Left Wing vs. Right Wing Extremists

November 23rd, 2010

This is what I think is rather interesting.  When a person on the right calls a person a name, let’s say they use the “n-word”, these people are labeled as an extremist or on the fringe.  Funny, these people are labeled this yet there is absolutely no proof that this even happened.  Rewards have been offered, pleas have been made yet nothing comes to light.  Interesting.

Now, you have someone send a white powdery substance to Dancing with the Stars and then it is even followed up with a threat to Bristol Palin.  This happens yet no one decides to label this threat or the people responsible as extremists.  Interesting.  The first example was a simple sticks-and-stones type of assault while the other was quite the opposite, yet this thing has left no one labeled as a “left wing extremist.”  Interesting.

Tell me where I am wrong.

Here, let me start by saying that you left wing zealots are a bunch of hypocrites who believe that believe that any dissent against your ideas should be squashed by the government while your ideas, however wild or filled with controversy, should somehow be above the possibility of opposition.  When challenged, you attack, you don’t discuss.  You yield the First amendment around when it suits you but the minute someone decries against your ideas you quickly chide that the Supreme Court should have the ability to tailor free speech. 

Here is a challenge for all of you left wing extremists.  The next time that someone or something pisses you off, why not challenge that person or group to a debate.  You seem to writhe in pain when discussing the Second amendment yet you have no problems threatening the life of another by any other means. 


Judge Bolton is Wrong

July 28th, 2010

I was just reading some blurbs on the immigration subject.  Someone was asking why the judge’s ruling was wrong.  Let me start with the actual text of the law that was struck down by Judge Bolton.

“Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070

A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person.”

Why is she wrong for striking this down? She is wrong because the wording that the legislature of the State of Arizona used was carefully chosen. The term "reasonable suspicion" is nothing more than saying that a police officer has the right to question someone if something just doesn’t seem right with the situation. Here is an example for you. Suppose a police officer, working just a mile or two from the border, sees a car traveling, at night, with its lights off and 7 or 8 people stuffed into a tiny beat up car. Remember, this is hypothetical. Suppose that the police officer stops the car for failing to turn on their headlights. The officer, using standard procedures that are used, I believe, in every state, asks for the driver’s license. The driver is unable to present a valid driver’s license that belongs to any state. At this point, I have made no mention what the color of the person’s skin is. For my example, let’s say that the person’s skin color gives them the label of “white” and the other people in the car can also be labeled as "white." Oh, I forgot to mention, this was the border between Minnesota and Canada. This judge is basically saying that police officers cannot use their best judgment to determine if someone is legally in this country or not. The fact is that the example I gave you was for human smuggling from Canada into the US. Based on the smack down of the Arizona law, the officer would not be allowed to question the immigration status of the driver or the occupants. Because of the inability of our laws to allow police officers to use their best trained judgment, 5 women are now working as sex slaves. If you are thinking that the officer would see two men with 5 women and they should know that something is wrong well you have just profiled these two men.

The fact is that police officers need to make judgments every day. Some are right and some are wrong. The broader question was whether or not it is an infringement on someone’s civil liberties if they are forced to have some identification as to who they are. In my opinion, I don’t believe that we should have to prove, at any time “who” we are (i.e. “Let me see your papers!”) but I believe that need to be “able” to prove it at some point “who” we are. For me, I have a birth certificate from the State of California, in a file cabinet, to my immediate left. I have my Social Security card in the same cabinet and my driver’s license in my wallet. Have I ever been asked for these? Actually, yes! As a matter of fact, within the last week I have had to present all three of them at one point and all I was doing was going to the doctor. All the doctor was doing was making a “reasonable attempt” to see if I 1.)was who I said I was and 2.) able to pay for the services.

Signs, Signs, Everywhere There’s Signs

July 17th, 2010

The Obama administration, with all of its knowledge and wisdom, thought that it would be a good idea to spend $20,000,000 on signs around the country to let everyone know that the project causing them to stand still in traffic is being funded by the Recovery Act (yes, I could have said 20 million but it would have lost the impact). 

I wish I could use more colorful words but it suffices to say that you have got to be kidding me.  Someone, anyone, please tell me why I need advertising about something that I have basically already purchased?  Is the Obama administration so insecure that they feel the need to let everyone know, at every possible moment, exactly how wonderfully everything is? 

Ok, let me give them the benefit of the doubt.  Let’s say that it is a good idea to let the public know how their dollars are being spent.  And, let’s say, that spending $20,000,000 was just enough money to get this message out.  Here is my problem.  I thought the Recovery Act was meant to stimulate the economy.  If this was the case, then shouldn’t these signs have said something about the contractor working on the project or, God forbid, promote some of the local businesses that are helping to pay for this stuff?

President Obama and the rest of you folks in Washington:  I want you to know that we get it.  Stop with the marketing.  We know what you are doing.  We hear it all the time.  We know you are wonderful and all powerful.  Do me a favor.  The next time that you have $20,000,000 lying around please don’t spend it on a sign.  Do something smart like investing it in something as basic as a simple savings account.  At least there you would actually be making money for the country.

Union Paradox

July 17th, 2010

I need to get this straight.  The Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters has a specific goal in mind.  They want to let Washington know just how important it is for companies to hire skilled, union workers.  After all, it should be mandatory that every business hire only union workers because these folks know how to relate to the common man and woman.  It is only because of unions that wages are fair, working conditions are safe, health care is provided and, most importantly, the work is done correctly.  

Now, because most of these workers can’t take time off to stand on the picket lines, the MARCC has hired non-union employees to stand in line for them. 

I refer back to my first statement because I need to really understand this.  A union, mad that people should hire only union workers, hires non-union workers to protest the fact that companies shouldn’t hire non-union workers.  So, essentially, the MARCC union will eventually have to hire its own workers to protest against the non-union workers that it hired to protest the use of non-union workers. 

In essence, it will have to protest against itself.

If you think that I am writing this because I don’t like unions then you are just wrong.  I am upset with the hypocrisy of this group.  I would be really curious to find out if this group of non-union people will be receiving the same benefits as the union people.  This of course would make the most sense.  I have a feeling, though, that this union is treating these people the same way that they feel every company treats its employees. 

Congratulations MARCC.  By your own hand you have just become the thing you hate.

BP Oil Spill Capped?

July 14th, 2010

So, let me get this straight.  For the past 85 days people around the world have watched as a major oil company and the resources of a nation have tried to put a cap on a well that is gushing with oil.  For argument’s sake, let’s leave BP out of the following diatribe.  That leaves the resources of an entire nation trying to, and I quote the President, “Plug the damn hole!”  (His words not mine).  Essentially, put a cork in it.  Oh I am sure that there are plenty of oil terms that describe the situation but when you boil it down to its simplest form the cork analogy works.  But we have to face the facts America that our nation is doing its best and, well, that should be good enough.  As a matter of fact, I think that everyone in the government that is trying should feel really good about themselves for even showing up for work.  So what if they don’t fix it right away or even at all.  The most important thing is that we tried.  Even if it never gets fixed, all those involved, even our highest ranking officials should feel good.  Isn’t this correct?  Isn’t this what we teach in school these days?  Shouldn’t just trying be good enough to keep your job, your office and the Presidency? 

The next time you folks out there think that there shouldn’t be any competition in school or that the kids in school should have to take a math test because it is too hard, I want you to think really hard about this situation.  The reason that we don’t have an answer is because we are no longer striving for excellence, independence and ingenuity in this country, specifically in our schools.  So, in 10, 20 or 30 years when another disaster like this happens and no one has an answer don’t come crying to me.  We are losing answers every day in our schools because we no longer require our students to think.

That, my friends, is the real tragedy.

Immigration Solution!

July 12th, 2010

We here at Political Farts have come up with a comprehensive solution for the immigration problem that we have in the United States.  There have been many ideas that have been bantered about for quite some time.  Some people think that we should give blanket amnesty to those that are currently here while others think that everyone that is here illegally should be deported.  We believe that the final solution should utilize the buddy system.  Here is how it would work:

Everyone that is currently in the United States illegally would join the Legal Immigrant Buddy System(LIBS) and the system would find a legal immigrant buddy for them.  The legal and illegal immigrant would first meet, perhaps over coffee or grabbing a burger, and they would share stories about their lives and how they got to this country.  Since the legal immigrant had to spend a lot of time and money to become a citizen, the two would come up with a plan to split the costs.  This way, the legal immigrant would get a rebate for the amount of money they spent and the illegal immigrant would share part of the burden of becoming a United States Citizen. 


I’ve been away…but there is so much to talk about…

July 12th, 2010

Yes, I know that I have been away from quite some time.  I just guess that I needed a little "alone" time to recoup from the debacle known as health care reform.  For those of you who are wondering what will happen with this, well, let me tell you.  You see, I actually have some insight into the world of health care.  What is going to happen is that everyone in the United States that gets on this plan will begin to run up bills like you have never seen before.  Sure, you think that everyone around you will only use the health care that they need.  Wrong.  If you don’t believe me, call up your local provider and ask to talk to an actuarial.  Yes, these are the folks who studied really hard at math (unlike our current lot in Washington) and they can actually tell you statistics from real data.  My goodness, think about…practical examples from people who not only work in the industry but who actually have the examples to back it up.  Ask them to tell you what happens to a benefit when most or all of it is paid by the employer.  Folks, it isn’t going to be pretty.

More to come and thanks for reading.

