Ahmed,A Clock, Katy & God

Once upon a time, a boy took an alarm clock out of its case and stuck it in a suitcase to create an object looking very much like a bomb, was arrested for it, and the Twitter world went nuclear. Did it matter that children have been expelled for the far less serious offense of chewing their pop tarts into the shape of a gun? No. Because this boy was named “Ahmed” and he was Muslim, and America is this supposedly anti-Islamic place. Or something.

The fallout from Ahmed’s situation was blown out of proportion, all because he was named Ahmed and was a Muslim…and a bit of a jerk.

Well this week, we have an entire group of 7th graders suffering religious oppression in school. None of them brought suitcase clocks that looked like bombs, nor did they chew their pop tarts to form the shape of Mohammed. Perhaps if they had, you’d have heard about them long before now. Also, ISIS would’ve tried to kill them, ala Pam Gellar’s group in Texas. But you haven’t heard of this story before. And unlike little Ahmed with his dismantled alarm clock he put into a suitcase for reasons we cannot speculate upon because racism, these kids probably won’t get invited to the Obama White House.

The 7th Grade assignment? Deny God is real or… fail.

“She told anyone who said fact or opinion is wrong and that God is only a myth,” Wooley says in her statement. “She started telling kids that they were completely wrong and when kids would argue she had told them that we would get in trouble.”

She added: “When I tried to argue she told me to prove it and I tried to offer things such as the Bible and stories that I’ve read before from people who have died and went to Heaven, but have come back and told their stories.”

Wooley says the discussion became a heated classroom argument that prompted one child to slam her books on her desk and another student to go home crying…

“For her to tell me my religion was wrong shocked me,” Wooley says. “To me there is a God.”

Let’s play a little game. What if the paper asked, “Is Muhammad real?” Or, “Is Allah real?” Five points to the first person who can guess what would’ve happened to the teacher. Five points. Ready…go!

If you guessed “Islamaphobia” would be plastered in 24/7 wall-to-wall coverage, and for the next two weeks we’d be lectured on sensitivity and the merits of Islam, go give yourself five gold stars and ten crescent moons. Because you’re smart. But when Christianity is under attack? Meh. That Jesus guy with his cross?

Also, when we heard all about little Ahmed and the bomb thing, we all heard about “Islamophobia” which begs an important question. Do we even have a word for prejudice against Christians? Christianphobia? Anybody mention it lately? Don’t worry. Christmas is coming. They will.

Of course it’s totes okay to persecute the Christians if you’re a leftist. A) Christians don’t tend to blow people up who draw their leader and b) Christians believe in all that right and wrong stuff about morality and doing the right thing. To a leftist, someone believing in right and wrong is a giant threat against their hedonistic ways of baby butchery and thinking marriage is between two people who can naturally make babies. Which is the real reason they’re being targeted… (Crowder)

The Agenda is The Agenda. The Narrative is The Narrative.

Embedded image permalink
Embedded image permalink

Naturally, it was the non-liberal media’s fault for blowing this out of proportion (unlike Ahmed and the Clock) so when the issue wouldn’t go away… You get the half-hearted Liberal response that yeah, we did it but we didn’t meant to, it was taken the wrong way….blah blah blah. Exactly, what the Liberals won’t do if the shoe is on the other foot.

On October 26, two West Memorial Junior High parents contacted the school’s principal to share their concerns over a classroom activity that they felt questioned students’ religious beliefs. The school principal immediately investigated and determined that the classroom activity included an item that was unnecessary for achieving the instructional standard. The activity, which was designed to encourage critical thinking skills and dialogue by engaging students in an exercise wherein they identified statements as fact, opinion, or common assertion was not intended to question or challenge any student’s religious beliefs.

Katy ISD says the teacher explained that a commonplace assertion exists when there is room for debate. [The district also said] the worksheet will not be used again in classrooms and that students did not get graded on that assignment.

The teacher is distraught by this incident, as some commentary has gone as far as to vilify her without knowing her, her Christian faith, or the context of the classroom activity.

Now the Teacher is the “victim”!!

Nancy Pelosi is a “devout” Catholic who pushes Planned Parenthood at ever turn. So that means nothing.

Still, this does not excuse the fact that this ungraded activity was ill-conceived and because of that, its intent had been misconstrued.

I have a degree in Education, and it’s the teacher’s job to go over the lesson plan and the assignments ahead of time.  This apparently wasn’t done, or is it just that they didn’t manage to sneak this one past?

Screening for bias or questions that can be misinterpreted is part of the teachers job. I had an ENTIRE SEMESTER course on writing test questions alone. It’s not easy, but it’s your job.

