This just in! Michael Moore is a moron! Oh, and a communist too.

Michael Moore has recently premiered a new movie. You may recognize the name. He has been made famous for such works as “Fahrenheit 9/11” (Tells how Dubya & Co. used the vicious terrorist attacks on New York that killed thousands as justification for hunting down and killing terrorists) and “Sicko” (Details why Private Health care in America sucks while Fidel Castro has the best system EVAH!). These movies are on my list of things that I “Must do”, right under “Poke self in eye with stick”. Also known as the exploding fat guy with chili dogs from “Team America: World Police”.

This new movie is entitled “Capitalism: A Love Story”. It premiered in a Venice film festival on September 6th. It walked away from said festival with two awards. Which awards, you ask? Great question!

So anyway…

From the Reuter’s article:
“Blending his trademark humor with tragic individual stories, archive footage and publicity stunts, the 55-year-old launches an all out attack on the capitalist system, arguing that it benefits the rich and condemns millions to poverty.

‘Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil,’ the two-hour movie concludes.”

Fun Fact: Evil Capitalism is the financial philosophy that has given us life spans of 70+ years, a TV in nearly every home, an automobile in every driveway, and made it possible to become annoyed if your communication across the planet takes longer than 5 seconds.

Fun Fact: Communism is the system that gave us…Great spy movie villains. And…Vodka! Don’t forget gulags. Everyone loves a good gulag.

"You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy."

Democracy: A system of government which involves direct voting by citizens, popular in Ancient Greece. (As opposed to a Democratic Republic, popular in America, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Israel, India, Australia, Poland…etc. It is kind of nit picking, since the vernacular uses Democracy and Democratic Republic interchangeably, but it’s my blog, so deal with it.)

Capitalism is not a system of government, and thus you cannot replace it with democracy. Communism, too, is not technically a system of government. However, since it is practically impossible to enforce such a philosophy through anything but a one party autocracy, it could be said to be merely a flavor of authoritarian government.

Reuters: “Moore even features priests who say capitalism is anti-Christian by failing to protect the poor.

‘Essentially we have a law which says gambling is illegal but we've allowed Wall Street to do this and they've played with people's money and taken it into these crazy areas of derivatives,’ Moore told an audience in Venice.”

Christ taught we should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. We ought to be generous to our fellow man. Note He did not say the government ought to be generous with our money. I believe Christ would say that it falls on the Capitalist person to use his wealth for the common good.

Secondly, I’m sure Michael Moore’s next movie will show the footage where the Wall Street investors pulled out their pistols, pointed them at people’s heads, and forced them to give them money (You know, what our government does). What? They didn’t do that!? You mean people invested in something that was risky of their own free will, knowing full well that they might lose money doing it? Freaky.

From Michael Moore’s website: "It's 'Capitalism: A Love Story' and the 'love' refers to how the wealthy love their money, except this has a new twist: They not only love their money now, they love our money. And they want our money." – Michael Moore on The Jay Leno Show

Hey Mikey, newsflash: They’ve always loved your money. It’s called profit. You want their sevice/product, they provide it, and you give them money, which they love.
Roll this situation back to Adam and Eve’s grandkids. Let’s take Joe. Take is not much of a man’s man and can’t make a straight spear to save his life, but boy Joe can weave a find basket. Steve over there, he can churn out spears like there’s no tomorrow, but baskets, not so much. Joe trades Steve some outstanding baskets for some outstanding spears. Joe wins. Steve wins.

Fastforward this situation a bit. Perhaps Joe decides that he isn’t going to do anything but make baskets, because he can do it really well. He trades these baskets to others for things he needs, like food and clothing. He even gets other people to make baskets with him, and together they make the best darn baskets two chickens can buy! Whammo. That’s Capitalism, baby.

The problem everyone has with Capitalism is that it isn’t fair. Someone who is smarter, harder working, or just luckier than the next guy is going to do better. You will have those who succeed. You will have those that fail. Communism sounds so much nicer. Everyone works hard because it will help everyone else. No one goes without, and we all live in peace and harmony.

The problem is that humans are not like that. The reason Capitalism works and Communism fails is because Communism doesn’t take into account flawed humanity. Capitalism says that people are by nature greedy and selfish. They will work hard when it benefits them, because it benefits them. That hard work, in turn, will benefit everyone else. If you need proof of the flaws in humanity you need look no further than your local toddler. The untrained tot is naturally selfish, greedy, and unconcerned with anyone else’s needs, wants, or desires. That is the natural state of humanity.

Fortunately, I have good news for anyone who does want to see this movie. In order to remain consistent with his own convictions, Michael Moore will be making obscene profits at the box office giving this movie away for free! He’s also going to travel to all these premiers via private jets polluting the environment horse and buggies driven by the Amish. I’d go, but I have to find that darn stick first.

Obama’s Zombie Approval Rating: 4%!

Like the walking dead shambling at the necromancer’s call, so now has the Obama Approval rating risen from the grave to prey on the living. What’s the occasion, you ask? Some pressing matter of national urgency? Perhaps the spirit of St. Ronald miraculously possessed our POTUS and turned him into a small government capitalist? No, my friends. Nothing but the most weighty of national, nay, Galactic! matters would suffice to pull this corpse from death’s embrace. I am speaking, of course, of September 15th, 2009.

Obama to Kanye: You’re such a jackass. As you are no doubt aware Kanye West charged the stage during the VMA awards when Taylor Swift won. He proceeded to take the mic and proclaim that Biance (No, I didn’t have to google the spelling!…I just checked it after.) was the best artist EVAH and should have won instead. Later on when Biance was making her remarks on stage, in an outstanding display of grace and class, turned the mic over to Taylor Swift so that she could have her time in the spotlight. (Side note: Biance Approval Rating: 58%, up from yesterday’s “Biance? Isn’t she that singer? You know, the one with the song?”)

From the Politico: “ABC's Terry Moran set the Twitter-sphere all aflutter when he wrote [on Twitter]: ‘Pres. Obama just called Kanye West a “jackass” for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won. Now THAT’S presidential.’

"In the process of reporting on remarks by President Obama that were made during a CNBC interview, ABC News employees prematurely tweeted a portion of those remarks that turned out to be from an off-the-record portion of the interview. This was done before our editorial process had been completed. That was wrong. We apologize to the White House and CNBC and are taking steps to ensure that it will not happen again."
I want to go on the record right now and say Good on Ya, Mr. President. Kanye is a jackass and deserves to be called out on it. I appreciate a politician who can tell it like it is. More points would have been given if this had been on-the-record, and even more if you had called a special press conference to say it, because that would have been friggin’ hilarious.

So, Obama’s Undead Approval rating now stands at 4%! [Sure, I could instantly negate all this by taking into account certain other things. For example, the outlawing of private insurance attempt to make a public health care option. Or perhaps how he has completely thrown the Polish right under the Comrade Bus on the missile defense shield, and completely bent over to Russia while shouting “Take me now!”. I could, but I’m not going to because: 1) That would also negate the five minutes of careful research that went into this post, and 2) I don’t feel like it. So there.]

Gun Control with Ted Nugent

I have been asked to write a blog about my stance on gun control by a friend of mine who also happens to be a cop. I’ll relay an interesting anecdote from him in a moment, but first, let’s hear from someone who is even more passionate about gun rights than I am. That fellow’s name is Ted Nugent.

It is interesting to me that people always point only to the 2nd amendment as justification for owning guns. Of course, I do believe that the 2nd amendment does guarantee us just that, but Ted makes an excellent point right out of the gate. All beings, from mankind right down to the tiniest of organisms, understand and embrace their natural right to defend their own life. If their thought process is developed enough they also extend that right to envelope defending others that are close to them. No one has ever had to explain or justify to a monkey why, when attacked, it should, can, and will use every means available to defend itself. As in Ted’s example, if you attacked an imaginary man who was completely separated from any society, this man would require no justification or explanation for defending himself from you by whatever means he had at his disposal.

Those who disagree with the right to keep and bear arms for the private citizen often say that it is guns that allow for so much violence in society. They point to tragedies where gunmen wander through schools or stores and mow down innocents, then scream that guns need to be restricted. The argument falls short for a plethora of reasons.

First, examine the method by which we are supposed to restrict the ownership of guns. That method is by creating laws. If we just had another law to prevent murderer Bob from having a gun, then we wouldn’t have any problem. This argument requires that you forget that the murder, or robbery, or rape, or whatever other crime the person committed while using his gun, was also outlawed. A criminal is, by definition, a lawbreaker. Clearly, they will not be deterred simply because there is a law standing in their way. Their victims on the other hand are lawabiding citizens, who will be deterred from bearing arms if there is a law against it. In other words, the only people who you will disarm are the very people who won’t commit the crimes you are trying to prevent in the first place! By outlawing and restricting guns you are creating an environment where the lawbreakers have fire superiority over the common citizenry.

Second, their premise is that if you could channel Harry Potter and magic away every gun in America, presumably except those in the hands of law enforcement and military personnel, then violence would likewise diminish. This argument makes the supposition that human violence is linked to the tool, and not the fallen nature of humanity itself. If you read just a little history you will find that humans have been killing humans long before they had guns. In fact, they didn’t even need knives, though that made it a bit more efficient. Humans have been killing humans since they could pick up rocks and sticks. The problem is the violence of humanity, not the instrument of violence.

Third, since we do not have any Harry Potter wands, they assume that our omnipotent government can keep the guns away from those who aren’t supposed to have them. Remember, our government cannot stop half starved refugees from crossing into Florida in leaky rafts. How are they to stop a well funded black market of firearms? Even Britain, which is many times smaller than America, cannot close its borders to guns. If you don’t believe, simply Google “drive by shooting London” and see the evidence for yourself. How much more porous would our own, much more massive borders be?

Fourth, they blind themselves to the possibility of violence used for good. This goes beyond the scenarios of war and police actions. The private citizen, too, is capable of committing justified violence, even killing, without any malicious intent.

Take, for example, the anecdote of my cop friend. In our city robbers who are attempting to hold up convenience stores have noticed that if they simply pull a gun and demand money the clerk will often be able to press the silent alarm, resulting in the capture of the criminal. So, the criminals have adapted by pulling the gun, shooting the clerk in the stomach, and then demanding the money. The now incapacitated clerk has no choice but to comply. On a video my friend was shown this very thing happened. If guns were kept out of the hands of private citizens, then the story would end with the thief making off with the cash and the world would possibly be minus one convenience store clerk.

Fortunately this is not the case. In the back of the store was Joe Six-pack, presumably there to get his next case of Bud. Joe happened to be a concealed carrying his .45. Upon hearing the shot and demand for money, Joe pulled his weapon. He took cover behind one of the aisle dividers and shot the criminal. The criminal fired back. Joe took cover, ducked out again, and shot the criminal again. The gun battle ended with one dead robber, one wounded but living clerk, one victorious armed private citizen, and no crime being successfully committed. The only dead person at the end of the day was the criminal.

An entire other article could be made going into the origins and intent of the 2nd amendment itself. I believe that this, while useful and true, is wholly unnecessary. I have the right to defend myself, with a gun if I am able, against anyone who threatens me, my family, or any other person I choose to defend.

“If guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.”

”If you’re coming to take my guns, you better bring guns.”

And my personal favorite:

”Peace through superior firepower.”

Great news, comrades! “Green” czar is actually Red!

The internet has been all abuzz with the news that President Obama appointed a “special advisor on green job creation” (read, Czar #457) a Mr. Van Jones, back in mid-March. What makes this particular member of the Obama administration so gosh darn special? He’s a Communist! I don’t mean one of those skulking, behind closed doors socialists you find at Ivy league schools. I mean a straight hammer-and-sickle, “Workers of the World Unite!” Communist.

The internet has been buzzing about this for weeks, but Glenn Beck recently has done a series of bits on his show laying out some of the evidence to support this claim. I know some of my readers are convinced Glenn wears a tinfoil cap when he’s not on camera, but I urge you to listen anyway. If you like, you can mute everything Glenn says and just focus on the actual audio clips of Van Jones himself. They are telling enough without any commentary whatsoever. In fact, if you skip to the minute marks that I list, you won’t have to hear a single syllable of Beck.

Here’s the link to the first set of audio. Brace yourselves: We’re shooting back in time all the way to March of this year, prior to his appointment as the Green Jobs Czar. He says that it’s not about cleaning up our energy production. He states that you can’t take out the “dirty power generation in a system and just replace it with some clean stuff, put a solar panel on top of this system.” What horrible things would happen then?

(03:55)
“We don't deal with how we are consuming water, we don't deal with how
we're treating our other sister and other brothers' species, we don't deal with
toxins, we don't deal with the way we treat each other, if that's not a part of
this movement, let me tell you what you'll have. This is all you'll have. You'll
have solar powered bulldozers, solar powered buzz saws, and biofuel bombers and
we'll be fighting wars over lithium for the batteries instead of oil for the
engines and we'll still have a dead planet. This movement is deeper than a solar
panel, deeper than a solar panel. Don't stop there. Don't stop there. No, we're
going to change the whole system.”
(04:53)

Oh the humanity! Bio fueled bombers? Solar powered bulldozers!? Say it isn’t so! Clearly, Czar Van Jones believes that it isn’t about clean air and freedom from foreign oil. He believes it is the market system itself.

Before you listen to this next piece, I want you to remember the last time you oppressed an American Indian. The last time you, personally, beat down an American Indian and took his home. I’m not sure, I just can’t remember the last time I kicked an Indian off his land. I’m sure I must just be forgetting…After all, Czar VJ says that I “owe them a debt.”:

(08:57)“And our Native American sisters and brothers who were pushed and bullied
and mistreated and shoved into all the land we didn't want, where it was all hot
and windy, well, guess what, renewable energy. Guess what, solar industry.
Guess what, wind industry. They now own and control 80% of the renewable
energy resources. No more broken treaties. No more broken treaties. Give them
the wealth. Give them the wealth. Give them the dignity. Give them the respect
that they deserve. No justice on stolen land. We owe them a debt.”(09:40)
(emphasis mine)

Fantastic! Our Advisor for the Creation of Green Jobs wants to punish the Renewable Energy Industry in order to make up with the Native Americans. I’m sure that won’t harm the growth of that industry in any way whatsoever.

On to part two, February 2009, in Berkeley California. A young lady asked future Czar VJ the following question (the audio is a little hard to make out):

(00:45) “Some people are saying that the policies to are advocating, that
businesses should make decisions based on society and not how the market
dictates, sounds somewhat Marxist.” (00:59)

Silly girl! How could she be so naïve, of course it’s Marxism! Listen on for his response:

(1:13)“How is that capitalism working for you? How is that capitalism working
for you? How is that capitalism working for you this year?” (1:33)

Strange. It almost sounds like he doesn’t think Capitalism is a good thing…Huh.
Well, that’s hardly an admission of guilt. Let’s move on.

(4:24)”In this stage of the struggle, and I'll only speak to this stage of the struggle, I'm the best friend capitalists ever had. Thank you very much.”(4:35)

The struggle? What struggle? I must be hallucinating…It looks like he’s talking about capitalism in the 3rd person, like capitalists would find it surprising that he would be their friend.

So what, so he’s a communist. It’s not like he wants to subvert the system that has made America the greatest nation on the planet. It’s not like he’s a revolutionary Communist, right?

(06:08)”we have to prepare for this to be a long process even though it probably won't be. We have to prepare ourselves. We can't just push the people. We can push for (inaudible), but the people --- it must be a dance, you know. We have to listen, listen, listen, listen. And then learn. And then colead, try to coauthor a different future with folks. And we have to assume that's going to take a long time, but sometimes what should have taken another 20 years, Barack Hussein Obama, can take a season.”(06:50)

(07:42)” And this won't --- we have to prepare for this to be a long process even though it probably won't be.”(07:48)

It’s time to face facts: Our President has appointed, as an advisor, a radical devout Communist, who believes not only in crippling business for the good of the environment. Not only believes in paying reparations to every Tom, Dick, and Charley who our Great-Great-Grandfathers wronged 150 years ago. Not only believes Capitalism, the system which has transformed the world from a place where communicating from one town to the next took days to a world where you get irritated if communicating clear across the plant takes more than a few seconds, is something to be mocked and ridiculed. He wants to quietly, carefully, co-lead and co-author a different future!

Why on Earth would our President want such a man as an advisor on the Proper Assembly of PB&J sandwiches (PB first, then scrape the knife, then jelly, by the way), much less the Green Jobs Czar? I’m not going to say the answer to that question. I believe the answer is obvious, and doesn’t need to be spoken aloud.