It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.

While pointing the finger of blame is often shunned as a counter-productive or divisive practice, as Sowell pointed out, accountability for poor decisions is necessary for effective governance. How else are we to learn from the mistakes of the past and prevent their re-occurrence than to identify poor decisions and those who made them?

In that context, congress’ Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is currently interrogating bank executives to identify the cause of the economic melt-down. However, while most of the heated interrogation is being directed toward private financial institutions, lets put the politicians on the hot seat and review the government’s role in getting us into our current economic mess.

First, a basic understanding of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their role in the housing and lending market is critical in order to comprehend the root causes of the financial meltdown. In the video below, Senator Jim DeMint offers an excellent summary.

As DeMint stated, it is Congress’ responsibility to provide regulation and oversight of government sponsored entities (GSE’s) such as Fannie & Freddie. Following is a brief time-line of events as it pertains to congress and the regulation of GSE’s.

*Hat tip to Mike Costello for being “the squeaky wheel” that guided me in my research.

• April 2001 – President Bush raised red flags concerning the size of Fannie and Freddie in his 2002 budget request. He identified the “potential problem” that trouble in either institution could “cause strong repercussions in financial markets”.
• mid 2003 – Reports and hearings showed Freddie Mac “manipulated its accounting to mislead investors” and that they failed to “adequately hedge against rising interest rates”.
• July 31, 2003 – The Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S. 1508), co-sponsored by John McCain, was introduced. President Bush subsequently  recommended a massive regulatory overhaul. The bill passed the Senate Banking Committee, however with every single democrat on the committee opposing it, the bill was doomed.
• Feb. 24, 2004 – Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, warns congress that “if we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency in crisis; we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States”.
• Sept. 2004 – A report following an 8-month investigation by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprises Oversight (OFHEO) showed Fannie executives intentionally manipulated their accounting and overstated their earnings by $10.6 billion in order to hit targets and pocket an additional $27 million in bonuses.
• Late 2004 – As the video below shows, during hearings, republicans expressed concern and called for swift action and more regulation, while democrats expressed anger toward OFHEO for bringing corruption at Fannie to light, suggesting there was nothing wrong and no need for increased regulation.

• Early 2005 – Regulatory legislation was re-introduced (S. 109) however with every democrat in the banking committee once again voting against it, the bill never made it to the Senate floor.
• May 2006 – John McCain signed on as a co-sponsor of the stalled bill and said that “if Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole”.
• July 2008 – After republicans re-introduced a regulation bill (S. 1100) for the third time, it finally passed. Of course by this time, “toxic assets” from years of risky and reckless leadership at Fannie and Freddie had spread through the financial system, and it was too late.

As republicans are the ones who are generally labeled as “big business sell-outs” constantly pushing for deregulation, one may reasonably ask why, in this case, the roles seemed to be reversed.

First of all, democrats were bought-off by campaign contributions from Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Long-time member and current chairman of the Senate Banking Committee democrat Chris Dodd made the top of the list with a purchase price of $165,400. The second top sell-out was non other than…you guessed it, then rookie senator, President Barack Obama. Other democrats making the top of the list include fellow committee member Tim Johnson, current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

While they were apparently not as easy to buy off, Fannie and Freddie also contributed to the campaigns of many republicans, including two who also sat on the Senate Banking Committee. Therefore, another motive moved democrats to support the scandal-infested financial institutions. This motive was most commonly presented as “affordable housing”. While those two words have a tendency to create warm fuzzies within liberals, what it really means is putting poor minorities in homes they could in no way truly afford. I wonder how liberals now feel about “affordable housing”, seeing that their compassion-based pipe dream has cost millions of Americans to loose their jobs as well as their homes due to foreclosure.

Is it no surprise that Obama and the dems strive to demonize the executives of the private financial institutions in order to keep attention away from their grievous errors that helped create and/or worsen our current economic woes? How ironic it is that the same individuals who are largely responsible for the collapse of the housing market are now the very same “leaders” who claim to offer the solution to the problem they helped cause. I didn’t know if I should laugh or cry when I visited Chris Dodd’s website and saw that he actually has the nerve to say that he “leads the fight in the Senate for financial regulatory reform”.

False Argument # 1 – Medical treatment is better in countries with socialized healthcare.