As a result, the activity will no longer be used by the school, and the teacher has been advised and appropriate personnel action will be taken.

Meaning, NOTHING will happen. It’s not like they are going to screen for Liberal Bias now. 🙂

The school regrets any misconceptions that may have resulted from this teacher-developed classroom activity and assures its school community that the religious beliefs of all students and staff are welcomed and valued at West Memorial Junior High.

Half-hearted, mealy mouthed response after getting caught doing it. Let’s downplay it as much as possible.

Unlike Ahmed & The Clock.

But that’s hardly going to stop the Secularist Liberal for their appointed arrogance and feelings of superiority of all.

So, I’ll give the atheists the last word:

There’s a controversy currently brewing in Katy, Texas, because that question about God’s existence is being used as evidence for Christian persecution.

That accusation is being made by seventh-grader Jordan Wooley, who said the statement about God was a fact. Her teacher correctly told her that was the wrong answer. Now, Wooley claims she is being forced to choose between her grades and her faith.

If that sounds like the plot of the next God’s Not Dead movie, that’s because it’s just as ridiculous. But that’s the narrative conservative websites are pushing.

Yeah, the narrative the Left is pushing is not relevant here…. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Politically Correct Halloween

Don’t want to be Costume-Insensitive (the Donald Trump Mask being made in Mexico is of course, ok) and “offend” the tiny minds of the “sensitive” and “diverse” Leftists?

Halloween

“In particular, please keep in mind that certain Halloween costumes inappropriately perpetuate racial, cultural, and gender stereotypes,” it continues. “Although it may not be the intent, these costumes, and choosing to wear them, can depict identities in ways that are offensive or hurtful to others” (Campus Reform)

Colleges are hanging flyers around campus with phone numbers of officials that students can call to consult with about whether or not their Halloween costume is perfectly politically correct. “Unsure if your costume might be offensive?” asks a poster that’s been hung around campus at State University of New York at Geneseo. “Don’t be afraid to ask questions.” The poster contains the phone numbers and e-mails of five (five!) campus officials that students can contact and discuss the very important issue of whether or not what they will dress up as to get drunk in will be advancing social-justice causes. Wesleyan University has been hanging similar posters around the school — but with six (six!) numbers listed.

It’s not clear whether students will be able to reach these numbers round-the-clock through Halloween weekend. Hopefully they will. After all, Halloween is a very serious issue, and can not be treated as if it were just some fun little holiday that’s a chance for people to use their imaginations and have some fun without taking each other too seriously.

It’s a good first step. Maybe next year, the schools can deploy cultural-sensitivity control officers to bust into parties and round up anyone spotted in a sombrero or afro wig. To make the world, you know, better. (NRO)
Halloween1

Students can call for approval of their Halloween costumes, fulfilling their social justice quota for the day, before they go out and get so drunk that not a single person will either remember or care whether or not their “Pochahottie” getup furthered the systemic marginalization of Native Americans.

The campus seems keen on grooming Orwellian 1984-style Thought Police informants, ready to sell out their friends for a feel-good confession to Big Brother.

Not to be outdone, Wesleyan University has offered to tell students if their Halloween costume is offensive by putting out its own poster, this one with no less than SIX official campus contacts, advising students not to wear a costume which “mock[s] cultural or religious symbols such as dreadlocks …” The university is apparently gravely concerned that a white student might have some fun dressed as a Rastafarian.

I wonder if there is equal concern over a non-Catholic student’s donning the priestly collar? Or, for that matter, a student following in the footsteps of thathalloween-offensive-wesleyan oh-so venerable (read: shrill and shallow) cultural icon Lena Dunham, who has announced that her next skeevy move (after “sexually experimenting” with her younger sister and writing proudly about it in her memoir) is to dress up as a “sexy” abortionist—because dressing as a child murderer is, ahem, “cool,” I’m told.

I’m not holding my breath.

Another big no-no this year is dressing up like Kanye West or Kim Kardashian. Yes, the most famously parodied and mocked couple in America is off-limits for Halloween, if one considers that at UCLA, after a frat hosted a “Kanye Western”-themed party, they were accused of committing secular sacrilege: cultural appropriation of the Black community, complete with oversized sweatshirts and gold chains.

Never mind that Kanye never phoned in expressing his stern disapproval.

And those pop-up Halloween stores featuring “Call Me Caitlyn” outfits? Don’t even think about it, you fun-loving fiend, you.

