Following last week’s Senate vote on the several gun control measures brought forward, Obama held a press conference in which he proceeded to throw a temper tantrum, lamenting how a “minority” of Senators aligned themselves with a minority of Americans to side with the gun lobby and vote down 7 of the 8 measures brought up for vote.

Obama made it clear that it wasn’t right that a minority with a minority view was able to overrule a majority apotheke-zag.de. Well, if that’s the case I’ve got something to say to Mr. Obama:

You can take your Executive Orders and shove them.

If there is any more blatant example of a minority overruling a majority, it’s a unilateral declaration by a SINGLE PERSON that holds sway over an ENTIRE NATION.

If Obama wants to lecture us on why it’s unfair that a minority can overrule the will of the majority, I’d suggest he open the lecture with a primer on slavery, then segue into the history of the American Indian, and then finally to the issue of voting rights for women, before finally enlightening us about the merits of majority rule.

Mr. Obama, the reason it’s perfectly ok for a minority to overrule a majority is so society doesn’t degenerate into spoils for the many and misery for the few, and I’d suggest that you consider your own actions before decrying those of others. It’s crystal clear that you’re not at all concerned about the power of the minority over the majority, you’re only concerned that the minority votes the right way, your way.

Much of the anti-American sentiment prevalent in liberal circles centers around “American imperialism.” Examples might include the westward expansion and plight of native American Indians, “nation building” e.g. “wars for oil,” and our history of military projection.

Regardless of where you lie in the debate over American imperialism, I doubt that anyone would say the proper counter to imperialism is more imperialism, yet that’s exactly what liberals do.

Let’s consider what imperialism is. Is it the taking over of an inhabited territory? Perhaps, but consider if a group of people physically overtake a territory, then realize they like the local culture more than their own. They discard their own culture and adopt that of the overtaken territory. Has the territory really been overtaken?

It can be argued then that the act of occupying a territory isn’t imperialism unless the occupiers enforce their own culture over that of the previous occupants. And that is why liberals can be characterized as “neo-imperialists.” Liberals don’t move into an area and adopt the local culture. Liberals don’t reside in an area and allow the culture to remain intact. They agitate for change. They expend effort into changing the culture to accept what they think is acceptable and reject that which is not acceptable.

I found this realization ironic, as the very characteristic that compels may liberals to believe counter to “traditional” American culture is a distaste for the “imperial” nature of American governmental action, yet they gladly embrace American imperialism when it sponsors their belief system. In a typical display of liberal hypocrisy, liberals are perfectly fine with government takeover of a culture, as long as the takeover reflects their values.

My wife had a conversation with a liberal the other day. They were discussing taxes. Interestingly, the liberal agreed that government takes too much of people’s money. But do you know how they rationalized their continued support of the Democrat party?

“The government’s going to take the money anyway, and I’d rather vote for the party that’s going to give some to the needy rather than the party that supports rich people.”

Yep. Even when they admit that the government takes too much, they placate themselves with the knowledge that at least it’s going to a good cause.

You know what I say? Why is it noble to take money from one person and give it to another? How are you ensuring that the money is improving things cialis 20 mg?

Welfare has become a way for people to abdicate personal responsibility. If they vote for politicians who support welfare, they can brag that “They care about others” or they’re “Doing their part” and “Doing the right thing.”

Nope. Sorry.

Unless you’re giving your own money or in the trenches with the people trying to help, you’re not doing anything but using your vote as a dismissal of guilt, the guilt you carry because you know you’re not really “Doing the right thing.” You’re doing nothing at all, just pontificating behind the assumption that other people are doing it for you.

How noble to claim that you care about the needy while authorizing politicians to steal on your behalf. Noble indeed. The very picture of moral superiority. And all the while people buy booze with their EBT cards, hang out on the street because they don’t have to work, and generally rot away because no one is there helping them to become human again.

You and your welfare vote can rot in the vacant stares of a million eyes who long for a better life and get nothing but a patronizing smile and a handful of change.

We went out last night to a trendy wine and tapas bar. Being a trendy wine and tapas bar there were many “hipsters” around. As I the evening progressed, I noticed something.

They all seemed uncomfortable.

Not uncomfortable as if their clothes were itchy or they didn’t like the way their seat felt, they looked awkward, nervous, finicky, glancing around, avoiding eye contact – uncomfortable.

Man and woman over there on the patio, deeply involved with whatever they needed to study on their MacBooks. Faces down, fingers hunting, glowing faces protected behind the aluminum shield with the apple shaped logo.

Younger couple at the table in front of us, initially excited about the band, now cramming their faces into their smartphones, not even reacting to the band struggling to tell jokes.

People standing in line at the bar, not acknowledging when the bartender asks what they want, struggling to make a decision, muffled conversations about previous bad food choices, no smiles, no “Excuse me,” just shuffling feet guided by eyes on the floor.

Every one of those people are liberal. I know they are. I heard the conversations about the vegan burger patties and working for non-profits.

And I realized something.

These people are not comfortable with who they are. Their identity is incredibly fragile. That’s why they cannot associate or accept anyone who opposes their worldview, they are afraid it would shatter theirs. In order for them to maintain their identity, they must surround themselves only with others who share their beliefs.

Being in a public place where they might be exposed to alternative viewpoints is horrifying. That’s why they flit from the door to the bar to the table. Entirely engaged with their group, no outward eye contact, no confident greeting of the stranger behind them in line.

Only once an unknown is defined as “friendly” will they engage in conversation. I was surprised by how pronounced this characteristic was.

What a shame to be uncomfortable in your own skin.

While cleaning up some bookshelves the other day I found a compilation of high school student literary works, one of which was authored by my daughter. The following quote was on the first page:

“Better to write for yourself and have no public,
than to write for the public and have no self.”
Cyril Connolly

This quote resonated with me because it describes the conflict between self and state. Effort spent on behalf of the public is effort that cannot be spent on yourself. That effort is gone. You cannot spend it again. It’s one thing to spend effort on the public if you do it by choice. What we have today is a state that mandates effort on behalf of the public. It demands that effort and punishes you if you don’t comply.

So this is our decision:

Will we allow people to write for themselves?

Or will we force them to write for the public and lose their identity in the process?

Remember that every fraction of effort you force someone to work for the public cannot be used again on themselves, so every fraction of effort forcefully taken by the state (taxes) is a fraction of self that cannot be developed, that cannot be attained. Imagine the musician who does not become a concert pianist because they could not attend that lesson, or the mechanic who does not become an engineer because they could not spare the time.

These are the human costs of the leviathan state.

To have an all-powerful state, is to have no self.

Senator Diane Feinstein has received a lot of media coverage over the past few months regarding the resurgence of her “assault weapon” ban legislation. Recently she and Senator Ted Cruz had a heated exchange prior to the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on her bill. Senator Cruz asked about the Constitutional basis for the bill and she responded with incredulity that Senator Cruz would doubt the Constitutionality of her proposition. While the weapon ban is of interest to me, I was more struck by something she said during the exchange:

“Sir. Congress is in the business of making law.”

In the business of making law. Actually, Senator Feinstein, Congress should be in the business of making life as an American more peaceful, productive, and happy. Congress should be singularly focused on giving Americans ever more direct and unimpeded access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Senator Feinstein’s statement gave me additional insight into the mind of the liberal, progressive, leftist politician. They think governing bodies are mandated to pass more and more and more law. Should Congress should pass laws until we choke our entire society under their burden? Curiously, that describes exactly the direction we’re headed.

I think this paradigm could be useful in juxtaposing the right against the left. Do you want to be increasingly oppressed underneath the burden of law? Vote for the left. Do you want to be free to choose to live life the way you desire to, protected by law? Vote for the right.

So, I need to get a vehicle titled. I have the title, signed, a title application, signed. I knew I needed proof of insurance or I couldn’t get a title, so I did. Last week, I drove to the county clerk’s office, parked, walked inside, and was told that no title applications were being processed because the system was down. So I left.

Today I drove back to the county clerk’s office, got a number in the queue, waited (not long), got called to an agent, sat down and was told that because the seller didn’t sign in the right place, I’d have to have them do so and come back. So I left.

So here’s the deal. I’ve now made 2 round trips to the county clerk’s office (burnt fuel), which I have zero need or desire to do unless required. I’m not a professional buyer or seller so I don’t deal with this paperwork often so I don’t reflexively know what needs to be signed or where. Now I have to put this title application in the mail send it to the seller (used paper and fuel), have them sign and return it (used paper and fuel), then make a 3rd trip to the county clerk’s office (burnt fuel), all because a 70 year old man (the seller) didn’t sign a document in the right place and I (the buyer), not being well versed in the ways of government documentation, didn’t catch it.

So let’s multiply this by the hundreds, thousands, or even millions of transactions per day. People making unnecessary trips, using unnecessary fuel, unnecessary paper, unnecessary ink, unnecessary stamps, unnecessary electricity, all because a T isn’t crossed or an I isn’t dotted. And most big government advocates claim to be concerned about the environment?!

Anyone who knows me well, knows that I like to be independent. If I get sick, I try to take care of myself. If I get hurt, I try not to visit a doctor. But sometimes you just have to.

Recently I injured my ankle very badly. Doctor’s visit, crutches, splint, etc. In the few days immediately after the injury, I found that even though I didn’t want to accept help, I did because it made living with the bad ankle more acceptable. Having someone tend to me and things I normally to take care of gave me a surprising revelation.

Having someone take care of you is incredibly seductive.

You begin to enjoy the attention, the ability to ask and receive, the luxury of sitting on the couch while someone makes you lunch, mows your yard, hands you the remote. I realized that this is the environment that victimization cultivates. People conditioned to have things given to them upon demand.

It is incredibly difficult to resist the opportunity to be taken care of, and it’s even more difficult to return to your normal life after tasting the fruits of victimization. I mean, after all, I didn’t ask to be injured. It wasn’t my fault. Right?

I think social progressives know how seductive victimization is. They know how addictive it is to have a system, an army of people, dedicated to taking care of your needs. And they know how difficult it is to tell that system no, or to escape their addiction to it. This is why the culture of entitlements is such a monumental challenge. How do you reform entitlements when those using them will react to such an effort with the same vitriol as a drug addict would if you threatened to take away their stash, or a celebrity their spotlight, or a politician their power.

It’s the dark side of entitlements. Seductive indeed.

I get frequent requests from the Republican National Committee for donations. I donated to them during the 2012 election cycle, primarily in reaction to the Akin statement. Now that 2012 is behind us and we can see more clearly its after effects on the Republican party, I’m less enthusiastic about donating to the RNC. Below is my response to their most recent donation request:

Tell you what, you want additional donations from me? You want to rejuvenate the GOP? Very publicly and firmly denounce the statements of Senators McCain and Graham regarding the Paul filibuster. We need more like Senator Paul and less like Senators McCain and Graham. The GOP can’t afford to be fragmented and for McCain and Graham to publicly deepen the divide between the “establishment” and a man clearly on the side of the American citizen as embodied by law is shameful and should not be tolerated.

The GOP should “Stand With Rand” and shun the “go along to get along” boat anchors that are keeping the Republican party from its rightful place as the party of freedom and happiness.

Recently we learned of a master plan to turn North Carolina into a Democrat dominated state via “Blueprint NC.” Now we find out that there is a similar plan for Texas, the state I call home. This caused me to ponder many things, such as why these groups are funded so deeply. There must be a monetary interest in Democrat policy, a profit to be made by turning states blue. I hope to investigate that as time allows, but for now just a brief thought considering the Democrats are now gunning for Texas (pun intended).

Thinking about these coordinated efforts to polarize states I finally centered my thinking around the question, “Why are these organized efforts needed at all?” I mean, if Democrat policies are so wonderful, wouldn’t people naturally gravitate to them? Wouldn’t the country turn blue without effort?

If people want something, if they desire to have it, if it is good to have, they will try to get it, whatever it is. When you consider that the only effort required to have Democrat policy is to cast a vote, you would think the Democrat party would completely dominate American politics, but that’s far from reality.

Consider the vast apparatus needed to place and keep Democrats in power. Massive campaigns, coordination between Democrat/left-leaning voter blocks, use of political power to segment the public into special interest groups, a decidedly pro-Democrat media. Why is all this needed if Democrat policy is so good?

Why? Because Democrat policy is terrible. It destroys freedom, saps initiative, punishes hard work, lionizes sloth. The reason Democrats need such a formidable machine is because they would be obsolete otherwise.

Well, I’m not interested in seeing Texas turn into a Democrat stronghold, so bring it on.