littlerecordgirl said:

Why is it bad to be politically correct?

I’ve been thinking of the best way to answer this question because although I know inherently political correctness is wrong, I’ve never really explained why before. 

The best and simplest way I can explain why is because it is a way to suppress one of your fundamental rights as US citizen.  Here’s why:

• You have the right to free speech under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

• You do not have the right to not be offended by someone under any law.

Political correctness is a form of shaming people for expressing their right to freedom of speech if it happens to offend people.  For example, because some people find the term “indian” offensive to describe the indigenous people of America, therefore we must all conform to their PC chosen name of “Native American.”  This speech police sentiment has become so ingrained in our society, that it has become second nature.  I even refer to these PC terms like “African American” or “illegal immigrant” without even thinking about it.  The fact is, these terms are really just fabricated by small pocket groups and forced upon society as an unwritten rule.

The term “black” is not offensive; just as the term “white” is not offensive.  They’re just adjectives describing the color of someone’s skin.  There are plenty of black Americans that actually find the term “African American” offensive because they were not born in Africa…they were born in America.  I totally agree with that sentiment.  Even Native Americans weren’t necessarily “native” to America either.  So, this game of trying to step on your toes around certain labels is quite silly and only works to compartmentalize certain groups of people.  The best example is our President, Barack Obama.  Is he really African American?  Technically his father was Kenyan and his mother was of English, German, Swiss, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh decent.  So what does that make Barack Obama who was born in Hawaii?  About he’s just an American.  This is exactly what Martin Luther King Jr. was fighting for.

Finally, some words are offensive obviously, but does that mean that we should ban them as hate language?  No.  The First Amendment grants you the right to say whatever stupid, backwards, ignorant thing you want to.  That includes using offensive terms if you were so inclined to stupidly use them.  Political correctness is trying to become a filter on the First Amendment to take away your rights in trade to spare the emotional feelings of a handful of people.  But you do not have the right to not be offended by someone.  Society already conforms to this by naturally eliminating offensive terms from their lexicon.  Do not let these pocket factions dictate what words you use.

"It used to be said years ago that the United States is a one-party state - the business party - with two factions, Democrats and Republican. That’s no longer true. It’s still a one-party state - the business party - but now it has only one faction. And it’s not Democrats, it’s moderate Republicans. The so-called New Democrats, who are the dominant force in the Democratic Party, are pretty much what used to be moderate Republicans a couple of decades ago. And the rest of the Republican Party has just drifted off the spectrum."  .. (Noam Chomsky)

axiummiuxa said:

Hi, i love your blog. I generally agree with all of your ideas and opinions and i was wondering if you were able to redo the entire government system how would you have it?




In all seriousness, I would return this place back to the way it was when the founders established it.  No more bureaucracy.  No more pages and pages of laws and regulations.  No more federal reserve.  No more income tax.  Just a small federal government that oversees national defense, foreign relations, trade, immigration, and interstate affairs.  You can read some of the my suggestions for the Republican platform here and parts of the federal government I’d cut here.

Your Second Amendment

If you have a basic grasp of the English language, then there is no other interpretation of the Second Amendment except exactly how the Framers intended which was “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The Republican who may chair the Senate Intelligence Committee if his party wins control of the chamber in next month’s election isn’t too worried about CIA snooping on Congress, or about the agency’s combative director.

Relations between CIA Director John Brennan and Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have been chilly since she revealed that the agency spied on Senate staffers who were working on a report about CIA torture tactics under former President George W. Bush. Some Democrats have called on Brennan to resign.

But Sen. Richard Burr — a North Carolina Republican who could become intelligence chairman in a GOP-led Senate — is much cheerier about the CIA and its leader.

“Dianne may have some problems with it, but I think we’ve gotten a full accounting of what happened,” Burr told Politico. “Listen, I think there’s some mistakes, but I don’t think it’s the first director that’s made mistakes.”

Burr’s conclusion seems to be at odds with that of the Senate’s own sergeant-at-arms. HuffPost reported Thursday that because the CIA erased crucial computer records, the legislative law enforcement body was unable to determine the full extent of agency spying.

Civil liberties advocates have criticized Feinstein for lax oversight of intelligence agencies. But Burr’s statement suggests that if Republicans take control of the Senate, the Intelligence Committee will take an even more deferential posture toward the CIA and NSA.

“Especially moms, you know we balance so many different things, you know. Or school. Think about what many of you are doing, you know, you’re trying to maintain that job, you know, you’ve got to be moving up in your career. All these different things are coming in at the same time. Men do tend to talk about things on a much higher level. You know, one of the things that has always been one of my frustrations and I speak about this all the time – many of my male colleagues, when they go to the House floor, you know, they’ve got some pie chart or graph behind them and they’re talking about trillions of dollars and, you know, how the debt is awful and, you know, we all agree with that. But by starting off that discussion that way, we’ve already turned people away. Because it’s like ‘that doesn’t affect my life, I don’t understand how that affects my life.’” - Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Renee Ellmers

source source source source


Andrew Klaven responds to Emma Watson’s call for more feminism in the best way possible.

Provo, Utah:

-3rd largest city in Utah
-Most Conservative city in the USA (with population over 100,000)
-Rated in the top-10 places to raise a family in 2010 by Forbes. 
-Ranked as the 2nd best city in the country for businesses and careers.
-Provo was city-ranked 1st for community optimism (2012), 1st for volunteerism (2008), 2nd for business/careers (2010), and 1st in health/well-being (2014)
-Utah itself is one of the safest states to live in, partially because of their high gun ownership rate and loose gun control laws. 

Meanwhile in the Democratic capitals of America..  see Detroit and Chicago. 

Your move, Democrats.