One wonders just how deep and how severe the cognitive dissonance goes among those on the the political Left, who are 100 percent fine with manly-man decathlete Bruce Jenner ingesting some hormones, donning a dress, growing out his hair, and playacting as a woman—and we are all to smile at and applaud this charade!—but some college freshman can’t, on the one day of the year when it is totally acceptable to dress as a person or thing that one manifestly is not, dress up as Caitlyn Jenner.

My fellow millennials, a piece of advice, if I may: Take a chill pill, and just enjoy life. Sometimes, a costume is just a costume. (College Fix)

Cultural Appropriation:

To take parts (symbols, dress, words, practices, etc) from one culture when they are not part of that culture. This can happen in a variety of forms but often around Halloween it involves wearing ‘costumes’ that rely on specific cultural signifiers. Dressing up as a ethnicity, race, or culture that is not your own is problematic and racist.

Costumes that rely on cultural dress and/or stereotypes are offensive and oppressive.

Even if you don’t think you’re vehemently racist, you can still perpetuate racism.

Now, a lot of people question why would I think that deeply about the implications of a costume? If you’ve been thinking that – maybe acknowledge that it is because these implications don’t affect you. Your culture and/or identity has not be historically and currently trivialized, mocked, and viewed as “funny” or “scary” to dress in. Making someone else’s culture and/or identity a caricature for you to wear for one night is a terrible costume idea. (LSIRG)

“Be respectful,” said Mohammad Akbar, who is director of administration and development for the social-justice organization on campus, Laurier Students’ Public Interest Research Group. “Taking people’s identity and wearing it for a day and tossing it aside is horribly offensive.”

And if someone showed up in a gory costume (like a white shirt dipped in red paint to resemble blood) “we’d likely have a conversation,” said Rubenschuh. There might be other kids in the class who are refugees from war zones and “we don’t want to traumatize anyone.” (The Record.com)

Waterloo Region Record

So I guess I will go as a White Male Conservative Blogger that should offend as many Liberals as  I come across. 🙂

Or maybe a Muslim Terrorist, that’s Politically Correct. Yeah, that’s the ticket! 🙂

Ministry of Truth Moderates?

I still don’t understand why the GOP has the Liberal Media moderating their debates. I just don’t get it. And apparently last night it showed.

I didn’t watch it for precisely the reason that apparently happened. The Liberal Media wanted to incite a fight and make the GOP look bad.

It’s like asking the Wolf to guard the chicken coup. The Big Bad Wolf to watch the sheep.

It’s idiotic. And apparently last night it showed.

‘The questions asked so far illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media. This is not a cage match,’ Cruz said 

‘Look at the questions: “Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?” “Ben Carson, can you do math?” “John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?” “Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign?” “Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?”‘ 

‘How about talking about the substantive issues that people care about?’

Cruz earned the night’s loudest single wave of applause for that outburst. 

Rubio followed him with additional slams on the U.S. political press corps after Trump demanded an end to ‘scam’ super PACs that ‘are causing some very bad decisions to be made by some very good people.’

‘The Democrats have their own super PAC,’ Rubio claimed. ‘It’s called the mainstream media.’ 

You just now figured that out? Really??

“The CNBC moderators acted less like journalists and more like Clinton campaign operatives.  What was supposed to be a serious debate about the many issues plaguing our economy was given up for one Democratic talking point after another served up by the so-call ‘moderators.’  They clearly war-gamed this thinking that a relentless series of personal attacks on the candidates would somehow drive their ratings and help Hillary Clinton.

The CNBC debate will go down in history as an encyclopedic example of liberal media bias on stage.  The audience roared its disdain for these so-called ‘journalists,’ and all of America heard it.  CNBC should be embarrassed for their pitiful display of partisan liberal media bias and apologize to the GOP candidates and the American people.”– Brent Bozell

Except by the Liberal Media itself I bet. 🙂

“Congressional Republicans, Democrats and the White House are about to strike a compromise that would raise the debt limit, prevent a government shutdown, and calm financial markets of the fear that a Washington crisis is on the way. Does your opposition to it show you’re not the kind of problem-solver that American voters want?” CNBC anchor Carl Quintanilla asked the presidential candidate.

That’s questions more loaded than a drunk at bar at 2am. And more slanted than the drunk trying to walk home afterwards!

“So you don’t actually want to hear the answer, John?” Cruz called out the anchor. “You don’t want to hear the answer, you just want to incite insults.”

“You used your time on something else,” a dismissive Harwood said.

Which was: “The questions being asked shouldn’t be trying to get people to tear into each other, it should be what are your substantive solutions to people at home,” Cruz said before getting cut off.

“You’re not interested in an answer,” Cruz scolded.

No, he really wasn’t. He wanted to incite insults and violence to make you look bad. That was his job.

A half-hour after the debate ended, CNBC had turned off the TV monitors in the press filing center, effectively hiding its own post-debate broadcast coverage from the hundreds of reporters who traveled to cover the event.

Frank Luntz, the legendary Republican pollster, hosted a focus group during the debate as he has for each of the other Republican intra-party clashes.

’23 of tonight’s 26 focus group participants watched all three broadcasts.,’ he tweeted. ‘They ALL said @CNBC mod[erator]s were the worst.’

Why do you have The Ministry of Truth running your Debates? It makes NO sense!

And New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who had few spotlight moments, lit into the moderators for asking a question about whether the federal government should regulate pay-for-play fantasty football competitions online.

‘Wait a second,’ he said, firing rhetorical bullets at the CNBC anchor desk: ‘We have $19 trillion in debt, people out of work, ISIS and al Qaeda attacking us – and we’re talking about fantasy football?’ 

The Liberals don’t want you talk about those things that THEY fucked up. Why the hell would they want that?

Inanities is what they do best.

‘How about we get the government to do what they’re supposed to be doing?’ an agitated Christie shouted. ‘Enough on fantasy football. Let people play! Who cares?’ 

Moments earlier, Christie had lit into moderator John Harwood for interrupting him in mid-answer. 

‘Even in New Jersey,’ he said, ‘what you’re doing is called “rude”.’ 

The network’s chief moderator, John Harwood, found himself in trouble early for claiming Rubio’s tax plan was the subject of an aggressive takedown at the hands of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

He told the debate’s audience that the organization scored the Rubio plan ‘and concluded that you give nearly twice as much of a gain in after-tax income to the top one-percent as to people in the middle of the income scale.’

So the moderator is preaching partisan BS instead of asking questions, ghee, why didn’t you see that coming GOP? The Ministry of Truth is there to make you look bad and to plant questions that are slanted so far to the left they are one dimensional.

‘Since you’re a champion of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, don’t you have that backward?’ Harwood asked him.

‘No,’ Rubio corrected him. ‘You wrote a story on it. You had to go back and correct it.’

‘No, I didn’t,’ Harwood insisted.

Harwood, though, tweeted his correction on October 14. 

‘Tax Foundation says Rubio benefits lowest 10% proportionally more than top 1%,’ that tweet read. 

A “Narrative” correction? 🙂

image1

The Ministry of Truth has an agenda. and a Narrative. But yet let them “moderate” your “debate”?

Why?

The Colorado debate began with a round of navel-gazing as CNBC host John Harwood asked the 10 assembled candidates, job-interview style, to describe their biggest weaknesses.

WTF!

Would they ask Hillary or Bernie Sanders that question? Really??

QUOTH THE DONALD: ‘I am now in Colorado looking forward to what I am sure will be a very unfair debate!’ (Daily Mail)

Ya Think! 🙂

Media critic Howard Kurtz analyzes the behavior of the CNBC debate moderators, particularly John Harwood, on FOX News’ Kelly File:

KURTZ: Megyn, this was an absolute trainwreck for CNBC. Many of the moderators’ questions seemed to be snide, hostile, condescending, borderline insulting. And let me just make clear: I’m totally in favor of tough and provocative questions. When you do that, sometimes audience doesn’t like it, sometimes the candidates don’t like it. But a lot of the questions were not drilling down on facts or record or policy. When John Harwood says Trump, comic book campaign, or do you have the moral authority to be president? When Carl Quintanilla asked Marco Rubio — who had a good night by the way — are you a young man in a hurry? Shouldn’t you wait a few years to run for president? It just validated what a lot of people think about the mainstream media — and this channel is affiliated of course with NBC News — that they cannot be fair to Republicans.

WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT THEM TO BE?

That’s the question I want answered.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Practical Politics

World savers are anything but. They always have an unspoken motive. H.L. Mencken saw the self-appointed saviors for what they were almost a century ago, when he said the “whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste! And never let a Crisis go away either!

The most persistent hobgoblin of the last quarter-century has been global warming, now called climate change but eventually to be known as extreme weather, or some such other fright-inducing name. The climate activists are constantly bombarding us with warnings, hectoring, hysteria, pleading and threats. Apocalyptic books have been written and shrill movies made, all in an effort to slow man’s combustion of fossil fuels.

Included among these is a new documentary “inspired” by Naomi Klein’s book “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.” If the title isn’t enough to give away Klein’s motives for attacking the climate “crisis,” then a comment she makes in the trailer — please forgive: watching the entire documentary would be as agonizing as any medieval torture — should.

“So here’s the big question,” says Klein. “What if global warming isn’t only a crisis? What if it’s the best chance we’re ever going to get to build a better world?”

Then comes the threat:

“Change, or be changed.”

Klein says she “spent six years wandering through the wreckage caused by the carbon in the air and the economic system that put it there.” Clearly, it is her goal to shatter the free-market system. The climate? It’s just a vehicle, a pretext for uprooting the only economic system in history that has brought prosperity and good health.

Klein’s statement is perfectly in line with Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in fact is almost an echo. Figueres acknowledged earlier this year that the environmental activists’ goal is not to spare the world an ecological disaster, but to destroy capitalism.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” Figueres said in Brussels last winter.

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

Klein also calls up the specter of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who, as Obama chief of staff, said in 2009 that “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

People who are always looking for a crisis to solve are much like those who seek elective office because they want to “serve.” Their spoken motives are always a cover for the real agenda, which is so maligned that it is mentioned only by accident. (IBD)

And they are the ones who “care” unlike you rabble who piss on them for it. 🙂

And the next great “crisis”?

Red Meat.

EVIL!

Red meat After thoroughly reviewing the accumulated scientific literature,a Working Group of 22 experts from 10 countries convened by the IARC Monographs Programme classified the consumption of red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), based on limited evidence that the consumption of red meat causes cancer in humans and strong mechanistic evidence supporting a carcinogenic effect.

This association was observed mainly for colorectal cancer , but associations were also seen for pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer.

Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) (aka Cigarettes) , based onsufficient evidence inb humans that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer.

Meat is the Cigarette! Big Meat wants to kill you like like Big Tabacco! 🙂

”T hese findings further support current public health recommendations to limit intake of meat ,” says Dr Christopher Wild, Director of IARC.

“At the same time, red meat has nutritional value. Therefore, these results are important in enabling governments and international regulatory agencies to conduct risk assessments,in order to balance the risks and benefits of eatingred meat and processed meat and to provide the best possible dietary recommendations.” (IARC)

The self-righteous Leftists and Militant Politically Correct Vegans would never carry this too far, now would they? 🙂

The first shot in the Vegan War on Meat has been fired. Just watch and see…It’s for your own good, after all. 🙂

World savers are anything but. They always have an unspoken motive. H.L. Mencken saw the self-appointed saviors for what they were almost a century ago, when he said the “whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste!

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

The 1%

The Sith Lords of The Left (except when they are Democrats or Socialists like George Soros then they are ok). 🙂

Debunking the Myth of the “1%.” Who’s Really “The Rich?”

Rich bastards! It’s time to spread the wealth around! If you’re part of the 1%, you’re part of the problem!

Or… is it?

Perhaps the greatest economic misconception of the 21st Century is the idea that 1% of the world’s population are greedy jerks who keep the other 99% of the earth living in poor houses made of mud and tears.

Think the top 1% are billionaires? Nope. Millionaires? Nada. Well, they’re at least cracking $750K, right? Wrong again. In fact, YOU are probably far more affulent than you realize. And you disgust me for it. Let’s look at the numbers, American style:

If you make more than $100,000, you’re in the top 20%.

If you make more than $149,000, you’re in the top 10%.

If you make more than $522,000, BINGO, you’re a 1%’er. You’re probably a greedy jerk too, so screw you.

This is just a guess, but even if you don’t fall into one of these categories, chances are, you at least know somebody who does fall into any of the above categories. Which makes you a second-hand 1 percenter. That’s like a second-hand smoker only more vile. You probably don’t even think of those friends as being rich, but they are compared to the rest of the world. And these are the people leftists tell us are causing all the world’s problems, including the diminishing bee population (not really, but maybe one day), who need to do more for the country by paying their “fair share.” Except, that top 1% of earners already pays more in taxes than the bottom 90% (that’d be EVERYONE making less than $149K) COMBINED. Behold, graphs:

who are the wealthy

Oh, and by the way? If you’re under 31 and make over $300,000 – you’re in the top 0.1%. For realzies. Check out this chart from The Atlantic:

wealthy

But let’s take things a step further. If we expand the comparison globally, you become waaaaay wealthier than imagined. Like Scrooge McDuck from Ducktales, swimming in a vault of coin.

The average yearly income on a global scale? $1,225.

Yeah. You’re rich. Bastard. How does it feel to cause global warming? Even if “your” money is sent to you on a bi-weekly basis from the US treasury… you’re rich. And kind of a succubus, but that’s for another article.

If you make more than a whopping $34,000 a year? You are in the top 1% of the world’s wealthy.

Over half of the world’s 1%’ers (those making $34K+), live in the United States.

the wealthy

Maybe you’re not so bad off after all, Mr. college hipster making $15 serving coffee, huh? Maybe life isn’t so bad climbing the corporate ladder for “just” $75K a year, is it? Also, a nutless monkey could do your job. You mad? Please leave room for cream.

Saying the wealthy need to pay more (paging Bernie Sanders), is really saying we all need to pay more.  Because really, you’re rich. If you’re an American, you’re rich. Like, super, ridiculously rich. Period. Also, you have running water, a flushing toilet, probably a phone of some kind, a flat screen, and maybe a Netflix subscription. So please, stop the whining. It’s getting old.

SO, how rich are YOU?

Here’s a fun tool created by Giving What we Can: you punch in your income and household size, they tell you how rich you are compared to the rest of the world. You’ll probably be shocked. And that’s a good thing. Seriously. Go try it. Like, right now, money-bags.

Go ahead, I Dare you! 🙂

Lesson? If you’re living in the USA, you’re a greedy one-percenter and a bastard for it. Screw you with your flushing toilet and your five figure annual income. All this comes down to dollars, common sense, and perspective. The United States is a bastion of wealth, even for the “poor” Americans binge watching Orange is the New Black. Our top income earners aren’t paying their “fair share,” they’re paying YOUR share too. So get the numbers, memorize them, and every time you hear a gender-studies hipster talk to you about the one percent and shares and fairness and the latest iPhone, tell them about the real facts. If they’ll listen. (Steve Crowder)

But we all know that Liberals do not respond maturely to facts. 🙂

And if Democrats didn’t have the Envy Card, The Hate Card they would be just a husk of nothing floating on the winds. 🙂

But I want us to be super careful when we use the language “hard worker,” because I actually keep an image of folks working in cotton fields on my office wall, because it is a reminder about what hard work looks like. So, I feel you that he’s a hard worker. I do. But in the context of relative privilege…”- MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry.

And remember in  the FY 2015 the government took in more tax money than anytime in it’s history and still ran a deficit!

elect me d5c6f-democrats6

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

“Thank you, sir, may I have another?” No Thanks!

Now is when the adults in the room are supposed to rise from their rocking chairs and send us uppity conservatives to our room without our supper. But instead, we’re going to stay right here and have another cheeseburger. And another beer. And there’s nothing you Chamber of Commerce-kissing, Obama-submitting moderates can do about it.

When Paul Ryan was drafted for Speaker, who held the real power in that dynamic? Not Ryan – he knew he couldn’t say ‘No” because he would catch the blame if everything went to hell. No, the guys with the real power were the dreaded conservatives – they were the ones whose bottoms were getting bussed.

Sure, there are only a few dozen in the Freedom Caucus, but today they are in the driver’s seat, forcing the caucus kicking and screaming to the right. They are the ones who pummeled the House GOP into transforming from the old status quo-reinforcing transactional paradigm based on trading earmarks into an ideological paradigm based on fighting the liberal agenda. The conservatives have won. We need to understand and accept that so we can move on to the next phase in our campaign to destroy progressivism and restore America.

The fact that conservatives have taken the reins away from the moderates makes people mad, mostly moderate people. Their problem is that we conservatives just won’t cooperate and compromise and lose. This insistence on actually doing conservative things freaks out the squares – “You mean, when you said you wanted to defund Obamacare, you guys were serious?”

“All good is hard. All evil is easy. Dying, losing, cheating, and mediocrity is easy. Stay away from easy.”–Scott Alexander

Now, that’s not to say that many of us on the right are not also frustrated and annoyed at the hardcore conservatives. We are. Even I am occasionally, like when they won’t take “Yes” for an answer. Paul Ryan was saying “Yes” when he agreed to not push amnesty, to maintain the Hastert Rule, and to reform House procedures. In return, all Ryan wanted was to be allowed to spend more of his time with his kids than sucking face with donor class squishes and trading our principles for their cash. Oh no, Paul – don’t throw us in the briar patch.

Yeah, hardcore conservatives are a pain, but it’s a good hurt, like when your legs get sore after a run or your knuckles ache after punching a hippie.

Let’s face facts – without the hardcore conservatives, Paul Ryan would be happily wonking out as Ways and Means chairman instead of promising to give up about 90% of what we want. John Boehner would still be the Annoying Orange of GOP politics, clinking his highball glass in his secret conclaves with the same K Street jerks we want to see shuttering their expensive offices and wearing barrels as they ride out of D.C. in a caravan of battered U-Hauls.

“It is a wretched taste to be gratified with mediocrity when the excellent lies before us.” -Isaac D’Israeli

The smart center right guys get this. They know how to make hard lemonade out of the hard right lemons of the Freedom Caucus. I negotiate for a living as a trial lawyer, and I understand that getting 80% of what my client wants on a given deal means I’m getting hi-fived and a bonus. And I love playing the “Craziest Guy in the Room” card. Sometimes, I even am that card. The CGITR strategy involves being the guy willing to pull a Samson and bring it all down on top of everyone – he’s perfectly happy to get smooshed in the collapse just as long as he takes you all with him. That’s the role of the hardcore conservatives who won’t settle for anything less than 110% of what they want. You can point to them, sigh, shake your head sadly, and say, “Gosh, you better give me 80% and then maybe – maybe – I can hold off these lunatics.”

All hail the conservatives who won’t compromise, who won’t buckle, who won’t let the go-along/get-along gang keep going along and getting along. After all, without the hardcore conservatives, the speaker issue would be moot. Pelosi would be in charge and busy helping Obama turn this country into Venezuela II: The Enfascisting.

There’s no turning back either. We are not returning to the days when the House GOP caucus was satisfied to be a bunch of gentlemanly losers happy to spend several terms spinning their wheels on the Potomac as the government grew and metastasized on their watch. Every election cycle, more of the old guard retires and more of the new breed comes on board. The tilt has happened. John Boehner left the speakership and the House for one reason and one reason only – to avoid a humiliating repudiation at the hands of the GOP caucus that a dozen cases of Jack Daniel’s couldn’t make him forget.

Boehner made no secret that he held conservatives in contempt. And for that the conservatives broke him. Maybe the media missed this essential truth, but that’s a lesson ambitious Republican politicians are all going to learn. The likes of David Brooks will wet their collective Dockers, but the Age of the Squish has come to an end. The RINOs are Cecil, the conservatives are the dentists, and the no one wants to the next head on the wall next to Eric Cantor and Sobby John’s.

This isn’t some phase the GOP is going to outgrow. We’re not afraid to demand that those who lead us be conservative. No dignified elder statesman with a track record of honorable defeat is going to talk some sense into us. We have no desire to utter the squish war cry of, “Thank you, sir, may I have another?”

Competition is always a good thing. It forces us to do our best. A monopoly renders people complacent and satisfied with mediocrity.

Yeah, conservatives can be annoying. Hell, they often annoy me, and I’m so hardcore that I’d oppose replacing EBT cards with community gruel pots because I think that’s still too generous to deadbeat Democrat-voting losers. But people who actually believe in something often are annoying.

“I react very badly when mediocrity throws a tantrum of entitlement.”-Lee Siegel

And I want all every illegal alien thrown out of the country. Period. Realistic, maybe not, but i’d settle for 80%. 🙂

Here’s the reality. We conservatives have won. And as we exchange our place on the fringes of the party with the RINOs – when the squishes mutter that the GOP they knew is gone, they’re right – we are dealing with a whole new set of challenges. We conservatives now represent the GOP consensus, and power struggles we have seen are our growing pains.

We will get through them. We will prevail. We are the conservatives, and this House is now our house. Deal with it. (Kurt Schlischter)

Grumpy Cat  -  Suck it up princess

The Inequity of it All

Today is my Birthday.

What I want for my birthday is for Liberals to stop thinking with their emotions and be rational, logical adults who aren’t narcissistic, greedy, power mad, 2 years old at heart.

Not going to Happen.

Neither is getting Establishment Republicans and RINOs to stop being narcissists and thinking only of their own agenda and thinking about The American People for a change.

I might as well wish for World Peace at the same time, it’s just as likely.

Strike up a conversation with any taxi cab driver or any fry cook at a roadside diner and the word “inequality” is unlikely to ever come up. That’s not on the list of top concerns for middle class America. It’s also not on the list of concerns for the world’s poor. Millions of people are willing to risk life and limb just to come here and start out at the bottom of the income ladder.

(Don’t the immigrants realize how unequal things are? Yes, they want to live in a country where a poor immigrant can become a billionaire.)

So why is anyone claiming that inequality is our most important problem? Because the chattering class has decided that stoking envy is the only way to energize the Democratic Party. Think about the problems we really do have: runaway entitlement spending, poor public schools, welfare dependency, an overly burdensome tax system and anemic economic growth. In every case the solutions we are debating come from the right: Privatization, school vouchers, tough love, a flat tax and lower taxes on capital.

The left has no solutions, or at least none that anyone takes seriously. So, over the years of the Obama presidency the topic of inequality has emerged front and center. Democratic candidates could rail against the super rich and imply that their high incomes are the cause of everyone else’s stagnating income, without ever saying what exactly they would do about it.

Until Bernie Sanders came along. Sanders actually has a few concrete proposals – including the idea that we should become like Denmark, a high tax welfare state. Once the discussion turns from pure demagoguery to serious conversation, inevitably we are forced to look at what economists have to say. (Warning: it’s not good for Democrats.)

In other words, you can’t solve the problem by taxing the rich. If taxation is your only tool, you have to break again one of Barack Obama’s frequently broken promises and raise taxes on the middle class.

In a Brookings Institution study, Peter Orszag (former chief economist for President Obama) and his colleagues discovered that if you raised the top tax rate from 40 percent to 50 percent and redistributed that money to people at the bottom, the top 1 percent’s share of income would only decline from 16.4 to 15.6 percent. The Gini coefficient (the numerical measure of inequality) would change so little you would have to squint to see it.

Then there is the question of why we have increasing inequality in the first place. Another study by Orszag and current Obama chief economist Jason Furman found that a primary source of inequality among people is inequality among firms. Take a look at the chart below. If you happened to be working for one of the top 10 percent of most successful companies over the past two decades your salary, bonuses and other compensation probably soared. If you have been working for the median firm, your income has probably risen modestly. If your employer is in the bottom half of the distribution, your income has probably been stagnant.

So what can be done about that? The idea of arresting the growth of highly successful companies is silly. But that isn’t necessarily a deal breaker for the left. The problem for Democrats is that Silicon Valley is heavily Democratic. It’s one of the places Democrats go to get mega gifts. My bet is that you won’t hear a peep about inequality among firms in the coming election.

orszag chart

 

SOURCE: KOLLER ET AL. (2015); MCKINSEY & COMPANY

That leaves Denmark. People on the left are fond of citing the Nordic states — Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland — as examples of countries with higher taxes and less inequality. It’s easy to see why. As Matt Yglesias writes

Danish mothers enjoy 18 weeks of guaranteed maternity leave at 100 percent of their ordinary pay. Danish students leave college free of debt. Everyone is covered by a national health insurance system and can take advantage of subsidized child care; plus, thanks to a generous welfare system, Denmark’s child poverty rate is about a quarter of America’s.

So how do the Danes afford all that? With high taxes. As Yglesias makes clear, it’s not just taxes on the rich. The top tax rate in Denmark is 57 percent, about the same as it is in California. If California wanted to become like Denmark, it would basically leave the rich alone. But it would have to sock it to the middle class with effective tax rates averaging from 35 to 48 percent. Then the state would need to pile on with 25 percent value added tax — which is basically a form of sales tax and every bit as regressive. Car addicted Californians would also experience a huge spike in the price of gasoline and a 180 percent tax on the price of a new car!

So how does Denmark keep from looking like Greece? Answer: They believe in privatization, deregulation and free enterprise. Denmark is rated as one of the best places in the world to do business. It scores higher on the Heritage Economic Freedom ranking than the United States does. Unlike the US, public sector unions in Denmark don’t control public services and push up costs with job protecting regulations. For example, a private, for-profit company is currently in charge of 65 percent of municipal fire departments and 85 percent of ambulance services in the country. According to Yglesias:

In Copenhagen … the metro is driverless, the suburban rail network features one-man train crews, and many urban bus lines are run by private companies. These are all kinds of measures that US labor unions would normally oppose….

Øresund Bridge from Copenhagen to Malmö was constructed at a drastically lower price than the United States is prepared to spend to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge in New York even though the Nordic bridge is substantially longer and includes a major train component along with the roadway.

The Danish model is awfully hard to emulate if public sector unions are the backbone of your party.

Finally, there is Yale law professor Stephen Carter’s observation that the word “inequality” was used eight times by the candidates and once by the moderator in the Democratic debate the other night. In every instance the focus was on taxing the rich, not on helping the poor. In fact, the word “poverty” was used hardly at all. Apparently, envy sells better than charity when communicating with Democratic voters.

Yet Carter, himself a bona fide liberal, notes that we don’t really have an inequality problem. We have a poverty problem.

That Democrats ignore it is hardly surprising. When is the last time you heard a Democratic candidate for president talk about the poor in any respect? The last one I can remember was John Edwards and that was eons ago. (Townhall)

And look what happened to him… 🙂

Oh, the inequity of it all.

 

%d bloggers like this: