Double Masks? Heck, I Don't Even Want to Wear ONE! - Politicrossing
Connect with us

Politics

Double Masks? Heck, I Don’t Even Want to Wear ONE!

Can’t you just wait to double up then walk into that upscale party where people gather around you, gushing over your DOUBLE MASKS! Waiter, get me a drink, pronto!

Published

on

Here is the title of a new article in the increasingly horrible NY Times:

“Two Masks Are the New Masks: Double-masking is a sensible and easy way to lower your risk when you have to spend more time around others — in a taxi, on a train or plane, or at an inauguration.”

Do you ever just wonder if there are terrible people – people who are willing to lie at every turn, who think to themselves, “Let’s just keep making the rules more and more ridiculous and onerous and see what people will go along with?”

I do. I believe that they are going to push and push and push until someone – anyone! – actually stands up to the tyranny.

More looniness from the Times about how fashionable double masking is:

But the fashion trend that most excited me was the double mask! Double-masking is a sensible and easy way to lower your risk, especially if circumstances require you to spend more time around others — like in a taxi, on a train or plane, or at an inauguration. Pete Buttigieg, the former presidential candidate and now the nominee for secretary of transportation, was spotted double-masking. It appears he was wearing a high-quality medical mask underneath a black cloth mask. His husband, Chasten, was sporting a similar double-masked look, but with a fashionable plaid cloth mask that coordinated with his winter scarf.

Ooooh, a FASHION trend! Can’t you just wait to double up then walk into that upscale party where people gather around you, gushing over your DOUBLE MASKS! Waiter, get me a drink, pronto!

Here’s my take. If you are in the demographics for whom the virus is more dangerous and you want to wear a mask, bravo! Go for it. But for those who are younger and healthy, you shouldn’t be forced to wear a mask, as there are many doctors who believe it to not be healthy, no matter how FABULOUS you would look!


  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.



News

Woke Leftists Get New Lefty Nickname Canceled – Let’s Make it Famous

Words have power. Every time someone says something goofy, call them “BlueAnon.” They’ll stop eventually.

Published

on

As a professional speaker and the author of 22 books, you can imagine that I am particular about words. One of the things that I’ve always thought that the left does better than the rate is to brand their opponent in a particular way by the words that they use. As we all know by now, they have turned the term QAnon into a pejorative word that they not only use for people who are fans of Q, but anyone who holds a conservative position. And frankly, it has worked. Now, when they want to dismiss something, they simply say, “That’s a bunch of QAnon stuff” and everyone nods their head and moves on without giving the thoughts any consideration.

Well, it is time to fight back. We need to use language that positions them. For example, when there were riots, I was one of the first people to call them “the Biden riots,” because they were. Most conservatives were uncomfortable with that.

Think about how the left can take something from two sides and make them look completely different: The events of January 6th are deemed an “insurrection.” The nine months of rioting, looting, torching buildings and cop cars, and killing people are deemed, “Peaceful protests.” This is how they win the war of words.

Now it is time for us to fight back on every front. One way we can do that is to brand anything left of center with the new nickname “BlueAnon.”

Will it be effective? I am guessing it will be, given how quickly the wokesters worked to get that name removed from Urban Dictionary. Check this before and after out:

Even Candace Owens is using it:

So folks, let’s make this famous. If they don’t want to hear it, hear it they will… everywhere. Words have power. Every time someone says something goofy, call them “BlueAnon.” They’ll stop eventually. Just like what they do to us.

Continue Reading

Business

Can You Increase Prosperity By Taxing Success?

Published

on

“You can’t increase prosperity by taxing success.”

~ Calvin Coolidge

 

One of the mantras of Democrats is to make the wealthy pay their fair share. You heard it often on the campaign trail from the plethora of Democrat candidates who ran for president. So it should come as no surprise that one of the most vocal proponents of soaking the rich, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), has offered up legislation for a wealth tax.

The bill, called the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, would apply an annual 2% tax on individuals with net worths between $50 million and $1 billion. Individuals worth over $1 billion would pay an annual 3% tax. Senator Warren claims it will generate $3 trillion in revenue over 10 years and that money would be invested in programs such as child care, education, and infrastructure.

On the surface, this may sound like a good idea to the common citizen working a 9 to 5 job. Why not soak the rich and make them pay their fair share? One must ask a counterquestion. What do you consider a fair share?

The top 25% of taxpayers pay 86 percent of total income taxes. The top 10% of taxpayers pay 70 percent. The top 5% pay 59 percent. The top 1% of taxpayers pay 38.5 percent of total income taxes. In contrast, the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay only 3.1 percent of total income taxes. It is a myth that wealthier individuals aren’t paying a fair share.

The next question is how do you enforce this wealth tax? It’s an administrative nightmare. In Warren’s proposed legislation, she allocates an additional $100 billion into the IRS for enforcement and mandates a 30 percent annual audit rate for the agency. That would mean hiring more IRS agents and a third of American households would be audited every year.

On top of that, do you really think wealthy people like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffett will actually pay that wealth tax? They may be big liberals but also realize they have some high-quality accountants to help avoid paying any more in taxes than necessary. They will find loopholes and off-shore accounts to shelter their wealth.

You may wonder why does this even concern me? Do you think politicians like Elizabeth Warren will stop at those with wealth of $50 million or more? You can already picture a scenario where the revenue this wealth tax brings in will be far less than they anticipate. Thus, they will have to expand the tax to anyone who has wealth of $20 million or more. Then to $10 million or more. Then to $1 million or more. It’s yet another slippery slope to an ever expanding tax.

“Well first of all, tell me: Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course, none of us are greedy, it’s only the other fellow who’s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system.”

~ Milton Friedman

 

If Elizabeth Warren and her comrades were truly interested in leveling the playing field and making a difference in the lives of people across America they would advocate for limited government and focus on a more robust free-enterprise system. The reality is that’s not what they are seeking.

This legislation is more about pandering to the Democrat base and low-information voters in a continuing concertive effort at fostering class warfare and animosity. By creating division through class and racial strife the Democrats see their path to decades of power. This is all about redistribution of wealth.

You can’t expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong. The entrepreneurs and visionaries create jobs. As businesses grow and expand they create further job opportunities and opportunities for ancillary businesses.

Warren’s legislation is an impractical and arbitrary scheme of leveling. It’s despotic and completely antithetical to our Constitution. In a sane Congress this legislation would find its way into the trash can. Given the current political situation in Washington that seems unlikely. Democrats are pushing forward on every one of their Marxist policies and insanity runs amok.

Continue Reading

Our Newsletter

Become a Politicrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Sites We Like

Our Newsletter

Become a Politicrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Trending

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
 
Send this to a friend