Posted by Steve Markowitz on July 7, 2015
With the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage, the subject has become perhaps the most significant contemporary domestic issue of the year. Listening to the political narrative, if an extraterrestrial visited the earth arriving in the past two weeks, that entity would believe that gay marriage has been advocated by mainstream liberals for many years, an incorrect narrative.
This Blog’s Libertarian and Constitutional focuses dictates that ones’ sexual preferences should be irrelevant to the federal government. The Constitution does not mention sexual preference, be it straight, gay, or asexual and there is not an issue for the federal government. The slippery slope we travel does not relate to gay rights, but instead a power grab by the federal government into areas where it has no Constitutional authority. While today that may benefit a part of society and be a popular decision, tomorrow’s governmental power grab may not be so benign.
To my friends on the Right, it would be instructive to read about the rather open sexual practices of some of the Founding Fathers who would be hard-pressed to lecture others on the subject. This reality might temper the Right’s intrusion into American’s private, or what used to be private, lives.
For my friends on the Left, a review of statements concerning the definition of marriage by their mentors just a few years ago would be instructive. Certainly this should be done before the Left further vilifies those that now disagree with their definition of marriage.
With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on gay marriage, the Left hardly missed a beat before vilifying those that disagree with the decision. Before throwing stones they would do well to review the dissenting views on gay marriage from two of the highest profile Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as indicated below. Those that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!
Hillary Clinton- 2004
“I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.”
Barack Obama – 2008
“I believe that marriage is the union between and man and woman. … For me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union.”
Posted in Libertarian | Tagged: Clinton, Gay, marriage, Obama | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Steve Markowitz on April 1, 2014
Greg Gutfeld is a television satirist and commentator often seen on Fox News. Liberals typically paint Gutfeld with a broad brush and label him as a conservative, which is a mistake. Gutfeld has a strong Libertarian bent and often proffers stringent, but logical, attacks on elitist politicians in both parties.
In explaining his philosophies, Gutfeld has said: “I became a conservative by being around liberals (At UC Berkeley) and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives. You realize that there’s something distinctly in common between the two groups, the left and the right; the worst part of each of them is the moralizing.”
One example of Gutfeld’s use of satire in promoting his political views was his response to the New York Imam who in 2010 announced plans to build an Islamic community center immediately adjacent to ground zero. In responding to this insensitive proposition, Gutfeld said:
“As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque – after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law – who can stop them? Which is why, in the spirit of outreach, I’ve decided to do the same thing. I’m announcing tonight that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also to Islamic gay men. I hope the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open their Islamic center near ground zero is no different than mine … tolerance and understanding.”
More recently Gutfeld has published a book titled “Not Cool: The Hipster Elite and Their War on You.” The book is pure Gutfeld, using satire and humor to make a point. Included below are 11 worthy Gutfeld quotes:
Greg Gutfeld quotations:
- “Pick a political, cultural, or moral universe, and in each one it’s the cool who seek to punish, mock, or thwart the uncool. They do this freely and without much resistance, for exacting cool revenge is so common that the uncool let it happen without a fight – a sort of cultural Stockholm syndrome. Even as the cool put out ads condemning bullying, they spend the rest of their time turning persecution into an art form. The cool are just bullies with stylists and publicists.”
- “The definition of cool: popularity without achievement. It’s how President Obama got the youth vote. Ask any kid who voted for him, “Why did you do it?,” and the convoluted, wide-eyed answer will ultimately translate into: “He’s cool and that other guy wasn’t.” (Now they’re paying the brunt of Obamacare. Suckers.) The media pushed this to the hilt, and much of the public bought it. Hope and change is cool because it sounds cool, even if it’s undefined. An activist government is cool too, because giving stuff away is cool – especially when it’s other people’s stuff – and therefore perceived as philanthropic. But philanthropy without feeling the pain in your own wallet is super-easy to do, and about as cool as giving away your roommate’s food while he’s at work trying to pay for that food.”
- “In February 2013 it was revealed that Facebook paid no income taxes for 2012. As reported by CNN, among other places, the social network was due a tax refund of almost 430 million bucks. Now, this is a company that made one billion before taxes (which buys approximately 50 million hoodies for Mark Zuckerberg). But they were able to secure the refund because of a tax deduction from stock options issued to Facebook employees. I won’t pretend to understand how this works (as an English major, I have no discernible skills other than spelling discernible correctly), but I know this: that because this company happened to be Facebook, the story was a one-day affair. It came and went like an ice cream headache, leaving neither a bruise nor a hickey on the Zuckerberg Empire. If this company were something that actually made something in a factory or field, it would be roundly condemned by every single media hack on the planet.”
- “At one point, back in February, on Al Sharpton’s show (I believe it’s on MSNBC, a network for grad students suffering from shingles), President Obama made a petulant observation that what unites the Republican Party is protecting the rich from having their taxes raised. Well then … what about your friends at Google, Twitter, and Facebook, Mr. President? Don’t they have to pay their fair share? If Obama got any more adolescent, I’d have to ground him for a week and take away his Twitter privileges. No more selfies at memorial services for world leaders.”
- “How funny is it that so many professors labeled Tea Partiers as terrorists, while kissing the asses of real, bona fide terrorists? It’s not funny, really. But it’s the result of a simple equation: One is cool, and the other isn’t. Own a gun and keep it by your bed in your remote farmhouse? You’re a redneck. Purchase guns that end up killing a judge? Priceless. As long as you cling to cool, progressive beliefs that deem America evil, whatever you do is cool. And if you do it under a big fuzzy ‘fro? Even cooler. Hell, if you ‘fro is big enough, you could nuke an orphanage and still get tenure.”
- “Whenever this preindustrial utopia is being discussed, real progress is always a marker for evil American domination. We have all the good stuff, and since we are evil, so is all of that good stuff we’ve made. I always wonder, if a twenty-three-year-old protester seeking the simple life suddenly finds out she has breast cancer, would she reject all that medical technology that a simple life cannot offer? If she sticks to her principles, she’s in the morgue by twenty-four. There are no atheists in foxholes – and few Luddites in the dorms, when it comes right down to it. You can’t play five seasons of Breaking Bad on a bong.”
- “Communal in the end means coercive. Their desire to change your way of life is independent of the result. They really don’t care if it works. What they want is what they condemn: power. Like Obamacare, their power is about limiting your options, because your deprivation is their victory. At least a greedy CEO’s hunger for power might actually benefit a company and its shareholders. For these eco-maniacs, it’s about subtraction: Your sacrifice enhances their power. It’s the basis of all fascism, and ultimately ends in misery. Their real aim is scoring major cool points: The greenies gain a victory against the evil industrial complex that poisons hairless minority orphans. That’s sure to get a movie made about them by Matt Damon, a movie no one sees outside Matt Damon’s immediate family.”
- “So, two million people die from lack of safe fuels to provide the most important need (warmth). But instead, our politicians, activists, and celebrities would rather focus on something that may or may not contribute to a five-figure death count. How come? Again, the argument against coal is an argument against man-made machines (even though coal is made by earth) and, of course, America. Coal is America. You are cooler and braver to blame America. Imagine if you actually pointed out that in a world where only the warm survive, coal beats everything, hands down. Shi*, people are actually burning shi* to survive. If dung actually were an effective fuel, MSNBC could heat the entire solar system.”
- “Pacifists may be cool, but they are leeches. For them to exist you need nonpacifists willing to die. There’s another Gutfeld rule: The number of pacifists increases in direct proportion to their distance from the danger (or their proximity to the faculty lounge–same thing really). It’s an ideology better suited as art-work taped to a parent’s refrigerator, but instead it’s born from the academic media complex that firmly believes America is at fault. Anti-Americanism gives you cool creed (especially when you’re a celebrity on foreign soil), as it helps you ignore the real evil simmering around the world. It’s why every college student comes home for the holidays with dumb ideas about the world. Everything that has brought them to their fortunate spot in life becomes detached from the very entity that allowed their comfy lifestyle to happen–the big fu**ing army that protects us.”
- “…ask any criminal (which some actual researchers have done) and they’ll tell you: Knowing a victim might have a gun dissuades them from approaching that victim. But research on gun control is nowhere near as cool as screaming “guns kill children” and demanding action on Twitter, in between therapy sessions and Pilates. Witness the latest celebrities participating in gun control YouTube PSAs. Most at one point in their career rely on armed security to handle all their safety needs. If only we were all like Beyonce, then we could marry a very rich man (and ex-criminal) who has an arsenal. Jay-Z has ninety-nine problems, but not owning a gun isn’t one. Bottom line: The argument ends with “Guns are bad. Guns kill people. End of story.” This passes as intellectual thought for Sarah Silverman. By the way, if feminism means women are now free to be stoned as men have traditionally been, congrats, Sarah. You’re the Rosa Parks of pot.”
- “It’s strange to me that the cool, by their very definition committed to being against “the Man,” would embrace an endless maze of bureaucracies that turns everyone into massive zombies, waiting for their allotment of bread and cheese. In the name of the public good, the cool happily hand over their power of individual freedom and the dynamic economy that it produces to a bloated blob of arbitrary administration. You have the media-academic complex saluting protesters demanding more government, so they can do–and think–less. They are marching in favor of dependency. They are marching for the right to suck.”
Posted in Libertarian | Tagged: Gutfeld, Libertarian, Quotations, Quotes | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Steve Markowitz on December 31, 2010
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) this week did what bureaucratic organizations do; they came out with worthless rules that will supposedly protect people from industry and themselves. After taking ten years to study the matter, the USDA will require labeling of meats and poultry by January 2012.
The logic behind the new labeling requirements is public safety. The theory is that the labels will somehow constrain peoples’ fat consumption. Only a Progressive bureaucrat could believe such nonsense. Americans have been consuming unmarked beef since the country’s inception. The waistlines growth of Americans is obviously due to other factors. The overindulgence is a choice, not the result of some conspiracy in the meat industry.
Those who believe that governmental label mandating will somehow affect people’s bad habits need look no further than the draconian labels placed on cigarette package for decades. The government cannot protect people from themselves. The framers of the Constitution understood this and therefore did not give the government the power to regulate personal choices that do not affect others.
Posted in Constitution, Libertarian | Tagged: Beef, Constitution, Department of Agriculture, labels, Meat, USDA | Leave a Comment »