Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Obama Eliminates
Secret Ballot Elections

... Making Card Check Forced Unionism A Reality

by Don Loos - August 30th, 2011

Outgoing NLRB Chair Wilma Liebman and the Obama Appointed NLRB Board members, Craig Becker & Mark Pearce, voted to eliminate secret ballot election protections. Now, when employers make secrets deals with a union bosses agreeing to recognize a union without allowing his employees a secret ballot vote; employees no longer have the right to force an NLRB secret ballot election and allow workers to decide if they want the union or not.

Unable to pass EFCA, Card Check Forced Unionism, through a Democrat-controlled congress, Obama is paying off Big Labor through his handpicked NLRB Board. He is doing all this at the expense of worker freedoms and worker paychecks. And, the NLRB Decision is applied retroactively to bar even elections that have already been held but not counted.

The kind of union hooliganism this will create assures millions of American citizens will be subject to threats and coercion by union bosses. Those who bask in the million dollar salaries that big unions deliver to the powerful and corrupt have little use for the actual workers they pretend to represent. Have we learned no lessons from history at all?

The secret ballot has never stopped unions who were actually making the lives of workers better. Conversely the lack of secret ballots has allowed for corrupt labor leaders to intimidate workers into granting the power to damage companies through stupid work rules, feather bedding and huge dues that are wasted by the corrupt labor bosses. GM was a recent example of the consequence. The greatest car company in the world was bankrupted by stupid union labor.

That Obama continues to use dictator tactics in the formerly free America is obscene. How can the courts tolerate Obama simply ramming through new laws using so called regulatory powers, the very laws that the legislature has refused to pass? When did America become a dictatorship?

Monday, August 29, 2011

Obama's Race-Based Spoils System

by Patrick J. Buchanan - August 26th, 2011 - Human Events

Chester Arthur​ was a most unlikely reformer.

A crucial cog in the political machine of the Empire State's Sen. Roscoe Conkling, he was named by President Grant to the powerful and lucrative post of collector of customs for the Port of New York.

Arthur was removed in 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes, who wanted to clean up the federal patronage system. But when James Garfield of Ohio was nominated to succeed Hayes, he sought to unite his party by picking the Stalwart Arthur as running mate.

Six months into the new administration, a deranged office-seeker shot Garfield. Arthur was president. And in a dramatic turnabout, he became the president forever associated with civil service reform, converting the U.S. government into a meritocracy where individuals were hired based upon examinations and advanced based upon merit.

In our time, however, Arthur's achievement has been undone, as a racial spoils system in federal hiring and promotions has been imposed by Democratic presidents, unresisted by Republicans who rarely exhibit the courage to stand up for their principles when the subject is race.

A week ago, an item buried in The Washington Post reported that Obama had "issued an executive order requiring government agencies to develop plans for improving federal workforce diversity."

This is insanity. With the 13.5% of our population who are black already holding over 18% of the federal jobs, it is arrogance for a black person to destroy "equal justice under the law" ever further by demanding ever greater black representation in organizations that are clearly not suffering from racism.

As an important example of the consequences, the department that presided over the housing debacle that created our current recession is 38% black. It was this department's racist demand, encouraged by the heavily black over representation among its employees, that banks loan to unqualified blacks. This triggered the housing collapse.

Does Obama feel that it is necessary to increase the excessive number of blacks even further? How many federal jobs would blacks have to garner before Obama would accept that this 13.5% of our population had reached its fair share if 18% is not enough? Would the 55% share (which incredibly already exists in the Government Office of Printing) be his goal, or is even that not sufficient to meet his racist demands?

This race bias must end. Affirmative action has long since exceeded its rational justification. A continuance of this abuse will lead to a race war that 13.5% of our nation cannot win. Our Constitution demands equal justice under the law. It is time to end black racism and return to that principle.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Obama Care Is Going Down

by Peter Ferrara - August 17th, 2011 - The American Spectator

The Judges found the government power exercised in the individual mandate to be so unprecedented that the government could not cite a single precedent upholding it, in their briefs or in oral argument. Nor could the Judges find one.

This sounds good to those of us who believe that Obama Care is a serious invasion of individual freedom. It is also good news for those who do not want to see our nation bankrupt itself trying to create a socialized medicine disaster.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

The Uses And Abuses
Of The Tea Party

by Jay Cost - August 10th, 2011 - The Weekly Standard

The following facts about the federal budget deficit are, as far as I know, widely accepted:

First. We have a long-term deficit problem that is due to the rising costs of federal entitlements, above all Medicare.

Second. Our current deficit is substantially larger than normal, due to several factors:

- The economic recession, which decreased the amount of tax revenue...

- An increase in government spending, in the form of automatic stabilizers...

- An increase in government spending, in the form of Keynesian stimulus...

- The continued weakness of the economy, which has kept tax revenues down...

Nowhere on this list do I see anything regarding the Tea Party [Or even anything that the Tea Party movement contributed to]. So why is this movement now so frequently mentioned as a prime factor in the country’s deficit woes?

To answer this question, we must understand that Democrats are in desperate need of a red herring...

And of course when the Democrats need a red herring, they have all of the deceitful training of Alinsky to guide their vitriol into attack mode against someone.

Democrats are the masters of innuendo and personal attacks. However I think this article is correct that this time they have picked the wrong target. For a lot of reasons, including the main issue addressed in article, the Tea Party movement is not a good sustainable target. Just as the claim all Tea Party adherents were racists failed due to the lack of tangible evidence of actual racism, the charge that the Tea Party is liable for our economic circumstances is easily defeated by the simple reality that they have done nothing to create the current circumstances.

When the factors that have left us so deep in debt occurred, the Tea Party movement was not even in existence! Democrats are deranged if they think that they can make this claim stick.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

The Sleeping Giant Awakens

by Robin of Berkeley - August 10th, 2011 - The American Thinker

One of my closest friends, "Gail," lives in a pristine suburb in northern New Jersey. It's one of those leafy bedroom communities where residents drive their Lexus SUVs to the railroad station each morning to catch the train to Manhattan.


While many conservatives merge liberalism and leftism, there are huge differences between the two camps. Liberals, like Gail, want a kinder and gentler America. They choose safe, suburban suburbs, with schools that (as of yet) do not radicalize their children. While it's the rare liberal who would display a flag on July 4, he still cares about this country, supports Israel, and is wary of radical Islam.

The progressive/leftists are an entirely different species entirely; they do not love this country or Israel. In fact, the far left would like nothing better than to knock the US and Israel down from their high horses.

Leftists sympathize with the "victims" of the United States, not those Americans who are brutalized by thugs or terrorists. The left practices third-worldism, the belief that the paths of Chavez and Lenin are vastly superior to our own Founding Fathers. Having become smitten by the renegade image of Che Guevara, they fashion themselves as post-modern revolutionaries, who set out, with a missionary zeal, to change the world.

Consequently, leftists turn a blind eye to the savagery of the third world, e.g. the burqua or beheadings. Progressives justify the brutality of gang violence and perhaps engage in mob behavior themselves. While they label conservatives as reactionary, leftists are, in truth, the true reactionaries...

Robin of Berkeley is becoming one of the better conservative writers. She reminds me of David Horowitz in her value to our cause. As a former true believer who woke up, she understands and communicates effectively to those who have still not reached an understanding of the virus of liberalism-progressivism.

This is an excellent article about the savage riots that are occurring, both here in America, in England, and in various other places around the globe. The leftists are seizing the moment to create anarchy and chaos as it serves their political agenda. These riots may start as race riots, but they will get more and more violent over time. Armageddon is coming. Robin of Berkeley is able to explain how and why this is happening better than any of us who have not lived among those on the left.

Monday, August 08, 2011

Facts? We Don’t Need
No Stinkin’ Facts

by Arnold Ahlert - August 7TH, 2011 - Canada Free Press

Comedians Penn and Teller have a show call[ed] “Bulls**t!” which runs every so often on the Showtime cable network. The purpose of the show is to expose fraudulent ideas or thinking in an amusing way. The one I watched was about organic vegetables and whether or not they were any better than non-organic ones. The show, using both anecdotes and scientific evidence demonstrated pretty convincingly that they’re not. But the anecdotes revealed something profound about the way people think—or more accurately how some people allow feelings to completely over-ride reason.


But all of the science paled in entertainment value to the taste test segments of the show. That’s the part where the dedicated “save the earth” crowd was asked to choose between two plates of vegetables or fruit and tell the presenter which one was organic. Time after time, people convinced organic foods were better, chose non-organic foods as their preferred choice in terms of looks and more importantly taste, by an 80-90 percent margin. Yet when asked by the presenter if this new information would cause them to re-consider their buying habits, virtually every one them said they would continue to buy organic products.

We are constantly told by progressives that conservatives are stupid, uneducated and inferior. They claim progressives are the intellectual elite in our nation. Yet time after time actual practice shows that progressives substitute feel good political correctness for actual thought. They equate not agreeing with a politically correct 'feeling' with a lack of intelligence.

