What IS Worse: Socialist Snake Oil or Sociopathic Socialist Snake Oil?

If a democrat wins the 2016 presidential race, it means that at least 50% of Americans like being lied to.  And if you think that’s typical right wing clap trap from the Limbaugh brigade, then you’re not paying close enough attention to the news lately.

My question is not whether people like being lied to; they do because the lie is a soft cozy pillow of “yay, the government will help me through all of the hard times and I don’t have to save for the future and furthermore can focus on watching my TV programs and not worry about actually debating someone when it comes to politics.”  Of course, if THAT is the kind of lie one likes to be told, then that person is a more than likely a Bernie Sanders supporter.  

As I already mentioned in my article about why people vote for Sanders, let me re-iterate that no amount of questioning the rhetoric of “free stuff for all!  Rich get punished the most!” well convince the blind followers who have foolishly convinced themselves of their own moral superiority towards those who don’t support Sanders.  Their typical line is “ugh, you just don’t get it, do you?”  It works too!  It’s the same crap that Sanders says himself.  There’s a great video where Bernie Sanders, in the heat of socialist passion alleges, “Alan Greenspan doesn’t know how the everyman lives!”  It’s SUCH an effective trick that my facebook feed was filled with people posting this same exact video.  Have they watched or read anything else about the housing bubble, the conditions that led to the economic meltdown?  I'm thinking no, but then I also think Exorcist II is a good movie.

Their rhetoric revolves around “unchecked capitalism” and making “them” (who exactly is “them”?) pay their “fair share” (what is the fair share?).  When I ask who “them” is, the answer is never the overpaid Hollywood actors, producers or directors who make stupid ass, quick cut, ADD generation, James Cameron tree hugging crappoid, Dances with Wolves but with Smurfs big budget crap.  Or who make movies like Elysium, where they over-simplify the healthcare debate to rich=mean/poor=good CGI syfy crap… those people are never overpaid.

Their version of overpaid are the CEOs, the Wallstreet spectators, the doctors who save lives but charge out the wazoo because of their need to put themselves through ten years of medical school and buy costly malpractice insurance and the lawyers who are (deservedly) maligned for softening sentences on equally deserving rich people who commit crimes.

But, even if, let’s say, everything WAS changed so that, per Bernie Sanders (not saying he would actually do this), Hollywood studios were mandated to only be allowed to pay actors at most $200,000 a year for all of their work in movies.  Without a doubt, it would throw off the supply and demand curve because talentless or ugly Joe-schmoes with no box office draw would demand and get paid the same exact amount as the super talented Ben Afflecks and Matt Damons (oh, my eyes are bleeding from how funny that was).  

The point is: Socialism doesn’t work.  We can try to stop crony capitalism or corporatism through encouraging companies to not use tax loopholes from setting up factories overseas or encourage companies to only hire Americans by stopping the tide of illegal immigration which forces wages way down, but the Socialist idea that Sanders has of capping off income, breaking up banks and giving everything away for free is pure snake oil, the type of which has bankrupted Greece and will bankrupt the rest of Europe.  And, if it doesn’t immediately bankrupt the U.S., it will lead to a life of mediocre complacency like in the Scandinavian world of Vikings, big breasted Aryan chicks and this guy, who goes on disability because he went to too many heavy metal concerts.  Actually, hey waaaait a minute… 

Also, keep in mind that Scandinavian countries are more homogeneous than the U.S.  Once the influx of immigrants is complete, well, then the country's state of complacency will break down quicker than the liquor I drink has broken down my stomach lining. 

Then there’s the other democratic candidate, Jim Webb…

Hahahaha, where’s the rim shot?  I’m just killing it today.

Okay, there’s the other democratic candidate, the lying, conniving, media exploiting, accent changing, pandering huckster, whose lack of accountability has left four Americans dead and, in the meantime covered up how she used a private email server for god knows what, because it’s all been deleted – though apparently, as noted on Fox News this morning, she had a few email exchanges with Ben “the most talented actor ever” Afleck and Lady “the not at all repulsive, man faced stripper singer” Gaga about  probably how she’s glad they’re making more money than most Americans yet complain about social issues and problems that they’ve never experienced first hand.

If this sounds like a rant, it is. 

Pick your poison libs: Sanders the socialist snake oil salesman or Clinton, the lying, sneaky, cheating, narcissistic, flip flopping and then lying about it, email up covering, sociopathic - you have to be to be able to so flippantly start throwing out Southern accents out of the blue as if you’re some kind of movie villain who can put on many disguises and think people won’t notice – snake oil saleswoman, who even liberals are starting to be weary about, but still default to because somehow, someone who spends eleven hours back pedaling and lying about Benghazi is somehow the lesser of the two evils.  And she supported the Iraq war, so liberals shouldn't like her for that.

Todd Courser: The Gift that Keeps on Giving

I am sitting in bed and I get a new message in my Gmail account, "Survey - Courser/Gamrat Hit or Justice". It is of course ironic that this was sent on Halloween Eve. Two Michigan State Representatives who misused their position and spent more time having sex with each other than doing their job. Instead of learning a lesson about humbleness, they chose haughtiness with this survey. The survey speaks for itself and is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen.

Survey - Courser/Gamrat Hit or Justice

1. How well has the media covered Courser and Gamrat issues?

Very fair - they have given us all the facts and they haven't hidden anything

Fair - the media has not shared all the relevant facts and has tailored the story in a biased way

Very unfair - the media has left out critical facts about the situation to attempt to destroy the two most conservative reps in the legislature.

Other (please specify)

2. Extortion Question - Given that the police have now concluded the investigation, filed their report, and have evidence of who was behind the extortion plot do you feel the prosecutor should reveal who is behind the plot so the public can know before the election?

Yes the public should know who was behind the plot and if they are connected to the allegations of misuse of funds.

No the public should not know who was extorting two sitting elected officials into resigning.

3. Gamrat has been among thee very best most conservative records in the state house in its history; do you support her?



Other (please specify)

4. Do you live in the 80th District? To Vote in the Gamrat Race?



I don't know

Other (please specify)

5. Courser has been among thee very best most conservative voting records in the state house in its history, do you support him?



Other (please specify)

6. Do you live in the 82nd District - to vote in the Courser Race?



I don't know

Other (please specify)

7. Would you rather support less Conservative Reps who will work hand in hand with the Progressives in the State House?

Yes, I would rather support less Conservative Reps who will work hand in hand with the Progressives in the State House

No, I support reps like Courser or Gamrat and will not support less Conservative Reps who will work hand in hand with the Progressives in the State House

Other (please specify)

8. Was the actions by the former staffers who were meeting secretly with the House Leadership a political hit by political adversaries to take out the two most conservative state reps?

Yes it was a political hit

No it was not a political hit

Other (please specify)

9. Given the former staffers who made the allegations wouldn't testify and there wasn't evidence of misuse of funds, do you support Gamrat's effort to retake her seat?



Other (please specify)

10. Given the former staffers who made the accusations would not testify and there wasn't evidence of misuse of funds, do you support Courser's efforts to retake the Rep seat?



Other (please specify)

11. The former staffers made accusations of misuse of state resources that were never substantiated or proven, no criminal charges were ever brought and these men refused to testify under oath do you believe these staffers allegations?



Other (please specify)

12. The former staffers were in secret meetings with the Speaker and his team from the first days of the term, do you think this was a political hit by political adversaries/ or simply the House acting in good governance?

This was a political hit

This was simply justice

Other (please specify)

13. Courser made commitments to not vote for a spending or tax increase and held to those commitments - do you want a rep who makes such promises and holds to them or no?

No, I want a Rep who simply says they will not vote for increased taxes/spending but then votes for them anyway

Yes, I want a Rep who will not vote for a spending/taxing increase

I want a Rep who will say they vote for spending and tax increases and then does it

Other (please specify)

14. What do you consider yourself?



Fiscal Conservative

Social Conservative

Fiscal/Social Conservative

Other (please specify)

15. I want a rep in office who?

Stands for Conservatism

Signs secret agreements with the Progressive Leadership and gives that Leadership their votes on big Progressive items

Stands for the Progressive cause

Says he/she is a fiscal and social conservative but doesn't do anything about it

Votes for every Progressive item presented

Other (please specify)

16. Rep Courser and Rep Gamrat were among the most Conservative Reps to ever sit in the State House - do you prefer to support Reps who are less Conservative?



Other (please specify)

17. Do you support the Speaker of the House when he forces Reps to sign secret agreements and vote against their Districts?

I support the Speaker.

I don't support the Speaker.

Other (please specify)

18. Do you support the Governor in his efforts to increase spending and taxes?



Other (please specify)

19. Who would you like to see as the next president?











Other (please specify)

Powered by
See how easy it is to create a survey.

Should Republicans Hate Taxes?

Last week I went to a local Republican meeting. At the meeting one of the State Representatives spoke about a recent vote that took place in the legislature. A little bit of background is needed. Michigan is notoriously known for having the absolute worst roads in the United States. Many of my fellow drivers have received numerous flat tires, broken axles and many other car ailments. A road funding and fixing bill was necessary and has been argued for in the Michigan Legislature for nearly two years.

Last year, instead of passing a bill, the legislature passed the buck onto the people of Michigan and asked voters to vote for the tax increase. It left many of us very frustrated because that is seemingly the job of the legislature. The voters overwhelming rejected the measure and sent it back up to Lansing. Many will argue that the vote against was because Michiganders don't want higher taxes.

In fact, during the meeting that I went to, there was a line at the microphone in order to yell at the Republican State Representative who voted for a tax increase to fund the ailing roads. Many argued it was illegal and against the Hedley amendment (it was not). The bottom line that many seemed to suggest was that Republicans hate taxes.

Is this true?

Have we become the party that says no to ANY tax increase?

The short answer is yes and frankly it is a bad strategy. Now I am NOT advocating that we go gallivanting around and raise taxes willy nilly. Oakland County has had two milage increases, in which voters wanted to pay for the zoo and art museum. Voters don't mind paying taxes, but they also want accountability. The current strain of pure anti-tax Republicans is stupid and counterproductive. Voters want accountability. I suspect that the young State Rep at our meeting will probably not be re-elected. But I applaud him doing what he is paid to do as a representative, help run our state. If anti-tax Republicans in Michigan would like to be helpful, they would help balance, raise and lower taxes in a smart economic sense.

Things Fall Apart

Dateline:  The Flyover States - October 25, 2015

It hasn't been a great few weeks for truth, justice, or the American Way.

•The Holder/Lynch DOJ announced that neither Lois Lerner nor anyone else at the IRS will face any charges in tea party targeting scandal. Presumably, Lois will also get to keep the $129,000 in bonuses she earned in 2012 and 2013.

•Hillary Clinton testified for 11 hours in front of the Benghazi Committee. She blamed others, contradicted what she'd said before, and bizarrely implied that Ambassador Stevens was responsible for his own death because "he could have called me if he needed me." Media summary: "Hillary's amazing! She testified for 11 hours!"

•On the Republican side, somewhere north of 60% of Republican voters now believe that clownish real estate developer and reality show host Donald Trump will eventually be their nominee.

•A new study finds that, by a 51% to 36% margin, college students favor speech codes, and 63% percent want professors to use 'trigger warnings'. More disturbingly, 35% believe the First Amendment does not protect “hate speech,” and 30 percent of self-identified liberal students say it's outdated anyway. 

•US media gets a second shout-out, continuing its through-the-looking-glass reporting on the Middle East. CNN leads the way, selecting "Palestinians shot boarding kids' bus" as the headline for a story about armed terrorists who were stopped before they could kill children on a school bus. The New York Times weeps for the frustration of the Palestinians but loves that funky Stabbing Intifada beat!

•In Washington, Barack Obama continues to cram every bit of chewy left-wing goodness into his  waning months in the White House: supporting the anti-cop Black Lives Matter movement, vetoing desperately needed funding for the military, and having a grip-and-grin with CAIR poster boy Ahmed "Clock Kid" Mohamed (fresh off the latter's meeting with the Butcher of Darfur). On "60 Minutes," Obama sniffed that he wasn't at all concerned about Putin in Syria, and that “my definition of leadership would be leading on climate change."

There are now 452 days before Obama leaves office. But the prospect of a Clinton-Trump election next November suggests that the problem isn't so much Obama as the people who voted for him. That would be us...and that problem isn't going anywhere.

I Pledge Allegiance

Do you actually?
Or do you just recite without thinking? 
Pledge of Allegiance

v IMe, an individual capable of individual thought and critical analysis
v Pledge AllegianceGive my word and my honor
v To the Flag of the United States of AmericaThat symbol of our country and the belief system which made it great: The importance of the individual and of self-determination. The unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
v And to the Republic for which it StandsOur form of representative government with each individual having the right to speak their thoughts both in the public square and in the privacy of the voting booth.
v One Nation An entity unified by a political system operating under a single Constitution, a common language, a shared belief in the sanctity of the individual and personal responsibility and the rights inherent to being a human.
v Under God Our basic culture: The belief in a supreme set of ethics and morals. The belief that we, as humans, are not infallible. The acceptance that there is a higher and more important power than ourselves, Nature’s God.
v Indivisible We are not 50 separate states operating as a Federation. We are not a group of nationalities living within an artificial political boundary. We are not a collection of cultures wanting to bring our former national homes to this land. We are one group of people living one culture with one common government and speaking one national language.
v With Liberty and Justice for AllEach and every individual has the right to life unencumbered by rules, regulations and the Government and when accused of a transgression has the right to a fair analysis and adjudication by those living in the same environment and under the same social expectations.

The Grand Mufti and the Nazis

With all the people giving a hard time to the Prime Minister of Israel about his made up story (yes it was made up). We lose track of the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was an evil man. We neglect the fact that he WAS a Nazi! We forget that Netanyahu is not dealing with a leader like Ghandi or even Malcolm X. He is dealing with a people who have a long history of hating and inciting Arabs to murder Jews. Please take a few minutes to watch the history and learn.

Farfour: Death by Mickey Mouse

"But what about the settlements?"

That was my friend and colleague Sandra* circa 2008. I was trying to convince her that Palestinian Jew-hatred was responsible for most of the problems in the region, and she was blaming it on a battle over particular bits of land.

Liberals like Sandra don't understand that the Palestinians aren't really after a Two-State Solution; they're going for more of a Final Solution. The purported new state of Palestine is to be 100% Judenrein; Abbas has been clear about that. And—thanks to the so-called right of return—as soon as those 9 million Palestinian "refugees" move back into what is now known as Israel, well, that little 'Jew problem' in Haifa and Tel Aviv and Jerusalem is going to resolve itself in no time!

The settlements are an excuse. The problem is not little bits of land. The problem, as Jeffrey Goldberg points out in in this Atlantic article (which I sent to Sandra but which still didn't convince her), is the Palestinian culture of obsessive hatred for Jews.

Introducing Farfour.

You may have heard about this mascot-like Mickey Mouse character, star of a popular children's show in Gaza that ran on "al Aqsa TV" (a Hamas subsidiary). Farfour was eventually murdered by Zionists; his place was taken by an equally anti-Semitic bee and a rabbit. Farfour taught the kids that their land had been stolen by—well hey, see for yourselves. The video's only 3:23; you've got that much time.

Twelve-year-olds who are fed a constant diet of this stuff do not grow up to be 22-year-olds who want to make peace with Jews. When you understand this, you start to understand the conflict.

*Names have been changed to protect the liberals.

Israel's Unrequited Love for the Rest of Mankind

Evelyn Gordon writes this week about Israel's "diminishing returns":
John Kerry’s speech at Harvard...and the State Department’s subsequent series of walk-backs left me with one clear conclusion: Israel ought to start building massively in the settlements and change the status quo on the Temple Mount. Because if it’s going to be blamed for doing both even when it is, in fact, doing neither, it should at least get the very real benefits that taking those steps would entail.

I'm with Evelyn. What's the cliche: 'might as well be damned for a wolf as for a sheep'? If the world is going to believe the worst about Israel anyway, why not just ignore the world? What is Israel gaining by repeatedly rolling over and letting the big dogs pee on it?

As of this writing, Palestinians have murdered at least eight Israelis. (In one horrific scene caught on video, a man deliberately crashes his car into a crowd and then gets out and starts attacking the wounded with a cleaver.)

But does anyone care? Is there support for Israel? Are people clear-eyed about who is the attacker and who the attacked? Hardly. "Deafening silence" is exactly the right phrase.

And it's not like Israel has to play nice because of the "unbreakable alliance" with the US. What might the White House do: threaten to withdraw support at the UN, stonewall about nuclear negotiations with Iran, call its leader an "Asperberg-y...chickenshit"? stop shipments of materiel during a war, accuse it of terrorism for defending itself?

Oh—wait—the Obama White House has already done all those things.

So the administration deplores the "cycle of violence" that "both sides" are equally responsible for. The UN professes itself deeply concerned—not about the terrorism, but about Israel's "disproportionate" response.

And the media, well, they've outdone themselves with deftly spun, highly edited headlines like "Palestinian teen killed by Israeli soldiers." The icing on the cake was a New York Times article that cast doubt on the claim that there had been a Jewish temple on the, um, Temple Mount.

And these are the people Israel is trying to impress? Why?

The Gun-Control Article that Rejected

Because Ezra Drissman is so cheap and doesn’t pay me enough for writing for The New Paine, I’m forced, from time to time, to sell out my principles and submit a piece to websites whose views I feel run in direct opposition to mine.  My latest attempt, to write an article in support of eliminating guns from the face of the western world and submit it to the Social Justice Warriors at, sadly failed.

You may be wondering why, in spite the fact that I do not support gun control on the level that the gun control advocates do and in spite the fact that there is no real given evidence that owning a gun will lead to gun violence and in spite the fact that if you took out cities like Detroit, Cleveland and Baltimore from their studies on gun control, that the “per capita” gun control violent statistic would not be very much different from that of European countries, and in spite the fact that European countries like Switzerland allow half of their population to own guns and in spite the fact that even liberals are starting to question and downright refute Obama’s push for stronger gun control measures as a way to deter gun violence and in spite the fact that women who walk in dark streets at night or have their houses broken into and want an extra level of protection might want to own a gun, I would be even be able to come up with a reason to support stronger gun control (in leftist nu-speak: eliminate gun ownership altogether).

Well, in true spirit of classic articles like Why men are evil and should all be euthanized and in helping the gun control advocates find reasons to ban guns where they are too stupid and lazy to find it themselves, here is my original article I submitted to

Guns are everywhere these days.  Some people use them for target practice.  Some people use them for target practice on other people.  Bottom line is: people need to stop using them.  They hurt people and, in some cases, even kill them.  Whether you’re Dylan Roof, Elliott Roger, Christopher Harper-Mercer or the thousands of gang members who kill each other in drive by shootings or at parties in “the hood” (sorry, I know it sounds racist), the fact is, the statistics show, “no guns = no violence.”  In case you needed MORE reasons, here are five why you shouldn’t own guns.

1.       Guns are as addictive as tattoos.

Do you have a tattoo?  No?  Of course you don’t , because if you had a tattoo, that means you have several  tattoos and you realize that one isn’t enough.  First, you want the peace sign, then you want some kanji, then you want that semi elaborate piece that’s an homage to Gandolph or Darth Vader, then, next thing you know, you’re getting an elaborate $1500 back piece designed for you which has a tiger leading a Spanish armada during a dimly lit sky that resembles "Starry Night"; unless you have a really good job, you’re going to bankrupt yourself getting all of that permanent ink affixed to your body, which by 60, won’t look nearly as hot as it when you were 30. 

Same thing applies with guns.  First you want the revolver, then you want the automatic hand cannon, then you want the 9mm, then the glock, then the bazooka, and so on and so forth.  Next thing you know, there are so many guns in your house, there is room for nothing else and you're broke and soon to be homeless and ready for battle.  And who do you think you’re going to be doing battle with?  Chances are you’ll be doing battle with the man who comes to repossess your home and you’ll think you’re Mel Gibson in Mad Max and you’ll start shooting people and then you’ll be carted off to prison with nothing to show for it, but your awesome gun collection, which then will also get auctioned off.  Just don’t start!

