My Dog the Democrat

Share via email

We have a hound dog that we cage up at night so that her howling doesn’t keep the neighbors awake.  The way it works is quite simple.  All I need to do is put a treat in her cage and open up the back door and she’s more than thrilled to surrender her freedom for the mere promise of a tiny treat.  As I was going through this nightly ritual recently it suddenly dawned on me that what I’ve actually done is turn my hound dog into a Democrat. 

Yes, it’s true that my dog is more than willing to sacrifice the freedoms others have provided her with for the mere promise of the table scraps of her Master.  However, the more I thought about it the more I realized that her liberalization has actually gone much deeper than I had realized.  For example: 

  • She will gladly extract the hard earned handouts of others, but proves to be very hypocritical when it comes to sharing from her own bounty.
  • She has her own personal agenda and you can forget about having her explaining herself logically on any actions related to that agenda.
  • Just like most Democrats she also can’t do math.
  • Although she’ll provide you with a look that swears of innocence the ugly truth is that she has zero tolerance for sharing her environment with any creatures that are different than her.
  • She knows how to not only ask, but often demand handouts from others.  Yet no matter how much you provide her with it’s never enough.
  • When it comes to having common sense ideas she’s useless.
  • She’ll howl out slogans in public repeatedly, but can’t explain what a single one of them actually means.
  • Just like a Democrat when you tell her something she doesn’t understand you’ll get the confused tilted head look while at the same time she’ll accept whatever silly things you tell her without question.
  • Once she’s on the trail of something she wants she’s definitely a “one step forward” thinker who can’t seem to look past the end of her nose at the long term consequences of pursuing it no matter where that trail might take her.
  • She NEVER accepts responsibility for her own actions or bad choices.
  • And finally, she has roughly the same understanding of the U.S. Constitution as the average Democrat. 

There you have it!  No matter how much real education I’ve attempted to impart upon my K9 over the years there has always been others around to convince her that she deserves better no matter what the effort that she actually puts in to life on her own.  It’s never about what she’s earned, but only about what she wants that matters.  My dog never bothers to go through the exercise of thinking on her own anymore.  But then again why should she when she figures that the louder she howls the more attention she’ll get.  In reality, if left to fend for herself she’d surely starve with no sense of responsibility toward her own well being.  At this point I’ve given up all hope of ever retraining my stupid dog to become a self sufficient productive member of our little society.  I wonder if perhaps I can get the cat to listen. 

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Gay Cake Controversy

Share via email

My original assessment of the now infamous “gay wedding cake” controversy was that had I been the baker the only question I would have asked would have been what flavor icing did they prefer.  It’s a personal position I still stand behind simply because I’m not homophobic, plus from a logical standpoint for me to not bake their cake neither suddenly turns them into a straight couple nor does it prevent them from getting married.  Sounds logical enough, right?  Except then I did some deeper digging into this controversy and realized that the ruling has far greater implications than most people realize. 

Let’s start with some simple role reversal.  If a court can force a business owner to service someone against the owners personal religious beliefs then what’s to prevent a court from doing the same to the customer?  So for example, what’s to prevent a court from ordering a vegan to purchase a McDonalds Big Mac, or force an environmentalist to purchase Monsanto products?  After all, in a free market society the buyer and seller have equal standing under the law.  Therefore, forcing one side to commit to a transaction against their will or beliefs has equal bearing on the other side as well. 

For a second role reversal let’s now pretend that instead of a Christian baker and a cake it’s an Islamic restaurant and I want to order a BLT.  By this court’s own ruling doesn’t this mean that the cook now has to handle bacon on my behalf, but against their beliefs?  You may think the easy out is that bacon isn’t part of their menu and therefore this ruling doesn’t apply.  However, that’s actually irrelevant because not having bacon on the menu is itself a form of discrimination against those whose lifestyles include eating pork.  There are numerous news stories popping up where Christian ministers are now being threatened with arrest for refusing to perform gay weddings against their beliefs.  The pacifistic nature of most Christian churches makes them easy targets to pick on.  However, good luck getting your local Mosque to do the same! 

