There was this screeching, shrieking, wailing sound coming from Hollywood and the left recently. No, I’m not talking about Ashley Judd squealing about her noxious, much abused and hammered twat in DC a couple of days ago, or Madonna fantasizing about blowing up the White House (she may have misspoken and meant “blowing,” since there’s not much left for her to do as a dried up whore, who contributed to Queen von Pantsuit’s defeat last November by threatening blowjobs for votes). I’m talking about the collective howl of outrageary at the announcement that 45 is considering ending funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, which sucked $148 million from the federal budget last year. While that’s a relatively small slice of the federal funding pie, it’s got to start somewhere.
And yes, I’m thrilled that this is finally a possibility!
The Arts won’t die without federal government support. The Arts thrived before the NEA came into existence in 1965, and they will continue to thrive after funding ends.
You know what won’t thrive? Shitty art. Because if you suck at your art so much that you need the feds to steal money from the taxpayers to prop you up, and essentially FORCE those who wouldn’t normally buy your brain droppings to pay for your assery so you can continue “creating” shit like this, which looks like a dick exploded after a night of banging Ashley Judd’s infected cunt, then maybe you should find another way to make a living.
I should not be obligated to fund your hobby – and I don’t give a fetid fuck whether a dime, or a penny, or even a percentage of the penny I earned goes to fund your entertainment. That penny doesn’t belong to you. Go fellate a rabid platypus; you don’t need my earnings to fuel your creative juices. Go to work, like everyone else, and make something people want to pay for.
Art, cinema, music, theater… all those things will exist without taxpayer funding. Even non-profit theater companies make… uh… profits. The Met made some pretty good scratch last year, despite falling ticket sales. Why? Because they’re good, and apparently people want to attend the operas and other events there and are willing to pay for them.
As my friend Larry Correia said recently in a post that inspired this rant…
If you get good enough that your art actually moves people, then you’ll be able to sell it. If you get to where people actually really like it, you can even make a living at it (like me).
Until then, nobody owes you shit. Tax payers don’t owe you shit. I don’t owe you shit. It only took ten cents from my taxes? So what? That’s ten cents that could have went for something better than propping up your no-talent ass.
Here’s the thing. If the government funds something, it also has the right to control it. On a more micro level, if I give you money, I expect you to create what I want/find appealing, or I will withdraw my funding.
But if the government funds your art, and I find your used tampon glued to a black canvas, or that booger you picked and framed disgusting, I don’t have the right to withdraw funding from your bumbling ass, because I have no say in how the government spends my money.
At the same time, if some politicians decide you should be painting nothing but nativity scenes, they have the right to direct you to do that, because it’s public money you’re using to fund your creations. So just you wait when those eeeevil Christian theocrats take over!
Is that what you want? I doubt it. Withdrawing public funding from the arts protects it from unreasonable government government demands.
And frankly it protects my hard-earned dollars from being used to fund heinous fuckery like this turd. If I want to see shit, I’ll gaze inside my toilet bowl before flushing. I certainly don’t need to be paying for an artist’s rendition of last night’s digested pork chop and taters.
Let’s get it straight, Cupcake. You. Don’t. Have. The. Right. To. My. Earnings.
You have the right to excrete whatever hideous, boring, uninspired, churlish, plebeian pablum you want, from any orifice that strikes you. My only obligation should be that of non-interference. If the ass drippings you preserved on a canvas gain an audience who likes and appreciates such leavings, you will make money, because they will be willing to pay for it.
Art is a skill. Work to develop it. Work to improve it. Work to provide your audience with music, literature, paintings, cinema, and theater that touches them, makes them think, entertains them, and stimulates their senses.
Art is a product. Work to develop a product your customers will truly want, admire, appreciate, and be willing to shell out money for, and you won’t need government funding.
So don’t stick out your grubby paw and demand the rest of us fund your dream of becoming an “artist.” If you need that, chances are you suck anyway.
No, you’re not, Kim Davis.
I know, I’m breaking my own self-imposed rule by writing about this toad, but considering she has been screeching in the media about how she’s all victimy and stuff, I figured I’d clear up a few things.
Kentucky clerk Kim Davis says marriage licenses are being issued in Rowan County without her authority and she wants her name and title removed.
And when the deputy clerks issue licenses with her name removed, this entitled bitch says, “uh-uh!” The licenses may not be valid without her signature.
She would object to the documents noting that they come from the office “Rowan County Clerk,” and she would also want an official declaration from the court that the licenses aren’t being issued under her authority.
So, translation: I am the Clerk. I refuse to resign, because I’m entitled to my job and my $80,000/year salary. But I refuse to have legal documents issued under my authority, but I won’t resign and allow others to issue them under theirs.
Essentially, she’s holding the issue hostage.
But… But… But… HER RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!!!
Now, y’all know I’ve defended Christians and their right to hold their beliefs. My stance on churches performing gay marriages has always been and remains that any church should be free to deny or perform the religious ceremony for gay couples (much like any baker, photographer, etc. as a private citizen should have the right to deny any client for any reason, no matter how ignorant), and any congregants who disagree with their church’s actions on the issue can find a new place of worship. Everyone wins. No government interference. The church officials follow their own consciences on the issue, and the worshipers do as well.
This, however, has nothing to do with this toad’s religious freedom, and here’s why:
As the County Clerk, she is the government. She is part of said government. She is required to issue legal documents. Note, these licenses are not religious documents. They are legal ones. No one is asking her to approve of the union. No one is asking her to perform a religious ceremony. She is required – as part of her job – to issue legal documents to people – people who pay her $80,000 salary. If she cannot in good conscience do her job, she should resign.
But… But… But… Kentucky passed an amendment to its state constitution banning gay marriages and unions, and 10th Amendment!
Well, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids states from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By using her authority as Clerk, Davis is doing exactly that. Gays are persons. They are also taxpayers who pay her salary. She is denying them equal protection under the law, as is the Kentucky State Constitution. And she is doing so, even as she draws her salary from them.
But… but… but… putting her name on a license signifies her endorsement of gay marriage, and therefore violates her religious freedom!
No, it doesn’t. It is not a religious act she is being asked to perform, and even though the Kentucky State Constitution defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman,
As the Court has already pointed out, Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry. The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities.
Surprisingly, the Washington Post analysis I cited above actually supports Davis’ view and says if she believes “that it’s religiously wrong for her to issue licenses with her name on them, ordering her to do that indeed burdens her religious beliefs, enough to trigger the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And giving her the more modest exemption from the include-the-court-clerk’s-name requirement might therefore indeed be required by the Kentucky RFRA.” The only problem with this is that if her name is removed as the clerk, then the licenses issues may very well be invalid, and once again, she is holding the process hostage to her religious beliefs.
Look, there are some complex legal issues here, and no one is denying this. This is one reason why government involvement in marriage is such a ridiculous idea, and why I’m a huge proponent of getting the government – whether federal or state – out of the issue altogether.
People who want to spend their lives together should be free to do so. They should be free to leave their estates to one another. They should be free to have children together and raise them with love and care. They should be able to visit one another in the hospital without showing a state-issued marriage certificate, and they should certainly be able to receive the flag from the casket of their loved one when said loved one is killed in action!
No one should be forced – and yes, government is force – to perform a religious ceremony, bake a cake, take wedding photographs, or create wedding bands for any ceremony they find religiously objectionable.
But to turn the tables, no government official – and make no mistake, that Davis toad is a government official – should have the right to deny equal treatment under the law to any taxpayer, thereby imposing their religious beliefs on said taxpayers by refusing to step down, since legally it might be that she’s the only one who is authorized by law to sign those legal documents. What she is saying is, “I will not sign these legal documents. I will not allow my name to be on them. But I won’t step aside and allow anyone else’s name to be on them either.”
As I said, it’s not about her religious freedom. It’s about everyone else’s right to be free from her religious views.
If this toad had any integrity at all, she would turn down the $80,000 salary paid by the taxpayers, that includes gay ones. But no… she’s fine with taking their tax dollars, but not fine with providing to them the services she was hired to provide?
Nope. Unacceptable. Unacceptable morally and ethically. And hypocritical to boot!
No, she is not a martyr.
No, she is not a hero.
No, she cannot be compared to Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr. or any other civil rights hero, because she is using her government office to deny equal treatment under the law to consenting adults wishing to spend their lives together, and she is hiding behind her religion. Sorry. NO-GO! She’s not fighting for religious rights. Her religious rights have not been violated, unless you consider her right to hold a government job and draw an $80,000 salary paid by the taxpayers a “right,” in which case, please just STAHP TALKING! No, she is not being punished for her religious beliefs. She is free to hold them. She is free to exercise them. She is free to worship as she pleases and to interpret her Bible in any way she wishes. What is is not free to do is use her government office to deny equal protections under the law to the very taxpayers who pay her fucking salary!
She is being punished for refusing to do her job, to which she doesn’t have a right. Get over it. This toad is no Rosa Parks.
As you can tell, I don’t think much of her as a person. I think she’s an attention whore. I think she’s a selfish twat, who if she had any integrity at all, would leave that cushy government job if she believed that something as simple as putting her name on a legal document (NOT A RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT) violates her religious beliefs.
I know plenty of religious people who believe marriage should be only between a man and a woman. I may not agree with them, but I’m not religious, so that’s understandable. They should be free to hold those beliefs without governments penalizing them. They should be free to decline to perform a religious ceremony if it violates their beliefs. They should be free to decline to participate in said ceremony, if it violates their beliefs.
But what they are not and should not be free to do is deny others equal treatment under the law if they are government officials. And that is exactly what Davis is trying to do, while hiding behind her “I’m a religious person” shield!
You may differ with me on the assessment. You may even know more about the law than I do. I freely admit I’m not a lawyer. I also freely admit, my amateur legal assessment may be off. That said, what is NOT off is my assessment that for Davis to refuse to treat all taxpayers equally while gleefully taking home a rather large paycheck funded by them is immoral and unethical. Bakers who refuse to cater gay weddings don’t take money from gay couples to whom they refuse to provide a service. Same with photographers, and any other private companies that refuse to make that a part of their services. Kim Davis still draws that salary from taxpayers, while refusing to provide them with the services for which they pay, and refusing to step aside and allow another government official to do so. That makes her a hypocritical toad in my book.
Have fun trying to convince me otherwise.
Now, if you read that title, you pretty much know what’s coming next. The. Exact. Opposite.
For the second consecutive year, the Obama administration more often than ever censored government files or outright denied access to them under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, according to a new analysis of federal data by The Associated Press.
The government took longer to turn over files when it provided any, said more regularly that it couldn’t find documents, and refused a record number of times to turn over files quickly that might be especially newsworthy.
It also acknowledged in nearly 1 in 3 cases that its initial decisions to withhold or censor records were improper under the law — but only when it was challenged.
Translation: We are your government. We will take our own sweet ass time showing you what we’re doing, because we hope that you’ll just get sick and tired of waiting, and when we do finally respond to your FOIA request, it will either be redacted beyond comprehension or outright denied.
Because fuck you.
Oh, I’m sorry. Or was it: We just don’t have enough resources to keep up with all the FOIA requests, so we’re just denying them outright, because we don’t have the manpower to pay the overtime, but if you allow us to raise taxes and hire more bureaucrats, we will give you information that you’re entitled to from the government which you put in power and which is funded by your tax dollars.
But no. Really. This administration has “a lot to be proud of,” says White House spokeshole Josh Earnest, who contrary to his last name is anything but.
As a matter of fact, the White House has formally exempted its Office of Administration from FOIA regulations, effectively barring citizens from requesting information about their government. To be fair, the Office of Administration pretty much stopped responding to FOIA requests under Bush, but the Obama Administration has made those refusals official and legal.
So much for transparency.
The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sued the office after being denied access to documents it had requested to obtain details about a slew of emails that had gone missing from White House servers.
After a lengthy appeal, the court upheld the ruling that the Office of Administration, which advises and assists the president, is not an “agency” as defined by the FOIA.
Since it only “performs only operational and administrative tasks in support of the president and his staff,” the court ruled in 2009, “under our precedent, [the Office of Administration] lacks substantial independent authority.”
Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever.
I love my job. My job is a public trust. The taxpayers pay me to provide what I consider to be a pretty important service, and in return they expect me to do my job to the best of my ability.
I take nothing for granted. My job could disappear tomorrow, and my bosses – THE TAXPAYERS – could decide they no longer need my services. It’s as simple as that.
Yes, I sometimes have to do things I don’t like. I have sat through all-day meetings. I have sat through mandatory training that lasted several hours. Staff meetings, PowerPoint presentations… you name it.
But I sit through them, and not once have I whipped out my phone and decided that the taxpayers will now pay me to play video games, instead of doing my job!
That’s why shit like this really pisses me off:
Scandal! Caught playing iPhone game at 3+ hour Senate hearing – worst of all I lost!
— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) September 3, 2013
Yes, sir! It is a scandal! If my bosses caught me playing video games on my fucking phone during the work day, I would at the very least get a letter of reprimand, and at the very worst lose my job!
You may not take your job seriously, having been sucking on the taxpayer teat longer than I’ve been alive (slight exaggeration, but you know what I mean), but we, the people who pay your salary and your benefits, do take it seriously! And we take it seriously, because every decision you make affects us and our lives, you supercilious, arrogant, worn out colostomy bag!
We pay you to be one of the people who leads this country. We pay you to goddamn pay attention – especially when the hearing is about waging war and possibly sending our children into harm’s way!
So yeah, it is a scandal, John McCain! Maybe you should reexamine your fucking priorities, and remember who it is you’re working for, and who pays you to do the right thing!
…and it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. He needs to resign. Shaun Kenney has the story. And I think a lot of people owe Willie Deutsch an apology if he does. RLCVA board member Joshua Huffman has more.
I haven’t liked or trusted him since he immediately began running for Governor in 2005 upon being elected Attorney General by a razor-thin margin over Sen. Creigh Deeds, the same man he would best in the 2009 gubernatorial general election. I’ve met Bob McDonnell on roughly ten occasions, having had extended conversations with him twice, and he has come off as agenda-driven, ambitious (even by politician standards!), disingenuous, and always looking around the room to see who he should be talking to, regardless of who it is he’s speaking to at the time. In short, he’s an example of the problem with the Republican Party of Virginia. He, along with George Allen and Bill Bolling, marshaled their establishment hack minions on the RPV State Central Committee to depose Jeff Frederick as RPV Chairman and replace him with Uncle Pat Mullins, a longtime GOP establishment fixture in Virginia. This was all before he declared his candidacy for Governor and the deal was done with Bolling. They also recruited John Brownlee to try and stop Ken Cuccinelli from becoming the nominee for AG in 2009.
Upon becoming Governor, he made a litany of promises about how he was going to cut government, fix VDOT, etc. Name a conservative promise of good, honest and open government in Richmond, and he probably made it either during the campaign or immediately around the time of his inauguration. He deserves credit for floating the plan to sell off the state-owned liquor stores, but he didn’t really throw his full political weight behind it, so no one backed him up on it in the General Assembly. He spent a lot of time recruiting businesses to come to Virginia from various and sundry hopeless blue states, with a fair degree of success. The bad news: He often promises them goodies in the form of sepcial tax breaks, which of course, translate into tax increases on everyone else. He topped off his mediocrity of an administration by cooking up Plan ’13 From Outer Space with Bill Howell, Tommy Norment, Bolling and some Democrats in the GA, and passing it over the objections of conservatives.
Please, Bob. Just go. I’m sure Bill Bolling will be more than pleased to sit in the big chair, if only for a little while.