Interesting set of questions I found

Please note,

This post is not my original work. I ran across this on a website forum but thought it so good, I am posting it here. It was posted by an ARFcom member named Pacu44, from Louisiana. So, Pacu44, thanks for posting this, lets see where it goes.

So the following are 25 questions to ask anyone who is delusional enough to believe that this economic recovery is real….

#1) In what universe is an economy with 39.68 million Americans on food stamps considered to be a healthy, recovering economy? In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture forecasts that enrollment in the food stamp program will exceed 43 million Americans in 2011. Is a rapidly increasing number of Americans on food stamps a good sign or a bad sign for the economy?

#2) According to RealtyTrac, foreclosure filings were reported on 367,056 properties in the month of March. This was an increase of almost 19 percent from February, and it was the highest monthly total since RealtyTrac began issuing its report back in January 2005. So can you please explain again how the U.S. real estate market is getting better?

#3) The Mortgage Bankers Association just announced that more than 10 percent of U.S. homeowners with a mortgage had missed at least one payment in the January-March period. That was a record high and up from 9.1 percent a year ago. Do you think that is an indication that the U.S. housing market is recovering?

#4) How can the U.S. real estate market be considered healthy when, for the first time in modern history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together?

#5) With the U.S. Congress planning to quadruple oil taxes, what do you think that is going to do to the price of gasoline in the United States and how do you think that will affect the U.S. economy?

#6) Do you think that it is a good sign that Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of the state of California, says that “terrible cuts” are urgently needed in order to avoid a complete financial disaster in his state?

#7) But it just isn’t California that is in trouble. Dozens of U.S. states are in such bad financial shape that they are getting ready for their biggest budget cuts in decades. What do you think all of those budget cuts will do to the economy?

#8) In March, the U.S. trade deficit widened to its highest level since December 2008. Month after month after month we buy much more from the rest of the world than they buy from us. Wealth is draining out of the United States at an unprecedented rate. So is the fact that the gigantic U.S. trade deficit is actually getting bigger a good sign or a bad sign for the U.S. economy?

#9) Considering the fact that the U.S. government is projected to have a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit in 2010, and considering the fact that if you went out and spent one dollar every single second it would take you more than 31,000 years to spend a trillion dollars, how can anyone in their right mind claim that the U.S. economy is getting healthier when we are getting into so much debt?

#10) The U.S. Treasury Department recently announced that the U.S. government suffered a wider-than-expected budget deficit of 82.69 billion dollars in April. So is the fact that the red ink of the U.S. government is actually worse than projected a good sign or a bad sign?

#11) According to one new report, the U.S. national debt will reach 100 percent of GDP by the year 2015. So is that a sign of economic recovery or of economic disaster?

#12) Monstrous amounts of oil continue to gush freely into the Gulf of Mexico, and analysts are already projecting that the seafood and tourism industries along the Gulf coast will be devastated for decades by this unprecedented environmental disaster. In light of those facts, how in the world can anyone project that the U.S. economy will soon be stronger than ever?

#13) The FDIC’s list of problem banks recently hit a 17-year high. Do you think that an increasing number of small banks failing is a good sign or a bad sign for the U.S. economy?

#14) The FDIC is backing 8,000 banks that have a total of $13 trillion in assets with a deposit insurance fund that is basically flat broke. So what do you think will happen if a significant number of small banks do start failing?

#15) Existing home sales in the United States jumped 7.6 percent in April. That is the good news. The bad news is that this increase only happened because the deadline to take advantage of the temporary home buyer tax credit (government bribe) was looming. So now that there is no more tax credit for home buyers, what will that do to home sales?

#16) Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac recently told the U.S. government that they are going to need even more bailout money. So what does it say about the U.S. economy when the two “pillars” of the U.S. mortgage industry are government-backed financial black holes that the U.S. government has to relentlessly pour money into?

#17) 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved for retirement. Tens of millions of Americans find themselves just one lawsuit, one really bad traffic accident or one very serious illness away from financial ruin. With so many Americans living on the edge, how can you say that the economy is healthy?

#18) The mayor of Detroit says that the real unemployment rate in his city is somewhere around 50 percent. So can the U.S. really be experiencing an economic recovery when so many are still unemployed in one of America’s biggest cities?

#19) Gallup’s measure of underemployment hit 20.0% on March 15th. That was up from 19.7% two weeks earlier and 19.5% at the start of the year. Do you think that is a good trend or a bad trend?

#20) One new poll shows that 76 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. economy is still in a recession. So are the vast majority of Americans just stupid or could we still actually be in a recession?

#21) The bottom 40 percent of those living in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. So is Barack Obama’s mantra that “what is good for Wall Street is good for Main Street” actually true?

#22) Richard Russell, the famous author of the Dow Theory Letters, says that Americans should sell anything they can sell in order to get liquid because of the economic trouble that is coming. Do you think that Richard Russell is delusional or could he possibly have a point?

#23) Defaults on apartment building mortgages held by U.S. banks climbed to a record 4.6 percent in the first quarter of 2010. In fact, that was almost twice the level of a year earlier. Does that look like a good trend to you?

#24) In March, the price of fresh and dried vegetables in the United States soared 49.3% – the most in 16 years. Is it a sign of a healthy economy when food prices are increasing so dramatically?

#25) 1.41 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009 – a 32 percent increase over 2008. Not only that, more Americans filed for bankruptcy in March 2010 than during any month since U.S. bankruptcy law was tightened in October 2005. So shouldn’t we at least wait until the number of Americans filing for bankruptcy is not setting new all-time records before we even dare whisper the words “economic recovery”?

Where are the statist, fractional reserve, federal reserve apologists?

So what do you think, boys and girls? Does he have a point? It sure looks like a logical assessment to me. Share this around if you like, just be sure to give credit to Pacu44, not me, for its origination. I am merely passing this one on..

Why do I value gun ownership?

     Today, a good friend and coworker I have known for years asked me, “Scott, why do you feel you need to own a gun?” 

     Admittedly, my friend is very ‘liberal’ minded, but I happen to know that on the stance of guns, he isn’t actively against them, he just doesn’t quite understand why I am staunchly in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. I briefly answered him, “Well, really, a gun is your last line of defense, and I feel that if they were banned, it would only disarm those people who would obey the law.” I then started to cite an example, but just then the business of the day swept us from our conversation, leaving my response cut short.

    So, I am going to try and answer my friend here, and hopefully I will be better able to outline why I think every individual should have the right to keep and bear arms. Notice I say keep and bear. This will come up later.

     When I told my friend I felt that a gun is my last line of defense, I wasn’t as clear as I wanted to be.  Of course, using a gun should be a last resort,  but is having a gun a last line of defense? I don’t think so. Common sense tells us that criminals tend to pick on easy victims. Is a mugger going to target the six foot tall, well muscled young man wearing a military uniform, or the five-foot seven  balding fifty year-old wearing a cardigan?       

     Hmmm.. 

     Now, what if our sweater-wearing man was walking confidently, leaving a shooting range in a state that allows concealed carry like Florida? Or, (heaven forbid!) what if he were openly carrying a handgun in a holster on his side? Would our mugger be as willing to engage the intended victim? I doubt it. Study after study of inmates, convicted of violent crimes, have told us what should be fairly obvious. Criminals consistantly admit they avoid anyone whom they feel might be armed. And the crime rates show it.

     Our nation’s capital, Washington D.C., totally banned the use and ownership of handguns in 1976. Afterwards, the murder rate soared in D.C. and did not begin to improve until very recently, after the Supreme Court overturned the D.C. ban, allowing lawful ownership of handguns again, albiet with restrictions. Now, even though not many people in D.C. have been able to take advantage of their newly re-aquired rights to self defense, the mere suggestion that ordinary citizens might be armed in their homes has lowered the home invasion rate, and murder rate.

     Chicago, who constantly battles for the top spot on the ‘highest murder rate per capita’ list, also has a complete ban of handguns. They too have a case going in front of the Supreme Court, and hopefully, we will see a similar verdict. In the meantime, though, the city’s mayor, Richard Daley, recently asked for help from the National Guard to battle gun crime in the streets of Chicago.

     (Wait!  I thought guns weren’t allowed in Chicago? Oh yeah, thats right. Criminals are the ones who don’t pay attention to laws…)

     Professor John Lott, a senior research scholar at Yales School of Law, and former fellow at the University of Chicago Law school, conducted a study of records for violent crime spanning all 3054 counties in the United States for 18 years from 1976 until 1994 (he published the study in 1996). In that study, he found that the areas of the country that had more lawfully owned guns, had less violent crime, and that states that allowed the carrying of a concealed firearm had decreasing crime rates every year as concealed firearm permits grew.

     Here is a snippet of an interview with Professor Lott.

Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

     Of course, we can see these effects elsewhere, if we merely look. In England, handguns were banned for most of the urban population in 1997, and since then, their violent crime rates have skyrocketed, overtaking most US cities.      BBC News reported that just two years after England banned most private ownership of handguns, handgun crime had risen by 40%.  ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/1440764.stm ) The study also showed that the few areas of England that still allowed private possesion of handguns, had the least amount of gun crimes.

     Jamaica, in the early 1970′s had a problem with violent crimes, and decided to act swiftly and decisively. The banned all guns, all gun parts, all ammunition and all ammunition components. Merely having a single round of ammunition was worthy of a life sentance. The result? Murder rates rose, violent crimes rose, even homicides committed by police officers rose, largely due to the relative ease with which they could plant a gun or even a few round of ammunition on a dead ‘assailant’ to cover a grudge killing. Soon enough, though, drug gangs ruled the streets. Armed to the teeth, and able to pay off corrupt police officers, they ruled unchecked over their disarmed victims with an iron thumb, and still do to this day. A quick google search gave me literally hundreds of pages of examples, but I will be lazy and stick with the BBC News story on page one, describing the drug wars, and teenagers roaming the streets with illegal AK47′s and M16′s ( lets keep in mind that this article is written 30 years after the ban of guns in Jamaica. 30 years of an enforced ban, and children are in drug gangs and carrying machine guns. Every scumbag in the Carribean decided that Jamaica would be an easy victim. They aren’t allowed to fight back..)  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6657203.stm

Speaking of not being able to fight back…

     In 1938, Nazi Germany banned all Jewish people from ownership of guns. Later, this encompassed any group of people he deemed to be a ‘subject race’, including blacks. Jewish men and women in Germany, and later in Poland, Czechloslovakia, France, Russia and all other occupied territories, were instructed to turn in their weapons for immediate confiscation, without compensation. Those that followed the rules were logged into a census, and later liquidated for their knowledge of guns and gun usage. Those that did not turn them in and were discovered were summarily executed, or in rare cases sent to concentration camps. For the Nazi’s, discovering which Jews owned  firearms was not too difficult. A  law requiring extensive police records on gun owners had been passed by the ultra liberal Weimar Republic in 1928. They merely needed to look through the gun registration records.

The speed with which Hitler’s Jewish Gun Owner Ban happened is startling. They passed the first Gun Control Act  in March of 1938, which required a special license for all Germans in regards to firearms possesion, and by October the rules for weapons had changed for all Jewish people.  They couldn’t have them, period. From October 1st until very early November, German Jews in Berlin had  surrendered 2500 ‘hand weapons’ 1,100 firearms, and over 20,000 rounds of ammunition.

On Nov. 9, Hitler and his Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels sent out orders  to Nazi security forces: “All Jewish stores are to be destroyed immediately . . . . Jewish synagogues are to be set on fire . . . . The Führer wishes that the police do not intervene. . . . All Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance they are to be shot immediately.” On Novenber 10th, Nazi terror forces, led by Henrich Von Himmler, went to all Jewish homes, businesses and even temples, smashing property, burning the temples, and seizing property. Any Jewish person found in possession of any form of weapon was sent to concentration camp, or shot if ‘resisting’ either the search, destruction or arrests.

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a ‘sine qua non’ for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” –Adolf Hitler, in dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke

Of course, there are plenty of other tyrannical regimes that have disarmed the people and then systematically exterminated them, such as Pol Pot’s genocide of Cambodia. The Turkish Ottomans did the same of the Armenians. Cuba, Uganda, and Guatemala all had similar examples.

     Stalin’s extermination of  6 million Kulaks in Russia was preceded by Lenin’s disarming of all Russian ‘non government’ civilians during the Bolshivek Revolution. Chairman Mao’s troops used to  kidnap rich Chinese citizens and demanded money and guns for their release. Once no more guns were received from their ransom demands in a village, the mass executions began.

    But we don’t have to go that far back in history, nor do we need to look at things in such a grand scale. Let’s look again at our own crime statistics. The highest body counts in mass murders all seem to happen where? You guessed it, exactly where guns aren’t allowed.

• Columbine High School, 13 dead (plus the 2 killers) and 24 injured
• Virginia Tech, 32 dead (33 counting shooter) and 25 injured
• Luby’s Cafeteria Kileen TX,  23 dead (24 counting the shooter) and 20 injured
• Long Island Railroad, 6 dead 19 injured
• The Amish School shootings in Pennyslyvania, 5 dead (6 with shooter) and 5 injured
• The Westroads Mall massacre in Omaha Nebraska, 8 dead (9 with shooter) and 5 injured
• Ft. Hood Texas Massacre, 13 killed and 38 injured (including the shooter)

     There are more, unfortunately a lot more, but the same story continues. All of the places listed are “gunfree” zones, including the military base, which for some unbelievable reason, doesn’t allow soldiers to carry guns on base. Policemen, yes. Soldiers, no.

There have been examples of gunfree zone murderous rampages stopped by people willing to break the gunfree zone rules, though. See the following.

• In Odgen, Utah, a Bosnian man named Sulejman Talović began to shoot random victims with a .38 revolver and a 12guage shotgun, killing six, but was stopped short by an off-duty police officer who, in violation of mall policy, was carrying a concealed firearm.
• In Grundy, Virginia at the Appalachian School of Law, two students independantly ran to their cars and retrieved their personal fireams to stop the killing rampage of a Nigerian former student, 43-year-old Peter Odighizuwa. They disarmed him and subdued him, stemming the murder spree at 3 killed and 3 injured.
• In Pearl, Mississippi,  Assistant Principal Joel Myrick stopped a killer in after retrieving his handgun unlawfully kept in his truck and confronting the shooter. Unfortunately, his delay in being able to access his firearm allowed the 16 year old boy to kill 2 students and injure 7 others with a 30-30 rifle. The boy was attempting to drive away from campus by the time Mr. Myrick was able to subdue him.
• In Edinboro, Pennyslvania a 14 year old boy with a stolen .25 caliber handgun shot and  killed a science teacher,  and then randomly fired into a school dance hall filled with around 240 students, injuring three people. He fled and was apprehended by a restaurant owner armed with a shotgun, who had heard the shots and chased the fleeing boy down, persuading the teen to drop the still loaded handgun.

     In most of these cases where the murderers were stopped by armed citizens, the death toll was lower. Imagine now, if the armed citizens had been closer to their weapons (remember the ‘keep and bear‘ part at the beginning?), or had the armed citizens been in greater number,  the rampages could have been even shorter. Had the would-be killers known there were armed citizens ready to confront an attack, one might surmise that the attack(s) may never have occurred.

     Consider that you will never know about the traffic accident you didn’t experience because you obeyed the speed limit, or you stopped for the yellow light, or you merely stayed home an extra five minutes. Much like you will never know about the burglar who passed up your house after seeing your dog, your plentiful exterior lights, or your alarm system sign.

     In this same way, you will never know how many innocent lives have been saved merely by the fact that the would-be murderer decided it was too risky, feared too many folks with guns around, or was too cowardly to enter a fair fight.

Its funny how nobody ever shoots up a police station or an NRA meeting…

 

Failure works…

It seems to me that America has a misconception amongst ourselves over our failures. I’m not talking about major insurance corporations, banks, auto companies, Tim Geithner, or any other of those huge failures that weren’t allowed to fail. We all know that was a stupid idea.

I’m talking about ourselves. We conservatives stand in righteous anger over the federal government propping up all those huge burdens, thrust upon us that really should have failed. Yet we don’t see that we have adopted the same mentality here at home.

When is the last time you allowed your child to fail at something? Or your spouse? Or another family member? How about a friend, a classmate, or a coworker? Failure is a funny thing. It molds us, shapes us, and makes us better the next time. When someone is wrong, no matter what you do to tell them in advance, sometimes the wrongness needs to experienced firsthand to truly see it. Thats why failure works.

As a kid, in my 2nd grade class we had a weekly spelling/dictionary bee, and I looked forward to it every week. I was an avid reader as a kid. I won a whole lot of first place ribbons in that class, but the only contests I remember were the ones where I did something stupid and lost.

 This spelling/dictionary bee is a contest where the  teacher announces a word orally and then the students look up the word and the fastest one to be able to recite the definition correctly wins the round. I won this contest almost every week. My classmates joked (somewhat nastily if I remember right) that the contest should be named the ”Who gets 2nd place behind Scott- bee” 

One week, though, I was getting some fierce competition from two other classmates and rushed to find my word, SOLDIER. I found my word, and shot my hand up, mere seconds before the girl two seats in front of me. The teacher called my name and I read the definition for the word SOLDER. I lost. (or really, I came third place, but to me on that day, it was a devastating loss)

 I knew the definition was wrong the second I started reading it, but it was too late. I didn’t have any clue what solder was, but I knew what a soldier was, being an Army brat myself. I let the stiff competition of that day rattle me, misspelled the word and then I failed to achieve my goal.  Even now, 30 years later, I can remember the very words I looked up wrong. I never got those wrong again. Failure works.

I remember a spelling contest from kindergarten. That contest was “How many words can you spell correctly”. It was a written exam, so the teacher stopped when I was the sole kid remaining at 76 words in a row. A girl who was much bigger than me got mad, because she thought she had won. “You only got seventy-six, but I got sixty-seven!” she told me. When I tried to explain to her that “No, sixty-seven is less than seventy-six”, she called me a liar and punched me. I punched her back, and got sent to the Principals office. Mom was called. They claimed I had hit the girl with a rock in my hand or something, because she had a bruise. (Even as the tiniest kindergartener in the class, lil Scotty had some bony hands!!)

 I remember that one, but not because of the fight. I was smaller and skinnier than every kid in every class I had until 11th grade, so bullies and fights happened often. I remember it because the girl had spelled sixty-seven words in a row with no problem, but she couldn’t count. It amazed me. So much so that I failed to grasp that my pointing out her little problem with numbers would land me a fat lip. Failure works.

The failures in my life have done more to make me who I am today than the successes. From small ones like flubbed musical performances or speeches, to large ones like losing the trust of a friend. All of these failures are literally a Godsend.

God gave us free will, and in doing so he gave us the power to fail. Who will ever understand success if they don’t know failure? We have to stop allowing our naturally charitable nature to take over. Charity and compassion are wonderful, but they need to be reserved for helping a person back up, not stopping them from the fall.

How will the small boy learn to really ride a bike if Dad never takes off the training wheels? How will a working man know how to be a leader if he has never had to follow? How a college student learn fiscal responsibility if he always has Dad’s credit card to shore things up? Answer? They won’t.

That college student needs to pawn his new stereo to buy gas and groceries a few times, maybe then he won’t  waste his money so quickly. The small boy needs to skin his knee falling off his bike, so he can ride like the wind once he figures it out. That man might need to spend a lot of time working for a boss he despises in order to avoid being like him. In all these examples, a little bit of properly applied failure works.

The problem I see is not that folks are uncharitable, or mean. It’s that we are too charitable. We allow folks to remain suspended in a perpetual state of mediocrity, hanging onto our goodwill and our purse strings. We pass laws that make it easier and easier to stay in limbo, one small step above actual failure. We create workers unions that instead of promoting the drive for excellence, discourage it. We allow our God-given rights to be infringed, over the  fear of those that would abuse them.

 We need to stop shoring up the failures. Sure, we are going to be hated by those who have become dependant on our forgiveness and our handouts. But after the anger has subsided, and those that  have postponed the last step of falling for so long finally land at bottom and afterward stand up on their own two feet and start climbing, they will be so much better for it. Then we can consider giving then a hand up, because then  they will see that failure works.

I think this needs to start in our homes, our extended families, and churches and workplaces. Eventually, I think it needs to happen in our government as well, but we can take it one failure at a time..

Really? On Easter?

   So today, approximately 75% of the country celebrated Easter. You know, the day to think of bunnies and colored eggs and jelly beans and marshmallow ‘Peeps’ and lots of chocolate…. Oh yeah, and that kind, Jewish guy that freakishly rose from the grave 3 days after being tortured to death atop a smelly hill in Jerusalem, killed so we can  have our jelly beans AND salvation.

Also today, approximately 300 folks smack dab in the other 25% category will celebrate something else in Newark, New Jersey. 300 atheists will gather to celebrate their non-belief.  A ‘resurgence’ they say. (Hmmm…Could that be paraphrased as a revival? How ironic…)

Can anyone explain to me why someone would feel the need to celebrate that they don’t believe in something? I don’t get the point. I certainly don’t get the point of deliberately picking arguably the most important day for the Christian faith, and using it as the day to celebrate your non-belief.

To me, it seems like a bunch of spoiled children, upset that they didn’t get whatever bauble they asked for from the Almighty, and staging a petulant temper tantrum. In my opinion, the ‘atheists’ that engage in constant barrages at anything even remotely related to Christianity, aren’t really atheists. If they truly didn’t believe in God, they wouldn’t be trying so hard to piss Him off.

Why is it that atheists never protest Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu religious ceremonies, or protest religious symbols or phrases in government that AREN’T Christian in nature? Ever wonder where Lady Justice comes from on all our courtrooms? She was a goddess of Roman mythology named Justitia(or Iustitia) and prior to that she belonged to Greek mythology, where she was named Dike. (Note, the US  Supreme Court says that our Lady Justice is a blend of Roman Justitia(Iustitia) and Greek Themis, who was Dike’s mother.) Also, these atheists might want to compare another famous female statue in the United States to her Roman goddess inspiration.  They might be suprised.

I guess I really don’t have a problem with them protesting Christianity **ahem** rejuvenating their non-belief, if that floats their boat. They absolutely have the right to do so, in accord with our Constitution. 

But lets not be coy about it, ‘atheists’. You didn’t pick this day because hotel rooms are cheaper, as the group American Atheists would have us believe. You did it to get in the news, and to annoy Christians.

Even if you guys don’t believe in God, I’ll bet you know a kid or two that believes in the Easter Bunny.  So calm down, find a good sale on some tasty non-religious chocolate bunnies and spend some time with your family. The world isn’t going to end if someone accidently says grace over dinner, and, in the event that I’m wrong and it does… what do you care? According to you, you aren’t going to hell anyway!

(my first blog)Sex, Drugs, and Rock&Roll

These are the things that Liberals will protect to the death. They believe you should be entitled to absolute freedom in regards to any of the three, with no consequences.

Screw yourself silly, dope yourself to oblivion and make sure your music tells you the best way to ‘smack your bitch up’. All the comforts of life.

Why? 

When I ask that, I mean, why do they vehemently protect the freedom to degrade women and promote violence in songs that your children listen to, yet scream bloody murder if Joe Wilson says “You Lie”, or Supreme Court Justice Alito frowns after being attacked at the State of the Union?

How are the conservative commentaries of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck ’racist hate speech’, yet “Real Nigga Roll Call” by Lil Jon and the Eastside Boyz is somehow ‘art’?

I am perfectly willing to defend  Lil Jon’s right to express his hatred and violence in poorly rhymed lyrics.  After all, even though I think them to be harmful to a developing childs mind, the government has no place blocking my children from hearing them. Thats MY job.

Why then, does the left seem to demand the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ which basically says in order to listen to an hour of Rush Limbaugh, I must first listen to an hour of … (hang on, I am trying to think of a popular liberal talk show to compare to here..oh, thats right. There aren’t any..) Why is any speech THEY find offensive something that must be regulated via the Federal government?

Why is it that my according to those on the left, it should be ok for my children to be able to have an abortion at age 11 (even without my consent)? For that matter, how is it even ok for my children to be sexually active at 11? 

Why does it seem that access to drugs is a big thing for the left? Legalize marijuana, but make sure those potheads get some free healthcare, ok? Ativan and Dilaudid should flow freely for the slightest pain or discomfort, but make sure those evil Wall Street guys pay for it (cause you know middle class Americans NEVER get stuck with any new entitlement costs. Barack Obama said so! Four hundred and fourteen times, at least!)

I think we need to have a look at motive here. Maybe the left believes that if we all are free to get stoned, have unprotected sex and then clear up any inconvenient babies by killing them, and turn Lil Jon up on the Ipod, we won’t notice them stealing all our other rights. You know, like freedom to worship, free from persecution. I think this freedom only really applies to non-Christians now. Something tells me that one of Obama’s “shovel ready jobs” has to do with lions.

Lets do a list, shall we?

Liberal’s take on the Bill of Rights

• 1st amendment — is apparently only good for entertainment tv, rap songs, and Janet Jackson’s boob. Political speech is only protected if it is political speech THEY like. Religion is only protected if it is religion THEY like. The press? Well, they own most of it, except FoxNews. So basically, they’d like to protect all BUT FoxNews.
• 2nd amendment — is apparently only applicable for the overlords. California Democrat, Diane Feinstein carries a concealed weapon, but wants all guns banned for the lowly common folk. I am sure most of the other anti-gun liberals in positions of power depend on guns daily for their security as well. It must be nice to have armed guards for your anti-2nd amendment rallies.
• 3rd amendment — here is a thought..  How many liberals can even correctly identify the third amendment to the Constitution? I bet once they find out about the 3rd amendment, they’d be all for eliminating it, making ‘Support our Troops’ a whole new catch phrase.
• 4th amendment — I think they are divided here. They like the protections from search and seizure, but only for THEIR pet projects (see title again….) However, I didn’t hear about Obama allowing the Patriot Act expire, and heaven forbid if a D.C. cop thinks you have a gun in your home.
• 5th amendment — Have you READ the 2010 census?
• 6th amendment — The right to a speedy trial is pretty important to everyone I think. Amazingly, the only difference of opinion I can think of between the right and the left on this one is whether it applies to enemy combatants.
• 7th amendment — They aren’t too bad on this issue, other than the whole terrorist’s rights campaign they have going on right now.
• 8th amendment — well…  14 months and 414  healthcare speeches…  that IS cruel and unusual
• 9th amendment – The left would like for you to forget this one even exists. Don’t spend a whole lot of time on the next one either.
• 10th amendment — This one REALLY pisses them off. One can hear them say, “How dare those impetuous States interfere with the workings of the Federal government? Don’t they know Lincoln ended their usefulness?”

 So pop some percoset, shuffle your 12 year old daughter off to the abortionist to take care of that little problem, and lie back to some relaxing Lil Jon witticisms.

Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll, baby..