Once I started digging in on this particular wedding cake case I came across a fact that was both profoundly relevant as well as incredibly troubling that the media has conveniently left out of this story all together.  As it turns out the baker not only knew all along that this particular couple was gay, but that while knowing this the couple had been regular customers all along as well.  The bakers had gladly serviced their needs without hesitation all the way up to the point where their request violated the owner’s personal religious beliefs.  In other words, this particular case truly was about religious freedom and had nothing to do with discrimination at all. 

Furthermore, upon reading the list of all the various claims of damage that this couple supposedly “suffered” simply because they couldn’t get serviced by this particular bakery and that such suffering somehow equated to $135,000 in damages is ludicrous.  As it turns out the list of claims was not only highly suspect but by any logical reasoning downright fraudulent.  To say that not having a particular bakery bake a cake causes a person to suffer high blood pressure is like saying that eating a grape causes alcoholism.  Let’s get real! 

That brings me to my final point.  Regardless of what most people think marriage (whether gay or not) is NOT A RIGHT!  By technical definition it is a state level privilege.  Religion, however, IS A RIGHT with all the guarantees and protections of the Constitution behind it.  Therefore, with prior knowledge and consideration of all the facts behind the case there is no legal basis for the ruling to have come out the way it did other than through opinions and an attempt at political correctness on behalf of the judge.  Therefore, if there is anyone who should now be penalized it’s not the couple who own the bakery, but the judge himself for following his personal opinions instead of the law by allowing a privilege to usurp a right.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

An Issue Where Everyone Got It Wrong

Share via email

Since the SCOTUS ruling last week on gay marriage I have been asked numerous times to write a commentary on the subject.  I have been hesitant to do so for the last several days for the simple reason that as it turns out ALL sides happen to be wrong in their argument on this issue.  By all sides I’m referring to the anti-gay marriage crowd, the pro-gay marriage crowd, AND the Supreme Court as well. 

Let’s start with that anti-gay marriage crowd.  This group is wrong for two reasons.  First, the primary basis for their argument is centered on the “moral” aspects of allowing gay marriage.  For those that read my book you already know that I am adamantly against the idea of legislating morality.  If you want to know why, I can sum it up in two words…Sharia Law.  The reality is that I don’t want some fundamentalist nut job from ANY persuasion dictating what my own personal moral standards should be.  I prefer to keep that concept confined to the dictates of my own faith and beliefs and prefer to allow others the same privilege. 

The second reason the anti-gay marriage crowd is wrong hearkens back to something Obama said before he was elected President that he actually got right (even though he didn’t understand why).  He had stated in an interview that he saw the Constitution as a document of negative rights.  In other words it talks more about what we can’t do than what we can.  In his interview he was complaining about it being that way, but in reality it’s what our Founders had intended.  The reason is simple.  In a “free” society we should automatically assume that we are free to do whatever we want up to the point where our government specifically legislates that we can’t (usually because it violates the rights and/or safety of others).  In other words, unless something is specifically restricted by ordinance we shouldn’t need to ask permission to do it. Since there is no specific reasoning behind NOT allowing gay marriage beyond the morality argument stated above we therefore shouldn’t be attempting to restrict people from acting accordingly. 

The pro-gay marriage crowd is also wrong.  The basis of their argument has been centered on the idea that it is their “right” to marry whomever they choose.  Once again they are WRONG!  The reality is that it’s NOBODY’s “right” to marry anyone.  That’s because by technical definition marriage isn’t a right at all, but rather a state level privilege.  If this confuses you think of it as being the equivalent of obtaining of a driver’s license or a concealed carry permit (CCW).  You must meet whatever the arbitrary requirements happen to be of the issuing state and adhere to their will and whim with regard to its issuance and maintenance, PERIOD! 

That brings us to the SCOTUS ruling and why they also got it wrong.  Since marriage by technical definition isn’t a right at all it doesn’t fall under the protection of the 14th Amendment as described in the affirmative majority opinion and therefore, just as Justice Antonin Scalia rightfully pointed out in the dissenting opinion the issue should have never been allowed to be adjudicated before the Supreme Court in the first place.  Instead, it is an issue that should have been remanded back to the individual state courts in hopes that they could have each retained their own version of the Wisdom of Solomon in coming up with the correct verdict.  

By ruling as SCOTUS did on this issue they have inadvertently opened up a proverbial Pandora’s Box that ultimately will anger both Conservatives and Liberals alike.  That’s because the verdict that was handed down not only usurped the technical definition of what constitutes a “right” in lieu of a privilege, but also because they have set a precedence that in essence says once a pseudo-right has been established by one state it automatically maintains by-proxy reciprocation to ALL states, thus destroying the concept of federalist governance and eviscerating the 10th Amendment accordingly. 

Think of it this way, if these new pseudo-rights are upheld over state statute as per the recent SCOTUS ruling that means more Conservative leaning states now have to accept not only gay marriage rights of more liberal leaning states, but also things like legalized marijuana as well.  Conversely, more Liberal leaning states now have to accept such things as more open gun laws along with Right-to-Work laws as well.  There was a reason our Forefathers were smart enough to setup a federalist system instead of a singular centralized government.  It was so that each of us would be free to seek out the laws of whatever state best meets our own personal needs without sacrificing our citizenship as a whole.  By not deferring to the individual states the SCOTUS just destroyed that very notion in a single ruling and the net results are that in the long run none of us will be better off for it.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

In Memory of Words

Share via email

As the old saying goes “words have meaning”.  As we get ready to celebrate Memorial Day we need to realize that it is a special day we set aside once each year not just to remember those who sacrificed to their last full measure, but also to recognize the meaning behind WHY they did so.  If you ask anyone who has ever served in the military why they served the universal answer you’re pretty much guaranteed to receive back is “to defend your rights and protect your freedoms”. The one answer you’ll never hear back is “to guarantee you free stuff”. Many have willingly sacrificed for your right to speak freely. No veteran that I know of has ever sacrificed for your right to do it on a free Obamaphone. 

One thing that has always bothered me in political discussions is how easily people throw around words like “rights” and “freedoms” without having even the slightest comprehension of the true value of those words.  For example, we all have a “right” to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  However, to put it bluntly, you DO NOT have the “right” to ANYTHING that is a direct result of the forced seizure from others.  So for all the morons that keep saying people have a right to health care, you’re wrong.  You have the “freedom” to pursue quality health care, but you don’t have a “right” to get if for free.  In that same vein Sandra Fluke has the “freedom” to pursue all the contraception her lifestyle demands, but she doesn’t have a “right” to force others to pay for it. 

What our founders sought and others sacrificed so much for was a land not of guarantees, but a land of freedom and opportunity.  What no one ever likes to discuss is that with such great liberties also comes great responsibilities.  In other words, we each have a “right” to pursue our dreams and the “freedom” to make the decisions about how we do so.  However, we also have the freedom to experience the consequences of those decisions.  We DON’T have a right to force the burdens of our poor decision making onto others.  For example, if you’re a high school drop out don’t go blaming society because of your lack of meaningful job skills.  The first question I always ask during a minimum wage debate is why adults with families are trying to feed their families on minimum wage jobs in the first place.  Here’s a hint, if it’s all about a lack of available jobs in general why then don’t you ever see unemployed Dr’s?  The reality is that job opportunities are all about job skills and it’s the lack of job skills that keep adults in minimum wage jobs.  That’s why my next question is always “what are YOU doing to improve your situation?”  After all, you may have the “freedom” to whine about your circumstances, but you don’t have the “right” to force others to fix it for you. 

Words, like numbers are easy to manipulate.  That’s why they are so often used as political tools.  It’s not that politicians have become so adept at using them as much as we as a people have become too lazy to challenge their usage.  The problem is that by being so lazy we’ve also become insensitive into the true cost behind the value of certain words.  Some words are more sacred than others simply based on the sacrifices required both in obtaining and maintaining those words.  When they get thrown around in such an arbitrary fashion for mere political points both their meaning and thus the value of the sacrifice behind them gets diluted.  If we are willing to make a day so special that we blow off work and create large gatherings to feast in celebration shouldn’t we also take the time to understand what the sacrifices we are celebrating actually mean?  If it’s supposed to be a day of memory where we honor those who sacrificed so much shouldn’t we also honor the meaning behind the words that they sacrificed so much for?

