Food for Thought

If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally ...you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but the government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor or check out a library book, but not to vote who runs the government ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If, in the largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested “homes”... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing and free cell phones ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If the government's plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working with 99 weeks of unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but can’t find work ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.


By Junius P. Long


Stolen from The Feral Irishman.

About Phil

There's been a lot of opinion posted, broadcast and printed over the dispute between Phil Robertson and the A&E Network.  So why not add a few more electrons to the mix.

First off, this is not about the 1st Amendment.  Go back and read the actual text of the Constitution. (FWIW, I've thought that Obama should do the same, but that's for another post.  But it did let me get in a swipe at The One.)  It's a prohibition on governmental restrictions on free speech.  Nothing in it prohibits individual or corporate restrictions.  So while the concept of "freedom of speech" is definitely in play, let's leave the 1st Amendment out of this.

Which leads to the question, just what is the basis for this confrontation?  It's plain and simple.  The corporate entity A&E finds that the speech of a contractor, Phil Robertson, is offensive to its corporate sensibilities.  As a result, it wishes to alter the terms of the contract between A&E and Phil.

That's it.  There's no "censorship".  There's no trampling of liberties.  It's a dispute that deals with the contract over a television show.

However.....there's more to it in terms of viewpoints.  What is happening is that A&E is saying "we don't want to provide content that features people with a certain viewpoint with which we disagree."  And they are perfectly within their rights to do that.  Any network can air what it chooses.  Logo is a totally gay network, proudly proclaiming it.  MSNBC is a progressive mouthpiece.  What we now have is that A&E has come out to say that they don't want Christian values on their shows.

Fine.  Works for me.  A&E used to show some great television.  Then it lost it's way.  Some have speculated that A&E scheduled "Duck Dynasty" as a way for the coastal elites to have folks to chuckle at and to feel superior over. Those rubes in the swamp...they don't eat arugula, they don't read the NY Times, they don't vote "the right way".  But it didn't work out that way.

Turns out, there are tens of millions of Americans for whom the Robertsons resonate.  And they don't like what A&E has done.  In other words, to satisfy their progressive social leanings, they have alienated a huge marketplace.

The Robertsons have shown that they are savvy businessmen.  A&E owns the name "Duck Dynasty". Now the question is....what network will run the sequel show?  Anyone for "Duck Empire"?

NFL and guns

As you might have heard, the NFL has banned a gun manufacturer from advertising during the Super Bowl.  Interestingly, there is never a weapon shown during the commercial, and just a silhouette drawing in the logo at the end.  But that was still too much for those PC folks at NFL Central Command.

Colion Noir has compiled a video of the banned commercial, plus a few of his comments.


H/T to Moonbattery.

Toe the line, or else

News out of California and that bastion of truth, UCLA.  A respected academic is being forced out for speaking the truth about environmental issues.  His "crime":

Dr. James E. Enstrom’s peer-reviewed research challenged California’s status quo by contending that exposure to fine particulate matter, like diesel particles, does not kill. The majority of his colleagues believe the particles cause lung cancer and death, a popular belief that Enstrom said ignores evidence to the contrary.

Pulling back the curtain:

Enstrom charged in 2008 that his colleagues exaggerated the adverse effects of particulate matter in order to justify expensive diesel fuel regulations to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Enstrom testified in the same year to the state Senate that the lead contributor to the CARB report, Hien T. Tran, paid $1,000 for his Ph.D. from a fake university, and members of a CARB panel had exceeded their mandated three-year term limits by decades.

Shortly after Enstrom revealed the misconduct, UCLA began sending him notices of termination and has refused to compensate him for more than a year’s worth of work.

You see, only true believers are allowed.  Otherwise you are banished to the hinterlands.

“The facts of this case are astounding,” said David French, senior counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice and one of Enstrom’s lawyers. “UCLA terminated a professor after 35 years of service simply because he exposed the truth about an activist scientific agenda that was not only based in fraud, but violated California law.”

Interestingly, there's support for Enstrom within the university, just not at the top:

The UCLA’s Academic Freedom Committee, made up of professors and students, unanimously expressed concern in 2011 that the School of Public Health’s decision to lay off Enstrom “may represent a violation of academic freedom.”

Read the whole story at the Daily Caller.  H/T to Moonbattery.

Steyn's choice

The always wonderful Mark Steyn has a short post at NRO's The Corner, talking about the Canadian Human Rights Code.  It's a must read.  He sums up the issue at hand thus:

I don’t want the state to have a “mandate” to “educate” the citizenry about their thought-crimes. Even if I did not object on principle, one thing I’ve learned during this five-year campaign is that the statist hacks Canada’s official opposition is so eager to empower are, almost to a man, woman and pre-op transsexual, either too stupid or bullying to be entrusted with the task. Mr Garrison himself would appear to be a fine example of the former, at least.

If it’s a choice between an unlovely citizenry with all its flaws or an overbearing state policing their opinions, I know which is the lesser evil.

True words.

Give it back, they say

From Breitbart:

James Anaya, the UN special rapporteur on indigenous peoples, has recommended that the US government give the Black Hills region of the South Dakota back to Native American populations. That region, of course, includes Mount Rushmore. He did meet with the Obama administration during a 12-day visit to the United States, although no member of Congress would meet with him.

“The sense of loss, alienation and indignity is pervasive throughout Indian Country,” said Anaya. “I’m talking about restoring to indigenous peoples what obviously they’re entitled to and they have a legitimate claim to in a way that is not divisive but restorative.”

How about if the UN gives back some prime NYC riverfront real estate?  Maybe they should find some other city and country where they can ignore parking tickets.

From the best podcaster

Adam Carolla's podcasts have become a regular highlight for the OC.  Real Clear Politics has a story of one of his recent shows.

Adam Carolla ripped Leslie Stahl of CBS's "60 Minutes" and those on the Left for complaining about enhanced interrogation techniques used by the U.S. after 9/11 to extract information from known terrorists. Carolla's main issue, other than Stahl's incessant questioning of Jose Rodriguez Jr., the chief of the CIA's Clandestine Service, was that the critics of such practices don't have a viable alternative to them.

Carolla said he hates when people use the explanation that if we stopped killing terrorists then perhaps they would stop hating us. Carolla called that type of thinking bull and said they hate us because of our way of life.

On the Thursday podcast of "The Adam Carolla Show," the host also explained his disappointment that those getting angst from reporters like Stahl, never throw their outrageous outrage back at them.

"That's your news. That's '60 Minutes.' That's the best we have to offer. Hard at fucking work. I always wish that people just throw it back at them. What's your plan then, Leslie? What would you like to do? How would you like to extract information from people who wanted to see Americans die and don't want to give up any information," Carolla said.

"And find me a country that does it in a more humane fashion than we do? Or shut the fuck up. You have no story. There's not a story here. Hey, show me the huge pile of bodies from waterboarding. They'll be right next to the huge bodies of second-hand smoke. They don't fucking exist," he said.

 Carolla tells it like it is.  RCP has the 20 minute audio file HERE.

Too much cultural sensitivity

From Gatestone Institute:

The largest university in London plans to impose a ban on the sale of alcohol on campus to accommodate the "cultural sensitivity" of its Muslim students.

London Metropolitan University's Vice Chancellor, Malcolm Gillies, says it would be unwise to "cling" to a "nostalgic" view where the vast majority wants alcohol to be available. Instead, he says that he believes the university should take account of diverging views, namely those of Muslims, who now comprise 20% of the university's 30,000 students.

"Many of our students do come from backgrounds where they actually look on drinking as a negative. We therefore need to rethink how we cater for that 21st-century balance," Gillies declared in an interview. "What we don't want is the tyranny of a majority view," he added.

Gillies' proposals to re-engineer social life on campus have, not surprisingly, generated a mostly negative response from students, many of whom say a ban on alcohol smacks of politically correct pandering run amok.

Muslims, too, are unhappy with Gillies. Far from thanking him for his multicultural activism, Muslims say they are "offended" by his "generalizing about their beliefs."

You see, it doesn't matter.  If you don't abide by their wishes, you are wrong.  And if you do, you are wrong for generalizing.

The article goes on with these gems (among many others):

In Nottingham, the Greenwood Primary School cancelled a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha. In Scarborough, the Yorkshire Coast College removed the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar not to offend Muslims. In Scotland, the Tayside Police Department apologized for featuring a German shepherd puppy as part of a campaign to publicize its new non-emergency telephone number.

Meanwhile, in South Yorkshire, an elderly woman in a nursing home died after she suffered a fall and was left lying on the floor bleeding because the Muslim nurse, Abdul Bhutto, said he had to finish his prayers before he could help the woman.

And finally:

At the same time, the British government has spent thousands of pounds of taxpayer money to rebuild prison toilets so that Muslim inmates do not have to use them while facing Mecca. Islam prohibits Muslims from facing or turning their backs on the Kiblah -- the direction of prayer -- when they visit the lavatory. After pressure from Muslim, who claimed they had to sit sideways on prison WCs, the Home Office agreed to turn the existing toilets 90 degrees.

Muslims attending the 2012 Olympic Games in London will be relieved to learn that toilet facilities at London's Olympic Park are being built so they will not have to face Mecca while sitting on the loo.

Heaven help us.  Read the whole story for much, much more.

Thanks to I Own the World for the link.

The Nanny at the Beach

No, not Fran Drescher.  It's the Big Nanny called "Government".

If you haven't heard, Los Angeles County has now banned the throwing of Frisbees and footballs (and other balls) at beaches in the county.  Guess that having fun is too much for the government to stand.

Adam Carolla  is a podcast wonder, cranking out great material time and time again.  Here he expressed what most of us truly believe deep down:

The beach is a great little microcosm of what’s going on with this country. We’re gonna save everybody because God forbid some kid could get hit with a Frisbee or someone could take in second hand smoke or some dog could run across their beach towel. Yes, its true we’ve eliminated every possibility of someone being concussed by a Nerf football, but we’ve also eliminated all possibility of fun.

The beach, which used to be six pack, couple of cigarettes, a Frisbee, your dog and some tunes cranked up … is now, turn the radio down, put the cigarette out, pour the beer out in the sand, put the dog back on the leash, put the Frisbee away and here’s a thousand dollar fine. Better or worse? Is this fucking progress to you?

We should have a fucking beach jam … we all go out to the beach armed with our cigarettes, our beer, our dogs, and our Frisbees … a million strong….

Who decided it was the government’s job to protect us from ourselves? The government fucks everything up they touch. Please stop looking to them to help you. Hope and change?

Stop looking to them to help you.  So true.

Coincidence? You tell me.

Or was it intentional that the study's conclusion matched the objective of the administration?  You be the judge.  A sample:

The Department of Education has acknowledged using flawed data in a study on the impact of race on student loan repayment rates, having omitted black students from its calculation. The analysis was conducted during the debate over gainful employment regulations, in response to complaints that the rules would hurt colleges that enroll relatively high percentages of minority students.

Read the whole article from Inside Higher Ed.

Hat tip to Small Dead Animals.

Good intentions

Andrew Klavan looks at how the road to hell is paved.



Watch it a second time and keep your eyes on the graphics along the sides of the road. 

Now, if only he would do these same sendups for ads in the November election.

13 Politically Incorrect Gun Rules

A compilation from various sources, put together on the Daily Caller:

1. Guns have only two enemies rust and politicians.
2. It’s always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
3. Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.
4. Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside arms length.
5. Never say, “I’ve got a gun.” If you need to use deadly force, the first sound they hear should be the safety clicking off.
6. The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes; the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second.
7. The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win – cheat if necessary.
8. Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets . . . You may get killed with your own gun, but he’ll have to beat you to death with it, because it’ll be empty.
9. If you’re in a gunfight:
-  If you’re not shooting, you should be loading.
-  If you’re not loading, you should be moving.
-  If you’re not moving, you’re dead.
10. In a life and death situation, do something . . . It may be wrong, but do something!
11. If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. Nonsense! If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?
12. You can say ‘stop’ or ‘alto’ or any other word, but a large bore muzzle pointed at someone’s head is pretty much a universal language.
13. You cannot save the planet, but you may be able to save yourself and your family.