Tuesday, December 11, 2012

The quid pro quo in Michigan

Michigan is in the news this week.

They passed a "right to work" law, upsetting the Democrats, upsetting the unions - particularly the United Auto Workers - and upsetting their liberal allies across the country, including President Obama.  As expected, some violence broke out.

"He’s decided to support the most divisive piece of legislation that’s ever come forward in Michigan," says Democratic Michigan State Representative Brandon Dillon, about Governor Rick Snyder, a Republican. "You’ll see by the people gathering at the capitol today that he’s tearing the state apart."

He's tearing the state apart.  So say the Democrats.  One of them - Councilwoman JoAnn Watson -  in a statement made earlier in the week, and not about the law, suggested President Obama ought to bail out struggling Detroit, a sort of quid pro quo; after all, they all voted for the guy.  Didn't 75% vote for Obama?  How about those union guys protesting in Lansing; didn't they vote for Obama?  They vote Democrat all the time, don't they?

Are they saying the Democrat way is the best way?  Is that what they're saying?

There's two images of Michigan.  One for display purposes, the kind of Michigan that does exist, the kind that brings in the tourists.

Michigan is the Land of Hiawatha, at least if you're in the Upper Peninsula and a fan of Longsworth or Hemingway.  It's the scenic attractions of the Macinac Bridge, Macinaw Island (libs love that island; no cars!), Frankenmuth, Holland and its tulip festival, Battle Creek and it's cereal (libs love Froot Loops!) a large amount of nature, a winter wonderland, and three massive lakes that will make one think they're looking at an ocean. 

The other image is a bit more grim.  Three cites:  Saginaw, Flint, Detroit.

Saginaw had at its peak in 1980 a population of 98,000.  It has the Delco Plant - formerly Saginaw Steering Gear - which manufactures parts for GM vehicles.  Flint had over 140,000 people living there, and was once nicknamed "Buicktown", after the GM assembly plant there.

Detroit was once the auto capitol of the world, making cars and trucks for GM, Ford, Chrysler; at its peak in the mid-1970's the city had over a million people living there.  Detroit is also one of the few cities in the country to have all four major league sports teams play in it.

The picture of all three cities today is this:

All three lost a third of their population since the 1980s.  Detroit has about 706,000; Flint has 101,000 now; and Saginaw has just over 51,000.  What is left behind is urban blight; buildings large and small are left to rot away, with all three city counsels talking about razing empty neighborhoods and "contracting", which means they want to squeeze themselves in a smaller area.  Need I talk about the high unemployment rate?

And then there's the crime.

All three cities had a rise in violent crime, which is armed robbery, assault, arson, rape, and murder.  The national average is 4; Michigan's average is 4.9.  Detroit's violent crime average is a whopping 23.83 incidents per 1,000 people.   Flint has an average of 23.78, but that figure should be higher, because there is simply less people living there than in Detroit.

And Saginaw?

That city has an average violent crime rate of 23.88.  Again, Saginaw's population is a mere 51,000 people.  If the population matched Detroit's without a change in crime rate, then the rate would be 310.44.  Like it or not, Saginaw, Michigan has the highest violent crime rate of any city in the country.

What it boils down to is just who was in charge of all three cities during the period of time of the 1960's to today?  This entry shows Detroit exclusively run by Democrats since 1962; this entry shows all Democrats in Flint since the 1974 charter; this entry has mostly Democrats running Saginaw since 1960.  These entries have got to be accurate; after all they come from Wikipedia, that online site run by liberals...and they just love saying that facts have a liberal bias!

The bottom line is the fact that the Democrat Party ran the show, supported the unions, got a free pass from the liberals and the media; and expected all of them to vote to keep Democrats in charge.  The union clowns who are protesting in Lansing right now over that "right-to-work" law are the same clowns who made sure that Democrats were placed in positions of power and influence over Saginaw, Flint, and Detroit; they made sure that all three cities were run right into the ground.

And they have a problem with a pay-cut?

Ruling of the Baby Killers

How's this for a headline:

"Federal judge rules the proposed North Carolina license plate unconstitutional."  This plate; it's called "Choose Life":



Why?

This blithering idiot U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox - and I do mean IDIOT - made a ruling stating that the state cannot offer a viewpoint opposing baby-killing, er, abortion, without offering a plate which allows an opposing viewpoint.  In short, there has to be a plate supporting abortion.

Now, why am I calling this man an idiot?

He's a Federal judge.  His first duty is to uphold the Constitution of the United States.  And there's the rub.  Abortion is fully protected under the Constitution, it says so.

Where does it say so?

Right there in the Fourth Amendment, say the baby killing, er, abortion supporters.  And it reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Where's the abortion protection clause?  Am I to get this straight, that a fetus possibly committed a crime, and a warrant is needed for its arrest?  Those baby-killers, er, abortion-supporters, always use this amendment to justify their cause.  That's forty-million dead kids since 1973.  Some justification.

But while they stuff the Fourth Amendment down everyone's throats with its non-existent clause, they want the public to forget about a certain line in the Constitution which throws a monkey wrench right at them:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It's called the Preamble; it's the very first paragraph in the Constitution.  "Posterity" in this context, means "those yet to be born."  And it has a precedent in the Declaration of Independence, which states that life is "inalienable."  Any questions?  Or are there still those people out there who are so dense or so stupid they cannot comprehend this one small fact?

The case was brought before Judge Idiot by our good "friends" at the ACLU, that "respected" organization which thinks a baby is just a crop of jelly inside the womb, and has no right to life at all, despite the Declaration and the Constitution.  "This is a great victory for the free speech rights of all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on reproductive freedom," said Chris Brook, Legal Director of the ACLU-NCLF. "We would have made the exact same argument if the situation was reversed, and the state planned on issuing a pro-choice plate while not offering one expressing the opposite point of view."  It's a "great victory for free speech rights" he said.  Shutting down someone else's life is not a great victory, in or out of the womb.  What the ACLU wanted, and wanted very clearly, was to prevent North Carolinians from expressing their views on abortion - which is to say they weren't allowed to show opposition to it on a license plate.

And just what could be the opposing plate that should have been offered?  Here you go, ACLU and all of you libs out there who want to keep abortion on demand.  Propose this plate for North Carolina...it's called "Choose Death":


It's what they wanted.  Now explain to the world how this crop of jelly on the plate just so happens to look like an unborn baby.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Now who really wants to execute homosexuals?

Recently, it has come to the attention of the site that certain people believe that we are advocating support for the death penalty against homosexuals in the African country of Uganda.  What has been happening is the liberal - and yes, it's the liberal doing it - comes into the site and says something like...

"I know that you guys don't approve of homosexuality, but are you really going to support a bill that would give life in prison to any people that commit homosexual acts, and even the death penalty to 'serial offenders'?"

So, during the past few weeks these liberals want an explanation from us as to whether or not we support executing homosexuals.

We don't.

But they think we do.  After all, we're conservatives.  We're the enemy.  They continually remind us that the Jesus we believe in preached love and tolerance, and we do have to love and tolerate homosexuals, right?  We do have to accept their lifestyle, right?  It's all about the love, right? 

Well, here's where the liberals have got it wrong.  First, the Ugandan parliament dropped the death penalty provision against homosexuality.  It's not going to be law.

Second and most important, it seems there is a row against the country going Christian.  Yes, that's right, the country is going Christian, and its president, Yoweri Museveni, has gone public with a confession of his and his country's sins and a plea for forgiveness for "...sins of pride, tribalism and sectarianism; sins of laziness, indifference and irresponsibility; sins of corruption and bribery that have eroded our national resources; sins of sexual immorality, drunkenness and debauchery; sins of unforgiveness, bitterness, hatred and revenge; sins of injustice, oppression and exploitation; sins of rebellion, insubordination, strife and conflict."  He further gave a prayer, stating "We want to dedicate this nation to you so that you will be our God and guide. We want Uganda to be known as a nation that fears God and as a nation whose foundations are firmly rooted in righteousness and justice to fulfill what the Bible says in Psalm 33:12: Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. A people you have chosen as your own."

Now, just what could be wrong with that?  Everything, if you're a liberal.  In contrast of what Museveni prayed for in Uganda, just what is the liberal doing in America?  Doing everything he can to prevent such a thing from happening here.  In America, liberals fight to keep Bibles out of schools; they fight to keep preachers out of public parks; they sue to remove things like crosses from public lands or city logos.  Someone wants to pray before the big game?  He'll get a "cease and desist" letter from a liberal organization.  And there's quite a few of them wanting to remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance and our money...the same money, by the way, that's lining the pockets of these liberals.

But back to Uganda.  They may have long prison sentences for homosexuality (of the "Jerry Sandusky-type"), but there is an easy way to avoid it.  Let's have the homosexual ask for forgiveness for his sins, repent of his sins, and ask Jesus Christ to be his Lord and Savior.  After all, it's totally free, and if the president of Uganda can ask for it, so can the homosexual.  And if the president of Uganda can ask for forgiveness as well, so can the homosexual.  It means no prison; it means a life turned around.

No!  That can't happen!  The liberal will fight that!  Why, no one can compel a homosexual to change his life like that; that's religious bigotry!  We're going to fight it tooth and nail for the dignity of our gay/lesbian/bi/trans fellow human beings!  How dare these Christians tell our people that their lifestyles are wrong!

Fine then.  Let's assume the liberals get their way, and prevent Christians from stating the gay lifestyle is wrong.  What happens to people who die in their sins?  They are judged by God Himself.  Without Christ, they will be sentenced to spend eternity without Him.  God does love the people, which is why He sent His Son to them; but if those same people want to continue the sinning...they find out the hard way that there is a place called hell.

And if it's the liberal who is preventing the homosexual from knowing Christ, it's the liberal who is sending that homosexual straight to hell.  So just who is really demanding executions of these people?

A postcript...

Just as this was posted, a liberal named Mike Malloy goes on the radio, calling for the execution of "teabaggers" - the liberal reference to anyone in the Tea Party.  He's using a homosexual slur against people who want more accountability in government.  These people not only want to send homosexuals to hell, they want to kill anyone who disagrees with them.

Once again, our point has been proven.

Update

Since this entry ran, there has been a particular blog entry elsewhere on the net critical of this; in short, I am "insane", filled with hate, and so on.  I won't name this blog, but suffice it to say that it is written by a South African national with a few "names" under his belt, names he uses to lie his way into our site and other conservative or Christian websites.

This South African national has also admitted to accepting a commission in the armed forces during the apartheid era.  The racist, apartheid era.  And he admitted to fighting against blacks in Namibia.  I still have the emails from him.

Just what do you call someone who whines against myself for being a "hater", yet joins a "Ku Klux Klan-on-steroids" military outfit to go kill blacks?  Did I say he also hates conservatives and Christians too?

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Just What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Here ya go, boys and girls...

Change the channel to your local PBS station every morning and catch that bastion of pre-school education, Sesame Street, where a big yellow bird struts near a group of kids learning the ABC's from a little furry red monster called Elmo, who's voiced by...an alleged sexual pervert.

You read that right.  Allegations this week are that longtime Elmo-puppeteer Kevin Clash had met underage teen boys online and hooked up with them for sex.  As of today, Clash has resigned over the allegations, ending 28 years at Sesame Street.

But this blog isn't about him; it's about protecting kids from individuals of a specific kind, so we're going to focus on something that's near and dear to Americans' hearts, something that liberals of all stripes want to force some changes in: the Boy Scouts.  What they want to have in the BSA are gays, both as scouts and as scoutmasters.  Reenforcing their views is this bit of news which surfaced recently, that the BSA has "quietly shielded scoutmasters and others who allegedly molested children" between the years 1959-1985.  In short, the allegation here is that the BSA covered it up.  They didn't want the attention that there are sexual predators camping out with the kids.  Meanwhile, UPS and other corporations have pulled tens of thousands of dollars away from the BSA, charging that in keeping gays from scouting, they are practicing discrimination.

Has it ever occurred to these people that they could start a scouting program of their own?  The "GBSA"?  Or do they prefer that existing organizations change their tune to accommodate them?

But that's not the point here.  To their credit - and despite the covering up of the predators they had - the BSA removed these people from scouting.  They certainly don't want the scouts molested.  And they still don't want active homosexuals within their ranks, a concept which rankles liberals everywhere.  Why?  Could it be same-sex attraction?  Could they keep such attraction to themselves, assuming they have succeeded in joining?

Picture this...

Mrs Jane Doe, die-hard liberal single mom of three daughters, is vocal in her opposition to the Boy Scouts discriminating against gays.  "The #&**@# Boy Scouts had better change their ways, or else," she rants as she serves a cafe latte to her next door neighbor, a conservative thirty-something man named Jim Bob whom she loathes, but tries acting neighborly around him.  "I don't want to see poor gay kids being subjected to that kind of hostility!"

"So, if the Boy Scouts lift their ban on gays in scouting," Jim Bob asks, "you're fine with the scouts being led by gays in the camping grounds, sleeping in the same tents with them, and so on?"

"Yes I am," Jane says.  "There is nothing wrong with that at all."

"I noticed you got three daughters," Jim Bob says.  "How old are they?"

"Seven, eight, and ten, why"

"Can I take them camping?"

Jane looks at him incredulously. "What?"

"Can I take them camping?" Jim says again.  "Just me and the girls, a weekend in the Smokies, camping along a stream."

As Jane's jaw drops and anger forms in her eyes, Jim leans closer and asks...

"Just what could possibly go wrong?"

As Jane thinks of accusing her neighbor of being a sexual pervert, Jim becomes decisive:

"So you're sitting there thinking about the possibility that your three daughters could be subjected to a sexual attack in the woods by a man you barely know, yet you have no problem with Boy Scouts being in the same situation with people who are sexually-attracted to them?"

And that's the way it is with the Boy Scouts right now, as liberals and their allies are fighting to force into the BSA people with a same-sex attraction to boys, while the Scouts are fighting to keep them out.  After all, Jerry Sandusky wasn't attracted to little girls, was he?

Monday, November 12, 2012

The trash of liberalism


Set the clock back a couple of years to January 20, 2009. The place is Washington D.C., and the new President of the United States - Barack Hussein Obama - is being sworn in. Over a million voters - liberal, Democrat voters - are in attendance witnessing the event. Oh boy, are they happy! They are in control now; they run the country. What do they do to celebrate?

They trashed the place.

Yesserie, they trashed the place. Over 100 tons of trash is removed from the National Mall, which takes over a week to accomplish. Here you have a bunch of people, who claim love and tolerance, who claim to protect the environment, who state again and again that they are what's best for America, and what do they do the day they take power in America? Their answer is clearly spelled out on that inauguration day by all of that trash they threw onto the ground.  One hundred tons!

Again and again, this is demonstrated very clearly whenever they gather in large numbers; again and again they trash the place when and where the location is under their control. By comparison, look at the huge Tea Party and Glen Beck rallies in Washington. No trash on the ground from them at all, not even so much as a stray cigarette butt.  And did I mention the stench and the stink raised by the Occupy Wall Street thugs?  You know them...those loving, tolerant, peaceful, capitalist-hating clowns who loved raping people in Zuccotti Park tents.  Remember, some of them wanted to blow up a bridge in Ohio.

But it's more than just litter on the ground; it's a core philosophy that demands the trashing of America itself as a country, and they do not care a bit if it destroys America itself. As one liberal succinctly put it: "I will lie, revise history, cheat, steal and censor to further our goals. What are you going to do about it? I will stop at no end, but you have to operate within the fictional bounds of your morality." So, looking at that remark in context, let's see what the results are:

Liberals - as represented by the Democrat Party - have been in direct control of the cities of Saginaw, Flint, and Detroit, Michigan since the early-1960's; these cities are involved in the auto manufacturing industry, so they have an entrenched auto union influencing policy as well. All three suffered a population loss during the past two decades; Detroit, once the fourth-largest city in the country, is now the 18th largest, having lost 25% during the past ten years. Incredibly, Saginaw - a city with a current population of 58,000 - has one of the worst violent crime rates in the country, and possibly the worst of any city with a population of less than a million. All three cities have had ethical problems in the legislature as well, involving kickbacks, bribery, and in one case, insurance fraud coupled with arson. 

Liberals demand the free entry of people across our southern border; these people have left behind tons of trash in the environment. In addition, the country now suffers from major crime by gangs like MS-13. Americans of Puerto Rican descent suffer from identity theft as illegals steal their lives, while the American taxpayer is forced to pay for illegals' education and health care.  Bigotry is what liberals practice, and it is their bigotry directed against the American citizen.

Liberals demand the trashing of the United States Armed Forces, a traditionally-conservative military. They want "political correctness" in place; they demand the inclusion of gays, to include the dismissal or court-martial of chaplains for speaking against the sin of homosexuality. In fact, they even went so far as to complain that the military is not diverse enough: it's too top heavy with white officers. Promotions based on merit are to be thrown out. What all of that means is we will lose the next war. Period.

So, the trashing of America by liberals continues; this upcoming re-inauguration of Obama will quite probably feature another round of litter strewn on the ground by the metric ton.  Unfortunately, liberals see nothing wrong with what they do, but unless stopped, America will cease to exist.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Facts have a liberal bias...if it's geared towards stupidity

Apparently, Sid has an automatic spy bot leeched onto this site.

For those who don't know, Sid is a troll/vandal who was thrown out of Conservapedia several times beginning back in early 2007, and he and his like-minded pals were responsible for creating Rationalwiki, a website supposedly ready to "refute" crank ideas with more of their own, etc, with a lot of hate and vandalism on the side.  Since they're firmly attached to Conservapedia like a parasite (or a head-case in bad need of a psychiatrist), we'll see if they can refute the following:

Scroll back to the election on November 6, 2012.  Specifically the boroughs of New York City.  From the New York Times comes this bit of info on the election:

What this table is showing is the stark ("snark" if you're an RW troll) fact that Obama won decisively in New York City; with the exception of Staten Island - which he won, albeit barely - Obama won in a major landslide in the other boroughs.  Info on Manhattan was not available, but this writer is assuming that he won there as well, with a commanding lead.  What this is saying is that the majority of New Yorkers did was to vote Obama back into office, including the undependable RINO/liberal mayor, Michael Bloomberg. 

Are you reading this, Mikey?

Now, I should also mention New Jersey as well, specifically the few counties across the Hudson from NYC.  Here's the data for those, also courtesy of the Times:


Of these eight counties, only two (Monmouth and Ocean) showed Mitt Romney as winning; the remaining counties, as well as New Jersey as a whole, returned Obama to the White House.  Which must be pleasing to their RINO governor Chris Christie. 

Are you reading this, Chrissy?

Now, as far as I know, New York City and it's environs - and possibly Jersey City, Newark, and nearby cities - are served by Consolidated Edison for their energy needs.  They in turn have as their employees the Utility Workers Union.  Both have endorsed Obama as president.  ConEd states on it's website that it supplies electricity, natural gas, and steam to NYC. 

But where does the electricity come from?  Nuclear?  Coal?  Hydroelectric?

Here's an answer: Orange and Rockland Utilities, which also services that area, but no longer produces electricity on its own.  Instead, it gets energy from PJM Interconnection, an LLC composed of the Pennsylvania-New Jersey Interconnection, which in turn is comprised of Public Service Electric and Gas Company (New Jersey), Philadelphia Electric Company, and Pennsylvania Power & Light Company.  The last one "serves 1.4 million customers in 29 counties of Pennsylvania in the United States, has received 15 J.D. Power and Associates awards for customer satisfaction" according to Wikipedia.  Oh, the Wikipedia entry is true; facts have a liberal bias, as we've all heard countless times from the liberal establishment. 

Right, Sid?

There was one other thing about the above voting records.  New York City and the nearby New Jersey counties were selected for one reason only: Hurricane Sandy.  Only someone incredibly stupid - and I do mean STUPID - would vote into office an individual who would deny them what they need.  The majority voted in Obama.

And what exactly is Obama's record on energy, before the election? 

Obama cut down coal production.
Obama curtailed and reduced drilling for oil.
Obama reduced gasoline refining.
Obama killed the Keystone Oil Pipeline.

Right now New Yorkers are starving for energy; it's been over two weeks since the power was cut off.  There are fights over getting gasoline in their cars.  What Hurricane Sandy did was to lay open the fact that New Yorkers need some commodities for their very existence - and they chose to vote back into office the very man who prevented them from getting it.

Facts have a liberal bias, don't they?



Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Today's Republican Party: A Spine is Needed

First, Obama won, and Romney conceded.  The election is over, and it's four more years of Mr. Transparency.

Second, the Republican Party is to blame for this.  They had victory in their pockets several months ago, but they chose not to stand by their people during controversial remarks, such as what happened with Todd Akin.  They chose to tolerate moderates, such as Scott Brown.  They chose to act like they wanted to be liked, instead of acting on the principles set by Abe Lincoln.

The Republicans abandoned the conservative base.

Third, Obama had his goon squads out in force.  There was a lot more to this election than a fair fight; their was rampant voter fraud from illegals, the dead, union thugs spreading intimidation, and so on.

So, here's what's going to happen during the next four years...

We all will be paying higher taxes, thanks to Obamacare.  Well, almost all.  It seems the Democrats who voted for the thing have exempted themselves from it, including Obama.  And not paying taxes includes the lazy on welfare; we're stuck supporting their lifestyles as well.

We're going to see the Armed Forces reduced to a shell of what it once was.  The country will be facing the possibility of being wide-open to an attack or invasion from a hostile force, and countries like China, North Korea, and Iran are becoming more belligerent.  Russia has already demonstrated that it can send a submarine undetected into the Gulf of Mexico, knowing that we don't have the resources anymore for carrying out what was once routine.  Apparently, it's more vital to put the gay lifestyle on a carrier than it is to train to win a war.

Benghazi will be footnoted and forgotten.  Brian Terry's murder - and the hundreds of Mexicans murdered as a result of Fast and Furious - will be swept under the rug.  But the Christian who is protesting Obama's birth control policies?  You can make a safe bet that he'll be thrown in jail, and his First Amendment rights flushed down the nearest toilet.

And it's all because the Republican Party abandoned the conservative base.