Little Johnny and the Election

I believe mockery is a very useful way of dealing with the political crowd.

They may over-tax, over-spend, and over-regulate, but at least we can deny them the public affection they so desperately crave.

This is why I like sharing anti-politician humor. Even if, on occasion, it means some PG-13 jokes like the meeting between Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and some ranchers.

Or the little girl expressing her opinion of Obamanomics, this prostitute risking her reputation by hanging out with the wrong type of person, or this mistaken anatomy episode.

And here’s one featuring “Little Johnny,” the foul-mouthed kid who inevitably says something inappropriate to his class.

Speaking of Little Johnny, here’s  a new joke.

Actually, it was probably new last November, but I only saw it recently

========================================================

A teacher goes around her class asking each of the kids what they need at home?

Joey says “A computer.”

The teacher replies, “That would be very useful.”

Kimmy says “A new lawn mower.” and gets a similar response.

Little Johnny pops up and says “At my house we don’t need nothing!”

The teacher asks him to think again carefully, as everybody needs something.

Little Johnny replies, “No I’m sure. When Obama was re-elected, I remember my Dad saying, ‘Well, that’s the last f**king thing we need.'”

================================================

By the way, as you can see from this joke (warning, probably R-rated instead of PG), it’s not as if Little Johnny’s dad had many options.

Here are some additional jokes that also are a bit crude, but acceptable (in my mind) because they target politicians.

• The link between physics and Obama.
• Some sado-masochism on Capitol Hill.
• A bonding moment between Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
• This not-safe-for-work Obamacare joke.
• The three-part jobs legacy.
• Another risqué Obamacare joke.

Last but not least, I can’t resist sharing the joke about the rabbi and the IRS.

Read Full Post »

Question of the Week: What Are the Strongest Arguments for and against Immigration Amnesty?

I’ve been peppered with all sorts of questions about immigration this week. Many of them deal with the Heritage Foundation study, including the “dynamic scoring” issue and Jason Richwine’s resignation.

I’m also getting asked about other aspects of this debate, ranging from the desirability of a border fence to what I think about skills-based immigration vs. family-reunification immigration.

The short answer to just about every question is that I don’t know. I’ve never studied the issue and I’m not knowledgeable enough to give competent answers. As I remarked in my one interview on the subject, I like immigration but want people coming to America for opportunity rather than welfare.

Not exactly bold stuff, I realize. Heck, everyone from John McCain to Jeff Sessions presumably would be willing to publicly endorse those sentiments.

But I don’t want to dodge the issue completely, and one reader posed a question that got me thinking. She asked me to name the strongest arguments for and against amnesty.

I won’t pretend that these are the strongest arguments, but I will tell you the arguments that I find most compelling.

The most compelling argument for amnesty is that it’s a recognition of reality. Simply stated, the illegals are already here, any kids born in the US already are citizens, and there’s no practical way of getting any of them to leave. What’s the point of pretending otherwise?

I realize that’s a very practical argument, which distinguishes me from some fellow libertarians who make the moral case that people shouldn’t be constrained by government-imposed borders. But that argument doesn’t sweep me off my feet since it implies that everybody in the world has a right to come to the United States.

The most compelling argument against amnesty is that it will make America more statist. I’m not an expert on voting patterns, but I think it’s safe to assume that immigrants will have below-average incomes for the foreseeable future and that they generally will be likely – once they get voting rights – to support politicians who want to make America more like Europe. I’m 99.99 percent confident that this thought has crossed Chuck Schumer’s mind.

Once again, I realize I’m making a practical argument. And you can probably tell that my real concern is with redistributionism and majoritarianism, not immigration. But the bottom line is still the same. We desperately need to scale back the welfare state and I fear amnesty will make that an even bigger challenge.

But to close an a humorous note, perhaps this concern about amnesty can be allayed if we can encourage this type of emigration.

And since we’re sharing some humor, here’s a funny video about Americans sneaking into Peru.

Read Full Post »