Why I’m Done Watching Professional Sports. Period.

I’m through.

Back in 2009 I said I was through with the NFL after it basically said that forcing dogs to fight each other in bloody matches and then viciously killing the ones that weren’t vicious enough was fine.  And the only unpardonable sin in their eyes was being a political conservative.  And I’ve made good on my word; the only football I’ve watched since has been college.

And, of course, I still had my basketball and my hockey, right?

Well, wrong as of recently.

First the NHL all but bent over so the first openly gay hockey player could sodomize the whole league.  And then we had our first male openly homosexual player celebrated for issuing a statement that he likes it in the rear.

Me, I just wanted to watch sports.  I didn’t want to get lectured about accepting, embracing and celebrating homosexuality.

I looked in vain through the rule books of all the major sports.  There was NOTHING about that garbage in any of them.

But boy – as in “gay boys in bondage” – have professional sports ever changed since I was a kid.

My first thought when Jason Collins “came out” was that at least he didn’t play for any of the teams I root for (I couldn’t care less about the Washington Wizards and I utterly despise the Boston Celtics).  But Kobe Bryant blew that up.  The man who most represents the heart and the soul of the Los Angeles Lakers – my favorite team since Jerry West was a guard rather than the NBA logo – tweeted the following:

Proud of @jasoncollins34. Don’t suffocate who u r because of the ignorance of others #courage #support #mambaarmystandup #BYOU

“The ignorance of others”??? 

Does God know He’s “ignorant”???

I suppose I’m supposed to forget that Bryant was once accused of rape.  I suppose that I’m supposed to forget that he cheated on his wife and that he revealed his own latent homosexuality by sodomizing the woman he cheated on his wife with.  And having forgotten all that I’m supposed to regard Kobe Bryant as a moral authority.

I mean, if the perp says I’m ignorant, then I’m clearly ignorant.

I wonder if Tiger Woods – whose behavior was recently endorsed by President Obama – has offered his own support of Collins’ homosexuality?  You KNOW if he hasn’t the only reason is because his publicist advised him to stay on the down-low on this one.

Professional sports is now like Nazi Germany – the first culture to warp sports into depraved political statements celebrating warped ideologies – you just can’t get away from the crap they’re pimping.

It’s kind of funny, if by “funny” you mean “twisted and warped”; a couple of years ago sports writers were questioning Tim Tebow and asking the question for our consideration:  “Should Tebow be so flamboyant about his faith? Should Americans keep their religious beliefs to themselves?”

CHRISTIANS are “flamboyant”???  Seriously?  I mean, dang, if you even like to SAY the word “flamboyant” there’s a pretty good chance you’re a homosexual.

And in today’s culture, it is a no-no to talk about your Christian faith.  You should keep embarrasing junk like that to yourself.  But if you want to come out and tell the world you love to be sodomized by another man after sucking his weenie for him first, well, expect a call from the president of the United States congratulating you.  And expect to be praised and celebrated by pretty much anybody who is anybody in today’s depraved culture.

I’m done with sports.

I saw an article in the Los Angeles Times that like most Los Angeles Times articles was so full of crap the paper ought to just be printed on dung.  The print version title was “2 views of gay NBA player.”

Make it ONE view that homosexuality is just neat and one utter mischaracterization of the despised view that it’s even possible there could be anything wrong with it.

Anyway, the two quotes from this piece of propaganda gibberish representing the “two views” are as follows:

“We have a lot less tolerance for people who make reactionary statements like Mr. Broussard,” Hilliard said, referring to ESPN television commentator Chris Broussard, who said Monday that, because of his religious beliefs, he did not condone homosexuality.

And let’s not omit the “Christian” view (at least “Christian” according to the Los Angeles Times:

All but one player agreed. “I’m a Christian,” said 17-year-old Jordan Bryant. “But I also feel that God created you to be what you can be. If He created you with an intent to like another male, then that is what you were created to be.”

Well, let’s first think about what Hilliard said.  If you have religious beliefs that in any way prevent you from celebrating sodomy, you are making “reactionary statements.”

Since when?  You know, given the fact that there was not ONE SINGLE CIVILIZATION IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY that embraced homosexuality.  You know, given the entirety of Western Civilization, upon which our own culture comes from, which specifically CONDEMNS homosexuality.  And, you know, given the thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition that our society is similarly based upon.

When did it become cool to describe Moses and St. Paul as “reactionary”???

How did the militant homosexual agenda that has been gaining ground for something like the last twenty years suddenly erase all previous human history???

And how did the militant homosexual agenda somehow sneak past even the Darwinian evolutionary view that homosexuality represents a complete dead-end for any species which embraces it???

It is frankly amazing.

And now let me turn to the words of this idiot named Jordan Bryant who has the moral idiocy to say “I’m a Christian” followed by a sentiment that comes right out of the place that God famously vaporized for wickedness.

When did what the Bible clearly and emphatically states become irrelevant to “Christianity”???

Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Romans 1:26-27 – “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Famed pastor John MacArthur has publicly declared that Romans chapter one is the official platform of the Democratic Party.  But just to make sure there is no place one can go to get away from it, it is also the official platform of most newspapers, most TV stations, Hollywood, and now all the professional sports leagues.

I’m going to be – in Kobe Bryant’s words – “ignorant” on this subject.  I’m going to side with God and let the rest of culture be damned.

What is the saddest thing of all is that most people who call themselves “Christians” are nearly as ignorant – and they truly ARE “ignorant” – as that 17-year-old Jordan Bryant idiot.  The Bible tells us NOT to participate in the world, the flesh and the devil.  But we’ve dived in and immersed ourselves in it.

We ought to be BOYCOTTING it.

Instead, the only ones who do any actual boycotting are the left who boycott anything that DOESN’T represent the world, the flesh and the devil.

As for me, I am done watching professional sports. ALL of them.

This is the culture just before the coming of the beast.  Soon, the world will be worshiping him and accepting his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.

And I’ll be in heaven with my “ignorant” Savior watching the world descend into literal hell on earth before the REAL hell comes upon them.

Mainstream Media Show They’re The Propaganda Mouthpieces Of The Professional Left. Again.

This is a tale of two events, with said events being only three days apart.

Let us begin with Sunday’s coverage of Barack Obama’s address announcing Osama bin Laden had been killed:

How Photos from Obama’s Speech on Bin Laden’s Death Were Staged
By Ujala Sehgal on May 4, 2011 2:08 PM

There is a fascinating piece at Poynter that describes how since the Reagan era (and possibly before) it has been the standard operating procedure that during a live presidential address, like the one President Obama gave announcing the death of Osama bin Laden, still cameras are not allowed to photograph the actual event.

Photojournalists from Reuters and AP described how President Obama basically had to silently re-enact part of his speech for the still cameras after giving it.

Reuters White House photographer Jason Reed writes:

As President Obama continued his nine-minute address in front of just one main network camera, the photographers were held outside the room by staff and asked to remain completely silent. Once Obama was off the air, we were escorted in front of that teleprompter and the President then re-enacted the walk-out and first 30 seconds of the statement for us.

The reason still cameras are not allowed during live presidential addresses is because of the noise from the camera shutters and the placement of the teleprompter, not for any sinister conspiracy-type reasons like we were hoping. And it’s been going on a long time.

The problem, according to Poynter, is that while many newspapers disclose that the photo they use is a re-enactment, some do not. And publishing these photos goes against the National Press Photographers Association Code of Ethics, which includes this relevant passage: “Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.”

We had no idea there was an ethics code for photojournalists, and we’re thrilled to find out there is one. How dare the White House force them to abandon it! We feel shocked and lied to! This practice of re-staging must come to an end.

So to whatever extent that there is an “ethics code” for journalists, they were only to happy to waive it for their liberal messiah-in-chief.

But let’s see how willing they were to waive the exact same “ethics code” only three days later, for Wednesday’s first Republican debate in South Carolina:

AP, Reuters to sit out South Carolina GOP debate
by Jim Romenesko
Published May 5, 2011 8:07 am
Updated May 5, 2011 8:11 am

Politico.com
The Associated Press cites “restrictions placed on media access.” Debate sponsors Fox News and the South Carolina Republican Party will only allow photos to be taken in the moments ahead of the debate tonight and not during the event itself, says the news service. “This is about whether visual journalists will be treated with the same respect that text journalists are treated,” says AP senior managing editor Michael Oreskes.

Keach Hagey writes:

Reuters confirmed that it would not be covering the event photographically, because it shared concerns about access. However, Reuters did not confirm whether it would be going as far as AP and not filing text either.

Nope.  The self-righteous high-horses were out and promenading across the dance floor when the mainstream media got a chance to denounce the same conditions that they gladly overlooked for their messianic hero Obama.

The same exact issue was at stake: Fox News, the host of the debate, said there would be no still camera photography allowed during the debates.  And the same people who rushed to overlook their “ethics” the one time determined to rigidly adhere to them only three days later.  And, I suppose, it was nothing more than a complete coincidence that they were so willing to overlook their “ethics” for a liberal president and so determined to rigidly adhere to them for Republicans who want said liberal president’s job just three days later.

Just remember that most of the people who “report” the news are hypocrites and liars who are far more interested in distorting the news than they are in reporting it.

UnAmerican Democrats Actually Boycotted The U.S. Constitution

Incredibly, many Democrats actually boycotted the House floor yesterday as Republicans read the U.S. Constitution aloud.  Not all of them – Nancy Pelosi was one who joined the Republicans in reading a section of the Constitution – but enough to make it clear that Democrats have a problem with the foundational document of the United States of America.

You would have thought that Republicans were reading child pornography rather than the document upon which our entire political system is based, and which every elected official – and which every soldier, airman, sailor and Marine – takes a sacred oath to defend.

Unlike Democrats, when I raised my hand and swore that –

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same” –

I actually meant it.

Charles Krauthammer, brilliant as usual, had this to say on Fox News Special Report on January 5th:

KRAUTHAMMER:  “It is truly astonishing. One member of Congress called it a long, dull document.  The New York Times editorial reading of the Constitution in the House is presumptuous.  Liberals got in trouble in the 60s and 70s for being on the wrong side of the flag and the anti-war demonstrations and now three decades later, they want to be on the wrong side of the Constitution.

The Constitution, after all – when these members were sworn in today, that they did not swear to defend the country or the army or the people; it was to defend the Constitution. That is the essence of America, and it is what makes us unique and why we are a country not of blood or race but ideas.  For liberals to think that there is actually an advantage in dismissing reading the Constitution and the requirement of having a constitutional reason to introduce a bill is real bad politics.”

And, of course, it’s not just “bad politics.”  Krauthammer underscores that better than anyone.  It is contemptible citizenship.  It is the act of unAmerican people.

Too many Democrats despicably wanted nothing to do with this document that made America the greatest and freest nation in the history of the human race.  They have a very different vision for this landmass known as “North America” than the great men who wrote the United States Constitution had.

One Democrat actually called the reading of the U.S. Constitution “propaganda,” adding that a reading of the Constitution amounted to “total nonsense.”  He added that Republicans were reading it “like a sacred text.”  When, of course, so many Democrats treat it more like toilet paper.  Liberal Ezra Klein added historical ignorance to his moral ignorance by saying that the Constitution is confusing, having been written “a hundred years ago,” and that it is no longer binding.

It is beyond official at this point.  We can separate the population of the United States of America into two groups: the American people and the unAmerican people.  And the Democrat Party has become the party of the unAmericans.

UnAmericans don’t give a damn about America.  They want to change it, pervert it, warp it, distort it.  They want to make it into something that it never was and never should have been.  And they call their effort “hope and change.”

Mind you, that’s “hope and change” for Karl Marx; never for George Washington.

I think this is a good time to reprint an article I wrote last year:

Just Remember: Democrats Don’t Give A DAMN About The Constitution Or Any Limits On Their Power
By Michael Eden

Do Democrats respect the Constitution, or recognize any constitutional limits on their power?  You decide.

Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Nancy Pelosi:

(CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Youtube audio of Nancy Pelosi dismissing constitutionality:

Yeah, people who actually care about the Constitution, and care about the fact that our lawmakers – who take an oath to uphold the Constitution – actually consider it.

Rep. Pete Stark, responding to a question on health care:

Questioner: “If this legislation is constitutional, what limitations are there on the federal government’s ability to tell us how to run our private lives?”

Rep. Stark: “I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life.  now the basis for that would be how does that affect other people.”

Questioner: “The constitution specially enumerates certain powers to the federal government, and leaves all other authority to the states.  The constitution is very limited as to what it can do…. if they can do this, what can’t they do?”

Rep. Stark: “The federal government, yes, can do almost anything in this country.”

Watch the Youtube video of this question and answer:

Liberal Supreme Court justices imposed abortion on the grounds of a fundamental right to privacy – which is actually nowhere to be found in the Constitution – based on nothing more than “penumbras and emanations” discerned from gazing into the Constitution like a crystal ball rather than like a historical document.  Now they are saying there IS no right to privacy of any kind, whatsoever in order to impose government health care and all the violations of rights and liberties that go hand-in-hand with that imposition.

If the federal government can do almost anything in this country, how then do you stop the next dictatorship?  How do you stop tyranny?  How do you stop totalitarian big government?

And let’s consider a corresponding Democrat’s statement on the same subject of government health care:

Democrat Rep. John Dingell:

“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re passing legislation that will cover 300 million American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

And, of course, Dingell is right: it takes time and effort to abandon the Constitution – which places limits on federal power – and then impose controls on the people that utterly abandon any scintilla of any meaningful form of constitutional government.

Democrat Robin Carnahan, Missouri Secretary of State and candidate for the United States Senate:

Carnahan: “We’re going to also have a libertarian and a Constitution Party candidate running.  And I will tell you no one’s going to know who they are, but it’s not going to matter, because Glenn Beck says you’re supposed to be for the Constitution, and there is some percentage of people who will go vote for them.  And in our internal polling about six or seven percent goes like that to the Libertarian and Constitution Party.  So I’m quite sure that whoever wins is going to do it with less than fifty percent of the vote.” […]

Donor: “You just don’t sound like those Constitution Party votes are going to come out of your account.”

Carnahan: “What do you think?” (Audience laughter)

Donor: “I think you’re right.” (Audience laughter)

Here’s the Youtube audio of that exchange:

Stop and think about that: it is a matter of mocking derision that no one who actually cares about the integrity of the Constitution is going to vote for the Democrats.  And in fact Robin Carnahan – who is serving as a Democrat in the office of Secretary of State – cynically intends to exploit the fact that she can divide those who care about the Constitution and win by attrition.

And they mock the fact that no one who votes Democrat gives a leaping damn about the Constitution.

Take Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky on “The Stephanie Miller Show” on 9/30/2010:

“Actually, I think really what it was was an effort to get the Tea Partiers to think that they really have some sort of revolutionary plan, because at the beginning they quote a lot from the Constitution, the idea that free people can govern themselves, that the government powers are derived from the consent of the governed.

All that stuff that I think that, that that’s an effort to try to appeal to those people, the Tea Party.

They embrace the Tenth Amendment – ‘tenthers,’ you know?”

The audio of the interview is available here.

That Tenth Amendment is a real load of crap, right?

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Let’s just go ahead and abolish it so we can have the kind of totalitarian big government that Democrats yearn for.  Because Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and all these other leftist dictators were just such groovy people, and we need their ilk here in red, white and blue America.

Yeah, that’s right.  Ridicule me, Rep. Schakowsky.  Call me a “tenther” like I’m a “birther” or a “truther” or some sort of nutjob because – unlike Democrats – I actually honor our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

Jan Schakowsky calls Tea Party people “extreme” because they actually take their Constitution seriously.  But this is a woman who was perfectly willing to abandon principles to turn ObamaCare into a Trojan horse for a socialist single payer system (and see also here).  This is a woman who said:

“A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer” – Rep. Jan Schakowsky (to wild applause).

Marxism and communism is not extreme.  Nope.  It’s not extreme to use ObamaCare as a vehicle to put the private sector out of business so you can sneak in a government-planned economy.  What’s “extreme” is believing in the Constitution that Democrats such as Jan Schakowsky once deceitfully swore an oath to uphold.

Take a moment and contemplate the massive gulf in respect for the Constitution and willingness to place oneself under in in two remarks by Chief Justice John Roberts and now President Barack Obama:

Chief Justice John Roberts:

“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution.  That’s the oath.”

President Barack Obama:

I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

Here’s the Youtube audio of Obama saying that:

Now, Obama says he doesn’t think it’s contradictory to say that the Constitution was a remarkable political document, but to simultaneously argue that it was fundamentally flawed and had an enormous blind spot.  But he couldn’t be more wrong: because he is arguing that the Constitution is a document that is fundamentally flawed, and which can and should be changed.  And rather than actually try to change it, he merely ignores it, ignores the spirit of it, and proceeds to impose his own “superior” and “more enlightened” will upon it.

Barack Obama:

“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution...”

And here’s the Youtube of that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

And that’s what Obama wants: he wants to be that radical who finally breaks free from those “essential constraints” that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.  And how does he want to do that?  By “reinterpreting” the Constitution in a radically different way that enables liberals to virtually bypass the Constitution altogether and impose their superior, more enlightened, more modern will upon the nation and the people.

Obama acknowledges that the Constitution doesn’t permit the “redistribution of wealth.”  But that trivial, meaningless little detail doesn’t stop him from doing it.  Constitution schmonstitution.  Who really gives a damn about it?

Dinesh D’Souza has a piece on how Obama thinks.  And it turns out that Obama thinks exactly like an African anti-colonialist Marxist.  And Obama himself implicitly acknowledges that, receiving his “dreams from his father.”

Liberal-progressive Supreme Court icon Thurgood Marshall expressed the quintessential liberal judicial activist view toward the Constitution in his statement:

“You do what you think is right and let the law catch up” (see Deborah L. Rhode, “A Tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall: Letting the Law Catch Up,” in the 44 Stanford Law Review 1259 (1992).

But to put it bluntly, that’s exactly what Hitler did.  Hitler thought it was “right” to kill every single Jew on the planet.  And any law and anything whatsoever that got in his way be damned.  He thought history would catch up with him in the aftermath of his glorious Reich and judge him wise.

Contrast what John Roberts believed with the liberal judicial activist view: one is under the Constitution, and rules in accordance with it’s strict, historical interpretation.  The other rules however the hell they want, based on what they “think is right,” regardless of what the law says.

And what is frightening is that Barack Obama appointed a new Supreme Court Justice – Elena Kagan – whose most profound mentor was none other than Thurgood Marshall.

It’s easy to be “constitutional” when you have a “living, breathing document” view that necessarily forces the Constitution to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean at any given moment.

I simply want to point out to you that the liberal progressives who now form the backbone of the Democrat Party despise the founding fathers, despise the Constitution, despise individual human freedom, and frankly despise anything and anyone that gets in the way between them and absolute power.

Please remember that fact when you vote this November.

And, thank God, most Americans DID remember that fact.  And Constitution-hating unAmerican Democrats experienced the worst defeat of any political party in over 70 years.

The problem is that Democrats are like the leaven that Jesus talked about when describing the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders of His day.  A little leaven of Democrat vileness leavens the whole lump of dough.

Let me ask a question: why did the incoming Republicans make it their first act to read the Constitution on the floor of the House, when it has never before been done?  The answer is because the Democrats in dictatorial control of the government spent the last two years crapping all over that Constitution.  And, yes, it is time we brought that great document back and started treating it like it was something sacred.  Because our futures depend on it.

John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  Clearly, Democrats are neither moral nor religious, and therefore the Constitution of the United States is now “inadequate” for them.

These people and everything they stand for must be rejected and repudiated.  It is either the Constitution or the Democrats, because the two have become fundamentally incompatible with one another.

Rabid Arizona Boycotters Continue To Be Boycotted – Blame Obama For The Whole Mess

Remember how Obama promised to transcend the political divide and reach out to “move beyond the divisive politics”?

Well, he lied.

Instead we have the most divisive and polarizing president in American history, a man who fearmongers, demagogues, and demonizes without regard for the truth.

Obama deceitfully and maliciously told a story of fathers being deported just for taking their children to get ice cream.  The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the Arizona immigration law that would produce anything like the fearmongering scenarios our Demagogue-in-chief claims.  And I defy anyone to actually cite the bills as proof of any such argument.

If you really want to go after a bigoted racist on immigration policy, why don’t you go after Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the Democrat Congress?  Because they’re running the federal government, and it is simply a fact that the federal law is FAR more “racist” than the Arizona law.

And, of course, Democrats gave a standing ovation to the President of Mexico, whose immigration laws protecting Mexico from Central American illegal immigrants are about as hard-core as it gets.

But none of that matters.  Not to Obama, and not to Demon-crats.  They’re liars and demagogues, and what else do you expect liars and demagogues to do if not lie and demagogue???

So, in the bipartisan, non-ideological, and transcendent world of Barack Obama, American cities boycott one another in a move to start an economic war that will bring the country crashing down.

The silver lining to it – if there IS one – is that the boycott appears to be hurting the cities of the rabid little liberal rodents even more than it’s hurting Arizona:

Boycott Backlash: Some stay out of city
Growing number vow not to do business in Austin
Friday, 21 May 2010

AUSTIN (KXAN) – The city council’s decision to boycott travel to Arizona is resulting in organizations and individuals boycotting the city of Austin in protest.

A growing number of political organizations, including the Odessa and Burleson Tea Parties, have decided not to do business with the city of Austin until the council rescinds the Arizona boycott they passed a few weeks ago.

“We will try to minimize what the city gets from our stay there,” said Hood county Republican Party Chairman Randy Shelton. “We will not stay in hotels inside the city of Austin and we will not ride the city transit.”

Shelton says they will continue to support Austin businesses but try to prevent any dollars from going towards city revenue. Other boycotts are more extreme.

A search online showed many more individuals vowing not to do business in Austin, including one poster who says they will cancel hotel reservations and a Leander resident who says they will skip having lunch inside Austin city limits.

The boycott apparently is already being felt according to the Austin Hotel and Lodging Association who sent KXAN this statement:

“The AHLA is not a political association and does not in any way support travel boycotts of any kind. Hotels in Austin are now beginning to experience concrete evidence from the many visitors now canceling their leisure or business plans to Austin.”

KXAN was told some of the cancellations include riders who normally take part in the Republic of Texas Rally.

All I can say, residents of Austin, is that you should have thought about this before you elected a bunch of leftwing ideologue loons to your city council.

I wrote an earlier article about San Diego reeling from counter-boycotts by pissed-off Arizonans.  Let San Diego’s tourism industry blow up in flames because Democrats are vile and intolerant people who just have to spread their hate around with boycotts against innocent and decent Arizonans who are just trying to deal with an impossible wave of illegal immigration and the crises created by illegal immigration.

And I frankly hope that Los Angeles is honest enough to cut off a full 25% of their electricity which is produced by Arizona.  And Arizona may help Los Angeles find their missing integrity by cutting off the electricity it supplies.  You want a boycott?  Let’s have at it.  Wonder how many Los Angelinos will die sweltering in the heat without air conditioning this summer as a result of their own city council’s stupid and immoral boycott?

This is all Barack Obama’s fault.  He’s the demagogue who started this.  He’s the one who has set us at one anothers’ throats with his fearmongering and his lies.  Thanks to him, we don’t have to worry about al Qaeda, or Iran, or North Korea; now we’ve got to worry about Los Angeles and Austin and a whole bunch of other cities starting an endless war of mutually assured economic destruction with the people of Arizona.

Maybe one of Obama’s top officials will finally actually bother to read the ten page law they’ve been demonizing.  None of them have so far.  The reason none of them have is because they don’t want to have to be held accountable to the truth.

California To Arizona: ‘Please Don’t Boycott Us For Boycotting You’

The liberal view: “If we slap you in the face, it’s justice.  If you slap us back, it’s just wrong.”

I can’t help but think how liberals – who were so filled with hatred and anger at George W. Bush and Republicans that it was positively unreal – are now so utterly flabbergasted that conservatives would dare feel the same way now that a liberal guy and a liberal party has total control.

It’s like, “How can you possibly treat us the way we treated you?  That’s just so immoral.”

Some in Arizona canceling trips to S.D.
Outrage over local censure votes may be a misunderstanding
By Lori Weisberg, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Friday, May 14, 2010 at 12:04 a.m.

San Diego tourism leaders and hoteliers fear they could lose a sizable chunk of business this summer from valued “Zonies” who are so angered by elected leaders’ recent censure of Arizona for its illegal-immigration law that they’re mounting an informal boycott of their own.

The San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau and several hotels report receiving e-mails and letters from Arizona visitors saying they intend to change their plans to travel here in light of local outcry over their home state’s anti-illegal-immigration stance.

Tourism officials are striking back. In an open letter, they urge Arizona residents to overlook local politics and come to San Diego just as they always have for its mild climate, beaches and attractions. The visitors bureau, in conjunction with the San Diego County Hotel-Motel Association, plans to circulate the letter to media outlets and in advertising this weekend in The Arizona Republic.

The bureau says it has received about 25 to 30 e-mails from Arizona residents reacting to resolutions passed last month by the San Diego City Council and school board, which were little more than symbolic protests aimed at the neighboring state’s lawmakers.

Still struggling from the prolonged economic downturn, San Diego’s visitor industry can ill afford to lose any of the 2 million Arizonans it counts on annually, said ConVis President Joe Terzi.

“We’re in a very tough environment already because of everything else going on, and we don’t need another negative impact to our industry,” Terzi said. “This affects all the hardworking men and women who count on tourism for their livelihoods, so we’re saying, don’t do something that hurts their livelihoods.”

Although the summer months typically are an economic bonanza for the San Diego visitor industry, the recession and continued high unemployment have eaten away at lodging revenue as hotels have steeply discounted rates to fill their rooms. The Convention & Visitors Bureau spent $9 million last year promoting the region for the spring and summer months and is dedicating $7 million toward that effort this year.

“I’ve been approached by a number of hotels who are very concerned because they’ve received cancellations from Arizona guests,” said Namara Mercer, executive director of the county Hotel-Motel Association. “It’s a huge piece of business for not just the hotels but for all of San Diego. Everybody’s excited because they think occupancies will be stronger this summer, and now this.”

I am in Arizona as I write this, and I can assure you that Arizonans are pissed off.  Even the Democrat Arizonans I’ve talked to are pissed off.  70% of Arizonans are in favor of this bill; and they feel singled out and under attack.

And Arizonans aren’t just going to take their ire out on San Diego.  They’re pissed off at Los Angeles, they’re pissed off at the state of California, and they’re pissed off at anywhere else that wants to attack them with a boycott.

As I was driving from California, I ate at an Arizona Burger King.  I have never seen so much stuff embracing a state on the walls of a fast food restaurant in my entire life.

Here is the text of the Arizona law.  Read it.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with this law.  All it does is make what is already a federal crime a state crime as well.  It doesn’t allow racial profiling; in fact it has more stipulations preventing racial profiling than the federal law.

The Los Angeles Lakers are in the NBA Western Conference Finals against the Phoenix Suns.  There is outrage over the fact that a Los Angeles City Council member said that the Lakers should take their own food to Phoenix so as not to spend money in Arizona. 

Los Angeles announced it was boycotting Arizona.  Rather than tell the Lakers to bring their own food, the city should require the Lakers to forfeit the series.  That would at least have the virtue of being consistent.  Instead, the message from liberals in Los Angeles is that they have no intention of hurting BIG Los Angeles issues; rather, they just want to hurt thousands of little people – in both states – who might well lose their jobs over this stupid boycott.

I’m a Californian, but in my atttitude I’m another pissed-off Arizonan.  I’m buying as much stuff as I can in this state to help out a righteous cause against an unrighteous one.

Right now, it costs a full third more to drive a U-Haul truck from California to Texas as it costs to drive one from Texas to California.  Do you want to know why you have to pay a huge premium to drive out of California?  Because you are just one more rat fleeing a sinking ship, that’s why.

And what does California want to do?  Cut off its damn nose to spite its face, that’s what.

Well, in that spirit, allow me to stick a fork in your eye, too, California.