As I write this in October of 2017, I hate to admit that I know several people who are living what I call “undocumented marriages”.
It works like this. A man and a woman meet, fall in love, and get engaged. They tell everyone they’re getting married. They have engagement parties. They set a date for their wedding . . . but they never really intend to get married. Some of them wear wedding rings. Many of them don’t care what others think and don’t wear them.
Here’s why. They can get a lot more welfare handouts if they’re not married. A common pattern is the man makes a good amount of money. Whether he’s blue collar or white collar. Whether he has a GED or a PhD. Whether he’s an independent consultant or a company man. He makes too much money for his family to qualify for big gov’t handouts if he and his woman tie the knot.
By not legally getting married, he can make the money, buy the house, buy the new cars, etc. She, by not being married, and unemployed or underemployed, can rake in the welfare while still enjoying the fruits of his labor.
These people are brilliant. Royal a$$holes, but brilliant. They are playing the system and and they are coming out winners.
They live like husband and wife in their private lives. They share a home. They have children together. She uses a “married” name for everything but legal purposes. However, in the eyes of the government, he’s not her husband. He’s her landlord and the gov’t is helping to pay her rent (to him). They have kids but, because she’s unemployed and single, she gladly welcomes the handouts through WIC, free or subsidized child care, free school meals, etc. As a single parent, even though she’s actually living with the father of her children, she can usually get free or subsidized college for herself or her children. She gets taxpayer subsidized gov’t health insurance because she’s poverty stricken in the eyes of the gov’t. She usually has little or no income. She files for EITCs every year and they take a nice vacation when the check arrives.
Like I said. It’s brilliant. Annoying as hell to us taxpayers, but brilliant.
I wish I was kidding. I’m not. I (unfortunately) know several couples living this way (including some extended family). The stigma of “out of wedlock” children is gone. There is no societal compulsion to actually make their marriage legal. Several of the couples have openly discussed their decision to have an “undocumented marriage” and have zero guilt or remorse, or see any ethical dilemma. When I’ve questioned the fairness of what they’re doing, meaning expecting people like me to pay for their existence when they can do it themselves, they confidently say there’s nothing wrong with it. I’ve looked into it. I can’t find any evidence that it’s illegal to do this. If you can, let me know.
20+ years ago, I was deciding on which law school I wanted to attend so my husband and I went to visit a few of them. Financial aid was a big deal for me. At every school, in addition to meeting the Dean of Admissions and getting a tour, I spoke with a financial aid counselor. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth so I was paying for all of it. I needed to know my options. I will never forget what one of the financial aid counselors told me.
Unfortunately, I was planning to go to law school as a married person. That meant I was screwed in the financial aid arena. My husband would work while I went to law school. He didn’t make much, but it was enough to make me unqualified for any grants or other types of help. She apologized and gave me the same recommendation she gave to all of her married applicants, “GET A DIVORCE”. By getting a divorce, I would be going to law school as an unmarried, unemployed woman. I would have a ton of handouts coming my way. I asked her if that was ethical. She said it didn’t matter. It was legal. Then, she said, we could live together the entire time and we could get remarried after I was out of school. She said we didn’t need to even make a big deal about it. Just quietly file for divorce, I wouldn’t need to tell my family or friends, then have a simple marriage after three years of school. Nobody would need to know I was unmarried. I could still let everyone think we were married. It would just be so I could get all the gov’t handouts.
Needless to say, just because it was “legal” didn’t mean it was ethical and I walked out of that office incredibly mad and I scratched that school off the list. I ended up at another school. I ended up staying married. I ended up taking out loans instead of taking gov’t handouts. To this day it still makes me mad to know so many people take advantage of the system with this “undocumented marriage” trick.
So, tell me, what should we do to fix this problem? Can it be fixed?
Imagine it’s November of 2016. Everyone who can legally vote is given the opportunity to go to a restaurant and pick one sandwich. The sandwich that the most people order is the one everyone will be forced to eat for 4 years.
You do not need to go to a restaurant. You can decide to stay home. But, if you do, you have no input into the sandwich everyone will be forced to eat.
Instead, let’s assume you decide to go to the restaurant. On the menu the are only two options:
- A Turd Burger with Sprinkles and a Side of Rainbow Unicorn Farts.
- A Great Cheezy Burger with a Side of Rainbow Skittles.
That’s it. Two options.
