DoctorRoy wrote: I agree. It's time for Holder to go. Actually it was probably time when he made that ridiculous statement about not prosecuting because they are too big. that's something i would have expected out of the previous administration. You know a I am suspending capitalism in order to save capitalism sort of thing.- Liberals Find Out Eric Holder is Who We Said He Was
Dear Comrade Doctor,
Oh, I see: Blame Bush is it?
Is it really that difficult to admit that your president is a doofus who doesn’t actually represent anything other than the projection of his own power?
We have been through this many times with you Comrade Doctor.
And every time we point out an example of corruption in the Obama administration, all you do is say, “Well, Bush was worse.”
You apparently are OK with the targeting of groups by political affiliation practiced by the IRS, the seizure of phone records of the AP and Fox News, the Benghazi cover up, the DOJ ignoring voter suppression when it’s practiced by the Black Panther party, Fast and Furious, etc., etc., but you’re still outraged at Bush about Abu Ghraib.
Eleven Americans were convicted of crimes at Abu Ghraib.
We’ll never see anyone, ever convicted of anything under the reign of St. Obama.
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.
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.
Ha!
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.”
Barbara1247 wrote: The Republicans have helped bring us to this sorry state of affairs. - How About More Scandal, Incompetence, Venality, Hubris, Vanity and Error to Start
Dear Comrade 1247,
You’re a liberal, so even when you are right- like you are now- it’s accidental.
So as a public service, let me explain to you, in the simplest terms, what you got right, accidentally.
Certainly the GOP has helped establish a track record of what might be the sorriest 25 years of governing in American history. But it’s because they have supported watered-down versions of the Democrat agenda.
For every frick we have in government, we have another frack on the other side, proposing something equally idiotic.
I mean really: How do you run against each other for president as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama did and pretend like there is that much substance between the two parties at times?
Obama spied, so did Bush.
Was Mitt Romney going to stop the NSA spying program? Heck and no.
Obama declared war, as president, without the consent of Congress. Bush waged an unpopular war, which was poorly justified and poorly run.
Obama’s kept GTIMO open, killed American citizens by assassination, which he claims he has the legal authority to do.
George Bush on the other hand opened GITMO as a prisoner of war camp and allowed the torture of enemy combatants, which he claimed that he had the legal authority to do.
But here’s the difference: Bush isn’t some moralizing, Nobel-peace prize-winning, hypocrite wannabe who thinks America’s problem is that he’s not emperor.
Obama, on the other hand, is.
If the GOP – and George Bush- made mistakes, they’ve been honest mistakes.
Obama’s nothing but a pile of deceit, stuffed into an empty suit and trumpeted from a teleprompter.
When you allow your president to allow the attorney general to desist from prosecuting one of the most egregious examples of voter intimidation in the last 30 years, it’s not going to end well for you and your party.
And do you know why?
Because you pretend that there is some moral virtue that makes progressives better than anyone else.
And you pinned that claim to a guy with many talents, but virtue is not amongst them.
You guys have that habit too.
Bill Clinton was even a more talented guy than Barack Obama is; he’s a wretched person, however. And I think his wife is even worse.
I can’t wait to read the new book, she’s writing. From what I hear, it will likely make average Americans cringe.
Of course Democrats will treat it like it deserves a Noble prize in literature.
But here’s the real point for both parties: Our mode of government is inadequate for a period of time when there is more freedom, more equality of access, more people entering the middle class globally than ever before.
What we need is less government interventionism, less Big Brother, not more.
In a period where we have more data to make decisions about how to live our lives, how to best use our talent and how to gain an education that’s right for us, our government is using that technology to limit our choices, to revert to a patristic, feudalism that keeps us trapped in the intellectual remnants of the 19th and 20th century.
What people do with the conflict between technology’s liberating capacity and the desire of government to limit us, well, one day that will be called “The History of the 21st Century.”
RiffRaff wrote: Moral Authority. isn't that what all President's claim they possess? Is that what gives their actions transcendent authority? A President who presides over an immoral and unethical administration diminishes his strongest force for good. He is an empty suit at best. - How About More Scandal, Incompetence, Venality, Hubris, Vanity and Error to Start
Dear Riff,
Yes, moral authority is all the president has.
And here’s the secret behind Obama maintaining moral authority in the U.S.: Americans don’t know what morality is anymore. They think the color of someone’s skin is more important than the content of his character.
See above and see below.
Jeff2422 wrote: Well, John, discussing the media is an easy article to write. For the most part, the talking heads, bloggers, and editors have accepted the idea that the federal government should be in control of the economy. - Media Mediums and Obama’s Soft Patch
Dear Jeff,
Discussing the media is an easy column to write. But try writing about anything 5-6 days a week and make it interesting. Especially “an easy column to write.”
You run the risk of redundancy, which of course I would like to avoid, avoid, avoid.
Yes, that is something I would like to avoid.
By the way, what do you have against writing easy columns?
Adendulk wrote: No John if you understand anything about the building industry you should know that it is there that you find the most undocumented workers in the home builders section and the remodeling sectors, but then he if you don't mind all the illegal workers on the payroll why don't you hire them John. - Did IRS Target Homebuilders on Behalf of Mobbed-Up Union?
Dear Comrade Dulk,
Once again, I have no idea what you are talking about. But then again, we’re even, because neither do you.
The issue here is whether the Obama administration picked on homebuilders- with the IRS as the muscle- in order to protect help unions; unions that still have mob influence.
I asked the question in light of the IRS willingness to stifle political discourse by holding up applications for 501(c)4s from conservative groups.
If you were asserting that unions are racist because they discriminate against minority groups, well, I would agree with you. But it’s hard to tell when someone completely ignores- almost- punctuation.
What you seem to be mumbling about is the same thing that happened in the 1930s with unions and African Americans. When black Americans started competing with unions for jobs, the unions got congress to pass the Davis Bacon Act. The Davis-Bacon Act was a Jim Crow law protecting union jobs and wages at the expense of black Americans.
It seems that you are alleging that the administration is targeting illegal aliens on behalf of unions in the same way.
Valy wrote: Look, you hypocrites:
you WANT the poor to exist, they do the low jobs
you KNOW you give the poor crums ot keep them poor
you were born with opportunities and Mommy (wait, you probably had a non-working mom), your daddy gave you the money
Stop bringing i discussion the 1-2% making it with no help, they are exceptions
You never bring up the stupid, genetically impaired "trust money" kids that stay rich their whole life because they just can
SO...have more but, forget about it
One more thing...THE LIBERALS WON LAST TWO TIMES, GET OVER IT
AND I LOVE TO RUB IT IN YOUR FACE - Teaching How to Sell Women into Slavery
Dear Comrade Valy,
Your exposition seems to be a cross between a performance art piece, a haiku recitation and the lyrics to a Bob Dylan song.
Have you put in the musical score yet?
I really think that Dylan especially would be interested. I tried out a few of the lines on guitar while singing off-key in a low voice, kind of a blend of Tom Petty and Dylan.
Please get back in contact with whatever Occupy Wall Street drum-circle you fled from and secure the rights immediately.
Myer wrote: “Whenever someone expresses moral disapproval in a legal context,” ...Kagan has an ethical objection to those of us who might have an ethical objection to the state of marriage.
There is a difference between "ethical" and "moral". One has as its source individual internal guidance and the other is based on the external social system. Its a distinction with a difference and the failure to understand what someone means when they make a statement because you are too sloppy or too opinionated to listen makes the conversation impossible.
But then I guess people who characterize the people at the Davos Summit as communists have a definition of marxism that can include someone who flys in his own air plane purchased with money he made in the stock market. - Teaching How to Sell Women into Slavery
Dear Comrade Myer,
Oh yes, another liberal metro sophisticate who gives me the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition almost verbatim.
Give that man a passing credit from Occidental College!
Why, with an intellect like that you could be president.
Actually what makes the conversation impossible is the refusal of your camp to identify anything as objectively right or wrong whether you talk about morals or ethics.
Ethics is an outgrowth of morality. If there is no morality, then there are no ethics. While you seem to understand the dictionary definitions, you have no concept of how they are applied.
It would be like me pointing out the difference between Communist and Marxist, which you use interchangeably. You can use them interchangeably in this instance, because it’s an informal discussion, but if you were to be making a scholastic argument about the people at Davos, the distinguishing characteristics of Marxist or Communist would likely make a difference.
That said, one would think that when a high-brow literati like you takes on a low-brow Tea Party, knuckle–dragger who just happens to be smart enough to have accumulated more wealth on behalf of us One Precenters than anyone else in human history…
Consistency isn’t a liberal strong suit.
It’s hilarious how you see it: On the one hand you have to talk down to us, because we’re too stupid to understand anything, but on the other hand, we're so clever that we managed to gather more money and power than anyone else.
We're either that clever or we ain’t.
Steve wrote: John, I enjoy your columns but I have to wonder why you engage with the far left loons and tin-foil hat crowd. You're more than capable of chopping apart their arguments but absolutely nothing you can say to them will change their minds.
Dear Steve,
Sometimes art can’t be explained.
It’s just there for enjoyment.
Enjoy.
That’s it for this week.
V/r,
JR