The Corporation Myth

Newt Gingrich the other day said something very stupid. Brian Montopoll from CBS News  reported that when asked about Mitt Romney's comment about how Gingrich should return the money he made from Freddie Mac, Gingrich responded:


"I would just say that if Gov. Romney would like to give back all of the money he's earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain, that I would be glad to listen to him. And I bet you $10 -- not $10,000 -- that he won't take the offer."

This put the Republican establishment up in arms. So-called conservatives like Charles Krauthammer began calling Gingrich a socialist.

Now that's just silly. Gingrich does not call for redistributing wealth around, spending more, censoring religion and what not. Sure he has a history of supporting big government ideas, and that's why I'm not a Gingrich guy, but that doesn't make him a socialist.

That said, Gingrich's comment was still stupid. It's typical anti-capitalist rhetoric that Leftists use. Gingrich's comment sounded exactly one of Paul Krugman's articles in the The New York Times (better known as the New York Slimes) that I read earlier this week. (Yes I will read Krugman's work, as sickening as it is to read it does give me a look at the other side) In his column, Krugman tries to argue that because Bain Capital destroyed more jobs than created while making a profit that means that job creators simply don't exist. Of course this coming from the same Paul Krugman who argued that the economy would get better if we scared everyone with the thought of being attacked by aliens.

This rhetoric is even more apparent when earlier this week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed that millionaire job creators were like unicorns- simply didn't exist. 

Am I saying Gingrich is as bad Reid or Krugman? No. But he needs to think things through before he says things like that. Instead, Gingrich should be arguing against Reid and Krugman's rhetoric with the same type of logic I'm about to use.

First, if Krugman and Reid are arguing that the rich don't create jobs, then why do they think that members of Congress, whom nearly half are millionaires, can create jobs? And all of you who have ever gotten a real job from a poor man, raise your hand now. Exactly- you haven't.

Now more importantly, the myth that corporations purposely fire workers to squeeze a profit. It's really not a valid argument if you use common sense. In a healthy economy, businesses (which yes includes corporations) will always want to expand and grow, so they can beat their competitors. This will cause them to hire more workers, because the more they expand and grow, the more profit they will make. When a business incurs losses, then they have to lay off workers to remain profitable. And somehow, that part of the business cycle is where people like Krugman try to smear those evil corporations for being "greedy." Tell me Mr. Krugman, why would a corporation purposely fire a worker whom could be employed by one of their competitors? That's why corporations want to keep their employees happy- so their competitors won't get them.

If corporations were greedy, and those millionaire job creators didn't exist, how come the Reagan tax cuts (slashing federal income taxes by 25%) and deregulation created 43 million jobs and $30 trillion in revenue over 25 years?

Gingrich should be more careful with what he says so he doesn't sound like Krugman or Reid.

In Defense of Rick Perry's Ad

I really didn't want to have to do this. This country's going to hell and Rick Perry is certainly not my first choice for the Republican nomination. But after hearing about people constantly make fun of Perry about this advertisement, I feel like I have to address it because it does raise some good issues.

Here is the ad, just in case you haven't seen it yet:

I'm going to start with where he talks about how gays can serve openly in the military. On Don't Ask Don't Tell's repeal, I took Herman Cain's view of asking the generals to see if allowing gays to openly serve in the military caused any distractions for the soliders. If it did, then put it back into law, if not then keep it repealed.

This view changed, however, when I saw that as a result of DADT's repeal a bill was passed in the Senate that repealed sodomy and bestiality in the military. What's next, are they going to legalize polygamy, incest and/or peadophelia? I'm sorry but I just don't think that sex has any place in the military.

Now the other part Perry brings up in this ad, the War on Christmas. I agree with him on this too. Firstly, despite what those conga line of freaks and goons on MSLSD and the Communist News Network (CNN), the War on Christmas does indeed exist.

Today on the Culture and Media Institute, Erin Brown lists examples Christmas censorship. These include Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, an Independent, renamed the state Christmas tree to a "holiday tree", schools not being allowed to celebrate Santa Claus or exchange gifts, and people not being allowed to sing Christmas carols near a Post Office.

I had two different doctors appointments to go to today. Both times I was wished a "Happy Holiday". Excuse me but I would rather hear "Merry Christmas". Yes I consider myself to be Jewish and I celebrate both Chanukah and Christmas. But I don't get offended when people say "Merry Christmas" to me just because they didn't wish me a "Happy Chanukah" as well.

I feel this way because, even though the Left tries to deny it, America is and always will be a Christian nation. Our country's founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, guarantee to us unalienable rights given to us by God. If it is humans that give us rights, then humans can just as easily take them away from us. If it is God that gives us these rights, then these rights can never be taken away. Even if you don't believe in God, you at least respect the fact that that's how America was founded. This is what sets the boundaries for the Civil Society, built off Judeo-Christian principles.

The Left will still cry foul at the saying of "Merry Christmas" and the celebration of Christmas in schools  or use of Christmas decorations on government property because it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

But it simply is not a violation. The establishment clause just meant that Congress couldn't establish a national church. In fact, states were allowed to establish churches. George Washington gave a national prayer to God within days of the first vote on the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father cited the most by Leftists since he was the least religious, attended church in the U.S. Capitol building because they were voluntary and non-discriminatory. The whole "separation of church-and-state" was written in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, not from the Constitution. It's clear from Jefferson's attendance of church that he didn't intend for religion to be banned from public property.

If you think about it, the reasoning behind the lack of faith in the public square is out of a fear of offending people. Basically, a right to feel not to feel uncomfortable. Is that a right given by the Constitution? I feel uncomfortable anytime one of my professors spews Marxist views. I feel uncomfortable if I have a question on a test that I don't know. Do I go around complaining that those kinds of things shouldn't happen and sue about it in court? No because that's ridiculous.

Besides, I think it's a good thing to have religion in public. Religion serves as a reminder for people to behave morally. In fact, statistics show that since 1963, when the Supreme Court banned school prayer, teenage violence, rape, drug addiction, assault on teachers, etc. has gone up.

So come on, I want to hear "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays". People shouldn't be offended- we are a Christian nation. Rick Perry is right about the War on Christmas and I give him credit  for standing up for his beliefs.

DNC Chair: Unemployment hasn't gone up under Obama

Oh boy. Anytime Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz opens her mouth, brace yourself for something stupid to come out. But honestly I didn't expect her to say something as dumb as what she said today.

Today on Gretchen Carlson's show on Fox News this morning, Wassmerman Schultz said that the unemployment has gone down under Obama.

Huh? Either Wasserman Schultz is being a spin doctor or she really has her head shoved in the sand. My guess is that it's both. These facts most have eluded her: (via Ed Morrisey from HotAir)

• Jobless rate in January 2009: 7.8%.  Jobless rate in November 2011: 8.6%.
• Number of employed in January 2009, in thousands: 133,563.  In November 2011: 131,708
• Civilian participation rate in January 2009: 65.7%.  In November 2011: 64.0%
• Unemployment level in January 2009, in thousands: 11,984.  In November 2011: 13,303
• Number of people not in labor force, January 2009, in thousands: 80,554.  In November 2011: 86,558

Also Wasserman Schultz keeps talking about how the unemployment rate lately has been going down. Looks like she too is contributing to the spin that's being put on this number. The unemployment rate has been decreasing, but not because of economic growth. It's decreasing because there are more and more people leaving the workforce, which is taken out of the denominator of the fraction that determines the unemployment rate.

The most recent example of this is when the unemployment rate was recently lowered from 9.0% to 8.6%. As Bloomberg reports, while there were job gains, there was a net loss since 315,000 people left the workforce.

If the White House tries to promote some impressive number, then be skeptical, because the numbers are always spun somehow.

Analysis of Saturday's Republican Debate

Same old same old. I'm starting to get tired of all these debates. They're all the same- moderators giving most of the time to Mitt Romney and whoever the anti-Romney is at the time (in last night's case, Newt Gingrich) and trying to pit them against each other. We already know everyone's views. And yet there's another debate this week? I can't wait for the primaries to start.

There was really no clear winners or losers. If I had to choose between who won between Romney and Gingrich, I would honestly have to say Romney won. Romney was able to get the better of any exchanges between him and Gingrich, most notably after Gingrich said "Let's face it the only reason you're not a career politician was because you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994" to which Romney responded that he thought it was good thing he lost because it put him back in the private sector and had he fulfilled all of his dreams he'd be an NFL star by now. Romney did have moments of weakness though. When asked what the differences were between him and Gingrich, he stumbled a bit before saying he wouldn't colonize the moon (a joke Gingrich had made awhile ago.)

One thing that annoys me from analyses I've read about the debate is the criticism Romney got for making a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry that he didn't advocate for a nationalized version of Romneycare in his book. The argument is that Romney has more than the average American so therefore he doesn't connect with the average American. I may not be a Romney fan but come on. He worked at Bain Capital and was governor of Massachusetts of course he has a lot of money! Of all the problems Romney has this is the least of his problems. The mainstream media (or as I like to call them the lamestream media) is blowing this out of proportion.

The rest of the candidates looked good too. Yes even Ron Paul looked good, but that was because he wasn't talking about his wacko foreign policy or about legalizing drugs. This was probably one of the stronger debates Perry has had, as he didn't make any gaffes and seemed more confident and energetic in his answers. Bachmann and Santorum, it seemed, were being blackballed the ABC moderators Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulis as they got the least amount of questions. In the questions they got they both had clear, thoughtful answers. Bachmann especially was strong in her criticism of Romney and Gingrich, calling them "Newt Romney" and hammering their past big government positions of individual mandates and cap-and-trade, among others. (And honestly it is pathetic that the two front-runners of the Republican party have records of liberal positions)

My favorite part about the debate: I didn't have to sit through Jon Hunstman's condescending attitude and corny jokes. My least favorite part of the debate: having to watch Stephanopoulis pull a hit job on candidates like Gingrich by asking a question about "marital fidelity" and having all five candidates answer before he did. But hey I guess it's to be expected from a left-wing hack who worked for the Clinton administration.

Can the primaries just start already?

My Rankings of the Current Republican Presidential Field

So there is yet another Republican debate in Iowa tonight. (I'm starting to lose count as to how many there have been.) In the spirit of the debate, I'd like to present who my favorites and least favorites are in the field. I was a very fervent Cain supporter until he dropped out, so now it has come to this.

1. Michele Bachmann- Yes if the primary was today and she's still in the race, I'm voting for her. Bachmann has been consistently conservative throughout her whole career, from being tough on immigration to supporting a flat tax to being staunchly pro-life. She's a very good speaker, as she doesn't stumble over her statements and uses good logic and facts to back up her arguments. Many have given her flack for her comments about the HPV vaccine, but actually evidence shows that Bachmann may be right about that. Bachmann is also a tax attorney, small business owner, serves on the Intelligence Committee, and takes care of over 20 foster children. Bachmann may be at the bottom of the pack right now, but I don't care, polls can change quickly.She is a remarkable woman whom I admire deeply.

2. Rick Santorum- He may be at the bottom of the pack, but his campaign is starting to gain momentum. Santorum, like Bachmann, has been a consistent conservative throughout his career. (A few blemishes here and there, like voting for Bush's Medicare expansion, but as human beings we are imperfect). Santorum is smart as hell, strong in foreign policy, and is the only one in the race mentioning that one of the biggest problems in today's society is the breakdown of the family. He may not be in favor of a flat tax but his plan of returning to the Reagan tax rates and eliminating the corporate tax for the manufacturing sector while cutting it in half everywhere else is solid.

3. Rick Perry- Perry's gaffes are starting to get tiresome. The last thing we need is another Republican president from Texas who makes gaffes. It's too bad though, because Perry has some superb proposals, including his 20% optional flat tax, cutting Congress's salary in half, making Congress's job part-time, and putting term limits on Supreme Court justices. He also has a great job growth record in Texas. He'd make a solid president and I'd vote for him if it came down between him and Romney, but he has to start being more careful in what he says first.

4. Newt Gingrich- Gingrich seems to be channeling Reagan in his campaign. His new ad is reminiscent of Reagan's Morning in America ad, he follows the Reagan rule of not criticizing any other Republican candidates during debates and adds a lot of wit, humor and history in his arguments. Gingrich is also a superb debater, seeing him debate Obama would be absolutely awesome to see. But one problem- Gingrich is not Reagan. Gingrich is too undisciplined- he's been all over the place on some his views, like at one point being in favor of the individual mandate and cap-and-trade. He's also in favor of the ethanol subsidy and in the last decade he lobbied for Bush's Medicare expansion as well as for Freddie Mac. I really think it won't be long for Gingrich implodes- he'll say or do something stupid as he always does that'll bring him back down to earth, but there are a lot of admirable things about him. Gingrich did after all lead a Republican takeover of the House back in the 1990s and led the effort for welfare reform.

5. Mitt Romney- A slick politician and a good debater, but he has no core values. He's had 50 different positions on numerous issues, some of which were horrific positions. His views tend to lean towards popular opinion. I think Romney's 59-point economic plan is too timid- like no real specific reforms on entitlements and tax cuts for only those making $200,000 or under. (honestly can anyone name more than 10 points in his plan?) Romney also has no significant conservative accomplishments to speak of and his most famous piece of legislation was the basis for ObamaCare. Romney could be good if Congress checks him and if he listens to the will of the people, but I would much prefer that Romney not be the nominee.

6. Ron Paul- I'm sorry but anyone who claims that the best way to deal with Iran is to offer them friendship gets no respect from me. Foreign policy like that will get people killed.

7. Jon Hunstman- who?

All of these candidates all share one thing in common, and it's a huge strength- none of them are Barack Obama. I would rather vote for a garden hose than Obama. So whoever wins the nomination has my whole-hearted support, but I do have my preferences for who I want to win.

Eric Holder is a Crook

As more light is shed on the Fast and Furious Scandal, the more I want Attorney General Eric Holder to either resign or be impeached.

For those of you who aren't aware of the scandal, Operation Fast and Furious involved the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) encouraging gun dealers to sell multiple guns to Mexican drug cartels in hopes of tracking them. The operation backfired, and as Jason Sepers of the Washington Times reports, five illegal immigrants used AK-47s received from Operation Fast and Furious to "intentionally and forcibly assault" Border Patrol agents and killed Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

Holder claimed to not have heard about Fast and Furious until recently, but the evidence shows otherwise. Sharyl Attkinson of CBS News reports that Holder received briefings on the operation as far back as July 2010. So this means that either Holder is lying, or he's completely incompetent. 

But the most recent information on the Fast and Furious Scandal really has my blood boiling.

Attkinson of CBS News showed e-mails where the ATF sold the guns to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3." "Demand Letter 3" would require some gun shops to report the sales of multiple rifles or "long guns". 

This is completely backwards logic. If you have to force something in order to justify a new regulation, that means the new regulation is clearly a bad idea. This is an attack on you, the legal gun owners of America. It's a sign that shows that the left really has the lost the gun control argument. Notice how gun control is never brought up in debates anymore. 

Holder and his crew have yet to respond to this most recent revelation. Of course, Holder has a history of crooked dealings.

Michelle Malkin talks about some of them:

"Holder himself suffered selective amnesia about the relationship during his confirmation hearing. He somehow "forgot" to mention that Blagojevich had appointed him to probe corruption in Illinois casino licensing decisions. State officials had objected to Blago's crony appointment of fundraiser Christopher Kelly to the state Gaming Board. Kelly's business partner was now-convicted felon and shakedown artist Tony Rezko, Obama's former bagman and real-estate fixer.

Holder pocketed $300,000 from Blago to 'investigate' and -- surprise, surprise -- concluded that no corruption existed. (emphasis mine) They stood shoulder to shoulder at a 2004 news conference to make the announcement. But Holder failed to disclose it on his Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, which he signed five days after Blagojevich's arrest in December 2008 for putting Obama's U.S. Senate seat up for sale.        

After duping a Senate majority (including 19 Senate Republicans) into approving his AG nomination despite multiple admissions of failure, neglect and sabotage of the rule of law, Holder moved up to perform more cover-ups for Obama's pals. In August 2009, Holder's DOJ announced it was dropping federal corruption charges against Richardson after a yearlong federal probe into pay-to-play allegations involving one of his large political donors and state bond deals."

Eric Holder is a crook, and at the very least deserves to be fired from his position as Attorney General.