RSS

Tell me what’s missing

The mayor of Charlotte was forced to resign today after being arrested by the FBI on federal charges of theft and bribery.

Check out this article on CNN and tell me what they conveniently forgot to mention.

Also, you might have glanced at the article without watching the video without noticing the little caption below it, but it is interesting to note that the man in the still image of the video is not the now former mayor of Charlotte.  That’s the former governor.  A Republican.

Who’s the disgraced former mayor of Charlotte, though?

Meet Patrick Cannon, Democrat:

cannon

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 26, 2014 in CNN, Crime, Criminals, Democrats, DNC, Racism

 

The Religion of Progressivism

I’m not so ignorant as to believe that every liberal is an atheist– in fact I’ve come across plenty that regularly attend church with their families– but if someone is going to bring up religion when it comes to political discussion, I would be completely dishonest if I made the claim that the “anti-religion” side was somewhat divided between left and right.  It’s not.  The anti-religion, or “pro-science” arguments are typically from the left wing, or the apathetic.

I’ll save commentary revolving around the argument that “pro-religion” is akin to “anti-science” for now and table that for a future post.

It is with great rarity that you’ll find a right winger denouncing religion to the point where they condemn those on their own “team”.  That said, there are plenty of conservative-minded individuals who lack faith entirely, or some who simply choose to keep that part of their life private– a facet of their livelihoods that they choose to remove from the political discussion altogether.  Religion, much like other hot topics like abortion or gay marriage, ultimately becomes a part of the discussion as those opposing conservative ideologies use it to erroneously label or illogically condemn otherwise valid arguments.  For example, someone’s opposition to abortion– even when citing some kind of respect for a higher power, a creator, or something more– is not necessarily driven by religious belief.  This is but one example.

But I bring up the topic of religion today to point out something interesting about how non-religious, progressive people of today’s political landscape see things.

The backbone of religion, any of them, is faith– belief that isn’t based in proof.  While there are plenty of aspects of religion that are bound by proof, such as the historical existence of Jesus,  or geographical locations and the countries and governments that sprung up within them, much of it comes down to trust in something you cannot see, or experience in the flesh.  It is this faith piece that draws much ire from “scientists”.

(Note that I am using the term “scientist” as many who claim this as a personal trait do, however most don’t have a clue that being a scientist does not necessarily mean you are champion of the laws of biology, medicine, or the cosmos.  Hell, you can be a scientist and not give even the slightest damn about chemistry, human anatomy, or what a plant looks like.  What I am basically saying here is that people who claim “science” as their religion do so in an illogical way– that “science”, as they are defining it, isn’t entirely accurate.  On a less serious note, I’d contend that many of these people are more interested in being seen as liking science more than they are in what they actually consider science.  In sum, they’re full of shit.)

The usual argument is that the religious right uses its faith to limit the rights of others.  A statement I would not necessarily disagree with, depending on the argument.  There are certainly some who find the democracy we have created to be less desirable than theocracy.  And while this is an un-American perspective, it is also quite obvious that many immediately jump to this conclusion– that religious people demand nothing but theocracy– all too often.  While the devout undoubtedly do not care whether or not you accept their position, it is much more difficult for someone like me– a man that considers himself sympathetic to those with religious beliefs– to defend them when one side is all about rights derived from government, from man, while the other is dedicated to the rights they consider innate and a derivative of a non-human hand.

So I won’t be trying.  I’m not going to be defending religious people here.  If the argument is solely about the rights the government allows you to have via legislation or edict, then the naysayers of religion hold a strong position.  Additionally, our government is meant to operate outside of religion– that whole separation of church and state stuff.

But what I would love to point out at this juncture is how liberals– more so progressive ones– are the most religious people in the entire country.  One might laugh about religious folks that think the earth is 4,000 years old (admittedly I consider that belief kind of crazy too), and they might consider themselves smart because they are followers of the “I f’ing love science” page on Facebook, but support of the progressive ideology absolutely defines what it is to be a person of faith.  What part of the history of progressive policies and movements has ever, even once, spawned evidence of success?  None of it, of course.  Trust in progressive movements requires nothing but faith of the strongest kind, for the progressive’s influence is driven by something built upon anything but proof.

Your average liberal, at this point, is pretty quick to point out things like labor rights or minimum wage, as examples of progressive “wins”.  That is of course ridiculous when you consider things such as the definition of an 8-hour work day, overtime pay, etc. are largely bipartisan efforts– things just about everyone agrees have their place in an ethical society that treats its workforce better than slaves.  Those were humanitarian pushes more than political ones.  I always get much joy out of hearing such an argument from liberals because it is but one more example of how easy it is for them to ignore their own history of doing anything but treating their workers, and human beings in general, as something above the level of a slave.  I’ve pointed this out before, but the “our history” page of democrats.org touts their long history of supporting equality, civil, and human rights– which isn’t only ridiculous, but also a bold-faced lie.

The exact text from their page, which is absolutely laughable and ignorant, is:

For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers’ rights, and women’s rights.

Today, the Democrats are about other stuff– at least they’re about other stuff on the surface.  They use their election success and political savvy to bolster their bonafides and enact incredibly stifling policies that harm society in the long run.  Underneath that surface they continue to be about the same, good old-fashioned suppression of the individual that they have always been about– the intentions that led to their enslavement of  individuals of color, brutally destroying their homes, families, and lives…the intentions that enabled them to leverage minorities for votes at the command of Lyndon Baines Johnson while condemning them to a permanent position of complete dependence on government, once they became free and more valuable than the three-fifths of a person the Democrats always believed, and continue to believe they are.  Notice on the Democrats’ history page, on their timeline, how they don’t ever really get around to mentioning how all of that inequality became reality in the Land of the Free.  How convenient it must be to be a Democrat, with overwhelming minority support, when much of that minority is likely ignorant to how the party you represent is directly responsible for the problems that befall them today, in 2014.

I’m rambling a bit, but a glimpse at the Democrats’ website provides some evidence as to how much liberals invoke faith as a foundation of their political viewpoints.  As I said previously, the obvious lack of historical evidence or proof, defines what it is to be a person of faith.  Civil rights are but one example.  The only thing liberals have been doing for 200 years with regard to civil rights is hiding the evidence that would negate the party’s influence entirely.

But to provide more examples of faith-based political beliefs, look no further than what democrats.org trumpets as their next “success”– SOCIAL SECURITY.  One of the biggest failures, ever, when it comes to American history– a failure we, and our children continue to pay into when numbers prove that we’ll never get anything out of it.  A completely unstable and more importantly unsustainable initiative, that liberals love so much they tout it as their next great success after the passing of the 19th Amendment.

Didn’t anyone consider that the “timeline of success” on democrats.org was going to be a bit fishy when it proclaimed “TWO HUNNNNNDREEEEDDDD YEEEAAARRRRSSSS” of leading the charge towards progress, while starting at 1920 and just kind of ignoring the first one hundred years?  Yeah, wonder why that is.

Liberals consider things like social security, and other miserable social policy failures as successes because of the intent– which is what it is always about when it comes to progressives and what they support.  Numbers lie, caring and “progress” (even when there is none) flies.  Anyone that considers the social policies, that have all but guaranteed the existence of the welfare state for generations to come, as “progress”, is the epitome of someone with faith.  A Catholic might have faith in the Holy Trinity, a progressive puts their faith in the government’s three branches.

This website was created, directly, in response to the utter ignorance surrounding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, what led up to it, and the vast history our country has with politically defining roles, or values for people and dividing those people up– from the era of segregation back to slavery and earlier.  It is the reason why I woke up one morning about a year ago and decided to purchase this domain under this catchy, and slightly ironic name.

Religion is but one example of the ammunition people use when opposing opinions, especially those based upon limiting the power and size of the government they love to be dependent on.  While the faith of religious people is unshakable, it is that same faith that those who condemn them so often cite as the weak point of their argument.  The problem is those against faith and those who support or live by it, are speaking entirely different languages when seeking to tackle a single argument and engage in debate about it.  Though I went off on more than a few tangents in this one, the point, overall, is to clarify that faith is not reserved solely for the religious.  People use faith all the time– even if they think they are nothing but “scientists”.

(For the morons out there, being a scientist means you are simply on a quest for truth, for knowledge– you might claim this is inherent in your position, and that it was your idea of what a “scientist” was all along, but cut the bullshit– you consider yourself a scientist because you hate Michelle Bachman, like Bill Nye the Science Guy, and because you enjoy sharing Neil deGrasse Tyson images on your Facebook wall)

Without some faith, religiously-based faith or otherwise, we would find life to be pretty boring.  Entirely predictable, while never actually living up to such a standard of certainty.  We all have faith sometimes, and there is nothing wrong with that.  If you are going to use someone’s faith to condemn them, politically, one should consider that they might be using just as much faith– if not more– to fuel their own opinion.

P.S. For the hippies (and I’ll let you enjoy the journey of Googling this yourself):  an even more prolific American astrophysicist than Neil deGrasse Tyson, a leading expert on solar activity, entirely disagrees with the notion of climate change– another thing you put faith in, and use to support legislation that rips cash out of people’s paychecks for the “common good”.  But keep the faith, man.  Keep the faith.

 

 

Wake up calls

Today is February 21st, 2014.

The Declaration of Independence was signed 237 years, 7 months, and 17 days ago.

Compared to many other nations, we are but an infant.  We bicker and quarrel over many things as opinionated citizens, but for the most part we we care about and wish for the same things as cohabitants in a free nation:  the safety and wellness of our families, our friends, and ourselves.  We don’t get everything right always, but we get many things right often.

I take pride in the progress we have made as a union despite our youth, but I am stressing this point to draw attention to an issue far upon the horizon– well into the future, long past our deaths, the deaths of our children, and maybe even the deaths of theirs.

When we pull up Drudge or turn on the news and we see the capitals of nations burning in Europe, or the leaders of opposition movements being arrested in South America, what we are witnessing is the natural reaction of an oppressed people at the hands of tyrannical brands of leadership.  We watch these incidents like a movie– disconnected, ignorant of the emotion and pain that is necessary to be experienced in the flesh in order to appreciate its very existence.  We internalize these images, knowing that we could never even come close to witnessing such things as we pull out of our garages or walk down the block to the deli.  It just cannot happen here.

But here’s the reality of things.

The uprisings you are seeing are the result of years upon years of abject apathy towards not only the nature of mankind, but the very organic systems that fall into place around them that we most often refer to as “governance”.  When you suppress the people, on every level, to the point where waking up every morning is the nightmare, that is when the cars start burning, that is when the police begin firing sniper rounds at random, or when world leaders start to implement their counter-coup initiatives in the most ferocious of ways.  When you push the people down into a hole so deep that bloodshed not only becomes necessary, but beautiful, things are long past the point of negotiation.  At that point one is simply plugging up leaks with bubble gum.

What you are witnessing today, and what you have already witnessed in the past, is nothing more than the reaction to foreign versions of progressive liberalism– fast-forwarded by a few centuries.  Historical tyrants like Stalin or Mao, and present ones like Maduro/Chavez, or Kim Jong Un probably have said, in some form or another, that progressive movements are a part of a human being’s DNA.  Time and time again, and with one regime’s fall after the other, nations have collapsed in the wake of years of blindingly ignorant levels of systematic manipulation of nature– a total lack of appreciation for not only the word liberty, but for the concept of liberty’s place in humanity itself.

Government-mandated “affordable housing”?  The communists tried it.  Hell, the communists tried everything.  They failed miserably, as did all other nations that gave it a whirl.  The ones that claim to be holding true to such values today are either in the midst of ruin, or they have enough cash in the government to hide it– kind of like how the Cubans make everyone believe that their healthcare system is actually good because everyone gets it “for free”.  The Chinese regard themselves as a socialist state, while basically opening the doors of their economy to its capitalist guest, for no other reason than the fact that it works.  Today, we borrow money from China, pay interest on it, in order to be able to afford the foreign aid that we still provide to China for economic investment.  Don’t believe me?  Look it up.

When government controls all you find failure, fallacy, or fabrication.  And often all three.

It is with great sincerity that I ask the people of our nation, what is it about the many examples history has provided us of how big-government (or only-government) systems are not only destined to fail but guaranteed to, that makes you believe progressive ideals are a path down which this nation should walk?  Why is it that you think, fervently, that these traits are in our DNA?

What is it about witnessed history that is so off-putting and unbelievable?

While common Republicans are often not much better at distancing themselves from the promotion of big-government policy, why is it that real ones– “Little R” republicans, like those “extremists” called the Tea Party– are so often labeled as being threatening?  What is it about history’s evidence of oppression, violence, greed, and theft (including that of our own) that makes you so averse to even considering– much less respecting– people who appreciate and support ideals like freedom, liberty, quality, prosperity, equality (the genuine kind), and most importantly, truth?

Before the President’s SOTU address a few weeks ago, Nancy Pelosi was being interviewed by someone on television.  I cannot recall who because I don’t really care who is asking the questions so long as they are asking the right ones.  In her interview, she called to her Republican friends– not simply those in the House, but to her actual, personal friends, to “take their party back”.  To most this might be viewed as a bipartisan promotion of a fair and balanced, but divided government– an environment where people of differing opinion can come together and make national-level decisions on behalf of the people in a peaceful way…

But, as per usual with regard to Mrs. Pelosi, she was simply moving a pawn one step closer to its target.

She, as most Democrats do, knew that the party she was looking to her friends to “take back” was the majority of the party that is entirely too comfortable with appeasing liberal, and progressive majorities for the sake of serenity and just doing something to say you did something.  What she was calling for were the RINOs, not republicans, to bring the Republicans back to the very thing that makes them not republican at all– their inability to lead people to liberty.  For as much as Democrats rob the country and the world of examples of true freedom with every single word they utter, they sure as hell are the smarter politicians in today’s republic and their recent success– as well as their imminent success in 2016– is the only justification necessary to make such a claim.

When a real, cold-blooded politician senses that their prey is dying, they do not call for its friends to revive it.  They do not give them time to patch up their wounds or bandage themselves.  They go for the jugular.

As we usher in new, local city and state representatives that continue– ignorant of their own party’s history of pillaging, murder, SLAVERY, segregation, and one of the most stifling and debilitating welfare systems ever– to propogate the notion that government has ever pulled through with promising results while mandating equality, or dictating the word “profit” as a means of ensuring quality, it is time to wake up and ask ourselves why these people are so intent on seeing the GOP’s core “take their party back”.

We might call Republican soil “Red States”, but the red-revolution is the outcome of left-wing policy and action, which is always followed up with left-wing policing and inaction with regard to its promises.  And I’ll tell you this much– those Republicans that find themselves so “great” for finding middle ground on a playing field that is already stretched so far to the left that its median remains there, are nothing but enablers.

One can play a very active role in what will eventually become the history of the nation through an entirely passive position.  While people like John McCain or John Boehner set themselves up to be led around DC via remote control, the only thing Democrats have to do is remain on their path.  The same path, to the same destination that the Soviets probably promised their people too.

We are quite far from such imagery becoming reality– a perk that comes with being a part of a nation that is still technically in its infancy.  But while we may try to shift momentum today with votes, so that our children and our children’s children can continue to squabble over similar, elementary school-level votes (liberty isn’t hard), by the time the grandchildren of our grandchildren become the decision-makers in this land, those same votes will be cast with bullets, not ballot boxes.

It is not simply enough to trust and assume that we will persistently operate as a nation indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.  It’s never been enough.

 

Why we shouldn’t use the term “Illegal Immigrant”.

In addition to learning new words once every four years, as I’ve yapped about previously, progressives also find much joy in twisting and creating new synonyms for words every single day.  “Women’s health” really just means abortion.  “Access” is now synonymous with “free”.  I saw this article pop up a few weeks ago on CNN, written by the guy that led the 20+ day fast at the National Mall– an editorial about his quest in bringing about reform to the nation’s immigration system.  In it, he refrains from referring to “illegal immigrants”, a common request by those sympathetic to their struggle– because Eliseo Medina wants you to believe that the word “criminal” actually means “victim”.

In many ways, Medina is right to keep the world “illegal” out of a discussion about immigrants.  Because immigrants are legal.  We should cease referring to the people Medina is defending in his piece as “illegal immigrant” and labeling them as what they are:  

Illegals.

One word.

The United States lost over 400,000 people during World War II.  With its conclusion, many foreigners– having lost everything they had ever known– looked to the United States for refuge and a fresh start at life.  My grandfather was one of these people, along with his wife, and kids.  His youngest is my mother.  We welcomed those displaced because as much as they needed us, we needed them.  They filled employment positions that were vacated by the fallen, those conscripted into service to fight for what was right.  They became citizens, worked, and supported their families here in the States.  They did it legally.  They were immigrants.

Immigrants like these, and those who followed in their footsteps, have zero relation and absolutely nothing in common with those that hop fences, test their luck in deserts, or squeak through northern wildernesses.  In fact, such people disrespect those that waited, are waiting, and will continue to wait to come to the States, become accounted for, and participate in its future.  If anyone should see “amnesty”, it should be the people that have been waiting patiently for the better part of a decade to come here.

The unfortunate thing for hopeful immigrants today, is that we aren’t exactly in a position where we really need them.  I don’t say this to be unkind or unsympathetic to those that simply want a shot at something better, but the truth is you don’t ever really hear about packs of brain surgeons and engineers trudging through the dry Arizona sand, or waiting for a decade to become legalized.

That’s right, what I am saying is we already have millions of people looking for jobs that cannot find any.  During that search for employment, such people find themselves in the unfortunate and difficult position of being takers and not makers.  That is ultimately what jobs do– they place people in slots to perform duties, people are compensated for them, and they help in aiding the economy in creating gains.  Amnesty is saying that in our present state of economic piss-poorness, we can handle, and accommodate twenty million more takers.  With many people desperate for work anyway– even in the most low-skilled and low-paying fields– why would we assume that those naturalized via amnesty would somehow immediately become makers, or producers?  Such as assumption is ignorant.

Without some kind of unexpected fallout of the American population, that is what immigration should be about– making gains.  Though they seek to attempt to come to the States, work, and make a stable life for themselves, illegals are strains.  They create strains on the economy, on security and how we carry it out, and when you consider that States are unable to accurately account for all of them, they also create unnecessary strains on the ability to govern.  Illegals kill enough Americans annually to almost cover the number of casualties of the entire war in Afghanistan.  If illegals simply “take all of those jobs that Americans don’t want”, do you contend that in their absence, the more than 4,000 Americans that die by their hands every year would have been killed by Americans anyway?  Prove it.

Forget the billions of dollars we spend to accommodate them– take that money and use it for Americans, or use it to create a better immigration system that attracts people with skills–MAKERS– to our land.  And perpetuate an environment that allows the process to be more fluid and expedient.  Support, praise, and reward those that choose to call the United States their new home, help them get on their feet, and allow them to potentially live a life that mirrors that of our previous generations.  It is the only way to honor those that came here the right way and helped us to rebuild after history’s most brutal war.

Medina wrote in his piece that, “Our United States is morally undermined with an inefficient, inhumane immigration system that causes more than 300 deaths in the desert each year. It is a system that rips apart families, exploits workers and puts our democracy out of reach for millions.”  And for that, he’s a moron.  But hey, if being a moron gets you personal visits from the President, then rock on!

medina

“Hey man, I support you and stuff, but have you been to healthcare.gov, yet?”

While there is some merit in labeling the system inefficient (ever consider that the millions we witness being smuggled into our cities have something to do with this?), it is not ‘inhumane”.  If 300 people choose to try and get the better of the desert heat and they perish as a result of it, that equates to 300 people who killed themselves.  If those same people either left family behind in their native lands, or saw family deported upon being caught in the States, they ripped apart their family.  Not us.  Not the US.

I have said this before and will echo it again, as I’m sure I will do again in the future:  we are but the result of our own choices– both the rewards and the pains of them.

Though we do plenty of victim-blaming these days, especially in the media, a hard-line stance in the face of illegals saturating our country does not fall into this category.  Illegals are perpetrators, not victims.  Sure, plenty of them don’t come here seeking to kill anyone.  I wouldn’t bet against the notion that many come here with the best intentions, though illegally, and fall into a criminal lifestyle because it pays better than doing odd-jobs from the shadows.  But the unnecessary death of a SINGLE American, who would be alive today if not for the actions of an illegal, is more than enough to justify the mass deportation of every single one of them.  There is in fact a time when we should blame “victims”, and that is when they aren’t victims at all, but criminals.

None of the motives illegals have for settling here matter when you skip the imaginary immigration line, spit in the faces of the people coming from situations just as bad, or even worse than your own, and contribute to our already overgrown list of problems.  Amnesty rewards disrespect towards the country, its citizens, and then goes so far as to compensate people for it.

So let us band together and stop referring to illegals as “illegal immigrants”.  Let’s stop the War on Immigrants.  “Illegal” works just fine as a title, and it’s more accurate.  And perhaps it’s about time we made our politicians take a step back from conning the system for votes, or proposing changes to it that will achieve little else than create a more difficult job market, increase the number of violent crimes, and screw everyone over that decided to be just another one of those schmucks who chose to actually obey the law of the land.

 

Yeah, it’s “Living Wage” Week!!

It appears that at least once a month, the public goes into a frenzy about this nonsense progressives have been crying about for decades called the “living wage”.  Perhaps there will come a point when people realize that the only place progressives want you is in the lower class, and they only want you “living” so you can keep voting for them.

comm

Why?  Because they know that if you were to do something wild– like, find a niche or an untapped commodity in the free market, start up a small business, and turn it into a gold mine– that you would drop your support for their moronic, selfish, production and quality-depriving policies in a heartbeat.  You might even reconsider how you tend to vote.

You might say something like “NOOO WAAAAY, I’D TOTALLY LOVE PAYING MY EMPLOYEES MORE THAN TWICE WHAT THEY CURRENTLY MAKE BECAUSE I CARE!”  But of course that would be a lie, and you’d make up for it by sending half of them to the unemployment line, or worse.

The economy and the market are not influenced by emotion in and of itself.  The emotions of the consumer might drive the flow of capital, but unlike how you vote, it does not care what you’re “feeeeeeeeliiiinnggg”, or how much you struggle to put clothing on those kids you made the choice to have in the first place.  And it shouldn’t.

The government is attempting to make up for the beautiful nature of the free market by injecting empathy into it.  The economy might be organic in that its trends rely upon the populous, but it does not breathe, it does not have a pulse, and it does not care about your tear-jerking tales of personal woe.

So I got back from another day at work and pulled up CNN, and of course– we have the usual “I’m not making a living wage” sob story– a story that you can bet your ass is going to be re-tweeted by, at a minimum, Debbie Wasserman Schultz or Harry Reid (maybe even both).

So, for today, I will thrash this thing to smithereens.  Because it’s that easy to do, and I haven’t written in a few days.

 NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

Kevin Burgos works full-time, earns more than the minimum wage and even fixes cars on the side to bring in extra money to support his family.

Yet, it’s barely enough to cover his basic living expenses, and Burgos finds himself in a $600 hole each month.

On the surface, this looks legit.  A guy that supposedly works full-time, earns more than $10, and does odd jobs on the side is having a tough time making things work.  For the millions of people that might have read the opener to this article and thought “hey, that sounds like me”, just stop.  This is about Mr. Kevin Burgos and Kevin Burgos only.  CNN Money doesn’t want to hear any of it.

For Burgos, it would mean an additional $6.50 an hour over what he makes now.

Currently, he makes $10.50 per hour as an assistant manager at Dunkin Donuts in Hartford, Connecticut. It’s well above both the federal and state minimum wages of $7.25 and $8.70, respectively. It’s even more than the $10.10 per hour wage that Senate Democrats are fighting for. He brings in an extra $400 each month by fixing cars on the side.

So what sets Kevin apart from the rest of you that makes his story that much more important than yours?  To be CNN’s main headline as of about 4:30PM Eastern Time today?  Oh, you thought this was going to be about a guy that is working in what is a field that is clearly overworked and underpaid?  Something that might even require some skills, or an education?  Yeah.  Have another look at the previous quote from the article and take note of the fact that Mr. Burgos works at Dunkin Donuts.

And that’s not a “problem”, either.  We obviously need people to work at places like Dunkin Donuts.  I LOVE Dunkin’s coffee more than just about any other beverage on earth, so of all people, I sure as hell want individuals to consider it as a place of employment.  But there is the difference.  It’s a place to work, it’s a job, but if that is what you have decided to make your career, you have underachieved.

Perhaps it is as far as you can stretch yourself.  Perhaps your skills are best-suited for Dunkin Donuts and not much else.  Perhaps you are a great person, a great husband, and you have absolutely perfected the art of brewing that delicious coffee over there at DDs.  Your store, and during your shift, might even be the home of the freshest french cruellers in the entire nation.  I would give you a firm handshake for that, and even throw a few bucks in the tip jar.

Unfortunately, none of those traits make you worthy of being given more money.  And that is because we are the products of our own choices, and not someone else’s.

He works 35 hours each week to support his family of three young children. All told, Burgos makes about $1,800 each month.

But his bills for basic necessities, including rent for his two-bedroom apartment, gas for his car, diapers and visits to the doctor, add up to $2,400. To cover these expenses without falling short, Burgos would need to make at least $17 per hour.

Perhaps what is considered “full-time” changes business-by-business, but I was under the impression that a full work week was forty hours.  If that is the case, then Mr. Burgos, contrary to the article, doesn’t work full time.

So, over the course of a year, he makes about $21,600, and who knows what that comes to after taxes (assuming he even claims the car repair stuff).  If his expenses are $2,400 per month, that means he’s required to dish out almost $29k per year.  And that sucks.  Instead of waiting around for an absolutely ridiculous, government edict that bumps his wages up to more than $17 per hour, you would think that the advice of “find a job that pays $17 an hour” would be considered using sound judgment.  But no.  We come up with these figures that relate directly to individual needs– figures that suggest we pay people for the choices they make as free people.  Figures that are set with little regard for the fact that business owners will make some very dramatic changes in their personnel, scheduling, and hiring practices if they are forced to ax their bottom lines in half.

It’s simple to talk about what we think a “living wage” is when we choose to ignore the nature of that which governs implementing those policies.  “That”, being the federal government.  When the lady living next to you, the fifty year old managing the local McDonald’s and doing her best to make ends meet in her own way, is forced to lay off most of her workers to recover the profits the owner of the franchise will most definitely want back, what “reform” will you call for next?  A government mandate that bars owners from firing their employees?  A tax increase to offset the costs?  A $13 Value Meal or a 10% income tax increase?– go ahead and choose, because it’ll be one of those.

When we turn to the government to exercise its way of showing how much it “cares”, you get one thing and one thing only: theft.

 Amy Glasmeier, a professor of economic geography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has created a living wage calculator based on government data, which bears out this argument.

She breaks down the total cost of living, including food, housing, transportation, child and health care, based on the county in which people live.

Glasmeier said the cost of living rises with the size of the city.

While other folks at MIT are figuring out how to create robots with artificial intelligence so advanced that they will someday replace soldiers on the battlefield, it’s good to know that there are others at such an esteemed institution that are able to take the time out of their day to drop mesmerizing, and “upper echelon” facts about incomes as they relate to geographic location like this:

“The cost of living rises with the size of the city.”

Wow Amy, that is deep.  On which page of the government’s last spending bill was your $1,000,000 allocation to enable you to come up with other doozies like that in time for next year’s “living wage” cry-fest?

In fact, I think I’ll take a quick break from this to throw some of my own economic insights out there in the hope of joining MIT’s faculty in the fall, in case anyone out there on the internet is watching.

What separates the 1% from the 99% is that, out of 3,000 Americans polled, those in the 1% tend to have more money than those in the 99%.

Boom.

If Kevin Burgos needs to make ends meet, his personal living wage would be about $15 an hour.  Now, if he chose to have a couple of kids, it would be about…

But wait! I’m plagiarizing.  Because that is exactly what Mr. Burgos’ situation is.

Using Glasmeier’s calculator, Burgos would need to make about $15 per hour. But because he has three kids, his living wage would need to be slightly higher.

Any increase in his wage would make a huge difference to his life, Burgos said. That’s why he’s participated in several union-backed fast food strikes that have been building momentum across the country in the last couple of years. He hopes lawmakers will try to bridge the gap.

Kevin Burgos chose to have three kids.  Of course choosing to keep his children is an admirable thing– many don’t when faced with bringing a child into a home experiencing economic struggle– but having them was still his choice.  Even if each of his three kids was “accidental”, they are still the outcome of his choices.

The federal government should not be in the business of regulating or passing judgment upon the merits of our choices– at least not as a means of legislating what other people should pay you for them.  Remember, the business owners that will be responsible for funding those choices make similar choices of their own and experience similar needs and struggles.  When government officials, or when local idiots like Bill deBlasio tell you that progressive movements are “in our DNA”, all they are looking to do is make you feel a tiny bit better about tearing away a piece of your neighbor’s checking account and their time.

They convince you of this and you go off on your way, merrily, to “union-backed fast food strikes” (vomit) feeling good about yourself, devoid of any guilt whatsoever.  At the same time they step away from the microphone, thank you for your time and your ear, before their chauffers open the door of their limousine and drive them home– faaaaaar away from “promise zones”, and all of that “affordable housing” they want to put next to your modest home in the burbs.

At this point the mission is accomplished for them.  You can feel good about pushing for an increased wage– not a gradual one, but a bloated one– and by the time the market has adjusted itself and you’re back to finding yourself coming up hundreds of dollars short on your bills every month, a new progressive will take the last one’s place with but one objective to accomplish during their tenure:  to get you to believe in unicorns all over again.

 

On “Guns”…in general.

Sometimes I scour CNN and shoot straight to the comments section of random articles.  With the shooting in Philadelphia today, I knew there would be some heated “debate” about firearms, as per usual, in the comments of whatever article I decided to click on pertaining to this incident.

Usually I just write a quick note on my own, or respond to someone else bickering away.  More often than not these comments of mine fall on deaf ears, or get berated by haters, but once in awhile they gain a little traction and take off.  I decided to comment today, but by the time I had finished, my comment was basically an article in and of itself.  It was automatically moved into the “for moderation” queue, which I suppose makes sense when a person tries to write a novel in a place where the back-and-forth is usually limited to right and left wingers hating on each other in ten words or less.

So, I don’t know if that comment of mine will see the light of day– it wasn’t “hateful” by any means, but I do not have high hopes for my comment being approved in an article that is seeing its discussion blaze like a wildfire.  So, instead of lingering on it and waiting to see if anyone took the time to read it, I’ll just post it here.  I think it’s pretty fair, but of course– I’m a little bit biased. ;)

***

Stop letting violent criminals out– enabling them to become “role models” to younger generations, whether they be of their blood or of someone else’s.  The country doesn’t need these people “rehabilitated” or “helped”.  Their ability to become functioning members of society has little, if any positive effect, on a public wherein people already have a difficult time securing employment and making ends meet.  Keep them in prison until they are so institutionalized that when they eventually do make parole or finish their term, they’re just about petrified to look out the window, let alone put their hand on a weapon.

Second, yes, it is unfortunate that youths– fantasies of “thug life” aside– have mental problems.  It’s unfortunate that for the most part there is no cure, no perfect pill to take, nor any kind of antidote that does much more than sweeps their problems under the rug of their own mind until it escapes again and causes harm.  We’ve seen this a number of times, from Lanza in Newtown, to the VT shooter, to Holmes in Aurora.  The issue wasn’t the weapon, but the mental cases we give the freedom (when we’re not ignoring them entirely) to secure such weapons.  Likewise, until they are properly treated and have recovered, when they pose no threat to society, they have no place in one.  Especially one that is mostly comprised of good, law-abiding, and peaceful people that deserve to feel that their child is safe when they go to school.

But as for the progressives– your gun control arguments shouldn’t even be called arguments.  An “argument” implies you have a point to make through logic, which you don’t.  While it isn’t always fair to compare the States to other countries, as they experience the world differently than we do, we have seen the horrific results of the disarming of good people that want to secure their livelihoods and their loved ones at home.  On the home front, until you can show us how strict gun control laws have aided in turning some of our most run-down and blood-soaked cesspools right, your points are invalid.

dosequis

The public has every right to be armed.  Those who intrude upon people’s homes, seeking to rob them, do not deserve security nor reprieve from fatal injury. There is no “but what if they just needed to feed their kids?” piece to this.  It matters none what a perpetrators personal situation is.  They do not deserve the air their victims, nor any good people of this country breathe.  The country and the world lose absolutely nothing when the guilty lose their lives to a well-armed citizen, due to nothing more than the execution of their heartless acts which show no regard for one’s hard-earned possessions, their family’s heirlooms, their personal keepsakes, and most importantly– the sense of security they, like any American, should be able to enjoy in their own home.

Again, and as always, the problems of this nation rest upon its people and not the tools available to them.  Your country was built upon the blood of people who were our enemies at the time, often by way of a bullet from the same arms you condemn today.  Funny, you don’t condemn the rapper and Hollywood celebrities that glorify weapons use as much as you do people that keep and maintain their weapons, responsibly and safely, in accordance with the 2nd Amendment– a cornerstone for the foundation upon which this nation was built.  For those that think the 2nd “doesn’t apply” anymore, or “they meant muskets and swords!”, you are un-American.  And as for “muskets”, the Amendment refers to “arms”, knowing that what we would come to know as “arms” would evolve as our society most assuredly would.  The 2nd Amendment is timeless.

If you think the 4th Amendment, which is basically one of two Amendments most progressives have ever heard of, applies to everyone equally, in NOT believing the same of the 2nd, you too, are un-American.  

Those Amendments were created to empower states and to limit the federal government.  The intent of the federal government was to be involved in activities that which could NOT be undertaken by the States on their own.  When you call to ban this, ban that– ban everything– and in response to isolated incidents indicative of problems MUCH worse than the harm caused by firearms in general, what you are asking for is not freedom, but tyranny.  Not for protection and security, but apathy to the nature of a free country and a free people.

You spit on liberty, and you call for your own to be minimized to nothing.

It might have been a stretch to say “DON’T YOU LOVE FREEDOM?!” when pitting a pro-war vs. anti-war individual together in debate back in the early 2000s, but now– no, not even close.

If you do not believe the 2nd applies just as much as the 4th, or any Amendment does…if you do not believe the governments of States have a duty to represent, preside over, and protect the needs, freedoms, and rights of its citizens…if you feel that a person doesn’t have a natural right to protect themselves and their loved ones– by deadly force if necessary– you are the problem.  The only problem.

(edited some typos from my original comment on CNN, and added some flair of course…shh!!)

 

I was on the radio today!

This will be short.

I was driving from North Carolina to DC today, a long drive, and I was listening to the Mike Slater show on Sirius.  He made a comment about LBJ (my historical nemesis) that I wanted to expand upon.  I called the phone number to Sirius/XM Patriot expecting to not get through at all, and almost immediately got answered by his call screener.  Unfortunately, by the time I got on the air it was during the last 60-seconds of his show so I had to condense the points I was looking to make into a one-minute mess, but he told me to call back next week at the beginning of the show.  And I just might.

There is a short delay between the phone calls and the actually airing of the conversation on the radio, so hearing my own voice on SATELLITE RADIO was pretty wild.  One thing I am certain of, is that I definitely do not have a voice cut out for radio!

But anyway, feeling somewhat empowered, I flipped to my website when I got home about an hour ago and the number of hits caught my eye:

1776

 

Perhaps it is a sign.  Perhaps we are truly, if not in this generation but in the next, going to let freedom finally ring.  

But time will tell.

Happy Sunday!!

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 12, 2014 in Dat's Racis!, Sirius/XM Patriot

 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: