December 16, 2006

As you may recall, last month former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich made a statement that raised a few eyebrows, saying that the first amendment to the Constitution may need to be reevaluated. Well, recently he “defended his call to limit freedom of speech to combat terrorism.” Good for him. So far as I can tell, the only people who can logically be opposed to curbing the speech of terrorists are the terrorists themselves.

Now, I guess one could say that if we don’t allow speech for those whose opinions we disagree with, then we don’t have free speech at all. And since freedom of expression is one of our most treasured American values, we’d be sacrificing part of what makes America great in order to protect America — but if the America we’re “protecting” no longer possesses the qualities which make it America, then we have, in effect, shot the horse to keep it from getting stolen.

Glenn Greenwald, who writes from Unclaimed Territory, said that “if you advocate the criminalization of ideas which you don’t like (or which you believe are “dangerous”), you really have no ground to object to efforts to do the same thing […] when applied to ideas that you do like…”

And Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary security deserve neither.”

But come on, we’re talking about terrorists who are trying to terrorize!

Now, of course, a liberal could point out that there are already laws that outlaw speech which incites immediate violence, so Gingrich must have been talking about some other kind of speech. In fact, he pretty much says he is. He says that suspected terrorists should be “subject to a totally different set of rules.” So, it’s not just the kind of speech he wants to limit, but who can speak. And who can’t? Suspected terrorists. And the problem liberals have with this is that, in their hyperbolic language, besides slicing away our free speech with a rusty machete, it completely eliminates due process, which the Bush administration is not a big fan of anyway, as it has claimed the right to simply disappear indefinitely anyone it suspects is a terrorists, such as Pulitzer winning photojournalists who take pictures it doesn’t like.

As is obvious, these liberal arguments are dangerous in part because they can be rather convincing to soft minds. Which is, of course, part of the reason we must support Gingrich in his reevaluation of the first amendment and free speech. And once we have erased free speech for suspected terrorists, we must label the entire liberal media as suspected terrorists…for their liberal arguments which would grant suspected terrorists free speech are knowingly enabling terrorism, which, I’m fairly certain, is illegal.

And then, well, then if someone has a problem with something I say, I can tell them to shut up about it, because I support my government, and their disagreeing with me is terroristic.

I can say, “Shut up!” while smirking my best Jack Bauer smirk. And when they say “Why?” I can say, “It’s the law.”


July 26, 2006

According to a BOSTON GLOBE article written by Rick Klein, a “key lawmaker said yesterday that Republican leaders would soon hold the first House vote in a decade on increasing the minimum wage, and predicted that the bill will pass on the eve of crucial midterm elections.” It continues:

House majority whip Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, told a luncheon crowd that leaders will vote on the minimum wage this fall or sooner. GOP leaders have come under heightened pressure from Democrats and moderate Republicans for supporting increases in their own salaries while the federal minimum wage has remained frozen at $5.15 an hour since 1997.

“We’re at the point where that vote is coming,” Blunt said. “I’m not sure that it’s a ‘must-pass,’ but it will probably be a ‘will-pass.'”

First, let me say, the phrase “moderate Republican” just gets my goat.

These Republicrats — Demublicans? — don’t seem to understand who it is exactly that’s paying for their reelection campaign. It’s certainly not labor.

Sure, federal minimum wage has been at $5.15 an hour for almost ten years — that doesn’t mean it should be increased. We don’t need to change a good thing. Our current minimum wage is like Classic Coke — it’s time tested. If we go fooling around with the recipe, who knows what might happen? Vanilla Coke, anyone? Disgusting! And really, the $10,000 a person would make in a year, working full time for minimum wage, is above the poverty line, if that person is single and has no children — and how many high school students have children? Too many, I know, but not enough to justify an increase in minimum wage.

But, Jon, you might be thinking, according to the Economic Policy Institute an increase in minimum wage would affect the lives of 14.9 million workers — 11% of the workforce — and a full 80% of those people are age 20 or over, adults, not high school students. Furthermore, when a wage remains the same for long periods of time, a person is actually making less in real dollars, so by staying the same, the minimum wage is actually decreasing.

What? By staying the same it’s decreasing? Take your economic magic-talk elsewhere, heathen.

No, listen, Jon, you might continue thinking, according to the EPI, which I cited above, the buying power of our current minimum wage has decreased by 20% since 1997, making it this nation’s lowest minimum wage (in terms of buying power) since 1955.

Look. Just cut that out. If you want to argue in favor of a minimum wage increase you go ahead. But I’ll have none of it. I don’t need facts to help me make my mind up — I know what my position is — and I say increasing the minimum wage is a dangerous move, the Vanilla Coke of economic policy, and I intend to write to Congress to let them know I don’t take kindly to facts — because “probably” will pass also means “might not” pass, and that gives me hope.

So some poor folks have to live in three- or four-family households just to keep a roof over their head. All those people cramped into tight quarters probably decreases the heating bill in the winters. And that’s a savings they wouldn’t have if we increased minimum wage and they could afford to live in merely a two-family household.

That’s what’s wrong with liberals — pretending to give while secretly taking.

What I want to know is, why do they hate poor people so much?


July 19, 2006

There is a video on of Sen. Sam Brownback giving a just fantastic talk on stem cell research (which you can find here:

The talk is being made, by the way, as part of a discussion on a bill which would expand federal support for stem cell research (which Bush, being the God-loving patriot he is, intends to veto, anyway, now that it’s passed).

If you have watched the video, then you know that what Sen. Brownback is actually talking about is not stem cell research, but “Hannah,” who was adopted as a frozen embryo — and, as Sen. Brownback points out, said embryos are called a “snowflakes.” I think we can all agree that that is a cute name for a frozen embryo. (And I don’t know about Sen. Brownback, but personally, I love to stick out my tongue when it’s snowing and let snowflakes fall on it, and then I eat them. I know it seems childish, but it brings me more joy than protesting abortion mills, and believe me, that brings me joy: there is almost nothing more fulfilling than making a teenage girl weep while on her way into a Planned Parenthood building. I say “almost” because of the whole snowflake thing.) It’s rather interesting that those frozen embryos aren’t called, I dunno, people, but that’s not the point. You see, the point is, to Sen. Brownback and to me, that this thing that was once an embryo is now a little girl called Hannah, so she has become a person, and what right do we have to play God by destroying thousands of little Hannahs in the name of research? Sure, it could be argued that the embryos scientists want to use for research are being destroyed by the thousands, anyway, as biological waste, side products of in vitro fertilization, and so they might as well be used in research which could potentially save the lives of the walking, talking, living, loving human beings that cover our planet right now, that none of them would be denied a waiting uterus in the name of research if said uterus was in fact waiting, and that said embryos are not persons (they’re snowflakes!), but a collection of cells with no feelings and no personality — but to make such arguments one would have to be a Dumbocrat liberal intellectual of the most repugnant (atheist) variety.

This debate is a matter of principle. These embryos, you see, are persons in principle, if not in fact. And maybe they are being destroyed anyway, but to destroy them through research is wrong. It is actively destroying a living thing (as opposed to them simply being discarded, which is also wrong, but less wrong); it is an immoral means to an end. It doesn’t matter that these embryos are being destroyed anyway. That isn’t the point. I know it, you know it, President Bush knows it, and Sen. Brownback knows it.

So, human lives could be saved by doing research on embryos which are being destroyed anyway — is that all you lefties got in the way of an argument? Well, it’ll take more than logic to budge me, and it’ll take more than logic to budge my man Bush, too.


July 19, 2006

So the House has rejected a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I’ll just come out and say it. By rejecting this gay marriage ban, the House has rejected American Family Values. The vote was 236-187 in favor of the gay marriage ban, which means what? It means we have 187 Communists representing us in our own government. Now, I read things sometimes, and I know that some people argue against a gay marriage ban by saying things like: “A Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would introduce the first Constitutional amendment that actually takes away someone’s rights.” And to that, I say: Not if we get a flag burning amendment in place first; then it would be the second, smart guy!

And I know, too, that sometimes Republicans represent our party as the party of small government (which we are!), which is why most libertarians who aren’t voting libertarian (libertarians who want their vote to count) vote Republican rather than Dumbocrat, and leftist devilfarts like to point out that laws demanding enormous sentences for “victimless crimes” like drug use, attempts to pass laws against abortion, and bans on gay marriage are all antithetical to social libertarianism, to which I say: A Christian government can only be so small before it loses its Christianity. I mean, come on. Everybody knows that by “party of small government” what we are really talking about is cutting social programs, not, I repeat, not compromising our Christian Values to political ends, I don’t care what the libertarians say. Sure, if you look at gay marriage logically, it seems reasonable. Why not extend marriage to an historically marginalized group of consenting adults? If marriage was expanded to include gay folks (and why on earth, by the way, have we allowed them to hijack the word “gay,” which was a perfectly good substitute for “happy” until they stole and perverted it, like they want to do to our children!?) — if marriage was expanded to homosexuals, it could be argued, marriage would still consist of a social contract between two consenting adults, both entering the arrangement of their own accord, as a means of proclaiming their love to each other and having it officially recognized by their family, friends and community; it could be argued that such an expansion of marriage would actually extend family values by allowing homosexuals to form their own families, recognized by God and government, and not, in fact, degrade family values. It could be argued that banning such a union is actually antithetical to Americans’ professed love of freedom, since, quoting Thomas Jefferson in a different context, it “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” It could be argued that continued marginalization of a group of people who are simply entering into relationships with people of the same gender, and wish those relationships to be recognized in the same fashion as heterosexuals’ relationships are, stinks of a provincial prejudice. And it could be argued that — as evidenced in Gay Marriage: For Better or Worse? What We’ve Learned From the Evidence — since gay marriage was made legal in the Netherlands, the rate of heterosexual marriage has actually increased and divorce rates have declined, so, based on the statistics in a country where gay marriage is legal, it seems to have absolutely no negative social effect. Yeah, I know, all of those arguments could be made.

But I have one thing to say to someone who would make such arguments: Get out of my country, you atheist liberal scum.