Only a Liberal…

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

If you wake up one morning and have the urge to fire poor minorities, I have the solution for you. Raise the minimum wage. The majority of those that are paid the minimum wage are poor minorities. For you knee-jerkers that are appalled by my statements, let me assure you I do not support firing poor minorities, which I why I don’t support a minimum wage of ANY kind.

The minimum wage makes it illegal to sell labor that is worth less than the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is $5, and you want to do some kind of work for $4, you are not allowed to. So those whose labor produces less value than the minimum wage will eventually be fired or won’t find work in the first place. This is math, not politics. You can argue until you’re blue in the face why it is absolutely necessary to have a minimum wage. There is no argument that disputes my fundamental claim.

Liberals see it as compassionate to raise the minimum wage. Their logic is, if I raise the minimum wage, all poor people will make more money. Unfortunately, that’s not how it works. All minimum-wage increases do is drastically increase the chances of poor people getting fired from their already low-paying jobs.

No one can disagree with the following: if you freeze all other variables, increasing the minimum wage decreases employment. Again, this is pure math. If you increase the cost of labor, you will decrease the demand for labor. If you raise the minimum price of a candy bar to $5, people will buy less candy bars. It is the same principle.

In 1938, Roosevelt signed the first minimum wage into law. Why 1938? According to Mackinac.org, the American textile industry had begun moving from New England to the South. Cost of living was lower, so Southerners could produce the same product for less income. Massachusetts politicians would have nothing of this, so they began demanding wages be hiked so that “Massachusetts [would] have equal competition with other sections of the country.” Southern politicians correctly characterized this as a tariff against Southern goods.

So perhaps you agree with the minimum wage consequence part, but still don’t believe minimum wages disproportionately affect minorities. From 1948-1955, black teenage males had an unemployment rate of 11.3%. White teenage males were at 11.6% (which is higher in case you’re not paying attention). In the two years following the 1956 increase, nonwhite teenage employment went from 14% to 24%. By 1960, unemployment among black teenage males was up to 22.7%, while whites were at 14.6% (NCPA). Racism can’t be to blame, since no one can argue that employers were more racist in 1960 than 1955. In 1996, when the economy was booming for everyone else, black male teenage employment went from 37% to 41% after another minimum wage increase. “Data from President Clinton’s own labor department show that at least 20,000 jobs were eliminated by the 1996 hike. The Employment Policies Institute calculates that the real job loss was closer to 128,000.”

Now that you know, let me present this passage to you. “The [1963] Equal Pay Act was an important step in leveling the often uneven work field in which women competed with men for the same jobs but had to settle for making less money.” (encyclopedia.com) Let’s pretend that once upon a time, wide-spread sexism did exist in this country (crazy, right?). So as a result, less women were able to educate themselves and gain as much experience as men. The logical result is that at that time, women were, on average, less skilled at certain jobs then men. I’m not saying they were less “capable.” They were not allowed to gain the experience and knowledge that men were allowed to. It would be unreasonable to expect that. So what would occur if you required employers to pay women the same amount to do the same job as a man, assuming the women in question, on average, was less skilled at it in the 1960s than a man? You would essentially fire or prevent employment for tons of women.

So these beliefs or fantastic wishes that liberals have to help minorities, to help young people, to help women, all do the EXACT OPPOSITE. The best thing you can do for these formerly oppressed groups is afford them every opportunity to work and gain experience even if it temporarily makes you uncomfortable. Raising the minimum wage only hurts the poor and the weak.

EVEN IF YOU ASSUME that every single person that makes the minimum wage stays employed when there is an increase, there is another consequence. The cost of labor is included in the cost of goods and services. If you increase the cost of labor, and the employer doesn’t fire anyone, then the cost of the goods that the labor produces will go up. So a minimum wage increase is also a goods and services cost increase. The price of fresh produce goes up. So even in the sunny, happy-go-lucky, naive liberal scenario where raising the minimum wage supposedly doesn’t make poor people unemployed, it most certainly makes it harder to buy groceries. That sure-as-shit hurts poor people more than rich people.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whose Obama-appointed Secretary is Janet Napolitano, released a report titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Environment Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” This report has pissed a lot of people off, and rightly so, due to the fact that it identifies people as right-wing, potentially dangerous extremists if they support state and local authority over federal or oppose abortion or immigration. That’s right… if you oppose abortion, you’re a right-wing extremist that the Department of Homeland Security needs to keep its eye on. Here is the exact wording…

“…those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.  It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

The basic gist is that because the economy is in the crapper, and because a half-black man has been elected President, perhaps, maybe right-wingers could possibly at some point become angry enough to become terrorists. Mind you, DHS has “no specific information” to think this, just a… hunch. We’ll call it “liberal intuition.”

“The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.”

So non-violent right-wing groups are recruiting more people, and Napolitano sees this as dangerous. This is a right afforded to all American citizens in the first Amendment (right to Assembly).This is the same Janet Napolitano, who refuses to use the word terrorism when addressing Congress. Napolitano’s explanation of that?

“In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.” (americaswatchtower.com)

No Janet, it is not “nuance”… it is nonsense. She is putting terrorist attacks in the same category as tornados, floods, and oil spills.

So to clarify how insanse this is, Janet Napolitano says calling a terrorist a terrorist is just the “politics of fear” so we should avoid it at all costs, but identifying pro-lifers as potentially violent is necessary for national security. We don’t want to scare Americans by referring to 9/11 as a “terrorist” attack, but we must warn Americans of the potential threat of federalists.

A CNN story actually highlighted the report on right-wing extremism and put a picture of skinheads with Nazi flags in the article. The “contributor” for the vicious article is Jeanne Meserve, whom you can email here. This is illustrative of the celebrated ignorance of the left. They consider Nazis to be “right-wing.” I did a search for the argument that Hitler was a “right-winger.” Here’s one argument…

“Hitler’s other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.” (huppi.com)

1. Racism over racial tolerance - Author assumes with zero evidence that right-wing = racist. Simply wanting all right-wingers to be racist does not make it so. On this, Hitler was NEUTRAL.
2. Eugenics over freedom of reproduction - The left supports abortion, which is certainly closer to eugenics than being pro-life. In fact the founder of Planned Parenthood, which assists women in abortion and birth control, believed in Eugenics. (read here) LEFT
3. Merit over equality - Conservatives do believe merit should be rewarded, where many liberals believe everyone should receive an equal outcome. RIGHT
4. Competition over Cooperation - The two are not mutually exclusive. Right-wing capitalists who strongly believe in competition constantly cooperate with other. NEUTRAL
5. Power politics and militarism over pacifism - I suppose the left is more pacifist than the right. RIGHT
6. Dictatorship over democracy - This is ludicrous nonsense. Right-wingers don’t support dictatorship. In fact the only Americans I ever see supporting dictators are left-wing liberals. Who likes Castro? Left-wingers. Who likes Hugo Chavez? Left-wingers, namely Sean Penn. To be fair though, many left-wingers support democracy, so we’ll call this a draw. NEUTRAL
7. Capitalism over Marxism - Yup, right-wing. On this, I agree with Adolf. Stopped clock is right twice a day. RIGHT
8. Realism over idealism - Yup, right-wingers lean more towards what DOES happen than what COULD happen. RIGHT
9. Nationalism over internationalism - Yup. RIGHT
10. Exclusiveness over inclusiveness - This doesn’t even make sense. What do right-wingers exclude people from? The Congressional black caucus is dominantly left-wing, and it is the most exclusive group I can think of. LEFT
11. Common sense over theory and science - Yet again, these are not mutually exclusive, and this is based upon zero evidence. NEUTRAL
12. Pragmatism over principal - Excuse me? Is he implying that right-wingers ignore principals? Religious people choose pragmatism over principals? NEUTRAL
13. Atheist - The author wants us to believe that being atheist makes someone a right-winger. Being religious makes someone a right-winger. Can you say flawed logic? LEFT

I would point out that Hitler was a huge environmentalist, but I digress. So the author points out 13 characteristics that “obviously” prove that Hitler was a right-winger. I found through a fairly simple analysis that 5 of the items were arguably right-wing, 3 of the items were arguably left-wing, and the other 5 were neutral. I guess that means he leans to the right, but lets analyze the 5 things he was right-wing on.

