Here are some interesting pieces exploring the question of how we live based on who we are.
We begin with two brothers who lost their TV show because they are conservative Christians who oppose gay marriage:
Twin brothers David and Jason Benham have lost their opportunity to host their own HGTV show.
The brothers ran afoul of the network after the site Right Wing Watch published a post about the pair, labeling David Benham as an “anti-gay, anti-choice extremist” for reportedly leading a prayer rally in 2012 outside of the Democratic National Convention held in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The site posted a recording of Benham talking to a talk show host about “homosexuality and its agenda that is attacking the nation” and “demonic ideologies” taking hold in colleges and public schools.
Benham also discusses the fight for North Carolina’s Amendment One, which involved a ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions in the state constitution.
The Benham brothers were the planned stars of the HGTV show “Flip It Forward,” set to premiere in October, in which they would have helped families purchase homes they otherwise could not afford.
You see, it’s okay to discriminate against these guys because they’re conservative Christians. They stand for everything that the political Left abhors, never mind that their ideological views are held by most of the rest of America. No, because they are willing to stand up for their beliefs, they become targets for the Left. And, by the way, the political Left is more than happy to embrace an anything goes attitude because the ends justifies the means; any method of treatment of people like them is justified because they represent an anathema to the Left, therefore the worst possible thing the Left can do to them is minor (and therefore acceptable) because the greater good is being served by shutting them up, destroying their livelihood, and forcing them out of the public eye. It’s all okay because their very existence is a worse offense than anything the Left can do to them. We’ve seen it over and over, and we’ll continue to see it over and over again because that’s how the Left thinks and operates. They believe the notion of progressivism is a privilege that they hold, allowing them carte blanch for anything they deem necessary against their political enemies.
Dana Loesch, conservative writer and radio host, recently went on a blistering rant about this:
The really mind-boggling thing about this is that the suggestion and the reality are complete opposites. Derrick Wilburn elaborates:
“The war on women” is one such talking point. Somehow the belief that it shouldn’t be my responsibility to pay for someone else’s contraception, abortive drugs or abortive services has become manifest as waging a “war on women.”
“Raising the minimum wage helps the poor” is another. I’ve researched and written on the topic and the facts are that there’s an inverse relationship between raising the minimum wage and U.S. poverty levels. When the federal government raises the minimum wage the number of people living at or below the poverty line goes up, not down.
There are dozens of such false-but-believed-to-be-truism’s floating around out there; “conservatives want blacks back in chains and on plantations”; “more restrictive gun laws will decrease the number of deaths by gunshot”; “the rich pay no taxes”, on and on it goes. There isn’t a shred of objective data to support any of these fallacies, yet every single minute of every hour of the day they continue to get put forth as fact.
Wilburn digs into the idea of Republicans being the “party of the rich” in particular. Follow the process, it’s very informative:
So let’s approach this notion of “the party of the rich” from three distinct angles — logic, facts and statistics.
There are currently about 490 billionaires in the country. There are approximately 45 million registered Republicans in the United States. The overwhelming number of these people are not billionaires, are not millionaires, and are not “rich.” So what those who insist on repeating this mantra apparently believe is that some 44.9998 million people vote not in their own best interest but to protect the interests of those in an economic class that they themselves are not in. About 45 million Americans are mysteriously more concerned with interests of a tiny group of individuals far, far, far above themselves on the economic ladder than they are with their own lives and own families. This make no sense and is completely illogical.
Of the ten wealthiest U.S. House districts in America, eight have voted for, elected, and are currently represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by Democrats. (New York Congressional District 12, Carolyn Maloney (11th term); California Congressional District 30, Henry Waxman (20th term); New York House District 10, Jerry Nadler (10th term); California House District 18, Anna Eshoo (10th term); Connecticut House District 4, Jim Hines (3rd term); Virginia House District 8, Jim Moran (12th term); California House District 12, Nancy Pelosi (14th term); New York House District 3, Steve Israel (7th term). As we can see, not only are these wealthy districts represented by (wealthy) Democrats now, most have been voting for and electing Democrat representation for many, many years. In most cases more than two decades.
On the other side of the perception coin, as measured by per-capita household income, nine of the ten poorest states in America in the last two general elections voted for both John McCain and Mitt Romney (Oklahoma, South Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi). Why would the poorest states in the nation vote so consistently for the party of the rich? As people generally vote in their own interests, one would think it the other way around. If the Republicans were the party of the rich then these states would naturally tend to vote Democrat.
Across the country Democrat House districts have an average per-capita income of $27,893, which is roughly $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts.
Stop fooling yourselves, liberals. These past five years under the Obama administration, the top 1% you so like to loathe have added more personal wealth faster than at just about any point in our nation’s history. Meanwhile those at the bottom are suffering more. Unemployment and workforce participation rates are both extremely high particularly at the lower end of the economic spectrum. Yet we now have more millionaires – a record high number of them. At the same time we now about around twenty percent of American households on food stamps and/or some other forms of government assistance – the greatest number in the history of our nation since the Great Depression.
Even in his most recent State of the Union Address, the President admitted, “those at the top are doing better than ever, while far too many folks at the bottom are getting left behind.” Well, who’s been running the show? Democrats have controlled two out of three (White House, Senate, House of Representatives) or three out of three for the past eight consecutive years.
There is simply no other objective way to view it: the Democrats’ class warfare rhetoric is completely misplaced and is nothing more than a hoax. A largely effective hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. The constant hollering of “Republicans, the party of the rich” by being against minimum wage increases (a position that is pro-poor), or by wanting to keep income taxation low (which benefits all wage earners, not just the rich) is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Perhaps the only thing more laughable than this massive deception perpetrated by Democrats is the Republicans seeming inability to adequately combat it. When the facts are on your side and you still lose an argument, what does that say about your communication capabilities?
The reality on who the “party of the rich” is, like so many other issues, is precisely the opposite of the picture painted in the media. And, liberals will sometimes even admit it. For example:
I guess the honesty is a refreshing change, but it should make things crystal clear just how liberals look at conservatives.
There’s my two cents.