Posts Tagged ‘liberalism’
Every time I look at an article like this, all I can say is that I am so glad and blessed that our family home schools our kids. With all the delirium going on after the whole Sandy Hook shooting, it seems that a new tragedy is forming – out-of-control paranoia and liberal over-sensitivity.
So, in another stellar example of how stupid people can be, a school in Hyannis, MA threatened to suspend a five-year old kid because he made a gun out of LEGO’s and started chasing his classmates with it.
“We’re trying to create an atmosphere of respect,” says Barnstable School Superintendent Mary Czajkowski. The principal noted, “it’s a threat to other children and other children could have been scared.’”
Respect is one thing, but this is so far over the top that it would be laughable if it wasn’t true. Listen up, Mary, you’re not teaching respect, you’re teaching kids to be incapable of handling even the slightest problems.
It’s funny; these kids could whip their teacher the middle finger and they get suspended or just a stern talking to by the principal, but if they make a finger-gun, “bang” they’re suspended from school. Can these sissies get any more lame and stupid?
The thing is, this wimpification of our society today driven by over-emotional liberalism, political correctness, and a severe inability to be tolerant is the real problem. I’ve mentioned before that the shootings in schools are indeed tragic and I don’t mean to downplay them. But now is not the time to throw our gumption and courage out of the window for fear of being offended.
This is nothing new. Liberals and socialists (sounds like redundancy to me), have, for years, reached into the schools to perform what Robert Small wrote in the Washington Times as “moral disarmament”. Erode the principles of liberty and freedom and replace it with collectivism, socialism, social justice, and other wuss nonsense and the Democrats are filled with fresh drones to pull the lever for the next Barack Obama.
Now I am not an advocate for child abuse or anything, but today, our society seriously lacks coping skills. We have reached a point where every little life problem is solved through medication. We teach our kids to be unable to handle the harshness of life in a way that makes them as delicate as a Dresden doll. Instead of teaching kids how to put on their “big boy/big girl pants”, we are doing diaper changes well past their toddler years.
So when these kids reach early adulthood, they don’t know how to handle life – except through violent media and gangsta rap, which teaches people that if they don’t like the police, they can shoot them. And we call that crap art, er, First Amendment.
Even though these same idiots who believe in preserving the First Amendment are all about trashing the Second Amendment.
And these schools are the cesspools where liberalism festers and grows like a fungus on our children. How sad.
Liberals sometimes never cease to amaze me. Not in the amazing as in the positive impressiveness, but the amazing as in, just when I think liberals can’t get any more dumb, something like this occurs and…well, I’m amazed.
To wit, the Washington state legislature is considering a bill, introduced by the Democrats, to impose a tax on electric-powered vehicles. Essentially, by citing things like road wear-and-tear, the Democrats are thinking they need to impose an annual tax on cars that don’t use gasoline. Of course, gas-powered cars pay for their fair share of the wear-and-tear at the pump, each time they fill up. But electric-cars, well, not so much, since they get plugged in every night.
On the surface, you would think this is actually an equitable solution because it’s “only fair” and the lib-crats are all about imposing their definition of “fairness” on the population by virtue of big government. But this one works against the liberal environmentalist mantra of trying to reduce the dependence on petroleum.
Now, while I don’t advocate this, since I don’t want to be accused of giving the lib-crats any ideas, there is a way to achieve the same objective and “have their cake and eat it too”. What if they imposed that additional tax on all of us evil petroleum users and give their electric cars the advantage of tax-free operation? After all, the iron rules of economy:
If you want more of something, you subsidize it.
If you want less of something, you tax it.
So, effectively, by the Washington state assembly advocating the taxation of electric vehicles, they are saying to the world that they are willing to have more taxes at the expense of losing their effort to eliminate the need for gas-powered cars.
One lib-crat ideal in competition with another lib-crat ideal. Amazing, right?
Yeah, me neither.
I’ve said it before, elections are one of those things that have consequences. But I’m not the only one who has said that. Over the course of the last four years, the Lib-crats have pontificated that 2006 has been about the “mandate of the people”. And with that power, boy howdy did they ever run with it:
So today, Nancy goes in and says, “elections should not matter as much as they do” to a group at Tufts University this week. She certainly wasn’t thinking that way in November 2006 when she gave that self-congratulatory speech, now was she?
But now, with the Tea Party firmly tearing through the Washington establishment, Nancy is missing those good ol’ days when people didn’t stand on beliefs – they just stood on what special interest would fund them at the time.
Elections are supposed to matter a lot because if people don’t like the direction of their government, they should have the power to change it. November 2010 demonstrated that, after four years of change promises made by lib-crats, which only made the problem worse by failing to pass a budget – instead, spending every waking hour pushing the socialistic Health Deform bill.
By the way, Nancy, while you may call Republicans your friends, I scarcely can think of a Republican who would openly call you their friend. You represent government that no one really wants – at best a necessary evil, at worst an intolerable one. And you’ve never been the best at anything, except for caricatures.
In closing, I give you this insta-classic video to play over and over until either you get tired of it or Nancy gets actually voted out of the House…or your computer crashes.
Well, this week has seen some pretty hair-brained things with respect to how the liberal media is working to continue to position itself to spout more of its nonsense in the world. When you get a two-fer of these things, you just gotta blog it – because it’s much like watching dirty water go down a drain.
Back in my early days of internet access, I used to use America Online. But over time, as AOL started instituting stupid rules and it began to be less and less interesting – I got a local dialup ISP and never looked back. Since that time, AOL has gone to the dogs – that was over fifteen years ago.
Well, now it’s gone to the Ariannas.
Specifically, I’m going on about AO-Hell buying up the Huffington Post (aka the Huff and Puff news) for $315 million. And from that acquisition, Arianna will lead the Huffington Post Media Group which will be merging HuffPo with AOL’s content.
"I want to stay forever," Huffington told analysts on a conference call. "I want this to be my last act.
Like they ever had any of relevance. But then, I’m really wondering here – who is really getting gypped here?
By joining up with AOL, it may very well be your last act, Arianna. But hey, an ultra-lib faux-news site bonding with a washed up internet company – maybe Arianna will do the next "You’ve Got Mail" in her scratchy Greek voice. That should get the liberals raving. More like, "You’ve Got Liberal Hate-Speech!"
One other move that I just thought was choice was Keith Olbermann’s move to the Al Gore channel. Essentially the former Mr. (p)MSNBC, still whining and grumbling because NBC wouldn’t pay him what he thought he was worth, has gone off to Current TV?
Does anyone here even know who Current TV is? Does anyone really care?
Wow. I wonder if that place where Current TV is and where Huff-AOL-Puff is going is like the esoteric elephant grave yard or something – a place where dumbkopfen liberal ideas go to die.
Oh well – *yawn*. I’m bored now.
I don’t like to parrot other people in the blogosphere, nor do I like to reverb stuff I hear on talk radio; I just don’t feel right about it because I think the stuff that gets written on The Rabid Conservative should be my own thoughts. Perhaps it’s a pride thing; who knows?
But today, I tuned into Rush Limbaugh for a brief moment while I was running an errand and I heard a caller, "Tim from San Diego” call in and the comments he made, information to which Rush had forgotten and didn’t correlate, were stunningly brilliant.
Turns out, with all the Arizona hub-bub, all the liberals are losing their minds over the new immigration bill, calling it “racist” and "reminiscent of Nazi Germany”. I do agree that the bill would be unnecessary if the Federal Government had done its job in protecting the border. It’s not racist just because much of the 12 million illegal immigrant problem just happens to be Hispanic. With all the other laws out there that require you to show proof of valid identification, the fact that some 42 states out of 50 require you to carry an ID on your person, the fact that you have to have a background check to get a job most anywhere these days, it seems to me that the issue for the other side has nothing to do about race, but rather, preventing people from coming into the US so they can suck off of the system.
So while all the protests are blowing up because, suddenly, we’re advocating “show your papers” with respect to immigration, the liberals are asking us to forget something – proper ID and showing papers is something that we do all the time.
- Do you remember when the Democrats in Congress were requiring US citizens show their residency papers (even within the district/precinct!) before they were allowed into the town hall meetings? So the Dems can ask for papers to participate in town hall meetings, but not to be in the country.
- Or how about when Joe Wurzelbacher (Joe the Plumber) made objective points towards, then candidate, Barack Obama about “spreading the wealth around”, which caused an official from the State of Ohio to start to illegally dig into Wurzelbacher’s background, looking for dirt. What ever happened to the Fourth Amendment? Oh, that doesn’t count when liberals are trying to discredit people who don’t agree with their statements.
- Then there is James O’Keefe, the fellow who drove the sharp bladed knife of truth into ACORN that eventually led to their downfall. Well, when he was busted outside of Rap. Mary Landrieu’s office and arrested for allegedly tampering with her phone line, what was the first thing he had to do? Show papers and documentation.
- And let’s not forget dear old Aunt Zeituni Onyango, Barack Obama’s aunt, who is in the USA illegally. Turns out she has been denied asylum on a couple of occasions, but is presently living in the projects while her fate is decided. She’s been told to leave, but presently, is in defiance of that directive.
These examples are noted liberal incursions into the documents of people, without discretion to things like privacy and such. However, the law in Arizona is being touted as racist (although there is nothing racist in the bill) because it effectively provides a means for Arizona to control the number of illegals in their state.
Illegal immigration isn’t just about people who come to the US wanting to find work. It’s about protecting our borders from people who want to sneak in to do horrible crimes. Or did we forget about Chandra Levy, who was murdered in 2001. Presently, the chief suspect in this murder is Ingmar Guandique, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador who is currently in the Pen for assaulting two other women within the same park where Levy’s remains were found. Even if Guandique is exonerated for Levy’s murder, the fact that he’s here illegally, committing crimes is representative of the overall risk. It’s not racist to say that much of the drug and human trafficking, as well as the gang activity at the border is coming from Mexico.
It’s not racist to be asked to show papers, so if we’re going to say that showing papers is like Nazi Germany, then the next time I am asked, particularly by a liberal, to whip out my ID, I am going to accuse them of being a Nazi loving fascist.
Can’t have it both ways, people.
Well, it was only inevitable – the so-called 2006 mandate that ushered the Democrats into power and culminated to the 2008 win of Barack Obama has now shown that it was dismally unable to deliver on any of its misguided promises
In 2006, the GOP lost the farm, not because of a rejection of conservative ideas, but because of the liberals and moderates that have infiltrated the Republican party. The GOP showed itself not much different than the Democratic party, not because of the failure of the parties, but because both have been swayed by stupid progressive values and programs that seek to rob power from the people and give it to the all-powerful state.
Since the GOP lost its distinction as being the “party of Reagan”, the “conservative choice”, and basically reneging on the Contract With America that hoisted the GOP into power in 1994, they have recently showed that they are just as willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on entitlements and earmark projects and do very little to protect the traditional family. They have sought to sit in the middle and try to appeal to the more moderate people in the country (which I defy anyone to show me a true moderate without showing me someone who is conflicted in their beliefs)
Well, today we’ve been informed by Rasumussen that Congress’ approval rating is about ready to fall into the single digits. More and more Americans, Democrats and Republicans are showing staunch disapproval for the job that Congress is doing. Perhaps it’s for different reasons, such as the libs railing that they couldn’t get health care passed while the conservatives look at the Congress as a cesspool for progressivism. Either way, more people are unhappy than happy these days.
I get the feeling the hammer is about to fall on Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats that remain in Congress after November 2010. Harry Reid is doomed, three others (Dodd, Bayh, and Dorgan) are jumping ship, and the Dems are looking worse and worse everyday for their respective elections.
The tide is about to change…
Since Congress, as a norm, ignores its constituents, except during the campaign – and then candidates just tell the people what they want to hear in order to get elected, the townhall meeting becomes the last direct forum which everyday citizens can take part in their government.
Over the last few days, we have sat back and watched left wing, Democrat congressional types go home to their districts to face the music for their tomfoolery in Congress as of late. This particular incident has been a firebrand of the liberal blogosphere over the last week:
First off, Sebelius is a hack. She gets up and gripes how she is not a member of Congress, never has been, as if it is some sort of excuse for not being attentive to what the House produced as a potential bill. She even responded with the statement about how Sen. Specter could not read legislation for a bill that has not even been written yet (an obvious red herring saying that Specter should not at least be up on the House bill, just because he’s a Senator). Sebelius was, however, unaware that the House bill would require her to develop “measurements of gender”, but she didn’t even know what that meant.
And then, to listen to Specter drone on about how he has a staff that pieces out the bill and reads it is not the same as taking a few hours and reading the legislation, at least in brief.
But the larger issue here is with respect to the crowds of meeting goers that are quite upset about his bill. Since Congress, as a norm, ignores its constituents, except during the campaign – and then candidates just tell them what they want to hear in order to get elected, the townhall meeting becomes the last forum which everyday citizens can take part in their government. So the masses come out, armed with a battery of direct, no BS questions, written with a good amount of irritation. They come out in droves to let their leaders know just how much they disapprove of their actions. (the left wingers aren’t going to come out so much, since they like the idea of Marxist healthcare). Instead of coming out, though, the left wing begins to run attack ads against the people, like this one:
So, rather than the left wing try to answer the questions of the right (since all of this stimulus/government takeover garbage is supposed to be a good idea), the right wing gets demonized as the “angry mob”.
Well, we are angry! And I guess if we get together in a large group, then yes, we’re an angry mob. And you know what? The liberals can’t stand it when we get together and protest in the same way that they do. They can get together and protest a war outside the gates of a military installation, throwing out how much they hate George Bush and how much he needed to be impeached and what not and it’s okay. But when we get together, we’re the vitriolic angry mob, filled with rage and hate against The One.
So, liberals, before you get to hating yourselves, perhaps in a faint possibility of hope, try to listen to why we are angry.
- We are sick of the government. We have watched time and time again as government programs are introduced that provide a handout to people while eroding our personal liberties and freedoms.
- We are sick of our country being directed by big-game tort lawyers and union bosses rather than “We the People”.
- We don’t want to pay our hard earned dollars for abortions for women who can’t control their sexual appetites.
- We don’t want to classify two men or two women in a homosexual union the same as traditional marriage.
- We don’t want to cede control of our parental rights and education of our children to the federal government, just because the UN thinks we can’t raise our kids right.
- We don’t want rationed health care or socialistic medicine when all we need to do is just open health care to the free market and knock off the tort insanity.
- We don’t want the government spending our hard earned tax dollars helping Blue State Obama supporters as you call it ‘economic recovery’ while we see it as “pay-offs”.
- We’re sick of you touting Global Warming and Climate Change as a religious means of wresting more money from us to give to your Green Movement allies.
- We’re angry about your attempts at Social Justice, meanwhile the ethnic group having to make all the reparations and fixes are Caucasian males. (see my post on racism)
- We’re sick of progressive liberalism, pushing our country, bit by bit, towards socialism. We think Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Patrick Henry, John Jay, and Ben Franklin were far more intelligent than Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin and wish you would understand that too.
Do you get it now? You won the majority of voters that voted, but not the majority of Americans. You call the last eight a dismal failure of domestic and foreign policy as a means of blame shifting. You play partisan games and engage in class warfare, rather than adopting the rhetoric that Obama touted during the election of getting past partisan politics. And you can’t stand it when we don’t agree with you – so you cry foul and call us rabid. Well, I guess to you, anyone is a rabid conservative.
But while we are angry with you, we don’t hate you. We love you with God’s love, as well as fellow Americans. It’s too bad you can’t accord us the same thing, but then, liberalism teaches to hate in order to get.
So, we’ll continue to be angry and you continue to hate. And we’ll just see you in 2010, because I’ll tell you this…you will see change – as you see us get angrier and angrier and the Congress begin to shift back to the center-right, where it should be. By the way, without American anger, you wouldn’t be an American liberal today. Think about that.
I guess the TEA parties continue to irritate and annoy the left – and it’s been shy of a week now since they took place.
1) Previously reported here on TRC, Janeane Garofolo spewed her hate and vitriol, calling the TEA parties “racist” and those who attended “dysfunctional, brain-damaged, rednecks”.
2) CNN reporter Susan Roesgen calls them “Anti-CNN, Anti-Government, supported by FoxNews”.
3) David Axelrod said on Meet the Press this past Sunday they are ‘unhealthy’. He cited the 95% tax cut campaign promise (which is nothing more than a red herring for what happens to the net gain in taxes when Obama lets the Bush tax cuts expire.
4) Commentators like Keith Olbermann and Anderson Cooper cracking out the frat-house humor, referring to these events as ‘tea bagging’, not only showing their liberal bias yet again, but showing their contempt for the right standing up.
5) The New Hampshire Democrat Party leader, Ray Buckley, came out and called those that protested an ‘unhinged mob’, ‘looked like they had lost their minds’, and ‘didn’t know what they were protesting’.
What gets me about all of this is that liberals cannot stand someone who sits opposed to their view on things. Conservatives understand that there is room to disagree, and liberals will give lip service to this notion. When they run out of logical things to say (of which that is minimal), they get into spewing vitriol and hate, throwing ad hominem attacks. In fact, I’ve even had it thrown at me here on The Rabid Conservative.
Liberal arguments that I have seen always seem to be replete with logical fallacy, a high degree of emotionalism, and lacking in actual fact. I have to agree with what Rush Limbaugh said on his program today, that all of this hate and rhetoric comes not from logical reason, but feelings of attachment.
These people react in personal rage and anger when I say I hope Obama fails, because their emotional link to Obama tells them that I want them to fail, too, which is just the exact opposite. And they’re going to be hurt more every day now that Obama is revealing himself to be exactly as I have described and predicted, and it hasn’t been clairvoyance. My descriptions and predictions of Obama were based on his past and present statements, his affiliations. You see, what happened? I happened to flush out two kinds of people when I said I hope Obama fails: those who are emotionally invested in Obama (more so than they were invested in their own views and their own country) and I also flushed out those who share Obama and Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright’s views of the United States. – Rush Limbaugh, April 20, 2009
But to add to Mr. Limbaugh, what I also see as a driver to this liberal venom and hatred for those who dare criticize That One is the fact that these people have a belief centered in relativism and that adherence to God’s law and Jesus’ teachings is marginalized. While not everyone on the right is biblically-centered, spiritually active (I avoid the term, ‘religious’ since that is a human condition), few people on left demonstrate little care for the teachings of the Bible or anything definitive or absolute, but rather, think they know themselves what is right and wrong. In other words, I have never found a saved, Bible-loving and believing person yet who believes that abortion is a good thing, or that we should let the institution of marriage be thrown to the side.
So, adding these things together, you have someone who is diametrically opposed to true Biblical Christian worldview who can’t tolerate seeing one of their own criticized (even if it’s just). They hate all that oppose them and they aren’t afraid to show it.
And so we see the hate spewed our way, blinding people to the message that actually does bring hope and change.
Are we feeling the hate now? Or maybe we should wait until another liberal complains about how bad we brain-dead rednecks from flyover country are, ranting on about something about which we have no idea. I give it another day for someone else to crawl out of the woodwork
* Interestingly, though, I do think Carville was right in his comments when he said this is ‘damaging to Republicans’. The GOP has done very little in the last eight years to show its distinction for smaller government and lower taxes. The TEA parties were a non-partisan protest, aimed at tax and spend (mostly spending) policy and this is something over which the GOP is just as guilty as the Democrat Party.
The one question that liberals simply will not answer – the one in which they fear: “When does life begin?”
As many of you have read, somberly, President Obama signed an Executive Order to reallocate federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell (ESCR) research. It’s a sad day because now the human embryos who are being held in frozen stasis will be used for experimentation in hopes of bringing a cure to Type 1 Diabetes, cancer, or the like. Essentially, as far as this Rabid Conservative is concerned, ESCR is nothing short of murder.
Now before the haters start going all in a tizzy, I’m not against stem cell research. I’m against harvesting embryos for it. In fact, there is a wealth of information out there that reports the advantages of adult stem cells over their embryonic counterparts. Read this article to understand more: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research.
Anyway, my point here today is not to do the comparative but rather, to talk about the reason why liberals have to have embryonic stem cells. Liberals aren’t looking at the research about adult stem cells because, to the liberals, the subject of stem cells isn’t about saving lives, curing disease, or relieving infirmity; it’s about maintaining some sort of precedent with respect to the legal status of an embryo. From all the rhetoric, I’ve been able to boil down to two fundamental reasons why liberals are determined to maintain ESCR:
- Losing the ESCR war would lead to a serious undermining of the entire abortion issue as far as liberalism is concerned.
- The embryo is not a human being and not entitled to rights or protections. As such, the embryo can be used for things for which a regular human being with legal protection cannot be used.
ESC is Linked to Abortion
You see, abortion and ESC research are linked. If the liberals get disproven that an embryo is, truly, a human life, they have to concede that an embryo in a womb is also a human life, which then, causes the abortion issue to fall apart.
Many people who argue over the abortion issue do so without a clear understanding of science – it’s all emotionalism to them. To liberals, the question of abortion is ‘doing what is right in one’s own eyes’, never once considering the destruction of humans as embryos in favor of sexual freedom.
One of the little known aspects of Roe v. Wade is the challenge provision. Basically, Roe v. Wade was passed because the court could not fully agree on when, exactly, life begins – or more appropriate to legal precedent, no definitive recognition in the eyes of the law that life begins at conception. Because of this, abortion was allowed by the High Court.
Recently, in North Dakota, the state House voted to declare that a fertilized egg is indeed human life and deserves the same protections under the law. This is significant because, if the ND Senate votes passage, North Dakota will be the first state in the Union to effectively bring a challenge against Roe v. Wade. Proponents against the measure whined that they ‘didn’t want to drag North Dakota into a legal fight with Roe v. Wade’. This tells me that the ND House liberals just don’t want to touch the issue in fear of losing their position on it.
And then, we get an interview like this with Der Schlick-meister that, once again, doesn’t seem to understand the fundamentals of basic reproductive biology.
Dude, an embryo is a fertilized egg. So, by your very own statement here, it’s a ‘little baby’. If that’s truly the case in your ‘more-than-once’ stated opinion, killing a fertilized egg is something that we do not want to do because it would grow to be a little baby or a human being, which is why they are ‘embryos’.
Again, Bill, embryos ‘are’ fertilized already.
Embryos Are Not Human (or Human Enough to be Protected)
One thing that Slickster does make in distinction, that somewhere along the way, there is a point when a human embryo is not a human being. He says twice – grow into a little baby/human being. Liberals must agree on this point so that they aren’t forced to concede to admit the humanity of an embryo.
The thing is, it stands in the face of sensible logic. For example, even a liberal couple that is desirous to have a baby will become pregnant – and what will they call that which grows within the mother? Will they say how proud they are of their ‘fetus’ or ‘embryo’?
“Hey Denise, you look great! When is your fetus due?”
Or, more somberly, if the couple loses the child to miscarriage or something, they don’t talk about losing the ‘embryo’; they lost the baby.
But yet, when the same is within a mother that doesn’t want to have the child, it’s not a baby – it’s not even considered human. It gets labeled as a fetus or embryo so the mother and doctor don’t have to deal with the moral implications of destroying a human life.
By not affording protection to the human embryo, what effectively is being said here is that embryos are not human, or human enough, and as such, justifies the using of these embryos for scientific research.
So When Does Life Begin
If you’re a man or woman of faith, life begins at conception, was created by God, and deserves to be protected like any other innocent life. However, I can also work with a secular definition, since many things occur in early gestation that have legal precedent for defining life.
For example, brain activity can be defined as a start of life. It can be argued that the human mind is encased in the human brain. If we go back and remember the case of Terri Schaivo, we remember that liberals clamored on about how she was not alive, because she was clinically brain dead. So, if we take that assumption that brain death is the cessation of life, then life must begin at the first signs of neurological activity. And if that is the case, any embryo greater than 24 days in age would have to be considered a life.
Perhaps the point in which life begins is when the baby can survive outside of the womb without the mother. Well, if we take that point, life would begin somewhere around, say age five. Previous to that, a toddler cannot last very long without intervention by a parent. And thinking along those lines, there are plenty of people who cannot survive without some sort of assistance. Does that mean they aren’t alive?
The one question that liberals simply will not answer – the one in which they fear: “When does life begin?” Liberals in support of abortion, ESCR, and the like avoid this question because to make a definitive statement of when life begins would cause them to give up something, in order to remain consistent. With a relative definition of when life starts, liberals can slide things around to fit the theory in which they are holding in order to permit the activity that they decide is right at the time.
The sad truth is that pro-choice liberals avoid even the accountability associated with changing the rules all the time. And with all rule changing, human embryos are the ones caught in the middle, and doomed to have their lives taken before ever getting the chance to live.
Lately, in my research, a number of things have popped up regarding the City of Detroit, MI. While one or two things in a city usually are normal, for some reason, the name “Detroit” kept coming up in my research. So, I decided to chronicle what I found, do a little bit more research, and show what happens when liberalism and labor unions with a chokehold on the state government will do to a once great city of the USA.
1. Literacy Rate – This week, I found a very startling statistic. In Metro Detroit, currently, there is a staggering 47% illiteracy rate in the city. This means nearly one in every TWO people cannot read. Michigan’s largest city with nearly 1,000,000 people has 450,000 people who are illiterate. One would wonder how many of the 830,000 vote difference in Michigan between Barack Obama and John McCain was made up of people who were unable to read, research the issues, and make informed decisions based on facts, rather than emotional response.
2. People die and no one cares – This week, I found articles (example) talking about some poor soul who was frozen in three feet of ice; only his feet were protruding. It’s bad enough that anyone dies this way, encased in ice for weeks, but life went on around him, as if the people seeing this didn’t care about the guy.
3. Houses stripped of their raw metals – This is older news, but because of the recessed housing market, houses like this one mentioned, the notorious $1 house, more houses are being ripped apart for their raw materials. Copper pipes removed, siding ripped off, carted down the streets in wheel barrows where it can be sold to scrap dealers and recycle facilities. Short of the ‘we’ll pay you to take it over’ mentality, houses are being abandoned and then stripped by thieves.
4. Forbes-rated The Most Miserable City – Detroit was rated the nation’s Most Miserable City by Forbes for 2008. The highest level of violent crime, second-highest in unemployment, often adopting the mantle of “US Murder Capital”, Detroit’s plight often holds national attention in cliché.
5. Education Failure – It’s not for lack of money. Detroit, on average, spends $11,400 per pupil during 2007-2008 and graduates just 20% of blacks and 17% of whites that go through the school system. In fact, if you read the previous article about the guy frozen to death in the warehouse, that warehouse used to contain school supplies that were left to rot rather than handed out to the kids.
6. Political Corruption – Just this year, September 18, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick resigned from office after a very tumultuous political career as the city’s youngest mayor. Shortly after his departure from office, he was sentenced to four months in jail and a million dollar fine on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury, and misconduct in office. He was disbarred, required to surrender his legislator pension, and put on probation for five years.
What the heck is going on in Motown?
This is what happens when the Democrats, liberals, and labor unions keep a GOP mayor from being elected since 1961. Middle-class people are forced out of town by riots, leaving behind a cesspool of people who’s only hope is the millions of dollars in government dependency that is dumped in, with no motivation to bring this failure out of the rubble.
If you want to see what happens when liberals control something for long periods of time, look in Detroit.
In closing, have a listen to Mr. Newt Gingrich’s comments regarding Detroit and understand – this is the product of liberalism. Conservatism has been completely shut out of the Detroit system for the last fifty years – and one of the countries great cities has fell into ruin.
And like Newt says, no liberal will dare talk about Detroit, because there is no excuse other than liberal failure policies breeding entitlement and dependency. This is a time to mourn, because more of this will follow if we adopt our new President’s liberal agenda.