I'm an Ivy League grad navigating the corporate world as I watch this country self-implode.

My photo
New York, New York
I'm an Ivy League grad trying to navigate the corporate world as I watch this country implode.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Guess What? You're a Racist!

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

France in Israel's Shoes

First off, let me extend my deepest sympathies to Paris. No words can convey the wretchedness of the tragedy that occurred, so no words will suffice. As we stand behind France in support of any and all retaliatory measures they take, we must come to grips with the fact that the US will not come to their defense in any substantial way. How can our President or the Democratic candidates possibly defeat radical Islamic terrorism when they won't even name their enemy?

Islamic terrorists mirrored their attack on Paris from their incessant attacks on Israel, as they too maim and murder innocent men, women, and children. Just as it transpired in Paris, Muslim Extremists target restaurants, nightclubs, and cafes. Whether we look to the First or Second Intifada (the Arabic term for "uprising" that, in layman's terms, translates to Jihadists indiscriminately waging terror on Israeli civilians), to what has now sadly become the status quo in Israel, the horror that Paris recently suffered is a reality that Israel faces without remission - it is their every day life, it is business as usual.

Yet no other country is held to the standards that the Western world expects of Israel and its leaders. No other country or its leaders are expected to show such an extreme level of restraint, all at the cost of its own people. So now, let's use the official responses that the EU has repeatedly stated, verbatim, against Israel whenever Israel has practiced self-defense against the formally recognized Islamic terrorist groups of Hamas and Hezbollah, Islamic Jihadists, and droves of others.

If the European Union responded to the attacks on Paris as they do to the attacks on Israel (simply substituting France's descriptors for Israel's), it would sound precisely like the following:

The European Union is gravely concerned about France's escalation of aggression against the Islamic State. Over the past 24 hours, France has launched massive airstrikes on the densely populated capital of Al-Raqqa.

The French aggression follows a series of ISIS shooting incidents in Paris; eight Muslim suspects were summarily executed by French security forces without detention or trial.

We strongly condemn French bombardment of metropolitan areas in the Islamic State, the disproportionate use of force by the French army, and the humanitarian crisis it has aggravated. Particularly unhelpful is rhetoric from the French President, who promised "to lead a war which will be pitiless" against the Islamic State.

As the stronger party with a nuclear-armed, world-class military, France must refrain from actions which create further difficulties for a lasting peace.

In light of the above, the EU calls for three steps to be taken immediately:
  1. Immediate cessation of hostilities on all sides
  2. France and ISIS must begin negotiations 
  3. Grievances of both ISIS and France in this conflict must be addressed
  4. This tragic escalation of hostilities confirms the unsustainable nature of the status quo with regard to the ongoing French insults against the Prophet and occupation of Islamic territory
The EU believes that the events of the past few days reinforce the need for France and Islamic State to work together to fight all forms of terror and insult. The only way to resolve the conflict is through an agreement that ends the French occupation of Muslim territories in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, and that fulfills the aspirations of both parties.

This would be a ludicrous response to the attacks on France, and this is a ludicrous - although unfortunately not satirical - response to the attacks on Israel. These condemnations against Israel and these demands from Israel after every attack the country faces is, if nothing else, ludicrous.

You cannot negotiate with an individual who glorifies dying for his or her cause, even more so when that cause is - in no uncertain terms - to annihilate you. Your way of life is not in line with Sharia Law, it is not in line with their uniquely precise interpretation of the Quran, and so it defies everything they espouse. They live and die by this certainty. There is no place in their world for it. But their world is this world, it is your world. And so, we are at a war that we never signed up for.

Nobody is exempt, not even fellow Muslims. Radical Muslims slaughter other Muslims, both radical and moderate alike. Hamas fights Hezbollah. Sunnis fight Shiites. ISIS fights Al Qaeda. Each has an army who has enlisted to be the bloodthirsty warriors of Jihad, in quest for the ultimate glory of martyrdom. Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and all the other Jihadists have signed up to kill you, themselves, and each other. And so, the slaughter ensues.

Israel is at the front lines in this war on terror. But this is not a problem isolated to Israel. Israel's enemy is France's enemy. It is America's enemy. It is your enemy.

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

You Might Live in a Country that is Run by Idiots


If plastic water bottlers are okay, but plastic bags are banned...

If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering & remaining in the country illegally...

If you have to get your parents' permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion...

If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book, but not to vote for who runs the government...

If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt...

If, in the nation's largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat...

If an 80 year-old woman who is confined to a wheelchair or a three year-old girl can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched...

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more...

If a seven year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is "cute", but hosting a sexual exploration class in grade school is perfectly acceptable...

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation & intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones...

If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, timeshares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV, and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage...

Palestinians: You Aren't That Special

There are conflicts all around the world today. From Afghanistan to Iraq to Syria to half of Africa to Mexican drug wars in South America to conflicts in the Ukraine to insurgencies in Asia.

And yet, somehow the Palestinians think their one is the most important, their one is the most vital, their one is the most brutal. Over 40,000 people died in Syria so far this year and less than a hundred in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and yet... we're supposed to be more "appalled" at their cause? And of those Palestinians that died, we're told they are protesters... yeah, protesters. Well, here's a newsflash for you: a protester who hurls stones at cars of innocent travelers and sets up burning roadblocks and tries to violently pull people out of cars, all the while laughing and drinking cola while people scream for help, is no longer a protester, but a terrorist.

Palestinians: You think you're special because somehow you believe God created Palestine first, and then he created the earth. Um, no. In fact, throughout the last 2,000 years, since the Romans invented the word Palestine, it certainly didn't mean you. In fact, before 1964, when Yasser Arafat, Abbas, and the rest of your cronies formed the PLO to "liberate" the "occupation" of 1967 (that makes sense...), the term Palestinian didn't refer to you at all. Oh, not to say there wasn't a Palestinian soccer team. There was. You can even YouTube it. They played Australia in 1939 at the Sydney Cricket Ground. Only thing is that their uniforms featured a prominent Star of David. And with team members with names such as Itzhak Fried and Herbert Meitner... yeah, don't think they were Arabs.

And despite having the highest per capita "days of rage" of any people, you're still not that special. Why don't you become special and have "days of hope" and "days of literacy" and "days of science"? But, no - that does not fit your narrative. Your buzz words are not hope and a brighter future; your buzz words are death, blood, and rage.

Somehow you think you are so different from the rest of your Arab brethren. Well, you're not. You're Arabs - who happened to steal the term "Palestinian" and fabricate a national cause and a story to tug at the heartstrings of the world. But in reality, there is very little difference between you and Arabs in Syria or Jordan (which is mostly "Palestinian" anyway) or many other Arab countries. Somehow, when the British were inventing countries, they divided up regions of land between which Arab clan could help them the most - a term we call bribery. Anyway, you got offered an additional country, to the many other Arab countries around you, and you rejected it and launched a war. That doesn't make you special - it makes you stupid.

You think you're special because you believe you've been "oppressed". Oh, please - oppression - what a joke. Where in history has an "oppressed" people had 22 Arab states created for them, and even then - even then - it's still not enough? How the truly oppressed people of the world would have dreamed about that - not a place to call home - 22 places to call home! The only place in the world where Arabs have more rights than any other country just happens to be the Jewish state you crave so badly to wipe out. So, as to your desire for another state, that doesn't make you special - it makes you greedy.

You don't even understand how lucky you are to have landed your asses in the butter dish you have. And you don't even understand how lucky you are that the so-called enemy you face is the State of Israel. If you had happened to have landed in any one of your fellow Arab countries, well... there wouldn't be a talk of a "Palestinian" state because you wouldn't even exist. You would have been wiped out ages ago.

You also think you're special because you happened to have duped the world into sympathy to your cause. And you think you're special because you happened to have your flag raised at the UN, which, by the way, looks the same as a bunch of other Arab countries. That still doesn't make you special - it makes the world naive.

Many parents raise their kids hoping they can make a brighter future, one in which they can contribute to the world and make it a better place. But not you. With you, we see endless videos of how proud those parents are who raise their kids and nourish them with hatred, so that they can rise up to be a shahid and kill Jews. Parents, sacrificing their children, to achieve... what? That doesn't make you special - it makes your society insane.

You think you're special because you've got celebrities like Roger Waters to support your cause such as the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction Israel) movement. You know, BDS - the one founded by Omar Barghouti, who was born in Qatar, grew up in Egypt, and moved to Jaffa, Israel where he studies at Tel Aviv University. May I suggest the boycott of the electricity and water that you're currently receiving from Israel? Please, I insist. Because supporting the BDS movement doesn't make you special - it makes you hypocritical.

You scream of human rights, even though your dictatorial government arrests your own people - those brave enough who dare to criticize the leaders - for reasons as obscure as liking a Facebook page. You execute those who you deem "traitors". You ostracize those who preach living in harmony - those like Mohammad Zoabi, a proud Israeli that you are angered by. That doesn't make you special - it makes you self-destructive by killing your own future.

You think your revolution is special, that you're fighting for the freedoms of all oppressed people around the world. You're not. All your leaders are doing is fighting for a bigger slice of the money pie dished out to your "cause" over the last few decades. Ever wonder how your leaders get so damn rich while your revolution gets nowhere and achieves nothing, year after year after year, an eternal conflict? And, all the while, your leaders accumulate more and more and more wealth.

You think you're special because your leaders speak of "genocide" against you. Genocide - now, how do I explain this to you? But the way a genocide works is populations go down, not up. In the Armenian genocide, 1.5 million people were wiped out by the Turks. In the Holocaust, the Jewish population fell from 17 million to 11 million after 6 million were murdered by the Nazis. A million Rwandans were murdered as the Hutu majority tried to wipe out the Tutsi people. And, even now, the Islamic State is trying to wipe out the Yazidis. You insult the memories of real victims with your blood libels. That doesn't make you special - it makes you delusional.

So continue to believe that somehow you're special. Continue to be proud to send 12 year-old children to throw rocks. Rejoice as your 15 year-olds die at the arms of security forces after being sent out to murder innocents. Celebrate the fact that you will continue to achieve nothing, while you indoctrinate generation after generation with rage, bathed in the milk of hatred.

For all those things don't make your society special - it only makes your society sad.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Gifting Nukes to Iran while Confiscating Guns from Our Troops

Just look to the recent Islamic shooting spree at the Chattanooga military base in Tennessee. Yes, Obama, you vehemently refuse to call it what it is, but I will. The attack by Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez against our American soldiers and on our American soil is, without a doubt, the direct product of radical Islam. No, not workplace violence, not motives unknown, but instead a lone wolf Jihadi with a documented history of radicalization during his time spent in Muslim countries abroad. This begs the question: how many lone wolf attacks will it take until this epidemic will finally be considered a pack of wolves, rabid extremist wolves?

Only the perplexingly backwards logic of a government that has delegated our army's training grounds to be a gun-free zone would allow Iran, the primary sponsor of terrorism worldwide and the Muslim crux of violent volatility, to preserve its weapons. This administration keeps guns away from our professional protectors at home, yet simultaneously grants nuclear weapons abroad to a transparently dishonest and criminal government - one that is rapidly transforming into a military dictatorship. As you attempt to wrap your head around the incongruity of it all, please also compare a gun to a nuke.

The US had the upper hand at the negotiating table. The economic sanctions we had previously imposed were crippling their country. Iran needed the deal more than we did. But how could Obama turn down the opportunity to grandstand, to claim chummier relations with the Muslim Middle East - a storyline no rational individual believes.

And worse yet, this agreement is riddled with loopholes: the excessive 24-day warning before a nuclear facility check, allotting an ample opening for Iran to conceal its illicit activities; or how about the utter lack of consequences for any violation, no matter how big or small, the punishment a mere meeting with the UN Security Council - in layman's terms, this translates to no punishment at all. With the incessant dishonesty spewing from this country throughout history with such predictability, and with its brazenly unconcealed agenda to nuke Israel and whomever and whatever else into oblivion, how could any rational person stamp this as a good deal, or even any deal at all? As the Obama administration touts this as an accomplishment, this so-called accomplishment will ultimately make the most unstable region in the world literally blow up.

Allow enrichment for weapons of mass destruction to our enemies abroad, and leave our soldiers defenseless and unarmed at home. Yep, sound logic indeed.

Political Correctness Run Amok

The Playbook for a GOP Win

The backdrop of the 2012 presidential election was that of an economy tumbling over its edge, submerged in abysmal employment numbers, staggering poverty levels, and a welfare system the most bloated it had ever been.

For perspective, let us compare this to the recoveries of the four recessions prior. The recession of 1974 took a mere twenty months to return, in all its glory, to pre-recession employment. The most arduous and prolonged of the four was the 2001 recession, requiring 47 months to regain its former prosperity. By contrast, in those final 2012 months preceding the Obama-Romney election, a whopping 58 months and counting had transpired since the commencement of the 2007 recession, and no intimation of a recovery was in sight.

Compounding this hemorrhaging was the utter joke of an employee participation rate at 63.6%, translating to over 4.5 million jobless American citizens. Despite these, so many who had simply given up, the unemployment rate – as in those still job hunting and failing – had shot up three full percentage points. Four years and no signs of healing? They can only blame Bush for so long.

With a dying economy as the crisis at the forefront, I had bet on Mitt Romney not only grabbing the win, but cruising along a victorious landslide straight into the Oval Office on his way. And, with the Democrats steeping in worry, I was far from alone in my predictions.

As if the odds weren’t stacked against Obama enough, there has certainly been no president in my lifetime, nor quite some time before that, who has personally goaded on class warfare and incited racial divisions to such a suffocating intensity. But even so, what it comes down to is the tried and true political axiom, “It’s the economy, stupid,” which all but foretold the results. History had proven time and time again that elections rest simply on “jobs, the economy, jobs, and the economy”. With only FDR in 1936, from within the tumultuous midst of the Great Depression, no other president had ever been reelected under these economic statistics – the job losses, the poverty, the plummeting median wage. So something must have radically changed to invalidate this tried and true “poor economy equals defeat” equation.

The question is simple: what happened? What transpired presents the GOP with a valuable lesson, one we must heed as the 2016 presidential race encroaches. Simply put, the Republican Party has the look and feel of a theocracy, and an outdated one at that. The Evangelical movement has taken the party hostage, wounding it in its clutches. This has stained us with the unshakeable veneer of intolerance. Our opponents seize on this handout that we unknowingly gift them, wasting no time in painting anyone right-leaning as racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, you name it. They look at us, and see a group trapped in the Stone Age, while the self-proclaimed “Progressives” bask in the reputation of having open minds and moving forward, in lockstep with the evolving times.

Don’t get me wrong – I have nothing against those who bear strong religious beliefs. Religion oftentimes lends itself to family stability, instills children with a moral compass, and cultivates a conscience in this habitually morally bankrupt world.

However, it is best for the GOP to hold onto their religious beliefs, holding onto them as personal – keeping it to themselves rather than ramming it down others’ throats. This mode of religion has no place in politics, and yet somehow my never-ending fight for lower taxes and restrained government is inextricably entwined with the Bible. Why must these two wholly unrelated issues go hand in hand?

America is a secular nation, through and through. The consecrated separation of church and state is enshrined in our Constitution and thus in this country’s foundation. And yet, the exact opposite is also true: America is a Christian country, despite what the President proclaims and demands. This is not a call to arms to fight for the preservation of Christianity against this perceived attack. It is instead simply a relic of the Judeo-Christian tenets that our government was founded on and our laws assembled on. When controversy erupts over whether or not the Ten Commandments can be posted in a public school or outside some state building, the heart of the matter and the basic point is blatantly missed.

Whether fervently religious or ambivalently agnostic, the Ten Commandments are a signpost of our American culture. Whatever religious weight you personally attach to them is simply a side note. The “In God We Trust” extolled on our currency is not a religious endorsement, but rather a reminder that the notions of religion and secularity are not mutually exclusive.

However, there is a tipping point. This boundary is crossed when religion crowds out the secular, trampling on that sacred divide between church and state. And herein lies the Republican Party’s predicament, its weakness.

During the primaries, the Republican candidates fiercely debate one another, often attacking, in order to compete for the title of the most religious, the man with the loftiest family values, the most passionate and stalwart pro-lifer – that last one an inadvertent gift to the Obama campaign machine, supplying ammunition for their shrewdly contrived and ferociously effective War on Women spin barrage. And so, the definition of conservative has somehow shifted from reigning in a government to be held accountable, to prudently balance its budget and curb its senseless overspending, instead to a contest for who has clocked in more time in church this week.

The inflexibility of the Evangelical movement clings to the wrong issues, yet their votes are vital to any successful Republican White House bid. Rather than preaching religion, simultaneously maiming their own political interests, perhaps a better way to promote the family values that these candidates fixate on is to repair the economy once and for all. More jobs spur more money, enough for Americans to raise their families properly without sinking into the destructive welfare and food stamp existence, without resorting to illegal activities to score quick cash or to numb reality. Who attends which church and how often is a measure of absolutely nothing.

Where oh where is the political party for me, a moderate Republican? The issues driving me are the impending fiscal cliff, and the all too tangible, unremitting raising of my taxes. As if living in Manhattan isn't expensive enough, I need a city tax on top of all the others, carving out half of my paycheck every two weeks.

Foreign policy is critical, especially to me, but from a strategic standpoint, we have to step away from all the emotion to see that it is secondary. There is no need for the word abortion to ever be mentioned on a campaign trail again. As somebody with firsthand experience with abortions, I know that shit happens. When former Missouri state candidate Todd Atkin claims that women cannot get pregnant from so-called “legitimate” rape, whatever that means, not only do I cringe, but I see a man drowning the entire Republican Party with him. And rather than shunning him, sure enough, the Indiana senate hopeful Richard Mourdock echoed this insanity, decreeing that pregnancy from rape must clearly be “something God intended”, effortlessly alienating any non-religious zealot. By spewing nonsense like this, the Democrats don’t have to do anything to win.

How bizarre to contemplate such an out-of-touch guy legislating on my behalf – and for the party that I am rooting for and advocating, no less. How can I defend that, and why would I want to? This medieval retrograde thinking has no place in our political dialogue. And then other Republican candidates must waste their efforts in an attempt to detach themselves from this faction of their party. The radical right-wing bloc that casts votes by religious zealotry maims the entire party. In this Twilight Zone, men who proclaim that rape pregnancies are valid somehow raise my taxes. I fail to see the correlation.

The demographics have shifted left in this country. Gay marriage is legal in all fifty states, and it’s here to stay. Roe v. Wade is never getting overturned. Abortions within reason, such as those in the first trimester, are entrenched in our society and have been for some time. If that quarrels with your religious beliefs, I cannot claim to understand your struggle. But politics is politics, and religion is religion. And the sand is rapidly coursing down the hourglass for the GOP. Evangelicals must curb their obtuse inflexibility on abortion and gays, if for no other reason than to win the election.

I have sat through dinner table talk after talk between women and between gays who cannot justify voting for a Republican president. To them, it is personal – and how could it not be? Proof that the artificial War on Women media blitz was brilliantly played are the countless girls who examine the election as if it is a sweeping avowal on the sole issue of abortion. To them, “choice” is an essential condition, an absolute necessity in their government. How many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of women would change their vote over this one issue? For too many voters, especially the young, jobs and taxes are immaterial when compared to the perceived threat of losing the right to control their bodies, and when compared to their homosexual lifestyle vilified as a deplorable sin.

It’s time for the Evangelical wing of the GOP to compromise, for the sake of the party, for the sake of strategy if nothing else. The Republican Party must modify its platform to say: "Although we do not agree with abortion and find it wrong, we are tolerant of it," – tolerant being the key. "Furthermore, we will allow choice for women." Make the same statement for gay rights, and that’s all it would take.

If the GOP ever wants to grace the presidential winners’ circle again, and I hope for this country’s sake that it does, I just told them how to do it.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

My Not So Liberal Story

I grew up in Los Angeles among the Hollywood limousine liberals - children of A-list actors and wealthy agents - people whose families have made fortunes from show business. From there, I spent four years studying and thriving at an Ivy League, institutions now notorious for their indoctrination of far left - and oftentimes radical - ideology. Now, living in Manhattan, the political liberalism in my life is not abating, but instead just as rampant as it always has been. Furthermore, I am Jewish: part of a group that is unusually tribal in its voting habits, backing any Democratic politician regardless of how much his or her political platform hurts the interests of all Jewish people, from mounting taxes to mounting anti-Semitism. And lastly, I am a young female in my twenties. Needless to say, swearing off those who vote Democrat would leave me friendless, bored, and bitter.

And so, I make and have always made a point to not choose my friends based on their political leanings. This has resulted in me amassing a friend group far more diverse than anybody's I know, spanning every race, religion, and sexual orientation, and with substantial representation all across. In fact, a recent trip to Vegas had onlookers referring to our group as the UN (an organization that I abhor, but that discussion is for another time). Ironically, the only lack of diversity amongst my friends is that of political affiliation, as I have always been that one and only political conservative.

It is therefore no surprise that I am far too accustomed to liberal agenda spewing my way in an incomprehensible fashion. Two close friends of mine each said the same exact sentence to me verbatim on separate and unrelated occasions, both entirely unprompted. It is worth noting that these two people have never met and could not have colluded; thus each, on their own, arrived at this baffling conclusion and proclaimed it as fact: "Hillary Clinton is the most beautiful person in the world, inside and out."

First off: no. I understand that beauty is subjective, but common sense and judgment have to wholeheartedly veto that statement. And as far as the subjectivity of beauty goes, that assessment is as far off the trail as you can get when offering a personal opinion, albeit a brainwashed one. The second time this declaration knocked me off my feet, I had to inquire just a little bit further. "Ok, well what do you think her greatest accomplishment as Secretary of State was?" My friend, after racking his brain for an inordinate breadth of time, laid this gem on me: "Benghazi's not the right answer, is it?" no, no it is not.

Despite Hillary Clinton's compelling public rebuttal to the four dead in Benghazi ("What difference does it make?!"), perhaps I could have jogged my friend's memory by listing Hillary's additional outstanding achievements. Supplying guns to drug lords during the 2009 Fast & Furious episode which, much to everybody's surprise, is still interminably "under investigation" along with ever other White House scandal. Certainly, the country's $17 trillion debt is a feat by any measure. And as the proud champion of women's rights, Hillary in the White House amassed the highest level of women in poverty in US history. As long as we're on the topic of self-proclaimed victim groups, Blacks and Hispanics are reveling in record high unemployment rates. And while the slowest recovery from a recession may take the triumphant cake, you should also consider her foreign policy blunders that have resulted in a world crumbling around us, with no shortage of enemies to the U.S. - see: ISIS, Putin, Iran, Libya... need I go on? But let's not forget her most recent accomplishment of covertly juggling two email servers at once - and completely under the radar too! With such a plethora of choices, it's remarkable that my very confused friend could have chosen only one.

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Hashtag of Western Impotence

It's hard not to have total contempt for a political culture that thinks the picture above is a useful contribution to rescuing 276 schoolgirls kidnapped by jihadist savages in Nigeria. Yet some pajama boy at the White House evidently felt getting the First Lady to pose with this week's Hashtag of Western Impotence would reflect well upon the Administration. The horrible thing is they may be right: Michelle showed she cared - on social media! - and that's all that matters, isn't it?

Just as the last floppo hashtag, #WeStandWithUkraine, didn't actually involve standing with Ukraine, so #BringBackOurGirls doesn't require bringing back our girls. There are only a half-dozen special forces around the planet capable of doing that without getting most or all of the hostages killed: the British, the French, the Americans, Israelis, Germans, Aussies, maybe a couple of others. So, unless something of that nature is being lined up, those schoolgirls are headed into slavery, and the wretched pleading passivity of Mrs. Obama's hashtag is just a form of moral preening.

We've been saying it since about the 1600s, and it continues to ring true today: "Actions speak louder than words."

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Connecticut Obamacare Exchange Spends $75,000 on Hideous Paintings

This is your tax money hard at work in Connecticut. Remember, all of the state exchanges are subsidized by Federal tax dollars. So, congrats America, we just paid over $75,000 for three paintings. The above photo is one of the murals, and if the other two are just as bad, we didn't get very much bang for our buck.

From the National Review:
     AccessHealthCT, the quasi-public state agency that runs Connecticut's Obamacare exchange, spent nearly $75,000 to commission three murals, plus nearly $4,000 to have one of them installed.
     Just before Thanksgiving, state officials gathered at Optimus Health Care in Bridgeport to unveil the Cornier mural, which, according to the New Haven Register, is intended to inspire New Haven residents to "embrace health and wellness."

Seriously, my eight year-old cousin produces better artwork than this, and I assume he'll work for at least half the price. I can't help but notice that there are only black people depicted in the painting. Racist much?

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Big Government is Not the Answer

We can all agree that there are worthy objectives written into the Obamacare legislation. Insurance companies cannot terminate your health coverage if you fall ill or lose your job. The elderly in need and children in poverty must be accounted for. These are, indisputably, noble and pressing goals.

However, each of these ends can be achieved within the private sector through targeted legislation. There is no need for a colossal overhaul of our current healthcare system, followed by the federal government taking it hostage. "Federal government" and "efficiency" are two concepts that simply do not mix. Even a state-by-state solution, as Mitt Romney suggested, would run far more effectively than a sweeping federal hijack. Each state could choose whether healthcare reform is necessary for them and, if so, how to cater and specialize it to the needs of their unique state. Lumping all fifty states together - when Texas and Hawaii could not be more glaringly opposite - is, simply, absurd.

President Obama is a "big picture" kind of guy. He wants to be the income redistributor, the guy who gives everybody "free" health coverage. So, what he will never understand - never - is that the federal government is simply not capable of running the nation's healthcare system. It simply cannot do it. And we have irrefutable proof: the chaos that is ensuing now that the highly touted Obamacare legislation has finally been unveiled.

With the impending implementation of Obamacare, the federal government will account for over 50% of U.S. GDP. Does this sound like a free market that has been founded on and prospered from capitalist opportunities? Or does this sound like a socialist system that is swiftly encroaching?

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

The Looting Government

The government consists of a gang of men. These men have no special talents aside from obtaining and holding office by raising campaign funds, pandering to lobbyists, and so on. They seek out groups who yearn for something that these groups themselves cannot attain, and this gang of men promises to give it to them.

Of course, nine times out of ten, that promise is worthless. But it is that tenth time that they make good on their promise, and they do so by looting others to satisfy their flock. And so, the government is no more than a broker in pillage. Every election is, in its essence, an advance auction sale of stolen goods.

This also posits a glaringly obvious question: why are these men, who have proven effective solely in politicking, deemed suitable to reform the economy and to create health reform? Shouldn't these specialized and monumental undertakings be assigned to successful businessmen, economists, and doctors?

Monday, November 11, 2013

Taxation or Theft?

Taxation is money stolen, but many would rather live with the cognitive dissonance of calling that theft: "taxation". It sits easier than admitting that your government will use imprisonment and violence against you if you don't pay them the money they demand.

Suppose that one man takes your car at gunpoint. You would say that that man is a thief who is violating your property rights. Now, let's suppose that it's a group of five men forcibly taking your car from you. Still wrong? Still stealing? Yep.

Okay, now it's ten men that hold you at gunpoint. But, before anything else, they take a vote. You, understandably, vote to keep your car. But the ten of them vote in favor of taking it. So you are outvoted - ten to one. They take the car. Still stealing?

What if we add specialization of labor into the equation? One man acts as the negotiator for the group, one takes the vote, one oversees the vote, two hold the guns, one drives, and so on. Does this make it acceptable?

Now the group is two hundred strong, but - after forcibly taking your car - they give you a bicycle. That's right: they do something nice for you. Is this still stealing? In fact, not only do they give you a bicycle, but they also buy a bicycle for a poor person. Is this even wrong?

What if the group has a thousand people? Ten thousand? A million? How big does this group have to be before it becomes acceptable for them to forcibly take your property away without your consent? When, exactly, does the immorality of theft become the alleged morality of taxation?