A follw-up to the article I just posted. All stuff that we know, but it is good to remember what kind of slime we are dealing with here. Click on the links.
--------------------------------------------
By: Ed Lasky
@ American Thinker
Halloween is approaching, but the true horror for Democrats will happen two days later on Election Day. Democrats have much to fear, and they have already reached into their bag of tricks to try to derail Republicans across the nation.
Democrats are desperate to stop the red tide spreading from the heart of the nation and heading toward the coasts. They are eager to preserve and protect their liberal agenda and extend it in the years to come. They fear that Republican ascendancy in the House might lead to the defunding of several elements of ObamaCare and thus put it on life support until they can deliver the coup de grace in 2012 under a veto-proof majority or a new president.
Democrats tremble at the prospect of Congressman Darrell Issa (whose Chief of Staff has earned the sobriquet of The Democrats' Worst Nightmare) investigating a wide range of government programs and agencies. Issa Investigations would encompass the waste and fraud associated with the misnamed Stimulus Bill (that mostly stimulated political allies of the Democrats, among them public unions) as well as dereliction of duty at the Department of Justice as political appointees bend and break the rules regarding the Voting Rights Act to favor the Democratic Party.
Congressman Issa and others can gum up Obama's agenda by the use of subpoena power -- for instance, by repeatedly calling to testify the various czars and czarinas who escaped Senate scrutiny courtesy of Barack Obama's machinations. One of the most potent blows to the Democrats would be Republicans winning in state races and thereby having the power to gerrymander districts based on the 2010 census -- this power would sway elections until the next census ten years from now. Public unions would find it harder to shake down taxpayers, and other unions would lose all the favors the Democrats have bestowed upon them.
Truly, a parade of horrors is in store for the Democrats if the Republicans rise.
Democrats are reaching into their bag of tricks. They are going beyond garden-variety tactics such as push polls and misrepresenting their own records, positions, and even identities (including stripping their party designation, the Scarlet D, from ads; hiding the fact that they are incumbents; denying one's paternity, as in the case of Harry Reid's son, who went the way of Cher during his campaign and used just his first name, Rory; running away from Barack Obama and their own votes on ObamaCare and the stimulus; pledging to vote to repeal ObamaCare and extend tax cuts for one and all; misrepresenting the views of their opponents; and portraying themselves as Blue Dogs despite being Pelosi Lapdogs). And, of course, they are postponing ethics trials of prominent Democrats until after November 2.
Democrats have also been very busy keeping initiatives regarding ObamaCare off state ballots, fearful of giving citizens an even greater reason to go to the polls. Jobs were offered to weak Democratic candidates to take them out of the running so stronger candidates would have the field to themselves -- a violation of federal laws that clearly will be part of the Issa inquiry.
That is old school.
Desperate times call for desperate measures, and we are beginning to see the Democrats start to rely on "dirty tricks" to spoil the fun (because if you have to run from the policies that are destroying your party's popularity, you have to resort to all means, fair and foul -- and mostly foul -- to win). Politics is war by another means, and when the Democrats are led by the Cook County Gang that could not play straight, all sorts of tactics will emerge.
Let's take a tour across the political landscape and catch some highlights.
The Department of Justice
Under what used to be our system of government, the Department of Justice was charged with maintaining the integrity and honesty of the voting process. Since Eric Holder became Attorney General, the DOJ has become a political tool to protect Democrats. ACORN and other community organizing groups that have engaged in a nationwide pattern of voting abuse have seemingly all but escaped the attention of the DOJ. The New Black Panther Party's videotaped example of voter intimidation has been given a pass by the Department -- a scandal that has brought forth responsible lawyers in the DOJ to testify about race-based policies of the political appointees heading up the Civil Rights division.
The DOJ has also pressured communities to change their election rules to boost the number of likely Democratic voters -- as the DOJ did with the city of Kinston, North Carolina regarding back voters and as they did in Ohio to boost the number of Puerto Rican voters. The DOJ has also been remiss enforcing one aspect of the "Motor Voter" law passed in 1993 -- a law that expanded the voting rolls by requiring states to offer voter registration material at numerous state offices, especially the Departments of Motor Vehicles. The aspect that the DOJ lawyers seemed to have missed is Section 8 of the Voting Rights law, which requires states to cleanse their voter rolls of people ineligible to vote -- including felons and dead people -- and to ensure that people are not allowed to register and vote multiple times for the same candidate.
The potential for fraud that favors Democrats is made clear by two recent examples where citizens' groups have actually done the job the DOJ refuses to do and have uncovered violations of voter laws by Democratic-linked groups.
The Secretary of State Project
The role of Secretaries of State should not be ignored, either.
These are the officials charged with ensuring the integrity of the voting process. Yet many of them have been elected through the efforts of the Democracy Alliance, a group of super-wealthy liberals (led by George Soros), Democratic operatives, and union leaders. This group's agenda is to ensure that politicians they choose to support are elected to these crucial posts. These are officers who are responsible for voting rolls being purged of ineligible voters.
Minnesota's Secretary of State was helped by this group, and it appears that Democratic Senator Al Franken may very well been elected in a narrow win over Republican Norm Coleman with the help of votes that should never have been counted. Ohio's secretary of state during the 2008 election, Jennifer Brunner, was also elected with the Alliance's help -- and had a see no evil approach toward ACORN voter fraud in that state. The push for increased early and absentee voting by Democrats and allied special interest groups is ripe with potential for fraud, especially if used in conjunction with street money to encourage votes for particular candidates.
While trying to expand the ranks of likely Democrats, the DOJ is also actively trying to suppress the votes of those in the military -- likely Republican voters -- by giving states a pass regarding their adherence to rules regarding sending soldiers absentee ballots.
The upshot: our soldiers, who are risking their lives to defend us, are risking the loss of their voting rights at the hands of the Department of Justice while the ranks of likely Democratic voters -- including ones that should not be allowed to vote -- expand.
Darrell Issa will have fertile fields to plow at Eric Holder's Department of Justice.
Smear Campaigns
Smear campaigns are the "wetwork" of politics. They are hit jobs, meant to assassinate the character and careers of conservatives. We saw them employed most viciously against Sarah Palin when her entire family came under assault -- a type of collateral damage that is fine by Democrats. During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama warned the GOP to "lay off my wife" and that to make "Michelle an issue in the campaign" would be "unacceptable." Yet he had no problem with the scorched earth, take-no-prisoners hatchet job on the Palin family committed by his minions.
This gang seems inspired by the Cook County mores exemplified by the movie The Untouchables. (Capone: "I want to find this nancy boy Eliot Ness, I want him dead! I want his family dead! I want his house burned to the ground!" See also Barack Obama's threat during the campaign that if they bring a knife to the fight, "we bring a gun," borrowing a line -- as Obama is wont to do -- from Sean Connery's character in the movie.) Lately we have heard the vice president threaten to "strangle" the GOP if any Republican brings up the deficit -- a figure that has significantly worsened under the regime of Obama-Pelosi-Reid.
The ends always justify the means with the gang that cannot play straight.
Democratic candidates are throwing chum in the water to churn the wheels of the rumor mill. The New York Times reports that Democratic strategists are planning the most negative campaign in years and helpfully explained that they were doing so to distract voters from their own records. Democrats are trying to distract voters from their own vastly unpopular policies by focusing on such items as tax liens and divorce records of their opponents. The Obama message of hope and change was "just words."
Sometimes the rumors are started by liberal bloggers. One blogger started a rumor that Republican Congressman Dave Reichert was suffering from a brain injury, making him unfit to serve in Congress (untrue). Another of these creepy critters tried to start a rumor that John Boehner was having an affair with a lobbyist by loudly asking him about this faux-scandal in front of a crowd of people. This blogger -- whose hero has to be the Nixon-era Donald Segretti -- has made a career of following GOP candidates around the country with a handful of mud ready to hurl (hoping it sticks).
Perhaps he was inspired by the insipid example of the New York Times, which ran a huge front-page story right before the 2008 election intimating that John McCain had also had an affair with a lobbyist. Indeed, during the campaign season, the New York Times is transformed into the National Enquirer -- only when it comes to Republicans as targets.
A determined group of activists can gin up a controversy and rely on the echo chamber outlets in the media to broaden and magnify the smear (see Fred Barnes' superb article, "The Colorado Model: The Democrats Plan for Turning Red States Blue," for a template of how this strategy successfully worked in that state).
Perhaps one of the worst purveyors of smears (and other assorted dirty tricks, as will be seen below) is the bombastic Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson, who, when he failed to depict his opponent Dan Webster as a Vietnam War draft-dodger, resorted to the video chop shop and patched together a video portraying Webster as "Taliban Dan" concerning his views of women -- an effort that would make Michael Moore proud (but seems to have backfired by its sheer clumsiness).
The smears will become worse in the days ahead -- whether it is a fake controversy involving the Republican candidate for Governor of California Meg Whitman's former housekeeper or the making of phone calls mischaracterizing the positions of Republican candidates (as Democrats did regarding Scott Brown's pro-life position in Massachusetts before that important election for the people's seat -- formerly known as the "Kennedy seat"). Gossip sells -- especially when it is supercharged by Democrats lapdogs in the so-called mainstream media.
A common tactic has been to try to link Democrat opponents to Wall Street and the mortgage meltdown; long-time Democratic dinosaur John Dingell even tried to link his Republican opponent, a cardiologist, to Wall Street. But I have seen it over and over -- always promoting the canard that opponents of the Democrats are profiteers from the 2008 crisis (a disaster that greatly enriched George Soros, the Democrats' number-one patron and the top funder of 527 groups such as MoveOn.org, and a major backer of influential think-tanks such as the Center for American Progress, Obama's Idea Factory -- all tools of the Democrats to gain and keep power).
One could go on and on in this theatre of the political.
Death to the Tea Party
One of the most potent movements in modern American politics has been the breathtaking rise of the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal discipline and responsibility -- traits antithetical to most Democratic politicians. The movement is gaining not just self-described adherents, but also large numbers of sympathizers. The Tea Party has focused attention on areas that make many Democrats vulnerable. Hence, the Tea Party has earned the wrath of Democrats.
We are all familiar by now with the wild charges Democrats and their lapdogs in the media make about the Tea Party, heavy on the Alinksy-style of ridicule: it is racist, retrograde, composed of wackos and pawns controlled by the Koch brothers (wealthy funders of Libertarian causes) and corporate interests, led by profit-making Elmer Gantrys, and mere astroturf groups being controlled by wealthy string-pullers. The reliable bogeyman Karl Rove has also been invoked by the Democrats as way to demonize the Tea Party. Conservative bloggers have been getting this treatment for years; now everyone who opposes Democrats and their agenda is a target.
Democratic Senator Max Baucus has used his power as the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to ask the IRS to investigate a panoply of groups that can be considered part of the Tea Party movement, and -- lest we forget -- Barack Obama ominously "joked" about siccing the IRS on people while he planned to expand the ranks of IRS agents prepared to audit us into submission. Liberal watchdog groups make noise by calling for the IRS to investigate a group linked to Karl Rove. The more chaff in the air, the more the Democrats distract people from the Democrats' collective record.
Democrats uphold the First Amendment when flags are burned and brandish it when Muslims want a mosque built near the 9/11 site -- but they try to chill free speech when people want to express their views towards Democrats. (Hence Barack Obama's disgraceful attack against the Citizens United decision during the State of the Union address; when Democrats want our opinions, they will give us them.)
These efforts have been defeated for the most part. The charges of racism leveled by Democratic Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, who said he was spit upon by Tea Party members, led to the offer by Andrew Breitbart of a $100,000 reward for any evidence that such an attack took place. None has surfaced, and videos of the event where this supposedly had happened show no indication that it did occur. The Koch brothers have been pilloried, but when information apparently taken from their confidential tax records was made public, an investigation into possible abuse of IRS information was launched by an inspector general. Others have challenged the hypocrisy of Democrats turning the Kochs into piñatas by highlighting the role of George Soros, the sugar daddy of the Democratic Party. For every Karl Rove claim, one can be made about the maestro of astroturf groups, David Axelrod -- Obama campaign strategist-turned-chief domestic policy advisor.
However, there are trickier and more dishonest tactics being used by Democrats as they tamper with Tea Party. In fact, black ops against the Tea Party are happening throughout the nation -- a vast left-wing conspiracy.
A counter-"people's movement" called the Coffee Party was launched last February and already has seemingly flopped, embarrassing the media which eagerly hyped it at its debut. Groups have been formed by the aforementioned George Soros to monitor Tea Party activists -- meant to expose extremism and racism in the Tea Party. Will this racism charge stick if liberals plant agent provocateurs at rallies -- as they already have done by infiltrating Tea Party rallies to give the impression they are rallies for racists?
A plant, a crude KKK-like sign or T-shirt, and a camera crew -- snap, crackle, and pop: the Tea Party morphs into neo-Nazis.
False Flags
The Democats' black ops can be creative. Following the adage of divide and conquer, there have been more than a few examples of candidates being put on ballots as a way to siphon support away from Republicans considered tough challengers to Democrats. In Michigan, a group claiming to be the "Tea Party" put 23 candidates on ballots around the state; this was a plot engineered by a Democratic operative to split the Republican vote in November. The affidavits to get on the ballot were notarized by this operative -- possibly a crime.
The ever-creative Alan Grayson also was the wizard behind the curtain in setting up a fake "TEA Party" group in Florida. This TEA party was a shell group set up by liberals to siphon votes away from Republican candidates. Several of these "candidates" had ties to Grayson, and he paid almost $28,000 to the man who turned the (fake) TEA Party into an entity that ran its own (fake) candidates. The Nevada Tea Party candidate running for the Senate (who recently tried to hurt Sharron Angle's chances by secretly taping her) has also been accused of being a fake Tea Party candidate who is trying to help the Democratic Senator and Majority Leader Harry Reid retain his seat.
Democrats are helping such false-flag Tea Party candidates nationwide.
Voters should not judge a book by its cover (or title).
In Pennsylvania, a group called "VoteVets.org" has absurdly tried to link the GOP candidate for the Senate, Pat Toomey, with Iranian madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A voter might see the word "Vet" in the name of this group and give its view credence since the military is one of the most trusted institutions in America. However, such trust would be misplaced. This group is a liberal veterans' group based in Oregon (not Pennsylvania) that somehow found hundreds of thousands of dollars to drop into the Pennsylvania race. Another veterans' group has condemned VoteVets as being a political group masquerading as a veterans group and has charged that VoteVets is a small group of veterans bought and paid for by the Democratic Party to run hit ads.
Another example of this kind of dirty trick comes from Nevada, where the Tea Party-sounding group Patriot Majority has been attacking Sharron Angle. Marc Thiessen of the Washington Post investigated and found that this group was formed by Harry Reid's former spokesman and is funded by the SEIU and the AFSCME (the government workers' union).
There are many of these types of groups running ads and endorsing or criticizing Republican candidates around the nation; they may sound legitimate, but they are camouflaged liberal hit groups flying false flags -- like pirates steeling for an attack.
Be forewarned: this essay is only a flyby through the dark Democratic alleys of American politics. There are powerful and wealthy special interests (unions, members of the Democracy Alliance, and many others) determined to retain the reins of power because of the benefits that flow to them -- regardless of what happens to the rest of us. Undoubtedly, new schemes are being hatched now to swing the election their way come November -- and we may never discover them.
Friday, October 8, 2010
A Worthy Article
On how unions are planning on stealing the close elections.
Anyone who has been paying attention knows that it is entirely possible as it has happened before in Minnesota, Ohio, and elsewhere.
Anyone who has been paying attention knows that it is entirely possible as it has happened before in Minnesota, Ohio, and elsewhere.
Another Obamacare/Union Outrage
I know, it is getting tiresome reading all these stories about outrages of the day (or should I say hour), but I feel it is my duty to convey at least the more outrageous stories. Here is the latest:
The United Federation of Teachers, the New York City branch of the American Federation of Teachers, which pushed ardently for ObamaCare has now requested – and received – a waiver from its mandates.
The UFT is a member of New York State United Teachers (NYSUT). In September 2009, the NYSUT’s website published “Health care reform: facts vs. myths.” Here’s an excerpt:
Myth: Health care reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors.
Fact: You can keep your existing insurance; reform will expand your medical options, not eliminate them.
ObamaCare was such a great idea at the time - the AFT gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Healthcare for America Now, the leading organization pushing for the government takeover of health care.
It was announced Thursday that the UFT has requested and received an Obamacare-waiver after it discovered their members would end up losing their health insurance plans. Uh oh.
The United Federation of Teachers, the New York City branch of the American Federation of Teachers, which pushed ardently for ObamaCare has now requested – and received – a waiver from its mandates.
The UFT is a member of New York State United Teachers (NYSUT). In September 2009, the NYSUT’s website published “Health care reform: facts vs. myths.” Here’s an excerpt:
Myth: Health care reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors.
Fact: You can keep your existing insurance; reform will expand your medical options, not eliminate them.
ObamaCare was such a great idea at the time - the AFT gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Healthcare for America Now, the leading organization pushing for the government takeover of health care.
It was announced Thursday that the UFT has requested and received an Obamacare-waiver after it discovered their members would end up losing their health insurance plans. Uh oh.
More Outrage From The Cabinet
That socialist piece of trash (I know, you will say which one...), better known as Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, ended disclosure of the lavish perks enjoyed by his Big Labor Boss supporters. But this should come as little surprise as in a speech last year to the AFL-CIO, Solis tacitly acknowledged that she has turned the U.S. Labor Department over to them.
The Obama Labor Department has been positioning themselves to rollback changes to the congressionally mandated union financial disclosure reports for unions with receipts of $250,000 plus.
The specific disclosures rescinded, among other things, exposed labor boss perks like John Sweeney’s alleged million dollar payment in 2000. Now, Big Labor Union Bosses who receive special payments can continue to hide these payments from workers who are forced to subsidize them.
In eliminating the regulation, several Obama Administration appointees likely violated Obama’s Executive Order 13490 that prohibits appointee involvement in regulations that impact their former employer or clients.
DOL Secretary Hilda Solis (former treasurer of Big Labor front group American Rights At Work), Deputy Solicitor of Labor Deborah Greenfield (who was a named litigator in a lawsuit filed by the AFL-CIO to strike down the rule that DOL now intends to rescind), and Deputy Asst. Secretary John Lund (Lund, a former Big Labor trainer and consultant to the AFL-CIO, signed the current proposed) are no doubt deeply involved in the Labor Department’s recent proposed regulation that would:
1) Eliminate reporting of special employer payments to union officers and other union officials like shop stewards,
2) Exclude union stewards from conflict of interest altogether,
3) Eliminate reporting of certain loans to union officials, like loans from union operated credit unions,
4) Eliminate disclosure of any money that union officials may receive surreptitiously from union trusts like strike funds, vacation funds, slush funds etc., and
5) Redefine the word “employer” so that it excludes any labor unions that have employees.
No matter how you evaluate these current changes, the Department’s proposed rule is a huge benefit to union bosses but a big loser for the rank-and-file worker who in many instances must pay dues and fees to the union to keep their jobs.
The Obama Labor Department has been positioning themselves to rollback changes to the congressionally mandated union financial disclosure reports for unions with receipts of $250,000 plus.
The specific disclosures rescinded, among other things, exposed labor boss perks like John Sweeney’s alleged million dollar payment in 2000. Now, Big Labor Union Bosses who receive special payments can continue to hide these payments from workers who are forced to subsidize them.
In eliminating the regulation, several Obama Administration appointees likely violated Obama’s Executive Order 13490 that prohibits appointee involvement in regulations that impact their former employer or clients.
DOL Secretary Hilda Solis (former treasurer of Big Labor front group American Rights At Work), Deputy Solicitor of Labor Deborah Greenfield (who was a named litigator in a lawsuit filed by the AFL-CIO to strike down the rule that DOL now intends to rescind), and Deputy Asst. Secretary John Lund (Lund, a former Big Labor trainer and consultant to the AFL-CIO, signed the current proposed) are no doubt deeply involved in the Labor Department’s recent proposed regulation that would:
1) Eliminate reporting of special employer payments to union officers and other union officials like shop stewards,
2) Exclude union stewards from conflict of interest altogether,
3) Eliminate reporting of certain loans to union officials, like loans from union operated credit unions,
4) Eliminate disclosure of any money that union officials may receive surreptitiously from union trusts like strike funds, vacation funds, slush funds etc., and
5) Redefine the word “employer” so that it excludes any labor unions that have employees.
No matter how you evaluate these current changes, the Department’s proposed rule is a huge benefit to union bosses but a big loser for the rank-and-file worker who in many instances must pay dues and fees to the union to keep their jobs.
Obama: "GOP Take Over Of The Congress Would Mean Hand To Hand Combat"
Oh, really Mr. President?
It just goes to show how little regard he has for our political system and his lack of any tolerance for any view point that disagrees with his marxist views. Bill Clinton was a disgrace himself, but at least he saw the light as a result of the 1994 elections. Expect none of that with Obama.
More I see this sorry excuse for a president in the White House, more I would love to see whatever investigations are necessary to impeach him once GOP takes over the Congress.
It just goes to show how little regard he has for our political system and his lack of any tolerance for any view point that disagrees with his marxist views. Bill Clinton was a disgrace himself, but at least he saw the light as a result of the 1994 elections. Expect none of that with Obama.
More I see this sorry excuse for a president in the White House, more I would love to see whatever investigations are necessary to impeach him once GOP takes over the Congress.
Flocabulary: The Sad State Of U.S. Education System (Caution: Do Not Read If You Get Easily Depressed!)
How many of you are aware of Flocabulary, a music-based educational tool that uses raps, rhythms and rhymes to help students learn and memorize everything from vocabulary and English to math and social studies? Did you know that, by some estimates, upwards of ten thousand schools in the U.S. has adopted this none sense? I did not, at least until I read about Oklahoma City decision to suspend the program.
Now, I have nothing against using some innovative tactics to teach subjects like math and history to our kids as long as they do not undermine the fundamentals of the subject matter. Flocabulary, outrageously enough, is not one of those methods. It is enough to make your blood boil if you are fed up with the teacher unions and their constant undermining of our kids' education.
Concern over a new hip-hop curriculum that refers to the founding fathers as "old dead white men" has delayed the program's roll out for at-risk students, Oklahoma City Public Schools Superintendent Karl Springer said. At risk students? How about the rest of them?
It is the U.S. history curriculum that has raised concern.
One of the rap songs — "Old Dead White Men" — chronicles the shortcomings of the early leaders in the United States. Just watch:
Of President James Monroe's tenure, the rap says: "White men getting richer than Enron./ They stepping on Indians, women and blacks./ Era of Good Feeling doesn't come with the facts."
That's followed up by an assessment of President Andrew Jackson's checkered dealings with American Indians.
"Andrew Jackson, thinks he's a tough guy./ Killing more Indians than there are stars in the sky./ Evil wars of Florida killing the Seminoles./ Saying hello, putting Creek in the hell holes./ Like Adolf Hitler he had the final solution./ 'No, Indians, I don't want you to live here anymore.'"
Among many other clearly objectionable lyrics of the song, they also manage to find a proper use for Dick Cheney, but I digress.
And that is only the rap about the Founding Fathers. As if that is not enough, should you want to sample more of this none sense, try the grammatically embarrassing, at best controversial lyrics about MLK, or The Bill of Rights, or This Ain't Working among many.
What is next? Ebonics in school curriculum? (at this rate, I would not be surprised if the answer is yes)
Flocabulary CEO and co-founder Alex Rappaport said the lyrics are made intentionally provocative and sometimes humorous to create student engagement among some of the toughest-to-reach students in the nation.
"In general, the purpose of our program is to motivate students, and we often say the enemy here is student apathy," Rappaport said. "We want students to ask questions and challenge assumptions that are made and think critically about historical themes."
Excuse me but, critical thinking is not a familiar concept to any liberal.
I can only hope that likes of Governor Christie don't waste anytime overturning their predecessors foolishness.
Now, I have nothing against using some innovative tactics to teach subjects like math and history to our kids as long as they do not undermine the fundamentals of the subject matter. Flocabulary, outrageously enough, is not one of those methods. It is enough to make your blood boil if you are fed up with the teacher unions and their constant undermining of our kids' education.
Concern over a new hip-hop curriculum that refers to the founding fathers as "old dead white men" has delayed the program's roll out for at-risk students, Oklahoma City Public Schools Superintendent Karl Springer said. At risk students? How about the rest of them?
It is the U.S. history curriculum that has raised concern.
One of the rap songs — "Old Dead White Men" — chronicles the shortcomings of the early leaders in the United States. Just watch:
Of President James Monroe's tenure, the rap says: "White men getting richer than Enron./ They stepping on Indians, women and blacks./ Era of Good Feeling doesn't come with the facts."
That's followed up by an assessment of President Andrew Jackson's checkered dealings with American Indians.
"Andrew Jackson, thinks he's a tough guy./ Killing more Indians than there are stars in the sky./ Evil wars of Florida killing the Seminoles./ Saying hello, putting Creek in the hell holes./ Like Adolf Hitler he had the final solution./ 'No, Indians, I don't want you to live here anymore.'"
Among many other clearly objectionable lyrics of the song, they also manage to find a proper use for Dick Cheney, but I digress.
And that is only the rap about the Founding Fathers. As if that is not enough, should you want to sample more of this none sense, try the grammatically embarrassing, at best controversial lyrics about MLK, or The Bill of Rights, or This Ain't Working among many.
What is next? Ebonics in school curriculum? (at this rate, I would not be surprised if the answer is yes)
Flocabulary CEO and co-founder Alex Rappaport said the lyrics are made intentionally provocative and sometimes humorous to create student engagement among some of the toughest-to-reach students in the nation.
"In general, the purpose of our program is to motivate students, and we often say the enemy here is student apathy," Rappaport said. "We want students to ask questions and challenge assumptions that are made and think critically about historical themes."
Excuse me but, critical thinking is not a familiar concept to any liberal.
I can only hope that likes of Governor Christie don't waste anytime overturning their predecessors foolishness.
A Small Victory For Obama
In a 20-page decision, U.S. District Judge George Steeh (Eastern District of Michigan) refused to issue an injunction to halt preparations for putting federal health reforms into full effect in 2014, a law known as the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress in March. Steeh also dismissed the major points of the suit -- requiring Americans to buy health insurance and penalizing those who don't starting in 2014.
You can read Judge Steeh's opinion here. It amounts to this: everything you do under the sun is considered interstate commerce, thus can be regulated by the federal government.
This decision should not come as a surprise considering Steeh is a Clinton appointee who apparently has a liberal track record. Where the left cannot succeed via the ballot box, they will seek to legislate via the bench. The judge is still beholden to Clinton, who was the last one to try to socialize healthcare, so this is just politicial payback, not a Constitutional setback for freedom lovers in this nation.
It will take some time, some suffering, and the need for Americans to keep voting out the bums but the first step in resolving the issue of having those who act like this judge will start on November 2nd of this year.
You can read Judge Steeh's opinion here. It amounts to this: everything you do under the sun is considered interstate commerce, thus can be regulated by the federal government.
This decision should not come as a surprise considering Steeh is a Clinton appointee who apparently has a liberal track record. Where the left cannot succeed via the ballot box, they will seek to legislate via the bench. The judge is still beholden to Clinton, who was the last one to try to socialize healthcare, so this is just politicial payback, not a Constitutional setback for freedom lovers in this nation.
It will take some time, some suffering, and the need for Americans to keep voting out the bums but the first step in resolving the issue of having those who act like this judge will start on November 2nd of this year.
The simple fact of the matter is this is bad law, written by those who have little regard for our Constitution, and will eventually be tossed out the door like we will toss out those who voted for this bill in the first place.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Thought for the Day
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." --Benjamin Franklin
Amazing how much smarter visionaries of 18th century were than progressives of today, who are nothing but warmed over Fabian socialists of 19th century.
Congress Can't Repeal Economics
It's raining! I don't like it! Why hasn't Congress passed the Good Weather Act and the Everybody Happy Act?
Sound dumb?
Why is it any dumber than a law called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which promised to cover more for less money?
When Obamacare was debated, we free-market advocates insisted that no matter what the president promised, the laws of economics cannot be repealed. Our opponents in effect answered, "Yes, we can."
Well, Obamacare has barely started taking effect, and the evidence is already rolling in. I hate to say we told them so, but ... we told them so. The laws of economics have struck back.
Health insurers Wellpoint, Cigna, Aetna, Humana, and CoventryOne will stop writing policies for all children. Why? Because Obamacare requires that they insure already sick children for the same price as well children.
That sounds compassionate, but—in case Obamacare fanatics haven't noticed—sick children need more medical care. Insurance is about risk, and already sick children are 100 percent certain to be sick when their coverage begins. So if the government mandates that insurance companies cover sick children at the lower well-children price, insurers will quit the market rather than sandbag their shareholders. This is not callousness—it's fiduciary responsibility. Insurance companies are not charities. So, thanks to the compassionate Congress and president, parents of sick children will be saved from expensive insurance—by being unable to obtain any insurance! That's how government compassion works.
In 2014, the same rule will kick in for adults. You now know what to expect.
This is just the beginning of reality's backlash. President Obama promised that under his scheme no one will have to change medical plans, but some 840,000 Americans are already left without coverage because their insurer, the Principal Financial Group, decided to leave the market.
"(T)he company's decision reflected its assessment of its ability to compete in the environment created by the new law," The New York Times reports. "Principal's decision closely tracks moves by other insurers that have indicated in recent weeks that they plan to drop out of certain segments of the market ... ."
Last week's bombshell was that McDonald's may drop coverage for its 30,000 workers unless the Obama administration waives some rules. The central planners of the Obama administration decided in their infinite wisdom that all insurers should spend at least 80 percent to 85 percent of their revenues on patient care, a mandate aimed at minimizing administrative costs. It's natural to assume that higher patient-care ratios are better for consumers, but there's no proof of that. Health economist James C. Robinson explained years ago that "medical loss ratios" are just an accounting tool and were "never intended to measure quality or efficiency. ... More direct measures of quality are available."
The Wall Street Journal reports: "Insurers say dozens of other employers could find themselves in the same situation as McDonald's. Aetna Inc. ... provides (similar) plans to Home Depot Inc., Disney Worldwide Services, CVS Caremark Corp., Staples Inc. and Blockbuster Inc., among others, according to an Aetna client list."
McDonald's may get a waiver, but I like the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon's take on that: "Sorry, but I don't find it comforting that Obamacare gives HHS the power to waive these regulations on a case-by-case basis. Power corrupts. We've already seen HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius use other powers granted her by Obamacare to threaten insurers who contradict the party line."
In a letter to the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans, Sebelius wrote there would be "zero tolerance" for companies that attribute "unjustified rate increases" to Obamacare. "Simply stated," she wrote, "we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections."
In other words: "We have repealed the basic laws of economics. Insurance companies must now give people more but not charge them for it. If you do charge more, you must not tell your customers why. Shut up, obey, and don't complain. We are your rulers."
Sound dumb?
Why is it any dumber than a law called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which promised to cover more for less money?
When Obamacare was debated, we free-market advocates insisted that no matter what the president promised, the laws of economics cannot be repealed. Our opponents in effect answered, "Yes, we can."
Well, Obamacare has barely started taking effect, and the evidence is already rolling in. I hate to say we told them so, but ... we told them so. The laws of economics have struck back.
Health insurers Wellpoint, Cigna, Aetna, Humana, and CoventryOne will stop writing policies for all children. Why? Because Obamacare requires that they insure already sick children for the same price as well children.
That sounds compassionate, but—in case Obamacare fanatics haven't noticed—sick children need more medical care. Insurance is about risk, and already sick children are 100 percent certain to be sick when their coverage begins. So if the government mandates that insurance companies cover sick children at the lower well-children price, insurers will quit the market rather than sandbag their shareholders. This is not callousness—it's fiduciary responsibility. Insurance companies are not charities. So, thanks to the compassionate Congress and president, parents of sick children will be saved from expensive insurance—by being unable to obtain any insurance! That's how government compassion works.
In 2014, the same rule will kick in for adults. You now know what to expect.
This is just the beginning of reality's backlash. President Obama promised that under his scheme no one will have to change medical plans, but some 840,000 Americans are already left without coverage because their insurer, the Principal Financial Group, decided to leave the market.
"(T)he company's decision reflected its assessment of its ability to compete in the environment created by the new law," The New York Times reports. "Principal's decision closely tracks moves by other insurers that have indicated in recent weeks that they plan to drop out of certain segments of the market ... ."
Last week's bombshell was that McDonald's may drop coverage for its 30,000 workers unless the Obama administration waives some rules. The central planners of the Obama administration decided in their infinite wisdom that all insurers should spend at least 80 percent to 85 percent of their revenues on patient care, a mandate aimed at minimizing administrative costs. It's natural to assume that higher patient-care ratios are better for consumers, but there's no proof of that. Health economist James C. Robinson explained years ago that "medical loss ratios" are just an accounting tool and were "never intended to measure quality or efficiency. ... More direct measures of quality are available."
The Wall Street Journal reports: "Insurers say dozens of other employers could find themselves in the same situation as McDonald's. Aetna Inc. ... provides (similar) plans to Home Depot Inc., Disney Worldwide Services, CVS Caremark Corp., Staples Inc. and Blockbuster Inc., among others, according to an Aetna client list."
McDonald's may get a waiver, but I like the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon's take on that: "Sorry, but I don't find it comforting that Obamacare gives HHS the power to waive these regulations on a case-by-case basis. Power corrupts. We've already seen HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius use other powers granted her by Obamacare to threaten insurers who contradict the party line."
In a letter to the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans, Sebelius wrote there would be "zero tolerance" for companies that attribute "unjustified rate increases" to Obamacare. "Simply stated," she wrote, "we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections."
In other words: "We have repealed the basic laws of economics. Insurance companies must now give people more but not charge them for it. If you do charge more, you must not tell your customers why. Shut up, obey, and don't complain. We are your rulers."
Obama: Fiscal Situation "Untenable"
You don't say, Mr. President.
In a nutshell, the anointed one said:
"I realize that we're facing an untenable fiscal situation. There was a $1.3 trillion deficit staring at me when I took office, and although the economic crisis and the steps we took to stop the free fall temporarily added to our fiscal challenges, it's clear that we're going to have to get serious about the deficit.
And that's why I've proposed a three-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending. That's why I've launched a bipartisan deficit reduction commission, which will be reporting in a few months."
Keen government observers know what's coming next: The big "but":
"What I won't do is cut back on investments like education that are directly related to our long-term economic performance. Now is not the time to sacrifice our competitive edge in the global economy."
A-ha. Because nothing says "competitive edge" like "doubling spending while failing to improve results."
Note what the news reports probably won't, that A) this was a meeting of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, B) the first 10 paragraphs of his remarks were about "maintain[ing] our commitment to education," particularly strengthening community colleges, and C) there was zero discussion, in the long ensuing Q&A with the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, about concretely addressing this "untenable fiscal situation." There was tons of talk about home weatherization, though.
There you have it. The 47 smartest economists around the president of the United States agree that the best way to solve the "untenable fiscal situation" is to boost education spending, weatherize homes, throw more bad money after bad in the housing market, more bad money after bad in the Small Business Administration, and maybe (though only over the president's dead body) freeze all taxes for two years. Now, that oughtta make it tenable!
We are in deep trouble folks.
In a nutshell, the anointed one said:
"I realize that we're facing an untenable fiscal situation. There was a $1.3 trillion deficit staring at me when I took office, and although the economic crisis and the steps we took to stop the free fall temporarily added to our fiscal challenges, it's clear that we're going to have to get serious about the deficit.
And that's why I've proposed a three-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending. That's why I've launched a bipartisan deficit reduction commission, which will be reporting in a few months."
Keen government observers know what's coming next: The big "but":
"What I won't do is cut back on investments like education that are directly related to our long-term economic performance. Now is not the time to sacrifice our competitive edge in the global economy."
A-ha. Because nothing says "competitive edge" like "doubling spending while failing to improve results."
Note what the news reports probably won't, that A) this was a meeting of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, B) the first 10 paragraphs of his remarks were about "maintain[ing] our commitment to education," particularly strengthening community colleges, and C) there was zero discussion, in the long ensuing Q&A with the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, about concretely addressing this "untenable fiscal situation." There was tons of talk about home weatherization, though.
There you have it. The 47 smartest economists around the president of the United States agree that the best way to solve the "untenable fiscal situation" is to boost education spending, weatherize homes, throw more bad money after bad in the housing market, more bad money after bad in the Small Business Administration, and maybe (though only over the president's dead body) freeze all taxes for two years. Now, that oughtta make it tenable!
We are in deep trouble folks.
It Is Their Money; Not Yours
In reference to Martin Feldstein's proposal that all tax rates be maintained at their current lower levels, the President said: "If we were going to spend $700 billion, it seems it would be wiser having that $700 billion going to folks who would spend that money right away."
I thought I understood this tax debate - whether to leave tax rates as they are or to raise them. But when I heard the President's words something was off, specifically his first use of the word "spend." The President basically said that not to increase taxes on small businesses and individuals making over $250,000 is equivalent to spending money on those businesses and individuals.
This is an extreme concept and one that is best understood by analyzing it personally. Everyone understands that when I "spend" money on a charity or at the grocery, the implication is that I am using my money to make a contribution or to buy chips and beer, or whatever.
The President clearly believes differently, that my paycheck does not begin its life as mine, from which taxes are taken. Rather, he believes that my paycheck begins life as his, from which residual amounts are beneficently granted to me for living expenses. He clearly believes that the yet untaxed portion of my paycheck is still his, to be "spent" on me at his discretion.
This is revolutionary. This is Marx and Chavez, and it is a stunningly honest admission of President Obama's worldview.
I thought I understood this tax debate - whether to leave tax rates as they are or to raise them. But when I heard the President's words something was off, specifically his first use of the word "spend." The President basically said that not to increase taxes on small businesses and individuals making over $250,000 is equivalent to spending money on those businesses and individuals.
This is an extreme concept and one that is best understood by analyzing it personally. Everyone understands that when I "spend" money on a charity or at the grocery, the implication is that I am using my money to make a contribution or to buy chips and beer, or whatever.
The President clearly believes differently, that my paycheck does not begin its life as mine, from which taxes are taken. Rather, he believes that my paycheck begins life as his, from which residual amounts are beneficently granted to me for living expenses. He clearly believes that the yet untaxed portion of my paycheck is still his, to be "spent" on me at his discretion.
This is revolutionary. This is Marx and Chavez, and it is a stunningly honest admission of President Obama's worldview.
Bad Policies Push U.S. In Wrong Direction
By JAMES A. DORN
Posted 10/05/2010 - Investor Business Daily
The financial crisis revealed deep flaws in U.S. policy and the dismal record of macroeconomic forecasting.
No one at the Federal Reserve, Treasury or Council of Economic Advisors foresaw the crisis. When the crisis hit, the predictions were that unless the government dramatically increased its role in the economy, the U.S. would fall off a cliff. In reality, after billions in stimulus spending, unemployment is still unusually high, growth is sluggish, and uncertainty prevails.
There is no monetary rule, no fiscal discipline, no clarity of how to deal with more than $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare, and no widespread understanding that governments fail when they attempt too much.
The federal government has bailed out financial institutions and taken over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two large mortgage financers, but no effort has been made to let relative prices adjust, or to make those responsible for bad choices bear the costs.
Stimulus funds have been used to bail out states and public employees who make more than private sector workers, but the multiplier effect of such redistributive acts has been close to zero.
Yet, the U.S. government keeps spending and going deeper into debt. Public overconsumption continues, while high marginal tax rates on capital, uncertainty about health care costs, new financial regulations, and the anticipated end of the Bush tax cuts combine to discourage new investment and job creation.
In this environment, the Federal Reserve is prepared to embark on another round of quantitative easing and has postponed letting its balance sheet naturally shrink as its large holdings of mortgage-backed securities and agency debt matures.
Instead, the Fed will reinvest those funds in Treasury bonds with maturities of 2 to 10 years, continuing to peg interest rates at artificially low levels. In effect, the Fed has substituted credit policy for monetary policy.
One of the causes of the crisis was distorted credit markets: with too much credit going to housing and too little into alternative investments. The Fed now holds more than a trillion dollars of MBSs and has expanded its balance sheet from about $800 billion before the financial crisis to more than $2 trillion today.
That jump was made possible by a massive surge in the monetary base, mainly in the form of bank reserves held at the Fed.
By paying interest on reserves and keeping short-term rates near zero, the Fed let banks make large profits through the carry trade — that is, by borrowing at low rates and investing in longer-term government debt that yields about 4%, with little risk.
If the Fed continues to support government bond prices, there will be little incentive to curtail government borrowing and spending. As the U.S. debt grows relative to GDP, the temptation to inflate away the real burden of the debt will become stronger, and markets will price that risk into long-term bonds. Interest rates will rise and crowd out private investment. Bond prices will tank, and China and other large holders of U.S. debt will take capital losses, complicating foreign policy.
We need not wait a decade or more for all this to happen. The expectation of a weaker U.S. economy, a falling dollar, massive debt ratios, and inflation will affect investment decisions today. Policy uncertainty is already creating a steeper yield curve, with 30-year bond yields 3 percentage points or more above shorter-term securities.
Economic growth depends on institutions that reward saving and investment, that expand individuals' choices, and that protect private property rights, allow free trade, and safeguard the value of money.
Policies that lead to higher taxes, more debt, socialized health care, costly regulations, protectionism, and unstable money undermine U.S. economic strength and frustrate the natural equilibrating function that characterizes a dynamic market system based on freely determined prices, the rule of law, and sound money.
The way out of this quagmire is to adopt credible, more transparent policies. The Fed should end credit allocation and focus on maintaining long-run price stability while fiscal policy should aim at limiting the size and scope of government.
Moving to a flat tax and substantially lowering taxes on capital would stimulate growth. The Fed and Congress appear to be going in the wrong direction.
-----------
• Dorn is vice president for academic affairs at the Cato Institute and editor of the Cato Journal.
Posted 10/05/2010 - Investor Business Daily
The financial crisis revealed deep flaws in U.S. policy and the dismal record of macroeconomic forecasting.
No one at the Federal Reserve, Treasury or Council of Economic Advisors foresaw the crisis. When the crisis hit, the predictions were that unless the government dramatically increased its role in the economy, the U.S. would fall off a cliff. In reality, after billions in stimulus spending, unemployment is still unusually high, growth is sluggish, and uncertainty prevails.
There is no monetary rule, no fiscal discipline, no clarity of how to deal with more than $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare, and no widespread understanding that governments fail when they attempt too much.
The federal government has bailed out financial institutions and taken over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two large mortgage financers, but no effort has been made to let relative prices adjust, or to make those responsible for bad choices bear the costs.
Stimulus funds have been used to bail out states and public employees who make more than private sector workers, but the multiplier effect of such redistributive acts has been close to zero.
Yet, the U.S. government keeps spending and going deeper into debt. Public overconsumption continues, while high marginal tax rates on capital, uncertainty about health care costs, new financial regulations, and the anticipated end of the Bush tax cuts combine to discourage new investment and job creation.
In this environment, the Federal Reserve is prepared to embark on another round of quantitative easing and has postponed letting its balance sheet naturally shrink as its large holdings of mortgage-backed securities and agency debt matures.
Instead, the Fed will reinvest those funds in Treasury bonds with maturities of 2 to 10 years, continuing to peg interest rates at artificially low levels. In effect, the Fed has substituted credit policy for monetary policy.
One of the causes of the crisis was distorted credit markets: with too much credit going to housing and too little into alternative investments. The Fed now holds more than a trillion dollars of MBSs and has expanded its balance sheet from about $800 billion before the financial crisis to more than $2 trillion today.
That jump was made possible by a massive surge in the monetary base, mainly in the form of bank reserves held at the Fed.
By paying interest on reserves and keeping short-term rates near zero, the Fed let banks make large profits through the carry trade — that is, by borrowing at low rates and investing in longer-term government debt that yields about 4%, with little risk.
If the Fed continues to support government bond prices, there will be little incentive to curtail government borrowing and spending. As the U.S. debt grows relative to GDP, the temptation to inflate away the real burden of the debt will become stronger, and markets will price that risk into long-term bonds. Interest rates will rise and crowd out private investment. Bond prices will tank, and China and other large holders of U.S. debt will take capital losses, complicating foreign policy.
We need not wait a decade or more for all this to happen. The expectation of a weaker U.S. economy, a falling dollar, massive debt ratios, and inflation will affect investment decisions today. Policy uncertainty is already creating a steeper yield curve, with 30-year bond yields 3 percentage points or more above shorter-term securities.
Economic growth depends on institutions that reward saving and investment, that expand individuals' choices, and that protect private property rights, allow free trade, and safeguard the value of money.
Policies that lead to higher taxes, more debt, socialized health care, costly regulations, protectionism, and unstable money undermine U.S. economic strength and frustrate the natural equilibrating function that characterizes a dynamic market system based on freely determined prices, the rule of law, and sound money.
The way out of this quagmire is to adopt credible, more transparent policies. The Fed should end credit allocation and focus on maintaining long-run price stability while fiscal policy should aim at limiting the size and scope of government.
Moving to a flat tax and substantially lowering taxes on capital would stimulate growth. The Fed and Congress appear to be going in the wrong direction.
-----------
• Dorn is vice president for academic affairs at the Cato Institute and editor of the Cato Journal.
Latest From The 'Doctor Deficit' Front
One of the marks of national health care is the waiting-list problem that plagues Britain and Canada. Delays in treatment have caused suffering and, in some cases, death. Soon, we'll be waiting for doctors too.
Last week, the Association of American Medical Colleges reported that the looming doctor shortage will be worse than previous reports claim because of ObamaCare.
Rather than "a baseline shortage of 39,600 doctors in 2015, current estimates bring that number closer to 63,000, with a worsening of shortages through 2025," says the medical college group's Center for Workforce Studies.
Unless the country acts now, says the Center for Workforce Studies, we will be more than 91,000 doctors short in just 10 years. The number includes a shortage of 45,000 primary care physicians and 46,000 surgeons and medical specialists.
This study confirms what others have said.
Two years ago, the physician search firm of Merritt, Hawkins & Associates estimated that by 2020 the U.S. will need 90,000 to 200,000 more doctors than we will have. At that point, the wait to see a doctor for a routine visit would be three to four months.
A year after the Merritt Hawkins report, Joseph Stubbs, president of the American College of Physicians, the country's second-largest doctor group, talked about the arrival of "a catastrophic crisis" even before ObamaCare had been passed and signed.
"Now we're talking 30 million more people who will want to see a doctor" under the Democrats' overhaul he said. "The supply of doctors just won't be there for them."
As alarming as those numbers are, the reality might be worse. The ranks will be thinned as physicians simply refuse to work under ObamaCare. In August 2009, 45% of doctors told IBD/TIPP Poll that they would consider leaving their practices or taking early retirement if the Democrats' version of reform were to become law. And it did.
The doctors cited various reasons behind their decisions to leave. But the most common explanations centered around the increased costs under the Democrats' plan, the bureaucratic controls it would bring and its lack of protection from runaway malpractice lawsuits.
"This unconstitutional plan gives sovereignty over our bodies to unelected, unaccountable, ignorant bureaucrats," said one. "Every governmental micromanagement of our lives has failed in its objective, and caused moral and economic bankruptcy."
While the oncoming shortage will hit everyone, the Center for Workforce Studies says "the impact will be most severe on vulnerable and underserved populations." And weren't those the very people the Democrats said they wanted to help by moving the country into a national health care system?
It's almost ironic, then, that their attempt to add 32 million to the rolls of the insured will exacerbate the coming physician shortage and is likely to create the sort of disastrous waiting lists that have led to unnecessary pain, suffering and death in Canada and Great Britain.
Don't think that it can't happen here. It already has.
In Boston, where the state government runs health care and in doing so has boosted the insured rate from 93.6% to 97.4%, the average waiting time to see a family doctor, according to Merritt, Hawkins & Associates, is now 63 days. That's the lengthiest wait in the 15 cities the group surveyed and almost two months longer than the wait in Miami, where it's a relatively short seven days.
With Boston being home to no less than 14 teaching hospitals and located in the state with the highest concentration of doctors, shouldn't the wait times be much shorter?
Yes, but the intrusion of government changes the calculation. Merritt Hawkins said the longer wait is "driven in part" by the state's health care reform initiative.
As is almost always the case, a proposal for government to step in and improve lives actually makes matters worse. A few Americans might be better off under ObamaCare than they were before. But for almost everyone else, health care quality will decline.
Last week, the Association of American Medical Colleges reported that the looming doctor shortage will be worse than previous reports claim because of ObamaCare.
Rather than "a baseline shortage of 39,600 doctors in 2015, current estimates bring that number closer to 63,000, with a worsening of shortages through 2025," says the medical college group's Center for Workforce Studies.
Unless the country acts now, says the Center for Workforce Studies, we will be more than 91,000 doctors short in just 10 years. The number includes a shortage of 45,000 primary care physicians and 46,000 surgeons and medical specialists.
This study confirms what others have said.
Two years ago, the physician search firm of Merritt, Hawkins & Associates estimated that by 2020 the U.S. will need 90,000 to 200,000 more doctors than we will have. At that point, the wait to see a doctor for a routine visit would be three to four months.
A year after the Merritt Hawkins report, Joseph Stubbs, president of the American College of Physicians, the country's second-largest doctor group, talked about the arrival of "a catastrophic crisis" even before ObamaCare had been passed and signed.
"Now we're talking 30 million more people who will want to see a doctor" under the Democrats' overhaul he said. "The supply of doctors just won't be there for them."
As alarming as those numbers are, the reality might be worse. The ranks will be thinned as physicians simply refuse to work under ObamaCare. In August 2009, 45% of doctors told IBD/TIPP Poll that they would consider leaving their practices or taking early retirement if the Democrats' version of reform were to become law. And it did.
The doctors cited various reasons behind their decisions to leave. But the most common explanations centered around the increased costs under the Democrats' plan, the bureaucratic controls it would bring and its lack of protection from runaway malpractice lawsuits.
"This unconstitutional plan gives sovereignty over our bodies to unelected, unaccountable, ignorant bureaucrats," said one. "Every governmental micromanagement of our lives has failed in its objective, and caused moral and economic bankruptcy."
While the oncoming shortage will hit everyone, the Center for Workforce Studies says "the impact will be most severe on vulnerable and underserved populations." And weren't those the very people the Democrats said they wanted to help by moving the country into a national health care system?
It's almost ironic, then, that their attempt to add 32 million to the rolls of the insured will exacerbate the coming physician shortage and is likely to create the sort of disastrous waiting lists that have led to unnecessary pain, suffering and death in Canada and Great Britain.
Don't think that it can't happen here. It already has.
In Boston, where the state government runs health care and in doing so has boosted the insured rate from 93.6% to 97.4%, the average waiting time to see a family doctor, according to Merritt, Hawkins & Associates, is now 63 days. That's the lengthiest wait in the 15 cities the group surveyed and almost two months longer than the wait in Miami, where it's a relatively short seven days.
With Boston being home to no less than 14 teaching hospitals and located in the state with the highest concentration of doctors, shouldn't the wait times be much shorter?
Yes, but the intrusion of government changes the calculation. Merritt Hawkins said the longer wait is "driven in part" by the state's health care reform initiative.
As is almost always the case, a proposal for government to step in and improve lives actually makes matters worse. A few Americans might be better off under ObamaCare than they were before. But for almost everyone else, health care quality will decline.
Another Indication Of How Far (Once Great) Britain Has Sunk In To Depths Of Socialism
You may remember, last year 16 people were named, shamed and banned from entering the UK. One of them was Michael Savage, a radio talk show host that spoke out against radical Islam and acts of Muslim terror. He was soon punished by Britain’s Home Secretary, Ms. Jacqui Smith who said she made his name public ‘so others could better understand what sort of behavior Britain was not prepared to tolerate.’
It’s been nearly five days since 1010global.org released its ‘no pressure’ genocide ad campaign in Britain, thanks to liberal support from companies like Sony, Kyocera Mita, 02, The Guardian, ActionAid, and 350.org -- not to mention the director, Richard Curtis (Co-Executive Producer, ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’). Despite 1010’s widely-distributed commercial that advocates human slaughter -- teachers using explosives to blow up children -- not a peep from Britain’s Home Secretary.
Yet back in 2009, Jacqui Smith told GMTV upon Britain’s banning of Michael Savage:
“I think it’s important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it’s a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won’t be welcome in this country. Therefore, I will not hesitate to name and shame those who foster extremist views as I want them to know that they are not welcome here.”
During a BBC Breakfast interview, Jacqui Smith elaborated on the British Home Secretary’s ‘enforced standards’ when dealing with anti-terrorists:
“[Michael Savage] is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country.”
Unlike 1010global.org, Ms. Smith?
Regarding Savage’s ban, Canada Free Press reported, “Mr. Savage [did] not advocate violence, support genocide or advise anyone to harm another.” Chiming in on the Home Secretary’s glaring double standards, Humberto Fontova of Andrew Breitbart’s ‘Big Journalism’ reported:
“Banned in Britain for ‘Hate Speech’ -- Unless You’re the Daughter of a Mass Murderer”
The following month, for a hoopla titled “Cuba 50,” Britain rolled out the red carpet for Che Guevara’s daughter, Aleida. The celebration was billed as “the biggest European celebration in this 50th anniversary year (of Castro’s Stalinist regime).”
This British celebration for a regime that jailed political prisoners at a higher rate than Stalin’s, murdered political prisoners at a higher rate than pre-war Hitler’s, created refugees at a higher rate than the Waffen SS and Gestapo created while conquering and subjugating France, and came closest of anyone to plunging the world into nuclear war—the festival for this regime was held in London’s luxurious Barbican Centre.
And lest anyone get the wrong idea, Che’s daughter was feted by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s jurisdictional domain in order to promote, in her own words: “my father’s ideals, his concerns, and his ambitions. I believe that my father is a banner to the world!”
Socialists, hypocrites, what is the difference anyways?
It’s been nearly five days since 1010global.org released its ‘no pressure’ genocide ad campaign in Britain, thanks to liberal support from companies like Sony, Kyocera Mita, 02, The Guardian, ActionAid, and 350.org -- not to mention the director, Richard Curtis (Co-Executive Producer, ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’). Despite 1010’s widely-distributed commercial that advocates human slaughter -- teachers using explosives to blow up children -- not a peep from Britain’s Home Secretary.
Yet back in 2009, Jacqui Smith told GMTV upon Britain’s banning of Michael Savage:
“I think it’s important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it’s a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won’t be welcome in this country. Therefore, I will not hesitate to name and shame those who foster extremist views as I want them to know that they are not welcome here.”
During a BBC Breakfast interview, Jacqui Smith elaborated on the British Home Secretary’s ‘enforced standards’ when dealing with anti-terrorists:
“[Michael Savage] is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country.”
Unlike 1010global.org, Ms. Smith?
Regarding Savage’s ban, Canada Free Press reported, “Mr. Savage [did] not advocate violence, support genocide or advise anyone to harm another.” Chiming in on the Home Secretary’s glaring double standards, Humberto Fontova of Andrew Breitbart’s ‘Big Journalism’ reported:
“Banned in Britain for ‘Hate Speech’ -- Unless You’re the Daughter of a Mass Murderer”
The following month, for a hoopla titled “Cuba 50,” Britain rolled out the red carpet for Che Guevara’s daughter, Aleida. The celebration was billed as “the biggest European celebration in this 50th anniversary year (of Castro’s Stalinist regime).”
This British celebration for a regime that jailed political prisoners at a higher rate than Stalin’s, murdered political prisoners at a higher rate than pre-war Hitler’s, created refugees at a higher rate than the Waffen SS and Gestapo created while conquering and subjugating France, and came closest of anyone to plunging the world into nuclear war—the festival for this regime was held in London’s luxurious Barbican Centre.
And lest anyone get the wrong idea, Che’s daughter was feted by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s jurisdictional domain in order to promote, in her own words: “my father’s ideals, his concerns, and his ambitions. I believe that my father is a banner to the world!”
Socialists, hypocrites, what is the difference anyways?
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Democrat Introduces Legislation To End Right To Work States
Just more proof that when it comes to achieving socialism, they only play hardball.
From the Big Government site:
Back in June, we reported that California Congressman Brad Sherman (D) was circulating a letter to his fellow Democrats to introduce legislation to repeal “Right-to-Work” laws in 22 states. Now, with less than a month before the mid-term elections and five weeks before a lame-duck session in Congress, Sherman has introduced legislation to eliminate state Right to Work laws all across America.
Currently, there are 22 states in the U.S. that have laws where workers who are employed at companies that are unionized have a choice whether or not to join or pay the union. These states are known as Right-to-Work states.
On the other hand, in the 28 Non-Right-to-Work states (also called forced-dues states), it is legal for a union to negotiate a “union (income) security clause” that requires all workers covered by the union to pay the union does or ‘agency fees’ as a condition of employment. If the workers refuse to pay the union, under a “union (income) security clause,” the union can have them fired from their jobs.
As background, in 1947, Congress amended the National Labor Relations Act with the Taft-Hartley Amendments which, among other things, gave states the right to establish “Right-to-Work” laws. Until the Taft-Hartley Amendments, from 1935 to 1947, private-sector workers in all 50 could be required to pay dues to a union or, if not, be fired from their jobs. The ability of states to have Right-to-Work laws is contained in a single paragraph within the National Labor Relations Act (Section 14 [b]), which states:
(b) [Agreements requiring union membership in violation of State law] Nothing in this Act [subchapter] shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.
As a result of this one section being inserted into the 1947 amendments, states (through their legislatures) could determine whether or not to be a Right-to-Work state, or a forced-dues state.
Therefore, the removal of this one section would make all 50 states forced-dues states, giving unions the ability to have workers fired for not paying union dues or fees.
From Congressman Sherman’s website [emphasis added]:
Today, Congressman Brad Sherman announced the introduction of dramatic legislation that would eliminate so-called “right-to-work” laws, which was applauded by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Sherman has a strong record of supporting working men and women and earned a 100% rating from the AFL-CIO.
Right-to-work laws require unions to represent non dues-paying employees, thereby undermining the basic premise and promise of union membership and creating free riders – people who are exempt from paying their fair share. Right-to-work laws create different standards for union membership in different states. This results not only in confusion over the regulation of union membership, but also places a higher cost on worker representation in labor rights states.
“I do not believe that there should be a right to be treated unfairly or to endure unnecessary restrictions. Right-to-work laws strip unions of their legitimate ability to collect dues, even when the worker is covered by a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement. This forces unions to use their time and members’ dues to provide benefits to free riders who are exempt from paying their fair share,” said Congressman Brad Sherman. “These laws are harmful to states like California, which allows labor unions to organize, because now we have to compete with the race to the bottom as our companies have to compete with those where the workers would like better wages, working conditions and benefits but are unable to organize to get them.”
“With the introduction of legislation banning so-called right-to-work, Congressman Sherman has once again demonstrated his strong commitment to working families,” said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO. “Right-to-work laws undermine the economy and weaken workers’ ability to bargain for better working conditions, which translates into lower pay and fewer benefits for everyone.”
While Brad Sherman’s statement about workers in Right-to-Work states not having the right to organize is patently false (the National Labor Relations Act does not discriminate on workers’ rights to organize in a Right to Work state), he is accurate that his state of California has been losing jobs. However, there are a multitude of factors that have contributed to California’s demise—many of which were, ironically, caused by the unions that Sherman has so endeared himself.
Although Congressman Sherman introduced this legislation back in 2008, it had little chance of succeeding. However, with the mid-term elections and a lame-duck Congress following, the chances that Democrats (who are taking hundreds of millions from unions), it is possible the chances that Democrats could vote to end Right-to-Work states.
As a result, now is as good a time as any to get Democrats (in both Right-to-Work states and forced-union states) to state their positions on whether they support an end to workers’ right to work.
From the Big Government site:
Back in June, we reported that California Congressman Brad Sherman (D) was circulating a letter to his fellow Democrats to introduce legislation to repeal “Right-to-Work” laws in 22 states. Now, with less than a month before the mid-term elections and five weeks before a lame-duck session in Congress, Sherman has introduced legislation to eliminate state Right to Work laws all across America.
Currently, there are 22 states in the U.S. that have laws where workers who are employed at companies that are unionized have a choice whether or not to join or pay the union. These states are known as Right-to-Work states.
On the other hand, in the 28 Non-Right-to-Work states (also called forced-dues states), it is legal for a union to negotiate a “union (income) security clause” that requires all workers covered by the union to pay the union does or ‘agency fees’ as a condition of employment. If the workers refuse to pay the union, under a “union (income) security clause,” the union can have them fired from their jobs.
As background, in 1947, Congress amended the National Labor Relations Act with the Taft-Hartley Amendments which, among other things, gave states the right to establish “Right-to-Work” laws. Until the Taft-Hartley Amendments, from 1935 to 1947, private-sector workers in all 50 could be required to pay dues to a union or, if not, be fired from their jobs. The ability of states to have Right-to-Work laws is contained in a single paragraph within the National Labor Relations Act (Section 14 [b]), which states:
(b) [Agreements requiring union membership in violation of State law] Nothing in this Act [subchapter] shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.
As a result of this one section being inserted into the 1947 amendments, states (through their legislatures) could determine whether or not to be a Right-to-Work state, or a forced-dues state.
Therefore, the removal of this one section would make all 50 states forced-dues states, giving unions the ability to have workers fired for not paying union dues or fees.
From Congressman Sherman’s website [emphasis added]:
Today, Congressman Brad Sherman announced the introduction of dramatic legislation that would eliminate so-called “right-to-work” laws, which was applauded by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Sherman has a strong record of supporting working men and women and earned a 100% rating from the AFL-CIO.
Right-to-work laws require unions to represent non dues-paying employees, thereby undermining the basic premise and promise of union membership and creating free riders – people who are exempt from paying their fair share. Right-to-work laws create different standards for union membership in different states. This results not only in confusion over the regulation of union membership, but also places a higher cost on worker representation in labor rights states.
“I do not believe that there should be a right to be treated unfairly or to endure unnecessary restrictions. Right-to-work laws strip unions of their legitimate ability to collect dues, even when the worker is covered by a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement. This forces unions to use their time and members’ dues to provide benefits to free riders who are exempt from paying their fair share,” said Congressman Brad Sherman. “These laws are harmful to states like California, which allows labor unions to organize, because now we have to compete with the race to the bottom as our companies have to compete with those where the workers would like better wages, working conditions and benefits but are unable to organize to get them.”
“With the introduction of legislation banning so-called right-to-work, Congressman Sherman has once again demonstrated his strong commitment to working families,” said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO. “Right-to-work laws undermine the economy and weaken workers’ ability to bargain for better working conditions, which translates into lower pay and fewer benefits for everyone.”
While Brad Sherman’s statement about workers in Right-to-Work states not having the right to organize is patently false (the National Labor Relations Act does not discriminate on workers’ rights to organize in a Right to Work state), he is accurate that his state of California has been losing jobs. However, there are a multitude of factors that have contributed to California’s demise—many of which were, ironically, caused by the unions that Sherman has so endeared himself.
Although Congressman Sherman introduced this legislation back in 2008, it had little chance of succeeding. However, with the mid-term elections and a lame-duck Congress following, the chances that Democrats (who are taking hundreds of millions from unions), it is possible the chances that Democrats could vote to end Right-to-Work states.
As a result, now is as good a time as any to get Democrats (in both Right-to-Work states and forced-union states) to state their positions on whether they support an end to workers’ right to work.
World's Largest Teleprompter
How do you keep the Van Joneses and other radicals from going off the deep end and spouting Marxist propaganda for national TV cameras?
It makes one wonder who actually wrote the script and if the rally was little more than propaganda for the TV cameras, given the host of radical organizations participating that day.
It makes one wonder who actually wrote the script and if the rally was little more than propaganda for the TV cameras, given the host of radical organizations participating that day.
Healthcare Reform So Far: Promises Made, Promises Not Kept
The implementation of the healthcare reform bill that was passed in March has now begun. Unfortunately, it is becoming obvious that the promises made such as: a) you can keep your physician and medical plan if you like them; b) your healthcare costs will go down; c) there will be no healthcare rationing; and d) everyone will be covered simply were not true.
We were fed a steady diet of fear, distraction and falsehoods to sell healthcare reform.
We were told that unless something was done healthcare costs would bankrupt the country
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report admitting that the actual cost of the healthcare system would be far higher than was initially estimated - a cost of more than 1 trillion dollars
We were told that healthcare premiums would decrease for families
The CBO report estimates that the cost of healthcare premiums would go up by $2100 for the average family next year
We were told that if we liked our health insurance and doctor we could keep them
Thousands of Medicare recipients from Massachusetts to Maine will lose supplemental insurance through Medicare advantage thereby increasing there healthcare costs exponentially.
There will be no healthcare rationing
The choice of Donald Berwick speaks for itself. He is a champion of the British model of socialized one size fits all medicine. It is a broken system that is based on rationing of care that is collapsing under its own weight.
There have also been examples of nascent rationing here in the US. e.g, in Colorado the cancer drug Avastin is not covered by Medicare although it is covered in other states. In addition, the effectiveness of screening tools such as mammograms are being questioned. It is likely that these studies will eventually be used to argue that mammograms are not effective and therefore will not be covered by insurance.
The rising cost of private medical insurance premiums and deductibles in the current economic environment also lead to the rationing of healthcare. This is not surprising since the bill was written by and for the corporate medical cabal (i.e., the medical insurance and pharmaceutical industries, the Hospital Corporation of America and the American Medical Association) that make profit their number one priority instead of the health of our citizens.
By appealing to our lowest common denominator we have been divided and distracted by playing either the fear, race and/or class cards ad nauseam while nothing has been done to control the real reasons for the high costs of healthcare. For example:
Medicare still cannot import cheaper medications that would decrease the healthcare costs of senior citizens.
Those with health savings accounts cannot use their account to buy cheaper over the counter alternatives or nutritional supplements. They can only buy prescription drugs.
Healthcare reform now covers preventative tests, but there has been a movement towards limiting the indications for testing (eg, mammograms to detect breast cancer and PSA to diagnose prostate cancer).
Nothing has been done to stop insurance companies from hoarding profits while systematically raising premiums.
There has been no mention of tort reform.
Why have none of these changes been implemented? Perhaps it is because this is a system that is set up to fail. When people get so fed up with waiting for treatment, or no longer want to put up with being denied care because a decision is made that the costs outweigh the benefits, the government will be ready to step in with the solution of the single payer system. Unfortunately, when that happens medical care in the United States as we know it will be lost forever, and we will be saddled with a system that even the British find untenable.
We were fed a steady diet of fear, distraction and falsehoods to sell healthcare reform.
We were told that unless something was done healthcare costs would bankrupt the country
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report admitting that the actual cost of the healthcare system would be far higher than was initially estimated - a cost of more than 1 trillion dollars
We were told that healthcare premiums would decrease for families
The CBO report estimates that the cost of healthcare premiums would go up by $2100 for the average family next year
We were told that if we liked our health insurance and doctor we could keep them
Thousands of Medicare recipients from Massachusetts to Maine will lose supplemental insurance through Medicare advantage thereby increasing there healthcare costs exponentially.
There will be no healthcare rationing
The choice of Donald Berwick speaks for itself. He is a champion of the British model of socialized one size fits all medicine. It is a broken system that is based on rationing of care that is collapsing under its own weight.
There have also been examples of nascent rationing here in the US. e.g, in Colorado the cancer drug Avastin is not covered by Medicare although it is covered in other states. In addition, the effectiveness of screening tools such as mammograms are being questioned. It is likely that these studies will eventually be used to argue that mammograms are not effective and therefore will not be covered by insurance.
The rising cost of private medical insurance premiums and deductibles in the current economic environment also lead to the rationing of healthcare. This is not surprising since the bill was written by and for the corporate medical cabal (i.e., the medical insurance and pharmaceutical industries, the Hospital Corporation of America and the American Medical Association) that make profit their number one priority instead of the health of our citizens.
By appealing to our lowest common denominator we have been divided and distracted by playing either the fear, race and/or class cards ad nauseam while nothing has been done to control the real reasons for the high costs of healthcare. For example:
Medicare still cannot import cheaper medications that would decrease the healthcare costs of senior citizens.
Those with health savings accounts cannot use their account to buy cheaper over the counter alternatives or nutritional supplements. They can only buy prescription drugs.
Healthcare reform now covers preventative tests, but there has been a movement towards limiting the indications for testing (eg, mammograms to detect breast cancer and PSA to diagnose prostate cancer).
Nothing has been done to stop insurance companies from hoarding profits while systematically raising premiums.
There has been no mention of tort reform.
Why have none of these changes been implemented? Perhaps it is because this is a system that is set up to fail. When people get so fed up with waiting for treatment, or no longer want to put up with being denied care because a decision is made that the costs outweigh the benefits, the government will be ready to step in with the solution of the single payer system. Unfortunately, when that happens medical care in the United States as we know it will be lost forever, and we will be saddled with a system that even the British find untenable.
Monday, October 4, 2010
At 'One Nation' Rally, A Unionized Show of Unity
By: Byron York
Washington Examiner
Organizers of Saturday's "One Nation Working Together" rally at the Lincoln Memorial are proud of their diversity. Before the event, they predicted it would be the "most diverse march in history." It turned out they were right. Looking around the rally, there were Teamsters Local 311, Service Employees International Union Local 1199, Communications Workers of America Local 2336, American Federation of Teachers Local 1, United Auto Workers Amalgamated Local 171, Transport Workers Union Local 100, and representatives of many, many other unions. That's a lot of diversity.
Karnell Dorris and Rose Anderson work in a nursing home in Detroit. They're members of Local 79 of the Service Employees International Union, which chartered buses to bring them and hundreds of others to the rally. They left Detroit at about 8:00 pm Friday for the 13-hour drive to Washington. After spending all day at the rally, they were scheduled for a union dinner, after which they would overnight at a hotel, also paid for by Local 79. For Dorris, the main reasons for coming to the rally were "jobs, justice and education." For Anderson, it was health care, along with a desire to "stop taking from us, trying to make the rich richer."
With few exceptions, people said the economy was their motivation for marching. "Jobs first," said Paul Blujus, a former construction worker who now works in health care in Buffalo, New York and who came to Washington aboard a bus chartered by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees/Civil Service Employees Association Local 1000. "Jobs -- better jobs," said Debra Winston, who came to the rally from Memphis on a bus chartered by SEIU Local 205. "Jobs," said Mark West, who came from Charlotte, North Carolina aboard a bus chartered by United Steelworkers Local 850.
The union presence was so ubiquitous and so organized that it made for a kind of color coding in the crowd. Looking around, there were large groups of people bunched into separate areas, all wearing the same color T-shirts to mark their union affiliation. There were groups wearing the purple SEIU shirt, others wearing the red CWA shirt, others wearing the blue AFT shirt, and still others wearing green shirts and yellow shirts and so on. There were long rows of tables where union workers sat waiting to get people connected to their groups and their buses. There were thousands of union-printed signs.
Organizers will deny that the march was a total union job, compared to the more grassroots character of tea party gatherings. And it's true that union allies like the NAACP also played a big part in staging "One Nation Working Together." But it's safe to say the rally would have been nothing without labor's money and organizing strength.
On this beautiful day in Washington, there was just one thing on many minds, but few people seemed eager to admit it. The polls show Republicans headed for substantial gains in the November 2 elections, but most of the people at the rally just couldn't accept the idea. "It ain't happening," said Rose Anderson.
The very idea of it made them angry. "I'm particularly offended by these people who want to take the nation back," said Maida Odom, who came to the rally from Philadelphia on board a bus chartered by the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees/ AFSCME Local 1199. "I'm saddened that people haven't risen above their bigotry. If you read the Republican Contract with America, you can see the bigotry in between every line."
There was disappointment, too, in what President Obama and Democrats in Congress have accomplished, most notably in the area of health care. Rather than celebrate Obama's achievement of a goal that generations of Democrats before him had failed to reach, several participants complained that the new health care law just doesn't go far enough. "Make it single payer," said Paul Blujus. "Take the profit out of health care." There was also griping about the state of education, the environment, and taxes (people at the rally wanted their own taxes cut, and rich people's raised).
But when it came to complaints about the current administration, one unhappy note sounded more than any other. By and large, this crowd hates the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They want U.S. troops out. "I am totally against both wars," said Mark Deagle, a pipefitter from Troy, Michigan who came to the rally on a bus chartered by an antiwar group. "I'm disappointed in Obama expanding the Afghan war, because I think it's endless." Paul Blujus said he wants the U.S. government "to stop worrying about Afghanistan and Iraq and start worrying about the American people."
Kathryn Riss said she attended the 1963 rally at the Lincoln Memorial, when she was just 16 years old, and came back 46 years later for the inauguration of Barack Obama. This time, she traveled from New Jersey on what she called the "peace bus" ("the Communications Workers of America very graciously paid our way," she explained), and she held a homemade blue flag with a white dove stitched into the middle. "I carried this flag at many peace demonstrations in the 1960s," she said, and now she's still protesting wars. The discordant note in all this, of course, is that the president she supported and whose inauguration brought her to tears is now the one conducting those wars.
In addition to the blue flag, Riss carried a yellow-and-black sign that was ubiquitous at the rally. It had a picture of Martin Luther King Jr. and said STAND AGAINST WAR & RACISM -- JOBS NOT WAR. At the bottom, it said AnswerCoalition.org, a reference to the group International ANSWER, which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. The people who run ANSWER are old-style Communists, supporters of just about every awful regime on the planet. They ran the big anti-war protests in the early months of the war in Iraq, sometimes to the embarrassment of more moderate anti-war forces. The presence of ANSWER gives any rally a touch of the extreme.
There were plenty of other extreme elements, too. The Communist Party USA took part. The War Resisters League. The Freedom Socialist Party, and several others. If the main organizers of the rally wanted to keep the kooky parts of their coalition away from public view, they didn't succeed.
Overall, how big was the crowd? Before the rally, organizers made no secret of their determination that their turnout be bigger than that of the nonpolitical Glenn Beck rally at the Memorial on August 28. "We believe that our satellite photos will stack up nicely to his satellite photos,” NAACP president Ben Jealous told the New York Times. After the rally, however, there wasn't so much talk about satellite photos; although thousands of people showed up, the crowd was visibly smaller than the Beck event. Even with all that organizing muscle, they couldn't turn out as many people as one man on talk radio and Fox News.
"One Nation" was scheduled to last from noon until 4:00 pm, but a lot of people headed for the exits well before the last speakers took the stage. By 2:45, when Jealous himself was at the microphone, they were streaming for the buses. As they walked, organizers herded people in the right direction. "OPEIU movin' out! OPEIU movin' out!" shouted one man, a organizer with the Office and Professional Employees International Union. The unions came, and then they left.
Washington Examiner
Organizers of Saturday's "One Nation Working Together" rally at the Lincoln Memorial are proud of their diversity. Before the event, they predicted it would be the "most diverse march in history." It turned out they were right. Looking around the rally, there were Teamsters Local 311, Service Employees International Union Local 1199, Communications Workers of America Local 2336, American Federation of Teachers Local 1, United Auto Workers Amalgamated Local 171, Transport Workers Union Local 100, and representatives of many, many other unions. That's a lot of diversity.
Karnell Dorris and Rose Anderson work in a nursing home in Detroit. They're members of Local 79 of the Service Employees International Union, which chartered buses to bring them and hundreds of others to the rally. They left Detroit at about 8:00 pm Friday for the 13-hour drive to Washington. After spending all day at the rally, they were scheduled for a union dinner, after which they would overnight at a hotel, also paid for by Local 79. For Dorris, the main reasons for coming to the rally were "jobs, justice and education." For Anderson, it was health care, along with a desire to "stop taking from us, trying to make the rich richer."
With few exceptions, people said the economy was their motivation for marching. "Jobs first," said Paul Blujus, a former construction worker who now works in health care in Buffalo, New York and who came to Washington aboard a bus chartered by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees/Civil Service Employees Association Local 1000. "Jobs -- better jobs," said Debra Winston, who came to the rally from Memphis on a bus chartered by SEIU Local 205. "Jobs," said Mark West, who came from Charlotte, North Carolina aboard a bus chartered by United Steelworkers Local 850.
The union presence was so ubiquitous and so organized that it made for a kind of color coding in the crowd. Looking around, there were large groups of people bunched into separate areas, all wearing the same color T-shirts to mark their union affiliation. There were groups wearing the purple SEIU shirt, others wearing the red CWA shirt, others wearing the blue AFT shirt, and still others wearing green shirts and yellow shirts and so on. There were long rows of tables where union workers sat waiting to get people connected to their groups and their buses. There were thousands of union-printed signs.
Organizers will deny that the march was a total union job, compared to the more grassroots character of tea party gatherings. And it's true that union allies like the NAACP also played a big part in staging "One Nation Working Together." But it's safe to say the rally would have been nothing without labor's money and organizing strength.
On this beautiful day in Washington, there was just one thing on many minds, but few people seemed eager to admit it. The polls show Republicans headed for substantial gains in the November 2 elections, but most of the people at the rally just couldn't accept the idea. "It ain't happening," said Rose Anderson.
The very idea of it made them angry. "I'm particularly offended by these people who want to take the nation back," said Maida Odom, who came to the rally from Philadelphia on board a bus chartered by the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees/ AFSCME Local 1199. "I'm saddened that people haven't risen above their bigotry. If you read the Republican Contract with America, you can see the bigotry in between every line."
There was disappointment, too, in what President Obama and Democrats in Congress have accomplished, most notably in the area of health care. Rather than celebrate Obama's achievement of a goal that generations of Democrats before him had failed to reach, several participants complained that the new health care law just doesn't go far enough. "Make it single payer," said Paul Blujus. "Take the profit out of health care." There was also griping about the state of education, the environment, and taxes (people at the rally wanted their own taxes cut, and rich people's raised).
But when it came to complaints about the current administration, one unhappy note sounded more than any other. By and large, this crowd hates the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They want U.S. troops out. "I am totally against both wars," said Mark Deagle, a pipefitter from Troy, Michigan who came to the rally on a bus chartered by an antiwar group. "I'm disappointed in Obama expanding the Afghan war, because I think it's endless." Paul Blujus said he wants the U.S. government "to stop worrying about Afghanistan and Iraq and start worrying about the American people."
Kathryn Riss said she attended the 1963 rally at the Lincoln Memorial, when she was just 16 years old, and came back 46 years later for the inauguration of Barack Obama. This time, she traveled from New Jersey on what she called the "peace bus" ("the Communications Workers of America very graciously paid our way," she explained), and she held a homemade blue flag with a white dove stitched into the middle. "I carried this flag at many peace demonstrations in the 1960s," she said, and now she's still protesting wars. The discordant note in all this, of course, is that the president she supported and whose inauguration brought her to tears is now the one conducting those wars.
In addition to the blue flag, Riss carried a yellow-and-black sign that was ubiquitous at the rally. It had a picture of Martin Luther King Jr. and said STAND AGAINST WAR & RACISM -- JOBS NOT WAR. At the bottom, it said AnswerCoalition.org, a reference to the group International ANSWER, which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. The people who run ANSWER are old-style Communists, supporters of just about every awful regime on the planet. They ran the big anti-war protests in the early months of the war in Iraq, sometimes to the embarrassment of more moderate anti-war forces. The presence of ANSWER gives any rally a touch of the extreme.
There were plenty of other extreme elements, too. The Communist Party USA took part. The War Resisters League. The Freedom Socialist Party, and several others. If the main organizers of the rally wanted to keep the kooky parts of their coalition away from public view, they didn't succeed.
Overall, how big was the crowd? Before the rally, organizers made no secret of their determination that their turnout be bigger than that of the nonpolitical Glenn Beck rally at the Memorial on August 28. "We believe that our satellite photos will stack up nicely to his satellite photos,” NAACP president Ben Jealous told the New York Times. After the rally, however, there wasn't so much talk about satellite photos; although thousands of people showed up, the crowd was visibly smaller than the Beck event. Even with all that organizing muscle, they couldn't turn out as many people as one man on talk radio and Fox News.
"One Nation" was scheduled to last from noon until 4:00 pm, but a lot of people headed for the exits well before the last speakers took the stage. By 2:45, when Jealous himself was at the microphone, they were streaming for the buses. As they walked, organizers herded people in the right direction. "OPEIU movin' out! OPEIU movin' out!" shouted one man, a organizer with the Office and Professional Employees International Union. The unions came, and then they left.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Political Extremism, Left and Right (MUST READ)
By Bruce A. Riggs
American Thinker -- October 2, 2010
The post-Cold War era has seen an unprecedented rise in America of European-bred, radical-Left political thought. The radical Left is defined here as any authoritarian Collectivism in which individual freedom is increasingly subsumed by the dictates of a dominant central government: Communism in particular, but revolutionary Socialism in general under its Fascist, Third Way, or Progressive pseudonyms. Regardless of descriptor, the common denominator is the elimination -- or at least the emasculation -- of Capitalism as the hated engine of disparate wealth distribution.
Today, this Collectivist ideology travels under the sanitized, if disingenuous, banner of "social justice" but remains essentially Marxist nevertheless. As Marx so succinctly put it, "Communism is the elimination of private property." This is an idea that may have been feasible in a tribal world of small, mono-cultural, agrarian communities, but it is completely irrational in today's world. Worse, it's a fatally flawed ideology built on the Left's implicit denial of human nature: man's "out-of-the-herd" evolutionary progress toward individual achievement and self-actualization.
To suppress human nature and human difference is, in essence, the Left's utopian ambition -- an ambition that requires the totalitarian state [1].
It requires a totalitarian state because it is a delusional quest to return man to an egalitarian herd from which he evolved thousands of years ago. And as the history of the twentieth century shows, humanity rebels against such coerced devolution. Marx's elimination of private property coincidentally strips incentives to produce. The result is social decay to a dismal level of perpetual shortages and shared poverty -- just ask the citizens who stood in the endless bread lines of the former USSR.
The radical Left's denial of human nature carries with it the arrogant assumption that humans are little more than replicated androids content to do whatever government mandates. This is simply elitist wishful thinking which projects sheep-like docility on independent beings which are more feline than bovine in nature -- and you can't herd cats.
The revolutionary socialists' road to its egalitarian fantasy world is less about achieving an altruistic "social justice" than it is about pursuing a self-serving, compulsive quest for personal redemption: The revolutionists denied human nature at work. It is a zealotry which, history shows, has led to the perverse belief that wholesale executions, killing fields, mass starvations, and forced-labor gulags are perfectly legitimate, even necessary, means of creating the perfect socialist world. These slaughters were done solely to extinguish the educated, innovative, entrepreneurial, productive "bourgeoisie" -- the "greedy" middle class whose existence was/is intolerable to the priesthood of this ostensibly egalitarian, if murderous, Collectivist ethos.
The ideologically warped mindset of the Marxoid Left is evident in a remark that "we must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life" attributed to the Communist Leon Trotsky (in the context of the Communist Revolution). He need not have worried. History has demonstrated that the Communists of the world have had no trouble ignoring the "sanctity" of human life. Trotsky himself became a victim of his own philosophy when an assassin jammed an ice pick into his head.
Though Trotsky et al. are long departed, the perverted mission of what Horowitz [1] has termed "the radical project" lives on. It lives on in the Gramscian capture-the-culture Marxist subversion that has succeeded spectacularly in injecting Communist ideology into our schools, all branches of government, the communication/information industries, and now, most ominously, the Obama-led Democrat Party. It lives on in the Left's belief that it's the government's function to arbitrarily confiscate and redistribute wealth and decide who gets what and how much while wasting most of it in the process. It lives on in the knowledge that massive governmental transfers of wealth from the few to certain designated others (supportive voters) will insure perpetual political power. It lives on in America with the Left's unstated but now obvious four-part agenda: 1) Neuter/emasculate Capitalism as noted above; 2) end national sovereignty as too divisive or jingoistic (re: the Arizona border issue); 3) abrogate the Constitution (too restrictive of government power); and 4) expunge Christianity (intolerably theistic. God is dead. Contact the ACLU for details).
Political symmetry would seem to require an aggressive, politically motivated Radical Right to balance that of the activist Left. But the existence of an agenda-driven "far Right" seems obscure, if not completely invisible. The closest approximation seems to be a purported "religious" Right which the Left sees as an ever-present threat to impose a Christian theocracy. If such a movement exists, it does so as a model of incompetence. Individuals like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the occasional televangelist have loomed ominously on the Left's hypersensitive radar as potential leaders of a Christian inquisition which, so far, has failed to materialize. If there have been any crucifix-wielding, Bible-waving, window-smashing, car-burning street marches calling for the death of Clinton or Obama in the vein of those antics from the anti-Bush professional Left, none seem to have made the six o'clock news.
Another threat perceived by the Left to be far-Right is the occasional ragtag "militia" men scattered about the backwoods in near-comic disarray. From the few rare (staged?) sightings shown on TV, these individuals seem more concerned about insulating themselves from intrusive government than in attacking it. This paranoia was made evident by the Clinton-initiated FBI sniper assault on Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge which killed his wife Vicki and their 13-year-old son, who was shot in the back.
Then there was the Branch Davidian religious enclave at Waco annihilated by the FBI in a tank-led military assault also ordered by the Clinton administration. Some 76 individuals, including 21children, were needlessly incinerated in an ill-conceived, bungled, and unnecessary act of government tyranny.
It's deadly clear that the Liberal and revolutionary Left have near-zero tolerance for the civil rights of any individuals who choose to live in opposition to the Left's gestating Collective. It's also clear that there is nothing on the Conservative, yet-to-be-defined "far Right" that represents a threat to the constitutional fabric of the country in the way of the activist, ideologically driven Left and its Kafka-esque Postmodernist relativism.
Conservatives are mostly passive law-abiding individuals who wish to live their lives with minimal intrusion of government as the Constitution intended. If Right-wing extremism did exist, it would be in the form of individual anarchy, not as some coercive organizational conspiracy. Conservatism is individualistic, not socialistic, and that's exactly why the revolutionary Collectivists find it intolerable. The existence of any Right-wing, Capitalist threat to the rule of law and our constitutional sovereignty is simply a "bogeyman-under-the-bed" ruse contrived by the Left to deflect attention from its own agenda to "fundamentally transform America."
The advent of the Tea Party movement is clear evidence that traditional America has no desire to be "fundamentally transformed." But will it be too little, too late?
[1] Horowitz, D. H., The Politics of Bad Faith, The Free Press, NY, 1998
American Thinker -- October 2, 2010
The post-Cold War era has seen an unprecedented rise in America of European-bred, radical-Left political thought. The radical Left is defined here as any authoritarian Collectivism in which individual freedom is increasingly subsumed by the dictates of a dominant central government: Communism in particular, but revolutionary Socialism in general under its Fascist, Third Way, or Progressive pseudonyms. Regardless of descriptor, the common denominator is the elimination -- or at least the emasculation -- of Capitalism as the hated engine of disparate wealth distribution.
Today, this Collectivist ideology travels under the sanitized, if disingenuous, banner of "social justice" but remains essentially Marxist nevertheless. As Marx so succinctly put it, "Communism is the elimination of private property." This is an idea that may have been feasible in a tribal world of small, mono-cultural, agrarian communities, but it is completely irrational in today's world. Worse, it's a fatally flawed ideology built on the Left's implicit denial of human nature: man's "out-of-the-herd" evolutionary progress toward individual achievement and self-actualization.
To suppress human nature and human difference is, in essence, the Left's utopian ambition -- an ambition that requires the totalitarian state [1].
It requires a totalitarian state because it is a delusional quest to return man to an egalitarian herd from which he evolved thousands of years ago. And as the history of the twentieth century shows, humanity rebels against such coerced devolution. Marx's elimination of private property coincidentally strips incentives to produce. The result is social decay to a dismal level of perpetual shortages and shared poverty -- just ask the citizens who stood in the endless bread lines of the former USSR.
The radical Left's denial of human nature carries with it the arrogant assumption that humans are little more than replicated androids content to do whatever government mandates. This is simply elitist wishful thinking which projects sheep-like docility on independent beings which are more feline than bovine in nature -- and you can't herd cats.
The revolutionary socialists' road to its egalitarian fantasy world is less about achieving an altruistic "social justice" than it is about pursuing a self-serving, compulsive quest for personal redemption: The revolutionists denied human nature at work. It is a zealotry which, history shows, has led to the perverse belief that wholesale executions, killing fields, mass starvations, and forced-labor gulags are perfectly legitimate, even necessary, means of creating the perfect socialist world. These slaughters were done solely to extinguish the educated, innovative, entrepreneurial, productive "bourgeoisie" -- the "greedy" middle class whose existence was/is intolerable to the priesthood of this ostensibly egalitarian, if murderous, Collectivist ethos.
The ideologically warped mindset of the Marxoid Left is evident in a remark that "we must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life" attributed to the Communist Leon Trotsky (in the context of the Communist Revolution). He need not have worried. History has demonstrated that the Communists of the world have had no trouble ignoring the "sanctity" of human life. Trotsky himself became a victim of his own philosophy when an assassin jammed an ice pick into his head.
Though Trotsky et al. are long departed, the perverted mission of what Horowitz [1] has termed "the radical project" lives on. It lives on in the Gramscian capture-the-culture Marxist subversion that has succeeded spectacularly in injecting Communist ideology into our schools, all branches of government, the communication/information industries, and now, most ominously, the Obama-led Democrat Party. It lives on in the Left's belief that it's the government's function to arbitrarily confiscate and redistribute wealth and decide who gets what and how much while wasting most of it in the process. It lives on in the knowledge that massive governmental transfers of wealth from the few to certain designated others (supportive voters) will insure perpetual political power. It lives on in America with the Left's unstated but now obvious four-part agenda: 1) Neuter/emasculate Capitalism as noted above; 2) end national sovereignty as too divisive or jingoistic (re: the Arizona border issue); 3) abrogate the Constitution (too restrictive of government power); and 4) expunge Christianity (intolerably theistic. God is dead. Contact the ACLU for details).
Political symmetry would seem to require an aggressive, politically motivated Radical Right to balance that of the activist Left. But the existence of an agenda-driven "far Right" seems obscure, if not completely invisible. The closest approximation seems to be a purported "religious" Right which the Left sees as an ever-present threat to impose a Christian theocracy. If such a movement exists, it does so as a model of incompetence. Individuals like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the occasional televangelist have loomed ominously on the Left's hypersensitive radar as potential leaders of a Christian inquisition which, so far, has failed to materialize. If there have been any crucifix-wielding, Bible-waving, window-smashing, car-burning street marches calling for the death of Clinton or Obama in the vein of those antics from the anti-Bush professional Left, none seem to have made the six o'clock news.
Another threat perceived by the Left to be far-Right is the occasional ragtag "militia" men scattered about the backwoods in near-comic disarray. From the few rare (staged?) sightings shown on TV, these individuals seem more concerned about insulating themselves from intrusive government than in attacking it. This paranoia was made evident by the Clinton-initiated FBI sniper assault on Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge which killed his wife Vicki and their 13-year-old son, who was shot in the back.
Then there was the Branch Davidian religious enclave at Waco annihilated by the FBI in a tank-led military assault also ordered by the Clinton administration. Some 76 individuals, including 21children, were needlessly incinerated in an ill-conceived, bungled, and unnecessary act of government tyranny.
It's deadly clear that the Liberal and revolutionary Left have near-zero tolerance for the civil rights of any individuals who choose to live in opposition to the Left's gestating Collective. It's also clear that there is nothing on the Conservative, yet-to-be-defined "far Right" that represents a threat to the constitutional fabric of the country in the way of the activist, ideologically driven Left and its Kafka-esque Postmodernist relativism.
Conservatives are mostly passive law-abiding individuals who wish to live their lives with minimal intrusion of government as the Constitution intended. If Right-wing extremism did exist, it would be in the form of individual anarchy, not as some coercive organizational conspiracy. Conservatism is individualistic, not socialistic, and that's exactly why the revolutionary Collectivists find it intolerable. The existence of any Right-wing, Capitalist threat to the rule of law and our constitutional sovereignty is simply a "bogeyman-under-the-bed" ruse contrived by the Left to deflect attention from its own agenda to "fundamentally transform America."
The advent of the Tea Party movement is clear evidence that traditional America has no desire to be "fundamentally transformed." But will it be too little, too late?
[1] Horowitz, D. H., The Politics of Bad Faith, The Free Press, NY, 1998
The Other America Marches on Washington (MUST READ!)
Highly recommended reading (also see the links)
-------------------------------------------------------
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
American Thinker -- October 02, 2010
Yes, folks, there are two Americas: the authentic America of community builders and the other America, made up of socialist group-thinkers, moochers, and no-accounts, many of them living off government grants or welfare checks.
The tension between these two Americas has been a constant tug-of-war for nearly a hundred years, since our premier socialist-progressive president, Woodrow Wilson, bore the first rotten fruits of liberal fascism on our shores.
With the election of the first socialist-progressive president in decades, the political tension between the two Americas has reached fever pitch. Independent voters, who were lulled like sheep into the lion's den by Barack Obama's conciliatory, I’ll-make-it-all-better rhetoric, have been expressing buyer's remorse for many long months and now yell "Change it back!" as loudly as they shouted "Yes we can!" less than two short years ago.
Obama lied; hope died. And all over the land, Obama's Intolerable Acts are causing authentic America to rise to her feet in surly indignation. Americans are putting their hope back in God, where it belongs, and vowing to cut big government back down to its constitutionally mandated size.
Authentic Americans -- those patriots with a profound respect for our U.S. Constitution and do-it-yourself ingenuity, the Americans who prefer liberty to nanny-state-provided luxury -- held a march on Washington on August 28. The event drew more than 300,000 people. True to their good citizenship, these authentic Americans honored the sacrifices of our forebears in speech and song and afterward left the whole scene immaculate.
This Saturday, October 2, the other America is set to hold its counter-rally, hoping to inspire their like-minded socialist group-thinkers, moochers, and no-accounts to vote a month from now so that they can continue their mad-dog raiding of the producers' profits and tighten the big-government stranglehold on authentic America.
The other America is calling October 2 the "One Nation Rally." Now, there's a real side-buster. They represent the one nation whose every roof and meal are subsidized by the authentic America. They should have held this demand-o-rama on May 5 in solidarity with their fellow socialist travelers around the world.
Who knows how many people will show up, but every far-left community agitating group is on board and is sure to bus in as many warm bodies as they all can find. Knowing the left's penchant for agitprop, we might expect hundreds of gutter-dwellers dressed up in business attire or lots of white-coated "doctors" or scads of Wiccan witches wearing soccer-mom outfits. Perhaps Barbara Boxer -- who thought authentic Americans looked too "well-dressed" to be anything other than "astroturf" protesters -- will be on hand to coordinate the left’s agitprop costumes for the day.
The national chairman of the Communist Party USA posted an urgent appeal for warm bodies on Obama's Organizing for America website:
Which brings me to the One Nation rally on October 2 in our nation's capital. Here is an opportunity to reestablish, reenergize, and repower the coalition of people's organization that elected the first African American president in our nation's history.
Opportunities of this kind are rare. But when they arise, they have to be seized. No stone should be left unturned to bring people and their organizations to Washington. This event's success will be measured by its size. A huge turnout will change the political atmosphere and send a message to friend and foe.
At least the Communist Party USA is more honest than President Obama. They come right out and tell the people they demand equalizing tyranny with a yes-we-can end to the American dream of liberty and the individual pursuit of happiness. Of course, Barack Obama knew he had to rely on deceiving authentic America to get elected. Now, he needs the CPUSA to get out their rusty hammers and sickles to beat the producers back into line.
Another of my favorite groups on the list of One Nation Rally promoters is Code Pink. Oh, how we've all missed those tawdry women of questionable virtue, wearing their pink undies to the halls of congress, running around like screaming banshees demanding an end to "Bush's War" and trying to close down officer recruitment centers.
While the MSM inundates us with stories about Christine O'Donnell's momentary dabble with witchcraft on a high school date, the real Wiccans of Code Pink cast their spells on the Marines in the here and now. Circled around their cauldron, donning pink robes with their faces smeared with red paint (symbolizing the blood of their victims), Code Pink wackos staged a spell-casting event right in front of the Marine officer recruiting center in Berkeley a mere two years ago. This was right before they suddenly turned their spells to drumming up support and bundling lots of money for the election of Mr. Hope & Change. Can't wait to see if they bring their cauldron to the One Nation Rally. Now that would surely be extreme in the extreme.
Of course, even though the One Nation website says there are over four hundred community agitating groups supporting them, the major players here will be the unions. They've got the UAW, the AFL/CIO, AFSCME, and the SEIU all lined up, along with a variety of smaller types and "professional" associations.
Now, as many readers will recall, when the SEIU is involved, things are likely to get ugly. There can be biting off of fingers, assault and battery, destruction of private property. Of course, these violent acts are normally aimed at those authentic Americans who just happen to be exercising their own First Amendment rights, but whenever or wherever SEIU thugs show up, it's a sure bet that they will be uncivil.
Reading the list of One Nation sponsor groups is very enlightening. Their organizations -- each and every one -- stand for some very exclusive special interest group. Whether it is the transgenders or the Queers for Economic Justice or the dozen or more groups that specify themselves as "black" or "negro" or the public-school teachers' union or the women who've turned pink into an ugly word -- you have to have a special interest to join. And you have to have your hand out begging for government money.
No wonder this other America is so hot and bothered by the welcome-mat policy of the Tea Parties. The Tea Parties, with their come-one-come-all politics, threaten the very existence of every special interest group on the left.
These group-thinkers, moochers, and no-accounts of the left know that if the government is tamed back to its constitutionally mandated size and scope, then their free ride is over for good.
And they’ll have to stop their professional rabble-rousing and go out to find real jobs or start real businesses of their own. Growing up is hard to do, and slacker kids of any age will do all they can to avoid it.
Hence this One Nation rally and all the hoopla the state-sponsored media can throw in its direction. What a sham.
-------------------------------------------------------
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
American Thinker -- October 02, 2010
Yes, folks, there are two Americas: the authentic America of community builders and the other America, made up of socialist group-thinkers, moochers, and no-accounts, many of them living off government grants or welfare checks.
The tension between these two Americas has been a constant tug-of-war for nearly a hundred years, since our premier socialist-progressive president, Woodrow Wilson, bore the first rotten fruits of liberal fascism on our shores.
With the election of the first socialist-progressive president in decades, the political tension between the two Americas has reached fever pitch. Independent voters, who were lulled like sheep into the lion's den by Barack Obama's conciliatory, I’ll-make-it-all-better rhetoric, have been expressing buyer's remorse for many long months and now yell "Change it back!" as loudly as they shouted "Yes we can!" less than two short years ago.
Obama lied; hope died. And all over the land, Obama's Intolerable Acts are causing authentic America to rise to her feet in surly indignation. Americans are putting their hope back in God, where it belongs, and vowing to cut big government back down to its constitutionally mandated size.
Authentic Americans -- those patriots with a profound respect for our U.S. Constitution and do-it-yourself ingenuity, the Americans who prefer liberty to nanny-state-provided luxury -- held a march on Washington on August 28. The event drew more than 300,000 people. True to their good citizenship, these authentic Americans honored the sacrifices of our forebears in speech and song and afterward left the whole scene immaculate.
This Saturday, October 2, the other America is set to hold its counter-rally, hoping to inspire their like-minded socialist group-thinkers, moochers, and no-accounts to vote a month from now so that they can continue their mad-dog raiding of the producers' profits and tighten the big-government stranglehold on authentic America.
The other America is calling October 2 the "One Nation Rally." Now, there's a real side-buster. They represent the one nation whose every roof and meal are subsidized by the authentic America. They should have held this demand-o-rama on May 5 in solidarity with their fellow socialist travelers around the world.
Who knows how many people will show up, but every far-left community agitating group is on board and is sure to bus in as many warm bodies as they all can find. Knowing the left's penchant for agitprop, we might expect hundreds of gutter-dwellers dressed up in business attire or lots of white-coated "doctors" or scads of Wiccan witches wearing soccer-mom outfits. Perhaps Barbara Boxer -- who thought authentic Americans looked too "well-dressed" to be anything other than "astroturf" protesters -- will be on hand to coordinate the left’s agitprop costumes for the day.
The national chairman of the Communist Party USA posted an urgent appeal for warm bodies on Obama's Organizing for America website:
Which brings me to the One Nation rally on October 2 in our nation's capital. Here is an opportunity to reestablish, reenergize, and repower the coalition of people's organization that elected the first African American president in our nation's history.
Opportunities of this kind are rare. But when they arise, they have to be seized. No stone should be left unturned to bring people and their organizations to Washington. This event's success will be measured by its size. A huge turnout will change the political atmosphere and send a message to friend and foe.
At least the Communist Party USA is more honest than President Obama. They come right out and tell the people they demand equalizing tyranny with a yes-we-can end to the American dream of liberty and the individual pursuit of happiness. Of course, Barack Obama knew he had to rely on deceiving authentic America to get elected. Now, he needs the CPUSA to get out their rusty hammers and sickles to beat the producers back into line.
Another of my favorite groups on the list of One Nation Rally promoters is Code Pink. Oh, how we've all missed those tawdry women of questionable virtue, wearing their pink undies to the halls of congress, running around like screaming banshees demanding an end to "Bush's War" and trying to close down officer recruitment centers.
While the MSM inundates us with stories about Christine O'Donnell's momentary dabble with witchcraft on a high school date, the real Wiccans of Code Pink cast their spells on the Marines in the here and now. Circled around their cauldron, donning pink robes with their faces smeared with red paint (symbolizing the blood of their victims), Code Pink wackos staged a spell-casting event right in front of the Marine officer recruiting center in Berkeley a mere two years ago. This was right before they suddenly turned their spells to drumming up support and bundling lots of money for the election of Mr. Hope & Change. Can't wait to see if they bring their cauldron to the One Nation Rally. Now that would surely be extreme in the extreme.
Of course, even though the One Nation website says there are over four hundred community agitating groups supporting them, the major players here will be the unions. They've got the UAW, the AFL/CIO, AFSCME, and the SEIU all lined up, along with a variety of smaller types and "professional" associations.
Now, as many readers will recall, when the SEIU is involved, things are likely to get ugly. There can be biting off of fingers, assault and battery, destruction of private property. Of course, these violent acts are normally aimed at those authentic Americans who just happen to be exercising their own First Amendment rights, but whenever or wherever SEIU thugs show up, it's a sure bet that they will be uncivil.
Reading the list of One Nation sponsor groups is very enlightening. Their organizations -- each and every one -- stand for some very exclusive special interest group. Whether it is the transgenders or the Queers for Economic Justice or the dozen or more groups that specify themselves as "black" or "negro" or the public-school teachers' union or the women who've turned pink into an ugly word -- you have to have a special interest to join. And you have to have your hand out begging for government money.
No wonder this other America is so hot and bothered by the welcome-mat policy of the Tea Parties. The Tea Parties, with their come-one-come-all politics, threaten the very existence of every special interest group on the left.
These group-thinkers, moochers, and no-accounts of the left know that if the government is tamed back to its constitutionally mandated size and scope, then their free ride is over for good.
And they’ll have to stop their professional rabble-rousing and go out to find real jobs or start real businesses of their own. Growing up is hard to do, and slacker kids of any age will do all they can to avoid it.
Hence this One Nation rally and all the hoopla the state-sponsored media can throw in its direction. What a sham.
Constitution and Politics a Toxic Mix to Many Liberals
Friday, October 1, 2010
Imagine for a moment the entire Supreme Court was wiped out in an asteroid strike, or maybe they ate some really bad clams. Whatever.
With the Supreme Court temporarily out of the picture, could Congress and the White House ignore the Constitution, shutting down newspapers and locking up tea partiers or ACLU members?
Apparently.
"I have been fascinated by (Delaware GOP Senate candidate) Christine O'Donnell's constitutional worldview ..." Slate magazine senior editor Dahlia Lithwick confessed. O'Donnell had said in a debate, "When I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional."
To which Lithwick, a former appellate law clerk, Stanford Law grad and widely cited expert on the Supreme Court, responded, "How weird is that, I thought. Isn't it a court's job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional? And isn't that sort of provided for in, well, the Constitution?"
Newsweek's Ben Adler was aghast at the clause in the GOP's Pledge to America that Republicans will provide a "citation of constitutional authority" for every proposed piece of legislation. "We have a mechanism for assessing the constitutionality of legislation, which is the independent judiciary," Adler wrote. "An extraconstitutional attempt to limit the powers of Congress is dangerous even as a mere suggestion, and it constitutes an encroachment on the judiciary."
A progressive blogger, meanwhile, writes in U.S. News & World Report that such talk of requiring constitutionality is "just plain wacky."
Before we get to the historical niceties, a question:
Does anyone, anywhere, think legislators should vote for legislation they think is unconstitutional? Anyone? Anyone?
How about presidents? Should they sign such legislation into law?
Yet, according to this creepy logic, there's no reason for congressmen to pass, obey or even consider the supreme law of the land. Re-impose slavery? Sure! Let's see if we can catch the Supreme Court asleep at the switch. Nationalize the TV stations? Establish a king? Kill every first-born child? Why not? It ain't unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says so!
And of course, that means the president can't veto legislation because it's unconstitutional, because that's apparently not his job. Wouldn't want to "encroach" on the judiciary!
Of course, reasonable people understand how absurd all of this is.
There's nothing in the Constitution -- nothing! -- that says the Supreme Court is the final or sole arbiter of what is or is not constitutional.
Nor is there anything in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court case that famously established judicial review. Nor is there in Cooper v. Aaron, the 1958 case in which the court ruled that its findings are the law of the land.
George Washington vetoed an apportionment bill in 1792 because it was unconstitutional. What was he thinking? If only he had a Ben Adler around to tell him what a fool he was.
Andrew Jackson vetoed the reauthorization of the national bank in 1832 because he believed it was unconstitutional. He added at the time that, "It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision."
"Even the Supreme Court has never claimed that it is the only branch with the power or duty to interpret the Constitution," says Jeff Sikkenga, a constitutional historian at Ashland University's Ashbrook Center. "In fact, it has said that certain constitutional questions like war and peace are left to the political branches to decide."
The debate over whether the courts are the final word on the Constitution is more than 200 years old. The debate over whether they are the sole arbiter of constitutionality is extremely recent and extremely silly.
But it's also necessary because too many politicians -- in both parties -- have abdicated their most solemn duty: to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. George W. Bush signed campaign finance reform even though he thought much of it was unconstitutional. Nancy Pelosi thinks the Constitution has as much relevance as a pet rock. When asked if the health-care bill was Constitutional, her perpetually wide-open eyes grew perceptibly wider as she incredulously asked, "Are you serious?"
The real issue is quite simple. If more politicians were faithful to the Constitution, the government would be restrained. And restraining government is "weird," "wacky" and "dangerous" to so many liberals today.
(C) 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine for a moment the entire Supreme Court was wiped out in an asteroid strike, or maybe they ate some really bad clams. Whatever.
With the Supreme Court temporarily out of the picture, could Congress and the White House ignore the Constitution, shutting down newspapers and locking up tea partiers or ACLU members?
Apparently.
"I have been fascinated by (Delaware GOP Senate candidate) Christine O'Donnell's constitutional worldview ..." Slate magazine senior editor Dahlia Lithwick confessed. O'Donnell had said in a debate, "When I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional."
To which Lithwick, a former appellate law clerk, Stanford Law grad and widely cited expert on the Supreme Court, responded, "How weird is that, I thought. Isn't it a court's job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional? And isn't that sort of provided for in, well, the Constitution?"
Newsweek's Ben Adler was aghast at the clause in the GOP's Pledge to America that Republicans will provide a "citation of constitutional authority" for every proposed piece of legislation. "We have a mechanism for assessing the constitutionality of legislation, which is the independent judiciary," Adler wrote. "An extraconstitutional attempt to limit the powers of Congress is dangerous even as a mere suggestion, and it constitutes an encroachment on the judiciary."
A progressive blogger, meanwhile, writes in U.S. News & World Report that such talk of requiring constitutionality is "just plain wacky."
Before we get to the historical niceties, a question:
Does anyone, anywhere, think legislators should vote for legislation they think is unconstitutional? Anyone? Anyone?
How about presidents? Should they sign such legislation into law?
Yet, according to this creepy logic, there's no reason for congressmen to pass, obey or even consider the supreme law of the land. Re-impose slavery? Sure! Let's see if we can catch the Supreme Court asleep at the switch. Nationalize the TV stations? Establish a king? Kill every first-born child? Why not? It ain't unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says so!
And of course, that means the president can't veto legislation because it's unconstitutional, because that's apparently not his job. Wouldn't want to "encroach" on the judiciary!
Of course, reasonable people understand how absurd all of this is.
There's nothing in the Constitution -- nothing! -- that says the Supreme Court is the final or sole arbiter of what is or is not constitutional.
Nor is there anything in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court case that famously established judicial review. Nor is there in Cooper v. Aaron, the 1958 case in which the court ruled that its findings are the law of the land.
George Washington vetoed an apportionment bill in 1792 because it was unconstitutional. What was he thinking? If only he had a Ben Adler around to tell him what a fool he was.
Andrew Jackson vetoed the reauthorization of the national bank in 1832 because he believed it was unconstitutional. He added at the time that, "It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision."
"Even the Supreme Court has never claimed that it is the only branch with the power or duty to interpret the Constitution," says Jeff Sikkenga, a constitutional historian at Ashland University's Ashbrook Center. "In fact, it has said that certain constitutional questions like war and peace are left to the political branches to decide."
The debate over whether the courts are the final word on the Constitution is more than 200 years old. The debate over whether they are the sole arbiter of constitutionality is extremely recent and extremely silly.
But it's also necessary because too many politicians -- in both parties -- have abdicated their most solemn duty: to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. George W. Bush signed campaign finance reform even though he thought much of it was unconstitutional. Nancy Pelosi thinks the Constitution has as much relevance as a pet rock. When asked if the health-care bill was Constitutional, her perpetually wide-open eyes grew perceptibly wider as she incredulously asked, "Are you serious?"
The real issue is quite simple. If more politicians were faithful to the Constitution, the government would be restrained. And restraining government is "weird," "wacky" and "dangerous" to so many liberals today.
(C) 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another SEIU Lawyer Appointed By Obama
President Obama is looking to fill out the six-member Federal Election Commission (see recent pro-SEIU FEC decision) with someone he can count on to support his views on campaign law. It is not surprising he turned to his friend Andy Stern’s union Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Obama has appointed SEIU lawyer John Sullivan, who was intertwined in the Clinton/DNC/McAuliffe/Teamster scandal that resulted in Jimmy Hoffa’s ascension to the Teamster throne, but for over a year the nomination remains in political limbo.
Could it be that Obama appointees have finally reached such a level of ethical absurdity that even the Obama allies in the Senate are pulling back?
Sullivan was a lawyer for Teamster President Ron Carey when he was convicted of laundering Teamster forced-dues and fees through the Democratic [sic] National Committee. He also served as SEIU’s lawyer for its 527 Federal Election Campaign Committee, “America Coming Together (ACT),” that received the second largest fine in Federal Election Commission (FEC) history.
While these facts render this appointment truly absurd, it is also appears unlikely that ethical concerns are the underlying issue in the appointment delay.
Here’s an update provided by the Center for Public Integrity in May 2010:
One full year after being nominated to the Federal Election Commission, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) lawyer John J. Sullivan is still waiting for Senate confirmation, caught in a dispute over other nominations for the agency. As a result of the standoff, the Obama administration has yet to put any stamp on the FEC.
In fact, this month when Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri unsuccessfully sought unanimous consent to confirm a long list of held-up nominees, she did not include Sullivan. When the Republican Minority Whip inquired as to why his name was skipped over, she blamed a fellow Democrat for the hold.
The Center contacted Sullivan, still working at SEIU, to ask him where the nomination stands. “I honestly don’t know,” he replied. He said McCain and Feingold have been clear that their concern is not with him, but with the lack of other nominations for the commission, and noted that he keeps in touch with the White House but “nothing’s really changed so there’s not a lot to talk about.”
Yet important questions remain. Why has the administration not nominated anyone to fill the other two seats? Why has Sen. Reid not attempted to force a vote on the Sullivan nomination? Why are Sens. Feingold and McCain continuing to hold up the nomination when doing so has not spurred the administration to action?
Calls to the White House press office and the offices of Senators Feingold, McCain, and Reid were not returned.
It would be interesting to know for certain why the nomination of SEIU’s Sullivan remains in limbo.
Could it be that Obama appointees have finally reached such a level of ethical absurdity that even the Obama allies in the Senate are pulling back?
Sullivan was a lawyer for Teamster President Ron Carey when he was convicted of laundering Teamster forced-dues and fees through the Democratic [sic] National Committee. He also served as SEIU’s lawyer for its 527 Federal Election Campaign Committee, “America Coming Together (ACT),” that received the second largest fine in Federal Election Commission (FEC) history.
While these facts render this appointment truly absurd, it is also appears unlikely that ethical concerns are the underlying issue in the appointment delay.
Here’s an update provided by the Center for Public Integrity in May 2010:
One full year after being nominated to the Federal Election Commission, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) lawyer John J. Sullivan is still waiting for Senate confirmation, caught in a dispute over other nominations for the agency. As a result of the standoff, the Obama administration has yet to put any stamp on the FEC.
In fact, this month when Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri unsuccessfully sought unanimous consent to confirm a long list of held-up nominees, she did not include Sullivan. When the Republican Minority Whip inquired as to why his name was skipped over, she blamed a fellow Democrat for the hold.
The Center contacted Sullivan, still working at SEIU, to ask him where the nomination stands. “I honestly don’t know,” he replied. He said McCain and Feingold have been clear that their concern is not with him, but with the lack of other nominations for the commission, and noted that he keeps in touch with the White House but “nothing’s really changed so there’s not a lot to talk about.”
Yet important questions remain. Why has the administration not nominated anyone to fill the other two seats? Why has Sen. Reid not attempted to force a vote on the Sullivan nomination? Why are Sens. Feingold and McCain continuing to hold up the nomination when doing so has not spurred the administration to action?
Calls to the White House press office and the offices of Senators Feingold, McCain, and Reid were not returned.
It would be interesting to know for certain why the nomination of SEIU’s Sullivan remains in limbo.
'Post-Racial' Racialism
Posted 09/30/2010
Investor Business Daily
The Justice Department's racist voter-rights enforcement should put to rest the illusion that this administration represents the transcendence of racial politics. Bankers also have a story to tell.
In the New Black Panthers case, Justice refused to protect the rights of white voters. Two career prosecutors have now sworn that high-level Obama appointees running the Civil Rights Division scuttled an open-and-shut case of voter intimidation against nightstick-wielding black thugs at a Philly poll in 2008.
They also testified that the division has a do-not-prosecute policy if victims are white and offenders black.
If that bias weren't bad enough, check out what's going on in the division's housing and civil enforcement section.
It hasn't gotten as much press, but the unit is conducting a witch hunt against supposedly racist bankers. Several banks have been prosecuted for lending discrimination and ordered to set aside millions in loans to blacks — regardless of whether they were victims.
Some have also been told to relocate operations and marketing efforts in urban areas to serve the "credit needs" of African-Americans, regardless of the profitability in those areas.
Obama-appointed prosecutors are applying an expanded definition of lending discrimination called "disparate impact," which argues that bankers are guilty of bias just by failing to actively solicit minority loans or open branches in minority areas. It doesn't matter if their policies intentionally discriminate or not. What matters is how they "impact" those areas.
No civil-rights law on the books requires banks to solicit minority customers or operate in minority neighborhoods. But most banks don't have the resources to fight the Justice Department. So they sign the order and pay the penalty — and the race bullies at Justice never have to prove their charges. In fact, recently filed court orders include no factual findings of wrongdoing.
These cases aren't about individual discrimination. They're about forcing banks to subsidize protected classes and redevelop blighted areas. That's not justice; that's politics. Some settlement funds, in fact, are earmarked for inner-city activist groups, even though they are not party to the cases.
For example, Justice ordered two AIG bank subsidiaries earlier this year to, among other things, pay $1 million to "qualified organizations" that help "African-American borrowers." The Civil Rights Division will pick which groups are "qualified" to receive the largesse. No doubt they will look a lot like the radical Chicago community organizers who shook down banks in the run-up to the subprime crisis.
It is now plain that Attorney General Eric Holder, who has called Americans "cowards" on matters of race, is obsessed with the issue. And that bias is tainting how his department prosecutes civil-rights cases.
But make no mistake, Holder is not acting on his own. He's taking his lead from the supposedly "post-racial" politician sitting in the Oval Office. After all, it was the president who ordered Holder to "reinvigorate" the Civil Rights Division. It was Obama who got him millions more in funding and dozens more prosecutors.
Aggressive racialism also appears in the White House's new bank regulatory regime. The financial overhaul bill the president signed includes, for example, a provision mandating that the Federal Reserve set up diversity offices at its Washington headquarters and all 12 of its regional banks.
Separately, the White House is working to expand the race-based Community Reinvestment Act to police mortgage bankers, credit unions and insurers, among other financial institutions. Right now the anti-redlining regulation covers only FDIC-member banks, mandating the kind of risky mortgage activity in low-income and minority areas that fed the subprime bubble.
The White House is also eyeing already-risky minority small-business loans for CRA monitoring, opening up a whole new can of financial worms.
We are seeing the fruits of all this "post-racial" racialism, and they are rotten.
Investor Business Daily
The Justice Department's racist voter-rights enforcement should put to rest the illusion that this administration represents the transcendence of racial politics. Bankers also have a story to tell.
In the New Black Panthers case, Justice refused to protect the rights of white voters. Two career prosecutors have now sworn that high-level Obama appointees running the Civil Rights Division scuttled an open-and-shut case of voter intimidation against nightstick-wielding black thugs at a Philly poll in 2008.
They also testified that the division has a do-not-prosecute policy if victims are white and offenders black.
If that bias weren't bad enough, check out what's going on in the division's housing and civil enforcement section.
It hasn't gotten as much press, but the unit is conducting a witch hunt against supposedly racist bankers. Several banks have been prosecuted for lending discrimination and ordered to set aside millions in loans to blacks — regardless of whether they were victims.
Some have also been told to relocate operations and marketing efforts in urban areas to serve the "credit needs" of African-Americans, regardless of the profitability in those areas.
Obama-appointed prosecutors are applying an expanded definition of lending discrimination called "disparate impact," which argues that bankers are guilty of bias just by failing to actively solicit minority loans or open branches in minority areas. It doesn't matter if their policies intentionally discriminate or not. What matters is how they "impact" those areas.
No civil-rights law on the books requires banks to solicit minority customers or operate in minority neighborhoods. But most banks don't have the resources to fight the Justice Department. So they sign the order and pay the penalty — and the race bullies at Justice never have to prove their charges. In fact, recently filed court orders include no factual findings of wrongdoing.
These cases aren't about individual discrimination. They're about forcing banks to subsidize protected classes and redevelop blighted areas. That's not justice; that's politics. Some settlement funds, in fact, are earmarked for inner-city activist groups, even though they are not party to the cases.
For example, Justice ordered two AIG bank subsidiaries earlier this year to, among other things, pay $1 million to "qualified organizations" that help "African-American borrowers." The Civil Rights Division will pick which groups are "qualified" to receive the largesse. No doubt they will look a lot like the radical Chicago community organizers who shook down banks in the run-up to the subprime crisis.
It is now plain that Attorney General Eric Holder, who has called Americans "cowards" on matters of race, is obsessed with the issue. And that bias is tainting how his department prosecutes civil-rights cases.
But make no mistake, Holder is not acting on his own. He's taking his lead from the supposedly "post-racial" politician sitting in the Oval Office. After all, it was the president who ordered Holder to "reinvigorate" the Civil Rights Division. It was Obama who got him millions more in funding and dozens more prosecutors.
Aggressive racialism also appears in the White House's new bank regulatory regime. The financial overhaul bill the president signed includes, for example, a provision mandating that the Federal Reserve set up diversity offices at its Washington headquarters and all 12 of its regional banks.
Separately, the White House is working to expand the race-based Community Reinvestment Act to police mortgage bankers, credit unions and insurers, among other financial institutions. Right now the anti-redlining regulation covers only FDIC-member banks, mandating the kind of risky mortgage activity in low-income and minority areas that fed the subprime bubble.
The White House is also eyeing already-risky minority small-business loans for CRA monitoring, opening up a whole new can of financial worms.
We are seeing the fruits of all this "post-racial" racialism, and they are rotten.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Latest On The Pigford Scandal
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and three Republican lawmakers voiced opposite views Wednesday on the proposed $1.2 billion Pigford II settlement regarding past USDA discrimination against black farmers. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) charged that making a $1.2 billion deal without a fraud investigation and without either congressional or court approval is a prime example of “how votes get bought.”
At issue is the mystifying fact that there are over 94,000 claimants (black farmers) whereas the Department of Agriculture and sworn testimony by John Boyd, President of the National Black Farmers Association, both indicate that there are only 18,000 black farmers. Even were all of these claimants were actually discriminated against by the Department (an impossibility), it would mean that 80% of the claims are fraudulent.
King along with Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) charged in a press conference that 75% or more of the Pigford discrimination claims may be fraudulent. Bachmann listed but did not name three people “prepared to testify before a congressional committee concerning fraud they have witnessed under Pigford.” She said these potential witnesses include “a black farmer who was an original litigant against the U.S. Department of Agriculture” and two USDA employees who worked in the South on USDA farm loans.
Rep. Bachman said the black farmer “is personally aware of homeless people who have received Pigford payments and attorneys who have trolled throughout neighborhoods signing up claimants that were known to have never farmed” and “federal government employees who recruited illegitimate Pigford claims and took a kick-back for securing them money.” She said a USDA employee responsible for processing Pigford claims is willing to testify that “He saw numerous instances where multiple forms were filled out with the same identical handwriting, same identical narrative, and same identical content, with only the names changed. . . He believes that 80% of Pigford claims were probably fraudulent.”
The initial settlement dates (Pigford I) from the Clinton administration, when it was estimated that two to three thousand potential claims might ensue under Track A, which provided for liquidated damages of $50,000 each. Over 22,000 claims were filed; 13,348 of those claims were actually approved.
Pigford took on new life when the Democrats took over Congress in 2006. A new claim period was established because of allegations that tens of thousands of black farmers did not have the opportunity to file claims during the initial settlement period. The suspected fraud in the settlement claims was big in the blogsphere this July when it came to light that Sherrod and her husband were the largest recipients of federal funds, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from the federal government for alleged discrimination by the USDA officials, including significant amounts for "pain and suffering."
Rep. Bachman said all legitimate discrimination claims must be paid “because there should not be discrimination against any American.” But she also said that “there must be an investigation before one more dime of taxpayer money is spent.”
This Democrat congress will obviously not investigate this fraud being perpetrated on the tax payer since blacks as a voting block support their party 9 to 1. This is just another reason to vote against any and all Democrats in November.
At issue is the mystifying fact that there are over 94,000 claimants (black farmers) whereas the Department of Agriculture and sworn testimony by John Boyd, President of the National Black Farmers Association, both indicate that there are only 18,000 black farmers. Even were all of these claimants were actually discriminated against by the Department (an impossibility), it would mean that 80% of the claims are fraudulent.
King along with Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) charged in a press conference that 75% or more of the Pigford discrimination claims may be fraudulent. Bachmann listed but did not name three people “prepared to testify before a congressional committee concerning fraud they have witnessed under Pigford.” She said these potential witnesses include “a black farmer who was an original litigant against the U.S. Department of Agriculture” and two USDA employees who worked in the South on USDA farm loans.
Rep. Bachman said the black farmer “is personally aware of homeless people who have received Pigford payments and attorneys who have trolled throughout neighborhoods signing up claimants that were known to have never farmed” and “federal government employees who recruited illegitimate Pigford claims and took a kick-back for securing them money.” She said a USDA employee responsible for processing Pigford claims is willing to testify that “He saw numerous instances where multiple forms were filled out with the same identical handwriting, same identical narrative, and same identical content, with only the names changed. . . He believes that 80% of Pigford claims were probably fraudulent.”
The initial settlement dates (Pigford I) from the Clinton administration, when it was estimated that two to three thousand potential claims might ensue under Track A, which provided for liquidated damages of $50,000 each. Over 22,000 claims were filed; 13,348 of those claims were actually approved.
Pigford took on new life when the Democrats took over Congress in 2006. A new claim period was established because of allegations that tens of thousands of black farmers did not have the opportunity to file claims during the initial settlement period. The suspected fraud in the settlement claims was big in the blogsphere this July when it came to light that Sherrod and her husband were the largest recipients of federal funds, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from the federal government for alleged discrimination by the USDA officials, including significant amounts for "pain and suffering."
Rep. Bachman said all legitimate discrimination claims must be paid “because there should not be discrimination against any American.” But she also said that “there must be an investigation before one more dime of taxpayer money is spent.”
This Democrat congress will obviously not investigate this fraud being perpetrated on the tax payer since blacks as a voting block support their party 9 to 1. This is just another reason to vote against any and all Democrats in November.
A Follow Up: Trumka's Leftism
I pointed out the mind blowing radicalism of what passes as today's left in my earlier post "Presidents Allies Showing Their True Colors". Here is an worthwhile editorial from IBD that does the same.
------------------
A union chief wants the public to take over private business. Some speak for a generation. Trumka speaks for the intellectually and morally corrupt bloc on the left.
'We need," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said last week, "to fundamentally restructure our economy and re-establish popular control over the private corporations which have distorted our economy and hijacked our government. That's a long-term job, but one we should start now."
Speaking last Friday in New York at a panel discussion, "Which Way for the Working Class? Elections 2010 and Beyond," Trumka told a group of about 400 that organized labor had to "recapture the moment and take control of the national conversation."
Trumka is just one man. He's not a public official and does not directly vote on government policy. But he does have influence.
The AFL-CIO has more than 11 million members belonging to 56 unions. Millions will accept his Leninist creed as legitimate.
Trumka speaks for a political bloc. What he said publicly is what most Democrats, modern liberals and self-identified progressives privately believe but won't say in public.
The political left wants to appear to be moderate, middle of the road. But its goals conflict with the founding principles of this country, principles that have brought freedom and prosperity never seen in human history. The political left wants to destroy this.
For all its rhetoric about defending the working class, fairness and justice, the political left is about power. In Friday's rant, Trumka condemned the political climate stirred up by the Tea Party and Fox News as a "dead-end choice between the failed agenda of greed and the voices of hate and division and violence."
He conveniently left out organized labor's record of deadly violence and shameful corruption — and the left's promotion of both.
Trumka's party isn't a party of choice. It's a party of central planning, of managing the lives of 305 million Americans from Washington and 50 state capitals because, according to the left's worldview, the average person isn't able to manage his own affairs.
There's nothing liberating about modern liberals. The policies they support — from national health care to higher taxes to CO2 limits to state seizure of private property — are always imposed by force. Those who refuse soon get a taste of government authority.
It's the code of the hard left, built on jealousy and hate — a formula Trumka and others will use to rally a party that's in mortal fear of losing its political power on Nov. 2.
------------------
A union chief wants the public to take over private business. Some speak for a generation. Trumka speaks for the intellectually and morally corrupt bloc on the left.
'We need," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said last week, "to fundamentally restructure our economy and re-establish popular control over the private corporations which have distorted our economy and hijacked our government. That's a long-term job, but one we should start now."
Speaking last Friday in New York at a panel discussion, "Which Way for the Working Class? Elections 2010 and Beyond," Trumka told a group of about 400 that organized labor had to "recapture the moment and take control of the national conversation."
Trumka is just one man. He's not a public official and does not directly vote on government policy. But he does have influence.
The AFL-CIO has more than 11 million members belonging to 56 unions. Millions will accept his Leninist creed as legitimate.
Trumka speaks for a political bloc. What he said publicly is what most Democrats, modern liberals and self-identified progressives privately believe but won't say in public.
The political left wants to appear to be moderate, middle of the road. But its goals conflict with the founding principles of this country, principles that have brought freedom and prosperity never seen in human history. The political left wants to destroy this.
For all its rhetoric about defending the working class, fairness and justice, the political left is about power. In Friday's rant, Trumka condemned the political climate stirred up by the Tea Party and Fox News as a "dead-end choice between the failed agenda of greed and the voices of hate and division and violence."
He conveniently left out organized labor's record of deadly violence and shameful corruption — and the left's promotion of both.
Trumka's party isn't a party of choice. It's a party of central planning, of managing the lives of 305 million Americans from Washington and 50 state capitals because, according to the left's worldview, the average person isn't able to manage his own affairs.
There's nothing liberating about modern liberals. The policies they support — from national health care to higher taxes to CO2 limits to state seizure of private property — are always imposed by force. Those who refuse soon get a taste of government authority.
It's the code of the hard left, built on jealousy and hate — a formula Trumka and others will use to rally a party that's in mortal fear of losing its political power on Nov. 2.
AFT, NEA And The Dismantling Of The American Education System
If you will see one movie this year, make it "Waiting For Superman" by director Davis Guggenheim, yes the same rabidly liberal director who put out the Al Gore masterpiece (sarcasm intended) An Inconvenient Truth.
The movie, by almost all accounts (including liberal sources like the NYT and HuffPo), is a wake up call for America on how liberal policies and teachers unions has destroyed public schools, and as an extension, the future of the most disadvantaged in our society.
In meanwhile, it hasn’t been a good week for American Federation of Teachers’ president Randi Weingarten. After being on defense the entire time during NBC’s “Education Nation” multi-day event, she was put on a list of “Most Hated People in America,” alongside Osama bin Laden.
Surely it must have been by a conservative pundit or organization, right? Try Huffington Post writer Keli Goff, who wrote:
“American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten is about to join Osama bin Laden on the list of Most Despised People in America. And if even one tenth of [Davis] Guggenheim’s film [“Waiting for Superman”] is to be believed, then this distinction is well earned and well deserved.”
Wow! Randi Weingarten, who has been described as willing to “protect a dead body” in the classroom, is taking heavy fire from the Left. This is big.
Goff continues:
“I had no idea until seeing this film that Teacher’s Unions give far more money to political parties and politicians than the NRA." (Keli, I could have told you that - maybe if you liberals cared to inform yourselves through OpenSecrets.org, you would see how exclusively destructive forces in this country like unions and lawyers are buying out your beloved progressive politicians)
She continues: "Yes, you read that correctly. So the next time a politician asks for your vote and claims to be “for the children,” ask them if they are also for the teachers’ unions, specifically tenure protections. Because you can’t be for both, plain and simple.”
“Waiting for Superman” seems to be the tipping point for many liberals who are rightly horrified by the state of our nation’s inner-city schools (many of which Weingarten negotiates with personally). The American public is beginning to realize that their tax dollars have been propping up a corrupt, immoral system and are demanding sweeping changes.
Victor Hugo is credited with saying, “An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come.”
The teachers unions see their power slipping away. They know their time is almost up. But don’t expect them to go without a hellacious fight.
The movie, by almost all accounts (including liberal sources like the NYT and HuffPo), is a wake up call for America on how liberal policies and teachers unions has destroyed public schools, and as an extension, the future of the most disadvantaged in our society.
In meanwhile, it hasn’t been a good week for American Federation of Teachers’ president Randi Weingarten. After being on defense the entire time during NBC’s “Education Nation” multi-day event, she was put on a list of “Most Hated People in America,” alongside Osama bin Laden.
Surely it must have been by a conservative pundit or organization, right? Try Huffington Post writer Keli Goff, who wrote:
“American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten is about to join Osama bin Laden on the list of Most Despised People in America. And if even one tenth of [Davis] Guggenheim’s film [“Waiting for Superman”] is to be believed, then this distinction is well earned and well deserved.”
Wow! Randi Weingarten, who has been described as willing to “protect a dead body” in the classroom, is taking heavy fire from the Left. This is big.
Goff continues:
“I had no idea until seeing this film that Teacher’s Unions give far more money to political parties and politicians than the NRA." (Keli, I could have told you that - maybe if you liberals cared to inform yourselves through OpenSecrets.org, you would see how exclusively destructive forces in this country like unions and lawyers are buying out your beloved progressive politicians)
She continues: "Yes, you read that correctly. So the next time a politician asks for your vote and claims to be “for the children,” ask them if they are also for the teachers’ unions, specifically tenure protections. Because you can’t be for both, plain and simple.”
“Waiting for Superman” seems to be the tipping point for many liberals who are rightly horrified by the state of our nation’s inner-city schools (many of which Weingarten negotiates with personally). The American public is beginning to realize that their tax dollars have been propping up a corrupt, immoral system and are demanding sweeping changes.
Victor Hugo is credited with saying, “An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come.”
The teachers unions see their power slipping away. They know their time is almost up. But don’t expect them to go without a hellacious fight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)