Only a Liberal…

A fake scenario: President Obama takes the stage and makes an announcement. He has decided that barbers and salon stylists don’t make enough money, so he’s gonna raise the minimum price for a haircut up to $40. This will ensure that the hair-cutters of American get the money they deserve for the invaluable service they provide.

Any layperson can deduce what would happen. All barbershops would disappear, and high-end salons would live on. Amazingly, this logic is lost in an argument about the minimum wage. Phrases like “living wage” are thrown at us as though it means something tangible. Even if there is such a thing as a living wage, how the heck do we think a bunch of career politicians with no background in macroeconomics could possibly determine what it is? Why can’t each individual decide what they want to charge for their time?

When you implement a minimum wage, you are making it illegal for a poor person to sell services for less than that wage. You are making it illegal for them to provide labor to someone for a price they are willing to charge. This is not freedom. You can immerse yourself in the illusion that the minimum wage prevents employers from hurting poor people while it is the wage requirement itself that hurts them. Are these liberals telling us there really is no labor that is worth less than $6.55? Nothing?! If flipping burgers is worth $6.55 perhaps tasting burgers and giving your opinion is worth less.

Every time the minimum wage rises, various alternatives become fiscally viable to companies. The lines in the image above indicate the cost of a cashier to an employer over time. The price of a human increases while the price of a computer decreases. That red dot is the day sometime in the future when the minimum wage will get everyone fired. You raise it high enough, and companies will invariably automate EVERYTHING. Elevators used to have operators… a person would press the buttons for you. At some point they either asked for a raise, or people figured out that operating an elevator does not require any expertise. They were all fired. Gas stations used to include the personal care of your own attendant who would clean your windshield, check your oil, the works. At some point, the cost of this service exceeded what it was worth, and every last one of them was fired (New Jersey required full service until recently, and I hear Oregon does as well but I can’t confirm). You only hurt poor people by requiring they charge more for labor than their labor is worth.

YOU CANNOT HURT RICH PEOPLE BY HAVING A MINIMUM WAGE. THEY ARE TOO RICH. YOU ONLY HURT THE POOR.

It took a racial slur against a black liberal for people to get angry. Check out the hypocrisy and absurdity on parade… al-Qaeda came out with a video a week ago referring to President-elect Obama as a house negro. al-Qaeda has finally crossed the line, in the screwed up minds of liberals. One columnist actually wrote an article explaining why Obama is not a house negro. The UK telegraph has an article titled “Al-Qaeda leader racially abuses Barack Obama.”

So why do liberals in the media and elsewhere get more worked up about a terrorist calling Barack Obama a name than they do about the terror they inflict with violence? The basic breakdown is they see America as separate from Barack Obama. In their minds, America deserves to be attacked, but Barack Obama doesn’t. They actually see the President-elect as above the status of the country he was elected to lead.

This is childish, emotional insanity.

Here’s an example to illustrate the hypocrisy of both a liberal and a black American…
Al Sharpton (Nov 2008): “to use such a derogatory, racist term against the president; I think it is an insult and something that is absolutely denigrating and racist”

Al Sharpton (Feb 2007): “I don’t know that [Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell] are viewed as “house negroes” in the term.  I believe that they are in the house and rest of us are in the field. (laughter)  So it would not be an inaccurate description”

The best analysis I found on this insanity was by Rush Limbaugh:

RUSH:  “Now, folks, is it me?  Am I so out of touch here that this sounds absurd?  Who are we talking about here?  Al-Qaeda has murdered 3,000 Americans inside of 45 minutes to an hour-and-a-half; they have beheaded American journalists; they have committed all kinds of atrocities all over the world.  And now the American left is finally upset at Al-Qaeda (and Al Sharpton particularly) ’cause how dare they say something racist!  They can kill whoever they want, whenever they want, and we’ll do our best to understand it. But when they start using racist language, why, that’s the last straw!”

As you read the passage below from Al Gore’s blog remember this; Al Gore makes an insane amount of money from his work with global warming, and not one penny of it is legitimate. It’s all nonsense… every last bit of it. You’ve seen “We can solve it” commercials… that’s Gore. He and those commercials say the phrase “climate crisis” as though its a real thing. We certainly have a climate, but there is no crisis. None… but if Al Gore and his supporters say the phrase climate crisis over and over and over enough times they think the world will buy it, and a large percentage has.

A new study suggests the Mayan civilization might have collapsed due to environmental disasters:

“‘These models suggest that as ecosystems were destroyed by mismanagement or were transformed by global climatic shifts, the depletion of agricultural and wild foods eventually contributed to the failure of the Maya sociopolitical system,’ writes environmental archaeologist Kitty Emery of the Florida Museum of Natural History in the current Human Ecology journal.”

As we move towards solving the climate crisis, we need to remember the consequences to civilizations that refused to take environmental concerns seriously.

If you haven’t read already read it, take a look at Jared Diamond’s book, Collapse.

I need you all to focus now on what he just said. Read it again, carefully. I will make two arguments: one rejecting his ridiculous premise and one accepting it.

Mayan Civilization as an identifiable entity ceased to exist a little over 1000 years ago. I have no idea what Gore is implying the Mayans were doing to destroy their civilization, but they certainly didn’t have internal combustion engines. He just vaguely says the Mayan Civilization would have survived if they had just paid attention to climate concerns. Therefore, we Americans should “pay attention” to him.

There is no debate on whether the Mayan Civilization disappeared. There is also no debate that Mayan cities continued to thrive after the collapse. Rome didn’t cease to exist when the Roman empire fell, and neither did “Mayans” or the places they lived. Gore portrays this history as though Mayans went extinct due to their lack of concern for the climate. This is preposterous, and the worst part is it doesn’t take a climatologist to point that out. So Mayan civilization disappeared; plenty of other civilizations survived. Humans are still here.

Lets accept Gore’s premise. What is his solution? How could the Mayans have averted their civilizations collapse? Mr. Gore, what steps could they have taken to avoid their fate? He provides none, because he has none. There were no cars or light bulbs back then. What did the Mayans do that they could have avoided doing to save themselves? Nothing.

Not to mention if there was such a precipitous climate-related problem for the Mayans, why do people still occupy the Mayan regions? They are now known as eastern Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, and western Honduras. Nothing wrong with the region or the climate.
Mr. Gore, your premise is absurd, and you have become absurd. Anyone reading this needs to do their part to stop their friends DEAD in their tracks when they speak of Gore or the climate crisis as though they are legitimate. If you accept the premise, the myth lives on. This nonsense must cease.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

Al Franken has challenged this ballot.

Yes, taxpayer dollars are being spent so that the state of Minnesota can decide whether this ballot should be counted or not. Franken would have you believe that it is unclear who this person voted for.

I have referred to this type of childish nonsense before as “due-process logic.” Technically, the voter did not follow instructions properly, so technically the ballot may be challenged, but the spirit of these laws is being ignored for personal gain. How many ballots that were filled out improperly, but that voted for Franken, do you suppose Franken has challenged? Franken is unconcerned with what should happen, but will use the rules to his advantage.

It is clear as day who this person voted for, but Franken isn’t interested. He just wants to win. Liberalism does not concern itself with the truth; it only cares about what it can prove or disprove using the loopholes and burdens of the justice system. If Al Franken can get 1000 ballots that voted for Norm Coleman disqualified because the voter didn’t use the approved shading technique outlined in the voting bylaws, he will get them disqualified gleefully.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

Liberalism comes in many colors: not just Democrat blue, but Republican red as well. Republican Congressman Joe Knollenberg had this exchange with Neil Cavuto on Fox. Neil starts naming off different industries that may ask for money to keep from going bankrupt…

Cavuto: Where do you draw the line with our money?

Knollenberg: It is not your money. In fact…

Cavuto: IT IS!!!

A politician finally let slip what they all think taxes really are: their funny money to spend. Knollenberg’s comments should be an epic scandal, but will probably be downplayed by most media. Washington D.C. does not think the money you send them every paycheck or every quarter belongs to you. That is an enormous problem that explains most of the appalling fiscal behavior. I promise you that fiscal irresponsibility like this will literally bankrupt this country. This is not an exaggeration or hyperbole.
You should be livid about this. The founding fathers wouldn’t recognize this country, and that’s a problem. I expect this Marxist nonsense from a handful of Democrats, but you Republicans out there that always vote that way… you need to start wrecking shop and get rid of these RINOs that are destroying conservatism and slowly decaying America.

Congress should be totally recalled and staffed by a draft from now on. I’m 100% serious. Congress used to be a part-time job 100 years ago. We need to go back to that. Draft congress like you would draft an army, and you’ll have Congressmen who actually treat taxpayer money as though it belongs to the taxpayers.

Let Joe Knollenberg know how angry you are by going to his website.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

Bill Ayers, the domestic terrorist friend of our new President-elect, has a new book coming out. On his book tour yesterday, he decided to whine about Fox News and its “dishonest narrative” about him. Ayers actually had the nerve to say that the narrative about him that “somehow [he's] been a violent person… all of it false.”

Let me be crystal clear. Ayers was a domestic terrorist. His wife was convicted of a felony, and he would have been too, had the FBI not gotten his case thrown out due to illegal wire taps. Afterwards, he was quoted: “Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country.” Possibly the nicest thing he has ever said about America.

He did plead guilty to possession of explosives in 1980, but served no time. So don’t tell me this guy is any different than Timothy McVeigh. Do not think of him as anything more than a murderous thug. The only difference between Bill Ayers and Timothy McVeigh is bodycount and conviction. In a way, Ayers is even worse because he actually sucked at being a terrorist, not actually killing anyone. Their actions were the same; only the outcome was different.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

Republicans keep convincing themselves that even though they lost the election, the country is still a center-right country politically. Democrats are convincing themselves that since Obama was elected, and they increased their majorities in Congress, that it is impossible for the country to be center-right. So which is it?

Let’s analyze the Democrats premise. Does voting for a leftist for President mean the country has shifted to the left? Not necessarily. In a post George W. Bush political world, a certain percentage of the electorate will vote for a lawn chair before they’ll vote for a Republican in 2008. I liken this to not rooting for the Falcons because they once employed Michael Vick. Vick was the leader of the Falcons, much like President Bush is the leader of the Republicans, but no one blames the entire Falcon organization for his actions.

So has George W. Bush’s 8 years in office changed the core beliefs of the American people? Of course not. People that were against abortion aren’t now for it because of Bush. People that were for guns rights are not now against it. Those beliefs didn’t change substantially, as shown by polls on major political issues. So why did America vote for Barack Obama?

Because the country thinks Republicans “must be punished” for George W. Bush. The Democrat party has successfully sold the American people that line with the help of the major news networks, the Oscar-created mainstream status of anti-Bush propaganda films like Fahrenheit 9/11, and the inaction of Bush to defend himself. The Democrat party convinced a majority of Americans that voting for John McCain is a vote for George W. Bush. It was so convincing that Americans voted for Obama with excitement and hope for change. Americans ran excitedly to the polls to pull the lever for a man who himself has admitted he isn’t qualified. Those that didn’t run excitedly used every excuse in the book to justify voting for an unqualified, inexperienced junior senator with a terrorist for a friend. Palin derangement syndrome and the stock market plummeting in September assuaged the worries of electing Barack Obama. I have heard Republicans friends say that the thought of Palin being the close to becoming President scares them. I say to myself, “but voting for Obama doesn’t scare you at all…”
I’d like to inform liberals, now that Obama has been elected, that “failed policies of the Bush administration” and “Bush/McCain economics” must be replaced by the actions of Obama. When people question the qualifications of President Obama, answering their question with stuff like “Bush” or “failed policies” will quickly start to piss people off. The issue-by-issues polls have not changed substantially in 2008, so Obama is still dealing with a center-right country. The election of Obama does not disprove this. His election simply proves that people are willing to throw the issues aside when they’re angry with one party. If liberals don’t realize and accept this, they will make some big mistakes in 2009.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

The United Nations organization has been a farce for a long time, but for those that were unaware, perhaps this situation will illustrate it clearly and forever. The United Nations is holding a two-day conference on religious tolerance, and they are allowing the king of Saudi Arabia to preside over it. Perhaps the Chinese should preside over a conference addressing the problems with workplace conditions. Or Iran could preside over a sexuality tolerance conference. President of Iran at Columbia University: “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals, like in your country.”

If you read the Washington Post article, you’ll find that the forum was the idea of the Saudis. Now a liberal, trial-lawyer logic, offend-no-one-except-conservatives person would accept that at face, praising the commendable effort of the Saudis to change their policy of forbidding the public practice of anything but Islam. A normal person would remember they have not changed their intolerant policies at home, and until they do, forums like this are just Public Relations stunts to temporarily convince the world they are nice people.

This is the pitfall of liberalism: a combination of self-loathing and infinite tolerance of other’s intolerance in the pursuit of appeasement. The liberal praises King Abdullah more than he will praise George W. Bush. Even if you’re a democrat, this is insanity. The liberal trusts King Abdullah when he says he wants religious tolerance, but will scoff when George W. Bush talks about… anything. This is childish nonsense, and potentially dangerous. A liberal is convinced he cannot convince George W. Bush to change his ways, but welcomes the chance to sit down with Iranian President Ahmadinejad and have a rational discussion, let alone change his worldview.

***Free updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

For viral consideration… if you don’t understand the connection between Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers and President-Elect Barack Obama, here is a graphical timeline… post it anywhere you’d like. Click the image for a full, blown-up version.

***Free updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

Only a liberal could commit a verbal miscue while criticizing someone else for committing the same verbal miscue. This is liberal hypocrisy at its best. I don’t claim that Chris Matthews doesn’t know Africa is a continent, but the second he misspoke, he should have said, “Oops, I guess its easier to screw that up than I thought. Our next topic…” But Chris Matthews is a liberal hack who has been campaigning for Obama for free. Admitting he was wrong to criticize Governor Palin for a mistake he made while criticizing her for it is something he is incapable of.

The notion that Sarah Palin doesn’t know the basics about the continent of Africa is silly on its face. Know that whenever liberals criticize a republican for such things, they generally have a democrat that has committed something similar or even the exact same slip-up.

UPDATE 11/13/08
MSNBC retracts false Palin story. Don’t hold your breath for an Olbermann apology. Matthews might…