"Civility" Doesn't Apply to Unions

Remember President Obama's insistence that we all speak nicely to each other? This comment was at his speech memorializing those killed and wounded in Arizona earlier this year (including Representative Gabrielle Giffods).

The University of Arizona even began a National Institute for Civil Discourse to encourage more polite talk in politics, chaired by Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush.

So how's the civility coming along with all the union protests across our nation? And where, by the way, are the rejoinders from Obama, Clinton, and Bush?

Let's see now:

1. Physical assaults--on at least two journalists, both professional and amateur. Here's one"

http://www.redstate.com/tabithahale/2011/02/23/union-thuggery-descends-on-freedomworks/:

2. Racism--of many stripes.

Calling a black Tea Party member "son" and instructing him to "get back behind the fence where you belong" to calling black businessman Herman Cain a "monkey", "minstrel", "oreo", and much more.

3. Threatening behavior--very threatening. Here you can see Wisconsin Republican Senator being chased through the capitol. http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/01/video-wisconsin-dem-intervenes-to-protect-gop-senator-threatened-by-mob/

4. Republicans in Wisconsin need police escorts--not only for protection from the mob....err, teachers....but apparently even from Wisconsin Democrats. Or at least one.

Democrat Gordon Hintz yelled at colleague Republican Michelle Litjens that she was "f.........dead". Oops.
5. Sexually obscene, violent signs and threats--which are too over-the-top to be repeated. And for at least one person was charged for sexually threatening a cameraman. http://aolanswers.com/questions/obama_approve_disapprove_politics_504184483817059/ri_protester_threatens_tv_cameraman_495521637175116
(WARNING: sexually explicit article)

How's that civility working for you?

Why Do Teachers' Unions Exist?

Why do we have teachers' unions, like the National Education Association?
To help teachers, so that in turn the children get the best education possible?
Think again.
In the words of the National Education Association's chief lawyer, Bob Chanin,

"It is not because we care about children and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.”

He goes on to say that educational achievement and increased teacher quality are important, but aren't the reasons that the NEA exists. Those issues are mere incidentals and"must not be achieved at the expense of due process, employee rights and collective bargaining. That simply is too high a price to pay.”

So take that, schoolkids--it's not YOU that's important, it's pay and benefits for teachers.

Listen to the whole speech:
http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/02/23/teachers-union-big-wig-says-its-not-about-kids-its-about-power

Ta-Da! Now Obama Pretends to Be the Judiciary!

Now Obama is making judicial judgments.

He has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. So he has decreed that the federal government will no longer defend this law, which has been the law of the land since President Clinton.

By doing this, Obama will ensure that DOMA will eventually be overthrown.

This is blatently unconstitutional. Our constitution provides for a division of powers between executive, legislative and judicial branches. The president cannot decide whether a law is unconstitutional or not, or whether it is worthy of defending or not.

A president can work within the constitution to change laws, but Obama isn't working within the constitution here. This is simply presidential hocus-pocus---and carried to a logical conclusion, Obama can simply ignore any law he doesn't like.

Obama on Libya? Well, He's Been Busy...

President Obama finally met with the Secretary of State today about Libya and made a brief statement, refusing to mention Gadhafi by name.

Why did it take nine days for President Obama to say anything?

He's been flying around the country talking to business leaders, being sympathetic to the unemployed (NOT). And raising money.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/02/23/wh_obamas_non-response_on_libya_due_to_scheduling_issue.html

Gadhafi's murdering his own people, New Zealand just suffered an horrendous earthquake, the Middle East is falling apart, Somali pirates just killed 4 American citizens, oil and food prices are skyrocketing, the US government may shut down...and our President is on campaign money junkets.

The Economy, Again (And Why We Need to Let the Democrats Shut Down the Government)

House Republicans have passed $60 billion in federal spending cuts (a tad short of the $100 billion promised.)
Now Senate Republicans are not so sure.
Both House and Senate Republicans are now apparently considering a short term bill to keep the government running while they continue to work on a budget bill.
They seem to be worried that the Democrats will blame the Republicans for shutting down the government.
And, of course, in this game of budgetary chicken, the Democrats are glad to make the Republicans run scared.
How 'bout we just let the Democrats shut down the government? I really don't think anyone will miss them.
Social security and Medicare/Medicaid will continue; intelligence agencies and armed services will continue to serve.
Write your Representatives and Senators and let them know how you feel!

UN Vote on Israeli Settlements: Obama Manages to Anger Everyone

If the Palestinian Authority would downgrade the statement from a "resolution" to a mere "statement", the Obama Administration had agreed to vote with the rest of the UN Security Counsel that the U.S. “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity.”

The Palestinian Authority refused to do so, so the United States was forced to veto the resolution calling for an end to Israeli settlements.

However you feel about the Israeli settlement issue, this maneuvering has resulted in a Gordian knot. All in the name of being totally unbiased and keeping the options open, Obama has managed to alienate both the Arabs and Israel.

Public Sector Unions Are Not Government Employees

Teachers, fire-fighters and police are NOT government employees.

Just like legislators, they are employees of us, the taxpayers.

We, the taxpayers, thus have a say in their employment.

The people of Wisconsin elected a Republican govenor and legislature to represent them in cutting back state expenses. Wisconsin, along with many other states, is going broke.

And the answer to governmental budgetary woes isn't raising taxes.

So, do the public sector union employees (of Wisconsin and the 49 other states) agree to start paying more of their benefits, or do they just get fired from their jobs?

It's their call. But they don't have a right to shirk their jobs to their employees, We, the People.

Political Cartoon

by Michael Ramirez

Another Budget Cut Suggestion---If Obama Doesn't Need Various Cabinet Secretaries, Why are We Paying for Them?

Apparently President Obama has NEVER, EVER in the first two years of office called at least half-a-dozen of his Cabinet Secretaries.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/70829/index1.html

So, why are we paying for them?

Just So You Know--Obama's Helping the Miscreant Wisconsin Unions

The Democratic National Committee Organizing for America (from President Obama's presidential campaign) is actively coordinating and helping with the protests by Wisconsin unions.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/DNC_playing_role_in_Wisconsin_protests.html?showall

President Obama feels that Govenor Walker of Wisconsin is "vilifying" public employees and making "an assault on unions."

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/116391649.html

A Suggestion to Cut the Budget: Stimulus Funds

The White House announced today that stimulus funds have been successful, stating that millions of jobs have been created and unemployment has been lowered due to this government spending.

When asked why unemployment hadn't fallen to 7% (which was the previously-agreed-upon criteria of a successful stimulus program), White House press secretary Carney replied with the non-sequitar, "We've said repeatedly that we don't want to relitigate the battles of the past."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/02/17/whs_jay_carney_stimulus_goals_have_been_met.html

Not sure what that means.....

Smoke And Mirrors

President Obama's budget basics:

Lots of spending (lots and lots and lots and lots)

and

Lots of new taxes (lots and lots and lots and lots)

equaling

Lots of new debt (lots and lots and lots and lots)

and

Lots of economic problems (lots and lots and lots and lots)

Remember the Blagojevich in Chicago?

As Blagojevich prepares to go on trial in Chicago for corruption charges (it's a retrial on charges that Blagojevich wanted something in return for his appointment to Obama's Illinois Senate seat), essential phone call tapes to Rahm Emmanuel are now found to be missing.

Obama Continues in Anarchy

From the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, one of the definitions of ANARCHY-- "A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems."

This is what Obama is doing by refusing to obey judicial rulings on Obamacare and also on the oil drilling moratorium. He is acting outside the rule of law, our Constitution.

Mubarak's Assessment of President Obama

Reportedly from a conversation between Mubarak and and Israeli former cabinet member:

"He (Mubarak) gave me a lesson in democracy and said: 'We see the democracy the United States spearheaded in Iran and with Hamas, in Gaza, and that's the fate of the Middle East.'"

"'They (the Obama Administration) may be talking about democracy but they don't know what they're talking about and the result will be extremism and radical Islam,'" the Israeli ex-cabinet member quoted Mubarak as saying."

Ship of Fools (Re: Egypt)

1. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who states that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is NOT a religious institution (he describes it as "largely secular") and "eschews violence."

However, let's take a look at a summary of the Muslim Brotherhood of a book written by a leader of this group, which speaks to the "Muslim Brotherhood’s goal of establishing an Islamic state, world domination under Islam, the public and personal religious duty of military Jihad, and the warning not to rush to Jihad until it is prepared and timed for maximum benefit.”

(Remember, this is the same guy that wasn't aware of the London terrorist arrests late last year when asked about them in a television interview-- http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/12/after-early-administration-denials-director-of-national-intelligence-admits-he-hadnt-been-briefed-on.html

2. CIA Director Panetta based his Congressional testimony on the Egyptian situation on television reports--not on American intelligence. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/world/middleeast/11diplomacy.html?_r=1

3. President Obama's praising the Egyptian military takeover as a step to democracy. Face it, Mubarak was part of the Egyptian military. He has ruled Egypt with the military by his side. He just turned Egypt over to his cronies. Nothing has really changed---so why is Mubarak's stepping down the equivalent of democracy?

4. The big question: What does this mean in terms of foreign policy?

Does Obama support our allies? No--in the case of Mubarak.

Does Obama support revolutionary movements? No--in the case of Iran. Yes--in the case of Egypt.

Does Obama support democracy? No--in China. No--in Haiti.

Obama Asks Businesses "To Do Their Part"

Excerpts from President Obama's speech to the United States Chamber of Commerce:

President Obama, "We need to make America the best place on Earth to do business." However, Mr. Obama is not talking about "we" as in businesses together with the government. He is talking about "we" the federal government as you will see in the remainder of his speech.

"But I want to be clear: Even as we (i.e. the government) make America the best place on Earth to do business, businesses also have a responsibility to America..."

"As a government, we will help lay the foundation for you to grow and innovate and succeed. We will upgrade our transportation and communication networks...We’ll invest in education... And we’ll work to knock down barriers....That’s why we’re making investments today in the next generation of big ideas -– in biotechnology, in information technology and in clean energy technology...We recently signed export deals..."

So, what do businesses need to do? According to Obama, businesses need to share their profits with their employees. What does this mean? I thought profits were shared--something called "salaries" or "wages", or even "profit-sharing." Does this mean that businesses should reduce their contractual obligations to investors or to stock holders? Won't that lead to even further problems with our free-market systems?

Mr. Obama, "We’re fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports to help you compete, the benefits can’t just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers..."

Mr. Obama also wants businesses to keep industry and thus jobs here in the U.S.--and to spend money that businesses are currently saving. Does he understand that businesses have to have money to stay in business? That businesses can't spend their savings in this dismal economic market? That the economy's poor business environment is due mostly to federal interventions, including Obamacare, high corporate taxes, etc, etc?
"Now is the time to invest in America ("new jobs and manufacturing on our shores")...Today, American companies have nearly $2 trillion sitting on their balance sheets..."

And the answer to business's trouble is even more government, according to Obama:

Mr. Obama, "I want to fix it. That’s why I’ve asked Jeff Immelt of GE to lead a new council of business leaders and outside experts so that we’re getting the best advice..."

A Great New Blog for You!

A new political blog--Enjoy!
Defined by Opposition
http://definedbyopposition.wordpress.com/

EPA Cries Over Spilled Milk

The EPA has discoverd that milk contains "a non-petroleum oil" (they mean milk-fat)---and so the folks at the EPA, who regulate oil spills that threaten our shorelines, have decided dairy farmers must implement measures to counter any dangerous milk spills.

These measures include "training first responders" and "building containment facilities" to prevent damage from catastrophic milk spills. The Agriculture Department apparently has a $3 million dollar program to help farmers comply with EPA oil-spill regulations.

Apparently this is not an early April-fools joke. http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/02/03/epa-spilled-milk-regulation-indicative-of-broader-problem/

And here I thought the farmhouse cats were in charge of milk spills!

Legality, Just a Mere Technicality

President Obama has now ignored two federal court rulings:

He hasn't lifted the oil embargo as Judge Feldman ordered and is now in contempt of court. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html

He is also deliberately ignoring the ruling that Obamacare is unconstitutional--it's null and void. Dead. Caput.

But Mr. Obama continues to implement Obamacare anyway.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/02/obama-ignores-ruling-against-obamacare/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DakotaVoice+%28Dakota+Voice%29

http://libertylog.org/?p=2095

Is Mr. Obama operating illegally? I would say "yes".

Why be Concerned about the Scam of Global Warming?

Because the farce of Global Warming is bad for the whole world, not just the United States.

For example, the ethanol that the U.S. is required to put into gasoline is derived from corn, which has led to global food shortages of corn and a world-wide rise in food prices. Not to mention the fact that turning corn into fuel is a very energy-requiring process. And don't forget that ethanol-laced gasoline doesn't burn as efficiently. Which means that ethanol is NOT a solution to our petroleum needs. In fact, ethanol is probably a negative. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10057/04-08-Ethanol.pdf

These concerns also lead to foolish federal policies. Energy Secretary Chu wants renewable energy sources (such as wind and solar) to replace US petroleum needs. Unfortunately, renewable energy sources cannot replace petroleum. Wind and solar can only be used for electricity--and electricity uses up a mere 1% of petroleum here in the US.

Well, if we all went to electric cars, wouldn't that solve the problem? Well, while petroleum produces less than 1% of our electricity, fossil fuels produce 70% of our electricity. Not exactly "green."

BTW, solar yields about 0.02% of our electricity, while wind power gives us less than 2% of our electricity. Nuclear power plants and hydroelectric plants comprise most of the remaining sources of electricity. (2009 statistics--see http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0802a.html

These numbers also point to the difficulty of President Obama's call for 80% of US energy needs to come from "green" sources. Clean Energy Standards (or CES) will force energy companies to turn to expensive sources of energy, since nuclear power plants are not being built. Furthermore, wind and solar power are not dependable sources of energy--just another small problem.

What to do? May I suggest that the government get out of the way of the development of energy sources?

Mr. Obama is currently in contempt of court by refusing to lift the moratorium on off-shore drilling. From Judge Feldman: “Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” and, “Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt."

Next, stop interfering with energy development. Allow nuclear power. Allow the free-market system to come up with even better technology than wind or solar power, instead of subsidizing pet projects. And allow drilling of American oil until we have something better.

A Few Comments on Egypt

How should President Obama deal with the difficult situation in Egypt?

Face it, Egypt IS an incredibly problematic situation. Especially since apparently the Administration was caught completely off-guard about Egyptian circumstances. Though Mr. Obama is blaming US Intelligence for not giving him sufficient warning about the conditions in Egypt, it may be that Mr. Obama just wasn't listening to the intelligence that was being provided. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/04/world/main7317044.shtml

The President didn't attend the 1st two-hour meeting concerning Egypt--he was watching his daughter play basketball. Later that day he met for an hour about Egypt--and then partied with Mr. Axelrod. http://www.politico.com/politico44/wbarchive/whiteboard01292011.html

These meetings were followed by the Vice-President's statement that Mr. Mubarek is NOT a dictator, then statements by the President that Mubarek must go. Confusing, to say the least.

Plus, there's all this demagoguery about "peaceful" riots (an oxymoron!) and "democratically minded" people in the Cairo streets. I thought the riots were about food. Furthermore, peaceful assemblies don't steal precious treasures from museums.

Also, I am wondering why Mr. Obama is touting "democracy" and "free elections" when he is also willing to treat with the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that supported Nazi Germany and has ties to other Muslim terrorist organizations. http://www.answers.com/topic/muslim-brotherhood

One of the biggest problems, I think, is that Mr. Obama has now backed the United States into a corner. Whatever Mubarak is, he was an ally. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has a long history of snubbing our allies, so this brush-off is not out of the ordinary. These brush-offs have just not had such disastrous potential as this rejection of Mubarak, which could potentially lead to a total collapse of the Middle East into Muslim theocratic-fascist regimes. Especially if one thinks that the Muslim Brotherhood could be an American ally.

A better reaction? Maybe just shut up.

And a Brief Note from Obama's Climate Change Czar

Another advocate of global warming is John Holdren, Mr. Obama's Science Czar. He is concerned that the population is simply "not educated." http://nation.foxnews.com/czars/2011/01/31/science-czar-republicans-need-education

Mind you, this is the man who advocates forced abortions and sterilization-for-all in order to save planet Earth from humanity.

I wonder, is Mr. Holdren suggesting that we are stupid? Or is he suggesting something more sinister?

More Global Warming

"Neither rain, nor snow, nor......"

But you can't get any mail when your mailbox is frozen shut.

Tomorrow will be the third day that we will be iced in. And we may have more snow or ice Thursday nite or Friday morning.

All because, says Al Gore, because of global warming. http://blog.algore.com/2011/02/an_answer_for_bill.html

Increased temperatures mean that the air holds more moisture, allowing for more rain or snow.

The problem with this 'theory', Mr. Gore, is that increased temperatures might explain more rain, but not more snow.

You have to have "cold" clouds to get snow and ice. "Warm" clouds just won't make that ol' frozen precipitation.

Besides that fact that temperatures have been cooling since the 1990's. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/4029837/Global-warming-Reasons-why-it-might-not-actually-exist.html

Neither are the glaciers melting--in fact, they are advancing in the Himalayas.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.html