Hard Working Traditional Values With A Dash of Fun

Hard Working Traditional Values With A Dash of Fun

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Impeachment for Dummies


UPDATED 01/09/2015

Recently there has been a spike in the number of people calling for the impeachment of President Obama. As I have stated in a previous post, this is another case of Republican booger eating. Yes, that's a gross word picture, but it accurately describes the action being taken by those promoting the impeachment idea.

Many a toddler is fond of eating mucus. Why do they do this? Because they like it. It feels good. (Many would prefer to eat boogers over vegetables.) But just because it feels good, is no reason to do it.

Many a conservative is fond of the idea to impeach Obama. Why do they do this? Because they like it. It feels good. (Many would prefer to impeach the president over cutting the Social Security / Medicare deficit.) But just because it feels good is no reason to do it.

Here are the main reasons that impeachment is a bad idea:
  • The math does not work. It takes 67 senators to remove an impeached President from office. The Republicans have 54 senate seats. Can you name the 13 Democrat senators who will vote for impeachment? Radio talk show host Michael Medved asked this of impeachment champion Sarah Palin and she could not name one.
  • If we proceeded with an impeachment, Obama would win the senate vote and remain in office. That is a win for him, just like it was for Bill Clinton. Many people would conclude that this would prove Obama's actions must have been okay when they clearly have been an abuse of power.
  • Impeachment is an act of politics, not an act of law. The results are not determined by an impartial jury or a judge examining legal precedents. The results are determined by party loyalty. Democrats would damage their interests if they impeached their own president for taking actions that benefit their voting base. They won't do it.
  • Joe Biden. Few people, even Democrats given truth serum, would state that Biden would make a better president than Obama. Do we want this for our country? Worse for conservatives, impeaching Obama would make Biden the incumbent president eligible to run for reelection. The power of incumbency is real. It would be dumb to give this gift to Democrats.
Yes, Obama has taken actions as President that are beyond the scope of his Constitutional powers. However, impeachment is not the solution to this. Far better is the lawsuit suing Obama which will get the attention without the negative results that would happen with impeachment.

Impeachment is for dummies.


If you liked this post be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.  

Monday, July 28, 2014

The End of Iraqi Christians


Being a Christian in a Muslim country is usually a difficult thing. The more a country follows Sharia law, the more Christians suffer. The situation in Iraq has gone from very bad to much worse with the rise to power of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

When Saddam Hussein was in power there were about 1.5 million Christians in Iraq. In the last 11 years the number has dropped to less than 500,000, perhaps as low as 200,000. With the rise of Islamic sectarianism, Christians have been an increasing targeted for violence, so more than half of Iraqi Christians have left for Syria, Jordan, and Turkey. Those that remain have seen little government protection. Now in areas controlled by ISIS the orders to Christians are to convert to Islam, move out, or be killed. There have been Christians in Mosul for 2,000 years. Now they have all been driven out or killed.

A petition has been submitted to the White House requesting that the United States use some of the $80+ billions in frozen Iraqi assets to come to the assistance of Christians enduring a holocaust in the making. I encourage you to take a few minutes to sign the petition before it expires on August 20.


Related posts:

How Muhammad Became a Christian






If you liked this post be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.  




Friday, July 25, 2014

Fiddlin' - Hamas Scum


Hamas Scum

(sung to the tune of Big Boss Man, recorded by Jimmy Reed, Elvis Presley, The Grateful Dead, and even Bill Cosby)

As sung by Israel soldiers:

Hamas scum, can't you hear me when I call?
Hamas scum, can't you hear me when I call?
Can't you hear me when I call?
Well you ain't so big, you know you're evil that's all,
All right
Well you got me mad Hamas scum
Missles round the clock
You hiddin’ behind your daughters
And your rockets they don’t stop
Hamas scum, now can't you hear me when I call?
All right
I said you ain't so big, you know you're evil that's all


Hamas scum, you’re gonna hear me when I call.
All right
You know you ain't so big, I said you're evil that's all,
All right
I'm gonna get you Hamas scum
Israel’s gonna end this fight
I fight hard in the day time
Bury you at night
Hamas scum, can't you hear me when I call? Can't you hear me when I call?
I said you ain't so big, you're evil that's all


I'm gonna get you Hamas man
Israel’s gonna end this fight
I fight hard in the evenin'
Bury you at night
Hamas scum, Hamas scum, can't you hear me when I call?
I said you ain't so big, you're evil that's all
All right, Hamas scum
It's all right


For an index of all Fiddling Ant parody songs, click here.


If you liked this post and and what others to read it, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.  

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Pro-Abortion Cry Babies



The July 21, 2014 issue of Time Magazine had a digital bonus essay by Aaron Gouveia entitled My Wife's Abortion vs. Your Free Speech. It is an excellent example of how liberals value emotions and intentions more than facts and results.

In Mr. Gouveia's essay he tells how he and his wife were heckled by pro-life activists standing 35 feet from the abortion clinic they were visiting. Mr. Gouveia is upset because the Supreme Court recently ruled that the 35 foot buffer zone in front of abortion clinics is an unconstitutional limit on freedom of speech. Mr. and Mrs. Gouveia's unsettling experience is made worse by the fact that Mrs. Gouveia's unborn baby had major deformities and the baby would have been stillborn or died at birth. It must have been a terrible experience made worse by the hazing they endured as they approached the abortion clinic. The story of course tugs at the heart strings and the reader is moved to side with the Gouveias and paint their verbal abusers as uncaring evil doers.

Liberals hope readers fall for this appeal to emotions over facts and intentions over results. While I feel for this difficult experience for the Gouveias, I can't ignore facts and results that Mr Gouveia completely left out of his biased essay.
  • The infant mortality rate in the United States is 5.4 per 1,000 infants and this includes all deaths under one year of age, not just those at birth.
  • There are about 4 abortions for every 10 live births in the United States. If we assume 0.5% of these are for fatal birth defects (which is a very generous assumption since most abortions are performed too early in pregnancy to identify defects) then we are talking about 6,000 abortions out of 1.2 million a year.
  • Surveys show that at least 20% of women regret aborting their child. It could be much higher (one source says 85% feel negatively about the experience), but even at 20% we are talking about 240,000 abortions that the women wish never happened.
Given these facts, let us look again at the actions of the pro-life activists trying to save lives. There are at least 240,000 lives each year that are cut short which the women later regretted and no more than 6,000 women carrying a child with a fatal birth defect. This means that for every woman visiting an abortion clinic to terminate a fatal birth defect, there are 40 (and perhaps 100 or even more) that will later regret their decision.

The facts are that the attempt by pro-life activists to prick the conscious of women visiting abortion clinics to change their minds could result in thousands of saved lives. That is well worth the inconvenience to those women who must pass the protesters on the way to terminating the life of their unborn child.

Facts and results should always prevail over feelings and intentions.

Lives are depending on it.


If you liked this post and what to encourage other readers, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.  

Friday, July 11, 2014

Fiddling Ant Vacation


The Fiddling Ant is on vacation.

Here are some of my favorite posts that you may have missed.

Ever wonder what a phone conversation with your 100 year old future self would be like? Read I Phoned My 100 Year Old Future Self.

Tired of seeing guys walk around with their underwear showing? Sing along to The Briefs of Laredo.


Did you know that America's involvement in World War I made Hitler rise to power possible? See How America Created Hitler.

I highly recommend this book - How Mohammad Became a Christian.

I think this one is worth sharing . . . The Real Climate Change - Not What You Think.



If you liked this post and what to encourage more young readers, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.   

Thursday, July 10, 2014

The Real Wolves of Wall Street


Best selling author Michael Lewis is probably best known for The Blind Side, which was made into a very popular movie staring Sandra Bullock. His latest book, Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt, raises a number of issues that should be of concern to conservatives.

Flash Boys tells the story of the High Frequency Trading (HFT) industry, a group of companies that have figured out how to make billions of dollars with hardly any risk.

If you are not very familiar with how Wall Street works, you may picture a bunch of guys in loud suits yelling to each other on the floor of the stock exchange buying and selling stocks. That was Wall Street once upon a time, but for the past decade all stock exchange trading has been done computer to computer with no human interaction necessary. Taking advantage of the latest technologies has lowered the cost of trading stocks and bonds, but smart people figured out how to prevent buyers and sellers from enjoying all of these savings. It is all perfectly legal, but ethically questionable.

Here is what the HFT firms figured out. Even though computer to computer orders travel at a fraction of a second, not all orders travel at the same speed. Some orders are millionths of a second faster than other orders. HFTs focused on being speed freaks. They would pay big fees to the exchanges and investment banks to get to the front of the line with the quickest access to buying order data. They would use this knowledge to step between sales, buying up stocks after they knew an order was coming in, causing a slight bump in the price, and turning around and selling it at a small guaranteed profit. The earnings could be as lows as a penny a share, but it added up to billions per year, all at no risk.

The exchanges and investment banks knew this was going on and even though it ended up costing their customers who were buying stocks a higher cost, they did nothing to address this because they were charging big fees to the HFTs to give them the quickest access to order data.

The federal regulators were no better. They knew it was going on, but working for HFTs after they spent a few years in government 'service' was a ticket to a high paying job.

Enter the hero of Lewis's book, Brad Katsuyama. While working for Royal Bank of Canada, Katsuyama figured out what the HFTs were up too. The easy thing to do would have been to set up an HFT of his own and making millions. Instead, Katsuyama felt that the HFTs were taking money from his customers and providing no value for their action. He started his own stock exchange that eliminated the tools HFTs used to rip off customers buying stocks. Lewis points out that HFTs are not as active as they once were, now that Katsuyama has taken away their bag of tricks.

Lewis writes that is a great shame that these HFTs, which are often run by brilliant scientists, have resulted in billions being siphoned off the market with no added value. If only these 'thieves' would use their talents for productive activities that benefit the economy.

One of Mahatma Gandhi's Seven Deadly Sins is Commerce without Morality. Lewis's book about the HFTs shows that there are many people who have no problems with unethical behavior and have embraced this deadly sin. The HFTs effectively added their thumbs to the scale of a sale and took a piece of the profit without anyone knowing they were doing this.

Human nature being what it is, there will always be people of poor character who look for a way to rip off other people. What is sad that such action goes unreported by publicly trading companies acting against the best interest of their customers and government regulators who are paid to act as the referee to ensure a fair and honest market. Lewis more than once compares this set up to a casino culture where everyone is in on overcharging the customer in a way that they don't notice.

While liberals may be inclined to pass laws to fix this, Lewis points out that the shady characters always find loopholes and sometimes they are put there on purpose by their elected government cronies.

The conservative solution is to promote strong ethics and a free market and free press where the light of truth can shine on the actions of bad actors.




If you liked this post and what to encourage other readers, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.  

Monday, July 7, 2014

Critics Hate 'America' Movie. Surprised?


Rotten Tomatoes critics gave Dinesh D'Souza's new film America a rotten 12% score. That's pretty bad. Curiously, Rotten Tomatoes audiences give the movie a positive 82% rating.

That's a pretty big disconnect between the critics and the audience.

By comparison, Darren Aronofsky's Noah got a 77% critic's score and a poor 45% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes.

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 got an even better 83% critic's score while the audience score trailed at 69%. The critics either purposefully overlooked or did not notice at least 56 factual errors noted by Free Republic.

Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth got a 93% critic's score vs the 79% audience score. Once again the critics purposefully overlooked or did not notice at least 35 factual errors this time noted by the Science and Public Policy Institute.

D'Souza's last film, 2016: Obama's America, got a 26% critic's score while audiences gave it a 73% score. It was the most successful documentary since Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.

It should be no surprise that the individuals who work as film critics are lacking diversity and exude intolerance. They are clearly Hollywood sycophants who are out of touch with the viewing preferences of a significant portion of the American population.

Conservative positions have long been ignored or mocked by Hollywood and as the reviews of D'Souza's films show, there is no such thing as a good conservative movie, regardless of what audiences think.

Go see D'Souza's movie and support the conservative voice in film.


P.S., My own screenplay Jihad on Hollywood, which lampooned Hollywood by having the creme of Hollywood elite captured by Islamic terrorists and put on trial had little chance of making the big screen. When has Hollywood ever made a movie that drew attention to their low morals and anti-American views? I am in the process of converting the screenplay into a novel format, but until it is ready to publish, the screenplay is available for free. Reviews are always welcome.


If you liked this post and what to encourage other readers, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.  

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Gay Atheist Religious Advice?

Self professed homosexual atheist, Jonathan Rauch, used the lead article in the July/August issue of The Atlantic to give advice to religious conservatives. The Yale educated Rauch, who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, is more moderate than many LGBT activists, but he still resorts to mistruths and falsehoods when describing the conflict between practicing Christians and gay values. His advise also misses the whole point as to why Christians act the way they do.

The short version of his essay is as follows:

Believers don't like the direction of the culture so they are withdrawing.
Believers don't want to do business with gays.
Believers fear defending their traditional views on marriage will result in condemnation as no better than racists.
Believers are upset the government did not embrace a collaboration with faith-based groups when Bush was president.
Believers are out of tune with mainstream America, especially the young.
He advises religious people not to disengage, but to accept gay people for who they are.

Mr. Rauch is critical of religious people "slamming the door of commercial enterprise on people you don't approve of." He is not being truthful here. The small business people who have been taken to court by LGBT activists did not slam the door of business on LGBT clients. There was no signage keeping them out of their stores and no one was chased out. The issue they were charged with was declining to provide services for a gay marriage ceremony they do not support. That is not slamming the door. That is exercising a first amendment religious right to decline to support a program they did not believe in. Rauch says he doesn't know of any Catholic bakers who turned away divorced customers, but he misses the point again. It would be reasonable for a strictly religious Catholic baker to decline to make a wedding cake for a Catholic marrying a second or third time. Other than that the baker would have no problem with a divorced person buying baked goods at his shop.

If the tables were turned, I think Rauch would concede that standing up for one's beliefs in a business environment is the right thing to do.  For example, let's say that Rauch opens up a photography business. Let's also say that the Westboro Bapitist Church, notoriously known for it's hateful position toward homosexuals, asked Rauch to take pictures for a wedding at their church. Rauch would be well within his rights to decline taking on this job and I would support him.

Rauch's analysis that Christians are upset that "a grand new partnership between our elected religious leaders" under Bush did not pan out shows how little he understands what most Christians find important. Yes, Christian organizations often do a better job addressing social problems like hunger and poverty, but that does not mean that Christians were thinking an increased involvement with government was a needed thing. Christians have been addressing social problems for centuries without the need for any government involvement. I bet most Christians don't even know there was a faith-based collaboration program when Bush was president. Trust me, not really a big concern.

Most curious is Rauch's claim that religious people are out of tune with mainstream America so they should adopt and fit in. Would Rauch hold the same belief in a Muslim society where the mainstream is intensely anti-homosexual? Would he advise people to adopt and fit in? Of course not. Bending one's values to accommodate the latest evolving unproven trends in culture is not a good plan.

It is the current culture that embraces, accepts, and promotes abortion, unwed mothers, pornography, promiscuity, and no fault divorce. The LGBT community in the name of tolerance and diversity may be totally okay with this. However, that is not the formula for a sustainable, successful culture and it is not one that religious people want to pass on to their children.

Rauch faults religious people for discriminating. He says, "This much I can guarantee: the First Church of Discrimination will find few adherent in 21st-century America."

I say that to accept all behaviors as positive and beneficial is a worse decision. Accepting all behavior as equally good is a terrible value system. Discrimination to protect childhood, strengthen intact families, avoid promiscuity and combat pornography is a good thing. If that is what is involved in the First Church of Discrimination, when and where does it meet and how can I join?

If you liked this post and what to encourage other readers, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.