Merit over equality
Militarism over pacifism
Capitalism over Marxism
Realism over idealism
Nationalism over internationalism

The most successful countries in the world, not only by wealth, but also low level of poverty, are capitalist. So the fact that Hitler believed in Capitalism is about as relevant as the fact that he believed in breathing oxygen. Many left wingers also believe in capitalism, so I believe this becomes more neutral. This also cover the “Merit over equality” part, so I have established Hitler as neither right- or left-wing. I won’t analyze the others at the time.
Now if you’re liberal friend at work points out that the DHS also released a report on left-wing extremists, they are being disingenous. As Fox News reports, that report is titled “Left-wing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyberattacks Over the Coming Decade. It concentrates largely on the technical savvy of left-wing extremists and not bloodshed.”

Janet Napolitano has issued a government report identifying individuals who have certain beliefs as potential threats to the United States. It is the epitome of un-American totalitarianism, and is probably illegal. If that ain’t profiling, I don’t know what is. She should be fired immediately, if not prosecuted for civil rights violations.

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

Three disadvantaged Somali teenagers were executed by American military snipers after a desperate attempt to improve their lives by capturing an American sea captain just to get a little ransom. President Obama refused to exhaust all attempts at a diplomatic solution to this crisis, instead opting to brutally execute them in a surprise attack. Much like the execution of Oscar Grant on New Year’s in Oakland, Obama is continuing America’s tradition of racial crimes against minorities.
President Obama proudly took credit for the executions as a response to the “rise in privacy” in the region. He then warned Somali privates not to misunderestimate him again. As usual, the lack of diplomacy caused other Somalis to vow revenge, resulting in an American lawmaker’s helicopter being fired at. Angering these Somali minorities simply to save one white guy has only made matters worse.

In case the sarcasm hasn’t dripped sufficiently off this post, let me assure you I have not lost my mind. Framing this story with liberal pacifist insanity is perfect for illustrating the suicidal beliefs of the appeasement left wing. Picture this scenario a year ago… how would the media be treating it? Not only is Obama getting credit as though he fired the sniper rifles himself, he is also getting a pass from everyone, save Sean Hannity I’m sure, about saying “privacy” instead of “piracy.” Would you hear the end of it if Bush did this?

“Speak softly and carry a big stick” is most certainly not the motto of the modern liberal. Speak softly and constantly apologize for not speaking softer. Other than saving the environment, the most-loved virtue of the American left is the appearance of pure diplomacy. Maybe its a good thing… let investigate.

Modern warfare in America has really changed since World War II. We have signed all kinds of treaties concerning the killing of civilians, which essentially handicaps us when it comes to warfare techniques. This handicapping requires that we risk our American soldiers for the sake of foreign civilians.

When liberals scream about the war being lost in Iraq, I laugh. We could win a war against Iraq without sending a single ground troop there. Not one American death, but we don’t, because its more politically acceptable for us to get killed while killing them. It’s disgusting, but not much we can do about it.

So has a lack of diplomacy ever worked? I would argue the last time we just kicked the ass of a country, it was back during World War II. We HAMMERED Japan, kicked the ever-loving shit out of them, dropping the only two nuclear weapons ever. After their surrender, General Douglas MacArthur and his staff wrote the Constitution of Japan. No amendment has been made to that Constitution.

So how is Japan doing? They received the biggest ass-kicking from America of any nation in the world. The United States has the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of any nation in the world. Japan is 2nd.

Germany, the other country we didn’t bother using diplomacy with, comes in at 4th in the GDP rankings, behind 3rd place China. Germany’s population is 1/16th the size of China’s.

Our relations with both Germany and Japan are great. The fact that we didn’t talk them out of World War II hasn’t affected our relations. We killed 200,000 civilians with the nukes we dropped in Japan. About 70 million people died in World War II. If you assume a 6 year war, that’s an average of 33,000 dead per day. You may be appalled that we killed 200,000 in 3 days, but that’s only slightly above average, and it ENDED THE WAR. If we had done it one month earlier, we might have saved 1 million lives. What if we had done it two months earlier… three months earlier…

We tried diplomacy with Saddam Hussein through the United Nations. Here’s a list of the resolutions passed by the U.N.

1983 - Condemned violations of international law in the Iran–Iraq War.
1986 - “Deplores” the use of chemical weapons in the Iran–Iraq War.
1986 - Called for the implementation of resolution 582 (resolution for a resolution)
1987 - Demanded an immediate cease-fire between Iran and Iraq; requested that the UN Secretary-General start an investigation to determine how the conflict started.
1988 - Condemned the use of chemical weapons by Iraq in the Iran–Iraq War.
1988 - Created UNIIMOG(the “OG” stands for “observer group”) to observe the implementation of a cease-fire for the Iran–Iraq War. Extended by resolutions 631, 642, 651, 671, 676, and 685. Terminated 28 February 1991.
1988 - Condemned the use of chemical weapons in the Iran–Iraq War.
1990 - Condemned the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and demanded a withdrawal of Iraqi troops. Supported by resolutions 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677.
1990 - Placed economic sanctions on Iraq in response to the invasion of Kuwait.
1990 - Authorized use of force against Iraq to “uphold and implement resolution 660 (condemnation of the Kuwait invasion) and all subsequent resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area”.
1991 - Demanded Iraq’s acceptance of all previous resolutions concerning the war with Kuwait.
1991 - Formal ceasefire ending the Persian Gulf War, with the conditions that Iraq:

• Destroys all of its chemical and biological weapons and all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 km;
• Agrees not to develop nuclear weapons;
• Submits a declaration of its weapons programs and voluntarily agrees to on-site inspections.

1991 - Condemned the repression of Iraqi Kurds.
1991 - Demands immediate, complete, full compliance with UNSCR 687 (cease fire, no chem/bio weapons).
1991 - Approves United Nations Special Commission on Iraq and International Atomic Energy Agency inspection provisions.
1993 - Acknowledges clarifications of Iraq-Kuwait border and United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM).
1994 - Condemned the Iraqi military buildup on Kuwaiti border.
1995 - Created the Oil-for-Food Programme. Supported by resolution 1111.
1999 - Changed the Iraqi inspection program from UNSCOM to UNMOVIC.
2002 - Gave Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations”. US, UK, and other members of the “coalition of the willing” declared that Iraq remained in material breach of resolution 687.
2003 - Recognized the US and the UK as occupying powers under international law, with legitimate authority in Iraq. Removed economic sanctions imposed during the Gulf War.

Do you think there’s a single evil person in the world whose knees shake when they hear the U.N. is forming a resolution against them? This is silly nonsense. They condemned Iraq’s behavior 6 times. One resolution called for the implementation of a previous resolution. Then, possibly the most interesting resolution of all, they made a resolution that recognized the United States as a legitimate authority in Iraq.

In addition, Muammar Qaddafi, the Libyan dictator, announced that his nation had an active WMD program, but was willing to allow international inspectors to come in and observe their dismantling. When did he agree to this? He did this in 2003, right after the overthrowing of Saddam’s regime. So we steamroll the Iraqi military, in a very undiplomatic fashion, and a Muslim dictator willingly submits to dismantling his WMDs. He has since renegged, thanks to our failure to finish Iraq quickly.

These thugs respond to one thing; strength. Diplomacy has failed over and over and over again. Resolution after resolution accomplishes NOTHING.

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

AYFKM? Obama can’t be serious. Politico reports that the White House is actually denying that Obama bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

WE HAVE IT ON VIDEO!!!

The reason I want to highlight this “white lie” is the detachment from reality. The Obama White House is so unconcerned with the truth when it comes to politics, news, and their agenda, that they will deny something that is incontrovertible to the point it is documented on video tape and can be watched over and over again. Obama supporters talk about it something like this…
“It wasn’t a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he’s taller than King Abdullah.”

The Queen of England is shorter. He didn’t bow to her.

“It wasn’t a bow.”

We have it on tape.

“Conservative smear machine.”

FOLKS, these people are crazy.

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

John Stossel set out to verify or dispute a myth that liberals give more to charity than conservatives. The way liberals talk on TV, you would think conservatives hate children and the poor, yet the evidence shows the exact opposite.

All but one of the top 25 states where people give an above average percentage of their income were red states in the last presidential election (Maryland was the one blue state). Stossel spoke with Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University.

“When you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money.”

Stossel also found that conservatives donate 18% more blood than liberals.

Brooks’s book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, dispells the myth that liberals care more than conservatives. Conservatives show they care by giving money to charity. Liberals show they care by giving other people’s money to the government to then give to poor people once they pay all the bureaucrats necessary to administer the charity. Thanks liberals!!