Detroit To Big Cheese; Give Us The Cheddar
Dec 6, 2012 Political
Councilwoman JoAnn Watson of Detroit said that since the residents of Detroit overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in the last election he needs to provide a bailout for the city. Detroit could run out of money by the end of the year after decades of Democrat rule and liberal/progressive policies.
Typical of liberalism, the people in charge royally screwed things up and now have their hats in their hands requesting, no demanding, that Obama take money from those of us who do not live in Detroit and pay for their mismanagement. I guess since Obama bailed out the irresponsible auto makers the rest of Detroit thinks they deserve some of the pork as well.
Why is it that all across this nation the cities that are run by Democrats are in ruins? Why is it that they can’t run things and why is it they demand that the rest of us pay for their inability to do their jobs?
I know Detroit has a small tax base as people either don’t have well paying jobs (if at all) or have left but perhaps if those who live there would pay their fair share things would be a little better. You see, Watson has underpaid her property taxes by thousands of dollars for quite some time. She claims she pays her bills and that she paid what they billed her.
There was evidently some damage to her property and she said she thought that reduced her property value. The city lists her property as a vacant lot even though the house she lives in is on it. Does she expect us to believe that she looked at her assessment or property bills and thought they were correct?
Isn’t it more likely that she saw they made an error, knew she could pay it and blame them and likely not have to pay what was actually owed after the fact?
If we accept her claim as true then how is she in any way, shape or form qualified to be a part of the team that runs the city? If she can’t figure out that her bill was wrong and work to get it fixed (the ethical thing to do) then how can she look at bills and expenses for the city and know if they are correct or not?
How many other tax bills are wrong? How many, if correct, would have helped with the financial problems Detroit faces?
Most importantly, why should the rest of us send them money especially when it is obvious that they can’t manage the money they are supposed to collect?
Obama will have a second term and does not need these folks any longer so it is unclear if he will bail them out or not. It would be wrong to send them money which is probably why Obama will try it.
If he does though, I think a case could be made for impropriety. Watson said that the City voted for Obama so he owes them. She said there ought to be a quid pro quo.
If Obama bails them out, no matter the reason, it will look like he did it because they supported him. If Detroit supported Obama with the expectation of something in return and Obama gives them something for that support then it would raise red flags regarding the legality of it.
Of course, Barackey Claus gave out lots of “free” stuff in order to buy votes (ObawmahPhone!) and 51% of the voters thought that was just fine…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: bailout, city, detroit, failure, joann watson, liberals, Obama, progressives, property tax
More Government Equals Less Crime?
Sep 3, 2012 Political
An 82 year old woman with a 21 page rap sheet dating back to the 1950s has been arrested for burglary. Doris Thompson was arrested recently on suspicion of burglary involving a number of doctor’s offices. She allegedly hid in the offices until they closed for the evening and then stole cash. She was seen on several surveillance cameras.
Thompson, who has been in jail nine times and has at least 25 aliases, had an interesting reason for stealing what belonged to others. She said; “wouldn’t do all this nonsense if the government gave us more money.”
There it is ladies and gentlemen. If government gave her more money she would not have to steal it. Hell, I guess we can steal gasoline until the stations give us gas. Or perhaps we can all steal groceries because we would not have to if the grocers would just give us food.
This mindset is the result of progressive policies over the past century. These policies have broken up traditional families and fostered dependence on government. People who are dependent on government no longer have initiative to go out and earn. They no longer take responsibility for their actions and they expect to be taken care of by big daddy government.
We saw this during Katrina when large numbers of people were unable to accomplish the most basic things necessary to ensure they were safe. People were standing in knee deep water looking at land a mere 50 feet away and instead of moving toward dry land they looked around for help. They looked for help because the ability to help themselves has been removed from their minds by intrusive government and policies of dependence.
Thomson has been stealing from people for nearly 60 years and has gone to jail a number of times. She has not learned and after being caught this time she refuses to take responsibility for her actions. To her, it is the fault of government because it should give her more money.
Progressive polices suck the life out of people and as a result suck the life out of our nation.
People like Thompson are the followers of progressive politicians and their government will take care of you policies.
If Barack Obama had an auntie Doris she would look just like Ms. Thompson…
Source:
CBS Los Angeles
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: government dependence, katrina, Obama, policies, progressives
National Park Service Will Finally Enforce Law
Jan 28, 2012 Political
The FLEA Baggers (those affectionately called the Occupy Protesters by Democrats and their media wing) are causing ruin everywhere they go. In all the parks they occupy they bring in filth, rats, and disease (not including the STDs they are spreading). This is what happens when progressive types are left to set things up. They have some kind of organizational structure but there are very few rules in the do what you want environment so sanitation and hygiene become issues.
The FLEA Baggers have been given extraordinary access to public spaces. They have been given plenty of space and the laws have not been strictly enforced. If any other group of people had broken the laws and occupied spaces illegally they would have been removed but the laws were ignored by those charged with enforcing them.
Baltimore is a prime example. FLEA Baggers occupied an area in that city for quite some time stealing electricity and causing problems. The city finally sent the police to break up the crowd.
In DC, the FLEA Baggers have been occupying two parks in violation of the law. They are allowed to stay there but there are laws against erecting temporary structures and camping at McPherson Square and Freedom Plaza. The National Park Service will finally enforce those laws and tell the FLEA Bag crowd they must remove their tents and they are not allowed to camp there.
Ironically, they are protesting along K Street which is lobbyist road. The FLEA Bag crowd has attracted rats to their encampments but there is no indication if the rats are the vermin that lobby in DC or the four legged rodents that carry disease. My guess is the rats are the furry kind.
This will not go over well. The FLEA Bag folks have been given a pass on the laws and now they believe they have a right to break the law. The police should have been there enforcing the laws right from the start and there would be no confusion. By allowing the FLEA Baggers to stay for so long the police have given them reason to believe that the laws do not apply to them and that they are entitled to be there.
How long are people allowed to violate the law before police respond? How many times can people drive drunk or rob a bank (with police knowledge) before they are arrested? It seems that if you are a FLEA Bagger you can go for quite sometime while the police ignore you.
This will likely get ugly and the police will be perceived as the bad guys by the progressives and their media allies. The police will be cheered by those of us who think it is about time they enforced the law.
Unfortunately, if this is not peaceful the police will share the blame because they brought this on themselves by allowing the group to get away with breaking the law.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Democrats, flea bagger, laws, lies, occupy, park police, progressives
The Road To Hell
Jan 29, 2011 Political
An absolutely great video that defines how the good intentions of progressives end up leading to hell…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: hell, liberals, progressives, socialists
Stop The Military From Discriminating
Dec 23, 2010 Political
The lame duck session of Congress passed a bill to end the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy for military service that was enacted under Bill Clinton. Barack Obama signed the new law while flashing a big smile and telling us that no longer would homosexuals in the military be forced to live a lie.
They were never forced to live a lie. Military service is not compulsory so people do not have to join. It is also not a lie to just not say what your sexual orientation is. If it is considered a lie then the decision to lie was taken freely by the person who enlisted. Once again, that is not being forced.
There was nothing wrong with DADT. It allowed gay people to serve so long as they kept their sexual orientation to themselves.
That was not good enough for the progressives because they said it was discrimination not to allow gay people to openly serve. Was it discrimination, sure but it was not unconstitutional as many claim.
Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 14 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to make the rules for governing and regulating the military. Since they made DADT the rule then it was not unconstitutional.
The military routinely discriminates. People who are overweight (and exceed the body fat standard) are put out of the service. It does not matter if they can pass all the physical fitness tests or not, they are out. Overweight people are not allowed to enlist (though the threshold is higher than for those already in).
Now that we have ended the discriminatory practice of DADT it is time to end the practice of discriminating against others who want to serve. If an overweight person wants to serve, then let him. Why discriminate? These folks just want to serve their country.
While we are at it we can end the discriminatory practice of forcing people who want to be in the Special Forces from having to pass more stringent physical tests and end the practice of discriminating against those with poor vision from flying fighter planes.
If the whole premise is to end a discriminatory practice then how do we still allow other discriminatory practices?
This will lead to problems. Those with deeply held religious views will be reprimanded or put out if they do not march lock step with the gay agenda. People who oppose this will not be able to refuse to share a room with a homosexual soldier. What happens when homosexuals want housing for them and their gay lover? Will the military be forced to sanction gay marriage (which I believe is an end goal). What happens when the gay soldier wants medical care for his gay partner? How will this play out when an unmarried straight soldier demands housing and medical care for his opposite sex partner? If that soldier does not get the same treatment as the gay soldier the discrimination begins anew.
The poll taken among soldiers was flawed in its design but one thing is clear, combat forces overwhelmingly disapproved of repealing DADT and allowing openly gay soldiers to serve. If they show their disgust with their feet, we will be in a world of hurting.
The only upside is that if they ever reinstate the draft, being a homosexual will not keep people from being drafted.
I wonder how many gays who fought for this (and have never served or had any intenting of serving) will whine when the draft board sends them a letter.
Yep, be careful what you ask for.
If this has a negative impact on the military Barack Obama will go down in history as the one person who destroyed the greatest military in the world. He will be even worse than Carter, as if anyone thought that remotely possible.
Then again, Obama has never liked the military and he and his progressive buddies will do whatever it takes to destroy it.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: dadt, homosexuals, lies, openly gay military, progressives