Liberals' Moral Superiority Lets Them Act Inferior in Every Way

Posted: Aug 04, 2013 12:01 AM

Robert wrote: Powerful: your radio show. Pitiful: not being able to listen to a recent show of yours online, when life keeps you from listening to it live. Or have I just not managed to find the proper webpage? Please help?

Dear Robert,

That’s very nice of you to say.

For folks who don’t listen to the show, on Thursdays we play clips of politicians saying things, like when Elbert Guillory changed parties, or when Obama’s press Jester Jay Carney said that Benghazi was a long time ago, and I judge them either “powerful” or “pitiful.”

You might guess where I came done on those two examples. 

Robert, you know, on the website I get immediate feedback but radio, which I’m kind of new at, I’m never really sure 100 percent. But I figure that hard work counts for something.

We’ve done pretty well though. We started with ten stations and we now have about 30 stations. And we’re selling lots of advertising. Hopefully we’ll expand to a second hour shortly.

In the meantime here’s where we post the show every day: Ransom Notes Radio

You’ll find on the front page under “columnists” or emailed to you daily if you simply subscribe to the daily email. 

J wrote: You just hate poor people.What the War on Whatever is Really About

Dear Comrade J,

I don’t hate poor people.

I employ them cutting my grass, clipping my hedges, taking out my garbage, cooking and cleaning up for me, just like all Republicans do.

We have a secret website that matches up greedy Republican bankers with desperate people who needs jobs doing stuff that none of us have never had to do to feed our family by the sweat of our own face.

That’s because no Republicans are ever poor.

Dwight D. Eisenhower was born to a rich Prussian family that owned huge tracts of land; Nixon’s dad was a Baron who hailed from a Canadian province that his family almost wholly owned.

And don’t get me started on Ronald Reagan: we all know his family had the banana concession in Central America ever since the Pope granted it to the family 1574.

Who said I couldn’t be an Obama speechwriter?

Arthur Brooks from the American Enterprise Institute was a guest on Ransom Notes Radio Friday and he spoke about a recent editorial he published in the Wall Street Journal last week:

We have a robust and growing economy for high-income Americans. Those at the bottom see few prospects for growth and little reason for optimism. Nevertheless, a 2013 analysis by researcher Mark M. Gray at Georgetown University found that Mr. Obama mentions the poor less than any president in decades. In his public statements and official communications on social class, he mentioned the poor only a quarter of the time; in contrast, Ronald Reagan talked about the poor in two-thirds of his public pronouncements. This is puzzling indeed.

Census Bureau data show that in 2006-11, real annual income for the top 20% (quintile) of Americans fell by about 5% but rose almost 2% in 2010-11—and shows signs of continuing an upswing. For the bottom quintile, income fell by over 11%, and there was no upswing.

In 2011, workers in households earning between $40,000 and $60,000 had a 7.8% unemployment rate. In households earning under $20,000, unemployment was 24.4%. The unemployment for households earning more than $150,000 was 3.2%

In other words, high-income households were at or above full employment. Meanwhile, the lowest-income households looked at an employment landscape resembling the worst years of the Great Depression.

Say what you want, but the record say Obama is the one who hates poor people. Or at the very least, just uses them. 

Jonesy wrote: John, How can you blame the President for the beheading of a priest? Of course, you blame him for everything, so why not add this. - Obama Allies Behead Catholic Priest In Syria

Dear Comrade Jones,

No, no, no: I blame Obama for what he really did do. That is, SUPPORT the faction that killed the priest. 

Show me where I blame Obama for the beheading of a Catholic priest?

Are you speaking about the headline where I say Obama allies beheaded a Catholic priest? Or in the body of the work when I say that Obama has declared war on the Catholic Church here in the USA?

In any case, you have the usual reading-comprehension problem that liberals do. 

True schizophrenics have two perception issues that are the result of organic defects of their brain that I know of.

They have depth perception problems and so consequently sometimes take small, mincing steps. They also have a hard time distinguishing from language that happens in their head and language that is spoken out loud. Their brain cannot distinguish between the two.

I wonder what organic brain defects liberals have that so affect their perception? Liberace, perhaps?

Anonymous wrote: You are such a dumb, fat piece of $^!& it's not even funny. You should seek out good and truth in life. Instead, you seek out BS and spread false information. Lose some weight, fat @ss. - The Chevy Volt Sales Figures are on Fire!

Dear Comrade-Captain Anonymous,

It never fails that when I write about the Chevy Volt that I get tons of hate mail. The hate mail is of two types: The first says, “I’m a Republican, and I own a Chevy Volt, and I couldn’t be happier. I never pay for fuel because I steal electricity from my neighbors.”

I know this can’t be right because there are only about 3,273 people in the United States who will actually admit to being both a Republican and a Chevy Volt owner, according to data by JB Powers- that’s JD Powers other brother- and all 14,422 have written to me.

The other type is full of cursing, moral superiority, and diet advice.

RM wrote: I do not care if you lie to your friends, nor to the (dead, rotting?) #$%@ who bores you, but do not lie to me. - Chevy Volt Owners See Red, Head for Fiery Crash

Dear Comrade RM,

I see you own the Chevy Volt with the “sports” package upgrade.

Why do liberals think that the patina of moral superiority entitles them to act inferior in every other way?

Yeah, we get it: You care.

Now shut up. 


Baze wrote: So are you saying that the out of control too big to prosecute big banks in USSA are a better model? I never bought into the China will save us all BS either? But our country and economy has morphed into a giant criminal enterprise and cronyism reigns supreme. You do not acknowledge. - Soros, Obama Are Wrong: China's Not All That

Dear Comrade Baze,

I acknowledge that cronyism reigns supreme.

But the only way to cure cronyism is to the get the state to stop being able to pick winners and losers.

The banks are too big to prosecute, not as a result of economics, but because of politics.

It was after all Eric Holder’s call and we all know what he called.

If I were president I would start by prosecuting anyone who used knowledge about the bailout talks under Bush to profit- or anyone who passed along that information.

Then I’d go after every sweetheart deal done under TARP and the stimulus. I’d look at every bank that was shut down, every car dealership that was ruined and every taxpayer who was audited. 

JDSB wrote: Hi, John. Were you joking about Soros talking in Paris, France? The reason I'm curious is, there's a FELONY WARRANT for currency manipulation on him in France and I'm curious, who did he pay off? - Soros, Obama Are Wrong: China's Not All That

Dear JDSB,

No, I’m not joking.

I see there is an arrest warrant in Russia for Soros, and he had a conviction in France for insider-trading, but yeah: Just another episode of Justice for the Rich and Donors.

Tami wrote: On your Top 10 Hottest Conservative Supermen... Radio or otherwise, I think you are Super! All of your articles as of late have been superb! Sorry I have not written to comment as of late. Grace to you:) - Ransom Makes Top 10 Hottest Conservative Supermen in Radio

Dear Tami,

Yeah, but I needed the vacation badly.

Grace right back at you, my friend.

Michael wrote: A friend told me I need to be nice to people. Well your site posted a link asking if I thought Romney would have been a better president. Okay, yes if you are super rich. Yes he would have been. However most American's are not super rich. So NO HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A BETTER PRESIDENT BY ANY MEANS FOR 90% OF AMERICA !!! NO ! PERIOD !!! As for the idiot's that support your site. You realize that most of them are really stupid for supporting you people. You do not have most American's best interest at heart. MONEY IS WHAT YOU LOVE. NOT AMERICA !

Dear Comrade Mikey,

Thanks for your barely literate rant.

Don’t get down on wealth. It has its merits.

Perhaps if came from a super rich family of international bankers like me, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan, you could hire tutors to improve on that.

Bill904 wrote: For some reason, each time Ransom discusses income inequality he avoids a discussion of income bracket mobility in this country. The "classes" are remarkably fluid, as Sowell and others have made clear. When the mobility between income brackets is considerable, income inequality is much less meaningless. As usually, liberals get apoplectic about 'static situations" that are not static. Of course, DrRoy usually chimes in with a comment that his personal experience (anecdotes) contradicts the facts of income mobility, but those anecdotes don't negate the facts. - Punk'd by Obama and that Old Hobbit John McCain

Dear Bill,

I don’t discuss it because there is no such thing as income inequality in America. There are demographic shifts in households, but income has actually been remarkably stable for working Americans after adjusting for inflation.

Dtate wrote: Quit insulting the hobbits by putting the McCain name in their world! The Hobbits are better than him! - Punk'd by Obama and that Old Hobbit John McCain

Dear Dtate,

Hobbits are better only because they are fictional and don’t really exist. If only we could say the same about Senator John McCain.

You know how in It’s a Wonderful Life they showed George Bailey how the world changed for the worse because he was never born? I wish we could do that with McCain and compare and contrast the world, ex-McCain.

I guess it means we would have ended up with Romney earlier. 

Bob570 wrote: Your time off has done wonders for your sense of humor, which pretty darn good to begin with. Question: Do longer colder Winters and Springs increase our GDP at all? - The Top 7 Lies of Obam-a-CON-omists… So Far

Dear Bob,

Maybe it wasn’t my time off, but your time away from me.

Generally warmer weather means more economic activity. Or not.

No one knows actually for sure. It’s kind of like the derivation of the German word “San Diego.”

ZeroHedge has a good piece on weather. But whatever the data says, I’m sure any effect of weather – hotter, colder- is likely just temporary. 

Glad to be back, for those who missed me.

For those who didn’t miss me, I remind you of what Mark Twain said when departing for Europe: “Bless you, the joy of the American people is just a little premature; I haven't gone yet. And what is more, I am not going to stay, when I do go.”

That’s it for this week.