tea party
Milo Yiannopoulos Interview with Chicks on the Right
How to Debunk the Gender Pay Gap to Your Friends
BREAKING NEWS: I’M OFFENDED
That’s right folks, I’m offended by that feminist lie that women are yet again victims of another patriarchal evil known as the gender pay gap–the idea that women are paid substantially less than men for equal work simply because they are women. This nonsensical idea is fed by reports from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Office of National Statistics, based on what journalist Milo Yiannopoulos explains as broad averages of men and women from all societies, all income levels, and all walks of life regardless of other factors. The feminist infested culture latches on to these statistics as evidence that there is massive discrimination against women in the workplace, indoctrinating many unsuspecting culture consumers who passively receive only partial facts.
There are several reasons why this notion that discrimination in the workplace causes women to earn less is false:
-women work more part-time jobs
-women choose jobs that are lower paid
-as child bearers, women are more likely to stay at home taking care of children rather than working in a paid capacity
-men tend to work more difficult and more dangerous jobs
The most deceitful way that feminists assert that there is a discriminatory wage gap is by presenting wages as if they are the same as earnings. By explaining the difference between the two, you can easily debunk the gender pay gap to your friends with my simple illustration. If there are two employees, one male and one female, each doing the same job for $10 an hour, they make the same wage. However, if the female employee chooses to work part time while the male chooses a full time position, the male will necessarily earn more income overall than the female. Feminists–and liberals in general–will disingenuously imply that women only earn less because they are paid a lower wage solely due to the fact they are women, which in reality is completely untrue.
So the next time Hayley Atwell or Jennifer Lawrence trots out on stage complaining that they made less money than the men they worked with, remind your friends that Western women are not victims, they have free reign over the types of work they choose, and if they really want to make as much or more money than men they should go out and earn it!
VIDEO: Why Twitter is Better Than Facebook
How to Know If Your Candidate is Conservative
Why Twitter Is Better Than Facebook
I’ve often complained that my FaceBook experience is far inferior to the fun and games we all have on Twitter, so I thought I’d elaborate on just what exactly makes Twitter so much better than FaceBook.
Twitter is open
Probably the best example of why Twitter is a superior platform to FaceBook is it is an open network. The premise of Twitter is that unless you have a protected account—and who wastes their time with those—everything you post on Twitter is visible to anyone and everyone else on the Internet. Twitter is your own little broadcast network that can be as big or as small as the effort you put into it; therefore it is a given that personal, sensitive, or intimate material is posted at your own risk. In contrast, FaceBook is the Soviet Union of social networking—unless you have an active following virtually no one can see your content due to FaceBook’s limiting and restrictive algorithims. The rules that must be adhered to and the hoops that must be jumped through in order for the average person to grow their network are nearly impossible to overcome, and many would say it’s just not worth the effort. This idea that social networking should or can be limited to you and just your personal friends is contrary to its purpose, as the sharing of ideas and information should be allowed to go far beyond your immediate sphere of influence.
Twitter is impersonal
This is a huge (or yuge if you’re Donald Trump) advantage that Twitter has over FaceBook. Somehow I always feel obligated to respond to people on FaceBook even if I don’t want to for fear of offending someone. Other times, I feel I have to think and rethink what I’m about to post on FaceBook, wondering if this post might offend this person or seem inappropriate to that person. Still other times I really would rather not be friends with a particular person, yet I might offend him or her by unfriending or blocking whomever it is on FaceBook. It the social justice warrior’s dream where everyone has to walk on eggshells to prevent people from being offended, or suffer the consequences! With Twitter there is none of this flip-flopping over what I want to post or who I unfriend or unfollow—it’s not personal, so I don’t have to care.
Twitter levels the playing field
This is my favorite part of Twitter—the fact that I get to digitally meet and exchange ideas with people that in any other circumstance I would never get a chance to communicate with. Imagine a Californian getting to connect with conservatives in other states, a U.S. based college student sharing ideas with a British celebrity, or an average fan of a T.V. show getting to communicate with one of its actors. These are only a few of the ways that Twitter has broken down the traditional barriers between the middle class and the elite that FaceBook and it’s elaborate barriers only work to reinforce.
Twitter is a free for all
Anything, and I mean anything, goes on Twitter. If the U.S. would loosen the restrictions on its economy the way Twitter has allowed most information sharing to be unrestricted, we’d be going gangbusters! It is universally understood by most Twitter users that you are undoubtedly going to see everything offensive—whether it’s an opinion you dislike or a picture with graphic content—and that’s the nature of the free for all. FaceBook would restrict all content which it subjectively determines to be offensive in pursuit of some fascistic utopia where no one gets offended and no one really has any contact with other ideas. Unfortunately, with PC fears beginning to encroach on Twitter the free for all may not for much longer. So if I could give one piece of advice to Twitter I would ask that it continue to be the opposite of everything that FaceBook stands for by loosening restrictions and facilitating the unlimited exchange of ideas.
The Liberal Guide to the Alphabet
In the interest of fairness, equality, and social justice, I’ve decided that as a sequel to my humorous “Conservative Guide to the Alphabet” I would explain to my readers just how the alphabet is taught to liberal children. Let us begin!
A is for Abortion
B is #BlackLivesMatter
C is for Climate Change
D is for DNC
E is for Executive Order
F is for Feminist
G is for GOVERNMENT
H is for Hillary
I is for Iran Nuclear Deal
J is for Joblessness
K is for Ku Klux Klan
L is for Liberal
M is for Marxist
N is for New Age Philosophy
O is for Offended
P is for Privilege
Q is for Quantitative Easing
R is for Racist
S is for Socialism
T is for Taxes
U is for University
V is for Van Jones
W is for Welfare
X is for Xenophobe
Y is for Yale
Z is for Zinn (as in Howard the Marxist)
The Conservative Guide to the Alphabet
Since so many of my friends are either having kids or have young kids learning to read, I thought I’d be helpful and take the time to introduce them to the way the alphabet should be taught to conservative kids. Let us begin!
A is for Ann Coulter
B is for Breitbart
C is for Constitution
D is for Drudge
E is for Economy
F is for Founding Fathers
G is for Guns
H is for Hamilton (as in Alexander)
I is for Ingraham
J is for Justice
K is for Kickoff (as in American football)
L is for Liberty
M is for Military
N is for New Media
O is for O’Keefe
P is for President
Q is for Question Authority
R is for Rush
S is for Shapiro
T is for Twitter
U is for United States
V is for Veteran
W is for Warriorwoman91
X is for Xevious (because video games are inherently conservative)
Y is for Yiannopoulos
Z is for Zero Base Budgeting
Best Moments from the #GOPDebate!
Donald Trump enters pic.twitter.com/fn53ByhQWm
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) December 16, 2015
Carson holds moment of silence for the San Bernadino victims.
Paul wrecks Rubio over NSA spying and immigration.
Paul doing Cruz’s work for him here. Brutal takedown on immigration and national defense. pic.twitter.com/bb19WkCaoc — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) December 16, 2015
Trump SMOOCHES Cruz on stage!
Cruz owning the moderators! #GOPDebate
— Kelly Campagna (@warriorwoman91) December 16, 2015
Cruz destroys Rubio on immigration!
Ted Cruz did his best Babe Ruth imitation again tonight. 🙂 #GOPDebate #CruzCrew @TedCRuz pic.twitter.com/YQnQBA7Xkv — Chuck Nellis (@ChuckNellis) December 16, 2015
Bush: You can’t insult your way to the presidency. Trump: WATCH ME!
Trump to Jeb pic.twitter.com/SR9BE2Mryn
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) December 16, 2015
Trump complains that the media talks about him too much and HULK SMASHES Jeb Bush!
Trump vs. Bush #GOPDebate pic.twitter.com/l2LvHek0LO — Kelly Campagna (@warriorwoman91) December 16, 2015
Debate winner: Darth Vader
I will force choke all terrorists #GOPDebate pic.twitter.com/Klrst0rJBL
— Darth Vader (@DepressedDarth) December 16, 2015
How to Talk to A Liberal: Federalism Prevents the Abuse of Power
One of the features of the Constitution designed to protect individuals from the abuse of power by government is the creation of federalism. Federalism is the sharing of sovereignty between the states and the national government, sovereignty being, “the ultimate authority to govern […],” (Patterson, 2008, p. 69). This structure of government was innovated for the purpose of creating a strong national government for the United States, while still providing restraints to enable the states to maintain some of their sovereignty. By dividing authority between these two entities, federalism creates a check and balance system between federal and state governments to prevent an abuse of power. According to Alexander Hamilton, “If [the people’s] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress,” (Patterson, 2008, p. 71).
This feature of the Constitution has been the cause of much debate in several prominent Supreme Court cases over the past 5 years. For example, in 2012 the Supreme Court struck down an Arizona immigration law attempting to take federal law enforcement into the state’s hands, (Washington Post, 2012). Another example is found in the 2013 Supreme Court decision regarding California’s Proposition 8 banning gay marriage inside the state’s borders. The court refused to take up the case, thereby, “[leaving] in place a lower court’s decision that the ban is unconstitutional,” (Washington Post, 2013). Both of these controversies have opened up a national dialogue as to where states’ authority ends and federal authority begins.
References
Barnes, R. (2012, June 25). Supreme Court upholds key part of Arizona law for now, strikes down other provisions. Washington Post. Retrieved January 15, 2014, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-on-arizona-immigration-law/2012/06/25/gJQA0Nrm1V_story.html.
Barnes, R. (2013, June 26). At Supreme Court, victories for gay marriage. Washington Post. Retrieved January 15, 2014, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court/2013/06/26/f0039814-d9ab-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html.
Patterson, T. E. (2008). The American Democracy. New York City, New York: McGraw-Hill.