The 2007 Lancet Oncology study showed U.S. cancer survival rates were higher in every category than in Europe, especially in Great Britain where their 50-year-old government-run universal healthcare fared worse than the European average.

Also, the 2007 National Bureau of Economic Research study also showed U.S. Cancer survival rates where also higher than in Canada.

False Argument # 2 – Treatment is more accessible in countries with socialized healthcare.

After proving that the quality of treatment in the U.S. is better than it’s socialized healthcare counterparts, the ObamaCare proponent will predictably complain that the statistics you’ve used illustrate only pre-diagnostic data and do not take into account those who, due to financial burden, do not have access to the superior treatment available through private healthcare. Essentially they argue that sacrificing superior treatment is justified if everyone has access to crappy healthcare. While the merit of such a trade-off of quality for quantity is debatable, for the time being I will entertain this argument.

In order to assess the quality of healthcare for all, including those that for whatever reason don’t get treated, statistics illustrating total death counts by cause must be reviewed. Fortunately, we have a 2004 report from the World Health Organization that does just that. When death rates by cause is adjusted for population, the U.S. fares better than the celebrated government healthcare found in Canada, France, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

I cranked the numbers for each of the six countries previously mentioned. Death rates for “communicable, maternal, perinatal, and nutritional” (which encompasses TB, childhood diseases, and Hepatitis) where lower in the U.S. than France, Japan, and the UK and only slightly worse than Canada and Italy. Cancer (“malignant neoplasms”) death rates carry more weight in significance as between the six countries I reviewed, Cancer is more than 4 times more deadly than communicable, maternal, perinatal, and nutritional illnesses combined. The U.S. had lower death-by-cancer rates than each of it’s socialized healthcare counterparts.

As these numbers represent death by cause totals, it can be concluded that the current private-run healthcare of the U.S. boasts lower death-rates (by illness) than government-run healthcare….even when access to healthcare, or lack thereof, is accounted for.

False Argument # 3 – Socialized healthcare is less expensive than private health-care.

This argument is humorous as lower healthcare spending is one of, if not the greatest reason for the inferior treatment found within socialized healthcare.

Socialized healthcare, as I discussed in a previous post (lie #2), is not a self-sufficient or “deficit-neutral” system. There is never enough tax money coming in to address everyone’s healthcare needs. Therefore, to avoid taxing everyone out of existence (which socialized healthcare gets as close as they can to doing) and spending the country out of existence, they must set GDP price controls which lead to the rationing of care. Thus, these countries are constantly struggling just to stay afloat and keeping the entire system from imploding on itself. Needless to say, they don’t have the billions necessary to invest toward the development of new and more efficient drugs and treatments. Instead, they wait for those advancements to come out of the US’ private-run healthcare and for the cost to come down enough for their broken system to be able to afford it.

False Argument # 4 – Life expectancy is higher in countries with socialized healthcare.

Warning, this argument is so irrelevant and easy to tear apart it may embarrass the person that spent the time and energy gathering data to prove an irrelevant point. Life expectancy rates do not focus on medical data, but is a broad topic that includes a plethora of non-medical variables such as suicide and alcohol and drug use. The person using this red herring argument is trying to distract you from the medical data that proves their point wrong and is straining to create an argument from irrelevant data.

False Argument # 5 – It’s the government’s purpose to provide critical things such as heatlhcare.

Many things that can be viewed as necessities and as critical were intentionally left unmet and unsubsidized by our founding fathers. Needs such as employment, housing, food, and health insurance where to be provided by, earned, and possessed by a self-sufficient and independent people – not by the government. Essentially, instead of just giving Americans a fish, the goal was to creat an environment in which all could have the ability to learn how to fish. To justify a government takeover of healthcare because of it’s important and critical nature, why not put the government in charge of all important and critical needs such as employment and houseing?

This type of thinking is what I believe led communist Soviet Union’s Nikita Khrushchev to prophecy that the U.S. will be led into communism through “small doses of socialism”. Such thinking leads many to believe that Obama’s magical utopian road of entitlements ultimately leads to the dark and freedomless destination of communism.

LIE # 1 – Obama wants transparent negotiations and an informed public.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly declared that throughout the healthcare reform process, he would ensure negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN, that he’d “enlist the American people in this process”, and that “the public would be part of the conversation”. However, less than three weeks after taking office, Obama began multiple closed-door meetings with private health-industry executives which resulted in a secret deal with the same pharmaceutical lobbyist he criticized in one of his campaign commercials.

Obama proceeded to create a sense of urgency by pressuring congress to pass the 1,000 page bill in less than a month, before the August recess. When such a rush leads democratic congressman John Conyers to state that there was no point in even reading the bill, its apparent the American people are being left out of the process and conversation.

As the healthcare debate continued, information and opposition toward ObamaCare seemed to increase in tandem. In response, the white has led a fascist-like campaign to silence opposition through fear and intimidation. Obama’s threat to the first amendment was most clearly illustrated through the illegal establishment of flag@whitehouse.gov as a means for people to report “fishy” opposition toward health insurance reform. This was followed by the White House’s effort to attack what seems to be the only news organization who isn’t working for the Obama administration. The White House’s war on Fox News even led competing CNN to defend a news organization’s right to report political opposition without fear of attack by the government.

LIE # 2 – Obama: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period.”

President Obama created quite a stir by issuing his own “read my lips” declaration by stating he would not support healthcare reform that isn’t financially sustainable. Obama’s acknowledgment that being deficit-neutral is a critical component of a successful government-run healthcare program assured Americans that our country will not follow in the footsteps of price-controlled rationing found in other socialized heathcare programs world-wide. If only it were true…

It was the number-crunching wizards of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that exposed the lie. Their review of the proposed bill determined that it would not only not be deficit-neutral, but that it would increase the deficit by $239 Billion in the next decade. CBO director and wizard master Douglas Elmendorf also stated that “the proposal would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year budget window.” It’s no surprise then that Obama’s deception would be referred to as “deficit dishonesty“.

LIE # 3 – Healthcare for illegal aliens.

Many were surprised at Rep. Joe Wilson’s break of decorum when he shouted, “you lie” during President Obama’s heath care address to congress. While fellow members of congress were well aware of what fueled and arguably justified such an outburst, at the time, most Americans were not.

Obama and the democrats claimed that ObamaCare wouldn’t offer tax-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants, pointing to section 246 of H.R. 3200 that, on paper, limits “federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” However, this lie was later exposed by the Congressional Research Service which concluded that in practice, there would be no restrictions keeping illegal aliens from receiving government-offered healthcare.

No big deal though, with illegal immigrant loop-holes brought to light, the bill could simply be amended to ensure that the immigration status of ObamaCare participants is verified. This would be easy through the use of already existing and effective programs such as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program. Two such amendments doing just that were authored by republican representatives Nathan Deal of Georgia and Dean Heller of Nevada. Democrats showed their true colors by voting down both amendments, implicitly allowing illegal immigrants to milk the would-be Obamacare.

Thus, with two small words, Wilson successfully brought the illegal immigrant deception to the attention of the American people. It was so successful, the resulting backlash of an informed public forced Obama to support a provision that would require proof of citizenship for enrollment in ObamaCare. ‘Atta boy Joe!

LIE # 4 – The real purpose of the Public Option.

Most in favor of ObamaCare claim that the purpose of a “public option” is to complete against private healthcare in an effort to drive down costs. For the time being, I’ll put aside the fact that you can’t possibly consider tax-funded government programs as real “competition” in the private market, or that subsidizing the price of heatlhcare in no ways changes the cost of healthcare. Instead I’ll simply point out the fact that many of the liberal leaders of healthcare reform have outright admitted that the public option is simply a “sneaky strategy” to eventually usher in a complete government takeover of the private healthcare industry though a single-payer system. Such ObamaCare proponents include Kathleen Sebelius (Sec. of Health), Rahm Emanuel (Obama’s Chief of Staff), Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Russ Feingold, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Paul Krugman (NY Times), and Ezra Klein (Washington Post).

In a later post, I’ll further debate the merits of socialized healthcare and single-payer systems. For now, lets stop pretending that ObamaCare is anything other than what it has been repeatedly admitted to be…a means to eventually replace the private health industry, not to compete with it.

LIE # 5 – The “doctor fix” accounting trick.

Obama set a $900 Billion price tag maximum for healthcare reform. The problem is that dealing with healthcare includes trying to fix the mess found in Medicare which includes the failed “sustainable growth rate” (SGR) payment formula which limits reimbursements for participating physicians. Repealing the SGR, a critical concession to gain ObamaCare support from doctors and the American Medical Association, costs $247 Billion.

Solution? Both House and Senate democrats proposed simply moving the $247 Billion “doc fix” into a separate piece of legislation and presto! More money to spend while still being able to claim it’s under Obama’s $900 Billion price tag.

Hopefully, the American people will see past the lies and deception used by Obama and the democrats and urge and pressure their representatives to reject ObamaCare.

California domestic partners enjoy the same legal rights and obligations as do married spouses through CA Family Code 297.5. This fact was a powerful tool in exposing the lies spread by the gays about “civil rights” and was cited in Yes on 8 commercials.

Following Prop 8′s passage, it was challenged before the same CA Supreme Court that had recently established same-sex marriage. Fortunately, because gay’s had the same legal rights, the arguments made in court had to do with nomenclature and the people’s right to amend their constitution, and not about civil rights for gays…and thus, Prop 8 was upheld by the court. Surely, had the opposition been able to argue that real legal rights were being withheld based on sexual orientation, Prop 8 would’ve lost, and gay “marriage” would’ve been forced upon California. In other words, offering domestic partners the same legal rights ended up saving traditional “marriage”. Should other states face a similar battle over “same-sex marriage” without offering the same legal rights to gay couples, the courts will likely force gay “marriage” as a means to secure those legal rights…so that in the end, gays will successfully redefine “marriage” on top of securing the legal rights.

Due to the fundamental differences between men and women, the balanced environment created by a man and woman committed in marriage, all things being equal, provide the ideal situation in which a child can be raised. However, the reality is that gays do and will always be able to adopt and raise children. Many of the legal rights given in “marriage” are for the benefit and protection of children. Withholding those rights puts children at risk and punishes them for the sexual orientation of their legal guardians.

It must be understood that fighting against giving gays the same legal rights will be viewed by the majority of the public as hateful discrimination. The technique the gays will use will be to give countless examples of the complications and horrors that gays AND THE CHILDREN INVOLVED can and will face without the same legal rights.

Ultimately, judges will have to decide if legal rights can constitutionally (state & federal) be withheld from someone due to their sexual orientation. It doesn’t take a genius or a prophet to foresee that such denial of legal rights will be determined to be discrimination against sexual orientation.

As an American, I’m proud of the fact that we do not tolerate discrimination in extending legal rights and protections. As a defender of traditional marriage and democracy, I am also proud that we are able to decide as a society what values and ideals we recognize and promote, including the definition of “marriage”.

It is apparent that the GLBT community neglected to see how easily their attack on those defending traditional marriage, can actually be quite damaging to their own argument.

When high divorces rates are mentioned by the GLBT community, they do not claim that divorce rates or marriage as an institution would improve with same-sex marriage, but are rather arguing the following:

“Marriage as an institution is already suffering and failing…you might as well just give up on it all together. It’s already so bad, just stop trying to salvage any ‘sanctity’ and abandon any ‘traditional’ ideology that has apparently not worked in preserving marriage.”

It is important to realize that no reasonable person is really trying to outlaw marriage, and no one in their right mind actually believes either side of the debate wants to outlaw divorce. The GLBT community has created the “2010 California Marriage Protection Act” as a satirical means of making the aforementioned argument.

As society has moved away from traditional family values through premarital sex, co-habitation, and no-fault divorce, etc. an increase in divorce rates has followed. This understanding immediately flips the GLBT argument against them. It appears that divorce rates have skyrocketed as a result of moving away from traditional family values.

Another point damaging to the GLBT community’s acknowledgment of high divorce rates is that the vast majority of people recognize that homosexual relationships are less stable and more promiscuous than heterosexual relationships. This fact has been verified with studies and statistics. In Sweden, where the entire nation has had same-sex “registered partnerships” since 1995, a 7-year study shows that lesbian women without children are 3 times (200%) more likely to “divorce” than heterosexual couples. statistics therefore suggest that same-sex marriage would cause a significant increase in divorce rates…and no one would argue that higher divorce rates are a good thing for society.

Some homosexuals suggest the reason for increased “divorce” rates among same-sex couples is because of the stress and hardships gay couples face in society. This argument will likely fail with most heterosexuals who feel that feeling uncomfortable (or at worst not being invited) at the family holiday gatherings pales in comparison with other marital stresses such as a miscarriage (something gays can’t understand 1st-hand), financial challenges, or serious health complications. Rather, the gay community has established a sub-culture that seems to contradict the ideal of monogamy.

As CA’s Prop 8 continues to be challanged and same-sex marriage is being pushed in other states such as Maine, time will tell if the gay’s use of high divorce rates will help, or in fact harm their agenda.

Unfortunately, while I find politics and debate significant and interesting…it doesn’t adequately reflect how much beauty and joy I’ve found in this thing we call life. For example, I’ve recently found myself head-over-heals in love for the most wonderful woman I’ve ever met. I may have a sharp tongue and seem aggressive when I get into “debate mode”, but when it comes to the topics of family, marriage, and love…I’m a total softy.

What started as a “Puke / Fan Club” for close friends and family of ours who found themselves nauseous after watching us give each other googly-eyes and call one another Poodle-Pie and Pumpkin-Noodle, eventually led to the establishment of The Gag Room.

The Gag Room is what I am calling my “happy blog” and is a celebration of the blissful and occasionally gag-inducing love found within marriage and family.

I’d like to take this opportunity to invite you all to visit www.TheGagRoom.com and to join the Facebook group to see what I feel I feel is even more important than ousting Obama or voting republican over democrat…something a bit less divisive and a bit more inspiring…that is, family and marriage.

Unemployment in the state is around 11.5% and the nation is in the midst of a “great recession”. It would seem obvious that the last thing you’d want to do is kick Californian’s while they’re struggling to keep their homes out of foreclosure, with an estimated 1,000 families in Orange County alone are living in motels. Yet that is exactly what the democrats (and a few republicans) in Sacramento have done by passing the largest tax increase in California history. As a result, business are leaving the state and consumers are holding even tighter to their money, which results in less-than-projected tax revenue and a bigger deficit. So what are the dems suggesting now…more taxes! It truly is a shameful time to be a democrat in California.

With our state legislatures, teachers, and other state workers being among the highest paid in the nation, the majority have experienced virtually no real downsizing or pay-cuts (with-holding pay increases is not the same). Instead, the primary solution being offered are furlough days. Why not address the root of the problem instead of temporarily addressing the symptoms? Instead of releasing prisoners as suggested, why not attempt to address the inflated cost per prisoner? Selling state-owned properties such as the LA Coliseum may not be a horrible idea in itself, but it is only a desperate and temporary solution that is still only addressing the symptoms.

Californians spoke loud and clear last May by destroying tax measures 1A – 1E. The only acceptable solution, as far as CA voters are concerned, is to make real cuts and for the government to start living within their means. With all their threats of releasing prisoners, closing schools, and letting wild-fires burn, we’ve had enough and have called their bluff. If you can’t do what you gotta’ do on your over-inflated budget, we’ll find someone who can.

With the increase of the size and spending of the state government we’ve experienced with Davis, Schwarzenegger, and the dems (relative to population growth and inflation)…finding significant and reasonable cuts throughout the system should not be an impossible task. However, it would be absurd to ignore the $10.5 billion spent every year in California to provide health-care, education, and incarceration for the criminals living here illegally. That’s nearly half of the entire deficit!

As I mentioned in a previous post, the responsibility ultimately lies upon the voters. We are the ones voting in and empowering legislatures who run our local, state, and federal government. We can continue to vote for liberal tax-and-spend democrats that support criminal behavior (illegal immigration) and forcing “green” initiatives to address the speculative and unknown issue of climate change…all at the detriment of the economy. Consequently, we can expect to see the utter failure of California and the rest of this nation to follow suit. Alternatively, we can elect and support conservative leaders like Chuck DeVore and George Runner who will basically do the opposite and see how that works for a while.

*For the sake of this post I have focused on economic policies and their consequences. I have admittedly omitted other ideologies such as foreign policy and other social issues that some may feel have more or less significance than the issues raised herein.

On May 26th, members of the GLBT community marched through West Hollywood in protest of the California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Proposition 8, passed by the majority of California voters last November. As usual, protesters accused those in favor of traditional marriage of being hateful and intolerant. However, as I attended this rally and others in the past, I have found the GLBT community to be the more hateful, intolerant, and occasionally violent side of the debate.

I attended the protest to remind observers of the opposing voice which represents the majority of Californians. My sign read, “Stop HATING democracy. TOLERATE my vote.” I was aware of the risk involved in going alone, but the ample police presence brought me comfort and assurance that I would be okay. Little did I know that the greatest threat to my rights and safety would come from openly gay LAPD officer Stacey Simmons.

As I marched peacefully, Simmons’ attention was drawn toward me by a heavy-set woman screaming in my face. This angry protester shouted threats such as, “you better be afraid” and posed a clear threat to my safety. In an obviously biased move by gay LAPD officer Simmons, instead of addressing the threat to my safety by the angry woman, Simmons became more physical than any of the protesters and used her body to shove me to the sidewalk. Now separated from the hateful protester, Simmons, under Captain Jeri Weinstein’s (pictured right) supervision, had me hand-cuffed by other officers without providing any details of the situation before she fled the scene.

At what point will we realize that the GLBT community, including Officer Stacey Simmons, will not let menial obstacles such as democracy or the rights of others stand in their way of getting what they want? I realize I would be hard-pressed to find much sympathy or support for what I feel is a gay-on-straight hate crime. However, imagine this scenario had been reversed and a strait LAPD officer failed to address a Yes on 8 protester threatening a gay demonstrator and then denied the homosexual of their right to peacefully protest. The media would be shouting the injustice from the rooftops and the ACLU would mercilessly pressure the LAPD for that officer’s resignation. Unfortunately, as a straight white Christian male I apparently don’t have the right to have my voice heard and certainly won’t be given the greatly rewarded and elevated title of “victim”. So much for equal rights.

I recognize that as a medical term “retard” is probably considered outdated, and that using alternatives is a polite gesture to be considerate and tactful of those who may find it’s use offensive. May I be clear, I am not advocating the use of the word “retard”.

However, is everyone so pre-occupied by walking on egg shells in an effort to be politically correct that they forget to be considerate of my right to be offensive, or my right to free speech?! Who gave this co-worker of mine (or anyone for that matter) the right to tell me what words I should or should not use?! Not to mention to do so in a work environment.

Just because we have the right to free speech, does not mean we, as responsible citizens, shouldn’t strive to be responsible and respectful with this precious liberty. My concern, however, is that the political correctness campaign forces freedom of speech to take a back seat to entertaining the ridiculous idea of avoiding anyone from having their feelings hurt.

Here’s an interesting observation to contemplate. Why is the politically correct movement only concerned with protecting every potential offense to certain minorities, while ignoring blatant insensitivities towards others? As a Mormon, is anyone in the politically correct movement fighting against HBO and they’re insensitive approach toward religious issues I feel as extremely sacred? No! While I may feel uncomfortable of HBO’s depiction of a radical offshoot of my religion and how it associates it (often in a manipulative way) to my own faith, I recognize they have every right to do so and I make no fuss about it. When recently approached by others in my own faith promoting actions and campaigns to stop HBO, I openly discouraged such efforts.

In Glenn Beck’s An Inconvenient Book, a book I strongly recommend, Beck devotes an entire chapter to insights regarding political correctness. In it, he quotes George Bush:

Although (political correctness) arises form the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expressions off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits.

What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship. Disputants treat sheer force – getting their foes punished or expelled, for instance – as a substitute for the power of ideas.

Throughout history, attempts to micromanage casual conversation has only incited distrust. They have invited people to look for an insult in every word, gesture, action. And, in their own Orwellian way, crusades that demand correct behavior crush diversity in the name of diversity.

In short, there will always be up-tight people who look for reasons to be offended, and organized politically correct efforts to appease these people have a tendency to do so at the expense of constitution-based liberties; a sacrifice I refuse to make. I rather people just learn to suck it up and stop whining about your sissy feelings and move on. In fact, I can’t help but feel willing to volunteer myself to be the offensive jerk that pisses people off…just to provide opposition to this sissy un-American movement. So stop being retarded!