10 Things That Terrify Left-Wingers

These are the things that keep American Liberals awake at night.

Government was forced to stop intervening in the economy as it would reveal the centrally planned economic failures of the state.

That if people start organizing freely, and solving problems privately, many government employees would be without a job.

Left-Wingers also hold the conspiracy belief that businesses around the world are conspiring to create wealth and capital just to make everyone else poor; not creating jobs and opportunity. Ironically, that seems to be the job of Congress.

If the sheeple realized that they can spend their money better than a bunch of bureaucrats people might get angry that politicians are stealing and wasting their money.

They also fret over the conspiracy belief that if government doesn’t hand out money, food, jobs, health care and self esteem to people; the streets will be littered with poor, hungry, unemployed, unhealthy, and depressed people.

If affirmative action and minimum wage laws were repealed the poor, willing, and unskilled workers would find productive non-government jobs all on their own.

The conspiracy that individualistic thought behavior will grow and people may try to throw off their shackles of the state.

If gun control bans were eliminated it would reduce the need for the state to protect citizens as they could protect themselves.

If the Internet and media are left to the free market, the people would be able to choose their own media and content provider leaving them unsheltered from all the dangerous ideas in the world…like freedom.

Realizing the game is over and people are waking up to their socialistic ideas.

Chuck Moe is a Contributing Author at People’s Press Collective, Your Source for Colorado Politics

                          

Poppies do not grow themselves – far from it. This finicky variety of Papaver requires great love and vast sums of money only available under the watchful eye of a U.S. occupation. Without military aid throughout the plant’s cultivation and harvest, economic devastation could drive the unemployment rate of the U.S. occupied region above its 2008 level of 35%. Brute force may be necessary to insure that agriculture’s 78.6% share of the labor force primarily focus on the production of poppies, rather than other, more nourishing crops. If these farmers were to be distracted by planting hearty food crops to sustainably feed the poverty stricken nation, the global economic impact would be disastrous.

2. Break the “news” to the world of data gathered between the early 1950s and 1985, telling of massive amounts of mineral resources in Afghanistan region.

Now is the time, after 8+ brief years of occupation, to break this exciting news of a new frontier of entrepreneurial opportunity. During these years, military operation goals have been calculably undefined, while remaining astoundingly un-measurable. With these defined and well guarded constraints limiting coalition forces’ infringement on Afghan sovereignty, it is astounding to realize that from the conflict’s beginning we have consistently lost more American troops every year to deadly fighting. It appears that we are well on our way to perpetuating the trend in 2010. We all hope that the Afghan population would benefit greatly from these astounding deposits of mineral resources; however, we may see things differently as they unfold. Some of these glorious new opportunities will no-doubt come to a few fortunate foreign corporations who are truly entrenched in the modern day military-industrial complex. To imagine, all this wonderful opportunity and without the thorns of overreaching government-induced deterrents such as the EPA.

-Well, that’s a pretty full day, but if we don’t free up some time to shore-up the “war on drugs” image, the bottom could fall out of this thing…

                          

The Federal Trade Commission has hosted a series of workshops on the Future of Journalism:  “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?”  Recently, the  FTC released a “Discussion Draft” on May 24th with the potential policy recommendations to “Reinvent Journalism.”

As expected, more than a few journalists have an opinion about the FTC’s reinvention of Journalism:

Jeff Javis writes:

What disturbs me most in this section is that the FTC frets about “difficult line-drawing being proprietary facts and those in the public domain.” Proprietary facts? Is it starting down a road of trying to enable someone to own a fact the way the patent office lets someone own a method or our DNA? Good God, that’s dangerous.

Andrew Malcom observes:

Would you believe: major changes to the copyright law, including government licensing provisions; government pilot programs to investigate potential new media business models, antitrust changes to allow media companies to unite on imposing online pay walls, establish a journalism division of AmeriCorps with government underwriting the training of young journalists, tax incentives per news employee, increased funding of public broadcasting, a 5% tax on consumer electronics and/or assessments on users of public airwaves.

Mark Tapscott hope journalists wake up:

Release of the Federal Trade Commission’s working paper on “reinventing journalism” makes it clear that there is no more time for diplomacy about this issue: President Obama is determined to federalize the news industry just as he has banking, autos, and health care.

The Washington Times editorial board mentions how expensive this may be:

The report also discusses the possibility of offering tax exemptions to news organizations, establishing an AmeriCorps for reporters and creating a national fund for local news organizations. The money for those benefits would come from a suite of new taxes. A 5 percent tax on consumer electronic devices such as iPads, Kindles and laptops that let consumers read the news could be used to encourage people to keep reading the dead-tree version of the news. Other taxes might be levied on the radio and television spectrum, advertising and cell phones.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air mentions:

This looks like an attack on blogs — and an attempt to turn back the clock to 1993 in terms of the voice that news consumers have in news delivery.

As The Capitol Burns put out a youtube video about the proposed recommendations.

With press like this regarding the FTC’s proposed regulations many people have become concerned that the government is in effect – taking over the media.

Henry Waxman isn’t concerned about the government “support” though:

Others have raised red flags about the dangers of government support of the press.

I have an open mind on all the above proposals.

Oh okay…never mind then. Might all these concerns be for nothing? I mean, Henry’s cool with it.

Well the FTC would like you to know that there is indeed, nothing to worry about. All of these articles are just “misinformation.”

Recent press reports have erroneously stated that the FTC is supporting and proposing some of the public comments (for example, taxes on electronic devices, favoring one medium over another).

[T]hrough this document, we seek to prompt discussion of whether to recommend policy changes to support the ongoing reinvention of journalism, and, if so, which specific proposals appear most useful, feasible, platform-neutral, resistant to bias, and unlikely to cause unintended consequences in addressing emerging gaps in news coverage.”

Nothing to see here….move along folks. Just because the title of the official FTC report is “Potential Policy Recommendations To Support The Reinvention of Journalism” doesn’t mean they are potential policy recommendations. Also, despite the footnote disclaimer that says, “It reflects only the tentative analyses and possible policy recommendations assembled by FTC staff in the Office of Policy Planning.” the FTC wants to be clear these are not possible policy recommendations.

These ideas are simply possibilities on “whether” they might consider or recommend  the potential policy changes. The process of government control of the media is very complex and the FTC understandably doesn’t want to leave any stone unturned when it comes to new ideas on controlling the media and internet. Think of this draft as a pre-draft draft or as a pre potential recommendation report that really means nothing at all. All those previous workshops since December of 2009 have simply been mere scribbles on napkins so to speak. Or in the FTC’s words, “a compilation of ideas.” They just subsequently took those scribbles of ideas and produced an official draft policy paper on FTC letterhead, sent emails, press releases,  web updates, and distributed the paper to the world. Just because an official government agency prints some official looking draft of potential policy recommendations doesn’t mean we should pay any attention nor should we be critical. The FTC would appreciate the public and especially journalists to hold all comments and criticism until the policy recommendations ideas are actual law.

If you have further interest in more FTC “ideas” there will be another workshop on June 15th at the National Press Club. But be warned. There will be no possible policy recommendations discussed even if the FTC releases another discussion draft titled “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism.”

                          

Now why was Cerebus so interested in Dyncorp International? A company with more public relation problems than Tiger Woods. Dyncorp has human trafficking allegations, shareholder investigations, State Dept. investigations, accounting issues, lawsuits, and prostitution problems and these tend to make a public relation meeting…awkward. With all these distractions getting in the way from their main goal of getting more taxpayer money for unproductive labor and services, the stock price suffered and Afghan police still needed training since they weren’t so successful the first time.

What better way to deal with an image problem then going private. Shareholders can sometimes be such a nuisance and this will relieve the SEC from being overworked with so much effort being spent with Goldman Sachs – who just so happens to have been the financial analyst for the acquisition. It’s that kind of government-corporate cooperation that makes me proud to be an American. In comes Cerebus Capital Management.

Cerebus saw this as an opportunity since war is big business these days and the future is looking bright. With troop surges, defense contractors can make alot of money with support contracts, service contracts, mercenary missions, security services, prostitution, torture, etc. With troop drawdowns, contractors can make a lot of money with support contracts, service contracts, mercenary missions, security services, prostitution, torture, etc. Actually, Dyncorp can make a lot of money no matter what situtation as long as the U.S. keeps bombing, occupying, and destabilizing countries worldwide.

According to Defense Industry Daily:

Private investment firm Cerberus Capital Management, LP has reached a $1.5 billion deal to buy the support and security contractor DynCorp International, including the assumption of debt. The purchase price would be $17.55 per share – a 49% premium to the April 9/10 close of $11.75, and 12.4x the FY 2010 consensus forecast of $1.41 earnings per share

Now if that share price isn’t optimistic about the United States maintaining and expanding the empire I don’t know what is. It may be expensive to U.S. citizens for all these billions in contracts but no price is too high when it comes to world domination peace.

                          

Hot temperatures make people cranky and irritable…Cranky, irritable people are prone to aggression.

Global Warming

Unfortunately for us, irritability is just the beginning. DeLisi says that when temperatures increase people tend to go outdoors more often, and consequently the amount of social interaction among these new berserko zombie people will increase. This of course is a recipe for disaster!

It's already happening!

The study also mentions that because of all this new aggression caused by Global Warming, we can expect an increase in genocide and war. This of course explains the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan. We couldn’t find weapons of mass destruction because our President had been infected by Global Warming!

Not War Crimes, Just Global Warming!

If becoming a berserko zombie wasn’t bad enough, Michigan’s Bushman reminds us,

The fact that hot people are more aroused but think they are less aroused means that they overreact to provocations.

If there is anything worse than a berserko zombie, it’s a horny berserko zombie! Upon further investigation I’ve concluded Bushman’s assessment is correct.

Even Animals Are Affected!

It’s come to my attention that the expression “hump like rabbits” is a recent development. Historically rabbits were much like the Jonas Brothers: rarely engaging in any sort of sexual activity. However, the phrase started to gain in popularity as rabbits were increasingly found boinking in public. Incidentally, the increase in rabbit boinking coincided with the release of Al Gore’s book, “Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit” in 1992. Coincidence? I think not! The rabbits were trying to warn us of the impending horny berserko zombie epidemic brought about by Global Warming!

Climatologists, prophets, and heroes

The following image is a scientifically calculated estimation on how the final stages of Global Warming will unravel:

The Final Stages of Global Warming

                          

What this line of argument is doing is equating legislation with virtue. The entire basis of this argument is that we need to follow the law no matter what. In the mind of the person making this argument, whatever the laws are, they are moral.

This means that it is immoral for me to pull a gun on my neighbor and force him to buy health insurance from me, not because it’s inherently wrong to pull guns on innocent people and force them to do anything, but because it is unlawful for me to do such a thing. However, when Nancy Pelosi pulls a gun on my neighbor and forces them to buy health insurance, that will be a moral act when Obama Care passes — because, after all, it will be the law.

Now I won’t even bring up slavery, fugitive slave laws, or Jim Crow laws because that’s just too easy. Instead, I’ll bring up instances where these same conservatives will not hide behind the law. Which is typical of conservatism — believe something when convenient only — not universally.

Gun control. Having laws restricting certain guns that look scary is moral right? I mean, they call them ILLEGAL firearms for a reason, keyword ILLEGAL. (Ever hear a leftist say, “I’m not against guns, I’m just against ILLEGAL guns.”)

Nanny state laws. Seat belt laws, helmet laws, smoking and drinking laws, and soon to be laws against fatty foods…. clearly not bending over for the nanny state is immoral. It’s the law!

Here’s one you’ll often hear from conservatives: when confronted with government controlled health care, you’ll often hear the conservative lament not being able to buy insurance across state lines. Just once I’d love to hear a leftist reply, “Well, buying insurance across state lines is illegal. The mere fact that you want to buy ILLEGAL insurance shows your disrespect for the law. You’re a criminal at heart.”

While we’re on the topic of health insurance, do you think the leftists in Canada regard their countryman as criminals for wanting to spend their money on illegal private health insurance? I wonder what they think of the folks who fly to the U.S. to get illegal treatment?

Truth is, morality is independent of whatever legislation is on the books. It doesn’t need Congress’ stamp of approval. An immoral act does not all of the sudden become moral when it becomes law. Nancy Pelosi has about as much right to force insurance on my neighbor as I do, regardless of the law. Does my wanting to be left alone from health insurance controls make me a criminal?

Lastly, when some version of Obama Care passes down the road, and it just so happens to contain a provision for tax-funded abortion, what will conservatives do? Did abortion become a moral act after Roe v. Wade? It’s called a LEGAL abortion for a reason. And when our tax money goes to fund them, too bad. It’s the law.

Originally Posted on November 16, 2009 on Justin Longo’s blog.

                          

We are the Peoples Press Collective, moderates for freedom united by a passion for biased and open (as long as you agree with everything we believe in) journalism.

We offer unafraid, unblinking reporting (that line sounds bad enough so no change is required), the unvarnished (unvarnished defined as either 1. plain; clear; straightforward. Or 2. unfinished, floors or furniture not coated with varnish, we mean the 2^nd definition here), no matter what it looks like. Okay that last bit was a lie. We’re here because of what the truth does look like, we’re here to expose the truth, to submit facts about truth…truth, truth, truth, truth, truth. Yes truth is what we do. Well, our version of truth.

We say we serve no political party because that’s what all the cool blogs are doing, but being superstitious we have a tendency to blink our right eye several times, raise our right hand, and turn in a circular motion to the right. We would like to believe that everyone of us has the ability to make up their own mind, but we feel we’re better at doing it for you.

The press has failed us. We’re going to show the American voters and the world what the mainstream media won’t! That censoring dissent, suppressing debate, and not having to defend your position because you can simply delete the persons posts are no longer the prerogative of the mainstream media, but can be done just as effectively by bloggers like us.

We are old media in new clothing. We’re not sure who we’re fighting because we attack those who agree with us, and those who don’t. Much like the mainstream media we strive to trim the story and “clean up” the details so as not to offend anyone (especially our administrators). And there’s no need for editorial approval here; we’ll simply just delete you.

                          

The iPad has certainly been a major disappointment. And Tiger Woods? Man what a jerk! I’m glad that Rockies player Huston Street is seeing a good orthopedic surgeon in Alabama for a second opinion on his shoulder. In spite of all this invaluable journalism it feels like I’ve missed something important…

…Hmm…What can it be?

Oh yeah! A group of innocent people were blown to bits (including two American journalists) and the Military tried to hide it (which is not uncommon for them to do link courtesy of Chuck Moe). But that’s not real news. Well, unless a republicans in office.

Which brings me to my second point. If you’re a war mongering conservative who believes life begins at conception–and should be protected from the needle of an OB Dr.–how do you reconcile the two obviously incompatible views. I mean, at least liberals are consistent. For example: Obama ran on an antiwar platform, yet has expanded the war. Being pro choice allows him and liberals alike to be selective with whatever high moral standards suit their needs.

It’s hard to defend a pro war, anti-abortion ideology. In fact it’s about as morally consistent as a pimp who actively promotes teen abstinence while tricking out the entire high school junior varsity cheerleading squad. There is NOTHING pro life about this:

Unless of course brown people who wear towels on their heads are somehow less than human (which is the impression I get from war drumming republicans).

To sum it all up. It doesn’t matter whether the liberals have control or the conservatives have control. The outcome is as predictable as Disney Channel child stars becoming slutty crack heads: an increase in the size and health of the state, the continued decimation of basic human rights, court academicians justifying it, and the mainstream media keeping the masses uninformed.

P.S. I understand that not all liberals are supportive of Obama’s compromise on the war issue. I also understand there are a lot of republicans and conservatives who are noninterventionists and despise what the neocons have done to the platform. I’m only talking to the pro war/pro life crowd. So I don’t mean to generalize eveyone.

                          

I would like to make a suggestion called “Removing Land of The Free Act of 2010″.  I think that it is only fair that any reference to the word ‘free’, ‘freedom’, and ‘liberty’ all be removed from any government document. Americans should no longer be denied the truth of what their government wants from them; obedience and taxes.

National Anthem by Francis Scott Key
Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thru the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?

Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause. it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

[Cross Post]

                          

Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform “a miracle” and a major victory for Obama’s presidency, but couldn’t help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.

“We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama’s) government,” Castro wrote in an essay published in state media, adding that it would strengthen the president’s hand against lobbyists and “mercenaries.”

Castro then proceeded to offer some constructive criticism to Obama.

But the Cuban leader also used the lengthy piece to criticize the American president for his lack of leadership on climate change and immigration reform, and for his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, among many other things.

Relax Fidel. Obama and the Democrats have legislation in the works to address climate change, and immigration that will make you proud. They are way ahead of you on that. They may even try to adopt some of Cuba’s immigration policies such as ruining the economy so badly that no one wants to come. This may seem a bit extreme but when you don’t have the economic competence to allow the free market to work you get desperate and we all know competence in pretty scarce in Congress. Hey, at least everyone will be equal…equally poor anyway. The’ve proven they have the tools and know how to destroy wealth and capital at historic levels so don’t underestimate them Fidel.

Oh and before you go back to your outstanding medical care Fidel, check in on your brother, Raul. Apparently things aren’t quite so rosy.

The government has warned that some of those benefits are no longer sustainable given Cuba’s ever-struggling economy, though it has so far not made major changes.

In recent speeches, Raul Castro has singled out medicine as an area where the government needs to be spending less, but he has not elaborated.

Rumors abound that involuntary euthanasia above 70 years of age is being considered to cut costs. Sorry Fidel. Thanks for the endorsement anyway.

                          

Hitler discovers infamous Kobe Bryant DA Mark Hurlbert, his hand picked Green Republican Colorado State Senate candidate, is his worst RINO nightmare–his own “Hurlritter”

                          

Instead of admitting they have no clue what they’re talking about, economists would have us believe it’s reality that is at odds with their econometrics, not vice-versa. Mainstream economics prides itself on empiricism. It wants to be like physics, and draw up models and equations to represent complex phenomena. However, unlike an empirical science instead of trying to rigorously disprove a theory, they attempt to excuse all of the evidence reality presents to the contrary of their “conclusions” and make the data fit the model. It’s no wonder more people are losing confidence in science. The real empiricists need to stand up and publicly denounce the superstitious economic dogma that calls itself science.

The whole economic discipline reminds me of witch doctoring. Future generations will look back stupefied by how such an advanced civilization could be so primitive in policy as a result of certain disciplines. Doing a little dance, shaking a stick and sacrificing the blood of the young are a poor substitute for real understanding.

                          

“Enabled by 21st-century technology, extremists have optimized the use of Internet chat rooms, Web sites and e-mail chains to spread their virulent messages and reach a global audience of potential recruits,” Reid told the Senate Armed Services Committee in prepared testimony.

“It is this highly evolved radicalization process that enabled al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to make contact with a wealthy Nigerian student living in London, recruit, train and equip him in the remote tribal regions of Yemen, position him in the Netherlands and ultimately dispatch him on a suicide mission to the United States, all within a period of weeks,” Reid added.

“By contrast, the 9/11 operation took about two and a half years to develop from the time Osama bin Laden approved it in April 1999,” he said.

Apparently terrorists had no idea of the amazing power of the internet and it’s communcation tools in 1999. Lucky for us,  terrorists were still using smoke signals, the camel express,  and morse code to communicate prior to the “21st-century.” I shudder to imagine the devastation terrorists could have caused if they had knowledge of chat rooms, email, and instant messaging prior to the “21st-century.” I for one had no idea it was such a big secret and assumed that most of the world was aware of such dangerous communication tools in 1999. Are these terrorists living in a cave or something?

Times are different today though and possibly through the smuggling of some infidel’s copy of Internet for Dummies, the terrorists have not only acquired knowledge of the internet, but they have also “optimized the use of Internet chat rooms, Web sites and e-mail chains to spread their virulent messages.” I’m not quite sure how one “optimizes” an email or chat but that’s exactly what they are doing according to the Pentagon. Not only are they “optimizing” internet communication but it is a “highly evolved process” that may threaten America’s security for decades to come. We can only hope Al-Qaeda doesn’t  become aware of facebook or we are all doomed.

Secretary Reid isn’t sure if this whole “internet” thing will catch on but if it does, be very afraid. Regardless, your friendly National Security Agency will be more than happy to data-mine your internet activity, emails, and chats and let you know if you’re in danger.

                          

The US government has a website, http://www.ready.gov.  It’s another attempt at scare mongering in the style of the old “duck and cover” advice after WWII.

The fun thing is that these pictures are so ambiguous they could mean anything!  Here are a few interpretations below. Enjoy!

                          

Example of innocent child playing recklessly while uncaring parents stand by

Have you seen situations across Colorado like this…(R rated – for possible injury)

While I typically hate to post photos of such dangerous situations, the current epidemic of children operating non-motorized vehicles has gotten out of control.

Fortunately, as the Post reports, “Bill sponsor Rep. John Kefalas, D-Fort Collins, promoted House Bill 1147 as a way to prevent life-changing brain injuries in children.”

This bill would include the, “Use of a bicycle helmet or other appropriate helmet for children ages 2 through 17 while using a bicycle, scooter, skateboard or inline skates on public streets.”

In a rare bi-partisan event, the Post also reports that,  ”Rep. Larry Liston, R-Colorado Springs, said that if the state is going to protect noggins, it might as well protect other sensitive parts, and he backed an amendment requiring boys to wear a ‘crush-resistant athletic cup’ as well.”

Example of innocent child protected by the state of Colorado

Since we have bi-partisan support to save Colorado’s little noggins (and maybe family jewels) we might as well go further and make it mandatory for all children on public and private streets. What’s good for the two year old peddling his tricycle on the sidewalk surely must be good for the one year old infant learning to walk.

With new laws comes new enforcement as well and don’t fear as the bill provides for stiff penalties for helmet law breakers. As Denver Daily reports under the bill, law enforcement officers could issue an “informational traffic citation” to minors aged 2-18 who are riding bikes on public streets without a helmet.

Colorado’s finest will soon be able to patrol the streets ridding Colorado of dangerous minors daring to roll their HotWheels down the sidewalk without the proper protection. Well, actually, that’s not true entirely. HB 1147 would only allow an “informational traffic citation” which has no real legal consequences but police will still be allowed to scare the crap out of the kids and that might just be enough to end the “Death Race” on Colorado’s streets.

                          

Here are the full results from the Washington Post:

2010 CPAC Straw Poll Results
Ron Paul 31%
Mitt Romney 22%
Sarah Palin 7%
Tim Pawlenty 6%
Mike Pence 5%
Newt Gingrich 4%
Mike Huckabee 4%
Mitch Daniels 2%
John Thune 2%
Rick Santorum 2%
Haley Barbour 1%

Watch how Fox News attempts to marginalize the victory:

Not to mention Mike Huckabee’s recent attacks on CPAC (notice how Jonathan Martin of Politico downplays the Paul win as well).

Politico ran a poll after Paul’s victory titled “Who should have won CPAC’s straw poll?” Evidently 60% of 46,414 people agreed with the original results. Mitt Romney actually lost points:

Politico is currently planning to run another poll titled, “Who should have won the ‘Who should have won CPAC’s straw poll?’ poll?” My guess is they’ll be unpleasantly suprised again. At which point they’ll begin to exponentiate their titles. I’ve tried to simplify matters for them and calculate a limit to their denial:

Let x=The amount of times Ron Paul wins something.

and

Let D(x)=The amount of denial (from Republicans and the MSM) and consequently an issuing of a new poll trying to circumvent the previous one.

The curve looks like this:

Denial of the mainstream media and Republicans as a function of Ron Paul’s success, where D(x) is Represented by Emoticons and X is Represented by Paul Heads.

This function is obviously an exponential graph of the form a^x where a is some number greater than, but not equal to 0 and x is the variable (representing Paul’s victories).

Taking the limit of a^x as x goes to infinity we get the following result:

lim as x->infinity of (a^x) = infinity

Clearly the laws of mathematics agree with what we’ve known all along: there is no limit to the denial of mainstream republicans and media.

                          

I am a criminal! It is shocking how I’ve managed to evade imprisonment thus far. My crimes: failure to comply with the laws of the land. This moment has been a long time coming. The events leading up to my crimes were set in motion the instant the universe began to expand. When the first elements were being created, and later when the establishment of the universal constants provided the blueprint for the planets, stars, galaxies, and the biological wherewithal for the world we occupy.

The deity of the heavens should have known better. She was foolish and presumptuous to think her sovereignty would remain unchallenged, since her offspring in a tiny pixel of the universe have succeeded in dethroning her. How were they successful you ask? They needn’t bomb her with antimatter. Nor did they impose sanctions on her. War and revolution was also unnecessary. But surely toppling the creator of existence must have required a brilliant display of tactics and weaponry. So how is it these particular beings were successful? Well by statute of course.

Therefore, it is inexcusable when driving on a frictionless surface to ignore the clearly marked road signs and lanes. “They are there for your protection citizen! You could have avoided collision! It is no defense to cite the laws of nature, for our laws supersede your damned deity! Momentum, acceleration, velocity, impulse: such kinematic superstitions are null and void when in conflict with the legislature.”

Of course the supernatural nullification abilities of the legislature aren’t limited to the laws discovered by Newton, Einstein, Planck and others. No. Their ability to overrule nature by simple majority spans every scientific discipline man has devised. Even economic laws are subject to amendment and repeal. Unfortunately, I am also guilty of siding with economic laws when the legislator has voted to suspend them. “Your parents were dumb citizen! They taught you prudence in spending. They advised you to tighten your belt when your pants sag from debt. I am flabbergasted why you would decline to spend your way into prosperity…Not to worry, for I will spend it for you. I have always tried to be forgiving of the handicapped, and will spare you the rod because I am merciful.”

To an alien observer the thought of repealing natures laws by mere statute may seem absurd. Even peasants like me struggle to understand the remarkable abilities of our overlords. Fortunately, a separate evolution has taken place among homo sapiens. One that distinguishes the demigods at the capitol from the rest of us undercooked apes.

                          

One of the first reactions as the infomercial runs on is that it sounds too good to be true. For some reason we humans are a naturally skeptical bunch. Often times we refuse to take outlandish claims at face value and look beyond the marketing for a scam. I say often times because there is one area that is curiously exempt from this natural distrust for the unknown: politics. Such an exemption may be an evolutionary phenomenon. Nevertheless, it is a curious social mutation.

To illustrate my point let’s try a simple thought experiment. One day we cross paths at a local market. Let’s imagine you have a child with you. For whatever reason we begin a casual conversation and as we become further acquainted I ask if I could watch your child tomorrow while you work. Immediately you become disturbed by such an odd request and alarms go off in your head. The moment is uncomfortable, threatening, and all you can think of is escaping. “I’ll feed him, and give him healthcare, and pay you for the privilege.” No matter what I offer, a sensible parent would scream, possibly taser me and run! This reaction is a healthy, natural response in defense of your offspring.

Enter the political arena. Here, hopeful incumbents make similar requests, only instead of your child they ask for your liberty, your property, and your loved ones future. In exchange for your vote, you will be granted goodies beyond your wildest imagination. Rather than alarms sounding as they did during our little experiment, or the suspicions running through our minds while watching the infomercial, the opposite occurs. We embrace the politician with open arms. We invite them into our homes. We give them free access to our income and other private information. We urge them to decide for us how to use our bodies, who we can marry, what we can eat, and how we can travel. All of these important responsibilities are very personal items that we would never otherwise dream of entrusting a complete stranger with. But for whatever reason, we abandon our natural defensive tendencies when election season arrives.

I wonder how long nature will endure such willful stupidity.