Fuck Sin Taxes

Normally I am more eloquent in my expression of my dislike for big government, but profanity is pretty much the only way I can concisely describe my dislike for what statists refer to as "sin taxes."  To all of you fundie yokels who want to tax alcohol out of existence: fuck you.  To all of you latte liberals who want to tax tobacco out of existence: fuck you.  To all of you middle American moderates who want to put "common sense" taxes on everything that offends your low moral standards: fuck you.

Sin taxes are an embodiment of everything wrong with American politics: the idea that if 51% of people personally dislike something, they have every right to use the state to force the other 49% to stop doing that something.

They are the scion of an unholy alliance between two enemies of freedom: the red state fascist Christian theocrats and the SWPL/Jewish liberal totalitarians.  In other words, they are the natural product of centrism and bipartisanship and the combination of both forms of statism that are fucking up America.

In particular, support for alcohol taxes always gets me.  In most non-Islamic cultures, alcohol plays an important role.  Alcohol was independently developed by by countless cultures.  Even the Indians of the Amazon rainforest make drinks from fermented manioc.  Yet, in both the "liberty-loving" red states and the "personal freedom-supporting" blue states of America no one bats an eye if a state doubles the tax on alcohol.

The fact that Christian fundamentalists/evangelicals/conservatives are so vocal in their support for sin taxes, especially on alcohol is surprising considering that Jesus was the ultimate bartender.  Do any of them remember the part in the Book of John where he transmuted water to wine?  If God is against alcohol consumption, as megachurch preachers blather whenever petty tyrants state legislators consider raising taxes on alcohol, why was his own Son was a miraculous vintner?

Liberals also put their hypocrisy on full display with regard to sin taxes.  Any libertarians who are stupid enough to believe liberals when they say they are in favor of "personal freedoms" and "pro-choice" should take a look at the liberal record when it comes to sin taxes.  For example, while they support marijuana legalization, they want to heavily tax it.

They have no problem with putting enough taxes on cigarettes to the point where the taxes cost more than the tobacco, ostensibly because of the public health hazard of tobacco.  The claimed public health hazards of smoking have always struck me as overblown.  I remember when my great-aunt died, her death certificate listed smoking as the cause of death even though she was in her 80s and in poor health all around.  I wonder how many other "smoking-related deaths" were like hers.  In 21st century America, doctors apparently don't think that people can die of old age anymore.

They even support putting special taxes on the use of indoor tanning.  As with tobacco, they claim this is due to the health hazards of their use.  (An alternate explanation is that feminists hate tanning salons because they make women more attractive and, as Rush says, "feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." Thus, anything that makes women more attractive to men, including tanning, breast implants, and make-up is verboten according to feminists and manginas.)

The mental disorder called liberalism, with its support for socialism, abortion, illegal immigrants, and coddling criminals, is certainly a public health hazard that has led to far more human deaths than smoking ever will.  A tax on liberals would probably do more to save lives than a tax on cigarettes.

What sin tax proponents, both left and right, fail to realize is that it is not merely the use of tobacco, alcohol, and/or tanning that causes health problems, it is the excessive use.  If you socially smoke you probably won't get lung cancer, but if you smoke three packs a day from age 18 to 60 you probably will.  If you drink alcohol at a bar every Friday night, you probably won't develop health problems (instead your health will probably benefit), but if you chug a 12-pack of beer every night you will probably develop them.  If you use a tanning bed prior to your vacation to Hawaii you probably won't develop skin cancer, but if you use them weekly for fifty years, you might.

Proponents of sin taxes do not understand the concept of moderation.  They don't understand that many people who partake in "sinful" things such as alcohol are not compulsive or habitual users.  True, some people abuse alchol, tobacco, etc., but why should the vast majority of people capable of self-control be punished for the high time preference of a few people?  Those people will be punished for their lack of personal responsibility in due time.  There's no need to tax everyone else for it.

Israel's Gaza Flotilla Raid

The past week has seen Jewish neocons and Christian Zionists defending actions that would have had them clamoring for war had they been performed by Iran. The fact that Israel would attack a flotilla in international waters that was planning to run the blockade (not "break" it as the media often states) shouldn't be very surprising. Israel has shown time and time again that it has no respect for human rights (yes, I realize that none of its neighbors are any better with regard to human rights, but that is irrelevant to Israel's human rights record), which shouldn't surprise anyone, considering that Israel was, like Palestine eventually will be, founded by terrorists.

There have been a couple of propagated by Jewish neocons and their Christian lapdogs regarding the resistance by the flotilla's crew and passengers that shows that when it comes to Israel, "conservatives" leave their conservatism behind:

1. The people on the flotilla attacked the Israeli soldiers, beating them and in one case pushing one into the ocean, so the Israelis were justified in responding with force.

This is perhaps the stupidest argument they are using to justify the massacre (Larry Auster, a man who normally is highly intelligent was spouting this earlier in the week). The Israeli military attacked civilian ships in international waters. The people on the flotilla had the right to fight back in self-defense, the Israelis certainly did not. If a burglar breaks in, you shoot him, and he shoots you, he will be the one charged, not you (unless your DA is a liberal). If anything, the Israeli soldiers got off easy be merely being beaten. Pirates used to be summarily executed.

2. Several of the "peace activists" were carrying firearms.

Everyone is entitled to self-defense, including Muslims and leftists. The idea that peace activists can't carry weapons shows that Christian conservatives and neocons are not immune to cognitive dissonance, considering that most of them probably believe things like "more guns, less crime" and "an armed society is a polite society," meaning the threat of force can deter violence and preserve peace.

The fact that Christian "conservatives" aren't very conservative when it comes to Israel shouldn't be surprising. Considering that most American conservatives belong to a religion where they worship a Jew in the spiritual world, it makes sense that they would worship Jews also in the material world, in the same way that white liberals worship blacks.

Christianity is a Greater Threat to America Than Islam

The response to Arizona's immigration law by various allegedly conservative Christian sects, such as the Catholic Church and Evangelicals, has shown that modern Christianity is just another one of the forces bent on destroying America. Catholic, Evangelical, and other Christian leaders are united in opposition to this law, which essentially means they supporting America's descent into a Third World cesspool.

Neoconservatives might argue that Islam is a threat because of Islamic terrorism. But the fact is, Islamic terrorism takes place in countries that are fighting against Muslims. The subway bombings in Russia, Spain, and the UK took place because those countries are (or were) engaged in war against Muslims. As for the September 11 attacks, the reason why they occurred is because America entered into the entangling alliances that George Washington warned us of. Islam has a history of forceful expansion, but so what? America is thousands of miles from the Muslim world with oceans in between. Islamic expansion is the Europeans' problem. If Islam is a threat to them, then they should deal with it how they did back when "European" was not synonymous with "sissy," or at the very least not let millions of Muslims immigrate to their countries.

Christianity, on the other hand, is destroying America from the inside. Liberal Christians promote Marxism. Catholicism demands open borders. Evangelical Christians spend their time clamoring for more "aid" for Africa and Haiti.

Catholicism is probably the worst. I regret writing that post last month defending it from liberal criticism. The Catholic Church is at the forefront of the movement to alter the demographic face of America. Predictably, the bishops are complaining about the Arizona anti-illegal immigrant law. The Catholic Church loves Mexican illegal immigrants. It's okay as long as millions of Third World immigrants come here, just as long as they are Catholic. Back in the late Roman Empire, the bishops at least had spines. A lot of people don't know this, but most of the barbarians who invaded the Roman Empire were Christians. Yet, the bishops did not call on the Romans to welcome the invaders simply because they were also Christians. Instead, in many cases, the bishops led the defense of their cities and towns when the Roman legions abandoned them. Back then, the Catholics recognized that just because a group of people shares a religion with you doesn't mean you should let them move into your country.

It's not only the Catholic Church - even Evangelicals are joining in. Evangelical Christianity is a joke. Liberals incessantly bash Evangelicals due to their perceived conservatism, but aside from opposition to gay marriage and abortion, Evangelical Christians are entirely supportive of the liberal agenda. They support environmentalism, feminism (sure, they don't like abortion, but they never blame the women who have abortions), and "diversity." Evangelicals seem to have an obsession with Africa and basically follow the liberal belief that if we just give blacks more money, they will behave. The idea of Evangelical moral superiority is a joke, too. The same people who clamor about how horrible gay marriage is have daughters who go to college and become sluts and sons who pathetically try to mimic black ghetto culture.

Regardless of the reason, Christianity, both the liberal and "conservative" varieties, is killing America. I'd even go as far as to say that the United States would be better if it were predominantly Muslim, rather than filled with the spineless hypocrites who make up the bulk of modern Christianity. At least Muslims are uncompromising in their beliefs and their women don't go out in public dressed like prostitutes. True, Islam does have a tenancy to cause political violence. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, as Thomas Jefferson noted. Most Muslim cities are probably safer than the black Christian inner-cities of the United States, anyways.

Christianity will be America's downfall, due to the fact that the vast majority Christian denominations are either feminized liberal sects or "compassionate conservatives" who do their best to out-liberal the liberals. These short-sighted fools will do more damage to America than a bunch of Muslims halfway across the world ever will.