Forward II

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Michelle Obama: “The Vision That We Have For This Country Is The Right Vision”

“That is why we are so grateful to you all. That is why we did this again and we did it before and we will do it again because of all of you working so hard. Having this kind of energy, having this kind of focus,” First Lady Michelle Obama said to a group of Colorado Organizing For America volunteers Monday April 30, 2012 at Hillside Community Center in Colorado Springs.

“So, I just want to ask you one final question: Are you all in? I need to know! Are you all in?” Obama asked.

We are all in IT, for sure. That’s why we don’t need 4 more years of it!

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: “Fourth, we’re pursuing a negotiated peace. In coordination with the Afghan government, my administration has been in direct discussions with the Taliban. We’ve made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the Taliban — from foot soldiers to leaders — have indicated an interest in reconciliation. The path to peace is now set before them. Those who refuse to walk it will face strong Afghan security forces, backed by the United States and our allies.”

You’re an idiot. So you are going to negotiate a “peace” with the psycho muslims who crushed the country and attacked us and call that a victory? What a twit.

If they will just behave, we can work with them.And this hasty retreat is victory!

<barf bag overload>

ON OBL: Actual quote from Andrea Mitchell: “What do you think of the Republican criticism that we are politicizing it — that the White House, I should say, is politicizing it?”

Paging Dr. Freud! 🙂

***********

Thomas Sowell: Labor unions, like the United Nations, are all too often judged by what they are envisioned as being — not by what they actually are or what they actually do.

Many people, who do not look beyond the vision or the rhetoric to the reality, still think of labor unions as protectors of working people from their employers. And union bosses still employ that kind of rhetoric. However, someone once said, “When I speak I put on a mask, but when I act I must take it off.”

That mask has been coming off, more and more, especially during the Obama administration, and what is revealed underneath is very ugly, very cynical and very dangerous.

First there was the grossly misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act” that the administration tried to push through Congress. What it would have destroyed was precisely what it claimed to be promoting — a free choice by workers as to whether or not they wanted to join a labor union.

Ever since the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, workers have been able to express their free choice of joining or not joining a labor union in a federally conducted election with a secret ballot.

As workers in the private sector have, over the years, increasingly voted to reject joining labor unions, union bosses have sought to replace secret ballots with signed documents — signed in the presence of union organizers and under the pressures, harassments or implicit threats of those organizers.

Now that the Obama administration has appointed a majority of the members of the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB leadership has imposed new requirements that employers supply union organizers with the names and home addresses of every employee. Nor do employees have a right to decline to have this personal information given out to union organizers, under NLRB rules.

In other words, union organizers will now have the legal right to pressure, harass or intimidate workers on the job or in their own homes, in order to get them to sign up with the union. Among the consequences of not signing up is union reprisal on the job if the union wins the election. But physical threats and actions are by no means off the table, as many people who get in the way of unions have learned.

Workers who do not want to join a union will now have to decide how much harassment of themselves and their family they are going to have to put up with, if they don’t knuckle under.

In the past, unions had to make the case to workers that it was in their best interests to join. Meanwhile, employers would make their case to the same workers that it was in their best interest to vote against joining.

When the unions began losing those elections, they decided to change the rules. And after Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, with large financial support from labor unions, the rules were in fact changed by Obama’s NLRB.

As if to make the outcome of workers’ “choices” more of a foregone conclusion, the time period between the announcement of an election and the election itself has been shortened by the NLRB.

In other words, the union can spend months, or whatever amount of time it takes, for them to prepare and implement an organizing campaign beforehand — and then suddenly announce a deadline date for the decision on having or not having a union. The union organizers can launch their full-court press before the employers have time to organize a comparable counter-argument or the workers have time to weigh their decision, while being pressured.

The last thing this process is concerned about is a free choice for workers. The first thing it is concerned about is getting a captive group of union members, whose compulsory dues provide a large sum of money to be spent at the discretion of union bosses, to provide those bosses with both personal perks and political power to wield, on the basis of their ability to pick and choose where to make campaign contributions from the union members’ dues.

Union elections do not recur like other elections. They are like some Third World elections: “One man, one vote — one time.” And getting a recognized union unrecognized is an uphill struggle.

But, so long as many people refuse to see the union for what it is, or the Obama administration for what it is, this cynical and corrupt process can continue.

A small headline in the 2nd section of the Wall Street Journal last week told a bigger story than a lot of front page banner headlines. It said, “U.S. Firms Add Jobs, but Mostly Overseas.”

Just as there is no free lunch, there is no free class warfare. Some people may be inspired by President Obama’s talk about making “the rich” pay their undefined “fair share” of taxes, or taking away corporations’ “tax breaks.” But talk is not always cheap. It can be very costly to those working people who are looking for jobs that the Obama administration’s anti-business policies are driving overseas.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “Thirty-five big U.S.-based multinational companies added jobs much faster than other U.S. employers in the past two years, but nearly three-fourths of those jobs were overseas.” All these companies have at least 50,000 employees, so we are talking about a lot of jobs for foreigners with American companies overseas.

If the Wall Street Journal can figure this out, it seems certain that the President of the United States has economic advisers who can figure out the same thing. But that does not mean that the president is interested in the same thing.

In this, as in so much else, Barack Obama is interested in Barack Obama. Whatever bad effects his policies may have for others, those policies have had a track record of political success for many politicians in many places.

To put it bluntly, killing the goose that lays the golden egg is a viable political strategy, provided the goose doesn’t die before the next election. In this case, the goose simply lays its golden eggs somewhere else, so there is no political danger to President Obama.

Unemployment may remain a problem to many Americans, but that only provides another occasion for the Obama administration to show its “compassion” with extended unemployment benefits, more food stamps and various interventions to save home buyers from mortgage foreclosure. This can easily be a winning political strategy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt won his biggest landslide victory after his first term in office, during which the unemployment rate was never less than twice what it has been under Barack Obama.

The “smart money” inside the Beltway says that a high unemployment rate spells doom at the polls for a president. But history says that people who are getting government handouts tend to vote for whoever is doing the handing out.

The Obama administration has turned this into a handout state that breaks all previous records. Lofty rhetoric about “stimulus,” “shovel-ready projects,” “green jobs” or “investment” in “the industries of the future” all give political cover to what is plain old handouts to people who are likely to vote to re-elect Obama.

At the local level as well, history shows that some of the most successful politicians have been people who ruined the local economy and chased job-creating businesses away. Mayor Coleman Young of Detroit in the 1970s and 1980s was not worried when affluent whites began moving out of the city in response to his policies, because they were people who were likely to vote against him if they stayed.

Of course they took their taxes, their investment money and the jobs they created with them. But that was Detroit’s problem, not Coleman Young’s problem. Barack Obama may win re-election by turning the United States into Detroit writ large.

Something similar happened in earlier times, when James Michael Curley served 4 terms as mayor of Boston, and 2 terms in prison. As the non-Irish left the city, in response to Curley’s policies, that increased Curley’s likelihood of being re-elected.

This kind of cynical politics is even more likely to succeed when political opponents fail to articulate their case to the public. And Republicans are notorious for neglecting articulation.

The phrase “tax cuts for the rich” has been repeated endlessly by Democrats without one Republican that I know of saying, “Folks, I don’t lie awake at night worrying about millionaires’ tax problems. Millionaires have lawyers and accountants who get paid to do that. But I do worry about jobs being lost to millions of American workers because we make the business climate here worse than in other countries. That’s a high price to pay for rhetoric.”

The case can be made. But somebody has to make the case.

Are you listening Mitt?

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Work to Do

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Emperor Obama speaks,“I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Mr. Obama said in Shaker Heights, drawing applause from his audience.

President Obama today made an unprecedented “recess” appointment even though the Senate is not in recess – “a sharp departure from a long-standing precedent that has limited the President to recess appointments only when the Senate is in a recess of 10 days or longer,” according to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

It turns out that the action not only contradicts long-standing practice, but also the view of the administration itself. In 2010, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained to the Supreme Court the Obama administration’s view that recess appointments are only permissible when Congress is in recess for more than three days. Here’s the exchange with Chief Justice John Roberts:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And the recess appointment power doesn’t work why?

MR. KATYAL: The — the recess appointment power can work in — in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days. And — and so, it is potentially available to avert the future crisis that — that could — that could take place with respect to the board. If there are no other questions –

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.

But you’re assuming that a power mad Liberal even remembers or care what he did yesterday let alone 2 years ago. You’d probably be wrong.

After all, they want what they want when they want it. Nothing else.

So it’s good to be the King.

And the media will spin it that Republicans were “obstructionists” so that he could appoint his cronies and his anti-business liberals.

Obama, in a prepared statement, said the nation deserves “to have qualified public servants fighting for them every day – whether it is to enforce new consumer protections or uphold the rights of working Americans.”

However, one question a judge could need to answer is whether Cordray will actually be able to assume those powers since he has been recess-appointed. The text of the Dodd-Frank law states that those powers will not take effect until the CFPB director “is confirmed by the Senate.”

Is the Earth counter rotating because of the spin?

“It looks like the goal here is more the headlines and the confrontation and the politicization of this new agency rather than a substantive outcome,” he said.

And if they are so eager to have this “consumer advocate” in place that they’ll risk a court fight means they really had something wicked coming our way and they really, really, want it.

Be Afraid. Be very Afraid.

***********

Here’s something to drive the Occup-poopers and the “evil” rich Liberals:

Americans make up half of the world’s richest 1%

It only takes $34,000 per person to be amid the richest 1% of people in the world.It only takes $34,000 per person to be amid the richest 1% of people in the world.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The United States holds a disproportionate amount of the world’s rich people.

It only takes $34,000 a year, after taxes, to be among the richest 1% in the world. That’s for each person living under the same roof, including children. (So a family of four, for example, needs to make $136,000.)

So where do these lucky rich people live? As of 2005 — the most recent data available — about half of them, or 29 million lived in the United States, according to calculations by World Bank economist Branko Milanovic in his book The Haves and the Have-Nots.

Another four million live in Germany. The rest are mainly scattered throughout Europe, Latin America and a few Asian countries. Statistically speaking, none live in Africa, China or India despite those being some of the most populous areas of the world.

The numbers put into perspective the idea of a rapidly growing global middle class.

Sure, China and India are seeing their economies grow quickly, and along with that growth, large portions of their populations are also becoming richer. But remember, the emerging world is starting from a very low base to begin with, so its middle class is just that — still emerging, says Milanovic.

“It doesn’t seem right to define as middle class, people who would be on food stamps in the United States,” Milanovic said.

The true global middle class, falls far short of owning a home, having a car in a driveway, saving for retirement and sending their kids to college. In fact, people at the world’s true middle — as defined by median income — live on just $1,225 a year. (And, yes, Milanovic’s numbers are adjusted to account for different costs of living across the globe.)

In the grand scheme of things, even the poorest 5% of Americans are better off financially than two thirds of the entire world.(CNN)

So the Liberals have a lot more work ahead of them to make everything “fair” and “equal”. 🙂

So that’s why he has to have at least 4 more years! 🙂

The most “transparent” administration in history. Yes,VERY transparent. But what he’s transparent about is not a good thing.

**************

Given that Next Thursday will mark 1,000 days since the Senate passed a budget I present this by Judge Andrew Napolitano:

Since Barack Obama became president on Jan. 20, 2009, the federal government has not had a budget. It did not have one for the first two years of his presidency, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, and it did not have one for 2011, when the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Republicans controlled the House.

The Senate — continuously under Democratic control during the entire Obama presidency — has not voted out and sent on to the House any annual budget since George W. Bush was president. The House sent a budget to the Senate a year ago, but the Senate rejected it and sent nothing back in return.

In the nearly three years that Obama has been in office, the government has been collecting revenue, borrowing cash and spending ravenously on the basis of what the government calls continuing resolutions — known in Washington by the initials “CR.”

When Congress enacts a CR, it basically authorizes the government to operate for a finite and brief period of time. The period of time does not coincide with the government’s fiscal year. The federal government’s fiscal year runs from October 1st to September 30th. Here we are at the beginning of a new calendar year, and your government does not have a budget for its fiscal year that began more than three months ago.

Instead, the feds have operated under 15 continuing resolutions throughout the Obama presidency. Some of these CRs have been for as long as nine months, and one was as short as 24 hours. There was a time when the end of a continuing resolution would have brought intense media scrutiny. Will the government stay open? Will it shut down? Who will get blamed? Will Congress let the president spend money the government doesn’t have? None of this produces drama any longer, because the bizarre has now become the routine.

This new year will bring certain new tax rates, specifically for the payroll tax. The payroll tax is what you pay and what your employer pays to fund Social Security. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme: It pays out more than it takes in, and the government lies about its solvency. It once had a cushion, called the Social Security Trust Fund, but Congress took that money and spent it.

Can you think of any crimes here? Running a Ponzi scheme is a crime — just ask Bernie Madoff. And spending money you have lawfully agreed to hold in trust for someone else can get you in a lot of hot water, and likely criminal charges. Just ask Jon Corzine.

So here we are, at the beginning of a new year, and employers and employees don’t know what their payroll taxes will be in March. You cannot run a business, and you should not run your household, without knowing months in advance what your regular expenses will cost you. But when you have a government in which both wings of the Big Government Party — that’s the Republican wing as well as the Democratic wing — think they can bribe the people with their own money and the only difference between the two is how much of a bribe, when both wings think they can write any law, regulate any behavior and tax any event, no matter what the Constitution says, no matter what federal law says and no matter what the laws of economics say, is it any wonder the government is dysfunctional?

All of this demonstrates that the government lives in its own world. It writes laws for the rest of us and breaks them itself. It requires openness of corporations that trade publicly, but it won’t be transparent itself. It doesn’t read the laws it writes, and it doesn’t care about the Bill of Rights. What can you do? If you live in New Hampshire, you can vote for a game changer next week. There is only one on the ballot.

So hunker down, there is work to do. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

 

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 

 

The Future So Bright I have to Spin Dry

Presidenting for Dummies

The Obama administration is 0-for-3 in meeting economic expectations. In 2009, President Obama and his advisers believed the bountiful stimulus package would give the economy a strong jolt. It didn’t, and still hasn’t. In 2010, Obama declared Recovery Summer and predicted a surge in employment. The economy lost 283,000 jobs over the summer. This year, Obama expected a significant ratcheting up of jobs and growth. There’s been a ratcheting down. Presidenting for Dummies Gary Locke The White House always has an excuse. Obama’s economic policies are never at fault. The problem in 2009, according to Obama? The economy was in worse shape than he’d feared when he took office. In 2010, economic adviser Christina Romer said the dip in jobs was unexpected. No doubt it was, but that’s a lame explanation. And Obama stubbornly refused to express regret for having proclaimed Recovery Summer in the first place. Now, two years after the recession officially ended, the excuses for economic stagnation and puny job growth are stale and implausible. Obama didn’t offer any in an economic speech in Toledo a few hours after bad job numbers for May were released last week. Romer’s replacement, Austan Goolsbee, dismissed the 9.1 percent jobless rate as a bump “along the road to recovery.” House Democratic whip Steny Hoyer blamed the Bush administration—really, he did. Yet Obama labors on as if his policies are working, only a bit more slowly than he’d anticipated. In two and a half years in the White House, he appears to have learned nothing about what stirs the economy and produces jobs and growth. Evidence of failure, like 1.8 percent growth in the first quarter of 2011, matters little. Rather than a midterm course correction, Obama wants more of the same, lots more. (Fred Barnes)

According to the unemployment data released this morning, the economy added only 54,000 jobs, pushing the unemployment rate up to 9.1 percent. However, this report from MarketWatch suggests the data is much worse than that:

McDonald’s ran a big hiring day on April 19 — after the Labor Department’s April survey for the payrolls report was conducted — in which 62,000 jobs were added. That’s not a net number, of course, and seasonal adjustment will reduce the Hamburglar impact on payrolls. (In simpler terms — restaurants always staff up for the summer; the Labor Department makes allowance for this effect.) Morgan Stanley estimates McDonald’s hiring will boost the overall number by 25,000 to 30,000. The Labor Department won’t detail an exact McDonald’s figure — they won’t identify any company they survey — but there will be data in the report to give a rough estimate.

If Morgan Stanley is correct, about half of last month’s job growth came from the venerable fast-food chain. That is hardly the sign of a healthy economy. (Weekly Standard).

And McDonalds was the first of over 1,300+ companies and organization (and even states) to get ObamaCare waivers. Coincidence?? 🙂

But you won’t hear it from the Mainstream Ministry of Truth Press or even our Dear Leader.

President Barack Obama says the U.S. economy is still facing challenges and it is going to take more time to mend the wounds inflicted by the recession.

So you need to re-elect him in 2012 so he can finish the job. <<wink wink>>

“Every time we look at those numbers we don’t get too excited by what those numbers say, or we don’t get too disappointed by what those numbers say. What we’re looking at is the overall trend,” spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters traveling with the president on Air Force One. “If you look at where we’ve come from, the turnaround is pretty dramatic.”

He’s serious, folks. Really, he’s serious…

Distancing himself from new economic sputters, President Barack Obama on Saturday declared that recent “headwinds” were the result of high gasoline prices, Japan’s disastrous earthquake and jitters over a European fiscal crisis. He cited the U.S. auto industry’s resurgence as an inspiration for a broader recovery.

“We’re a people who don’t give up, who do big things, who shape our own destiny,” the president said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

<<Barf bag on Standby>>

Sen Lamar Alexander (R-TN) cited a perfect Obama example of the ‘right kind’ of job our Dear Leader wants and if he can’t get it, f*ck it!

He cited the case of Boeing, which was accused last month by the National Labor Relations Board of retaliating against union workers in Washington state who went on strike in 2008 by locating a new assembly line for its 787 aircraft in South Carolina, a state with right-to-work laws. The NLRB is seeking a court order that would force Boeing to return all 787 assembly work to Washington.

Obama promoted “investments” in education and technology, and touted his management of the auto industry, which he said saved millions of jobs.

The Bush and Obama administrations pumped $80 billion in taxpayer money into Chrysler and GM, with Obama guiding the companies into bankruptcy. The companies are now reporting profits, Chrysler has paid back all but $1.3 billion of its federal infusion, and the White House declared this week that the overall loss to taxpayers will be $14 billion, far less than initially expected.

And that’s the Good News!? 😦

The president also called for spending cuts and hinted at tax increases. “We’ve got to live within our means, everybody’s got to do their part,” he said. ”Middle-class workers like you, though, shouldn’t be bearing all the burden.  You work too hard for someone to ask you to pay more so that somebody who’s making millions or billions of dollars can pay less.”

Obama evoked national pride: “[W]e are people who will forge a better future because that is what we do… when we come together, no-one can stop us” – then reprised his ‘Win the Future’ slogan and declared that “we can live out the American dream again… that’s what drives me every day I step into the Oval office.”

<<excuse me>>  RALPH!….

“We’re still feeling the sting of the recession… even though the economy is growing, even though it has created more than 2 million jobs in the last 15 months,” 

<<RALPH>>

Consider the evidence: We already know that (a) the president appointed a debt commission, then ignored its recommendations on ideological grounds; (b) the White House has already released its 2012 budget, which was so disastrous that it received zero votes in the Democrat-controlled Senate; (c) President Obama offered a grand new “vision” for entitlement reform in April, which conspicuously lacked any actual solutions; and (d) Democrats everywhere are deliberately avoiding committing to any plan of their own, opting instead to focus their attention on demagoguing and lying about Paul Ryan’s responsible alternative.  Against that backdrop, ta da! (Nice catch by ABC Newsman Jake Tapper, based on his exchange with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney):

    TAPPER:  In the meeting yesterday with House Republicans, a number of the House Republicans said to the president that they wanted him to introduce a budget that was score-able — that CBO could actually assess — instead of what he introduced, the broad outlines and the April speech at GW, and the president seemed to indicate he was not going to do that.  You — I think you said from the podium that he wanted something score-able that was part of a compromise, not his own separate budget proposal.  Why not?  If the Republicans in the House are saying it would help the negotiating process to have a score-able —

    CARNEY:  Well, we heard two things — we heard two things from the Republicans yesterday:  one from the speaker that we need to get these negotiations wrapped up and finished in the next few weeks, and that the president should put forward a new plan, a new proposal, that should make its way through Congress and be scored.  I don’t think those are compatible.

    Everyone knows what the president’s position is, what his plan is, the parameters of his plan.  It’s quite clear.  The Democrats are aware of it.  Republicans are aware of it.  The president’s spoken about it at length.

    And that is what the vice president brought to the table for these negotiations.  We are at a point now where we don’t need new plans.  We need to find common ground around the shared goal of significant deficit reduction and come together, hold hands, and agree that we’re going to get this done and find as much common ground as we can in what the president believes needs to be a balanced approach towards deficit reduction — because as I said earlier, it is not a goal unto itself.

Translation: Uh, we have a plan!  (They don’t).  It’s very clear! (By definition, it isn’t)  So, we don’t need any, you know, score-able blueprints.  We need bipartisan consensus!  (Just like Simpson/Bowles?)  Another gutless runaround from Democrats on entitlements — color me shocked.  Hey, no worries — it’s not as if Medicare is cataclysmically speeding toward insolvency, or anything. (Guy Benson).

So what if the National Debt is over $14 Trillion. The Democrats haven’t passed a budget is April 2009. There’s a Double Dip recession on the horizon. Your house is worthless…But Obama is still in Large and In Charge!

Re-Elect him! He’s wonderful!

Be Happy!

Hope and Change II is on the way…

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

The Next Disney Fantasy…

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Groupthink

I found this funny: “New Tone”– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY5T1Pdiols

Funniest Editorial Cartoon in Years:

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

******************************************************

Crimethink is the Newspeak word for thoughtcrime (thoughts that are unorthodox, or are outside the official government platform), as well as the verb meaning “to commit thoughtcrime”. Goodthink, which is approved by the Party, is the opposite of crimethink.

Groupthink is a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas.

To make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of groupthink (1977).

  1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
  2. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.
  3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
  4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
  5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”.
  6. Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
  7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
  8. Mind guards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

The 2009 law that requires Wisconsin teachers to teach labor union and collective bargaining history to the state’s kids is seen by union bosses in the state as a means to promote their cause, frame labor’s message in a favorable light and increase membership.

Political propaganda as “education”, gee Liberals never do that!!! 😦

Self-serving Ideology as “education”, Liberals never do that! 😦

I’m sure it will be “fair” and “balanced”. 😦

When The Daily Caller reported that the state passed such a law in December 2009, it wasn’t clear that union organizers planned to utilize it to further their agenda. Newly uncovered information from an April 2010 conference, the Wisconsin Labor History Society, a pro-union group that pushed the new law through the all-Democrat state government in 2009, shows the state’s labor organizers and union bosses do indeed plan to use the controversial new law as a propaganda tool.

“I believe we are in the midst of an irrepressible labor conflict that has pitted the haves versus the have-nots,” said University of Wisconsin, Green Bay, history professor Andrew Kersten at the conference. “As Warren Buffett has said recently, ‘There is a class war, alright, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s waging it, and we’re winning.’ It’s not merely the money or the political power they crave, they seek to transform the way we think and act on a daily basis.”

At the conference meant to help teachers prepare new curricula to comply with the new AB 172 law, Kersten went on to say that teaching union history and “the struggles of working men and women and of unionists is vital to maintaining a healthy democracy.” In his speech, Kersten also attacked President Barack Obama for not focusing on labor unions in his 2010 State of the Union address, for not getting card-check legislation passed and for failing to get controversial former union lawyer Craig Becker appointed to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The history professor, who was supposed to be helping teachers prepare new classroom materials, also took a shot at then newly elected Sen. Scott Brown, Massachusetts Republican, for being the deciding vote against Becker on the NLRB.

“The reason why he rushed to take his seat in Washington, D.C., was not to block Obama’s medical and health insurance reforms, but to stop the appointment of Obama’s NLRB nomination, Craig Becker, the union lawyer and associate general counsel for the Service Employees International Union,” Kersten said.

Union bosses at the conference included the state’s National Education Association (NEA) director, Hedy Eischeid, the state’s AFL-CIO president, David Newby and the president of Wisconsin’s American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Bryan Kennedy.

AFT is a union for those in higher education, so Kennedy talked about how he’d teach teachers to teach about unions. “I recognize that there is an important and special role that I have as a university educator to educate future teachers on how to educate young people about labor union history,” Kennedy said. “As educators, many of us are aware that the first exposure many teachers had to unions is when they graduated, took their first job and were told they were a member of the teachers union. If they didn’t grow up in a union household, what does that mean?”

Eischeid said it’s better to teach teachers about unions before they develop their curriculum, and wants to “connect it to them personally.”

“Many of our own folks don’t really even understand what labor has done for them. I think it really has to start with our members,” she said.

Newby said this is a battle everyone in Wisconsin has to fight, not just teachers, parents and students.

“We have got to convince both teachers and the citizens of the state that teaching labor history is appropriate and, in fact, is necessary, if students are to understand the history of this state and of this nation,” Newby said. “And, that’s really an assignment for all of us, whether you’re involved in this particular project of labor history in the schools or not. And, all of us need to be talking to our neighbors, our co-workers, our family and our friends to get them talking about it as well, particularly those that have kids.”

The AFL-CIO also provided textbooks on the subject for every high school library, according to Richard Grobschmidt, the state’s assistant superintendent at the Department of Public Instruction.

The union bosses and academics who spoke at the conference knew, too, that they’d have to defend the new law in the near future.

“Now that we have a law, we must defend it, tooth and nail, for our opponents won’t rest,” Kersten said, while railing on conservatism. “They’re angry about the changes in American politics and have, as you’ve noticed no doubt, tripped up many meaningful reforms in the state and across the nation. It may not be long before they begin to target our own new law, as they have so many others.” (DC)

Yeah, the other side of the argument is very,very evil!! 🙂

It must be destroyed. That’s the new tone. 🙂

Why should liberals want to change the public educational system when it is turning out the product they have been striving for years to produce?

Check out these real news headlines from the past several weeks and months about the state of U.S. public education across the country:

  • “U.S. teachers tell U.N. sex is a ‘spectrum’ – advocate mandatory classes to free students from ‘religion'”
  • “Principal orders Ten Commandments yanked from school lockers”
  • “Teens ask for more sex ed, greater condom availability”
  • “State university defines Christians as ‘oppressors'”
  • “Why Catholic schools score better than public schools”
  • “Teachers take charge to save ailing public schools”
  • “Schools’ mandatory Arabic classes create firestorm”
  • “District taking money, but censoring Christians?”
  • “No opting out of pro-gay school propaganda”
  • “District pays up for slamming student’s rosary”
  • “Judge cites homeschoolers for violating U.N. mandate – Police interrogate parents, confiscate their curriculum”
  • “Some say schools giving Muslims special treatment”

On Dec. 27, 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote about his vision for the University of Virginia (chartered in 1819), “This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error as long as reason is left free to combat it.”

But what should happen 200 years later when our public schools and universities avoid the testing of truths? Or suppress alternate opinions because they are unpopular or politically incorrect? Or no longer tolerate opinions now considered errors or obsolete by the elite? What happens when sociopolitical agendas or scientific paradigms dominate academic views to the exclusion of a minority even being mentioned?

What happens when the political and public educational pendulum swings from concern for the tyranny of sectarianism in Jefferson’s day to secularism in ours? What happens when U.S. public schools become progressive indoctrination camps?

You get Today. You get the Public Sector Unions. You get the NEA and the AFT.

You get crap on a stick that cost an average of $10,000 per student and they can’t even read the f*cking diploma at the end of 16 years!

But they can be great mush heads for the Socialist Democrats!! 🙂

Polling firm of Luntz Research,notes that the 57 percent of faculty members represented in our most esteemed universities are Democrats (only 3 percent Republican) and 64 percent identify themselves as liberal (only 6 percent conservative). Moreover, 71 percent of them disagree that “news coverage of political and social issues reflects a liberal bias in the news media.” And the No. 1 answer they gave to the question, “Who has been the best president in the past 40 years?” was Bill Clinton (only 4 percent said Ronald Reagan).

This is why it is no surprise that the two largest teachers unions, the NEA and AFT, are the largest campaign contributors in the nation (giving more than the Teamsters, NRA or any other organization), and that 90 percent of their contributions fund Democratic candidates. In doing so, do we think such funding is going to balance traditional and conservative values in public schools?

Is this present, restrictive and one-sided educational environment that which Thomas Jefferson and other founders intended for the future generations of America? Absolutely not! Rather than encourage free thinking, the U.S. academic system has turned Jefferson’s plans for open education into our culture’s system of indoctrination. (Chuck Norris)
And that works for Liberals. Gotta get them young, before they figure out they’ve been had.
And better yet, control the Mainstream Media so they never have to find out!!
🙂
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Sign of the Times

Uber Progressive Leftist Alan Colmes on Megyn Kelly’s America Live yesterday discussing the 1/1/11 Tax Increases and Congress in general in getting things done implicitly said that 1-party rule (meaning Democrats) is the only way Washington can function anymore.

“But you don’t have 60 votes in The Senate to override a Republican filibuster”-Colmes

So unless you have an absolute supermajority  1- party rule where everyone is in lock step the minority is going to muck everything up.

Mind you, before Scott Brown’s election in January 2010 the Democrats did have a supermajority and STILL couldn’t pass their agenda. It took legislative trickery and dishonesty to pass ObamaCare after 15 months of wrangling, horse-trading,back room deals and manipulation by DEMOCRATS to pass it.

But even then, it was still the Republican’s fault!

So “Bi-partisan” is a myth.

The Democrats want total control or everything is going to go to hell. After all, they are the vastly superior economic and moral beings- if only those damn Republicans and those damn Tea Partiers would just get out of their way!

1- party rule (THEM) or bust!

I wonder if it will shift on the minority view when the Democrats are in the minority in the House starting in January? 🙂

It will still be the Republican’s fault, after all. Everything in life is, you know. 🙂

The “party of no” indeed…

But what do the Democrats want to do?

Here, for instance, is The Wall Street Journal‘s Kimberley Strassel:

“According to (Nevadan Harry Reid), Senate Democrats are going to confirm judges, rewrite immigration law, extend unemployment insurance, fix the issue of gays in the military, reorganize the FDA, forestall tax hikes, re-fund the government, and ratify a nuclear arms treaty (and the DREAM act) — all in two, maybe three, weeks. This is the same institution that needs a month to rename a post office.”

Or 15 months to pass Socialized medicine even with a Super-Majority! 🙂

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can afford to have all the tax rates go up in January because they couldn’t get together and pass a bill to prevent that from happening (but the Democrats will do it just to preserve their class warfare ideology). But the nature of that bill matters, not just for politicians but — far more important — for the economy.

Speaking of the economy, another sign of the times:

The Soon-to-be Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi just this week: “But it’s also the right thing to do to grow our economy.  Economists tell us that unemployment insurance — the non-partisan Urban Institute estimated that unemployment insurance returns $2 to the economy for every $1 spent. This is money that is needed by families to buy necessities, to heat their homes… and immediately injects demand into the economy — creating jobs.”

Yes, folks, you heard it here- Unemployment creates Jobs and stimulates growth!

So more unemployment must therefore be a good thing.

Let’s all lose our jobs, sit home and watch Oprah and collect our Unemployment $$$ . It should be  a Utopia by Pelosi’s reasoning. 🙂

And Speaking of Pelosi:

In one of her first acts as speaker in 2007, Pelosi, a California Democrat, created the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to draw attention to climate-change science and showcase how a cap on carbon dioxide needn’t be a threat to economic growth.

Republicans, who won control of the House in the Nov. 2 election, have opposed legislative efforts to regulate carbon emissions as a tax on energy. When the panel convened today, Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, said that the hearing “will be the last of the select committee.”

Too Bad Nancy, I guess you’ll have to peddle your Global Warming fraud another way…How about The EPA….

Republicans are assuming that cap-and-trade (aka cap-and-tax) is dead because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lacks the votes to bring up the House-passed bill and because this issue proved a loser in the 2010 House races. Like the famous Mark Twain saying, its death may be exaggerated.

The Senate’s environmentalism expert, Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., warns us that the Obama administration is trying to implement cap-and-trade anyway by bureaucratic regulations. Directives issued by the Environmental Protection Agency are coming down the pike to increase energy costs and kill jobs.

Last May, the EPA issued what it called a tailoring rule to govern new power plants, oil refineries and factories that yearly emit 100,000 tons or more of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride. Inhofe reports that this tailoring rule will further reduce our manufacturing base and especially hurt the poor and elderly.

Inhofe predicts that the EPA standards planned for commercial and industrial boilers will cost 798,000 jobs. He also warns about the harmful effects on jobs caused by new rules on ozone emissions.

Since Barack Obama moved into the White House, the EPA has proposed or finalized 29 major regulations and 172 major policy rules. The EPA is, for the first time, simultaneously toughening the regulations on all six major traditional pollutants such as ozone and sulfur dioxide.

Before Climate-gate exposed the politics behind the “science” of global warming, a 5-to-4 Supreme Court ordered the EPA to consider regulating emissions based on that unsubstantiated and now largely discredited theory.

Despite a long record of supporting Obama stimulus and spending legislation, the expected chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., says, “We are not going to allow this administration to regulate what they have been unable to legislate.”

Opposition to EPA’s new rules is remarkably bipartisan. Seventeen Democrats signed a letter to EPA Director Lisa Jackson opposing them.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., was elected after running a TV ad showing himself firing a rifle to put a bullet through a copy of the cap-and-trade bill, and he promised to fight EPA attempts to curb greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. He may have a difficult task because Jackson is plotting to force mass retirements of the coal plants that provide half of U.S. electricity.

EPA’s aggressive overregulation is forcing the electric industry to choose between continuing to operate while taking on major capital costs of complying with heavy new burdens or closing down and building new plants that use more expensive sources such as natural gas. The public will surely end up paying higher electric rates (aka a big tax increase).

The ObamaCare law was deviously designed to take decision-making away from our elected representatives and give it to 15 “expert” members of the Obama-appointed Independent Payment Advisory Board. Many provisions of this law prohibit Congress from repealing or changing decisions of the “experts.”

The Obama administration is using administrative regulations to implement what is known as card check, which even the Democratic Congress refuses to legislate. Obama’s recess appointee to the National Labor Relations Board, Craig Becker, has lined up a 3-to-2 board majority to repeal the rule that requires secret ballots in unionization elections.

Currently, a secret ballot of workers is mandated to unionize a company. Becker’s new regulation will eliminate workers’ right and make them subject to coercion and bullying to induce them to vote yes on a card visible to union bosses.

The Obama administration is also toying with a plan to substitute administrative regulations for treaties. Several years ago, the Council on Foreign Relations fingered the treaty provision of the U.S. Constitution as its most objectionable section, and now an ex-Clinton administration State Department bureaucrat, James P. Rubin, has floated a New York Times op-ed suggesting that treaties are not “worth the trouble anymore,” and we should substitute domestic regulations.

The globalists find it inconvenient that our Constitution requires a two-thirds Senate vote for treaty ratification. Horrors! That, they say, causes “international frustration” with America.

This frustration broke into print because there are not enough Senate votes to ratify the New START Treaty that Obama signed with Russia. Rubin’s solution is to ditch the ratification process and substitute executive agreements and pronouncements.

Rubin reminds us that after it became clear the Senate was not going to ratify a climate-change treaty, Obama just used EPA regulations, and so we can do likewise with arms-control treaties. Let’s just ignore the Constitution and let Obama bureaucrats make all important decisions. (IBD)

Or Food, let’s get them where they eat.

A questionable food safety bill in search of a crisis passed the Senate, but may hit a snag in the House. This power grab of the nation’s food supply may end up benefiting a certain Hungarian billionaire. (aka George Soros, puppetmaster of the extreme Left).

Why would the Senate take up precious time in the lame duck session considering a food safety bill?

Just as ObamaCare wasn’t really about health care reform but about government power, S510 is not really about food safety but about government control of agriculture and the nation’s food producers. The Food Safety Modernization Act would give the Food and Drug Administration unprecedented power to govern how farmers produce their crops. The FDA would be able to control soil, water, hygiene, and even temperature, on farms. Through the law, the agency could regulate animal activity in the fields.

“This legislation means that parents who tell their kids to eat their spinach can be assured it won’t make them sick,” said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who wrote the bill, referring to a recent e-coli outbreak traced to spinach.

A crisis is a terrible thing to waste, even if you have to manufacture one. As the Heritage Foundation reports, the nation’s food supply is the world’s safest and getting safer all the time. Incidences of food-borne illnesses, despite headlines about massive egg recalls, have been declining for more than a decade.

In 1996, there were 51.2 cases of confirmed food-borne bacterial contamination per 100,000 people.

By 2009, this fell by a third to 34.8 cases per 100,000 people. So it would seem it’s getting safer for kids to eat their spinach. But then again, this bill isn’t about spinach.

S510 transfers authority over food regulation enforcement from the FDA to the Homeland Security Department, which brought us the TSA, naked body scanners and the groping of our junk. The bill requires the EPA to “participate” in regulating the food chain.

The bill expands government authority and control over America’s 2.2 million farms, 28,000 food manufacturing facilities, 149,000 food and beverage stores, and 505,000 residents and similar facilities. It increases inspections of all food “facilities.”

Because it taxes them for the privilege, the House must pass a new version of the bill to be sent back to the Senate. The Constitution requires all tax bills to originate in the House, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who opened the session with a five-minute soliloquy on football, should have known that.

One interesting feature of the bill is a bunch of new regulations regarding seeds and seed cleaning that requires expensive equipment. Smaller concerns might not be able to handle the added burden, concentrating the handling of seed production in the hands of corporate giants like Monsanto.

Curiously, George Soros’ hedge fund has just bought 897,813 shares (valued at $312.6 million) of Monsanto. His hand seems to be in anything that weakens individual freedom and destabilizes currencies and free governments, and makes him money in the process.

Governments at all levels have been busy telling us what we should eat and how our restaurants should prepare our food. Trans fats are bad and must be banned, as must vending machines that dispense candy bars and soda. There’s talk of putting federally funded salad bars in our public schools.

So much for the pursuit of happiness — we’re from the government and we have ways to make you healthy. Thomas Jefferson once said: “If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

Well, ObamaCare has taken care of the medicine part, and now government is after our spinach, too.

You can have our turnips when you pry them from our cold, dead hands. Bon appetit, America. (IBD)

And there’s still the FCC with Net Neutrality and The Fairness Doctrine. The FTC with new regulations on businesses.

This Alphabet soup of liberal regulations is bad for anyone’s health.

“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”– Thomas Jefferson

We are from the Government and we are here to help you… 🙂

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”-Thomas Jefferson

Political Cartoon by Nate Beeler