Saturday, February 26, 2011

The Barack Obama Birth Certificate

Some people claim Obama hasn't proven he's not from another country. They say he's a filthy foreigner, like our ancestors that came from afar to settle this land.

However, here's proof that he was born here in the USA:

Here's a closeup of the birth certificate:

Here's a photo of me using the birth certificate as a sail on my trip to Hawaii:

Now, instead of engaging in actual debate, many birthers simply state that it was a liberal who first started the question of Obama's citizenship. If true (and it's doubtful Philip J. Berg is a real liberal), this means that a liberal simply wanted reassurance when Obama started his run, the question was answered, and the liberal then sat down, his question being satisfactorily answered. However, right-wing nut jobs (RWNJs) weren't satisfied by an answer. The fantasy that Obama wasn't American-born was too attractive to give up.

The ridiculous fake Kenyan birth certificate:
A real birth certificate wouldn't list Kenya as a republic before it became a republic. The fake also lists a hospital that is in Zanzibar, not Kenya.

Apparently, some RWNJs still aren't satisfied, even after seeing the birth certificate, holding it, or having it rubbed all over their naked bodies. I guess they want to see video of the birth in a hospital room that has a window from which you can see a nice Hawaiian beach. Of course, they would simply suggest that the video was faked in the same way that the moon landing was faked.

The 2012 GOP Presidential Nominees

Here they are folks, the GOP superstars, strutting their stuff down the catwalk. Baring their credentials for your discerning critical eye. Let's take a look, shall we?

Mike Huckabee

Huckabee is a Southern Baptist minister born in 1955 who has only married one woman and is still married to her!

He wrote a book on small government, entitled "A Simple Government: Twelve Things We Really Need from Washington (and a Trillion That We Don't)."

At the time of this writing, Huckabee hosts the Fox News Channel talk show that is creatively named “Huckabee.”

On an interview on the Colbert Report, Huck agreed with being a social conservative who boycotted CPAC. He said social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives. Interesting.

Social conservatives disagree with permitting what they see as various moral failings in our society, usually due to a religious belief. So, they want the government to intrude in people's lives and say, “No, you can't do that.” They don't want gays to marry, gays to serve in the military openly, or women to have abortions (even before a fetus is formed). They oppose the legality of pornography, prostitution, polygamy, drugs, and euthanasia. So logically, a fiscal conservative is someone who disagrees with various types of commerce, possibly on moral grounds, and wants such commerce outlawed (for the common good, of course). That sure sounds like it requires a lot of regulation.

However, fiscal conservatism is actually a belief in government staying out of all expressions of capitalist freedoms and of not spending more than you have. Therefore, one would logically think that social conservatism would be a belief in the government staying out of people's private lives and decisions, permitting any freedom so long as they weren't infringing on someone else's freedom. After all, why should the government regulate people's private lives if they're not going to regulate business?

So, Huckabee isn't very good at logic. He's just an emotional heartfelt person; that's all. On the Colbert Report, he certainly seemed like a jovial guy with a sense of humor, kind of like a Republican Santa Claus. He's in a rock band so he must be cool too. However, Southern Baptists are the ones that, in the 80s, protested Dungeons and Dragons for turning kids into devil worshipers. That's like protesting the board game Candy Land because it will turn children into candy. However, Southern Baptists also tend to think rock music is evil so maybe Huckabee has a bit of a liberal streak.

Well, he did famously compare legalizing gay marriage to legalizing drugs, incest, and polygamy.
Huckabee also suggests we isolate the HIV positive from the general public since they are akin to carriers of the plague.
Pros: Seems friendly enough, Christian
Cons: Not very good at logic, Social conservatism should win him the Tea Party vote but alienate the Libertarian vote, May have lied about his book containing a trillion things government shouldn't do
Qualifications: Governor of Arkansas, Works for Fox News

Mitt Romney

Romney is a Mormon born in 1947. His first name is Willard which he doesn't use. You'd think the power to control rats would be a plus in politics.

He used to be for abortion rights and gay civil unions. However, now he's not. He signed the Massachusetts health reform law which is for all purposes identical to the Affordable Care Act signed by Obama. However, he opposes the Affordable Care Act. This means he doesn't think the federal government should be able to force you to buy something, but your state government can force you to buy whatever it wants, possibly for no reason.

So, Romney has changed his stance on mostly all social issues. He was for them before he was against them. He also signed into law a hated “Obamacare” bill before Obama did. Though he's now against it, that he was ever for it could be a stumbling block. The Republicans hate their ideas once the Democrats starting using them.

So, is he a social conservative or not? Mormons certainly are supposed to be. That he supported gay civil unions in order to prevent gay marriage may not fly with the “gay people touching each other is icky” crowd. He certainly doesn't seem like a fiscal conservative given that he supported health care regulation.

There's also the problem that he successfully worked with Democrats in Massachusetts to get legislation passed. The current speaker of the House John Boehner can't even say the word “compromise.” Compromise isn't the “in” word right now.

And of course, Republicans are wary of non-Christians and non-traditional Christians.

Pros: Has all his hair.
Cons: Flip-flopper, Created Obamacare before Obama did, Magic underwear?, Not a Fox News employee
Qualifications: Governor of Massachusetts

Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin is a hot babe born in 1964 who bears quite the similarity to someone named Lisa Ann (yeah, you probably don't want to Google her at work). She loves wolves and the Wasilla Assembly of God Pentecostal church. Palin is still married to her first husband.

She has been fully protected from witches by a blessing from Thomas Muthee. When not speaking in tongues, preparing for the rapture, or challenging evolution, Palin enjoys appreciating wildlife through the scope of a rifle while in a helicopter.

She was also Governor of Alaska which has about 5 people in it, right? Most communities that need organizing have more people in it than Alaska. It must not have needed much organizing because she quit her governorship before finishing. Well, one can make more money promoting a book, speaking at engagements, and being a media darling (in the laughing at you, not with you, way).

Palin has been a Fox News guest commentator (on the Glenn Beck show), a reality TV star, and had a 20-year old kid sentenced to a year in prison (not the 20 she was going for) for looking at her e-mail.

Still, she's religious, conservative, and wants to cut taxes. That she has no plan besides cutting taxes isn't that important. It's a great catch-phrase and worsening the government's ability to pay for things usually solves everything.

However, her biggest advantage is that so many people view her as a down-homey mama grizzly.

Pros: Able to maul the face off a camper, Christian
Cons: Her frequent incorrect statements, Being a quitter, Appearing to be batshit fucking insane
Qualifications: Avid book promoter, Reality TV star, Has had several books written for her, Has worked for Fox News

Newt Gingrich

Newton Leroy Gingrich (born 1943) is a former House Speaker from Pennsylvania. He's a Roman Catholic who enjoys reviewing military history books and spy novels on Amazon.

Capable of both reading and writing, Gingrich is a prolific author. Despite his love of animals and dinosaurs, he has written no books about them. This shows that, like a good Catholic, he is into denying himself pleasure.

Gingrich has been married three times. He cheated on his first two wives. Please ignore any previous statements about him denying himself pleasure. He left his first wife when she got cancer. Cancer is just no fun at all. While still married to his second wife, Gingrich was banging some hussy as he led the impeachment effort on Bill Clinton (whose crime was denying that a blowjob was sex).

He has a good conservative track record. He helped pass legislation that reformed welfare and balanced the budget. He also oversaw passage of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 that reduced the number of laws members of Congress can ignore.

Gingrich is largely responsible for the government shutdown of 1995. He claimed it was over a fight to slow government spending; however, support for his effort failed when evidence began to surface that it was payback for a personal snub he'd received. Evidence now shows that the government shutdown cost the government money. Among other things, revenue was lost from an estimated 7 million people who would have visited national parks and museums. It was estimated that the shutdown cost taxpayers $700 to $800 million.

He has the honor of the being the first House Speaker to be disciplined for an ethics violation. Eighty-four ethics charges were thrown at him, but only one stuck. I hate to think why it was sticky.

After his job as speaker, Gingrich has frequently appeared as a special guest star on numerous Fox News programs. He has hosted various specials for Fox News and is listed as a special contributor.

Pros: Name recognition, Christian
Cons: Adulterer, Ethics violator, Hypocrite
Qualifications: Former House Speaker, Worked for Fox News

Tim Pawlenty

Timothy James Pawlenty (born 1960) is the former two-time Governor of Minnesota. He's a Baptist and is still married to his first wife.

As Governor, he didn't raise taxes, but he did raise fees. He managed to balance the state deficit by slashing social services, showing he protects the money of the rich at the cost of the less fortunate as a Republican should.

Pawlenty signed a bill that raised the minimum ethanol in gasoline to 20%. Most cars are only designed to safely handle 15% ethanol. This shows a strong disdain for science which is good because only 6% of scientists are Republican.

He showed extreme disdain toward his state's legislative branch when they told him he overreached with his powers. This shows he dislikes big government.

He tried hard, but failed, to reinstate an education requirement system, Profiles of Learning, which had previously failed and been repealed. This shows he is tenacious as a leader should be.

To regain some conservative cred, Pawlenty turned down federal funds to implement the new Affordable Care Act. However, he accepted $500,000 in federal funds for abstinence-only sex education to help more youths experience the joy of unexpected pregnancy. This shows he cares about the youth.

He abandoned Minnesota, leaving it with a $6.2 billion deficit and record high taxes.

Pawlenty has already started making campaign promises, such as, if elected, he will reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He supports raising the retirement age of the middle-class because the life expectancy of the rich has increased.
He also really enjoys shutting down the government and looks forward to doing it again.

On the case of collective bargaining, he sides with Governor Scott Walker by stating that the need and argument for unions, “does not apply to public employment.”

Pros: Christian, Opposes legislation that furthers or protects gay rights or worker's rights
Cons: Left his state with a high deficit and high taxes, Doesn't work for Fox News
Qualifications: Governor of Minnesota, Never shot a man in Reno just to watch him die

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

An Ideal Society, as provided by the United States Constitution

An ideal society is one with individual liberties as championed by libertarians with a humanist government as championed by social democrats and a tax code that rewards companies hiring and paying good wages to U.S. workers.

Suggesting that an ideal society is possible via our Constitution is not saying America isn't already the greatest country in the world. Seeking to continually improve is a very American trait. Finding the right balance between the government doing the bare minimum and doing all that it can is important, but how it implements what it does is key.

An ideal society uses a capitalist system because capitalism is the best system to spur innovation and competition. However, all economic systems eventually self-destruct which is why there must be rules. You wouldn't play baseball without rules, and you shouldn't practice capitalism without rules.

True freedom means total freedom so long as you aren't infringing upon the freedoms of another. America is still stuck in a puritanical prohibition-era mindset which inhibits industry and criminalizes victimless crimes. A nanny state is only so many steps away from a Big Brother state. We must be free to have the religion of our choice, but the government must not legislate morality for us, beyond the defense of the right to life, liberty, and other inalienable rights as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. It is moral and just to defend those rights.

It is one thing for a government to legislate the personal behavior of a citizen which only affects that citizen. That is an unjust invasion. It is another thing entirely for a government to create an economic framework in which its citizens can thrive, by protecting capitalism and the rights of its citizens to engage in it, as well designating the means by which the citizens contribute to maintaining the government. It bears saying that government does these things as an agent of we, the people, and not through any actual power of its own.

However, current libertarianism confuses freedom by thinking it means only caring about oneself (and also confusing corporations with individuals). Thoughts of that nature have no place in a united society. “United We Stand,” is a saying with particular meaning for Americans as it well should. We are not all in this for ourselves; we are all in this together. Individual responsibility is not synonymous with being a bad Samaritan.

That is why it is so very important that all Americans receive education, health care, food, and housing (without encouraging a free ride on the system). There are numerous ways to achieve this. The simplest is that all Americans pay taxes within their means to help maintain the great country in which they reside. Fortunately, the Constitution grants the power for the federal government to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” which allows for a wide range of programs to benefit the American people. This was the interpretation of Alexander Hamilton in his Report on Manufactures (1791) for what is the United States if not its people?

Even James Madison, who generally opposed the “General Welfare Clause” from being used in such a way, wrote in Federalist No. 44 that, "No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included.”

There are those who don't believe their tax money should be used to benefit anyone else. Some of them have a flawed understanding of the Constitution, some only care about themselves, some are just greedy, and some are all of those. They seem to think that application of taxes is theft when such costs could be avoided by moving to a different country. It isn't theft because you agree to abide by a countries laws and share in the associated costs when you live within its boundaries. Government cannot operate without some form of revenue. One thing is certain and that is that such views can only lead to an immoral, heartless, and divided society. Far too many conservatives and libertarians want a society where the poor cannot afford education and where those not rich enough to save for retirement must go into the gutter to die when no longer physically able to work.

However, the cost of the welfare state can be greatly reduced by a tax code that rewards companies hiring and paying good wages to U.S. workers as outlined here:

The above plan will greatly reduce the need for the welfare state. We can improve our assistance programs by investigating fraud and making sure that those receiving unemployment insurance are actually looking for work (which will require an economy with available jobs). We do have a problem with people taking advantage of the system, and we have to remove those people off permanent assistance who do not have a legitimate disability or are not being caretakers of others.

Some will say that any forms of safety net programs are socialism. However, socialism is when the people as a group have control of the means of production with no private ownership. Providing programs that benefit the people is neither socialist nor capitalist. It is simply a function of government.

So, what programs should the government (state or federal) provide to its people? The states should continue to provide public education. Unemployment insurance to those in between jobs is not only life-saving but a good investment since money given to those in dire need goes right back into the economy. Care for children of poor families and social workers are also something we cannot abandon.

For providing affordable health care to all American people, there are three choices.
  • The first is an individual mandate. Everyone must buy health insurance. Those that don't buy insurance must pay a tax so that the government can recoup the money used to pay for the health care for those who are uninsured. This was the idea of Republicans in the 1980s to prevent a government takeover of healthcare. It is ironic that once Democrats adopted the idea, Republicans started to call it a government takeover.
  • The second option is for the government to purchase health insurance for all with taxpayer money. I believe a system where each state purchases insurance for all of its residents from one health care insurer is best. This way, health insurers can compete for the business of the 50 states. This system could be handled at either the state or the federal level.
  • The third is to stop providing care for those who can't pay. If you show up at a hospital with a gunshot wound and it can't be proven you can pay, they let you die. This way, the hospital or government doesn't have to eat the costs for caring for the uninsured. When hospitals provide care to those who can't pay, their costs increase, and they pass those costs onto those who can pay. This way, people stop getting a free ride on the system.
The third option is a completely uncivilized option which leaves us with option one or option two. Either is workable.

So, what we will have accomplished so far is: increasing the freedom of individuals, getting more people jobs at higher wages, getting more people basic necessities, and reducing taxes by reducing the need for the welfare state.

Sadly, there are still some people who believe that paying taxes is a form of violence against them. However, we have a representative government so if there are taxes you don't like, you were outvoted. It is a lie to say you had no say in the matter. You had your say. If you don't like it, you have the freedom to leave.

Do we have good representatives? That is an entirely different matter. It is up to us to speak with our votes and get better representation.
In order for the above changes to take place, the American people must want it to happen, and they must elect representatives who are willing to uphold the will of the people. So long as the American people believe the propaganda that it is not in their best interest to have their fellow Americans be well paid, it will not happen. It won't happen so long as Americans believe liberty means other Americans only having the freedoms that they themselves like. It won't happen until people decide the American dream is raising oneself up hand-in-hand with other Americans and not ascending on the backs of the rest without caring whether or not you're wearing cleats.

I will leave you with the words of our Founding Father John Adams which are taken from his great work, Thoughts on Government: Applicable to the Present State of the American Colonies.

"We ought to consider what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all divines and moral philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow, that the form of government which communicates ease, comfort, security, or, in one word, happiness, to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best."

“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.