Poll Dancing to Claim Fauxmentum for Neutering Marriage

It is quite laughable (or perhaps sad) just how desperate marriage neutering advocates, including the ones presenting themselves as objective journalists, have gotten in trying to convince everyone else that there is some massive shift to support for replacing marriage in state law with a counterfeit.

Read all about it over at The Opine Editorials.

Men and Women Are Different

Yes, men and women are different. "Duh!" most people say, but you, too, can learn to be offended by such a statement if you read and listen to certain sources enough. Just about any sentient being, including two-year-old human beings, knows that men and women, girls and boys, are different. Yet, there are people who deny this, even as their actions go against their ideology.

Human beings are male or female. People who can't handle reality angrily refer to this as "gender binary". They point to three groups of people: men who think they are women; women who think they are men; and people born with deformed or mixed up organs. The first two groups of people could have mental illnesses or physical problems. People in the third group definitely have physical problems. All three groups combined amount to a tiny percentage of the overall human population and do not negate that fact that for all practical purposes, human beings are male or female, any more than the fact that some people are missing a leg or two negates the fact that human beings are bipedal mammals.

Other relevant facts:
1) words mean things
2) "most" does not mean "all"
3) "chances are" does not mean "all always"
4) “men tend to” does not mean “all men always”
5) that men and women are different does not mean all men are the same in every way and all women are the same in every way

I know some Leftists have a hard time with this, but holding an opinion and addressing general realities does not necessarily mean the person holding it thinks that everyone must feel, think, and live the same way. That is their projection at work. They get offended if you don’t agree with them, and refer to it as a personal attack or an attack on an entire group of people.

Some Leftists also have a habit of taking quotes out of context and mischaracterizing what others communicated. An example is some of the reaction to my posting of "Valentine's Day is Not Enjoyable to Most Men".

Notice I wrote "most" and "chances are" and "men tend to" and I clearly state that a man can enjoy Valentine's Day. However, either problems with reading comprehension or a deliberate mischaracterization were demonstrated in a couple of responses.

One response includes among the absurdities…

1) She doesn't celebrate Valentine's Day, so I must mean she is a man instead of a woman
2) A statement that I (TPW) don't like Valentine's Day.
3) A false claim that I said all men or all real men don't like it, and that all women, or all real women do.
4) Then, ironically, a statement that I can't conceive that another person might feel differently
5) Her husband doesn't fit the description I wrote. Yeah, no kidding. That's no surprise.
6) Completely oblivious to conditions in most of the world, she also apparently wants foreign kids to starve rather than have jobs.
7) She incorrectly assumes I must be describing the dynamics of my marriage, when I wasn't. I have a happy marriage, with a wife who will tell anyone who will listen she has the life she's always wanted, and is very happy as a result.

Leftist feminists often express their disapproval that a woman would use her education, power, choice, and professional experience to freely choose to marry a man on whom she can rely financially, keep their home, care for their children, and seek to meet the various simple needs of her husband, including keeping herself as healthy and attractive as reasonably possible.
On to another one….

1) She claims I maintain one size fits all. When speaks or write, they must sometimes deal in generalities that do not apply to everyone. Most people are intelligent enough to get that, instead of getting upset.
2) She then sidetracks, bringing in the kitchen sink by falsely accusing me of being "anti" a bunch of things I'm not.
3) Despite the fact that I clearly stated that married lovemaking is a mutual thing, not something bought by a man, she writes as though I state the latter rather than the former.
4) Community property laws apparently mean money is only a wife's to decide what to do with, and if a man doesn't want the community money spend on store-bought gifts for him, there's something wrong with him.

I do agree with her that Valentine's Day marketing can be banal. However, much of that banal marketing is based on extensive research into what works.


Given how they reacted from my honest, candid opinion based on my observations and experiences, would a man in their lives be encouraged or discouraged to tell them if they disagreed with their opinions? Do a man's feelings, desires, or experiences matter, or are they something to be ridiculed unless they are in agreement with their opinions? Rather than saying, "That's not my experience" or "I'm one of the women that doesn't care much for Valentine's Day", they did what I cite above.

Where the Sidewalk Ends

It's been an ongoing, well-documented problem that the Big Labor/Illegal Alien Democrat City of Los Angeles has crumbling infrastructure. A good example? The city has been unable to get the residential street sidewalks into shape. This is especially shameful in a city that takes money from drivers and uses that money to cajole people into not driving their automobiles, but rather take taxpayer-subsidized transit (which means walking), bicycling, and walking.

Not only do the crumbling sidewalks degrade neighborhoods, they open the city to personal injury claims and lawsuits by people taking full advantage of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The solution, according to some? Abandon the public-property sidewalks to the nearby property owners, or at least "tax" the sale of property in order to fix the nearby sidewalk. After all of these years of neglecting the sidewalks despite taking money from taxpayers, property owners, and developer supposedly for the purpose of maintaining the sidewalks (along with the roads), the city leaders want to throw up their hands.

I support private roads maintained with private funds, with the understanding that there will either be some public roads or at least easements over private roads for the sake of defense, law enforcement, and emergency services. But if a street and its sidewalk is going to be government-owned, it should be maintained by that government.

But this is the dysfunction you get with a Democrat-controlled city in a Democrat-contolled county in a Democrat-controlled state.

So Predicatable - Licenses for Illegals

LAPD's honcho, Chief Charlie Beck, is now saying illegal aliens should have driver's licenses from the states. I saw this coming a mile away.

One obsessed state legislator has been pushing a bill to do just that for years now.

As for Beck, he's been feeling the heat from the public because of a proposal to change the policy of impounding the vehicles of unliscensed drivers for 30 days. The change would mean that a driver, pulled over by the police who is, during that process, determined to be unlicensed, would be able to keep his car as long as he could call someone with a license to drive it away. This change, of course, means the unlicensed driver would be back to driving that car ten minutes later.

Since illegal aliens can't legally get valid California driver's licenses, illegal alien advocates have been calling for this change.

The problem with changing the policy is that unlicensed drivers kill a disproporionate number of people, so the existing 30-day impound saves lives.

The logical solution? Keep in the impound policy as it is and tell the illegal aliens we're not going to do yet another thing to accommodate lawbreakers.

But... I just knew the response was not going to be that, but rather "This is why we need to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens." Grrrr. Yes, let's deal with a problem by heading further down the path that created that problem. Call me crazy (and many people do, especially people who claim there's no difference between men and women), but I don't think this is going to make illegal aliens safer drivers. If they don't pass the driving test, they will simply drive anyway. After all, they obviously don't care about breaking the law. And should they cause a serious accident, they can simply go home to avoid justice.

Say, how difficult would be it be for illegal aliens to take advantage of "motor voter" laws to fraudently vote? Hmmm.

Beck says the illegal alien driver's licenses should be different, so it is clear they are illegal aliens. But Beck doesn't get to make those decisions, and as we all know from our marriage neutering friends, you can't have different government documents for different behaviors. But if we can go through all of the trouble of licensing these people, why can't we, oh, deport them?!? Yes, I know one is a state matter and the other is a federal matter, but the state handles things for the federal government all of the time.

STOP with accommodating the lawbreakers at the expense of legal immigrants, citizens, and our guests.

She Just Might Change Your Mind

The Republican War on Women

Only in the world of the deceptive propagandists of the Left and their useful idiots is saying that the federal government should not force religious organizations to pay, contrary to long-held and stated religious beliefs, for birth control for people who are voluntarily associated with those organization... a "war on women."

Here's a couple of ideas:

Pay for your own birth control.

Work for someone else.

Fantasyland and Fires

Ah... Anaheim, California. Home to the MLB "Los Angeles" Angels, the NHL Ducks, and the original Disneyland. Recently the Orange County Register had an article with the headline, "Is Anaheim Fire Department Too White?" Eric Carpenter reported.

The city's Fire Department is envisioning a staff of firefighters more reflective of the cultures and ethnicities found in the city.

What does that mean? Hiring illegal aliens? Gangbangers? Taggers? (Anaheim definitely "benefitted" from the post-amnesty tsunami of illegal aliens.)

That means recruiting more women, Latinos, Asian Americans and Arab Americans, among others, to mirror Anaheim's changing demographics, fire Chief Randy Bruegman said.

I see.

Anaheim's fire force overall is 73 percent white, 18 percent Latino and 6 percent Asian, while the city's population is 52 percent Latino, 30 percent white and 14 percent Asian.

I wonder what the ethnic make-up of the city's fiscal staff is? And I don't see enough color on the Ducks team.

It's not just Anaheim:

Anaheim's department is one of six in California that participated this month in a workshop aimed at better meeting the needs of a diverse community.

Perhaps we can change the name of the city to Casa Ana?

Later this year, Anaheim will participate in a national workshop to continue leadership training and education on diversity. The city is working under the guidance of a nonprofit group, Fire 20/20.

National. So this could be happening anywhere.

A Muslim family may have religious issues with modesty. A first responder should be aware that a woman wearing a hijab who is in need of medical attention may be uncomfortable being touched by a male paramedic. A female paramedic might not be available, but the firefighter could at least be aware of the hurdle.

Great. So let the woman die, then? It's okay. There are other wives to take her place, right?

Anaheim has a large, growing Vietnamese population. Bruegman said firefighters should be aware that with many Asian cultures it would be best, when practical, to talk with the eldest family member out of respect.

So what if grandma can't hear nor understand English?

Within the article is a Q & A with the chief.

Q. How about gender equality?

A. We need to work on that more as well (Anaheim has two sworn female firefighters).

We go out into the community and we still hear people talk about "the firemen." I tell them, "We are firefighters, we haven't been firemen in at least 30 years." That's another perception we need to change early.

If they are male firefighters, they are firemen.

Q. Would you institute quotas based on gender and ethnicity?

A. We would not head down that path. But we would look at changing the recruitment pool. Right now, you go to an academy and you still see predominantly white males; that's what needs to change.

Why? As long as access is provided to all, there isn't a problem.

This is what I wrote after the article that got a lot of "likes":

Regarding Fire Department staffing. It should not matter what their last name, skin color, sex, sexual orentation, religion, or anything else is... I want THE BEST people at saving lives and protecting property. PERIOD. I don't care if the entire staff is Arabian Muslim lesbians, or if it is all white, Jewish males. Regarding how the Fire Department ACTs... we are in America. We have AMERICAN culture. People who COME HERE do so voluntarily and should recognize that they live in AMERICA and we're not going to cater to all of their cultural sensitivities. If they liked that other culture so much, they can always go back to it.

The last thing we want to do is bring down the standard to meet a quota. When a firefighter is on the back of a fire truck, they need to be equally trained and capable. Firefighters wouldn't stand for anything less. Nor would the public.

Glad to see the chief said that. But as far as recruitment - if someone doesn't have the guts to apply despite the fact that they'd be in the skin color or sex minority in the department, they don't have the guts to be firefighters. Firefighters should be people who WANTED to be firefighters, who don't let barriers stand in their way. I understand wanting to better deal with "cultural sensitivities", but only in so far as it aids in saving lives and protecting property, goals which should never be compromised for the sake of feel-good political correctness. For years, the police department spokseman was Rick Martinez. I didn't even think about his ethnic background until just now. Why? It didn't matter. He was darn good at what he did. That's what mattered.

California's Taxes

Ron Mossler of Northridge wrote in to The Pink Transgendered Lady (a.k.a. The Los Angeles Times) responsing to the article "Dueling Tax Hike Measures Occupy Democrats":

Pat Hurley, a delegate to the state Democratic Party convention, remarked, "Voters might think the governor's [sales tax] plan is too broad" and that only millionaires should be targeted for increased taxes. Hurley's remark highlights the problem.

As long as there are only a wealthy few who contribute to the supply side of tax revenue, those on the demand side can remain less involved about how politicians spend a limited pool of revenue. If everyone were asked to contribute more, as in a sales tax increase, perhaps more Californians would demand more accountability and responsibility from our politicians.

As long as we pick on the super wealthy, the rest of the populace lacks an incentive to rein in spending.

Thank you, Mr. Mossler. One problem with getting a large minority or even majority of voters on the receiving end of redistribution is that the taxpayers have the resources to relocate. As Mossler noted, people become disinterested at best. At worst, they become active in order to keep up their plundering of someone else's earnings.

The Democrats control Los Angeles, San Fransisco, and California. They are doing a fine job of messing the state up. They can't blame Republicans. The Democrats have control.

I'm Shocked! Shocked!

Who knew that we shouldn't trust everything that comes out of a university, nor everything reported by The Crossdressing Pink Lady? See what I'm talking about over at The Opine Editorials.

Corporations Aren't There to Make You Feel Good

When a conservative these days talks about "evil", Leftists freak out. So I wonder why Lefists share this via online social networking?

What did Roosevelt mean by "evil" and "misconduct"? What do today's Leftists mean by those terms when it comes to business?

Corporations "shall be so handled"... by whom? It is not an elected politician's role to handle corporations. Funny how this quote talks about corporations as though they are persons. Hmmm.

All forms of theft should be criminalized and prosecutable. Making profit through VOLUNTARY purchases of corporation-provided goods, services, and assets, and drawing investment, is not misconduct. Businesses exist to provide goods and services for a profit, per demands for those goods and services. That serves the public. So does being able to make a return on investing in corporations, or being employed by a corporation. Corporations can often make innovations through consolidation and access to capital. That is how they may serve the public good. They do not exist for the sake of providing someone with jobs and benefits, governments with tax revenues, and the public with warm fuzzies, but those are likely effects.

Scary Monster!

I found this list of objections someone had to Rick Santorum, who is a candidate for the GOP nomination for President.

Let's take a look.

1. Opposing birth control
Quote: "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." (Speaking with CaffeinatedThoughts.com, Oct. 18, 2011)

Reaction: This is "pretty basic: Rick Santorum is coming for your contraception," says Irin Carmon at Salon. "Any and all of it." Threatening to "send the condom police into America's bedrooms" is pretty bad politics: More than 99 percent of sexually active women have used some form of birth control, and "helping people get access to birth control is actually a popular issue," supported by 82 percent of Americans. But a national contraception ban is "clearly the world Santorum wants."

First of all, notice the switching of terms "contraception" and "birth control". Not all birth control is contraception. Contraception prevents the conception of a human being. Some other forms of birth control kills a human being. Secondly, Santorum is talking to Christians about morality. Nowhere does he state or imply that he's going to prevent anyone who wants to obtain contraception from getting it. This appears to be a case of Leftists thinking that unless the federal goverment (really meaning taxpayers) provides something, it doesn't exist.

2. Keeping moms at home
Quote: "In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might find they don't both need to. ... What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else — or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon — find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism." (Santorum's 2005 book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good)

Hmmmm, I don't see anywhere in that where he said "moms" should be forced to stay home. It was some sexist thinking on the part of the Scaredy Cat that equated the idea of both parents not needing to earn income with it automatically being the mom who "stays home". Santorum was stating the truth - that it is possible for families to make it on one income so that strangers or hired help aren't the ones raising the kids.

3. Re-spinning the Crusades
Quote: "The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. ... What I'm talking about is onward American soldiers. What we're talking about are core American values." (South Carolina campaign stop, Feb. 22, 2011)

The fact is, the Crusades were a response to some Muslims attacking pilgrims, and as was common with war efforts in those times (and often our times) some people going along for the war did things they shouldn't have. Today, so many people say, "Ah ha! The Crusades!!!" without having any real idea of what happened and in what historical context. I highly doubt Scaredy Cat would want the kind of Islam that was being fought to spread to where he or she lives.

4. Rejecting the very idea of "Palestinians"
Quote: "All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they're not Palestinians. There is no 'Palestinian.' This is Israeli land." (Campaign stop in Iowa, Nov. 18, 2011)

That is factually true. Isn't someone born and raised in Israel an Israeli? I wonder what this person would call someone born in the USA?

5. Reminding America that some view Mormonism as "a dangerous cult"
Quote: "Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?"

He asked a question, stating a fact about what some Christians believe. So Leftists don't call Santorum's beliefs dangerous? Some certainly appear to. And what have Leftists being saying about the LDS church... hmmmmm?

6. Dissing welfare programs that "make black people's lives better"
Quote: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money." (Campaign stop in Iowa, Jan. 2, 2012)

What in the world is wrong with someone pointing out that jobs are better than welfare?

7. Bringing race into Obama's abortion views
Quote: "The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person — human life is not a person, then — I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'We're going to decide who are people and who are not people.'" (CNS News interview, Jan. 19, 2011)

Apparently the person concerned about this is unfamiliar with the fact that enslaved African Americans were classified as nonpersons under certain laws. They are so busy trying to equate any disagreement with Obama with racism. Because we all know that none of these Republican ever opposed white Bill Clinton's positions, right?

8. Equating gay marriage to loving your mother-in-law
Quote: "Is anyone saying same-sex couples can't love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?" (Santorum's Philadelphia Inquirer column, May 22, 2008)

He did not equate those two things. He pointing to the fact that "love" is not a basis for our laws.

9. Comparing homosexuality to "man-on-dog" sex
Quote: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. ... That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing." (AP interview, April 7, 2003)

Nope, comparison not made. Sorry.

So let's review. Rick Santorum...
1. Doesn't believe contraception is morally compatible with his faith. How does this impact anybody other than his wife? It doesn't.
2. Notes the fact that not every set of parents with young children that uses hired help to raise the children rather than doing it themelves needs to do this.
3. Correctly notes that Muslism agressively took over the Holy Land and attacked pilgrims.
4. Believes that people born in Isreal are Israeli.
5. Asked if having a Mormon for a President would mean more Americans joining the LDS church instead of other churches.
6. Said it is better that people work jobs than receive welfare.
7. Doesn't think it is good that some human beings are classified as nonpersons.
8. Notes that "love" is not a basis for making legal determinations.
9. Notes that marriage means one thing and not another thing.

Ooooh..... scary! Run for the hills!!!

Inconsistencies in the Law? You Don't Say

A Leftist who supports the neutering of marriage posted this one. Interesting that the Leftist is apparently comparing two men kissing to a man sticking it in a horse. Perhaps some bully should put up a website to smear that Leftist's name in the Google results?

The thought process on this one is convoluted in more than one way.

Brideless "marriage" isn't really marriage, but there are some states that will issue what used to be marriage licenses to bridless couples. With or without those licenses, people (and that includes homosexual people, of course) are  free to have ceremonies and share their lives together. Nobody will stop them. This is legal throughout the USA.

I'm not sure where pot fits in to all of this, but perhaps it is a clue as to why the people who created and shared this are so fuzzy in their thinking. There are all kinds of restictions on medications and other products, and sometimes the restrictions vary from state to state. Unlike marriage licenses, medicines are often made and distributed through nongovernmental organizations.

Sticking it in a horse... well, a man sticking it in a man is legal in all 50 states. So, the comparison is faulty for the intended purpose. In 27 states, if the facts cited are accurate, someone can and will be arrested and prosecuted for sticking it in a horse. In ZERO states will this happen for sticking it in another man, or having a "wedding" ceremony with that other man.

A larger-picture issue here is the fact that different states are allowed to have some different laws, so long as those laws do not violate the federal Constitution.

But yes, there are some contradictions, or at least inconsistencies, in the laws of some states. This shouldn't be surprising as laws and court decisions are made by different people over the years, and even individual Leftists have inconsistencies in their personal philosophy, such as favoring government-run ponzi schemes while also favoring limits on new births and insisting on "sustainability".

Bias in the Media, Bias in the Courts

I look at how the print edition of the Los Angeles Times covered the 9th Circus Court of Appeals decision on the California Marriage Amenmdent, a ruling that contains shocking errors... over at The Opine Editorials.

Good News, Bad News From Federal Court

The good news is that the people of California are allowed to defend ballot measures they approve.

The bad news is that at least two judges sitting in the 9th Circus Court apparently think marriage laws and customs existing all over the world all throughout thousands of years were nothing more than some massive conspiracy to stick to to homosexual people.

Read all about it at The Opine Editorials.

Marriage Malpractice Does Not Require Replacing Marriage

We don't need to replace marriage with a counterfeit because some people misuse marriage. Read my response to a political cartoon over at The Opine Editorial.

Funding Planned Parenthood Supports the Slaughter of Innocent Human Beings

This graph, found at washingtonpost.com, is supposed to get us to think Planned Parenhood is  a great organization. Hey, look, "Abortion Services" is only 3%.
You know, if you did a pie chart of what the KKK does (including cleaning up highways) or ever has done, "lynching African-Americans" would no doubt be less than 1%. Furthermore, you'd find that the KKK and any "Neo-Nazi" groups' combined totals of African-American murdered wouldn't even amount to a slow month for Planned Parenhood. Not even close. Planned Parenthood has slaughtered many, many more African-American babies than the KKK, and has done much, much more than the KKK to keep the percentage of the African-American population in the United States of America small relative to the rest of the population.

Most murderers don't spend more than 3% of their time killing people. It doesn't make it a good idea to pay for their overhead, or associate with them.

One laughable, but depressing thing about the title of the chart are the words "Patient Care". More than half of the patientts involved in abortion are killed as a result of that "care".

I also wonder if "Contraception" is really just about true contraception, or if some of that is something that kills the human being post-conception. That stuff should be added to the "abortion" category.

Exactly how many pregnant women Planned Parenthood has referred to an adoption agency, organization, or lawyer? And how do we know this data is accurate, anyway?

About 80 percent of Planned Parenthood’s users are over age 20, and 75 percent have incomes below 150 percent of the poverty line.

So, 20 percent of PP's users (one in five) are "under 19". I wonder how many are 17? 16? 15? 14? 13? I wonder how many rapes of underage girls PP has helped cover up, and thereby helped facilitate the ongoing abuse of those girls? Interesting that the statistic isn't what percentage actually fall under the poverty line, especially if we don't include minors and students who are being supported by others.

It’s also worth noting that federal law already forbids Planned Parenthood from using the funds it receives from the government for abortions.

And how exactly is that enforced? And if the funding covers their overhead or outreach, it is going to abortion.

The services Planned Parenthood provides save the federal government a lot of money.

Yes, well, if we simply killed all of the convicts and the people asking for welfare we'd be saving all sorts of money, now wouldn't we?
It has been interesting to see this defense of "but abortions are such a small part of what Planned Parenthood does" used by people who condemn anyone even smiling at organizations like Focus on the Family because they spend a small amount of their time responding to homosexuality advocacy in addition to all of the other help they provide for families.

The State of the City

Here's what we're dealing with the greater Los Angeles area, being part of the People's Republic of Alta California:

We're going to make it easier for people to commit fraud to get taxpayer-subsidized housing.

Some want to make it easier for unlicensed drivers who have been pulled over for traffic violations to keep driving. People who have been issued tickets and haven't paid a dime are going to be given amnesty, while people who have made some effort to pay won't.

Those of us who follow the law are being faced with being strongly limited in the automobiles we will be able to purchases due to an inherently flawed attempt to control climate.

Our utility bills are rising in a flawed attempt to control climate.

The largest port complex in the union wants to accommodate more traffic, but environmentalist whackos are just fine letting some other location in another country or state get those great jobs.

Crazy people are shouting at elected leaders to try to stop them from building new jails to replace overcrowded, aging jails, apparently preferring to let criminals and suspects run free.

Over 700 vicious first-degree murderers are being given shelter, health care, food, security, recreation, and other comforts of life on the taxpayer dime, with no execution date in sight, despite being sentenced to death.

The unemployment and underemployment rate is even worse than the national average.

The state and localities have many and high taxes, and there's a serious push for more.

We're running huge state budget deficits, but a 100,000,000,000-dollar boondoggle Unneeded Train-to-Nowhere that will be an ongoing drain on taxpayers is still being pushed.

Taxpayer-funded school teachers can tie up and blindfold elementary school kids and literally spoon-feed them Clinton-White-House-Intern-Blue-Dress-Staining Fluid, document their crime with pictures, and then resign and keep their pensions!

While all of this is going on, legislators are spending their time writing, discussing, and passing laws to make "adult video" performers wear condoms. Never mind everyone else, and the fact that the disease transmission rate through such performances has been close to zero.

You can't make this stuff up. This is what happens when Leftist Democrats are in control.

Fighting the Republican Party Establishment

If you are a registered Republican or usually vote Republican and you're not happy with "the Party Establishment" and their candidate for President...

Free Enterprise is Good, Big Business Managers Aren't Always

According to Reuters, "Six prominent Pacific Northwest companies, including Microsoft and Nike, have endorsed Washington's [marriage neutering] legislation."

Where's the outcry from the Left about corporate involvement in politics? Where are the Occupy people? Read more over at The Opine Editorials.