Where there's Smoke, there's Weakness

Government-mandated healthcare; driven down our gullets by a man too weak of will and mind to successfully quit his own smoking habit, which is acknowledge as perhaps the single-most avoidable of all causes of health problems and costs. Further, none of the health bills put forth even attempt to nationally outlaw smoking. Just two more astounding, illogical aspects of that man's ascension to and use of power.

Guns for Babies

What would happen if the pro-Abortion crowd were required to swap out fetuses as their point of focus and replace that with guns, but had to retain all of their established argument logic? For example, they would suddenly find themselves arguing that firearms are a Constitutionally-guaranteed right (which they are), and that the government and insurance companies should provide funding for those who cannot afford them. Anti-Firearm activists would have to stay 50 feet away from all gun shops, and would by default be blamed for all gun shop fires and all "accidents" that might befall any gun shop owners. Firearms would be argued as a Healthcare issue, since it could be shown that being denied them would seriously risk one's health, even one's life. The entire matter of licensing would be argued an undue restriction on one's rights, since owning and carrying a gun would be a matter of discussion strictly between the individual and their gunsmith. Anyone who wouldn't agree with ready access to firearms would be labelled a fanatic radical extremist, completely out of touch with the mainstream. Schools would hold educational sessions for students to understand proper firearm safety and use. If students were allowed to opt out at all, they would need prior parental approval. Imagine.

But what of the other way around you say, where Gun Rights activists would have to take on the cause for Abortion rights? ...Well, show me where the Constitution actually identifies an Abortion Right, and we'll talk.

Liberalism has no equal, and no value!

Conservatism and Liberalism are typically thought of as equivalent alternatives in the realm of philosophies or value systems; that they're opposites. But I submit to you that this is not a proper portrayal. Rather, these are like light and darkness, knowledge and ignorance, matter and space, goodness and evil. These are not opposites; they are contrasting states where one represents the presence of a value, while the other is merely the absence of the value. To be a Liberal is to be deficient in Conservatism. One can invert the statement, but to do so puts the emphasis on the absence rather than the presence. For example, one doesn't say that light is the absence of darkness, since darkness is merely the absence of light. Knowledge is not the lack of ignorance. Matter is not the absence of a emptiness. Goodness is not the absence of evil. Being a Conservative cannot be described as being deficient in Liberalism, as that would be saying Conservatism is the lack of lacking Conservatism.

Ultimately, we should not use the term Liberal. We should instead refer to such people as Anti-Conservatives, since they suffer from the lack of the Conservative value.

Taxes: they're not just for revenue any more

It can now be considered official: taxes are no longer merely a governmental means of raising revenue to cover expenses. They are become the new penalty for misbehavior. Oh, there have been hints of this for some time. For example, cigarette taxes. Those are not disproportionately high in order to re-coup costs from their use (though some would argue this), rather they are set so as to discourage people from buying them. Though the government coffers would suffer if all smokers suddenly quit, cold-turkey!

The newest proof of taxes-as-penalty comes from an unnamed group of "health experts" who are pushing the Obama administration to instantiate a tax on soda pop, because of its involvement in the obesity epidemic. Again, the government isn't bleeding money because people are drinking pop (though again, some would argue), and needs to recoup those losses via such a tax. No, this is merely an idea intent on discouraging the purchase of such heinous products, and therefore is a penalty paid by those who continue.

So, the truth is out and cannot be denied: punishment for misbehavor is no longer the sole purview of the Judicial wing. The Executive branch now owns the power to assess guilt and to levy punishment. Will some wise legal council come forward to explain the unconstitutionality of this creeping assault on the balance of powers and abuse of the tax mechanism? Do we need to grab our 2 liters and head for the nearest harbor to pour their contents overboard in protest? Do we now need Pop Bottle Parties, ala the Tea-Baggers?

Cost-Cutting Measures for the Family

From the genius of Dem-Queen Pelosi comes the brilliant revelation that society can avoid untold expenses if it only increases its abortion practices.  You see, those awful little things (aka children) become a tremendous drain on our society, what with their ceaseless and costly needs.  Just imagine how great things would be if we stopped the madness, and stopped child-birth!  Why, we'd become the most prosperous nation in the world, like...China!

Wait...whassat?  Fetuses grow up to become voters and tax-payers?  Whoa, then let us not be so hasty here!  Quick, somebody sanction a financial impact study.  We must get to the bottom of whether the burden of children might be outweighed by their future benefits.  Let's get someone from Planned Parenthood and the ACLU on this, right away.  Time is of the essence here!  ...And maybe we can even identify the gene that predetermines a fetus as a Democrat, so we can know which ones to keep.

Color-full Times

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"
--Martin Luther King, Jr.

How many people can honestly say that the excitement and interest that they feel about today's inauguration is not driven primarily by the fact that Obama will be the nation's first black president? And how many can say that they truly know the content of his character? If you have these factors out of proper balance, then you're not honoring the core of what MLK stood for. You've hi-jacked his cause and perverted it into what he spoke against...just like the radical Muslims who have perverted their religion to justify their murderous ways.

It's not about being pro-black, nor anti-black; it's about being color blind! It doesn't matter what color is his skin. What matters is what he stands for and how he intends to go about governing this land.

Without getting into the arguments about what he will or will not do as president, and all of the other endless points of disagreement, just stop and ask yourself whether you honestly and sufficiently know the content of his character. Is it that knowledge that has you so excited for today...or is it the shallow pride of witnessing the first black president being sworn in?

Care about what matters.

O'Reilly Spins a Survey

On the O'Reilly Factor last night, Bill offered up his newest survey question on his website, which asks whether the respondent is "rooting for Obama to succeed."  Clearly, this poll is pointed at Bill's conservative listeners, seeking to determine whether they're able to put aside their 'druthers and support the man who won the election.  This is the same wording that Hannity has been using as his cautious support of the POTUS-elect.  That Bill would lift Sean's syntax for his own poll is rather cheap, but the intent of the question is still a worthy one.  But the wording of the question is troublesome, and hinges on the definition of "succeed."  If one were to answer "Yes", does this then mean that the respondent hopes Obama is successful in implementing all of the policies that he put forth as campaign promises.  Even many Democrats would not like to see that, most of them being less Liberal than Obama, by record.  And if one were to answer "No", does that mean that the respondent is an intractible ideologue who can't let go of what shoud've been?  Or worse, unpatriotic for not supporting the President?  While I wouldn't accuse O'Reilly of purposely creating a set-up, he clearly doesn't know a poorly worded question when he creates one, which is quite disappointing for such a veteran investigative reporter.  What did you intend to ask, Bill?