Follow Me On Twitter!

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Michigan And Right To Work

I am not quite sure what the uproar is all about. To me this seems like a pretty easy one. If I work at a company and there is a union in place, shouldn't I get to decide whether or not I want to be part of said union?

I remember when I was a very young worker. Going to school and working a menial retail job for minimum wage. I had a discussion one day with an older person that was in an union. Granted, I was very ignorant of how unions worked, I just knew my dad was a longtime UAW worker.

When this older worker began discussing his union dues, I was intrigued.

"So you have to pay to be in the union?" I asked.

"Of course," was his reply, "they collect the dues out of each of my paychecks."

Even at a very young age (18 or 19 at the time), I was already getting a bad taste in my mouth about unions. After all, my father was full of stories about guys that didn't pull their weight, but that the union supported. Or guys getting fired for getting into fist fights, only to have the union get them reinstated a few weeks later.

But still there was something deep inside of me that thought that unions were altruistic. That they had nothing but the good of the worker at their heart. So this idea of paying to be in the union struck me as counter to that. I mean, shouldn't the union reps, who are employees themselves, just collect their normal pay for the representation they provide?

"What do they do with that money?" I asked, flabbergasted.

"Well, as far as I can tell, my union bosses get a large chunk of it. And what they don't take usually goes towards political action to get people I don't support elected to office."

Now I was really disgusted. After all, while definitely not anti-union (yet) I was a staunch supporter of Republicans. I had proudly voted for George Bush Sr over Mike Dukakis in 1988. My first presidential vote. Gun rights and pro-life were my main voting issues. I was just beginning to test the waters of fiscal politics.

While fiscal politics were new to me, I knew that I was against things like welfare. In my opinion that rewarded people for being lazy.Something I was also learning about unions.

"Well, in that case, I just wouldn't join the union." I said proudly.

"You can't do that. One of the requirements of employment at a union shop is that you have to join the union."

Now I was incensed. This had to be a joke. As my mind was scrambling at this idea I had to get clarity.

"So you HAVE to join the union to work at a union shop even if you don't like what the union stands for?" I asked incredulously.

"That's right. You don't have to be in a union, but to not be in the union you can't work at a union shop. So if you plan on being an hourly Ford Motor Company worker, you have to be in the UAW. Don't like the UAW and don't want to be a member? Well then you can't work as an hourly Ford employee. Crazy isn't it?"

Even at very young age this seemed very very wrong to me. To me it was a fundamental right to be able to work as an independent worker and not be part of a union if I so chose. Learning that it didn't work that way infuriated me.

In the years since then I have come to loathe unions. I have discovered that the worker isn't what they are working for. Most union leaders do it for the extra money they make despite doing less work. Most of the money that unions collect are funneled to the campaigns of liberal Democrat candidates. They have become nothing but political action organization as nefarious as the companies they claim to be fighting.

When I first heard about Right To Work I felt like this needed to happen. This needed to right the wrong I learned about so many years ago. Liberals are supposed to be "pro-choice". When you are talking about the choice to murder innocent humans in the womb, they are for choice. Talk about being able to pick your child's school regardless of residency, or being able to turn down union membership to work at a union shop and suddenly they become fascists.

The fact that unions are so dead set against allowing people to choose membership or not proves how little value they supply to the worker. If their service to the worker was so wonderful, who wouldn't choose to be part of the union? At the end of the day, unions don't want to be held accountable, and that is exactly what Right To Work will do: hold them accountable.

Sunday, December 02, 2012

Jason Whitlock Is An Idiot

If you haven't yet heard about the murder-suicide committed by Kansas City Chief's player Javon Belcher, then you are living in a cave.

Belcher shot and killed his girlfriend and mother of his child before driving to Arrowhead stadium, where his team plays home games, and shooting himself in front of members of the Chief's staff, including his head coach.

No doubt a very disturbing and tragic story. It is very sad to think that a 25 year-old NFL player would resort to such action to deal with problems in his life.

However, as is typical in these cases, those on the left can't help but use incidents like this to try and push for renewed gun control efforts.

One such leftist pulling this typical tactic is Jason Whitlock, sports writer for Fox Sports.

Click here for story:  In KC, it's no time for a game

Whitlock starts out by trying to make the case that the Chiefs game, scheduled and played earlier today, shouldn't be played in the aftermath of this incident.  But then he inexplicably launches into an anti-2nd amendment, anti-gun diatribe. The ignorance on the issue exhibited by Jason Whitlock is so overt that Fox Sports should not have allowed the article to be published. But since they did, Fox Sports should seriously consider taking the article down.

Whitlock has this to say related to gun control:
I would argue that your rationalizations speak to how numb we are in this society to gun violence and murder. We’ve come to accept our insanity. We’d prefer to avoid seriously reflecting upon the absurdity of the prevailing notion that the second amendment somehow enhances our liberty rather than threatens it.
How many young people have to die senselessly? How many lives have to be ruined before we realize the right to bear arms doesn’t protect us from a government equipped with stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks and nuclear weapons?
Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.
In the coming days, Belcher’s actions will be analyzed through the lens of concussions and head injuries. Who knows? Maybe brain damage triggered his violent overreaction to a fight with his girlfriend. What I believe is, if he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.
Huh? Really? How Whitlock could presume to know that if Belcher didn't own a gun that he and his girlfriend would still be alive is beyond me. Someone should tell Whitlock that murder and suicide have preexisted guns by thousands of years! Unless Whitlock is going to argue that Cain shot Abel with a gun. Or that Judas Iscariot shot himself in the head after betraying Jesus.

This is idiotic thinking. I cannot put it any milder than that. I know that Belcher's actions are shocking and evoke strong emotions, but trying to argue that Belcher was incapable of killing his girlfriend and himself without a firearm is pure ignorance.

Note how Belcher quickly starts to circle the wagons around the concussion and head injury issue. Despite documented evidence to the fact that NFL players are subjected to actual brain damage. No, the culprit in this case, according to Whitlock, is the implement of murder that Belcher used. Why blame the perpetrator when you can blame the tool?

Whitlock goes as far as to suggest that guns are the reason that teenage boys kill one another over disputes at convenience stores. Really? I guess if you remove guns from those types of situations cooler heads would always prevail? No one would punch, kick, stab or even use their vehicle to run down? Oh wait, those types of actions take place every day in the absence of a firearm. Whitlock again is wrong on the subject.

The fact of the matter is that people that want to kill and commit suicide will do just that. Remove one tool, and they'll use another. Our world's history proves this, and only someone that is ignorant, or purposely trying to mislead, would ignore that history. Belcher wanted to kill his girlfriend because she was leaving him and was going to go after him for child support. Once he committed that crime, he took the even more cowardly way out of that by killing himself. Lack of a gun wouldn't have prevented it.

The Jason Whitlocks of the world will never understand that because they already have a vendetta against guns. They will continue to blame the gun rather than the murderer. They will fail to see that people that want to end their own life have myriad ways of doing that, and only one involves a firearm.

Oh, and then there is this perspective:

Click here for story: Injuries, alcohol and painkillers before he snapped and killed girlfriend: report

The couple had only recently reconciled after Perkins left their rented house in Kansas City with the baby at one point to stay with friends. Perkins had returned, but friends said the relationship was still volatile.
It didn’t help that he was drinking every day and taking painkillers while dealing with the effects of debilitating head injuries, the friend said.
Why doesn't Whitlock go off about our country's culture of alcoholism? After all drinking doesn't even have a constitutional amendment to protect it, and it causes far more death and destruction than firearms do. Something tells me that Whitlock would never argue that alcohol should be done away with. And the fact that he wouldn't is most telling.

Monday, October 15, 2012

National Geographic's Bias

Before I begin this diatribe I have to state up-front, I enjoy the National Geographic channel. While I haven't read the magazine since I was a kid, I have watched the cable network many times. I love their "Mega" series of shows. "Mega-Structures", etc are very entertaining and informative shows.

I've watched the channel for other shows and programming as well, though I have to admit some of their programming is inappropriate and therefore I don't watch everything they broadcast.

Watching the channel there are a few things I've noticed:
  • When evolution is discussed,it is discussed as a scientific fact, and not the theory it really is.
  • When the age of the earth is discuss, it is assumed that the earth is 4 billion years old.
  • When global warming is discussed it is discusses as not only a fact, but that it has been determined beyond all doubt that it is caused by humans.
Now I could speculate as to why these biases are present in their programming, but I think most of us already know what those typical reasons are. The one I would like to focus on now is the last point.

Nothing highlights the bias towards global warming more than this article from National Geographic:

Even the title of the article shows the bias! But how Nat-Geo explains this phenomenon away is where the real heart of the matter lies:
This Antarctic record seems counter to what we often hear about sea ice shrinking. How can we explain growing sea ice?
If the world was warming up uniformly, you would expect the sea ice cover to decrease in the Antarctic, but it's not. The reason for that is because the Antarctic is cooler than the rest of the world. It's warming up as well but not as fast as other places.
So you have the warming world and a cold Antarctica, and the difference between the two is increasing. That makes the winds around Antarctica move a little bit faster. There's also a difference that comes from the depletion of ozonein the stratosphere in the Antarctic, which makes the stratosphere colder.
To sum this up, shrinking sea ice proves global warming. But so does increasing sea ice. Really?! So what evidence would prove that global warming is a myth?

Oh but they go on:
While Arctic sea ice is decreasing, the Antarctic is now slightly increasing. Why is there so much variation between Arctic and Antarctic ice?
Well we have a continent on the South Pole. On the North Pole we have nothing but ocean. In the Arctic you see full-fledged warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, plus increased ice transport [out of the region, which removes cold air and water]. So all of these effects contribute to reduce the sea ice cover in the Arctic.
In the Antarctic, you have to think of it as its own climate system. It's a big continent isolated from the rest of the world. It has ocean all around it. It has wind regimes that blow clockwise around it and isolate it. It acts differently from the Arctic, which is completely connected to the rest of the North Hemisphere.
Oh the bias! See what Nat-Geo is doing here? It is called "running interference". They know this report deals a blow to their pro-global warming agenda, so they try to point out, without any evidence sited mind you, that arctic ice continues to shrink. And notice their use of the word "slightly". Nope no bias there!

Nat-Geo is lying. Arctic ice depletion is cyclical. In fact, global warming alarmists have been predicting that arctic ice would disappear during the arctic summer for several years now. Maybe you remember this famous picture trying to highlight it:

Want to know the truth? Arctic ice does melt. But that is during the northern hemisphere's summer. During the winter the ice reforms. Again this is cyclical thing and the predictions of a complete melt have never come to fruition.

Nat-Geo either forgot that, didn't know that, or purposely left it out. I am pretty sure it is the latter, as the first two would seriously draw into question the scientific knowledge of Nat-Geo. My guess is that it is their integrity that should be questioned.

Sad that an organization that tries to claim scientific integrity on such issues would deceive on this level. But even the "About" text on their website shows their bias:
The National Geographic Society has been inspiring people to care about the planet since 1888. It is one of the largest nonprofit scientific and educational institutions in the world. Its interests include geography, archaeology and natural science, and the promotion of environmental and historical conservation.
Apparently the promotion of environmental conservation, and inspiring people to care about the planet are more important than accurately discussing scientific facts.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Rupert Everett Comes Out Against Gay Parents

This past Sunday, an openly gay actor caused the gay community to turn on him.

In an interview, Everett said, and I quote: "There's nothing worse than gay parents."

Click here for the article: Rupert Everett: 'Nothing worse than gay parents'

That Everett holds that opinion is surprising. That he voiced it is even more surprising. What isn't surprising is that his own community is now turning on him. Also what isn't surprising is that his opinion is based on facts.

Every study ever done that wasn't paid for by GLAAD says what everyone knows: children are better off in traditional, two-parent, mommy and daddy homes. That isn't opinion, it is science. But GLAAD doesn't care about science. They care about agenda. And when the science doesn't align with that agenda they throw science out the window. Everett has every right to voice his opinion on this subject. That GLAAD would bash an openly gay man because they don't like a position he holds shows how far they are willing to go to advance that agenda.

This reminds me of a scene from the movie "The Family Stone". Sarah Jessica Parker's character in that movie states the obvious: that parents would never hope that their child was gay. She explains goes on to explain that parents that want what is best for their children would never hope for a lifestyle for said children that would create so many challenges.

The other characters in the movie quickly circle the wagons to try and shut her down. Even though they, like any reasoning person, would have to agree with her premise. It doesn't mean that you love your child any less if they do turn out to be gay, only that parents in general would hope for a more normal lifestyle for their children.

Sometimes the truth is hard for people. That is why the Bible is so rejected nowadays. Because the truth it shines light on isn't popular. Truth isn't always popular. Rupert Everett is finding that out the hard way right now. But it doesn't make it any less the truth.

Friday, September 07, 2012

Monday, June 25, 2012

Emily Mortimer Is An Idiot

Another actress opens her mouth and proves how moronic the Hollywood elites on the left can be.

This time it is Emily Mortimer. Okay, maybe like me you were all: WHO? Yeah, we aren't talking a-list here, but we are talking about another out-of-touch elitist Hollywood moron.

Here is a link to her interview:

“Newsroom” star Emily Mortimer: Americans are dangerously uninformed

I'd quote the part that is important, but she was so long-winded, and rambling, it is difficult to cull out a small piece. In short, she was asked about the politics that Aaron Sorkin (a previous winner of the Idiot Award) injects into this show "Newsroom". Her answer was that she is very political and then she went on a rant about how the American voter is duped and uninformed.

Let me translate what Emily is trying to say: If you don't vote the way she does, then you are stupid.

Typical Hollywood leftist.

Now I could go on to point out that the majority of Americans think differently than these Hollywood types. But that is becoming more and more obvious every time one of the Hollywood types opens their mouth and removes all doubt to their foolishness.

Emily says she felt that after Bush was reelected that Americans didn't realize they had been lied to. That made me literally laugh out loud. Never mind that the Democrats trotted out a complete lying, "say anything to get elected", socialist to run against Bush.

I could go on but you get the point. So congratulations Emily Mortimer. I have no idea about your acting ability since I've never seen a single thing you've been in, but I know that in the political spectrum you are a brain-dead sheep, marching along with the rest of your Hollywood friends.

Friday, March 30, 2012

Once Again, Rush Is Right!

Over at Common Cents has a posting up about Rush Limbaugh's skyrocketing ratings in light of the Sandra Fluke, with audio from Rush's show where he speaks about his ratings.

In short, his ratings are up across the board from 10% to 60% depending on the station. The backlash at Rush for the Sandra Fluke comments has back-fired, and the exact opposite of what the leftists wanted is happening. They wanted Rush silenced, but in fact more people are listening to Rush than every before.

So as for that list of departed advertisers I posted a while back? They have to be crying about the lost sales opportunities! And the ones that stayed and came on board? They have to be enjoying the boost in sales they are experiencing.

So strike a blow for freedom. Tune into Rush on your local radio station at noon today. And go to his website and support his advertisers today!

Tuesday, March 06, 2012

I Will Not Patronize Departed Rush Advertisers!

So here is the deal. 11 advertisers have bowed to liberal pressure and pulled their ads from Rush Limbaugh's show. All because he basically spoke the truth about a liberal activist turned law student, who testified in front of congress that her contraception costs topped $3,000/year.

You have to almost chuckle at that. I've known a lot of people in law school, and none of them had time for anything else but studying. And yes I have heard the liberal talking point about the medical benefits of contraception, except when you ask these liberals to cite one of these medical benefits that can't seem to enumerate a single one!

But back to the point. So 11 advertisers have yanked their ads. I've vowed to boycott, and have called on other conservatives to join me in boycotting, these advertisers. Frankly, I have no respect for any company that would cow tow to liberals. Liberal outrage is like the clouds: always around.

So here are the cowardly companies that will not see a single red cent of my hard earned money ever again:
  • Proflowers
  • Legal Zoom
  • Carbonite
  • Citrix
  • Sleep Train
  • Sleep Number
  • Quicken Loans
  • Allstate Insurance
  • Sears (too bad for them to because I was in the market for a new washer and dishwasher!)
  • Bare Escentuals
  • AOL
Please note, Life Lock and Lear Capital are two companies that have said they will continue to advertise on Rush's show. So guess what? Tomorrow I will be signing up for Life Lock, and investing in gold through Lear Capital! I suggest you do the same!

Support Rush, because once again he was right!

Oh, and here is a little information on the -insert sarcastic voice- poor, innocent Ms. Fluke:

Report: Sandra Fluke Also Wants Insurance to Cover Sex Changes

Hmmm, not just a law student, but a liberal activist. BUSTED!

Thursday, March 01, 2012

In Tribute To Andrew

Andrew Breitbart is gone. I still can't believe it. The man that brought us the incredible Big blog conservative sites, that took down Acorn, and that became a major voice for the new conservative movement will never be forgotten.

Though the news of his passing devastated me, I will never give up the fight against the establishment left and their puppet media. Just as Andrew would want.

Thank you for all you did Andrew, and thoughts and prayers go out to your surviving family. You will be missed.

Monday, February 13, 2012

This Is What Happens When You Cut Off People That Are Addicted To Free Government Money

Click here for story:

Greeks are angry. Why? Because their government has to take drastic measures to keep the country solvent. Meantime, Socialists don't care about solvency, all they want is to make sure their government provided checks are still flowing in.

Greece 2012 is what America 2020 could be. Unless we stop the madness now. (We can start by voting out the Socialist currently occupying the White House.)

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

"Mr. Obama"?

One of the things that the leftists that I know have roundly criticized me for is that I rarely use the word "president" and "Obama" in the same sentence. It has been a little personal protest of mine to not use the term "President Obama", and that has infuriated some of the people I know. I just can't believe that our nation was dumb enough to elect an obvious socialist that I can't bring myself to refer to him in that manner.

I was the same way with Clinton. I was so aghast that our nation could be dumb enough to elect someone as flawed as Clinton that I just couldn't bring myself to refer to him that way either. I also had a bumper-sticker declaring that Charlton Heston was my president!

The attacks against me for practicing this have been quite vitriolic. I have been called a racist. I have been accused of not respecting the office. I have been accused of undermining the government. (That really happened!)

Never mind that for 8 years, President George W. Bush was referred to as nothing more than "Dubya" by these same folks. Ah yes, hypocrisy in political discourse is alive and well.

So in case you haven't heard, Clint Eastwood narrated a Chrysler commercial during halftime of the Superbowl this past Sunday. Some of my right-wing friends have called it a campaign speech for Obama. I disagree, I think the commercial was apolitical, though I can understand why my friends think this.

The controversy grew to the point yesterday that Mr. Eastwood had to make a statement regarding the flap. In that statement he gave us this little nugget:
l am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it. I thought the spirit was OK.
 He then followed it up with this:
If Obama or any other politician wants to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it.
Say what you want about the Chrysler ad, but these two little statements using "Mr. Obama", and simply "Obama", prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mr. Eastwood is no fan of this regime, er, administration.

Admittedly, this is subtle but to the trained eye one could clearly see what Eastwood was doing here. And for that I now can say with a complete level of confidence that Eastwood was not shilling for Obama in the Chrysler ad.