Category Archives: First Amendment

Why Harry Reid’s attacks on the First Amendment are wrong and vile

So while liberals have been throwing hissy fits for years about the Citizen’s United they seem to have come back to this idea with their impending doom in 2014 coming. (Really the creation of Super PACS owes a lot to various relegation and legislative changes and to just Citizens United v. the Federal Election Committee, but Democrats know their base doesn’t do well with complex ideas, so they just pick on Citizens United, and I always try and play in the opposition’s ballpark, so we’ll just refer to Citizens United). But now their hatred for free speech has found a new target, in Harry Reid’s unhinged attack on the Koch brothers and his statement that he will seek a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizen’s United (and the First Amendment) with a Constitutional amendment.

You know personally my first inclination is to slap the little loser Harry Reid and tell him that it will be a cold day in hell that his stupid fascist amendment even gets out of his Senate let alone meeting the requirements in the House and three-quarters of the states. But that would do no good. Harry Reid is simply too stupid to benefit from any attempt of slapping sense into him (although perhaps every member of the Senate should get a baseball bat and try knocking some intelligence into him just to see if it might work…I mean what’s the worst that could happen?)

Now we could get into the minutia of how Democrats are still outspending Republicans, or how the Democrats the biggest beneficiaries of group donations (mainly from unions) but let’s ignore that for just a moment. But let’s ignore the minutia and get to the heart of the matter.

 

SCOTUS

Every so often they get something right as they did in Citizen’s United…now to overturn Kelo and S.D. v Dole

The central liberal argument is that Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee was wrong—that money is not speech and therefore cannot be protected under the First Amendment—that whoever has the most money always wins. The first point is just obviously stupid, but this is an argument from people who don’t get why we have to have the legal fiction of corporate personhood. They also don’t understand that your property rights are sacrosanct and under the theory of natural rights (which is kind of the basis of our entire legal system); that your property, including money, and what you do with it is an extension of your person legally, ergo spending money is speech if you choose it to be. And the minute you separate what you do with your money from free speech there is a very dangerous slippery slope. If you money can be regulated, then so can your time and limits can be placed on how much time you can donate to a campaign. And then you could limit how many organizations you can donate time. And then all the government would have to do is declare this charity or that church function a political issue and soon think about how much of you public life is being regulated.   And if your statement through money can be regulated because its of a political nature can you only make a certain number of Facebook, tumblr, and Twitter posts about a candidate or issue? A government with the spying power of the NSA*, the bullying ethics of the IRS and a free hand to limit political speech can do some very frightening things.

 

But let’s ignore the unspeakable idiocy of the argument that money isn’t speech. Let’s focus on what they’re saying about democracy in a democratic-republic like the US, because that is even more laughable (or frightening).

 

The argument against Citizens United is based on the argument that who has the most money wins.

Let’s look at this argument.

 

Certainly if I have half a trillion dollars and my opposition has $10 I will probably win. But seldom in American politics are things so lopsided. And do you really think that if the Klan or the American Nazi Party had a trillion dollars they could actually get any real power in this nation? Logic tells us that at a certain point you can spend all the money you want and if the people hate you, you’re screwed. You just have to look at advertising…Hollywood occasionally spends the GNP of third world nations hyping some piece of crap that almost no one goes to see…if the logic of Citizen’s United opponents were applied then everyone should just follow the hype.

 

But let’s look at some extremes. On the one side did we forget that a felon in West Virginia and a challenger in Arkansas, both with no money to speak of, gave a sitting president a run for his money in the last presidential election cycle? Or on the other side let’s look at a man like George Soros. Now I don’t have to believe that Soros is some evil mastermind on the level of Lex Luthor or Ernst Stavro Blofeld to admit that (A) his politics are somewhere to left of the current French president’s and (B) through direct contributions and contributions to PACs like Moveon the man has dumped an obscene amount of money into U.S. elections. I don’t buy the conspiracy theories, but the fact is the man is very progressive and very giving of money to causes he believes in. As is his right. But here’s the funny thing…if the people who oppose Citizen’s United were right, then all the money he has spent combined with all the money unions have spent over the years then it should never have even been close in 2000 or 2004, and the country should already be so far left that Obama would look like Reagan right now. Strangely I failed to see the retirement age lowered to 50 or minimum wage raised to $20 an hour, universal public health care, or a 70% tax on income above $100,000 here in Sorosandia.

 

Money helps. No doubt about that. If you can get your message out it certainly is more effective. However in a day and age of twitter, blogs, and YouTube, it’s not just money that matters. It’s having a message that resonates with people…even if that message is the mentally retarded statements of “Yes we can” and “we are the ones we have been waiting for.”

 

But there’s a deeper problem than the common sense issue that money can’t buy everything in politics. It’s the implications of human nature.

 

Notice what is implicit in the argument that money is all that matters to democracy. Notice what is says if you believe that the person with the most money, not the better argument, always wins. It means that all people don’t have stupid and shortsighted moments, as I believe it means that people are incapable of rational thought. That they will follow the shiniest piece of polished metal provided by the person with the most money—that there is no rational thought, that no matter how extreme an idea, if it has money backing it, it will win. Ummm…if people are actually that dumb, then why do we have any democratic elements in our government? Democracy is based on the idea that the majority of the people, when put together will more often than not make the right choice, not because they believe the shiniest lie, but because reason will win the day with the majority of people more often than not. It is a premise based on the idea that a human being and human reason has value. If your argument is that money drives everything, then you must state you believe that humans on a whole have no ability to reason. Now is human reason perfect? Hell, no. That’s why we have always been a republic that limits the momentary whims of the masses and forces compromise and slow deliberation.

Now I will admit that human reason is not perfect, but taking money out of the equation will not solve the problem of imperfect reason being a driving force in our elections.

 

Now if you actually wanted a functioning democratic election, as the critics of Citizen United claim they want, what should they be arguing for?

 

Well, how about Voter ID check or clearing the voter rolls in every state every two years and making everyone re-register. You know to prevent fraud, and felons, and illegal immigrants from voting in mass numbers and making sure that the democratic principle of one man, one vote was actually allowed. As for making everyone re-register, if going down to the post office or going to a web site to pick up a form and sending it in is too much work for you, then dear God, you are not qualified to be deciding the future of this nation.

 

Or how about this one I know would never pass, but you would have to admit would get rid of the majority of influence of money in elections…require people to earn a high school diploma before they can vote. Okay liberals, get all the insults out now…I’m a racist, I’m a bigot, I’m closed minded, I don’t know anything about democracy, blah, blah, blah…I teach high school, I have been working in schools for nearly 16 years, and have been working consistently in alternative education with at risk youth for the last nine…do you have any idea how easy it is to get a high school diploma? Or a GED? I’m sorry but you seriously have to try to not pass high school. And I’m sorry given how much the income difference is between a high school diploma and having nothing, you’re an idiot’s idiot to not get a high school diploma. And when you put those two sentences together you realize that high school dropouts are actively trying to be an idiot’s idiot. I can’t imagine why I would want these losers voting. Ever. Under any circustances. I mean who do you think falls most easily for flashy ads, the person with a bare bones education or the person who actively tried to remain ignorant. And if voting is really that important to you, getting a GED is not that difficult—really it’s not. If we were to institute this, you would find pandering by politicians drop quite a bit, and low and behold you might see better legislation.

 

Or you might go back to what the Founders correctly envisioned for the Senate: State legislatures and governors working together to nominate and elect the most qualified in the state (as opposed to the most popular) to the upper house of Congress. It would completely eliminate money’s influence on Senators themselves…and if people are so worried about SuperPAC money influencing federal elections…right now to influence the Senate you have to influence maybe 40 statewide elections (I figure about 60 seats are safe Republican or safe Democratic seats) going back to pre 17th Amendment republican ideals you would have to influence the same 40 state wide elections but this time for governors, plus influencing one to two houses of the state legislature. Even the most well funded SuperPacs would go bust before being able to make a dent in the long term. But to do that you would actually want to try and take out the influence of money…instead of say, hypocritically just wanting your traditional sources of money to be the only ones that counted.

Or how about this one: Get the government out of the economy. If you placed legitimate restrictions on how far the government can get into the economy, then guess what, all those businesses and business people wouldn’t care about elections. As long as the government has the power to pick winners and losers, you’d be a bit of an idiot to not do everything in your power to make sure you’re not the loser…but if you got the government out of the economy you get rid of the incentive to be so involved in elections…at which point why would business waste their hard earned profits on silly things like elections.

But the people who bitch about Citizens United don’t care about any of that…they’re just unhappy that now other people have a chance to fight their endless union coffers.

***
One last note on a pragmatic side issue. I’ve heard that nearly a trillion dollars will be spent on the 2012 election (when you count all the elections at all levels). Given how crappy the Obama economy is (and yes it is his fault, if it wasn’t for him we’d be in a full recovery by now) I want you to think how bad it would be if you took out a trillion dollars. Yes that trillion is going to a limited sector in the advertising business…but those people who get the money then spend it on other things and it moves through the economy…I want you to imagine what the economy would look like if you took yet another trillion out of GDP. Just a pragmatic consideration to keep in mind.

 

 

*I would like to note that I know of no instances where the NSA has actually used their information against a private citizen, and of all the branches of government I’m actually less worried about them…but only so long as we have the First Amendment in place and the IRS stripped of all it’s powers…so long as those others restrictions are kept in place I have little to fear from the NSA…it is only if the other restrictions are removed that a government becomes fascist.

Leave a comment

Filed under Civil Liberties, Election 2014, Elections, First Amendment, Government is corrupt, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, People Are Stupid

Faux Outrage at Romney Calling Obama on Being Inept

Liberals are in a tizzy.  How dare Romney critique Obama on apologizing for free speech.  How dare Romney criticize Obama when a U.S. diplomat is dead as a result of Obama’s complete incompetence.  How dare Romney push to get a man out of office whom he believes, justifiably so, is so inept at everything he does that to let him have another 4 years in the Oval Office would lead to irreparable damage to both this nation and our allies.  How dare he! For shame, Romney, for shame!

So no shocker liberals are idiots for multiple reasons, but let’s go over a few of them.

The first, and possibly my favorite:  How dare he use the murder of people to help himself.  The first thing I try to do in an argument, believe it or not, is to look at it from the other person’s point of view (you’d be surprised how this makes you feel other people are idiots more often than it builds tolerance, but that’s another discussion for another day).  So liberals from Romney’s  point of view Obama is inept, putting the lives of U.S. citizens at risk, and the first inclination of both he and his administration is to apologize to butchers at any and every chance.  If you were Romney, the only ethical thing to do is to get Obama out of office through any and all ethical means. * Bringing up Obama’s many failures is a an ethical and important way to get rid of the ass.**  To do anything less would be to allow such a terrible executive to stay in power—to not make a point of this would have been to allow Obama to stay in power, to actively work for what Romney believes will harm this country—in short to not bring it up would be unethical.  Yes, for shame that Romney did the only ethical thing available to him.

And both parties are guilty of this.  Right now, it’s being highlighted that the media didn’t throw this hissy fit when Kerry used dead soldiers in Iraq to hit Bush. ()  Yes some Republicans said it was classless and tacky, I don’t recall doing so myself because quite frankly if you think the war isn’t worth it that’s a damn valid point.  I thought the war was worth it, and it was—granted it would have been better if it had been carried out by someone with a brain, but just because Bush was a moron doesn’t negate the fact that Kerry would have been even more incompetent at bringing democracy to Iraq.  So Kerry bringing up dead soldiers or not isn’t relevant (the fact that Kerry seemed shocked that people die in war however might be a good point of showing how dumb Kerry was) to the argument, fewer people were dying because Saddam was gone.  Now any Republicans who had a problem with Kerry doing this back then would be hypocrites to complain about Democrats outrage now, just as the media is hypocritical of showing outrage for one but not the other.

The fact is that there is really no shameful behavior in a campaign there is only a question of relevant and effective.  Bringing up Obama’s failures is relevant if you’re argument is that Obama is utterly incompetent, which he is.  Bringing up dead soldiers in Iraq is relevant if your argument is that the Iraq war was wrong, which it wasn’t (it was just managed by idiots).  Shame is only relevant when you’re acting against what you believe, which in both cases was not the fact.  However Kerry’s central argument was dumb so this point was irrelevant.  It’s just like liberals now bringing up Romney’s tax returns.  Their argument is they need to see them to determine if Romney has done anything illegal…which is dumb…if a candidate is that rich they’ve got good lawyers and accountants, which means even if they are doing as many illegal back door deals as say, Nancy Pelosi, their lawyers and accountants are not going to be dumb enough to put them in their tax returns.  Further you don’t think the IRS under Obama didn’t already go through them with a fine tooth comb?  Trust me if there was stuff there Obama would have already leaked it…I mean it’s not like Romney’s taxes are a classified state secret (and we know Obama has no qualms about leaking that).

Now you can argue that Romney doing this might not have been effective and counter to his goal of unseating Obama, as many in the McCain/RINO wing of the Republican party seem to be doing (yes because we should listen to McCain advisors on how to run a campaign because they clearly know how to win…) but really that’s tangential to the faux outrage by the Democrats.

Second you have people getting upset about insulting the president (yes Republicans were guilty of this too during Bush). I’m sorry but I live in a Constitutional Republic.  The president and politicians work for me, not the other way around.  They are not gods, they are not kings or nobility; they are human beings.  And they deserve to be called out on their failings. Due to their position of service they deserve to be called out on it even more as they are my employee and when they do such a terrible job they deserve to be told what utter !@#$ing scum and idiots they are.  And like the outrage over calling out people when others have died, the only question is, is it relevant.  Calling Bush Hitler for defending liberty…doesn’t quite make sense (an idiot he was, evil no…of course liberals were seldom calling him an idiot for the right reasons).  Calling Obama a socialist when he acts and says everything a socialist would, perfectly justified.  ()

Now, onto the real meat of the matter.  Obama’s foreign policy incompetence and Romney’s justified critique of it.

Let’s get our timeline set.

1.            The US embassy in Cairo issued an apology for free speech.

2.            Riots began in Cairo and Libya.  The embassy repeats the statement several times.

3.            It became known that a US citizen had died in Libya (it was not known at the time that it was the Ambassador).

4.            The Obama administration, after some dithering, has the initial apology removed.

5.            Romney issued a condemnation of the initial apology.

6.            The day after this all happens Romney gives a speech calling for leadership and condemning Obama for not offering any, and Obama gives a speech that once again apologizes for the fact that we have free speech.

The problem here for liberals is that because the apology came before the attacks that Romney’s statement is wrong and false.

Let’s deal with this.

I’ve tried to watch the video, I might condemn it for poor production value or the fact that it was clearly made by a moron, but by doing so I would be doing it as a private citizen.  A US Embassy has no right to critique, let alone condemn the expression of free speech by citizens of the US.  Furthermore as this was made by Coptic Christians who are being slaughtered by the Muslim Brotherhood, you might understand why they’re taking their frustration out on Muslims (it’s the only religion I know of that was founded by a child raping butcher who personally ordered the genocidal massacre of the Jews of Medina…but I’m sure it’s a religion of peace having started with such an upstanding beginning).  But my point in bringing this up is I’ve haven’t heard of any condemnations by the US Ambassador condemning the abuse of Jews, Coptic Christians, or hell even women by the Muslim Brotherhood…but let’s condemn people for using their Constitutional Rights.  It also makes such fascinating comments like “Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy.” (Didn’t notice much of it in Charlotte when half the party objected to the word God being put in the platform…that was unfair actually…they were booing the inclusion of Jerusalem being listed as the capital of Israel.  So I apologize for saying the Democrats are against religion.  They’re not.  They’re just against Jews.)  Also I hate to tell them this respect for religions isn’t a cornerstone of America (it’s also a republic not a democracy)…right to express your beliefs is a cornerstone, but I don’t have to respect you when you do.  I have every right to think you’re a complete moron or even evil (and before you begin to argue with me on that, you first have to tell me you respect the beliefs of the Westboro Baptists and that you would condemn anyone who would try to denigrate them for their batshit crazy ideas).  I will defend your right to express your dipshit ideas, so long as such expression does not harm me or others, but don’t expect me to respect you for being dead wrong.

And Romney’s response.

Okay so since the attacks occurred after the apology it might be a little out of line that Romney said the administration’s “first response” to the attack was not to condemn them but to apologize.  Yeah sure the embassy repeated the message after the attacks began but  I mean it’s not like the Secretary of State issued an apology of her own after the attacks had already begun at about 7:54pm…oh wait…what…she did?  Oh shit, I guess he’s right their first reaction was to condemn free speech rather than condemn the butchers who throw a hissy fit over a video that one would otherwise ignore if you weren’t crazy (you know the same butchers murdering Coptic Christians and putting Jews and women in their sights).

You can see the original at https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/245717059693080576 (but I expect that will be taken down soon.)

[Author’s note: it would appear I have my times a little mixed up, Hillary’s tweet came about 10 minutes after Romney’s statement…which is despicable in its own right…however as it also appears that the embassy twice sent out messages backing up their previous abhorrent statements, Romney is still correct in say that the administration’s first inclination was to apologize after the attacks begun…I messed up in my time lines, Romney did not. 9/13]

So then we had this morning where

Romney made the point that

“An apology for America’s values is never the right course”

And Obama again apologized for the First Amendment‎, “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

Question, which of these two sounds closer to “I may not agree with what you say but will defend your right to say it to the death” which is supposedly the American tradition that keeps the Westboro Baptists from being beaten to death.

So all that is left is Romney right that this is symptom of a greater amount of incompetence on Obama’s part.  Yes it is.  Because it is Obama who has attempted 4 years of appeasement to no avail.  Because it is Obama who gave help to the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya and Egypt and allowed these al-Qaeda tied Islamists to take over (yes the two countries had dictators, but US policy should not be to change one dictator for a worse one).  Obama in turn left pro-democracy forces in Iran be slaughtered.  He is currently backstabbing our ally Israel at every turn.  He is chummy with a Russia that is giving nuclear capabilities to Iran and helping Syrian tyrants slaughter people (I’m not thrilled with either side in Syria, but that doesn’t mean I want outside forces helping to encourage the pointless slaughter).  He is the one giving money to the butchers in Egypt.  He and his administration are responsible for their not being a Marine contingent in Libya to defend the ambassador but only local hired help…who may have been involved in the attack. 

I could go on and I probably will later. But on numerous levels the administration may not have caused the riots but it has done everything in its power to make sure the butchers behind these riots came to power and even today this administration is giving them cover and blaming things like free speech as the cause, not a culture of barbarism in countries run by tyrants.

And to attack Romney and not Obama is either rank hypocrisy or utter cluelessness.   Either way, shame on you liberals.  Shame.  Obama created the situation that killed the ambassador by being weak, by backing butchers, and by apologizing for America.

*You could assume that Romney is not ethical, out for power for power’s sake, and has no principles…however, there is no evidence to justify such a claim.  He gives overly generously to charity and does not live in garish style, so greed doesn’t seem to be a factor.  I can’t find any evidence of cronyism in his administration as Governor.  Nor does he seem centered on himself at every moment, so ego doesn’t seem to be his motivation.  Now those things do seem to drive other people, but I see no evidence of it in Romney, so assuming he’s not acting out of what he believes to be ethical duty seems a foolish assumption.

**Democrats, don’t like being called asses or jackasses?  Too bad, you’re the ones who put it on the letterhead.  Or have you repudiated the jackass for the ostrich?

3 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, First Amendment, Free Will, God, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics, Tyranny

Most Patriotic Films #22: Field of Dreams

 

“Ray, people will come Ray. They’ll come to Iowa for reasons they can’t even fathom. They’ll turn up your driveway not knowing for sure why they’re doing it. They’ll arrive at your door as innocent as children, longing for the past. Of course, we won’t mind if you look around, you’ll say. It’s only $20 per person. They’ll pass over the money without even thinking about it: for it is money they have and peace they lack. And they’ll walk out to the bleachers; sit in shirtsleeves on a perfect afternoon. They’ll find they have reserved seats somewhere along one of the baselines, where they sat when they were children and cheered their heroes. And they’ll watch the game and it’ll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick they’ll have to brush them away from their faces. People will come Ray. The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it’s a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh… people will come Ray. People will most definitely come.”[Italics added]

Now as anyone who has read this blog for a while knows, I am less than thrilled with most team sports.  I perfectly understand playing them, but most of the time they make no sense to me…I just do not find the fascination in watching a ball or puck moved back and forth on a field.  And then add to the fact that almost every professional sport exists almost entirely by sucking off the government teat at taxpayer expense (if schools started making sports paid for only by ticket sales and parent contributions, and cities no longer offered sweetheart deals on taxes and built stadiums at tax payer losses do you really think most professional sports would last for long?)…and then there is the philosophical aspect of sports.  The reason Miracle did not make this list of patriotic films, even though it’s on every other list of patriotic films, is because it glorified subverting the individual for the whole…which I fully admit is the central idea of all team sports…but while that is the philosophy that leads to successful teams in sports it is antithetical to the very core of the American spirit and poisonous to the fabric of society.  Rational self-interest, not subversion of the self, is how societies grow and prosper, that is not necessarily the idea behind winning teams.  So like I said, not a big fan of team sports…

…except for baseball.  Now there is a sport that perfectly models the nature of America.  Yes we are individuals out for our own ends, which are hopefully fully rational, but even the most rationally self-interested  person out there realizes that they are in a society and do need to work with others; it is that what is good for us is good for society at large, not the other way around—when you begin thinking of what is good for society must be good for me, well look at Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, LBJ’s Great Society and tell me if that line of thought works.  And no sport exemplifies this focus on the individual working within a society as well as baseball.

Every pitch begins as a battle between only two individuals, the batter and the pitcher, and it develops into a larger struggle of the batter versus the rest of the opposing team.  It is only when you take a further step back to a whole inning that it ceases to be strictly about the individual and achieves the level of one team versus another.  Hell, while I’m not sure it will ever be done, the two grandest achievements theoretically possible in baseball, a perfect game or batting 1.000 could theoretically be done by a single individual (it’s all but impossible you’ll ever get a professional to bat 1.000, but it is theoretically possible, though highly unlikely, for a single person to pitch a perfect game without the help of his team).  The importance of the individual is never far from any moment in baseball.

I can find no better metaphor in sports that balances the American emphasis on the individual than baseball.  And thus at least one baseball movie had to be in this list…

And while I think For the Love of the Game might be the greatest baseball movie of all time there is no denying that in addition to being a wonderfully patriotic film, Field of Dreams is without a doubt one of the greatest and most moving films of all time.

So what makes Field of Dreams so patriotic…I mean besides that James Earl Jones speech about how baseball and America are inextricable from each other.

The first are concepts of faith and will.  Americans have always been a more spiritual people than our counterparts in the old world that we left behind.  Not necessarily more religious, we often have no respect for the hierarchy of religion, but we are a very spiritual people.  And we may not be big on doctrine either, but we believe.  In any other country in the world a person hears a voice telling them “If you build it, he will come” if they are sane they’d probably check themselves in for observation…but here we have faith that there is a higher power out there guiding us.  Cynics, liberals, and skeptics might take this whole paragraph glorifying a weakness of America, but in reality, it is our faith and willingness to believe in something not only greater than us, but that we are a part of that infinite greatness, that makes us an exceptional nation.  And it is not only a quiet faith that sits in churches and prays but doesn’t act.  Part of America’s strength lies in the fact that we marry our beliefs and faith to our actions.  We actually don’t just hear the voice, we take the time to plow under the corn and build the baseball filed.

There is the repeated line “Is this Heaven?  No this is Iowa” (I even have a T-shirt with that on it that was bought at the field they built for the movie, which as far as I know is still there).  What is interesting about that line is that they later clarify it.  “Is there a Heaven?” “Yes, it’s the place where dreams come true.”  Now stop me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that America?  The America Dream?  The idea that this land above all others, that if you work and strive you will achieve your dream.  “Then maybe this is heaven.”

One of the lesser known points about this film (and the book it was based on) is that the character of Dr. Archibald “Moonlight” Graham is a real person.  And I don’t mean they loosely based him on a real person, I mean that with a few date changes, every fact they mention about the man is an actual fact.  He had one of the shortest careers in baseball, the way they described him is taken from real interviews, he apparently really did have a closet full of blue hats he didn’t get around to giving his wife, and the passage they quote from his obituary in the film is from the real man’s obituary.

“And there were times when children could not afford eyeglasses or milk or clothing. Yet no child was ever denied these essentials because in the background there was always Dr. Graham. Without any fanfare or publicity, the glasses or the milk or the ticket to the ballgame found their way into the child’s pocket.”

Now I’m not going to go as far as to say that America is the only nation that breeds people of a saintly nature, as Graham appears to have been…but we do it with a greater propensity than others.  We’re the most charitable nation on Earth. And rich or poor we give more in money and in personal time volunteering .  Liberals hate the fact that the only nation founded on the individual and what was once the most capitalistic nation on Earth is also the most giving. On his own Doctor Graham is admirable, but it is the fact that the character of Terrance Mann observes that “half the towns in America have a Doc Graham” and more or less he’s right, that makes this a very patriotic idea.

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Faith, First Amendment, Individualism, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Patriotism

RAMBLINGS from ConservativeCathy: Real Conservative Values

I was compiling a list of numerous topics (SOPA, Economy, Defense, etc.) and listing what I could find as the most representative statements from both Romney and Santorum.  I was doing this as my research indicates that Romney is more conservative (fiscally, constitutionally) than Santorum.  But as I became more aware that it would be impossible for anyone to logically/rationally say that Santorum (or Gingrich for that matter) was more conservative than Romney (or conservative at all) a light bulb went off in my head.  This is not an issue of just putting facts in front of people it is a problem with word definition.  My son and I often have long debates over what is meant or interpreted by a phrase or word.

The actual definition will not help explain my beliefs so I am presenting my political party platform (would prefer if the Republicans adopted something like this) so when I say conservative you know exactly where I stand.

Below is what I would like to see as a conservative platform that I believe that most groups can get behind.  I would encourage an open rational discussion from others.

This country has direction and a guide in our country that must be followed – The Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  This should be taught in detail in public schools so that all grow up with an understanding of the original intent.  For me the ideal party platform is based on the belief that the Founders meant what they said and it was to be interpreted for areas that they had no knowledge of at the time but not that it is to be interpreted for all new laws people want to see.  That is what amendments are for.

That my party stops using the term “democratic” improperly as we are a democratically elected representative Republic and all should actually understand that concept and why that was chosen.

Once we accept the above premise then we go back to the 1st amendment and follow it where religion is concerned.  All religions are allowed and proper as long as they do no harm to others.  You cannot preach hate inciting violence just like you cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theater.  You can preach any other belief you want.  Let’s deal with the 2 particular issues the Republican Party has taken to heart (unfortunately).

ABORTION.  I do not want to discuss whether or why you support or do not support this.  I again refer you to the Constitution – The government has no right to be involved in this type of decision.  Row v. Wade and how it is being interpreted is not going to be overturned (even by the right wing appointed justices).  The federal government should not and has no authority to fund this type of service – period.  Regardless how I feel about 3rd trimester abortions the federal government does not have the authority to make laws regarding this.  Now I could make a suggestion that an amendment to the Constitution be made regarding how life is determined by scientifically stating when a fetus becomes viable – but I am sure that would cause others to start the debate again.  Back to the Constitution this is your only option as the federal government does not have the right to interfere in the doctor patient relationship and what occurs within that relationship – that would be a state issue.  Socially speaking if parents were actually doing their jobs this might actually affect this discussion.

Now the other big issue GAY PEOPLE.  This is a religious issue and can be discussed within the religion.   I do not consider believing that God is against gays as hate (stupid but not hate – I think Jesus promoted love and I think judgment is God’s purview) as long as your beliefs do not cause action against someone else.  Again this comes back to what I said previously you could believe anything you want as long as you do not harm to anyone else.  Now you can hold things like “Gay Parades” to the same decency standards that exist for other parades.  I think that sex should not be discussed in public schools until (I was going to say High School – my age showing here) Middle School.  This discussion should be biologically based only.  School is not the place to be making judgments one way or the other – except I think that scientifically and biologically schools can state that abstinence is the only 100% workable format.  Again I ask why are parents not doing their job?  I rather like Cris’ format for government only being involved in civil unions and marriage being a religious ceremony. But again this is a states right’s issue unless you all agree on an amendment to the Constitution.  Which I think needs to be done as it is becoming federal when crossing state lines which of course it will.  Maybe we can all agree on the civil union and work from there.

This is a rather long discussion but I also want reiterated here that all government buildings belong to the people so all religious displays should be legal as long as government is not paying for them.  This country is a majority of Christians and so we celebrate Christmas (it is a Federal Holiday), we do celebrate Easter, we also celebrate Halloween, Cinco de Mayo and St. Patrick’s Day.  So it is what it is.  These celebrations do not hurt someone who does not believe in them so get over it as long as your tax dollars are not being used to support any celebration (Chicago is exempt for St. Patrick’s day – such a long tradition).

We really need an amendment for a balanced budget along with an amendment for the budget to be capped.  I think that you can debate how to cap it but once we start following the Constitution the budget will not be as high except that we also need an amendment ensuring that federal deficit takes priority in budgeting plans (meaning it needs to be paid off ).  The only reason that we should ever allow debt again would be for war or maybe you can suggest something I can not think of but it should be pretty great.

We will not be in the business of assisting people as that is a state or local government’s place – except of course all of our military need to receive all of the care that is needed for them and I do mean the BEST of care possible. I really do not think this is the area where cuts are made except for inefficiencies/beauracracies.

Since I am a realist and do not see Social Security being overturned as unconstitutional (as it is) we need to come up with a plan that supports savings accounts/stocks etc.  Pick an age and make it 50 years and older or 45 – I do not care and everyone below will need to continue paying taxes to fulfill the current agreement for that age up to death. For everyone else it from now on it will be a choice – a savings account with your state government, a savings account that you can not access until you retire (whatever age but you can not work anymore – you can invest but not work) or invest in stock market/mutual funds that again are not accessible or any combination of the 3.  This will be totally tax free.  So now citizens are personally responsible for their own lives.

I think we need to actually clarify our economic system so that it cannot change with the wind and have an amendment to the Constitution stating that we are a capitalistic country and believe in unrestricted free trade.  That cronyism eliminated as far as is legally possible and that the rules of capitalism (contract law, property rights, laws against fraud and theft, be considered sacrosanct and inviolable).

We need an amendment to the Constitution stating that every citizen has the right to work and not be forced to join and pay a union.  Also added into that all government positions cannot be unionized.

We need to support minimum standards for all grade levels and have a national test for those standards.  All states can do their own thing with public schools as I propose the Department of Education is eliminated but all students must meet the standards we desire for our citizens.  Keep in mind that I believe that you do not lower standards but always raise them and eventually more people will achieve them.  We need an electorate that understands our government and Constitution, can read to a 12th grade level, do basic math (multiplication tables in their head to 12’s), know how to count money without a machine, understand basic English grammar and how to write at a 12th grade level, need to understand the actual history of our country and a general understanding of world history – particularly how it affects current events as with a little study you become aware of how things repeat themselves (might that be because no one ever learns or hears about the lesson?) and science.  Again religious beliefs have no place in the school except that you can believe what ever you want but need to understand what others in the scientific community are doing and why whether you accept that or not.  Our platform should be clear in stating that school is not for preaching anyone’s belief system – again that is what parents are for!   Also that our platform clarifies that government is not there to promote whatever the latest scientific trend is.  Oh and by the way I do not think that government should be concerned with nutrition pyramids or picking foods for us but I would support offering physical activity requirements in public schools – whatever happened to Kennedy’s physical program?

All insurance can go across state lines and federal standards will be set for insurance companies (based on protecting the consumer not giving them something)

A federal fund will be set up for states to borrow from for emergencies at the going interest rate.  The loan will be based on percentage of costs and will not fulfill all that is necessary as again citizens must accept personal responsibility for choice in life such as where to live.

The federal government stops funding anything not allotted to it in the Constitution (just about everything we are currently involved in).

We do not financially assist another country unless there is a real time return for that – can’t think of that occurring other than rebuilding after wining a war.

There is so much more but I think I make my point – social issues belong in the social market not the government.  Freedom is paramount as long as you hurt no one – or your rights extend to where they touch mine but not beyond.  Personal responsibility is the guide for all laws and regulations.

I think that any reasonable person would see that Romney would have no issues with agreeing on most of these points (if not all) and Santorum would have issues with most of them.  To me that clarifies the issue as to whom is conservative and whom is not.  Gingrich would also have issues as it would not allow him as President to have those BIG IDEAS as they have nothing to do with the Federal Government.

And while I am rambling I have a point to make regarding the Moon site that Gingrich and his followers want – am I the only person to remember that there is an international treaty that states that no country can do anything proprietary on the Moon?

So any of you who want to join and support my platform, add to it or clarify it let me know and those who have issues with it – let’s discuss it rationally.

2 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Aristotle, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Debt Budget, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Founding, Free Will, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, GOP, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Religion, Rick Santorum, Tea Party, Teaching, Uncategorized, Unions, Welfare

How to get your ass FRAGGED in one easy step…

PODCAST VERSION

How to get fraged in one easy step

Remember a week ago when I pointed out that atheists were effectively a religion because their beliefs were based entirely on an article of faith (Unless, in defiance of the very laws of logic they have proven that God doesn’t exist…I’m waiting for that argument).  And then I pointed out that this religion is far more vicious than most in that it not only demands that it be free to practice its religion but that no one has the right to practice any other religion…which ranks them up there with the Puritans and Islam in terms of religious intolerance.  But as you’ll recall I also mentioned that there was an ass in the military who was demanding an atheist chaplain.  I said that as that’s his religion, and he is putting his life on the line he had every right to demand whatever spiritual service he wanted (even if it was one that was meant only to insult everyone else’s beliefs).  Well, as it turns out, I may have to change my opinion on this guy…

Why? you ask.  Because not only does this ass want an atheist chaplain, which may be his right under the First Amendment (the first amendment does guarantee your right to be a complete asshole, I only suggest you not exercise it to that extent), he wants to stop other soldiers from praying.  This (please insert the expletive of your choice) actually believes that because he doesn’t believe in God, in defiance  of a huge pile of circumstantial evidence and reason, gives him the right to forbid other soldiers from praying to God before putting their lives in jeopardy.  This man, Jason Torpy, whose face will soon likely and justifiably be next to the definition of the military term FUBAR , believes he has the right to tell other people how to live their lives because of his beliefs.  He complains that he was excluded and it was wrong for the men to take time out of a military mission to engage in prayer.  To think that you’d pray before going into combat.  How terrible!  When someone ends up fraging this excuse for an officer, I’m not going to shed a single tear…I’m not saying that his men should debase themselves by stooping to such a level (which is still a few levels above Torpy), it’s just likely that it’s going to happen to someone who cares so little for his men (and I would suspect that this level of disdain for him men probably extends to all of his command decisions).

Do I hate this guy because of his beliefs about God?  No, I hate him because while he leads an organization laughably called “Military Atheists and FreeThinkers” which supports all free thought that marches in perfect goose step with their rigid beliefs and decries anything that is not pure atheistic belief, (yeah real free thinkers there)– he’s a hypocrite that will not defend anyone else’s free thoughts; I hate him because he is a terrible commander and he will get his men killed if he is allowed to stay in the field.  Someone who doesn’t realize the psychological benefit to prayer before a situation where you could die and pettily states “It was a critical time that could have better spent focused on other areas”  has no business being given command over soldiers. Yeah because the psychological well-being of your men has nothing to do with the good of a mission.  I can only image how good awfully horrible an officer this man is given that he has no understanding of how to keep morale up and how to deal with him men.

Again I would like to warn this idiot that the men under his command are probably familiar with the term frag, and I would like to remind this Captain’s superiors that Private is probably a much more fitting rank for someone who has so little respect for the beliefs and rights of the men under his command.  Perhaps he should enlist in the Chinese army, they’d let him shoot religious people there.

Also, as is all too typical of atheists he keeps saying that this was a Christian prayer and an expression of Christian beliefs.  You know there are lots of religions, and I would bet almost all of them are represented in the armed services, and probably almost all of them find comfort in praying to God before a stressful situation.  But this shows that atheists are not only full of bigotry and viciousness in trying to force their religious beliefs on others, but it shows the typical ignorance of atheists.  Every atheist I have ever met only knows how to tear down Christians and nothing else because they’re not so much atheists as they are Anti-Christians (which really suggests that this is some Freudian problems with their growing up if nothing else).

An officer who disrespects the beliefs of the men under him so blatantly does not deserve to be an officer, and a soldier who is so viciously opposed to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution does not deserve the honor of the uniform or the company of the people who do fight for our right to believe or not to believe.  And a man so petty should be decried by atheists as being their version of the Westboro Baptists.  If he doesn’t get fragged, which I would consider a miracle, he deserves to be dishonorably discharged.

1 Comment

Filed under Atheism, Constitution, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, First Amendment, God, People Are Stupid, politics, Prayer, War on Terrorism

Pagans are not doing themselves any favors…

So there is a new site for pagans, witches, druids, and other “Earth-based” religions to worship at at the Air Force Academy in Colorado.

I have no problem with this.  I personally don’t see the need for a particular place to worship as I find God to be everywhere equally, but I understand how some need a church, synagogue, temple or outdoor “worship center” and prefer a particular place to practice their spirituality.

I do however have a problem with the L.A. Times stating that pagans are “followers of an ancient religion that generally does not worship a single god.”  Depends on your Pagan.  However, most of those who worship multiple deities by name would probably argue that there is a central single force behind all of those gods.  Judeo-Christians call them angels, Pagans call them gods.  You say to-may-to I say to-mah-to.  But the L.A. Times has often been a paper full of idiots, so this isn’t a major point.

What I do find a major point is that it cost $80,000.  Are you insane?  Look at it.

I could have a house with more square-footage built for $80,000

It’s some stones and concrete.  A few bricks.  They’re in goddamn Colorado the whole thing is nothing but stone.  That means they should only have had to pay for the concrete and the bricks.  That’s maybe a $1,000.  And then there’s the work hours.  First off, the pagan students at the Air Force Academy should have volunteered their weekends to put this together…and the more open-minded Christians should have helped.  But if you have to get outside workers, low bid the thing.  That’s maybe a couple thousand more if you do it right.  That’s maybe another 4 grand…20 if you have to hire useless union workers.   It should not have cost more than $5,000 to put something like that together…and even with all the absolute bullshit and waste of government spending that should not have cost more than $40,000….but look at that.  Eighty Thousand.  Are you kidding me.

This isn’t a story about pagans, if it was it would be very boring.  This is a story about government waste.  And the pagan students are not doing themselves any favors by allowing themselves to be tied to this travesty.

11 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Debt, Economics, Faith, First Amendment, Government is useless, New Age, politics, Prayer, Religion, Spirituality, Taxes, Unions

A video that reminds me why I love this country, and why we’re better than everyone else.

Take a moment and watch this video…

Yes, if you have even a shred of a brain and a shred of conscience you probably would love to see a sequel to this video where someone punches this girl so hard that she loses several teeth and is permanently disfigured. Sadly there is no such video of someone making her external appearance match the sick black hole that passes for her soul. But once the rage has passed let me remind you that a moment like this should be cherished for the many reasons it reminds us of why America is so great…

Let the cognitive dissonance pass, and let me explain.

First I’d like to point out something about her courage. She says what many liberals think but are afraid to say, and she should be commended for that. Granted she doesn’t have the stones that her hippie forefathers had to actually go up to a soldier spit right in their face and call them a baby-killer, but we must give the devil his due. She is leagues ahead of many of her liberal colleagues. But why is this one of the reasons why America is great? Well just imagine if she had tried this in one of those countries which, according to her, are not our enemies. Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, Libya (pre and post Kaddafi), Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan (again, pre and post), Pakistan, China, North Korea, Tunisia, and Russia (yes even still to this day). Well first, half of those countries as a woman she would never have even been allowed near a computer and even if she had posted a video about how great Allah was (while wearing her legally required burqa) she still would have been stoned to death. If she had said the same things about any of those countries’ soldiers as she said about her own country’s she would likely have been kidnapped in the night, probably raped and tortured before being killed herself. If she was lucky she would have a show trial. And in China they’d charge her family the cost of the bullet used to shoot her. But not here in America. This is a country where you can literally go up and spit in a soldier’s face and at most face a misdemeanor assault charge.

What other country lives so fully the ideal of “I will defend your right to say things I find morally abhorrent to the death” as the United States. Granted we’re not too hot on libel, slander, fraud, inciting violence that present a clear and present danger, obscenity (which is rather haphazardly enforced) and…and…I think that’s about it. What other country does that. Even most of the other nations of the Western world have some limitations on free speech, usually in the areas of racism and hatred against religions…but only one has to look at how such P.C. speech codes protect the truly violent and vicious from being attacked and cause true and civil discussion to be gagged. What other country does that?

And what other country can trust its soldiers to control themselves well enough that they don’t immediately rip out the throat of wretches like this girl with all of that deadly force we have trained them to have. Few and far between.

Now granted, she is right to point out that there has been some atrocious behavior committed by members of armed services.  But two things should be noticed. One we don’t go to the lengths other governments do to cover these things up (destroying documents, threatening news outlets, etc.). UN troops (read not US) have a history of raping and murdering the population they’re supposed to be protecting. (also see Eric Shawn’s the UN Exposed if you want to know how corrupt this organization is). The difference is that while our military has a few bad apples (show me any group of over a 100,000 people who are all saints) other governments actually dedicate themselves to butchering others. The difference is that we know about all of our atrocities (which are few and far between compared to other countries) because we don’t go to great unethical lengths to hide them (yes there’s always some idiot in the government doing a half-assed job, but it’s nothing compared to the evil of other governments). And we’re one of the few governments that prosecute those who defile the uniform of our military—and last time I checked military prisons were not pleasant places. Again you don’t see a lot of that in most of the world. The fact is that even in many countries that profess free speech, this girl would be dead. But not in America.

Still on the freedom of speech side you have to love the fact that you can make wildly inaccurate statements and not have the government coming for you and throwing you in prison. You have the right to be wrong in this country. For instance she says we’ve killed millions in Iraq, it’s closer to a hundred thousand or so …but liberals were never very good with numbers. She is right that it’s offensive with what we pay over half of every tax dollar on. But actually we don’t spend 51% of the government’s money on the military (that’s about 20% of the budget) we spend over half the budget on inefficient, evil and destructive socialist programs. But when did liberals ever let little things like facts get in the way.  Oh and her statement that the troops are dumb, as I pointed out in Republicans and Reincarnation, the average person in the military actually scores higher on every test of intelligence than their civilian counterparts. As to evil, yes it’s so horrendous wanting to defend people like her so you have the liberty to smear the people who make you safe at night. As for morally compromised, show me one reservist who is making more money being in the military, show me one person who signs up for a second tour who couldn’t find a better paying job with their highly trained skills. To find someone dumb and evil I would suggest this girl buys a mirror, to find morally compromised I would suggest she goes to a DNC meeting where people say they support the troops and then create policy that does the opposite (not that Bush not having a plan for occupation was particularly great either). But only in a country like this, where people have near unlimited freedom of speech, do we know that someone like this is a vile excuse for a human as she really is. In no other country would there be such a wonderful sign for all other human beings to ostracize someone like this or the Westboro Baptists. How would we know if they weren’t allowed to express their filth.

And because of this freedom to express evil and ignorance we know when people are stupid and horrendous, only in America, which is why I support this dimwit’s right to not support the troops, and why this is a great nation.

5 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Budget, China, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Declaration, Evils of Liberalism, First Amendment, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Libya, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

When Did Evil Become Socially Acceptable?

I could use this to declare all the Occupy Wall Street people as Anti-Semites, but that would be unfair and stupid. They’re not all Anti-Semites. However they seem to be a little accepting of them as this is like the fourth video I’ve seen from the protests. (Still waiting for the ones from the Tea Party…[crickets chirp]…)

But this isn’t about Occupy Wall Street, because this is a far bigger problem. Clearly this woman is evil. No argument can be made against that. However, it just used to seem to me that society had enough decency that we made it clear to sick people like this not to speak up.

We all admit that there are lots of racists and Anti-Semites who hold their perverted beliefs in their minds and souls, but don’t speak up about them. And we all wanted to root that out.

But the fact that I am seeing more and more of this suggests that Anti-Semites feel that it’s now socially acceptable to voice their hateful views. What the hell is wrong with society? In a sane world this woman would be without a job within the next week. Good lord, she said she worked for the LA School District. If I were a parent I would be demanding that she in no way, shape, or form be allowed to work at a school. I don’t care if she’s in the accounting department. A Nazi like this has no right to be working anywhere near children. I guarantee you, the odds of such a thing happening are very low. And even if the LA school district decided that this would be their once in a century right call, they would immediately get sued because judges in California are insane and wouldn’t have the guts to laugh her case out of court and tell her to go to hell while they’re at it.

I’m sure even the idiots at ACORN wouldn’t have been fully in support of forced prostitution of underage illegal immigrants if they had known they were on camera…so when did it become socially permissible to advocate what is essentially the Western world’s most effective barometer on evil (no really, you look at just about any evil in the last 2,000 years of Western civilization, 90%+ are tied in some way to Anti-Semitism).

I think we’ve forgotten that some views are not acceptable even in the most free speech nations. Do they have the right to spew such filth? Yes, yes they do. And they have to the right to be ostracized, humiliated, insulted, and maybe even slapped repeatedly for having such beliefs as well. I will defend your right to say anything to the death, but I will also ensure you accept the consequences of your actions. And advocating pure evil should have severe consequences.
.
Let me remind everyone, if you hear people utter things that are (actually are, not just a careless word that could be interpreted numerous ways) Anti-Semitic or racist you have a responsibility to insult and humiliate them publicly. Do not associate with them. Do not do business with them. Do not tolerate such behavior.

And if they’re working at the school your children go to, demand they be fired.

 

 

For another take on the Anti-Semitism that seems to be permeating the Occupy Wall Street Protests please read the post by our friend “Dirty Sex and Politics.” 

4 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Education, First Amendment, Occupy Wall Street, People Are Stupid, Racism, Tea Party, Tyranny, Welfare

Come Gather Round People Wherever You Roam…

I bow to this man’s genius.

 

And before you get all upset at the parody I would remind you of this Dylan quote:

“The world was absurd … I had very little in common with and knew even less about a generation that I was supposed to be the voice of[…] I was fantasising about a nine-to-five existence, a house on a tree-lined block with a white picket fence, pink roses in the backyard.”

 

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Death, Debt, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, First Amendment, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Humor, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Popular Culture, Selfishness, Taxes, Tea Party, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

California, Land of the Crazies, and why the Luthor plan may be the only way to save the state.

Continuing with my astonishment at the absolute insanity that seems to permeate all of society at this point, one must mention California, Land of the Crazies. The state is all but beyond hope, and let’s take a look at why it’s so far gone.

There is no need to go over the obscene welfare state, extreme illegal immigrant problem (a problem so bad that they have become a powerful voting block, despite having no legal right to vote), and the fact that the state has avoided bankruptcy only through budget tricks that make Enron look ethical. These are all known facts. The problem comes in when you consider what California is doing about it…

Well first they elected Jerry Brown. Brown used to be Governor of California back in the 1970’s when he did the same thing to California’s economy that dim Jimmy Carter was doing to the national economy, i.e. destroying it. So it made perfect sense to reelect him again? I’ll grant you the Republican option wasn’t very good, but Brown’s track record is literally that he destroyed the California economy. I don’t care how bad the Republican option is, you don’t elect a man who has already failed at this very job.

But let’s ignore who got elected to the executive branch. The real insanity comes from the legislative branch. Sane people might want to get California’s budget under control, lure businesses back, reduce unemployment, make the cities safer. Something along those lines…but not the lunatics in California.

Let’s look at some of the things that California has busied itself with while the state went to hell.

Well first you have the fact that they decided to tax all the business that Amazon.com did in the state. This was a tax designed to go against Amazon and its business within the state, to tax them, to hurt them. It was backed by businesses whose bottom line was hurt by Amazon and designed to make it so bad that they would not be able to do business in the state—rather than lowering their prices to compete, Amazon would have to raise its prices just to stay profitable. Who suffers here? Amazon obviously, but also the consumer who no longer can find things at cheaper prices online. That’s right, the socialists in the legislature of California conspired with businesses to price gouge consumers. Do you begin to see why capitalists scoff at claims of maintaining fairness by government officials?

This law is unpopular in California. So much so that there is a move to have it overturned by the voters in a special election. In response to its unpopular nature what do the liberals in the state capital do? They move to have the laws referendum votes change to make sure that their business killing, job destroying, consumer hurting law will not be overturned. How wonderfully democratic of them. Did I say democratic? I meant fascist.

Also there seems to be no end to new business regulations coming out of California. Because being one of the five worst states for businesses isn’t enough…apparently the geniuses in California think that the only way to improve the economy is to be the most business unfriendly area in the world! Maybe that will help bring money back into the state.

But why stop with regulating businesses, when you can regulate individuals as well. If you’re a parent who wants to go out for the night and so you just hire the sixteen year old down the block to look after the kids, guess what, in California you and the sixteen year old babysitter will soon be criminals. Yes, that’s right you can now only hire adults, you have to pay them an hourly wage, have them keep an official time card, pay all the social-security/unemployment/and all other taxes for a full time employee, provide breaks and you must pay them at least minimum wage. Well if you thought teenagers were having a hard time before this in finding a job, apparently in California the goal is 0% for all teenagers. So teenagers won’t have any money to buy stuff, and parents won’t ever be going to movies or restaurants again which will kill the dining and entertainment industries even more. Not to mention is the state telling you who you are allowed to trust your children too, you personally as a parent should have no rights in this area whatsoever, the state knows best.

But the insanity doesn’t even come close to stopping there!

California is about to completely ban Styrofoam! Yes no more Styrofoam plates or cups in any restaurant or store. None whatsoever. This will of course be great for the environment because as we all know Styrofoam takes 700 years to biodegrade. Let’s ignore the fact that wax covered paper, which is what Styrofoam will be replaced by takes 400 years to biodegrade, require more money, over twice the energy (so a larger carbon footprint if you cared about such things), over ten times more chemicals to create (you think wood is naturally that color or consistency) and has far more chemical byproducts in its creation that are all harmful to the environment. To hell if Styrofoam is vastly more friendly to the environment when you actually take everything that is required to make it into account. We need to ban it because we follow the religion of environmentalism which can never be questioned by those little things called facts. This is California the state that destroyed hundreds of farms in central California all to defend an ugly fish no one ever heard of and so evolutionally backward that it can only exist in central California and will die at the drop of a hat. (Has anyone ever explained to environmentalists that the environment is almost designed to get rid of species that can’t adapt and to protect every single species is actually working against the very mechanism of evolution?)

Oh and why stop there? Let’s release thousands upon thousands of convicted felons back onto the streets. I’m sure that will do wonders for the state.

And dare we forget what California is doing to make great strides in education. Let’s make sure that we teach Gay History. But in addition to making sure that we bring up all the gay people in history, we can’t bring anything negative about any single gay person in history. (I’m not sure if this means we have to just ignore Roman history or if we have to portray all the Roman Emperors as saintly figures who wouldn’t ever do anything wrong…but either version seems somehow wrong). Did I miss a memo? Are gay people these magical people who are incapable of doing anything wrong? Because, for all his literary genius I recall that Oscar Wilde was quite the asshole, as was Michelangelo and J. Edgar Hoover. Yes, they’re all people who should be covered in any halfway competent History course, but to whitewash their acts just because they’re gay smacks a bit of 1984. Last time I checked gay people had morons and geniuses, those who were saintly and those who unspeakably evil, nice and cruel, charitable and stingy…why? because they’re human. Sexual orientation does not change the fact that you are a member of the human collective. If your acts are spectacular enough, for good or for evil, that they merit being brought up in a history course they should be brought up. Whether you’re gay, bi, straight, asexual or some category I’m forgetting, if you did something worthy of making history you get put into history, who cares who you’re attracted to. Or as my friend The Snark Who Hunts Back put it “Sorry, I was unaware I had a separate history from straight people.”

And I could go on and on…$150 additional tax for people who live in rural areas to pay for protection from fires that the fire service “accidentally” sets every year, SWAT teams sent to arrest people for selling milk, forcing all teachers to join the teacher’s union, not legalizing a major business in the form of pot use and then taxing the shit out of it, (this list could go on for pages) and dare we forget the banning of Happy meals and anti-Semitic push by the Nazis* who run San Francisco to ban circumcisions (thank god that one failed).

The state is insane! Completely, totally, certifiably, bat shit insane!

Which brings me back to the title of this blog “and why the Luthor plan may be the only way to save the state.” What’s the Luthor plan you ask? Well you probably already know it, you were just hoping I wasn’t going to go here. Most of the lunatics in California are concentrated in two areas Los Angeles and San Francisco, with a few other pockets scattered up and down the coast. In other words the loonies all seem to be west of the San Andres Fault line. What’s the Luthor plan? Well, as you may recall from the movie, it’s the idea that we need to place several large nuclear weapons on the San Andres, detonate them, and let that part of the state fall into the ocean. Good riddance. Yeah, that Luthor plan.

I’m of course joking, but can you really say that there is any logical way of dealing with insanity at this level?

*You may think that my calling the people who run San Francisco Nazi’s is just petty name calling. It’s not. They were making a law to ban a Jewish practice and enforce it with full fascist use of the law. That’s not hyperbole or name calling, using laws to hurt Jews demands that they be called what they are.

2 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Carter, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Education, Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism, First Amendment, Gay Rights, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immagration, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Teacher's Union, Teaching, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

More reflections on London

Something I realized I didn’t deal with in the last article. How are we going to deal with the possibility of rioters?

Let me just say I’m not thrilled with a lot of the options.

I’ve heard shutting down social media, I’ve seen San Francisco actually shutting down the internet (always hand it to liberals to be the first to act like this is a Reich and not a republic) . I’ve even heard using thick oil based paint that is near impossible to wash off on the rioters and just pick them up a couple days later.

I understand why all of these might be suggested. I understand the fear of chaos, the desire to protect the innocent, the want to maintain stability before it degenerates. But these things can never be allowed to happen.

As much as these might seem like solutions, and as funny as the images of rioters covered in pink paint for days might be, this is a cure that’s worse than the disease.

These are the tactics of dictators, tyrant and despots. These tactics could just as soon be used against those peacefully protesting, those engaging in true civil disobedience (emphasis on the civil). Communication cannot be shut down, because for all of the terrible things it does, it brings more good into the world. Tyranny cannot long survive in an open society where people can voice their displeasure. And for better or for worse history tells us that right now, a period of economic instability, is the perfect breeding ground for a tyranny. A weapon like this that could be used against a just and peaceful protest cannot be allowed under any circumstances (quite frankly the people who shut down the internet in San Fran need to be jailed immediately as a warning to others not to try that again). In the end these are tools governments can never, under any circumstances, be allowed to use because it will always end with an outright abridgment of freedoms for all.

Now, however, once a riot starts, all bets are off. I suggest we make it quite clear that from now on we’ll skip the tear gas, the water hoses, and the rubber bullets. We need to go straight to the SWAT snipers with real bullets. Once you start breaking the law and threatening others lives and property you have put yourself outside the protection of the law and into a state of war, you have no right and no expectation of protection. And it may be cruel but a few dead rioters will cause the riot to disperse and thus save more lives, more property, and more rights of the innocent.

And if police want to monitor open Facebook and Twitter accounts, fine. If they’re open then you have no expectation of privacy. If they’re closed they need a warrant…although if they’re closed and were used to plan mobs or riots of any form, that private nature should be considered conspiracy in the legal sense and added to the charges against the rioters.

(although rioters covered in pink paint is still funny, but it will have to remain in my mind’s eye).

Leave a comment

Filed under Evils of Liberalism, First Amendment, Government is corrupt, London Riots, Tyranny

A week on the blogosphere did nothing for my opinion of humanity

As one of the key purposes of this blog is to drum up publicity for my book Republicans and Reincarnation (you should buy it) I do have a vested interest in keeping the hit count for this blog at a high number and not be satisfied until I’m reaching Drudge Report level numbers (I can dream can’t I).

To do this, especially since the move to WordPress has strangely put me a little further down on any Google search, I have taken the advice of friends and other websites and started to comment on other blogs. This has usually not been my thing since while I would love to engage in discussions with anyone at a rational level on my blogs, I find that this is not the way of the blogosphere. For instance the other day I ran across a blog defending China’s occupation of Tibet (because we should always defend the genocidal annexation of peaceful nations by butchers apparently). One of the main arguments the person made was that now in 2011 the economics, technology and infrastructure of Tibet is much better than it was under the Dalai Lama. I put a comment up that this was a false assessment as every nation, even in the third world, is in a better place in 2011 than it was in 1950, and to assume that Tibet would have remained closed, given the desire of the 14th Dalai Lama to learn about the West, was foolish—that if China had not invaded Tibet would likely be in a better position. The twit who made the original position responded that this was only “speculation” on my part. Yeah, it’s speculation, but one based on facts, trends, and precedent. You can’t argue that a place is better because of X without even considering what it would be like if X had not happened. To argue that a logical conclusion based on history and other examples is worthless just because it didn’t happen, is the most weak minded and pathetic form of argument I can think of…just the kind you would expect from someone who supports the butchers from Beijing. So I realized quickly that I would just get infuriated communicating with this nitwit and as I was not in the proximity to slap him there was no point in making a rebuttal. This has been similar to many of my other comments. I try to make a reasoned rebuttal, I get knee jerk reactions. (My favorite being, I’m an American, what would I know…I wonder if they would have made the same statement if it was one of the American’s who was also a darling of the left.) And since I find posting, “I agree with you completely” also silly, there are few blogs I comment on where I agree with people.

I found fewer and fewer places to comment as my search for interesting blogs continued.

So I turned my direction to religion blogs, hell at least I didn’t really expect people to be reasonable. But expecting people to be irrational is not the same thing as finding out that people are freaking psychos. Atheists are still some of the most biter people I can find. My favorite for the suggestion that atheism can be correlated with being a sociopath was a blog about a guy who offered a homeless man $20 to take the words “God Bless” off the sign he was using to beg for money with. That’s right, this guy wanted to take away what is probably the only stable element in this person’s life for $20—and they say conservatives are heartless sons of bitches. Not to mention my other favorite part that almost all atheists seem to be arguing against Christianity as if the Christian Bible is the only argument in favor of God.

Oh, and Anti-Semitism appears to be quite alive and well. I used to think that that almost everyone underestimated how prevalent Ant-Semitism in this country and the world, how it was one of the greatest threats facing the growth of society, and how the world needed to grow, look around, and rip this evil weed out once and for all. After this week I think I may have been underestimating how bad a problem this actually was. No, seriously, I’m half a step away from saying screw the first amendment, Anti-Semitism needs to be made a death penalty offense. I’m not going to because I understand where that slippery slope leads, but, dear God, do these twisted little excuses for human being know how to have lots and lots of blogs. The first few I saw I thought from the titles were going to be well crafted pieces of satire making fun of the idiot by using their own words against them, after all no one could seriously believe this shit…it’s a sad moment where I find my cynical outlook on humanity may be optimistic.

But my personal favorite has to be what I’ve learned about New Agers like myself. Apparently, according to many of the blogs I’ve read, I am part of a grand conspiracy that is headed by no less than Satan himself, to destroy Christianity and make sure all souls are dammed in hell. I am worshiping demons who pose as angels (because, I don’t know, all calls and prayers I make to God are being intercepted before they get to the desired recipient). Obviously I’m going to hell. Interestingly enough, I and my pagan compatriots are in league with Glenn Beck of all people. And that I must regularly attend meetings where babies are slaughtered and massive orgies occur.

Which brings up the question: Why am I never invited to the meetings? I don’t get invited to the Black Sabbath where the damnation of all souls is planned. I don’t get invited to the Republican meetings where the enslavement of the poor is discussed. I don’t get invited to the meetings where Whitey plans to keep all minorities down. And I don’t get invited to the meetings where men plot to keep women bare foot and pregnant. I don’t get invited to the meetings. I don’t get the handbook everyone else seems to have. I don’t even know the secret handshake.

There is no real argument to this particular blog. I just needed to vent. I knew that the web is fully of crazy people, but knowing it and seeing it are two different things. As all my previous blog reading has always been through aggregate sites (Drudge, Breitbart, RealClearPolitics, etc.) I got the truly crazy weeded out. Yes there would be people I would disagree with, but even the really bad ones had a thread of logic (or in Paul Krugman’s case it was just good comic relief). So it was just a little disgusting to see how pathetic crazy people can be and I just needed to vent because there is no way to deal with these people. You can’t fix crazy and I don’t think I could even enjoy taunting these idiots.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Atheism, Dalai Lama, First Amendment, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid

Does THE ONE hate America?

Does Obama hate America?

A friend recently complained about my use of the phrase “America hating” to describe Obama. First, I find odd that in amongst my statement that man is a textbook narcissist and is possibly suffering mentally delusions, that insulting his patriotism is what riles people a little odd–but we’ll leave that aside for the time being.

Second while I cannot claim to know the true feelings of any person, I can make logical deductions. And as far as I see it Obama is opposed to just about every core value that America stands for. Unlike many countries in history, America is not a country defined by its borders or ethnic makeup, America is defined by its ideas and ideals. From what I see, Obama is opposed to those ideas. And if I am correct in this then, I can only deduce that he either hates those principals, and by extension America, or is so stupid he doesn’t know what he is doing (or both).
F
It is logically impossible to say a man loves something that he is philosophically opposed to. Thus the only question that remains is “Does Obama oppose the ideals of America?”

To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world:

Separation of Powers
Our government is based on the idea of separation of powers. That no branch of government is more powerful than another and that each branch has certain responsibilities. Specifically these branches are supposed to be adversarial, but Obama’s recent statement that the Republicans must learn to work with him if they win both Houses of Congress suggest that he believes that Congress is supposed to be just a rubber stamp for his beliefs. Further, he clearly is opposed to the idea of the Separation of Powers by his immensely stupid and tactless statement that the Supreme Court was wrong in defending the First Amendment. Few Presidents have ever been so hostile to the Supreme Court and those who have been have done terrible things with their power (FDR bringing this country much closer to socialism and Jackson who ignored the Supreme Court so he could commit acts of genocide against the Cherokee).
Also this man’s love of executive orders, czars and expansion of bureaucracy clearly demonstrate that he thinks his is the only branch that matters. I can only hope the Supreme Court and a Republican Congress team up to remind him that he is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches over the next two years.

And who can forget his belief that the soon to be Republican Congress has to learn to work with him. Actually, Barrack, if you had ever read the Constitution or Federalist Papers you might learn that we have what’s called an adversarial government and the point of multiple branches is so they actually don’t work with each other and oppose each other at every turn. But I guess it’s too much to ask that the President of the United States has read the Constitution he’s sworn to uphold (after all it’s not like he ever intended to uphold that oath).

Freedom of Speech and the Press

While we’re on this issue of his hostility toward the First Amendment Obama’s stance is clear: you have no right to express your free speech via contribution to the Republican party or its allies (about contributions he seems to have no problem with when they’re going to Democrats). But let’s also bring up his hostility to Fox News. This is not him disagreeing with statements a media group has made, the President and his administration have actually stated they are against Fox News as an organization. They have singled out this one media outlet, stating they should not be allowed to say the things they say. Every President may not like what is said about them, but he is the first President who has actually singled out a single media organization over everything they say. Usually you will see behavior like this from banana-republic dictators or Vladimir Putin as they try to solidify their power, but this is hardly the kind of behavior you expect from a man who has sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States which has an absolute freedom of the press guaranteed.

Supremacy of and Respect for the Law
Again, his treatment of the Supreme Court stands out here. But there are other things.

The recent Arizona immigration law stands out. Now you may disagree with that law and its provisions, but it would be foolish to deny that one of the driving forces for that law being passed was the Federal government not doing its job in defending the borders. It’s not just Obama who has not been defending the borders, it’s a long line of presidents, so the blame for this debacle is in no way only attributable to Obama. But there is how he chooses to respond. Not to tighten the border and then argue the law is unnecessary, not reform federal immigration law and policies which is the responsibility of the federal government, not do anything to improve the situation or seek a solution to the problem of illegal immigration. No, he just sues Arizona. He doesn’t want to enforce immigration law and he’s going to stop anyone else from enforcing immigration law….(there is also a beautiful hypocrisy here when you consider he has also said that he has to challenge the court decision that overturned “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” because it’s his job as President to enforce federal law even when he doesn’t agree with it….I’m confused if he in truth really likes illegal immigrants or really hates gays, but he is certainly picking and choosing which federal laws he doesn’t like to enforce).

Then there was the situation when Bond holders for Ford and Chrysler were told to go screw themselves during the bailout which not only violates U.S. contract law but a law respected for nearly 500 years of English Common and Contract Law. Yeah this is a man who believes that he isn’t above the law. (To be fair the other two branches of government were also to blame for this violation of law, common sense, and good taste).

Due Process
As I posted a while back he signed an executive order which gave Interpol the freedom to do anything it wants within U.S. borders without fear of retribution or legal prosecution, which given my natural distrust of government organizations has me very worried. But that’s not the only time this man showed no respect for due process of law or those who enforce it. Remember when he called the cop who arrested a very rude, belligerent and asshole-like college professor and our commander-in-chief in a very racist knee-jerk reaction called the cop “stupid” for doing his job perfectly and without flaw. Hmmm. Makes you wonder how he feels about cops in general. Or prosecuting those who have violated laws (…like immigration laws.) So apparently he’s more into feeling his way through situations than allowing the due process of the police and court system to determine justice of our public officials and just punishment of those who break the law. To hell with due process, let’s just say whatever we feel like at the moment (or more accurately whatever the teleprompter feels like telling him to say at the moment).

On the flip side Obama believes in due process where none has ever existed in the history of this country. Yes, let’s put terrorists on trial in public courts….like we’ve never done before and no one in the history of government would ever conceive of until now. When talking about terrorists, please keep in mind, that the Founding Fathers, the back bone of our nation and its core beliefs and the guys who put the amendment about due process in there in the first place, would likely have just shot everybody in Guantanamo and called it a day. And with the occasional show trial, that would have been policy up to and through FDR and Truman. So, where Obama gets his beliefs in due process, I’m not sure, but it’s not the American conception of it.

Equality under the law
This is another one he and his administration don’t seem to be big on. If you want to get involved in trafficking 13-year-old El Salvadorian girls for prostitution, it’s okay if you contributed to the President’s campaign coffers like ACORN did. And if you want to intimidate voters trying to cast a ballot it’s perfectly fine to intimidate those voters if you’re only intimidating white people…yes that’s the actual stance of the Justice Department under Secretary Eric Holder. Now Obama hasn’t specifically commented on this situation, but as the only legal and ethical action would be to fire Eric Holder and charge him with a civil rights violation, Obama’s lack of action suggest he feels laws apply to people of different ethnicities in different ways. So much for equality under the law.

American Exceptionalism
“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
Now you can only believe we are special because of what we have accomplished in history, or you can believe we have some destiny as a nation guided by higher power, but to deny that exceptionalism of America is just rational silly. No nation in only 234 years has accomplished what we have. In economics, art, science and technology, liberty and the advancement of democracy no nation has had such a spectacular run (although Great Britain might come close). Even when you detract the flaws of our history, we are still ahead (America has done some terrible things, but most of the world has managed to do much worse). But Barrack Obama has specifically spoken out against American exceptionalism, he may have said he believed in it, but an actual statement meant that a belief in American Exceptionalism is nothing more than an opinion without any facts behind it, stating that we must consider ourselves equals of the rest of the world, as if we are and have always been on equal intellectual and moral footing with them. Now I might entertain the argument that we are in danger of losing our status as the greatest nation on earth, but denying our exceptionalism which is a core and central belief of America as any, is certainly not helping us keep our #1 status. (Nor is it particularly patriotic, as patriotism does demand that you find your country special in at least some way…but that would also require you to believe that patriotism is a conditional virtue dependent upon your country actually standing for something worth believing in).

Capitalism and the American Dream
Well, that he is opposed to the very economic system that this country was based on is kind of a no-brainer. If you have any doubts that Obama believes in something other than capitalism then just take a look at his statement “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”…(that is unless you’re donating to the his campaign…I’m also sure enough is always going to be somewhere short of his book royalty checks). Yeah, he’s not a socialist, no, not at all.

Government control of banks, healthcare, automotive industries, firing CEOs, higher taxes, more regulations (less actual enforcement of the laws as well), more welfare payments, more control of people’s lives. Yeah I can say without a moment of hesitation that he is opposed to capitalism.

Liberty
This goes hand in hand with the last point.
Well I am not being forced to buy health insurance whether I want it or not. And as Milton Friedman would be happy to tell you the less capitalism you have the less freedom you have…but really Barrack Obama doesn’t want to have freedom, he wants you to follow him.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…I don’t care how politically incorrect it is, I’m going to be blunt. This man clearly hates just about every ideal that this country is based on. Logically I must conclude that he must hate this country….or if he loves this country he loves some version of it that was never intended nor has ever existed or meant to exist. Yeah, he hates this country.

Leave a comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Civil Liberties, Economics, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, First Amendment, Government is corrupt, liberal arrogance, Obama, Obama Ceasar

I will defend your right to say it to the death….unless…

We all know that old quote falsely attributed to Voltaire, “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it to the death.” However the Netherlands seems to have added a new caveat to that statement “…unless you’re stating the truth, but we think some very psychotic people might blow up parts of our country, because they showed so much stability in dealing with cartoons and filmmakers, that our cowardice and fear of having momentary safety is more important than any principle of a just, free and democratic society.” That’s what happens when you compare a philosophy named “Submit” (that means submit to a rather violent God, without question, without comment, without using reason, just submit) to the philosophy of fascism (submit to the guy with the big gun, without…)–I can’t imagine finding any parallels between those two philosophies. Of course that particular religion would be Islam (the Arabic word for Submit). Which is exactly what political leader Geert Wilder has had the guts to say. And that is a brave thing to do in a country where another film maker was killed when he made legitimate criticisms about the worst aspect of Islam.

But the Netherlands seems to think that the freedom of speech is a limited right. Keep in mind that Geert has said nothing factually incorrect, merely politically incorrect. The Netherlands feels it can legislate such speech. This is an affront to the very nature of the basic right to speak one’s conscience. This is about as anti-democratic as you can get. And this is actually being carried out by a Western nation. This is a dark day for history and a darker one for human rights if Geert is actually convicted.

Whether you agree with his stance on Islam or not, the fact of the matter is that Western Civilization is nowadays based on the on concepts of liberal democracy. One of the most important corner stones to that system of government is the freedom of expression. And while theoretically that right is still upheld in the U.S. (the worst that can happen here is people will call you Hitler if they don’t like what you say, or maybe the FBI will tell you it might be time to go into hiding if you drew a picture of Mohammed …because again Muslims are known for taking things in stride), the rest of the world seems to hold the freedom of speech as less of an absolute right and more of a cute idea we tolerate when it suits us. God help us if our government begins to take such a stance toward the freedom of speech. “Say something against Obama, go to jail” is the precedent for the Western world that the Netherlands seem to be setting us up for. Of course this at the same time we seem to be inventing rights like Healthcare.

So now what you say has to be approved by the prevailing powers-that-be as being politically correct or you can go to jail. I’m sure democracy and freedom will thrive in conditions where people no longer have the freedom to say what they want.

All in the name of defending an ideology which demands no thought and mass murder from being insulted.

But here’s the really funny part. Wilders is technically charged with inciting hatred against Muslims. Because the 9/11 attacks, the Mohammed cartoon riots, the constant degradation of women, the demand for Sharia law in western countries, the endless spewing of anti-Semitic remarks, the suicide bombings, the endless stream of terror alerts, Iran, the Taliban….none that made people dislike Muslims. No, it was this evil man named Geert Wilder. If it weren’t for him Muslims and Infidels would be living side by side in peace and harmony in the Netherlands…yeah, right.

It gets even better when you consider that absolutely nothing this man has said is factually inaccurate.

This would like charging Jay Leno and David Letterman with inciting hatred of O.J. Simpson for all the jokes they’ve told over the last 16 years about him being a murderer. To hell with that one, tiny, little fact.

Now the real question is, will Wilder be released on the lack of evidence and common sense or will he be convicted over the fear that a just acquittal will lead to another round of riots in Europe?

Leave a comment

Filed under Civil Liberties, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, First Amendment, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Multiculturalism is Dead, Religion, Unjust legislation

Mosques and the First Amendment

So apparently Nancy Pelosi believes that Congress should look into who is behind the opposition to the mosque (or community center or whatever it is) that is proposed to be built 2 blocks from Ground Zero. Now, if Congress looks into something it must be for the purpose of eventually passing laws dealing with what they’re looking into…because that’s really the only power Congress has–to pass laws. So what should Congress be looking into so it can pass laws on. Pelosi apparently thinks that Congress needs to investigate when people assemble for a common cause and try to petition the government over their concerns; she believes Congress needs to investigate and possibly do something when people try to express themselves through speech and the press. After all, it’s not like this thing (assembly, petition, speech and press) are guaranteed anywhere (at least not in any document she has ever read). She then followed it up by saying Congress should look into who is funding the mosque…because the practice of religion isn’t guaranteed in any document Nancy is familiar with either.

Before I get too far into this, let me state my opinion on the Ground Zero Mosque (which by the way is the only honest and rational opinion). As a capitalist, I say that if they own the land they have an absolute right to build whatever they want on that property. It is an unalienable right to do whatever you want with your own private property. And guess what else is a right…my right to say that it may be your right to build a mosque there, but you’re a complete bunch of assholes to even suggest it. That’s right you have the right to be a moron and an asshole in this country (our president seems to exercise that right on a daily basis) but just because you have the right to do it, doesn’t mean you should. And if you exercise your right to be an ass regardless of tack and decency then I have a right, and likely a moral obligation, to call you on it. And like it or not, it wasn’t radical Judaism, Hinduism or Zorasterism that has a rally cry of “Death to America”… that would be radical Islam (…and maybe China’s economic policy, but that’s really not relevant right now).

It’s their right. But they’re assholes. (I’d love to vary my choice of insults, but really, what other word applies?)

But then a lot of people like to add hypocrisy to the mix. Like saying the mosque is there to further understanding between cultures. 1. If you think culture here is primarily determined by religion, well then you really missed the point of America. 2. You can’t claim to want to foster understanding when everything you do has no understanding for everyone else. 3. You can’t claim to foster understanding and demand tolerance for your beliefs when you have an Iman who claim America is at fault for 9/11 and who represents a religion that still to this day puts women as inferior to men. Your call for tolerance to your limited and fundamentalist interpretation shows you to be quite hypocritical and…well…an asshole.

But the bigger hypocritical asshole here is certainly Pelosi. Even if you didn’t agree with opposition to the mosque, you can see and understand why a reasonable person could see this as just an utterly tactless thing to do. This is one of those things it is really easy to understand where your opposition is coming from. It doesn’t come from bigotry or irrational hatred, it comes from the fact that 3,000 people died at this spot, killed by 19 people who did it in the name of Islam (whether that’s a correct or incorrect interpretation of Islam is irrelevant). When Republicans do stupid shit, I feel shame for being the same party. When pagans do stupid shit, I feel shame for being roughly in the same religion. When teachers act like morons I feel shame for being in the same profession. When people in whatever group you’re in do something completely asshole-ish I expect that you feel some level of shame to be associated with them. And it’s not too much to ask that the people behind this mosque feel some decent human shame for being in the same religion as 19 people who committed genocide in the name of their religion. That’s not bigotry, that is asking for a basic human reaction. And when they don’t show such shame, it causes righteous (emphasis on the righteous) indignation on our point. So for Pelosi to suggest that there is something sinister and wrong behind this opposition either means she is an idiot without compare (which given some of the things Pelosi says, Sarah Palin may very well be a Rhodes Scholar in comparison) or Pelosi is just trying to intentionally depict normal rational human beings as bigots. Asshole doesn’t even begin to describe trying to define a normal, understandable, and moral human reaction as evil…”evil” might begin to describe it, but, again, that may be giving the void between Pelosi’s ears too much credit.

And don’t even get me started on our gutless wonder of in the White House who tried in 48 hours to appear as if he was on both sides of this issue.

But what’s most frightening is that the Speaker of the House seems to think she has some kind of power to investigate, and possibly legislate, how people express their displeasure. What if a boycott of whatever construction company does build the mosque is organized (which by the way should be done)? Will Nancy pass legislation banning the publication or organization of such a boycott (which would be in violation of the 1st Amendment)? Will she fine people for assembly to express their displeasure? After all, she’s already fining you if you refuse to buy health insurance in clear violation of the Constitution. If she feels comfortable doing one, why wouldn’t she feel comfortable doing the other.

Let me end with a question here. How is opposition to the mosque any different from the opposition to those psycho Christians who picket soldier’s funerals because they think the deaths are God’s punishment for the fact that we have homosexuality in this country. They’re not that different. They’re both groups that like to show this lack of consideration for other people’s suffering at gravesites. Liberal and Conservatives alike are more than willing to critique the nutty Christian Church (not primarily because of their shit-for-brains beliefs) but because they’re just assholes for the way they want to express their beliefs. Why do liberals have such a problem critiquing Muslims for essentially doing the exact same thing?

Leave a comment

Filed under First Amendment