The Actual Point

Conservatives spend a lot of time talking principles, but not as much time as they should telling people what they want to do for the average American. On the other hand, liberals talk incessantly about what conservatives want to do “to” the average American, but almost all of it is wrong. Here’s what conservatives actually want for Americans.

The Left is more than happy to define it’s “enemy”. So why is the “enemy” so willing to be defined by them?

1) A country where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, but isn’t dragged down by an insistence on equal results.

2) A safe neighborhood where you can let your kids go out and play in the front yard without having to worry about them being shot, kidnapped or coerced by gang members.

3) A country as free as possible of illegal aliens who commit crimes, use taxpayer services without paying, take jobs that should go to citizens and drive down wages for Americans.

4) An environment with clean air, clean water and clean soil.

5) The right to worship the God you believe in as you please, without interference from the state, as long as you don’t hurt anyone else.

6) An environment where Americans can reap rewards as large as the market is willing to pay for their particular talents, work ethic or unique skills.

7) The dignity of supporting yourself with a job, free of dependence on the government.

8) A government that will stay out of your way and allow you to reach your full potential free of interference.

9) The freedom to live as you please and do as you please with your property without interference from the government.

10) The ability of parents to be able to send their children to a school, public or private, that best fits their needs.

11) The protection of the world’s foremost military and a government that is willing to use it to insure the safety of American citizens.

12) A Medicare and Social Security program that are financially solvent long-term so they can continue to benefit retirees.

13) The freedom for people to speak their minds without being censored by the government.

14) A decent culture so that children have a chance to grow up without being morally corrupted.

15) A responsible government that keeps order in the streets, protects Americans from crimes, and enforces basic regulations to keep people from being taken advantage of by crooks or unscrupulous businesses.

16) The ability for women to achieve their fullest potential, whether that’s by being a corporate CEO, opening their own business or staying at home as a full time mom.

17) A country where people are judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. (Martin Luther King, anyone…)

18) Low taxes, so that Americans get to keep more of their hard earned money instead of sending it to the government.

19) A country where everyone from the President of the United to States to the humblest citizen has to obey the same laws or face the same potential penalties for breaking those laws.

20) A fiscally responsible government that takes great care to wisely spend the tax dollars it collects.

Maybe we should tack these theses to the doors of Congress and the White House! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez


Sowell Helpers

It is not easy to demonize people who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money to help educate poor children. But some members of the education establishment are taking a shot at it.

The Walton Family Foundation — created by the people who created Walmart — has given more than $300 million to charter schools, voucher programs and other educational enterprises concerned with the education of poor and minority students across the country.

The Walton Family Foundation gave more than $58 million to the KIPP schools, which have had spectacular success in raising the test scores of children in ghettoes where the other children are far behind in academic performance.

D.C. Prep, in Washington, whose students are mostly poor and black, has also received grants from the Walton Family Foundation. Its test scores likewise exceed those of traditional neighborhood schools, as well as the test scores of other local charter schools. Other wealthy people across the country have been doing similar things for years, including high-tech tycoons like Bill Gates and Michael Dell. It is one of the great untold stories of a unique pattern of philanthropy that makes America truly exceptional.

Yet these philanthropists have been attacked by the teachers’ unions and by others in the education establishment, including academics.

It was painful to watch a well-known historian of education on a TV talk show recently, denouncing people from “Wall Street” who have promoted alternatives to the failing public schools. Apparently, in some circles, you can just say the words “Wall Street” and that proves that something evil is being done.

You can listen in vain for any concrete evidence that these philanthropic efforts to help educate poor children are creating harm.

Instead, you get statements like that from the head of the American Federation of Teachers, saying, “they’re trying to create an alternative system and destabilize what has been the anchor of American democracy.”

If government-monopoly schools, with iron-clad tenure for incompetent teachers, have been an anchor, they have been an anchor around the necks of American students, who consistently score lower on international tests than students from countries that spend half as much money per student, and yet have students who outperform our youngsters, year after year.

It is not written in the stars that youngsters in ghetto schools have to score miles behind everybody else. Data from the 1940s show test scores in Harlem schools comparable to test scores in white working class schools on New York’s lower east side. (See “Teachers College Record,” Fall 1981, pages 40-41.)

Even today, particular minority schools — sometimes charter schools, sometimes Catholic schools, and sometimes even regular public schools headed by principals who defy the prevailing educational dogmas — turn out black students who can compete with other students academically.

Teachers’ unions and others who defend the public school establishment decry competing schools, on grounds that they are somehow undermining the public schools.

One of the claims is that these alternative schools drain money from the public schools. But expenditures per pupil in the public schools have risen during the era of the spread of alternative schools.

Of course, if there were no alternative schools, the total amount of money going to the public school system might have increased more. But this would not necessarily produce more money per student, since charter schools typically do not get as much money per student as the public schools get.

Then there is the claim that alternative schools “skim the cream” of the students, and that this explains why their test results are better. But many, if not most, charter schools select among their applicants through a lottery.

Lots of things need to be done by lots of people to improve our education system, especially for schools in minority neighborhoods. Demonizing those who are trying to help is not one of them.

But the Agenda is The Agenda!

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

His Brain was for it before his mouth was against it!…

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 

The Path

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Facing a billion-dollar budget shortfall, the Chicago Public Schools’ plan to close 54 schools, mostly in black and low-income neighborhoods, forces many students to cross gang boundaries to get a mediocre education.

Shuffling children around like so many deck chairs on a sinking ship, the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) announced the closings as a cost-cutting move, with CPS officials arguing that money being spent to keep underutilized schools open could be better used to educate students elsewhere as the district deals with a $1 billion budget deficit.

About 30,000 students will be affected by the plan, with about half that number moving into the remaining schools. CPS claimed the plan could “save the district $560 million over 10 years in capital costs and an additional $43 million per year in operating costs.”

That’s about 100 million a year. The debt is a billion a year. Fascinating liberal math as always…

Yet the suddenly cost-conscious CPS caved to the Chicago Teachers Union’s demands in a recent strike.

John Tillman of the Illinois Policy Institute notes Chicago’s unemployment rate is just under 11% and that the average Chicagoan makes just $30,203 compared to the average teacher’s salary of $71,000, even before benefits are included.

So your average teacher makes MORE THAN twice what the average worker makes. Gee, are they “the rich”? 🙂

And unlike parents who go to work each day to be judged on their productivity fearing each day might be their last, dismissing a bad teacher is harder than spinning straw into gold.

The Associated Press notes, “many of the schools identified for closure are in high-crime areas where gang violence contributed to a marked increase in Chicago’s homicide rate last year.” These schools are in “overwhelmingly black and in low-income neighborhoods.”

Wait a minute. Weren’t cold-hearted budget-cutting Republicans supposed to be the mortal enemies of the poor, minorities and children? How could this be happening in the heart of liberal progressivism, President Obama’s hometown run by his former White House chief of staff, Mayor Rahm Emanuel?

This is not the hope and change we were promised, lament local residents, who say the planned closings smack of racism. “I don’t see any Caucasians being moved, bussed or murdered in the streets as they travel along gang lines, or stand on the steps of a CPS school,” said activist Wendy Matil Pearson as opponents of the school closing plans protested outside a school in Chicago’s Austin neighborhood.

Such complaints and concerns are well-founded.

Recently Janay McFarlane, 18, was killed just hours after her younger sister was among a group of teens who were onstage as President Barack Obama gave a speech in Chicago on gun violence. Destini McFarlane, 14, sat just feet away as the president spoke of a similar murder of Hadiya Pendleton.

Chicago’s murder rate of 15.65 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the American 4.2, the Midwest’s 4.5 or Illinois’ 5.6 murder rates, despite the strictest gun regulations in the country. Up to 80% of Chicago’s murders and shootings are gang-related, according to police. By one estimate, the city has 68,000 gang members, four times the number of cops.

Yet Mayor Emanuel preaches even stricter gun control over gang control, including “universal” background checks to which Chicago gangs won’t submit. He opposes Illinois’ imminent concealed carry law, which would allow Chicago parents to protect themselves and their children from such thugs.

Emanuel also opposes genuine school choice even while saying he doesn’t want Chicago kids trapped in failing and dangerous schools.

He opposes giving parents a voucher allowing their children to escape such schools and the gang violence that often surrounds them.

Such are the fruits of liberal progressivism in Chicago.

Budgets are balanced on the backs of poor and minority children in a town in which gangs run rampant while its mayor puts the blame on inanimate objects called guns. Some in Chicago are calling it racism.

Or how about incompetence,greed, and political failure. All the hallmarks of a liberal 🙂
Michael Ramirez Cartoon
Immigration reform depends on a secure border. Nearly every lawmaker pushing reform, and certainly every Republican, stresses that the border must be proved secure before millions of currently illegal immigrants can be placed on a path to citizenship.But how do you measure border security? For years, the government estimated the number of miles of the border that were under “operational control” and came up with various ways to define what that meant.

Then the Department of Homeland Security threw out the concept of operational control, which Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano called “archaic.” The administration promised to create something called the Border Condition Index, or BCI, which would be a “holistic” (and a far better) measure of border security.

Time passed, with no BCI. “Nearly three years later, the department has not produced this measure, so at this hearing, we will be asking for a status of the BCI, what measures it will take into account and when it might be ready,” subcommittee Chairwoman Rep. Candice Miller, a Republican, said before Wednesday’s testimony. Getting BCI up and running is particularly important now, Miller added, because comprehensive immigration reform cannot happen without a reliable way to assess border security.

So imagine everyone’s surprise when Mark Borkowski, a top Homeland Security technology official, told Miller that not only was BCI not ready, but that it won’t measure border security and was never meant to.

“I don’t believe that we intend, at least at this point, that the BCI would be a tool for the measurement that you’re suggesting,” Borkowski told Miller. “The BCI is part of a set of information that advises us on where we are and, most importantly, what the trends are … It is not our intent, at least not immediately, that it would be the measure you are talking about.”

Miller appeared stunned and practically begged Borkowski, along with two other Homeland Security officials who were testifying, to tell her what she wanted to hear. “I’m just trying to let this all digest” she said. “We’re sort of sitting here, as a Congress … At what point will you be able to give us something?”

She never got an answer.

Even Democrats who oppose tying immigration reform to border security realized they were being played. “I would say to the department, you’ve got to get in the game,” said a frustrated-sounding Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee. “At some point, we’re going to have to have DHS work with us more concretely about the confidence of the security of the border.”

Rep. Ron Barber, the Democrat who replaced Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, noted, “The Border Patrol rolled out last May a new strategy that didn’t have goals, didn’t have metrics, didn’t have a process for evaluation”. That’s not really a plan, is it?

Miller, the chairwoman, reminded the officials that the Department of Homeland Security could end up being the “stumbling block” to immigration reform. But the hearing ended with no hint that any answers might come soon.

A related issue: As reform supporters often point out, a large number of illegal immigrants — more than 40 percent — did not cross the border illegally. Rather, they came legally, with a visa, and then never left. Members of the Senate “Gang of Eight” are promising tough new measures to deal with so-called visa overstays.

But like the case of border security, Congress has passed law after law, going back to 1996, requiring the executive branch to crack down on overstays. The promised enforcement has never happened.

Among the measures: The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; the Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000; the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001; the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002; and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. All directed the executive branch to stop visa overstays, but the problem remains.

A look at the recent House hearing, as well as at the long-standing overstay problem, highlights a major obstacle to comprehensive immigration reform. The executive branch has the authority to enforce border and visa security. But these days, it appears the executive branch, particularly the Department of Homeland Security, doesn’t want to do the job.

Why would passing a new comprehensive immigration reform measure change that? (Townhall)

It won’t. But THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA and the Agenda says they must do have Amnesty for all those new Democrats.

ALSO…

Fifteen members of Congress have written a letter to the Department of Homeland Security demanding to know why the federal agency is buying so many rounds of ammunition. We’d like to know too.

A good portion of the 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition are being purchased by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal government’s second-largest criminal investigative agency. Yes that’s the same ICE that is releasing detained criminal illegal aliens onto our streets because of sequestration cuts.

Jonathan Lasher, the Social Security Administration’s assistant inspector general for external relations, explained the purchase of 174,000 hollow-point bullets by saying they were for the Social Security inspector general’s office, which has about 295 agents who investigate Social Security fraud and other crimes.

When they say they’re cracking down on waste, fraud and abuse, they apparently mean it.

However, as former Marine Richard Mason told reporters with WHPTV News in Pennsylvania recently, hollow-point bullets (which make up the majority of the DHS purchases) are not used for training because they are more expensive than standard firing range rounds .

“We never trained with hollow points, we didn’t even see hollow points my entire 4-1/2 years in the Marine Corps,” Mason said.

LaMalfa offers one theory that’s less sinister than some: The federal government is simply trying to corner the market on ammo and restrict what’s available to the American people as part of its gun control efforts.

“The extraordinary level of ammunition purchases made by Homeland Security seems to have, in states such as my own, created an extreme shortage of ammunition to the point where many gun owners are unable to purchase any,” LaMalfa wrote in the letter.

While lower-level officials talk to the press, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano apparently doesn’t want to tell Congress herself the reasons for these purchases.

“They have no answer for that question. They refuse answer that,” Congressman Timothy Huelskamp (R-Kan.) told reporters recently, adding, “They refuse to let us know what is going on, so I don’t really have an answer for that. Multiple members of Congress are asking those questions.”

Homeland Security has acquired a number of Mine Resistant Armored Protection (MRAP) vehicles which have been retrofitted for possible service on the streets of the U.S. They were formerly used for counterinsurgency in Iraq. These vehicles are specifically designed to resist mines and ambush attacks.

As we noted in a recent editorial, DHS is also seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56-by-45-millimeter NATO “personal defense weapons” — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians.

If there are plausible explanations for all this, some congressmen would like to hear them.

Maybe DHS can answer Congress’ questions in a series of bullet points. (IBD)

🙂

Or maybe their Mexican Drug Cartel buddies will know…
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

More Fun By Liberals

The UK:

TEACHERS are banning schoolkids from having best pals — so they don’t get upset by fall-outs.

Instead, the primary pupils are being encouraged to play in large groups.

Educational psychologist Gaynor Sbuttoni said the policy has been used at schools in Kingston, South West London, and Surrey.

She added: “I have noticed that teachers tell children they shouldn’t have a best friend and that everyone should play together.

“They are doing it because they want to save the child the pain of splitting up from their best friend. But it is natural for some children to want a best friend. If they break up, they have to feel the pain because they’re learning to deal with it.”

Russell Hobby, of the National Association of Head Teachers, confirmed some schools were adopting best-friend bans.

He said: “I don’t think it is widespread but it is clearly happening. It seems bizarre.

“I don’t see how you can stop people from forming close friendships. We make and lose friends throughout our lives.” The Campaign for Real Education, which wants more parental choice in state education, said the “ridiculous” policy was robbing children of their childhood.

Spokesman Chris McGovern added: “Children take things very seriously and if you tell them they can’t have a best friend it can be seriously damaging to them. They need to learn about relationships.” (The Sun)

But the only relationship they are supposed to have is a Love for The State, isn’t it? 🙂

Children have made and lost friends for at least as long as children have had leisure time to play with one another — and probably before that. Those who learn to cope with imperfect friendships early in life are better equipped to handle the imperfect friendships that inevitably come later. (Besides, what friendship is perfect?) Does that mean I wish for every child to experience a falling out with a friend? Not necessarily — but it should be noted that fights often bring friends closer together in the end. Also, a life artificially sanitized of all friend-related disappointment sounds a little, well, artificially sanitized. And who wants that? (hot air)

Individualism must die. Long live the Collective!!

You don’t need any friends other than The State!!!  Now do you… 🙂

Wait!  It gets better….

In the aftermath of the Newtown tragedy, schools across America are tightening security, putting up fences, installing video surveillance equipment and hiring security guards  (and the liberals are doing what they do best– hysterically over-react). The horrific shooting has created an overwhelming uneasiness at schools and some districts, like one in southern Maryland, are looking beyond basic security to make sure they’re doing everything possible to protect their students from harm.

Administrators at St. Mary’s County School District have introduced a long list of new policies meant to create a safer environment for students at its 17 public elementary schools. Many of these rules, such as background checks for non-parent volunteers, are standard and make sense—but one of them, a restriction on hugging, has some people wondering if the district’s staff and community are taking things too far?

Yes, horrible things happen in the world and many people are untrustworthy, but is it so bad that we can no longer allow hugs at school?  Don’t kids need more, not fewer, hugs?

St. Mary’s new policy allows parents to hug their own children but parents and volunteers are forbidden from hugging or touching children who aren’t their own. A parent who is attending lunch recess can’t push a kid who isn’t her own in a swing or help a kid who scraped her knee put on a Band-Aid. If you’re a parent who volunteers at your kids’ elementary school, you know this could be tough, especially when that weepy kindergarten runs up to you and gives you a huge hug because someone just swiped her lunch bag in the cafeteria. But rules are rules, and at St. Mary’s schools you’d have to tell that little girl to step away.

So no chance for a BFF at all because you aren’t allowed to touch another human being!

You touch me and you’re in BIG Trouble! 🙂

“The fact is that we want to make certain our teachers and our staff are trained in what’s defined as the appropriate touching of a student versus inappropriate touch of a student,” Superintendent Michael Martirano told NBC News.

Mind you this is really is not all THAT new. Back when I was in Education in the early 90’s this discussion/warning about touching a child at any point that could end your career in seconds. Taking a child to the bathroom had to have practically a lawyer, legal witness and a Document signed in triplicate.

It’s no wonder discipline in schools has gone to hell.

The majority of the guidelines are meant to put restrictions around visiting parents and volunteers. Parents are prohibited from bringing younger siblings into school when it’s in session and from approaching teachers for a conference while visiting, according to the SoMdNews.com. District staff wants parents to schedule conferences ahead of time.

So if you’re mad at a teacher, Make an appointment so they can dodge it.

Parents who want to attend recess aren’t allowed to play with students other than their own. All school visitors are now required to check in at the front office and have their picture taken by a computer camera. Any volunteer who isn’t a parent must have a background check.

Homemade treats are forbidden because many kids have allergies and parents can now only serve store-bought goodies with clear ingredient lists to students other than their own. Birthday invites can’t be passed out at schools because those students who aren’t invited to a party might feel left out.

“We think it’s the right balance between safety and parental involvement,” Kelly Hall, executive director of elementary schools and Title I, told SoMdNews.com.

We have the right level of hysterical over-reaction.

Most teachers encourage their students to only pass out invitations in class if everyone in the room is invited. And many schools have restrictions around treats brought in from the outside due to the increasing number of kids with allergies.

Because excluding people is bad. 🙂

We are all one. We should all be one. And if you can’t include everyone, don’t do it!

The Collective must be maintained!

Michele Zip over at Cafe Mom wisely points out, “…a hugging ban isn’t going to prevent someone from doing something sinister … if that’s what this is about. Evil doesn’t follow rules.” (SFGate)

Especially silly Liberal ones.

And for the Coup de grace for today…

A Texas mom is furious after discovering that her son’s school is teaching students that the United States is partly to blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks that claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 people.

Kara Sands, of Corpus Christi, Texas, took to her Facebook and posted photos of the test administered by Flour Bluff Intermediate School. The test reportedly covered content in a video fifth-grade students watched in class.

Of all the questions about the 9/11 attacks, Sands was most disturbed by question three:

“Why might the United States be a target for terrorism?” The answer? “Decisions we made in the United States have had negative effects on people elsewhere.”

Unsurprisingly, the stunningly controversial lesson plan is part of the CSCOPE curriculum system that has come under fire recently. The same system includes lessons asking students to design a flag for a “new socialist nation” and dubs the Boston Tea Party as an “act of terrorism.”

“I’m not going to justify radical terrorists by saying we did anything to deserve that — over 3,000 people died,” Sands told KRIS-TV.

The irate mother immediately contacted her son’s principal and teacher and set up meetings with them. The school then reached out to the video’s distributor, Safari Montage.

“Representatives say they stand behind the video, but have already changed the corresponding quiz that may have caused confusion,” according to the report.

Another worksheet on the Bill of Rights apparently names food and medicine as “rights,” not a personal responsibility, according to Sands. She said her son’s answer was falsely marked wrong because he labeled food and medicine as the latter.

As a Texas parent, Sands said she is very concerned about what CSCOPE is teaching children. But the Flour Bluff Independent School District released a statement defending the use of CSCOPE.

Several parents are reportedly planning to bring the issue up during the next school board meeting on March 28 and Sands is encouraging more parents to get involved.

“When I teach my children that you have to work hard and you have to earn a living and they go to school and learn something different I absolutely take issue with that,” she added.

“When I teach my children that you have to work hard and you have to earn a living and they go to school and learn something different I absolutely take issue with that,” she added. (The Blaze)
Addendum: Since reporting the Maryland  story, the district has issued a statement softening their new guidelines. In a letter to parents, Superintendent of Schools Michael Marirano writes that “local, Washington and Baltimore, national, online media and social networks” have sensationalized the new policies and “St. Mary’s County Public Schools is not banning hugging and homemade treats.” “However,” he adds, “we are raising the awareness of safety issues and the need to provide more guidance and training to our parents and volunteers.”Geez, don’t over-react to our over-reactions!!

Because it wasn’t Maryland wasn’t the same state where a nine-year-old was suspended because his half eaten pop-tart was shaped like a gun.  OMG!!!! 🙂

In case you needed more arguments for homeschooling, there you have it.

You’re welcome. 🙂

From One Absurdity to Another

Before I get onto more race hussling and gun laws by the LEFT. Some true absurdity first.

The NY City Public School Banned Word List

  • Abuse (physical, sexual, emotional, or psychological)
  • Alcohol (beer and liquor), tobacco, or drugs
  • Birthday celebrations (and birthdays)
  • Bodily functions
  • Cancer (and other diseases)
  • Catastrophes/disasters (tsunamis and hurricanes)
  • Celebrities
  • Children dealing with serious issues
  • Cigarettes (and other smoking paraphernalia)
  • Computers in the home (acceptable in a school or library setting)
  • Crime
  • Death and disease
  • Divorce
  • Evolution
  • Expensive gifts, vacations, and prizes
  • Gambling involving money
  • Halloween
  • Homelessness
  • Homes with swimming pools
  • Hunting
  • Junk food
  • In-depth discussions of sports that require prior knowledge
  • Loss of employment
  • Nuclear weapons
  • Occult topics (i.e. fortune-telling)
  • Parapsychology
  • Politics
  • Pornography
  • Poverty
  • Rap Music
  • Religion
  • Religious holidays and festivals (including but not limited to Christmas, Yom Kippur, and Ramadan)
  • Rock-and-Roll music
  • Running away
  • Sex
  • Slavery
  • Terrorism
  • Television and video games (excessive use)
  • Traumatic material (including material that may be particularly upsetting such as animal shelters)
  • Vermin (rats and roaches)
  • Violence
  • War and bloodshed
  • Weapons (guns, knives, etc.)
  • Witchcraft, sorcery, etc.

You have updated your Thought Police Filters and have processed your doublethink and crimethink updates.

Now Citizen, don’t you “feel” better. More “inclusive” and less “discriminatory”.

(Is stupid one of the excluded words, or is it permissible for kids to learn about school?)

So with that in mind…

A Virginia middle school teacher recently forced his students to support President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign by conducting opposition research in class against the Republican presidential candidates.

The 8th grade students, who attend Liberty Middle School in Fairfax County, were required to seek out the vulnerabilities of Republican presidential hopefuls and forward them to the Obama campaign.

“This assignment was just creepy beyond belief — like something out of East Germany during the Cold War,” one frustrated father, who asked for his family to remain anonymous, told The Daily Caller.

“I was shocked that a school teacher would so blatantly politicize the curriculum of a middle school classroom,” the parent said. “I asked [my child] if a similar assignment had been handed out to examine the background and positions of President Obama to see if the teacher was at least being bipartisan.”

No similar assignment was given to research Obama’s history, identify his weaknesses or pass them along to the Republican candidates.

John Torre, a spokesman on behalf of the Fairfax County Public School system, insists that students were never instructed to actually send their results to the Obama campaign.

“Instead, the teacher simply asked his students to find out the name of the office that would receive such information,” Torre wrote in an email to TheDC.

Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

🙂

Attorney General Holder recently addressed the question of affirmative action, and for how long it would be required.  He answered, stunningly, that reverse discrimination has only just begun: “Affirmative action has been an issue since segregation practices,” Holder said.  “The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin[.] … When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?”

When do they get their revenge and become the Oh-so-sweet Oppressors instead of the “oppressed”.

We see in these remarks the soil out of which rises the bitter fruit of racial resentment.  Holder’s attitude is best summed up as the elite victim mentality.  The belief is one of perpetual entitlement, fueled by bitterness, and given the stamp of official approval by politicians at the highest levels of national office.  The Trayvon Martin upheaval is made possible by this carefully cultivated attitude, which exists within all income levels.  Whether it’s under the guise of injustice, inequality, under-representation, or white supremacy, the effect of the attitude is the same: sheer resentment towards the majority and its institutions. 

So when the New Black Panther Party says they are gathering a Posse (a lynch mob) and put a bounty on the head of a “white” hispanic no one on the left bats an eye.

But if you target Illegal Aliens (some of them “white” hispanics no doubt) with  a lawful Posse and the law itself, you’re “racial profiling”.

We all know the answer: elite liberal hypocrisy protects many academics and politicians from the application of their own dogmas.

Another case where the Left wants to control the thoughts and actions of everyone and any contradictions are to be washed away because they can do whatever they want when they want because they want and you shouldn’t question your Masters about you impertinent little twerp.

Attorney General Holder said at the time (2011):  When former Democratic activist Bartle Bull called the incident the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.

“Think about that,” Holder said. “When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people,” said Holder, who is black.

Holder noted that his late sister-in-law, Vivian Malone Jones, helped integrate the University of Alabama.

“To compare that kind of courage, that kind of action, and to say that the Black Panther incident wrong thought it might be somehow is greater in magnitude or is of greater concern to us, historically, I think just flies in the face of history and the facts.,” Holder said with evident exasperation.

“This Department of Justice does not enforce the law in a race-conscious way.” (Politico)

In Miami:

The Reverend Al Sharpton spoke to a crowd of more than 3,000 people, chanting “No Justice, no peace.”

And the Reverend Jess Jackson called for an “end to vigilantism.”

Democratic Senator James Webb pointed out in his famous Wall Street Journal editorial piece.  Sen. Webb noted that affirmative action policies have “expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white.”  Racial preferences extend to business startups, prestigious academic admissions, job promotions, and expensive government contracts.  Many of these preferences have no relationship to discrimination, oppression, or even socioeconomic class level; they even benefit recent immigrants whose ancestors never faced discrimination in America.  Instead, we are actually creating a government-sanctioned nobility — a favored class of citizens with officially endorsed, race-based hereditary privileges.

Under the sway of of identity politics and racial grievance, even the most privileged members of our society will hold onto petty gripes.  In a 2009 commencement address, the First Lady complained about her childhood experience with the University of Chicago.  Recalling that she grew up right near the campus, she stated:

[T]hat university never played a meaningful role in my academic development. The institution made no effort to reach out to me — a bright and promising student in their midst — and I had no reason to believe there was a place for me there.

That she felt entitled to be “reached out to” in the first place is astonishing.  The egomaniacal sense of entitlement contained in her remarks will strike most people as utterly foreign.  Yet this way of conceiving of one’s own position in society is commonly shared.  Amongst the lower class, this attitude takes the form of demands for “Obama money” and other such hilarity. 

Perhaps Michelle Obama should have made an effort at some point to understand why young white students, many of whom were not from Chicago, would have been reticent about venturing out into the South Side of Chicago.  The reasons are not hard to discover.  Immediately after their report on the First Lady’s address, CNN aired a segment on violent crime on the South Side.  Chief Ernest Brown of Chicago’s Organized Crime Division explained the high rate of youth violence by saying that “their behavior is just inconsistent with civility.”  With that in mind, many students — of all races — may not feel that it is their place to step into another community and attempt to help its youth.  In fact, not even Dr. Martin Luther King and his family stayed in urban Chicago for long after starting to work in the city in 1966.  Cohen and Taylor write that Coretta Scott King was concerned about violence in the neighborhood, and the Kings spent little time there [1].

Our own attorney general, ostensibly committed to even-handed enforcement of the nation’s laws, referred to blacks as “my people.”  Strangely, it is socially acceptable for only certain groups to proudly claim ethnic group membership.  If similar tribal loyalties were publicly boasted by a white ethnic, that would be seen as sinister.  Just imagine the reaction if a President Bush had identified — on the basis of race — with a victim of minority-on-white crime by saying, “Channon Christian looks like my daughters.”

Identifying with an ethnic group as one’s own “people” will lead in most cases to in-group favoritism.  Cultural pride is one thing, but proclaiming exclusive ethnic group affiliation while occupying a position of public trust is another.  This tendency is too often written off as a harmless cultural tic or a healthy form of therapeutic identity formation.  The trouble is that there is a worldview lying beneath the “my people” language.

In his remarks, the attorney general has provided the most explicit statement of ethnic favoritism and racial grievance by a high public official in American history.  And the racket has just begun: “When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?” asks Holder.  The question is rhetorical, and his constituents know the answer.

In this liberal, racialized conception of society, minority groups are supposedly not getting “benefits to which they are entitled.”  The danger in this attitude is not just that people are asking for free stuff from the government.  The danger is that minority group members are made to believe that society is purposefully withholding benefits from them due to their racial group membership.  Hence the resentment and latent animosity lurking at the core of the welfare state, and its ever-expanding legion of dependents.

The victim mentality feeds off racial bitterness, which is constantly politicized and enflamed.  We see this in the rhetoric of Congresswoman Frederica Wilson (D-Florida), who said that Trayvon Martin was “hunted down like a dog.”  The attorney general and president are doing their part to sow the seeds of bitterness, entitlement, and racial favoritism.  By acknowledging those seeds, one begins to understand why racial double standards and potential violence are so easily stirred up amidst controversies such as the current one involving Trayvon Martin.

Obama is Black. Romney is Not. Simple, really. 🙂
[1] Barone, Michael. 2000. Review of American Pharaoh: Mayor Richard J. Daley, by Adam Cohen and Elizabeth Taylor. The Weekly Standard. 21 August 2000: 33, 38.

(American Thinker)
Rejoice Citizen. Unless you’re “white” that is, then you must burn in the fires of hell for all of eternity because you are evil incarnate and should be put down like a rapid dog. 🙂
Candidate Obama 2008: I am absolutely convinced that white, black, Latino, Asian, people want to move beyond our divisions, and they want to join together…

In the 2008 campaign, Obama was packaged as the man who would be our first post-partisan, post-racial, post-carbon, post-beltway, post-bellicose foreign policy president. At last Americans would be free of the stain and humiliation of racism. Americans would be free of the childish thoroughly nasty divisiveness of our political life. The culture inside the beltway would no longer be one of collusion of lobbyists and politicians. No more crony capitalism and under the table deals. Obama’s administration would be transparent and above board. Opposing views would be treated with respect and the dialog would be adult and informed.

Action speak louder than his words.
LA Times 2008: Obama is what I have called a “bargainer” — a black who says to whites, “I will never presume that you are racist if you will not hold my race against me.” Whites become enthralled with bargainers out of gratitude for the presumption of innocence they offer. Bargainers relieve their anxiety about being white and, for this gift of trust, bargainers are often rewarded with a kind of halo.
Gee, Now isn’t that special…<<Barf Bag Overload>>

PJ (2010): Only last summer we were told that Barack Obama’s political appeal rested on his vision for a “post-partisan future.” The post-partisan future was one of the press corps’ favorite phrases. It served as shorthand for the candidate’s repeated references to “unity of purpose,” looking beyond a red or blue America, and so on.

Six months into the president’s term, you don’t read much about this post-partisan future anymore. It may be because on almost every big-ticket legislative item (the stimulus, climate change, and now health care), Mr. Obama has been pushing a highly ideological agenda with little (and in some cases zero) support from across the aisle. Yet far from stating the obvious — that sitting in the Oval Office is a very partisan president — the press corps is allowing Mr. Obama to evade the issue by coming up with novel redefinitions.

The things is is that he is “post-racial”- You’re either non-white or you’re evil and should be put-down.
He is “post-partisan” because only his rigid ideology is permissible and the media is happy with that one-side no-partisan view (no-partisan because there is only one side to every issue-theirs. Nothing else is worth mentioning).
And as for Crony Capitalism, well, he’s just replacing evil capitalists with Socialist Cronies. His cronies are much better than your cronies.
Remember, Obama is VERY transparent. You just have to be willing to see it as it is, not what he wants you to see.
Oh, and then there’s the ulterior motive: “The idea that there’s this overwhelming additional security in the ownership and carrying concealed and deadly weapons… I think it’s the premise, not the constitutional right, but the premise that it makes people safer is one that I’m not so sure of,” <Vice President> Biden said.
Fast & Furious anyone?
After all, it is dangerous for the citizenry to gave guns. (Dangerous for the dictator-wanna be’s in the Democrat Party that is).
Now don’t you “feel” better. 🙂

Is it Fair?

Stephen Moore: President Obama has frequently justified his policies—and judged their outcomes—in terms of equity, justice and fairness. That raises an obvious question: How does our existing system—and his own policy record—stack up according to those criteria?

Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax?

Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country’s income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?

Is it fair that American corporations pay the highest statutory corporate tax rate of all other industrialized nations but Japan, which cuts its rate on April 1?

Is it fair that President Obama sends his two daughters to elite private schools that are safer, better-run, and produce higher test scores than public schools in Washington, D.C.—but millions of other families across America are denied that free choice and forced to send their kids to rotten schools?

Remember Liberals are “Pro-Choice”. Just not about anything other than abortion, especially not Education,Unions, or Health Care.

Is it fair that Americans who build a family business, hire workers, reinvest and save their money—paying a lifetime of federal, state and local taxes often climbing into the millions of dollars—must then pay an additional estate tax of 35% (and as much as 55% when the law changes next year) when they die, rather than passing that money onto their loved ones?

Damn those evil rich people! The only thing you should pay along to your kids is fealty to the government and DEBT.

Is it fair that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, former Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel and other leading Democrats who preach tax fairness underpaid their own taxes?

Or “Job Creation Czar”‘s GE who paid no corporate taxes at all. And speaking of “rich” people who’s giving Obama $38,500 a pop at his copious fundraisers, the guy who says “Do you want Fries with that?”.

Oh, right, as I said yesterday, when you have no standards you can be a doubletalking, double-dealing, hypocrite in your mind and no one on ‘your side’ will care and the people who do care should just shut up.

Is it fair that after the first three years of Obamanomics, the poor are poorer, the poverty rate is rising, the middle class is losing income, and some 5.5 million fewer Americans have jobs today than in 2007?

8%+ unemployment for more than 3 years. Oh, and the CBO just projected what everyone with a brain cell and some integrity said was going to happen, The Price of ObamaCare doubled BEFORE 2014 already!

Is it fair that roughly 88% of political contributions from supposedly impartial network television reporters, producers and other employees in 2008 went to Democrats?

But they are FAIR and Unbiased. 🙂

And that Public Sector Unions (government employees) are one of the biggest contributors. And in most of them, you have mandatory due that are collected and given to the Democrats. Now that’s “pro-choice”.

Is it fair that the three counties with America’s highest median family income just happen to be located in the Washington, D.C., metro area?

A coincidence. Nothing more, move along…nothing to see here…:)

Is it fair that wind, solar and ethanol producers get billions of dollars of subsidies each year and pay virtually no taxes, while the oil and gas industry—which provides at least 10 times as much energy—pays tens of billions of dollars of taxes while the president complains that it is “subsidized”?

Big Bad Oil is so Evil! 🙂

Solyndra, Beyond Solar, and all the others that have gotten fat checks from the government and then given fat bonus to their execs just before they went bankrupt (usually with an year or so of getting the money) is the fault of the Chinese after all, so nothing to see here…more along… 🙂

Is it fair that those who work full-time jobs (and sometimes more) to make ends meet have to pay taxes to support up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits for those who don’t work?

You don’t want to be “mean” and “heartless” now do you? 🙂

Is it fair that those who took out responsible mortgages and pay them each month have to see their tax dollars used to subsidize those who acted recklessly, greedily and sometimes deceitfully in taking out mortgages they now can’t afford to repay?

Well, that was the “predatory” banks and mortgage companies fault. The fact that they were pushed by the Democrats in that direction forcefully and then the SEC was too busy watching Porn at work to notice is not relevant. 🙂

Is it fair that thousands of workers won’t have jobs because the president sided with environmentalists and blocked the shovel-ready Keystone XL oil pipeline?

Oil is evil. We only want Politically correct jobs.

Is it fair that some of Mr. Obama’s largest campaign contributors received federal loan guarantees on their investments in renewable energy projects that went bust?

Crony Capitalism is so Washington.

Is it fair that federal employees receive benefits that are nearly 50% higher than those of private-sector workers whose taxes pay their salaries, according to the Congressional Budget Office?

They think so. And no, they aren’t “greedy”. 🙂

Is it fair that soon almost half the federal budget will take income from young working people and redistribute it to old non-working people, even though those over age 65 are already among the wealthiest Americans?

Yeah, but the old people vote! 🙂

Is it fair that in 27 states workers can be compelled to join a union in order to keep their jobs?

The Unions and The Democrats certainly think so. That’s their #1 $$$ gravy train.

Is it fair that nearly four out of 10 (47%) American households now pay no federal income tax at all—a number that has risen every year under Mr. Obama?

Yes, because the more dependent on the government you are the more you’ll vote to continue porking yourself with other people’s money. Hey, it’s free! 🙂

And you don’t want to be “mean”,”Heartless”, or “racist” now do you? 🙂

Is it fair that Boeing, a private company, was threatened by a federal agency when it sought to add jobs in a right-to-work state rather than in a forced-union state?

Yeah, the Liberals have to stick up for their cronies in the Unions. 🙂

Is it fair that if you want to enforce Federal Laws about immigration you get sued by that same Federal government and are branded as racists?

Is it fair that our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids—who never voted for Mr. Obama—will have to pay off the $5 trillion of debt accumulated over the past four years, without any benefits to them?

Better than the people who spent it paying for it! 🙂

Is it fair The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that President Barack Obama’s tax and spending policies will yield $6.4 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than double the shortfall in CBO’s own fiscal baseline — even after taking credit for reduced war costs. (Politico)

Is it fair: While HHS under the Obama administration does everything in its power to force religions employers to pick up the cost of providing birth control against their religious conscience, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is allowing an Indian tribe an exemption to kill two bald eagles a year … for religious purposes:

The AP reports: “A federal government decision to allow a Wyoming tribe to kill two bald eagles for a religious ceremony is a victory for American Indian sovereignty as well as for long-suppressed religious freedoms, the tribe says.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service granted a permit March 9 to the Northern Arapaho Tribe allowing it either to kill or capture and release two bald eagles this year.” (Townhall.com)

‘African Americans for Obama’

The program urges black Americans to volunteer their time by making calls, organizing events and going door to door in their neighborhoods encouraging other African Americans to vote for Obama.

Again, imagine what the reaction would be any of the Republican candidates launched a ‘Whites for Romney’, ‘Whites for Santorum’ (Christian Conservatives for Santorum) or ‘Whites for Gingrich’ campaign. There would be non-stop uproar. But Obama does the equivalent and gets a free pass.

Now that’s fair, isn’t it? 🙂

Well, when Liberals have no standards…is it fair to judge them then? 🙂

Now doesn’t that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside as to how “fair” everything thing is…

I Want Your Money

The Fraternal Order of Police in Camden New Jersey proved without a shadow of a doubt, public union willingness to toss fellow officers to the dogs. In a 300-1 vote, the union rejected an offer that that would have saved 100 jobs. That offer called for three days a month of unpaid furloughs for patrol officers for six months, then one furlough day in each of the following 12 months.

Please consider Camden police union rejects concession deal that could bring back 100 laid-off officers.
Altogether, more than 15 percent of Camden’s municipal workers, including 68 firefighters and about 100 civilians, were laid off as the city tries to fill a huge budget gap brought on by rising costs, decreased tax revenues and diminished aid from the state.
But screw that, we just want the money and even more jobs is not enough for this Union.
CalPERS (the California Public Employee Retirement System) and CalSTRS (the California State Teachers Retirement System).  CalPERS has over 9,000 employees receiving $100k or more in pensions; CalSTRS has over 3,000.
And they can retire at 50. and take ANOTHER JOB!

Lines are being drawn and the fight to reduce overly generous pay and benefits to government employees at the federal, state, and local level is underway. Not too surprisingly, public employee unions are gearing up, rallying government employees, and exerting pressure to maintain the generous pay and benefits that has loaded government with unsustainable debt. Public employee unions are, even now, pressing the Obama Administration for additional benefits and power.

President Obama, either unwilling, or perhaps unable, to bring long-overdue accountability to powerful public employee unions, has instead issued guidance requiring greater Union representation and input into federal agency decision making. Obama’s decision will likely embolden union bosses to think they can escape accountability and an honest review of benefits, salary, and pensions of government employees.

Perhaps it is time to send a different message. President Obama, like many Americans, is probably unaware that the federal government actually subsidizes federal government employee union operations. In fact, the federal government provides unions with free office space, pays for union member time and picks up travel and per diem costs. These “perks” represent a tax that has never been approved by American taxpayers–perks which operate at a level below the radar of Congress and well below the radar of the IRS. These hidden “perks” provided to government employee unions cost American taxpayers millions of dollars annually.

According to official data, federal employees currently spend some 2.9 million official work hours, at government expense, engaging in collective bargaining and union activities, representing a taxpayer cost of approximately $120 million. But the taxpayer costs and subsidizes to public employee unions is much higher than the official report because government does not account for all the expenses related to union activity.

Federal government unions are, in essence, running a business within the federal government. As we begin the debate over the proper role (if any) unions should have in government, one step Americans should all be able to agree upon is that taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize union activities.

Many Americans may be unaware that unions exist in every federal agency. In fact, most agencies have several unions competing for employee participation and funding which means that federal agencies are subsidizing the costs for several unions at the same time!

These federal agency union representatives have a large presence in Washington, DC, the seat of the federal government. But, most federal locations throughout the United States also have a union representative. So, for example, in a city, such as Kansas City, where the federal complex houses multiple government agencies, there will be multiple federal union representatives, from each federal union, within each federal agency, all at the same building location.

Why is this important?

Federal government union representatives are actually federal employees. They hold GS ranks and civil service status, and actually have federal jobs that they were employed to perform. Their union duties are, supposedly, performed over and above the requirements of their regular day job. However, because of the pernicious and growing power of federal unions, oftentimes, union duties often are performed in lieu of their job. Paid time off from regular government duties is allowed, in most federal agencies, for the union representative to solicit federal employees (i.e. market services), to attend union meetings (i.e. work for an entity other than their government employer) or travel to have “face time” with their union bosses in DC. All at taxpayer expense.

In addition, union representatives often request and are provided with office space that is more expansive than is warranted by their GS rank or than their federal job duties require. The cost of this additional square footage is also paid for by the American taxpayer, and is paid for at each federal agency, for each federal union representative, for each federal union. Federal government union representatives total thousands of federal employees, all billing their time, travel and per diem, for non-government related work, to the American taxpayer.

Perhaps an even bigger problem is that the federal government union representatives sometimes seem to operate under the mistaken belief that they were hired by the government to work for the union—and that union work is more important than the federal job they were hired to perform.

Unions seem, at best, indifferent to the performance of government and are exclusively concerned with pay and benefits of union workers. Therein lies another irony for the American taxpayer. Unions are organized to negotiate against employers, but, since the federal government is the employer, and since the American people pay for the federal government, then, technically, federal government employee unions might be construed as organizing against the American people.

It is time to bring some accountability to public employee unions. A good first step would be for Congress to get a grip on the proliferation of benefits for unions in the federal government, whose activities are an additional burden on federal taxpayers. Congress should change federal policies on payment of travel, per diem and office space for federal government union employees.

Better yet, perhaps President Obama should take the lead.

But he won’t. He’s too much of a kool-aid drinking Union guy, plus the Democrats are beholden to them like no other group.

The next closest influence are Trial Lawyers, and guess where they fit in – Health Care.

Gee, what a coincidence!

That memo being (in part):

Federal managers should seek employee input before major decisions are made, not after solutions are developed, according to a memo from Obama administration officials.

In a meeting on Wednesday with federal management and labor representatives, Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry and Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director for Management Jeff Zients reminded agency leaders to improve dialogue with employees by involving them before making final decisions. Managers should engage unions early in decision-making processes, as outlined in President Obama’s December 2009 executive order, said the memo.

Executive Order 13522 creates labor-management partnerships governmentwide and on the agency level. The order also requires the National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations to launch pilot programs that will test bargaining over issues not normally negotiable by law in a small group of agencies and directs management to include pre-decisional involvement “in all workplace matters to the fullest extent practicable.” (Government executive.com)

In other words, Unions should be consulted before management makes any decisions. Making them, in effect, Managers.

Do you get that level of input at your job?

I know I don’t.

But Unions are special. They are the protected class in Liberal ideology.

They fight against the evil Corporations!

And they are killing us all.

“Ultimately, the goal is to allow employees, through their elected labor representatives, to have meaningful input, which results in better quality decision-making, more support for decisions, and timelier implementation,” the memo stated.

If you kiss our butt we won’t go on strike or we won’t work to destroy you. Sounds rather Mafia like doesn’t it?

The union idea of civil discourse is to protest outside opponents’ private homes. Now union supporters are targeting a developer , with fliers showing a bull’s-eye and his home address. Cue the chirping crickets. That will be the soundtrack for mainstream media reaction to the latest example of thuggery perpetrated by Wal-Mart opponents who are not happy that the non-union retailer wants to build a Wal-Mart-anchored development on the site of an abandoned Chevy dealership in Washington, D.C. The development would employ up to 1,200 people in a city with 10.2% unemployment.

A group calling itself Wal-Mart Free DC is organizing a protest, not at one of the proposed sites or at Wal-Mart headquarters, but at the private home of the developer. A flier produced by the group gives his name and home address and invites protesters to assemble on his front lawn. Oh, yes: There’s a smiley face centered on some cross hairs on the flier.

The group claims no formal union affiliation, yet prominently displayed on the group’s website are links to sites such as WalMartWatch funded by Service Employees International Union and United Commercial and Food Workers International Union. Certainly they are employing the thuggish tactics used before by the purple shirts of SEIU.

Last May, a frightened teenager was trapped inside his home as a mob of about 500 bussed in by SEIU demonstrated and chanted on his front lawn in an effort to intimidate his father, a deputy general counsel with Bank of America. Fortune magazine’s Nina Easton was a neighbor and provided the account of a story that might otherwise have received little notice.

As Easton reported, some 14 bus loads of people organized by the SEIU and a Chicago outfit called National Political Action descended on her neighbor’s home, armed with bullhorns, shouting about greedy banks and home foreclosures. After the mob was done, the buses took them to the nearby residence of a J.P. Morgan Chase executive.

Asked by Easton about the rationale behind such protests, SEIU representative Steven Leerner said:

“People in powerful corporations seem to think they can insulate themselves from the damage they are doing.”

So the union feels entitled to target — yes, we said target — them in their private homes.

The group that gathered at the developer’s home Thursday night was smaller and less-organized, but its purpose was equally clear — to intimidate those who would oppose it with the oldest threat in the book: “We know where you live.”

Wal-Mart is America’s largest employer outside of unionized government. (IBD)

And Unions want and need your money and your job to pay for their own, after all.

They are vastly more important that you.

They are warrior for the Cause.

American Federation of Teachers’ President Randi Weingarten has been doing her best to make sure Big Labor has a say in education reform. She wants to drive the train. The National Education Association, on the other hand, is taking the tact of putting dynamite under the tracks. While Weingarten says all the right things and uses all the necessary poll-tested phrases, she really wants to maintain the status quo. No tenure reform. No need to judge teachers by any measure other than seniority.

But in an interview with Newsweek, she made this curious statement, in response to Bill Gates saying, “We need to measure what they do, and then have incentives for the other teachers to learn those things:”

“Football teams do this all the time,” Weingarten responded. “They look at the tape after every game. Sometimes they do it during the game. They’re constantly deconstructing what is working and what isn’t working. And they’re jettisoning what isn’t working and building up on what is working, and doing it in a teamlike approach.”

That’s correct – they do. It’s too bad that public education does not operate more like the NFL.

Here’s an idea. Let’s have the NEA and AFT become the owners of a new NFL franchise. For a lack of a better name, we’ll call the new team the Thugs.

Players on the Thugs’ roster would receive tenure after two years, like they do in New York City Public Schools. They can play on the Thugs as long as they’d like, regardless of their skill level. And players would be judged not for their ability to score touchdowns or sack quarterbacks, but the number of years they’ve been in the NFL.

Over time, the Thugs’ roster would be filled with 50- and 60-year old players, raking in the big bucks while losing game after game.

Does anyone believe that the hypothetical Thugs, with their incredible job security, would be competitive with the teams that compensate players based on their performance and frequently alter their rosters to maintain an edge?

It would be wonderful if public education would operate more like the NFL, where you get paid for results and released for incompetence. Maybe then American K-12 students would receive the instruction they truly deserve.

Do what benefits you the most and proclaim to be doing it “for the children” is the fastest way to the Barf Bag for me folks.

But Unions don’t work that way. They just protect the incompetent and insulate themselves from any accountability for anything.

Oh, and they want ALL your Money. They deserve it. After all, they are special. 🙂

Political Cartoon