TheRoot.com - the most racist Web site and Internet magazine in existence today.

I've never come across a more myopic, one-sided publication that spews as much anti-White rhetoric in my life. This Web site not only shunts all of the Black culture's failings onto White people, but it justifies media portrayals of the failure of minorities not due to their shortcomings, laziness or genetic predisposition toward disingenuity but rather due to White's failure to give them more handouts or make more excuses for them or the government failing to make life easier for them. By encouraging multiculturalism, which is just a way to hold the collective European-derived culture's head in the guillotine with the blade named "racism" perpetually hovering overhead, liberals and their cohorts - members of less productive cultures - manipulate White guilt into a way to neuter us into inactivity or speaking back against it, so that these minorities can further their own agenda, use more of America's resources and money and change policy to reward themselves and penalize the founders of the country.

In any case, The Root's "journalists" tried, a couple of months ago, to claim that the economic collapse due to the subprime mortgage industry's bust had nothing to do with Blacks or Latinos, and that insinuating otherwise is an example of cold-blooded racism. Let's see: pretty much every economist, literate person, and me all agree that yes, it was minorities' fault. I mean, why would the media want people to knwo the truth when reporters forge their careers feeding people certain facts to better gain control of the masses for the politicians who have them in their pockets (cough, Obama, cough)?

It's 3 a.m. and I'm high on tryptophan. I'm crashing, so maybe tomorrow or the next day I will find the actual statistics for the number of minorities who received subprime mortgages compared to the amount of defaults. In the meantime, google "race statistics for subprime mortgages." The results are telling and chilling. The overwhelming majority of subprime mortgages are a result of Clinton's minority-homeownership, no-criteria-needed home loans, further aggravated by Bush in his attempt to court minority votes for Republicans.

Now, the media, the NAACP and every other liberal organization (again, the media) is covertly accepting the blame through distraction and misdirection through turn-around. "Yes, maybe it is minorities fault by taking out mortgages with adjustable rates they wouldn't be able to afford, but it was the evil lenders' fault for pushing it on them. They didn't understand the terms." Well, learn to fucking read english and maybe you would.

Eric McKinley and the Frivolous Lawsuit

Do you want to know why people call us "nellies"? It's because some of us choose to act like whiny bitches. Especially if you're a middle aged douchebag homo named Eric McKinley.

I don't know why Mr. McKinley looks like, nor should it matter...yet whenever I read about the EHarmony lawsuit, reading about this Eric McKinley, I can't help but imagine in my mind's eye some beady-eyed, frumpy, overweight balding homo who never got picked at the Bathhouse and had to waddle home alone with nothing but his crystal meth-induced illusions of self-worth and validation, causing him to begrudge heterosexual society, free of its image-conscious male oriented pressures. Never exceeding at the superficial, but never really having accomplished much in the way of anything else, and reduced to finding love on the Internet, Mr. McKinley (in my fantasy) sadly scours, and fails at finding love, at gay.com, then manhunt.net, then finally adam4adam.com, until he hears an EHarmony commercial softly playing from the television in the background as he sits in his computer chair in his white briefs with nothing but the computer screen illuminating the darkened room. On a whim, he tries it, but to his dismay realizes there are no gays on it. Knowing the ones on the other sites are out of his league, and this insult being the straw that broke the camel's back, McKinley acts out of rage, which is so typical of the gay community as of late (thanks Prop 8). From the West Coast to the East Coast, their self proclaimed liberal values have given way to bouts of infantile rage.

Anyways: Neil Warren founded EHarmony based on his experience as a doctorate-level educated professional with a career-spanning dedicated to studying heterosexual interaction. He founded EHarmony to foster the values and ideals of Christian marriage. Admittedly, he has said in the past, the main reason he doesn't have a section for homosexual compatibility is that he doesn't know enough about gay relationships. Is that a crime? I wouldn't be surprised if most gay people didn't know what a football was, but the NFL isn't penalizing them. This is a case of a frivolous, rage-mandated lawsuit at its best, or should I say, worst. Even if Warren had a burning hatred of homosexuals and wanted to found a solely, exclusive group for heterosexuals, we are in America - that should be his right and his prerogative. Now EHarmony has been forced to start a gay-inclusive matchmaking service. I doubt this will increase the odds of Mr. McKinley finding a partner.

I do want to discuss some of the disgusting ramifications of this lawsuit. This is imposing on freedom, fundamentally. There is such a terrifying move to socializing everything in America. What's next? An abortion clinic being sued for not performing vasectomies? Suing Chick Fil A for not serving veal? Suing the NBA for not allowing golfers to participate? The great thing about America is we have the freedom to express ourselves by the differences that bring us together. Yes: some people choose to embrace the things that set them apart, make them unique, and seek others like them. This is as annoying as women who demand inclusion to men's clubs. God forbid a White person demand to join the NAACP. Once we stamp out organizations that promote our individuality, we will all become the same, despite the fact we are not. Hegemony for all. Thanks McKinley. If it's so hard for you to meet somebody, maybe it's you, not EHarmony.

Prop 8 and the Hypocrisy of Homos

It has dawned on me that as I run a blog for gay Republicans, I should probably address some topics that pertain to homosexuality. The first is slightly more serious, and by serious I mean not a ridiculous frivolous lawsuit by a fat, bitter middle aged homo.

A letter to the embittered grotesquerie that is California's homosexual population:

Homos: you lost. Deal with it. The way you are all handling your loss is completely irrational. Typical of a liberal. Let me talk to you about some of the signs I saw when I went by the Daley Center's November 15th Prop 8 Protest.

"Equal rights for equal people!"
"You can't deny our rights!"
"We don't tell you who can get married!"

Sorry girls. You already have equal rights. Just go read a little thing about civil rights. Even the most right-winged Republican understand, respects and is willing to cede you your civil right to be joined in a union with all the same rights and privileges of a heterosexual marriage with the partner of your choice. You are receiving equal rights. Marriage is a term steeped with religious connotation. In nearly almost every culture that ever was or is, marriage has been and is understood (and thanks to Prop 8, forever will be understood) as a union between a man and a woman before the eyes of God. I am against archaic interpretations of the Bible, but I think the writing's on the wall with this - it was pretty clearly spelled out that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, largely with the intent to reproduce. I won't go into the varied sociopolitical benefits underlying the historic value of marriage, such as family alliances and ensuring paternity, because I think that's tangential.

Secondly, nobody is taking away any of your rights. A rogue Supreme court overturned a constitutional amendment 7 months ago, if that. Those justices didn't reflect the will of the people. I know there is this big clamor that the margin was so small, with a difference in pro/con votes something like 3 or 4%, but you can't blame the Mormons, or the Catholics, or the Blacks or the Hispanics or people who donated money to the campaign to pass Prop 8. If you really think advertisements have the power to challenge and change people's core beliefs, you are naive as...well as a liberal. This wasn't "do you want the courthouse's wallpaper to be pink or red." This was a matter of protecting conservative values...and I know it must have been earth-shattering for your conceptions of an ultra-liberal California and the inherent "enlightenment" of its denizens to be completely refuted, but this is something a lot of people take seriously. Don't punish them for having their beliefs. It's totally, completely and 100% against what you preach in your politics, to be inclusive and respective of everyone's opinion. Hell, your party has gone so far as to enforce things like affirmative action and special interest group legislation because you are "so tolerant" and think "everybody has a chance." I guess you're only for equality when it results in you being more equal than everybody else.

The saddest part of this, is their demand for unequal equality has caused the Director of an L.A. Film Festival, Richard Raddon, some of HIS rights. The irritated and upset homos accessed public donation records, and now, not only are they boycotting and threatening businesses (a genius move in a collapsing economy), but they demanded the resignation of Richard Raddon. Michelle Malkin has a great piece on the story right here. The barrage of protests and threats his parent organization, Film Independent (FIND), has received in the wake of the Prop 8 decision, Raddon has been coerced into tending a resignation. Does denying a man his livelihood, and forcing him to stop contributing to a field he is talented and passionate about, a devotion that has undoubtedly brought about enriching, untold creative productivity, make any sense, because you're bitter? Your rights AREN'T BEING infringed upon. You can have unions. The unions = the same rights as marriage. Everybody will treat you as if you are married. They already do. Nobody took anything away from you, but you respond by taking away from a talented visionary. This is so typical to me of the liberal agenda - stifling the productive members of society if they exercise THEIR rights - RIGHT to an opinion, RIGHT to believe in whatever they want. Liberals will clamor to give international terrorists more rights by calling for their release from Gitmo, especially that fat vag Rosie, but they don't condone an American's exercising of his freedom of thought. Bravo, two-faces. P.S. you're really starting to prove you aren't even responsible enough to handle adult affairs like marriage anyways...the Prop 8 outcome was obviously for the best.

I love all the clips of gays bashing Blacks and Hispanics in the aftermath of having JUST VOTED FOR A CANDIDATE WHOSE CENTRAL MESSAGE WAS UNIFICATION. The Republicans are learning that we as a party have to put aside arbitrary differences to unify on grounds of our common values, which are more powerful than the things that divide us. I suggest you do the same. You can't make everybody happy all of the time. You still have your civil unions; nobody would dare ever try to take that away from you. That isn't the logical "next step" after they "took gay marriage away" from you. You never really legally had it in the first place. The people have spoken, and they said the rights you have are enough. After all, it's the same rights they have. Everybody will treat you the same as if you were "married." The law recognizes you the same as if you were "married." And, MOST importantly, you love each other as you would if you were "married." Unfortunately, the word itself means "a union between a man and a woman." That is solidified by the Bible. For all intensive purposes, the Bible is God's word. We are one nation under God. Sorry, but God wins. If you're so steamed about not having your own word for it, call it Garriage. I doubt anybody will stop you.

Round and round they go; where the issues stop, only the centrists know

Amaaaaazing how Obama and the media is already covering his tracks before he even starts making mistakes. Note that I no longer differentiate the media from the liberal media, as it's pretty obvious the two bear no differences.

Obama infused millions with his "hope," "change," and "new day" rhetoric. Then, he gets into office and what do you know? He's magically a centrist. If all "change I could believe in" encompassed was simply changing the scene back to 1992-2000, I may have believed in it! Obama's cabinet, transitional office and staff appointments are not the new, unseen faces he promised his constituency, but rather a rehash of the Clinton White House. How LBJ in the wake of Kennedy is he? Populating his offices with very well known Washington insiders, many of whom are doing the same job they had last decade.

Before I get too into this, I want to bring to light the fact that Obama is smart in a way - too often in the past, we always heard a politician promise something and renege. "Mark my words, no new taxes!" or "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or "I will repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Bam bam bam, none came to pass. This time, he with his cronies, the media, are burning the midnight oil to make sure we know in advance he's probably going to be forced to renege on his promises and accept what he is classifying as irredeemable failures...however, he is luckily on the coattails of an outgoing administration with a 20% approval rating to use more than conveniently as a scapegoat.

Today we hear that the economy is going to get worse before it gets better. That doesn't bode well for the Welfare Whore who chillingly predicted she would no longer have to worry about paying her mortgage or for gasoline. P.S., to the liberals who defend this awful crackslut, no, I doubt that what she is trying to imply is that with Obama as president, she won't have to worry about not having the opportunities to be able to earn the money for these expenses, or she wouldn't have the little "if I help him out he'll help me" (so typical of their mentality) addendum. We also hear tales of the media saying "the problems facing Obama are so insurmountable, we can't hold him accountable if he fails." Well, he IS the Messiah. He's a miracle worker. He's of a higher plane, says Oprah and Chris Matthews. His path to the White House is of a "divine origin," therefore: we should be able to expect miracles. He promised change. Let's see some!

Now I will segue back into my second paragraph, about Obama's side-stepping politics. His shameless abandonment of the far left, the people that put him in office (well, along with the help of the idiots seen in the video here ) is not even being greeted with the fury it should be met with, at least not by as many people as it should be. Many far-leftists are furious. Even a few people at the Obama-can-do-no-wrong Daily KOS and that batshit crazy Huffington are crying foul. They feel alienated and used as mere props and puppets to get the extra millions of votes Obama needed, and rightly so. The second he got in, he laid down like a dog for Hillary and the established Democratic royalty. However, leave it up to the retarded, idealistic youth to help Obama gloss over his blatant and flagrant treason to his core constituency(I never once thought I would ever use the NYTimes to SUPPORT one of my points):

“We’re frustrated by it, but we understand,” said Mollie Ruskin, 22, who grew up in Baltimore and is spending the summer here as a fellow with Politicorps, a program run by the Bus Project, a local nonprofit that trains young people to campaign for progressive candidates. “He’s doing it so he can get into office and do the things he believes in.”

Nate Gulley, 23, who grew up in Cleveland and is also here as a Politicorps fellow, said too much was being made of Mr. Obama’s every move.

“It’s important not to get swept up in ‘Is Obama posturing?’ ” Mr. Gulley said. “It’s self-evident that he’s a different kind of candidate.”

Um yes Nate, it IS important to get swept up in it. He isn't a different kind of candidate. Your yellow-bellied candidate has proven himself to be just like every cuckold run of the mill politician. You voted for "change you could believe in." Your savior reneged on his promise to you. You are one of the reasons this potentially VERY DANGEROUS man holds the highest position in the land. Now you're sitting by, not with outrage but with neutered apathy and blind indifference. You're being naive, and hypocritical. He lied to you. Instead of realizing this, you're just saying "oh he had to do it, it's okay." What else? Once a liar, always a liar. When do you think it's going to stop? He abandoned you like a 16 year old Kansas boy would leave his pregnant inamorata at a Route 66 Wal-Mart parking lot. You're already making excuses for him.

To conclude, you can't make excuses for Obama so that he can never make a mistake. This isn't the CTA or Mayor Daley legislation. We've already seen plenty of mistakes. The media and Obama himself can't keep up this "oh well, even if I fail it's okay. If I lie, it's okay." It wasn't okay when Bush changed his mind. You can't enforce a double standard. Obama must be, and is going to be held accountable for all of his shortcomings, lies, hyperbole and bait-and-switching. There is one thing we should all be able to agree on. Whether you believe Obama's spectrum shifting is a result of being pragmatic and view it as necessary, or if you feel embittered and alienated by this two-face, one thing is for sure: Obama isn't the miracle-working Messiah you all thought he was. Period.

More misconceptions from the Left

As I have discussed in many posts, the Left likes to claim that Bush favored the wealthy; that rich people get all the tax breaks, that Obama is great because he's finally going to give the trash with self-entitlement issues, I mean, the lower classes their own tax breaks. Let's look at some statistics compiled in 2004-2005, arguable the apex of Bush's presidential tenure, a time when allegedly rich people weren't paying any taxes.


"Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow

by Scott A. Hodge


Fiscal Fact No. 27

One of the biggest obstacles facing President Bush’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform is the fact that America has become divided between a growing class of people who pay no income taxes and a shrinking class of people who are bearing the lion’s share of the burden.

Despite the charges of critics that the tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2004 favored the “rich,” these cuts actually reduced the tax burden of low- and middle-income taxpayers and shifted the tax burden onto wealthier taxpayers. Tax Foundation economists estimate that for tax year 2004, a record 42.5 million Americans who filed a tax return (one-third of the 131 million returns filed last year) had no tax liability after they took advantage of their credits and deductions. Millions more paid next to nothing. "

"Conclusion
In 2004, a record 42.5 million tax returns – one-third of all returns filed – had no income tax liability because of the available credits and deductions in the tax code. This is a 42 percent increase in the number of zero-tax filers in just four years. In addition to these zero-tax filers are the 15 million individuals or households who do not earn enough to file a tax return. Overall, nearly 58 million taxable households are outside of the income tax system.

These findings raise serious questions about the future of the U.S. income tax system. Are any future tax cuts, or even tax reforms, possible when the lion’s share of the tax burden is increasingly borne by a shrinking pool of taxpayers who – at least on paper – appear to be "upper-income"? And will the expanding pool of non-payers demand even higher income taxes? These are questions lawmakers must begin to debate."

Wow. They were scared of this in 2004-2005. Now we have some idealogical socialist catering to the basest and most banal desires of the lowest common denominator who wants to shunt even MORE of the already ridiculous burden on to a fraction of the population who not only shouldn't be, but soon aren't going to be physically able to carry the burden. Why should the most successful people be ordained to carry the dead weight of everybody else? Society should reward them for their contributions, not ask for more out of them.

Oh - and um, I know that nobody is allowed to quote racial statistics anymore because on Nov 4th, racism "died," but choke on this:

"Race and Ethnicity

When we combine the populations of non-payers and non-filers and look to see what overall percentage of each group is not paying taxes, we find that: 50.7 percent of African American households pay no income taxes, 35.5 percent of Asian American households do not, 37.6 percent of White American households do not, and roughly 52 percent of Hispanics pay no income taxes."

Let's overlap with Obama's voters:

41% Whites voted for Obama
96% Blacks voted for Obama
66% Latinos voted for Obama

Wow...amazing to see that Obama's largest constituency were people who don't pay income tax. Shocking anyone? Shocking that people who leech off the teat of taxpayers for everything from their cigarettes to their baby formula voted overwhelmingly for a man who promised more free money?

Bye American work ethic. Maybe by 2012 the percentage of people who don't pay income taxes will increase from 31% (a historic high)today to 50% as people realize they are working when they don't have to.

