Monthly Archives: January 2008
Here in America, we believe that this is a country of opportunity. The opportunity to escape persecution, the opportunity to live as we want and the opportunity to make something of ourselves.
But many people confuse these opportunities as things that someone else will provide for them. People expect the government to give them money to provide for their children, healthcare for themselves and their families, or money after they stop working. But this isn’t the way that this country needs to operate. And why should it?
Why should anyone be required to provide for other people? I understand and completely support charities, but these sorts of programs and organizations should be completely voluntary.
You’ll hear Democrats and other liberal figures tell you all about the “evil” rich. That these people didn’t really earn their money, but rather stumbled into by good fortune. And while this philosophy pertains to certain cases, it’s certainly more probable that these rich people made their money honestly, by working hard and making smart decisions. These people are excellent for America and its’ society, both social and economical. By no means should they be taxed at a higher rate than the people that earn less than they do, at least, not for the reason of supporting the lesser-earners.
I can find no sensical reason for the government to pay welfare to families to support and maintain children that they can’t afford, yet the government continually refuses to support and maintain a private jet for me. The Deomcrat’s solution to families that have kids they can’t afford is to pay them so they can afford to moderately support them. I have a better idea. Don’t have the kids. Not getting pregnant is as easy as not having sex. I understand you’re poor and therefore have nothing else to do except have lots and lots of sex, but it’s irresponsible. America is slowly but surely turning personal responsibility and achievement out of our society. Successful members of our country are viewed as “lucky” or “underhanded” and unsuccessful members are simply viewed as victims of unfortunate circumstances. There are too few people willing to call these people what they really are: lazy and a drain on society.
These people have this unfounded sense of entitlement. They feel that they should be given free healthcare. Why? Because they a) don’t have a job that provides it and refuse to try and get one or b) can’t afford it. You’ll hear Democrats from Harry Reid to Ted Kennedy tell you about the ever-growing number of people in this country that don’t have a healthcare plan. What they fail to mention is that the fastest growing demographic without a healthcare plan is those that have worked hard enough and made enough money to in effect “self-insure” themselves. You won’t hear that out of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
You are not entitled to anything of mine hear in America. The only people that are entitled to what I have is my wife (or, if you’re female, your husband). I have worked hard for what I have and while I don’t mind paying taxes to support the ensured safety of this country, or other domestic projects that better the quality of my life (sales taxes) I do take offense to having to provide for those who refuse to provide for themselves. While I may choose to provide relief for the “have-nots” I, and millions of other Americans should not be required by law to do so. By taxing high-income earners at a higher rate, you are effectively punishing personal achievement. But I forgot, to liberals, that’s a bad thing that apparently should be discouraged.
I knew this class would be fun when I scheduled it. I expected trouble as a political-savvy and educated conservative at a liberal University. But it just got better.
On the first day of class (Wednesday) we introduced ourselves and named a figure in politics that we liked. There was too much Obama, Clinton and Oprah to make me think this class will challenge me politically. After these superfluous introductions, the professor passed out this short “Political Knowledge” quiz.
Name the following political figures/governmental facts:
1. President of the United States: ____________________
2. Vice President of the United States: ____________________
3. Speaker of the US House: ____________________
4. US Senate Majority Leader: ____________________
5. US Secretary of State: ____________________
6. Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court: ____________________
7. First US President: ____________________
8. Three Branches of the federal government:
Your truly, of course, was able to correctly answer all these simple questions about US politics. Could you? My politics class couldn’t. Here are the correct answers and the percentage of the class that could answer correctly:
1. President of the United States: George W. Bush (100%)
2. Vice President of the United States: Dick Cheney (88%)
3. Speaker of the US House: Nancy Pelosi (28%)
4. US Senate Majority Leader: Harry Reid (8%)
5. US Secretary of State: Condoleezza Rice (56%)
6. Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court: Justice John Roberts (16%)
7. First US President: George Washington (88%)
8. Three Branches of the federal government:
Executive, Legislative, Judicial (68%)
So the class as a whole, managed a 57% on the quiz. Take out my ringer 100% and it goes down to 53%. So basically, I get to spend an entire semester debating against a bunch of Democrats who can’t all name our first president. Ironic, isn’t it that the two people who knew who Harry Reid (absolutely a Democrat) were conservatives? The liberals don’t even know their own majority leader.
I’d be willing to bet more people that plan on voting for Barack Obama don’t even know which state he represents in the Senate. And a lot of them are in my class.
Randi (which is a misspelling of the name Randy) Kaye wrote an article today entitled “Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in S.C.”
This is outrageous. Her article insinuates that black women in South Carolina should either vote for Obama because he’s black or Hillary because she’s female. Voting for someone because they’re best qualified apparently isn’t taken into a voter’s consideration to Randi.
Jehmu (I’m not sure what that one’s a misspelling of) Greene, a black woman they found in a salon said that in the black community she lives in “race trumps gender”. She also goes on to say that “black women are politically savvy.” My ass. Just take a look at yesterday’s idiot. Using demographics, black women would be very low on my list of groups that are “politically savvy.”
The article also discusses the “Oprah Factor.” Jehmu gives some long-winded explanation about this factor which basically boils down to “Oprah supports Obama, and we do everything Oprah tells us to.” Good voting strategy, it’s the same one that is utilized in middle schools and high schools across America. It’s good to see that these women are at least capable of following a middle school level practice.
I will admit, that I like Obama much better than I like Hillary. While Hillary wallows in attracting the uneducated Democratic masses with her promises of taking money from the evil rich people and giving it to these uneducated poor people, Obama is attracting support from the educated liberal academia folk.
Did you know that every Princeton faculty member that has donated money to a political campaign has donated to a Democrat? Not one has given money to a Republican candidate. And since these professors are educated, their candidate of support was Barack Obama. Overwhelmingly. Clinton was way behind, along with Richardson, Edwards and Dodd.
This election is probably going to see a higher turnout of voters than we’re used to. The only challenge should be, “should I vote for this candidate’s platform or this other candidate’s platform.” Not should I vote for the black guy or the woman. These people are going to kill the election. Black women that think a “hanging chad” is a well-endowed man named Chad are going to be voting for the first time in a long time, if not ever.
Voter Qualification Exam. Institute one, America.
I was watching Family Feud today for lack of anything else to do and for those of you not familiar with the game, I’ll explain. 100 people are asked a question and contestants must guess the top answers.
Two families compete against each other and one of the families today was the family. The Doss family consisted of five black women. And they got this question.
Name the Presidential candidate that is most presidential.
Now there were seven answers that needed to be filled. In Family Fued if you miss three times, then the question passes to the other family. The Doss family proceeded to offer these answers.
Hillary Clinton (1)
Barack Obama (2)
Needless to say, the question passed to the other family that stole the points when they said Mitt Romney. The Doss family really struggled to come up with names. I’m fairly certain that the entire family seriously thought Washington, Jefferson and Reagan were Presidential candidates. But come November, they’ll all be able to vote and will vote for either Hillary Clinton (because she’s a woman) or Barack Obama (because he’s “black”).
Five members from one family could only come up with 2 Presidential candidates. My family could probably come up with over a dozen. Why? Because we care more about the welfare of this country than who’s going to give us the most stuff from the rich.
There needs to be some sort of voter qualification test. We can’t expect our country to improve if we allow people to vote that think George Washington is running for President.
Even more disturbing is that 38 out of 100 people thought Hillary Clinton was the “most Presidential” candidate. She’s probably the least Presidential of all the candidates.
At least the Doss Family will have the option of writing George Washington in on the ballot.
I made a 12-hour drive from Atlanta to Missouri today. And for fun, by the time I hit 75 N, I decided to count the number of times I silently cursed at a driver and make a tally.
By the time I exited I-70, exit 126 I had tallied 114 different vehicles, some of them multiple times. Here’s how they broke down:
-9 unidentified (windows tinted, exited highway, etc.)
-About 40 or so weren’t white (Asian, Black, Indian, Middle Eastern, Hispanic, etc.)
-About 20 on the phone
-About 20 older drivers
-8 cars had Greek letters on them.
-10 or 12 had liberal bumper stickers
-1 had a conservative emblem on the back
Which pretty much solidify my assumptions on stupid drivers. I wish I could have collected more information like car model, where they were from and such, but those are harder to record while driving.
Allow me to introduce you guys to Cynthia Tucker. Ms. Tucker is black, a woman and a journalist – the editor of the Atlanta Journal Constitution’s editorial page to be precise. Now, using the facts that we have about Ms. Tucker we can make an educated guess that she is liberal. By reading her opinion article on voter ID requirements we confirm that she is indeed a liberal. And the stupid, bleeding heart type.
States are beginning to move towards adopting policy that all voters must present a valid, government-issued ID. I don’t have a problem with this and neither should any legal US citizen. But Ms. Tucker does. She complains that a Mary-Jo Criswell had her vote nullified because she failed to show a valid ID. Tucker goes on to say
“Citizens like Criswell are Americans, too, and they have every right to vote, just like it says in the Bill of Rights.”
Assuming that Criswell is in fact an American citizen, then Tucker is 1-for-3 in her statement. Criswell is an American, but she does not have “every right to vote” and it certainly doesn’t say that in the Bill of Rights. Not America’s Bill of Rights, anyways. Sometimes I wonder if these left-leaning journalists know that what they’re saying is a complete and utter untruth or if they’re actually just dumb enough to believe the crap they make up.
Addressing her claims, there is no Constitutional right to vote in a federal election. There is no Constitutional right to vote for the President of the United States. It isn’t in the Bill of Rights. Makes me wonder if she actually knows what the Bill of Rights is, or if she’s simply another democratic drone distorting information she heard, but can’t fully remember, from another bleeding heart.
Remember Bush vs. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board? It’s a Supreme Court case from 2000 that ruled that there is no right to vote in a Presidential election. Or Alexander vs. Mineta, another 2000 Supreme Court case that ruled that the US Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it’s the state’s job to determine which citizens are qualified to vote.
HJR 28. Sound familiar? Probably not. It was a proposed amendment by US representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. in 2005 entitled “A Proposed Amendment to Establish a Constitutional Right to Vote in America.” Hmm…I bet you’re wondering why we would need this amendment, Ms. Tucker, since the right to vote is suposedly already in the Bill of Rights.
Michael Dorf, the Vice Dean and Professor of Law at Columbia University (possibly the most liberal university in our nation) wrote an article entitled ”We Need a Constitutional Right to Vote in Presidential Elections.” Which would probably strike Ms. Tucker as odd considering that that right is supposedly already in our Constitution.
Ms. Tucker argues that requiring voter identification is an attempt to eliminate votes for Democratic candidates, because people that don’t have proper identification vote overwhelmingly Democrat. But that’s not the case. Any citizen can get a driver’s license for identification purposes only. You simply fill out some forms, pay a minimal fee (maybe $15) and bam! Identification.
I personally love that there is no Constitutional right to vote. There are millions of eligible voters in this country that fall under the “dumb masses” category. We don’t need those people deciding who runs our country. We need voters who understand that voting is a privilege and a duty not to be taken lightly. Too many idiots vote simply to get their hands in someone else’s pocket. They vote to help better them and their pathetic existence, not to help the betterment of the country.
This one’s stemming from Hurricane Katrina. First, let me start by saying suing the government because of a natural disaster is ridiculous and insane. Hmm…I didn’t want to pay more taxes to secure the dykes the government provided me. I also ignored evacuation notices, figuring a could withstand a little rain. Oops! Now my house is flooded and I think I’ll sue the government!
Note: nobody sued their governments in 2004 when a tsunami wiped out 225,000 people over in Asia, yet US claims were over 3,000 trillion for 1,600 deaths.
Now back to this anonymous Louisiana lady. US Army Corps of Engineers just received a claim for $3 quadrillion dollars. For those of you that struggle with prefixes, that $1,000,000,000,000,000 dollars, or, one-thousand million million. $1 quadrillion would dwarf the US gross domestic product, ($US13.2 trillion in 2007), and a stack of one quadrillion coins of any currency would reach Saturn.
This woman is from Baker, LA which is pretty well removed from Katrina’s epicenter but according to the article, she lives in a trailer park which has house evacuees since the storm.
Yes lady, the government sent this storm to interrupt your fulfilling and successful life in that trailer park. Now they want to make sure that you’re compensated with a quadrillion dollars. The total lawsuits before your idiocy were 3,000 trillion. You surpassed that all by your lonesome. Might I suggest another alternative to the lawsuit: personal responsibility and advantageous decision-making.
Oh, and Al Sharpton? Shut up, it was a joke. I can’t put into words how much I hate this man, but it’s probably a quadrillion times more than this Louisiana lady.