This is disgusting. A pastor burns a Qur'an, then Afghani Muslims storm a UN building and behead two workers there as a response. And instead of blaming this incident on radical Muslims who are still stuck in the stone age, leftists are trying to swing the blame on the pastor, who was exercising his own free speech and freedom of expression.
It's disgusting how some people, especially leftists, will use any tragedy to cast undeservedly blame on their political opponents.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Saturday, February 19, 2011
My Thoughts on Planned Parenthood
A friend of mine had a status decrying the fact that the House voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Here was my response:
__________
The kind of mentality that you're bringing to the table is the kind of mentality that has led to this country's moral and fiscal bankruptcy. Everyone wants lower taxes, more spending, and a balanced budget. Everyone wants to cut some other person's favorite program, but not their own. Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too.
I agree that there are plenty of things that could be cut, and Planned Parenthood is one of them. Government has absolutely no business funding anything that does not have to do with personal security or national defense. And when it comes to political reality, Planned Parenthood is an EASY spending cut, unlike Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, TANF, the "Defense" budget, etc. Ultimately, the government will have to cut the difficult-to-cut programs too, but it has to start SOMEWHERE. And it's a lot easier to cut funding for a program which a lot of people find outright immoral, than it is to cut funding for a program like food stamps.
If Planned Parenthood is such a valuable organization (and I think it is), then it will survive in the free market. Planned Parenthood existed as an organization completely independent of government subsidization before and there is no reason why it cannot exist independent of government again. The fact of the matter is that Planned Parenthood only receives 1/3 of its funding from government grants and contracts. If 1/5 women have really visited PP, then clearly PP has a very good base of supporters from which it can ask for VOLUNTARY (as opposed to INVOLUNTARY and COERCED) donations. If one in five women have really found PP to be beneficial, then PP should have NO problem finding adequate funding for its operations.
Furthermore, a lot of Planned Parenthood's most valuable operations - e.g. abortions, provisions of contraceptives, and so forth - are already funded by the income that PP receives from their clinics (in other words, the money they charge for abortions &c.). So removing federal funding won't endanger the most important functions of PP. And the profits from these go towards funding their unprofitable operations like sex ed. So it all works out.
One last thing: The removal of federal funding for Planned Parenthood could remove it out of the political spotlight. It will undoubtedly give Planned Parenthood (and its donors) more freedom to control its operations. Whereas political pressure and threats to remove federal funding could have changed what PP has done in the past, now that it is free from federal funding it will have greater operational freedom. Being freed from the whims of pro-life politicians should be something that Planned Parenthood and its supporters should be rejoicing.
__________
The kind of mentality that you're bringing to the table is the kind of mentality that has led to this country's moral and fiscal bankruptcy. Everyone wants lower taxes, more spending, and a balanced budget. Everyone wants to cut some other person's favorite program, but not their own. Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too.
I agree that there are plenty of things that could be cut, and Planned Parenthood is one of them. Government has absolutely no business funding anything that does not have to do with personal security or national defense. And when it comes to political reality, Planned Parenthood is an EASY spending cut, unlike Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, TANF, the "Defense" budget, etc. Ultimately, the government will have to cut the difficult-to-cut programs too, but it has to start SOMEWHERE. And it's a lot easier to cut funding for a program which a lot of people find outright immoral, than it is to cut funding for a program like food stamps.
If Planned Parenthood is such a valuable organization (and I think it is), then it will survive in the free market. Planned Parenthood existed as an organization completely independent of government subsidization before and there is no reason why it cannot exist independent of government again. The fact of the matter is that Planned Parenthood only receives 1/3 of its funding from government grants and contracts. If 1/5 women have really visited PP, then clearly PP has a very good base of supporters from which it can ask for VOLUNTARY (as opposed to INVOLUNTARY and COERCED) donations. If one in five women have really found PP to be beneficial, then PP should have NO problem finding adequate funding for its operations.
Furthermore, a lot of Planned Parenthood's most valuable operations - e.g. abortions, provisions of contraceptives, and so forth - are already funded by the income that PP receives from their clinics (in other words, the money they charge for abortions &c.). So removing federal funding won't endanger the most important functions of PP. And the profits from these go towards funding their unprofitable operations like sex ed. So it all works out.
One last thing: The removal of federal funding for Planned Parenthood could remove it out of the political spotlight. It will undoubtedly give Planned Parenthood (and its donors) more freedom to control its operations. Whereas political pressure and threats to remove federal funding could have changed what PP has done in the past, now that it is free from federal funding it will have greater operational freedom. Being freed from the whims of pro-life politicians should be something that Planned Parenthood and its supporters should be rejoicing.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
The Tucson Shooting & Gun Control
What does the Tucson shooting of Gabrielle Giffords mean for the Second Amendment and our gun rights?
One of the guys who tackled the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, being interviewed by Ed Schultz:
Food for thought: If the government failed with alcohol prohibition and it's currently failing with drug prohibition, what does this mean to those who want to impose varying degrees of gun prohibition?
It's not too difficult to buy pot, ecstasy, heroin, or any other drug if you know the right people. Criminals sell these things and they profit tremendously. Prohibiting or further restricting access to guns will move the market for firearms further underground. It will expand the black market for firearms. It will provide profit to criminals, gangs, and mafias, and deprive free individuals from their right to self defense. It will leave firearms in the hands of criminals and leave the rest of helpless and defenseless. Is this what we really want?
One of the guys who tackled the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, being interviewed by Ed Schultz:
Food for thought: If the government failed with alcohol prohibition and it's currently failing with drug prohibition, what does this mean to those who want to impose varying degrees of gun prohibition?
It's not too difficult to buy pot, ecstasy, heroin, or any other drug if you know the right people. Criminals sell these things and they profit tremendously. Prohibiting or further restricting access to guns will move the market for firearms further underground. It will expand the black market for firearms. It will provide profit to criminals, gangs, and mafias, and deprive free individuals from their right to self defense. It will leave firearms in the hands of criminals and leave the rest of helpless and defenseless. Is this what we really want?
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Some Real Thoughts About The Tucson Shooting
Another crazed lone gunman went on a shooting spree, which included Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D) from Tucson, Arizona... And, of course, the left-wing media is crying to the heavens about the supposed threat of right-wing extremists. Here is an example:
Of course, no self-proclaimed "liberal" (I'm still puzzled about what's actually liberal about the modern American "liberal" movement, but that's a whole different topic) is bitching and moaning about left-wing terrorists, such as the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front... But you obviously can't expect these so-called "journalists" to be objective.
The New York Rag has gone so far as to call for the "quieting [of] the voices of intolerance." What's that supposed to mean? Should we just white out that pesky First Amendment and install some wise overlords at a federal agency who will tell us what to say, what to write, and what to think? Thought control...
And, of course, there is a problem with the official left-tard version of events. The killer was actually a registered Democrat whose favorite books included Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto, both two great pieces of left-wing literature.
The Southern Avenger, as usual, does a great job destroying the lies propagated by the left-wing media:
Of course, the entire point isn't to bitch about what some nut's political beliefs were. Obviously, this guy was crazy. As someone pointed out:
Here's ReasonTV with a little, ummm, reason on this tragedy:
Of course, no self-proclaimed "liberal" (I'm still puzzled about what's actually liberal about the modern American "liberal" movement, but that's a whole different topic) is bitching and moaning about left-wing terrorists, such as the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front... But you obviously can't expect these so-called "journalists" to be objective.
The New York Rag has gone so far as to call for the "quieting [of] the voices of intolerance." What's that supposed to mean? Should we just white out that pesky First Amendment and install some wise overlords at a federal agency who will tell us what to say, what to write, and what to think? Thought control...
And, of course, there is a problem with the official left-tard version of events. The killer was actually a registered Democrat whose favorite books included Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto, both two great pieces of left-wing literature.
The Southern Avenger, as usual, does a great job destroying the lies propagated by the left-wing media:
Of course, the entire point isn't to bitch about what some nut's political beliefs were. Obviously, this guy was crazy. As someone pointed out:
Isn't it sad that some guy on the internet has a better view of the news than our entire alarmist news media combined? I think so.For crying out loud, do we know anything about why this guy did it? Is there any indication this was politically motivated, other than the fact that he shot up a political event? Maybe he hated Giffords for some personal reason. Maybe he hates the federal government and wanted to kill his local representative, regardless of the representative's affiliation. Maybe he's just a mentally disturbed man who wanted to kill a bunch of people and figured a political event is a good place to do it. Maybe he's another John Hinckley, Jr., trying to get the attention of Kristen Stewart or something.
It is an incredible accusation to say Palin or others are tangentially responsible when you have zero information as to why the kid did it. Sure, it fits the story of a right extremist provoked by political rhetoric into 'doing something,' but we still have no idea if that's the case. I know I'm expecting too much of a person like Olbermann, but damn, show a little patience and restraint.
Here's ReasonTV with a little, ummm, reason on this tragedy:
Monday, January 10, 2011
Ron Paul on Antitrust & Monopoly
Well, I'm taking an "Economic Analysis of Law" class this semester, and I'm pretty sure that we'll be discussing antitrust law at some point. Pretty sure, because I'm a bad student and I haven't really looked at the textbook yet. Ha-ha. Bad student, I know. Anyway... here's what Congressman Ron Paul and Dr. Dominick Armentano have to say about antitrust laws:
Friday, January 7, 2011
Paul Ryan Unravels Obamacare
Paul Ryan beautifully deconstructs Obamacare and all of its silly accounting gimmicks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)