The Messiah vs. "the messiah"

Back in 2008, some people referred to King Barack I as a "messiah", some in jest and some in all seriousness.  Just for fun, let's compare and contrast the messiah, Barack Hussein Obama, with the Messiah, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  (NOTE: This is tongue in cheek, with no disrespect intended (toward Jesus, that is).  Please don't take this too seriously.)


Similarities

1. Jesus fed the 5000.  (John 6)  Obama is the food stamp president.
2. Some of Jesus's followers were only in it for the goodies.  (John 6:26)  And so are some of Obama's followers.
3. Jesus commands the waves. (Mark 4:35-40) Obama thinks he can do the same.
4. Jesus told his disciples to carry swords.  (Luke 22:36) Obama told his followers to carry guns.  (Some of them also carry billy clubs.)
5. Jesus told a rich man to sell everything that he owned and to follow him.  (Luke 18:22)  Obama wants the rich to pay more in taxes.
6. Jesus is the King of Kings.  Obama thinks that he's a king.

Differences

1. Jesus turned water into wine.  Obama turns teleprompter text into whine.
2. Jesus blamed the devil.  (Matthew 17:18)  Obama blames Bush.
3. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me."  (Matthew 19:14)  Obama said, "Let the little children die alone in a closet."
4. Jesus was born in Bethlehem.  I'm not quite sure where Obama was born. 
5. Jesus bows to God only.  (Matthew 4)  Obama, on the other hand...
6. Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's.  (Matthew 22)  Obama appointed a tax cheat to his Cabinet. 
7. Jesus healed the sick.  He did not assess a tax for not being healed.  (For that matter, he did not tax the people that he healed, either.)  Obama's signature piece of legislation penalizes taxes people who don't buy medical insurance.
8. Best of all: Jesus will return one day.  Obama is limited to two terms as president.

This is fun!  If you can think of anything that I missed, then add your two cents' worth in the comments section.

Arizona ballot initiative

I was listening to the Don Kroah Show recently, and the guest on the show mentioned an initiative which will be on Arizona's ballot this November.  It sounds like some Arizona citizens are fed up with the lawless federal government under King Obama I and are trying to amend their constitution in order to stand up for themselves.  I read it, and it's awesome.

Section 3. Supreme law of the land
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land AND MAY NOT BE VIOLATED BY THE FEDERAL, STATE, OR ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT.  TO PROTECT THEIR FREEDOMS AND PRESERVE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION,THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA ARE EMPOWERED TO REJECT ANY FEDERAL ACTION THAT THEY DETERMINE VIOLATES THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.  IN ADDITION TO ALL OTHER AVAILABLE LEGAL REMEDIES, THEY MAY DO SO BY 1) A MAJORITY VOTE CAST IN AN INITITIVE OR REFERENDUM, OR 2) A MAJORITY VOTE OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES IN BOTH HOUSES OF THE LEGISLATURES WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE GOVERNOR.

http://www.azsos.gov/election/2012/General/BallotMeasureText/C-04-2012.pdf

If this amendment passes, this will inevitably lead to a conflict.  Remember back in high school when you saw two guys nose to nose and a crowd gathering and then somebody yelled, "FIIIIIGGHHHT!" ?  That's me right about now!  After all the shenanigans with the Department of Justice suing to prevent states from purging the voter rolls of dead people, the constitutionally-dubious Obamacare law, the refusal of the federal government to enforce our borders, the refusal of the government to deal with lawless "sanctuary cities"...it's about time that somebody said enough's enough.  This amendment sends a message loud and clear that the Constitution means what it means, no matter what any court, president, or Congress may say.

The complaints from the left will be predictable.  Democrats will suddenly gain a cynical interest in law and order and in the institutions of our nation.  They will accuse Arizona of lawlessness and appeal to the authority of the Constitution.  Of course, the irony is that by passing this amendment, Arizonans will be upholding the Constitution while the Democrats have used it as toilet paper.  I hope that this amendment passes and that other states follow suit.

Some Dude's Profound Profundities of Profoundness

Thomas Sowell occasionally writes a list of pithy sayings which are too short for their own article.  I'm doing the same.  -- S.D.

1. There is one reason and one reason only to oppose voter ID laws: you support election fraud.

2. Or maybe you think that voter ID laws are discriminatory against differently-animated Americans.  Or differently-naturalized Americans.

3. One argument from liberals opposed to voter ID laws is that the number of fraudulent votes cast is miniscule and that this is a "solution without a problem."  In that case, maybe I should wait until I get a cavity before I brush my teeth.

4. I am a little amused when I read about efforts to end bullying in schools.  Liberals seem to think that passing a federal law against bullying will somehow make bullies disappear.  All it takes is passing a law and hiring some motivational speakers?  Why did no one think of that before?  In that case, why not ban jerks?  That would eliminate a whole range of crimes and antisocial behaviors...like silencing dissenters and demanding that other people pay for your recreational activities, for example.

There oughta be a bumper sticker... (cont.)

Continued from here...

7. Keep your ovaries out of my wallet.  (See this.)

8. If obstetricians made large donations to Democrats' campaigns, giving birth would be a sacrament.

9. I want a pony.

There oughta be a bumper sticker...

These are all variations on common bumper stickers.  Feel free to add your own suggestions in the comments section.

1. My child was Vandal of the Month at Occupy High School.
2. It will be a great day when our military has the money it needs and Planned Parenthood has to hold a bake sale to pay for abortions.
3. A conservative needs a liberal like a dog needs a tick.
4. Envy is not a family value.
5. Class warfare is not a family value.
6. Jesus is not a Democrat.

On birth control and role-playing games

I never thought I would read a sentence which combines these two seemingly-disparate things.

"If insurance companies are mandated to start providing the accessories for our hobbies than [sic*] shouldn’t they pay for my D&D [Dungeons and Dragons] supplies as part of a men’s health initiative?" -- Brian Cherry  (link)

*Latin for "He made the mistake.  Not me."

Pay my tuition!

A budding young intellectual explains why the rich (dun...DUN...DUNNNNNNN! *thunderclap*) should pay for his college tuition.  (from National Review Online)

Sports!

As the subtitle of our blog says, this is "A Politics & Culture Blog."  Sports are a big part of our culture, inspiring metaphors in politics such as "hitting a speech out of the park".  Political metaphors are used in sports as well.  Remember a few years ago when the Detroit Lions "pulled a McCain" by going 0-16?  (OK, I made that one up.)  Let's talk sports!

• With the continuing NBA lockout and the possibility of a cancelled NBA season, major US cities are bracing themselves for higher crime rates due to more NBA players out on the streets.  I have an idea.  Maybe we should give these guys something to do, say...playing basketball...around 12:00 AM when they might be getting into trouble with the law.  We could even allocate federal funds for it.  This is a brilliant idea!  Why has no one thought of this before?
• The 4-0 Detroit Lions -- wait, 4-0? -- play against the Bears tonight.  I never thought I would say "4-0 Detroit Lions". 
• The Tigers are losing the American League Championship Series two games to none against the Texas Rangers.  Go Tigers.

Actually, I think they are more like Veruca Salt

Those of you who have jobs and lives might not know what's happening on Wall Street.  By "Wall Street", I mean the actual street, not a metaphor for big business.  Some young liberals got tired of the fluorescent lights in their parents' basement and went to New York City to protest the evils of capitalism...or something like that.
At a forum in Washington, D.C., today, Vice President Joe Biden compared the Wall Street protesters to the TEA party.  “There’s a lot in common with the tea party,” Biden said. “The tea party started why? TARP. They thought it was unfair we were bailing out the big guys.”  That's the extent of the similarities between the TEA party and the aimless protesters on Wall Street.  As Ann Coulter said, the TEA partiers have jobs, showers, and a point.  Also, the similarity that Biden pointed out is an overstatement.  Biden betrays his true thoughts by referring to the "big guys". 

For Democrats -- and Biden is no exception -- everything boils down to class warfare.  The Wall Street protesters on the left are no doubt angry that "fat cat" bankers got a bailout at the expense of the "working class".  On the other hand, the TEA party objects to bailouts on principle because it is unfair for the taxpayers to pay the price for somebody else's bad choices, whether that somebody is a "fat cat" banker or a homeowner who took out a bad loan.

The TEA party wants government to get out of the way so they can provide for themselves and their families.  The Wall Street protesters want the government to give them jobs.  And a pony.  Or at least a squirrel.


This says it all.  (Source: UPI.com)

Anti-democratic democrats: an inadvertent moment of honesty

Bev Perdue, Democrat governor of North Carolina, recently suggested that her state should suspend elections in order to get more accomplished in government.  (She later said that her comments were sarcastic and a joke, which are dubious claims, given the tone of her voice and the notable absence of laughter from the audience.)  Gov. Perdue has revealed what we all know about liberals: they think they are smarter than all the rest of us dumb rubes and should control every aspect of our lives.  Here's what the always-brilliant Andrew Klavan has to say:  http://pajamasmedia.com/andrewklavan/2011/10/03/the-left-vs-democracy-appalling-but-not-surprising/

Why make a case against conservative views when you can simply misrepresent them?

Liberals excel at slaying strawmen, creating false dichotomies, and generally misrepresenting the views of conservatives.  They also like to create absurd, unrealistic scenarios that would make it seem unconscionable to hold conservative views.  I see this phenomenon often in the comments sections on Pajamas Media and National Review Online.  One common argument of Internet-dwelling liberals is that conservatives want a libertarian paradise like war-torn Liberia or Somalia.  And of course, who can forget the frequent and passionate pleas on behalf of all those women who are pregnant after being raped and want to have an abortion?  (Proponents of abortion don't talk as often about the remainder of abortions, most of which are performed just because somebody doesn't want to have a baby.  See "Why women have abortions".)

Now, I wish to present Exhibit C.  Check out this totally unbiased article on Yahoo about a Republican debate, titled "Audience at tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to die".  During the debate, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul about a hypothetical, uninsured, comatose man and whether he should be left to die.  Immediately after this, a few people in the audience shouted, "Yeah!"  Personally, I think this outburst was a sarcastic response to a stupid question.  The unspoken false dichotomy is that you either have to support Obamacare in its entirety or you want poor people to die.  (And you probably hate puppies, too, you bastard.)  For all I hear about how nuanced, sophisticated, and intelligent liberals are, they sure aren't very good at making distinctions. 

I sincerely doubt that the good and generous people of the United States (and by "people", I mean conservatives) would let our hypothetical man die.  Blitzer's silly false dichotomy is nothing but an attempt to make conservative views of limited government and personal freedom seem unconscionable and ridiculous.  Harrumph!  Harrumph, I say!  End rant.

I kind of like this idea...

Some bar owners in Michigan are angry about being forbidden to allow smoking in their privately-owned bars (you know...the buildings that they paid for with their own money and which customers enter of their own free will) and have banned lawmakers from the premises.  (By the way, casinos are exempt from the Michigan smoking ban.  Hmmmm...)  Now if we could find a way to ban Democrats from the U.S. Capitol...

Heh heh

Earlier this year sometime, the College Democrats of America released a video of some college students giving reasons why they are Democrats.  I found a parody of it.  My favorite line: "Because through government, we can do things that we can't do as individuals...like take other people's money."  Zing!

Original video:

The new and improved parody...

Thoughts on the recent tragedy in Arizona

I'm a little late to the party.  By now, thousands of bloggers have already weighed in on this issue, but I am going to comment anyway.  If you have paid any attention to the news, then you are aware now that a nut shot several people outside a Tucson, Arizona, grocery store, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and Judge John Roll.  Roll was killed in the attack, and Giffords is expected to make a recovery. 

Predictably, some commentators immediately suggested that a member of the TEA party is responsible for the attacks.  Sarah Palin was also implicated because of her infamous map of targeted Democrats.  Some lawmakers, including Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) are taking advantage of the occasion to talk about gun control.

Here are my thoughts on the passing scene...

• The attacks are a tragedy.  This news does not make me happy.  I do not wish for any harm to come to my ideological opponents in the Democrat party.  All I want is for them to be defeated at the polls by large margins.
• The attacker, Jared Loughner, is not a conservative.  He's not a liberal.  He's a nut.  He shot all those people because he's a nut, and that's what nuts do sometimes.  Among his favorite books listed on his blog are Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, and Atlas Shrugged.  (Essentially, the free market manifesto.  A rather odd juxtaposition, don't you think?)  His acquaintances also think that he has a few screws loose. 
• Gun control?  Seriously?  Do we really have to pass a new law every time something bad happens?  And isn't it rather tacky to use a tragedy like this to push your pet cause?
• As for blaming Sarah Palin for the attacks...good...grief.  Seriously?  Some crosshairs on a map made a guy flip out and kill a bunch of people? 

Now it's "controversial" to make decisions about a business that you own?

Suppose, for just a moment, that General Motors makes a strange business agreement with Toyota. GM pays Toyota a large sum of money, and in exchange, GM controls the business decisions of Toyota. However, Toyota is still owned by the shareholders of Toyota. GM can now decide who Toyota may hire and what criteria may be used in Toyota's hiring decisions. GM gets to decide how much money its executives may earn. GM also has the right to fix any cases of "discriminatory underrepresentation" of minorities in management positions. GM has the power to set minimum wages at Toyota (even though some candidates for jobs may be willing to work for less) and to mandate that Toyota pay a higher wage to employees who work more than 40 hours in a week.


With all the power that GM has over Toyota, you might argue that GM actually owns Toyota, even though the original agreement says otherwise. Now, substitute "the US government" for "GM" and "privately-owned American businesses" for "Toyota", and you get the situation faced by businesses in the US today.*


US Senate candidate Rand Paul from Kentucky made a similar argument on The Rachel Maddow Show on May 19. (Video and transcript here.) On this show, Maddow asked Paul to clarify some of his previous statements regarding the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul has criticized parts of the 1964 act which place mandates on private businesses, while praising the other sections which place restrictions only on public institutions. Paul framed his argument in terms of personal liberty and property rights. In a nutshell, the owners of private businesses should be free to use their property as they see fit, as this is the essence of ownership.

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?

PAUL: Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it. I think the problem with this debate is by getting muddled down into it, the implication is somehow that I would approve of any racism or discrimination, and I don't in any form or fashion.

I love this answer. I also find racism aborrhent, and I choose not to associate myself with racists. However, freedom includes the right to be an offensive jerk. And everyone is an offensive jerk in somebody's eyes. Paul gave kind of a long and roundabout answer, but he's a politician. If he had not gone to great lengths to explain himself, then his ideas would be distorted by the press even more than they have already.

Maddow's reply to Paul is just plain silly.

MADDOW: But isn't being in favor of civil rights but against the Civil Rights Act a little like saying you're against high cholesterol but you're in favor of fried cheese?**

This is a logical fallacy that many people fall for. (Or maybe they know better, but they just try to score political points by using it.) It is only inconsistent to support civil rights while opposing parts of the Civil Rights Act if those parts actually deal with civil rights. For the record, I am strongly in favor of fried cheese.


*All right, the analogy breaks down at a few points. For one, the federal government does not pay privately-owned businesses for their rights. It just takes their rights by force.

**Wait a second. This argument sounds ... somehow ... familiar for some reason -- almost as if I have heard it before. You know...being personally opposed to something but wanting it to remain legal. Where have I heard this? Maybe I'm confused. Yeah, probably.

Tell me now, why is this bill "controversial"?

The intertubes are all abuzz with another "controversial" bill passed by the Arizona legislature. ("Controversial" has come to mean, simply, "offensive to the Left".) This bill, if passed into law, would prohibit courses in public schools which...

• Promote the overthrow of the United States government.
• Promote resentment toward a race or class of people.
• Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.
• Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.

After a little thought and reflection, I can see why this bill might be offensive. By censoring certain ideas from public schools, the schools would be promoting other subversive ideas, such as...um... respect for one's fellow man...and um...respect for our country and its laws? Um...yeah. I guess those ideas are really not subversive after all. My mistake. Sometimes I confuse respect and patriotism with resentment and armed revolution. It's one of my many eccentricities.

I have a few reservations about the other recent bill, but I wholeheartedly support this one. It is not the job of a teacher to pontificate on his anti-American political views to a captive audience of impressionable young students. Public schools should also emphasize our common heritage as Americans rather than pitting one racial or ethnic group against another.

Reasonable men

If you watch the news, then you are no doubt familiar with the loony, hateful, radical new ideas coming out of the Tea Party movement -- strong rhetoric about the proper role of government and what the people should do when the government oversteps that role. Bill Whittle points out that these ideas are not at all new, and that they are the same ideas (with amazingly similar rhetoric) expressed by some wise and visionary men that I hold in the highest regard. They got pretty fired up over the Stamp Act, so I can only imagine what they would think if they were around today... Article

Twenty-five year olds "allowed" to stay on parent's health insurance plans

By now, this is old news. One consequence of the recently-passed health care "reform" bill is that the compassionate and benevolent people in the federal government are going to "allow" "children" to stay on their parents' health insurance plans until the age of 26. Think about this for just a minute.

It is not necessary to have a law to allow you to do something! To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason why insurance companies could not have sold policies which would cover the little basement-dwellers. (I suppose there could be some government regulation to prohibit this. The insurance industry is highly regulated, and I am no expert.) What doubletalkers like Obama really mean when they say that 25-year-olds are "allowed" to remain on their parents' insurance plans is that insurance companies are forced to sell insurance plans which cover "adult children" up to the age of 26. Once again, our politicians have inserted themselves into our private matters in the name of "compassion". (And no doubt, they will take credit for it, even though they have done nothing other than tell somebody else what to do.)

What part of "private property" don't you understand?

This is from my home state of Michigan. Some nitwit with too much time on his hands has proposed a bill which would require all gas stations in Michigan to provide full service for the elderly and disabled at no additional cost. (It might be Bert Johnson, although the article only mentions him as a supporter of the bill.)

This reminds me of the recently-passed anti-smoking law, which bans smoking in all Michigan workplaces, with a few types of businesses exempted. Both of these bills are "good ideas" for which "there ought to be a law". Also, both of these bills impose rules on the owners of private businesses. (I would bet that most gas station owners would be willing to pump gas for elderly or disabled drivers, even without a law mandating that they do so. What this bill amounts to, then, is an excuse for a politician to grandstand and appear "compassionate" without actually having to do anything compassionate himself.) If Bert Johnson cares so much about the elderly or disabled, then let him pump their gas.

Eminent domain claims another victim

The right to one's own property is one of the most basic rights of a free society, and that right is being trampled on in Brooklyn, NY. Remember Kelo? It's happening again. Article