Liberal Praises Castro and Cuban Health Care

Really? Is this woman seriously saying this? My friends, I think we're in far greater danger than I first suspected.

Read more...

"God Awful" Liberal Racism

Compassionate Barbara Boxer: Hey, Mr. Alford, a bunch of other black people support this plan. Why don't you get on board with what some others of your kind think.

Misguided Harry Alford: That's racism. I don't care what color your skin is, this plan is stupid.

Non-racist Barbara Boxer: Racism? How is that racism? I'm a liberal, therefore I can't be racist. White conservative men are the only racists! If you were a "wise Latina" you'd understand.

Okay, so it wasn't word for word, but that's basically how this conversation went.

Read more...

Biden: Isn't the Economy Great?

Biden says the stimulus is working. All we have to do is follow him everywhere he goes to see all the jobs saved. He said:

"Come see what I see everywhere I go: workers rehired, factories reopened, cops on the street, teachers in the classroom, progress toward getting our economy back on the move."

Here's my response: Mr. Biden, if the stimulus was working so well, we wouldn't have to follow you around, because we'd see the jobs being created where we are. I'm not sure where you're going, but the current unemployment rate kinda makes me think things aren't as rosy as you think they are. Instead of us entering your world, where everybody has jobs and too much money to handle, why don't you come hang out in the real world and help two of my friends who lost their jobs this week find new ones. See, my friends, unlike most unmotivated and apathetic liberals, they actually don't want to be dependent on government or to live off of unemployment handouts. If you really want to help, then lend a hand to people who actually contribute to the economy and stop taxing everyone to death so that companies can hire my friends instead of paying you and your planet-saving super hero friends to save our cooling planet from getting too hot.

Read more...

What I've Learned in 400 Tweets

This post, and its re-post on Twitter, will mark my 400th tweet, my 400th mockery of liberalism. I dedicate it to some lessons I've learned in the process. These are the first 10 I could think of. There are certainly more I could add later. Liberalism produces a never-ending barrage of lessons, in the 'learn from their mistakes' category.

Without further rambling, here are the first ten things I've learned since I started mocking liberalism 400 tweets ago.

1. That only white people can be racists (and most of them are!)

2. That Sarah Palin, probably because she's pretty and likes kids, is evil and guilty. Guilty of what? I don't know, everything!

3. That liberals are always right, 100% of the time about everything. No really. They are. If you're waiting for a punch line, the fact that you had to do a double take to make sure you didn't miss anything, and potentially even pick up your jaw off the floor, that's the punch line.

4. That mocking liberalism is easy. They provide so much material. All you have to do to disprove them is to allow them to talk.

5. That the world is burning up, and yet somehow setting or tying record lows 807 times last month. It's fascinating to watch.

6. That government loves you, loves you, loves you. XOXXXOOXX. Now just start throwing money at it to show that you love it too!

7. That America is at fault for everything and should apologize for everything and everyone, especially embarrassing wackos like Sarah Palin. Sorry, world :(

8. That Nancy Pelosi is smart.

9. That our world leaders are so smart, they pass resolutions to control the weather. It's fantastic!

10. That North Korea listens to Obama. Just look at how they sit up straight and say, "Yes, sir" when he speaks to them. Crap, is that a missile pointing towards us?

Read more...

Liberal enslavement and dependence on government

A small Mississippi town elected their first black mayor. I celebrate racial diversity and I'm glad that a town has a black mayor. I'd also be glad if they had a white one. In other words, I don't really care what the color of your skin is, I don't think that has anything to do with your ability to be mayor. Like Dr. King, I simply don't judge people based on their skin, but their character.

What I do want to draw your attention to, is the sad way this new mayor thinks. He recently said:

I just want the people to be comfortable. Small towns like this depend on government funding and that’s what we’re seeking.

Actually, sir, small towns prosper when the people in those towns work hard and attain prosperity. We all want to be comfortable, but being dependent on government is uncomfortable, because government is cold, heartless and doesn't really care about anybody. It's too big to care. The way you attain comfort is by first making yourself uncomfortable, by taking risks and working through the pain and toil. Then, after all your work pays off, you will enjoy the comfort of your prosperity, and be able to generously give of that prosperity to others who in need.

It's generous people with means and great wealth that should help and give to others, not a rich government who keeps it's people poor by taking their wealth and redistributing it. That will only cripple and enslave people of all races.

Read more...

Letter to My Senator (Nelson): Cap-and-Trade and Health Care Reform

I wrote this letter and sent it to my Senator and Congressional Representative. I express my desire for the Constitution to be respected and for the Cap-and-Trade and Nationalized Health Care to be opposed. If you would like to use it, feel free to copy and send it along to your representatives.

---

I am writing for a number of reasons, primarily to express my displeasure with two unconstitutional bills that have been proposed, and if passed, would not only break the Supreme Law of our land, but would damage our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These two bills are the Cap-and-Trade Bill and the Nationalized Health Care proposition currently being discussed. I will treat these both individually.

CAP-AND-TRADE

First, I am very disappointed in the recent vote in Congress to pass the Cap-and-Trade bill. This vote was irresponsible in my opinion for several reasons:

First, it was based on suspect scientific data. The scientific community is not even convinced that climate change is even a problem. The EPA’s suppression of Alan Carlin’s report on the current global cooling trend lends credence to the growing opinion of many Americans that Global Warming is a theory sustained by liberal political ideology, not scientific integrity. The NIPCC has released a condemning report “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” (ISDN 1-934791-01-6). Scientific data shows a cooling trend over the last ten years, and history shows that less than 40 years ago the predominant theory was one of global cooling.

Proponents of this bill need to actually consider the audacity of the claim that man is capable of controlling the weather. Really? Man can control the weather? Such outrageous propaganda is the stuff of fiction, of conspiracy theory, of childish fantasy, believable only for the naïve and gullible, not appropriate for the serious and responsible leaders such as yourselves, who ought to see through such adolescent foolishness and govern with discretion fitting of those given the privilege of statesmanship. If the public were to learn that its leadership had reached a level of incompetence and actually believed such irrational theories, I can only imagine the response of fear and potential anarchy that would justifiably ensue as the people worked to establish a new and more capable representative government. That is happening in America—the silent majority is learning of the growing gap between themselves and the increasingly disconnected ruling class, and is working to change that disturbing trend.

Second, even if there were a problem of Global Warming, the proposed changes in the Cap-And-Trade system will not solve the problem. The bill is clearly designed as a tax, which will only remove more money from the already receding US economy. If Global Warming is a man-made problem, and if all countries share in the culpability, then reversing the trend requires cooperation of all nations to effect the necessary change.

There is no evidence that other countries will adopt the US policy, which means that the efforts on the part of the US will only handicap Americans and put us at a further economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world, as we fail to solve a problem that scientific integrity is increasingly suggesting does not even exist. It’s for this very reason that the Senate has agreed in years past not to accept any such treaties without such world consensus. The bill recently and foolishly passed by Congress carelessly throws our money at a fabricated problem designed to create the sense of false alarm in which unconstitutional government seizure of power has historically thrived. Keep your wit about you. Don’t fall prey to this.

Third, I cannot afford the burden of this bill. I cannot afford a 58% gasoline price increase, a 55% natural gas price increase, a 56% home oil price increase, a 90% electricity price increase, an annual tax increase $4,609 and the potential of paying $71,000 in additional taxes from 2012 to 2035. These numbers, as projected by the Heritage Foundation are numbers that, even if they are slightly higher than actuality, still represent the types of tax increases that Americans cannot afford. You are elected to protect my freedoms, not to tax me. The taxes you do raise should be only as necessary to fulfill government’s role to provide for the common defense as outlined in the Constitution, not to institutionalize a disproven theory to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Please respect my freedom, protect this economy, and resist the corrupting lure to abuse your power and break trust with those who chose you as their public servant, not as their tax collector.

NATIONALIZED HEALTH-CARE

The second reason I am writing is to express my vehement opposition to the nationalization of health care. I am opposed to this for several reasons. I trust that if logic and reason have any value to you, you will be persuaded by these fairly obvious and academic points:

First, what is being proposed has been tried in a variety of nations throughout the world and has a proven track record of lowering the quality of health care. I guess we should not be surprised that government involvement decreases the quality and efficiency of personal care. Health care systems in which government regulation impedes free market principals inevitably delay care, increase taxes and ultimately bring the advancement of health sciences to a grinding halt. The reason why America has historically had the best health care system in the world is because government has been sufficiently removed from the picture, allowing competition and the principals of capitalism to inspire innovation in the service of the common good. The downturn of health care in recent years has been a result of the severely heightened government regulation, the resultant frivolous lawsuits that followed, and the introduction of the public options of Medicare. True health care reform must only involve a retraction of these hindrances to the system.

This is a truism that fiscal liberals and proponents of nationalized health care do not understand: government can only serve the common good by protecting free-market incentive, not by suppressing it with regulation portrayed as a ‘public option’. We’ve tried public options. They’ve failed and corrupted the system. The supposed public option under consideration will only limit true options and ultimately produce a monopoly and become the only option.

Government grants do not create scientific advancements. It’s the desire of individuals to create wealth has served the common good and made America the great nation that it is today. The Constitution protects this. Please don’t go down in history as the generation of politicians that ultimately destroyed American freedom by ignoring the very laws that the blood of patriots has secured for us.

On both of these issues, the Cap-And-Trade and Nationalized Health Care, you are being tempted to break the law. The Constitution delineates and limits the powers of Congress, and the Tenth Amendment specifies that all powers not delineated be reserved to the states and the people of those states. The power to dictate health care options for citizens, and the power to limit a businesses ability to produce carbon emissions is not explicitly granted the Congress and is by virtue reserved to the states. Any law passed which attempts to set such restrictions would violate the rights of the states and its citizens. Please resist the temptation to usurp this authority and state sovereignty and thereby violate our freedom.

The very fact that I would insist on our Constitutional freedoms has probably caused you to write me off as a radical. If freedom is a radical idea, then I plead guilty to that charge—and you should know that this great country is full of my sort of radicals who are being awakened by such unlawful propositions as these two terrible bills. For your own perseverance in office, and for the good of this country, I would encourage you to be a bit more ‘radical’ yourself. Do something ‘radical’ like fulfilling your oath to the people you say you are serving by upholding the Constitution you were elected to defend. If you don’t, we’ll find someone else who will.

You get your power to serve from us. We gave it to you on the premise that you’d govern according to the law. Voting for these unconstitutional laws would constitute a breech of trust and violation of your promise to govern lawfully. In short, I am respectfully informing you that if you support such irresponsible policies, you can be assured of my fierce determination to do use every ounce of my God-given patriotism to protect American freedom from unlawful government actions by replacing you with someone who will show more fiscal restraint and respect for the Constitution.

Thank you,
God Bless America

Read more...

Washington Post: US Fiscal Policy Unsustainable

When the Washington Post is concerned about liberal policies, you know it must be out of control.

In 10 years, our debt will be 82% of our gross domestic product. That's like a family making $100,000 per year carrying $82,000 in debt. By 2038, our debt would reach 200% of the total production of our economy.

Stop spending! Our government wants to nationalize health care on top of this, adding a few more trillion dollars to this already out of control, insanely irresponsible course of action.

Read more...

Alan Carlin of EPA: Global temperature going down

Alan Carlin, working for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), wrote a 98-page report that was suppressed by the agency, because it disproved the theory of global warming with sound scientific data. From CNet News:

After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."

Global temperatures are going down. Wake up people: global warming legislation is absolutely worthless, and designed for one purpose alone: tax, tax and tax.

Read more...

Cap and Trade: want to pay $3k per year more in energy?

Everybody has money to throw away these days. An extra three thousand dollars is nothing. I hear my neighbors practically begging me to take their money from them, throwing large briefcases stuffed with cash on my lawn.

Anybody want to pay an extra $3,000 per year in electrical costs? Well that's what the Cap-and-Trade law just passed in Congress will require. You can read the research here.

Here's my problem with this bill: it's asinine. Global warming doesn't exist. Need proof? Global hurricane threats are at 30 year lows. The earth is cooler right now than it was in 1934. The earth is not warming folks. We had record low temperatures all winter. NASA (i.e. James Hansen) fabricated climate data from 1910-2008, when the real data clearly shows the earth on a cooling trend over the last century.

The earth is not warming. This is the biggest hoax in the history of mankind. The data speaks for itself. Our real concern should be global cooling. The earth is the earth, and the earth is going to warm and cool itself. There's only one thing that warms the earth, it's called the sun. Cutting down a tree isn't going to do it. The sun can, though. We cannot let these liberals use a false alarm, disingenuous fabrication, to limit the free market and ruin the economy.

Not only is this bill asinine, it's utterly unconstitutional. The government is not allowed to interfere in the free market and tell companies what types of energy they can buy, or what they are allowed to burn. The government should be interested in one thing alone, getting out of the way and allowing companies to make money. Yet this administration seems hell-bent on telling companies what kind of cars to buy, how many of their own trees the can cut down, and what type of fuel to burn. All to save a cooling planet from warming, to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and to rally a bunch of people around a needless cause.

This is the tragedy of liberalism. By darkening the minds of people who adhere to it, it takes perfectly capable men and women, and handicaps them. It keeps people full of potential from amounting to anything. It dangles a carrot of ambition and lures them with the lie that if they sell their minds they can do something great, like save a planet, only to splash the cold-water of the scientific fact that the planet's actually cooling by itself in their faces after it's too late, leaving them with nothing but the shame of life-long regret at their own ineptitude and wasted existence.

Read more...

Obamination Administration (and other) Liberals are 100% wrong, almost all the time

Mocking Liberalism is easy. All you have to do is point out its obvious shortcomings and gaffes. All you really have to do is let liberals talk, and then point out whenever they are wrong: which is always.

Case in point, the light blue line is what the Obamination Administration projected the unemployment rates would be without the bailouts. The dark blue line is what they said the rates would be with the salvation provided by their bailouts. The red dots show where the unemployment rates actually lie. The 'stimulus' made it worse. Who's surprised?

Oh, and did you hear that Obama is God, sort of?

Read more...

America a much better place with Palin as president

Every time I hear Sarah Palin talk I wish she was president. She was interviewed by Sean Hannity.

Here are my tweets when the interview was aired at midnight:

Sarah Palin: It needs to be "our will imposed on Washington" rather than the other way around #teaparty #tcot

Sarah Palin: It needs to be "our will imposed on Washington" rather than the other way around #teaparty #tcot

Governor Sarah Palin on Obama-economics: "It defies sensible economic policy any of us ever learned going through college" #tcot #teaparty

Governor Sarah Palin on Obama-economics: "It defies sensible economic policy any of us ever learned going through college" #tcot #teaparty

Why Sarah Palin vetoed the bailouts: "Them telling us what's best for our businesses" #tcot #teaparty

Why Sarah Palin vetoed the bailouts "Them telling us what's best for our businesses" #tcot #teaparty

Sarah Palin "I told you so" #tcot #teaparty on the Stimulus "What the heck happened with that thing?" http://drudgereport.com/flashpfn.htm

Read more...

Supreme Court Opposes Obama's Law-Breaking

The Supreme Court blocked Chrysler's sale to Fiat.

This is a positive development for two reasons:

1. It protects Chrysler's debtors from having their 5th amendment rights violated. The 5th Amendment states that no person can be "deprived of...property without due process of law". In other words, nobody can have their money taken unless they break a law. According to the Breitbart.com report:

As part of Chrysler's restructuring plan, the automaker's secured debt-holders will receive $2 billion, or about 29 cents on the dollar, for their combined $6.9 billion in debt.

The government is forcing the rightful owners of Chrysler, the bondholders, to take 29% of what their bonds are worth, and turning ownership over to the UAW. Did you catch that? The government is telling private investors to give 71% of what they have in the company to unions (which, and I'm sure this is just a coincidence, just happen to be overwhelmingly Democrat).

This is unlawful. The 5th Amendment protects this from happening. Had the Supreme Court not intervened would have been akin to partnering in the crime. If they do not uphold the debt-holders and rule against the UAW, they will be turning a blind eye to a colossal disregard of property rights.

2. It challenges to constitutionality of the bailouts: As Breitbart.com reports:

The funds also are challenging the constitutionality of the Treasury Department's use of money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to supply Chrysler's bankruptcy protection financing. They say the government did so without congressional authority.

If the Treasury Department is found to be in violation of the constitution, it will set an important precedent that will hopefully rein in the Obama administration's socialist frenzy. It will by no means suffice, but it will be a step in the right direction.

The point is this: anyone who respects capitalism, the free market, and desires the constitution to be upheld and American freedom to be preserved, should pray to God that the court does the right thing, protects the interests of the shareholders, slaps the President's hand for his shameless favoritism toward liberal unions, and allows the failed corporation to die if necessary, so that the capitalist system can strengthen itself as it always does without government obstacles.

Read more...

Fair Tax In California?

California has been a case study of the destructive power of liberalism. Now it could be a shining example of how to destroy it. Governor Arnold wants some drastic proposals. He could get one as "drastic" as a flat tax.

This is how far America has fallen: a proposal that everyone be taxed the same is considered "radical." In our faulty view of 'fairness', it's not fair in the eyes of liberals that poor people should be taxed at the same rate as rich people.

What liberals fail to recognize is that the rich are going to pay more taxes, even if they are taxed at the same rate because they have more money, and the percentage of their income shoveled out is going to be higher than the same percentage on a lower income (Question for self: Am I really sitting here having to explain this? Yes, I am.)

Here's an example, for those who need it: Filthy Rich Man makes $1,000,000 per year. He is taxed at 15%. So he pays $150,000 in taxes. Dirt Poor Man makes $50,000 per year. He is also taxes at 15%, paying $7,500 in taxes. Here's a fancy graph to compare these side-by-side.

Person	Income	Tax Bill (15%)
Filthy Rich Man	$1,000,000	$150,000
Dirt Poor Man	$50,000	$7,500

For those of you concerned about the fact that poor people are going to be disproportionately burdened by taxes because they are taxed the same, remember that we are talking about a tax rate not a flat dollar amount. In this example, at the same tax rate, the Filthy Rich Man paid 20 times more tax than the poor man.

Do the rich need to carry the greater tax burden? That's debatable, but for the sake of argument, I'll say yes. Do the rich, therefore, need to be taxed at a higher percentage of income? No, the rich will carry the greater tax burden at the same percentage level, because they're rich and they make more money.

Read more...

What Osama understands that Obama does not

I'm no advocate of jihad, but I couldn't help but notice that Osama Bin Laden seems to understand something that President Barak Hussein Obama does not: that the Bible and Koran can't both be holy at the same time. I've already explained that, but I thought I'd point out Osama's contribution as well.

Read more...

President Obama and the "Holy" Koran

President Obama made reference to the "Holy Koran" and the "Holy Bible" in the same speech. This is typical liberal politician double speak and self contradiction. If the Koran is Holy, the Bible isn't. If the Bible is Holy, the Koran sure isn't. If you actually examine what they teach, you'll realize they contradict each other. If they contradict each other, one is right and one is wrong. One teaches truth, the other teaches heresy. A book that teaches heresy isn't holy.

There, you see. In one paragraph I just illustrated gaping flaw in liberal ideology. How? It's easy my friends. Just take a spoonful of logic, mix it with a touch of reason and sprinkle some truth on top, and voila! you have a serving of liberalism poison.

Read more...

George C. Joseph Mania

About half of the Google searches that lead to my site have involved searches for George C. Joseph of Melbourne, Florida, who had his Sunshine Dodge and Isuzu dealership unlawfully closed, i.e. stolen from him, by the Federal Government.

Posting about it is not a shameless attempt to improve my search engine rankings. No, I bring this up to highlight that this is a very hot topic in internet land, and people are upset with what happened and wanting to know more.

The original story is here: Melbourne Florida Dealership 5th Amendment Rights Stolen

A follow up to the story, illustrating further 5th Amendment Right violations surrounding the United Auto Workers is here: 5th Amendment Right Violation

Just to give you an idea of how this is being interpreted, look at some of the Google keyword searches that Americans are typing, which have led them to my site:

• "closure of sunshine dodge isuzu"
• "dealership stolen"
• "florida dealership taken away"
• "how can a franchise be taken away without compensation"

If you spot further 5th Amendment violations by our government, send me a message on twitter @mockliberalism, and use keyword #Amendment5

Read more...

Mocking liberalism is like taking candy from a brat

People often ask me, how do you mock liberalism? I say, "It's easier than taking candy from a baby." The phrase 'taking candy from a baby' is based on the fact that babies are weak and powerless to keep you from taking the candy. Of course, you are probably thinking I am a typical nasty conservative, a cold-hearted soul that would rob a baby of its candy.

But this particular baby, called liberalism, is no ordinary baby. It's a brat.

Liberalism is a whining, temper-tantrum throwing baby who wants all the candy in the store. This baby wants to take all the collective money of the parents in the store, the entire wealth of the greedy parents who think that they have the right to spend their money on groceries, and to redistribute all that wealth in the form of candy for the company of brats who have never earned a penny in their life.

Such crying babies deserve to have their candy taken from them, until they learn how to work for and buy the candy with their own money, not with money that someone else earned. Misbehaving babies deserve no candy. And they are too weak to keep the candy from being taken.

That's why I mock liberalism. It's easy. It's fallacies are as obvious as a babies soiled diaper. It's misbehavior deserves it. And it's so gratifying.

Read more...

Dems blocked Estrada because he was Latino

The democrats opposed Estrada because he was Latino

HT: Drudge

File this one under the typical hypocrisy that is repugnant to everyone whose minds haven't been darkened by liberalism yet.

Read more...

The New Racism

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” Judge Sotomayor, quoted in the New York Times.

A Latina woman has a richer life experience. Therefore, her ability to make sound conclusions should be superior to a white man who has not been so blessed with the same life and experiences.

How is this not racism? The clear implication is that a Latina woman is a superior judge than a white man, on the sole basis of her race, and consequent heritage.

This is one of the most blatant flaws of truly inferior liberal thinking: the inability to detect its own hypocrisy. If a white man had argued that because of his own upbringing and heritage, he should be able to make "better" conclusions than a Latina woman who hadn't lived that life, his political career would be over.

I am in full support of minorities serving in government. But their elections and appointments should be on the basis of their own morality and character, proven leadership and ability to respect, defend and uphold the constitution, not the supposed superiority of their own heritage over white men.

Anyone who claims that their race inherently grants them superior decision making abilities is a racist. and therefore dangerous to freedom, liberty and America itself. May God spare this country the pain of having its own laws interpreted through the lens of such liberal oppression.

Read more...

California Bubble Bursting, Forced Limited Government

This article illustrates the ultimate myth of fiscal liberalism. Indefinite deficit spending cannot be sustained. The tax payers revolted against more taxes, and have required the government to make drastic cuts in spending and to privatize many areas where it had no business being involved in the first place. Check out this AP article. There are a number of golden nuggets in it, which I will highlight over the next week in detail.

California Faces Its Day of Reckoning

Read more...