Because they were Muslim

Posted on by youraveragetaxpayer

There. I said it. Everyone else is thinking it, and some others are saying it as well, but I want to go on the record as calling it what it is.

The killings in San Bernardino were allegedly perpetrated by Muslims. I didn’t say terrorists. I didn’t say radical Muslims. I didn’t say jihadists. I said they were Muslims. Because, if the police have accurately identified them, it’s true.

I don’t know what their motivation was. And I don’t care. The fact of the matter is, they were Muslims and we should call it what it is rather than withholding information from the American public to ‘keep people from jumping to conclusions’. Hey law enforcement, legislators, civil leaders, media – THAT’S NOT YOUR JOB! Report the facts. Let the American people come to their own conclusions.

The media coverage of this tragedy, like their coverage of all unfolding tragedies in the past several years, is nothing short of deplorable. I don’t want you to sensationalize the facts. I don’t want your opinion on the facts. I don’t want you to speculate on motives or suspects. I don’t trust you to tell me the time of day or current weather conditions. Why in the hell would I trust your jaded opinion on what could possibly have motivated people you have never met to do things that you couldn’t possibly have any knowledge of. If you have a crystal ball, perhaps you should use it to predict and prevent rather than react with speculation.

The fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, the suspects were Muslims, and as a result, the powers that be have decided that they need to withhold information from the American people until they can coordinate a news conference where they parade a series of Muslim community leaders and the brother-in-law of one of the suspects in front of the cameras to ‘express their regret and sorrow’ and offer absolutely nothing of value to the American public.

Why didn’t they wait to identify the psychopath who shot up the abortion clinic last week in Colorado? Why didn’t they take the opportunity to coordinate with Pro-Life groups to express their sorrow and sympathy for the victims? Liberals routinely refer to Pro-Life groups as terrorists. If their hypothesis that identifying the San Bernardino suspects would incite potential violence against innocent, lawful, non-violent Muslims, then doesn’t it also hold true that identifying Robert Dear without performing damage control is tentamount to inciting violence against innocent, lawful, non-violent Pro-Life supporters? The only difference is, the current administration and most media outlets are more concerned with members of the Muslim community (American or otherwise) than they are with Pro-Life supporters.

To law enforcement, media and legislators – Don’t do damage control. Not for Robert Dear or Nidal Hasan or the Tsarnaev brothers or Ted Kaczynski or Syed Farook. Some people will undoubtedly jump to the conclusion that all groups who look, sound, dress, eat, pray, etc… like the suspects are somehow affiliated with the suspects. Guess what. Waiting didn’t change that. Parading poorly prepared Muslim community leaders in front of the cameras to deliver properly worded condolences that were backed up with a refusal to answer even the most basic questions didn’t help. If anything, it hurt.

To the Muslim community leaders who offered your condolences – Thank you. I believe that you stand in solidarity with all of America. I believe that you are as offended as I am. I appreciate your words and I appreciate your role in our communities. But the brevity of your remarks and refusal to take any questions made your comments look less than sincere. I can’t imagine how I could have handled it any better in the format that your remarks were delivered. I know it’s an active investigation, but refusing to answer general questions was a black eye on what should have been a simple and sincere message of disgust with the actions and solidarity with the community.

To those who believe that political correctness is more important than free speech – I wish I could offer my apologies for offending you, but I can’t. And if I could, I probably wouldn’t. I’m not sorry for calling it what it is and I won’t stop. Oh yeah, and – Merry Christmas!

To those who may eventually read this post – Comment. Give me your thoughts. Challenge me. Support me. Teach me a better way. You never know. Maybe I’ll listen.

Until then, ask yourself:

  1. Why law enforcement is handling this case so delicately compared to other recent shootings?
  2. Why ALL of the major media outlets whose coverage I watched were complicit with the delicate handling?
  3. Why community leaders were standing by with comments almost simultaneous with the release of the name of the first suspect?

I can only think of one reason for all of the above: Because they were Muslim.

Because Republicans hate poor people

Posted on by youraveragetaxpayer

Why do people believe that Republicans are all ‘rich’ and that they have a ‘War on the poor and middle class’?

Granted, the Republican party have their fair share (and maybe more than their fair share) of rich people, but the title of ‘rich’ can hardly be reserved for members of the Republican party.

I won’t name names, but it doesn’t take much research to find that the list of Democrats who can be classified as ‘rich people’ is quite an extensive list indeed.

Still, Republicans, regardless of their wealth, are more often than not, cast not just as ‘rich’, but ‘evil rich’. Mind you, the addition of the word ‘evil’ has little to do with the size of their bankroll, and a lot more to do with how they want to horde it.

There seems to be a general consensus that Republicans want nothing more than to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

I would try to delve into that even further, but the truth of the matter is, I’ve written the entire idea off as pure demagoguery and could hardly debate it without breaking the only two rules of this blog.

So I want to invite you to look at it from a different perspective…

I’ll start off by making a few assumptions (each of which I’m sure will be debated hotly if anyone ever reads this post).

  1. Republicans, in general, are for lower taxes and smaller government
  2. Democrats, in general, are in favor of more government oversight and using more of the available tax dollars (notice I didn’t say higher taxes) to help those who they see as needing the help the most

Let’s start by analyzing the first assumption a little:

If it’s true that Republicans, in general, want lower taxes and smaller government, then ask yourself: Why?

The only reason I can come up with for the argument of lower taxes is that they, Republicans, feel that they pay a lot of taxes, and get very little in return for the money that they are spending.

It’s true, to an extent. Take for example the breakdown of how tax dollars are spent provided by the White House for 2014 tax revenue: Your 2014 Taxpayer Receipt.

  1. 23.58% of your tax dollars are spent on Medicaid and Medicare programs.
  2. 12.69% of your tax dollars are spent on Food Stamps, Earned Income Credit, Housing subsidies, Child Care subsidies and temporary assistance for needy families
  3. 9.07% on Interest – INTEREST on loans that the government has taken to support more spending
  4. 3.42% on ‘Additional Government Programs’

That’s 48.56% of their tax dollars being spent on programs that they, very likely, are not getting much of a return on.

They claim that, lower taxes and lower government spending puts the money back into the hands of the people who create jobs in this country. (Another comment that will surely spark some debate)

As for smaller government, well, that’s easy. Whether or not you buy into the ‘evil rich people’ ideology, it’s hard to argue with people who believe smaller government = less oversight = more corner cutting = saving more money. Though, as a small business owner, I don’t actually believe that every company is out to screw their consumers with substandard product.

It’s easy to see how those ‘evil rich people’ could, and undoubtedly do lobby for smaller government so that they can save some money. But again, a little bit of research can show how members of both parties ‘work’ with businesses to reduce government oversight when it is mutually beneficial to them. Typically in the form of kickbacks and campaign contributions I’m sure.

I think we can all agree – I’ve laid out a good argument why the Republicans can be subcategorized ‘evil rich’ and not just by ‘rich’ alone.

So what motivates the Democrats to fight the good fight? These compassionate, caring, do-gooders whose only purpose in life is to; defend the defenseless, help the helpless and stand tall for all of humanity – except for those ‘evil rich people’ of course.

Who could possibly find fault in their selfless giving?

The very fact that they donate all of their time, energy and money to the cause is evident by the fact that they are all poor people themselves. I know, I know. They’re not ALL poor. Hell, some of them may even have more money than some of those ‘evil rich people’. For God’s sake, considering all that they do for us, I would think that the very least we can do is allow them to make a living wage. And perhaps have a little bit in savings. Or in some cases, a lot.

Nevertheless, they are do-gooders. Right?

They fight for poor people. Right?

They have no motivation to keep poor people poor. Right?

The fact of the matter is, if more people in this country were ‘rich’, then more people would pay taxes. And if more people paid taxes, more people would care about how those tax dollars are being spent. I dare say, if more people paid taxes, then fewer people would need assistance and we could reduce the amount of money that we spend on public assistance.

But, if we increased the number of people contributing to the tax coffers. If we reduced the number of people in need of government assistance. If we had more ‘rich’ people…

In fact, if every poor person in this country suddenly became rich tomorrow, what would these selfless givers have to fight for?

In summary, I think it’s true that Republicans want to keep more of their money as opposed to ‘investing’ in government programs that they get very little, or no return on. I think it’s true that Republicans hate that there are so many poor people in this country. I think it’s true that Republicans (and Democrats) take kickbacks and campaign contributions for people and companies who they give special favors to in their official capacity.

I also think it’s true that the Republicans gain absolutely nothing by keeping the poor poor. Or worse yet, making them poorer.

I think it’s true that if we just get one poor person off of public assistance, that we reduce the amount of money needed for public assistance programs – which in turn reduces the amount of money that those ‘evil rich people’ have to pay toward programs that they receive no benefit from. And if you expand that out, the more poor people who become less poor, the less money that Republicans and Democrats alike have to spend on supporting poor people.

On the contrary, while Republicans risk giving up even more of their money when the poor get poorer, the Democrats risk very little.

As long as there are helpless, defenseless, starving people in the world, the Democrats can continue to justify their highly lucrative positions (let’s face it, it goes well beyond salary) in our government and society. As long as there are people who NEED the government to help them with their bare necessities, there will be a need for Democrats to selflessly give them other peoples money.

So which do you prefer? As it sits, I think there is a need for both. As long as there are poor people who can’t afford to feed and house themselves, we will need government programs to help them. But my vote and my money will always go to the people have a real reason to solve the problems as opposed to those who stand to lose everything if the problems are resolved.

If you’ve gotten to this point, there is no turning back. You’ve invested a good amount of time reading my rantings. Why not share your thoughts and add to it?

Because my wife won’t let me have these discussions in person…

Posted on by youraveragetaxpayer

What better way to start off THIS blog than to reiterate what is said in the title… I love this country. But this country is like a family. And, if you are like me, there are things about your family that you love, and there are things about your family that you, shall we say – love less.

But, just like a family, no matter how much we love it as a whole, there always seems to be someone, a cousin, a brother, a long lost drunk uncle – intent on taking the family down in a most dramatic and always increasingly more embarrassing fashion.

It’s nothing short of heartbreaking to watch as everything that has made America the greatest nation on Earth is systematically taken apart at the seams.

Let’s be clear, I created this blog because I want a place to vent. To share all of my rants and raves about what I perceive as the things that we, as a country, are doing wrong. But I also created it as a place where I can remind myself, and hopefully have others help remind me, of all the things that continue to make America the greatest nation on this planet.

And with that, I invite others to participate in this blog for the same purpose. I ask that, as you contribute, be thoughtful of those who share a different opinion. I only have 2 simple rules here:

  1. Do NOT post for the sole purpose of promoting hate to my country or any group who belongs to it.
  2. Do NOT lob personal attacks. Plain and simple. Attack a person or groups ideology, but don’t attack the person or group.

While I refuse to edit for the sake of political correctness, I won’t hesitate to stop/block/delete posts/contributors that break these rules – whether I agree with post/contributor or not.

The intent is to provide a place where people can provoke thoughtful dialogue. Sometimes, the posts will simply piss people off. If you are offended by a post, let me know and I will evaluate whether or not the post adds value in advancing the discussion and determine the right course of action. Either way, I will always post why I did, or did NOT take corrective action.

While I consider myself to be a conservative, I am not an ultra conservative right wing extremist and I don’t agree with a lot of the positions that people who can be categorized into that group espouse. But I won’t censor their posts as long as they follow the simple rules listed above.

To my more liberal cousins. This blog would not be able to achieve the goals that I have for it (and trust me, they are not lofty goals) if we didn’t hear from you.

While I probably won’t agree with your position on a lot of topics, I will respect your opinions, but I won’t go easy on you and I don’t expect you to go easy on me.

As the title of this post indicates, my wife all but forbids me to discuss politics with anyone other than her. I’m sure you’ll learn the reason for that in short order. I will almost certainly offend you – whether you are one of my conservative or liberal cousins.

That’s not the intent, but it will most assuredly happen. Don’t take offense. It’s not personal. I believe this is an important part of how I will grow, form my opinions on topics where I have none (I’ll warn you now, there are few), and alter my opinions on topics where I do. If you take offense at a post or topic – debate it. Post your feelings on the subject so we can all learn from it. If you see something you disagree with and you don’t debate it, you’re accepting it.

I can’t tell you how much I look forward to these debates.

Happy blogging!