Crazies saving the planet – By exterminating people!

I read the article “Meet the Woman who would not have babies – because they’re not Eco friendly” on daily mail a few days ago. Interesting enough I’m not shocked at all about reading this article because the woman is an “environmentalist.” These obsessed loonies come up with crazy outlandish ideas more often than Britney Spears goes to parties without wearing panties! For instance, in the 1970’s did the green faced people not harp about GLOBAL COOLING and we should melt the Arctic Ice caps by covering them with black soot? Gee I’m glad that didn’t happen, freak! This is the woman’s pic below – Toni Vernelli. Of course as usual there are many more just like her – once one person suggests something stupid many others follow.

  I don’t think it’s necessary for me to go on a rant here, but even though a vast number of people are nuts couldn’t they at least use some common sense. Apparently this woman became pregnant (God Forbid). So afraid that it would increase her carbon foot print she immediately had an abortion, then finally sterilized herself so she would not have children again. Interestingly enough, her boyfriend, now husband, presented her with a congratulations card, but who cares right? Right. Yet as do all far left crazed, just short of being a hippie, green  persons, they always have to make a remark that criticizes any one who does not partake in their dubious scem. Toni stated “having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet.” Is she implying that the people responsible for continuing the human race is selfish? Thank God every one is selfish otherwise this planet would only be occupied by selfish animals, fish etc. Could this be just another way of saying “Genocide is Good?” Maybe these people would call the Holocaust an improvement in the Eco system? What I can’t understand is if she is so environmentally sound, why become sterile. She could just continue to have abortions then use the dead lifeless corps as fertilization for her back yard garden! What I’m afraid of however, is in the near future, are we going to be reading about an obsessed lone gunman who killed seven people in an attempt to “save the planet?” This is the way ideas escalate. First we hear that we need to fight global warming so our grandchildren will live healthy. Now in regards to global warming, we should not even have grandchildren.

Democrats who like Ron Paul?

Is there any thing that could be this baffling? Some one explain this to me, why would a Democrat support some one who, besides his stance on the war,  goes against every thing the democratic platform stands for? Now the purpose of this post is not to rant against dems. There are many people who claim to be democrats because they do believe (for some strange reason)  in big government and raising taxes and will oppose any thing opposite to that. Yet there is a significant amount of people who say “I’m a democrat, but I support Ron Paul because even though he is a republican he is as liberal as any one!”

I’m going to step out on a limb her, and say I bet there are democrats who have no idea exactly what they are voting for nor why they call themselves liberals. Could it be that people only say they are liberals just because they heard a joke about Cheney or adore some one from Hollywood? Thats possible, ill tell you how I got there.

Ron Paul wants to bring America back to the principles envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution: limited government, federalism, free trade and commerce. Notice the word “back,” you can’t be more conservative than that. It is not liberal! When they (confused dems) hear Ron Paul say he wants to dismiss the Federal Reserve and the income tax (because it’s unconstitutional) establish a limited government and decrease taxes. They say Yeah he’s cool lets do that. If thats what they want, why would they ever call themselves democrats?!! Your not liberal people, stop claiming to be! Furthermore he is pro-life, he stated he is “unshakable on abortion.” That doesn’t follow the democrat’s pro-choice agenda. He supports the 2nd Amendment, hence the Constitution, that doesn’t follow the democrat’s gun control agenda. He has stated “we must secure our borders now. . No amnesty!” That doesn’t support the democrat’s reform proposals which would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country.

So where am I wrong here? Do some people claim to be liberal, yet at the same time despise increased government intervention, increased taxes and infringements on our constitution? Could our government under go reform if people would stop getting their news on goofy talk shows, or for some – you-tube? Or is it that since he is opposes the war on Iraq people like his view on lower taxes, but if other republican president hopefuls speak of decreasing taxes they are scolded?

President Clinton Last Days in Office

 Want to know what else Clinton did, besides?

This is exacly how he will spend the next 8 years, 4 years, ehh.

Free Trade Good

Have you ever watched the movie Frankenstein? Where his creator tries to help the ugly guy out by creating a girl friend for him. She’s pretty, he’s ugly, so when she sees him she screams. Frankenstein runs away. Then he meets a blind man who invites Frankenstein to his house. The man gives him some food. In a rough monstrous voice Frankenstein says “food good.” Then he gives him something to drink Frankenstein says “drink good.” He gives him a pipe to smoke Frankenstein says “smoke good.” Well regarding the economy “Free trade good!”

Now I don’t want to go on a rant here, but for the love of God support free trade! The almighty Hillary said “I certainly think the free market has failed.” If that be the case, then it’s time we start storing up can foods, loading shotguns and making preparations to defend the land we own! Free trade allows American workers to specialize in goods and services that they produce more efficiently than the rest of the world and then exchange them for goods and services that other countries produce at higher quality and lower cost. Ask yourself: would the United States be better off if we still had millions of workers making textiles, instead of employed in the dynamic new businesses which have grown up in the last century? would we be better off if clothing cost five time as much as it does today, and we couldn’t afford to buy computers and software? Our economy works on a circular flow, yet every time the government sticks their filthy hands into it, it seems to takes the shape of a triangle. That not good. The law of supply and demand has a price equilibrium which fluctuates accordingly. When the government enforces a price ceiling or a price floor (such as minimum wage) it offsets the equilibrium price and prevents it from fluctuating appropriately which creates a bubble of unemployment. The widely loved Federal Minimum Wage increases unemployment. When it is raised by 10% it decreases employment by between 1% and 3%. Every time the American government enforces a filthy tariff  on trade, the U.S. economy suffers.

There is a lot of talk now about the need to support “fair trade.”Seldom, however, does anyone explain either what fair trade is or–even more to the point–to whom trade should be fair. In the name of fairness, different groups advocate different protections for their specific industries and call the comparative advantage of other countries “unfair.” For example, U.S. manufacturers think it is unfair that labor in China is cheaper than labor in the United States, and therefore ask for tariffs against Chinese products. But those tariffs would, in reality, be unfair to millions of U.S. consumers and producers who would be forced to pay higher prices for locally manufactured goods. “Fairness” assumes a dubious character in policies that pick and choose whom to treat “fairly.”The only form of fair trade–if such thing exists–is free trade.

This reminds me of the tariff of 1828, which was the highest tariff in U.S. peacetime history, enacting a 62% tax on 92% of all imported goods. The purpose of this tariff was to protect the industry in the north by increasing the price of European goods which was purchased by the south. The tariff forced the South to buy manufactured goods at a higher price which significantly hurt the economy because it reduced the southern states’  income from sales of raw materials. Also the great depression which began in 1929 (mainly because households did not spend enough on consumer goods and services and business’ lack of investing in new capital) reached it’s worse in 1933 with unemployment at 25%,  because of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which was sign in 1930. Also even though economists concluded that the depression would correct itself, the government intervened which lowered unemployment in the short term, but as predicted it lead to high rising inflation rates in the 1960’s which exploded in the 1970’s increasing the unemployment rate.

So where am I wrong here? The socialist “fair” traders who attempt to discredit capitalism and free trade should look at the unemployment rates around the world. America is criticized because they do not have the high unemployment benefits as France does. Yet who has the highest unemployment rate? France! Is it possible that the higher the benefits of unemployment, the more people will be unemployed? duh! The more government intervention in the economy, the worse off it will be. People who want tariffs just to encourage domestic spending end up hurting the same economy in which they try to regulate.