Minimum Reality

“You can’t have the same number of job opportunities in the restaurant industry and have a $15 minimum wage. These things can’t co-exist,” said Employment Policies Institute worforce scholar Michael Saltsman, whose think tank ran a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal depicting a robot making pancakes with the title, “Why Robots Could Soon Replace Fast Food Workers Demanding a Higher Minimum Wage.” (DC)

Neil Boortz: Mr. Activist guy had the idea that if McDonalds would just pay these workers $15.00 an hour plus health insurance and all of the other benefits then the world would be a better place and the workers would not have to rely on the government for all of these welfare services and everyone would be better off. Nobody asked him how much a Big Meal would cost if the people preparing that culinary delight were paid $15.00 an hour plus benefits. Right now you can get a Big Meal for about $7.25 The person preparing that meal is probably making minimum wage. Boost the wage by about $6.00 per hour and what is the new cost for a Big Meal? $8.50? $10.00? More? Can all of the McDonald’s customers afford this price increase? Or do they go to other, cheaper fast food restaurants? Can McDonalds maintain their profit margin and employment level with lost sales? If not, how many $15 an hour workers do they lay off? Perhaps they would just close some stores in low-income areas altogether.

How about this question for the organizer: “Hey, sport. Tell me something. What obligation does McDonalds have to pay a worker more than that worker is worth? Are you telling me that an employer should hire someone just to pay them more than the wealth they can produce for the company out of some sense of social obligation? How long do you stay in business doing that?” Organizer dude probably would have come across with some statement about “social responsibility.” Well, guess what? If employers start to determine wages on what the employee wants instead of what that employee produces we will see a lot of boarded businesses and many more unemployed government-educated functionally illiterate Democrat voters. Wait! …… What?

Where DO mindless people like this come from? Oh yeah. Government schools. Almost forgot.

And SEIU, Obama Union thugs, masquerading as “employees” picketing McDonalds and the like in New York. Buig surprise there.

You made a point of saying that McDonalds should pay you enough to support your family. Fine. Then answer MY question. What about YOUR responsibilities? Did you not understand that you lacked the skills, job history and education necessary to make more than a minimum wage and that; therefore, you might not be in a position to shoulder the cost of an additional member of your household? Or is it your belief that all you have to do is download a child and it automatically becomes someone else’s responsibility to cover the costs? I think a valid case can be made for the proposition that one of the greatest social wrongs a person can commit is to have a baby they simply cannot afford to raise.

Personal accountability and responsibility is dying. Long live the Democrat welfare state.

NY Times: A half-century ago, the marchers called on Congress to increase the minimum wage from $1.15 an hour to $2 “so that men may live in dignity,” in the words of Bayard Rustin, one of the chief organizers of the march. Today, the fast-food workers also seek a raise, from the $9 an hour that most of them make to $15.00 an hour. That’s not much different from what the marchers wanted in 1963; adjusted for inflation, $2 then is $13.39 an hour today.

But what they aren’t saying is, that the minimum wage in 1963 was almost exactly what it is today, based on inflation because in 1963 it was $1.25, and now at $7-$8 with inflation is about the same amount and level. No real change. It’s still MINIMUM for a reason. So by using $2 they are being dishonest. Gee, what a shocker that is!

The skill set hasn’t improved, so the job’s wages haven’t either.

Forbes:

The strikers are targeting their employers — profitable companies like McDonald’s, Yum Brands (which includes Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC) and Wendy’s.

Almost none of the fast food workers are employees of those companies. For the way the industry works is that the main company contracts with franchisees who run the actual stores. The employees are then the employees of those franchises.  THE SMALL BUSINESS MAN! There is no employment contract at all between the worker and those large companies: and those companies cannot determine the wages the workers get either. To get that sort of thing wrong in an editorial in the NYT is near unforgiveable. What’s worse though is that they’ve entirely failed to understand the economic points being made in this debate.

Media Matters can help us out here though through their own refusal to understand what is actually being said:

Contrary to industry officials’ claims, economic studies have concluded that raising the minimum wage has no effect on employment.

No, that’s not what economic studies have concluded. Rather, they have concluded this:

In a Center for Economy and Policy Research report titled “Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?” senior economist John Schmitt determined that there is “little or no employment response to modest increases in the minimum wage.”

“Minimum wages have no effect on employment” and “modest increases have little effect” are just not the same statement. And do note that the current demand is for a more than doubling of the minimum wage: something that we cannot describe as modest.

Syracuse.com commentor: Here is the point of view of any successful businessman. If you artificially force me to pay more for a worker than his job is worth, I will either shut down the business, figure out how to do the job with fewer workers, outsource it to lower my costs (for benefits, like health care), or figure out how to automate it. Fast food work is vulnerable to any or all of these solutions. What good is a mandatory higher wage for a job if the job no longer exists?

But reality doesn’t play into the Class warfare rhetoric and hype of the Left.

One liberal even called the Minimum Wage, “slave labor” so rational thought is not present on the Left.

We witnessed it between 2007 and 2009, when the federal minimum wage rose 41 percent and had a disastrous effect on youth employment. The joblessness rate for 16-19 year olds increased by 10 percentage points from 16 percent in 2007, to more than 26 percent in 2009. While some politicians claim that workers benefitted from the minimum wage hike, if you were to ask the 8.8 million workers who lost their jobs during the economic recession, I bet you’d get a different answer. It’s no secret that when you raise the cost of doing business, or in this case hiring workers, business owners have to find a way to trim their expenses and meet their bottom line. (Steve Cruz)

But the Let’s Agenda is deaf to reality. After all, if at first you fail, fail, fail again, because it  is obviously someone else’s fault for your failure! 🙂

Government Help

Surprises

Gee, This is a Surprise!  NOT!

The politically aggressive Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has quietly created a national network of at least eight community-organizing groups, some of which function alongside the Occupy Wall Street movement, a Daily Caller investigation shows.

Incorporated by the SEIU as local non-profits, the groups are waging concerted local political campaigns to publicly attack conservative political figures, banks, energy companies and other corporations.

Each local group has portrayed itself as an independent community organization not tied to any special interest. But they were founded, incorporated, and led by SEIU personnel.

The individual activist groups use benign-sounding names including This Is Our DC; Good Jobs, Great Houston; Good Jobs, Better Baltimore; Good Jobs Now in Detroit; Fight for Philly; One Pittsburgh; Good Jobs LA; and Minnesotans for a Fair Economy.

In reality, they are creations of the wealthy and influential labor union, amounting to a secret network of new SEIU front groups.

Union Liberals behind the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Gee, I’m shocked! 🙂

If you think the Occupy Movement is just a bunch of smelly hippies playing drums in the park, you’re wrong. The Occupy Movement is an organized group of union leaders, academics and anarchists with one common goal: to destroy capitalism. Don’t believe it?

http://www.breitbart.com/breitbart-tv/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/03/05/occupy_seui_and_academics_working_together_to_destroy_capitalism

GAS PRICES

Now DNC Chair Wasserman-Schultz- Under Bush: She blamed Bush and his cronies in the Oil Industry for the high gas prices (going to $3.22 a gallon by the way).

May 2007: “We are now paying more than double than when President Bush took office”

Now comes the Weasel 4 days ago:“What I was referring to in that speech, as I have for many years, is that focusing on fossil fuels and continuing the ‘drill baby drill’ strategy that President Obama rightly referred to the other day in south Florida as ‘a bumper sticker, not an energy policy,’

Ohhh! Am I surprised with the about face- no!

“We are not going to address gas prices over the long-term because there is — there is no President in the short-term that can really change policy and impact gas prices in a significant way. But what we do need to do is over the short-term and long-term make sure that we are using the ‘all of the above’ strategy that President Obama has employed: more domestic energy production than we’ve had in eight years (Thanks to Bush as she says, it takes time so Obama benefits from THAT time), making sure that we invest for the future in alternative energy like wind and solar and hydroelectric power, so that we can really start to impact our need to depend on…” (Go Algaeman! Solyndra Abroad Solar, etc)

“But A lot of Americans are wondering what’s going to happen now and a lot of those things take time,” Carlson shot back.

“Affecting gas prices takes time,” Schultz acknowledged. “You’re absolutely right,”

Unless it’s Republican President then that is.

President Obama’s election-year prescription to accelerate steeply higher energy prices is to add billions of dollars to the oil companies’ tax bills. Expensive gasoline fits the Obama political template.

‘Every time you fill up the gas tank, they’re making money.” That applause line, delivered Thursday by the president from Nashua, N.H., speaks volumes about the thinking that lies at the root of this presidency.

Resentment against the successful is what Barack Obama wants to cultivate among Americans, dividing the dependents of the government, who pay no income taxes to fund it, against the nation’s private-sector producers, who finance the state’s dependency machine by paying the vast bulk of the income taxes.

Fed up with prices at your local gas station going up, up and away, past the $4 level toward $5 and even higher? The president says you should take out your frustration by telling Congress to end the perfectly reasonable oil-and-gas industry tax deductions on drilling costs and other technical aspects of production.

House Speaker John Boehner was quick to respond that “a freshman-year economics student could tell you that increasing taxes on energy production would make gas prices go up, not down.” But Obama’s crass appeal to baser instincts has nothing to do with economics — or solving problems — and everything to do with politics.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu let the cat out of the bag years ago. “Somehow,” he said in 2008, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

Why would anyone want the government to try to make oil prices skyrocket? Answer: So they can get the public to stop resisting the radical environmentalist agenda, have people accept their fate that they have to drive cars that are little better than golf carts, and ultimately convince them to keep their driving to a bare minimum. Mass transit anyone? Ever try carpooling? (IBD)

Surprise! Class Warfare…who saw that coming…. 🙂

OBAMACARE

Our friend Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller has an amusing and still quite relevant piece this weekend regarding the Supreme Court’s upcoming review of Obamacare in general and the individual mandate in particular. In it, he describes a meeting he had with Karen Harned of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) who are knee deep in the battle. She turns out to be relatively optimistic about the challenge to the law.

It’s crowded at the Caribou Coffee on 17th and L streets in Washington, but over the din of lobbyists and caffeine fiends, I ask her to sketch out the NFIB’s arguments. “What we’ve seen in all the cases,” she explains — “the one question they cannot answer is: ‘Where does it end?’”

Hers is a slippery slope argument, but that doesn’t mean questioning the government’s ability to regulate economic “inactivity” isn’t legitimate. “You could say, ‘Well it’s good for everybody to exercise — so let’s mandate everybody to join the gym.”

I stir my coffee nervously. As if the thought of being forced to (gulp!) exercise isn’t horrifying enough already, Harned continued: “It’s good for everybody to take vitamins … It’s good for people to eat five fruits and vegetables a day! — Why don’t we make all grocers give those foods away for free — and [require] more people buy broccoli?”

At first, the broccoli reference threw me, but it’s actually pertinent. During a previous trial — when appeals court Justice Laurence Silberman asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General Beth Brinkmann if requiring Americans to buy broccoli would be unconstitutional — she answered: “No. It depends.”

This may sound trite at first blush, but in the end it does seem to be the pertinent question which the justices will have to consider. I agree that “slippery slope” argument are frequent, easy targets for critics, and many are little more than straw men. But there are still some cases where they would apply, and this seems to be one of them.

Handing the federal government the power to regulate a lack of economic activity – as opposed to their recognized power to regulate some actual activity for the public good – opens up a door to a hallway which would seem to stretch to infinity. Can the President, in fact, force us to eat our peas as opposed to saying it in a rhetorical fashion?

The government’s argument would seem to be that such a mandate could be construed as being “for the common good” of society, and would save money in the long run. And while that may prove to be true, is it their place to make that determination? This smells suspiciously like the court’s decision in Kelo vs. New London when the phrase “public use” was not very subtly morphed to include “for the public benefit.” And as soon as you let Washington have the final say as to what is in your personal best interest, all bets are off.

Broccoli? I happen to like it.. sometimes. But I don’t want Washington, DC telling me to buy it. Do you? (Hot air)

The other government argument the NFIB intends to eviscerate is the free rider argument — the notion that health care mandates are vital because otherwise people will just “game” the system by refusing to pay for health care coverage while simultaneously using health services.

This, of course, is a conundrum. But the government’s “solution” would also open up a can of constitutional worms.

The government hopes to argue that the health market is unique — that the slope isn’t slippery at all. But cost shifting occurs all the time, everywhere. “We all pay in fees to our credit cards for the people who don’t pay their credit card bills,” Harned says. “We all pay in our mortgage interest for the people who default on their mortgage”…

It all comes back to this: If the government can mandate the purchase of health care insurance, what can’t they mandate?

“They could create a crisis a day if they want to,” Harned warns.

And we all know about “Never Let a Crisis go to Waste ” 🙂

Surprise! 🙂

Pro-ILLEGALS

Lawyers representing Latinos who accuse Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office of racial profiling are asking a federal judge to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees from being called to testify by the sheriff’s lawyers at a trial.

Motions filed late Friday in the suit say ICE gave the sheriff’s lawyers permission to depose five ICE employees, but the depositions were never conducted.

Lawyers for the five Latinos who sued say they were therefore unable to counter with their own questions for the ICE workers. They say Arpaio’s lawyers should be barred from calling the employees to the stand.

The plaintiff’s attorneys also wrote that two other ICE agents who did give depositions have no relevant testimony and also should not be called. (AZStarnet)

This is bunk. But the Liberals and Pro-Illegals just want their side and only their side to come out and forget about the other side.
But is it a Surprise? NO!

Contextualizing

Even in the midst of a massive liberal rant some truth will spring forth.

Then it will be “contextualized” later (reinterpreted so it’s not outside of the liberal orthodoxy and the Thought Police don’t haul him away).

MSNBC folks:

Dylan Ratigan, of MSNBC, went on a rant decrying Washington’s economic  plans on Tuesday, castigating Democrats and Republicans alike as  “reckless, irresponsible and stupid.”

     On August 2, lawmakers agreed to raise the U.S.’s $14.3 trillion debt  ceiling and slash $2.4 trillion in spending over the next 10 years.  Since then, credit rating agency Standard & Poor has downgraded the  U.S.’s long-held pristine AAA credit rating to AA+.

     Conversation speculating that Standard & Poor’s decision was  motivated by the fact that the deal covers less than the $4 trillion the  company wanted the U.S. to cut misses the point, Ratigan said.

     “Tens of trillions of dollars are being extracted from the United  States of America. Democrats aren’t doing it, Republicans are not doing  it, an entire integrated system, financial system, trading system,  taxing system, that was created by both parties over a period of two  decades is at work on our entire country right now,” Ratigan said.

“I’m saying we’ve got a real problem…Republicans want to burn the  place to the ground and Democrats who want to offer a plan that gets it  through the next election, the end of the second term of their  presidency and then screws me and my kids when it’s over,” he said.

     “We’re sitting here arguing about whether we should do the $4 trillion  plan that kicks the can down the road for the president for 2017, or  burn the place to the ground, both of which are reckless, irresponsible  and stupid.”

The Democrats only want to get Obama re-elected then after 2016 who gives a crap!? Sounds about right.

While, I don’t think the Republican want to burn the place down, I’m not sure about some who would think it is necessarily bad considering the elite mentality that won the day on the debt deal that was a political solution not an economic one.

Further evidence of this, John Kerry, the Ketchup heiress’s husband and Mr “I voted for it before I voted against it” boat tax evader was named to the so-called Super Committee that will try and figure out how to weasel out of anymore cuts.

Though, they may come up with more cuts in growth like the Debt Deal which are fake cuts made to look real. Real lipstick on a pig time.

A BBC journalist has spoken to two girls that took part in Monday night’s riots in Croydon, who boasted that they were showing police and “the rich” that “we can do what we want”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14458424

Audio of some rioters telling the reporter that the riots are “conservatives” fault, and that they are rioting to show the rich they can do what they want. This is what years of class-warfare/politics gets you… much like multiculturalism… it divides people and makes them think that they can never grasp at greatness by building and creating. Rather, it teaches people to destroy and to live off others.

When asked why they were attacking “their people” the locals, the little cherubs said they were business people and so they had to be rich…

Now flash back to the Wisconsin Unions in Madison…The guy being beaten in St. Louis by SEIU Union thugs…Tea Party “terrorists”….

Speaking of the SEIU…

A new Quinnipiac poll released today found that 67% of those surveyed felt that any deal to raise the debt ceiling should include tax hikes on the rich.

More voters considered (45%) Obama’s plan to raise revenue closing loopholes than they thought of it as a tax increase (37%), and Americans still haven’t forgotten about those tax hikes for the wealthy and corporations. Over 2/3 (67%) of those polled thought that the debt ceiling deal should include tax increases on the wealthy and corporations along with spending cuts.

Sound I mention Obama had no plan? He made speeches. That is not a plan.

But repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth and when you can repeat it 24/7/365 look out!!

But don’t worry, the Liberals won’t cause a meltdown for political “gain” by the stupid,uninformed, and the greedy here like they have in London. 😦

According to a new Quinnipiac poll, 54 percent of those surveyed say Bush is responsible for the “current condition” of the economy, compared to just 27 percent who blame Obama. Among self-described independent voters, a key 2012 voting bloc, the number shifts slightly: 49 percent point the finger at the former GOP president, while 24 percent blame Obama.

The former President is responsible for the 3rd straight Trillion Dollar yearly deficit and $4 trillion in additional debt!!

We’re Doomed!

Nobody in the left-dominated media bothers to note that in the last years of the Bush presidency Democrats controlled the Congress and thus had a death grip on the nation’s economy, having complete control over the nation’s purse strings. They spent and spent and spent the yet-uncollected taxes of future generations — as well as our own — as if there were no tomorrow.

It wasn’t a Bush Congress that jammed the incredible costs of Obamacare down the throats of the American people and their children and grandchildren — it was our spendthrift president and his allies on Capitol Hill doing their classic imitation of the legendary drunken sailors on shore leave.

It’s simply common sense to understand that spending money one doesn’t have in the hopes that the future will provide the needed funds is something like believing that some beneficent tooth fairy will come up with the money in the future.

Now the president and the national Democrat party have suddenly discovered a scapegoat for the latest economic mess they have thrust upon the American people. They insist that the credit-rating downgrade was the fault of the tea party trying to control the nation’s purse strings. I’m not kidding. They really expect us to swallow this whopper as the gospel truth.

They expect us to ignore the fact that the millions of tea party members are simply Americans deeply and sincerely concerned about the nation’s economy and the tendency of the government to spend their hard-earned tax money on whatever scam strikes its fancy.

It’s time to place the blame for our economic malaise where it belongs — on the shoulders of the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress.

Tea party members have been the voice of reason, not the wild-eyed terrorists portrayed by the left’s crazy spin doctors.

What would have averted the credit-rating downgrade and the subsequent turmoil in the markets? Precisely the spending cuts advocated by the tea party.

According to a statement by Jenny Beth Martin, a co-founder and national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots, the debt-ceiling compromise was full of “accounting tricks and minor ‘cuts’ to spending.” She warns that these so-called cuts do not reduce our national debt. They are simply cuts to future deficit spending.

Rather than prevent a crisis, the debt deal has “already cost us our AAA credit rating,” according to Martin.

In addition, she explains that the tea party was the only organization pushing for the passage of the Full Faith and Credit Act, which would remove the threat of a national default.

A couple of hundred years ago a band of American patriots demonstrated their contempt for a distant Parliament that imposed unjust taxation upon citizens, with no say in the matter, by dumping British-taxed tea in Boston Harbor. It was one of the acts of defiance that helped spark the American Revolution and created a new nation.

Unlike the Boston tea party, today’s today’s tea party membership is nationwide and composed of people from every nook and cranny in this vast nation, but they feel the same determination to display their anger at the depredations of an out-of-control national government that the Boston patriots showed toward a distant monarch who legend tells us could not speak a word of English, preferring instead his native German.

It’s past time for a little tea dumping of our own — the bitter tea brewed by Barack Obama. (Michael Reagan)

The government’s long-term projections, bad as they are, also are based on rosy scenarios for economic growth. If the Obamalaise continues, we could see debt-to-GDP ratios north of 120% — the stuff of banana republics.

But the media will have plenty of riots to create and cover.

After all, it’s not their fault. It’s the Rich, the Tea party, and Business! 😦

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

The Fast and The Furious

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Two months after the Department of Labor launched a special program to assist and protect illegal immigrants in the U.S. the Obama cabinet official who heads the agency is personally encouraging undocumented workers to report employers that don’t pay them fairly.

In a Spanish-language public service announcement, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis assures that “every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly, whether documented or not.” Illegal aliens who are not getting fair wages are encouraged to call a new hotline set up by the agency on a new “Podemos Ayudar” (We Can Help) web page designed to administer worker protection laws and ensure that employees are properly paid “regardless of immigration status.”

In the short video, also posted in English, Solis tells illegal immigrants that it’s a “serious problem” when workers in this country are not paid fairly and that all workers have the right to receive their salary regardless of immigration status. She encourages those who are not to call the new hotline and assures it’s free and confidential. “Podemos ayudar,” (we can help), Solis guarantees at the end of the brief segment.

The Labor Secretary’s new message is part of a campaign launched a few months ago to help illegal immigrant workers in the U.S., who she refers to as “vulnerable” and “underpaid.” At least 1,000 new field investigators have been deployed to reach out to Latino laborers in areas with large numbers of illegal alien employees and the agency will focus on enforcing labor and wage laws in industries that typically hire lots of illegal aliens without reporting anyone to federal immigration authorities.

For a government agency to protect law breakers in this fashion may seem unbelievable but not if you consider the source. A Former California congresswoman, Solis has close ties to the influential La Raza movement that advocates open borders and rights for illegal immigrants. She made the protection of undocumented workers a major priority upon being named Labor Secretary, assuring illegal aliens that “if you work in this country, you are protected by our laws.” (JW)

Graduation of Debt

 The median starting salary for students graduating from four-year colleges in 2009 and 2010 was $27,000, down from $30,000 for those who entered the work force in 2006 to 2008, according to a study released on Wednesday by the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University. That is a decline of 10 percent, even before taking inflation into account.

Of course, these are the lucky ones — the graduates who found a job. Among the members of the class of 2010, just 56 percent had held at least one job by this spring, when the survey was conducted. That compares with 90 percent of graduates from the classes of 2006 and 2007. (Some have gone for further education or opted out of the labor force, while many are still pounding the pavement.)

So 4 in 10 graduates had no job at all – not even one that didn’t use their putative skills for which they spent the money.

But let’s assume you do have a job. The median income was $27,000. What if you have $60,000 in student loans?

On a 10 year amortization schedule and a 5% blended interest rate the payment is $633.75. Every month. Your gross income is $2,250/month. More than 25% of your gross income, before taxes, is consumed by student loan payments.

But don’t worry, the Liberals will be right there to tell them it’s the Rich People’s fault! And Class Warfare is the only answer! (that is just re-enforcing it after 16 years of liberal socialism in schools to begin with). So, the answer is to vote for Democrats so they can redistribute the wealth to you!

The new American Work Ethic! 😦

Your imputed income (that is, the effective purchasing power of your “degree” when you subtract out the debt service) is $19,395, again before taxes. But you’re in a higher tax bracket than the person who simply earns $19,395 – which, I will remind you, is $9.70/hour.

Worse, your debt cannot be discharged in a bankruptcy. A high school graduate who takes on debt like this and gets in trouble can file a Chapter 7 (being well under the median household income) and shed it. You, as a graduate, cannot. You’re stuck with it, and if you lose your job you’re instantly hosed, as that $60,000 will have penalties and interest immediately added to it. (KFYI)

Isn’t Obamanomics fun!! The Labor Department is more worried about illegal aliens than the legal ones! And even if you get a college degree you’ll be in so much you’ll likely drown. Just like the US Budget Deficit! 🙂

But fear not, it’s Rich people and Corporate America’s Fault!!  (according to the Democrats).

But hey, at least ObamaCare guarantees that you can suck off your parents’ health insurance until your 26! And as reported earlier 1/2 the jobs created in a recent month were from McDonalds. So have it Obama’s Way. 🙂

Sanctuary

Last month San Francisco’s Michael Hennessey, California’s longest-serving sheriff, announced that he would ignore federal detainer orders on illegal immigrants arrested for low-level crimes such as shoplifting, disorderly conduct or public drunkenness. Under Secure Communities, arrestees identified as undocumented are held by local jails until Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials transfer them.

But the arrangement violates San Francisco’s longtime sanctuary law, which forbids public employees and police from asking anyone about their immigration status. The famously liberal city by the bay also offers illegal aliens official government identification cards and all sorts of taxpayer-financed public benefits.

Hennessy, who is an elected official, claims that all residents are equal and stresses that San Francisco is proud of its diversity and values the contributions of immigrants. “San Francisco has always been a city of immigrants,” Hennessey said, adding that all civic leaders work hard to serve all residents regardless of immigration status.

Notably absent in the rhetoric were cases in which violent criminals were protected by the sanctuary policies. For instance a few years ago a Salvadoran gang member with two felony convictions murdered a father and his two sons because he never got turned over to federal authorities for removal.

Judicial Watch obtained California public records that revealed San Francisco authorities knew the triple murderer (Edwin Ramos) was an illegal immigrant and active member of a deadly street gang known as MS-13. The records also show that Ramos had been previously arrested on gang-related and weapons charges yet was released under the county’s sanctuary policies.

The Fast & Furious

Oh, and then there’s “Fast and Furious” a brilliant strategy by Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

Let’s force gun dealers in Arizona to sell thousands of semi-automatic firearms to straw purchasers (those who buy guns for someone who can’t do so legally) — and then just watched as the guns went across the border, into the hands of Mexican drug cartels members so we can trace the guns in Mexico to the “bigger fish”.

Only, they couldn’t actually trace them! Or as it turned out, find them!

PHOENIX – ATF Field Agents in Phoenix were told that they were the first Southwest Border Group to be pursuing operation Fast and Furious and that it was the “pinnacle of U.S. law enforcement techniques.”

A day after a fiery Capitol Hill hearing on the controversial program that allegedly let guns “walk” across the border, it is becoming more apparent that the strategy was ineffective and dangerous. So much so that when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and more than a dozen others were shot in Tucson, panic spread within the entire Phoenix Field Division of  ATF.

“There was concern from the chain of command that the gun was hopefully not a fast and furious gun,” Special Agent Peter Forcelli testified at a House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.

“Everytime there’s a shooting whether it was Mrs. Giffords or anybody, anytime there was a shooting in the general Phoenix area or even Arizona, we’re fearful that it might be one of these firearms,” said Special Agent Olindo Casa.

The ATF was tracking a straw buyer who purchased a truckload of assault weapons in January 2010 but did not stop him.

In December two of those guns were recovered at the murder scene of Border Agent Brian Terry in Rio Rico, Arizona.

Terry’s mother, Josephine Terry, testified at Wednesday’s hearing but is now back home in Michigan.

Reached by phone she told 3TV she was pleased with how the hearing progressed. “I felt like everyone was on Brian’s side 100 percent,” said Terry.

Members of Congress vow to continue to probe the ATF operation and find out who at the highest level sanctioned the program. (KTVK-Phx)

ATF agents–turned–whistleblowers John Dodson and Olindo James Casa testified that they begged to seize the firearms, which included .50-caliber sniper rifles, once the straw purchasers handed them off. “My supervisors directed me and my colleagues not to make any stop or arrest, but rather to keep the straw purchaser under surveillance while allowing the guns to walk,” he said.

Casa also said that “on several occasions, I personally requested to interdict or seize firearms, but I was always ordered to stand down and not to seize the firearms.”

So the guns were just allowed to slip across the border. All the ATF has is the firearms’ serial numbers. They weren’t even working with Mexican authorities. As a result, Agent Dodson said, “We knew the next time we’d see the guns would be at crime scenes. And not [the scene of] the first crime these guns were used in, but at the last.”

When asked how he thought sending guns into Mexico could lead to busts of drug cartels, Agent Dodson said, “I have never heard an explanation from anyone involved in Operation Fast and Furious that I believe would justify what we did.”

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R., Iowa) testified that “the president said he didn’t authorize it and that the attorney general didn’t authorize [Fast and Furious]. They have both admitted that a ‘serious mistake’ may have been made. There are a lot of questions, and a lot of investigating to do. But one thing has become clear already: This was no mistake. It was a conscious decision by senior officials. It was written down. It was briefed up to Washington, D.C.” (NRO)

And if it leader to, say Eric Holder or Big Sis or Obama himself will they be held responsible for this stupidity.

Hell NO!

Late in the hearing, Josephine Terry — the mother of Brian Terry — was asked if there is anything she would like to say to whoever approved Operation Fast and Furious. After taking a moment to regain her composure, she said, “I don’t know what I would say to them, but I would like to know what they would say to me.”

Hope and Change?

Do you want fries with that?

Win The Future! 🙂

P.s. “Chocolate milk is soda in drag,” said Ann Cooper, director of nutrition services for the Boulder Valley School District in Louisville, Colo., which has banned flavored milk. “It works as a treat in homes, but it doesn’t belong in schools.” (NBC)

Oh then there’s this gem:

A “Labor Studies Curriculum for Elementary Schools,” entitled “The Yummy Pizza Company,” takes up to 20 classroom hours over a two-week period. Important concepts in the 10 lessons, such as the value of work and money management, are critical components, but are quickly overshadowed by the fact that 40% of the curriculum is about forming Pizza Makers Union Local 18. That’s right – the program is focused on teaching kids to unionize.

I don’t suppose this creative curriculum has anything do to with current issues, like collective bargaining privileges for public employees. Teachers wouldn’t be so blatant as to involve young children in their political issues, would they? (townhall.com)

P.p.s. Georgia lawmakers passed an immigration bill similar to Arizona’s SB 1070. The legislation allows local law enforcement to inquire about immigration status after an individual commits a crime. The law was passed in order to deal with the mounting illegal immigration problem costing the state billions of dollars each year. Now, Mexico, along with Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru, are joining civil liberties groups in their efforts to sue the American state.

Mexico and 10 other countries have filed amicus briefs in a lawsuit that asks a judge to declare Georgia’s new immigration law unconstitutional and to block it from being enforced.

Yep, foreign countries are now lecturing Americans about what is and is not Constitutional with the backing of groups like the ACLU and the SEIU. (Townhall.com)

America What a Country! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

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

The Collective Addict

Illustration by Sean Delonas.

In the city’s funny math, you get only one teacher for the price of two.

The Department of Education pays about 1,500 teachers for time they spend on union activities — and pays other teachers to replace them in the classroom.

It’s a sweetheart deal that costs taxpayers an extra $9 million a year to pay fill-ins for instructors who are sprung — at full pay — to carry out responsibilities for the United Federation of Teachers.

With Mayor Bloomberg calling for thousands of teacher layoffs to balance the 2012 budget, critics say it’s time to halt the extravagant benefit.

That $9 million would cover the salaries of 198 new teachers at the current annual $45,530 starting pay

The DOE lets 40 experienced teachers collect top pay and fringe benefits, but work just one class period a day.

Under a longstanding contract agreement, the DOE excuses these veterans to work for the UFT — currently 38 as district representatives and two as union vice presidents. The UFT pays them another salary, plus expenses.

English teacher Tom Dromgoole, for instance, collects top teacher pay, $100,049 a year, from the DOE for his slot at Leadership and Public Service HS in downtown Manhattan. But he is relieved for most of the day to serve as a UFT high school rep. The UFT supplements his salary by $50,461, records show.

Dromgoole is outspoken on state budget cuts, which he blasted at a boisterous protest last March with UFT President Michael Mulgrew. Reached Friday outside his Brooklyn townhouse, Dromgoole brushed past a reporter who asked about his UFT work, saying, “No comment.”

Another veteran teacher said of the lucrative gigs, “It’s a plum because you’re not teaching. Some principals give them little or nothing to do” because the UFT reps are powerful. (NYP)

But don’t worry, it’s “for the children” and as Rep. Dick Durbin said, “a basic human right”. 🙂

Mike Tobin, Fox News: “One thing I think should make clear – the people coming after us from every live shot here, these people hate,” Tobin said. “These are people who don’t respect diverse viewpoints. In fact, they’re so afraid I’ll present a diverse viewpoint, that’s why they try to heckle me and shut down every live shot. They’ve made it clear, that what they want to make it harder for me to do my job. They are proud of that when they disrupt a live shot, when they really trample over the First Amendment rights or the First Amendment’s obligations of a reporter. Now, I am not saying that’s all of the people. Those are the people that come here and heckle and try to disrupt things. I look in their eyes – there is hate in their eyes. They don’t want to hear any kind of viewpoint that is different from their own. That’s why they do what they do.”

Then the protesters attacked him (but he didn’t file any assault charges).

These are the people who allege that they are for “free speech” and “civility”.

Let me reiterate my version of the Liberal First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Any religion,and mocking the free exercise thereof but forgive anything to do with Islam; or abridging the freedom of LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE speech, or of the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE press; and abridging as much as possible anyone who disagrees with the Liberal Progressives;or the right of the people to peaceably (or not)  to assemble to worship the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES, any assembly in opposition must therefore be “terrorism” or “racism”, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances against Corporations and to seek “social justice” at all costs; any redress of grievances against a Liberal are automatically not to be taken seriously and must be discounted,discredited,destroyed or ignored.

See this (from Reason TV): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je3UT7ol1JY&feature=player_embedded

At times they state this openly. A Service Employees International Union (SEIU) representative told California legislators that “We helped to get you into office, and we got a good memory. And come November, if you don’t back our program, we’ll help get you out of office.

Institutional collective bargaining was a policy decision made by state and local governments. Labor unions had traditionally opposed collective bargaining in government. During the 1950s, private-sector union membership peaked and began to decline. The union movement then came to see government employees as valuable new dues-paying members. It reversed its stance on government bargaining in the late 1950s. Beginning with New York City in 1958 and Wisconsin in 1959, many state and local governments across the country began to bargain collectively, largely as a result of union pressure.(Heritage.org)

In the early 1990’s: the California Teachers Association reached new heights of thuggishness after a business-backed group began a petition to place a school-choice initiative on the state ballot. In a union-backed effort, teachers shadowed signature gatherers in shopping malls and aggressively dissuaded people from signing up. The tactic led to more than 40 confrontations and protests of harassment by signature gatherers. “They get in between the signer and the petition,” the head of the initiative said. “They scream at people. They threaten people.” CTA’s top official later justified the bullying: some ideas “are so evil that they should never even be presented to the voters,” he said. (City-Journal)

Now, their drug habit (free taxpayer money) is being threatened so they are all up-in-arms to protect their addiction.

Three of Top Five Political Spenders are Government Unions

Government-employee unions now spend more than any other outside group on U.S. elections.

And that’s taxpayer money, remember. Government has no money until it takes it from you. And Unions take money from their mandatory membership, which is also you the taxpayer.

No wonder the liberals are so mad. The drug addicts are facing a forced intervention and massive delirium tremons (DTs).

It’s like trying to sober up a drunk after they’ve been chronically drunk  (on taxpayers money) for 53 years.

They will kick and scream and yell and whine and be in denial. Sounds like the protesters to me.

Some symptoms:

  • Anxiety
  • Irritability or easily excited
  • Emotional volatility, rapid emotional changes
  • Difficulty with thinking clearly
  • Agitation
Illustration by Sean Delonas.
It will take an enormous effort to roll back decades of political and economic gains by government unions. But the status quo is unsustainable. But it will not be without a lot of drug withdrawal screaming and whining.
The only other option is to let the drug addicts drag us all down with them.
Your Choice.

The Party of No!

Imagine this reversal of polarity:

The magnificent turmoil now gripping statehouses in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and others marks an epic political moment. The nation faces a fiscal crisis of historic proportions and, remarkably, our muddled, gridlocked, allegedly broken politics has yielded a singular clarity.

At the federal level, President Obama’s budget makes clear that Democrats are determined to do nothing about the debt crisis, while House Republicans have announced that beyond their proposed cuts in discretionary spending, their April budget will actually propose real entitlement reform. Simultaneously, in Wisconsin and other states, Republican governors are taking on unsustainable, fiscally ruinous pension and health-care obligations, while Democrats are full-throated in support of the public-employee unions’ crying, “Hell no.”

A choice, not an echo: Democrats desperately defending the status quo; Republicans charging the barricades. (Charles Krauthammer)

The Democrats are the Party of “No” now. 🙂

And not only that, but they celebrate the “heroic” Senators in Wisconsin and Indiana who fled their state to prevent government from functioning. Effectively, crippling the democratic process and a partial government shutdown. The Liberals and the Ministry of Truth have a “tingle up their leg” over it.

Imagine what the Ministry of Truth would have said if this had happened during the ObamaCare debate?

In the private sector, the capitalist knows that when he negotiates with the union, if he gives away the store, he loses his shirt. In the public sector, the politicians who approve any deal have none of their own money at stake. On the contrary, the more favorably they dispose of union demands, the more likely they are to be the beneficiary of union largesse in the next election. It’s the perfect cozy setup. (CK)

Unions only want what’s best for them. Screw you. Screw your kids. Screw everything. But don’t screw with them!

Government unions stymie education reform to protect their narrow interests — interests that don’t represent America’s students, parents and taxpayers.

America’s taxpayers want quality education at a reasonable cost. Education unions want guaranteed job security and the best benefits they can get.

So education unions have used their political clout to block the reforms that would most benefit the teaching profession: performance pay for teachers, tenure reform, and alternative teacher certification that allows more mid-career professionals and those without traditional teaching degrees into the classroom. They don’t want competition or the pressure to perform.

Education unions have also lobbied to prevent public-education employees from chipping in to cover the cost of their health insurance premiums. They prefer to leave that burden to taxpayers. They’ve also secured pension and health benefits that far exceed what most private-sector workers make.

These special-interest handouts don’t serve children or taxpayers, but unions fight fiercely to protect them. For example, the American Federation of Teachers spent more than $1 million last year to ensure that Vincent Gray — someone it knew would protect the failed educational status quo — defeated D.C.’s incumbent mayor, education reformer Adrian Fenty.

Education unions also continually oppose letting parents choose the school that best meets their child’s needs. Union political pressure resulted in the voucher program in our nation’s capital, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, being phased out by the Obama administration. The scholarship program, which is now on life support, significantly improved graduation rates for low-income students in D.C.

Education unions are the most powerful force blocking meaningful education reform. They get the money to do this from millions of dues-paying members. In 28 states, teachers must pay union dues or lose their jobs. Unions spend these involuntary dues with little regard for teachers’ wishes.

The NEA’s own polling of public-school teachers found that 55 percent identified as more conservative than liberal. Yet more than 90 percent of the union’s campaign and political contributions go to Democrats — and we’re not talking chump change. The NEA and AFT spent more than $71 million on politics and lobbying in the 2008 election cycle. That’s roughly equal to public funding for a presidential campaign.

The result? Enormous amounts of money flowing into political campaigns to block education reforms. The good news is that some state leaders are beginning to push back on education unions and special interests. (DC)

And this special interest group gets to fund the people who are going to be sitting across the table from them in “negotiations” for “collective bargaining” and those people are dependent on them for re-election.

Sounds “fair” doesn’t it.

There are other states where this is rumbling, namely Ohio, Tennessee and Alabama.

The MoveOn.org “American Dream” rally in Sacramento produced one of the day’s more volatile moments. A man wearing a  Teamsters Local 439 jacket launched major body-check action on a Tea Party member. The union man with a bullhorn,was yelling across the street at the Tea Party activists, calling them “fascists.” Then one of the Tea Party activists, also bullhorn equipped, replied, “We pay your salary!”.So the “civil” union thug crossed the street and physically pushed the tea party member.
Because of it, Sacramento Police officers cited Richard Andazola for battery.

But don’t worry, it’s the Tea Party that is full of Racists and violent nutjobs. 🙂

The Mainstream Media/Ministry of Truth will see to it. Just ask the writers and producers of CBS’s The Good Wife where they just aired an episode where the Tea Party “bad guy” was also a “racist” and then a Democrat strategist on FOX defended it (paraphrase-because I was watching it- “there are just some people in the tea party that just can handle the fact the president is black”)

It just an accepted truth by many on the left that the Tea Party is racist simply because the president is Black. It can’t be anything else!

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/megyn-kelly-hosts-fiery-debate-over-racist-portrayal-of-tea-party-in-cbs-drama/

So just remember children, Raising taxes is good, Class Warfare is the only Politically Correct warfare allowed by the Left, Public Sector Unions funding Democrats with taxpayer money is good and if you disagree you’re a racist!! 🙂

Another Great Union Moment: What should we do to get America’s economy back on the road to prosperity? Raise taxes, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka suggests.

Trumka is a frequent guest at the White House.

In 2009, Wisconsin’s Democratic governor and Democratic Legislature passed legislation that raised taxes and fees by about $1.2 billion over three years. State lawmakers approved the bill on the very day it was introduced, with no public hearing. (Townhall)

This would be the crew that left a massive budget deficit for Gov. Walker but now blame him for trying to deal with it! And have complained bitterly that he wanted to “cram” the bill down their throats!

Hmmm..something vaguely familiar about that…. 🙂

Move.ong Org (co-founded by Socialist Billionaire George Soros) had their Whine & Cheese Saturday yesterday were they were going to make you afraid of cutting of their drugs (taxpayer’s money).

I Liked this one:

Rally in Los Angeles kicks off with union member screaming, “Let’s hear it for Obama!” ::crowd cheers:: “It rhymes with ‘yo mama!” ::confused silence::

Another speaker: “Tax the rich, not the workers! Tax the rich, not the workers!”

Class Warfare and Civil War are a very healthy on the LEFT.

ST Paul, MN: “You can’t have a democratic society without a strong union in the workplace,” one speaker notes.

These would be the same people who want to eliminate secret ballots and also “negotiate” with the people they put in power. Very “democratic”.

‘Ticked Turbin’: Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., praises Caesar Chavez for fighting for human rights.  Collective bargaining is a “basic human freedom,” Durbin says, a “right” Americans have “died for.”

So why then, Dick, were Federal Employees Unions banned from collective bargaining by Democrats in 1978??  (see yesterday’s blog for details).

Former Obama campaign employee and political appointee stands to speak in D.C. “This is not about Republicans and Democrats.  This is about a handful of billionaires… trying to take away all of our rights and all of our income.”

Just gotta drink from the sweet milk of Class Warfare.

By the way, the D.C. demonstration was organized by the International Socialist Organization.

Be afraid:

Jon Stewart is a significant source of news, particularly for younger viewers, although he insists he is simply a comedian. According to Pew Research, 16 percent of American said they regularly watched the Daily Show or it’s spin-off, The Colbert Report, and these viewers scored in the highest percentile of knowledge of current affairs.

Be afraid!

Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words. Brought to you by the brain trust at the SEIU, the public sector union that visits the White House more than any other. (Notice the spelling)

SEIUAmerica

Obama’s Democrats have become the party of no. Real cuts to the federal budget? No. Entitlement reform? No. Tax reform? No. Breaking the corrupt and fiscally unsustainable symbiosis between public-sector unions and state governments? Hell no. (CK)

Armageddon awaits.

In the Democrat view, it’s all about them.

In the Republican View, it’s timidly about the future.

What is it in your View?

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers