Oppression Index

Jon Gabriel, Richochet.com: We’ve all argued with liberals, especially online. The issue could be health care, tax rates or city zoning rules, but they’ll quickly turn their policy disagreement into personal attacks.

Conservative: “I think hiking the minimum wage will reduce jobs.”
Progressive: “You would say that, RICH RETHUGLICAN!”
Conservative: “Actually, I’m lower middle class, so…”
Progressive: “Are you denying your WHITE privilege?”
Conservative: “Well, I’m Asian, and…”
Progressive: “I’m glad the PATRIARCHY protects your precious job!”
Conservative: “Wrong again. I’m a woman.”
Progressive: “Probably sitting at home baking cookies for your husband!”
Conservative: “I’m a lesbian. By the way, who are you?”
Progressive: “Stop voting against your own self-interest by electing old white men like me!”

Mine usually end in being called a racist, a moron, idiot,or some other ad homimem is thrown at me with as much daintiness, precision or “compassion” and tolerance as an armed Nuclear Warhead.

The argument gets trickier when progressives argue with each other. Since they aren’t used to debating the substance of issues, they revert to form. The goal is always to find who is more of a victim:

Prog 1: “We need to raise the minimum wage to $15!”
Prog 2: “No way, oppressor! $25 an hour!”
Prog 1: “Oh, you think a black man like me should just keep my mouth shut?!”
Prog 2: “Shut up, homophobe! My lesbian sisters need ‘$25 to Stay Alive!’ Want a bumper sticker?”
Prog 1: “As a Bisexual of Color, I only use mass transit, planet raper!”
Prog 2: “Oh yeah, well my last name is Gomez and I was raised by a single mom!”
Prog 1: “My mom died of breast cancer when I was 12!”
Prog 2: “How dare you speak that way to a proud working-class Latina lesbian with transient fibromyalgia!”

The key isn’t to discover the best solution, but to prove one’s superior moral authority. A progressive can only be the winner if he proves he’s the biggest loser.

Or at the very least that they are morally and intellectually superior (in their own mind) to you, you low-life, knuckle dragging Neanderthal idiot. 🙂

I’ve decided to help my liberal friends save time with an easy quiz. By printing and filling out the form below, they can quickly determine who is more victimized and therefore the victor in any given argument:

OppressionIndex

Now they can be happy about their oppression and complete moral authority to oppress you and make you adhere to THEIR agenda or else!

After all, it’s for your own good. They are Homo Superior Liberalis, and you’re not! 🙂


155067 600 Ebola Czar cartoons


155063 600 Spreading Contagions cartoons

Why it is…

This guy Christopher Cook from Western Free Press nails it. It’s a great summation of what I have said over and over again in this blog for the last 5 years.

“Conservatives see liberals as misguided; liberals see conservatives as evil.”
—Original source unknown

Are you a conservative, a libertarian, or a Republican? Have you ever been verbally assaulted by someone on the political left with a ferocity you didn’t quite understand? Have you seen it happen to friends and colleagues, or watched in horror as the media establishment does it to a public figure?

Of course you have. At some point or other, nearly everyone on the political right has witnessed or been the victim of an attack designed not to elucidate facts, but rather to paint him or her as a villain.

My attention was recently drawn to a typical such calumny from a Facebook exchange:

Republicans hate anything that isn’t white, wealthy, and christian at least in appearance. They hate the poor, women, and minorities. They hate science and don’t believe that the global warming we clearly are experiencing is man made. They hate any government programs that help the poor and minorities, and the particularly despise immigrants, particularly the illegal kind. They love programs that line the pockets of oil companies, mining companies, and are willing to export jobs with wild abandon.

They hate public education, and they despise public schools and the public school teachers and public university professors. And since the do not respect the market place of ideas, they hate tenure (that gives teachers academic freedom) because it prevents them from firing teachers who are Democrats and who might infect some student with their liberal ideas. They want insurance companies to make a maximum of profit, and are perfectly willing for the health insurance companies to kill people by refusing service to anyone that might cost them a buck more than the median expense. They don’t care about clean food because it might cost the food corporation a little money, and they don’t care about clean water because cleaning up the waste will cost their precious corporate persons a little money.

This is not a recitation of facts; it is a series of smears. It is the construction of a giant cartoonish super-villain, made of straw and woven together with calumny. The giant straw villain is then publicly burned, in a narcissistic orgy of self-adulation. Of course, the torches of the “best” people burn the brightest.

Or one of my favourites: “you should stop watching Faux News” end of discussion.

Another way of looking at it is this: It is the modern-day version of a witch trial. The charges are utterly farcical and cartoonish. “I saw her dancing with demons in the pale moonlight.” “She looked at me and I sneezed, and the next day, I had a terrible cold.” “She turned me into a newt.” But they are stated with great conviction and repeated incessantly, and they establish the unassailable collective will of which the accused has run afoul. The witch is made into the auslander, and the good people of the community show how “good” they are by shouting their accusations the loudest.

Either way, whether the wicker man or the witch, the effigy goes up in flames and the community is purged—for the moment—of its evil. Moral annulment now achieved, the villagers walk away feeling good about themselves. Feeling superior.

Facts are also unimportant in this perverse passion play. Like the slavering, semi-psychotic Facebook rant above, most such assaults aren’t a series of accusations backed up by facts, they are a series of character assassinations, most of which are contradicted by the facts.

The most salient example today is the charge that people of the right (conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, tea partiers) oppose Obama out of pure racism—simply because he is black. Though this charge is easily refuted—by common sense, widespread evidence, and actual studies—it is repeated incessantly by the media, the left’s foot-soldiers . . . even the president himself.

Anything short of full Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants is therefore, racist. Anything less than full compliance with Global Warming fearmongering is “denial” and also Racist (according to the EPA Director).

Face it, disagree with a Leftist on basically anything, eventually you’ll be  a racist. Period. End of Discussion. 🙂

When actual studies are done (as opposed to just restating what the leftist imagines to be so as if it were actual fact), we learn that real racism is distributed fairly evenly among the population without regard to political affiliation.  In 2008, a survey was done that showed similar numbers of Republicans (5.7) and Democrats (6.8) would not vote for a black presidential candidate. Such a question gives us one of the clearest possible tests of raw racism. A loaded question like, “Do you feel blacks receive too much welfare?” might confuse attitudes about race with attitudes about government welfare programs. But this gives us apples to apples: All things being equal, would you refuse to vote for someone solely because of race?

In the 2008 survey, Democrats were slightly (1.1%) more likely to show racist thinking than Republicans, though this is well within the margin of error. A similar study on senatorial candidates was far more damning to Democrats. Bottom line: there is little evidence that Republicans oppose Obama or any candidate on the basis of race to any greater degree than Democrats.

But this should be obvious based on other facts and indicators as well. Take Mia Love. If you are on the political left, you may not have heard of her, but she is a rising star on the right. She quotes Bastiat, she believes in core principles such as subsidiarity—she is dynamic, successful, and hits all the right notes. She is a black woman, and I have not met or heard of a single conservative, Republican, or tea partier who wouldn’t be delighted to support her. (Deep down, many of the left know this, which is why they have been so vicious to her.) I have worked alongside or come in contact with hundreds of activists and partisans on the political right over the last 15 years, and I cannot think of a single one who would not exult at a Mia Love victory. If she were elected president, I myself would do the happy dance on top of the tallest mountain in my area every November!

The reason is obvious: we agree ideologically. Race is unimportant. Barack Obama is, it can be fairly argued, further to the political left than any previous president. And people on the right oppose him so virulently for that very reason—not because of his race, but because of the huge ideological gulf that lies between. Imagine that.

The other painfully incessant canard is the notion that people on the right “hate the poor.” In fact, the evidence shows the opposite. Conservatives are more charitable than liberals by fairly significant margins, even when you adjust for a variety of factors. Rich, middle-class, and poor conservatives are all more charitable than their liberal counterparts.  It’s not that conservatives are wealthier overall, either—liberal households are 6% wealthier on average. (I bet you never heard that little fact on MSNBC.) It is also not that conservatives are more religious: new data indicate that secular conservatives give more than secular liberals. These conservatives are voluntarily helping the poor with their own money, in greater numbers than their liberal counterparts in every cohort. Conservatism is a greater predictor of charity.

Leftists (they hardly deserve the term “liberal”), by contrast, are more “charitable” with other people’s money. Leftist A votes for Politician B to take money (by force) from Taxpayer C to give it to Recipient D. A and D give more support and power to B, who continues to take more and more from C, in a perverse and ever-increasing form of economic bondage. Then, A, B, and D get together and say that C hates the poor. Lather, rinse, repeat.

But we are getting dragged into the weeds here. We could go on and on refuting fact after fact, but the facts are unimportant. The leftist is creating a narrative. As a marketing guru will tell you, Facts tell, but stories sell. It’s a lesson the leftist has learned well.

Even more disturbing, in recent years, this method of “argumentation” has increasingly become the first tool pulled out of the toolbox. No longer does the leftist feel as compelled to make real arguments. All he needs to do now is shout “Racist!” or “War on Women!” and his job is done. He walks away feeling smugly satisfied of his own politically correct superiority, and the untrained observer is left addled at best, and possibly even swayed by the narrative.

So why they are so vicious?  Why do people who self-describe as “compassionate” direct such vitriolic hate and assaults at their ideological opponents? How they can justify painting you as such a monster?

Simple: To them, you are a monster. You must be.

Reason #1: Utopianism
You’re in their way

Strip everything away, and the fundamental trait of all leftists is this: The believe that through the state, they can build paradise on earth. They believe that with enough tinkering, coercion, and rule by “experts,” they can eliminate all hard choices and competing goods, perfect human nature, and bring all good things to all people.

To someone of the political right—defined by our belief in human freedom, private solutions, and individual sovereignty—this is just the modern re-telling of the age-old story: that some men should rule over other men. Ancient despotism, monarchy, fascism, totalitarianism, modern progressivism—they’re all just different flavors, and different degrees of application, of the same basic philosophy. But the person on the left does not see it that way. He wants perfection. He believes it is possible. And by gum, he’s going to get it.

This utopian thinking quickly leads to an unavoidable conclusion, echoed from the French Revolution to Lenin and Stalin to Mao to the Progressives of the modern era: “On ne fait pas d’omelet sans casser des oeufs.” (You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.) To the utopian statist, “process costs” are entirely acceptable. They are building paradise, after all.

That’s why you see so much more toleration by the left’s rank and file of corruption and bad behavior by their leaders. What’s a little lying here, a little corruption there? They are building paradise. What’s a little cheating in the face of all they intend to accomplish?

That is also why you see such a prevalence of cult-of-personality adulation for strong leaders. Strong leaders resolve contradictions and sweep away the opposition. Strong leaders have the will to get the job done. Strong leaders get the trains running on time. Next stop, paradise.

But most importantly . . . these utopians—both the leaders and the rank and file—are so convinced of the nobility of their intentions that they believe that anyone who stands in their way must, by definition, have evil intentions. After all, who but a monster would stand in the way of paradise? And what consideration do monsters deserve? Why none at all, of course—they’re monsters.

That is why they do not simply disagree with you. That is why they calumniate you and attribute the worst motives to you. That is why they hate you.

Reason #2: Utopianism
The WORLD is in their way

The world refuses to conform to their utopian vision. The world isn’t the neat and tidy place they want it to be. They still hold onto the childlike belief that there can be goods with no tradeoffs, and this world of endless tradeoffs proves them wrong every day, mocking their childishness in the process. That makes them very angry.

Someone once said, “Conservatives believe what they see; liberals see what they believe.” Leftists hate you for the fact that you see the world as it is, rather than as it should be. You accept the facts of reality as they truly are, and you try to make the best of it. They believe that they can make reality conform to their vision of it. (That this effort always requires massive application of force against other human beings doesn’t bother them. It’s just another process cost.)

Your acceptance of reality as it is is pedestrian and troglodytic. Their vision of how reality should be makes them noble and romantic. They hate you for not living in the same fantasy land that they do. They hate you for recognizing that life is filled with tradeoffs. They don’t see the tradeoffs, so when you point them out, it’s as if you are the one that is making the tradeoff exist. La-La-La . . . I can’t hear you! Stop making bad things happen.

Your acceptance of reality makes them so angry, in fact, that they have convinced themselves that you must be suffering from some sort of psychological malady. Over the last century, dozens of self-reinforcing  junk-science books and studies have been published labeling “conservatism” (once called “classical liberalism”) as a mental disorder. Like the mental patient permanently lost in a psychotic world of his own creation . . . he’s normal, it’s the rest of you who are nuts.

Reason #3: Preening Narcissism
They are beautiful, so you must be ugly

The ideas of the political left produce failure at best and misery, oppression, and democide at worst. In spite of this, I had long clung to the belief that at least people on the political left “mean well.”

But do they? Or do they simply want to feel as though they mean well?

Author Robert Bidinotto asks (and answers) the same question:

Have decades upon decades of liberal policy failures deterred liberals from being liberals? Have the trillions of dollars blown on welfare-state programs since the “New Deal” and the “War on Poverty” made a damned bit of difference in curing poverty? And has that failure convinced “progressives” that there is something fundamentally wrong in their worldview and approach? Have the horrendous historical consequences of appeasement policies stopped today’s politicians from appeasing international thugs and terrorists? No?

Then why does anyone assume that liberals gauge the value of their worldview by the standard of its PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES?

Practical consequences are ALWAYS trumped by the advancement and protection of one’s core Narrative: the fairy tale that gives one’s life meaning, coherence, and moral justification. [ . . . ]

Doing that makes them feel good about themselves. And they would far rather feel good about themselves than actually achieve any of their stated practical objectives. It’s not about the objectives at all. It’s about THEM.

John Hawkins is just as unequivocal:

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it’s designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn’t work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they’re “protecting the environment” even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it’s not what a program does in the real world; it’s about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

If this is true, then for many, utopianism isn’t about what they think they can achieve, it’s about their own self-image.

So is it true?

The persistence of this vision in the face of centuries of evidence would seem to indicate that it may be. We know that maximizing human freedom is more moral and produces better results—the last two centuries have made that clear. And on the flip side, we know that maximizing government at the expense of the individual produces a parade of horribles. And yet, again and again, we are told that it simply wasn’t done correctly before, or by the right people.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?
Why you are, my dear—you are so compassionate and fair and noble in every way.

The leftist looks at herself in the mirror and sees that she is one of those “right people,” because that is how she wants to see herself.

And if she is so beautiful and noble and fair . . . then how ugly you must be for standing in her way.

 

The leftist—the utopian, the statist—sees himself as on noble quest. He is the embodiment of everything good, simply because that is how he sees himself. How he wants to see himself. In order to maintain this self-image, he must make you the embodiment of everything horrible. He must make you ugly.

To statists, you are just another process cost. Their willingness to accept process costs on the road to their utopia is limited only by national context. In the United States, an exceptional nation where we still have some rule of law, they will certainly calumniate you, and they may decide to harm your finances, career, or reputation. In less exceptional countries where there is less rule of law, the harm is often to people’s freedom or even their very lives, as more than 100 million poor souls discovered in the 20th century.

The typical leftist in America, ignorant of his own philosophical pedigree, will protest this characterization. Do not let their protestations sway you. The degree to which they will treat you—the monster standing in the way of their utopia—as a disposable process cost is limited only by the degree of power they have. For your own safety, do not let them get more.

You are in the way of the utopia they are trying to create. You are in the way of the power they need to do it.

You. Are. In. Their. Way.

utopia

“The conservative “thinks of political policies as intended to preserve order, justice, and freedom. The ideologue, on the contrary, thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature. In his march toward Utopia, the liberal ideologue is merciless.”― Russell Kirk

the Ministry of Truth It is an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete rising 300 metres into the air, containing over 3000 rooms above ground. On the outside wall are the three slogans of the Party: “WAR IS PEACE,” “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,” “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.” There is also a large part underground, probably containing huge incinerators where documents are destroyed after they are put down memory holes. (Hard Drives crashing anyone?)

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel, Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington

154418 600 Obamas Piece Prize   Reposted cartoons

Going Green

Just not Greenbacks.

President Obama declared today’s 41st annual Earth Day proof of America’s ecological and conservation spirit—then completed a three-day campaign-style trip logging 10,666 miles on Air Force One, eating up some 53,300 gallons at a cost of about $180,000. And that doesn’t include the fuel consumption of his helicopter, limo, or the 29 other vehicles that travel with that car.

“If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.” (at a prior town hall)

Green Day: The day set aside to save the planet has become a second Halloween where we fear imaginary planetary ghouls and goblins. Greenies get the treats, but the trick has been on us.

It is appropriate that Earth Day comes a week after Tax Day, for our slavish dedication to saving the planet rather than saving jobs imposes a hidden tax on all of us in the form of reduced economic growth and rising inflation.

This Earth Day, we have more to fear from rising gas and food prices than from rising sea levels.

We have long argued that wealthier societies are healthier societies and that reducing emission levels to those desired by such entities as the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change and treaties like Kyoto was a recipe for global poverty.

Consider that a 2008 MIT study showed that even the carbon footprint of a homeless person in the United States is more than four times the U.N. recommendation.

Last week, after a record 92 tornadoes struck North Carolina over the weekend, a Time magazine blog seriously asked the question, “Did climate change play a role in this violent outbreak of tornadoes?”

It is such constant fearmongering that drives climate change hysteria. Consider that the worst tornado outbreak in U.S. history occurred in 1974 — the year Nixon resigned.

That was also around the time that major media outlets like Newsweek were warning of a coming Ice Age. That year, there were at least 163 tornadoes in 13 states.

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has produced a chart showing tornado frequency fluctuating over time but in general decline even as levels of carbon dioxide increased since that record year and as improvements in storm detection, reporting and monitoring occurred.

Hurricane frequency and intensity, as well, are a natural cyclical phenomenon, made worse only by growing numbers rushing to the coasts, not fleeing from them.

Chalk this latest fear mongering next to the myth of Himalayan glaciers that were supposed to banish by 2035.

Fear is the warm-mongers’ stock in trade. Facts are not. But they lead us to do things like ban offshore drilling to save the fruitful and multiplying polar bears and to put corn in our gas tanks in the form of ethanol.

This only drives up demand for corn and food prices while the gas used to get to the supermarket soars in price as well.

We are still looking for the 50 million climate refugees the United Nations Environmental Program predicted in 2005 would be fleeing coastal areas and soon-to-be-submerged islands by 2010. At last report, the coastal cities to be affected are booming in population, as are the islands that are still well above sea level.

As Indur M. Goklany of the Cato Institute wrote recently in the New York Post: “Climate-change remedies can lead to greater poverty, starvation and disease, as well as widespread ecological destruction — some of the very misfortunes that they’re supposed to prevent. In our haste to address global warming, we have yet to think seriously about our policies’ unintended effects.”

Certainly the war on fossil fuels and energy consumption in general lead to reduced economic growth and lower standards of living.

It is based on the irrational fear that carbon dioxide, the product of human respiration and the basis of all life on Earth, is a dangerous pollutant.

These days the U.N. is seriously considering a proposed treaty granting human rights to the planet itself.

This is being pushed by those who consider the human beings on the planet a plague upon Gaia, the Earth goddess, and that efforts to reduce their numbers are to be encouraged.

These are the inmates that are running the global warming asylum. Boo! (IBD)

As all this suggests, environmentalism has become our newest religion. According to Joel Garreau, professor of law, culture and values at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, a religion is characterized by “a distinction between sacred and profane objects; a moral code; feelings of awe, mystery and guilt; adoration in the presence of sacred objects and during rituals; a worldview that includes a notion of where the individual fits; and a cohesive social group of the likeminded.” Environmentalism, Garreau concluded in an article last year, fits this definition of religion very well.

Environmental historian William Cronon of the University of Wisconsin, Madison — president-elect of the American Historical Association — writes of environmentalism that it has “certain landscapes — usually the wildest and most natural ones — [that] are celebrated as sacred”; it is “openly prophetic”; it develops frequent “parallels to biblical prophecy in the Hebrew and Christian traditions”; and it offers “practical moral guidance about virtually every aspect of daily life….from the apocalyptic to the mundane.”

Contemporary environmentalism prophesies virtually the same set of environmental calamities resulting from global warming: rising seas, famine, drought, pestilence, hurricanes and other natural disasters. Often without realizing it, environmentalism is recasting traditional biblical messages. The Endangered Species Act replaces Noah’s Ark; wilderness areas are the environmental “cathedrals”; Earth Day is the new “Easter,” a time for deep religious reflection and revival.

Environmentalism thus is literally, not simply metaphorically, a new religion.(DC)

So Happy Green Day. Happy, Happy, Joy Joy!

Save the Planet!

Just not any greenbacks. They’re evil! 🙂

And Satan is the $5 a Gallon for that evil Gas for that evil gas-guzzling behemoth you own.

And it’s “the rich” people’s fault!

Oh, and the EPA has declared your exhales as a “danger to human life” already.

And “green” products cost more.

But you must save the planet from you, or else you’ll go to HELL!

AMEN! 🙂

The Future of ObamaCare?

The Nationalized Health Care of Canada has stuck again.

This is ongoing and started earlier this week but Wisconsin took up the time.

If this doesn’t outrage you, you must be dead, or a Liberal.

But it’s coming to an ObamaCare near you…

London, Ontario Free Press: Jane Sims The London Free Press Moe Maraachli keeps the snapshots of his dying baby boy in an envelope in his jacket pocket.

He pulls out the photos of the son he’s about to lose, trying to  understand how a hospital, an Ontario health-related board assigned to  judge consent issues, and a London court could say he and his wife can’t  take Baby Joseph home to Windsor to die.

“I do my best for my baby. I do my best,” he said Thursday outside the London courthouse, tears in his eyes.

“This is killing, this is criminal . . . I’m sure this is murder.”

This Monday, on Family Day in Ontario, Joseph Maraachli, who’s in a  vegetative state from a neurodegenerative disease, will die after his  breathing tube is removed from his tiny body at a London hospital,  ending an ethical and legal dilemma that tried to balance unwanted  suffering with the needs of a child and his family.

“I lose my baby,” his father, 37, who came to Canada from Lebanon 11 years ago, said. “They take him from me.”

“I don’t lose my baby like God take him. They take him. They want to take him.”

“It was basically our family’s word versus the medical system’s  world,” said his aunt, Samar Nader, who’s sure she saw Joseph respond to  her this week when she touched his head.

“I think in medicine, they’re just looking at the world from a black and white point of view.”

“The family understands the child and for us to witness his death on Monday . . . I don’t know,” she said.

An emotional Superior Court Justice Helen Rady, who called it  “heartbreaking” and “such a sad and difficult case”, decided Thursday  not to allow the family’s appeal of a decision last month by Ontario’s  Consent and Capacity Board to have the child’s breathing tube removed  and put in place a do-not-resuscitate order and palliative care.

The baby’s father and mother, Sana Nader, 35, wanted the same  treatment for Joseph as was given to their daughter before she died,  eight years ago at 18 months – give Joseph a tracheotomy and  ventilation, and allow them to take him home to die what they would be a  peaceful death.

But Joseph’s doctors say while a tracheotomy – an incision is made in  a patient’s airway, to help breathing – may prolong the baby’s life,  it’s futile in this case and would likely cause much discomfort. It  would certainly also increase the risk of infection and pneumonia, they  argue.

“The medical officials would not want this little boy to suffer,” Rady said.

When born in January 2010, Joseph, now 13 months, was a beautiful, normal baby.

But five months later he started having seizures like his sister. By June, he couldn’t swallow.

In October, he stopped breathing while travelling with his parents.  He was taken to an Ingersoll hospital, then rushed to the London Health  Sciences Centre’s pediatric critical care unit where he’s been ever  since.

His father has stayed in London to be with his son.

His mother is in London every weekend and returns to Windsor to look after the couple’s other son, Ali.

Joseph’s on a ventilator and fed through a tube. He’s in what the  doctors call “a persistent vegetative state.” The doctors say he’s blind  and deaf.

He’s missing all five brain stem reflexes considered necessary for  life – gag, cough, eye movement, pupil and cornea responses. His brain  deterioration is irreversible.

A team of doctors, including a world-renowned pediatric expert from  Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children, has examined Joseph and agrees  he’s dying of the same progressive neurodegenerative disease that  claimed his sister.

Joseph’s doctor told the adjudication board that doctors  “reluctantly” gave the couple’s daughter a tracheotomy. Since then,  doctors have learned “substantially” more about the procedure and  determined it isn’t right for Joseph.

The board agreed with Joseph’s attending doctor that the baby has “no hope or chance of ever recovering.”

“While we feel a great deal of empathy for the parents, we held that  their view was not in any way realistic,” the board said, adding  Joseph’s parents “were blinded by their obvious love” for their child.

The State Board knows better!!!  Sound ObamaCare-ish? Yes!

Obamacare establishes the Independent Payment Advisory Board, whose stated responsibility is to develop proposals to reduce the growth of Medicare spending.
His parents fear Joseph will choke to death once the tube is removed.  They say he responds to their touch and wanted the board to see him in  hospital before deciding.

Rady said it’s unclear what the board would have seen had its members  agreed. And she noted that while Joseph’s head and body have grown, it  doesn’t mean the medical assessments are wrong.

The case digs deeply into the delicate balance of life versus. suffering.

Ethicist Margaret Somerville, of McGill University’s Centre for  Medicine, Ethics and Law, said the case is “a judgment where the parents  are giving priority to the prolongation of life and the doctor is  giving priority to the quality of that life.”

“I’m sure there’s no doubt in this case that this child has a very  poor quality of life, but we do know that health care professionals  judge quality of life much lower than people themselves do.”

Somerville said such quality-of-life decisions are delicate and often  at odds. What needs to be examined is why the family doesn’t agree with  the decision and if their reasons are acceptable, she said.

The board had ordered Joseph’s breathing tube be removed Friday, but Rady said that wasn’t sensitive to the family’s need.

Instead, she ordered they comply by Monday – a statutory holiday in  Ontario, to celebrate family – “to afford the whole family adequate time  to say their good-byes.”

Rady’s voice broke when she addressed the family. “I hope that in time you’ll find peace,” she said.

Joseph’s father wasn’t satisfied. “It’s not help,” he said later.

His lawyer, Geoff Snow, said he understands Rady’s decision but  added, “the loss of a child in any circumstances is tragic and it’s  unfortunate that there’s not more than could have been done.”

Lawyer Julie Zamprogna Balles, who acted for the doctor, said Rady’s decision was “well-reasoned and compassionate.”

While the case had “very sad and unfortunate circumstances,” everyone  involved, she said, have “focused on Little Joseph’s best interests.”

But a grieving Moe Maraachli said there’s “no humanity” in Canada. He expressed a desire to die himself.

“I stay with him until the last moments and hopefully I go with him,” he said.

THE ETHICAL ISSUE

Whether to provide medical intervention to prolong the life of a dying child who’s in a persistent vegetative state.

THE LEGAL ISSUE

Whether to allow an appeal of a decision by an Ontario health-based  board that adjudicates consent issues, to take the child off life  support.

****

LONDON, Ont. – A father who has been battling to stop a London, Ont.,  hospital from removing his terminally ill son from a ventilator stood  his ground Monday and defied a court order requiring him to give  consent.

Moe Maraachli says he and his wife Sana Nader are happy  the breathing tube keeping their 13-month old son Joseph alive has not  yet been removed.

But their fight to get the boy a tracheotomy so they can take him home to die isn’t over.

“I’m  very excited because my son doesn’t remove his tube today,” said  Maraachli, who has been sleeping at the hospital since Friday.

“All my family is happy. We are happy. We feel it’s really Family Day today.”

The Windsor, Ont., couple has been fighting for months against doctors at Victoria Hospital in London  who say their son should be removed from life support because he will  not recover from the rare neurological condition that has left him in a  vegetative state.

The family fears Joseph will suffer a painful  death if the ventilator is removed, and prefers that a tracheotomy be  performed so they can take him home to live his remaining days  surrounded by people who love him.

The couple’s 18-month-old  daughter died almost nine years ago from a similar medical condition.  She had a tracheotomy and lived at home for six months before she died,  said Maraachli.

But, last Thursday, Ontario Superior Court Justice Helen Rady ordered the couple to agree to take Joseph off the ventilator by 10 a.m. Monday.

The judge was upholding a decision already made by Ontario’s Consent and Capacity Board.

Because  the London hospital could not get consent to remove the breathing tube  from Joseph’s parents or other family members, it has the right to seek  consent from the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, said Mark  Handelman, Maraachli’s lawyer.

But Maraachli is hoping his son Joseph will be transferred to Michigan’s Children’s Hospital in Detroit.

Joseph  has been treated there before under the Ontario Provincial Health  Insurance Plan and the family feels they would have another chance at  persuading doctors to perform a tracheotomy if he returns there.

The couple’s friends recently contacted the U.S. hospital about a transfer and the London Health Sciences Centre, which Victoria Hospital falls under, was asked to send Joseph’s medical records there on Sunday.

The London hospital sent Joseph’s medical chart by courier to Detroit on Monday, said spokeswoman Laurie Gould.

“At this point in time we have not received any request for transfer,” said Gould.

If a transfer request is made, Gould said her hospital would contact the public guardian and “wait for their direction.”

The London hospital would not need permission from the public guardian to transfer Joseph to Michigan, said Handelman.

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, called the baby Joseph case sad and tragic.

Schadenberg questioned why doctors, not parents, should have the final say over their baby’s care.

“Is it right that the doctor has now so much power?” asked Schadenberg.

“I think the balance of power has shifted in Ontario too far, and I’m getting very concerned about who has the right to decide.”

Gould said the case is certainly “emotionally charged.”

The  hospital has received calls and emails from the public, some offering  prayers for the baby, who’s been at the hospital since October, she  said.

As cars honked their horns, a couple of dozen people holding  signs and photos of the baby held a vigil outside the hospital Monday  morning, an hour before the baby was to be removed from the ventilator.

Maraachli’s  sister-in-law Samar Nader said the family is “relieved and thankful”  for all the support they’ve received from the public.

“It’s true  that miracles do happen and I would never have expected for my nephew to  live past 10 o’clock without the people’s help,” she said.

****

(CNN) — A Canadian family fighting to keep their 13-month-old son on a breathing tube says they have been denied a request to have him transferred to a hospital in Michigan.

Moe and Sana Maraachli refused to sign consent when Canadian health officials determined their son Joseph, who suffers from a progressive degenerative neurological disease and was in a persistent vegetative state, should be removed from life support. Joseph is being treated at the London Health Sciences Centre in Ontario.

The Maraachlis reached out to the Children’s Hospital of Michigan in Detroit in hopes of having their son transferred there for continued care.

Family spokesperson Sam Sansalone said the hospital initially agreed to accept the transfer. He said he has since received an email indicating the request has been denied.

Sansalone forwarded an email from the Detroit hospital that he said explains that after a review of Joseph’s records by neurological and intensive care physicians, “we cannot offer Joseph anything that he has not been provided already during his current admission by his current clinical care team … transfer to our facility will not provide him or the family any benefit.”

Vickie Winn, a spokesperson from the Children’s Hospital, confirmed Joseph is not a patient at the hospital but could not offer further comment, citing patient privacy laws.

Sansalone said the family is pursuing at least three other hospitals in other states.

The family says the hospital has it wrong and that their son is not in a persistent vegetative state. Sansalone said they have noted experiences where the baby has responded to being tickled and has jolted when he felt discomfort with examinations or the feeding tubes. They say these are signs he might still have brain function.

However, Canadian health officials disagree. On February 17, they decided Joseph should be removed from life support. The family was given until February 21 to say their goodbyes and sign the consent, but they have yet to do so.

The Maraachlis are seeking a second opinion from what they consider to be an objective source that can review the more than 1,000 pages of Joseph’s medical records and provide a better assessment of their son’s treatment options.

If he is beyond hope, they want him to be able to receive a tracheotomy, where he can be transferred home and die in the care of family instead of in a hospital.

Experts say even if the family is granted this request, caring for a child in this condition is an arduous task.

Dr. David Casarett, director of research and evaluation at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wissahickon Hospice, says patients at home with tracheotomies need monitoring to make sure the airway is clear of secretions, the skin is clean and dry and someone can make sure the incision at the tracheotomy site does not get infected.

“A child’s care would be much more complex if a home ventilator is required, since the parents would need to manage the ventilator with the help of a nurse and respiratory therapist,” he said.

Suzanne Vitadamo, spokesperson for the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network and Terri’s sister, issued the following statement:

“It is unacceptable for Canadian Health Allocation Officials and/or the Canadian Government to make decisions for Joseph that will end his life and deny the wishes of his loving parents.

“Every patient, regardless of age, has a right to proper and dignified health care. It is frightening to once again see government usurp the God-given rights of parents to love and care for their child at home, especially when the child is dying.”

We are from the Government and we are here to help you, control you, and make decisions for you.

Rejoice!

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

All I Want For Christmas is My 6,488 Earmarks!


The Democrats have decided what they want for Christmas. Your front teeth and everything else you and the next several generations own.

They have stuffed their own stockings full of joy (for them).

They want to go out on a drug induced high.

They don’t care if Santa thinks they’ve been naughty.

THE LAST FEAST: 6,488 EARMARKS

$575.13 million per page

Political Cartoon

Senate Democrats have filed a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill that would fund the government through fiscal year 2011, according to Senate GOP sources.

Then there’s the DREAM ACT, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, etc. They are vastly more important than the debt or deficit!

And if we don’t get them, we’ll stay here until January 5th and hold our breath and turn blue until you kiss our buts!

The package drew a swift rebuke from Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee.

“The attempt by Democrat leadership to rush through a nearly 2,000-page spending bill in the final days of the lame-duck session ignores the clear will expressed by the voters this past election,” Thune said in a statement. “This bill is loaded up with pork projects and should not get a vote. Congress should listen to the American people and stop this reckless spending.

The Senate bill, though, boosts spending by $16 billion.

“We’re not through. Congress ends on Jan. 4,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat.

So we’ll keep you HOSTAGE until the very last second to pass our Agenda or else!

We are going to squeeze you and everyone else to the last possible second to get our Ideological Obsessions done whether you like it or not.

Screw the Elections! F*ck the Voters! Sh*t on going quietly into the night! Up Yours! 🙂

We want what we want and when we want it and we don’t give a crap about anything else!

Up Yours!

We love earmarked-to-your-death 2,000 page bills!

“Mr. President, at 12:15 p.m. this afternoon, my office received a copy of the omnibus appropriations bill. It is 1,924 pages long and contains the funding for all 12 of the annual appropriations bills for a grand total of over $1.1 Trillion. It is important to note that the 1,924 pages is only the legislative language and does not include the thousands of pages of report language which contain the details of the billions of dollars in earmarks and, I’m sure, countless policy riders.

“While we continue to uncover which earmarks the appropriators decided to fund – thanks to a new online database – we at least know what earmarks were requested by Members and how much those projects would cost the American people if they were all funded. Taxpayers against Earmarks, http://www.washingtonwatch.com and Taxpayers for Common Sense joined forces to create this database. According to the data they compiled – for fiscal year 2011 Members requested over 39,000 earmarks totaling over $130 billion. Absolutely disgraceful. I encourage every American to go to the website http://www.endingspending.com study it, and make yourselves aware of how your elected officials seek to spend your money.

“In the short time I’ve had to review this massive piece of legislation – I’ve identified approximately 6,488 earmarks totaling nearly $8.3 billion. Here is a small sample:

$277,000 for potato pest management in Wisconsin
$246,000 for bovine tuberculosis in Michigan and Minnesota
$522,000 for cranberry and blueberry disease and breeding in New Jersey
$500,000 for oyster safety in Florida
$349,000 for swine waste management in North Carolina
$413,000 for peanut research in Alabama
$247,000 for virus free wine grapes in Washington
$208,000 beaver management in North Carolina
$94,000 for blackbird management in Louisiana
$165,000 for maple syrup research in Vermont
$235,000 for noxious weed management in Nevada
$100,000 for the Edgar Allen Poe Cottage Visitor’s Center in New York
$300,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii
$400,000 for solar parking canopies and plug-in electric stations in Kansas

“Additionally, the bill earmarks $727,000 to compensate ranchers in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan whenever endangered wolves eat their cattle. As my colleagues know, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Gray Wolf program is under intense scrutiny for wasting millions of taxpayer dollars every year to ‘recover’ endangered wolves that are now overpopulating the West and Midwest. My State of Arizona has a similar wolf program but ranchers in my state aren’t getting $727,000 in this bill.

“Mr. President, I will have much more to say about this bill later this week. I assure my colleagues – we will spend a great deal of time talking about this bill and the outrageous number of earmarks it contains. But for now let me just say this: it is December 14th – we are 22 days away from the beginning of a new Congress and nearly three full months into fiscal year 2011 – and yet we have not debated a single spending bill or considered any amendments to cut costs or get our debt under control. Furthermore, the majority decided that they just didn’t feel like doing a budget this year. How is that responsible leadership?

“This is the ninth omnibus appropriations bill we have considered in this body since 2000. That is shameful and we should be embarrassed by the fact that we care so little about doing the people’s business that we continuously put off fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities until the very last minute.

“One thing is abundantly clear to me – that the majority has not learned the lessons of last month’s election. The American people could not have been more clear. They are tired of wasteful spending. They are tired of big government. They are tired of sweetheart deals for special interests. They are tired of business as usual in Washington. And they are tired of massive bills – just like this one – put together behind closed doors, and rammed through the Congress at the last moment so that no one has the opportunity to read them and no one really knows what kind of waste is in them.

“Let me be clear about one thing – if the Majority Leader insists on proceeding to this monstrosity – the American people will know what’s in it. I will be joined by many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle to ensure that every single word of this bill is read aloud here on the Senate floor.

“I encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to rethink their strategy and move forward with a short-term continuing resolution to fund the government into next year when a new Congress takes over – a Congress that was elected by the American people on November 2nd. “The majority may be able to strong arm enough members into voting for this omnibus – but they will not win in the end. The American people will remember – and I predict that we will see a repeat of November 2nd in the very near future.” (Sen. John McCain)

OBAMACARE UPDATE

The newest defense of the Health Care Mandate: Auto Insurance!

They are not even remotely the same thing.

I wrote a blog about this 15 months ago when they trotted this crap out the last time: https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/the-bad-analogy/

But let me just hit you with Point#1 that blows the whole argument to pieces in seconds:

If you don’t have a car, you don’t need or are required by law to have auto insurance!

Just try that under Obama’s Health Care. You’ll be hearing the jackboots of the IRS stomping on your face very soon…

Q.E.D. 🙂

And these are supposed to be bright people?

They are, but their Ideology is so far up their arse that it has throttled their brainpower.

And they don’t care, because they are vastly superior to you!

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Sheriff Sis Rides into Town

Imagine that. The Obama administration and Big Sis just stepping in and seizing businesses just because they want to, not from anything like due process. No, they are above that. They haven’t even had Congress pass the law yet and they are already doing it.  It’s their moral duty. 🙂

Imagine that… the Obama administration seizing something… 🙂

Hey, Sis, how about the Border?

Whoops! Politically incorrect. Sorry…Too busy trying to shove Amnesty down again…

How about foreign terrorists? Whoops!…can’t! No Profiling!

The investigative arm of the Homeland Security Department appears to be shutting down websites that facilitate copyright infringement.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has seized dozens of domain names over the past few days, according to TorrentFreak.

ICE appears to be targeting sites that help Internet users download copyrighted music, as well as sites that sell bootleg goods, such as fake designer handbags.

The sites are replaced with a note from the government: “This domain named has been seized by ICE, Homeland Security Investigations.”

For instance, borntrade.com, 51607.com, and amoyhy.com have each been seized.

One of the site owners told TorrentFreak that his site was shut down without any notice or warning.

The effort comes as Congress considers the Combatting Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). Critics, including Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) say it is too heavy-handed. He has vowed to put a formal hold on the bill.

Bill, who needs a Bill…Not Progressives on a mission to save you from the evils of the Internet. Nexzt stop, those evil bastards at FOX News.

Meanwhile, the border violence gets worse and worse and the criminals more brazen, but who cares! We’re been saved from the internet by Big Sis!!

You may not have a job. You may be on the verge of starvation or bankruptcy but damn if you still have your internet connection Sheriff Sis is in town and she going to clean up the poop!!

Rejoice Citizen!

Ninety-six pioneering Internet engineers have signed an open letter calling COICA a dangerous, unsound measure that would “risk fragmenting the Internet’s global domain name system.”(WP)

Congress screw up something that isn’t screwed up for their own political gain, gee, that never happens!

The very liberal Huffington Post: An entire generation has grown up having to battle their impressions of ownership they get from interests like industry associations they perceive as nefarious entities and the common sense notion that people should get compensated for what they create. In a generation of so many artists and entrepreneurs, the value of ownership is still strong. Yet, the disillusion with interests that bully their way through Congress and the courts is stronger. In the case of COICA, Congress shouldn’t burn the house to roast the pig. There is too much to lose.

And the Old Sheriff still wants to pass their own pet projects before leaving town.

Hugh Hewitt: A liberal friend of mine sent out an email this past week urging all of the recipients to urge their Representative and Senator to push for the passage of the Dream Act when Congress reconvenes next week.

I wrote back that such a result would be a disaster for the cause of real immigration reform, no matter what the short-term benefits he imagined flowing from the act. Anyone who wants a comprehensive solution to the problem of illegal immigration, one that begins with the completion of the fence and moves on to regularization of the millions of illegal aliens in the country, cannot hope for a jam down of the Dream Act through a discredited Congress.

Similarly, no proponent of a policy allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military should be cheering a quick vote on Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell in the next few weeks. Nor should any champion of campaign finance reform urge a vote on the Disclose Act.

In short, no serious proponent of representative government ought to be urging that the sweeping message of November 2 be ignored just so their particular special interest can garner a last-minute “win” in a lame duck Congress.

That lame duck session could and should pass a short term spending measure to allow for the operation of the government through, say, the end of February.

And it would be consistent with the mandate the GOP received at the polls to extend the Bush tax cuts until such time as Congress affirmatively votes to raise them.

But nothing should issue from this lame duck meeting of a discredited and repudiated Congress that in effect nullifies the vote on November 2.

“I won,” President Obama bluntly told GOP leaders at a White House gathering shortly after his inauguration in 2009. Though he might well have been much better served by some humility as well as some of the bipartisanship he campaigned on, the president was simply stating that elections have consequences. He received the powers of his office from the people, and he used them.

But this failed Congress ought not to be legislating as though nothing happened, or as though the people affirmed the recklessness of the past two years. The vote was a national knock-out of the left’s beliefs and program, a complete and utter denunciation of the tax-and-spend policies of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and to ignore that verdict is to strike at the very core of the country’s social compact: Voters are sovereign.

The temptation is great to try and use the last few hours of power to reward political friends and punish political opponents, but the cost is so high that even the most dogmatic liberal ought to refuse the temptation.

There are 23 Democratic senate seats on the ballot in November 2012. Any of those 23 who vote for any of the left’s last-minute agenda, or even for cloture on the bills, are telling their voters that those voters’ don’t matter to those senators. Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, for example, just witnessed a wave of red wash across the Buckeye State. If Brown participates in an anti-democratic jam down in December 0f 2010, that will be all that Ohio’s voters need to know between now and November, 2012 –that Sherrod Brown has contempt for them and their votes.

What Brown and many other Senate Democrats need right now is a does of well-deserved humility as to what they know and don’t know about the country. They completely misjudged the public’s appetite for spending and Obamacare. If they continue to refuse to listen, their countdown to retirement will have certainly begun.

The votes of these 23 over the next three weeks will define many races for 2012. No senator hoping to remain seated in January 2013 will ignore the results of November, 2010.

But since they are so morally superior and it’s for the best that they get in as much of THE AGENDA in before the barbarian hordes take over that they are compelled to do so.

<<Barf bag on standby>>

Oh, and by the way: IN VERACRUZ, MEXICO Exploiting loopholes in the global economy, Mexican crime syndicates are importing mass quantities of the cold medicines and common chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine – turning Mexico into the No. 1 source for all meth sold in the United States, law enforcement agents say.

After several years of declining production, the 2010 threat assessment by the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center said Mexico was again “the primary source of methamphetamine consumed in the United States.” A companion report was not released for fear of embarrassing Mexican President Felipe Calderon on the eve of his trip to Washington in May. (WP)

But don’t worry, Sheriff Big Sis and her posse are on it. 🙂  Internet Scum!

And Big Brother Barack has the North Koreans in a TSA hold. 🙂

Rejoice Citizen.

Political Cartoon by Gary McCoy

Boo-Hoo Economics

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Michelle “Antionette” Obama’s husband signed a Union Apparatchiks Bailout bill on Tuesday. It gave $26 Billion to state employees, primarily teachers (4 states of which that don’t even need it because there is no shortage!) and being the political animals in an election year what did they do to “offset” that spending?

They cut Food Stamps. 🙂

Or so the bill signed says (wait for the punchline, it’s coming).

Which prompts the liberal Boston Globe to complain:

ON TUESDAY, President Obama signed a $26 billion bill to help state and local governments cover Medicaid payments and avoid having to lay off teachers and other public employees. In what passes for high drama in Washington, the House of Representatives was called back from its summer recess to vote on the package, and the successful outcome was hailed as a major Democratic victory. “We can’t stand by and do nothing while pink slips are given to the men and women who educate our children or keep our communities safe,’’ Obama said. “That doesn’t make sense.’’
No, it doesn’t. But only by the occluded standards of contemporary Washington could this aid package be considered a victory. What began three months ago as a $50 billion emergency spending bill limped to the president’s desk at half that size and was largely paid for — “offset’’ in the clinical terminology of the budget — by cutting $12 billion from the food stamp program. In other words, a measure designed to help one group struggling in the recession came at the expense of another that is even worse off — and growing rapidly.

The number of people receiving food stamps stands at a record 41 million, or one out of every eight Americans. Driven by the downturn, that number has risen every month for the past 18 months. Last year alone, it grew by 20 percent. It’s grown by 50 percent since the recession began.

Then they say : The “good news’’ from an economic standpoint is that food stamps are a terrific vehicle for stimulus, because recipients spend them quickly.

Is that related to Nancy Pelosi’s unemployment comment that benefits are actually “Job creating” and that unemployment benefits “Create jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.” 🙂

Bad news is Good News and Good News is Good News. Orwell would be proud of them.

But I find this “offset” target very curious. And makes me wonder just how politically motivated it was, as in, they picked something that made it look like they were being “responsible” knowing they’d never really do it.

And it was less than they wanted to begin with, so they were being more “responsible”.

But the truth is, it was in part a Campaign Slush Fund transfer anyhow. 🙂

Along with a bailout of his apparatchiks.

It goes like this, they give these Billions to teachers unions and then the teachers unions turn some of that money right back around as PAC contributions to Democrats running for re-elections. So it’s free campaign money.

They have effectively porked their own candidates without actually looking like it.

Now isn’t that just peachy. 🙂

According to the Washington, D.C.-based Labor Union Report, the National Education Association in 2009 “raked in a whopping $355,334,165 in ‘dues and agency fees’ from (mostly) teachers around the country.” It spent close to $11 million more than it took in — $50 million of which union leaders poured into “political activities and lobbying” for exclusively left-wing and Democratic partisan causes and candidates.

Its primary mission? No, not educational excellence. Not “the children.” Political self-preservation.

Last July, the National Education Association’s retiring top lawyer, Bob Chanin, speaking at the NEA’s annual meeting in July, made the union’s true interests transparent: “Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children, and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.

“And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year, because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees . . .

“This is not to say that the concern of NEA and its affiliates with closing achievement gaps, reducing dropout rates, improving teacher quality and the like are unimportant or inappropriate. To the contrary.

“These are the goals that guide the work we do. But they need not and must not be achieved at the expense of due process, employee rights and collective bargaining. That simply is too high a price to pay.”

Left-wing radical Saul Alinsky taught his education acolytes well. Teacher organizers, he counseled, must commit to a “singleness of purpose.” No, not serving children’s needs, but serving the “ability to build a power base.” If that isn’t the dictionary definition of “special interest,” what is? (Michelle Malkin)

Back to the Boo-Hoo Globe: The justification offered by proponents was that food prices haven’t risen as much as Congress expected them to, and therefore cutting benefits to hungry kids isn’t really so bad, especially since the cuts won’t take effect until 2014.

Ta Da!  there’s the magic bullet!!

So they are cutting food stamps 4 years from now to pay for a Union Stimulus now!

Kinda sounds like Wimpy from The Popeye cartoons, “I will pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today”.

That’s Liberal economics for ya.

Which leads to….

The U.S. government spent itself deeper into the red last month, paying nearly $20 billion in interest on debt and an additional $9.8 billion to help unemployed Americans.
Federal spending eclipsed revenue for the 22nd straight time, the Treasury Department said Wednesday. The $165.04 billion deficit, while a bit smaller than the $169.5 billion shortfall expected by economists polled by Dow Jones Newswires, was the second highest for the month on record. The highest was $180.68 billion in July 2009.
The government usually runs a deficit during July, which is the 10th month of the fiscal year. So far in fiscal 2010, the government spent $1.169 trillion more than it made. That figure is about $98 billion lower than during the comparable period a year earlier.
For all of fiscal 2009, the U.S. ran a record $1.42 trillion deficit. Fiscal 2010 might run a little higher—the Obama administration sees $1.47 trillion.
Wednesday’s monthly Treasury statement said U.S. government revenues in July totaled $155.55 billion, compared with $151.48 billion in July 2009.
Spending was higher, totaling $320.59 billion. July 2009 spending amounted to $332.16 billion.
Year-to-date revenues were $1.75 trillion, compared with $1.74 trillion in the first 10 months of fiscal 2009. Spending so far in this fiscal year is $2.92 trillion, versus $3.01 trillion in the prior period.
Spending for benefits for the unemployed year to date totaled $121.4 billion; for July, the tab was $9.8 billion, the Treasury statement said.
Years of deficit spending by Washington have led to a mounting national debt. Interest payments so far in fiscal 2010 amount to $185.25 billion; by contrast, corporate taxes collected by the government during the same 10 months were $139.71 billion. Interest payments in July alone were $19.9 billion. (WSJ)

But don’t worry, this was all George W. Bush’s Fault! He made them do it!! 😦

Then Boston Globe ends with this sobbing whine: But the idea that they’ve won anything overall is hard to sustain. They sacrificed the most effective form of stimulus and capitulated to the Republican idea that deficits matter above all else. Their decision about who should bear the brunt of the offsets, and the silence that greeted it, suggests a moral capitulation as well. It may be a victory. But it’s nothing to brag about.

They have to be dishonest even to themselves in their Insufferable Perceived Moral Superiority and Outrage.

The cuts aren’t until 2014 ya dirtbags! You know, the same year the Health Care Mandate kicks in!  🙂 So they are sobbing about cutting something 4 years from now to pay for pork spending now and they are boo-hooing “it’s so unfair” about it.

Meanwhile the Deficit is climbing towards 15 Billion dollars and they just can’t stop the addiction to spending, especially on their own apparatchiks.

But that’s all George W. Bush’s Fault!

Where’s that Industrial Strength Barf Bag…