Friday, October 28, 2016

Erica Garner Calls Out Hillary Clinton Campaign for Callously Using Her Father’s Death

Oh, here’s a doozy!

Let’s break that headline down real quick.

Erica Garner is the daughter of Eric Garner, the New York City man who resisted arrest for suspicion of selling unlicensed cigarettes, was consequently put in a chokehold by a police officer, lost consciousness and died on July 17, 2014.

That’s who Erica Garner is.

Clinton, in this case, means Hillary Clinton, not her unrepentant, un-sentenced rapist of a husband. Though the distinction makes little difference when it comes to staffer corruption levels. You have to be exceptionally evil or inexcusably stupid to work for either Clinton.

Finally, we have the last two words of the headline - “WikiLeaks emails” - which is actually a misnomer. It should read “WikiLeaks-released emails” or “Hillary’s hacked emails” since it’s referring to the online communications Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks gang stole that show Hillary and her top cronies plotting to take the U.S. presidency by any means necessary… like using people’s deaths to score political points.

Now that you understand the headline, let’s delve into the story itself.

It appears that some of the WikiLeaks-released emails pertained to Eric Garner and how the campaign could use him to its best advantage. It also appears that, despite the mainstream media’s agreement to publish as little negative news about Hillary as possible, those emails were somehow seen by Erica Garner.

And, understandably, those emails did not make her happy.

In a series of tweets, she said: “I’m troubled by the revelation that you and this campaign actually discussed ‘using’ Eric Garner… Why would you want to ‘use’ my dad?” And then, “These people will co opt anything to push their agenda. Police violence is not the same as gun violence.”

While I disagree with her belief that we have a widespread police violence problem, she nailed it on addressing how unabashedly heartless and scheming Hillary Clinton and her close circle are.

They don’t care about anyone but their own agenda, which is acquiring more power.

Thanks in part to WikiLeaks – and thanks in part to good old-fashioned intellectual integrity – we’ve seen how poorly the Clinton family has used the power they’ve already obtained.

Do we really want to give them more?

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Why Voting Liberal on the Social Issues Doesn’t Help Society

Last week, I got involved in a political discussion at work.

Normally, when politics come up in my ultra-liberal office, I put on my headphones and tune everyone out. But there was no escaping this one, since there were only two people in the room when my colleague brought it up.

And one of those people was me.

I didn't flat-out tell her I was voting Republican, but I implied it a few times as gently as I could around her portrayal of Trump as the instigator behind all the recent violence against women and racially-charged police shootings. (I'm not being sarcastic here. She really did say that.)

I also dared to give my opinion on Trump’s worldview, which is that he’s neither racist nor sexist but opportunist. He'll be nice to whomever he wants to be nice to and viciously attack anyone he doesn't, punching back with every personal slur he can to gain the upper-hand.

By the way, that's not a quality I admire in him.

But I also don't admire what my colleague went on to say about how she sympathizes with conservative fiscal values but never votes Republican because she cares so much about the social issues.

From a logical perspective, I can't respect that position.

While it’s good to care about your fellow people being able to live free, enriched lives, nobody can lead a free, enriched life when they’re seeking freedom above fiscal, governmental and societal responsibility.

Consider how, under the last eight years of a liberal, social-issues-preaching regime, we’ve racked up unsustainable amounts of debt. Our government has levied thousands of pages worth of additional taxes and regulations. And our society has too often devolved into chaos, with destructive riots; a flood of illegal immigrants encouraging gang violence, drug violence and drug use; homeless communities springing up; and jobless teenagers turning to crime.

Factor all that in, and it doesn’t matter whether we have all the affirmative action, gay rights, free abortion and other social-issue platforms liberals adhere to. Nobody will truly benefit from them – if they ever truly benefited from them – because everybody’s taxes will be too high to lead worthwhile livelihoods, our movements will be too stifled by government surveillance and our neighborhoods will look like the inner cities of Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore.

That’s what setting social issues above fiscal, governmental and societal responsibility does.

And what kind of person is going to vote for that?

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

My Epic Rant Against the Man Bun

Today, I could talk about Global Warming scandals or Hillary Clinton’s reported temper tantrums or how not-funny Amy Schumer is. (Because she’s really not funny.)

But I’m not. Instead, I’m going to talk about man buns and how much I hate them.

If this was simply an aesthetic rant about how dumb and unkempt and homeless man buns usually look, I wouldn’t waste your time addressing the issue. I’m not even sure I’d bring it up just to point out how utterly pretentious most man-bun sporters are, walking around like they’re God’s gift to the universe because they look dumb and unkempt and homeless.

(Sorry to those men who manage not to look dumb and unkempt and homeless while wearing man buns. But you’re few and far between.)

However, it seems like the man bun phenomena is the latest offshoot of emasculating men… one more way to make them fit into some sick, psycho-feminist version of what a man is supposed to be.

For too many decades now, men have been told they’re a second-rate gender (or even third- or fourth-rate, depending on your definition of the word). And so they’ve responded to the criticism by increasingly feminizing themselves.

I’m not talking about watching an occasional chick flick or holding meaningful conversations about something other than football. Real men aren’t Neanderthals or meatheads or misogynists.

But they’re also not women.

Real men strive to be intelligent, respected and respectable – the opposite of dumb, unkempt and homeless, by the way – by working hard in life to support or prepare for their families. As un-feminist as this might seem, men are supposed to be leaders. Real leaders – the kind who act with integrity and confidence and courage.

I know I want a strong man someday. Someone I can respect. Someone who can keep down a job.

Besides, from my experience, men are already as emotionally needy as I can tolerate without them taking on more “female” qualities.

So please, men… Be men! And let us women be women. We’re much better at it anyway.

Including wearing buns.

Friday, October 21, 2016

Why Don’t Liberals Want to Teach the United States Constitution?

I recently went to a friend’s homecoming at Elizabethtown College in Central Pennsylvania, which just so happened to fall on the same day as my own alma mater’s homecoming… at its rival school, Messiah College, also in Central Pennsylvania.

This would have been my 10-year homecoming too, which I’m told is a pretty big deal. Yet I didn’t care. E-town had better food available and a thirty-minute drive difference. Plus, I just don’t have a great opinion of Messiah College.

The campus is beautiful and safe, the class sizes are cozy and some of the professors are stellar.

But that’s offset by a humanities-wide agenda to indoctrinate students to liberalism. As I remember Messiah College, religious classes were used to undermine the Bible, English classes were hijacked to preach about pacifism and who to vote for in the 2004 elections (hint: It wasn’t George W. Bush), and even science classes weren’t guaranteed to be entirely scientific.

Oh, and don’t bother having a different opinion unless you want to put your grade in jeopardy.

(I never had a bad experience with a history professor there though. Loved them!)

Not to say I would have gotten a different experience at E-town. I just wouldn’t have paid more for it under the false pretense of a Christ-centered education.

But as much fun as I have bashing my alma mater, that’s not my main reason for writing today. You see, while at E-town’s homecoming, I ran into some of my sister’s liberal friends who got into a discussion about how distasteful it was to teach the U.S. Constitution in history classes.

Oh, the horror!

Now, admittedly, I didn’t stick around for the full conversation. They were totally killing my two-beers-over-2.5-hours buzz (apparently, I’ve turned into a lightweight), so I left. All the same, they got me thinking…

According to liberal dogma, the United States of America is a racist, sexist, closeminded, bullying, bad, dark and yucky place. It’s been that way since its founding: fundamentally flawed from the start.


In that case, why not teach the Constitution – one of our most important founding documents that everything else in this country is supposedly predicated on? I mean, if liberals are right, shouldn’t such a formidable piece of history only solidify their arguments? It was, after all, composed and signed by a bunch of unapologetic, disgusting slave owners, right?

Yet they seem to want to do the exact opposite, only calling it a racist, sexist, closeminded, bullying, bad, dark and yucky manuscript… instead of proving it to be as much.

It’s almost like they don’t believe the academic or intellectual integrity of their own argument.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

One Very Good Reason Not to Vote for Hillary (and one Reason to Vote for Trump)

Here’s one really good reason why you don’t want to vote for Hillary.

Opening for Amy Schumer at Madison Square Garden, the 58-year-old Madonna promised people, “If you vote for Hillary Clinton, I will give you a blowjob.”

Think about that for a minute. That’s like getting sexual favors from your washed-up, desperate grandmother who’s making an absolute idiot out of herself assuring people that “I’m good. I’m not a tool. I take my time.”

Okay. You can go throw up now.

Now that you’re not voting for Hillary (unless, of course, you enjoy getting blowjobs from washed-up, desperate grandmothers), here’s a reason to vote for Donald Trump.

Eminem just came out against him with a rap piece called “Campaign Speech.” In it, he says:

“Consider me a dangerous man, but you should be afraid of this dang candidate.
“You say Trump don’t kiss ass like a puppet ‘cause he runs his campaign with his own cash for the funded.
“And that’s what you wanted?
“A f*cking loose cannon who’s blunt with his hand on the button who doesn’t have to answer to no one?
“Great idea.”

This is the same Eminem who, back in 2000, wrote a song called “Kill You,” where he told a “Slut, you think I won’t choke no whore? / ‘Til the vocal cords don’t work in her throat no more?! / Shut up, slut! You’re causin’ too much chaos.”

The following year, a study examined so-called gangsta rap specifically for violence against women. Out of all the songs he’d written up ‘til then, Eminem got a 78%.

For the record, that was not a test you should be scoring well on.

Yet Eminem apparently learned nothing over the years. In 2014, he lyrically threatened to rape fellow rapper Iggy Azalea in his song “Vegas,” which included the lyrics: “Unless you’re Nicki / Grab you by the wrist let’s ski / So what’s it gonna be? / Put that sh*t away, Iggy / You don’t want to blow that rape whistle on me.”

And this guy is fit to give voting advice?

Seems to me that a notorious, grossly influential, unapologetic misogynist telling me not to vote for Donald Trump… sounds like a decent enough reason to do exactly the opposite.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Millennials Say Bush Killed More People Than Stalin Did

Millennials are idiots.

There’s no good reason to be proud of being a millennial. We’re loud, egotistical, disrespectful and lazy.

And I speak as one, with an insider’s view that makes me want to give up on humanity altogether. If this is our future, I’d rather live in the past. Someone get me a time machine already before I start bashing my head into something solid on repeat.

That seems like one of the most proactive solutions to the investment-focused Marketwatch's report that “a third of millennials say they believe more people were killed under George W. Bush than Joseph Stalin.”

That’s inexcusable. There is no good reason anyone should think Bush murdered more people than Stalin.

If you’re against the Iraq War, you’re against the Iraq War. And if you think Bush pushed us into it for oil, then you think Bush pushed us into it for oil. In which case, yes, he does have a lot of blood on his hands.

As much as I disagree with those opinions, I can understand where they come from.

I’m well aware that education (or lack thereof) factors in greatly to people’s beliefs. And millennials are automatically behind the curve on historical and political facts thanks to the careful conditioning they receive during their formative years.

In that regard, they’re not entirely to blame for being intellectually deficient. They’ve been taught to hate Bush, and they probably haven’t been taught nearly enough about Stalin. In which case it actually makes sense that “almost half of Americans between the ages of 16 and 20 said they would vote for a socialist, while 21% would go so far as to back a communist.”

They have no excuse, however, when it comes to comparing Bush to Stalin.

Even the worst of public or higher education’s anti-Bush rhetoric doesn’t have him murdering 4 million to 20 million people, as Stalin did. And as for the excuse that they might not know anything about Stalin whatsoever...

Then look it up before answering the question, you intellectually lazy idiot! Just pull out your smartphone and ask it a question already! I know you know how to do that much.

The one positive out of all of this is that these Bush-hating, Stalin-downplaying, socialist or communist millennial idiots are still so annoyed about what happened to their champion, Bernie Sanders, that they’re probably not even going to vote next month anyway.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Let’s Really Talk About “Locker Room Talk”

“Locker room talk.”

That’s what Donald Trump called his lewd conversation with Today’s Billy Bush back in 2005, which included comments about women like, “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the p*ssy.”

Ever since that was leaked, people are correctly condemning his completely inappropriate remarks. Yet the way they’re doing so isn’t going to do anyone any good, including women.

They need to stop pretending that verbally disrespecting women is shocking when it’s not. It’s commonplace.

Some idiot female media maven (I can’t remember if she’s a journalist or talk show host) said she asked both her husband and athletics-involved teenaged son if they’ve ever talked like Donald Trump or overheard other men talk like him inside the locker room.

They said no. Never.

And she believed them. Hence the reason why she’s an idiot. Or really disingenuous.

No offense to her son and husband – except to call them liars – since they might very well be absolute gentlemen. But there’s no way a bunch of fawned-over athletes hyped up on today’s culture of sex, drugs, and rap & roll are going to show consistent respect for women as a group.

Far from it.

That makes the reporter who asked Tom Brady, “How would you respond if your kids heard Donald Trump’s version of locker room talk?” also an idiot or disingenuous. Probably the latter.

Everyone knows athletes’ reputation with women, whether they’re in the NFL, the NBA or college. In fact, everyone expects them to get it on with women in less than respectful manners.

You really think they then treat the subject respectfully in the locker room?

Is it right? No.

But it does make sense when our culture promotes that kind of mentality in so many ways. Just listen to Top 40 pop-station songs, rap songs and even country songs that inevitably feature men bragging about getting easy sex and women like Ariana Grande assuring men that “All girls wanna be like that: Bad girls underneath like that.”

So don’t go condemning Donald Trump for his “locker room talk” unless you’re willing to condemn all locker room talk, whether it’s inside the locker room, inside a limo or on the radio broadcasted to billions of impressionable minds, preaching that the best way to be cool is to brag about casual sex.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Donald Trump Declares War on Republican Establishment That Declared War on Him

That’s not a misleading statement since Trump really did take to Twitter and elsewhere to air his poor opinion of party leadership – in his trademark… umm… expressive style – after Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said he wouldn’t be campaigning for him anymore.

And while I don’t think Trump is handling this latest turn of events with dignity or poise, if anyone deserves to be Twitter-slapped at this point, it’s people like Paul Ryan, John McCain, Susan Collins and the rest of the Republican party elite who have been reigning far too long.

Please don’t mistake me. I don’t think Trump is handling this turn of events very well. His response comes across as bad-natured and immature. As to be expected.

But this kind of candidate is what we’ve come to after years of a pansy Republican establishment that’s more concerned with a pretty public image or personal power than the good of the nation.

These people have been pushing left for a while now. Moreover, they’ve been doing so in direct opposition to We the People who have voted them into office. They tell us what we want to hear during the election season, only to get up on their high horses afterward and ride off into the sunset… with the liberals.

Not even Democrats. Liberals.

Well guess what?

That’s like declaring war on those they represent. So those they represent have officially accepted the challenge by collectively electing a presidential candidate who’s willing to fight just as dirty. It’s just that Trump is willing to say everything up front and on the campaign trail instead of behind closed government doors after all the votes are in.

That’s the reason why I’m not even close to feeling bad for the GOP, an establishment that’s willing to train its guns on the pig it produced instead of the hyena lurking in the shadows salivating over its ruin and the ruin of everything it claims to represent.

I don’t condone many of Trump’s actions. But I think I’m realizing that I condone even less of the GOP’s.

These un-conservative, un-American elitists provoked a war with their own people.

As a result, this particular person isn’t going to lift a finger to help them as the war comes back on their own heads.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Donald Trump Is a Pig… And Hillary Clinton Is Still Worse

As per my decision to follow the official 2016 presidential elections as little as possible, I didn’t listen to Donald Trump’s leaked lewd “locker room talk” from 2005.

It has nothing to do with me trying to excuse him either. I don’t doubt what he said was inappropriate. I don’t doubt it was immature. And I don’t doubt he’s a pig.

But this election cycle is a choice between bad and worse. And Hillary Clinton is worse.

Without a shadow of a doubt, she’s worse.

(Disclaimer: This in no way is meant to disparage those who can’t bring themselves to vote for either Trump or Hillary, only those who vote for Hillary over Trump.)

Hillary Clinton is worse because she did worse than nothing while her husband preyed on women, even raping one – Juanita Broddrick. And judging by the details that victim gave about the callous encounter, she wasn’t the first or the last woman who couldn’t make Bill Clinton take no for an answer.

Sounds like he’s a pro at getting what he wants.

Rather like his wife is a pro at getting what she wants. It’s a marriage made in hell.

Now, while Bill Clinton apparently wants little more than sex, Hillary Clinton is much more power-driven. That’s her goal at the expense of everything else. So if she has to shrug off her husband’s “bimbo eruptions” solution, which worked hard to silence every single woman who came forward against him with an allegation of sexual misconduct, then so be it.

She’ll paint him as a saint and them as unscrupulous or deranged without a second thought.

Moreover, she’ll do it so well that he’ll win the presidency. Twice.

And defending the 41-year-old rapist of a 12-year-old? No problem whatsoever!

As she proved back in 1987 when she defended Thomas Alfred Taylor, she’ll not only utilize every dirty lawyer trick in the book to successfully paint her client’s accuser as a slutty little liar… She’ll even laugh about it all afterward.

So Donald Trump?

Yeah, he’s a pig. A big, giant oinker, I’m sure.

But pigs are preferable when you otherwise have to deal with hyenas.

Friday, October 7, 2016

Children Need to Be Held Accountable


I’m sorry to “shout,” but I am so fed up with idiot adults excusing horrifically behaved children so that they grow up to be horrifically behaved adults.

The latest such story I’ve come across, as written by the New York Post, is that of an “Upper East Side mom who was nearly killed when two teens pushed a shopping cart onto her from an overpass at an East Harlem shopping center.”

Four years ago, Marion Hedges, described as a philanthropist, was walking into a Target with the intention of purchasing Halloween candy for children in low-income households. Instead, she was hit by the shopping cart that 12-year-old Raymond Hernandez and 13-year-old Jeovanni Rosario decided to toss off the ledge above her.

After recovering as much as she could – she still suffers brain damage from the incident – Hedges decided to sue. Which makes sense since the two little brats nearly killed her.

What’s not so understandable is who she chose to sue: Target and what seems like all the other establishments inside the shopping plaza.

Because, you know, how dare they offer carts to shoppers! At the very least, they should post warning signs for junior hoodlums to read that it’s not safe to throw said carts off of overpasses.


Hernandez and Rosario, meanwhile? The former had to spend six months in what the Post describes as “a therapeutic group home,” while the latter got six to 18 months at the Graham Windham School for at-risk kids (presumably a juvenile detention center).

Hernandez went on to take part in at least 14 robberies last December, for which he was finally caught. So clearly, he didn’t outgrow his proclivity for “childish antics.”

Yet Hedges doesn’t seem to blame them. The afore-referenced article merely mentions how she “has maintained compassion for the young boys despite her life-altering injuries.”

That’s stupid. Like really, really, backwards, brain-damaged stupid. And yes, I meant exactly what I said.

How can you have “compassion” for the perpetrators yet none for non-complicit businesses?

Besides, excusing inexcusable behavior isn’t actual compassion. It’s irresponsible.

It’s irresponsible for the lawless children who need to learn some serious lessons, and it’s irresponsible for all the victims they’ll continue to harm otherwise. 

Thursday, October 6, 2016

Target Aims at College Students Since Mature-Minded Adults Don’t Like It Anymore

Thanks to its ridiculous new transgender-friendly, women- hostile bathroom policy, which sparked a storewide, long-term Christian-led boycott, any article that mentions Target is pretty much click-bait for me these days.

I want to know how the staunch liberal corporation fares sticking to its guns (of the non-literal variety, of course). So when I saw the headline “Target Goes After Millennials With Small, Focused Stores” listed on Yahoo, my finger hit my laptop’s mousepad about as fast as could be.

Hardly a long article, it describes how, “The chain is opening several smaller stores in urban areas and college towns from New York City to State College, Pa, as it battles declining traffic and sales at its nearly 1,800-strong fleet of largely suburban stores.

“Near the University of Minnesota campus, Target opened a store less than 15% the size of an average store. It stocks a limited assortment of products geared toward college students, like miniature ironing boards and twin-size sheets. Ping-pong balls are near the beer. There are no children’s toys or strollers.

“‘We could see hundreds of these,’ Chief Executive Brian Cornell said. ‘It could be a huge part of future growth outlook over time.’

“The retail chain recently reported its first decline in existing store sales in two years, and its stock has lost 13% over the past year. Mr. Cornell is trying to reinvigorate sales and better appeal to younger shoppers…”

Okaaaayyyy. Interesting, right?

Very interesting, in fact. The kind of interesting that leads to some easily answerable questions.

Like why is Target trying to shift its entire marketing strategy after a single quarter’s decline? Does it know that, contrary to the talking points it released with its second-quarter results, the drop in sales it saw is due to a million or more people no longer shopping there? That, moreover, those million or more people aren’t coming back unless women are expected to use women’s bathrooms and men are expected to use men’s?

And of all the groups to pick, why does it feel the need to push itself at Millennials? Is it because college students are brainwashed enough to swallow whatever liberal talking points they’re told to swallow, while the mature-minded adults Target used to appeal to understand that – again –women should be using women’s bathrooms and men should be using men’s?

If it wants to stick by its so-called morals, then fine. That’s it prerogative.

But it might say more about Target’s so-called morals if it would just admit the truth already. Because hiding behind all these lame excuses is just making it – and its transgender-friendly, women-hostile policies – look pathetic.

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

Chick-fil-A Treats Its Customers Like They Matter… And That Matters a Lot

Here’s something interesting to consider today…

Chick-fil-A, which trains its employees to say please and thank you, holds the highest ranking in the restaurant business for polite service.

So says the restaurant-focused QSR Magazine, anyway. But the news shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who frequents the cow-friendly establishment. Simply put, the fast-food chicken joint is known for its customer service as much as for its waffle fries and tasty, tasty milkshakes.

Asposted on Yahoo! Finance, Business Insider reports:

“While small pleasantries are easy to dismiss in the multi-billion dollar restaurant business, these little things have played a key role in setting Chick-fil-A apart from the competition.

“In 2015, Chick-fil-A generated more revenue per restaurant than any other fast-food chain in the U.S. The chain’s average sales per restaurant reached nearly $4 million.

“Meanwhile, the average KFC sold $1 million in 2015.”

For that matter, Chick-fil-A can actually generate more “revenue than chains such as KFC, Pizza Hut and Domino’s with more than twice as many U.S. locations.”

Now, I could point out that it’s a Christian establishment with firm Christian values. That would be a valid topic to broach. But let’s consider it from a capitalistic standpoint instead.

From a customer service perspective, positive attitudes are appealing. When patrons are treated well, no matter the industry, they’re more likely to have positive emotions about the place in question, which encourages repeat business… which translates into higher sales.

From an employee perspective, positive attitudes are just as beneficial. When workers are expected to take their jobs seriously, it’s not just their actions that change for the better; it’s also their attitudes. They learn to take pride in their jobs, performing them to the best of their abilities and therefore to their customers’ satisfaction more often than not.

Which keeps customers coming back. Which makes more money for the business.

It’s a win-win-win.

Based on Chick-fil-A’s very successful business model, it seems safe to say that there’s something credible to customer service: the art of considering other people’s existence… a shocking thought, I know, in today’s egocentric culture.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Liberals Encourage Instant Gratification, Then Shame Men for Rape Culture

Duke University – yup. THAT Duke University. Of the Duke Lacrosse rape scandal – is offering a nine-week seminar meant to “question and deconstruct toxic masculinities.”

Put out by the women’s center’s so-called Men’s Project, its website-stated purpose is “to foster constructive male allyship, and to question and deconstruct toxic masculinities.” Furthermore, it claims to know “how masculinity in its normative form alienates most – if not all – men, and recognize[s] the part normative masculinity plays in alienating men and reproducing violence.”

In other words, it’s taking a supposed stand against today’s liberal-classified rape culture.

Here’s my emotional response to Duke University, its women’s center and its “Men’s Project:” Blah blah blah. Chirp chirp. Beep beep.

And here’s my emotional response to Duke University, its women’s center and its “Men’s Project:” Blah blah blah. Chirp chirp. Beep beep.

No, I mean it. This is downright idiotic, since this program is clearly organized by liberals and liberals are the ones who’ve promoted a culture of instant gratification for decades now:

1.      Want to have sex outside of marriage? Liberals say go for it! You can always have an abortion if you don’t care for the consequences.

2.      Don’t want to bother looking for a job that can support your family? Liberals say no problem! You can still get money through government-funded welfare.

3.      Can’t pay for a government program right away? Liberals say to print money now; worry about it later!

4.      Don’t want to go through the long and trying process of applying for legal citizenship? Liberals embolden you to sneak over the border!

Then, after encouraging such immature behavior, liberals wonder why some men take that harmful mindset a step further by instantly gratifying their sexual desires through rape. Yet, by liberal logic, it makes complete and total sense.

Yes, a rapist could go to a bar, chat up a woman, buy her enough drinks and feed her enough lines over the course of an hour or two to probably get some action the legal way. But why bother getting permission when permission might be denied?

For that matter, why bother getting permission when it takes time to get permission?

Like Veruca Salt in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, they “want it now!” And they’ve been conditioned to get it now.

So why the hell is anyone surprised when they take it now?