2.       When a woman owns a gun, she’s saying she’s not as tough as a man.

Unless you’re a sexist pig, you realize that women are as tough as men.  Therefore, like any man, a woman should be able to go anywhere and everywhere without any form of protection.  Oh sure, we can placate the rape culture and patriarchy by telling her that she should carry some mace or learn some neat self-defense tricks to ward off the bad guys, but, the truth is, she shouldn’t have to.  A woman should be able to walk anywhere and everywhere and men should be stepping aside and not raping her.  Since everyone is human and everyone can be reasoned with, than it stands to reason, every man should and could be taught not to rape.  Granted this tactic hasn’t worked with robbers, muggers and murderers of all types, but I’m fairly certain that if the ghettos and back allies where these rapes happen had anti-rape classes, then rapes probably wouldn't happen.

Sorry, that seemed racist.  Okay, let's talk about the non-street rape that is allegedly an epidemic at college campuses.  The fact is, if a woman brought in a gun to the frat party that never happened, that Rolling Stone erroneously reported about, would she have blasted away her would be assailants?  See, right wingers?  You can’t go into a party and just kill people!  Remember: women are as tough as men and don’t need guns to prove it and we need to stop men from overpowering women, even though they’re as tough as men.

3.       What, are you gay or something?

This one’s for my gun loving “males” (not that anyone should be defined by any genders anymore anyway) who own guns.  Let’s face it fellas; guns are phallic and, if you like to hold guns, you clearly like to hold other mens’ penises.  Why else would you purchase bigger and bigger guns?  Surely it can’t be because you legitimately enjoy the craft or enjoy sport hunting, target shooting or own them for self-defense, can it?  Look at the school shooters.  What do they all have in common?  Okay, aside from that they were all mentally unstable ticking time bombs that nobody had any interest in paying attention to;  Gay.  Yep.  They weren’t so much as “mentally unstable” as they were sexually (and I do mean homosexual sexually) repressed, you homophobic creeps.  They were gay and, because they weren’t allowed to express their homosexuality in public since our country is homophobic, they brought guns to public places and “released” their tension on innocent people.

Oh, so you’re saying you’re a “man” and you have guns and several children and you live a happy, normal and productive life?  Clearly more signs of your latent homosexuality.  Nobody calls their lives “normal” anymore because there is no normal, you closed minded, prejudiced fuck.  If you have to call your gun filled, sex filled, child filled, “happy” family life normal, then that means you’re calling people who don’t have those things abnormal, which means, not only are you hiding your homosexuality, but you’re doing it with bigotry, you gun loving, homophobic fuckhead.

4.       What next: Grenades?  Land mines?

Have you met a gun owner that didn’t own a grenade launcher or fill his or her (sorry, I know that’s heteronormative, but for the sake of the bigots reading this, I’m using “their” language) backyard with land mines and then invite neighbors to reenact a World War I scenario by having his or her (again, sorry) neighbor run through it while shooting grenades at his or her (sorry a third time) neighbor?  Of course not!  That’s because the government doesn’t allow private civilians to own land mines and grenade launchers. 

Now extend it to gun owners.  If the government said people weren’t allowed to own guns, then it’s PRETTY CLEAR that people wouldn’t USE THEM.  And I know you’re thinking; “that’s pretty absurd to think that the lack of legality is what's keeping deadly weapons out of people's hands, since it clearly isn't" and "why don’t we eliminate the knives, axes, hatches, bows and arrows and other items which could be used to hurt people as well?”  Well, we’re working on it.  You and your children will just have to live without archery.

5.       Owning a gun, even for protection, is racist.

If “owning a gun legally” and “possessing a gun” are, in fact, two different things, then, it stands to reason, that gun possessors are gang members and other riff raff that cause the absurd spikes in gun violence in the inner city, NOT your legal gun owners who live in boring-ass places like Maine or Idaho.  Therefore, it’s pretty clear that, if you are a gun owner – typically white, male and (ahem) straight – your ownership of a gun is further proof that you are then a racist.  This is why if, you should find yourself in New York, L.A., Chicago or Baltimore and you happen to take the wrong route and end up in the inner city, rather than one of those safe, boring suburbs and, if you should pull out your gun and use it for protection during a mugging or car theft, you have thus committed a hate crime.  I know, the mugger might be a white guy and you might be a suburban black guy, but chances are, he might still consider himself black and you’re from the suburbs, which means you’re trying to be white and thus racist and against other blacks AND yourself, therefore, it’s still a hate crime.  Capiche?

Yep, they rejected that.  Oh well, better luck next time.