It is a bizarre hypothesis to try and test intelligence when one group does not even accept the standard definition of the word. The only question that a progressive accepts is the simplistic, "Have you accepted the progressive brain washing that requires you to, by rote, feed back the 'correct' answer to all questions which we have decided by how we feel?"

If you do not accept that as a valid premise, you will be denounced as stupid, uneducated and inferior.

Such people do not deserve courtesy or respect. They are contemptible. So show them contempt. I do!

“Tea Party Downgrade”?

They Can’t Possibly Sell That

by John Hinderaker - August 7th, 2011 - PowerLine

Of the administration’s alternative theories, the most ludicrous is the claim that the Tea Party, the one group dedicated to doing something about the nation’s spending and debt crisis, is somehow to blame for it. Yet this is the theory that President Obama’s political adviser, David Axelrod, tried to sell on Face the Nation this morning...

What is most ludicrous is the Democrats’ effort to distract attention from the fact that they controlled Congress from January 2007 until January 2011. The first Congress that had any ability to be influenced by the Tea Party movement has been in office for only six months. Do the Democrats seriously expect anyone to believe that S&P’s downgrade of U.S. debt arises out of something that Republican Congressmen have done in the last six months? We expect the Democrats to appeal to ignorance at all times, but this is ridiculous.

Democrats are never responsible for anything that happens on their watch unless it is good. If a single Republican is in office anywhere - anything bad is the fault of that single Republican.

Two years before Republicans took control of both houses of the NC legislature a Civitas poll indicated that the majority of people in the state believed the Democrat argument, that the Republican Party (which had not had power in more than a hundred years) was responsible for causing three main problems on which the campaign was being contested. Democrats - against all logic - pounded constantly on how the Republicans had caused the problems. And the majority of the people believed them.

Don't bet they can't sell this idiocy if we do not constantly refute it.

Friday, August 05, 2011

And The Entitlement State

by Mikiel de Bary - August 4th, 2011 - The American Thinker

It is high time to judge macroeconomics -- the pseudo-economics of "aggregates" -- as a disaster. We must challenge both the premises of the macroeconomists and their "policy" alternatives. Let us recognize them for what they are, namely, public relations consultants for the entitlement state.

From its beginnings, which we can date from 1936 (the publication year of Keynes's General Theory), macroeconomics emphasized (on rather vaguely argued grounds) the importance of the biggest numbers in business statistics -- the so-called aggregates. The macroeconomists, as it were, even named themselves after these politically potent "macro" numbers and laid claim to an expertise precisely in tracking and, well, producing them.

What they produced was the hidden inflation of measuring product not by how many things were produced, but by the aggregate value of the things produced. The hidden inflation was the spurious claim - if the value as measured in dollars had increased - that the product of the nation had gone up. What it actually measured was the hidden inflation cost to society of the government goons who insidiously monitored the process and proclaimed progress against all reason.

This article is an excellent description of the failures of macro economics, as its opening paragraph proclaims. A related example of manipulating data is the unemployment rate as published by government macro-economists. It hides the real unemployment rate by claiming those that have been bribed to live off the welfare state and given up looking for work are no longer unemployed. How can these insane ideas have gained so much credibility with supposedly intelligent people?

Scare At State Fair...

... witnesses describe mobs, including some claiming racially-charged attacks

by Jay Sorgi - August 5th, 2011 - WTMJ News (Madison, Wisconsin)

Witnesses tell Newsradio 620 WTMJ and TODAY'S TMJ4 of a mob of young people attacking innocent fair-goers at the end of the opening night of State Fair, with some callers claiming a racially-charged scene.

Milwaukee Police confirmed there were assaults outside the fair.

Witnesses' accounts claim everything from dozens to hundreds of young black people beating white people as they left State Fair Thursday night.

Compare this article to the typical article on this mob riot found here? The typical article does not mention the fact that the mob was black anywhere. Not once.

One witness expressed his anger at the lack of response by the police.

"The thing that irritated me, the State Fair Police, the State Police, were down by the Pettit entrance to get in there," said Eric. "There was probably 5 or 6 officers down there. That's where all these kids came from. They came out of the Midway, across the front of the Pettit. They were still filing out of there. The State Fair Police, they knew this was going on. They knew these kids were beating these guys in between that exit and Schlinger at the next gate."

"They were stopping traffic, and I said 'What in the hell,' excuse my language, 'what are you guys doing directing traffic when there are 300, 400 black kids up the road beating the hell out of everybody, pushing people off of motorcycles?' I was livid. I could not believe they were directing traffic."

More and more it is obvious. Because of the hostility of the Attorney General to white people, local police will not risk having their careers damaged by getting involved. These black flash mobs are becoming common. And the police ignore them.

Most of the press covers up the racial hostility of the black mobs too. That is why this article is so rare. I guarantee that this Radio station is going to be smeared with the label 'racist' for daring to mention the race of the mob members who were attacking others. According to blacks, only whites can be racist.

It is racist to mention any action as being done by a black because it will harm the 'innocent' blacks who simply hate 'whitey' but who only watched their 'brothers' beat up the hated whites and did not participate. They did nothing to stop it either, but that is okay. Cheering is okay as long as you don't actually 'participate'.

The White House:
We Don't Create Jobs

by Zeke Miller - August 4th, 2011 - Business Insider

As President Barack Obama once again pivots to focus on economic growth, Press Secretary Jay Carney declared Thursday that "the White House doesn't create jobs."

While undoubtedly true, it was certainly not a sentiment Obama wants to project as Republicans ratchet up criticism of his leadership on economic issues, and his presidential campaign kicks into high gear.

After a month devoted to raising the debt limit, on Tuesday Obama announced a new focus on boosting employment — at least his seventh such announcement in his presidency.

Obama has repeatedly, for two years, insisted he "created or saved" millions of jobs. He spent close to a trillion dollars under the argument that he was creating jobs. Was he lying then or lying now?

Even greater hypocrisy was shown when Carney insisted "there is no silver bullet" to creating jobs. When Obama campaigned he insisted there was a silver bullet. He constantly complained that Republicans would not "stimulate" the economy. He insisted that was all that was needed. Yet he sings a different tune now. Unemployment continues to rise because of the obstacles to hiring being created by the thousands of new regulations which strangle business. More are being written daily by the huge cadre of Marxist czars that Obama has put into place. Millions have dropped out of the labor market due to the barriers discouraging their struggle which Obama has erected. Yet Obama will not slow down this tsunami of regulations. He seems oblivious to the consequences.

Obama thought it was easy to create jobs when others were struggling with the problem. Now when he is in charge it is too tough for him and all he can do is whine that it is not his job. Poor baby.

Tuesday, August 02, 2011

The Real Story Of
The US Debt Deal...

... is not the triumph of the Tea Party but the death of the Socialist Left

by Toby Young - August 2nd, 2011 - The London Telegraph

For British conservatives, the US debt deal is a thing of beauty. Under the terms of the deal, the federal government will cut spending by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years and there won’t be any corresponding increase in taxation. That is to say, the American Government has agreed to tackle its deficit by spending cuts alone. The British Government, by contrast, is planning to cut its deficit through a combination of spending cuts and tax rises – and it’s cutting it by a smaller amount.

Even if the Tory Party had won an overall majority at the last election, it’s hard to imagine it adopting such a bold fiscal policy. Yet the American Government is on the verge of adopting this plan in spite of the fact that the Democrats control the Senate and the White House.

A truly bizarre article by an extreme left wing supporter from Britain. The writer does not see the collapse of socialist government after socialist government all over the world as a result of the failure of socialism. He sees it as a political crisis that is being caused due to betrayal by the public at large - who he sees as too stupid to realize their mistake. The depth of his delusion can be seen when he calls the extreme left wing Marxist Barack Obama a "center left" politician.

His hypothesis is that failure to spend at lavish levels will cause the recession-depression to deepen. He believes that only debt funded spending can save our economy and he insists that Obama should start to blame the coming double dip on the misguided strategy of reducing debt. I suppose he has never read, or at least does not believe, FDR's own Treasury Secretary commenting on the FDR New Deal after 8 years.

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!”

Of course, despite the fact that this is in the records of the House Ways and Mean Committee, progressives resort to a pitiful complaint that they "don't believe" he would have said that as their only retort. Democrats and progressives still reject that the minor recession that became the great depression was a result of FDR's policies. They also reject that his solutions were not the best way to end the depression, even though no previous recession had ever before lasted as long.

In truth, one of the biggest problems we have is that few elected officials really understand business or economics. Keynes was not an economist, yet his failed economic theories have more supporters among our elected officials than those who have read Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" or Frierich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom".

Even among Republicans there is sympathy for the Keynesian theories. They refuse to believe in the Republican Harding-Coolidge success that led to the roaring twenties, providing a huge increase in the American middle class in the process. Coolidge did not just reduce the growth in government, he slashed government payrolls and cut taxes. The result is still the greatest period of economic growth any nation has ever seen.