Thank Goodness for Income Inequality

“(Income Inequality) is the defining issue of our time.” - President Barack Obama

“The envious man thinks that if his neighbor breaks a leg, he will be able to walk better himself” – Helmut Schoeck

Well it looks like the topic of “income inequality” is going to be a hot one this summer! With President Obama attacking “the rich” for not paying enough taxes and the Occupy Wall Street movement geared to create public chaos to get attention for “the 99%” this summer, it would help if we had a better understanding of what the issue really was.

Attacks you will hear:

• The top 1% of people TAKE almost a quarter of nation’s income.

• The Rich are getting richer and the Poor are getting poorer!

• The Rich aren’t paying their fair share in taxes!

• Pay for CEOs in 1970 was 39 times pay of average worker. In the year 2000, CEO made more than 1000 times of average worker!

If there is one theme that runs though all of this, it is that liberals are jealous that there are people who have more than they have. An often cited study from the Congressional Budget Office states that the top 1 percent of earners saw their incomes rise by 275 percent from 1979 to 2007, while the bottom 20 percent of earners saw their incomes rise by less than 20 percent, and the middle 60 percent of earners’ incomes rose by less than 40 percent during the same time.

So although everyone, including the poor, saw their incomes rise (despite the popular “the poor are getting poorer” line), the “superstar” earners were able to make a lot more.

So what?

That’s the beauty of capitalism, though if seen through the eyes of envy, nothing can make you more hateful. To understand this, there are some basic economic principles that need to be learned, such as the concepts of “leverage” and the “global economy”. Simply put, if you can take your special skills and offer it to the world, you will get a lot more reward for it than if you offered it to just your neighborhood.

Let’s take movie actors for example. If there was no national or global economy, each town or state would have to make their own movies. They wouldn’t be very good or very well funded. Actors would get paid in drinks and applause. But if you take movies to a national economy, you get bigger budgets and the actors make more money. Take it to the world level, actors are now making huuuuge paychecks. If we ever colonize thousands of planets like in the movie Star Wars, actors wouldn’t be able to spend all their money in a 100 lifetimes. Do us movie goers lose because actors make more? No, we also benefit from increased movie choices and higher quality.

If you’re thinking “Big budget Hollwood movies stink!” , then just imagine being stuck with low budget movies, like the ones above, forever. (On the plus side, playing outside or watching paint dry will seem a lot more attractive in comparison.)

What about the middle class? Will a unionized worker who gets paid to move lights around a movie set get paid in the same exponential numbers? No. Although he certainly gets paid a lot more on a big budget film, he will never get paid millions like the actors because he still is just moving the same light around. Is it fair? Well, the 10 people who would love to have his job certainly think so.

The fact is, income inequality is simply a liberal tactic that has been used to stoke the fires of jealousy. This has been used to spark communist revolutions around the world in the name of the “working people”. To be fair, communism certainly reduced income inequality. Everybody (except the government) was poor. In Ukraine, the breadbasket of the Soviet Union, about 7 million were starved to death by the government in an artificial man-made famine. But hey, at least they were all equal!

Other quick facts to keep in mind:

• Most taxes that take from the middle class start with promises from Democrats to only tax “the rich”: e.g. the income tax, gasoline tax, medical device tax, tanning bed tax, cigarette tax, etc.

• The top 5% pay more federal income taxes than the bottom 95%.

• More than 96% of millionaires today did not inherit their fortunes but actually made their money themselves. Mitt Romney is one of them.

• The top 1% do not TAKE a quarter of the nations income. They CREATE it. For example, did Steve Jobs make his billions by TAKING from the poor? No, he created amazing products and we’re all richer for it.

Next time you hear Democrats attacking the rich and griping about “income inequality” just ask yourself: when was the last time a poor person offered you a job? This is America, we are all fortunate to live in a time where we can choose to be one of the rich if we want to with nobody to stop us but ourselves . . . and maybe the government soon . . . if we let them.

“Surely resentment destroys the fool, and jealousy kills the simple.”

– Job 5:2 (NLT version of the Bible)

When It’s Acceptable To Call Someone A “Slut”!

Do you trust the mainstream news media to provide accurate, objective information? Do you believe that reporters and news anchors, despite being overwhelmingly Democrats, do their best to stay neutral, just present the facts and allow the viewers to make their own conclusions?

Why don’t we take a recent issue concerning slander and calling a political opponent names and I’ll let you judge for yourself.

WARNING! The following contains vulgar language from members of the media directed at women.

• NBC’s Jimmy Fallon’s band greets Michelle Bachmann with the song “Lyin’ Ass B*tch”

• Fox News’ Chris Wallace asks Michelle Bachmann “are you a flake?” during an interview

• Air America’s radio talk show host Montell Williams suggests that Michelle Bachmann kill herself by decapitation.

• Radio talk show host Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calls Republican Senator Inhofe a “prostitute” and a “call girl”.

• MSNBC’s Ed Shultz calls radio talk show host Laura Ingraham a “right wing slut”.

• Wisconsin radio host John “Sly” Sylvester accused Republican Lt. Governor Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch of performing “fellatio on all the talk-show hosts in Milwaukee” and said that she had “pulled a train” (a reference to group sex).

• E! New’s affiliate Playboy published a top 10 list of conservative women who deserved to be raped or “hate f*cked”, including Michelle Bachmann.

• Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi said concerning conservative writer Michelle Malkin “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.”

• One of President Obama’s largest contributors and frequent guest on CNN and MSNBC, Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a “dumb twat”, “c*nt”, “bimbo”, “boob” and a “MILF” (a mother I’d like to f*ck), which to the last one, CNN’s Piers Morgan laughed.

• Comedian Louis CK, invited to headline this year’s Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner, chaired by Jay McMichael of CNN and other prominent media figures, “joked” that Sarah Palin is “holding a baby that just came out of her f*cking, disgusting c*nt, her f*cking retard-making c*nt. I hate her more than anybody.” He also tweeted that Palin is a “f*cking jackoff c*nt-face jazzy wondergirl” who “has a family of Chinese poor people living in her c*nt hole.”

• Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh called activist Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute”.

A photo of Sarah Palin at a rally distributed by Reuters. Some say this is an example of Reuters 'objectifying' Palin with a 'strip club shot'.

Time to play the guessing game. Guess which media personality was singled out and condemned for an entire week by across the national media – ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today? Who’s program did the media pressure sponsors to pull their advertisements from? To whose victim did the President of the United State personally call to voice his support? Who has been widely condemned as a misogynist and accused of waging a “war on women”?

If you said “all of the above”, then that means you truly believe that the media is balanced and objective, fighting for what is right and making sure we have civil discourse in our nation. It also means you’re incredibly naive.

The truth is, only the conservative, Rush Limbaugh, has been targeted for outrage. Media personalities called for his removal from the airwaves, demanded that Republicans condemn his remarks, and brought heavy pressure to his advertisers to pull their sponsorships. Even after Rush apologized, his comments were framed as reflective on the entire conservative movement on this country and to push the label that the GOP is just a group of “rich white men”. The current ongoing narrative we hear is that Republicans hate women, want to take away their rights and move them back to the “dark ages”.

There are only two possible reasons for this glaring double standard by news media.

1. This is just an honest mistake and reporters on all the networks will now demand apologies, women rights groups will call on the FCC to remove the above programs from the airwaves and President Obama will return the $1 million Bill Maher donated to him.

or:

2. The liberal mainstream news networks don’t give darn about objectivity and are actively working to make sure that President Obama gets reelected.

Well, it’s been about a week. To paraphrase NBC’s Matt Lauer, the silence from the left is ‘deafening’.

As any objective person looking at this situation can see, the Republican “war on women” is looking a lot more like the media’s “war on conservatives”. So the next time you hear the politics discussed on the news, remember this double standard. They want Obama to win. And they’ll try to publicly destroy anybody who tries to stand against him.

It’s Now Ethically OK to Kill Babies

There are a lot of bad things that happen in this world. Religious people say this is because humanity is detached from God. Liberals, atheists and people in the media laugh at such thinking and declare religion is soooo passé. Only nut jobs and the intolerant are religious these days. After all, if people kill in the name of God, how can religion be good?

Religious Conservative: “Without God and religion, moral values have no foundation and make no sense.”

Politically-Correct Liberal: “Pfffffttt, don’t be stupid. I know plenty of atheists who are good people and do great things for others! More than even many so-called Christians!”

Religious Conservative: “Well . . . don’t you think that maybe the reason we have so much bullying, violence and murders in school is because we kicked God, religion and even the suggestion that there is good and evil in this world out of schools?

Politically-Correct Liberal: “Seriously, I don’t know where you get your crazy ideas from. That’s why we have classes on ethics and tolerance! Stop trying to push your radical religious beliefs of others!”

Since religious people hate being called radical, they meekly bow down and let politically-correct teachers and shows like Glee teach their kids what is ethical or not.

But have you ever wondered if this was enough? If a religious person says that without God, “ethics” is flexible enough to change over time into accepting behaviors once thought horrible, are they just a stupid Bible-thumper who is close-minded and ignorant? As it turns out, and answer is “No”. They actually knew exactly what is going to happen.

On Feb. 23, 2012, the Journal of Medical Ethics, a leading, peer-reviewed international journal that influences the ethical decisions of medical professionals around the world, published a paper advocating “after-birth abortions”. Or in other words, infanticide should be acceptable if the baby would cause any burden on the mother (has any baby ever NOT caused any burdens on their mother?).

“ … to bring up such children (with disabilities such as Down’s syndrome) might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

. . . Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.“

Remember all those crazy pro-life (or as the media sometimes calls them, “anti-choice”) people predicting that our abortion culture being pushed by feminists and liberals will cause us to lose respect for life? It turns out crossing that line between killing babies in the womb and out of the womb wasn’t that hard to cross after all. It’s actually very logical to liberals and all non-religious people. If you think about it, the only difference between a ‘fetus’ and an ‘infant’ is a few minutes and a couple inches of flesh.

“Hold on Burn Adams!” you might say. “This is only a paper published in a leading international medical journal of ethics! No one will be influenced in America!”

Actually, our very own Barack Obama voted FOUR times against laws that would protect babies who survived abortions from being killed. Like the paper’s authors argued, Obama said he didn’t want to “burden” mothers with having to take care of their child. Instead, let nature take its course and the babies will starve or freeze to death within 8 hours. Think this is horrible and unthinkable that this is happening? Well, as Obama and the rest of the Democrats in this country made quite clear this month, leave the moral judgements up to the government and just do as you’re told.

So welcome to a world without religion or God. If we re-elect Obama or any other of his liberal comrades, we wouldn’t have to worry about the “wall of separation” between church and state. God and every other moral value would be surgically removed like tumors from the now all-powerful federal government.

But go ahead and don’t believe what I’m saying. Don’t even believe the facts that popping up all around you and are being purposefully ignored by the liberal mainstream media.

After all, I must be just another one of those extreme right-wing religious fanatics that NBC and CNN warned you about.

The Road to Hell is Paved with ObamaCare

In the past few years, there has been a debate in this country concerning ObamaCare. Democrats say this is a milestone in the road to finally getting everybody access to the healthcare they need. Republicans agree, ObamaCare indeed IS a milestone in the road paved with “good intentions” heading to you-know-where . . .

On one side, liberals, socialists and uninformed people (like most college students I meet) kinda like ObamaCare. Finally someone is sticking it to those mean insurance companies by forcing them to accept people with pre-existing conditions and letting them stay on their parent’s insurance till they’re 25! And since they get all their news from the Daily Show, these people laugh at those crazy Tea Party radicals when they complain that ObamaCare will destroy our healthcare system and bankrupt the country (kinda like Greece and the rest of Europe). Since Obama says his 2,700 page law will lower health care costs, it must be true! After all, the government does have an awesome track record with our money. It is only getting in debt to the tune of $150 million an hour! And besides, we all look forward to bringing the wonderful DMV-type workers to our hospitals and doctor’s offices.

So, who’s right? Well, since the news media was doing such an awesome job making sure that the American public stays ignorant of ObamaCare, the president was generous enough to take matters into his own hands and prove the conservatives and his critics were correct after all.

