Nuggets of Wisdom

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Two Big Projects and A Hiatus

I’m going to be taking a hiatus this month. Want to take a break away from politics and blogging. Sometimes I wonder if it’s hazardous to my mental health. I’ve been rather depressed lately. Maybe laying off the cynicism that comes from blogging about all the problems in this country will help.

Before I go on hiatus, I have two major projects I’ve been working on: 100 Questions for Liberals and Atheists. It’s inspired by the list 100 Questions for True Christians by AngieTheAntitheist. Only instead of one list of questions aimed at fundamentalist Christians, its two lists of questions aimed at both liberals and conservatives. They’re going to be epic: questions with links, pictures, and video clips aimed at shattering people’s preconceived notions about politics. Expect it either tomorrow or the next day.

Friday, July 29, 2011

Demotivational Poster: Scapegoats


I don’t much about George Soros or the Koch Brothers. And I really don’t care. I never heard of any of them until about a year ago, so why should I start caring now? I never heard of Soros until Glenn Beck started ranting about him nearly a year ago, and I never heard of the Koch Brothers until a few months afterwards. My guess is that the far-left moonbats were envious that the far-right wingnuts had their own political scapegoat to beat up, so they decided to find their own. Ever since then, I can’t go anywhere on the internet without running across some idiot rambling about how Soros and/or the Kochs are trying to destroy America as we know it by—gasp—donating to political groups!

To me, this hysteria is nothing more than our natural instinct to blame someone behind the curtain for our problems, be it the New World Order, Illuminati, Bilderbergs, Opus Dei, Jews, reptilians, or freemasons. And I can understand the temptation. Times are tough. The economy is in the toilet. The national debt is through the roof. Jobs are being lost rather than created. The wars continue to drag on. And the politicians in Washington are doing jack squat to fix anything. The country is a mess and we have to blame someone for it. But who?

Well, if we have to blame someone, it’s not George Soros. It’s not the Kochs. It’s not the NWO or Illuminati or Bildebergs or reptilians. It’s not even the government or corporations or unions or media. If you really want to know who’s to blame, in the words of V from V for Vendetta, “You need only look into a mirror.” Yes we, the American people, are responsible for the problems in our own country. There can be no other suspect. We can blame the government, but who elects the politicians that run the government? We can blame the corporations, but who buys the products and services they offer? We can blame the media, but who watches what they produce?

Ultimately, the fault is our own. Why? Because we’ve become apathetic. We care more about who will become the next American Idol than who will become the next American president. We care more about what Kim Kardashian is doing rather than what our own congressman is doing. We care more about the clothes we wear rather than the ethics of the corporations that produce them. Rather than make our own decisions, we abdicate them to those in power; and when they screw us over, we blame them, even though it was we who put them in power in the first place!

You want the problems in our country fixed? Then do something about it. You can start by stop chasing after political boogeyman and stop blaming others for your own problems.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Capitalism For Dummies

Andrew Klavan offers an explanation of capitalism so simple a child could understand it. Or a liberal. But I repeat myself.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Demotivational Poster: Modern Feminism

Modern Feminism

A woman cuts off her husband’s penis and tosses it into the garbage disposal. Female hosts on a daytime talk show make light of the situation.

A salon owner subdues a robber, ties him up in the back room naked, and rapes him for three days. She gets her own Facebook fan page: Olga Zajac: The world's greatest Salon Owner.

A trio of young girls strips an 11-year-old boy and posts the video on-line. Minimal attention is given to the story.

Imagine if the sexes were reversed in each of these situations: a man cuts off his wife’s clitoris, a male store owner rapes a woman in his back room for three days, and a gang of young boys strip a girl and post the video on-line. There would be outrage from not only the feminist community, but the entire nation. Yet these stories, as they are, receive little to not attention.

Why is it when something happens to a woman it receives national attention and outrage, especially from the hardcore feminists, yet when the exact same thing happens to a man, it either gets ignored or ridiculed? Shouldn’t the sexes be treated equally? Isn’t that the whole point of equality, that everyone has equal rights?

Apparently not to the feminists!

There once was a time when feminism was about ensuring equal rights for the sexes, about women fighting for the same rights as men. Now it’s about demeaning stay-at-home mothers for not wishing to pursue a career outside the home; about preventing women from having consensual sex for money or posing nude in front of a camera (because women only have a right to their own body when it comes to killing their unborn children); about lying about how domestic violence increases during Super Bowl Sunday or how women are paid less than men due to sexism; about accusing a girl’s television show of promoting homophobia, racism, and anti-intellectualism; and about complaining when a man asks a woman out for coffee on an elevator.

In short, feminists—more specifically, the militant ones—have become their own worst enemies: they have become chauvinists and sexists, only instead of hating women, they hate men. They do not care about equal rights and treatment for the sexes, only themselves. All men are pigs, after all.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Hair Stylist Rapes Robber; Gets Facebook Page: “World’s Greatest”

Suppose a woman tried to rob a convenience store, and the store owner managed to not only subdue her, but also tie her up to a radiator naked in the back room and rape her consistently for three days with nothing to eat but birth control pills. The National Organization of Woman would be demanding this man’s genitalia on a stick—and rightfully so!

Now let’s reverse the genders. Suppose a man tried to rob a beauty salon, and the hair stylist managed to not only subdue him, but also tie him up to a radiator naked in the back room naked and rape him consistently for three days with nothing to eat but Viagra. We would expect the same level of outrage from the feminist community, right? Right?!


Instead, Olga Zajac (yes, this story is real) gets her own Facebook page: Olga Zajac: The world's greatest Salon Owner.

World’s greatest? Is that any way to describe a woman who kept a man as her personal sex slave? I can understand idolizing the woman for single-handedly defeating an oppressor and then turning him over to the authorities, but this?

As I mentioned, if the genders were switched, we would see righteous indignation from the feminist community. This only proves the blatant hypocrisy among modern day feminists, as The Amazing Atheist points out in his recent video:

Why Republicans (Except Ron Paul) Suck!

Remember in a previous blog post where I featured an analysis of the GOP 2012 presidential candidates from, which basically amounted to “Those Republicans are a bunch of dirty do-do heads!”? That would be the wrong way to criticize Republicans.

Now let me feature an article by Anthony Gregory from, which cogently explains why the GOP candidates, excluding Ron Paul, are a bunch of hypocritical liars. This is the correct way to criticize Republicans:

Romney the Health Care Commie

Mitt Romney frightened me in 2008 when he suggested we might want to "double Guantánamo." On all the issues where Republicans are bad, he is bad. On some issues where Republicans are not always horrible, like gun control, Romney’s record is spotty at best.

Most conspicuous is his failure to have a principled critique of Obama’s most significant policy achievement that the GOP opposed fairly consistently. Romney is on constitutionally legitimate ground when he mounts the federalism defense of Romneycare while still criticizing Obamacare. His point that in a free republic, the states should be laboratories of democracy and the federal government should butt out, is valid. American socialism is indeed more constitutionally sound and less damaging this way.

But socialized medicine is still bad policy, morally and economically, even if done on the state level. American conservatives deride "Taxachussetts" for its state-level government interventions all the time. What’s more, the constitutional argument carries no weight coming from a big-government Republican. Does Romney oppose Medicare, Social Security, national education standards, plenary federal regulation of industry, the Federal Reserve, the FDA, and the war on drugs? None of these programs are any more constitutionally sound than Obamacare.

This inconsistency will probably not hurt him in the long run, since most Republicans are equally hypocritical. Most American conservatives have become snookered by the mild socialism of both parties. The New Deal/Great Society/Compassionate Conservative agenda of entitlement guarantees, cascading deficit spending, and federal support for the old, sick, needy, and indeed most of the middle class is a fixture of every political program to be advanced in a Republican presidential bid in a general election since the 1960s. Goldwater was the last one who didn’t always sound like he was talking out of both sides of his mouth and much of his party was uncomfortable with him. Unfortunately, Romney’s weak critique of Democratic statism is par for the course.

This is fiscal conservatism today. This is the Republican Party: Medicare D, No Child Left Behind, new national bureaucracies, endless unfunded wars, deficit spending to finance the welfare-warfare state of FDR, LBJ and George W. Bush. Romney is not a RINO (Republican in Name Only). He is in fact a quintessential modern Republican, and that is the great tragedy. He thus has a decent shot at the White House, but no one who loves liberty should help him get there.