Did you hear the one about the gay guy who beat, raped and killed his straight 23 year old intern? Me neither! Nobody has.

A crime of the same atrocity and magnitude of the Matthew Shepherd tragedy...but nobody will ever hear about it. This is just another example of the liberal media bias. When Republican conservative Iowans were rebuilding their flood-ravaged cities this summer, the liberal media didn't deign to show their plight. They were too busy getting ready to focus on the next batch of Gulf trash whine, moan and bitch their gospel of self-entitlement the next time a hurricane came visiting. Why would they want to show that some people are totally capable of rebuilding their cities without help from FEMA and hundreds of millions of dollars of support? That would totally undermine the claims that FEMA's response was too slowly, and force people to consider that maybe, just maybe, the trash of New Orleans was - *drumroll please* maybe just lazy.

That's neither here nor there. The focus of this story is 23 year old, ironically named Jason Shephard, who, in 2006, was drugged, raped and murdered by 43 year old gay coworker William Smithson. Shephard, a straight, "nice Republican boy" from South Dakota who "liked to talk about his faith" had come to Delaware county, Maryland to intern at the East coast branch of his company. After turning down the advances of Smithson, who was known to have GHB (a date rape drug) and meth-fueled parties with the other homosexuals of the town at his residence, he was found 3 days after one such party wrapped in a series of sheets in Smithson's basement. The case just went to trial in Delaware county, where it has been pending this week.

I'm not going to get into the sordid details of this case. I'll post a link for you to find the story itself, since um, it's basically being completely glossed over by all media outlets except the paper in the small town the crime occurred, and a few other small regional papers. My question is: why? When this happened in reverse, i.e. a republican male beating and killing a gay democrat, America was forced to confront the horrible evils that result from small-town, close-minded conservative values. However, when a gay man brutally beats and murders a small-town religious conservative, the media just says "um, we're passing on this one." You know, maybe this will cause you to think twice and re-evaluate how badly you want your Fairness Doctrine reinstated. You might just have to start reporting both sides of the story.

The story:
http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2008/11/18/news/doc49223c58bcebe327506584.txt

Difference between Republicans and Democrats?

Rational thinking.
Using the scientific method.
Class.

This is lifted from a regional newspaper called The Naperville Sun. It serves as a perfect example of how the liberal media pigeonholes any, and I mean ANY right-wing dissent with Obama as racism, as if there can be no rational, logical or political reasons a person might disagree with his policies.

Covert racism? Please translate...
By
Patrick Ferrell
on November 19, 2008 2:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

You know how forwarded e-mails work. There are hundreds of names piled on tops of hundreds more, with dozens of e-mail signatures, and occasionally a message from one friend to another.

Of course, you never know any of these people, except for the one who sent it to you. But, still, if you're like me, you find it interesting to read their very often ignorant and off-base comments.

This one, again from somebody I don't know, was at the bottom of the e-mail in which the Barack Obama-referenced photo of the week was attached:

If I remember correctly this man got 51% of the vote and for the life of me I canʼt find anyone who will admit to voting for him. I wonder if he would have gotten elected if you had to vote verbally while on national television?

So what, exactly, does this dude mean? Is this some thinly veiled racism? Or is the comment just too shallow (or could my mind just be too feeble) to pick up on the greater point?

-------------------------------------------------------------

No Patrick Ferrell. No, for as much as Obama's campaign paid the Naperville Sun (owned by the Chicago Sun-Times, a publication whose liberalism is rivaled only by the NYT) to espouse that any anti-Obama sentiment is caused by racism, there is a multitude of other reasons that this individual might not like Obama. I'll go over a theory I have why this man said what he did.

I think that most people can't admit to voting for Obama because maybe, upon retrospection, they realized they were driven solely by emotional reasons to vote for a person that ultimately, they knew nothing about whatsoever. Maybe they were having the conversation with a learned or politically knowledgeable person who explained that Obama wants to raise taxes for only the upper middle class, maybe they explained he favors granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, maybe they explained Obama wants to create a civilian standing army, maybe they explained Obama really doesn't have much proven executive experience, and that this is the first true election he ever even actually won, maybe they explained how Obama dishonorably had all of his opposition, including his mentor, disqualified from the 1996 senate ballot, maybe they explained how Obama is the only president-elect arrogant and conceited enough to create his own Seal of the Office of President-Elect, maybe they explained that Obama has no American pride, maybe they explained that Obama was a proven member of the New Party, the socialist branch of the Democrats in the 90s, maybe they explained how for any time in our economic history, raising taxes have ALWAYS either caused a recession or drastically exacerbated existing ones whereas tax breaks have always stimulated the economy, maybe they explained that Obama's policy to grant more economic stimulus packages and increase infrastructure spending were the exact approaches adopted by FDR during the Great Depression which dramatically prolonged the impact and duration of the Great Depression rather than ameliorate it.
Maybe, since any liberal you pose the question "why did you vote for Obama," 9 times out of 10 you hear back "Why wouldn't you!?" or "Bush is an asshole!" or "You want more of McSame?? you're stupid!" or "He's a wonderful man" or "he gives great speeches." Yeah...um...that basically makes him a motivational speaker, not THE PRESIDENT. Way to go. You don't vote for the leader of the free world because he's charismatic. You vote the 8th grade student council president in for being charismatic. P.S. - Know who else got a big majority of the vote through charisma? JFK. Oh, yeah, and Hitler. Thanks Bay of Pigs, thanks World War II. I'm not saying Obama is the next Hitler - so don't use the opportunity to fucking call me a racist or say I am equating the two. What I am saying is history doesn't lie, and perhaps, just maybe, a few people now realize they were a little brainwashed or taken in by his personality and failed to evaluate him on his skills and qualifications, or lack thereof. Don't counter me with some Sarah Palin-is-stupid argument either - they weren't running for the same office, and no, she isn't. It's not being racist to argue that the majority of Obama's supporters know too little, or in some cases, nothing at all, about what he actually stands for. It isn't racist to argue that a substantial percentage of Obama's supporters lack a thorough understanding of American economic and political history, and it isn't racist to imply maybe they voted for him based on a trifecta of factors that have nothing to do with Obama's stance on the issues: the fact they hated Bush, couldn't or wouldn't consider the fact that our current economic woes are not automatically and by default caused by the incumbent party, and lastly, communally adopted a mob mentality and went with the guy with the reassuring smile. Sorry Patrick Ferrell. Enjoy Will county by the way.

This brings me to the question posed in my topic line. Conservatives are often labeled by liberals as hate-mongering idiots. Liberals love accusing conservatives of being old-fashioned, illogical, dumb, racist or any other a wide gamut of insults. This skews ironic as their party mentality is self-styled on premises of tolerance, acceptance and rationality. So far in this election, based on anecdotal evidence, blog comments, liberal media articles or video footage of the rallies, liberals are the angry ones, liberals are the ones screaming for Bush to be tried on war crimes, liberals are the ones calling conservatives hate-mongering anti-Americans. Liberals are the ones taking cheap shots at Sarah Palin for being from Alaska and speaking with a drawl, or John McCain being "old" or Bush being some Southern idiot. You know, um, that's more racist than any of the insults ever leveraged against Obama. Conservatives have NEVER made a character assault on Obama, insulted him or made an issue of his race. In spite of this, liberals started and never let up on the offensive, without any provocation whatsoever. Conservatives often have logical, historically-backed and factual arguments about why Obama is not the best answer for president, none of which ever insult his intelligence, heritage or race. Liberals respond not with a retort or counter argument, but by attacking the questioner, attacking Republicans, lambasting with character assaults, questioning intelligence, patriotism and intelligence, and fall back solely on high-powered emotional rants that lead to the invariable and inevitable conclusion that you are a racist for even asking, every time, without fail. I have yet to hear a liberal defend Obama's policies with a response framed by a logical argument, or by even answering the question. The most logical thing I have heard to date is "it can't be any worse than what we have now." That's the BEST they've come up with. What I have heard, ad nauseum, is a lot of Obama-worship, overzealous praise, swooning and fainting from exuberance, and a look of irrational rage and readiness to crucify anyone who dares question their dogmatic beliefs. They are the hate mongers, they are traitors to their party, they are intolerant, they are the ones who defend Obama not with reason but with daft propaganda-ridden vagueries like "yes we can," and "change we can believe in," writing off anyone who disagrees with his politics, not even him as a person, as racist. Conservatives were quick to congratulate Obama on his victory and be gracious in defeat, yet liberals are still quick to gloat, even when they don't know a thing about the person they put into office. 82% of Obama voters answered incorrectly when polled on Obama's political leanings, and instead of being concerned and maybe scared, they instead resorted to accusing the pollster of being, imagine this, a racist for even having the audacity to ask in the first place. Liberal teachers are looking the other way and allowing their students to eviscerate conservative students; liberal colleges are forbidding conservative guest speakers or professors to question Obama's competency and qualifications....and here of all places, the "land of the free," where you are guaranteed freedom of speech and expression. You're free all right...free to agree with the mob. If not, you're free to be ostracized.

Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.

From Wikipedia, under "Nazi Party":

"Depressed working-class areas such as Thuringia also gave a strong Nazi vote, while the workers of the Ruhr and Hamburg largely remained loyal to the SPD, the KPD or the Catholic Centre Party. Nuremberg remained a party stronghold, and the first Nuremberg rally was held there in 1927. These rallies soon became massive displays of Nazi paramilitary power, and attracted many recruits. The Nazis' strongest appeal was to the lower middle-class – farmers, public servants, teachers, small businessmen – who had suffered most from the inflation of the 1920s and who feared Bolsheviks more than anything else. The small business class were receptive to Hitler's anti-Semitism, since they blamed Jewish big business for their economic problems. University students, disappointed at being too young to have served in World War I and attracted by the Nazis' radical rhetoric, also became a strong Nazi constituency.

Despite these strengths, the Nazi Party might never have come to power had it not been for the Great Depression and its effects on Germany. By 1930 the German economy was beset with mass unemployment and widespread business failures. The SPD and the KPD parties were bitterly divided and unable to formulate an effective solution; this gave the Nazis their opportunity, and Hitler's message, blaming the crisis on the Jewish financiers and the Bolsheviks resonated with wide sections of the electorate."

And let's play MadLibs...what I'm gonna do is swap no more than 10 words, adjust the syntax so the sentences make sense, and see what happens.

"Depressed working-class area also gave a strong Obama vote, while the workers of corporations and self-employed professionals largely remained loyal to Bush. Chicago remained a party stronghold, and the first Grant Park rally was held there in 2008. These rallies soon became massive displays of Obama's paramilitary power, and attracted many recruits . Obama's strongest appeal was to the lower middle-class – farmers, public servants, teachers, small businessmen – who had suffered most from the inflation of the 2000s and who feared Republicans more than anything else. The small business class were receptive to Obama's anti-Bush rhetoric, since they blamed Republican big business for their economic problems. University students, disappointed at being too young to have served in Iraq or Afghanistan and attracted by Obama's radical rhetoric, also became a strong Obama constituency.

Despite these strengths, Obama might never have come to power had it not been for the 2008 Economic recession and its effects on America. By 2008 the American economy was beset with mass unemployment and widespread business failures. The Republican and Democratic parties were bitterly divided and unable to formulate an effective solution; this gave Obama his opportunity, and Obama'ss message, blaming the crisis on the Republican financiers and the upper class resonated with wide sections of the electorate."

P.S. Contrary to every liberal mind (oxymoron) on the planet, this does not make me a racist. It makes me studied in history and concerned about my country. Mass hysteria-induced crowds, drunk on "hope" never did any good for anybody. Last time a little place called "Europe" was decimated.

Mother knows best

When I was a child, I was very naive; naive with how the world works and naive in my idealism, as most children are. When I was about 10, I asked my mom why the U.S.S.R. was so bad, and why America didn't get along with them (they were still around then). I said socialism doesn't sound bad, it seemed quasi-utopian to me back then that everybody was treated equally and everybody earned the same. My mom explained it as this: "it sounds great in theory, but there is a big difference between what things look like on paper and how they play out in reality."

Two main problems exist with the government creating an artificially leveled playing field.

1. Not everybody is created equally. Anybody with respect for Darwin, evolution and intelligence realizes that not everybody has the same gifts or same intelligence. Some people are by default harder workers, some people are more apt to learn sciences such as medicine, others engineering, others math, others computers. Some people are good listeners; others are good at farming. Some jobs require more skill than other jobs: those jobs deserve to be compensated more. Work, in and of itself, can not be quantified as having equal value. How would you quantify that to begin with?

2. Human green, avarice and manipulation. People have a really hard time not forming castes based on any one of a million dividing factors. That's one of the reasons people chose to divide by income in a capitalist society. Secondly, as history as shown, there is always an urge to take advantage of the masses.

Mother knows best.

Um...WOW...the Obamas are drunk on..themselves

Okay, never once in my white male life did I ever sit back and say "wow, I can't wait for a Black extremist woman married to a Kenyan authoritarian non-citizen to make assumptions about me and have a better idea of what I need than I do."

Michelle Obama is a batshit crazy extremist..it's no wonder they love each other.

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."
-Michelle Obama, 2008

-Um, I'm not cynical, I'm American.
- Unlike the minorities who voted for him, I DO work, 50+ hour weeks. Then I do this blog for free, another 15 hours, and I design Web pages, mostly for free, for another about 20 hours a week, I spend about 10 hours a week volunteering. And guess what? I never needed an Obama-mandated high school volunteer (S.S. in training)program to make me do it. I have a work ethic. Most conservatives do.
- I'm not isolated; I am incredibly involved in my community.
- I'm a gay Republican, I have no comfort zone.
- A separatist minority-quota accepted (by her own admission)Princeton graduate whose thesis was nothing short of hoping for a White-free Black culture formed by the "ideals" of segregation and embraced by the Black community doesn't need to tell me I'm isolated and I need to be better.
-Uninvolved? Uninformed? What the FUCK do you call the liberal media? I actively pursue both sides of a story and question each side because I strive to be informed...I'm not simply content reading MS-NBC's Messiah-praising, one-sided stories, mass cover-ups and thinking that gave me a good gauge on understanding the world.

Liberal media bias? No way!

From MsNBC:
The Emanuel brothers
"Talk about a trifecta: The brothers are hot-tempered, sexy and smart. Find out which one fought with Mel Gibson and which one put a dead fish in the mail."

Um, I'm sorry. They're not celebrities. They're politicians. Awful ones at that. This must be an example of the mind-blowing professional of MsNBC.

Ayanna Watson: Bringing double standards to the classroom.

How f*ing dare this woman. This totally goes along with my last post, about academic institutions shunning a healthy exploration of all sides of a story. Ayanna Watson, how f*ing dare you, you racist sorry excuse of a teacher. Ayanna Watson, a "professor" at Prince George Community College, idly sat by and allowed her class to metaphorically crucify and eviscerate White student Gloria Alfonzo, because she didn't agree with Obama's policies. She didn't lambaste him, or say things that were untrue; in a class assignment designed to write about the merits of Obama, she merely disagreed with his political stances in favor of John McCain. The predominantly black classmates intelligently and rationally responded to dissenting opinion by calling her a white whore, subjecting her to an onslaught of racial expletives and threatening physical action against her. Was Gloria praised for bringing up opposing viewpoints in an academic environment, the sole purpose of which is to foster debate and discussion? No, the teacher threateningly and through intimidation, demanded to know if Gloria was a Republican (not the job of a college-level teacher), then indifferently ignored her student's attack by looking the other way. When Gloria went to speak to her college adviser about this, the adviser recommended she withdraw. No, there were no apologies on behalf of the college, like there were when a professor at Loyola Baltimore lectured negatively about Obama. All we got was a promise of an investigation, and the specter of disciplinary action to be taken if they reach any conclusions that the teacher was out of bounds. There was no immediate disciplinary action taken, necessitated by student outrage against this hate-mongering liberal "teacher" as there was against the white professor for speaking out against Obama.

How can liberals call conservatives hate-mongers? You know, maybe conservatives are labeling Obama as Hitler because any dissent we have is already being regulated, suppressed and punished. The true irony is that this election has been self-styled as the triumph of tolerance and equality and advent of a new age of a world without racism, brought to realization through a community that values liberalism and acceptance... yet a Black teacher can get away with throwing her student to the lions. When reporters tried confronting the teacher, she wouldn't answer the door, yet she had Obama signs all over her house.

I am all about equality, and even though I don't agree that Obama is Black, I would be willing to see Obama's victory as a symbol of equality, if maybe Blacks weren't now openly indulging their anti-White racist urges and getting away with it. How can people be immune to liberals' hypocrisy? Why is this going unexcused? The real tragedy here is for poor Gloria. She has put her college dreams on hold as a result of this fiasco, as Prince George Community College was the only place she could afford. Ah, a glimpse of things to come under a Leftist monarchy. The irony here is that if I were to say, call, Ayanna Watson a fucking black whore teacher, I'd be called a racist on the spot without a second thought and blasted to hell and back. Yet, she is allowed to tolerate her students calling a White student a fucking stupid white whore without any subsequent outrage or resistance from the community. So you listen Watson - you better be careful, because now people who are actually against racism are going to be watching you, you intolerant, ignorant woman. America's riding higher than a kite on the opiate named "YesWeCanoine" so maybe they're distracted from the blatant and flagrant injustice and double standard here. Then again, liberals love double standards, so I'm not surprised, and the media is already policing the entire information highway so truth is never seen or heard. What was your motivation? Do you feel justified and vindicated through your class' collective thought-policing, idiotic Jim Crow-era response as a valid manifestation to years of rage caused by Black oppression, and thinking because Obama fooled America into voting for him that you can get away with murder? Until now, conservatives have sat placidly by and tried to reason with liberals, but if this continues, maybe we'll organize a little march, sit-in or even better, protest until you have your ill-gotten job taken away from you...since God knows if the situation were reversed there would be hell to pay. Then again, a Republican professor would never impose his or her own beliefs on their students.

Conservatives are not the truth silencers.

In the wake of the "Obama has comparisons to Hitler," liberals have been the first to vomit back their pre-programmed doublespeak initiatives, mostly by countering that it is actually Bush who is Hitler-esque. They tend to first point out the Patriot Act and the unconstitutionality of the wars.

The Patriot Act was a directive imperative to realizing the goals forced by Bush to realize by the American people. I doubt it had adverse effects on anybody who was a law-abiding American. If you want to talk about censorship, let's visit a little Orwellian concept known as The Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine, popular in Jimmy Carter-era America, but declared unconstitutional shortly after its inception, dictates that media outlets must present opposing sides of a story with equal time and consideration. Basically it is in favor of liberals now because they fear (hate) conservative talk radio hosts. The irony of this is conservative outlets, with the exception of Ann Coulter, seldom do any hate-mongering or speak of things that aren't true or have the possibility of truth. I think the real victims of the Fairness Doctrine will be the liberal media, since they are prone to left-skewing bias and lambasting basically any conservative viewpoint. If you want to talk about a nanny state, look no further than the Fairness Doctrine. If the government doesn't have enough faith in the American people to draw their own conclusions and make their own decisions, why are we suddenly a great people again for voting for a "Black" (read: more White than Black) president? The great irony in that is he was voted in because people didn't read all the facts, ignored both sides of the story. They heard what they wanted and went with it. When they're being policed by the thought police in a few months, I wonder how they're going to make Bush responsible for that, too. I'm so excited for watching all the failures of the Obama presidency laid upon Bush. Liberals have already anticipated the fact people might realize their bullshit and are already propagating and seeding the media with ideas like "well Bush left the state of the country in such shambles, nobody is capable of fixing them." Make sure to cover all your bases and deflect blame onto anybody but yourself - it's what liberals do best.

Racism, it's not just for Whites!

From Michelle Obama to institutions of learning, Whites are on the receiving end of racist idealogies, yet conservatives are the hate-mongers. Whether we "can never understand the plight of Blacks," to "we don't do enough to elevate the conditions of Blacks," or "even our best interests show a decidedly lack of sympathy or understanding about what it means to be Black" we can't win. We're not allowed to have White History month, White College Student organizations or White-only scholarships. We are already shortchanged by affirmative action - liberal mandates that deny evaluation based on merit in lieu of reparations.

Did anybody answer why Michelle Obama's Princeton senior thesis - about why Blacks shouldn't even want integration with Whites, and poignant and blatant statements about how she is obligated to use any of her resources, present or future, to elevating solely the Black community - was frozen to release until November 5th? A little suspicious. I wonder how much Princeton received from Obama's campaign funds to instate that policy.

When a well-respected, highly educated visiting professor to Loyola in Baltimore urged people to consider - not even to accept as fact, merely consider - that the income disparity between certain professions of Whites as opposed to Blacks might be a result of a disparity in intelligence and work output, he was silenced by the university amid a flurry of apologies from officials and the university. He had studies, facts and statistics to back his theory up too. Ironic, as academia is about the pursuit of knowledge, not controversy. God forbid a professor in academia asks a question and postulates theories. Kind of like how Copernicus and Galileo were silenced for thinking outside the box. Liberals have always tried to silence the pursuit of truth in favor of unfettered acceptance of dogma and mantra.

And another philosopher disagrees with Obama. He's batting 0....

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative
and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could
and should do for themselves."

William Boetcker, 1873 - 1962

Sorry Obama - I know you needed the disenfranchised to win an election, but um for the Americans living in America, we don't intend to lose things we earned that only God has the power to take away to the likes of you.

A message to liberals

Liberals are as stupid as they are hypocritical. Name one thing Bush did that is Hitler-like? Did he mobilize uneducated and underprivileged youth, youth with a sense of entitlement to the upper class' money and possessions, by indoctrinating them ad nauseum with vagueries spoken with unfettered charisma? Did Bush want to create a civilian army that is "equally powerful" to the standing army? Um...no. Bush started a war that you all begged him to, and then reneged on when you saw the price tag. This price tag, keep in mind, is infinitsimal compared to the price tag of the almost-trillion dollar bailout that democrats are now shoving down taxpayer's throats. Oh , by the way, that bailout wouldn't be necessary had Clintonian liberals (following Jimmy "The Antichrist" Carter's policies from decades before)not forced banks to ease restrictions on making loans to low-income applicants who could never pay them back, under the altruistic guise of putting everybody in a home. Home ownership, much like health care, is not a right, it's a privilege. See what happened when liberals mandate things? We have the worst downtown in half a century to deal with now. Imagine what will happen when liberals mandate universal healthcare to people. You need to understand - some people don't put in the work. Some people do. When people who don't put in the work start demanding the same things as people who do put in the work, they get restless. Now you have a predator preying off your frustration and restlessness, validating the income disparity as "unfair" rather than acknowledging it as proper free-trade capitalism. Now he's going to penalize and take wealth from the upper class in order to placate the majority, because the majority needs to be coddled and is incapable of realizing they got themselves into the mess they are in, and in the process create a socialist country. That, my friends, IS Hitler-like behavior.

Obama the Dictator

"Obama will be ready to rule from day one."

That makes me want to form a Segue blog. On the first day of Obama's presidency, the name of this blog will change to "Day One," to categorize the promises and reneges of Obama. That was a quote from the AP earlier today. This brings me to how liberals are shifty liars.

Liberals - the ultimate truthbenders and hypocrites.

When you confront Obama supporters with some of your fears about an Obama presidency, a wide array of responses come back - none of which do anything to allay the concerns that prompted you to talk about them in the first place. Here are the most common concerns I voice, and the answers I receive.

"How do you think it's morally justifiable to impose tax increases on society's top earners and using that money to reward its moochers? You do know many of the people benefitting do not even pay taxes, right?"

- There are more middle class people than upper class people, so it's our time for a break.
- Oh well, they can afford it.
- Well it's time to make the upper class pay for keeping everybody else down for so long.
- Oh well, the upper class barely pays any taxes. (see my last blog for how that's the opposite of being true).
- The government's job is about redistribution, the money has to come from somewhere.
- Poor people deserve stuff too, is it that bad to take a little off the top to make sure everybody gets equal treatment?

All of those answers have one thing in common - they show total disregard for the upper class; instead they show contempt and even disdain and disapproval. Nevermind the thank-yous for all of the art, science, music (those artists were patronized by the wealthy). Nevermind the thank-yous for living in a world with the largest economy. Brings me to my next point, the one I started this post with.

"Are you concerned that Obama's rise closely mirrors that of other 20th century autocrats and dictators?"

Some of the liberal-minded responses:

-Oh, you mean as opposed to the white dictator we have now?
(not an answer to my question, liberal hate-mongering)

-Regardless, we need some kind of change.
(so a tyrranical dictator is better than free-market democracy, just because we are in the middle of a recession which when viewed in the larger scope of American history will appear as nothing more than a blip on our radar if you stop blowing it out of proportion because the credit-generation has taught you to expect instant gratification and nothing less)

-You are a racist!
(no, I'm really not. I'm concerned personal freedoms are going to be slowly and imperceptibly modified and phased out, covered up by huge speeces and public spectacles, liberal propaganda drilled into us ad nauseum, until we notice in 8 years that Congress has done away with maximum term limits on presidents and Obama is wearing a crown.)

To the middle class:

How many people have heard a liberal or a downtrodden middle class person say "we have it the roughest" and "we pay all the taxes" and "rich people don't pay anything"?

Percentiles Ranked by AGI


AGI Threshold on Percentiles


Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1% $295,495 34.27%

Top 5% $130,080 54.36%

Top 10% $94,891 65.84%

Top 25% $57,343 83.88%

Top 50% $29,019 96.54%

Bottom 50% < $29,019 3.46%

Sorry - the top 5% alone pays more than half of all taxes. You lose.

One small step for man, one giant leap for semantics.

For those of who were waiting for "history," you'll have to keep waiting.

Listen, I am not a racist. Far from it. I hate just as many white people as I hate blacks and latinos. Just kidding. I evaluate everybody on a meritocracy basis. Those people who exhibit values and motivations that I think are noble, I applaud and respect. When people are hard working, self-accountable and responsible, the color of their skin is as insignificant as their eye color. However, there are some who are too quick to quip "so, you look at them like they were a white person?" No, my evaluations of people do not lie on a White version of a Kinsey scale, with the most noble people being "Very White," somewhat flawed yet well-meaning people being "Somewhat White" and people with no motivations and a sense of entitlement being "Least White." Every type of person can have any types of values. I find it ironic that some Whites are accused of racism when they aren't categorizing on basis of color, yet minorities are the first to draw color line differentiation.

Obama is not a Black man. Obama is part Kenyan and part White. There are a couple of issues that are bothering me.

The First:
When Obama was running against Hillary in the primaries, his camp was on the preemptive to portray him in a White light. "Look at his White mom, look at his White aunt and White grandma, he identifies with his White family," etc. Obama himself realized the "fear" middle-of-the-road middle America might have with him ,when he used the word "scary" in his tirade of how "they," who I can only interpret as being conservatives, will try to make him look "scary." Don't be scared of The One - he's as White as white bread, as White as you and me. His color is a technicality.

Now that he is president-elect, he is suddenly blackitty black black, the first Black man to accomplish this, the first Black man to accomplish that. You know what - Halle Barry wasn't the first Black woman to win an Academy Award; Tiger Woods wasn't the first Black golfer to win the millions of tournaments he has won. All are the first biracial or multiracial people to have earned their respective accomplishments, a sentiment echoed by my biracial boyfriend, who was the first to say "I'm not black, I'm not white, I'm biracial. I don't categorize myself as either black or white." To stay in the spirit of my argument - what about Obama's White half? To claim him as Black, commodify him as part of the Black race and culture, to say "we have someone in the White House" is to deny the millions of Whites who not only voted for him and love him, but who relate to him on as many levels as Blacks do. To say he is the first Black man in office is not only to enforce the Civil War notions of quantifying a person's worth (vis a vis slave vs. freeman status) by their Black heritage percentage, but it is also as incorrect as if somebody wanted to try defining Obama as "the first White 47 year old man to become President." This brings me to my second point:

Number Two:
To make any differentiation on color lines is to enforce racism. To arbitrarily separate people or classify them based on their color is to enforce color lines and works against the idea of integration via blurring of color lines. For there to truly not be any racism, for this election to signal the death knell of racism, there would have had to have been no acknowledgement of Obama's race whatsoever. I think by constantly boxing and framing Obama as "the first Black president" goes way beyond a simple celebration of a cultural achievement, (such as Italians being proud of Leonardo di Vinci for example) since Obama does not identify with nor is part of the conventional Black culture, but rather by default negates White supporters from having anything to be proud of themselves. I guess the only solution to this conundrum would be to reclassify the Black race as a culture, since we do not say Italians are a race, or the French are a race, and it is obvious that there are as many or more differences between different mother nationalities of Black people than differences between French and Italians. In that case, we all have to sit down and say, for depriving their race from ever developing nationalism because they coerced them forcibly into crossing the Atlantic and becoming slaves, their compensation is that the can without hesitation identify with each other on a race level rather than a national one. From anecdotal evidence alone, I know of so many biracial or multiracial individuals say "I'm Irish and Asian" or "I'm British and Black." Well...there are as many "Asian" options are there are European ones, are you Laotian, Filipino, Thai, Korean, etc? Are you Nigerian, Libyan, Moroccan, South African, Sudanese? As mentioned above, it is unfortunate that due to horrible things that happened in the past, people were deprived from ever knowing in a sense, but if that is the case, it needs to be addressed instead of deferring to race as a panacea in order to identify with anyone you please.

To conclude, to say "Obama is the first Black president" is neither accurate, nor is it fair. By the fact that Black people keep claiming "in our lifetimes" and "we never thought we'd see it" implies they as a culture and a race have been defining themselves as different regardless of White attitudes, and are not interested in genuine integration and the cessation of racism.

My thoughts exactly

This video is brilliant.
They really were drones, weren't they?

Through the Looking Glass...

Hail to the Grand Inquisitor.

"Keith Olbermann" is a liberal language term for "elitist, pompous, self promoting, acrimonious, anti-establishment, communist poosack douchebag." If Keith Olbermann were a pussy, he would be a bloated, gonorrhea-ridden, yeast infected one. Haha - oh wait, he is a pussy. How did somebody who made a career commenting on sports - by default, a profession that requires a certain vapidness or vacuous intellect and a lack of real journalistic ability, get into a position where his opinions were solicited by anybody? I'm sure he would find a way to put Mother Theresa in his "Worst Human Being Ever" for focusing on helping people instead of spending her time scapegoating the plight of Calcutta's poor on the century-before imperialism of the British empire. He probably wouldn't have even given her a thank-you. What a f*stain. Who is he to attempt to eviscerate any person, let alone conservatives? Mr. Olbermann claims that conservatives need to be dragged into the civil rights movement "kicking and screaming." Nobody is against civil rights. Obama's election is not a victory for civil rights. It's a victory for people with nothing original to say to say it charismatically. Maybe once Olbermann gets his new tax bill he'll be singing a different tune, although any organization that is willing to pay him more than $250,000 is one I hope was not assisted by the bailout.

Food (or beer) for thought.

A little look at Obama tax reform. Considering these men don't appear to work and prefer to go out drinking instead of job hunting, I'm guessing they are liberals.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay! And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20”, declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that's right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That's true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.



The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, friends, journalists and all you tax-crazy, spread-the-wealth liberals, is how our tax system really works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere might be friendlier and the other beer drinkers more appreciative.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Change we can either believe in or have imposed on us forcefully.

I got this gem from the Atlas Shrugs blog. It's funny, my dad and I were talking about an Obama presidency and he brought up the apocalyptic question "Have you ever read 'Atlas Shrugged'?" Such a poignant question, one I hadn't considered, but as soon as he asked it, the correlations became blindingly obvious. I'm not going to write a synopsis of Atlas Shrugged - but considering the substandard education (evidenced by the drone behavior and section 8 habitation) that is characteristic of so many of Obama supporters, it wouldn't come as much of a surprise if they had never read it. Needless too say, any society that penalizes the best, brightest, wealthiest and the ones who contribute the most "mental work," simply out of spite that they end up having more money as a direct result of compensation for their abilities and contributions, is doomed to fail. Try considering the option capitalism didn't work for you because you didn't try hard enough. You want to talk about outsourcing jobs to India and China? What happens when doctors, lawyers, MBAs, pharmacists decide that they are tired of having their incomes docked by hangers-on and the welfare class and pick up and move to countries that will reward them for excellence? I didn't think I'd live to see the day I'd find out. Thanks middle class!

Let me leave you with a little nugget from a man who actually did love his country and its ideals. Let me rephrase that - he loved these ideals so much, found them so noble, that he fought to be a founding father of a nation built on them. That's a real President, ladies and gentlemen, not this flaccid wolf in sheep's clothes. I'm sure he is absolutely thrilled watching the destruction of everything he fought for and believed in by somebody with no patriotism and even less experience.

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his indstry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson, 1816.

Capitalism: 1776- Nov. 4th, 2008

Say good-bye to American values. Don't worry if you never got that dream job or the corner office - your new president will just steal from the people who did and give it to you. Don't pay taxes? Don't worry about having to start - oh, and here's a little bit extra we stole from that doctor over here and that and lawyer over there so you can feed your illegitimate children. Darwin must be turning in his grave. 57 more days that America's still a free country. The obvious conundrum to me is, why have marginalized people who make no financial or intellectual contributions to society suddenly now feel so entitled? What contributions have you made to society other than chronically asking for handouts and social welfare programs? Don't blame predatory lenders on your inability to pay your mortgage. Accept personal responsibility - a concept foreign to liberals - and blame yourselves for smoking weed throughout high school, not trying to better yourself and ultimately becoming part of the faceless masses of proletariats who don't contribute to society but think they deserve as big a piece of the pie as the guy who worked 3 jobs to put himself through school, sacrificed his twenties for education and now makes six figures. Yes, instead, congratulations for leeching off Clinton-era welfare reforms until somebody else came into office who promised to take care of you since you weren't interesting in helping yourselves. I understand why you think you deserve the same. Especially in the cases of put-upon immigrants who brought their socialist tendencies with them when they got off their raft or hollowed-out 1954 Cadillac. Just because the odds are against you ever making a difference doesn't mean you should penalize people who are willing to put in the work. Nothing comes easily to anybody. Everybody has it rough. Some people rise above it. Don't try to pull them back down by adding the dead weight of mandatory altruism. Think about this little caveat: the middle class moans and harps about how they aren't taken care of and how they feel ignored and how nobody cares about them. You think the current economic downturn is bad? (p.s. that was caused by liberal-mandated lending practices.) Wait until you alienate the movers and shakers of the upper class and make them take their business to Asian and European markets with them. Then watch what happens to unemployment. If you alienate the employers, who is going to pay you?

Obama is a Janus of Politics

To those who say Obama basically caters to everybody...you're right. He does. Please read
http://web.archive.org/web/20010715175647/http:/www.suba.com/~outlines/current/election/mckeon.html

and please note Obama's stances when he was running for positions slightly less hi-visibility as the American Presidency. Leave it up to The One to change his mind to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

It reminds me of 8th grade student council president election, when the candidate promises to make every Friday a holiday, ban all homework and add free vending machines to every classroom. Just tell everybody what they want to hear, regardless if you believe it or are even capable of delivering.

McCain is pro-GLBT rights.

This article was found at logcabinrepublican.org and in turn had previously been lifted out of the Washington Blade, a gay publication. This is for people who have some notion that McCain - as Madonna would have you believe - deserves to be equated to dictatorial tyrants.


McCain’s gay Q&A‘I hope gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me’By WILLIAM R. KAPFER Oct 1, 1:06 PM
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told the Blade in an exclusive written interview this week that he appreciates the Log Cabin Republicans’ decision to endorse him, and he hopes “gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me.”
McCain’s decision to answer questions submitted to him in writing marks the first known time a Republican presidential nominee has agreed to an interview with a gay publication.
McCain reiterated his long-held position that he would leave it up to military leaders to decide whether the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law should be retained or repealed. But he suggested that he would support a “review” of the policy.
Washington Blade: What personal experiences or friendships in your life have shaped how you view gay issues?


Republican presidential nominee John McCain reiterated his support for California’s Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage there, but indicated he is open to a review of the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. (Photo by Carolyn Kaster/AP)
John McCain: I have known former Congressman Jim Kolbe for 25 years. We first ran for Congress in Arizona the same year — in 1982. We served together starting in 1985. He’s a great American who spent two decades serving his country in Congress. Like me, he also served in Vietnam so we have a special kinship. When he came out in 1996, there was no question that I would stand by him. He’s a friend and a patriot and has been an admirable public servant, and a good example of why someone’s sexuality should not be relevant in public life.
I have also known former Tempe Mayor [Neil] Giuliano for many years. He headed Mayors for McCain in our 2000 campaign. I stood by him when there was an effort to recall him in 2001, led by people who objected to him being an openly gay public official. He was a hard-working public servant and someone I have great respect for.
Blade: Do you have any role models who are openly gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender?
McCain: I had the humbling experience of speaking at Mark Bingham’s funeral after the attacks on Sept. 11. Mark had supported me during the 2000 campaign. Unfortunately, I barely knew him, but our country learned about him after 9-11. He was one of the heroes on 9-11 who tried to retake control of United Flight 93. His efforts along with the other brave patriots could have saved hundreds of lives. I honor and respect Mark. Memories of his sacrifice and the other victims from 9-11 motivate me everyday to make sure we keep our nation safe from the terrorists who want to attack our way of life because freedom is a threat to their message of hate.
Here’s what I said during his eulogy:
I love my country, and I take pride in serving her. But I cannot say that I love her more or as well as Mark Bingham did, or the other heroes on United Flight 93 who gave their lives to prevent our enemies from inflicting an even greater injury on our country. It has been my fate to witness great courage and sacrifice for America's sake, but none greater than the selfless sacrifice of Mark Bingham and those good men who grasped the gravity of the moment, understood the threat, and decided to fight back at the cost of their lives. (The full eulogy is available at tampabaycoalition.com/files/0921McCainPR.htm)
Blade: Would you decline to nominate a qualified Supreme Court justice, cabinet member or other appointed position just because the person is openly gay?
McCain: I have always hired the most qualified and competent people — regardless of their political party, race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
Blade: Would you decline to nominate a qualified Supreme Court justice or cabinet member who had a history of anti-gay rulings?
McCain: I will nominate judges who interpret the Constitution, not judges who legislate from the bench. Legislators pass laws; judges interpret them. Unfortunately, too many judges have become confused [about] their role.
Blade: President Bush has been praised for his AIDS relief efforts in Africa, but many domestic AIDS service providers say the U.S. focus on the epidemic abroad ignores growing infection rates here at home. How would your AIDS policies differ from President Bush? And would you put a greater focus on the domestic problem?
McCain: I’m proud to have supported President Bush’s efforts to address the international AIDS crisis. History will remember him for the PEPFAR program, which has saved millions of lives. We’ve made progress on the domestic front too, but not enough. I am committed to supporting the development of a National AIDS Strategy. Countries receiving PEPFAR aid are required to develop a national plan; but we don’t have one in our country.
It’s important to settle on a national strategy — with input from state, local and federal government officials; along with the private sector, doctors, drug companies and AIDS advocates. Let’s roll up our sleeves and put together a National AIDS Strategy for more effectively addressing the domestic challenges.
Recent CDC statistics show that gay men continue to be strongly impacted by the disease, and the disease is disproportionately affecting people of color. Our prevention and treatment efforts must be improved to address these challenges.
Blade: Would you resume the practice started by President Clinton but discontinued by President Bush of creating a high-level White House staff position serving as liaison to the GLBT community?
McCain: I have already publicly stated that there will be no White House Office of Political Affairs in my administration — professional politics should be at the party committees, where it has a rightful place, not in the White House. I intend to be a President for all Americans. This discussion is somewhat premature given that I have not been elected (yet).
Blade: Important gay rights legislation unrelated to marriage has been stalled in Congress for some time. You have a reputation for having challenged your party in the past. Would you work with Congress to pass or deal with any of the following: ENDA, the hate crimes bill, repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?”
McCain: I promise to give full consideration to any legislation that reaches my desk. On “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I’m going to defer to our military commanders. So far they have told me it’s working. I’m willing to have the policy reviewed to make sure that’s the case, but at the end of the day, I’m going to rely on the commanders who will be impacted by a change in the law.
Blade: What is your advice to gay rights activists as to what they should pursue and realistically expect to pass in 2009 with regard to the issues listed above?
McCain: My advice to all Americans is that it is time we came together to work in a bipartisan fashion to find real solutions to the challenges facing our country. I will be the President for all Americans — and will challenge every American to work with me to put our country first.
Blade: Would a McCain administration be willing to meet with and work with gay leaders to discuss matters of interest to the gay community?
McCain: I have met with leaders of Log Cabin Republicans in my campaigns. I am always willing to listen to all viewpoints and that will continue if I become President.
Blade: What is your reaction to the news that Log Cabin Republicans endorsed your campaign and will the Log Cabin Republicans be welcome in the White House if you're elected?
McCain: I appreciate Log Cabin’s support. I’ve had a friendly relationship with the organization for almost 15 years. We don’t agree on every issue, but I respect their commitment to the GOP and I thank them for their support. Our party needs to focus on what unites us and I appreciate Log Cabin’s effort to make the GOP more inclusive. I have always been willing to discuss the important issues of the day with Log Cabin members and that will continue if I am elected. This is going to be a close election and we need support from every American.
I hope gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me. The stakes are high in this election. I will have an inclusive administration and I will be a president for all Americans.
Blade: What are your views regarding the Defense of Marriage Act? Do you think DOMA devalues the relationships of gay citizens?
McCain: As a Republican, I am a strong advocate for federalism. States should be able to decide as many issues as possible. That’s certainly the case on the definition of marriage. My home state of Arizona shouldn’t be compelled to recognize a marriage from California or Massachusetts. Those states can decide that issue by themselves.
However, at the same time, my own view is that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. That’s what I supported in Arizona. I realize this is a controversial issue and we must conduct this debate in a way that respects the dignity of every person.
Blade: What is your view of attempts to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage? Do you think repeal of all of DOMA would prompt Congress to strongly consider and possibly pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage?
McCain: I voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 and 2006. I continue to oppose such an amendment today, because as I’ve explained this should be a state matter, and not one for the federal government — as long as no state is forced to adopt some other state’s standard.
Blade: Regarding adoption by same-sex couples, you have been quoted as saying you don’t believe it’s appropriate. Can you elaborate?
McCain: I hope my comments are not misinterpreted. I respect the hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian people who are doing their best to raise the children they have adopted. As someone who adopted a child, Cindy and I know better than most couples the amazing satisfaction that comes from providing love to an unwanted child. I believe a child is best raised by a mother and father because of the unique contributions that they make together to the development of a child.
At the end of the day, this isn’t an issue the president deals with. I’m a federalist, and this is an issue reserved to the states in our system of government.
Blade: What is your position on California's Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage there?
McCain: As I did in my home state of Arizona, I support the effort in California to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. However, the people of California will ultimately decide this issue, and I’ll of course respect the decision of the voters.
Blade: Do you foresee a day when the federal government will recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships performed by states?
McCain: I honestly don’t know.
Blade: How would a McCain administration approach abstinence-until-marriage sex education initiatives? What is your view regarding programs that provide safe-sex messages specific to gay youth?
McCain: I have supported including abstinence as a component of sex-education programs. Decisions regarding programs targeted specifically at gay youth should be made based on a review of the scientific data to determine what works and what doesn’t, but they must encourage responsible individual behavior.
Blade: When asked last year whether condoms help stop the spread of HIV, you were uncertain. Are you confident that condoms do help stop the spread of HIV?
McCain: 
Of course they help, but we can’t remove responsibility from the equation. Condoms aren’t fail-proof. People must behave responsibly and make wise decisions. Government can help with prevention strategies, but all people must choose to take responsibility for their own health.
Blade: Will you support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act if elected president?
McCain: Gay and lesbian people should not face discrimination in the workplace. I’ve always practiced that in my hiring. I select the best people, regardless of their sexual orientation. I support the concept of non-discrimination in hiring for gay and lesbian people.
However, we need to make sure legislation doesn’t lead to a flood of frivolous lawsuits or infringe on religious institutions. What I can say now is I will give careful consideration to any legislation that reaches my desk, and confer with Congress before making decisions.
Blade: Del Martin died on Aug. 27. She and Phyllis Lyon, her partner of 55 years, got married in the first legal gay union in California in June —affording Phyllis many of the basic protections and rights granted to married couples, such as hospital visitation and estate planning issues. Do you envision a time when all GLBT citizens will have similar basic rights? During your administration?
McCain: I respect that Del and Phyllis spent a lifetime together. As I stated earlier, however, I believe that issues regarding marriage and family laws are best decided by the states and not the federal government.
Blade: What are your thoughts on the Matthew Shepard Act?
McCain: I have voted against the proposal several times. Let me make it clear that no one should face violence because of who they are. It’s un-American and morally repugnant. People who commit any violent crime should face tough penalties. However, I am not convinced that this is properly a federal issue, or that criminal sentences for terrible crimes should be longer because of the views of the perpetrator or the identity of the victim.
Blade: How would you handle institutions such as the Boy Scouts and Salvation Army, which have been known to engage in discrimination against gays, to underscore your message?
McCain: I don’t believe that’s an issue for the President to deal with. I supported the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dale case. The Boy Scouts are an important institution in our society and they should decide this issue on their own.
Editor’s note: John McCain’s presidential campaign this week agreed to respond in writing to these questions, which were drafted by William R. Kapfer, co-president of Window Media, the Blade’s parent company, and Blade staff and submitted to the campaign by Kapfer.

So basically, yes, McCain is against the term "gay marriage." That's all he said. He didn't say he was against giving GLBT individuals equal rights. In fact, he said it was not for the President to decide - which is true. It isn't. I have no problem inventing a new word called "garriage" to describe a gay marriage. BFD. Do you really want a wedding? I don't. If liberals can agree to write off their own failures and shortcomings in the guise of a president who will tell them it's not their fault, and then marginalize the hard work and excellence of the top tier of society who earned their keep, insinuate it's a game of chance as to who lands in which income bracket, take their money and give it to people who never bothered making enough money to pay their taxes anyways, which in my opinion is a much more heinous violation of individual rights than the gay marriage issue, you should be able to accept that it's up to each state to decide what their policy will be. News Flash: Obama doesn't support "gay marriage" either.

The Case for McCain

I know many people associate the Republican party with uber-Christian Bible bangers who adhere to hyperconservative morals and ideas. This could not be further from the case. Coast-liberals, and I refer to them that way because they are most prolific on the coasts' megalopolises of BosWash and San-San view conservatives as backwater hicks who live in the Sunbelt or the "flyover States." The Republican party, let's remember, was progressive enough to produce visionaries like Abraham Lincoln who issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and Reagan, who brought the economy and America's greatness back into prominence. Please hold off on any comments lambasting me for using the two men in the same sentence - I know Reagan had a couple of detractors. I don't want to get away from my point anyways.

Many people ask me how I can be gay and vote for a Republican. In this election, however, I personally feel McCain has more to offer to GLBT rights than Obama. Months ago, Obama promised to support GLBT marriage initiatives and rights, but now as we are in the final stretch, he says he would not support gay marriage amendments. McCain's top advisor is an openly gay man. He gave a heartfelt outpouring of his appreciation and thanks to GLBT supporters and Log Cabin Republicans. Even without that, his patriotism and dedication to preserving the American way of life - the way of life that allows GLBT individuals to pursue their dreams and live lives free to realize their potential without persecution and is evidenced by his war history and the fact he was p.o.w. for the better part of a decade - is more than enough to make me respect, admire and support the man. Even if he is against a gay marriage amendment, he never once promised me one thing and changed his mind to appease the lowest common denominator and say whatever it was to make the statistically largest number of people happy. He is a man of conviction who believes in something with enough integrity that he defends his beliefs rather than changes them to accommodate people.

Inaugural Entry

I suppose since the election is two days away, and this being a political blog, I guess I should mention things about the upcoming 2008 presidential election. I support McCain / Palin. It's funny how the election draws so much heated emotion and passion among people, and that's good. Quite frankly, a presidential election is a great thing to get passionate about. The line I am careful not to cross is when emotion - as it is prone to doing - doesn't cause me to make irrational decisions.

Although I have always viewed myself as a social conservative, I have not always supported the Republican ticket. In the past, especially during the Clinton years, I found myself more attracted to the Democrats. I am voting for the Republican ticket because quite frankly I agree more with the Republican party on issues such as the economy, personal finance, venture capitalism and its stance on social welfare programs. I come from a family that is in that top 5% of people whose wealth is going to be "redistributed." However, that does not mean by default I am anti-Obama. My cousin actually worked very high up in his office shortly after he moved to Washington as a senator, and I entertained a lot of her discussions of his policies. Based solely on Obama's proposed tax reform, I would vote Republican, and I personally am in a tax bracket that has a lot to gain from an Obama presidency. I'm not going to quote dozens of industrial and imperialistic-era philosophers like Hume, Marx, Neitzsche and whoever else - it's not my forte. I think in a modern era we should rely on modern philosophy, using the minds of the past as framework or as examples. From a moral standpoint, I think people should be allowed to keep what they earn. Reap what you sow. Not all people are given equal gifts. The people who are able to profit more financially from their gifts, others are just good at being enterprising industrialists. To take money away from them and "redistribute" it to people, some of whom don't even pay taxes, just seems like sending the wrong message. How inclined would you be to work to attain something if somebody waved a magic wand and said you were going to get it for free from now on? That goes for health insurance as well. I'm sorry, I may sound elitist, but I don't believe that top notch healthcare is a right, I think it's a privilege. Here's something ironic too. We're always hearing about how the middle class is "the backbone of American society," and how "the middle class gets burdened with the most taxes." Actually, the people with the middle incomes only pay 30% of the taxes. Less than 10% of people - the top 10% - pay more than approximately 65% of the taxes. The bottom 30% of people pay something like 5% of the taxes. Instead of rewarding success, I feel an Obama presidency would marginalize and penalize it, or at least make it seem undesirable. I know the figure of Robin Hood is steeped with an air of romance and idealism, but to the people on the short end of the stick, it was hellish. I hear a lot of people say "well, there's more people in the middle class than the upper class, so too bad for them." I really don't think that's fair. You're going to imprison the upper class for your own gain? Did they do that to you? Just because there's "more of you" doesn't mean you have the right to dictate how everybody else is going to live. That's not capitalism and it's not democratic. I feel some people need to accept more personal responsibility for their lot in life, not band together with other disenfranchised people and other people who feel powerless and aggravated, rationalize your jealousy and resentment for those who are better off than you and claim what they have earned as belonging to everybody. That's called socialism.

Welcome to Log Cabin Republican!

"Hello world!"

I'm sorry - a bit cliche, I know. I remember when I started college as a computer science major, in the vein of those "C++ For Dummies," "Java for Dummies," " For Dummies," we were encouraged to create our introductory program to simply say "Hello World" in a standard font. That was a million years ago. I ended up graduating with a double major in Classical Studies and Psychology, a minor in Anthropology, and was pre-med. I'm...not in medical school now. In order words, I have possibly the least marketable combination of degrees ever. However, my hodgepodge life since college, my fondness of writing, and my atypical lifestyle (conservative homosexual, what?) has inspired me to start writing some of my thoughts down.

My goals: I hope to change some of the stereotypes people have of gays and lesbians. I am neither trying to alienate my community nor am I trying to push an agenda. I just want to share some of my ideas and hear what other people think as well.