Obama a “homophobe”?

Greg Gutfeld asks the question in this interesting video.  If so, why isn’t he being criticized for it (not that he should be, not that “homophobe” is an applicable term)?

Our government’s plan to coerce us into volunteer service

Modern day slavery, only the state is our master.  It gets scarier every day.  And it’s actually not just Obama who has our freedom in his sights.  It seems that there are many in our “government” who wish to exert their ownership over us:

Campaign For Liberty — “National Service” and Conscription: A Question of Ownership   | by William Norman Grigg.

Unfortunately for us, there is no fulfillment to be found in coerced “charity”.  Morality must be voluntary.

Keep up the good work Rush! Limbaugh won’t bow to thought police.

I may end up in one of Obama’s soon-to-be-revealled “re-education” camps for this, but I love Rush.  He has guts.  Long live Rush Limbaugh!  Down with the Thought Police! 

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive – Dems launch anti-Limbaugh petition « – Blogs from CNN.com.

Spending is not the answer

From the “Office of the President Elect” (whatever that is) comes the assertion that recovery trumps deficit concerns.  From Newsmax:

The economy growing weaker, President-elect Barack Obama said Tuesday that recovery efforts will trump deficit concerns when he takes office in January. Yet he pledged a “page-by-page, line-by-line” budget review to root out unneeded spending…

Unfortunately for us, this keynsian strategy is contrary to the laws of logic, nature and economics.    Too bad Haiti and other dirt poor, third world countries don’t listen to Obama.  All they would have to do is print a bunch of cash and hand it out to the people–boost the economy.   It boggles the mind.  Seriously, where are the trillions of dollars coming from?  Can’t that see that fiat increases in the money supply, either through cheap government credit or printing cash (of course, in this computer age we need not print it on paper) lead to inflation? And inflation is harmful, no matter what they say.  True, increased prices eventually lead to increased wages, but they don’t increase concurrently, and most importantly:  the value of your savings doesn’t increase.

Or is the money coming from present or future taxes, as would be the case if we were borrowing the cash from other countries.  In this case, the government “stimulus” spending is simply a wealth re-distribution scheme, and a particularly insidious one at that, since it tales money from successful people or institutions and gives it to the unsuccessful or failing institutions.  How can propping up failing entities (most failing due to irresponsible behavior) and penalizing the responsible entities possibly benefit the economy? 

With his Electoral College landslide victory, Obama said he possesses a “mandate to move the country in a new direction, and not continue the same old practices that have gotten us into the fix we’re in.”

Curious.  What are the “same old practices”?  Is government spending not the “same old practice” that is used whenever a crisis hits?  Is it not government encouraged and provided, cheap, easy credit that got us into this mess?  I agree, let’s not continue the same old practices.  Let the government stay out of it.

Obscene expenditures: $700B + $300B + $700B

Obama plans a $700 billion dollar “new deal.”  Lawmakers and Bush plan a $300 billion bail out (not exactly a bail out but Fed money will be on the line) of Citibank.  And this doesn’t include the pre-TARP expenditures, or the automakers bailout that is sure to materialize eventually.

It’s a financial snowball, and the end result will not be good at all.

You can’t get something for nothing, folks.

More admissions of election coverage bias from media…

Now that the elections is over, more “journalists” (including a Time editor and Washington Post ombudsman) are admitting and bemoaning the bias of the media toward Barack Obama. 

Last week, Time magazine’s Mark Halperin called the media’s performance during the campaign simply “disgusting.”

 

Halperin told a panel of media analysts at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election, “It’s the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war.”

 

He added, “It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.”

Of course it is safe for them to admit it now.  And maybe they think that “coming clean” will restore the trust of the American people.  Don’t worry, all of you media elite, the “people” never doubted you, nor will they.  The “people” are far beyond any ability to question you.  You and the public school system made sure of that long ago.

The State as Parent: Study Suggests Regulation of Fast Food Ads

Where will it end?  I t will not.  A new study links fast food ads with childhood obesity. 

A ban on such commercials would reduce the number of obese young children by 18 percent, and the number of obese older kids by 14 percent, researchers found.

They also suggested that ending an advertising expense tax deduction for fast-food restaurants could mean a slight reduction in childhood obesity.

Some experts say it’s the first national study to show fast-food TV commercials have such a large effect on childhood obesity. A 2006 Institute of Medicine report suggested a link, but concluded proof was lacking.

“Our study provides evidence of that link,” said study co-author Michael Grossman, an economics professor at City University of New York.

The study has important implications for the effectiveness of regulating TV advertising, said Lisa Powell, a researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Institute for Health Research and Policy. She was not involved in the research but was familiar with it.

Regulating TV advertising.  Why?  Because people can’t take care of themselves and their children, so the government must do it.  Just remember, all you who desire to be coddled by the government:

“Time is running very short for us to realize that personal freedom and personal responsibility have always been, and always will be, inseparable.”

-John Galt, Dreams Come Due

PS:  Of course, a tax break for advertising is also suspect.

Schumer’s irrational defense of the “Fairness” Doctrine

In a recent interview, Charles Schumer irrationally defended the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine.  From Newsmax:

Democratic Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine regarding talk radio, telling Fox News: “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

I don’t know, Mr. Schumer, what do you think?  Do you think ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN were fair and balanced during the presidential campaigns?  Did you hear Dan Rather’s comments on the subject?  Have you heard the statistics on the subject?  Have you read Goldberg’s book?  My goodness, all you have to do is listen to NPR.  I wonder if that taxpayer-funded radio program always makes sure to have a conservative experts on to balance the liberal ones?  Not that I have ever heard (of course, I stopped listening to that slanted propaganda a long time ago).

Is it “fair and balanced” for a newspaper to endorse a candidate?

Mr. Schumer, are you proposing that all of these news outlets give equal time to all points of view?

Of course not.  And with the exception of NPR, which is government funded, we should not force the networks to be “fair and balanced”.  They are private businesses.  If they want to air Obama more than they do McCain, then let them do it.  I am not forced to watch (yet), and I do not.  On what moral basis do you believe that you have the right to force businesses to present viewpoints that they oppose?  Must a business present the disadvantages of its product, or the advantages of their competitor’s product?  Must a radio station give equal time to positions it believes to be false?

If I am a doctor, and I believe that my friend has cancer, but another doctor does not, must I give equal emphasis to the opposing viewpoint when urging him to get treatment?  Is it immoral for me not to do so?

And what do you mean by “we should all” be fair and balanced?  Do you plan to force individuals to always equally represent both sides when they are speaking to other people?  Is this what you do, Mr. Schumer?

I will grant that it is immoral to knowingly deceive, but to simply present a viewpoint you believe to be correct, is that immoral?  On the contrary, if I believe something of great moral or practical significance to be true, and yet when I am speaking to another person about it I do not reveal my own beliefs, but equally present both sides, then I am engaging in morally questionable behavior.  Do I not have the responsibility to tell what I believe to be the truth?

The Fairness Doctrine, repealed during the Ronald Reagan administration, would require radio stations to balance conservative talk hosts with liberal ones.

In a Fox interview Tuesday morning, the senator from New York was asked if he supported telling radio stations what their content should be.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air,” Schumer said.

“I am for that . . . But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

First of all, perhaps we should not regulate pornography on the air.  But making sure that a six year old does not turn on the radio and hear people having sex on the air is not the same thing as making sure they don’t turn on the radio and hear Rush Limbaugh.  If we apply Schumer’s “fairness” rule to porn, I suppose we should allow porn on the air as long as we balance it with abstinence education radio programs.

The six year old who accidentally hears Rush Limbaugh will not be harmed any more than he will be by listening to Obama’s left-leaning speeches.  Do we need to balance every Obama speech by with a conservative speech? 

In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, told The Hill newspaper: “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Of course.  It is always wise to hear both sides of the story, but who are you, our parents?  let me interpret Durbin’s doublespeak for you:

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that Americans cannot think for themselves.”

Unfortunately, judging by the outcome of the recent election, Durbin may be right.  But even that does not give the government the right to force private businesses to air anything, much less unprofitable and unpopular liberal talk radio programs.

And of course, they will not apply this doctrine to the liberal media, only to radio, because their motive is to silence the conservatives.  This is standard operating procedure for socialists:  silence the opposition.  ”Oh yes,”  they proclaim, “we love freedom of thought and speech…  as long as it does not threaten our power.”

No doubt they will claim that the conservative hosts are “deceitful” or ”harmful”.  They will claim that these conservative viewpoints have were disproven by economists and scientists ages ago, and so they cannot be allowed to deceive the public.  That is what they will say.  But they lie. 

They lie, but they are right about one thing:  The American people have lost the ability to reason, and I do not doubt that the majority will not oppose the “Fairness” Doctrine.  Like the serfs they have become, they will whine for their government lords to protect them from the conservative “lies.”

My new blog: A Little Lower Than the Angels, alltta.wordpress.com

I have decided that Moral Midnight is a little too negative. I am not sure that such a perspective is helpful in dark times like these. I think it would be beneficial to take a more positive approach. With this in mind, I have created a new blog called A Little Lower than the Angels.

Why Obama won: The change that was coming to America.

Obama’s win last night was not a miracle, nor was it due only to Obama’s charismatic charlatanism.  It was due to a change that has been taking place gradually in America for 100 years–a change from individualism, freedom, and self-determination to an attitude of dependency and mutual plunder.  Americans now want the government to take care of them, and Obama, with his socialistic rhetoric and pseudo-religious emotional code words and socialistic philosophy, promised to take care of them.  And there is no doubt he will try.  But be not deceived, as the government takes more of your responsibility, it takes more of your freedom and you right to self-determination.

I know.  The people don’t care about such things.  Just make sure they are healthy and well-fed and comfortable.  They don’t care if there lives are controlled by the state.  They are no longer men, but beasts, begging for food from their masters.

I am saddened by this election, but not just because we have elected a pro-abortion, anti-gun socialist.  I am saddened because of the extent to which the American people have descended into servile depency on the government.  As long as this attitude prevails, the candidate who promises more government cash (redistribution) will prevail. 

And I have little hope that a change in this attitude will come soon.  Socialistic policies reinforce themselves in the minds of the people as the people become dependent on them, as we have on social security, welfare, medicare, etc.

But I will not join them in there frenzy to plunder each other through taxes and government programs.  I will not join them in their descent.  Let them all become beasts and slobber over the government bowl filled with food taken from those that earned it.  Let them lick their master’s hand as they beg for more.  Let them fawn as their master pats their heads and assures them he will take care of them.

They are no longer men, but beats.