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Inclusiveness is a two way street

Share via email

This weekend I sat through two commencement ceremonies.  Both had guest speakers whose theme happened to be the same.  With the riots in places like Ferguson and Baltimore both speakers told their audiences that we have an obligation to make an extra effort to be more inclusive of those that are different from ourselves.  OK, so I don’t have a problem with that.  However, where I do have a problem is that neither speaker bothered to preach the entire sermon. 

There is nothing in my past to indicate that I have ever purposefully discriminated against any demographic group whether they are Black, Hispanic, gay, female, non-Christian, or even the left-handed-red-heads for that matter. Yet coming from the demographic of that of a middle-aged straight White Christian male I’ve still got people lining up around the block on a daily basis to preach me a sermon of how I need to stop lumping people together in demographic groups for the sole purpose of evaluating their sins and weaknesses.  I couldn’t help but find the irony in a having a Black woman tell me the other day that all White people are racist by their very nature.  I wonder if she’ll ever figure out the hypocrisy of her own comment.  I’m told that I need to ignore the differences of others and while accepting people as they are so that we can all be equal.  However, in their preaching they always seem to forget the other side of that coin. 

What both speakers completely failed to address in their speeches is that discrimination actually comes in two flavors.  You can discriminate against someone through denigration which is what we’re constantly being preached on, but you can also discriminate through promotion.  For example, how many times did we hear Black voters claim they voted for Obama simply to see “one of their own” as President without realizing that it’s just as racist to vote FOR a candidate because he’s Black as it is to vote AGAINST him based solely on that same reason.  Meanwhile, if they were being honest the only real “one of their own” they should have cared about was the demographic of “fellow American”.  And no, that’s not meant to insinuate that I think Obama is actually from Kenya.  It’s meant to point out that since ALL of the candidates running at the time were American citizens ANY of those candidates should have qualified under the moniker of “one of their own”.  

By having an understanding of the realities on how to achieve the true fairness everyone seems to be demanding it is now my turn to do some preaching.  If we all want to seek the premise of fairness and equality for all we must accept the premise that it’s not OK to have groups that do damage (i.e. the KKK), but it’s also NOT OK to have groups that promote one demographic over others either.  Based on this new concept of what true fairness needs to be we must also accept that one of the most racist organizations on the planet has to be the NAACP for its promotion of “Black people and causes”.  The same thing holds true for other such demographic promoting groups (i.e. NOW, La Raza, CAIR, and LGBT) just to name a few.  

I’m more than willing to put forth the “extra effort” to be inclusive of those that are different than me.  However, I’m not willing to accept that equality can only come from me stepping aside while another group promotes themselves OVER me.  Either we’re all truly equal which means none of us denigrate or promote, or we’re all truly different.  However, there is no equality as long as any one group gets to enjoy the best of both worlds.  To put this in simple terms, if you don’t want to be treated differently then you also need to STOP promoting yourself as being different as well.  After all, “inclusiveness” can only work when it is a two way street.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Greatest Common Denominator

Share via email

If you look at the latest list of the Forbes wealthiest you’ll see that topping the list, as usual, is Bill Gates with a current estimated net worth of approximately $79.2 Billion.  Now to the average person seeing a figure so big represents the idea that should good old Bill and his betrothed Melinda decided to they could go on a $79+ Billion spending spree.  Or if you think like the average liberal you’d probably believe that they should generously start handing out $1 Million checks to the next 79,200 people they meet on the street, right?  Wrong!  They couldn’t do either option even if they wanted to and here’s why. 

When most people see the figures of the wealthy what they don’t realize is that the numbers they are looking at are paper numbers.  In other words they aren’t real.  It’s simplistic math for simplistic minds.  If you own 100,000 shares of a stock worth $10/share then you are worth $1,000,000….except anyone with brains realizes that you aren’t.  This is where the “wealthy” narrative sounds good, but falls completely apart once math and logic are applied. 

