, as that is simply a bother I can't stand to contemplate, as I have many evil doings in the works that I have to attend to, and don't need such distractions.

Of course, this is nonsense. All of this is the spin that most liberals would have everyone believe, when I suggest that the enormous transfer of wealth from the young to the old via the brute force of a huge and malevolent government is unsustainable.  When I merely suggest this disastrous national policy needs change if we are to survive in the long run as founded, then the liberal long knives are flailing away at evil ol' Fredd.  What a monster I am.

One liberal moonbat referred to a piece I wrote last September titled 'We all know old people are parasites, but what about teachers?' (http://freddsez.blogspot.com/2011/09/we-all-know-old-people-are-parasites.html).  Of course the title is controversial on its face, and subsequently the moonbat takes that one sentence and runs with it, without reading a single word of the piece.  Based on that one title, this numb nutted idiot declares me a 'sick (f-word)' and accordingly discredits any opinion coming from my evil keyboard as thoroughly wicked, insidious and malicious.

Old people and teachers are very well aware that they are the beneficiaries of a public largess over the last 75 years that is boundless, or at least if they are being honest with themselves.   For me to suggest that this largess simply must end if we are to sustain our way of life as founded by the Constitution is not evil or uncaring.  It is an inarguable fact.  We can't continue to confiscate huge amounts of money from productive people and give it to unproductive people in perpetuity, especially when faced with a $15 TRILLION DOLLAR NATIONAL DEBT.  To continue this transfer, we must borrow 40 cents of every dollar spent to keep it up.

We can't keep it up.  It's impossible.

And of course saying this makes me an evil monster, according to any liberal asshat you talk to.  And I am not the only one saying this.  Take Governor Scott Walker (R-WI): he ran on the very campaign that I am pointing out, and won the governor's seat.  He enacted tough austerity measures (which were actually quite mild, if the truth be known), and the entrenched liberal 'takers' went nuts.  Absolute nuts.  They tried to stack the Wisconsin Supreme Court with some of their fellow judiciary moonbats to block his legislation.  That didn't work.  They tried to overturn the Nov. 2010 election results with recall election after recall election of Republican victors: that didn't work.  Now they are canvasing the state with petitions (signed repeatedly by Mickey Mouse, Al Capone and Michael Jackson) to force a recall election on Gov. Walker. 

This will not succeed, either.  When you take away the money from these slacking non-producers that was confiscated initially from the producers, there will be hell to pay in all manner of skullduggery and thugishness on the part of the left.

But I am the bad guy, you see.  I point out the cold, hard reality of this unsustainable transfer of wealth from the haves to the have-nots and I am labeled as the devil incarnate, me and Governor Walker. 

See how this works?

Best Christmas songs ever

 Merry Christmas.

Most of the Christmas songs playing now have been written very recently, say in the last 25 years.  The really good ones, though, are old.  And the best one is REALLY old.  These are my favorites at this time of year:

5.  Jingle Bell Rock.  This little ditty was pumped out around the infancy of rock and roll by a guy named Bobby Helm in 1957.  It's a catchy tune, and was very popular in its day, and you can't go very long at this time of year without hearing it played. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itcMLwMEeMQ)

4.  Rockin Around The Christmas Tree.  Brenda Lee was only 14 when she recorded this favorite in 1958.  Again, this tune has legs and has been one of the more popular Christmas songs for over 50 years and running. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6xNuUEnh2g)

3.    Breath of Heaven (Mary's Song). Amy Grant has a number of outstanding Christmas songs under her belt, but this one is a jem of jems in the jewelry box of outstanding tunes.  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPbV_HTpyx0)

2.  It's The Most Wonderful Time of The Year. Andy Williams really hit it out of the park with this one in 1963, although Amy Grant's rendition years later is also a real toe tapper.( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2urlriwjcg)

1.  Messiah by George Frideric Handel, composed over 250 years ago, in 1741.  This one is my favorites owing to a performance I witnessed many years ago on a Christmas Eve, in a little Lutheran church in Manassas, Virginia.  The congregation at the time was perhaps 150, and the choir consisted of a gifted music director with perhaps 15 singers.  When they were done with their performance of Messiah, those perhaps 80 worshippers burst into applause, and there simply wasn't a dry eye in the church, it was done so beautifully.  I've never heard it done as well before or since, not even by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir in the link below.  It was the closest thing to a miracle I've ever witnessed in my life. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_VARtvgGBY&feature=related)

Obama's Ministry of Truth puts out 'The Big Lie'

We've seen it before.  Historically, the manipulation of information by the government for political purposes was wildly successful for several years just last century in keeping a corrupt and evil regime in power for a decade plus.  All of this misinformation and distortion of statistics and economic reports issued by the Obama administration for the purposes of his re-election, this has been done before to fool the public.  This administration didn't invent this tactic.

The National Socialists, or more popularly referred to back in the day as the 'Nazis,' under the leadership of Adolph Hitler, were able to fool much of the German public through brazen lies and fabrications provided by Reich Minister of Propaganda Josef Goebbels.  It was ol' Josef Goebbels who orchestrated the huge parades and spectacular settings for the soaring speeches of Hitler, and of convincing the German population that white was black, that up was down, that wrong was right.  And most infamously, Goebbels was able to convince the German public that Jews were responsible for everything bad in their lives.  Goebbels was the mastermind behind the 'Krystal Nacht' in 1938. Goebbels was the master of 'The Big Lie:' tell the people something so outrageously incredible, tell them the same thing over and over and over, and in time the lie becomes true, because how could it not be?  Who would have the brazen audacity to concoct something so universally broadcast to be true out of a falsehood?  Nobody would ever do this, so the 'Big Lie' (whatever it is) simply must be true.  At least, it becomes true in the minds of the masses, but the reality never changes. Obama must have read Hitler's tome 'Mein Kampf' and underscored the 'Big Lie' and its constructs. 

They say that once you mention Hitler's name in any issue, you lose the argument.  Well, maybe so.  The similarities between these two governments are just too eerily close not to bring this up.  The unemployment statistics issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are one such "Big Lie."  According to most economists (those who participate in the 'dismal science'), the concept of 'full employment' in an economy is one that for everyone who is willing and able to work, employment is available to them.  The statistic for 'full employment' is roughly 4.5%, give or take, and those 4.5% 'unemployed' folks are simply in between jobs, and that they fully expect to find employment within a month or so.  This was the rate of unemployment or close to it during much of the Reagan, Clinton and Bush administrations.

Owing to the current 'Frank/Dodd/Obama Recession', this number has crept over 10% at one point, and has hovered in the 9's for most of President Obama's first (and hopefully only) term.  Now the administration puts out the newest unemployment rate: 8.6%.   Oh great!  Things are getting better, way to go, President Obama!  Woo hoo!

Not so fast, there, Joe Sixpack (Joe is the average run of the mill American, who doesn't pay much attention to what's going on the in country).  This rate doesn't include those Americans who have been unemployed for so long, that they just gave up looking for work.  And who are now no longer counted as unemployed.  They just disappeared from the books.  And this number of Americans last month who disappeared from the unemployment rolls was around 315,000 people.  The rate can be reported to shrink, but that is because the total labor force has declined (a very bad thing).  That's why we call these bad times a 'recession.' Things recede in a recession.  Am I being redundant here? Good.  And when things recede economically, that's really bad news.  We are living and breathing in a real, live recession that continues to eat at all of us.

The Ministry of Truth would have us all believe that things are getting better, 8.6%, we should all be dancing in the streets with that kind of prosperity going on out there.  Just like Josef Goebbels, the Obama administration is blowing the horns heralding our great recovery, and assuming we believe them when they tell is that up is down, that night is day, and that wrong is right.  All we have to do is look around.

That's right.  Get up and go to the mall of your choice.  Count the number of empty stores in that mall.  Subtract that number from the total stores in the mall, and then look at the ratio of the existing leased businesses vs the total available.  This is what they call the occupancy rate.  When we have full employment, most established malls have occupancy rates that are the inverse of the full employment rate: 100%-4.5%, or 95.5% occupancy.  That's in good times.

Occupancy rates these days are 70% in way too many malls across the country right now.  Or worse.  And you can see this with your own eyes.  Things are really, really bad out there right now.

Get up and take a walk around your block.  How many houses are for sale?  Quite a few, I would bet. Way more than you remember at any one point in time in the good ol' days.  And how long have they been on the market?  Quite a while, I would bet.  And how many of those houses for sale are for sale because of a foreclosure?  Quite a few, I would bet.  And that's really bad.

And how many of your neighbors have lost their jobs?  Well, those still able to pay mortgage or rent payments and are still your neighbors, probably more than anyone would care to admit.   And that's really bad.

Things are really, really bad out here.  Just open your eyes and take a look around. 

And then go back and look at what the Ministry of Truth is putting out: we're on the road to recovery!  Things are rocking and rolling, 8.6% unemployment!  Let's not change horses in the middle of the stream, re-elect President Barack Obama!

Don't fall for 'The Big Lie.'

No sympathy for 'street people'

I can hardly stand to read the Chicago Tribune anymore.  What they call 'news' is simply nothing more than article after article with some liberal spin on the passing scene.  This morning, I picked up the paper from my driveway, thinking that I should really cancel this damn liberal rag, but started to read it anyway.

And in the editorial section called 'Perspective,' the headline is When you recognize the homeless .  The author and his wife were out Christmas shopping and were approached on the street by a homeless girl whom they knew from their New Jersey neighborhood.  And the author gushed on as to his discomfort and sympathy towards her and gave her all the money in his wallet to alleviate his guilt about her situation, and promised her that he would say 'hi' to her mom.

Give me a break.  In the piece, the details are very clear as to how this woman ended up on the street: she was irresponsible, had children out of wedlock as a teenager, and had hysterical outbursts that required police intervention, and the courts took her children away from her, and slapped a restraining order on her seeing them.  I suspect left out of the author's piece were drugs, alcohol, and varied and sordid other details that land people in the gutter.

While the author had enormous sympathy for this loser, I couldn't help but think that her newly found identity as a 'street person' was a choice she actively made.  People don't wind up on the mean streets of this country because they had a string of bad luck, or that everyone was out to get them (in other words, the fault of everybody else except themselves).

This is the reality of life in America: homelessness is a choice.  Nobody has to live on the streets if they don't want to. There are too many alternatives that can divert this eventuality, most involving family solutions, some run by the state, and many run by charities and churches.  Homelessness has many causes to include but not limited to: drug additions, alcohol abuse, criminal behavior, profound irresponsibility, inability to plan, inability to respect authority, and often a conscious choice to shun polite society and a deliberate choice to live life on the streets.

When approached by a homeless person, I avoid eye contact, never give them any money, but do not feel sorry for them; that is one of their tools of their trade - sympathy.  People live life on the streets because they choose this way of life, not because 'the man' is out to get them.  They are on the streets because they like it.  And don't let them tell you they don't because they lie like shamelss dogs: to you, to me and to themselves.  If they didn't like it, they could easily do something about it.

Like take responsibility for their lives, recognize and respect authority and ask for forgiveness from your estranged family.  In other words, choose not to be homeless.

What's fair, and what isn't fair

Last time around, Barack Obama ran his successful presidential campaign on the mantra of 'hope and change.'  It worked very well, as we all know.  Now, three years into Obama's abysmal administration, those two words are no longer uttered by anyone associated with the White House.  And for good reason: things in this country have gone downhill since he took office.  I could go into the metrics of exactly what parts of our country, to include social, political, and economic components are worse off today than in January, 2009, but I think most of us know all about it.

But this is all in the past, and our failed president is mustering his forces for a second term.  This time around, hope and change are not on the menu.  No, this time it's 'what's fair.'  Obama throws this word around like rice at a wedding.  Everyone should do 'their fair share,' 'millionaires and billionaires should pay their fair share,' and on and on.  Things should be 'fair.'

To the dumbest among us, this sounds right.  Things shouldn't be unfair.  That's just not right.  And here's a guy saying he will stand up and make things fair, if re-elected. 

To those of us who are of at least average intelligence, we all know through living life that things just are not fair, in general, and that John F. Kennedy said it best: 'Loif.  Loif's not fayuh.'  And for those of us outside of Massachusetts, this better translates to 'Life.  Life's not fair.'  And we all know this to be true.

It isn't fair that a graduate of Columbia school of journalism, with honors, interviews for a news reporting position with Fox News, and is told that while their resume is outstanding, they went with another candidate who was a better fit to the position.  The Columbia summa cum laude candidate was average looking, and the successful candidate graduated in the middle of her class at Boise State, but was also 2009 Miss Idaho.  How fair does that sound? 

But this happens all the time.  All the time, and everybody knows this to be true.  While this example is a stark one, Obama will resort more toward a class warfare point of view, and point out that the working people in this country seem to have all the money, and are greedy because they won't give any of their hard earned money to those less fortunate, and work less. Or don't work at all.  Is that fair that these greedy working people keep all of the money to themselves, Obama asks? All people need money in this great country, Obama states.  And it isn't fair that only the most industrious among us have all the money.  Not fair at all.

Obama wants to end all of this unfairness using the hamfisted power of the government.  If re-elected, he will re-double his efforts to legally transfer the wealth of those who work in this country to those who don't work in the name of fairness. 

And those dumb non-working morons will certainly vote for that, as it really sounds fair.  Why should these working people have all the money?  We non-working parasites need money, too!

Vote Obama, 2012.  It's the fair thing to do.