Flying is so Safe already that to make it any Safer is nearly Statistically Impossible
Air travel is the safest way to travel. People are far more likely to die on the way to the airport than in an airplane. Air plane accidents and incidents are so rare these days that when one happens it is huge news. For weeks some networks devoted near 24/7 coverage of missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370. Even though they had nothing to report. But that didn’t stop them from going to air to speculate about what happened. Because an airplane just disappearing like that is extremely rare.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigates aircraft accidents and incidents to determine the cause. And to come up with new ways to make aviation safer. But improving safety any more is getting difficult. And costly. They put a cost on the loss of life and compare that to the cost for the airlines (and the people who buy their tickets) to implement a proposed change. And then judge the likelihood that spending that money will actually save any lives. They could reduce the number of deaths from flying to zero simply by grounding all aircraft permanently. But the flying public wants to fly. And is apparently willing to fly even if there is a slim chance of dying.
When a plane crashes because of an event that is statistically likely to happen, say, one in 100 million flights it’s hard to justify the added expense. As that cost will not make flying any safer statistically. This is the problem with making flying safer today. It is so safe already that to make it any safer is nearly statistically impossible. And spending more resources to try and make it safe 100% of the time is just not possible. And it’s just too costly to try.
Racism is so Trivial in the Aggregate that it could not prevent a Black Child from growing up to be President
There are a lot of people on the left who say we need a dialogue on race. Because there is still racism in this country. Not Southern Democrat Jim Crowe racism. But systemic racism that stacks the deck against blacks. Despite that ‘racist’ America having elected a black president. Twice. Who appointed a black man as attorney general. Eric Holder. America’s top cop. This couldn’t have happened without a majority of white voters voting for President Obama. As blacks make up only approximately 13.1% of the population while whites make up approximately 77.9% (see United States Census QuickFacts).
So there may be some racism in America. But clearly not a lot of it. For if there was a lot of it there would have been enough people to vote against President Obama. But there wasn’t. And he won reelection. Even though his record wasn’t that good. On the economy. Or on national security. So there would have been a lot of reasons to vote against him. Especially if the American people were racist. But this didn’t happen. Suggesting that America is not as racist as those on the left would have you believe.
Sure, there is racism in America. As there is everywhere. And always will be. But is it systemic? Is it impossible for a black child to grow up to be the president of the United States? To be the top cop in the land? No. Because these things have happened. So is it necessary to focus the Justice Department only on racial injustice in the United States? Even those on the left will concede that things are a lot better now than they ever were. So should the Justice Department focus on removing the last vestiges of racism when if doing so will be very difficult if not impossible? As some people simply cannot be reasoned with? If these people were running the country perhaps it would be. But they’re not. These instances of racism are isolated incidents. So trivial in the aggregate that they could not prevent a black child growing up to be president.
Despite all of their Efforts to End Racism they haven’t reduced the Need to End Racism
A lot of people voted for President Obama to end racism once and for all. To move away from our racist past. But it seems like the left finds more racism than ever since President Obama’s election. In fact, they call any criticism of President Obama an act of racism. Making it difficult to criticize the president. As no one wants to be labeled a racist. In fact the left uses this to try and shut down debate over policy issues. Unable to defeat conservatives in the arena of ideas (as conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1) they are quick to try and shut down debate with charges of racism.
Even Attorney General Eric Holder responded angrily when testifying in Congress. Later when speaking to a mostly black audience he asked was there ever an attorney general or a president treated as poorly as he and President Obama? (Yes, there were. Especially when they were Republican). Implying that the people’s representatives, and, therefore, the people, were racist. So he can stand morally indignant as he stood in contempt of Congress. The victim. A lot in the media have come to his support. While few criticized him. Because no one wants to be called a racist. And because no one does it is a very powerful way to shift attention away from any wrongdoing by shifting the attention to those accusing you of said wrongdoing. A tactic right from the far-left strategist Saul Alinsky’s playbook (see Corrupt AG’s Feigned Outrage Shouldn’t Be Distraction posted 4/10/2014 on Investors.com).
The NTSB is trying to remove the last vestiges of air travel deaths. Which is more and more difficult to do these days as there are so few ways left to improve aviation safety. There are a lot of people trying to end racism. But if you listen to them the problem of racism has never been worse. Despite the success of President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. Who actually benefit from this perceived racism. As they can discount any criticism of them because they’re black. And the American people are racist. Despite these same American people being responsible for their success. For a country with a 77.9% white population could have been racist enough to prevent the election of a black president. And they were given two opportunities to show just how racist they are. But didn’t. Still, the charge of racism is a powerful weapon in their arsenal. Which is why despite all of their efforts to end racism they haven’t reduced the need to end racism. For if they did that they may just have to answer for their policies.
Tags: attorney general, black, black president, Congress, conservatives, criticism, debate, end racism, Eric Holder, liberals, President Obama, racism, racist, shut down debate, systemic racism, top cop, white
The CEO of Mozilla resigned for Thinking ‘Incorrectly’
In 2008, Brendan Eich donated $1,000 to support California Proposition 8. A proposal to keep marriage in California between only a man and a woman. Proposition 8 passed as most Californians agreed with Brendan Eich. They did not want to change law, tradition and custom. The left has determined that the people of California are hate-filled people. And liberal judges have since overruled the will of the people of California.
So who is Brendan Eich? Until recently he was the CEO of Mozilla. The company that puts out the internet browser Firefox. He rose to CEO this year. He cofounded Mozilla Foundation in 1998. So he’s been there for awhile. And did good work. To rise to CEO you have to be pretty darn good. And you can’t be a monster. For if you are a monster the odds are slim of becoming CEO. For it tends to garner bad press.
Well, as it turns out, exercising your free speech can make you a monster. A hate-filled individual. Which the left said he was. Because of this $1,000 donation. Just because he thought like the majority of all Californians. That marriage should be between a man and a woman. And because he did the left demanded his resignation for daring not to think ‘correctly’ like them. So he did. He resigned for thinking ‘incorrectly’.
Conservatives were not Welcomed at a Feminist Conference on Inclusivity
This is not the only ‘thought crime’ the left has leveled at someone. For anyone that dares to think differently from them they call a thought criminal. And do everything in their power to silence them. For the ‘tolerant’ left is very intolerant of anyone that thinks differently from them. Because the left hates dissenting views. Especially those of conservatives. As there are about two conservatives for every liberal they face a lot of dissenting views. So they have a lot of ‘thought crime’ to police.
Universities are mostly liberal these days. And whenever a conservative is invited to speak the thought police come out. They protest. They heckle. They throw pies. Just ask Ann Coulter. Even when conservatives are invited back to their alma maters to give a commencement speech the thought police turn out to keep them from speaking. Just ask Dr. Ben Carson. Or Condoleezza Rice.
Feminists on university campuses are particularly intolerant to other points of view. Even at a feminist conference about inclusivity. Everyone was welcomed. Except conservative women. In fact, the feminists at this conference identified a woman as being a conservative. Telling the students gathering there that they shouldn’t talk to her. Because conservatives were not welcomed at this conference on inclusivity. Just ask Katherine Timpf.
It’s hard to Pass your Agenda when you’re Outnumbered Two to One
Liberals have long wanted to revive the fairness doctrine. For the one area they can’t control is talk radio. And they don’t like what they’re saying on talk radio. So they want to shut them up. To balance the content broadcasted over the public airwaves. As determined by the Federal Communications Commission. Which could, of course, find that 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh a day is not balanced. And require that he give up an hour or two of his time for an opposing viewpoint. Hence the moniker the ‘Hush Rush Bill‘.
The left has been warning us about the calamity of global warming for the last three decades or so. Telling us if we don’t act now the world will end within the decade. But the people aren’t quaking with fear. Some are even debunking their ‘science’. With real science. Something the left does not like. And they want to do something about. They want to shut them up. Some even want to jail them.
Conservatives don’t do this. They don’t call for boycotts or resignations when people exercise their right to free speech. They don’t throw pies at people. They don’t pressure universities to shut down debate by preventing someone from speaking that disagrees with them. They don’t warn young women that someone ‘thinks wrong’. That they shouldn’t talk to ‘wrong thinkers’. They don’t try to balance the content in the liberal-dominated media. And they don’t put politics over science. Liberals do. But conservatives don’t.
There have been some in history that put politics above everything else. Just like liberals do. People who punished those who said the wrong things. And punished those for thinking wrong. They had state censorship. Propaganda. And jail for those who weren’t like them. Or worse. Things the left would love to do to stifle all debate. Because it’s hard to pass your agenda when you’re outnumbered two to one. So who are these people from history? Nazis. And communists. Yes, liberals are about as open-minded and tolerant as Nazis and communists were.
Tags: Brendan Eich, California, communists, conservatives, debate, dissenting views, Fairness Doctrine, feminist, free speech, Global Warming, hate-filled, inclusivity, intolerant, liberal, Mozilla, Nazis, open-minded, Proposition 8, science, talk radio, thought crime, thought criminal, thought police, tolerant
(Originally published January 10th, 2013)
The Social Democracies of Europe were all Oppressive Absolute Monarchies at one Time
What happened in Newtown, Connecticut, was a tragedy. The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary took 26 lives. Including 20 children. The most innocent of us. Which has ignited a firestorm of debate over guns. The Left blames these deaths on an epidemic of gun violence. Caused by people having access to guns. So the Left wants to have a real debate on gun control. To stop this epidemic of child deaths caused by firearms. By severely restricting access to guns.
Those on the Right, on the other hand, want to protect their Second Amendment right. The right to keep and bear arms. Which allowed the First Amendment. Freedom of speech. The British colonial governors tried hard to clamp down on the anti-British sentiment in their American colonies. And to muzzle that anti-British speech. They sent over British Red Coats to occupy American cities to keep order. And to find and confiscate the Americans’ guns. So the first few amendments of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) protected free speech. Gave us the power to protect ourselves from future state oppressors. And they even included the Third Amendment. Which states, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” Again, further protection from state oppression.
The nature of states is to oppress their people. Most have throughout history. Even the social democracies of Europe were all oppressive absolute monarchies at one time. Where kings could do pretty much anything they wanted to. England changed that with representative government. America expanded on these liberties in the New World. And ever since has been very wary of government. Until the Twentieth century. When the growth of government began. Transferring ever more power to the federal government. Everything the Founding Fathers feared would happen without a Bill of Rights.
When it comes to Restricting our Constitutional Rights Liberals Trust Government while Fearing Republicans
Those on the Left say the Constitution is a relic of a different age. That today’s government is a kinder government. A more caring government. One that just wants to take care of the people. By providing generous benefits. Of course this is how some of the worst dictatorships started. Nazi Germany and the USSR both put the people first. Or so they said. Even their names said they were putting the people first. The Nazis were National Socialists. And the USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is all about taking care of the people. Yet these nations had some the most brutal secret police that terrorized and oppressed their people. For there is no easier way to dictatorial power than championing the people. And once the people stop fearing their government is when the state can take away their guns. To make that oppression easier. The Syrian government is currently having difficulty oppressing their people because they failed to keep guns out of the hands of those they wish to oppress.
If you read a history book you will read a lot about state secret police and state oppression. It’s more the rule than the exception. When you grow up in a free country it’s hard to believe this. And when you’re young you think whatever you know and have experienced is normal. And that things have always been that way. Which is why the younger liberals dismiss talk about the transfer of power to the federal government. While the older conservatives who have seen great change in their lives and know history still fear their government. While the younger liberals grow up believing that government is not to be feared but to be trusted blindly. They even look at what China is doing with their economy with approval. Where the government controls the economy. They like that. Because liberals believe we can always trust a government more than a private corporation. Even if that government oppresses their people. Like they do in China. Where people still deal with famine in the country. Rural workers are paid poorly and live in dormitories in the city factories. And political dissidents are tortured in labor camps where they manufacture goods without pay.
So naïve liberals trust government. Completely. Unless it’s George W. Bush using the Patriot Act. That they fear. But when President Obama uses the Patriot Act liberals ask, “The Patriot what?” When it came to secret wiretaps on people with known ties to terrorists the Left quaked with fear over where these abuses of power would end. But when President Obama starts talking about gun control they haven’t a care in the world. Because when it comes to restricting our constitutional rights liberals trust government while fearing Republicans.
People killed 37 Kids with Guns in 2010 while Partial-Birth Abortions have claimed some 2,000 Lives a Year
President Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” For the best way to advance an agenda (especially an unpopular agenda) was in the emotional chaos following a serious crisis. Such as the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. The majority of Americans oppose gun control. But in that majority are some people that they may be able to convince that some restrictions on the Second Amendment is a good thing in the emotional chaos following Sandy Hook Elementary. Convincing them that guns are causing an epidemic of childhood deaths. That without guns these kids simply wouldn’t be dying. A powerful message during emotional times. But if you remove the emotions and look at some facts you see something different (see 10 Leading Causes of Death, United States by the Centers for Disease Control).
These are deaths by unintentional injury. Looking at the leading causes of death in 2010 (the latest year of data) for children aged 5-14 you see 1,643 deaths. About half (809) of those are from motor vehicle accidents. Drowning came in next at 251 (15.3%). Then fire/burn at 135 (8.2%). Then suffocation at 79 (4.8%). You have to go all the way down to number 7 on the list to get to firearms. Where we can see they killed 37 children in 2010. Or 2.3% of the total number of kids aged 5-14 who died from an unintentional injury. Based on an approximate population of 41 million kids aged 5-14 the total number of kids killed by firearms comes to about 0.00009% of this total. According to the CDC’s numbers, guns aren’t killing a lot of kids. Motor vehicles are. But firearms are not. So taking away our guns will probably not change these numbers much. If at all. So the motive can’t be saving children’s lives. In fact, one can make the argument that there is a greater killer of children out there than anything on the above list. Abortion.
It’s hard to get numbers on abortions. But if you check various sources the number appears to be over a million a year. Wikipedia shows 1,313,000 abortions in 2000. Including 2,232 (about 0.17% of all abortions in 2000) that were partial-birth abortions. Whatever your politics on the abortion issue are one thing regarding partial-birth abortions is clear. These are human lives. For the ‘partial’ part of these abortions requires terminating the life of the fetus while the head is still inside of the mother. For if they terminated the life of the fetus outside of the mother it would be murder according to the law. And you can’t kill something that isn’t alive. In fact, an accidental wrongful death of a pregnant woman often results in two charges of manslaughter. One for the mother. And one for the unborn fetus. Assuming there was no spike in partial-birth abortions in 2000 one can assume that number is representative of all years. Which is far more deaths than by motor vehicle accident let alone from firearms. Yet President Obama wants gun control to save kids lives. When he could save even more by simply revising his stance on partial-birth abortion. Something he argued to keep when a state senator in Illinois.
Tags: abortion, anti-British, Bill of Rights, British, conservatives, Constitutional rights, emotional chaos, federal government, fetus, firearms, free speech, gun control, gun violence, liberals, Nazi, Newtown, partial-birth abortion, Patriot Act, President Obama, Sandy Hook, Second Amendment, secret police, serious crisis, socialist, state oppression, USSR
Christians believe in the Reward of Hard Work and Shun Idleness for it tends to Invite Trouble
Liberals are very confident people. As well as arrogant. Narcissistic. And condescending. Which is why they are so secular. Wanting to take the separation of church and state argument to the extreme. Attacking and mocking Christianity every chance they get. As they don’t like anyone judging them. Or setting some moral standard. For liberals are a sinful people.
The Seven Deadly Sins are wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. Christians try to avoid these. They forgive their enemies instead of getting angry at them. They tithe to their church instead of keeping all of their money greedily for themselves. They believe in the reward of hard work and shun idleness for it tends to invite trouble. They are humble and don’t strive for attention. They have strong self-control and make sacrifices for a better future instead of giving in to current wants and desires. They tend to be happy with what they have however modest their lives may be. Instead of being envious of others. They don’t eat, drink or live to excess, preferring to do everything in moderation. Things you just don’t associate with liberals.
Now think of some liberals you know of. Think of the vicious things liberal Democrats say about Republicans (such as a campaign commercial showing a Republican pushing ‘Grandma’ off a cliff). The vulgar things some liberal commentators say about Republican women. And the ridicule of conservatives on late-night television. Rich liberals who want to raise taxes on the rich (which includes the middle class) to pay for a generous welfare state while giving little to charity themselves. As they are far more generous with other people’s money than with their own. And never risk their own money in risky investments such as Solyndra. Preferring to risk the taxpayers’ money.
Liberals attack the Rich because they are Envious of their Hard Work and Success
Liberals always want a bigger federal government with an ever-growing bureaucracy. So they can be career politicians without ever getting a real job where they have to work hard to earn a living. Liberals like to brag about how smart they are and how brilliant their legislation is. Taking credit for things they didn’t even do. Such as President Obama taking credit for the surge in natural gas production done on private land by private companies. Or boasting how their economic policies are working even though the real unemployment rate is in excess of 13% (when you count those who have left the labor force and those who can only find a part-time job). And their refusal to admit they wrote a terrible law. Such as Obamacare.
Liberals never want to wait for anything. They don’t believe in hard work. They believe in early retirement and generous pensions. For their friends in the union. Like the UAW. In the public sector unions. And those in government jobs. They attack the rich because they resent their hard work and success. Are envious of them. And want to punish them because they were never as good as they are. With higher tax rates. And punishing regulations. Hollywood celebrities and the Washington elite live the most extravagant lives. In some of the most expensive homes which are filled with the finest food, drink and toys. And when that’s not enough some further their excess with drugs.
These are things you just don’t associate with Christians. In fact, these are things Christians frown upon. Even telling their congregation not to live lives like these in their church services. For these are not Christian lives. Some people could have everything they could possibly want or desire but are still not happy. Or are bored because it came too easily. Or too soon. Turning to other outlets to excite them. Alcohol and drugs. Drag-racing in expensive sports cars on neighborhood streets. Partying all night in the hottest clubs. Or blowing a lot of money gambling. Anything to escape the boredom of an idle life.
For a Better Life we should Shun Liberalism and Embrace Free Market Capitalism
This is why liberals attack Christianity so much. As well as one other reason. Because they don’t like believing in a higher being. For they are so arrogant and narcissistic that they can’t stand the thought of some being that is greater than themselves. For they hold liberalism sacred. And if anyone worships anything they want the people to worship them. Because they believe they are the smartest and the most insightful people in the universe. Yes, vanity, thy name is liberalism. Which is why they believe they should control government. And our lives. Because they’re smarter and wiser than business owners. Bankers. Entrepreneurs. And market forces. For they are the higher being. Not what those silly Christians worship.
A lot of people have felt like this throughout history. Adolf Hitler. Mao Zedong. Saddam Hussein. Benito Mussolini. Muammar Gaddafi. Kim Il-sung. Kim Jong-il. Kim Jong-un. Fidel Castro. Supreme leaders and ruthless dictators who preferred their people to worship them like a god. And imposed socialism, fascism or communism on their people. Using their supreme intelligence and insight to make the state a better place for the people. Making the state supreme. While subordinating the individual. And elevating the supreme leader above everyone. Something liberals have been trying to do all their lives. Only without the torture and genocide.
But their efforts share a similar trend with these ruthless dictators. The quality of life declines under their rule. Some of the worst places to live when it comes to human rights have been in Nazi Germany, the People’s Republic of China, Iraq, Fascist Italy, Libya, North Korea and Cuba. While some of the best countries to live in are the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and Hong Kong. All once part of the Christian British Empire. An empire that embraced free market capitalism. And when people practice self-control and make sacrifices for the future engage in free market capitalism they make a better place to live. At least this is what history has shown us. So if we want a better life we should shun liberalism. And embrace free market capitalism. For liberty, thy name is capitalism.
Tags: arrogant, capitalism, Christianity, Christians, conservatives, Democrats, dictators, drugs, envious, excess, free market, free-market capitalism, hard work, higher being, human rights, idle life, liberalism, liberals, liberty, narcissistic, Republicans, sacrifice, self-control, sin, vanity
Week in Review
Some people with big noses get nose jobs. To reduce the size of their noses. Pretty much the first thing you look at when you see someone with a big schnoz. So one can understand the anxiety some people may suffer after a life of undo attention on their proboscis. And a lifetime being called ‘big nose’.
Women are especially prone to getting plastic surgery to correct what they view as defects. A tummy tuck so they look slimmer and more appealing. Face lifts so they look younger and more appealing. Boob jobs. For a bigger rack to give the guys something to look at. And to look more appealing. In fact, anything that men see a lot they want to use surgery to make it look more appealing. Even things that take some disrobing to see (see Designer vaginas are ruining our idea of what women’s bodies should look like, doctors warn by Anna Hodgekiss posted 12/31/2013 on the Daily Mail).
Women are getting increasingly distorted ideas of what their genitalia should look like, with many wrongly thinking their bodies are ‘abnormal’.
New research has found that those who looked at ‘designer vaginas’ were more more [sic] likely to consider them ‘normal’ and ‘ideal’ when later comparing them to unaltered genitalia…
The number of labiaplasties performed by the NHS has risen five-fold since 2001, according to the study’s Australian authors.
The surgery involves reducing the size of a woman’s labia minora to make them more symmetrical and smaller than the labia majora…
Generally, there are no health reasons to have the surgery – it is only for the sake of appearance. So the researchers wanted to know what drives women’s perceptions of what looks good…
‘This is due to airbrushing, lack of exposure to normal women’s genitals, greater genital visibility due to Brazilian and genital waxing and the general taboo around discussing genitals and genital appearance…’
Sarah Calabrese, a clinical psychologist at Yale University, added: ‘[These findings are] especially disconcerting given that for many women, the narrow and unrealistic range of vulvas presented in mainstream U.S. pornography may be the only images that they see,’ she said.
‘The vulva is unlike most other body parts, which remain visible even when clothed; while a woman can look around and see the size and shape of other women’s waists, breasts, and so on, they don’t have the same opportunity to view other women’s vulvas and therefore are less likely to have a realistic sense of the natural diversity of vulvas in the female population.’