The Obama administration has recently decided that all insurance companies will now be forced to provide birth control, contraception and sterilizations . . . for free. What kind of government forces private companies to give out their products for free? (Hint: it starts with a “s” and ends with “ocialist“.) Or to put it anther way, Obama is forcing you to buy health insurance that is forced to pay for other people’s abortions and other ‘family planning’ services. What if you don’t need it? What if you believe that killing babies in the womb is morally wrong? “Don’t be a misogynist” Obama tells you smiling. “This is about women’s health. Now fork over your money and get this lady an abortion.”

How about the government makes insurance companies pay women’s grocery bills? Food is essential to women’s health. Housing costs must be covered as well. Can’t have women without shelter, despite all that global warming. After all, why not? Coverage for Viagra for child molesters and sex-change operations are already being mandated by ObamaCare anyway.

These kinds of government mandates naturally raise the costs of health care for everyone. So what about all that talk about ObamaCare reducing healthcare costs? It turns out it was never true to begin with. The real purpose has always been about power. Liberals were always hampered by the Constitution and its guarantees of liberty and freedom. Now all they have to do is tie a new law to “health” and they have full authority to reach into your bank account to pay off their supporters and to advance their “progressive” agendas.

Finally to top it off, Democrats have practically announced they think the American public is too stupid to know what’s going on. When Republicans introduced an amendment that would allow people to follow their religious convictions and conscience and opt out of paying for other people’s birth control, Senator Boxer (D-Calif.) said Republicans are trying to take us “back to the medical Dark Ages.” To what, three weeks ago?!

Sadly, this is just few of the 1,000+ reasons how ObamaCare is awful for America. Think the economy is bad now? Just see how this type of liberal/socialist/progressive system is working out for Greece.

Though it may shock you, I’ll be voting against Obama and all the rest of his Democrat cronies this coming election in November. No doubt the rest of the media will call me a racist.

Schools are going broke? . . . Who would have guessed?

Why don’t we chalk this up under the “I told you so” column.

In the most recent election in Ohio, conservatives told voters that if Issue 2 didn’t pass, local governments will be helpless in negotiating with labor unions who demand ever increasing pay and Cadillac health care and retirement plans. Cities and schools will be forced to either raise taxes or cut services, conservatives warned. On the other hand, liberals told voters that if they don’t vote “No” on Issue 2, the middle class will be “robbed”, students will suffer and there will be irreparable damage to minorities.

Issue 2 doesn’t pass and public sector unions announce that they have saved the middle class.

Fast forward to present day.

School districts across Ohio are facing large deficits. Take the Westerville City School District for example. After voters shot down a request to have their property and income taxes raised by hundreds of dollars, school officials realized that since salary and benefits make up more than 80% of school costs, they could close the looming deficit by simply asking teachers and other public employees to start contributing to their health and retirement plans just like every other private-sector employee. After all, they couldn’t dream of hurting the students and our future in any way by taking away the school buses, art and music programs, sporting and other extra-curricular activities. School officials also discovered a remarkable chemical formula that caused feathers to sprout from people’s finger tips, promising to reduce reliance on fossil fuels as commuters flit to and thro in an environmental-friendly way.

In case you missed it, I was being sarcastic. School officials are actually completely ignoring the fact that between 2010 and 2018, salaries for district employees are projected to increase 77% . . . by the way, how much is your salary going to increase? Since freezing teacher pay and benefits will be just too “damaging” for the students and the middle class, the Westerville City School district will be cutting and/or eliminating transportation, sports, clubs, art and music programs and other after-school activities for all its students. Oh, and it also plans on laying off more than 200 employees. So much for looking after the middle class and our student’s futures.

Don’t worry though. They are promising to bring back these goodies if only voters agree to have their taxes raised in March. Or to put it another way, they’re “making an offer you can’t refuse”.

Wait . . . isn’t this exactly what conservatives and other supporters of Issue 2 said would happen?

Funny how this works out. Home owners are threatened with hundreds of more $$$ in taxes. Students lose valuable classes, activities and transportation. Hundreds of low level employees and new teachers get fired. All thanks to the teacher unions, school officials and other public employees who need their yearly pay increase and don’t want to contribute to their benefits. It seems the Democrats and the unions prove once again that they don’t actually care about the real middle class or even the kids in school.

Tell me why again so many people believe that the liberals are supposedly the “compassionate” ones?

Feeling Sorry for Lady Gaga

Watching Lady Gaga sing in Times Square to close out the year 2011, I just can’t help feeling sorry for her. Not feeling sorry as in let’s-all-pass-around-the-hat-and-pitch-in-a-few-bucks-to-help-her-buy-some-decent-clothes kind of sorry.

It’s the sorry that she has to do these types of things to make it big in our society these days. There’s no question that she is a good singer and talented songwriter. (Honestly, how often do you get both these days in pop music?) Despite that, she was still destined to live in obscurity in other people’s shadows. Why? She is just too darn ugly.

Hold on, I’ll take that back! Being ugly is what is making her popular now. Back when she was just Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, she was actually just too plain looking. Here’s a picture below. So in order to make it, she has to become a freak show so that people will listen to her music.

If Lady Gaga was born pretty like . . . let’s say Taylor Swift . . . do you think her style (can dressing up in window curtains be called a style?) would still be the same? Maybe she would be writing more love songs and sing about finding her Romeo instead of insisting she was “born this way” as an excuse for dressing up in Kermit the Frog dolls to get people’s attention.

So instead of throwing a hissy fit the next time Lady Gaga decides that her shower curtain would make a great dress, maybe we should all silently contemplate the depths a plain-looking female has to stoop to in order to sell music. After all, if Lady Gaga was an ugly dude (I know, there have been rumors), all she would have to do is put on some big tinted glasses like Elton John and no one would care that he looks like a child molester. It also make me wonder, just how many other talented musicians are out there that can’t get a break just because they don’t look attractive enough or, (in the case of Lady Gaga) aren’t willing to look like complete psychos in public? It’s not like we care how people look like on the radio anyway.

Poor Lady Gaga. Visit me and I’ll show this great place that sells jeans and t-shirts that even you can afford on your $90 million income. We all pitched in a few dollars to help out.

The Coming War on New Year’s Eve: Think it won’t happen?

Even though I have always heard atheists complain about Christmas while I was growing up, I always told myself that Christmas was way too popular to get rid of. While I got the popular part right, with 95% of Americans celebrating Christmas . . . seriously, name ONE other thing that 95% of Americans can agree on . . . political correctness is slowly strangling the life out of my favorite holiday. From kicking out Santa from hospitals to making it illegal for Congressmen to wish their constituents “Merry Christmas” by mail, I’ve come to realize that nothing is off limits.

Do you really think you won’t be seeing a memo like the one below from your manager discouraging you from celebrating New Year’s Eve in the near future?

Office Memo concerning the “New Year” from the Dept. of Human Resources and Political Correctness.

Dear Valued Employee,

Please note that all official recognition of “the new year” has been put on hold due to sensitivities toward people who may be offended. As Americans, we are generally so ethnocentric that we fail to realize that there are billions of people around the world who don’t recognize January 1^st as the beginning of a new year. In fact, the Chinese calendar will celebrate year 4710, boasting a much richer history and background than the Western calendar.

In order to be inclusive of people with all different backgrounds, we will require all employees to refrain from wishing people a “happy new year” and instead use culturally-neutral greetings such as “have a happy day” or “hope you have an enjoyable time period”.

UPDATE: It has been brought to our attention that certain groups of people are more active during the night and are offended of the stereotype that discriminates against “night-owls”. Also, women-rights advocates have contacted us objecting to the use of the word “period”. They feel this is demeaning to women and perpetuates gender inequalities in the workplace.

In light of this news, all employees in management roles will complete mandatory sensitivity training. Until then, please refrain from greeting coworkers and customers during business hours as we work toward our goal to create an inclusive and pleasant work environment.

Sincerely,

The Thought Police Human Resources

Just think of all the traumatized people who are currently in the throes of emotional distress, without a voice to speak out against the horrors of being wished a Happy New Year! Don’t worry, the political correctness warriors will take care of it soon.

Have a Happy New Year!