Dear President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi

March 9th, 2010

I have searched long and hard, far and wide, near and far to answer a simple question about your health care bill and the ideas behind them.  Even though I question the motives behind the push for this bill, I have set all of that aside and made the assumption that you know what you are doing.  However, during this process, I found that my blood pressure was raised on several occasions.  The main cause for this was not due to the increase in my taxes that will be necessary to support this bill or the fact that, even according to your own CBO, this legislation will cost well over what you have said it would.  My anger and frustration lies with the fact that no one, and I mean no one has been able to answer one simple question.  Here is the question and I hope the rest of the United States thinks of this question as well.

How can the Government of the United States force its citizens to buy something?

Now, before you answer, or attempt to answer, let me tell you some facts that I do know.

1.  Never, never, ever, in the history of the United States of America, has the Government forced its citizens to purchase something.  When this point has been brought up in the past everyone always gives that same, lame attempt at an answer such as "Well, the government forces you to buy car insurance" or "the Government forces you to buy home insurance."  Before you go off half cocked please remember this one simple thing:  The Government requires you to have car or home insurance only IF YOU BUY A CAR OR HOME FIRST!  THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T MAKE YOU BUY A CAR OR A HOME.  PLEASE, TELL ALL OF THE CONGRESSIONAL AIDS THIS ONE SIMPLE FACT SO I DON’T GO INSANE WITH THIS PSEUDO ARGUMENT EVERYTIME I CALL.

2.  Don’t try to use the interstate commerce clause BULLSHIT on the citizens of the United States.  Nowhere, and I mean nowhere in any case has the commerce clause been used to make someone buy something.  If you have an example then please, nay, I dare you to go on national television and tell everyone in the United States the exact law, case, constitutional section that details this.  Go on…I dare you!

For those of you that don’t know, the interstate commerce clause was meant to regulate, not demand, the purchase of goods across state lines.  Now, here is a funny one.  Have you ever heard of Wickard v. Filburn?  This was a goody by our Supreme Court.  It seems that Mr. Filburn was trying to grow wheat to feed his chickens.  Because he grew it himself, he didn’t have to buy it.  The Supreme Court said that because of this, Mr. Filburn wouldn’t engage in commerce and it would affect interstate commerce.  Mr. Filburn was forced to burn his wheat and pay a fine.

This is the same case that I am told of time and time again.  Of course, even though the Supreme Court was on the equivalent of crack at the time, the ruling did not force Mr. Filburn to purchase wheat.  The Government didn’t force Mr. Filburn to have chickens.  The Supreme Court simply told him what he couldn’t do, it didn’t tell him to raise chickens that needed to be fed with wheat.  For the love of IN GOD WE TRUST WOULD SOME SMARTY PANTS CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER TYPE PLEASE TELL ME HOW THIS CASE EVEN APPLIES TO THE HEALTH CARE BILL?  DON’T GIVE ME A DISSERTATION, DON’T GIVE ME DICK V. JANE OR BUTT V. CRACK, SIMPLY TELL ME AND THE REST OF THE COUNTRY IF THIS CASE IS A CLEAR CUT EXAMPLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FORCING SOMEONE TO BUY SOMETHING.  I HAVE ASKED MY REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS THIS EXACT SAME QUESTION AND NO ONE, AND I MEAN NO ONE, CAN ANSWER IT FOR ME.

3.  Don’t try to use the General Welfare clause to get this pushed through.  I have heard this approach before and you know and I know that it is total CRAP!  Do you want to know why it is CRAP?  I will tell you but you probably already know and are just hoping that the citizens of the United States won’t know or won’t care.  If you were truly pushing though this Health Care bill to promote the General Welfare then the Government of the United States would be able to do ANYTHING to the citizens, ANYTHING to the country and say that it is to promote the General Welfare.  If it were truly to promote the General Welfare then why don’t you cover dental care or eye care?  People can get just as sick from a gum infection as they can get with any other disease.  If you think about it, since the Federal Government is responsible for our highway system, why do we have to pay for glasses or contact lenses?  Wouldn’t better sighted drivers make the roads safer and thus improve the General Welfare of the citizens?  Better yet, why doesn’t the Federal Government give everyone Lasik eye surgery for free?  That would certainly make the roads safer.  For that matter, why doesn’t the Federal Government mandate that everyone watch Oprah?  I certainly feel better after watching her show.  Just think how much our General Welfare would be improved if EVERYONE watched it.  The entire United States would be ready for one huge group hug.  Here’s another one:  Why doesn’t the Federal Government mandate that everyone have a dog?  There are so many studies that indicate that pets actually lower blood pressure. 

The General Welfare clause doesn’t stick here.  If it did, why in the hell did we need the rest of the Constitution?  If you think about it, the Government would be able to promote the General Welfare and have everything fall under it.  That would have certainly made the Constitution shorter.  It would have looked something like this:

Article 1, Section 1

The Congress shall have the power to promote the General Welfare.

Article 1, Section 2

If you don’t like Section 1 then piss off.


More to come… 

PF Merchandise
Click here to check out our Political Farts merchandise.

Sponsored Links