The Democrats/liberals keep saying Republicans/conservatives have a war on women. Because they don’t want to hand out free birth control. And provide access to abortion. While Democrats do everything within their power to make it easier for a woman to go out and have a lot of casual sex. Apparently liberals everywhere are, too. Turning women into such sexual objects that they watch pornography to see how men want a vagina to look. And then have surgery to get their vagina to look like what would please a connoisseur of pornography. Yet it’s Republicans/conservatives that have a war on women.
But the bigger question is why are women trying to make every part of their body so appealing? Well, who finds women appealing? That’s right. Men. And why do women look their best for men? To attract a guy. And it’s just not for a hookup (i.e., casual sex). For there probably isn’t a guy who would refuse to have sex with a woman after getting her naked regardless of what her vagina looked like. For if a guy is looking at a woman’s vagina he’s probably thinking it’s the most beautiful thing he’s ever seen. Because he’s about to have sex. And nothing short of an earthquake or a tornado is going to get him to say anything that might spoil the mood.
No. Women try to attract men to find Mr. Right. For despite the Democrat war on women with their free birth control and access to abortion to keep them free and single women want to get married. They don’t want to live alone. Just being sexual objects for men to enjoy. So desperate to find Mr. Right they will go to any length to make their looks ideal. Based on pornographic images. Something else Democrats fight to protect. For there probably isn’t a pornographer out there that votes Republican. Yet it’s Republicans/conservatives that have a war on women.
Tags: abortion, birth control, casual sex, conservatives, Democrat, designer vaginas, genital, liberals, plastic surgery, pornography, Republican, vagina, vulva, war on women
Week in Review
The left everywhere in the world fights back against the Old World Puritanism of conservatives. Who want to do nothing but oppress women in monogamous marriages. Where a man pledges to have and behold from this day on, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; until death do us part. Need one say anymore to prove that there is a war on women? Just imagine the difficulty of placing the wedding band on the sloped-brow Neanderthal she’s marrying. Having to lift those scarred knuckles up from the floor. That he just dragged across the floor to get to the altar.
It’s a frightening image. Marriage. A man pledging his undying love to a woman. You can see why the left rails against such an archaic view of women. For unlike conservatives liberals liberate women. They give them birth control and abortion. So a woman can go from man to man with the frequency of a cheap ham radio (a line borrowed from the Saturday Night Live Point Counter Point sketch with Jane Curtain and Dan Aykroyd). This is the modern woman the left wants. A sexual being. To be enjoyed sexually. Not oppressed in a monogamous marriage. Where she’ll never be able to enjoy true freedom. Like this (see Push is on for strip clubs to take advantage of Supreme Court ruling on prostitution by Daniel Proussalidis posted 12/21/2013 on the Toronto Sun).
Strip clubs smell dollars and opportunity on the heels of a Supreme Court of Canada decision Friday to strike down key Criminal Code provisions.
The Adult Entertainment Association of Canada says it’s ready to provide “enhanced” services once brothels become legal in Canada…
Women’s activist Diane Watts says she’s not surprised to see this push now that the Supreme Court has ruled Canada’s bans on brothels, communicating for the purpose of prostitution and living off its profits are unconstitutional…
Instead of new laws, Lambrinos’s group says strip clubs that are already regulated by cities quality for “enhanced licences” to allow them to offer more than naked people and lap dances.
Watts says fully legalized prostitution will mean higher demand for hookers and “increased trafficking from countries where women are more vulnerable.”
A 2010 RCMP human trafficking threat assessment found strip clubs are already part of the problem.
“Exotic dance clubs, or strip clubs, have been associated with human trafficking of foreign nationals in Canada since the late 1990s, when the number of migrant dancers from Eastern Europe increased dramatically,” said the assessment.
Little girls dream of ponies. Prince Charming carrying her away. And fairytale weddings. Where a man pledges to have and behold from this day on, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; until death do us part. Not to grow up to dance naked in a strip bar one day to entertain men. Or to earn a living prostituting themselves as they pleasure men. And no parent raising their daughter ever hoped that she will be able to dance naked one day for the entertainment of men. Or to prostitute herself to pleasure men. Not even liberals. Yet they will create the world that makes this possible. And likely. For stripping and prostitution offers a way for single mothers to make a lot of money in the short working hours they have available around raising their kids. Something else no little girl dreamed about in her childhood.
Anyone suggesting women should withhold their most intimate selves until their wedding night will be called prudes. Anyone who urges that women at least enter monogamous relationships with someone who wants more than a one-night stand (aka a hookup) will also be called a prude. So these young women will be sexually active. Giving away their most intimate selves to men who think of them as only sexual objects. Because it’s fun. And the left has them believing that they are being enlightened and modern and so unlike their prudish parents by objectifying themselves to pleasure as many men as possible.
Yet it’s the conservatives who have a war on women. Go figure.
Tags: abortion, birth control, brothels, conservatives, dance naked, intimate, liberals, marriage, monogamous, monogamous marriage, oppress women, Prostitution, strip clubs, war on women
Week in Review
The establishment Republicans are getting sick and tired of conservatives. Their base. And they’re starting to speak out against them in harsher tones they rarely if ever use on Democrats (see Why The GOP Civil War Just Exploded Out Into The Open — Again by Brett LoGiurato posted 12/12/2013 on Business Insider).
On Dec. 12, House Speaker John Boehner finally conveyed the bewildered sentiment that so many Republicans shared as far back as August.
Speaking at a press conference where he said outside conservative groups have “lost all credibility,” Boehner referenced comments that Heritage Action CEO Michael Needham made toward the end of October’s federal government shutdown — one that Boehner suggested Republicans were pushed into by the “defund Obamacare”-happy outside conservative groups.
“Everybody understands that we will not be able to repeal this law until 2017,” Needham had told Fox News — as in, repeal isn’t possible until a Republican is in the White House. To Boehner, that was a tacit admission that these groups knew their strategy was unworkable.
Well, that’s the problem the conservatives have with the establishment Republicans, isn’t it? Winning the White House. Which they haven’t been able to do with the last two establishment Republican candidates. Both who proudly proclaimed that they could reach across the aisle and work with Democrats. Which basically meant that they would help the Democrats pass their liberal agenda. By NOT trying to advance a conservative agenda. What 40% of the electorate wants.
Being that about 40% of the electorate is conservative these Democrat-lite candidates didn’t rally the Republican base. The 21% of the electorate that is liberal were never going to vote for a Republican. And the moderates in the middle who lean Democrat vote for the real Democrat candidate. Not the Democrat-lite candidate. Always.
This is why the conservatives in Congress are a bit exasperated with the establishment Republicans. Because they lose the election that matters. By NOT running a conservative candidate. And they never push back on the liberal agenda as they are so afraid that the media will say bad things about them. Or liberals won’t like them. It’s either that or the establishment Republicans, like liberals, want big government. Because they, too, like the money and the power. And don’t want any of that limited government nonsense. That thing our Founding Fathers gave us.
When was the last time that the Republicans won by a landslide? That’s right. When they ran a conservative candidate. Ronald Reagan. Another conservative the Republican establishment didn’t like.
Tags: Boehner, conservatives, Democrat-lite, Democrats, establishment Republicans, liberal, Liberal Agenda, Republicans, White House
Liberals pack the Judiciary with Liberal Judges to Write Law they can’t Write in Congress
Harry Reid and the Democrats went nuclear today. Changing the Senate rules for the first time since the Founding. To increase the power of those in the majority. So they can run roughshod over those in the minority. Thanks to the poor launch of Obamacare. And the sinking realization that because the Democrats have so angered the people in the process of implementing the Affordable Care Act (the president and Democrats lied and people are losing their health insurance and doctors) that Democrats up for election in 2014 are going to be thrown out with extreme prejudice. Turning the Senate over to the Republicans. Hence the need to go nuclear now.
It’s no secret the left legislates from the bench. Using judges to write legislation that Congress won’t. Such as making abortion legal via Roe v. Wade. That was a law made not by the law-makers. The legislature. Congress. But by liberal judges on the bench. Who are to interpret law. Not write it. But in Roe v. Wade, as in so many other laws that came to be that Congress refused to write, judges wrote law in their legal rulings. Allowing the liberal minority to make their will the law of the land.
America is a center-right country. Which means there are more conservatives than liberals. In fact, only about 21% of the people identify themselves as liberal while about 40% of the people identify themselves as conservative (see Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. by Lydia Saad posted 1/12/2012 on Gallup). Yet this 21% has implemented a lot of their liberal agenda. How? Liberal judges. The key to changing the country against the will of the people. When you can’t get the people’s representatives to write your laws you turn to the judiciary. Which is why Harry Reid went nuclear today. So they can pack the judiciary with liberal judges. Before they lose the Senate. So they will be able to write law from the bench that they won’t be able to do after they lose the Senate.
The Filibuster is the Last Line of Defense for the Minority
The filibuster is a stalling tactic. A tool the minority can use to prevent the majority from running roughshod over them. To protect minority rights. For majority rule can be dangerous. The majority could write law that restricts the rights of the minority. Don’t like the internal combustion engine? Well, the majority could write legislation for a costly carbon tax. Of course, the Democrats don’t have a majority in the House. But they do have one in the Senate. Which confirms the president’s judicial appointments. So if the president stacks the courts with liberal judges the left can get their carbon tax. By writing regulations for a carbon tax instead of legislation. And having the courts make that regulation law. With the left saying that they had that right under their environmental regulatory powers. And if you don’t like that sue us.
This is why the left wants to stack the courts with liberals. Who may or may not be actual judges. For they don’t want judges to interpret law. They want them to write law that Congress won’t. If the right sues the government for exceeding their constitutional authority and the case ends up in a court packed with liberal judges the right will lose. And the unconstitutional regulation will become law. Despite the Republican-controlled House.
The right has been holding up some exceptionally liberal Obama appointees to the bench. Frustrating the left. Because they can’t move their liberal agenda through the Republican held House of Representatives. While their plan B—stacking the courts—was being blocked by the Republicans because the Democrats did not have 60 Senators in the Senate. For if they did they could invoke cloture. End debate. And force a vote. Which they would, of course, win. Making the filibuster the last line of defense for the minority. For if the judicial appointment only appeals to the 21% of the population the minority can filibuster until they withdraw the appointment. And appoint someone that doesn’t appeal ONLY to 21% of the population.
When the Democrats were in the Minority they said Opposition to the Republicans was Patriotic
Back when the Republicans held the Senate during the George W. Bush administration the Democrats were holding up Bush appointees. The Republicans broached the subject of the nuclear option. And the left attacked Republicans. Calling it a power grab. An affront to the Founding Fathers. The worst thing that could happen to our republic. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and other Democrats spoke on the record opposing the nuclear option. But that was then. This is now. After the rollout of Obamacare. And the very likely possibility that the Democrats will lose control of the Senate in 2014. Now Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, et al are all for the nuclear option.
Because the Republicans are so partisan the left had no choice. They simply wouldn’t rubber-stamp the liberal agenda. So they had no choice but to grab power. To run roughshod over those in the minority in Congress. So the minority in the nation can impose their rule on the majority. When the Democrats were in the minority in Congress they said opposition to the Republicans was patriotic. That it made the republic healthier. Locking the Congress into gridlock because they couldn’t get their way was fulfilling the vision of the Founding Fathers. By preventing one-party rule.
But all that changes when they are in the majority. And those in the 21% are fine with it. Those in the mainstream media. Hollywood. Late-night television. Even the audiences of the late-night television shows. Who are all for debate when they are out of power. But are fine with one-party rule when they are in power. Because they believe that their side is the only side that matters. Which is decidedly NOT what the Founding Fathers envisioned. The left believes everyone should think like they think. And if they don’t there should be laws to compel people to act like they (the left) think they should act. Even if it requires violating the Constitution. Like Obamacare forces people to buy something against their will for the first time in the history of the republic. But expecting people to pay for their own birth control instead of forcing others to pay for it? Why, that’s an affront to the Founding Fathers. Making any law-violating power grab acceptable. As long as it’s the left doing the law-violating and the power-grabbing. For the left believe the end justifies the means. Just like the Nazis did. The communists. And other tyrannical regimes have throughout time.
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, conservatives, courts, Democrats, filibuster, Founding, Founding Fathers, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, judges, judiciary, legislate from the bench, legislature, Liberal Agenda, liberal judges, liberals, majority, minority, Nancy Pelosi, nuclear, nuclear option, Obamacare, one-party rule, power grab, regulations, Republic, Republicans, Senate, Senate rules
Some of the Richest People in the United States live in the Suburbs of Washington, D.C.
Liberals say they care about the people. While they say conservatives only care about their money. Conservatives want to cut taxes and government spending so they can keep more of their money to spend on their families. Liberals want to increase taxes and government spending. To take more money from taxpayers to spend on other people. People who are more deserving of that money than the people who earned it.
Liberals say they want to tax and spend because they care about people. And not money. Like conservatives. Yet the more money a liberal government collects in taxes the more powerful that government grows. And the richer those in government get. Just look at the wealth surrounding Washington, D.C., which includes six of the ten wealthiest counties in the U.S. It used to be the military industrial complex. Now it’s the government industrial complex. For liberals do not like the military. And gut defense spending to fund their welfare state. Spending our money to reward their friends. And buying votes by making people dependent on government.
Some of the richest people in the United States live in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. Who got rich on taxpayer money. Where those connected to the liberal aristocracy enjoy obscene levels of wealth. While the median family income falls. Leaving families in the rest of the country to get by on less. While those connected to government enjoy those obscene levels of wealth. Yet liberals care about the people. And not these obscene levels of wealth.
Liberals have grown Very Wealthy by Caring for the People ‘instead’ of Money
So it’s no secret the more money the government collects the better liberals in government live. The bigger government grows the more government jobs that are available. Allowing liberals to spread the wealth. Other people’s wealth, that is. So it’s good for those inside the government aristocracy. Which is why liberals ‘care’ about the people. So they can run a massive welfare state. With them at the top. Like Old World royalty. Passing alms out to the people. Where the people grovel. And are obedient. Grateful for what royalty gives them. Thanking them politely. And never forgetting their place. The dirt beneath their feet (to borrow a line from the musical Les Misérables).
It is hard, then, to believe liberals when they say they care about the people. As caring for the people has made them very wealthy. Wealth they acquired by taking it away from other people. Via taxes. It is harder still to believe them when you look at their actions. Whenever there is a high-profile gun crime, for example, they immediately use it to advance gun control legislation. As if America is suffering from a plague of gun deaths. And that only when the government takes away guns from law-abiding gun owners will the dying stop. Of course, others throughout history have wanted to take away the people’s guns. Including the British in 1775. When the shot heard ’round the world was fired. Kicking off the Revolutionary War.
So Americans are very suspect whenever anyone comes after their guns. Because that means only one thing. Those trying to take away those guns want to make these gun owners weaker. The question is, why? Why do governments want to make their people weaker? Probably for the same reason ruling elites everywhere do. When you’re greatly outnumbered you don’t want the people you’re oppressing to be able to fight back.
For Every Person who ‘picked’ an Obamacare Policy 38 People lost the Insurance they Liked and Wanted to Keep
Listening to liberals you would think that the only way people are dying in America is from gun violence. Is this true? If not exactly how are people dying? Well, according to the Centers for Disease and Prevention (see Table 2. Deaths, death rates, and age-adjusted death rates for 113 selected causes, Injury by firearms, Drug-induced Injury at work, and Enterocolitis due to Clostridium difficile: United States, final 2010 and preliminary 2011) the total deaths in 2011 was 2,512,873. Some of the leading causes of death were cardiovascular diseases at 778,503 (31.0%). Cancers (Malignant neoplasms) at 575,313 (22.9%). Chronic lower respiratory diseases at 143,382 (5.7%). Just with these three groups of diseases we’re at 59.6% of all 2011 deaths. And that’s before we get to non-disease related deaths. Such as Drug-induced deaths at 40,239 (1.6%). Motor vehicle accidents at 34,677 (1.4%). Falls at 26,631 (1.1%). And one of the least causes of deaths. Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms at 11,101 (0.4%).
Gun deaths account for less than one half of one percent of all deaths in 2011. Yet they want to take guns away from law-abiding gun owners to stop an epidemic of gun deaths totaling 0.4% of all deaths in 2011. That’s what liberals are focused on. That. And the decriminalization of drugs. Because drugs are a victimless crime. Something only responsible adults choose to do. Despite drug-induced deaths being more than three and half times greater than gun deaths. But liberals are hard on guns. And soft on drugs. Even though more people die from drugs than from guns. Yet liberals care about people.
The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was to provide affordable health insurance to about 50 million of uninsured people. With the rollout of Obamacare only 106,185 ‘picked’ an insurance policy in October (some may have bought a plan or simply placed one in their shopping cart). While 4.02 million people in 28 states have lost their health insurance (see White House to Allow Insurers to Continue Canceled Health Plans by Carol E. Lee and Louise Radnofsky posted 11/14/2013 on The Wall Street Journal). So for every person who ‘picked’ an insurance policy 38 people lost the insurance they liked and wanted to keep. Considering 59.6% of all deaths in 2011 were from heart disease, cancer and chronic lower respiratory diseases taking away health insurance from 4.02 million people could very well cause more people to die from these diseases. For they are very common diseases. And these policy cancellations are only from the individual market. When the cancellations for the employer-provided plans start hitting next year we may be seeing hundreds of millions who will lose their health insurance. Which is by design. To force the people who already have insurance into costlier plans to pay for those who don’t. And, of course, to make government bigger. As well as making liberals in the government aristocracy wealthier.
Whenever there is a high-profile gun death the left renews their push for new gun control legislation. Even if it saves only one child. They say this despite guns being responsible for less than one half of one percent of all deaths. Yet when they take away health insurance from 4.02 million people who may die from heart disease, cancer and chronic lower respiratory diseases, these deaths are negligible. Acceptable. A small percentage of the population whose deaths won’t mean a thing in the grand scheme of things. All that is important to them is protecting and growing the government aristocracy. So they can continue to live in the wealthiest counties in the U.S. While enjoying their regal lives paid for with other people’s money. Yet it’s the liberals that care about people.
Tags: aristocracy, cancer, chronic lower respiratory diseases, conservatives, drugs, government aristocracy, government spending, gun control, gun control legislation, gun crime, gun deaths, guns, heart disease, law-abiding gun owners, liberals, liberals care about the people, Obamacare, obscene levels of wealth, royalty, taxes, taxpayers, wealth, welfare state
The United States has the Best Health Care System in the World
The left says that the United States is the only advanced economy that doesn’t have national health care. As if that is a bad thing. Which is a false assumption. Because Canada, the United Kingdom and North Korea all have national health care. But if you have a serious health problem where do you want to go? Canada? The United Kingdom? North Korea? Or the United States?
Unless you’re lying to yourself you said the United States. Because the United States has the best health care system in the world. If you have the means you travel to the US for the best in medical care. Which is what a lot of Canadians do. Thanks to that great private network just south of the border. The US health care system. For no one suffering from a serious health problem ever said, “Damn, I wish it wasn’t so difficult to get to North Korea so I can get some of their national health care.”
There is a progression from good to bad. At the good end is the United States health care system. Then Canada because it is the private sector delivering health care services paid for by a single-payer. The government. And, of course, their access to the US health care system. Then the United Kingdom which is national health care provided by the government. Unless you’re rich and can afford the private system available to those with the means. Then North Korea. Where there is no private sector alternative. Only the state-run national health care system. And the quality of their health care is as horrible as life is in North Korea.
Those who say we should have National Health Care because Everyone Else has it are either Ignorant or Devious
So the more private sector in health care the better health care is. The less private sector in health care the worse it is. North Korea is the worst because it has no private sector at all. While America is the best. Because it has the most private sector. With the worst health care in America being the small amount of state-run health care. The VA and Medicaid. Medicare is a little better but it’s more like the Canadian health care system. The government pays the private sector for its Medicare services. And the best health care is that enjoyed by unions and government workers—pure private sector health care.
This is why NOT having national health care is NOT a bad thing. Because NOT having national health care has allowed the United States to have the best health care system in the world. So those who keep saying we should have national health care because everyone else has it are either ignorant or devious. Either way we shouldn’t be listening to them.
It’s the left that wants national health care. Liberal Democrats. It’s not the right. Conservatives. And what do we know about liberals and conservatives? They have opposing views of the government’s role in our lives. Liberals feel the more the better. Because they love having power over others. While conservatives want what the Founding Fathers wanted. Limited government. Where the people have the power. In a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Just as Abraham Lincoln said in his address at Gettysburg.
The Left wants National Health Care because it makes Government more Important in our Lives
If we return to the ‘ignorant or devious’ question the answer is now clear. Health care is approximately one-sixth of the U.S. economy. If the government controls that it will be the largest expansion of government into our lives. Making all people dependent on government. So instead of scaring only Social Security, Medicare and food stamp recipients with a government shutdown the government can frighten everyone. Imagine the next time the government wants to raise the debt limit. It’s not the White House tours or the World War II Memorial that they will close because of the sequester/government shutdown. It will be our health care system.
This is why they want national health care. Because it makes government more important in our lives. And people will see how much we need government. This is want they want. They want this so bad they will be devious and lie to us. By first telling us that our health care system—the best health care system in the world—is broken. And then to sell the Affordable Care Act they told us that if we liked our health insurance we could keep our health insurance. And that if we liked our doctor we could keep our doctor. Even though they wrote the Affordable Care Act to make sure we lost our health insurance and our doctors.
Because of Obamacare businesses stopped hiring full-time people. And pushed full-time people to part-time. Our health insurance premiums are rising. As are our deductibles. Making health insurance unaffordable for those who don’t have employer-provided health insurance. As well as making some low-cost plans illegal under Obamacare. Causing a lot of people to get letters from their insurers in the mail telling them they are cancelling their health insurance. As people complain that President Obama lied to them he and his fellow Democrats say these people are actually lucky. Because they had ‘crap’ policies. Which was further proof that our health care system is broken. They say this despite the strongest of evidence proving otherwise. For people who bitch about losing their health insurance and doctors don’t think the health care system is broken.
Tags: Affordable Care Act, best health care system in the world, conservatives, doctors, health care system, health care system is broken, health insurance, liberals, National health care, North Korea, Obamacare, private sector, state-run health care
« Previous Entries