Let’s take a quick peak using simple numbers of a fictitious Silicon Valley tech wunderkind (we’ll call her Gertrude) just to illustrate how far off that wealth number actually is.  The first and most obvious thing we see (just like is the case with Bill Gates) is that the vast majority of Gertrude’s “wealth” comes from the very stock of the company that she started.  It’s tied up there and has been since Gertrude offered up her company to public investment access via an IPO (think of what Facebook did just a few years ago).  For our example we’ll say that Gertrude now owns a total of 10,000,000 shares of her own company with an IPO price of $100/share giving her a net worth of $1 Billion…..on paper. 

As you can see the IPO created a lot of sudden wealth for Gertrude, but at the same time locked in her position.  Why?  Well because if she were to now suddenly try to go out and sell all her stock it would create a run on its perceived value since stocks are a direct product of the supply/demand curve and she would be creating a sudden surge on the supply side.  So just like what would happen with Bill Gates above she can’t just go out and sell it all and pocket the money and even if she could the depleted value after a run means she would probably only get to pocket about ½ the original value, right?  Once again, wrong!

 If sweet hard working Gertrude could sell it all (even at the depleted value) her net take wouldn’t be $1 Billion, or even the depleted $500 Million value.  That’s because the first to step forward to collect on her newfound cash flow would be the government.  Combined capital gains taxes along with the average state income taxes would quickly turn that $500 million into only about $333 million. That’s still a lot, right?  Well, we aren’t done yet.  For you see if Gertrude were to attempt spending any of that money she’d be hit by another average 8% sales tax against her potential buying power.  So basically the net useful value of our good friend Gertrude’s wealth before she’s even had a chance to spend a single dime on her own is all the way down to just over $300 million.

 The ugly truth is that the average “wealthy” person is actually only worth about 30% of what shows up on paper.  You might try to argue that’s still a lot, but then again the wealthy do a lot with what they have.  Roughly 45% of all federal incomes taxes come from just the top 1% of the income earners (that’s AFTER all the supposed loopholes and dodges have been applied).  Beyond simple taxes many of our institutions of culture and higher learning wouldn’t exist without the endowments of the wealthy.  Most people wouldn’t have jobs without the ingenuity that created both wealth for some, but also jobs and a better lifestyle for us the rest of us.  You may disagree with what the Walton’s pay their employees, but without Sam Walton’s efforts all those people’s pay would be $0.

 I wasn’t born wealthy.  Fortunately, I also wasn’t born stupid either.  If a wealthy person were to move in down the street from me I wouldn’t waste my time being jealous or demonize him.  As an intelligent adult I’d prefer instead spending my time learning from him so that I can catch up to his level rather than dragging him down to mine.  That’s because I’m smart enough to understand that for ANY society to succeed we must forego trying to pull everyone down to the least common denominator and instead we should all strive toward that greatest of common denominators called opportunity.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

This Is Who I AM

Share via email

I am a middle aged white Christian conservative male.  To the average liberal that makes me the equivalent of the devil with a receding hairline (at least for those liberals that believe in a hereafter).  Since the demographics that I fall into apparently only fit into the narrative that I MUST be pure evil where I hate everyone and everything and therefore I am to be labeled accordingly I thought I would introduce myself a little bit further by dispelling a few myths about me. 

  • I don’t hate Black people.  I’ve never discriminated against anyone and personally I think doing so based solely on someone’s skin color is strictly for the dim witted.  However, I also think that labeling me a racist just because I disagree with a President who happens to be Black is itself racism.
  • I don’t hate Hispanics.  In fact I speak Spanish (albeit not as well as I used to) and I’ve been to many Hispanic countries where I love their culture.  I believe they are some of the hardest working and devoutly religious people you’ll ever meet.  So the idea that I want to control the border has nothing to do with discrimination.  It has everything to do with practicality.
  • I don’t hate women.  I want true equality for both genders.  I’m not fearful of strong intelligent women.  In fact, I married one.  So stop telling me that just because I disagree with someone’s opinion on a women’s issue that I’m waging a war against them.  Liberals really do sound moronic when they say such stupid things.
  • I don’t hate gay people.  I believe that what happens behind the closed doors of the bedroom should remain between consenting adults and their creator regardless of their orientation.  I have my own religious beliefs and part of those beliefs is to leave the moral judging to God.  Since I see marriage as a religious act I’ll leave that question up to God as well.  However, when it comes to the subject of sex in general I also believe that if someone insist on involving MY wallet in THEIR sex life then I should have a say.  (Can you say Sandra Fluke?)
  • I don’t hate the environment.  Since I have to drink the same water, breathe the same air, eat the same foods, etc. as everyone else I have no more incentive to see it abused or destroyed than the next person.  However, you better start producing real actual science before I’m going to allow you to change my lifestyle on the theories of those who possess agendas that have nothing to do with the environment.
  • Although I’m probably doing better than average I’m not rich, nor do I hate poor people.  I’ve worked hard my whole life so I’m not ashamed of the things I’ve accumulated over the years.  I donate both my time and my treasure for those causes that I see fit.  Therefore, if you want to tell me I’m not paying my fair share you better be ready to define such terms because I’m not going to give up what I rightfully have just because you want it.
  • I don’t hate the government, nor am I an anarchist.  As is the case with most Tea Party members we strongly believe in the necessity of government.  However, we also strongly believe in the necessity of putting Constitutional constraints on government so that it’s primary purpose remains in serving the people, not the politicians.
  • To put it bluntly I don’t hate people that are different than me.  However, even though I have an obligation to tolerate others I DO NOT have the obligation to accept them.  To put this in simple terms, if a Satanist were to move in next door to me I may not have a right to harass them, but don’t expect us to be barbequing together either. 

And finally: 

  • I don’t actually hate Liberals.  I’m just frustrated with what are supposed to be intelligent adults who can so easily be swayed by an ideology that simply sounds good, but holds no logic.  Its embarrassing having to deal with people that can tell you what we should be doing while at the same time can’t even begin to tell you how.  To put it in adult terms if you can’t explain it or defend it you probably shouldn’t be preaching it. 

Love me or leave me, but this is who I am so you might as well get used to it because no matter how you try to label me I have no intentions of changing.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Protecting our Flag, Defending our Past

Share via email

This morning I was watching a video on social media that showed an Air Force veteran being arrested for attempting to protect an American flag that others were desecrating.  First of all as a fellow veteran I would like to personally thank her for trying to protect a symbol that others gave their last full measure of devotion to defend in the first place.  At this point you probably think I’m going to continue on with a commentary about things like free speech and who was right or wrong, should she have been arrested, etc.  Well, you’d be wrong. 

There was something in that video that caught my attention even more so than what was happening to the flag that most people probably completely ignored.  At one point in the video there was a Black man attempting to explain why they were desecrating the flag and he used the term “you enslaved our people”.  This caught my attention because it goes to a much deeper problem that we are currently facing today than some idiot stomping on a flag.  It goes to how we are educating our children about history and how that education has screwed up our current society. 

The flag, or more importantly the history behind it, isn’t what enslaved the “our people” he’s referring to.  In fact, it’s quite the opposite.  Now I’m not trying to claim we never had slavery in this country.  That would be delusional.  What I’m saying is that if you understand even a little bit about history that flag is actually what ended slavery. 

What most people tend to forget is that during the time when our melting pot of a nation was founded slavery was pretty much the norm, not just here, but throughout the world.  America by no means had a monopoly on the slave trade.  What set us apart from so many other parts of the world was that we as a nation recognized our own sin and eradicated that sin ourselves.  When the civil war was fought those who were FOR slavery didn’t fly the American flag, they flew the rebel flag.  It was the sacrifice of those who were fighting AGAINST slavery that are actually being represented by the flag that was being desecrated. 

We get reminded all the time about our past sin of slavery.  However, what always tend to be glossed over by those wishing to exploit that sin are the roughly 600,000 Union casualties that paid the price to expel that particular demon.  The truth is that of all the people that were in the crowd that day if the man who made that statement would have understood even a little bit about our history he should have placed himself side-by-side with the woman trying to protect the flag for it has already served him twice yet he doesn’t even realize it.  It served him once by creating a nation that gave him the right to protest, but it also served him a second time by providing him with the freedom to do so as well.  It’s that important second part that tends to get left out of our modern education. 

It’s easy to point out our faults because as a nation we are no more perfect than the people that make up our nation as a whole.  However, if someone wants to point out only the bad things in life nothing will ever look good.  As I’ve said many times before, I prefer to be an optimist.  When it comes to trying to define who we REALLY are as a nation I prefer to look at those who have righted wrongs more so t than those who have created them.  I prefer to look at those who have defended our freedoms rather than those who wish to enslave.  I prefer to protect the symbols of our sacrifice rather than sacrifice the symbols of our past.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Moron, expose thyself

Share via email

Recently I read a Facebook post from a liberal that was meant to be a “gotcha” moment against conservatives and in this case the now deceased author Ayn Rand in particular.  Upon reading the post I actually found myself laughing out loud.  Not only was this a hilariously bad attempt at painting the right as hypocrites, but was so moronic that the poster had no idea who he was actually insulting. 

The post was a story about how the vaunted die-hard capitalist Ayn Rand had actually dared to collect on Social Security in her old age in defiance of her own writings demonizing big government.  This is the same tired assault that liberals have tried for years by claiming conservatives are hypocrites for railing against intrusive government up until such time as it’s their own turn to stand in line for some government goodies. 

So for the umpteenth time allow me to explain what the half-wits on left just simply can’t seem to grasp.  SOCIAL SECURITY ISN’T A GOVERNMENT HANDOUT!  Let me put this in simple terms.  If you loan someone $100 today and then later return to collect on your loan that doesn’t make you greedy, a thief, a handout recipient, a hypocrite, or any other such non-sense.  It simply means that you are collecting a return of what was rightfully yours all along.  The fact that the government forcibly confiscates that money from you (and the matching funds from your employer) throughout your working life on the promise of returning it to you later (if you’re fortunate enough to live that long) doesn’t constitute even the remotest concept to anyone above the IQ of a horsefly that it somehow magically becomes a handout. 

To prove my point all you need to do is look at your paystub.  You have separate line item deductions for Social Security and Medicare because those moneys are SUPPOSED to be placed in a separate government trust fund so that people won’t foolishly waste all their money before they reach retirement age.  The reason I capitalized the word supposedly above is because under this scenario the ugly truth is that it’s been the government all along who has foolishly wasted your money instead as they have basically borrowed and spent against all that money until the actual trust fund is pretty much an empty vault of IOU’s.  Personally, as an intelligent adult I would have preferred it if big brother government would have simply butted out of my life so that I could have invested that total of 15% annual matching funds on my own instead of through a glorified government sanctioned ponzi scheme.  However, now that they have it, you can bet your @ss I want it back! 

It blows my mind every time I hear some idiot from the left proclaiming that the elderly are better off because of Social Security.  In saying that they are not only stating by proxy that all Americans are too stupid to be trusted with something like their own retirement (same thing for healthcare), but completely forget that had the government not interfered the money that was confiscated would have been the people’s money all along (plus interest) anyway.  It’s like a thief robbing you and then expecting a big old “thank you” for returning the things they should have never stolen at government gun point in the first place.  Here’s another way to think of it for when they ignorantly try to insult conservatives for trying to collect what is rightfully theirs.  Is it right that someone should be forced to pay for a meal in advance and then demonized simply because they would now like a chance to eat it before it’s all gone?  Honestly, I wish I could think of a stronger word than “moron” in situations like this. 

Morons are morons and nothing will ever change that.  However, in posting what he posted this particular moron doesn’t even realize that who he has basically insulted isn’t just conservatives, but every American who has worked all their life and is now old enough that they are simply trying to retrieve what was rightfully theirs all along.  The checks they are now receiving aren’t government handouts.  They’re long overdue reimbursements.  Personally, I hope he reposts his article over and over.  In doing so he’ll be accomplishing far more to expose his own true self-insulting ignorance than any rebuttal I could ever hope to write. 

P.S.  As a side note please remember that it was DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz who recently proposed the idiotic idea of having the government confiscate everyone’s IRA’s and 401K’s and using that money to shore up the missing funds from Social Security.  As you can see, these people aren’t just simple morons.  They’re morons that are hell bent on ruining all our lives.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Indiana Law

Share via email

As a businessman I’m not prone to turning away business based on someone’s demographic positioning.  With rare exceptions I’m willing to work with just about anyone.  At the same time I reserve the right to deny my services as I see fit.  Let’s face it I have no plans on working with ISIS anytime in the near future no matter how much profit potential exist.  So with the uproar over the new Indiana law I’m not going to take sides.  However, there are a few things I would like to point out. 

The original blue print for the Indiana law was actually passed by Bill Clinton in 1993 and up until Indiana passed it’s version it had already been passed by 19 other states.  So what Indiana is doing is by no means anything new and hasn’t been new for at least the last 22 years.  BTW, if this law bothers you and you’re prone to registering a (D) after your name you may want to pose a few questions to Bill’s wife prior to any consideration for supporting her political future.  Just sayin’. 

The main premise for having such a law in the first place is to create a legal basis for not infringing on one’s religious freedoms.  In particular this issue was brought to the forefront recently when a bakery was sued because they refused to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding.  From a personal perspective my only question upon taking such an order would have been what kind of frosting do they prefer, but that’s just me. 

There are certain circumstances where non-discriminatory practices can never be tolerated regardless of demographics.  For example, no one should be denied access to medical care based solely on things like race, religion, orientation, etc.  The same thing goes for things like education, public utilities, etc.  However, to allow a business a certain level of discernment in accepting clientele is actually a necessity.  Do you really want to force a Jewish caterer to serve pork chops, an Islamic Dr. to perform a circumcision, or a Black performer to sing at a KKK convention? 

The truth is we already have a plethora of arbitrary discriminatory practices in business on a daily basis.  How often do we see signs that say “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” as an affront against the poor, or “No Weapons Permitted on Premises” as an affront against those wishing to pursue their 2nd Amendment rights?  It’s NOT OK to accept some forms of discrimination while denying others simply based on your own personal preferences.  After all, discrimination is discrimination, PERIOD! 

That brings me to the original point of this commentary which has to do with the outright hypocrisy of those that are currently yelling the loudest over this issue.  Or as my Grandmother used to say “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”.  Therefore, let’s try reversing this situation for a moment just so that I can illustrate my point. 

Let’s supposed that we accept the idea that businesses can no longer deny service based on any of the discriminatory practices above, but conversely the public can also no longer deny patronage to businesses for the same reasons.  How many people who have currently sworn off the idea of ever eating at Chik-Fil-A over their religious standing would be happy with the idea of now being forced to eat there?  How many people that swear they hate Monsanto would be happy with having to purchase their products?  You don’t agree with Phil Robertson’s opinions.  Great, but you still have to buy a Duck Dynasty hat off him for $19.99.  Same thing goes for all the products sold by Hobby Lobby.  Basically, boycotting would become illegal simply because your right to choose who you do business with based on your own beliefs will have been curtailed just the same as those you are now railing against.  It doesn’t matter if the objection is of a religious nature or not, the fact is by forcing people to act against their will ultimately removes ALL forms of discernment. 

As you can see the problem is that without leaving room for discernment on both sides you are actually opening up a potential Pandora’s Box that can be wielded both ways.  I’m not going to say who is ultimately right or wrong on this issue.  However, to have such an automatic knee jerk reaction and carry on the way people have over this law without thinking things though completely is yet another example of one-step-forward thinking.  Yes, there’s room for legal adjustments to this law just the same as there are to any law.  However, until everyone calms down and has an adult discussion over this law so that we can clearly see the potential future issues we’ll never know what those adjustments are.  As I’ve said many times before, you can never be certain that you’re following in the right path unless you can see beyond that first step.  In the mean time if there’s that big of a market that isn’t being served properly I think I’ll start my own bakery.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment