To Liberals Who Think We Don't Pay Enough Taxes

It's Tax Day in America, which means that for the next several hours we will be treated to articles by pompous liberals who think that "we" (read: middle- and upper-class white people) don't pay enough in taxes; that we should be thankful that the government steals a third of our income to redistribute it to the lumpenproletariat, bankers, the military-industrial complex, Big Business, and foreign dictators; and that they would gladly pay more taxes if only the money would go to social services (sic) rather than war.

Guess what, liberals?  There is a way for you to get your wish of giving more money to the government.  Simply write a check or money order to the United States Treasury and mail it to this address:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

This way you can get your wish of giving more money to bureaucrats who will waste it without forcing the rest of us to do the same.  Of course, I don't really expect any liberals to donate their money to the Gifts of the United States.  Liberals are much more charitable with others' money than with their own.

Incendiary Rhetoric

I find it amusing that the same people who call libertarians and conservatives who oppose Obama "tea baggers" are now complaining about the use of incendiary rhetoric in politics.

Hating the Catholic Church While Loving Islam

If you go to any liberal website, you will find at least one (probably more) article about the revelation that the Vatican protected a molester priest. The Vatican's actions in this case were wrong and what happened to the men when they were teens was horrible, but that is not the reason why they are promoting this story. Plenty of boys and girls are molested by teachers - including female ones - yet liberals pay no attention to that (or they minimize it).

Most of the liberals' articles about this sad case are basically just ways to promote their same old anti-Catholic viewpoints. The Catholic Church is one of the few institutions to oppose abortion, gay marriage, divorce, and supports marriage. According to liberal logic, this church has no place in the post-1960s diversity wonderland that exists today so it must be destroyed. I wouldn't be surprised if liberals eventually try to take the church to court over the fact that women cannot be ordained and find a Christian-hating liberal Jew to rule in their favor. Now, I am not religious, but you don't need to be religious to see that liberals hate the Catholic Church with a passion almost as extreme as their hatred of Sarah Palin.

Contrast this with liberals' views of Islam: they do not criticize it and attack those who do as an Islamophobe, racist, fascist, or the dreaded "wingnut" or claim that by criticizing Islam, they are provoking Muslims. Whenever a liberal actually criticizes Islam, it's always highly watered down and they often spend more time discussing the "oppression" of women in America than they do criticizing the treatment of Muslim women.

The Catholic Church, like it or not, is one of the foundations of Western civilization. Islam has been an enemy of Western civilization since the Muslim armies besieged Byzantine Jerusalem. Since liberals loathe Western civilization, it should be no surprise they love Islam as much as they hate the Catholic Church.

Turning Harmless Pranks into Crimes

It seems that in a New Jersey Wal-Mart, someone used the store's public address system to broadcast: "Attention Wal-Mart customers: All black people leave the store now." Wal-Mart officials are trying to figure out who did it, which is understandable. However, it is not just Wal-Mart investigating:

Washington Township police, with the assistance of the Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office, are investigating the episode as a possible bias crime, said Bernie Weisenfeld, spokesman for the prosecutor's office.

In a saner era, Wal-Mart would find a way to secure its PA system and if the found the perpetrator, they would either discipline them (if an employee) or ban them from returning to the store (if a customer). Now, doing a prank in Wal-Mart is a hate crime if you happen to offend blacks.

Blacks need to grow the fuck up.

The fact is, Wal-Mart is the target of many, many pranks. Youtube has myriad videos (quite literally) of people carrying out every imaginable prank inside Wal-Marts. Outside of YouTube there are thousands of pages about Wal-Mart pranks, such as this one where an ex-employee messes with Wal-Mart on Black Friday. There are plenty of YouTube videos and webpags with pranks that people have done using the Wal-Mart PA system and/or phones. That's what this probably was about. Just some bored guy who wanted to have some fun at Wal-Mart.

Of course, if he gets caught, he can expect to have the book thrown at him. Earlier this month, two Mizzou students scattered cotton balls on the lawn of Mizzou's Black Culture Center as a prank. Instead of the incident being treated like pranks used to be, the two were arrested for the felony of second-degree tampering and the incident was treated as a hate crime.

What's ironic about these situations is that the same blacks and liberals who call for the prosecution of juvenile - but harmless - pranks are the same ones who protested in the thousands when a gang of black thugs brutally beat up a white boy at a high school and were charged with attempted murder. Liberal hypocrisy is in action once more.

"Street Harassment" and Freedom of Speech

Libertarians often make the statement that liberals are right on civil liberties and conservatives are right on economic liberties. The truth, of course, is that conservatives are awful on economic liberties and liberals are horrible on civil liberties. To liberals, racial and gender egalitarian trumps everything, including civil rights and liberties. This is why when a black thug murders people, they call for mercy, but when wealthy white college students are accused of raping a black stripper, they get out the pitchforks and torches.

Despite the fact that liberals are reputed to support freedom of speech, they really support a warped version of it (I refer to it as liberal free-dumb). They believe that freedom of speech means students can disrupt a Tom Tancredo speech or shut down an interstate to whine about budget cuts, but it does not apply whenever someone says something that offends NAMs or feminists. The recent shutdown of the AmRen conference is one example. Now an article has been written by a Huffington Post feminist arguing for legal restrictions on street harassment. For those of you who are unfamiliar with feminist buzzwords, street harassment is when say things, sometimes offensive, to a woman who is dressed sexily in public.

Holly Kearl argues that since sexual harassment is illegal in the workplace, it should be illegal in public. Of course, she fails to explain the legal basis for the illegality of sexual harassment in the workplace. Essentially, the Supreme Court ruled in the 1980s (so much for Kearl's claim that workplace sexual harassment was illegal 19 years before she was born) that sexual harassment constitutes gender discrimination, which is prohibited by the Property Rights and Freedom of Association Destruction Act of 1964 (more commonly called the Civil Rights Act). I do not have a legal background so I do not know why the courts have not struck down the Civil Rights Act as infringing on freedom of speech, but I'm guessing it has to do with the facts that 1) as mentioned above, liberals have a different definition of free speech and 2) it involves businesses, which the courts have allowed the federal government virtually unlimited reign to meddle with since the 1930s.

Anyways, she goes on to praise the Egyptian Parliament's recent passing of a law banning street harassment and suggests that the same happen here. Considering that Egypt has been ruled by the same man since 1981 under a state of emergency, if Egypt passes a law, it's probably a bad idea to pass the same law here. The idea of the federal government banning street harassment reminds me of the South Park episode Cartman's Silly Hate Crime, where Cartman (a 4th grader) throws a rock at a black kid and ends up getting arrested by the FBI and sent to prison (before being pardoned when his friends explain to the governor how hate crime laws are a "savage hypocrisy").

A federal law that banned street harassment would certainly be unconstitutional even with a strict originalist interpretation - it literally bans speech in public places simply because someone finds it offensive (of course, it would also violate the 9th and 10th Amendments, but that's another topic). SCOTUS consistently ruled in favor of an expansive view of freedom of speech. For example, it ruled in the 1970s that it is not constitutional to arrest someone for wearing a jacket reading "Fuck the Draft" into a courthouse, so I really can't see them upholding a law like this. And to enforce this law would simply expand the police state that liberals are so fond of attacking and would undoubtedly lead to the arrest of thousands of young black men. It would be amusing to see liberals' reactions when black men are disproportionately arrested under a street harassment law.

If women want to end street harassment, there's a really good way: don't dress like a slut. The fact is, when a woman wears a short skirt, high heels, and a sleeveless or strapless shirt, she is asking for attention. True, some of these "victims" are professional women dressed for the office, but many of these "professional" women wear only slightly more clothing than women going to nightclubs. Ten or fifteen years ago, professional women wore knee-length skirt-suits or dresses, closed-toed shoes, and hosiery. Now, it seems to be acceptable for "professional" women to go bare legged and wear sandals, short(er) skirts, glorified T-shirts, and even sleeveless shirts.

Yes, I realize I am being politically incorrect and "blaming the victim," but I simply do not care. If women do not want attention, then they should not do their best to attract it.

I find a lot of things that people say offensive, but I don't go around calling for laws to make them shut up. Kearl and other feminists completely miss the point of freedom of speech. The idea of freedom of speech is that people have the right to say things that offend others. If you don't like the fact that a strange man said something about your short skirt, then either insult him back, don't dress like you are trying to attract men's attention if you don't want it, or ignore him and get on with your life like an adult. Feminists wanted wanted to be treated like equals so they should act like it, instead of acting like helpless little girls. Plenty of men have been insulted or harassed by strangers in public, yet you don't see men clamoring for street harassment laws.

However, I really can't blame Kearl for want to ban street harassment. Looking at her picture, it's clear she's never been "street harassed" in her life. She's probably jealous.

EDIT: Fixed a minor error.