Why don’t women deserve equal pay for equal work?

35 Questions

This is part 22 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.


22. Why don’t women deserve equal pay for equal work?

Women do deserve equal pay for equal work, and they already get it. The liberal myth that women don’t get equal pay has been debunked, but the debunking doesn’t earn Democrat votes, so they perpetuate the lie.

PragerU has produced a short video explaining this called There Is No Gender Wage Gap

Is there a gender wage gap? Are women paid less than men to do the same work? Christina Hoff Sommers, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, explains the data.

If you take all men and all women and compare wages, men make more than women. But when you start to look at the reasons why, you find a different story than what the liberal media likes to portray. Basically, they make less because of choices, not because of discrimination.

In jobs that don’t require college degrees, men head towards “dirty” jobs such as construction, plumbing, electrical work, etc. These jobs pay well, but women make up a small percentage. They tend to take “cleaner” jobs like waitressing and office clerks. I’m not saying that one is man’s work and one is woman’s work, I’m just saying that’s where they have a tendency to go.

In jobs that require a college education, again women seem to take the “caring” jobs, while men take the “STEM” jobs.

Women tend to take more time off, and I don’t mean vacation. I mean leaves of absence for things like raising children. As much as liberal women probably won’t like this, women tend to be more nurturing, and after giving birth to a human being tend to want to be with it in its formative years. And there’s nothing wrong with that. The thing is, it comes with a wage drop.

Women, who don’t take time off, have a tendency to make more than men.

The bottom line is the wage gap is due to choices, not sexism.

Why Are You Afraid of Muslims?

35 Questions

This is part 21 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.


21. y are u so afraid of Muslims? Before 9-11, we were token Aladdin/Apu. Laughably, we are now out to destroy USA?

One cannot easily forget the media images of Muslims overseas cheering when the twin towers crashed to the ground on 9-11 killing 3,000 innocent human beings; not soldiers in a combat zone, or a military installation overseas, but innocent human beings.. These were people simply going to work for the day. Instead, they were killed; it was in our face. While many of the videos of Muslims cheering may have been debunked, initially it angered people around the world, and as I’ve already mentioned, right or wrong, it wasn’t easily forgotten.

Terrorism wasn’t new, but it was always somewhere else. Again, right or wrong, it was always someone else’s problem. We felt bad for people, and mourned losses, but not since Pearl Harbor had something so big occurred right in our backyard. It was Muslims who succeeded in bringing that terror to the USA. It was Muslims who brought the new worldview of Muslims. And let’s face it, it’s Radical Islamic Terrorists (Muslims) that are the ones saying exactly what you want to laugh off: they want to destroy the USA.

Why We Don’t Forget

Prior to 9-11 most Americans were ignorant of Islam. 9-11 provided a crash course (pun intended), and through further investigation, many later found Islam disturbing. Most understand that not all Muslims are out to destroy the USA, but after 9-11, we are reminded on a yearly basis that many Muslims are out to destroy the USA, despite the attempt by liberals, liberal media, and non-Radical Muslims to downplay atrocities committed by Muslims, and bully us into forgetting.

On a world-wide scale Muslims commit thousands of terror attacks, and kill thousands of people. Last year, 2017, there were 1,332 attacks and 8,319 fatalities. At What Makes Islam So Different? you can get a running total of the violence committed over the Last 30 Days. It’s always in the double digits.

The View On Muslims Based On Reality

With that in mind, I need to make some clarifications. First, when I think of Muslims, I think of followers of Islam. Essentially, I am speaking of the religion, and not a geographical area or race of people. I know that around the world, there are “white” people that have taken up Radical Islam and committed atrocities as well.

Second, as I try to keep that in mind, I am also fully aware, that most Muslims do come from certain geographical regions of the world. As we try and filter the Extremists out from those seeking to come to the US, it may have the appearance of dislike for Muslims, but this is because of a twisting by liberal media of the truth.

There is a total disregard for what is actually happening in the world. People who talk about it are labeled Islamophobes, despite the FACT that Muslims commit the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks because they hate the United States, and the West in general. Those who are “afraid” of Muslims should not be labeled Islamophobes, but Islamorealists because the fear isn’t as irrational as the term Islamophobe implies.

Conclusion

Most people are not afraid of all Muslims. I have coworkers who are Muslim who I am not afraid of, and I’m sure the overwhelming majority of Muslims that come to this country, or are already here, are fine people. Americans looking for a common sense approach to refugees, and immigrants, are simply looking for a thorough background check, and yes, even if that involves a certain amount of profiling. That doesn’t mean we’ll catch all those intent on doing harm, but it increases the chances of catching those who do. It also means that those who do come here should actually be looked upon with a little less scrutiny because, duh! They’ve passed an actual, real, thorough, background check!

Related Posts:

Banning Foreigners Versus Banning Assault Weapons

35 Questions

This is part 20 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.


20. Why are you more comfortable with banning foreigners than banning assault weapons?

Assault weapons are inanimate objects. An assault weapon never hurt anyone all by itself. It takes a human being to use it for violence. And while humans are generally wicked at heart, they use assault rifles in an incredibly small number of crimes. Unfortunately, when they do, the results tend to be horrific. Similarly, many people are afraid to fly because of the horrific impact airline crashes have on us. Yet, people generally have no qualms with getting into a vehicle even though it’s much more dangerous to drive than fly.

Further, people have a Constitutional right to bear arms. It doesn’t matter whether anyone likes it.

The foreigner’s issue is a little tougher. First, let me say that there is no Constitutional right for foreigners to have access to this country. We can let in as many or little as we want.

Second, no one is looking to ban foreigners. We just want to be more selective–and smarter–about who we let in. We want to keep criminals, and terrorists, out. We also want to keep people out that are not going to assimilate to American values. That doesn’t mean abandoning your heritage and family history, but it does mean you have to understand, and accept, that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. They also have the right to Free Speech, even if that speech offends you.

On a separate note, I find the idea that someone thought it was a good idea to lump human beings into the same category as an inanimate object, or tool, a little disturbing. I don’t find it surprising coming from a liberal, but yes, disturbing.

Related Posts:

Should I be concerned over Electoral College/Popular Vote splits?

35 Questions

This is part 19 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.


19. Is there any point at which the electoral college/popular vote split would become a concern?

A few years ago, I had looked into the electoral college. I had looked at alternative plans and after weighing the pros and cons of each, I determined that the fairest system was the electoral college as it’s set up. I’m not saying it’s perfect; I don’t believe such a system exists.

First, you have to remember that it’s the states that elect the President, not the people. Each state casts ballots based on how the people of that state vote. In other words, the presidential election is based on fifty-one popular votes, not one, and in all but two states, the candidate that wins the popular vote, gets all the electoral votes for that state.

Politics aside, it’s not hard to see that in order to win the popular vote, the candidates would need to only concentrate on the areas where the most people live and make them happy, i.e., Los Angeles, Atlanta, New York, Chicago, etc. The Electoral College forces candidates to pay attention to areas of the country that would otherwise be ignored if we had a straight popular vote. You may not like Donald Trump as a person, but his message resonated with people across the entire country, while Hillary Clinton’s did not.

Hillary’s message only resonated in 457 counties across the country. That’s 15.6% of the 3113 counties in the country. Liberals would like us to believe that people in those few countries are smarter than the rest of the country and don’t have a problem saying it. Their condescension is infuriating. As much as liberals scream about fairness, the Popular Vote is the epitome of unfair, but that’s what they’re calling for.

Another reason the electoral college is a good idea is it shields the rest of the country from the stupidity exercised in California: allowing illegal, non-citizens to vote, and possibly vote in federal elections, which should be against federal law in my opinion, but regardless of the legality, 100 million illegal aliens voting in California won’t have an effect on the Presidential election because of the Electoral College, but it would have an effect if we had a Popular Vote.

In the end, though, it’s the 30 of 50 states the Trump won that counts, because people are fond of forgetting that this country is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. The Founding Fathers devised a system that keeps the 10 biggest States/Cities from ruling the rest of the country by default because of population, but the system still retains an advantage for those with the biggest populations by allowing them larger numbers of electoral votes. What keeps the system more fair than a purely Popular Vote, is that the smaller states still have a voice. I know, it’s not an idea that liberals are comfortable with–opposing views having a voice–but I believe it’s a brilliant system, and actually fairer than any alternative I’ve seen.

Is there any point at which the electoral college/popular vote split would become a concern? No. I will never be concerned over a split between a system that pushes a candidate to campaign across the entire country or just the major metropolises.

Why do conservatives assume that black people’s views on society are a result of brainwashing?

35 Questions

This is part 18 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.


18. Why do conservatives assume that Black people’s views on society are a result of brainwashing by the left rather than by our own experience?

The ridiculously short answer? Because they keep voting for politicians and leaders that promote programs that have been shown not to work; programs that don’t help them, and in the long run hurts them. Yet they keep voting for the same programs, and the same leaders. We throw more and more money at the problems they want fixed, but there’s no sign of improvement.

And black people that think outside the box, and try to persuade others to try something different? They’re traitors; Uncle Toms.

If that doesn’t sound like brainwashing I don’t know what does.