In this article by Beth Shayne, a "Conservative kiosk " selling bumper stickers in Concord Mills mall in Concord, North Carolina, will have its lease expire at the end of July without an option to renew because of a letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer.
In the letter to the editor, the author hypocritically stated, "It’s hard to stay open-minded when such uncivilized and outdated ideas are endorsed on a daily basis. It’s 2009; please, let’s at least try to put this type of bigotry to an end." I love the display of ignorance and hypocrisy in this entire statement. First, one has to try and stay open-minded? Really, I thought being open minded was a permanent mindset, one either is or isn't. Second, is the author of the letter open minded when they're driven to write an attack in their newspaper because the ideas were contrary to the ones s/he believes in? The author has a right to disagree by not buying the bumper stickers, or even better, opening a kiosk that supports their ideas and let the free market dictate the outcome.
Let's take this a step further. In the second sentence from the referenced quote, the adjective "bigotry" was used. In this case, it was used a pejorative, a word meant to have a belittling effect. I've talked about this before, but when Liberals don't agree with you, they revert to using pejoratives when they run out of arguments. So if they don't agree with you on illegal immigration for example, they'll revert to calling you a racist, bigot, xenophobe, etc. in order to belittle you and your stance on the issue. In this case, the author of the letter to the editor didn't agree with the bumper stickers, so s/he threw out the pejorative bigotry. By definition, bigotry is "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." So really, the kiosk owner is a bigot but the author of the letter isn't?
It's really a financial loss for Concord Mills mall in this entire debacle. Based on the fact that the kiosk owner was able to pay rent for six months since opening, he must have been at least breaking even if not making a profit. Though it doesn't surprise me when I read the owner of the mall was an Obama / Democrat supporter, it does surprise me when Liberals talk about how "open minded" or "tolerant" they are. After all, they are the authors of Laws that ban speech they deem offensive, or as they deceitfully call it, "Hate Speech," contrary of course to our First Amendment Right to speech without government reprisal.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Exploiting Race
In this Breitbart video, CA Sen. Barbara Boxer disputes the views of Black Chamber of Commerce CEO Harry Alford on the issue of Clean Energy (specifically the "American Clean Energy and Security Act") by citing an NAACP resolution on Clean Energy.
The CEO is offended by this and Barbara Boxer displays repeatedly why she doesn't get it. The best analogy I can think of is citing the NAACP during a discussion on theism with the CEO of a black Christian group. Is it really a minority advocacy group's area of expertise in either case? No. When it comes to jobs and job creation, the Chamber of Commerce is the group whose testimony should carry weight during a discussion. When it comes to Civil Rights, fighting discrimination based on ethnicity, race, National origin, etc., the group whose testimony should carry weight would be the NAACP.
The whole idea we should even advocate for our race/ethnicity to begin with is sickening. No one in America would tolerate a White Congressional Caucus or National Association for the Advancement of Whites (NAAW) or a White Chamber of Commerce. In fact, I think the real acronym for NAAW is KKK. This idea that we need advocacy groups, or ethnic/racial Congressional Caucuses, only serves the interests of those groups against the interests of the excluded. When one advocates for whites, they advocate against non-whites.
This is a problem perpetrated by Progressives like Barbara Boxer. They don't see the harm in these organizations, so long as they're minority organizations. This supporting and advocating of ethnic/racial based politics stems from Leftists having been on the wrong side of history, beginning with the fight against Slavery (Republican Party platform under Lincoln) and through Affirmative Action, which promotes one not for the content of their character but for the color of their skin (antithesis of MLK Jr.). Boxer is up for re-election in November 2010. I think it's about time she gets the boot and the beginning of the end for Progressives begins. American Exceptionalism will never return so long as Progressives like Boxer, Reid, Pelosi and Obama control American Policy.
The CEO is offended by this and Barbara Boxer displays repeatedly why she doesn't get it. The best analogy I can think of is citing the NAACP during a discussion on theism with the CEO of a black Christian group. Is it really a minority advocacy group's area of expertise in either case? No. When it comes to jobs and job creation, the Chamber of Commerce is the group whose testimony should carry weight during a discussion. When it comes to Civil Rights, fighting discrimination based on ethnicity, race, National origin, etc., the group whose testimony should carry weight would be the NAACP.
The whole idea we should even advocate for our race/ethnicity to begin with is sickening. No one in America would tolerate a White Congressional Caucus or National Association for the Advancement of Whites (NAAW) or a White Chamber of Commerce. In fact, I think the real acronym for NAAW is KKK. This idea that we need advocacy groups, or ethnic/racial Congressional Caucuses, only serves the interests of those groups against the interests of the excluded. When one advocates for whites, they advocate against non-whites.
This is a problem perpetrated by Progressives like Barbara Boxer. They don't see the harm in these organizations, so long as they're minority organizations. This supporting and advocating of ethnic/racial based politics stems from Leftists having been on the wrong side of history, beginning with the fight against Slavery (Republican Party platform under Lincoln) and through Affirmative Action, which promotes one not for the content of their character but for the color of their skin (antithesis of MLK Jr.). Boxer is up for re-election in November 2010. I think it's about time she gets the boot and the beginning of the end for Progressives begins. American Exceptionalism will never return so long as Progressives like Boxer, Reid, Pelosi and Obama control American Policy.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
For the Common Good
In AP News, Reuters and Bloomberg: it's come to light that House Democrats plan on partially paying for National Health Insurance by imposing a 5.4% Income Tax Surcharge on households making $1 million (read Individuals making $500,000); but the progressive Tax begins at households making $280,000 (read Individuals making $140,000).
So how many households will be affected by this Tax Surcharge? According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Top 10% of Income Earners, or 11.4 million families, earned $259,000 based on 2001 data. Adjusting for inflation, assuming 3%, these families will earn over $328,000 in 2009 which guarantees that at least 11.4 million families will pay this progressive 5.4% Income Tax Surcharge.
So how many people will be helped by these 11.4 million families? According to the aforementioned Bloomberg article, by 2019, 37 million uninsured will have insurance, and 17 million will still not have insurance (half of which are estimated to be illegal immigrants).
There are other caveats to this plan including: 2.5% Income Tax penalty on workers who decline having insurance, "up to the average cost of a health insurance plan" and 8% Employer penalty for not providing health insurance.
In this Bloomberg article, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel state that this Legislation will pass on a partisan basis if need be however Pres. Obama would like the Legislation to be bipartisan. The rest of us know that it doesn't matter if Republicans sign on to this Legislation or not; it's going to pass, just like the $787 billion Stimulus bill and just like the $410 billion Omnibus bill.
Of course, National Health Insurance is predicated on the Progressive ideal that government should tax us for the common good. Your right to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness does not give you the right to accumulate wealth if you can sacrifice just a little bit to help others. Let's make no mistake about this, the right to pursue Happiness means the right to work hard and accumulate wealth, and to have the Liberty to spend your money how you see fit; whether that's being a Scrooge or being Mother Theresa. If our Rights come from God, then only God can take them away. If our Rights come from benevolent Political elitists (Progressives like Pelosi, Reid and Obama), then our Rights will be dictated to us. If you disagree, what's your argument against this usurpation of our right to Life, Liberty and Happiness?
You can read in the Denver Post how, "Thousands of low-income Coloradans reliant on public assistance could get a free cellphone under a plan before the state Public Utilities Commission." "The money — more than $800 million in subsidies were paid last year for low-income phone service across the country — comes from the Universal Service Fund, a tax on all telephone lines. Of that amount, Coloradans received nearly $3.2 million in low-income subsidies."
How about this Reuters article, "Obama mulls rental option for some homeowners." "U.S. government officials are weighing a plan that would let borrowers who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments avoid eviction by renting their homes instead." "Officials are also considering whether the government should make mortgage payments on behalf of borrowers who cannot keep up with their home loans, tapping an unused portion of a $50 billion housing aid kitty."
Since when was it our obligation to provide for other's happiness? Since when was it responsible, hard working Americans responsibility to provide poor people with cell phones or to pay their neighbor's mortgage or subsidize their rent? This redistribution of wealth is not only in most cases petty, it's immoral. Where do we draw the line?
So how many households will be affected by this Tax Surcharge? According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Top 10% of Income Earners, or 11.4 million families, earned $259,000 based on 2001 data. Adjusting for inflation, assuming 3%, these families will earn over $328,000 in 2009 which guarantees that at least 11.4 million families will pay this progressive 5.4% Income Tax Surcharge.
So how many people will be helped by these 11.4 million families? According to the aforementioned Bloomberg article, by 2019, 37 million uninsured will have insurance, and 17 million will still not have insurance (half of which are estimated to be illegal immigrants).
There are other caveats to this plan including: 2.5% Income Tax penalty on workers who decline having insurance, "up to the average cost of a health insurance plan" and 8% Employer penalty for not providing health insurance.
In this Bloomberg article, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel state that this Legislation will pass on a partisan basis if need be however Pres. Obama would like the Legislation to be bipartisan. The rest of us know that it doesn't matter if Republicans sign on to this Legislation or not; it's going to pass, just like the $787 billion Stimulus bill and just like the $410 billion Omnibus bill.
Of course, National Health Insurance is predicated on the Progressive ideal that government should tax us for the common good. Your right to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness does not give you the right to accumulate wealth if you can sacrifice just a little bit to help others. Let's make no mistake about this, the right to pursue Happiness means the right to work hard and accumulate wealth, and to have the Liberty to spend your money how you see fit; whether that's being a Scrooge or being Mother Theresa. If our Rights come from God, then only God can take them away. If our Rights come from benevolent Political elitists (Progressives like Pelosi, Reid and Obama), then our Rights will be dictated to us. If you disagree, what's your argument against this usurpation of our right to Life, Liberty and Happiness?
You can read in the Denver Post how, "Thousands of low-income Coloradans reliant on public assistance could get a free cellphone under a plan before the state Public Utilities Commission." "The money — more than $800 million in subsidies were paid last year for low-income phone service across the country — comes from the Universal Service Fund, a tax on all telephone lines. Of that amount, Coloradans received nearly $3.2 million in low-income subsidies."
How about this Reuters article, "Obama mulls rental option for some homeowners." "U.S. government officials are weighing a plan that would let borrowers who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments avoid eviction by renting their homes instead." "Officials are also considering whether the government should make mortgage payments on behalf of borrowers who cannot keep up with their home loans, tapping an unused portion of a $50 billion housing aid kitty."
Since when was it our obligation to provide for other's happiness? Since when was it responsible, hard working Americans responsibility to provide poor people with cell phones or to pay their neighbor's mortgage or subsidize their rent? This redistribution of wealth is not only in most cases petty, it's immoral. Where do we draw the line?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)