Southern Common Sense.

onenationundergod: Well then. What a surprise. I would have...

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:39:53 -0400

Well then. What a surprise. I would have never guessed.

Feeding the Homeless BANNED in Many Major Cities

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:29:03 -0400

Feeding the Homeless BANNED in Many Major Cities:

What would you do if you came across someone on the street that had not had anything to eat for several days? Would you give that person some food? Well, the next time you get that impulse you might want to check if it is still legal to feed the homeless where you live. Sadly, feeding the homeless has been banned in major cities all over America. Other cities that have not banned it outright have put so many requirements on those that want to feed the homeless (acquiring expensive permits, taking food preparation courses, etc.) that feeding the homeless has become “out of reach” for most average people. Some cities are doing these things because they are concerned about the “health risks” of the food being distributed by ordinary “do-gooders”. Other cities are passing these laws because they do not want homeless people congregating in city centers where they know that they will be fed. But at a time when poverty and government dependence are soaring to unprecedented levels, is it really a good idea to ban people from helping those that are hurting?

This is just another example that shows that our country is being taken over by control freaks. There seems to be this idea out there that it is the job of the government to take care of everyone and that nobody else should even try.

onenationundergod: itsnotachoiceitsachild: We get told this...

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:05:05 -0400

onenationundergod:

itsnotachoiceitsachild:

We get told this every day.

Interesting perspective.

You know, I’ve always wondered about the progressive dogma about ‘the rich are...

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:01:39 -0400

You know, I’ve always wondered about the progressive dogma about ‘the rich are inherently evil.’. You see it all the time in media (In Time, much?), and in the whole Occupy fiasco.

What happened to ‘making your own hard-earned money and being successful to live a comfortable life?” Isn’t that something to be applauded? The American Dream, so to speak.

It gets even more interesting when you figure out that said dogma also inherently relies on the State; if the people can’t live on their own money, they’ve gotta live on somebody else’s.

communismkills: crythias: “Don’t compare abortion to slavery!” That’s right. At least they got...

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:05:06 -0400

communismkills:

crythias:

“Don’t compare abortion to slavery!”

That’s right. At least they got some work product from the slaves before they killed ‘em…

Also, the slaves weren’t really considered human, right?

At least the slaves were paid and fed. Interestingly, they actually did this without relying on the government’s taxation to do it.

I love you.

I really love you.

WikiLeaked: Ex-Blackwater ‘helps regime change’ in Syria

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:05:54 -0400

WikiLeaked: Ex-Blackwater ‘helps regime change’ in Syria :

A US government-contracted private security firm is helping the Syrian opposition to overthrow the Bashar al-Assad regime, leaked Stratfor emails indicate. The same firm earlier operated extensively in Libya.

The private military company SCG International had been contracted to engage the Turkey-based Syrian opposition, according to correspondence released by WikiLeaks.

Their assignment was called a “fact finding mission”, but “the true mission is how they can help in regime change,”an email addressed to Stratfor VP for counter-terrorism Fred Burton says.

The source reporting the info is most reliable – it is SCG Chief Executive James F. Smith, who used to be director of notorious company Blackwater, now known as Academi. In a separate message Smith introduces himself to Stratfor as having background in CIA and heading a company “comprised of former DOD, CIA and former law enforcement personnel.”

[ Read More ]

> censoring anyone’s speech (whether it be nice or not)...

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:58:00 -0400

> censoring anyone’s speech (whether it be nice or not) is…

> same as ‘not taking away rights from you’.

If I had a quarter for every time that progressives wanted to mutilate free speech, I’d be Buffet-rich.

I sometimes wonder if libertarians would still have a problem with private contractors fighting on behalf of private interests.

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:26:02 -0400

communismkills:

brainbytumblr:

communismkills:

I.e., the families of 9/11 victims want to pull funds together to hire something like Blackwater to just go and do the best they can to get rid of terrorists.

What’s the argument against it? “No it’s really our fault for everything”?

Actually, CK, a surgical strike aimed at those responsible for an attack by a privatized military force was one of Ron Paul’s genius ideas, hence his reintroduction of the principle of Letters of Marque. If you do’t know what those are, Wiki them. They’re freakin’ sweet, and entirely Constitutional… unlike what we have going on now, which is empire building at it’s most classic.

I can’t tell if you were being condescending or not, but I know what Letters of Marque are… Anyway.

I was referring to the libertarian hatred for Blackwater, mostly… They consider a lot of private military forces to be “war-profiteers” or something like that.

Libertarian here, and neutral-to-positive of the old kind of contractors that knew how to be professional. Been reading up on PMC’s/mercenaries recently, and unfortunately the professionalism after the Nisour Massacre/2004 has taken a steep nosedive; ergo the bad rap they’ve taken lately.

Ironically, Erik Prince (founder of Blackwater) says he’s disgusted with said lack of discipline, and cites it as one of his reasons to leave. (The other being that he loathes the State as a contractor, and views it as a giant mistake. Ha.) I’m not sure how true that is realistically, but it is interesting.

Race and Rhetoric

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:39:21 -0400

Race and Rhetoric:

baseballlibertarian:

by Thomas Sowell

One of the things that turned up, during a long-overdue cleanup of my office, was an old yellowed copy of the New York Times dated July 24, 1992. One of the front-page headlines said: “White-Black Disparity in Income Narrowed in 80’s, Census Shows.”

The 1980s? Wasn’t that the years of the Reagan administration, the “decade of greed,” the era of “neglect” of the poor and minorities, if not “covert racism”?

More recently, during the administration of America’s first black president, a 2011 report from the Pew Research Center has the headline, “Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics.”

While the median net worth of whites was ten times the median net worth of blacks in 1988, the last year of the Reagan administration, the ratio was nineteen to one in 2009, the first year of the Obama administration. With Hispanics, the ratio was eight to one in 1988 and fifteen to one in 2009.

Race is just one of the areas in which the rhetoric and the reality often go in opposite directions. Political rhetoric is intended to do one thing — win votes. Whether the policies that accompany that rhetoric make people better off or worse off is far less of a concern to politicians, if any concern at all.

Democrats receive the overwhelming bulk of the black vote by rhetoric and by presenting what they have done as the big reason that blacks have advanced. So long as most blacks and whites alike mistake rhetoric for reality, this political game can go on.

A Manhattan Institute study last year by Edward Glaeser and Jacob Vigdor showed that, while the residential segregation of blacks has generally been declining from the middle of the 20th century to the present, it was rising during the first half of the 20th century. The net result is that blacks in 2010 were almost as residentially unsegregated as they were back in 1890.

There are complex reasons behind such things, but the bottom line is plain. The many laws, programs and policies designed to integrate residential housing cannot be automatically assumed to translate into residentially integrated housing. Government is not the sole factor, nor necessarily the biggest factor, no matter what impression political rhetoric gives.

No city is more liberal in its rhetoric and policies than San Francisco. Yet there are less than half as many blacks living in San Francisco today as there were in 1970.

Nor is San Francisco unique. A number of other very liberal California counties saw their black populations drop by 10,000 people or more, just between the 1990 and 2000 censuses — even when the total population of these counties was growing.

One of the many reasons why rhetoric does not automatically translate into reality is that the ramifications of so many government policies produce results completely different from what was claimed, or even believed, when these policies were imposed.

The poverty rate among blacks was nearly cut in half in the 20 years prior to the 1960s, a record unmatched since then, despite the expansion of welfare state policies in the 1960s.

Unemployment among black 16 and 17-year-old males was 12 percent back in 1950. Yet unemployment rates among black 16 and 17-year-old males has not been less than 30 percent for any year since 1970 — and has been over 40 percent in some of those years.

Not only was unemployment among blacks in general lower before the liberal welfare state policies expanded in the 1960s, rates of imprisonment of blacks were also lower then, and most black children were raised in two-parent families. At one time, a higher percentage of blacks than whites were married and working.

None of these facts fits liberal social dogmas.

Communism Kills: brehon: I’m Going to Kill Our Baby: A Father’s Worst...

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:13:17 -0400

Communism Kills: brehon: I’m Going to Kill Our Baby: A Father’s Worst...:

brehon:

I’m Going to Kill Our Baby: A Father’s Worst Nightmare

mattssoapbox:

This is a great article, but it shows the sad reality that fathers have no say as to whether or not their unborn child can be killed or not. We tend to focus on the mothers who have been hurt by abortion,…

Without contraception, the average woman would become pregnant roughly 12 to 15 times in her life.

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:59:27 -0400

Without contraception, the average woman would become pregnant roughly 12 to 15 times in her life.:

newwavefeminism:

feministhistorian:

unknowablewoman:

For the dudebros who don’t concern themselves with access to birth control, abortion, daycare, etc.—I would love to see how you would manage a life or a career if your plans were constantly being interrupted by pregnancy. I really would.

And before you interject with any “just close your legs! if you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex!” business, please remember one thing: someone out there is getting women pregnant, and it isn’t the Holy Spirit.

emphasis mine

Honestly, I think the number would be WAY higher than just 12-15. Unless you factor in someone just not wanting to ever have sex again after fifteen back to back pregnancies…

> woman still chooses to have sex in all but the rarest cases.

> ya’ll seriously need to take responsibility for choices, and quit pointing fingers elsewhere.