News, Opinion, Politics »

By: Connie Mish
BOSTON, March 5, 2013

Out of curiosity, I decided to take a look at some of the statistics/demographics surrounding the most liberal and conservative cities in the United States. I’ve seen plenty of results from polls that point out the liberal and conservative states, but not much focus is on the cities. The latest Gallup article and percentages regarding the states shows the following:

The top 10 most conservative cities in the US are as follows:

Rank City State
1 Provo, Utah
2 Lubbock, Texas
3 Abilene, Texas
4 Hialeah, Florida
5 Plano, Texas
6 Colorado Springs, Colorado
7 Gilbert, Arizona
8 Bakersfield, California
9 Lafayette, Louisiana
10 Orange, California

The top 10 most liberal cities in the US are as follows:

Rank City State
1 Detroit, Michigan
2 Gary, Indiana
3 Berkeley, California
4 District of Columbia
5 Oakland, California
6 Inglewood, California
7 Newark, New Jersey
8 Cambridge, Massachusetts
9 San Francisco, California
10 Flint, Michigan

*Source: Bay Area Center For Voting Research

The states boasting the highest conservative rating have little special interest (with regard to dominating financial or political sectors); just a need to survive and a hope to thrive. On the contrary, the liberal states, have defined special interest; politics, Ivy League Universities to fund, and strong financial sectors. The top 10 liberal city’s have a great need for funding (political, financial, Ivy League Universities) and are being bled dry by the exact liberal policies that feed the funding. They are also ranked as the highest violence with the most gun control in place. Of course, I am overlooking the obvious educational and financial disparity in the state chart. It is clear at a state level that the most liberal states are the highest educated… that goes away at the city level, which is why you don’t hear it touted. Looking at the city level mixture makes the picture much too clear. Look closely. It’ s almost like it’s own little economy, only without a revenue stream of middle class. The educated, who want the money the most, manage to keep the under-educated, lower class which feeds the machine of putting policies in place to keep the middle class bleeding their hard earned dollars to support the lower class, the politicians, and the financial sector.

A very clear example of what happens when you run out of other people’s money is Detroit. Michigan.The fall of Detroit’s public sector was recently blamed on a culture of victimization and entitlement by Detroit Mayor, David Bing. Clearly, the public sector has trouble staying afloat and always has. Social Security has been mismanaged to a point of looming insolvency as early as 2033 if drastic changes are not made. What they say they need, according to SSA.gov, is more financing from taxpayers. Why not try managing the funds a bit better and stop paying people more than they’ve paid in, or those who havent paid in at all? Why are the needs of someone else, greater than those of the people who are working hard to put the funds in so that they can collect at a later date? I thought that ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ or in other words, a Ponzi Scheme was illegal? The US Postal Service is another clear example of the public sectors inability to run a company that produces a revenue stream. Instead, we see them reporting a record $15.9 billion net loss for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2012. Medicare is also facing insolvency. But they expect us to keep trusting them with our money, when year after year they show their inability to manage it. Of course their answer is increased government spending to get us out of debt…why didn’t I think of that?

Detroit, which was and is, the case study for liberal policies, used to have the highest median household income in the entire country but was destroyed by an influx of money, unions, and government control that forced the producers of that city to flee. Should we willingly choose to follow the example of the most liberal city in America, knowing where it leads, we will have only ourselves to blame and no one to bail us out.

News »

(1) The name “Jane Roe” was created over beer and pizza.

In 1969 Norma was 21 years old, divorced, and pregnant for the third time. (The first two children were placed for adoption.) After seeking an abortion but finding out it was illegal, and then driving to an illegal clinic only to find it closed, adoption attorney Henry McCluskey referred her to two young lawyers in Dallas, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee. Weddington (who had traveled to Mexico a couple of years earlier to have an abortion) was seeking a class-action lawsuit against the state of Texas in order to legalize abortion. It was an unlikely party at the corner booth of Columbo’s pizza parlor in Dallas: two recent law-school grads in business suits sitting across the table from a rough and uneducated homeless woman. The lawyers needed a representative for all women seeking abortions—one who was young, poor, and white. They just didn’t want her to cross state lines to get a legal abortion, or the case would be considered moot and dismissed. Without money and five months pregnant, Norma was the ideal candidate. After downing several pitchers of beer, they agreed on using the pseudonym “Jane Roe.” (“Wade” referred to Henry B. Wade, the attorney general of Dallas.)

(2) Jane Roe didn’t know the meaning of “abortion.” 

Weddington and Coffee told Norma that abortion just dealt with a piece of tissue, and that it was like passing a period rather than the termination of a distinct, living, and whole human organism. Abortion was a taboo topic in 1970, and Norma had dropped out of school at the age of 14. She knew that John Wayne movies talked about “aborting the mission,” so she thought it meant to “go back”—as in, going back to not being pregnant. She honestly believed “abortion” meant a child was prevented from coming into existence.

(3) Jane Roe never appeared in court.

Her lawyers drafted a one-page legal affidavit, which she signed but did not read. (Even today, she has not read it.) This was only the second time she would meet with her lawyers—and it turned out to be the last. She would not be called to testify and attended none of the trial. She found out about the Supreme Court ruling from the newspaper on January 23, 1973, just like the rest of the nation. Few on that day understood the implications of Justice Blackmun’s instruction that Roe v. Wade was to be read in conjunction with its companion case Doe v. Bolton, which effectively made abortion legal at any stage of pregnancy for any reason. As a result, the United States (with Canada) became the only Western country offering no legal protection for the unborn at any stage of the pregnancy.

(4) Jane Roe never had an abortion.

Norma had already given birth and placed the baby for adoption before the three-judge Texas panel ruled against her in May of 1970, long before the Supreme Court decision in January of 1973. She was in a committed lesbian relationship and would not become pregnant again. Abortion continued to be a part of her life, however. She went on to work in abortion clinics, holding the hands of women and offering reassurance as they terminated their pregnancies, and making appearances on the Roe anniversaries.

(5) Jane Roe became pro-life.

In 1995, while working at the clinic, Norma became haunted by the sight and sound of empty playgrounds in her neighborhood. Once teeming with kids, they now seemed deserted. And she began to see it was the result of what she once called “my law.” But the decisive change happened when she met Emily Mackey, a seven-year-old girl whose parents were protesting at the clinic where “Miss Norma” worked. Emily, who had almost been aborted herself, befriended Norma, showing genuine interest and love, giving her hugs and inviting her to church. Through the influence this young girl’s combination of truth and grace, along with those who shared the gospel of Jesus with her, Norma not only became convinced of the pro-life position but also converted to Christianity.

- See more HERE