|
|
JISHOU, HUNAN — A long time ago, only white, male property owners could vote. Then the property ownership rule was dropped, followed by the whites-only rule, followed by the men-only rule, followed by a reduction in the legal voting age to 18. So, in the USA, there is near universal suffrage, which most people would consider a really good thing.
Not Matthew Vadum of the oxymoronically named American Thinker blog. He believes we need to turn back the calendar a couple of centuries to those good old days when only rich white guys could vote. Or be President, I reckon.
Vadum says registering the poor to vote is un-American. Seriously. Because encouraging the poor to vote means they will vote for their own interests, unlike rich folk, who always vote for the poor’s interests.
Sayeth he:
Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?
Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.
Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country — which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.
Ah, Obama the Boogeyman again. Reading further, you will find that Vadum manages to also connect (a la Glenn Beck) ACORN, Leon Trotsky, Nelson Rockefeller and George Romney with this blight called universal suffrage.
This is a preview of Universal suffrage is an un-American, left-wing plot, says right-wing tool . Read the full post (508 words, 1 image, estimated 2:02 mins reading time)Possibly related posts:
JISHOU, HUNAN — While Osama bin Laden was a big name in the West, he was a blip that barely showed up on the radar of most Chinese students here. So, I and my fellow foreign teachers have had to explain why his death is such a big deal.
For example, one guy was surprised to learn that nearly 3,000 people died in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001. I explained that bin Laden had taken credit for the 9/11 attacks, and that was why he had been on the USA’s most wanted list for the past decade.
A girl — one of our smartest students — wanted to know if the successful raid on bin Laden’s suburban lair would mean President Barack Obama would get re-elected. I offered the surmise that Obama’s approval ratings got a boost, but time will tell whether his rating remains high. There are a few other issues he needs to deal with before the next elections.
Her classmates asked how Pakistan, our ostensible ally in the fight against bin Laden and Al Qaeda, will react after US forces swooped in near a Pakistani military base to engage bin Laden in his own home. I had no answer for that, other than to note that Pakistan has egg on its face right now, and a whole lotta ‘splaining to do.
Possibly related posts:
Kate and William finally tied the knot. Obama finally released his “long form” birth certificate.
Now, can the media focus on more substantive issues to dwell on?
Yeah, you’re right. Probably not.
Permanent link to this post (33 words, 1 image, estimated 8 secs reading time) Possibly related posts:
[Rescued from hacker oblivion, thanks to Facebook Notes.]
JISHOU, HUNAN — To listen to the right wingers, President Barack Obama has done nothing but spend, spend, spend, ruin health care, trample their rights (to do what, I have no idea), and lead the USA down the path of socialism.
Except he really hasn’t. According to Timothy Egan of The New York Times, Obama managed to save capitalism in the USA, at the price of losing his party’s majority after the midterm elections.
Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here’s why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power.
As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent.
He also managed to save the banking system, following the same path as predecessor George W. Bush, without nationalizing the banks, and gave the auto industry a chance to recover so it could make both cars and money again.
This is a preview of How the “socialist Marxist Muslim” saved our financial a$$es . Read the full post (481 words, 1 image, estimated 1:55 mins reading time)Possibly related posts:
[Another rescued post, thanks to Facebook Notes. Yay, redundancy!]
JISHOU, HUNAN — I spent a couple of hours tonight trying to catch up on the post-election aftermath. It seems President Obama is going to visit India.
According to the right wing echo chamber, the trip will cost somewhere around $200 million a day! Such intellectual heavyweights as Sean Hannity of Faux News, Rush Limbaugh of the AM (blowhard) airwaves, and Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) of the Crazy People have been repeating this dubious figure like it was the gospel truth.
Don’t people fact-check anymore? My editors years ago would have put a big CQ in a red circle if I reported such a ridiculous amount of money.
According to the mother of all fact-checkers, snopes.com, the estimate came from provincial official in India who clearly doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the wall. Our entire military presence in Afghanistan costs the USA less money each day than this fictionalized mega-junket to India!
(Actually, traveling in India is pretty cheap, I hear, but of course the people I know don’t fly in their own personal jetliner with an entourage of aides and Secret Service agents in tow. Still, $200 million a day?)
Ludicrous.
And guess what? We’ll get to hear more of this claptrap for the next two years, now the crazy wing of the Republican Party is so full of itself after Tuesday’s elections. It’ll be all-anti-Obama, all-the-time.
Possibly related posts:
JISHOU, HUNAN — According to former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has what President Obama doesn’t — balls — because Brewer dealt directly with the state’s illegal immigration problem.
Since “balls” is too rude a word for such a God-fearing woman as Señora Palin to use, she instead used the Spanish slang, “cojones.” Or maybe she was trying to show off how street-wise she is. After all, Obama used “Sí, se puede,” during his campaign.
Of course, Obama was trying to appeal to potential supporters who speak Spanish natively. Palin used Spanish slang to criticize Obama’s supposed inability to deal with undocumented Spanish-speaking immigrants.
Was she even aware of the irony? Or the fact that Obama, as a man, is more likely to literally have cojones than Brewer (a woman, btw)? Or was she trying to make a joke? I doubt it.
Here’s what she said on air Sunday, referring to the controversial Arizona state law SB 1070:
Palin said on “Fox News Sunday” that Arizona’s female Republican governor has “the cojones that our president does not” when it comes to securing America‘s borders.
“This is a temporary suspension of some of the key elements in the law that Jan Brewer pushed hard for Arizonans and for the rest of the country to have the result of us being more secure,” said Palin.
Possibly related posts:
JISHOU, HUNAN — Now Biblical literalism has spilled over into reading the Constitution literally. A religious group called the Faith and Freedom Institute is complaining because President Barack Obama has used the words “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion.”
They sent him a letter. I predict it ends up in the trash. See for yourself:
Dear President Obama:
It is with great concern that we have watched your rhetorical shift in terminology, choosing to use the phrase “freedom of worship” rather than “freedom of religion.” We’ve noted your use of that phrase (“freedom of worship”) at the Ft. Hood memorial service in November of 2009, as well as your utilization of the same during speeches in Japan and China.
While some may deem the words “worship” and “religion” to be synonymous, and thus interchangeable, they are most definitely not! The First Amendment of the United States Constitution uses the word “religion” and states unequivocally that Congress cannot prohibit the “free exercise” of said “religion.” Your use of the word “worship” implies that we have freedom ONLY within the confines of structures set aside for religious expression (i.e. churches, synagogues, etc.). This is not only a gross departure from the original intent of the First Amendment, but is also the first step toward eliminating faith expression in the public marketplace (i.e. display of religious symbols on public land, printing of religious materials for the purpose of evangelizing, public discussion of faith, etc.).
Mr. President, we call on you to retract all past use of this incorrect and misleading phrase, “freedom of worship,” and cease all future use of the same. We also call on you to acknowledge America’s Christian heritage as is clearly evidenced in our Founding Documents and the overwhelming abundance of statements from our Founding Fathers.
Sincerely,
The Faith and Freedom Institute
Possibly related posts:
|
Recent Comments