Now, if you don’t want a turd burger or a cheezy burger, you can cop an attitude and insist on ordering a Cruz Burger, a Bernie Burger, a Carson Burger, or any other burger. However, if you chose a burger not on the menu, you have zero chance of your non-menu burger winning. Even if a bunch of other people also order the same non-menu burger; you can ask for it, but it will never be served. I promise you. Even if a bunch of people order it, there will never be enough orders because too many people will only pick between the two burgers on the menu.
You can also go on a hunger strike and refuse to pick off the menu and decide to order nothing. It’s your prerogative to decide to pick nothing. However, when the winning burger is served, you’ll still be forced to eat it. For four long years.
On the other hand, you can pick one of the two menu choices. You can still be completely disappointed that your favorite burger isn’t on the menu. You can still complain that the burgers on the menu have the wrong bun, a crappy side dish, and lackluster condiments. You can still lament the two choices. You don’t have to be thrilled about it. You just need to make sure your order is counted for the burger you’ll have to eat for four years.
I get it. But like it or not, there are two options. If restaurants really operated as described above, they’d all go out of business. Unfortunately, our political system currently works that way and it’s not going out of business any time soon.
As far as I’m concerned, although I think other burgers would have been better, I have to pick the more palatable sandwich. Although four years of a Great Cheezy Burger isn’t my dream option; I’d rather have four years of cheezy instead of four years of Turd Burgers with Sprinkles and a Side of Rainbow Unicorn Farts.
Think about it. Order wisely.
I posted a comment on a friend’s FB page and I thought I’d replicate it here and add a few more comments.
“We are facing four years of chaos or four years of Marxism. You are 100% correct. We have a chance of surviving chaos. We have no chance of surviving Marxism. The election is about salvaging the few existing freedoms we still have and recovering the freedoms the overreaching government has taken away. With Hillary we lose the chance of ever returning to the country our founders envisioned where the gov’t was beholden to the individual . . . not the other way around. Liberals think the gov’t needs to protect us from ourselves and the manipulative corporations. Liberals don’t stop to realize the gov’t is, by far, the largest and most manipulative corporation of all time. It’s quite sad, really. I am one of the “hold my nose and vote” individuals. I did not select Trump while standing in a voting booth during the primary. However, I will vote for the individual most likely to prevent Hillary from ascending to the throne. If she stacks the Supreme Court, it’s game over. Game. Over.”
I truly feel this way. I can’t comprehend the GOP individuals who are so offended with Trump they are voicing their support for Hillary. I can understand stating that you will not be voting because you have no confidence in Trump. I can understand stating that you will be voting for the person you wanted in the primary, e.g. Cruz, Fiorina, Carson. I can understand you saying you will be voting for another party’s candidate, such as Libertarian, Constitutional, etc. What I cannot fathom is a GOP person voting for Hillary. Unless . . . they are just another cog in the machinations of the progressive elite. And, honestly, that just might be the case.
See, a whole lot of us are pretty sick and tired of seeing the GOP (allegedly a pro-freedom, pro-individual responsibility, pro-smaller government) party frequently align with the liberal, progressive, pro-socialism, closet-commie left. I know the media is Hillary’s lap dog. But we don’t expect the GOP to be there, too. Hell, if I thought I might be at risk of having myself or my family join the ranks of the conveniently dead people around the Clintons . . . I might be swayed myself. However, I like to think I’d take the higher ground and do the right thing. Too many in the GOP are showing their liberal slips. Too many in the GOP don’t do the right thing.
I have been a conservative since I was young. I did not get swayed by the liberal bastions known as college and law school – although the pressure to adopt liberal ideals was overwhelming in both environments. I quickly learned the difference between earning an A and a C in Constitutional Law classes was answering the questions from the perspective of a communist – the uber-left professor preferred it that way regardless of his insistence otherwise. I have not faltered. I took the lower grade by standing my Constitutional ground. It was quite sad to watch it happen. So, while I have not faltered; the GOP has. GOP leadership, GOP politicians, and GOP pundits have. All of them.
Like it or not, Trump is our option. If you think someone else – honestly – has the chance of beating Hillary, let me know who they are. Because I will seriously consider giving them my vote. Until then, it’s chaos or Marxism. I’ll take the chaos.
I’ve noticed a growing trend in public schools. It’s no longer politically correct to have any type of honor society or honor roll. It all stems from the “everyone gets a trophy” mentality crafted by a pathetic society that is more concerned about people feeling left out than recognizing anything that dares to look like “exceptionalism”. There’s one article that’s getting a lot of attention these days, but I’ve been aware of this trend for a few years. I call bullsh*t on this trend.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out the students who achieved good grades. I’m not saying this because I was a member of any national honor group nor am I saying this because I was a frequent flyer on the honor roll. I was never in any formal society and my presence on the honor roll was occasional. I didn’t get to wear a special tassel at graduation . . . maybe I should demand a do-over. Nah, I’d never do that. I’m not an idiot.
I’m saying this because there’s nothing wrong with recognizing people who do well. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out the students who worked extra hard. There’s nothing worrisome about applauding intelligence. There’s nothing offensive about lauding good grades. There’s nothing obnoxious about rewarding the students who sacrificed other things to do well in class.
I have two kids. The overachiever and the underachiever.
My daughter is a textbook overachiever. She is an extraordinarily diligent student. She does all of her homework without being asked, she studies for tests (more than once), she throws herself into research assignments, she writes papers again and again until they are just right, she pays attention in class, she is self motivated to study beyond what is required, she reads instead of goofing off, she is an exemplary student. She does everything she needs to do to do well in school. She is on the honor roll. She earned every single one of her grades. She earned her place on the honor roll.
My son is a textbook underachiever. I’m not saying that he isn’t smart. He’s incredibly intelligent and has a creative streak his sister doesn’t have. In a side by side comparison, you’d be hard pressed to figure out which one is “smarter” than the other. What is easy to see is he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about school. He regularly “forgets” to bring home homework assignments, he often refuses to do his homework, he almost never studies for tests, he is often distracted in class – preferring to wage wars inside his desk with pencil erasers and other items, he hates school and has no interest in studying, he only reads if we threaten to take away electronic devices, he is a terrible student. He does very little he needs to do to do well in school. He is not on the honor roll. We celebrated a small victory today when we saw his report card included a recommendation that he be promoted to the next grade (his father and I were seriously concerned). He also earned every single one of his grades. He did not earn a place on the honor roll.
In the anti-exceptionalism world of liberals who demand equal outcomes for everyone, my daughter’s hard work and achievements would be ignored. They would be ignored because the educators wouldn’t want someone like my son to feel bad about not receiving the same honor.
Here’s where I want you to pay close attention. Seriously, lean in a little closer. I want to make sure you hear what I have to say.
HE DOESN’T DESERVE TO BE ON THE HONOR ROLL. And I’m OK with that.
SHE DOES DESERVE TO BE ON THE HONOR ROLL. And I’m OK with that.
I am perfectly OK with him not getting a trophy. He doesn’t deserve it. He didn’t earn it.
I am perfectly OK with him feeling left out. If he wants to feel differently, he can make the necessary changes to achieve the honor.
Let those deserving honoring be honored.
It’s time to go back to giving recognition only to those that deserve it.
When I think of Democrats at Christmas, I usually think of Scrooge. The Scrooge before he realized the error of his ways. Greedy, money-hungry, selfish. Bah humbug.
But even Democrats celebrate Christmas. Or whatever version of Christmas they find acceptable. I’m sure there are a bunch of liberal Atheists who think Mary (being young and not needing to be burdened with a child) should have stopped by her local Planned Parenthood (or whatever they called them back then) and taken care of the problem.
A few years ago, I decided to give “Deck the Halls” some new words. Words well suited for our friends of liberal persuasion. A song they can proudly sing at the top of their lungs. With gusto. I usually try to make songs rhyme when doing parodies. However, liberals never like to follow the rules and do the right thing . . . so this doesn’t rhyme.
I thought I’d share.
The list of offensive aspects of the White House Correspondence Dinner (#WHCD) is long. It’s the D.C. version of the Hollywood celebrity award shows. And based upon some of the pictures I saw, it’s just as vapid. Look at the list of invitees and it’s more about celebrities than journalism. It gives important people (or self-important as the case may be) an opportunity to gather together, wear very expensive clothes, and give awards to each other. Give me enough time and a nice cup of coffee and I’ll gladly share my thoughts on what all bugs me about those events.
I had a late dinner at a restaurant last night and I caught snippets of the live coverage on one of their TVs. I originally thought the woman who sat there looking at her cell phone while the National Anthem was being played to be the most patently offensive thing about the event. I’m glad a camera operator focused on her. Then again, he probably lost his job this morning. I hope all of America was as disheartened as I was at the sight of a woman on her phone. If the need to be on her phone wasn’t an emergency, and by that I mean life and limb instead of a hot news lead, her behavior was unacceptable.
I didn’t discover the thing I now find most offensive until after it was over, when I arrived home and stopped to read the Twitter feed for #WHCD and watched the news.
What do I now find to be the most offensive thing? The obsession with Michelle Obama’s hair. I’m no fan of Michelle, but I can’t believe a political party of self-proclaimed “feminists” would go so gaga over a woman’s hair style.
I thought her hair looked nice. Then again, it’s normal to find nice hair on any spouse of a world leader when attending a formal event. A pony tail and a baseball cap just wouldn’t have been appropriate. Even though I thought her hair looked nice, it’s just hair.
But don’t expect the same attitude from liberal women. For a bunch of ladies who demand judgment based upon their insides instead of their outsides, there is a hell of a lot of hubbub and hysteria over her “big and curly” look.
Type “michelle obama hair white house correspondents dinner 2015” into Google and you get over 17 million results. Seriously, folks? Seventeen MILLION?
It’s insane. Liberal women are asking if big curly hair is now back in style since Michelle wore it. Liberal women are saying Michelle was brave to take a risk with her hair. (Seriously? Selecting a hair style is an act of bravery?) Liberal women are wondering if it’s now OK to wear big curls gain. Web sites are saying to expect to see women with Michelle’s hair style at the office by Monday! Where the hell are all the feminists? Articles on web sites are calling her a “wonder woman” and saying she is “utter perfection” – because of her hair. Seriously, where are the feminists shooting down this appearance-based slobbering?
Here’s my response:
Dear liberal women: You do not need to wait for Michelle Obama to wear a certain hair style in order to wear it yourself. You are a woman. You can wear your hair any damn way you please. You do not need permission from an inhabitant of the white house. I can’t believe you’re asking if it’s now ok to wear “big and curly” hair. If you feel you need someone else to approve of hair styles . . . you are pathetic. This is what’s wrong with you liberal women. You say you’re independent then you look to someone in government, fashion, or entertainment to give you permission to look a certain way. Where are your feminists? I’m sure they’re out there, they’re just drowing in a sea of headlines proclaiming things like “Everyone’s in Love With The First Lady’s New Curls!” and “Michelle Obama Dons Curly Hair” and “Michelle Obama Looks Fierce”. What is wrong with you people? A nice hair style is not the final piece of being a real world “wonder woman” and it does not contribute to being “utter perfection”. You liberal women stay on your side of the fence and keep drooling over a hair style I bet was created by a stylist only affordable by the rich and famous. You liberal women stay on your side of the fence and keep asking if you can now wear your hair a certain way because the first lady donned it for an event. You liberal women stay on your side of the fence where you accuse conservatives of waging a war on women when you liberals obsess over what a woman wears on her head. I’ll stay over here on the conservative side of the fence where women don’t need permission or inspiration from politicians and celebrities to decide how to wear our hair. I’ll stay over here on the conservative side of the fence where women can acknowledge Michelle looked nice last night and leave it at that. Love, Me
After watching a few videos of Obama speaking about ISIS/ISIL and their unthinkable acts; it finally struck me. Obama is acting like a battered woman. (Or battered man, as the case may be when it comes to domestic violence.) We most often think in terms of battered women so, and in honor of Obama’s mom jeans, that’s the term I selected.
After graduating from law school, prior to my decision to get the hell out of the profession as a full time job, I strongly considered working as an attorney for groups providing services for battered women. One of the organizations put me through several interviews. For the final interview, I was to meet with the person who ran the program. As I entered her office, she greeted me and told me she had heard great things about me from my previous interviews with her staff. After a while, I figured the job was a done deal. Then, she asked me one more question.
Now, I don’t remember the specific words she used so I can’t give an exact quote; however, I can give you a version of the question that is very close to the original. Here’s what she said to me: “Imagine you are working with a women who has been the victim of domestic abuse several times. You have assisted her in obtaining a PFA order and she is now living in a secure shelter with her two kids. Several times, her injuries were so bad, she was in the ICU for several days. Every time she was injured, she returned home to her abuser. Except for the last time. She is now safe at a location where her abuser can not find her. Her children are safe and are comfortable in their temporary home where they play with other children of abuse victims. The organization has helped the woman get a job and she is saving her money to move into an apartment on her own.”
The question isn’t finished, but as she’s talking I’m listening intently and nodding my understanding. I’m waiting patiently for the actual question. Here’s the actual question she finally poses: “The woman calls you, after all of the help you have provided, and tells you she wants to return to her abuser. What do you do?”
My independent, individual-responsibility, make smart decisions, don’t be a fool mind knew just what I’d do. My answer was that I’d ask her why she wanted to return and then try to give her reasons as to why she might want to change her mind. I didn’t get the job. The woman stopped me right there and told me my answer was unacceptable. The correct answer was to give her 100% support for her decision to return. My jaw dropped. I asked for an explanation as to why. Her response was, it was more important to keep the woman’s trust by providing non-judgmental, 100% support for her decision than to try to save her life.
The woman then went on to explain that these women are so damaged, they can’t see their abuser for what they are. They think their abusers love them. They think things will be different this time. They think their abuser’s actions are because of something they (the victim) did wrong. They blame themselves for their abuser’s actions. In other words, they can’t think rationally. They can’t begin to fathom that something might actually be wrong with their abuser. They don’t see how people find fault with what their abusers do.
That’s not to say every victim of domestic abuse thinks that way, but my interviewer said it was seen often enough to be the default assumption on their part. The woman made her point and I respected it. She had more experience than I did; but, I still couldn’t see it her way. I could completely understand how repeated abuse could change a person and how they perceive their world and create their own reality. It was one of the reasons I wanted to help women regain their independence. However, it still didn’t change my mind about how I’d respond. Obviously, it wasn’t the job for me. I couldn’t, in good conscience, encourage a woman to return to that environment and take her children with her.
The more I think about it, the more I think Obama is acting like one of those victims of abuse. He can’t see ISIS for what they are. He thinks ISIS loves him. He thinks ISIS will act differently this time. He thinks ISIS’s actions are because of something the USA did wrong. Obama blames us for how ISIS is acting. He can’t think rationally. He can’t appreciate that the problem is with ISIS. Not with us.
One thing you see with many abuse victims is how they blame themselves and their imperfections for the actions of their abuser. The victim rationalizes things. The victim makes excuses for their abuser. The victim grow to believe their own imperfections are the reason for the abuse. But just as with abuse victims, even if we Americans aren’t perfect, that’s no excuse for ISIS to do the things it does.
If you haven’t heard, Columbus Day is no longer politically correct. Instead of schools using the holiday to teach kids about EXPLORATION, they are using it to teach kids about EXPLOITATION. According to the video my daughter was assigned to watch at home, Columbus was a selfish, greedy, money-driven, privileged, white-skinned killer who only wanted to make a fast buck by abusing his connections to European power and murdering dark-skinned indigenous American peoples. Being of both European and Indigenous American descent, I am not taking sides on this. I can see it from both directions. Personally, I don’t have a problem with Columbus Day.
That said, in order to facilitate the eventual departure from all politically incorrect holidays, I suggest we just get on with it and change everything immediately. Here are my recommendations:
New Year’s Day: This is politically incorrect because not all cultures consider January 1 to be the first of the new year. In fact, the entire 12-month calendar we use is politically incorrect because not all cultures use it. I suggest we just end this holiday entirely and return all peoples to to the use of myriad calendars. There are lots to pick from so let’s not pick any one calendar over any other because that would be offensive to some subset of the human race. Let the Jews use their own calendar. Let the Chinese use their own calendar. Let the Muslims use their own calendar. And in the interest of reparations for past calendar discrimination, I vote we resurrect the use of all obsolete calendars. I’m sure there are people just itching to use an Egyptian, Aztec, or Roman calendar.
And don’t worry if a particular calendar isn’t accurate by modern standards. If I’ve learned anything from my children’s new Common Core-based homework, it’s that things no longer need to be correct. They just need to be “reasonable”. I’m sure all of the 75 or so current, obsolete, and proposed calendars I was able to find through Google have something “reasonable” to offer. If nothing else, I’m sure the people at Microsoft are looking for a challenge. I can’t wait to see how they modify their Outlook product to handle all of these calendars. Scheduling meetings will be half-day adventure. Woo hoo! Viva political correctness.
Martin Luther King, Day: I don’t have a problem with this day because the guy was a Republican and that pisses off liberals when they learn of that little tidbit of information. Wait, I do have a problem with this holiday. While he did do things lots of people appreciate, he was just another American fighting for what he thought was right. We can’t go around giving holidays to all the people who fight for what they think is right. We can’t go around giving holidays to all the people who did great things. We’d run out of days on the calendar and nobody would ever go to work. What about Ben Franklin, Rosa Parks, Thomas Paine, Susan B Anthony, Thomas Edison, General Patton, Elvis Presley, etc. I think you get my point. There are too many people to recognize. Let’s outlaw all holidays designed to honor and celebrate any single American. It’s offensive to the ones who don’t get their own holiday or to the people for whom their favorite person does not get a holiday. I think I’m pretty special. I want my own holiday. See? I just offended someone with that idea.
Groundhog Day: Let’s just end this blatant display of materialism and chicanery. This is nothing but a ploy to bring tourists and media to a small town in western Pennsylvania. Who in their right mind believes the groundhog “sees” a shadow? Besides, the whole thing is oppressive. The “Inner Circle” is a bunch of old white MALE “dignitaries” standing around in top hats exploiting a rodent for their own personal profit. I seriously don’t see how this can be allowed to go on for one more year. It’s despicable. Where is the feminist and environmentalist outrage?
Valentine’s Day: What can I say here? It’s offensive on so many levels. For starters, it celebrates Christianity. This was originally the Feast of Saint Valentine. That’s a deal breaker right there. Christianity is inherently politically incorrect. I could stop right here. But let’s continue. A historical symbol of Valentine’s Day is Cupid, the Roman god of desire, erotic love, attraction and affection. Surely that offends Christians to know a Roman god is a key figure for their feast day. Plus, let’s be honest here, a winged infant is definitely indicative of some form child abuse. Someone better call Child Protective Services. Also, this holiday is offensive to all single people and people not in a romantic relationship. Whether they are single by choice or single because they are annoying or single because they just haven’t met their true love . . . it’s detrimental to their self esteem to be excluded by a holiday. Last, but not least, the pro-capitalism, materialism is offensive. All that money spent on cards, flowers, dinners, and jewelry should be given to the government so they can spend it on important things like giving it to our enemies in foreign countries.
Presidents’ Day: This is an easy one to end. I find the idea of celebrating a holiday that celebrates the likes of Obama to be offensive. I know liberals find the idea of celebrating a holiday that celebrates the likes of Bush to be offensive. Done. Remember all those mentally frail individuals who suffer mental anguish after Presidential elections? Some of whom actually seek medical treatment and/or sue? Let’s just save them the agony and not have them relive those moments.
Mardi Gras: It’s related to Christianity. It’s politically incorrect. Let’s move on.
St. Patrick’s Day: Yet another holiday linked to Christianity. Ergo, politically incorrect by default. Plus, it appears to celebrate a single pale-skinned ,European group of peoples. That’s also politically incorrect and offensive to everyone who is not Irish. Additionally, many individuals who celebrate do so with drinking beer. Too much drink can lead to questionable behavior and someone might be offended by what someone says or does. Because someone might be offended, we might as well cancel this holiday right now. No need to take risks.
April Fool’s Day: I suggest we keep this one. It’s a great day for Obama supporters to celebrate themselves.
Easter: Considered by many to be the most holy of Christian holidays. Totally offensive just because of that. As the Atheists ask, “why do you people insist on celebrating a fairy tale?” Plus, the pagans are still pissed off because Christians stole the Oester name from the Norse peoples. I’m sure Michelle Obama would love to see an end of all the chocolate bunnies, sugary peeps, and jelly beans (if for no reason other than Ronald Reagan liked them). It doesn’t take a village to raise a child these days, it takes an oppressive and intrusive government. I’m sure the artificial grass pisses off the environmentalists, too. I bet it takes forever to degrade.
Earth Day: We need to keep this one because how can saving the earth possibly be offensive to anyone? Oh, yeah, it offends me when they take away my incandescent bulbs and want them replaced with toxic fluorescent bulbs that make my eyes feel wonky. It also offends me when they take my hard earned tax dollars and give them to some fly by night “green” energy company with friends in high places. However, my opinion doesn’t matter because I’m a fiscally conservative, social libertarian. I’m not a progressive or a socialist or a communist so I’m not allowed to have an opinion on environmental issues. In fact, because I am a “climate change denier”; many liberals think I need to be put in jail or at least sent to a reeducation camp. (I’m not kidding.)
Mother’s Day: There are people with crappy mothers. This day makes them feel depressed. This day offends them. Time to outlaw it.
Memorial Day: This day celebrates people who died fighting to further the western ideals of freedom. So, it’s totally offensive to so many people. This day celebrates people who died fighting against the exact type of socialism and communism our current day liberals are fighting so hard to expand in the USA. So, it’s totally offensive to so many people. Definitely needs to be ended. Liberals consider this a celebration of pure oppression and exploitation and hatred for other peoples. I know several liberals who use this day to berate the “US war machine”. I can’t believe liberals still allow this to be considered a holiday.
Father’s Day: See, Mother’s Day, above. This is even more offensive due to the large number of kids growing up without a father. Instead of fixing that problem, let’s just outlaw this holiday because we don’t want so many kids feeling excluded.
Independence Day: Perhaps the most offensive non-Christian holiday on the calendar. A holiday that celebrates exceptionalism, patriotism, and freedom. Liberals would rather this be changed to “Dependence Day” in honor of all the entitlement programs, multi-generation welfare families, and government employee unions. Instead of “God Bless America” the tag line will now be “God Damn America” in honor of Obama’s pastor. American flags are now considered offensive and politically incorrect. Better to change it to a hammer and sickle before someone’s feelings get hurt.
Labor Day: Liberals love this celebration of socialism, communism, and unions. We’ll never get rid of this day. Ever.
Halloween: I know a lot of Christians who have already outlawed this celebration at their houses. They consider it a gateway to the occult. Personally, I love Halloween. Then again, this holiday has links to Christianity. It is the start of Allhallowtide. We better outlaw it, just to be safe. We don’t want to offend anyone. Christianity is totally politically incorrect.
Veteran’s Day: This day conjures up similar complaints as Memorial day. This celebrates our military. Many liberals consider our military to be a male-dominated, war machine that takes money from the mouths of welfare babies. It needs to be outlawed.
Thanksgiving: This makes a lot of liberals mad for the same reasons they don’t like Columbus Day. Liberals consider Thanksgiving to be a celebration of pale-skin fueled genocide. Sit down with a hard core liberal feminist and they’ll tell you John Smith was a child molester when it came to Pocahontas. Don’t forget the mental anguish PETA people experience when all of those turkeys are slaughtered so oppressed women around the country can slave all day while their oppressor husbands watch politically incorrect sports with exploited cheerleaders. Some liberals insist we rename it “National Ethnic Cleansing Day”. Not kidding. Let’s end this before someone gets hurt. As a final note, the whole “Black Friday” pisses off liberals because a) it uses the word “black” in an arguably negative way and b) it celebrates materialism and capitalism.
Christmas: I don’t even need to go there. It’s so patently politically incorrect. It goes without saying. It needs to be outlawed. Immediately. Reparations should probably be paid to to all peoples who do not celebrate this holiday.
So, there you go. Every holiday needs to be outlawed because somewhere there is at least one thin-skinned, mentally fragile individual who will find a reason to find it offensive. Let’s do it by Executive Order. Yeah. That’s the answer.
A FB friend posted the following status:
Universal access to healthcare, education, water and food are essential human rights. Agree or disagree? Those who disagree please tell me which of your children will serve as tribute in the next hunger games?
Here is my response:
A right is something that is inherent in being a human being. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights. Healthcare and education are not human rights because they cannot be obtained w/out demanding them from another. If I have to force someone (wither the provider or the taxpayer) to give me those things/services without paying for them myself they can’t be rights. I can’t force a doctor to fix me nor can I can’t force a person to teach me. The last two are not human rights, however, the right to access to those things are human rights. I have no right to demand someone give me water nor can I demand someone give me food. However, I should have every right to obtain them whether I shop at a store or hunt in the woods. Healthcare, education, water, and food are not human rights in and of themselves. They are goods and services to be exchanged, quid pro quo for something of value. Don’t get me wrong, I support a lot of charities because I think people need help obtaining these goods and services. But, they are not rights. To make them rights would be to allow others to be forced/coerced to provide them at the expense of others or by having the goods or services paid for by people not in receipt of the goods or services. That is tantamount to slavery and is why every institution of communism has eventually failed.