Nuggets of Wisdom

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Hitler And Unions

Hitler And Unions

With so many teachers protesting, you’d think someone—preferably a history teacher—would refute the fallacious comparison of Gov. Scott Walker to Adolf Hitler.

For starters, Walker isn’t trying to abolish the unions. Limit their power, maybe (if by “limit their power”, you mean require them to contribute to their own benefits and prevent them from bargaining for wages higher than inflation), but not abolish them. The “union-busting” talking point has been thrown around so many times that fact-checking website PolitiFact was obliged to debunk it, giving it a “Pants On Fire” rating (their lowest rating!).

But yes, Hitler did abolish unions in 1933—only to replace them with his own! It must be remembered that Hitler was a “national socialist”—in other words, a socialist; and as such, was anti-capitalist, thus making him pro-labor. In fact, as he wrote in Mein Kampf, he viewed unions as a necessary force:

I think that I have already answered the first question adequately. In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence will be enormously reinforced thereby.

Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary as building stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers representing the various professions and occupations.
But don’t expect moonbats to acknowledge this inconvenient truth. After all, they have a nasty tendency of ignoring historical facts that don’t align with their leftist worldview. Why else do they call Republicans “racist” when it was Democrats, especially former Klansman Robert Byrd, who supported segregation and opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which Republicans helped passed!).

Hilter Refutes Brown

Hitler Refutes Brown

"I look back at history, and some of the worst governments we've ever had, you know one of the first things they ever did? They went after the trade unions. Hitler didn't want unions. Stalin didn't want unions. (Former Egyptian President Hosni) Mubarak didn't want independent unions. These autocrats in history don't want independent unions." -Sen. Sherrod Brown

"In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence will be enormously reinforced thereby." - Adolf Hitler


With so many teachers protesting, you’d think someone—preferably a history teacher—would refute the fallacious comparison of Gov. Scott Walker to Adolf Hitler.

For starters, Walker isn’t trying to abolish the unions. Limit their power, maybe (if by “limit their power”, you mean require them to contribute to their own benefits and prevent them from bargaining for wages higher than inflation), but not abolish them. The “union-busting” talking point has been thrown around so many times that fact-checking website PolitiFact was obliged to debunk it, giving it a “Pants On Fire” rating (their lowest rating!).

But yes, Hitler did abolish unions in 1933—only to replace them with his own! It must be remembered that Hitler was a “national socialist”—in other words, a socialist; and as such, was anti-capitalist, thus making him pro-labor. In fact, as he wrote in Mein Kampf, he viewed unions as a necessary force:

I think that I have already answered the first question adequately. In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence will be enormously reinforced thereby.

Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary as building stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers representing the various professions and occupations.
But don’t expect moonbats to acknowledge this inconvenient truth. After all, they have a nasty tendency of ignoring historical facts that don’t align with their leftist worldview. Why else do they call Republicans “racist” when it was Democrats, especially former Klansman Robert Byrd, who supported segregation and opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which Republicans helped passed!).

Monday, March 28, 2011

Demotivational Poster: Godwin's Law Fail

Godwin's Law Fail

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." - Mike Godwin

With so many teachers protesting, you’d think someone—preferably a history teacher—would refute the fallacious comparison of Gov. Scott Walker to Adolf Hitler.

For starters, Walker isn’t trying to abolish the unions. Limit their power, maybe (if by “limit their power”, you mean require them to contribute to their own benefits and prevent them from bargaining for wages higher than inflation), but not abolish them. The “union-busting” talking point has been thrown around so many times that fact-checking website PolitiFact was obliged to debunk it, giving it a “Pants On Fire” rating (their lowest rating!).

But yes, Hitler did abolish unions in 1933—only to replace them with his own! It must be remembered that Hitler was a “national socialist”—in other words, a socialist; and as such, was anti-capitalist, thus making him pro-labor. In fact, as he wrote in Mein Kampf, he viewed unions as a necessary force:

I think that I have already answered the first question adequately. In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence will be enormously reinforced thereby.

Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary as building stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers representing the various professions and occupations.
But don’t expect moonbats to acknowledge this inconvenient truth. After all, they have a nasty tendency of ignoring historical facts that don’t align with their leftist worldview. Why else do they call Republicans “racist” when it was Democrats, especially former Klansman Robert Byrd, who supported segregation and opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which Republicans helped passed!).

Friday, March 25, 2011

NEW SERIES - Voices Of Insanity



You’ve seen my Voices Of Reason series, which highlighted rational-thinking individuals who stood for common sense principles such as individual rights, limited government, and free enterprise. Now prepare yourself for the flip side of the spectrum: irrational lunatics who spew nothing but stupidity and ignorance.

The following is a tentative schedule (dates are subject to change):

04/01 -- Janeane Garofalo
04/08 - - Keith Olbermann
04/15 -- Mike Malloy
04/22 -- Alex Jones
04/29 -- Senator Alan Grayson

MSNBC FAILS 20 - O'Donnell: Obama "Union Bosses" = Racist?



Lawrence O'Donnell accuses a Republican ad claiming Obama has "union bosses" (and that the sky is blue!) as racist.

PolitiFact article debunking Republican ad

American Institute For Economic Research article on union contributions to Democrats

CNS News article about SEIU's contributions to Obama's election

Music by Kevin Kevin MacLeod

MSNBC FAILS 19 – Maddow Cherry-Picks To Deny Her Mistakes



After being proven wrong by fact-checking website PolitFact about her comments on Wisconsin’s budget, Rachel Maddow cherry-picks the article in order to deny being wrong.

The PolitiFact article

PolitiFact’s response to her

Music by Kevin Kevin MacLeod

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Wisconsin Protests Prove Left Doesn’t Care About Civility

I’ve been saying this over and over again: THE LEFT-WING DOESN’T CARE ABOUT CIVILITY!

Nope. Not one iota!

They only care about incivility and “violent rhetoric” when it comes from the right-wing. When it comes from their side, they ignore it; and when you point it out to them, they accuse you of playing “false equivalency”—of claiming the left-wing is the same as the right-wing (which is obviously bogus: the left-wing is far worse, in both violent rhetoric and violent acts!).

The union protests in Wisconsin serve as proof. For as much as the left-wing has complained about “violent” and “racist” signs at the Tea Party protests, they have remained silent concerning the vandalism, death threats, and other criminal activity committed by the union thugs—or as the left would call them: honest, hard-working Americans protesting for fairer wages (in other words, not having to pay for their own pensions and healthcare premiums!).

Here’s a New York Post column by Glenn Harlan Reynolds about the union thuggery:

Just a couple of months ago, in the wake of Jared Loughner's shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, simple talk of "targeting" a political opponent for defeat was treated as beyond the pale. But let's look at some more recent language -- and conduct -- that our bien-pensant punditry can't be bothered to notice, let alone condemn.

In Michigan, protesters opposed to Gov. Rick Snyder's austerity budget broke a window to get into the capitol building. One faces felony charges after assaulting police with an edged weapon; 14 were arrested.

In Washington, DC, the windows at GOP headquarters were shot out, not the first time that Republican offices have been subject to such attacks.

In Madison, Wis., the state capitol was occupied for weeks by teachers-union members and their supporters. Doors and windows were broken; a mob tried to keep Republican state senators from entering the Senate chamber to vote.

And blogger Ann Althouse -- a Wisconsin law professor who voted for Barack Obama -- received nasty threats for the crime of posting video depicting this thuggish conduct on YouTube: "We will f--- you up," the threateners wrote. This was not the first threat she has received for her blogging.

The GOP state senators who supported Gov. Scott Walker's budget also received death threats, including an e-mail reading, in part: "I want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and your republican dictators have to die.

"This is how it's going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records. We have all planned to assult [sic] you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head.

"However, this isn't enough. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message. So we have built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent. This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't tell you all of them because that's just no fun."

This threat was more credible because mobs of union protesters had already visited senators' houses, screaming and banging on the windows.

At the Huffington Post, liberal Lee Stranahan wonders why this kind of thing isn't getting more attention from the traditional media who were tut-tutting over much more minor (and even imaginary) offenses to civility so very recently. "Ignoring the story of these threats is deeply, fundamentally wrong. It's bad, biased journalism that will lead to no possible good outcome and progressives should be leading the charge against it.

"Just before writing this article, I did a Google search and it's stunning to find out that the right-wing media really isn't exaggerating -- proven death threats against politicians are being ignored by the supposedly honest media. If you've never agreed with a single thing that Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly et al have said about anything, you can't in any good conscience say that they don't have a point here. Death threats are wrong and if a story like Wisconsin is national news for days, then so are death threats."

He's right, but the big-media folks seem so anxious to peddle the same tired storyline -- right-wingers are violent and ignorant, left-wingers are peaceful and virtuous -- that they almost have to ignore anything that will spoil the narrative.

But in doing this, they only undermine their own position more. Word still gets out -- even to liberals at the Huffington Post. And people catch on: If there are big stories out there that traditional media won't cover because it offends their storyline, then why listen to traditional media at all?

Demotivational Poster: National Endowment For The Arts



Last week, Sarah Palin pissed off the liberal media (what else is new?) by claiming that the National Endowment for the Arts was “frivolous”. Of course, she never said that art, or even art-funding, was frivolous; but to moonbats, she might as well have, and openly confess that she was an uncultured swine—a Philistine!

According to their logic, if the government doesn’t do it, no one will. Without the NEA, there would be no art. Without the Department of Education, there would be no education. Without PBS, there would be no Sesame Street. Without the military, there would be no national defense. (Scratch that. The military is the only thing about government moonbats hate.)

Of course, Ms. Palin has a point. Just perform a Google search and you’ll see why Palin and others are less than pleased about the “art” funded with our tax dollars. Crucifixes submerged in urine. Bullwhips inserted into men’s anuses. Masturbation as stage performance. Sadists carving into human backs onstage. In the words of Neal Boortz, the NEA is welfare for artists who can’t sell their art in the free market.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for art, and as a free speech advocate, I think art should be controversial and not be subject to unnecessary censorship—which is why art should be left to the private sector, where individuals have the choice of what art they wish to fund, rather than the public sector, where they are forced to fund all  art, even that which they find distasteful.

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Maher: Islamic Terrorists Worse Than Domestic Terrorists

While most moonbats will argue that a culture that oppresses women and executes homosexuals is equal to a culture that extols sexual equality and permits alternative lifestyles, left-wing loudmouth Bill Maher unabashedly proclaims that the “Religion of Peace” is anything but peaceful—an action that would label him an “Islamophobe” if he were right-wing like Juan Williams or Bill O'Reilly.

On his show last Friday, Bill Maher—a moonbat I love to hate—destroyed the liberal lie of cultural relativism, or multiculturalism, by saying Islamic terrorists are a greater threat that domestic terrorists.

Of course, when referring to domestic terrorists, he specifically mentions right-wing extremists such as Timothy McVeigh, as Maher believes the left-wing isn’t as violent as the right. (Never mind ultra-left environmental groups such as the ELF and ALF—both which are funded by PETA, of which Maher is a board member!)

Video and transcript from NewsBusters:


So let me get to the part where I think you may not agree with me which is I do agree that there are other groups that pose a terrorist threat to this country. There are right-wing militias who are nutty and the Ku Klux Klan and abortion bombers and Timothy McVeigh types. I would say that the threat potentially from radicalized Muslims is a unique and greater threat. It is the greatest threat.

Let me give you the reasons why I jotted down why. One, it's been going on a thousand years this problem between Islam and the west. We are dealing with a culture that is in its medieval era. It comes from a hate-filled holy book, the Koran, which is taken very literally by its people. They are trying to get nuclear weapons. I don't think Tim McVeigh would ever have tried to get a nuclear weapon because I think right-wing nuts they think they love this country and they are not trying to destroy this country. They want to get it away from the people they see as hijacking it. That’s different than Muslim extremists who want to destroy it. And also, it's a culture of suicide bombing, which is hard to deter from people who want to kill themselves.
Of course, his guest Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) gave the age-old excuse that not all Muslims are terrorists, an excuse Maher quickly eradicated.
Of course. No one is disputing that the vast, vast, giant majority of Muslims are not the problem. We're talking about a very small percentage, but it just takes one. That's what we're talking about when we're talking about terrorism, and obviously there is something that is going on that they're getting from the Koran.

Friday, March 11, 2011

Demotivational Poster: Union Busting



Before anyone accuses me of being a corporate shill who doesn’t give two craps about the working man: I believe that unions have every right to exist and negotiate with their employers for fairer wages, benefits, and working conditions. They also have the right to “peacefully assemble” and voice their grievances (though I doubt moonbats would extend the same courtesy to the Tea Party). I just find their protests, or rather their reason for protesting, to be ridiculous.

In case you’ve been living under a rock for the past month, union members have been flooding the Wisconsin state capitol to protest Governor Scott Walker’s budget repair bill, which was proposed to correct the state’s $137 million shortfall (a shortfall that moonbats Rachel Maddow and Michael Moore deny exists). Protestors have described the bill as “union-busting”, “class warfare”, and an “attack on the middle class”.

So what’s about the bill has unions so riled up? Three things:

1) It requires public sector union members to contribute a small percent of their salary to their pensions and healthcare premiums, which only seems fair considering they already contribute jack squat to their pensions and only half to their premiums. If you want something, you should have to pay for it.

2) It would prevent collective bargaining for wages higher than the rate of inflation. Granted, I’m not an expert in economics (so correct me if I’m wrong), but it seems rather foolish to demand wages higher than the prices customers (or in this case, taxpayers) pay for your service, unless you plan to raise prices (or in this case, taxes).

3) It would eliminate automatic due checkoff, which automatically deducts dues from a unions member’s paycheck. From what I hear, this somehow limits a union’s political power. Then again, considering that teacher unions (which are at the forefront of these protests) lobby against offering students life-saving medicine, converting failing public schools into more efficient charter schools, and instituting educational reform in general, this might be a good thing.

So forgive me if I don’t understand why rationally-thinking people would vehemently oppose these measures, considering that the alternative—1,500 public employee layoffs (10,000 to 12,000 layoffs over the next two years)—is far worse. Then again, that’s assuming moonbats are rationally-thinking people.

Union Rage



Before anyone accuses me of being a corporate shill who doesn’t give two craps about the working man: I believe that unions have every right to exist and negotiate with their employers for fairer wages, benefits, and working conditions. They also have the right to “peacefully assemble” and voice their grievances (though I doubt moonbats would extend the same courtesy to the Tea Party). I just find their protests, or rather their reason for protesting, to be ridiculous.

In case you’ve been living under a rock for the past month, union members have been flooding the Wisconsin state capitol to protest Governor Scott Walker’s budget repair bill, which was proposed to correct the state’s $137 million shortfall (a shortfall that moonbats Rachel Maddow and Michael Moore deny exists). Protestors have described the bill as “union-busting”, “class warfare”, and an “attack on the middle class”.

So what’s about the bill has unions so riled up? Three things:

1) It requires public sector union members to contribute a small percent of their salary to their pensions and healthcare premiums, which only seems fair considering they already contribute jack squat to their pensions and only half to their premiums. If you want something, you should have to pay for it.

2) It would prevent collective bargaining for wages higher than the rate of inflation. Granted, I’m not an expert in economics (so correct me if I’m wrong), but it seems rather foolish to demand wages higher than the prices customers (or in this case, taxpayers) pay for your service, unless you plan to raise prices (or in this case, taxes).

3) It would eliminate automatic due checkoff, which automatically deducts dues from a unions member’s paycheck. From what I hear, this somehow limits a union’s political power. Then again, considering that teacher unions (which are at the forefront of these protests) lobby against offering students life-saving medicine, converting failing public schools into more efficient charter schools, and instituting educational reform in general, this might be a good thing.

So forgive me if I don’t understand why rationally-thinking people would vehemently oppose these measures, considering that the alternative—1,500 public employee layoffs (10,000 to 12,000 layoffs over the next two years)—is far worse. Then again, that’s assuming moonbats are rationally-thinking people.

Monday, March 7, 2011

Family Guy: "Who's Rachel Maddow?"

Last night's episode of Family Guy featured a small jab at left-wing pundit Rachel Maddow.

Lois: And Bonnie said you were very pretty.

Meg: But I—how did that come up?

Lois: Oh—you know—we were talking about pretty people, and, I said “Rachel Maddow” and she kind of took the baton from there and said “Meg Griffin.”

Meg: Who’s Rachel Maddow?

Lois: (long pause) A model.

Meg: Oh!

Lois: Yeah!
Ha! I don’t know what’s funnier: Lois claiming “Mad Cow” is pretty, or Meg not knowing who she is. The joke would have been just as funny had it ended with Meg asking “Who’s Rachel Maddow?” Would have highlighted the moonbat’s unpopularity and overall irrelevance.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Voices Of Reason



There's a user on YouTube called thethinkingblue, who has a video series called "Voices of Reason." The series highlights such "reasonable" figures such as Keith Olbermann, Alan Grayson, and Janeane Garofalo. Seriously, if those people are "Voices of Reason," I shudder to think who qualifies as insane.

That video series inspired me to create my own Voices of Reason series, in which I highlight "real" individuals who exemplify rational thought. These individuals are committed to defending common sense principles such as individual rights, limited government, and free market economies. You can watch this series on my YouTube, Dailymotion, or blip.tv channels.



John Stossel
The voice of reason in an age of hype and hysteria. His "Give Me A Break" segments on ABC's 20/20 challenged conventional wisdom with common sense, questioning assertions behind issues like global warming, healthcare reform, and public education. He continues to offer his skepticism in his books and weekly program on Fox Business.



Penn Jillette
The better half of the magical duo Penn and Teller. Along with his partner Teller, Penn uses his experience in creating illusions to dispel modern day illusions. From alternative medicine and global warming, to magic crystals and crash dieting, he helps unveil the bullshit of pseudoscience and propaganda.



Bernard Goldberg
Having worked at CBS News for nearly 30 years, this former journalist (and liberal) knows what he's talking about when he claims the news media is infested with liberal bias. His two books Bias and Arrogance uncover the liberal workings of the media, while his other books, including 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, ridicule everything wrong with the American Left.



Judge Andrew Napolitano
Having served as both a Superior Court Judge and a law school adjunct professor, Judge Andrew Napolitano is well-versed in Constitutional Law, strongly advocating for limited government while denouncing all forms of big government—be it from the left (through universal healthcare and over-regulation) or from the right (through drug prohibition and warrantless wiretaps).



Congressman Ron Paul
While most Republicans pay lip service to "limited government," Ron Paul has always practiced what he preached. He has stood firmly for a constitutionally limited government, opposing unconstitutional measures such as the Patriot Act, waterboarding, gun control, socialized medicine, and the drug war. He supports non-interventionist foreign policy and laissez-faire free market capitalism.

VOICES OF REASON - Congressman Ron Paul



While most Republicans pay lip service to "limited government," Ron Paul has always practiced what he preached. He has stood firmly for a constitutionally limited government, opposing unconstitutional measures such as the Patriot Act, waterboarding, gun control, socialized medicine, and the drug war. He supports non-interventionist foreign policy and laissez-faire free market capitalism.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

MSNBC FAILS 18 – Maddow Proven Wrong About Wisconsin



Fact-checking site PolitiFact analyzes (and debunks!) Rachel Maddow’s claim that Wisconsin is not bankrupt—and if it is, it’s all Gov. Scott Walker’s fault.

PolitFact article: Rachel Maddow says Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year

MSNBC FAILS 17 - Maddow: We’re Not A Political Operation



Following Keith Olbermann’s suspension, Rachel Maddow claims that MSNBC isn’t a political operation like Fox News because, apparently, MSNBC hosts don’t ask for political donations.

Featuring Rachel Maddow Blasts Fox from her Glass House at MSNBC! by Johnny Dollar

MSNBC FAILS 16 – Olbermann: Calling Obama “Arrogant” = Racial Slur?



Keith Olbermann—infamous for calling Bush a fascist—accuses six conservative personalities of racism for calling Obama “arrogant.” I wish I was kidding!

MSNBC FAILS 15 – Beck Worse Than Islamic Death Threats?



What could be worse than radical Muslims sending death threats to cartoonists? According to Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck claiming he was inspired by God to write a book!

MSNBC FAILS 14 - Angry MSNBC Producer Flips Out!



Apparently, Fox News isn’t the only news organization with an embarrassing freak out moment!