Saturday, December 31, 2011

Who are the rich 1 percent that Occupy Wall Street hates so much?

The protests which began as and are identified as “Occupy Wall Street” are protests against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, and greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly that of the financial services sector—on government.

The protesters' slogan We are the 99% is how they refer to what they perceive as a growing difference in wealth in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.

Those patriots in the Occupy (insert location) movement have inspired a critical look at those whiney, rich fat cats on Wall Street and in corporate America that the protesters despise so.

Here are some examples of the excessive salaries these people are paid: Philippe P. Dauman, CEO of Viacom, made $84.5 million last year. Leslie Moonves, of the CBS Corporation, got $56.9 million; Michael White of DirecTV was paid $32.9 million; Brian L. Roberts of the Comcast Corporation and Robert A. Iger of the Walt Disney Company, $28 million; and Gregg W. Steinhafel of Target, $23.5 million.

Who needs that much money, anyway? All that those people do is run businesses, and all businesses do is take people’s money, right? They are the 1 percent that OWS so patriotically protests against.

It’s just so unfair that these corporate bigwigs rake in millions when the rest of us struggle along barely making ends meet. Contrast those astronomical salaries and the conspicuous consumption that they allow, and then contrast it with the plight of those poor athletes, entertainers and journalists who are in the 99 percent.

Leading all athletes in total compensation with $62,294,116, of which $60,000,000 is in endorsements, is golfer Tiger Woods. On the Sports Illustrated Fortunate 50, leading the list of salaried earnings is the Atlanta Falcon’s Matt Ryan with $32,250,000, while the lowest on the list is Chris Bosh of the Miami Heat, with piddling $14,500,000 in salary.

According to Vanity Fair magazine, the list of people working in the salt mines of Hollywood lists James Cameron as the richest man in that hellish ghetto in 2010 with total earnings of $257 million, mostly from the box office and DVD sales of his Oscar-winning movie.

“The Tourist” star Johnny Depp grabbed the second spot on the Top 40 list of top-earning stars, directors and producers. The list estimated Depp's haul for the year at $100 million, excluding other non-film–related income.

And what about those fabulous folks who sing for a living? has published a list of the highest earners in the music world over the last 12 months, and in that group are: U2 at $130 million; AC/DC - $114 million; Bruce Springsteen - $70 million; Britney Spears - $64 million; Jay-Z - $63 million and Lady Gaga - $62 million. Seventeen year-old teeny bopper heartthrob Justin Bieber banked a cool $53 million last year.

Katie Couric made around $15 million a year when she anchored “CBS Evening News,” leading television news people. Diane Sawyer is raking in $12 million a year for her anchor job at “Good Morning America.” NBC “Today” co-anchor Matt Lauer draws $12 million while his co-host Meredith Vieira and NBC’s Brian Williams make about $10 million a year each. However, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann is dissed with a measly $4 million.

And how much do those high-profile liberals make – other than the aforementioned news folk – who are so good at telling the rest of us how to live?

Actor Alec Baldwin has a net worth of $65 million, and makes $300,000 per episode of “30 Rock.” Morgan Freeman gets $5-10 million per picture and has net worth $150 - 200 million. Gadfly movie producer Michael Moore has a net worth of $50 million. Tom Hanks earned $35 million last year, “Saturday Night Live’s” Tina Fey, $13 million, while Joy Behar, the co-host of “The View” and host of “The Joy Behar Show,” has a net worth of $8 million.

Relative to political party affiliation, those greedy Republicans lead the way in net worth, right? Well, no, according to Forbes magazine’s Top 20 list. Seventeen of the top 20 are Democrats, including Bill Gates, 56 billion; Warren Buffett, $50.0 billion; Wal-Mart’s Jim Walton, 20.1 billion Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, $13.5 billion; Lawrence Ellison, Oracle co-founder, $39.5 billion; Googles’ Larry Page, $15 billion.

So, big salaries aren’t restricted to Wall Street and corporate fat cats; there are lots of other fat cats, too. And when you add up all the athletes, entertainers and others making big bucks, Wall Street and the corporate world come in a distant second. But maybe it’s just how they make their money that makes it obscene when they collect a huge salary.

But why is it a bad thing warranting scorn and hatred to run a large company that provides jobs to thousands of people, and provides income to thousands more who own stock outright or in a retirement program or other investment?

We can hold different opinions on which of these folks contributes the most to society: the person that runs a company that provides jobs to thousands of people; the actor that plays the lead in an Oscar-winning film; the rock and roll screamer who sells millions of records. Whichever we might think provides the greatest service, we need to recognize and admit that each of them does something that people willingly spend their money on, and that is how they got rich. They made a good movie, a good CD, or a useful and desirable product. They didn’t just wake up one day and find a pot of gold beside their bed.

Economist Dr. Walter Williams defends one of the liberals’ most hated American icons, Wal-Mart. “Look at how Wal-Mart Stores generated wealth for the Walton family of Christy ($25 billion), Jim ($21 billion), Alice ($21 billion) and Robson ($21 billion). The Walton family's wealth is not a result of ill-gotten gains, but the result of Wal-Mart's revenue, $422 billion in 2010. The blame for this unjust concentration of wealth rests with those hundreds of millions of shoppers worldwide who voluntarily enter Wal-Mart premises and leave dollars, pounds and pesos.” Wal-Mart and its owners were made rich voluntarily by the other 99 percent.

And, in closing, a question: If the GOP is the party that exists to serve its Wall Street masters, then why does Wall Street give most of its money to the Democrats?

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Campaign reveals good ideas from Republican presidential candidates

The Republican debates certainly have been, well, interesting. The candidates have managed to dredge up all kinds of dirt on each other, and talk liberally about each other’s shortcomings.

Political insiders tell us that it’s good to get all the dirt and negatives out now, so that whoever wins the nomination won’t have all of that coming out during the more critical campaign. Maybe so.

They say politics is a dirty game. But really, politics isn’t inherently dirty; the players are dirty, and the public perceives this, according to a bipartisan survey commissioned by the Project on Campaign Conduct. Of those surveyed:
     • 59% believe that all or most candidates deliberately twist the truth.
     • 39% believe that all or most candidates deliberately lie to voters.
     • 43% believe that most or all candidates deliberately make unfair attacks    

        on their opponents.
     • 67% say they can trust the government in Washington only some of the 

        time or never.
     • 87% are concerned about the level of personal attacks in today's political 


Does negative campaigning work; is mudslinging effective? Herman Cain is the most visible recent target of mudslinging, being accused by three women of having made unwanted advances, and another alleging a long-term affair. Are these charges true? Who knows, other than the women making the accusations and Mr. Cain. But have you noticed that since he suspended his campaign, you don’t hear much from those women?

Nobody’s perfect, of course, as is more than amply illustrated by President Barack Obama, whose dismal performance has disappointed nearly everyone at one time or another and left the nation in the economic doldrums. The Republican field also has weaknesses, as we learn daily. However, despite the mudslinging that covers up nearly everything else, there are some good ideas from people who have much to offer in the way of experience and accomplishments.

Rick Perry served five years as a pilot in the United States Air Force, was elected Lieutenant Governor of Texas in 1998 and assumed the governorship in December 2000 when then-governor George W. Bush resigned to become President of the United States. He has served as Governor of Texas ever since, and the state has been at the top of all states in job creation and for low unemployment rates through the current downturn.

Gov. Perry wants a part-time, bi-annual Congress. This would be a return to the original concept of citizen legislators. That change would save a good bit of money on the operation of Congress, and having Representatives and Senators who live and work in the real world certainly couldn’t hurt.

Just imagine all of the laws they couldn’t pass with that schedule, the legislative mischief that we would avoid, and the insider trading that Congresspersons could no longer indulge in.

He also wants to impose 18-year term limits on the federal judiciary, which sounds like a reasonable idea. Why should judges enjoy lifetime tenure when neither the president nor members of Congress do? Congress should not be a career choice, and neither should the federal judiciary.

Newt Gingrich earned a history PhD from Tulane University and taught college history and geography before entering politics and being elected to the House of Representatives. Rising to become Speaker of the House, he engineered the first Republican majority to be re-elected in 68 years. Among the first pieces of legislation passed by Congress with Mr. Gingrich as Speaker was the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, which subjected members of Congress to the same laws that apply to businesses and their employees. He led the way in Congress and negotiated with President Bill Clinton to pass welfare reform, and led the House when it produced the first balanced budget in 30 years.

Mr. Gingrich’s ideas are frequently criticized, even ridiculed, and it is true that the man has dozens of ideas and not all of them are equally great ideas, It is common for his critics to take what he says out of context, or to deliberately misstate the premise of his ideas.

He thinks teaching kids about work and responsibility by paying them to work in their school assisting janitors, librarians and office staff makes sense. Given how many Americans have to be taken care of by taxpayers because they are unprepared to get and hold a job, helping young people develop a work ethic and learn the value of earning their own way can’t hurt, and would go a long way toward reversing the dependency that the big government folks in Washington so dutifully cultivate.

Perhaps Mr. Gingrich’s and Gov. Perry’s ideas need fine-tuning or modification, but it certainly cannot hurt to consider reforming how our government operates, or finding ways to help young people learn the value of work.

All the Republican candidates have baggage; they are human, after all. But we are not electing a savior. We tried that in 2008, and it did not come out well. We are electing a president who will be , like the rest of us, a fallible human being. What we want is someone who has a record of accomplishment, and some productive ideas to make things better. 

Please leave a comment

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Thinking about mountains and molehills, and tempests and teapots

America’s fairly recent infection by hyper-sensitivity rises to fever pitch at this time of the year, when Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, and also the secular celebration of Christmas – which, incidentally, is not limited to Christians – and Jewish Americans celebrate Chanukah, the Festival of Lights. Since there are far more Christians in the US (78 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian) than those of other faiths, or those who claim no religion, things associated with Christianity and Christmas attract the most attention.

People get upset by all manner of things, such as someone saying or doing the “wrong thing.” And, at this time of year the sight of religious objects like a cross, a nativity scene, or a menorah gets some folks upset. But those things have no inherent power; they can’t hurt anyone or turn people into zombies. Nevertheless, people run to the courts to have those objects removed.

The infection has reached the point where one person or a few people who are “offended” by something can now deny hundreds or even thousands of people the opportunity to enjoy whatever that something is. It is the tyranny of the minority.

People are too easily offended these days, and in response to the rising instances of offense being taken by someone or some group, the nannies in governments coast-to-coast have decreed that anything and everything that might give offense to anyone should be forever banished from the Earth.

The nannies are now said to be contemplating adding an Eleventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not offend another soul, for if thou shalt give offense, thou shalt be really, really sorry.” The nannies also advocate the creation, passage and ratification of an Eleventh Amendment in the Bill of Rights: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against offenses real and imagined, shall not be violated, under pain of death, or something just as bad.”

One object viewed as terribly offensive is a cross erected in the Mojave National Preserve in the desert on the California-Nevada border near Las Vegas, put there nearly 80 years ago as a memorial for veterans of World War I by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The VFW originally owned the land on which the memorial was erected, but later donated it to the federal government.

The sensitivity police at the American Civil Liberties Union mounted a legal challenge to the cross sitting there in the desert, perhaps at the behest of an offended descendent of a defeated Central Powers soldier. Or maybe just because it was a cross, in a desert.

The ACLU bases its objections on the principle of separation of church and state, as if the mere presence of a religious symbol on government property somehow conveys the idea that whatever government body owns that property embraces whatever religion the symbol represents. The concept separating religion and government has come to command great respect – reverence, if you will – as if it actually was part of the US Constitution, which it is not. If only the property rights and other guarantees of liberty in the Bill of Rights, like our right to keep and bear arms, commanded as much respect.

The hullabaloo arising from religious symbols appearing in places where some people don’t like them is sort of puzzling. Most folks understand that placing crosses, menorahs, the star and crescent or the Festivus pole on government property really does not mean the government actually endorses or promotes the beliefs represented by the symbol. There is nothing frightening or threatening in the mere appearance of religious symbols, where ever they appear.

Religion has been a key force in this nation since before its creation, and adherence by generations past to the dominant religious principles provided a crucial stabilizing cultural influence, without which the nation would have floundered, and likely would have failed. What the various symbols, so feared by some, represent is nothing more than that reality being demonstrated through natural and traditional activities, nothing more. As we see happening now, our disintegrating culture parallels the increasing hostility toward religion.

Today complaints about religious symbols, particularly nativity scenes at this time of the year, are routine. This mania has more recently spread to people and businesses that merely wish folks a “merry Christmas” or a “happy Chanukah.” The nannies prefer the bland and inoffensive phrase “happy holidays.” This is understandable: Nothing is more offensive than someone wishing you well.

But in America if we don’t like or believe in Christmas, that’s okay. The First Amendment says that we are free to be, or to not be religious. So, a nativity, even if it’s on government property, doesn’t require anyone to look at it, if they’d rather not. No one is obligated by religious symbols to do anything, or believe anything in particular. Why do people allow themselves to be manipulated and offended by the appearance of inanimate objects?

When someone wishes you a “merry Christmas,” have the grace to accept their good wishes, and perhaps even respond with a polite “thank you.”

Merry Christmas! Happy Chanukah!

Please leave a comment

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

“Over-taxing taxes” and “unfair fairness” define the United States

One of the more interesting topics in the US today is how to tax people and how much to take from them. Some believe that the tax system needs to be dramatically overhauled. Others think the wealthiest Americans can and should pay an even higher percentage of their income to the taxman.

There is a strong feeling that our tax system is hopelessly messed up and desperately needs to be overhauled so that it raises enough revenue to operate our government as it was designed, which is to say limited in size and scope, and that tax rates do not punish one group of Americans while absolving another group of its responsibility to contribute to the support of its government.

As currently configured our tax system creates inequality while attempting to make everyone equal, and robs the economy of billions of dollars due to its complexity. The two sections of tax code, one written by the IRS and the other written by Congress, comprise nearly 17,000 pages. You can buy your own copy for just $1,153.

A study by The Laffer Center for Supply-Side Economics explains that $431 billion, or 30 percent of the total income tax collected, goes just to comply with and administer the US income tax system. The Internal Revenue Service spends $12.4 billion for administrative costs, and another $9.3 billion for comprehensive audits. Americans spend $31.5 billion on compliance.

Our government and the cost of running it have grown proportionately as the statist idea that government should do more and more for the citizenry has taken hold. According to Michigan-based, one in six Americans receives government assistance. Medicaid roles rose to 50 million in 2010 from 42 million in 2007, and the number of Food Stamp recipients hit an all-time high of 44.2 million in January, up 4.7 million from last year. Is it really true that all of those millions of people require the monetary support of taxpayers?

Plainly, this situation is out of control, and getting worse.
In order to fund the government’s crazy spending addiction President Barack Obama and his liberal, big-government comrades want the “rich” paying more in taxes, a position he repeatedly states just to be certain his fawning followers do not forget. In a recent speech Mr. Obama used the word “fair” umpteen times in one form or another: fair share; fair play; fair shot. There’s nothing like fomenting a little class envy to get the voters all excited.

Naturally, Mr. Obama doesn’t tell us precisely what he thinks “fair” is, perhaps because it’s easier to get people all worked up with generalities, as he did in the 2008 presidential campaign. But we know from experience that he means the wealthy will be called upon to bear an even greater “fair share” of the nation’s burdens than they already do.

Cato Institute senior fellow Richard Rahn wrote in The Washington Times that whereas the top one percent of taxpayers earns just 20 percent of total income, it pays 38 percent of all income taxes; the top 10 percent earns 46 percent of total income, but pays 70 percent of income taxes. Conversely, the bottom 50 percent earns 13 percent of total income, but pays less than three percent of income taxes. Most of us agree that at some low earnings level people do not make enough to warrant taxing them, but currently 47 percent of American households pay no income taxes, and some of them actually receive money from the government. Their fair share is apparently zero dollars, or less than zero. What stake do these people have in how politicians behave? Instead of criticizing the wealthy, they should be thanking them for paying their share of the government’s huge cost.

Where tax rates are concerned, a “fair rate” depends upon who you are and how much you earn. But the term “fair” implies the treating of all sides alike. After all, isn’t what’s good for the goose, good for the gander?

Well, no; not in America today.

If the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners are allowed to expire, as the president and other liberals want, the highest rate will return to 39.6 percent. Having Uncle Sam take four of every 10 dollars you earn seems like a lot. What’s the point of getting a good education, learning a valuable skill and working to get a good paying job if the federal government is going to take nearly half of it?

And how many people now advocating that the rich pay 40 percent of their earnings in federal income taxes would support that rate if they had to pay it? It’s a very safe bet that not many would. But when it’s the other guy, well, that’s different.

So, in order to come closer to funding its spending addiction, the government punishes the wealthiest Americans, who are frequently the most productive and the biggest spending citizens, with immorally high taxes on their income. Given the dismal record of government for efficiency and frugality, that money would accomplish far more good left in the hands of those who earned it.

Please leave a comment

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Dangerous Executive Orders Still on the Books

From Godfather Politics:

Executive Orders (EO) have been used by presidents since the days of George Washington. The first EO addressed Washington’s normal household expenses which ones were to be accepted and paid by the Treasury Department. Pretty innocuous. The FBI was formed under an executive order by Teddy Roosevelt on July 26, 1908. The first time it was used to make a law was in 1916 by President Woodrow Wilson. It was said to be an ‘emergency’ measure and Congress was encouraged to validate it. They did and now the door was now open to ignore the Constitution. This is the same method used by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 to close all the banks in the country. Americans were ordered to turn in all their gold to local banks.

The general purpose of an executive order is to provide the President with a mechanism for executing laws passed by Congress, not control of lives. These EOs are issued by the President as directives to agencies responsible for implementing laws.

However, some presidents take Executive Orders too far confusing EO with executive lawmaking. This “rule by executive order” observation was made no clearer than by Paul Begala, a former Bill Clinton aide: “Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kind of cool.”

While Begala thought this action “cool,” others did not. House Majority Leader Dick Armey said, “With the stroke of a pen, he may have done irreparable harm to individual rights and liberties.” He went on to add, “President Clinton seems bent on using his powers until someone says stop. President Clinton is running roughshod over our Constitution.”

Anti-Hoarding Laws and Executive Orders

Congress has 30 days to object to an Executive Order (EO) before it becomes law. No objections were raised against these Command and Control emergency “Readiness Laws” when they were put in place. Has the emergency arrived that needs them and are they slowly being introduced?

Bill Clinton grouped together the following EOs under EO #12919 released on June 6, 1994. These are the tools used to shred the Constitution and take away your rights under its protection:

10995 — Federal seizure of all communications media in the US (tested last month).

10997 — Federal seizure of all electric power, fuels, minerals, public and private.

10998 — Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment (including what you are storing for emergencies in your home right now).

10999 — Federal seizure of all means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways.

11000 — Federal seizure of American people for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires (this happened before in Europe during the Nazi regime).

11001 — Federal seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private.

11002 — Empowers the Postmaster General to register every single person in the US.

11003 — Federal seizure of all airports and aircraft.

11004 — Federal seizure of all housing and finances and authority to establish forced relocation. Authority to designate areas to be abandoned as “unsafe,” establish new locations for populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds.

11005 — Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private.

11051 — Provides FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis (FEMA will be in control in case of “National Emergency”).

These EOs are not aimed at anti-hoarding but rather at seizure or confiscation of items and facilities “to provide a state of readiness in these resource areas with respect to all conditions of national emergency, including attack upon the United States.”

You’ll find most ‘seizure’ legislation ends with this phrase. These Executive Orders don’t define what specifically constitutes a national emergency…The specifics on hoarding are left up to the individual states.

Read more: Dangerous Executive Orders Still on the Books | Godfather Politics

Please leave a comment

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

San Francisco tries to legislate good judgment by using bad judgment

The Centers for Disease Control tells us that childhood obesity in the United States has more than tripled in the past 30 years, with the percentage of children aged 6–11 years who were obese increasing from 7 percent to nearly 20 percent from 1980 to 2008, and the percentage of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese increasing from 5 percent to 18 percent over the same period.

In an attempt to do for San Francisco’s children what the nannies at City Hall think should be done, and what city parents will not do, the city has deigned to improve the eating habits of young people by forbidding McDonald’s restaurants in the city from giving kids toys with their Happy Meals, unless those meals meet the city’s nutritional standard that includes more fruits and vegetables. It should be noted that lunches in the city’s schools don’t meet the new standards, either, but apparently targeting McDonald’s is considered more important.

This incident highlights a few of the results of liberalism run amok, among which are: the increasingly nanny-ish character of governments at all levels in the United States; the arrogance of government, which has yet again stuck its big nose into the operations of private businesses; and the utterly idiotic thought process – if something so goofy can be characterized as thought – behind this foolishness.

As it turns out, McDonald’s won this particular battle: It did not change the contents of its Happy Meal, and instead now charges a dime for the toy, if the customer wants a toy, and gives that dime to Ronald McDonald Charities: McDonald’s 1, San Fran 0.

The logical fallacy of this episode is best illustrated by examining the attitude of the person responsible for this particular bit of nannying, San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar. In an interview aired on Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show,” correspondent Aasif Mandvi questions Mr. Mar about the reasoning behind this action. “McDonald’s or Burger King use toys to lure kids,” Mr. Mar said. “The toys are attached to meals that are largely too sugary, fatty and high in salt content that is very bad for them. If there was no toy, the kids wouldn’t eat the meal,” he asserted, which assumes that neither kids nor adults actually like burgers, fries, milk shakes or any other fast food.

“So you’ve literally created a nanny state. ‘To get your toy you’re going to have to eat your fruit and vegetables,’” Mr. Mandvi suggested.

“No,” Mr. Mar, responded, ”we’re saying that we want healthier options in fast food companies in San Francisco, if they want to attach a toy to it.” He explained that most kids are not aware of this problem, although his daughter is. “My 10 year-old has … has had a number of Happy Meals growing up, but she’s wise enough to know that the food that she’s eating when she was younger is very unhealthy for her.”

“How did she figure that out?” Mr. Mandvi asked. To which Supervisor Mar responded, “I think she watched [the documentary] ‘Super Size Me’ with me.”

“So, she learned from her parents,” Mr. Mandvi said. To which Mr. Mar responded, “That’s a large part of it,” without even a hint that he understood the significance of what he had just said. Mr. Mandvi then asked if the city could just pass a law requiring Netflix to distribute the “Super Size Me” documentary to all of San Francisco’s parents so that every family would have the benefit of its healthy message, like the Mar family had.

Again, Mr. Mar’s answer indicated complete failure to understand the city’s action against McDonald’s: “You can’t force Netflix, a private company, to do something like that.” Then, responding to Mr. Mandvi’s marvelous expression of astonishment at that statement, he added, “We have no power to force Netflix, or a private company like that, to change a business practice.” But, Mr. Mandvi said, “on one hand you’re like, ‘you can’t do that,’ but on the other hand, you are doing that.”

Eric Mar does not appear to be intellectually deprived, but he obviously lacks the ability to see that his plan does precisely to McDonald’s what he states unequivocally that San Francisco cannot do to other businesses, like Netflix.

Dysfunctional logic is a common element of liberalism. Another common element is when people do not voluntarily do what liberals have decided is best for everyone, they are not above using force to get them to fall in line, with little or no regard for whether the actions they propose are sensible, fair, proper or even constitutional.

We see evidence of this penchant to force people to do things everywhere in our government, from the NLRB’s stopping Boeing from opening a new thousand-worker plant in South Carolina; to banning incandescent light bulbs in favor of expensive, mercury-laden CFLs; to keeping tens of thousands of workers on the unemployment line because the Obama administration doesn’t like fossil fuels, to telling farmers they stir up too much dust in their fields.

The nation will be fortunate if it is able to survive this onslaught of liberal nannying.

Please leave a comment

Sunday, December 04, 2011

The Top Ten Liberal Contradictions

It is admittedly difficult to hold this list to just 10 items, but The Patriot Update makes a very good effort.

Contradiction #1: Pro-Abortion vs. Anti-Capital Punishment

Liberals support the killing of unborn children in the name of convenience, choice, etc. These children have committed no crimes; however, if that child survives abortion and grows up to commit murder later in life, a Liberal will scream “injustice” if that person is sentenced to death.

Contradiction #2: Pro-Technology vs. Anti-Free Market

I love Apple products. I think Steve Jobs was a genius. I have a MacBook Pro, an iPad, and an iPhone 4s. Many liberals (especially Occupiers) love Apple products too. As a capitalist, I am consistent in purchasing Apple products. They are not. They build web sites to promote their socialist causes while using software and technology that is only made possible in a free market environment. Apple products would not (and could not) have been created in a socialist nation. There’s no way liberals could fight capitalism without the very tools capitalism provides!

Contradiction #3: Pro-Homosexual vs. Pro-Muslim

Muslims want to kill homosexuals. Yet, Liberals promote the Homosexual agenda and Shariah Law. If the Muslims take over the United States, they will start by expunging the land of Homosexuals and Liberals. (Please see my conclusion to explain why Liberals really hold to these two contradictory positions.)

Contradiction #4: Pro-Darwinian Evolution vs. Anti-Human Domination

Most liberals believe in Darwinian evolution, as opposed to special Creation by God. They believe that all species arose naturally through a concept known as “survival of the fittest.” The weak die out and the strong survive. Yet, Liberals spend so much time (and other people’s money) fighting to protect endangered species, rare ecosystems, wet lands, etc. Isn’t this incredibly inconsistent? After all, evolutionists believe many species died out over millions of years because of natural selection. As consistent evolutionists, shouldn’t they be happy that humans are now dominating the planet and all sub-species? Incidentally, as a Christian, I believe God requires us to be good stewards of the environment (not tree huggers). But I can hold my position consistently.

Contradiction #5: Christianity vs. All Other Religions

Liberals want religious freedom for all religions except Christianity. “Take down that cross… No nativity scenes on public property… No prayer at high school graduation ceremonies!” The list goes on, all in the name of “tolerance.” Isn’t it ironic that Christianity is the only religion that tolerates others? Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us to love our enemies, not to kill them. The Koran, however, teaches Muslims to kill the infidels!

Read Obama’s Thanksgiving Address Fails to Mention God on

Contradiction #6: Pro-Education vs. Anti-School Choice

Liberals like to pride themselves on being intellectuals and supporters of education. They claim that conservatives and Republicans are against education. Laughable. If education is so important, why do liberals force everyone to pay taxes to support the failing public education system when private and home-schooling are so much more effective? The answer is easy. They can only brainwash our children to become atheists and socialists in the public schools.

You must watch the documentary, Indoctrination: Public Schools and the Decline of Christianity in America.

Contradiction #7: Hateful vs. Anti-Hate

Liberals claim that anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle is promoting “hate.” Do you want to see real hate? Just read for yourself the hate-filled comments on our first episode of PolitiChicks.TV, where we discussed homosexuality in America. Not one hateful word was said against homosexuals on this show. Not one. In fact, Victoria Jackson stated, “I love gays!” The only hate I found was from the thousands of liberals who were commenting. 99% of all hate is spewed from the Left.

Read Are You a Member of a Hate Group on

Contradiction #8: Pro-Women vs. Anti-Sarah Palin

The left says they’re for women’s rights. So why did they attempt to destroy Sarah Palin and her beautiful family in 2008 when she was chosen as John McCain’s running mate? The left says they’re pro-choice, but they are against educating a woman before she goes into an Abortion clinic. Liberals undermine the marriage, the very institution where women are honored by fidelity and womanhood is celebrated. And if a conservative women succeeds outside the home, they are told they should stay at home.

Contradiction #9: Racism

If Liberals aren’t racist, why do they evaluate and categorize everyone by the color of their skin? Why are they so angry when Blacks leave the Democrat plantation and achieve the American Dream? Why do they continue to promote abortion when far more blacks are killed by abortion than whites? Why do they continue to promote social programs that enslave blacks at poverty level?

Contradiction #10: Pro-Jew vs. Anti-Israel

Liberals say they are pro-Jew. So, why do they hate the nation of Israel? Why are so many Jews members and supporters of the Democrat Party? This is one of most mind-boggling of liberal contradictions.

Conclusion: There are many more liberal contradictions which could be listed. Why do liberals hold beliefs that appear to be self-contradictory? The answer is simple: All liberal positions are ultimately Anti-God to the core. Islam and homosexuality are not supported by the Bible. The Bible promotes personal responsibility, private property, and an ultimate standard for right and wrong. Liberals hold positions that are counter to the Word of God or at best they twist the Word of God to support their positions. This is the only way one can explain the top ten Liberal contradictions.

Please leave a comment