Let the flames begin.
I'm going to start with Rick Santorum, who has recently declared war on pornography.
Santorum declared that pornography is an obscene "pandemic." This, of course requires the jackboot of government to intrude into your bedroom in order to stamp it out.
It is particularly amusing how Republicans claim to be all for "less government" right up until two people want to have sex (an act, I remind everyone, that results in us all being here) or until someone wants to put the wrong substance in their body (that is, one they aren't taxing today.) The "war" on (some) drugs is a particularly-galling example, given that the most addictive substance known to mankind (according to Dr. Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General) is sold over the counter in thousands of stores across the land and another highly-addictive and dangerous drug (alcohol) can be had in unlimited quantities by the glass or flask essentially everywhere.
[Related -Information Services Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:III): The Mega-Millions Winner]
I can see the point of Santorum's "war" should he limit it to places like the SEC, but only because in that instance it is an endemic fraud. That is, we're paying SEC staffers to investigate financial crime, not wank off and damage their computer monitors with rogue ejaculations.
[Related -Yum! Brands, Inc.(NYSE:YUM): An Attractive Stock To Own Given Potential EPS Growth]
Pornography in America is an obscene "pandemic," Santorum's website says. "It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."
Really? I'm quite sure that every ax murderer and school shooter has imbibed milk at some point. This of course means that we must ban milk immediately as it "contributes" to both school violence, prostitution, sex trafficking and more.
Speaking of misogyny Rick, where are the female Catholic priests in your church? Before the screaming starts, yes, that's sarcastic -- I'm Catholic and well-aware of the theological arguments both for and against allowing it. Nonetheless this is a religious decision much as is the screaming about porn, and yet there is also a clean argument to be made that one would much rather have someone committing masturbation than a violent assault. Does porn help those people "find release"? Hell if I know, but the assertion that it does (or doesn't) is about as valid as Rick's pandemic claim.
At the end of the day this issue, along with so many others, comes down to a demand for more nanny-state nonsense. "I don't like X so I want to use the power of the government to shove a gun up your nose and demand that you not do it."
Here's the problem with that folks -- there's something every one of us does that one or more of our neighbors doesn't like.
John Locke wrote on many such points before America existed in exactly this context. One must remember how America came to be -- we broke away from a tyrannical government in England precisely because they wanted to tell us how to live.
Locke asserted that the law has no place criminalizing all that is a sin against God. You need only look to the 10 Commandments to find things that are sins yet should not be laws. For example the first three commandments demand fealty to said God and declare that acts which diminish said fealty are sinful (holding forth other Gods, making of a "graven image" and cursing God.) Yet our First Amendment specifically bars laws criminalizing the two words "G-d Damn", and with good cause.
In addition the 4th and 5th Commandments demand fealty to a day (you may not cut your grass on Sunday) and that you must "honor" your parents. What if your parents are beasts? Some are, you know.
Finally, the 10th Commandment declares as sinful coveting -- the desire for something that is not yours. Yet in order to make such a law one would have to be able to see inside your mind. There is no overt act associated with coveting -- it is entirely a mental exercise.
The premise of civil government is that just laws criminalize only conduct that harms others. That is, when you harm someone else's rights, or violate the public peace, then and only then is there a just argument for government sanction. Lying is not punishable (although sinful) except when it prejudices another's rights, such as in a court filing.
In other words the offense against God is not the punishable act under a civil and just society, only the offense against the peace and others living in that society.
The Republicans are in the process of devolving down to Sharia Law in point of fact. This barbarism in both Christian and Muslim trim was responsible for much suffering and death in years gone by, and the Judeo-Christian traditions allegedly left it behind. Muslim terrorism exists for the specific reason that they did not -- jihadists believe that a slight against "their God" gives license to retribution by adherents of their faith against the alleged maligner.
It is this very premise that Rick Santorum has adopted and it is beyond dangerous -- it is a literal throwback to the period of the Crusades nearly 900 years ago. That this sort of barbaric thought process has managed to emerge in a serious candidate within one of our mainstream political parties has terrifying overtones; not only is such blatantly unconstitutional and anyone holding such public beliefs thus unable to take the oath of office without having committed an explicit act of sedition it is exactly the sort of crap that ultimately led to revolution both here in the United States and elsewhere.
Then we have this:
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the abject stupidity of this poster, but let's go down the list and demolish it point-by-point.
1. The CBO has now stated that Obamacare will run deficits that are double that which was projected. In other words the premise of "more affordable" is a lie; it will do no such thing. I and many others predicted exactly that at the time, simply on the math -- you can't make something more-affordable by demanding subsidization and cost-shifting. It simply doesn't work that way. "Who would not want these changes?" I'll tell you who: You won't because your employer-subsidized and shifted health "insurance" is going to either bankrupt your employer, result in them dropping coverage and you being forced to buy it yourself or, more likely, you being forced to pay a tax because you won't be able to afford it. Welcome to reality pal; a balance sheet always balances and for everything you get "free" someone else pays.
2. Really? GITMO anyone? Patriot Act anyone? The NDAA? The "war" in Iraq was over before he took office. Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan -- ask all the families of the dead GIs who have come home in a box. Oh yeah, and he also went to war in Libya (illegally under the War Powers Act I might add) and is intending to blast Iran. I wouldn't write that one down just yet.
3. "Free" preventive health care for women eh? Who's going to pay for that "free" care? You do realize that if it's "free" to you someone else pays. Wait a second -- if you get it, and you pay taxes, then you're paying for it. Therefore it's not free and you were scammed. Honesty isn't one of Obama's best subjects, but gullibility certainly is one of yours.
4. Equality for all people eh? Ah, like banksters, right? Nobody committed any crimes? If we have equality for all people then you can commit perjury, you can steal billions of dollars, you can rook people out of their houses and property and it's all ok. Oh wait a second -- no, you can't -- if you steal $100 from the corner "Stop-N-Rob" you go to prison but the banksters who hob-knob with Obama steal your house, sell bogus credit card debts that don't really exist to collectors and perform other forms of theft and they not only get away with it they're applauded for "helping America recover." Equality for all people my ass.
5. Investing in "clean energy" jobs eh? Solyndra anyone? Some "investment." Where are the LFTRs? That would be clean energy. And sustainable energy. And abundant energy. And entirely missing from the discussion in the Obama Administration.
6. Supports education eh? Hmmm... how is that $200,000 in college debt looking for 'ya? Has anything been done about this? Of course not, nor will there be. The solution is simple: Get rid of the preference in the law for this sort of debt, returning to what it was before the legal changes so that those who are overburdened can file bankruptcy for it like anything else. At the same time remove all demands that parents disclose anything to anyone about adults who used to be their kids when it comes to college finance. Are you an adult at 18 or not? Are you responsible for yourself or not? Do you have the right to independently contract and own the outcomes of your decisions or not? Are you a slave as an 18 year old, or not? Obama says yes. What do you say? If you'd rather DVD players cost $50 rather than $500 tell me why you prefer college educations that cost $200,000 instead of $20,000. Tossing "free money" at anything simply makes the price go up -- this is the basic law of economics called "supply and demand." That this hasn't sunk into your skull simply means that either you're intoxicated beyond the ability to reason (perhaps due to chronic inhalation of what comes out of Obama's buttcrack) or your IQ is smaller than your shoe size.
7. Millionaires should pay their "fair share"? Ok, what is their "fair share"? Close to half of all Americans pay zero in income tax. Close to 1/3rd of all American families pay zero federal taxes at all as they receive enough back in EITC and similar refundable credits such that their total federal taxes are in fact zero. The simple mathematical fact is that you could tax every dollar over $200,000 in income and the deficit would still exist, but the year you did it is the last year you'd get any money, since nobody will work for free for very long and as a result everyone who made more than $200,000 in that year would make $199,999 the next year -- even if that meant sitting on the beach sipping Mai Tais for 11.95 months of the year. The only place you can get the money you want to tax to close the deficit is from the middle class -- it's a matter of mathematics, not desire. So either stop demanding more "free shit" and accept that we can't afford what we're handing out now or buck it up and empty your wallet on Obama's shoes. I hope you don't mind if I vomit on them instead.
8. Obama added 2.6 million jobs eh? Really? Here's the facts on that -- the working-age population went from 234,739,000 in January 2009 when he took office to 242,435,000 in February of this year. That's 7.696 million more working-age people since Obama took office. Obama's economic policies managed to employ about 1/3rd of them, leaving the other 2/3rds jobless. This is why the labor participation rate went from 59.8% when he took office to 58.0% last month. Simply put the jobs picture when adjusted for the number of working-age people, which is all that matters to you or anyone else, is worse now than it was when Obama took office -- materially so with 5,100,000 of the new entrants to the workforce being without a job.
As for you voting for him before, so did I. I refused to vote for a man (John McCain) who near-literally performed fellatio on banksters just weeks before the election by suspending his campaign to ramrod TARP through The Senate. In doing so he shoved the gun of government up my ass and forced me, along with you, to pay for the sins of force and fraud committed against the public. That was and remains an unconscionable act.
But the fact also remains that Obama has done all that John McCain did in this regard and more, despite his promises to be "different." Not only has he broken every promise he made with regard to the banksters, in addition he signed the NDAA, extended the Patriot Act, has refused to dismantle or rein in the TSA, failed to close GITMO as he promised and more. He not only has ignored previous and admitted black-letter fraud by the banksters he has countenanced and extended their frauds and theft from you by refusing to stomp on the rank abuses they have committed since he took office, whether they be violations of regulations in respect to HAMP and HARP, robosigning (perjury), market manipulation of various sorts and more.
You're free to vote for him again, but in doing so you're simply voting for an unmasked Satan -- just as you are if you vote for Rick Santorum (or, for that matter, for Mittens.)
Sorry folks, no sale.