Rudy Giuliani’s Handcuffed Entrepreneurs and Nightstick to the Knee

Rudy might throw his hat in or not, but he is worth at least passing mention. Religious conservatives warmed up to this pro-choice social liberal for one major reason: On 9/11, he was able to profit politically more than any politician not in the Bush administration. As was revealed later, it was his decision as mayor of New York to put the emergency response center inside the World Trade Center, despite its known vulnerability, having been attacked in 1993, that exacerbated the situation when the Twin Towers fell. Other problems with the response have also been pinned on him. Such critiques might be hitting below the belt if not for his long record of running on the platform of having been mayor on 9/11.

Giuliani still gets credit for "cleaning up" the Big Apple, although some have noted the mysterious nature of the reduced vagrant and street criminal populations. He has been accused of simply sweeping them into New Jersey. Surely his draconian drug war and other "tough on crime" developments – cracking down on people with dime bags and jailing homeless people for the most minor transgressions – should give us pause about the prospect of Rudy with the nuclear button.

Giuliani also has a record of anti-capitalist witch-hunting that easily compares to the socialistic biases of Obama’s crew of pinkos. As the great, late Burt Blumert reminded us on why he hated the man with a passion, Rudy’s oppressive takedown of the heroic capitalist Michael Milken was such a stark act of persecution that it alone should dissuade anyone with any respect at all for the market economy or the rule of law from the notion of ever, under any circumstances, voting for this megalomaniacal monster.

Rick Perry, Totalitarian from Texas

On Groundhog Day, 2007, Rick Perry climbed out of a hole and cast a shadow upon the land. It was on that February 2 that Perry issued an executive decree forcing adolescent Texas girls to get the HPV vaccine, an inoculation that is seemingly effective against a fraction of the human papillomavirus, one of the causes of cervical cancer. There was an opt-out option, but it was still an edict so sickening and invasive we could only expect how social conservatives would react if President Obama attempted such a measure. The presumption of universal sexual conduct among teen girls, the pretentious intervention into every household, the health risks disregarded, the neglected fact that many if not most cases of the very disease being targeted wouldn’t be addressed – the full insidiousness of Perry’s measure escaped most commentators’ notice, including on the right that is today up in arms, correctly, about Obamacare and TSA.

It didn’t hurt Perry’s motivations, probably, that the only FDA-approved vaccine for HPV was produced by Merck, a company that had contributed to Perry’s campaign and had other lobbying connections to his administration associates. The cynical corporatism and predatory statism of this one executive order tell you all you need to know about current frontrunner Rick Perry.

It was no surprise recently that Perry betrayed and derailed the efforts within Texas to hold TSA accountable. For once, there was a proposal to protect the liberty of citizens, in this case against the federal government, and of course Perry sided with the Obama administration against his own subjects. Why challenge the national groping apparatus you are seeking to inherit?

Perry stabbed fiscal conservatives in the back when he supported a rise in the state franchise tax and a controversial property tax reform bill. Like the other Texas Republican governor George W. Bush, Perry would make a terrible president.

Michelle Bachmann: Theocon Israel-Firster

Presidential candidate and Tea Party heroine Michelle Bachmann sure knows how to rile up the red-state base. Talk up the threat of socialism. Praise the Constitution. Even criticize the Federal Reserve a little bit. And this is all well and good, although her consistency even on fiscal issues is quite questionable, given her support for Cap, Cut, and Balance and other such Republican frauds.

But Bachmann holds at least one position that is at complete odds with the more admirable principles on which the United States was founded. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington warned about the danger of permanent and entangling alliances. The United States, as John Quincy Adams put it, "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

In her recent video, Bachmann takes a very different position. She says that America’s "alliance with Israel is critical for both nations at all times."

This is a deeply unAmerican sentiment, and you don’t have to be the least bit anti-Israeli to recognize this. She is saying the alliance with Israel is permanent and unmoving, that what is in Israel’s interests is the same as what is in the United States’s interests. Even more troubling, she explicitly conflates the two countries in terms of their national identities:

"Israelis and Americans are two sides of the same coin. We share the same values and the same aspirations. We even share the same exceptional mission – to be a light to the nations. After all, the image of America as the Shining City on the Hill is taken from the Book of Isiah."

This is bizarre, at the very least. Could you imagine a prominent politician getting away with saying this about another country, even one as culturally similar as Great Britain? "Two sides of the same coin"? This video, an attack on Obama for being insufficiently pro-Israel, is essentially arguing that most Americans, unlike the president, recognize that the Israeli nation and the American nation are one and the same.

Indeed, the next line, about how Americans and Israelis supposedly have "the same values and the same aspirations," is also troubling for anyone who thinks the U.S. should look after its own interests. But aside from the objections on America-First grounds, consider the collectivism here, as well as the strange notion that Israelis in particular have the same values. We need not be the slightest bit disparaging of Israelis to see this is not the case – but it is especially ironic coming from someone who claims to defend limited government and free enterprise. After all, Israel is not a capitalist paradise. It is a welfare state. It is more domestically socialist, probably, than the Democrats in the United States. Its militarism and police state might inspire confidence in the Republicans who typically but inconsistently want to defend economic liberty but champion an interventionist military and law enforcement regime. But even by confused Republican standards, Israel is not some sort of paragon of Reagan conservatism, however defined.

And this doesn’t touch on the religious implications of her video. Of course, Christians have long been attacked for speaking their faith in the political and public spheres, and this is a disgrace. Religious conservatives have been demonized by the secular media. Yet when it comes to foreign policy and the actual governmental agenda of the U.S. executive branch, Jefferson was right that there should be a wall of separation between church and state. Madison, the author of the Constitution, was right when he said that religion and government "will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." The whole notion of determining the proper stance of the United States in international affairs on some lines from the Old Testament should frighten even the most devoutly Christian or Jewish, for war and government are not the proper means of salvation. Those who oppose theocracy as well as those who want America to pursue a foreign policy free of permanent, entangling alliances – both groups of whom should include all sane Americans – can’t help but cringe at the sight of Bachmann’s video.

Will she at least stand up for all Christians? Maybe now, but it is at least potentially troubling that the church that she quit only this month held the position that the Pope was the anti-Christ.

Herman Cain, Overrated Modal Conservative

Jon Stewart, in mocking Herman Cain’s proposal that all federal legislation only be a few pages, drew fire from the politically correct right for having mimicked Cain’s voice as well, presumably because it was racist to do so. Stewart shot back with footage of his doing dozens of voices over the years, clearly with an equal-opportunity approach that spared no ethnic or regional group. Yet the same conservatives denouncing all leftist accusations against the Tea Party for being racist are now claiming that the only reason anyone would dislike Cain is because he’s black.

What is confusing to me, however, is why so many have become enamored of Cain. Perhaps it is just his modal conservatism – his willingness to spout old Republican talking points in favor of business but without much substance behind them, and then go off on some culture warring point about the sanctity of marriage or whatever.

Tom Woods has a great video explaining many of the particular problems with Cain. As Tom notes, Cain endorsed Romney in 2008, favored TARP against the "free market purists," defends the bulk of the Patriot Act, has a despicable record on the Federal Reserve, and has no real understanding of economics.

There is one reason, however, that Cain stands up for being particularly dangerous. He has no conception at all of religious liberty in a time when it is under attack. He believes Americans have a right to prohibit mosques from being built, out of the hysterical paranoia that Sharia law will take hold and wipe away all out freedoms and Christian identity as a nation. For similar reasons Cain says appointing Muslims to government would be a big problem for him, as you never know which of them is a terrorist. This ugly anti-Islamism should all by itself should be a deal-breaker for anyone every remotely interested in liberty. Cain is targeting the group most likely to be rounded up and interned should another terrorist incident occur, a group that is already the subject of warmongering hatred, and he is legitimizing this through his candidacy. The bigotry Cain espouses helps foment the aggressive wars that have done more to undermine American freedom in recent decades than anything else.

Rick Santorum’s Crusade Against Freedom

Rick Santorum says he’s in the presidential race to win. In typical campaign-season Republican fashion, he has condemned Obama for having "wrecked our economy, and centralized power in Washington, DC, and robbed people of their freedom."

Of course it is true that Obama has been a disaster for American liberty. It doesn’t take a genius to see this. But one might wonder, what is the alternative Santorum represents?

Santorum’s War Against Contractual Liberty: Central to a free society is the concept of freedom of association. People should be free to disassociate from others as well, for any reason. One application of this principle would be the right of employers (and employees) to end their employment relationship at will – only with the caveat that premature termination in violation of an employment contract be remedied through damages. Certainly, no boss should be forced to hire anyone against his will.

This principle has been eroded severely through Civil Rights and anti-discrimination laws. This is a tragic abandonment of the cornerstone of a free society. But Santorum has proposed, with the support of such Democratic stalwarts as John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy, to gut this principle even further, by forcing employers to accommodate the religious practices of their workers. This is an egregious attack on economic liberty. It means that a boss would have to make "reasonable" provisions for his employees’ prayers and religious rituals, even if these are at odds with his own values. In a society of religious and contractual liberty, employers wouldn’t have to hire people of any religious persuasion that they didn’t want to, much less subsidize religious practices they did not support. Of course, customers could boycott companies if they found the discrimination or lack of accommodation unfair. But this should be up to free individuals working in the market, never the state.

Santorum’s Attack on the Constitution:Santorum has argued that the federal government should build a wall and use national guards to enforce border security – a usurpation of the proper authority of the states under the Tenth Amendment. He has been an enthusiastic defender of torture, despite the Eighth Amendment, due process rights, and every single standard of human decency. He also voted in support of making warrantless wiretapping easier, in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment; the flag-burning amendment – not actually in violation of the Constitution, but with the opinion, apparently, that the First Amendment needs changing; harsher penalties for drugs, when there is absolutely no authority in the Constitution for the feds to be involved in this at all; draconian penalties for gun violations so long as drugs are involved; federal abstinence education programs, when in fact education is the proper province of the states; a presidential line-item veto, when this is clearly an unconstitutional deprivation of Congress’s legislative authority; the Patriot Act and the evisceration of habeas corpus for detainees in the war on terror. And if you think he only supports cruel measures against those deemed by the government to be "terrorists," keep in mind that this is the man who callously said that victims who didn’t successfully flee New Orleans in the midst of Hurricane Katrina should have been burdened by "tougher penalties."

Santorum’s Battle Against Rationality in Foreign Affairs: Santorum has voted to expand NATO, an outdated Cold War relic; supported stronger sanctions against Syria, Cuba, Iran and even Japan in direct tension with the human right to free trade and the interests of the United States; and backed Clinton’s unconstitutional and unnecessary war with Kosovo, despite the better judgment of many other Republicans. But what else is to be expected from a man so deluded he thought as late as 2006 that Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraqeven as the Bush administration insisted this was not so – and has seriously argued, even in a time when political correctness threatens freedom of inquiry and academic liberty at our universities, that criticism of Israel on college campuses should be federally punished?

Is He Good on Anything? Some will insist that at least Santorum is a fiscal conservative, but he voted for Bush’s deficit-enlarging budgets and does not support abolition of the huge unconstitutional, wasteful and counterproductive federal programs that are drowning this nation in debt – the empire, Social Security, Medicare, and all the rest. He might be marginally less spendthrift than Obama, but wait until you see him in power. He has no compunctions about using the force of the federal government and tax dollars to impose his vision on America – a vision in which employers have to accommodate workers’ religions against their will, a vision in which Washington teaches kids what kind of sexual values to embrace, a vision in which campus criticism of America’s closest Middle East ally is socially engineered out of existence, a vision of social conservatism not nurtured in a humane and virtuous manner by families, churches, and communities, but by the largest political body in the history of the world – the U.S. government. He has no respect for free speech, the Fourth Amendment, or Constitutional limits on the federal police power. Like so many other politicians, he thinks Americans have all too much liberty in many areas, and yet has the temerity to criticize his ideological mirror image, Barack Obama.

Obama has been a nightmare for liberty across the board. So was Bush. If Americans want to finally awake to a future of liberty, they will reject the authoritarian right-wing socialism of Rick Santorum.

Oh No. Another Reagan Republican: Jon Huntsman

Jon Huntsman announced his presidential bid in front of the Statue of Liberty, evoking images of Reagan’s announcement of his own run over three decades ago standing at the same spot. Huntsman, a former Reagan official, reminded his audience that Reagan had "assured us we could ‘make America great again,’ and under his leadership we did."

In 2007, Jon Huntsman openly favored an individual health care mandate – the most directly anti-liberty element to Obamacare. Also as governor of Utah, he signed a global warming initiative agreeing to cut greenhouse gases. Under his stewardship, state spending increased by about 10% a year.

Some will say this means Huntsman is clearly not a real Reagan conservative. Yet Reagan is the president who:

  • About doubled the size of the federal government

  • Increased Social Security taxes and the overall tax bite from the American economy

  • Promised to abolish the Selective Service, the Department of Education, the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau, and did nothing of the sort
As governor, Reagan:

  • Signed the Mulford Act, banning the carrying of firearms in general terms, setting the stage for California’s modern anti-gun atmosphere

  • Increased taxes more than any previous governor, including his $1 billion hike in his first year – the largest tax increase in CA history

  • Immensely expanded the welfare bureaucracy and added over 30,000 employees to the state government payroll

  • Created 73 new state government councils and commissions, including the horrible California Energy Commission

  • Oversaw a 122% increase in the state budget

This is the reality of the Reagan legacy. Even as a governor, with no military enemy as an excuse, he acted even worse than the Democratic governors before and after him. And why not? Reagan was a unionist, a Hollywood New Deal Democrat who took on the role of touting free enterprise because he was hired by General Electric to do so. He was a performer who acted his way into the White House, and to this day the Republicans all jump over themselves to claim his mantle, all competing to be described as the most Reaganesque.

Huntsman is indeed a Reagan Republican: a defender of big government who stands in front of the Statue of Liberty without any credibility on what that statue represents.

Tim Pawlenty, Second-Rate Bore for More Government and War

Poor guy. Even given his close relationship to the 2008 John McCain presidential run, Pawlenty has been unable to turn that experience into the credentials needed to run another losing presidential campaign in 2012. He is not the most frightening of the bunch, however, although his dedication to smaller government is par for the course among Republicans. That is to say, he doesn’t have any.

Pawlenty as governor of Minnesota was an enthusiast for public works projects, rail lines, and Target Field, two-thirds of the funding for which was billed to the taxpayers. He is well known for his bill raising the ethanol requirement for gasoline up to 20%. In environmentalist California, the figure is closer to 6%.

Back in March, before Obama committed the United States to yet another anti-Muslim war of aggression, Pawlenty scathingly attacked the administration for being soft on Libya. Condemning the president for caring what other nations thought about American wars, Pawlenty intoned: "What's most important is our nation is secure and respected." Ah. "Respected." So that is the point of these foreign adventures – being treated like the international mob boss. While the other Republicans in the field are now toying with America-First rhetoric concerning this war, Pawlenty has not taken off his campaign website the numerous examples of his being a visionary ahead of the curve, goading the emperor to flex his muscles before Obama himself felt inclined finally to let the bombs drop.

Newt Gingrich the Career Political Outsider

If there is a great silver lining in this election it is that Gingrich is doing so poorly. What a joy to watch him get nowhere, to watch his ego take a beating every day.

Gingrich has boasted that he is not a "Washington figure" and claims that he "will clearly be the most change-oriented, the most fundamental reform candidate in the race." Yes, this from the guy who was recently taken to the woodshed for his comments that Paul Ryan’s ridiculously moderate budget cut proposal was an example of dangerous "right-wing social engineering."

This only demonstrates what is meant these days when someone is called a "Washington outsider." Obama was supposed to be such a candidate, despite his record-busting campaign donations from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street powerhouses, his unequivocal support for the agenda of AIPAC and other establishment lobbying groups. But even Obama was a better example of an outsider than lifetime government employee John McCain, who laughably ran as a maverick in 2008, defending virtually every element of the Bush regime – the wars, the bailouts, the compassionate conservative welfare statism.

There was a time long before his stint as Speaker of the House when Gingrich was a little bit interesting. In 1982, Newt Gingrich wrote to the Journal of the American Medical Association in defense of medical marijuana. He noted that "Federal law. . . continues to define marijuana as a drug ‘with no accepted medical use,’ and federal agencies continue to prohibit physician-patient access to marijuana. This outdated federal prohibition is corrupting the intent of the state laws and depriving thousands of glaucoma and cancer patients of the medical care promised them by their state legislatures."

Almost 30 years later, is he still asking for a liberalization of federal marijuana law? Quite the reverse. He strongly suggests we need to look at such countries as Singapore for our inspiration on drug policy and does not flinch when it is pointed out that that nation executes drug dealers and issues mandatory drug tests to the general population. These are totalitarian proposals, and Gingrich seems to endorse them emphatically.

Newt’s Contract with America – the Republicans’ literature offering hope and change to the American people – was filled with reforms supposedly aimed at limiting the power of Washington, but much of it had to do with expanding government to crack down on crime or uphold family values. One thing is for certain: the Republican Congress in the 1990s did not cut back government overall. To the contrary, in the 1990s the last federal budget passed by the Republicans was hundreds of billions higher than the last one passed by the Democratic Congress. In some areas, like farm subsidies, spending went up substantially.

The ringleader of the 1990s Republican non-revolution has no hopes, and for this at least we can be grateful.

Sarah Palin: Will the Bulldog with Lipstick Run?

Many have long argued that she would have no chance at the presidency. Only half the Republican voters like her, and none of the Democrats do. Obama is polled to easily defeat her in her own state of Alaska.

Perhaps I am playing into the media zeitgeist by not being a lot more substantive in this discussion. What about Palin’s political positions? Well, she has flip-flopped and equivocated on quite a few questions. But it would be fair to say that she is slightly more fiscally conservative than Obama, in the same ballpark in terms of foreign policy (although with the distinct possibility of surprising us in either direction), and otherwise comfortable with the status quo of bailouts, corporatism, entitlements, huge government, and central management of the economy, with some perfunctory areas where she mildly dissents from the Washington consensus. In other words, she is a typical Republican politician, who might sound a little better than the Democrats when she is out of power, but who always has the potential to prove a neocon in the White House.

Yet it is a mistake to assume the above is the most substantive thing to be said of her. Palin was primarily always a culture-war figure: a rallying point for the heartland to unify and cry out that it had enough of the coastal elitism of the central state and media giants. Yet what were they rebelling against in 2008? Was it the Bush legacy they had voted for? He was, after all, a counterfeit middle American, a Connecticut transplant in the heart of Texas who always advocated big government. The biggest issue to unify the proto-Tea Party uprising of 2008 was, of course, the gigantic Wall Street bailouts, which were advocated and supported by Palin, as well as McCain and Obama. Palin had the problem of running on a ticket calling for hope and change when the Democratic opposition had already trademarked those slogans and was running against the sorry record of her own party’s mismanagement of the economy and two wars. Now the setting is ripe for a run against Obama-style elitist liberalism. The problem is, Palin is a TV star and her own very red state backs the incumbent over her.

There’s lots of talk about whether she can beat Michelle Bachmann. Maybe not. Nevertheless, I still don’t think it’s impossible for her to be president one day, if not in 2013 then down the line. Palin is still very young. She could run every election cycle until 2028 – five elections, inclusive – before she’s any older than Hillary Clinton was in 2008. Think of that. Even if she’s decisively defeated this time, she has plenty of opportunities to make a comeback like Richard Nixon, or Peewee Herman, or Freddy Kreuger, depending on how you regard her.

I for one welcome Palin into the race, as I find her entertaining and somewhat refreshing. My appreciation is nuanced, as I do not think she is any sort of champion of freedom but rather an establishment politician, but it can be fun watching the liberal media stumble over themselves to attack her for cultural reasons, perennially and invincibly clueless that much of the country is on board with her social values. Part of me even wants her to win the White House, not because she will be any better than Obama, necessarily, but because it would serve to educate at least some people. Either the liberals will learn that she is not the devilish threat to their social democracy as they’ve been fearing, or some conservatives will learn that the problem wasn’t Obama but leviathan, or some feminists will learn that a woman in the White House doesn’t mean a more peaceful or less corrupt executive branch any more than a black president means a less predatory criminal justice system. The problem is political power itself, and no modification to the cultural lipstick worn by the empress will mean a damn thing. Perhaps Palin will help bring us closer to the day when Americans recognize that.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Alex Jones: Oslo Terrorist Attack = Inside Job!

I’m sure most of you have heard about the terrorist attack in Oslo which killed over 90 Norwegians. To no one’s surprise, tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones released a video claiming the attack was staged by the government.

Let’s see. 9/11: Inside job. Obama’s birth certificate: Fake. BP Oil Spill: False flag operation. Wikileaks: Controlled opposition. Bin Laden’s death: Photoshop. I guess it only makes sense to Alex Jones that the Oslo terrorist attack was staged. Because to him, there is no such thing as a coincidence. There are no lone nuts. Everything is a giant conspiracy by the Zionist-Illuminati-Reptilian-freemason-globalist-Soros-and-Koch-Brothers-funded New World Order!

Tiny request for the conspiracy theory nuts: if you claim something is true, like that 9/11 is an inside job, or that Obama is born in Kenya, or that the New World Order exists, prove it! Don’t just offer speculation. Provide evidence. The burden of proof is on you, and your proof is either lacking or just plain laughable.

Growing Vegetables Illegal?

A woman faces 93 days in jail for planting a vegetable garden in her front yard.

Yes, you read that right. No, this isn’t a news story from The Onion.

Julie Bass, of Oak Park, Michigan was first given a warning followed by a ticket and now she is being charged with a misdemeanor for her simple front-yard garden.

"I think it's sad that the City of Oak Park that's already strapped for cash is paying a lot of money to have a prosecutor bothering us," Bass told FOX 2's Alexis Wiley.

The city is claiming that the garden violates a city code which states that front yards must consist of suitable, live plant material to which Bass responds, "We think it's suitable."

"They say, 'Why should you grow things in the front?' Well, why shouldn't I? They're fine. They're pretty. They're well maintained," Bass told the station.

"I could sell out and save my own self and just not have them bother me anymore, but then there's no telling what they're going to harass the next person about," continued Bass.

A pretrial is scheduled for July 26 and a jury trial could be next.
Do I even have to explain why this is wrong? This possibly tops my blog posts on the activists arrested for feeding the poor or the kid sentenced to eight years in prison for pulling a harmless prank (no, wait, that’s actually worse!).

Seriously, when is law enforcement going to stop harassing people over victimless crimes and start focusing on more serious crimes like rape and murder?

If I had my way, there would only be laws against five types of crime: theft, fraud, murder, rape, and destruction of property. Those are the only crimes there really are. Anything else is victimless!

Friday, July 22, 2011


Remember my blog post yesterday about David Duke possibly running for president in 2012?

Remember that parody video I featured in that post?

Well, the creator of that video, Coughlan616, received a lot of flack for it—mostly from white supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and other David Duke supporters.

This is no surprise. Coughlan has been known for causing drama on YouTube. He once made a video debunking white genocide conspiracy theories, which pissed off plenty of white nationalists, and prompted him to release a video addressing the criticism—or rather, bitching and moaning.

And one series of comments from his David Duke parody video were lulzy enough to inspire him to release a video concerning them.


Why don't you stick to making videos praising Islamic, theocratic backwardness and its hold in the west while criticizing Christians for putting a crosses in government buildings?

Coughlan, You're a god damn idiot, you are ignorant of any of Dr. Dukes actual beliefs. I doubt you know anything about the subject of racial biological differences you are a brain washed ZOG shill and a horrible song writer/vocalist.

Marijuana Cures Cancer—And Racism?!

While I don’t believe in drug use, I do believe that people have a right to their own bodies, and therefore the right to put whatever they want into their bodies, regardless of whether or not it’s good for them.

That said, I’ve heard some rather outrageous claims about medical marijuana, including the claim that it can cure all diseases (which is why it’s allegedly being suppressed by Big Pharma)!

And apparently it can cure racism.

White supremacist musical twins Lamb and Lynx Gaede of Prussian Blue claim to have been cured of their racism after using medical marijuana to treat their cancer.

To be honest, I’m not sure if this story is legit or not. Sounds like something you would read from the Onion. But reality has proven to be stranger than fiction in the past.

For more on this story, here’s a video by the YouTube user LatumWay:

Expert Analysis Of GOP 2012 Candidates…from

Left-wing sites only serve to dumb down the population into voting Democrat (or worse—Green!), and perhaps the most mind-draining happens to be (or rather— It’s as if the Huffington Post made love to the Daily Kos: nothing but lies, misinformation, and left-wing political spin—enough of it to rot any mind more than four years of Stanford and abusing pot ever could.

Today, I believe I came across the dumbest article ever posted on the site—a post so dumb that commentary isn’t even necessary. This is their actual political analysis of the 2012 Republican presidential nominees:

A list of 2012 GOP Presidential – uh “hopefuls” I guess is the best word for them:

Michele Bachmann – She thinks if she says “Obamacare” enough times in one sentence it will magically disappear. God sent her a sign that she needs to run for President. What is the sign he sending her when she loses?

Newt Gingrich - Has 2 accounts at Tiffany’s, which goes to show he cannot understand the struggles of every day Americans and if he cannot balance his own budget how is he expected to balance an entire country’s budget? He also apparently thinks that country forgets about how terrible he was as a Speaker of the House — we don’t.

Ron Paul - Well, he’s old enough to say eh has experience, but doesn’t he remind you of your grandpa? “You know when I was a youngin….” He wants to legalize hard drugs like heroin, but wants to get rid of things like FEMA. (??)

Rick Santorum - As a Pennsylvanian I must apologize for my state giving the race this man. Just a note about him, he was not even a PA resident when he was a Senator – I wonder if he will move to Canada if he gets the Presidency?

Herman Cain - he was a pizza shop owner. That is all.

Mitt Romney - I have to admit I feel sorry for him. He is a Mormon in the republican party,which is full of Christian, Evangelicals who hate any other religion. So he is done for in the primaries…. yet again. Poor Mitt.

Jon Huntsman - who?? If someone as politically active as me does not know this man, he’s got no chance in the primaries.

Rick Perry - yes, he is just what this country needs; another cowboy Governor from Texas….. did we not learn our lesson from 8 years of another one?

If I forgot anyone it is because they just really do not matter, but if these are the cream of the crop for the republican party, we are going to see a blue United States map in 2012. Yes, they may generate some buzz within their own party, but the rest of the country, you know the MAJORITY of the country, is smart enough to vote for someone who actually cares about this country and the people living in it, not just the businesses in it.

When one party (republicans) want to cut funding for programs that help the less fortunate, this should be a wake-up call to people. They do not care about you, they care about who funds their campaign, period.

PS. I did forget one – Tim Pawlenty……….’nuff said that is all.

And self-promo… don;t forget to check out my blog :)
Wow! Wasn’t that insightful? Didn’t that analysis perfectly dissect the Republican presidential candidates? Don’t you feel so well-informed about the candidates and where they stand on the issues? And doesn’t the many typos and that smiley face at the end make this article ever so professional?

Screw CNN! is the official home for politics.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Why The Debt Ceiling Is A Distraction

The latest media circus in Washington is the debate whether or not to raise the debt ceiling. Republicans, who have supported raising the debt ceiling in the past (10 times in fact!), are against raising the debt ceiling while Democrats are for it (because if it didn’t work for the Republicans, it may work for the Democrats because—well—Democrats are magic!). Neither side shows signs of reaching a consensus as the deadline, which has been changed three times this year, quickly approaches.

But this debate could very well prove to be a distraction rather than a real issue. To prove this, allow me to provide three videos.

The first is from ReasonTV called 3 Reasons Why The Debt-Ceiling Debate is Full of Malarkey, explaining that the deadline has already been changed numerous times this year, that reaching the debt limit is not the same as defaulting, and that Congress should focus on cutting spending.

The second is from philosopher Stefan Molyneux called The Debt Ceiling Is Complete Bullshite!, in which he goes into further detail, explaining that the debt ceiling has already been raised 10 times, that the deadline has already been changed three times this year, that the debt will not default this year, why both sides are wrong in this debate, how out-of-control spending is the cause of all this mess, and possible solutions for fixing it.

The last is from our favorite drunk Drinking With Bob called Raise the Debt Ceiling... Don't Raise the Debt Ceiling..., explaining why both parties are wrong and, in fact, don’t really care.

David Duke 2012? WTF?!

And I was worried about Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann running for president!

Former Ku Klux Klan leader and Holocaust denier David Duke announced that he may run for president in 2012. Duke has gained a cult following on YouTube—having created videos on such “relevant” subjects such as white genocide, the Jewish media, and Holocaust denial—with over 13 thousand subscribers and 3 million total upload views.

Duke released last year a video highlighting his presidential platform.

He claimed that his racist, anti-Semitic past (which is no different than his racist, anti-Semitic present) is the reason why Americans should vote for him.

“My past shows that I am a man who says what he believes,” he said, “who is willing to be unpopular to tell what he believes to be the whole truth.” (We know, Duke. And it’s precisely because of what you believe that no one who isn’t inbred should vote for you!)

He even compared himself to former Senator Robert Byrd, who was also a Ku Klux Klan member turned politician (even though he, unlike Duke, recanted his involvement in the Klan, and rejected his racist, anti-Semitic views).

If elected, Duke claims that he will stop Israel from controlling our foreign policy, stop illegal (and legal) immigration, stop campaign donations from special interest groups (like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), and create a free media network that will promote “western Values” with media that “reflect the values of the American people” (and not the views of Jewish directors like Eli Roth).

I’m not saying the man doesn’t have good ideas like withdrawing our troops from all foreign wars, ending corporate welfare, preventing the outsourcing of American jobs, repealing affirmative action, and overhauling our tax system; but if I wanted to vote for a politician who stood for such issues, I’d continue my support of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, and not waste my vote on a former Klansman who, though he officially left the Klan, remains a Klansman in heart.

The saddest part is that many Americans support him despite his past and fringe views. Duke has run for political office in the past, and has surprisingly received majority support. During his last run for Governor of Louisiana, he received 40 percent of the vote. He also claims to have support of thousands within the Tea Party (which does make me seriously question the intention of most of its members).

To anyone, especially the Tea Party, who’s seriously considering supporting this former Klansman, please don’t! Focus your attention on serious candidates like Ron Paul. Heck, support Palin and Bachmann, even though they’re hacks who use “limited government” and “fiscal responsibility” as mere rhetoric. Even they’re less dangerous than a holocaust denying white supremacist with delusions of Zionist world domination.

On a lighter note, here's a parody song for his presidential campaign:

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Are You A Non-Thinker?

There are two types of people in the world. The first are those who realize they have a brain capable of critical thinking, and use it by questioning everything, including the government and its intentions. These people are critical thinkers: great minds who help mold society into a better place—scientists, philosophers, intellectuals, artists, inventors, and entrepreneurs.

The second are those who merely float through life without a thought or care in the world, who never question what they are told and accept everything they hear as truth. These people are non-thinkers: people who rarely amount to anything other than to become fodder for tyrants, dictators, and demagogues.

The following is a list of beliefs often held by the modern American non-thinker. If you do not hold any of these beliefs, then you are a critical thinker capable of asking questions and thinking for yourself. If you hold more than one of these beliefs, then you are a non-thinker, and should seriously examine what you believe and why you believe it. Asking questions is the first step towards critical thought.

Feel free to share this with family, friends, and colleagues. The more people realize whether or not they are non-thinkers, the closer we all get to making the world a better place.

You might be a non-thinker if you believe the following:

• Everything the government does is in the best interest of the American people.
• America is a democracy.
• Democrats are the party of social justice.
• Republicans are the party of limited government.
• Democrats and Republicans are the only options we have, and voting third party is a waste of time.
• Islamic terrorists hate us for our freedom.
• We need to fight the terrorists over there so we don’t fight them over here.
• All Muslims are terrorists.
• Islam is a religion of peace.
• Most mosques, including the Ground Zero mosque, are training grounds for Islamic radicals and terrorists.
• Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
• The Iraq War was fought for oil.
• The PATRIOT ACT has kept America safe from future terrorist attacks.
• Enhanced interrogation techniques such as waterboarding helped retrieve information which led to the capture of Osama Bin Laden.
• The current economic crisis was cause by deregulation.
• The rich do not pay their fair share in taxes.
• Tax cuts only benefit the rich.
• Under capitalism, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer.
• The middle class is shrinking, and the gap between rich and poor is expanding.
• Poverty causes crime.
• Corporations are evil; unions are good.
• Corporatism and capitalism are the exact same thing.
• America has a free market.
• The market cannot regulate itself.
• Higher minimum wage helps workers.
• Men receive higher wages than women.
• Man-made global warming is a scientific fact.
• Recycling reduces waste.
• Animals have the same rights as human beings.
• The War on Terror has helped prevent terrorist attacks.
• The War on Poverty has helped the poor and needy.
• The War on Drugs has helped reduce drug distribution and abuse.
• Gun control reduces gun violence.
• Capital punishment deters murder rates.
• Violent video games promote violence among children.
• Harry Potter promotes witchcraft among young children.
• Pornography promotes sexual assault and violence against women.
• Marriage has always been between one man and one woman.
• Homosexuality is a choice.
• Repealing Roe vs. Wade will prevent women from having abortions.
• Abstinence programs prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDS.
• America is a Christian Nation founded by fundamentalist Christians.
• The FDA is required to protect against poisoned meat and tainted drugs.
• The EPA is required to protect the environment.
• The NEA is required to promote and fund the arts.
• The Board of Education is required to regulate education.
• Public education would be improved by increased spending.
• Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs are required to help the poor and needy.
• Socialized healthcare provides quality healthcare for all.
• The United Nations has helped promote world peace and human rights.
• The Israelis stole the land from the Arabs.
• Journalism is objective.
• The liberal media is a corporate myth.
• Fox News is fair and balanced.
• CNN and MSNBC are unbiased and objective.
• People only hate Obama because of his skin color.
• Illegal immigrants are no different than immigrants.
• Illegal immigration is only opposed by racists and white supremacists.
• Immigrants have a right to retain their culture.
• Insisting immigrants learn English is racist.
• Requiring Hispanic immigrants to show their green cards to law enforcement is the same as Jews being required to show their papers to Nazis.
• Arizona SB 1070 promotes racial profiling.

Maher's Double Standards

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” - Matthew 7:1-2

Pity that Bill Maher and like-minded moonbats don’t read the Bible. That must be why they always live by double standards.

On his show Real Time Friday, Maher explained that he and other moonbats hate Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, not because they’re women, but because “they’re crazy people.”

Maher has been criticized in the past for making sexist remarks against the two female Republican politicians, most notably calling Palin a ‘cunt’ and a 'dumb twat', and both her and Bachmann ‘bimbos.’

“It’s not because they have breasts; it’s because they are boobs!” Maher said.

Maher: Now I’m not saying that sexism doesn’t exist and isn’t real, but we can’t throw around the word “sexist” just to stop people like me from pointing out that Michelle Bachmann, now running second for the Republican presidential nomination, isn’t a dangerous nincompoop.

And when I point out that Sarah Palin is a vainglorious braggart, a liar, a whiner, a professional victim, a scold, a know-it-all, a jizzler(???), a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, and a leader of a family of inbred weirdos straight out of The Hills Have Eyes, that’s not sexist.
What’s makes this even more hypocritical is that Maher, along with other moonbats like Janeane Garofalo, has accused conservatives, specifically the Tea Party, of hating Obama because he is black. He told Larry King last September that “teabaggers” hate being called racist: “The other things they hate is black people.”

During his comedy special last year, he claimed that the only freedom Obama has taken away is “the freedom to live under a white president.”

“There is a word that has been sticking in their [Republicans] throats that they would love to say,” he said. “It begins with ‘N’ and ends with ‘R’ and it’s not ‘nation builder.’”

Of course, Maher has made his share of racist remarks towards Obama. Last May, he said he wanted Obama to be “a real black president” where he “lifts up his shirt so they can see the gun in his pants.” He also referred to him as “president Sanford and Son during one of his New Rules segments that same month.

So let’s be clear: Maher mocking Palin and Bachmann doesn't make him sexist, nor does mocking Obama make him racist; but a conservative mocking, let alone criticizing, Obama makes him racist.

Don’t you just love moonbat double standards?

Had A Bad Week

Well, this week has been anything but good. Our internet and phone service was knocked off due to a bad storm Thursday. Just had it fixed yesterday. So I’ve been without internet for the entire weekend. Good thing my cell phone has internet service.

My truck broke down on the side of the road earlier this week. Had to get it towed and fixed. Cost around $500. Good thing my folks foot the bill.

Haven’t had an assignment for over a week. My editor e-mailed me today. Said he would have one for me tomorrow. I did receive my first check. With six articles, each $40, I made $240 this month. Course with taxes and insurance, it comes down to $60.

That said, I’m searching for a part-time job, something to do on the side in order to make more moola. Possibly have an interview tomorrow. Hope it goes well.

And that’s been my week thus far. Hope things turn out for the better.

Friday, July 15, 2011

"Creationism Vs. Keynesian Economics" Bumper Sticker

I'd Rather Vote For... by ~BlameThe1st on deviantART

I recently came across a video by theskepticalheretic called “Neo-liberalism? Give me a break....” He said he once considered voting for Ron Paul, but learned that he didn’t believe in evolution, to which he said, “If you don’t believe in a fact, then you can’t run for office. You’re not allowed. Because you’re too stupid to make decisions that could potentially have negative ramifications on other people’s lives.”

Now whether or not human beings were created from the dust of the earth six thousand years ago or as a byproduct of millions of years of natural selection, I’ll leave to the scientists to decide. As for politics, I leave that to politicians like Ron Paul, who, even if he were wrong about evolution, is right about everything else: the U.S. Constitution, foreign policy, economic policy, drug prohibition, etc.

But theskpeticalheretic does have a point: politicians who don’t believe in facts, who are too stupid to make decisions concerning our country, should not be allowed to run for office—which is why I would never vote for a politician who believed in Keynesian economics, the premise of which is that the market does best when centrally-planned and regulated by the government. Never mind that our current economic crisis was created by government intervention.

Contrary to popular misconception, the economic crisis was not created by deregulation: overall regulation has been increasing, rather than decreasing, over the past few decades. According to an article in Investor’s Business Daily, "A new federal rule hits the books roughly every two hours, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year." In fact, it was government regulation that required banks to lend loans to people to buy houses they couldn’t afford. And when the banks went under due to defaulted loans and foreclosed mortgages, the government blamed them (rather than itself) for the economic crisis that ensued, and proceeded to intervene once again by bailing out the banks.

From Bush’s TARP reform to Obama’s stimulus package and bank and auto bailouts, government intervention has done little to recover the economy and everything to prolong the economic crisis—which was created by government intervention in the first place! Ron Paul has continuously spoken out against these policies, along with Keynesian economics altogether, correctly stating that the economy does back when the government steps back and minds its own business, which is protecting our individual rights. Ron Paul may be wrong about evolution, but he’s right about economics—something Obama and other Democrats, all who believe in evolution, have been very wrong about.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Elevatorgate? WTF!

Anyone remember the Simpsons episode where Homer peeled a gummy off a feminist babysitter’s pants, and because it appeared as if he was groping her, it caused a national media frenzy, even inspiring a made-for-television movie? Something like that could only happen on the Simpsons. It couldn’t possibly happen in real life, right?

Enter Rebecca Watson—internet atheist, skeptic, and feminist.

While attending an atheist convention in Dublin, Watson was approached in an elevator by a man, who asked her, “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?”

On her vlog, Watson recalled the event as being “uncomfortable,” saying “it creeps me out when men sexualize me in that manner,” and even related it to a panel she previously held at the convention where she offered atheist women “the tools they need to fight back…in the face of blatant misogyny.”

Sounds like she took it the wrong way!

If her story is accurate, the man politely asked her out for coffee and nothing more. Even if his intentions were sexual, she could have simply turned him down and moved on.

You’d think this incident would receive little to no attention. To the contrary! It’s the talk of the entire atheist community—even attracting the attention of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins.

This is why nobody takes atheists seriously. They complain about complete non-issues—from “under God” being in the Pledge of Allegiance to nativity scenes in front of courthouses. What’s next? Will atheists complain about Mother Teresa being on a postage stamp?

And this is also why nobody takes feminists seriously anymore. When there are countries where women are still denied the same rights as men—where women are forced to conceal themselves in public, are beaten by their husbands, and are sold into sexual slavery—feminists, especially the radicals, complain that America—a country where women have the right to vote, own property, receive an education, work outside the home, and even run for office—is run by the male-dominated patriarchy. And what do they choose to complain about? A woman being hit on in an elevator!

I’d rant about this some more, but The Amazing Atheist (aka: Amazing Tub O’Lard) did an excellent video on the matter:

Ron Paul Gets Serious About Presidential Run

Ron Paul announced that he would not seek re-election to Congress, but will rather focus on his presidential run.

On one hand, this proves that Ron Paul is serious about running for president, and will definitely focus all his energy on getting elected; but on the other hand, if he doesn’t get elected, it will possibly mark the end of his political career, and chances are, his seat in Congress will be filled by either a neoconservative theocrat or, worse, a Democrat.

Ron Paul has been one of the most influential congressmen of our time, bravely standing against the neoconservative policies of his own party, especially during the Bush administration. With the exception of Gary Johnson (who is basically unknown), very few Republican candidates share his dedication to true conservative and libertarian principles, opting instead to pay lip-service to the Constitution while simultaneously using it as toilet paper to the same extent as the Democrats.

If elected, Ron Paul will be a true game changer for the Republican Party, a true Maverick—unlike McCain and Palin, both of whom agreed with Bush 99.99%. Ideally, he is the perfect candidate for President; realistically, he is unelectable, as his radical ideas—which basically amount to “We need to take the Constitution seriously”—has estranged him from Democrats and Republicans alike. One need only mention that he supports legalizing heroin and prostitution to stigmatize him from the American public.

But we can only hope he becomes elected. America is in desperate need of real Hope and Change!

Ann Coulter On The Economic Crisis

Ann Coulter, being an unapologetic Bush-supporting neoconservative, is wrong about many things: preemptive war, torture, marriage, etc. But like a broken clock, which tells the correct time twice a day, she is occasionally right.

I managed to read the first chapter of her newest book Demonic, and as always, Ann manages to bash moonbats with her infamous wit. Here’s my favorite selection concerning the economic crisis:

Based on their public commentary, it appears that not one liberal has the vaguest idea how the economy imploded. The only thing liberals know is—as President Obama explained—“Republicans drove the car into the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want the keys back. No! You can’t drive. We don’t want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the car out.” (It was always a “ditch” and not a “pond” because a pond would have been offensive to Teddy Kennedy.)

A liberal would stare at you slack-jawed if you explained that the federal government, via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, forced politically correct lending policies on the banks—policies that were attacked by Republicans but ferociously defended by Democrats—and that the banks’ suicidal loans were then bundled into mortgage-backed securities and dispersed throughout the entire financial system, which poisoned the economy, bringing down powerful institutions, such as Lehman Brothers, and destroying innumerable families financial portfolios.
Way to hit the nail on the head. Ann!

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

A Liberal Consistent On “Racism”? Pigs Are Flying!

Usually when you try judging liberals by the same standards they levy towards conservatives, they will, more often than not, accuse you of false equivalency—claiming that the same standards do not apply to liberals as they do conservatives.

Consider the Tucson Shooting. When liberals were demanding Sarah Palin’s head on a pike for allegedly instigating the failed assassination with a map marked with targets over Democratic districts—including Gabrielle Giffords, conservatives rebutted that Democrats had a similar map with bulls-eyes over Republicans, and offered other examples of “violent rhetoric” from liberals. For that, conservatives were chastised for applying “false equivalency.”

But once in a blue moon, you’ll come across a liberal with consistent standards, though finding one is as rare as spotting the Flying Spaghetti Monster sipping from the celestial tea pot.

Such is the case with Marion from AddictingInfo.Org (which should be renamed AddictingMisinfo.Org) in her column Why Is One Man’s Racism Is Another Man’s Comedy? in which she chastises liberals such as Bill Maher and Jon Stewart for their “racist” humor against black politicians.

For the record, I am not bothered when Limbaugh plays the Sanford and Son theme when criticizing Obama, or when Maher suggests Obama should be a real black president and act “gangsta”, or when Stewart mocks Herman Cain with an Amos n’ Andy voice. To me, if you take comedy seriously, then you miss the entire point of comedy.

But I applaud Marion for having consistent standards. Along with Jon Stewart, that makes two I know of.

Anyway: here's a portion from her column:

Ever since the beginning of this Administration, one of its most vociferous critics, Rush Limbaugh, hasn’t been too good to bring race into the fray. He mocks the President and his family on this score from his radio pulpit on a regular basis, employing stereotypical voices and musical soundbytes. Rightwing personalities have created pictures of the White House lawn turned into a watermelon patch.

All of this is disgusting and openly racist and has been decried as such by people from the Left and by some on the Right who still retain a conscience and a modicum of common sense.

But what happens when this sort of thing emanates from the Left?

Well, then, it becomes comedy.

How is Bill Maher’s repeated reference to the President as “President Sanford and Son” any different from Limbaugh’s depiction as such, using the Sanford and Son music as a backdrop to his criticism? Fred Sanford, a comic figure, was the quintessential lazy and feckless black man, unable to come to terms with modern life, a bumbler, who witlessly called upon a higher power (his dead wife) whenever his luck ran out.

Rush can ride that pony with impunity. Such tastelessness is what is expected from someone who joked that he’d like to own an NFL franchise because he fancied owning some black men. But Bill Maher regularly identifies himself as a “Progressive.” How does he tie in a Sanford depiction of a President whom, at various times when the political fashion dictates, he perceives to be weak? Why “President Sanford and Son” instead of “President Barney Fife,” another bumbler and stumbler, who happened to be white?

Then there’s the disappointment that the stereotype hasn’t been fulfilled. Throughout the Gulf Crisis, Maher and his cronies screamed for the angry black man to emerge. Today’s radical chic, many of whom were in middle school watching Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In, still think of a black man as a cross between Clarence Williams III playing Linc in The Mod Squad and Stokely Carmichael; everybody else was either Flip Wilson, Bill Cosby or Diahann Carroll playing Julia.

Maybe this is why, during the summer of 2010, Maher whined during a monologue that when he voted for Obama, he thought he was voting for a real black man, a mothafucka gangsta who’d strike fear into the Cabinet by pounding the table with his fist, then opening his jacket to reveal a gun on his hip. Instead of “President Sanford and Son,” we now get “President Clarence Carmichael” with a soupcon of Mister Tibbs. So Bill voted for John Shaft and got Cliff Huxtable, which subsequently allowed him – not once, but twice – to declare the President a “pussy” on national television, once on Fareed Zakaria’s program in November 2010, and then on his own show some two weeks ago.

Mark Halperin describes the President as a “dick” and gets an indefinite suspension, and rightly so. Bill Maher calls the President a “pussy” and gets laughter.

Go figure.

Ah, but Bill’s a comedian. He’s a wannabe political pundit who’s invited on any and all political opinion shows to talk politics, but when something like this occurs – hey, he’s a comedian. It’s for laughs, folks.

Like Jon Stewart, who’s an acknowledged comedian, but whom people really do consider a newsman or a political pundit. So when Stewart, when satirizing African-American Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain, by using a voice straight from Amos’n Andy, is surprised when Cain considers this racist, I’m surprised that Stewart is surprised.

Herman Cain has a Southern accent – which, I presume, Stewart, who was educated in Virginia, is channelling. But I wonder how coincidental it is that Stewart’s Southern accent, employed for his Cain satire, sounds suspiciously like that of Kingfish Stevens, who – like Fred Sanford – came to represent a feckless, less-than-honest and lazy portrayal of a black man?

I am not saying Stewart is racist or even knowingly so. With Maher, I have my doubts. He’s too much the Left Coaster and also has too many Rightwing sympathies (death penalty, racial profiling, anti-union) and associations (Arianna Huffington, Darrell Issa, Bill Frist), that a thinly disguised veneer of racism wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

And when this is the case amongst those whom we deem “our own” on the Left, we have to acknowledge our shortcomings too; because I’ve always perceived the Left to have the same problem with the Obama Presidency as Scarlett had with Prissy. Prissy was the recalcitrant slave who just wouldn’t do what Miss Scarlett said until Miss Scarlett snapped and slapped her, which is what I get the impression the Professional Left and their sheeple would like to do with this recalcitrant President, who just doesn’t do as they say when they say and how they say.

Raise Taxes On Those Who Pay The Most!

As if the MoveOn.Org Facebook Campaign wasn’t bad enough, I recently came across the following ad from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee:

When will “the rich don’t pay their fair share” myth die?

MoveOn.Org's Misinformed Facebook Campaign

Moonbat mob-instigator MoveOn.Org recently started a Facebook campaign urging its supporters to post the following status on their Facebook page: “If Barack Obama cut Social Security to pay for Bush tax cuts for millionaires, I won’t ever give his campaign another dime. Repost if you agree.” (Fortunately, most of my friends on Facebook have more than one brain cell, so I have yet to see such a status in my news feed.)

Three things concerning the Facebook status suggestion:

1) Nobody pays for tax cuts. A tax cut, as the name implies, is when someone’s taxes are cut, thus decreasing the amount of taxes they pay. Moonbats seem to imply that tax cuts involve government taking from “the poor” and giving to “the rich” (which would be a tax subsidy, not a tax cut), when in reality, it’s more like the government allowing “the rich” to keep the money they already have. Whether or not tax cuts have been beneficial is a debate I’ll leave to the comment section.

2) The Bush Tax cuts were not just for “billionaires.” They were for everyone—rich, middle class, and poor. In fact, Obama was willing to allow the tax cuts for “the rich” expire while preserving the tax cuts for the middle class and poor (a fair compromise, in my opinion). Once again, whether or not the tax cuts were beneficial for everyone across the board is a debate I’ll leave to the comment section.

3) Social Security is one of the lion’s share of the federal budget. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense each makes up 20% of the federal budget—combined, they make up 60%. Add the fact that Social Security will become bankrupt by 2036, and you have one of the three major drains on the economy. By all means, cut it! In fact, just privatize it—it worked for Chile’s pension plan!

Hopefully, this will clear up most of the misinformation spouted by mobsters. To be fair, though, the Bush Tax cuts are not what Republicans have it cracked up to be, as YouTube user ShaneDK explains in this video:

Monday, July 11, 2011

Moonbats Love Chavez!

If you’re ever curious of how a lobotomy feels like, visit a far-left site like Fairness And Accuracy In Reporting and read the comments to the articles. The articles themselves are dumb, but the moonbats who read them are dumber, and the comments they leave are the dumbest.

Case in point: a recent post on “American diabolical plots” to overthrow Chavez. I’m not going to address the post, which is merely a small blurb, but rather the comments to it.

I find it disturbing when liberals, who claim to support human rights, support dictators like Chavez, whose track record on human rights is piss poor. Some have even suggested that journalists who call Chavez a dictator, which is like calling the sky blue, be thrown in jail! Then again, these same moonbats tend to wear Che Guevara T-shirts, watch propaganda films praising Cuba’s healthcare system, and read revisionist history books glorifying Maoist China.

So is it really surprising to read moonbat guano like this?

Warning: The following comments may cause permanent brain damage (or an urge to smoke pot and eat tofu). Viewer discretion is advised!

luke weyland Says:
Results of Hugo's 'diabolical designs' – a constitution supported by 75% of the population, participatory democracy , universal health care, free and universal education, zero illiteracy, public housing, free public transport, establishment of UNASUR – which blocked the attempted fascist coups in Bolivia and Ecuador, satelite Public television system, …

Duncan Says:
That sounds diabolical to me! The US defines "democracy" as rule by US corporations or their local front groups, so what Venezuela has under Chavez isn't democracy by US standards at all.

Blue Gorilla Says:
How predictable to hear criticism of Chavez mental state ,from people who believe that the voice of Chavez' supporters,should be eternally denied,as the aspirations of his supporters do not coincide with those of an unelected business elite.The fact is that the success of Chavez has been won by meeting real human needs,whilst by contrast Wall Street booms as Main Street suffers.

paul tolchard Says:
The corporate media in the us hate chavez. Why? Because he has proved that you can take from the rich and give it to poor. Socailism is not oppressive. The rich still stay rich, theyre just made to pay their fair share. What socialism does is eliminate the greed factor.

leftbank Says:
Chavez is harboring anti-Colombian, anti-death squad thugs in his neighboring country? Don't know, but hope so. Chavez is a friend of the people, a disciple of liberation theology. The Colombian thugocracy allows anti-union death squads to extort the nation at will. Chavez is a function of the democratic process, pro-worker and a champion of egalitarianism. We should have a
fair trade agreement with Venezuela but our Capitalist-in-Chief won't hear of it. Goddess bless Chavez…god damn Columbia.

Justin Says:
Not to be a Corporate henchman = Evil, bad, dictator, threat.
To be a Corporate henchman = Holy, good, freedumb-luvin', ally (just like OBL & Saddam, and even Khaddafi, briefly, were).

Javier Torres Says:
It's plain and simple. Hugo Chavez is a leader that really, truly, cares for his people. So many of Venezuela's citizens are alive and healthy because of him. We the U.S. public get nothing but lies when it comes to a country or leader we cannot control or corrupt. The American "Lap-Dog" media is just a tool used (very effectively I might add), by certain politicians to get whatever it is the U.S. thinks is for the taking regardless of international law to just plain human decency. So many past "agents" have come out of the cold to inform us of the reality of what was expected of them and their stories are too similar to think they are just angry or disgruntled. One person explained how it was his job to convince other prominant Venezuelans to launch a coup against Mr. Chavez with the promise of more of whatever it is that will make them commit treason, whether it is money, power, status or security. A Documentary concerning an attempted coup won high praise from critics because of its accuracy and boldness. Hugo Chavez was elected by the people for the people, period. He is NOT the monster certain U.S. officials have painted him. He is a man that has the courage and fortitude to stand up against the U.S. and our addiction to oil. We want to take Venezuela's oil by force like we are doing in Iraq and that's all there is top it.

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Spot The Rationalist!

Spot The Rationalist by ~BlameThe1st on deviantART

Atheists love to boast about how they believe in logic and reason while religious people believe in superstitions and fairy tales. They consider themselves freethinkers, skeptics, and rationalists; have mottos like “Science and Education for the win!” and “Ripping faith and illogic a new one”; start groups like the Rational Response Squad, the League Of Reason, and the Logic Squad; create artwork claiming "Atheism removes religion, superstition, and irrationality" and “Atheism is Freedom”; and erect holiday billboards declaring “Reason’s Greetings” and “This holiday season, let reason prevail!”

By having such a fetish for logic and reason, atheists portray a false dichotomy where not believing in God makes one rational, whereas believing in God makes one irrational. (Never mind, of course, that many of the great scientists and philosophers who laid out the foundation of modern scientific and rational thought were firm believers in God.)

With that criterion, let’s analyze the following four individuals:

· Bill Maher is an atheist. He denies germ theory and opposes vaccination. He also supports PETA, which opposes animal testing for medical research and funds eco-terrorists like arsonist Rodney Coronado.

· Jesse Ventura is an atheist. He believes in a myriad of conspiracy theories including that 9/11 was an inside job, that JFK was assassinated by a grassy knoll shooter, and that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were assassinated by the CIA.

· Sam Harris is an atheist infamous for attacking monotheistic religions like Christianity and Islam, yet having a soft spot for Eastern religions like Buddhism—even going far enough to believe in reincarnation. He also believes that it is perfectly moral to launch a nuclear first strike on the Islamic world and to kill people with “dangerous presuppositions.”

· Francis Collins is a Christian. He is one of the lead scientists who directed the famous Human Genome Project. For his scientific endeavors, he has been named by the Endocrine Society as "one of the most accomplished scientists of our time."

Anyone who truly believed in logic and reason would consider Collins far more rational than Maher, Ventura, and Harris combined, as he has done more in the name of science and rationalism than any of the three atheists.

Yet to the atheist, Collins is considered the irrational one for believing in an omnipotent and omniscient Creator of the universe, while the other three are rational for rejecting that belief, even though they themselves harbor far more irrational and dangerous beliefs.

And atheists wonder why other people consider them arrogant?