<$BlogRSDURL$>

Friday, May 07, 2004

Where's The Outrage? 

So, Jean F'ing Ketchup is calling on Rumsfeld to resign. A bunch of Ketchup's backers are echoing that call. The only Leftstream Media outlet allowed in my home, a NY Slimes clone, the The Detroit Free Press has called on Rumsfeld to resign in an editorial. There was absolutely nothing of substance in the editorial, just the usual drivel about the rest of the world hates the Bush Admin, blah...blah...blah. The irony apparently lost on everyone is that Ketchup is an admitted war criminal. The circumstances in which he won his Silver Star is a war crime, he shoot a wounded combatant. Ketchup justified his slanderous lies about service men still in Viet Nam with the Nuremburg defense, he was only following orders, it was US policy in Viet Nam.
First thing first, let's remember the Army has been investigating this. The media needs to quit hugging themselves because they didn't break any stories, they're just politicizing the war. They want Bush out of the White House and will do anything towards that goal.

Consider the following

Where. Is. The. Outrage?

I know the War on Terror (puts on tin foil hat) is all about Dick Cheney and Haliburton along with Bechtel making money. The only reason that fighting is still going on is because the Carlyle Group sold weapons and ammo to all these people fighting, and the Zionists, Free Masons, and the Illuminati are pulling the strings of the neocons who as the media delights is in telling us, pulls Pres. B's strings. (Takes off tin foil hat).

The call for Rumsfeld to resign is nothing more than cheap politics in an election year. There have been too many chances for people to be outraged at real human rights abuses. They only choose to be outraged at America because we are a transparent democracy. Because of who we are, we advertise our failures as well as our successes. It's time for the "world community" to sack up and call the true oppressors of human rights on their oppression. The entire reason people attack the US is because we make the rest of the world irrelevant. It's a good thing they are irrelevant, for the listed reasons above. We are the only country who is willing to go to war to liberate a people from their own repressive government. Without the US, there would not be any democracy&trade in the world.

War For Oil Update 413 days after the start of the War For Oil, oil prices are expected to go up again.
|

Thursday, May 06, 2004

Progressivism=Socialism 

I was slumming last night. I caught Katrina vanden Heuvel (editor of the far Left rag The Nation who also didn't know who her congressman was when asked by Chris Mathews on Hardball) on Dennis Miller's show. She played word games with Progressivism, and Liberalism in response to Jean F'ing Ketchup's attempt to run away from the liberal label. She claimed that the majority of the people support the regressive, sorry, I mean progressive economic policies of the Left. First thing, I'm going to shoot down her little theory that the majority of the people support "progressivism." If that were true, then Jean F'ing Ketchup wouldn't be running away from the liberal label. Incidentally, the people who frequent DU and Indymedia who tend to reefer to the Right as fascists and are the Bush=Hitler crowd, and see themselves as "progressives" should read this enlightening essay.

I pulled this from the Mackinac Center For Public Policy, and it sheds some light as to why "progressivism" is wrong for us economically.

Senator John Kerry has suggested that companies that "take their jobs" overseas are traitors and complains that not enough jobs are being created under President Bush’s tenure. Unfortunately, a candidate for President would not be making such statements unless a lot of people thought the same way, which shows how poorly understood our economic system is.

The media doesn't tell us the entire story, the eucation system fails us, is it any wonder people don't know how the economic system works? I saw someplace that each outcourced job creates something like 2.2 new jobs.
First and foremost, the purpose of a business is not to provide jobs, but rather to produce goods and services. If the purpose of a company were to create jobs, then I would form the Wolfram Canal Digging Company, hire thousands of people, give them spoons, and dig a canal across the state of Michigan.[...]

Why does the world economy follow America's economy? Because we have the strongest economy? Why is that? China and India have more people, Russia, China, Inda, and Canada have more land than we do. In one word, capatalism. Capitalsim rewards achievement, it just doesn't hand things to people. Companies must achieve a profit, and if a company cannot achieve a profit, workers tend to lose their jobs, and if a company achieves a profit, it hires more people to reinvest in itself and achieve a higher profit. Simple. Unfortunatly, most "progressives" see themselves as vastly intellagent and cannot understand why simple solutions and profit motive works better than government controll.
[...]The current economic recovery – nonfarm employment increased by more than 300,000 jobs in March – has been a bit like the magic auto-manufacturing machine. Worker productivity - that is, output per hour worked – in the manufacturing sector has risen to new heights. This has, in many ways, been due to new technology and new methods of keeping track of inventory, methods of production, etc.

There's that profit motive thing again.
So we have seen GDP growth at the highest levels in twenty years, which means the country as a whole is richer. This growth in productivity means that workers that were producing some manufactured goods, such as automobiles, can be released to produce something else, something new. Labor has been saved because firms have had the incentive to invest in machinery and technology that makes it possible to produce goods with less labor.[...]

Wow, this capitalsim thing works pretty good.
[...]If we sacrificed this dynamism in an attempt to preserve jobs starting in 1950, we would still be listening to our music on turntables, and using typewriters and carbon paper. If we started to "preserve jobs" before the Industrial Revolution, most of us would still be on farms in families with high mortality rates. Note also that if businesses fail to innovate and find less expensive ways to produce, their owners will find they no longer have income to feed their children.[...]

Our economy is fluid, always moving which is another reason that we have the strongest economy in the world. We may not always manufacture the cheapest goods, but most of them are invented here. Computers, cars, cell phones, etc.
[...] These workers are now able to work in economies that are moving into market capitalism. Companies can now place factories in places like India and make use of the skilled and unskilled labor there to produce less expensive goods for Americans. Since the Indians will now be more productive with the use of capital that was not there before, Indians will become wealthier and earn higher wages over the long run. This is exactly what happened in Japan over the last 50 years.

This kind of blows away the "sweatshop" hysterics. As Thomas Sowell has written many times, the people who work for American companies overseas tend to have more money than people who work for non-American companies, but their productivity is less than workers in America, so there is cost to moving jobs overseas. Their productivity matches their cheaper costs.
Again, there will be workers who will have to find something else to do. But the reality is that they will find something else to do, since there will be enormous opportunities to produce goods for the Indians who will now be wealthy enough to buy our goods.

That's a reactiion to the new world economy thing that the unions and Democrats don't like because of cheaper costs involved in production. The anti-globalization protesetors who are against "sweatshops" are also against the economies of other countries growing, but for some reason, they think they are helping the third world countries by protesting jobs going there.
For many families this will mean short-term losses. But for the vast majority of Americans it will mean increased wealth. In fact, foreign companies have found it so beneficial to locate in the U.S. that the number of people employed by foreign companies in the U.S. far exceeds the number of people employed by U.S. firms overseas. Examples include the Novartis Company moving its research and development operation from Switzerland to Massachusetts and Samsung building a $500 million plant in Texas. Insourcing to the U.S. created 6.4 million jobs in 2001, with 34% of these jobs in the manufacturing sector.

More jobs have been insourced than outsourced, but we don't hear about those jobs in the liberal media. I guess it doesn't fit in with their anti-Bush agenda. When Clinton was president, 5.6% unemployment was good, under Pres. B, 5.6% unemployment is a disaster.
The economic recovery that is being accomplished through tax cuts, particularly lower capital gains taxes, and free trade is in a transition stage. More goods are being produced with the need for less labor. But we are already seeing the increased opportunities to produce new things being realized. We can expect job growth to continue throughout the year as workers make the transition into new employment opportunities.

The federal deficit estiamte has been reduced by $100 billion dollars. The reason cited, the tax cuts have increased job creation and thus increased the people paying taxes. Simple Reaganomics.
Our economy is more progressive than it would be under the regressive policies of a "progressive" administration. Remeber what a Ketchup administration would do to our economic growth.

Fraudulent Coalition Update I know this has been bandied about the blogoshpere, and it bears repeating that other countries respect domocracy&trade enough to support us in bringing democracy&trade to the people of Iraq who lived under a murderous dictator for 30 years. In news from the Legitimate Coalition, Berlin, Moscow, and Paris were bought and paid for by Saddam's blood-oil money.

War For Oil Update 412 days after the start of the War For Oil, the pipeline across Afganistan remains a figment of the Left's imigination.
|

Wednesday, May 05, 2004

Revisiting the Past 

My first post was a bit of a fisking of Michael Moore-on telling us how Wes Clark was to be our next president. I don't think I need to tell anyone how that turned out. Now, Moore-on is whining because his latest anti-Bush/anti-American propaganda piece is being stopped by Disney. Apparently, the people at Disney don't expect Joe AverageAmerican to pay money to see a bunch of lies about 9/11.

I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter.


What censorship is he referring to? The lies in Bowling for Colombine have been documented. None of his nonfiction books and mocumentaries have been censored. Unless consumers not spending money on his drivel is censorship. What Moore-on neglects to mention, a company has the right to decide how it spends its money. The government is doing nothing to stop this movie, therefore it is not censorship. Anyways, nobody is stopping Moore-on from using the millions he has stashed away to fund his film lies.

Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." The reason? According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. The story is on page one of the Times and you can read it here (Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush).


It might endanger, not it will endanger. At the same time, Disney executives deny this. Moore-on is speculating here, he is using his agent's speculation as fact. Disney has not announced why they will not allow Miramax to distribute Moore-on's latest bile.
[...]Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.[...]
A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash miring distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many. [...]

I would think that Moore-on would at least read the article that he claims supports him. Maybe he thinks that people who believe his bile will not read the article, and take what he says as fact.

The whole story behind this (and other attempts) to kill our movie will be told in more detail as the days and weeks go on. For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge (well, OK, sorry -- it WILL upset them...big time. Did I mention it's a comedy?). All I can say is, thank God for Harvey Weinstein and Miramax who have stood by me during the entire production of this movie.


Why don't you tell us now? Are you still making up why no one wants to touch your "movie" with a ten foot pole? There will always be "art" that will upset those in charge. Harvy Weinstein is one of the biggest liberals in Hollywierd (which is saying a lot), and it's no surprise that he'll take something that tries to blame 9/11 on Bush.

There is much more to tell, but right now I am in the lab working on the print to take to the Cannes Film Festival next week (we have been chosen as one of the 18 films in competition). I will tell you this: Some people may be afraid of this movie because of what it will show. But there's nothing they can do about it now because it's done, it's awesome, and if I have anything to say about it, you'll see it this summer -- because, after all, it is a free country.


Of course your piece of filth was chosen for Cannes. They hate AmeriKKKa almost as much as you do, and they'll take Moore-on's lies as gospel truth. Who are these people who are scared of what your film lies will show? Why don't you tell us? The government isn't scared of what you have to say. The 99.9% of the people who know that you are nothing more than a lying anti-AmeriKKKan propagandist have no desire to see this piece of filth.

Update This was on Boortz's website today. "Filmmaker and waste of oxygen Michael Moore has admitted that he lied about Disney recently refusing to distribute his film. Anyone surprised? I didn't think so. Turns out there was no recent decision on the part of Disney to not put out his partisan, Bush-bashing picture....he was told over a year ago it wasn't going to happen. So much for the cries of censorship. Think the media will retract their stories? Of course not.

Moore admitted during an interview with CNN that he knew a long time ago Disney wasn't going to release it. This after he wrote a letter to his supporters saying he only found out Monday. So, he lied. Nothing new here...Michael Moore has been lying for years. Will the mainstream media call him on it?

Disney should sue him after that little publicity stunt. Why does anyone take this guy seriously?"

|

The Burden of Proof 

It's no secret the media is liberally biased. That's not a problem for those of us who can read between the lines, and more than the first paragraph of any story. Where it becomes a problem, however, is when they quit being liberally biased and become another appendage of the DNC and the Kerry campaign. In Pres B's press conference, it sounded like the media got their questions from DNC talking points. But, look at they way the media treats the military records of Kerry and Bush. Ann Coulter says it best
[...] Bush's National Guard service is the most thoroughly investigated event since the Kennedy assassination. But the Democrats will accept only two possible conclusions to their baseless accusations: (1) Bush was "AWOL," or (2) the matter needs further investigation.[...]

Bush had to show the press every shred of paper that had anything to do with his service, but it's still attacked. The doctor who treated Kerry's first "injury" says it was just a scratch. The doctor treated it with a band-aid, but it's not clear yet as to whether or not he kissed it to stop the it from hurting. Kerry could put this to a rest, if he would only release his medical records among other records he has yet to release. Swift Boat Veterans For Truth called on Kerry to do that, but when this is a summation of your actions while serving, it's no secret why Kerry is not releasing all his records. Now, where's the media? They were howling for Bush to prove that he fulfilled his Guard obligations after getting an honorable discharge. Why isn't the media clamoring for Kerry's medical records? I don't remember where I read it, but a Viet Nam veteran wrote that the only other person that he heard of getting as many medals as Kerry in such a short among of time was a Marine Spec Forces trooper. We have the Abu Ghraib abuses going on now, and the media is all over it. What the media is not reminding us though is that Kerry claimed the atrocities were the norm in Viet Nam and that everyone up and down the chain of command knew about them. However, no one in the media is asking Kerry to back up his claims. He slandered all the soldiers still in Viet Nam, and he is able to skate by without having to back up his claims. Kerry is making his service in Viet Nam as the centerpiece for his new ad campaign, but why is the media not questioning him on the "atrocities" that he himself witnessed, but did not report or that he himself said he took part in? The simple answer to those questions are that there were no atrocities, but Kerry is not being made to answer his false claims. Why not? Why is the media not subjecting Kerry's claims, and his doublespeak to the same scrutiny that Bush is getting for an issue that was resolved in the 2000 elections?

The simple fact is that Leftists in the media (and elsewhere) will do what they have to do to see Bush defeated in the election. They have two different burdens of proof. Bush has to prove beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt that he is innocent, and even then as Ms Coulter illustrates above, they still won't believe him, and Kerry has to be found standing over a dead body with a smoking gun and still the media wouldn't believe he was guilty unless he gave a signed confession, and even that would be questioned.

NRO has the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth's letter to Kerry and the doctor who treated Kerry remembers his wound.

War For Oil Update 411 days after the start of the War For Oil, gas prices remain high.
|

Tuesday, May 04, 2004

UN Human Dictator's Rights Commission 

The African nations have made their nomination to the Human Dictator's Rights Commission. Sudan. First thing first, why does Africa get a voice on the commission? There is not one legitimate democracy in Africa. Second of all, the Congressional Black Caucus should be up in arms over Sudan's appointment. One of Sudan's international claims to fame is a brisk slave market. I suppose though we really shouldn't be surprised about this because of the UN's habit of coddling dictators and appointing countries such as China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and giving Libya the chairmanship of the Human Dictator's Protection Club. Again though, one just looks to the leadership of the UN, the great man of peace, who was in charge of Africa during the Rwandan genocide, and the Oil-For-Food mess (pt 1) (pt 2). Koffi Annan once said that Saddam Hussein was a man he could do business with. He should have added to the tune of $10 billion in business.
Koffi Annan won a Nobel Peace Prize.
There is a small movement that is moving in to take over the waste of space in NYC commonly known as the UN, and it can't come soon enough for me.
The UN is nothing more than an international crime syndicate run for the benefit of non-democratic countries. It is time that US taxpayer money stops funding it. Now that the heat is on Koffi and Kompany, they are beginning to stonewall the Oil-For-Food investigation. Why? I thought they have nothing to hide. I can only hope the House Foreign Relations Committee decides that unless the UN is fully forthcoming they can get out of the US and find someone else to host them and fund them and give them parking tickets that will never be paid. Let Old Europe take care of them. They are just as impotent as the UN. Another thing to remember is the Koffi and Kompany are trying to stop a book from being published that show the abuses of power that the UN regularly engages in, including a prostitution ring in Bosnia. Hiding something Koffi?
These are the people that Jean F'ing Ketchup wants to put in charge of US foreign policy. Remember that this November.

Update The US walked out of the UN session today in protest of Sudan's unopposed election to the UN Human Dictator's Rights Commission. Aren't there any other "democratic" nations who respect human rights?

War For Oil Update 410 days after the start of the War For Oil, gas prices remain high.
|

Monday, May 03, 2004

Send In The Clowns 



War For Oil Update 409 days after the War For Oil began, UN officials, Paris, Berlin, and Moscow profited from Saddam's cheap oil. The same cheap oil has yet to reach America.
|

Sunday, May 02, 2004

The Intellectual Elite 

For those of you who buy into the theory of liberal intellectualism should read this.
|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?