So here I am, sitting at work, during what has to be the least productive week of the year. Since I have the time, I thought I’d look through some of the random emails I receive on a daily basis. One of those emails contained the following public-service announcement:
Actors. Always with the actors. I guess there were some musicians in there too, but whatever. Marching ’em up there to read a cue card must work though, or they’d stop using them for the “social issues,” right? Of course, all of these people have one thing in common: they’re Democrats. Oh, and they all live in some sort of compound/gated community in California and/or New York that keeps them from having to interact with the “common folk,” while being protected by some sort of armed security. It’s like Sean Penn telling us about how Venezuelan communist dictator Hugo Chavez is a great guy, when the closest Penn has ever come to actual communism is watching a re-run of Rocky IV. In other words, they’re all a bunch of clowns without any credibility.
Many of the actors in this liberal propaganda piece contribute just as much, if not more, to gun violence than the guns themselves. Crap, the very first guy up, Jamie Foxx, has been in a truckload of movies where people getting killed by guns is the norm. You can connect each and every one of the individuals up there with the glorification of gun violence. Well, maybe not all of them. I think two of them are basketball players. At least they didn’t put a hologram of 2 Pac in there.
They all want a plan. “Demand A Plan,” they say. The demanded “plan” equates to banning assault rifles, and creating more gun laws. In 2011, 323 murders were the result of rifles (not necessarily “assault” rifles), while 6,220 were the result of handguns (Don’t worry. Diane Feinstein wants your handguns too). We already have lots of gun laws. Federal gun laws that apply to everyone are here. Enforcement’s the issue. Overall, not much of a plan.
How about this? Let’s ban violent movies. Forget about putting ratings and age restrictions on them. That’s not enough. The mentally ill are still getting their hands on “Natural Born Killers.” So, no more “Django Unchained,” or “Scream,” or “Hurt Locker.” Wait, what was that Elizabeth Banks? “It’s not movies, it’s people.” “Lots of people see these movies, but only a small number go on a shooting spree.” “Why did the parents let them see it?”
And then someone will bring up the First Amendment. “It’s the most offensive speech we need to protect,” they say. Well I say let’s amend the First Amendment so that we can ban offensive speech. Let a majority of citizens in each community decide what’s ok. Or better yet…let’s just repeal it all together. It’s not like our government would take advantage of that. This is America. Don’t be paranoid. Oh, and we should make murder illegal-er. That’ll do it.
Notice how only one person mentioned the kid killed on the corner? While Newtown was a horrific occurrence, it pales in comparison to the number of people being shot and killed in the inner cities every day due to gangs. Why aren’t there any public service announcements about figuring out how to keep inner-city dads at home and not in prison? Why don’t they Demand A Plan to lower the rate of unwed mothers in the inner city? Because that would require a change in their liberal-ness, that’s why.
Why don’t we allow cops in the inner city to stop and frisk suspected gang members? And I don’t actually mean “suspected;” the officers who patrol the neighborhoods know who the gang members are. Why not arrest groups of gang members who are loitering? Or jaywalking? If any of this was ever tried, the ACLU would be filing lawsuits left and right, claiming violations of the Fourth Amendment or alleging racial profiling. And Hollywood would be right there making the same claims.
Taking guns from law-abiding citizens, and allowing them to stay in the hands of gangs, is all part of the liberal agenda. How do I know this? Because the gun control measures being touted by the left have no hope of working, and they never have. Columbine happened during the last assault weapons ban, for crying out loud. Could disarming the public of assault rifles have kept Newtown from happening? That’s the question that needs to be asked repeatedly over the next weeks and months. It won’t be though, because stopping “Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tuscon, Aurora, Fort Hood, Oak Creek, Newtown” and all the others isn’t the point.
In a tightly contested race, Jennifer Aniston wins the “Delivers Lines With The Most Feigned Emotion” award, and Chris Rock needs to remember that, no matter what the intelligentsia say, the “h” in “human” is not silent.
This post was originally going to be just about taxes, and that Romney needs to figure out how to tell the American people that his opponent is willing to raise taxes on a significant portion of them if he can’t stick it to 2% of the population (and approximately 190,000 small businesses). That’s just how much Barry likes all of you. He’ll make our economy suck even more just to show how tough he is on
his biggest donors the evil rich. Gee, what a guy.
But then I ran into the weekend, where I don’t do anything with the computer except watch an occasional Tigers game or movie. Then, on Monday morning, I was greeted with this:
I would use the word “enlightening” if this wasn’t something we’ve heard before. And yes, I can hear you now… “But Nash (that’s the sexy name I gave myself), Barry didn’t say anything bad. We’ve all had great teachers who helped us with [insert inspirational story here]. And GE does need roads and bridges to deliver products. I think you’re overreacting here because he’s BLACK.” Ok, reasonable people probably won’t accuse me of being a racist simply because I don’t like the president, but you get my point. I’ve always said liberalism is the politics of the weak-minded. “Why can’t everybody have enough food? Why can’t we prevent AIDS in Africa? Why can’t the uber-wealthy pay their fair share?” And by the time I get to my answer, they’ve gone to get a new bumper-sticker about Tolerance.
The point of Barry’s speech is to sell his stupid proposal to increase taxes on the top 2%, which by his own numbers, will increase taxes on approximately 190,000 small businesses, while doing nothing useful for the crappy economy. “But Nash, the wealthy do use the roads.” Yep, and they, like everyone else, pay taxes for them. “But what about the teachers?” I thought teaching and inspiring the youth of America was the job for which they are paid. There’s no logical connection between taxes paying for roads and Bob and Jim paying more than everyone else to use them. The problem is, the people of America love a good strawman, and they cheer when one is knocked down.
Every single American should hate the president’s speech. Why? Because it’s patronizing. Because it makes one group of Americans the enemy of everyone else, for no rationale reason. Because it’s the kind of speech a communist would give. Make no mistake: Obama would nationalize the wealth of the wealthy if given the chance. He doesn’t have the chance though, so he’ll just shoot for a tax increase, despite the fact that the top 2% already pay far more than their “fair share.”
Other far-lefties are following suit, threatening to send this country into a recession if they can’t raise taxes on the top 2%. “Well Nash, the right is willing to send this country into a recession to just protect the rich guy.” That may be true, but on this one, the right has the moral high ground. Why? Because taxes consist of the government forcefully taking private property from its rightful owners. So the government had better have a good reason to take more.
And there resides the important question. Why? Through all the rhetoric, we’ve never been given a reason for why raising taxes at this juncture is a good idea. Nobody claims it will improve the economy, not even the president. Romney should be hammering this point over and over again, because the answer isn’t going to be sufficient for many.
I watched only part of the first season of “Mad Men,” before I simply couldn’t take it anymore. It’s a testament to our times that a show so full of depraved people could be so popular. In case you haven’t seen it, the entire show is about a bunch of overgrown children running around on their wives. Needless to say, I was surprised to come across an article seemingly equating Don Draper with a guy whose personal life is about at squeaky clean as they come. But after reading it though, I understood. “The Draperizing of Mitt Romney” does a nice job of laying out the culture war that has been created by the left, in the hopes of retaining the White House.
The president’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, has gone further, quipping that the former Massachusetts governor ‘must watch ‘Mad Men’ and think it’s the evening news’ while jabbing that Romney’s views are out of a time when ‘bosses could dictate on women’s health.’
‘I simply have not seen her in any way as an advocate for women’s empowerment in society,’ said Kim Gandy, the former head of the National Organization for Women, of Ann Romney before Rosen’s comments. ‘And since Gov. Romney looks to her to find out what women care about, that does not bode well. I haven’t heard her speaking out about increasing women’s opportunity for higher paid employment, for women in non-traditional occupations, specifically for increasing pay equity for women, closing the pay gap, certainly not on women’s reproductive rights.’
Well, you probably haven’t heard her talking about these things because they’re made up issues. Seriously, what’s a “non-traditional occupation?” Kicker for a NFL team? Is a wet-nurse a “non-traditional occupation,” because I’ve been looking to break into that market for a while. And gender pay-gap? There is no gender pay-gap if you actually compare apples to apples. In other words, women who haven’t left work at some point to have children or take up mud wrestling are actually earning more than men at the same job. And this fact doesn’t take into account another fact: the federal government shouldn’t be telling any private company how much they should be paying anyone. The only other issue referenced is “reproductive rights.” As indicated above, there is no “contraception issue.” It’s completely made up. And Ann Romney isn’t the first woman to be pro-life. So get a grip.
Note to my wife: Your life is easy and you should never talk about things that don’t involve baby-making and bon-bons. **UPDATE** Libs respond
If I ever said this, my wife would kill me. And by “kill,” I mean make me stay home with my kids for a week. The following is HILARIOUS. Not because it’s a woman saying it, but because it’s an Obama advisor, lefty woman saying it. After all, nothing irritates the feminists like a conservative stay-at-home mom. The fun starts around the 50 second mark:
Note to my wife: stop your yapping. You don’t ever have to worry about anything. You just sit around, eat your bon bons, and look pretty. This little blurb is yet another reminder of the set-in-stone fact that no one is more intolerant of those who don’t agree with them then liberals. It’s not like I go around blaming all the world’s problems on the latch-key kid whose parents are too important to have someone at home when the little deviant returns from school with his sixteen year old girlfriend and a couple of cans of Old Style that his buddy Johnny lifted from his old man.
And of course, all of this came after Barry explained to the world on Friday why his wife, Michelle “give me that Happy Meal” Obama, had to work while having two daughters at home.
‘Once I was in the state legislature, I was teaching, I was practicing law, I’d be traveling,’ he said. ‘And we didn’t have the luxury for her not to work.’
Hey, I’ve heard this line before. People say this to me in a condescending way about all the money I must have, since my wife gets to stay at home with the fruit of my prodigious loins. In other words, Barry’s trying to tell you that he’s just one of the guys. A middle class, beer-drinkin’, blue-collar schmo, who didn’t have the money to keep a parent home. After all, the happy couple was only earning just south of half a million dollars per year at the time.
What’s the point about all of this? Is it that stay-at-home mom’s are good? Or that feminists are evil, blood-sucking, harpies? No, although both points are entirely accurate. It’s about the fact that, despite the conventional wisdom, the Dems aren’t “pro-women” or “pro-black” or “pro-gay.” If you don’t fit into their value system, you’re attacked. And their value-system for women isn’t being “barefoot and pregnant” at home. It’s making damn sure that mom is at work, trying to put her boss’s testicles in a box, while Timmy is knocking up his girlfriend on his Transformers sheets.
It seems the left realizes the problem here. So what does it do? It argues that the right is attacking the moron in the video above because she’s a lesbian. Seriously. And they just make it worse for themselves.
No one is arguing that raising children isn’t work. Democratic strategist and CAP Action board member Hilary Rosen is a single mother of twins who had to go through the expensive and challenging process of adoption with her then partner Elizabeth Birch. Now, she’s trying to stick up for other mothers who don’t have the luxury of millionaire husbands to help fund their child-rearing duties, and the backlash is getting ugly.
Granted, this isn’t the mainstream left responding here. It’s the crazy “Think Progress” fringe. Still, the fact that the author is a lunatic doesn’t justify dishonesty, right? The lady in the video wasn’t trying to “stick up for mothers” who have to work. She was degrading Ann Romney for having the nerve to talk to her husband about the economy when all she’s apparently qualified to do is paint her nails and yell at the lawn boy. No one is attacking the bimbo because she’s a lesbian; they’re attacking her because she’s everything that’s wrong with the left. Personally, I hope more Dems come to her defense because it will keep the issue in the news longer.
Well, the temperature has dropped, and with it, my mood.
Just kidding. It’s Friday, so the work week can suck it. Plus, how could I possibly complain after three days of Obamacare oral arguments at the Supreme Court? Just listening to the confused responses of those who previously told me the case was a slam dunk was enough to get me through the week. Don’t get too excited though; just because the Justices’ questions exposed the absurdity of the mandate doesn’t mean they’ll vote that way. After all, the Court found a constitutional right to abortion somewhere. But I’m not here to talk about that.
I’m here to talk about the the Senate bill to end oil subsidies. It failed due to the filibuster rule, which requires a two-thirds majority to pass something. Barry, of course, was not pleased:
‘They can either vote to spend billions of dollars more in oil subsidies that keep us trapped in the past. Or they can vote to end these taxpayer subsidies that aren’t needed to boost oil production so that we can invest in the future,’ Obama said. ‘It’s that simple.’
‘It’s like hitting the American people twice,’ Obama said in a Rose Garden speech on Thursday morning. ‘You’re already paying a premium at the pump right now. And on top of that, Congress thinks it’s a good idea to send billions more of your tax dollars to the oil industry?’
Two things about this. First, the American people aren’t being hit twice, because we’re not talking about actual “subsidies.” In other words, the government isn’t taking my tax dollars and sending them to Chevron. Instead, our tax code gives oil companies tax breaks, which simply allows them to keep more of their own money. Thus, B.O.’s statement is blatantly untrue.
With that being said, why are we giving tax breaks to oil companies? I agree with the president in this respect. In fact, why are we giving them to any industry? Why does the government have pet projects? Why don’t we just lower taxes overall and get rid of subsidies/tax break for every industry? This leads me to point number two. What does Barry want to do with the extra money the government gets if the bill is passed? Pay down the debt? Send me a check? Wallpaper the White House? No. Of course not. He would use it to “invest in the future.”
The bill would have killed several tax breaks taken by the five largest oil companies and use some of the proceeds to extend expiring energy tax provisions, such as tax breaks for renewable energy, electric cars and energy efficient homes.
That’s right. He’d turn them into tax breaks for other industries. And not just any other industries, but industries that don’t work and that nobody wants. And as an aside, renewables are already the Belles of the Ball in terms of tax breaks. Need proof? Here’s some info from the Congressional Budget Office; complete with a picture which everybody likes.
So, what have we learned? We have further confirmation that Obama’s a liar (which, to be fair, every politician is). We’ve also learned that removing tax breaks is hard. The Republicans didn’t just reject the bill because of the give-away to renewables, or because they’re in the pocket of big oil (which everyone in Congress is). We’re already paying through the nose for gasoline, and increasing the costs on oil companies certainly won’t help prices go down.
Well, that’s it. I’m going to listen to some more audio from the Obamacare hearings, and dream of days where the Supreme Court actually enforces the Constitution.
Yes, you read that right. No, the title wasn’t meant to simply make you read this post; it was, instead, a factual representation of how some view life. When I was in college, I took a class in logic. Why did I take a class in logic, you ask? It probably had something to do with it not convening until after lunch. In that class, I learned that the “slippery slope” argument is a fallacy, i.e., logically wrong. While it may be technically true that it is a fallacy, it is also true that it tends to be a practical reality. Case in point: abortion.
Many pro-life folks have been making the argument for decades that legalizing abortion will lead to a devaluing of human life, which will, in turn, lead to killing those deemed undesirable or a burden. To anyone with common sense, this was not an unreasonable step to take. A society either values life or it doesn’t. The wholesale slaughter of the unborn, mostly for the sake of convenience, seems lacking in the “respect life” department.
Of course, since the legal fiction of Roe v. Wade, the aforementioned “slippery-slope” has proven to be factual. The left has made significant, and largely successful, efforts to justify late-term abortions and partial-birth abortions. And our current president supported legislation allowing a newborn, who survived an attempted abortion, to die on a table from lack of medical care. So, the next step shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.
‘The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.’
Yep, you read that right. This comes from an article entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?,” which was published in the ironically titled “Journal of Medical Ethics.” The authors are, of course, college professors, with significant connections to Oxford and Cambridge. In other words, this article is coming from the minds of the academic elite. Not surprisingly, the authors have received death threats. The Journal’s editor, a professor of ethics at Oxford, had this to say about the persons doing the threatening:
He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were ‘fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society’.
Take a moment to let that sink in. “Values of aliberal society.” That’s perfect, huh? While the talking heads can’t shut up about the Catholic Church trying to take away women’s rights, the liberal elite are publishing an article, in a respected journal about ethics, that advocates for infanticide.
How can they possible justify their position, you ask? Simple, by huffing paint thinner and waxing philosophic.
Rather than being ‘actual persons’, newborns were ‘potential persons’. They explained: ‘Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
What the hell is an “actual person?” Can I decide? Are the authors of the article “actual people?” It’s difficult to put into words just how dangerous this line of reasoning is. Lest we forget, a certain group of people weren’t “actual people” to the Nazi’s.
Fortunately, the authors have deemed us fit to receive their thoughts on personhood.
‘We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.’
I’d love to hear who fits into that definition. Of course, the authors don’t tell us who gets to be in the Club of Life; only those who don’t.
They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that ‘only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases’ in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.
Once such children were born there was ‘no choice for the parents but to keep the child’, they wrote.
‘To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.’
Well the disabled are out; too expensive. Seriously, the Nazi’s would LOVE these guys.
Interestingly, the authors did point out one undeniable truth, albeit in a presumably unintentional way:
However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised (emphasis mine).
These two morally abhorrent creatures actually stumbled upon a truth lost on the pro-choice morons in America. There is no moral difference between the unborn and born. Contrary to the author’s philosophical ramblings, however, it isn’t that they’re both disposable; it’s that they’re both sacred.
I was trying to figure out how to start this post about the Occupy Wall Street what-not when I started reading some stuff on the internets about Steve Jobs dying. I didn’t know the man (I never returned any of his phone calls asking for advice), so I can’t speak to his character. He apparently made some cool stuff, and I appreciate that my/my wife’s MacBook Pro doesn’t take twenty five minutes to shut down like my work PC. But I’m also not some techy who can’t sleep the night before the new iPhone is released. I can say one thing about Steve Jobs though: he was a genius who used his genius to make people buy stuff that they enjoy using…and turned himself from a regular guy into a filthy rich guy who every hot chick he went to high school with is now kicking themselves for having been mean to (I’m looking at you hot chicks from high school who ignored
me Steve Jobs and are now unhappy and not hot anymore).
Then I read some Occupy Wall Street guy argue that Jobs wasn’t such a saint because he didn’t do enough for his own “workers who were responsible for his great wealth and success.” See, this is why I frequent lefty websites and radio stations because you couldn’t make this stuff up. Obviously the OWS guy was referring to Jobs having the nerve to create jobs in other countries. Now, this post isn’t about defending Jobs or his creating manufacturing jobs in other countries. This post is about the mentality of the OWS crowd.
Why are thousands camped out on Wall Street, and at various locations around the country? They say it’s to protest the 1%. Why? Let’s ignore the fact that the majority of the people whose lives are being made more difficult by the protests are far from being part of the 1%. Why protest people with lots of money? They say it’s because of jobs. What jobs? Did the CEO of Bank of America steal one of the OWS protestor’s jobs (seems unlikely)? My personal opinion is a simple one: a child-like feeling of entitlement.
Simply put, there is a chunk of people who feel they have a “right” to certain things in life…such as a certain job, with certain benefits, at a certain salary. Why? Because it’s “fair.” If they don’t get those things, then they find someone to blame. Well here’s the reality: you don’t have a right to anything. You’re not entitled to the corner office. Or health insurance. Or a flat-screen tv. And it isn’t because “life isn’t fair.” I know people that have fantastic jobs they don’t “deserve;” that they’ve received simply because they know someone who knows someone. I also know people that did everything “right,” but are stuck in a lousy job. I also know people with real problems, like going through divorces or suffering from life-threatening illnesses. Is any of this “fair?”
My wife used to tell my kids something along the lines of “you get what you get and you don’t throw a fit.” I’d like to use that line on everyone sitting on Wall Street. “Fair” doesn’t exist beyond television. Instead, “it is what it is” should be everyone’s motto. Am I advocating for a lawless society where only the strong survive? Of course not. I’m simply advocating for people to stop acting like children and realize that no one shipped “your” job overseas, or took away “your” benefits. They don’t belong to you, and they never have.
What sets this country apart from every other one out there is opportunity. To take what you have and maximize it to the best of your abilities without arbitrary restrictions. Now, will everybody find the same success? Of course not. Does everybody even want the same success? No. I, for one, know that I have no desire to put in the work of AIG’s CEO. I enjoy sleeping and watching football too much.
My advice to the OWS crowd is the same advice I give to my kids and myself: appreciate what you’ve been given and don’t begrudge the success of others. And don’t schedule kids’ parties on the weekends, because that’s when football is on and no one will want to come.