Saturday, May 9, 2015

Minimum Wage And Democrats Are For The Poor Myth

Republicans want to cut taxes to benefit the rich. You've heard it said before. The drone army, programmable Democrat talking points that are just more flat out lies. Repeated over and over again, it becomes ingrained Democrat thinking.

Lean forward and collect an unemployment check.
The truth is that both political parties are for the rich. The only difference is one party gives lip service to the poor, not actual support. Minimum wage is now the Democrat Party presidential race agenda item. Create more jobs? Nah. Raise minimums will end the poor's financial struggle? Absolutely not. Democrats and their class warfare agenda is so easy to laugh at. Millionaire politicians are so out of touch with the needs of average Americans.

The truth is that raising the minimum wage to absurd hourly rates will kill jobs for the very people who need them. Liberal San Francisco and Seattle are learning this first hand. They mandated by Democrat law to raise wages $15. per hour. Businesses close because they can't absorb the added costs. But it sure makes a socialist feel good as they drive their BMW into their gated community.

Minimum wage was never intended to be a lifetime job, it is an entry level position. Obamanomics has the most able body people on government assistance in 3 decades, nearly 94 million people not working. Democrats blame Capitalism when it's their policy that is not free market friendly. In fact, their regulatory burdens placed on the market is making the economy worse. Tax cuts for the rich, as unpleasant as it is made out to be, actually creates jobs because they are small business owners that invest the money into growing business. Redistribute money from those who work to those that don't work is punishing success. In addition, America has had several years of record tax collection. A half of trillion dollars in April and the economy hasn't been this bad since the Great Depression.

In conclusion, things will get worse before they get better because morons are in charge.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Sinning and Sweet Cakes


Once upon a time, a group of men dragged a woman in a Jerusalem street, and dropped her before a man seated against a wall, a man who busied himself with poking a finger around in the dirt rather than look up at the men.

The crowd looked at him for a moment, and one of them said "this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act."

The seated man - Jesus - still did nothing.  So a question was directed at him. 

"Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?"

Then Jesus looked up, looked at everyone in the crowd directly, and said "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

That was in the Gospel of John, chapter 8.  It's also one of the New Testament passages that liberals repeatedly cite for Jesus' level of tolerance.  He did forgive the woman for adultery.

But what else did He say?  That's important, because He said it a lot throughout the Gospels.

"Sin no more."  Translated into modern English from the language of the King James, and you get this:

"Don't sin anymore!"  "QUIT SINNING!"  

Got that, people?  The Bible speaks against sin of any kind, and sin includes homosexuality.  God made the gay person, but He never made him gay.  God made the thief, but He never made him steal; God made get the picture.

So, what is the point of this:  Before I get to that, here is the first marriage, way back when it involved Adam and Eve:

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

Now, what did Jesus say about marriage?

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:4-6)

Did anyone in the Bible support the notion of Adam and Steve?  No.  In fact, you cannot find anything in the Bible where it is authorized; you can find plenty in there condemning it, but absolutely nothing supporting it.  So if anyone begs to differ, well, they just haven't read the Bible, or they prefer to pick and choose and twist.

So, the only remedy is to renounce the sin - get rid of it, let go of it, throw it in the trash can - and allow Jesus to be your savior.  That's what Peter said to do in Acts 2:38; that's what Paul said to do throughout most of the New Testament.  And I'm not singling out homosexuality as the only sin here.  If you hate people, if you curse, backbite, steal, murder, jaywalk, sput on someone, swipe so much as a paperclip from someone's desk, well, that's just as much sin as the gay act in God's eyes.  And if you don't renounce it, if you don't accept Jesus, you're just not a Christian, and you will never get eternal life in Heaven.  Period.

So, there's Melissa, the sweet cake maker.  She decided not to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, a cake that clearly stated a celebration of their "marriage."  Why?  Because as a Christian she would have been forced to abandon her beliefs and support something that is clearly in violation of God's laws. 

The state of Oregon claimed discrimination against the homosexual couple.  Melissa was charged, fined, sued, called filthy words, received death threats, and so on.  

Here's what an outsider is clearly seeing.  Oregon passed a law that says you cannot discriminate against anyone while operating a business.  This law apparently DEMANDS you set aside your personal religious beliefs when dealing with a customer, or else.

The Oregon law is also unconstitutional, and the last time this writer read it, Article 6 of the Constitution clearly says:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Constitution sits OVER the state laws of Oregon; it's supremacy cannot be challenged, unless Oregon chooses to leave the Union.  Fat chance on that happening.

And if the Constitution is supreme over Oregon laws, Melissa and anyone else like her cannot be made to violate her own religious beliefs.  The First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Melissa has a right to religion.  Melissa has a right to free speech.  Melissa has a right to assemble with like-minded people.  So, you people in Oregon, and those people who like to spit upon Melissa, who authorized YOU to remove those First Amendment rights from her? 

While you're sitting there spouting off obscenities at a baker, you're forgetting there's going to be a higher showdown later, in the Supreme Court.

And while you're sitting there demanding Melissa cave in to what your "version" of Christianity should be, you forget that the individual whom you claim is all "love and tolerance" will sit in judgement against you, and it will be based on your own rejection of Him; your own hatred, intolerance, and bigotry directed against Christians in general and Melissa in particular will definitely be used against you.

So, quit the sinning and accept Him.  The offer is free.

But the offer expires when you do.  And when that happens, it's too late.


If you want to order any of those sweet cakes, her site is here:


Friday, April 24, 2015

Income Inequality, The Nonsense From Liberals Is Neverending.

America has a unique role in the world when it comes to the rights of their people. The specific word "equality" does not appear anywhere in either the Declaration or in the Constitution. You will find the word "equal" as in all men are created equal and the equal protection of the laws. Equality is nowhere to be found and for good reason. It's an invention of liberals and Marxists.
Mindless drones demand more money.

Income Inequality is pushed relentlessly by rich Democrats, which is irony of the first degree. They claim to be for the poor and for the middle class while being driven around in limos and eating caviar in their $10 million dollar home. Those people are truly hypocrites but even worse, they are fascists. Their policies, their push is hurting the very people they claim to defend. Anybody that studied Marxism knows that the caste system, classifying people according to their wealth, creates resentment and division. This furthers the liberal agenda to create an endless stream of victims that need to rely on Democrats for help. It's their standard method of operation. We are not all Americans as the term equal in the Constitution refers. According to Democrats, we are rich/poor, we have white/black skin pigmentation, skilled/unskilled, we are victims/winners. It's bullcrap but common thinking from liberals.

Equality of opportunity is the only true use of the word that is non-divisive. Everybody has a fair shot to be what they want, to pursue their dreams. The world has had poor and rich from the beginning and it shall be that way until the end. Hate and envy of others does nothing to improve your life. Self determination, freedom and liberty is the best system available. Capitalism not Marxism is the champion of equality. 

For equality of incomes, look no further than to Cuba and North Korea. Everybody is equally poor and miserable. They just so happen to be Communist nations, what a coincidence.

Sunday, April 5, 2015

The Trojan Horse, Liberals, and Taqiyya

One writer succinctly put it last year.

"Every single thing liberals say is a lie. No exceptions."

From LBJ's so-called "war on poverty" through Tawana Brawley fictitious rape to Rathergate to John Kerry's smearing of his fellow veterans, all the way through the years to Johnathan Gruber's lies to get Obamacare going, to the murders of four Americans in Benghazi, to Harry Ried's lies to thwart an election, to every single scandal Barack Obama has been involved in, it seems liberals will lie to advance their cause.  The ultimate goal is to make the United States a third world, socialist country, where everyone is miserable and unalienable rights just don't exist.

When that time comes, this little blog and many others similar to it will disappear, causing liberals to jump for joy, but just how long will they be jumping for joy?  If liberals want a socialistic/communistic utopia, how long will it be before the American version of the KGB - a KGB that they created - will come knocking on their doors?  Happened in red China; happened in the Soviet Union; happened in Nazi Germany; happened in fascist Italy; happened in Vietnam, happened in Cuba.  A lot of the biggest supporters of a leftist, socialistic/communistic ideology ended up in a camp or ended up dead, their screams of "I'm one of you!" notwithstanding.

Liars killing liars so their version of lies prevails.  But in the meantime, liberals are brushing off this and similar criticism as though it's nothing to worry about.  No big deal, right?  The social commies they agree with in private "just don't really mean it," or so they delude themselves to say in public.

You ever hear of taqiyya

It's a concept that has is origins with Islam.  What happened to bring this on many years ago was when Muhammed guaranteed a peace treaty for a ten-year period with Mecca; he wanted to conquer the city outright but couldn't, hence the treaty.  This allowed him access to the city, as well as his forces, sort of like a Trojan horse.  Two years into the treaty he broke it, conquered Mecca, and slaughtered those who opposed him.

Taqiyya is authorized deception, authorized lying.  The Qur'an verses 2:225, 3:28, 3:54, 9.3, 16:106, 40:28, 66:2, as well as verses from the Hadith and Islamic law justify using deception against those who are not Muslim.  So, when a rabidly Islamic country states they want to have nuclear power to make ends meet - despite sitting on one of the world's largest oil reserves - you can be sure that it's not to solve their energy needs.

Especially when that country is Iran.  The same Iran who wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.  The same Iran who calls America "the great Satan".  The same Iran who states they're not building a nuclear bomb, but they have a working inter-continental ballistic missile capable of reaching Chicago, which just so happens to be missing from the recent "deal" between Iran and the United States under the pompous yet gullible Barack Hussein Obama and his little stooge, John "toss-his-fellow-veterans-off-the-swiftboat" Kerry.  Due to Obama's idiocy (as well as the previous two administrations refusing to take action), a nuclear weapon exploding miles over Chicago will wipe out the power grid - it's called an EMP attack - and the solution is as easy as hardening the grid.  But Obama would rather spend that money on food stamps for all those illegals that he's determined to bring into the U.S. - and certain terrorists crossing the border with them - rather than prevent one third of the country from going dark, or worse. And as a side-note, he's so determined to bring about enmity with Russia over Ukraine that the Russians are now openly talking about sending a nuke of their own into the Yellowstone area, in the hopes it would cause the super-volcano underneath to erupt and bury much of North America.

But of course, the liberals at large simply dismiss all this as "he doesn't really mean it" and other unicorn fluff.  They would rather smoke a joint or hug a tree or worship the dirt Obama walks on, and delude themselves into thinking that their socialistic/communistic utopia is coming, where they can frolic with the unicorns all day long.

Deal or not, the Iranians are busy assembling their version of the Trojan horse.  They're practicing taqiyya because Islam approves it.

The bomb is coming.

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Hot Time in Antarctica?

Oh goody, the big news is in for the global warming crowd.

Antarctica sets a temperature record.  It's a whopping 63.5 degrees Fahrenheit down there!

People can now flock to Antarctica in their thongs now, and do some surfing, sun bathing, kayaking, saving some whales, whatever pleases the liberal crowd these days.  Maybe they can grow a crop of weed while they're at it as well, and spray the stuff with penguinicide; those fat, weable birds just love getting into that stuff.

Yesserie, it's big news.  The liberal rag TIME covered it immediately, "all thanks to global warming" they said.  It beat a record set yesterday at the same spot (63.3 deg. F), and both beat a record set more than 50 years 1961.

But what's important about this story is what's missing, and what's kinda buried at the bottom of it.

Buried at the bottom is the location.  These libby rags want to imply that it's the whole continent that's warming up, rather than that little-bitty place they took the temp reading from: Esperanza Base, which is at the tip of Graham Land, Antarctic peninsula.  Esperanza is a permanent civilian settlement; that's "people live there" for those of you in Otisburg.  The coordinates for Esperanza are 63°24'S 56°59'W, which places it north of the Antarctic Circle, and roughly 600 miles from Punta Arenas, Chile (that's in South America, for those of you in Otisburg) and that part of this explanation is also important.

This image is from Wikipedia for the article on Base Esperanza.  It's listing temperatures on average for given months; the top line indicates record high temps for a particular month, and with the exception of March (as in today's new record), the remaining temps have no dates given.  The second line is the average high temps, and for the months of October through March, these temps average in the 30's.  That's in Fahrenheit, for those of you in Otisburg.  Like it or not, it is going to have those average high temps, and maybe a little more, due to its location north of the Antarctic Circle. 

What is missing from this story is something that the liberal writers hope you are overlooking.  December 21 through March 22 is winter time up here.  In the United States.  In Canada.  In Britain.

It is SUMMER down in Antarctica.  The ice retreats during that time; the ice melts during that time.  And these liberal nutjobs want you to ignore that one small fact while they head down there and spout to the whole world that the ice is disappearing.

The ice will come back in a month or two.  You can count on it.  And you can count on the same liberal nutjobs packing up and heading north to whine about the retreating ice at the North Pole...during the Arctic summer!

Hope they bring enough sunscreen to share with some polar bears!

Monday, March 30, 2015

Islam, and Rachel Maddow

This is dated February 18, 2015, from that bastion of liberal "thinking", The Rachel Maddow Show:

Getting to the point, this individual claims we have bills on the books in 22 states preventing sharia law; these bills deny to them the right to practice their faith.  At the same time this drivel is flowing from her mouth, she whines that they - the Muslims - come to America to enjoy such things as free speech.  She said:

“We come to the US, 22 states with anti-sharia bills trying to ban us from practicing our faith, mosque oppositions, we’re fighting, you know, zoning boards across the country, our kids are hearing this rhetoric, we have people, mosques being vandalized, kids being executed…”

Of course there's going to be some opposition to this; Islam happens to be the most violent religion on the face of the earth, where its practitioners execute those who:

Decide to leave Islam.
Insult, however minor, the prophet Muhammad.
Insult or desecrate, however minor, the Koran.
Aren't "islamic" enough.
Are Christian or Jewish.
Or are homosexual.

They also lie to advance their cause; their own Koran dictates they do, hence the above ludicrous claims.  Show the world these kids being executed here in the U.S., Ms. Sarsour.  Show the world their names and their graves.  And tell us why you would flee a Muslim-dominated country to enjoy any kind of freedom that we have here, while at the same time demand the inclusion of the very system (Sharia) that you fled from.

And then there's Rachel Maddow, the ultimate liberal on the ultimate liberal network.

You see her in the above video with Ms. Sarsour, pretty-much agreeing with everything she says.  It looks like Maddow wants it to happen, which is the implementation of Sharia in the U.S.  Fine then.  Let's implement it all over the land.  Let's have Sharia so liberals like Maddow can be happy at accomplishing something else pertaining to the destruction of this country.

I did say above, in accordance with Sharia law, homosexuals are executed.

Hey, Rachel Maddow, and everyone else like her: homosexuals are EXECUTED.

Do you understand that?  Sharia demands homosexuals be executed.  Iran hangs them from cranes.  ISIS throws them off buildings.  Rachel Maddow, in agreeing with Sarsour, wants the same thing here.

Rachel Maddow is homosexual.  She wants to bring the rope to her own hanging.

Talk about stupidity.

Liberal Hypocrisy on Race

Ever hear of Idris Elba?
Idris Elba

Apparently, he's a talented actor from across the pond in Great Britain; been in a number of stage and television productions, and films, among them a minor role familiar to American audiences as the gatekeeper in both Thor and Thor: The Dark World.  But he must be very talented to get the good speculation from producers to be considered to play one of the most famous characters in film history: the suave and sophisticated British spy James Bond.

Would he be able to pull it off?  Probably.  But to those purists out there - and by "purist" I mean those people who want James Bond to be as close as possible to the character created by Ian Flemming - Elba couldn't do it because he's black.

Ian Flemming's Bond is a Scottish white male.

Unfortunately, the purists have been labeled as racists by our not-so-good friends on the left side of the fence, and their silly little lefty mouths just wont shut up about it.  A black man has been put in the running to be the next James Bond, and any talk to the contrary has to be deemed as racist.  "You're opposed to him playing the part because he's black, er African-Ameri...I mean, African-British...yeah, that's it...African-British, you racist!"

Fine then.  The scenario can be flipped, can it?  How about Gilbert Gottfried playing Frederick Douglass?  Are you opposed to Paris Hilton playing George Washington Carver?  What about Michael Moore playing the Zulu king Shaka?  Not feasible, you say?  Why?
Shaka Zulu?  Played by Michael Moore?  NOT!

"Well, you're talking about historical characters; James Bond was fictional, therefore he can be played by anyone, you racist!"

Wrong.  First, this particular point is about a film role, and whether historical or not, it's all about a character in a film.  So if a black man can be selected for a role meant for someone white, then the reverse can happen.  Got a problem with it, libs?  Personally, I would love to see Moore try to play Shaka.  I would love to see Moore give up cheeseburgers or his silly liberalism, but fat chance on any of that happening anytime soon. 

Second, liberals distort history, and film is no exception.  In the court case State of New Jersey v. John List, the prosecutor was a white female (Eleanor Clark); in the film Judgement Day: The John List Story, she was played by a black female (Lorena Gale).  That's just one example, but I only need one.  Isn't James Bond just one character?  You libs can count, or did Common Core harm some brain cells?

Third, James Bond is more historical than fictional.  He was based on Flemming's exploits as a military intelligence officer in the Royal Navy during World War II; his boss, an admiral, formed the basis of the character known as "M".  Together and with others, they helped devise the plan known as "Mincemeat", which had succeeded in removing a large number of German troops from Sicily, allowing the Allied invasion of that island in 1943, and all based on the finding of bogus documents found on a corpse planted in the waters off Spain.  I wouldn't care if Flemming's James Bond is played by Elba or anyone else, except Michael Moore; Elba could probably do an outstanding job, while Moore is gaining...

And Fourth.  There's Hollywood itself.  The whole film industry is controlled by liberals, just like the looney tunes nut-jobs who whine about any opposition to Idris Elba being James Bond as racist.  But, just what is it that we hear coming from their own mouths?

"Hollywood is soooooooooo racist!  I can't get a decent acting job on the tee-vee because Hollywood is soooooooo racist!"

From the liberal Huff Post.
From the Atlanta Black Star.
From the very-liberal Chris Rock.

Or just "Google-it".  Lots of entries here.

Hollywood is so racist because it's the racist liberals who run it.  Fat chance of that changing anytime soon.