About Me

Name: Noam D. Gear
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

The Lead Goose Project--(Reader Participation)



If you were shooting geese, where would you aim?

Would you aim at the center of the flock, which is the average location of flock?
Or would you aim slightly ahead of one goose, perhaps the lead goose?

Easy...you aim ahead of one goose—the lead goose.  Okay, with that settled, we move onward we go into the tricky business of fighting liberals in the public arena of political discourse.

I fear that conservatives are wasting too much of our rhetorical ammunition shooting at the center of the flock--and hitting nothing.  There are a many of us, but there are many thousands of liberal geese dropping their excrement on every aspect of the country.  Many of the geese have names:
  • Rampant Corruption
  • Skyrocketing debt
  • Moral degradation, and numbness to it
  • Sycophantic media
  • Education becoming indoctrination
  • Defective Republicans participating at the edges or center of all of the above
  • The list goes on for a thousand miles
We cannot continue to focus on all of them, lest we become mere makers of encyclopediae. 
We will be known for having sat upon the sidelines and prattled upon our keyboards while our civilization crumbled.

We cannot focus on all of them.  Focusing on everything is no focus at all.
We need to focus on one issue or one person, maybe two. 
And then go after that person and that issue with everything we have…even if it isn’t the one person that 40% of us care about the most.  If you wind up in the 40%, be patient, your goose will come sooner if you help us with the first one.

But which goose, which person, which issue should get our focus first?

Each day, when a liberal wakes up, they look for some person who lives according to a set of principles and they set about the task of smashing that person to pieces, if they can.  Liberals have a reward system based upon the style and flair with which they can do the smashing.  They get brownie points for how funny it is, how clever it is, how urbane and sophisticated they look while doing it. That is the source of smug smile printed in the permafrost flesh of Rachel Madow's "face".  She knows she is winning the contest with other Liberals. Liberals get brownie points for debunking everything under the sun, except for themselves. I know there is nothing new here so far, but hang on. 

What is new is that liberals have learned to spontaneously agree upon, identify, and smash a common target at the same time.  They probably learned this skill from the Coyotes that raised them, who knows?  Anyhow, they coordinate their attacks, and make them very effective that way. It isn’t clear to me whether it is an actual coordination, or more like simple mob behavior.  But they do coordinate.  And the sad fact is that conservatives need to coordinate more like they do.



It is time for conservatives to turn the tables. We need to identify the sacred institutions and people of the left, and begin to trash them, in a synchronous, coordinated and systematic fashion--exactly as they have done to us.

After seeing the “lead goose” get "shot out of the air", what goose wants to eagerly sign up to take his place? Who wants to be the next Rush Limbaugh, or Tom Delay? Look at the frivolous ethics complaints that rain down upon Sarah Palin.  There is no coincidence there, just liberal malice that goes unanswered by the civil, gentle, and kind people of the right—especially the Christian right.

We conservatives have a problem with our focus.  Because we have real jobs and real families and limited time, we fight our political battles with snips and snaps, here and there.  No time for rhyme or reason.  We don’t have time to wait for the perfect shot at the perfect target, so we shoot our guns at geese, and airplanes, and decoys, and clouds, and stars, and the sun, and whatever-the-hell else is passing over our heads. 

We must stop all that.

We need to figure out one single "lead goose" and coordinate ourselves.

We need to shut off our televisions, put away our toys, and fight the people who are preparing to enslave our children with debt, disease, and poverty…and every other problem that will be foisted upon us by Liberals...so that they can "rescue" us from those same problems later.  Without such problems in the world, Liberals wouldn’t be needed. 

Liberals are firemen by day, and arsonists by night.  Even a Pastor I know works hard at restoring the smashed lives of teenagers, while also supporting policies and people who did the smashing in the first place.  It would be far better if the teenagers weren’t smashed in the first place, don’t you think?

Saul Alinski’s book, “Rules for Radicals” has coached the Democrats to “make it very personal”.  Likewise, we need to make it personal.  Within the one issue we pick, we need single out one person and go to work—making that person the “face” of the problem.

To be clear (so clear that Slowberman could understand), violence and hunting are only a metaphor here.  As the left has done, we will use legal tools of influence only. We will use research, calls, protests, research, heckling, annoyance, research, letter writing, FOA, civil disobedience, ethics filings, law suits, web-clogging, trolling, exposure, research, more exposure, and then hopefully-at-last the utter discrediting of the liberal at hand…followed by the next.  I have a new word for this process.  I call it “Civics”.  I hope it replaces television some day.

So...no more talk of broad, diffuse, and faceless issues.  No more litanies of grievances, or burlap sacks full of complaints that lead to nowhere.  We need to figure out who is the single most deserving person for the treatment we have received from the political left. So…I present you…

“THE LEAD GOOSE PROJECT”. 

We need to nominate, vote upon, and agree upon a liberal “goose” that is fat, ugly, out in the open, loud, low, and likely to have many “bones in the closet”.  Somebody for whom the establishment media will mount a reflexive defense at first…and then betray when the rest of the truth comes out.  Note here that few liberals have enough money to purchase Human Condoms that protected the likes of Bill Clinton.

A Human Condom is a person who is paid to go on onto television and protect their master even after their master has soiled them on all surfaces—inside and out.  Human Condoms include Lanny Davis, Paul Begala, James Carville, and Donna Brazile; and they are much more expensive than latex condoms.  There are only a dozen or so Human Condoms in the whole country.  Obama is wearing six of them, and so we may have the good fortune to find that the others are short supply.

[I excluded Keith Olberman here because he is more like a condom that somehow soiled itself…even without a master.  Nobody really wants to pick him up and put him on, though he would be delighted for somebody to try.]

Our Lead Goose should be somebody who makes a big mess on their way out of power.  Somebody who will clutch at other Liberals, and then lose their grip in the slime.  I could go on, but you get the idea.

Please communicate this URL to friends by email, blog comments, phone…whatever.
I hope we could get the project onto HotAir or Rushbo.  We need thousands of inputs before we announce the “regional quarter-finals” of the selection process.
Part of what will un-nerve the lead goose in the very early going will be the knowledge that they were selected from among thousands and selected by thousands…using a completely democratic process.

Invite each Conservative to participate by submitting nominations.  Each nomination should shed some new light on the goose they nominate, if possible.  I will tabulate inputs over time and keep you all abreast of progress. 

Let the nominations pour in (below)!!!

All for now.

Thanks,
Noam








Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (13) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

United States of Zimbabwe

“The economy will get worse before it gets better.”  I have heard this predictive promise often since January, from many people and in many settings.
 
Because I was raised in Upstate New York, my ears are keenly tuned to this message of hope.  New York is stuck in its 25th year of “getting worse before it gets better”. For New Yorkers, liberal social policies have been delivering the first half (e.g. “getting worse”) of that deal for almost three decades. And now, Obama has announced that these policies will guide the whole country.
 
Obama explains, “we must build our house upon a rock, and must lay a new foundation”. Notice here that Obama uses Bible phrases to peddle his new plan.  However, his real meaning comes from his Budget Plan, not the Bible.
 
The “Rock” is the Rock of a $16 Trillion National debt that will pay for the free stuff he has budgeted for his supporters. He will grow our debt to surpass our GDP; almost tripling the National Debt by 2015. In practical terms, that would be like taking out a second and third mortgage on your house and using all of that money to throw a party for the people who approved the loans. 
 
The African country of Zimbabwe is a glittering example of how debt-based populism makes the economy “get worse before it gets better”.  President Mugabe ran his country’s debt to about 2.2 times higher than its GDP. He spent the money on his supporters, and then he inflated his currency in order to repay his creditors with worthless paper.  As a result, his country now has 22 million percent inflation, a chronic famine, and massive death, exodus, and depopulation—right in the “breadbasket of Africa”.  Citizens walk around with $10 Billion Bills in their pockets (ZWD Notes), which are not enough to purchase a meal. People who complain too loudly are shot.  In sum, Zimbabwe is a wretched genocidal utopia of Marxist “Social Justice”. It never got better, it just got worse.
 
Obama’s new “Foundation” is simply Government Employment.  Once Obama takes capital from the “wealthiest Americans” and uses it for interest payments to China, then more private enterprise will collapse. Obama will try to absorb the massive unemployment he creates by hiring millions of people into “shovel-ready” jobs for the government.
 
Cuba is a good example of what happens when Government employs everyone after it wipes out private business.  The Castro Family Government employs about 90% of the work force in Cuba. Doctors and cab drivers earn about the same pay—which is about $20 per month. Only the ruling Socialist dictators earn much higher pay, because they perform the hard work of making sure that everyone else is “equal” to each other.
 
After 100 days of the Obama Telethon, I pause to note that his new “House”, “Rock”, and “Foundation” are a dangerous sham. I refuse to believe in a President who triples the debt accrued by all previous presidents combined…telling us that it will build a great economy somehow. 

Hogwash!

History strongly suggests that this country will drown, not sail, in its new ocean of debt.
 
It is ironic that the President received an education from an elite college, then a degree from an elite law school, then lectured at a different law school, then worked as a “community organizer”, and then used inspiring oratory to overcome his own lack of experience, and so won his first term as President of Zimbabwe. Yes, President Mugabe won by a landslide in 1980 after delivering electrifying speeches to enormous rallies of supporters.  They believed that he was incredibly smart, charismatic, and that he would surely rescue them from the injustices of prosperity. And he did.
 
Another irony is that some of the Christians, for whom Obama uses Bible words, can use one breath to pray for God to alleviate the suffering in Zimbabwe, and another breath to pray for Obama to succeed with Marx’s Social Justice here in America. 

If you are a liberal reader then rejoice in knowing that my writing will get far worse before it gets any better.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (15) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Second Coming of Robert Mugabe

See Mark Sanford’s comments today

I am surprised and delighted to see that other people are beginning to see the similarity between President Mugabe in Zimbabwe and President Obama in America.

Allow me to expand it for you:
  • Both Obama and Mugabe went to elite Universities (Princeton; Oxford) 
  • Both got degrees from elite Law Schools.  (one from Harvard; two from University of London).
  • Both spent a while teaching and lecturing at a Law School. (Chicago; Zambia)
  • Both are intellectuals of reputation.
  • Both were “community organizers” (Chicago; Rhodesia)
  • Both of them are fantastic orators.  (Do you need proof?)
  • Both of them have countries with abundant and fertile agricultural lands.
  • Both of them rose to power from a new political base of young people who were persuaded that they had “no hope” without their leader.  (Pol Pot too, by the way)
  • Mugabe created a security force by hiring up many people from among his young political base of previously-hopeless people.  His security force was used to extract money and belongings from the rich and give them to the poor.  The part about giving to the poor was completely forgotten at the half-way point.  Obama has proposed the “Civilian National Security Force” that would be “as large and well funded as the US Army”.  No telling what he will use them to accomplish.
  • Both of them use Marx’s “Social Justice” rhetoric liberally when stoking their political base.
  • Both stress “Economic Justice”, and redistribution of as central to their mission.
  • Neither of them had any prior experience in managing an organization, much less a government.
  • Both fight/fought  Catholic Hospitals that served the poor.  Mugabe wanted to impose high tax on the imported medicines that were being distributed (free) to the poor.  Obama will sign FOCA and force Catholics to perform abortions—or quit medicine.
  • Both of them took immediate action to quash critics when their ideas began to fail severely.
  • Both rely on printing money to devalue currency to cope with their own budgetary incontinence—which is astronomical.  More about that later.
The similarities become smaller and less distinguishing after this.  Plus, we are only 50 days in.

Mugabe went on to use his “Security Force” to seize farms from farmers so that he could give the land to the “the poor”.  In this case, “the poor” were Mugabe’s political contributors and high-ranking  officials in his Security Force.  These people knew nothing about farming and they created a durable famine that is slowly killing 40% of the population in a region that had been known as “The Bread Basket of Africa”.  The famine is now being helped along by an outbreak of cholera, which could have been treated with medicine at Catholic Hospitals, but…oops.  Another million or more fled to Zambia and other countries. 

When inflation in the US reaches 22,000,000% per year like Zimbabwe, and when the super-intellectual Obama orders the treasury to print new $100,000,000,000-dollar notes (with his own image) so that people can use one of these notes to pay for groceries… then we will know for sure that we actually elected the second-coming of Mugabe as our president.  Of course, half of us will be dead by then.  And speaking of death…

If simple scale is applied, and if Obama manages to involve the agricultural base of the USA into one of his “Fairness” programs, then Obama’s famine will starve about 150 million Americans to death.  For comparison, that would be approximately: 70 Million more death than Mao; 120 Million more than Stalin; 60 fold more than Pol Pot; and 30-fold more than Robert Mugabe. 

I just wonder whether Obama will be the clear winner of the competition with other legendary leaders of “Social Justice”, or will he just take a spot in the middle of the pack somewhere.  Time will tell.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cruelty We Can Believe In

As we see people evicted from their homes, I ask readers not to get caught up in the false debate as to whether we should blame banks, bankers, home-buyers… for the banking crisis now at hand

None of those is to blame.

A far more deserving target of blame is Barney Frank, the insane US congressman from Massachusetts.  He bears great responsibility for advancing the legislation in 1995 that required banks to make loans to people who could not afford to repay them.  In the same stroke, he wiped out the regulations that would have stopped the lending when critical thresholds of insolvency were reached. Mr. Frank did this knowing that it could destabilize the banking system of the country, and yet he did it anyway.

This is like cutting the break cables on the car and then removing the guardrails from the road.  All of the burning wreckage we have now is a direct consequence of his actions. Amazingly, even after seeing six months of burning wreckage all over the economy, Mr. Frank is proud of his “accomplishment”.

I encourage readers to search for “Community Reinvestment Act” (CRA) and watch the old C-SPAN video of Barney Frank and Andrew Cuomo arguing in favor of wiping out these two important banking regulations for Freddie and Fannie.  It is a real eye-opener, and entertaining too.

Thinking back to the happy days of tiny scandals like Enron, I can recall four different Congressional hearings where executives such as Ken Lay (CEO), and Jeff Skilling (CFO) were called upon to explain what they did…and then they were jailed.  The crimes of the Enron executives were 8,000 times smaller than the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae Scandal—in which Frank and his chums discarded the regulation that had required those two institutions (and others) to keep a 4% solvency reserve. Further scandal is that senior executives of Freddie and Fannie and every other financial institution in trouble contributed huge sums of money to the Democrats who ran those committees, and smaller sums to some Republicans who were also on those committees. 

Scaling this crime to Enron, we should expect to have seen 16,000 Congressional Hearings by now…with another 16,000 hearings to come soon.  Have you noticed one single Congressional Hearing yet?  No.  There have been none.  None are planned. 

Like third-world dictators, Democrats never hold themselves to the same rules they create for everyone else.  Henry Waxman will never hold Barney Frank to account.  Nancy Pelosi will never hold Henry Waxman to account. Journalists at MSNBC will demand to know which newspapers Sarah Palin reads—because they judge her to be ignorant and uninformed.

To stuff the economic wound created by Mr. Frank, the Obama administration has now announced a plan to run a deficit of about $1.8 trillion in 2009, which is about four times larger a deficit than George Bush’s most reckless year. The USA will most likely borrow this money from the government of China.  Assuming China takes on the whole deficit for us, that government would need to extract about $720 from every man, woman, and child in China.  For a family of five (including one child and two grandparents), that might be a month’s pay.  They would use that money to buy food, and other essentials, but we will use it for a high-speed train that will to connect Disneyland to Las Vegas; Obama’s new personal fleet of 28 helicopters; New grass sod in Washington DC…

The list of American folly that Chinese people will be forced to pay for goes on at a pace of $70 million per page, for over a thousand pages.


This is the nauseating cruelty of classic liberalism.  They peddle slogans like “investment”, and “caring for poor people”, but they are really just pushing pain and suffering beyond the range of television cameras. As a result, “compassionate” liberals will make life even worse for people who are already even poorer than the poorest people in this country.  Liberals will call their cruelty “change we can believe in”, and they will demand to know how conservatives could dare to hope that the plan fails.

Meanwhile, Mr. Frank still has his job in Washington, where he lectures us about “fairness” every night via the wonder of television.

A while ago, a popular semantic game was to ask, “Why do Islamic terrorists hate the United States?”

Here in Massachusetts, we should be asking, “Why do people in other States hate Massachusetts?”  One answer is that we manufacture and sell politicians like Barney Frank.  It would be okay if Frank inflicted his pain only upon those who voted for him, but that is not the case.  His insane ideas about “fairness” inflict pain upon the entire country, and now China too.

The people of Massachusetts have eaten far too much mindless liberalism—which is very much like eating far too much broccoli. As a result, Congressman Barney Frank is now a foul cloud of flatulence that only Massachusetts cannot smell.  It is time to open the window and let him out, for the sake of the other passengers in the car.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Q: What is Black and White and Doubles the National Debt?

 
A:  The 2009 Federal Budget
 
 
Tags: joke  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

$533 Billion now called "Slashing" by Reuters

See here that Reuters says, "Obama vows to slash deficit to $533 billion by 2013"

For perspective, that will be $120B larger than George Bush's largest deficit (2004). 
Reuters uses the word "slash" only because Obama will come down from above the astronomical deficit of $1.9 Trillion this year--which is 4.5-fold larger than the largest deficit in history.

Yes, a "Historic" Presidency going on here.
 
David Brooks, are you paying attention?  You hope Obama will prove you wrong? Really?
Too late.  You were already proven wrong by the conservatives you betrayed last fall.
Tell us all once more about how un-intellectual we are, Mr. Brooks.  That was the part I liked the best, you dope.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Next Cartoon



Bravo Michael Ramirez.  What a great cartoon!  

May I suggest a sequel where the donkey turns around and quickly eats the whole pile, and also eats some dirt under the pile.

The donky should then proclaim, "This Stimulus is delicious, and the dirt is a fantastic "economic multiplier".

Also, can you give the donkey some swoopie hair-do and a ton of botox to make him resemble Nancy Pelosi?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Roland Burris' Airtight Argument

You can't take this Senate seat from me.
It's mine, dag-nabbit!

I bought this Senate seat with my own money!

As Bill Clinton said, "Now leave me alone, and let me get back to work for the American People".


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

History By The Numbers

After a long period digging up these numbers from government spending data and census data, I am pleased to present the graphic below.

The meat of the graph points out this. In 2005, the government paid $22 Billion to employ 300,000 people to move $1.4 Trillion from people who had that money to people who "needed" it. The average salary for such a job was $70,000, and this transfer of social entitlement (money and services) was 11% of the entire economy in 2005.

In contrast, 2005 also saw the government employ 670,000 people in the military, and the average salary there was $47,000.  The non-salary budget for National Defense was $0.57 Trillion, of which the war in Iraq was about $0.15 Trillion, or roughly 11% of social entitlement spending in that year.  On top of that, we pay much less money to soldiers than we do to the 300,000 paper pushers who manage the Federal dole.


 


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

$710 Million Per Page...


...and nobody reads it before voting.
Imbeciles!  All you people who voted for this are Imbeciles!
You told yourselves that it couldn't get worse, but you were incredibly wrong.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Collins and Specter Should be Disowned

They say that the difference between a whore and a slvt is that the whore is paid.
What is the name for a reverse prostitute; one who pays the john as he leaves her behind? 
Is there some new word we can use for that?
How about "Specter",  or "Collins"?  Combining the two, I get "Collecter".  We'll see if any of these rise to common usage.
 
For the longest time, I didn't care that Collins and Specter carried the "R" brand.
Things have changed, and Collins and Specter have gone from harmless to dangerous.
 
Simply put, Collins and Specter are now "D" in "R" clothing.  They provide no help, only harm.
 
I say that Mitch McConnel should evict them from the Republican party, so that Tuesday's vote will have no Republican participation.  All Obama wants is to be able to share blame with Rebublicans when the "Stimulus" blows up the last remnants of the economy.  Obama wants to create blur as to which party thought it best to surpass George Bush's first four years of deficit (combined) in less than three weeks.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Spending Like a Drunken Navy

Dear Commenter,
 
You ask where I was when Bush was "spending like a drunken sailor".
If the point of the question is that I cannot oppose Obama because I didn't oppose Bush, then may I say the following:
  • I did oppose Bush from the start, while also knowing that he produced a superior presidency to the one that would have befallen us at the whim of John Kerry.
  • I knew from the outset that "compassionate conservatism" woud be torn asunder on whether and how it would pay to subsidize various societal failures.  A conservative lets failure fail.  A "compassionate" pays money to failure in hopes that it will undo the failure. He takes the money from success in order to reverse failure.  It never acheives the goal.
  • There is a big difference between billions and trillions of dollars. If you expected me to jeer Bush for "spending like a drunken sailor", then how can you cheer Obama spending like a drunken Navy.
Thanks for commenting, just the same.
 
Noam
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Stimulus That Isn't

Dear Friends,
 
Excessive government spending got us into this mess.  Therefore, even more government spending will not get us out of this mess.  It will make our situation worse, not better.
 
Therefore, don't get sucked into quibbles over the size and shape and flavor of mustard on the goat-crap sandwich.

Reject the whole sandwich.

Don't try to come up with a "Republican Alternative"
The only real Republican alternative would be a summary cancellation of the entire thing.  Kill it dead.  Soon.
 
Thanks,
Noam
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive