Last Sunday was, apparently, the Grammys. I know this not because I watch much TV (hardly any now that football season is over), but because (1) I happened to hear about it on the radio, and (2) my friends on Facebook started posting about someone by the name of “Chance the Rapper” sometime late Sunday evening. I know enough to know that any sort of pop-culture event such as this is likely to be distasteful, but, in a momentary lack of better judgment, I decided to look up some of the music that the industry has decided to put forward as an example of their best. I had no idea just how horrifying the “best” would turn out to be.chance

I hesitate to repost even the “clean” versions of the lyrics, simply because they are so offensive. Nevertheless, I find it illustrative to recognize just what level of depravity the music industry has decided to showcase as the “best.”

No Problem (Chance the Rapper, “Best New Artist”):
B**** I know you tried to cheat, you shoulda never took a nap, hey
F*** wrong with you? What you were thinkin’?
F*** you thought it was?
You talk that talk that make a lame a** n***a fall in love
Not me, though, b**** you can keep those
Mixtape (Chance the Rapper, “Best New Artist”):
I’m the only n***a still care about mixtapes
Bad little b***h, wanna know how lips taste
(She curious, she curious)
I swear I’m the only n***a still care about mixtapes
Bad little b***h, wanna know how the lips taste
That booty gon’ roll and it’s outta control
And these b*****s gon’ f**k off respect and that loyalty
All my b*****s lovin’ me and they spoil me


Don’t Hurt Yourself (Beyonce, “Best Urban Contemporary Album”):
Who the f*** do you think I is?
You ain’t married to no average b****, boy
You can watch my fat a** twist, boy
As I bounce to the next d***, boy
And keep your money, I got my own
Keep a bigger smile on my face being alone
Bad m**********r, God complex
Motivate your a**, call me Malcolm X
Yo operator, or innovator
F*** you hater, you can’t recreate her, no
You’ll never recreate her no, h*** no

F*** Up the Club (DJ Khaled, “Best Rap Album”):
4Hunnid! 4Hunnid, Hunnid!
Young n***a, young n***a, got a gun, run n***a
Painted all the rivers red, this blood s*** stuck with him
Hustle hard, hustle hard, bad b*****s, f*** ’em all
For Free (DJ Khaled “Best Rap Album”):
Would you f*** me for free?
Another one
You know this d*** ain’t free!
I got girls that I shoulda made pay for it
Got girls that I shoulda made wait for it
Got girls that’ll cancel a flight back home
Stay another day for it
You got attitude on na na
And your p**** on agua
And your stomach on flat flat
And your a** on what’s that?

And the list continues. These are just some of the first songs that I happened to find while looking through the various rap/hip-hop artists from Sunday night. The language in these few snippets alone is bad enough to make these songs R-rated. But more offensive still is how horribly insulting and demeaning these lyrics are (or should be) to women and African Americans, the two groups which are purportedly the most victimized and persecuted in our country. Out of all the music that has been written in the last year, is the really the best we could come up with?

After getting over the shock and disgust of the so-called art that the music industry has put on a pedestal as an example of excellence in music, I was then struck by the utter hypocrisy which is continually showcased by liberalism in our country. If you don’t believe that the left is hypocritical, then simply try to imagine what would happen if Donald Trump held a press conference tonight, and uttered any of the lyrics listed above. Can you imagine the maelstrom of angry tweets, body-part-costume-clad protesters, and violent mobs that would follow? Take the “Women’s March” and multiply it by approximately ten thousand, and I think that might get us somewhere in the ballpark. Yet, if those same lyrics are spoken in a sort of sing-song chant, auto-tuned, and accompanied by synthetic drums and overly-amplified bass, we hail it as “art” and the best that the music industry has to offer.

womensmarchsignsThese double standards are indicative of the fact that in reality, they have no standards. Liberalism is not motivated, by and large, by principle. If they were, then they would be consistent in their outrage. Instead, they pick and choose, on a partisan basis, whether or not to be offended by a certain word or action. When a Republican utters something offensive to women behind closed doors, it’s an outrage and he (along with anyone who votes for him) is inciting rape and violence against women. When a musician sings about something far more offensive, we hail it as art.

Now, I imagine that on the off-chance that any liberals are reading this, they may have objections to what I’ve said so far. I’ve decided to preempt what I think are the most likely objections, based on past experience.

  1. Content like this is acceptable because it’s art.
    Since when has the “art” label been an excuse for racism and violence? You can’t even get a boot-legged copy of “Song of the South” because it supposedly contains offensive content. That’s “art,” right? What’s the difference? I think we all know that liberals would be just as outraged about Trump’s comments about women if he rapped them wearing gold chains and baggy pants as they would otherwise. This isn’t about art, it’s about selective outrage when it suits your political agenda.
  2. Content like this is acceptable because it portrays the plight of oppressed African-Americans and women.
    If these songs actually portrayed suffering and oppression, that would be a completely different story. I have no qualms about art that accurately depicts horrific events, even if they contain offensive content. Such art is sobering and should cause us to mourn the wrongs done against those demographics. That is not what these songs are about, and we all know it. We are lying to ourselves and disrespecting those who have actually suffered or experienced persecution if we try to equate a rapper’s lyrics about raping women to the suffering of a slave who is beaten to death. These songs depict the artists performing the offensive acts and perpetuating the attitudes that the left claims to hate. These songs aren’t about the suffering of minorities, they are about glorifying hideous, revolting actions, lifestyles, and attitudes.
  3. Content like this is acceptable because the people who are singing it are part of a minority group.
    So, you want to punish people of one ethnic demographic for doing something, but not another? We have a word for that: racism.
  4. Content like this is acceptable because it makes me feel good.
    This is perhaps the biggest argument for why this music is detestable and completely unacceptable. If this music has the power to make you feel “good” while listening to someone sing about violence, rape, and prostitution, then that should be a strong indication that you should not be listening to this sort of music. If the music caused us to soberly reflect on the moral decay of our country, then at least it might have some redeeming value. This music does exactly the opposite; it invites us to celebrate the very things that, in any other instance, we would find revolting.
  5. Content like this is acceptable because the artists singing it also sing clean/appropriate songs.
    “Chance the Rapper took us to church last night, here’s how.” I’ve seen that headline, or variations thereof, multiple times in the last couple of days. I understand that some of the songs performed at the Grammys were remotely religious in nature. Now, I don’t know if “Chance the Rapper” (or any of the other performers from the Grammys) are Christians. But whether or not they are Christians, I wish that they would leave God out of their songs. By singing about God on one track, and then singing songs that make light of rape, prostitution, and violence the next, they are defaming God and associating Him with the sin and immorality that they sing about. I would rather all of their songs be filthy, immoral and violent, so at least everyone could recognize their music for what it really is, rather than being fooled by the one or two “clean” songs.

I’m sure there are countless other objections that the left might come up with, and I’m more than happy to hear and address them. But for now, I would claim that there are only two possible reactions to the music industry’s glorification of immorality and violence against women and African Americans.

  1. Declare these songs to be the morally bankrupt trash that they are, and boycott the music industry (or at least the parts of the music industry that produce and promote this trash). Similarly, we must also agree that some of Trump’s comments about women were also offensive (though, dare I say, not nearly as offensive as any one of these songs).
  2. Accept the moral filth presented to us as “art” and turn a blind eye to the immorality it perpetuates. If you do this, you must also give Trump (any any other politicians) free license to be equally morally objectionable.

These are the only two logically consistent options. I fall in the first camp. I would hope that the vast majority of Americans also fall in this camp, although at the speed with which we’re abandoning our morality and sense of right and wrong, it’s hard to say. Anyone who falls in the second camp strikes me as a morally bankrupt individual, but at least they’re consistent.

As for the vast majority of liberals who likely fall in neither camp, and condemn Trump while applauding these artists, all I can say is that your credibility (what little of it you have left) is completely undermined by hypocrisy like this. If you really believe in fighting against oppression against women, great! Pick up your signs, put on your body-part costumes, and go protest the Grammys next year! If you really want to fight oppression against African Americans, wonderful! Tell all these hip-hop artists to stop writing songs full of racial slurs that promote violence against people of color. If you don’t stand up to this promotion of violence and objectifying women, then you have absolutely no moral high-ground, and no place pointing the finger Trump or anyone else.

This post is in response to a comment posted in the “Suggestions” section. Thanks jenevieves for the request!

Despite nature’s best efforts to hinder the Republican National Convention and the subsequent nomination of their less-than ideal candidate, the time for Mitt Romney’s inevitable nomination as the GOP’s candidate for president is inevitably drawing closer. This leaves many conservatives, including myself, at a loss as to who we should vote for. We can all agree, (or at least, all of us conservatives) that we don’t want to see Obama in office for another four years. But is it worth selling our souls, compromising our principles, ignoring our consciences, and voting for a middle-of-the-road moderate in order to get rid of our current commander-in-chief? More and more these days, I hear grumblings amongst the hard-core conservatives about the leftward leaning Republican Party and their rather undesirable nominee. More and more often, I hear people say that they would sit this election out or vote for an obscure third-party candidate rather than throw their support behind a middle of the road moderate. But is this the right thing to do? Is it worth throwing away a vote just to avoid the guilty feeling that may come from pulling the lever for Mitt?

In terms of numbers, the answer is obvious. A vote not cast by a conservative is a vote for Obama. A vote cast for a third-party president is a vote for Obama. By not voting for Mitt Romney, conservatives are effectively voting for Obama. So in terms of numbers and statistics, it’s straight forward. If we want to get rid of Obama (which is one thing that ALL conservatives seem to agree on), then we’d better grit our teeth, bite the bullet, and cast our votes for Romney, even if it does give us a sick feeling inside to vote for someone who once pedaled his own version of Obamacare.

Despite the straight-forward logic behind the numbers, there are some very convincing arguments to be made against voting for Romney. For example, supposing we conservatives get out there and vote Romney into office. Okay, great. What have we actually accomplished? Granted, Romney in office means that we’ve gotten rid of Obama, which is no small accomplishment. But what else will we have accomplished? If conservatives come out in force to vote for Romney, they will be sending the GOP a definite message. In essence, they will be admitting defeat. If conservatives vote for Romney, in essence they will be saying to the Republican Party: “You can shove us around, force your moderate candidates down our throat, and as long as they’re only marginally better than the democrat against whom they run, we’ll get out there and vote for him.”

Now, that’s the last message I want the Republicans to get from me, and I think most conservatives would be in agreement with me on that. So when viewed from that perspective, it might be worth sitting this election out just for the purpose of waking up the GOP. After all, if Mitt Romney loses by a land-slide because conservatives decided to stay home, it won’t take Republican leadership long to figure out that they need to come up with candidates who hold real conservative values rather than trying to cajole us into supporting their moderate choices. But there are a couple of problems with this way of thinking.

First of all, we have to ask ourselves whether or not the GOP will get the message. Even if enough conservatives sit the election out to make Romney lose, will this actually get the Republican Party’s attention? One would hope so. I mean, of all times for a Republican candidate to win, one would think that this election would be the easiest. Obama’s done such a bad job for the last four years that Mickey Mouse could run against him and win. Or at least that’s what one would think. So if Mitt Romney were to actually lose this election because enough disgruntled conservatives didn’t vote, one would think that this would be enough of a wake-up call to get the party leadership’s attention. But then again, it might not. Is it worth throwing away a vote and possibly handing Obama another four years in office in order to send the GOP a message that they might possibly never get?

Furthermore, it’s worth considering the price that we might have to pay if Obama gets another term in office. Our nation is heading towards destruction. Our economy is ready to take another nose-dive, we’re practically owned by the Chinese, our military is being downsized, and our liberties are being whittled down to nothing.  Given another four years, there’s no telling what kind of havoc Obama might wreak. Remember, these last four years that Obama’s been in office, he’s been thinking about getting reelected this year. So the Obama we’ve seen so far is most likely the more conservative version of the man. Once he doesn’t have to worry about reelection, then he’s free to pull out all the stops, and let loose with a storm of liberal executive orders. True, Obama will most likely have a conservative congress to stand in his way, but as we’ve seen already, Obama doesn’t let the Constitution stand in his way. He’s more than happy to grab whatever power he can and use it however he likes. The prospect of a two-term Obama presidency is truly terrifying.

One might rightly wonder whether or not Mitt Romney is really a much better alternative than Obama. Obama is driving our country towards disaster at record speed, no doubt, but will Romney be able to put on the brakes in time? While I’m not confident that he will, I think that it’s reasonable to say that Romney will be able to at least somewhat reverse the changes Obama has made. With a conservative congress and a Republican president, our chances of getting Obamacare repealed are fairly good. Also, I think the Republicans actually mean business about cutting spending and reducing taxes. Finally, I have no doubt that Romney’s foreign policy will be better than Obama’s, and that Romney will work to restore the military which Obama has worked so hard to downsize. Now, I’m not overly confident that Romney and the Republicans will bring about the deep, across the board reform that the country so desperately needs, but I do feel that despite their numerous, glaring flaws, the Republicans in office will be at least somewhat better for our country than the Democrats. If our country weren’t so close to disaster already, or if Obama were a slightly less radical liberal and weren’t quite so hell-bent on destroying our country, then I would seriously consider sitting this election out to send the GOP a message. But we as a nation are teetering on the brink of disaster as it is. We can’t afford to play political games with this election just to make a point to the party leadership or satisfy our consciences.

No doubt, the GOP knew at the start of this election cycle that they had the Republican base over a barrel. More than likely, the moderates in the party took advantage of the situation, knowing that they could force a moderate down our throats now, when the stakes on this election are so high. The Republicans hold the trump card, and they know it. Despite our moral qualms, most conservatives are going to grudgingly cast their vote for the Republican candidate, no matter how moderate he might be, and the Republican Party leadership knew that. But just because the GOP took advantage of the situation doesn’t make their position any less strong. Despite whatever devious tactics might have been used to get Romney nominated, we still have to grit our teeth and vote for him if we want to keep the country from going over the proverbial cliff.

But what does this mean for the future of the party? Does this election doom us to having to live with moderate candidates from now on? Well, I sincerely hope not. And I think that there are ways that the conservative base can fight back, even if we do vote for Romney.

First of all, we need to keep our politicians accountable. This means writing letters, making phone calls, going to rallies, etc. It’s a lot harder than just sitting out an election, but it will likely be far more effective. As long as Romney knows that he has a conservative base on his back, watching his every move, I think he will ere on the side of conservatism as long as he’s in the White House. But we need to make sure that Romney and the Republican congress (assuming the Republicans do in fact win) know that we’re watching their every move, and we must keep them accountable.

Secondly, if Romney gets elected and then blows this term, then I say by all means, we should boot him out in 2016. If in four years we’re still facing high taxes, irresponsible spending, and more attacks on our liberties, then we should first of all try to get someone besides Romney nominated to run for the GOP, or else not vote for Romney to get a second term. (Romney has said that he plans to be a one-term president anyway, so this may be a non-issue, if Romney keeps his word.) We need to send a strong message to the GOP: Yes, you forced us to vote for a moderate candidate, this time. But don’t get any big ideas; we won’t let this happen again.

In conclusion, I say that despite the moral qualms many of us may have, I think that the right thing to do in this election is to vote for Romney, even if he is just the lesser of two evils. As much as I wish there were a viable conservative candidate to vote for, our country is in too dire of a position for us to play around with this election. But at the same time, we should not give up and give in to the moderate trend which seems to be dominating the party. Winning the election will be the easy part, and we will by no means be done after November 6th. In fact, Election Day will be just the beginning of the battle we must battle to set our nation back on track, and we must be prepared to join the fight.


If you’re like me, you probably get a bunch of emails from every corner of the political world every day. With most of them, I promptly hit the delete button and move on, but there is one variety which always catches my eye. For some reason, I always enjoy reading the emails which predict the eminent collapse of the United States, either from foreign invasion or else from inward destruction, or possibly a combination of both. I normally only sort of half-way pay attention, for the most part writing the warnings of disaster off as paranoia with a hint of fear-mongering. But I saw an article today that causes me to change the way I look at such emails. You can read it for yourself here:

In case you didn’t read the article, here’s the short version. A Russian attack submarine has been cruising around in the Gulf of Mexico for WEEKS, and we didn’t even KNOW about it until after they left. At the same time, Russian strategic bombers were flying in restricted U.S. airspace near Alaska and California. I assume we DID know about those at the time, but our military did absolutely nothing about it.

I don’t know if the Russians are out to get us, or whether they’re just flexing their military muscles. Regardless of the Russian intentions, this clearly demonstrates that as a country, we are vulnerable and ripe for destruction. I mean, my goodness, if the Russians can fly bombers over our RESTRICTED AIRSPACE without us so much as batting an eyelash, what WILL it take for them to get a reaction out of us? Will they have to fire cruise missiles at the White House before they get our beloved leader’s attention? It seems hard to believe, but I think Obama truly is intent on bringing America down. Maybe he doesn’t want to destroy the U.S. entirely, but I think he definitely wants to destroy our prosperity and give us a big slice of humble pie. If you have any doubts, just look at his record so far. He’s spending us into bankruptcy, while at the same time cutting our military. He’s reduced our nuclear arsenal to almost nothing, and cutting the military budget by $487 billion. And when Russia flies bombers into our strategic air space, he does NOTHING.

I truly think that Obama has a chip on his shoulder, and an enduring grudge against the U.S., particularly the middle and upper class. Any one of his blunders might be excusable as just that: a stupid blunder. If it were JUST the economy, or JUST our national defense, or JUST the excessive taxation of the upper and middle classes, or JUST the assault on our personal liberty and freedom through healthcare takeover, I MIGHT be able to write it off as the mistake of a well-meaning liberal. But all of these combined leads me to one conclusion: Obama wants to teach the U.S. a lesson. He’s tired of us being number one in the world, and he’s ready for us to be brought down a notch. To me, this is truly frightening.

I’ve felt for a long time that our country is headed for some kind of disaster, and this just makes me more sure. I just wonder if it’s too late to save ourselves. Maybe we should all move to Texas and secede before things get really ugly.

Normally, I like to post only the stuff that I write. However, on some occasions, there are so many well-written opinions already out there that I feel like whatever I write will only be regurgitating what has already been said. Obama’s bungle about “you didn’t build that business” is just such an issue. I could go on for a great many paragraphs about how wrong that statement is. It is an assault on us as individuals, and it undermines the very basis of the American way of life and capitalism itself. But, as I said, so much has been written already that I feel that anything I would say would consist of me parroting back to you what others have already written. So instead of continuing to rant, I’d like to invite you to read an excellent piece on the subject:

I was just reading a comment on a recent post, and realized that this blog has crossed the 100 comment mark! So, I thought I’d take this opportunity to say again just how much I appreciate everyone’s comments. Whether you love what I write or hate my guts, your comments are what makes doing this blog worthwhile. So please, if you have something to say about what I’m saying, leave a comment!

Amidst the doom and gloom of the most recent economic meltdown, combined with the abysmal unemployment numbers, and topped with Bloomberg’s idiotic plan to prohibit the sale of sugary sodas larger than 16 ounces (I hope and plan to write about all these in the near future), there remain a few bright spots on the political and social landscape of the country. One such bright spot can be found in Louisiana, where Republican governor Bobby Jindal along with the legislature is working to get government out of the way and let the private sector work. I’m referring to Louisiana’s major step towards privatizing public education.

According to Reuters, this fall thousands of families will be given vouchers which they can use for private education options. Of course, this is not the first attempt at a voucher program; ten states already have voucher programs. But the program in Louisiana is by far the broadest yet tried. Currently, about 170,000 students are on a voucher program of some kind. The Louisiana program will make some 360,000 students (over half of the state’s student population) eligible to receive vouchers this fall and drop out of public schools. Every time a student drops out of a public school, that school district will lose the funding associated with one student (about $8000), and that money will go to the student’s private school.

Now, this program is not without problems. For one thing, children in families who make too much money are not eligible for the program. This is clear discrimination against the rich, but then again, what else is new? But its flaws aside, this program is a major step in the right direction. Why is this program such great news? Let me explain.

First, we must remedy a common misconception. It is truly amazing how many people have the mistaken idea that the way to fix schools is simply to pour more money at them. Guess what? It doesn’t work. I have personally seen schools which receive an obscene amount of state money every year and turn out some of the most under-qualified students in the nation (assuming their students even graduate). This may be a newsflash for some of you, but here it is: throwing money at public schools is not the solution to education problems.

Let’s think for a moment about the idea that we ought to give under-performing school districts more money. What type of school does the government reward if it follows such a policy? The underperforming schools! By simply throwing more and more money at schools which do a bad job of educating students, the government simply encourages ineptitude and dysfunctionality in the school systems. After all, why would an under-performing school ever want to improve, if their only reward would be to lose their source of funding?

This is what happens when the government runs something. The government, unlike the free market, is incapable (or at least grossly incompetent at) creating solutions to problems. When the government funds anything, whether it be schools, the DMV, or healthcare, it encourages laziness and underperformance. The solution to education problems (and probably most other problems relating to the government’s involvement in business) is not more spending and more taxes, but privatization and competition. And that’s exactly what the Louisiana voucher program encourages.

Now, back to Louisiana. This fall, underperforming schools will have to face the prospect of losing students and their associated funding. This will force them to either improve, or shut their doors. At the same time, new private schools will be started by educators who see an opportunity to make money, while existing private schools will expand. And those private schools will be able to tailor their curriculum to the religious and philosophical beliefs of their customers, the parents, without the government breathing down their necks. With privatization of schools, public schools will be forced to be better, private schools will flourish, and parents will be allowed to choose schools with curricula compatible with their worldviews. And, as a side bonus, thousands and thousands of kids who otherwise would have gotten a next to worthless education in some dumpy public school will now have a chance of getting a quality education from a private school. And all of this will be a result of the private sector and free enterprise being allowed to work as they were intended to.

So if the news about Obama or Bloomberg has got you down, and you feel like the nation’s headed down the toilet, take refuge in the fact that there are still conservatives out there fighting to preserve freedom.

Yesterday, Mitt Romney visited Solyndra, a symbol of the failed Obama economics policies. You can watch the speech he gave here:

I must say, I think Romney hit the nail on the head. Solyndra is a perfect example of Obama’s complete lack of understanding of business and economics. As Romney said, Obama’s idea of “free enterprise” is taking money from the taxpayers, and giving it to his friends. Although, I would go further than that. I think that Obama knows exactly what free enterprise is. Obama is actively running against free enterprise. See one example here:

This video is only one of many examples of Obama’s anti-capitalism, anti-freedom philosophy. Obama doesn’t have a poor understanding of free enterprise. He knows exactly what free enterprise is, and he’s out to kill it.

Romney goes on to criticize the Solyndra plant as being too extravagant, citing the thermostat adjustable showers with music for the employees to listen to as they bathe? To that I would say, bravo Mitt. Why is it that corporations get chewed out for having private jets, while Solyndra can get away with building an extravagant palace using tax-payer money? Why is it that corporate executives get criticized for living lavish lifestyles, while government officials can get away with millions in bonuses? Corporations actually produce things and make people’s lives better. What has Solyndra, or any government investment like it, actually produced? Absolutely nothing, other than a debt which will be next to impossible to repay.

Romney also made a good point on why government intervention in the private sector is a bad idea, even if the company the government invests in is successful. As Romney said, the government is sending the message to everyone else that the best way to succeed in business is not to have a good product, not to have a creative idea, but to have good lobbyists. The simple fact is that it’s not the government’s job to pick winners and losers in business. The government’s job is to remove barriers to private enterprise, not to decide which companies deserve to succeed and which companies don’t. The free market works if left to itself, but as soon as government sticks its nose into private sector’s business, the result is multi-million dollar blunders like Solyndra.

There is an active war on capitalism and freedom in general underway in the country, and Barack Obama is leading the charge.

%d bloggers like this: