Skip to content

Axelrod: High Murder Count Not Chicago’s Fault


David Axelrod: “We live in Chicago, and one of the reasons we have such a huge problem in this city is that all around us are areas with weak laws and with very lax background checks and a lot of illegal guns flow into this city.”

* * * * *

Maybe if there were an equal or greater amount of LEGAL guns in the city, all those illegal guns wouldn’t be that big a problem.

If liberals want Chicago to be a poster child for the nation, what does this statement imply?

If crime rates soar after more nation-wide gun control, who will liberals blame?

Gun-loving, gun-totin’ Canada?

Mexico? (which has very tough gun laws by the way)

The sad part about all of this is that most Obama voters will believe him. This all fits in the “it’s never my fault” liberal mindset. link


Racist Racism Racist Blah Blah Blah…

The liberals are at it again.

A Volkswagen Super Bowl ad has supposedly “angered many,” featuring a white man talking in a Jamaican accent. Charles Blow of the New York Times called it “blackface with voices.”


First of all, “Jamaican” is not a race. It’s a nationality. There are white Jamaicans as well as black, and while I doubt the actor in the commercial was actually from Jamaica, there is no reason a white Jamaican wouldn’t speak that way. That alone should render the whole racism thing moot. But you don’t even have to go there. Even the simplest mind would see that there is nothing derogatory being implied about Jamaicans in this ad.

You know what I think? I think people who think this ad is racist should actually watch the ad until the end, and take the ad’s advice: take a chill pill and just relax. Congratulations to Volkswagen on a job well done. Don’t mind those overly sensitive race-mongers. It’s impossible to win with those talking heads. No one with the least bit of common sense would actually consider this offensive.


This is genuinely scary.

MILLER: Iraq vet brutalized over guns in D.C.

A classic case of “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.” Story is a few months old, but still very relevant, maybe now more than ever.

Why Work?

Gina admits: “We could easily get a job but why would we want to work — we would be worse off.”

* * * *

Anyone who thinks that the Welfare State and socialism are good things should take a good hard look at the U.K. And Greece. And Spain. And pretty much all the rest of the European Union.

When the incentive to not work literally exceeds the incentive to work, who will put their shoulder to the wheel to make sure society’s gears keep turning?

Read the full story here.

New York State Sherrifs Make a Stand

After reviewing the New York Safe Act, the New York State Sherrif’s Association has released an official statement. A few excerpts:

“…no one should have to explain why their personal information should remain confidential.

We agree that firearms owners should have the responsibility to make sure that their weapons are safeguarded against use or access by prohibited persons

We believe that the new definition of assault weapons is too broad, and prevents the possession of many weapons that are legitimately used for hunting, target shooting and self defense

We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want.

…the state should help to fund these existing efforts by Sheriffs and local police departments to keep our schools safe.

We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that [reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines] will not reduce gun violence.

Sheriffs and other law enforcement officers are not called upon by this new legislation to go door‐to‐door to confiscate any weapons newly classified as assault weapons, and will not do so.

Sheriffs will continue to enforce all laws of the state and will protect the rights of all citizens, including those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.”

And a wise word of caution, which literally sent shivers down my spine:

Even those thrilled with the passage of this legislation should be concerned about the process used to secure its passage, for the next time they may find themselves the victim of that same process.

It’s good to know that the remaining freedom-loving people in New York still have some allies left.

Read the full statement here.

“Would You Fire on American Citizens?”

Is there any truth to this? What do you think? If true, this would be an alarming development under and administration that has proven to be increasingly hostile to the Constitution, liberty and intrinsic human rights.

“Would you be able to follow your oath of office, and follow the command structure, and the orders given you by someone in a rank above you, up to and including the Commander-in-chief, if a scenario developed where a group of people would not submit and lay down their arms when ordered to, could you find yourself obeying the order to fire on American citizens?”

Read more about it here.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to all! God bless you and your families.

-The Twentyish Conservative

Reid Laughs at Prospect of Bringing GOP Bills Up for Votes in Senate

Harry Reid

“I can give you a long list of things we haven’t done,” Reid said at his weekly press conference when asked if he would ever bring languished GOP bills up for a vote.

When asked again if he might bring any of the House-passed bills to the floor, Reid chuckled and said “some time is a long time, I guess.”

So basically, he’s admitting to not doing his job, and preventing all other senators from doing their jobs, for that matter, for political reasons. Well that doesn’t sound right.

Read the full story here.

Extreme Feminism: Destroying Society, One Family at a Time.

There is no greater calling for a woman than that of motherhood. The work is hard and the hours are long, but the rewards are unparalleled. Being a good mother requires a strength of character and will that not all possess. I doubt that there is a single language in the world where a form of swearing that involves insulting one’s mother does not exist, which shows how much we value our mothers.

At this sociopolitical point in our society, it is almost impossible to discuss the issue of motherhood in depth without also bringing up the issues of gender roles, and the traditional role of women as housewives and homemakers. Rearing children and building a home are legitimately hard professions, and any woman who is able to fulfill these responsibilities is definitely worthy of respect. However, in recent decades, the role of a homemaker has come under fire.

“[The] housewife is a nobody, and [housework] is a dead-end job. It may actually have a deteriorating effect on her mind…rendering her incapable of prolonged concentration on any single task. [She] comes to seem dumb as well as dull. [B]eing a housewife makes women sick.”

“[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.”

“[As long as the woman] is the primary caretaker of childhood, she is prevented from being a free human being.”

What kind of sexist, misogynist pig would call women who belong to the most honorable profession in history? Why, feminists, of course! The three quotes above are from feminists Jessie Bernard, Gloria Steinem, and Kate Millett, respectively. As a man, I see my being a father as the single most all-encompassing aspect of my gender identity. Which is why I find it so very ironic that motherhood, the crowning jewel of womanhood, receives such disrespect from those who are supposedly advocates for women.

Feminists will argue that feminism is not anti-housewife, that women are free to choose whatever they want. However, anyone who has studied the movement from its roots will know that many of the most influential women involved in the movement have been anti-homemaker. This view of the housewife as a woman “reduced to servitude” was repeated over and over again in the arguments of many of the feminists who are now worshiped as patron saints of the feminist movement, like the three I mentioned above.

Other feminists will argue that feminism is not anti-motherhood, simply against being a housewife. But you cannot attack the role of homemaker without attacking motherhood. A homemaker is basically a woman who has decided to channel most, or all, of her time and effort into the task of raising children, and creating an environment suitable for that task. An affront to the homemaker is an affront to mothers. Many feminist models include a perspective of the homemaker role as an institution designed to keep women down, to keep them away from supposedly “higher” pursuits.

Such a horribly warped view. How ignorant of any woman to look down on another woman this way. How can you tell a woman, whose role as a mother and homemaker has brought so much joy into her life, that you are sorry that she is trapped in a prison? To all “successful” women who look down on housewives, shame on you! They do not need your pity either.

In my experience, the women who earn my respect are not necessarily the women who “can do a man’s job,” but rather the women who are can do a woman’s job. In other words, women who are good at being women. I have seen so many women try so hard to keep up with men at things men do, yet at the same time neglect and fail miserably at their primary responsibilities to their children. If a woman neglects her children, she fails as a woman. A man who fails as a man fails as a person. A woman who fails as a woman also fails as a person.

My wife is a woman of many talents, and there are many fields where she could excel, if she only put her mind to it. But she has decided to devote her time and energy to our home, and to our son. My mother, one of the smartest women I know, dedicated decades of her life to us, her children, to make sure we received the guidance we needed as children to become good, moral, and well-adjusted adults. My wife, and my mother. Two great women, both homemakers, and there are no two women in the entire world that I respect more than I respect them.

I am not saying that women should stay at home and not consider careers. There is nothing wrong with a woman pursuing her passion and working full-time, as long as she does not neglect her children. There is nothing wrong with a woman choosing to not be a housewife. What is wrong is the notion that women who are housewives are oppressed, less intelligent, less capable, or of a lower caliber than women who are not. Being a housewife is a privilege. I as a husband and father, work hard, to sustain my family’s finances so my wife doesn’t have to get a job to supplement my income. Because of this, she can focus on what she loves: raising our son and creating a home.

Radical feminism’s affront to motherhood is also an attack on the source of motherhood’s significance: the importance of humanity itself. To trivialize motherhood is to trivialize children. And who are we all but the sons and daughters of our mothers? Another feminist quote:

“A parasite sucking out the living strength of another organism…the [housewife’s] labor does not even tend toward the creation of anything durable…. [W]oman’s work within the home [is] not directly useful to society, produces nothing. [The housewife] is subordinate, secondary, parasitic. It is for their common welfare that the situation must be altered by prohibiting marriage as a ‘career’ for woman.”Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1949.

To call the raising of a child “not tending toward the creation of anything durable” implies the development and growth of a human being are trivial matters. To call work within the home, the abode of the family, society’s most basic unit, useless, that just defies reason. And to look down on being a homemaker, a mother, and a wife?

“Mother is God in the eyes of a child.”
-Rose (Silent Hill

Let’s see any job trump that.

defining “conservative” (part 2)

What does it mean to be a conservative?
con·ser·va·tive   [kuh n-sur-vuh-tiv]
one favoring traditional views and values
a supporter of political conservatism

Being a conservative, I identify myself with the definition above. The principles and constructs that holds society together are worthy of preservation, of conservation. Tradition. Family values. Morality. These are the things my conservatism supports and upholds.

Yet contemporary liberals often use conservative in a pejorative sense. Despite all the good things conservatism stands for, many so called “progressives” have somehow arrived at the conclusion that being a conservative is a bad trait. Nowadays, calling someone conservative can carry all sorts of implied meanings, many of them negative.

a person who is reluctant to change or consider new ideas
– a conformist
tending to oppose change.
– opposing innovation
– closed-minded

Does, in fact, being conservative imply that you oppose change? Does being conservative mean that you are closed-minded?

One of the best definitions I found of conservatism was:

“A political philosophy advocating the preservation of the best of the established order in society and opposing radical change.”

which adequately describes the views of most conservatives, and explains the two important aspects of being a conservative: preserving right, and opposing wrong.

Being a conservative does not mean being closed-minded. I have thought long and hard about many things, and using my own logic and reason have arrived at a conclusion. Simply because I believe that many existing institutions are good, does not mean I am not willing to accept positive change. The desire to preserve good things does not make you closed-minded, any more than throwing yourself at any change for change’s sake makes you open-minded. Around the world, society is falling apart. Governments meddling in things they shouldn’t, taking away from the hardworking and giving to the undeserving. A generation of people with a gigantic, despite being unfounded, sense of entitlement. Political correctness, that dreaded plague, has society on the brink of criminalizing dissent. The family, the most fundamental, basic unit of society, is being corrupted and redefined by the supposed “progressive” movement. Liberals will call it progress. So-called intellectuals will call it enlightenment. But what it really is is deterioration, a cancer of society.

“Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings.” -Jane Jacobs

I do not hate change. I embrace and welcome positive change. I do not want stagnation. I have no qualms about letting go of things that are keeping us down, and I have no problem with embracing new things that will help us go up.

I’m a conservative, after all, and that’s what conservative means.

%d bloggers like this: