Paul Jacob has at times been a reader of this blog, and seems to have an uncanny ability to read my mind.

He has a new piece up today that is an absolute must-read.

When people have been paid above fair market value for the work they do, eventually they are going to be brought to task and have to pay the piper. This is what I've been saying.

Paul Jacob says this today:

When politicians and unions negotiate wages, both sides are monopolies of sorts. And the problem with this situation, called ‘bilateral monopoly’ by economists, is that there is no obvious natural or equilibrium price for the services.

Two things:

1. Go read the whole thing; then show it to any idiots you come across who side with these union thugs.

2. I wonder what the chances are we could get Paul Jacob to run for POTUS ... probably slim to none, but we have to start somewhere ...

RWR

After hearing her speech last month as the SOTU respondent from the Tea Party, I was much less than impressed with Michele Bachmann. Her speech sounded like Republican talking points, while the Republican respondent, Paul Ryan, soundly outdid Ms. Bachmann from a Tea Party (Federalist) standpoint.

I got curious yesterday because of the hard-on people at MichelleMalkin.com were getting over Bachmann and Herman Cain, whom we have already proven to be unacceptable based upon currently available information. I do have huge concerns with regard to Bachmann, based primarily upon her poor performance on SOTU night. The points she articulated were all more Republican than Federalist, while the Republican made more Federalist points than Bachmann even attempted.

But what exactly does the record show? I analyzed Bachmann yesterday, and was actually pleasantly surprised to see that she came in at about 88% on the Federalist scale. Since I expect a candidate to come in at a minimum of 85% in order to consider voting for him or her, that was actually quite refreshing (and something of a relief). I today began to wonder where Mr. Ryan would fall, given his more compelling rhetoric on SOTU night.

Admittedly, the man has some really excellent positions, not the least of which involves "requiring all laws to cite Constitutional authorization" (hmm ... where have we heard THAT before???), but that rhetoric doesn't match his record. It better matches Bachmann's. One big plus for Ryan is an expansive record that covers a wide variety of issues. There is simply no question about where he stands on any issue or what he would do in any situation. Still, as a potential Federalist/Tea Partier, though he talks the talk better than Bachmann, he only walks the walk at about 75%.

Bachmann is head and shoulders above.

I can see where we may have to revisit Michele Bachmann. A great speaker does not a great President make, but it sure helps in getting the foot in the door, even if you have to use a teleprompter ...

RWR

Got to love Doug Powers.

He always gets it right; and when he doesn't, he at least makes you think.

Yesterday, he exposed the political foolishness known as Donald Trump, who had so-called conservatives fawning all over him at CPAC for saying what they wanted to hear.

Of course, that's just not good enough. You can't just talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. Otherwise you get twenty years of Clinton/Bush.

You go, Doug!

RWR

No joke. It was because his opponent was a girl.

... or because he knew he was toast anyway and wanted to spare himself the embarrassment.

I've seen it happen, folks. I don't care what bullshit this kid gives you, he's nothing but a pussified piece of shit as a competitor. This girl has obviously learned what to do on the mat, and is more than prepared to win or lose. Girls have been competing in high school wrestling events in that state for twenty years. He knew that when he went out for the team.

Fact happens to be (and I've seen this as well), that girls tend to be more successful with martial arts training in general than boys. This could be because fewer girls get involved, and the ones who do are more likely to be the motivated ones with aptitude (as opposed to the scratchers and hair pullers you see in urban schools). My own daughter is a decorated martial artist, and the majority of her wins (even by percentage) have been against boys - as have ALL of her submissions. Off the mat, she is as girly a girl as any other. PeanutButterPoet and PoetryBug had five black belts between them - both truly amazing women by any measure.

Make no mistake about it. The kid's statements about "a boy engaging a girl in this manner" are nothing but bullshit excuses (Penn Jilette would have a field day with this clown). The girl would have handily kicked his ass and embarrassed him, and he knew it. Much easier to just take the forfeit.

Fuckin' pussy. Don't bother enlisting.

RWR

A recent comment from a reader named "Lee" asked for my thoughts on Herman Cain, and whom I might see as a viable candidate for the White House in 2012.

I had heard of Cain. I knew he was great at dispelling myths about conservatives and Tea Party types being "racist". I even knew his name was being floated out there as a possible candidate.

Of course, given the Republicans' absolutely dismal candidates in every presidential election of my voting lifetime (this goes back to 1988), I would never expect them to put someone worth voting for on the ballot anyway. I had high hopes for W in 2000, and didn't feel like a LOTE vote would be all that bad in 2004, but alas, it was just another four-year dictatorship completely inappropriate to the way things are supposed to be in the United States.

Of course, in those days, I was much more Republican than I am today. Read some of my older posts for proof. I was inspired by President Bush's 2005 inaugural address, and stood firm against those who said he was a bad speaker. Truth be told, Mr. Bush was, in fact, a great speaker - head and shoulders above him who illegally sits in his former office today. Sadly, a great speaker does not a great President make. After twenty years of Bush/Clinton, we aren't much better off than we would have been had we allowed Jimmy Carter another four years.

So the Tea Party likes Herman Cain? Whoopie fucking do. They couldn't even find an appropriate speaker to respond to the State of the Union. Even the Republicans beat us that night.

I googled all over the Internet to find something the man stands for, and the only place there was anything at all was (not surprisingly) WorldNetDaily. That's the same WorldNetDaily that is leading the charge to force Mr. Obama to produce documentation proving he is legally eligible for office. All I could find even there was the following:

1. He's not buying the bullshit that the Tea Party is a bunch of racists.

2. He's a problem solver.

3. He's for securing the border, enforcing border and immigration laws, and simplifying the naturalization process.

4. He's for slowing the onset of OblahmaCare and repealing it in as timely a fashion as possible (and replacing it with God knows what - the link was broken).

5. He's pro-life.

6. He's for an indefinite spending cap and drastic cuts in taxation.

7. He's for "restructuring" MediScare and Socialist Security (whatever that means).

8. He's for replacing the current tax structure with a sales tax.

9. He's for a strong military.

10. He's for maximizing use of natural resources, but also advocates "pursuing renewable fuel technologies".

He says he's a Constitutionalist as well.

OK, so what does this mean from a truly Constitutionalist perspective? Simply compare his positions to the Federalist Party Platform and it will all make sense.

Let's go through them one at a time again ...

1. He is correct in his assertion that the Tea Party is not a bunch of racists. - Check.

2. He's a problem solver. - OK fine. That's all neat and peachy. So what? If your solution to a problem isn't constitutional, then you're the same scum that is currently infesting the White House.

3. On illegals and immigration ... OK. I'll take that answer. - Check.

4. Elimination of OblahmaCare. - Check, but beware the alternative. What exactly does he plan to put in its place? Don't forget that the Republicans have decided that they have a government health "solution" as well, which is just as illegal as Oblahma's. Doing away with OblahmaCare isn't enough. We need a candidate that will stop government meddling in the affairs of the people, period.

5. Pro-life. - Check.

6. A spending cap? Whoopie fucking do. You're going to vote for a candidate who will cap spending AFTER all this illegal socialism has been added? Are you fucking kidding me? Cuts in taxation, sure, but simply capping spending indefinitely isn't going to mean squat if money is still being spent illegally.

7. "Restructuring" MediScare and Socialist Security. Unless this means handing it off to the people to administer or to the States where the State Constitutions allow, it's nothing more than the usual Donk-lite. That's not a Tea Partier; that is a REPUBLICAN.

8. Sales tax? No. Sorry, Charlie. That ain't gonna cut it. Somehow America had plenty of money before the libs decided they needed an income tax. Now people want to replace that tax with a different tax on the same people. Why not just do what we did before the libs walked in and decided they needed this huge expensive government? THAT is what makes sense.

9. Strong military. - Check.

10. I would want to know what he means by "pursuing renewable fuel technologies". To me, it sounds like the same government meddling we have now, but without handcuffing those wishing to use American resources. Doesn't sound a bit like he has any desire to divest government of its "interest" in this area.

So out of seven relevant positions, he's solidly acceptable on two.

Not what I'm looking for.

Furthermore, I would be "more than just a little" concerned about a guy who says he's "crazy about the Constitution", and in the same breath would advocate unconstitutional government healthcare, unconstitutional spending, unconstitutional socialist programs, unconstitutional taxation, and unconstitutional environmentalism.

Whom do I see as a viable candidate in 2012?

For now, it's looking a lot like "none of the above".

RWR