From The American Thinker:
31, 2010
Department of Justice ditches red, white and blue stars and stripes
Bruce Cunningham
Well, how interesting! It seems the U.S. Department of Justice has changed its website. Gone are the colorful red, white and blue U.S. flag decorations on the page,
replaced by stark black and white.
And at the top of the page, is a rather interesting quote:
"The common law is the will of mankind, issuing from the life of the people."
Catchy, huh? Just one tiny little (too small to be relevant obviously) point -- the quote is from C. Wilfred Jenks, who in the 1930's was a leading proponent of the "international law" movement, which had as its goal to impose a global common law and which backed ‘global workers' rights.'
Call it Marxism, call it Progressivism, call it Socialism -- under any of those names it definitely makes the DOJ look corrupt in their sleek, new black website with Marxist accessories to match.
See for yourself: http://www.justice.gov/
How very interesting that 'they' couldn't find a nice quote from one of our Founders. People, we have lost our Republic. We need to get it back ASAP.
Hat tip: American Spectator
Posted at 02:25 PM
The Rise and Fall of Hope and Change
The United States Capitol Building
The Constitutional Convention
The Continental Congress
George Washington at Valley Forge
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The Washington Times Calls For Impeachment Of Obama
from A Charging Elephant:
Washington Times Calls for Impeachment of Obama
Posted on August 31, 2010
by dancingczars
1 Comment
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
The Washington Times
President’s socialist takeover must be stopped
President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.
He is slowly – piece by painful piece – erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there – yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism.
(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Like Venezuela’s leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above – one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It’s time for him to go.
He has abused his office and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. His health care overhaul was rammed through Congress. It was – and remains – opposed by a majority of the people. It could only be passed through bribery and political intimidation. The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the $5 billion Medicaid set-aside for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson – taxpayer money was used as a virtual slush fund to buy swing votes. Moreover, the law is blatantly unconstitutional: The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power.
Yet Obamacare’s most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens. Traditionalists – evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Orthodox Jews – have been made complicit in an abomination that goes against their deepest religious values. As the law is implemented (as in Pennsylvania) the consequences of the abortion provisions will become increasingly apparent. The result will be a cultural civil war. Pro-lifers will become deeply alienated from society; among many, a secession of the heart is taking place.
Mr. Obama is waging a frontal assault on property rights. The BP oil spill is a case in point. BP clearly is responsible for the spill and its massive economic and environmental damage to the Gulf. There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia’s Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee. In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda. Billions will be dispensed arbitrarily in compensation to oil-spill victims – much of it to Democratic constituents. This is cronyism and creeping authoritarianism.
Mr. Obama’s multicultural socialism seeks to eradicate traditional America. He has created a command-and-control health care system. He has essentially nationalized the big banks, the financial sector, the automakers and the student loan industry. He next wants to pass “cap-and-trade,” which would bring industry and manufacturing under the heel of big government. The state is intervening in every aspect of American life – beyond its constitutionally delegated bounds. Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper.
To provide the shock troops for his socialist takeover, Mr. Obama calls for “comprehensive immigration reform” – granting amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens. This would forge a permanent Democratic electoral majority. It would sound the death knell for our national sovereignty. Amnesty rewards lawlessness and criminal behavior; it signifies the surrender of our porous southern border to a massive illegal invasion. It means the death of American nationhood. We will no longer be a country, but the colony of a global socialist empire.
Rather than defending our homeland, Mr. Obama’s Justice Department has sued Arizona for its immigration law. He is siding with criminals against his fellow Americans. His actions desecrate his constitutional oath to protect U.S. citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. He is thus encouraging more illegal immigration as Washington refuses to protect our borders. Mr. Obama’s decision on this case is treasonous.
As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site. A Justice Department lawyer intimately involved in the case, J. Christian Adams, resigned in protest. Mr. Adams says that under Mr. Obama, there is a new policy: Cases involving black defendants and white victims – no matter how much they cry for justice – are not to be prosecuted. This is more than institutionalized racism. It is an abrogation of civil rights laws. The Justice Department’s behavior is illegal. It poses a direct threat to the integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our electoral process.
Corruption in the administration is rampant. Washington no longer has a government; rather, it has a gangster regime. The Chicago way has become the Washington way. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a political hit man. He is an amoral, ruthless operator. It was Mr. Emanuel who reached out to Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, offering a high-ranking job in the hopes of persuading Mr. Sestak to pull out of the primary against Sen. Arlen Specter. It was Mr. Emanuel who offered another government position to Andrew Romanoff to do the same in the Colorado Democratic Senate primary. And it was Mr. Emanuel – as the trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has revealed – who acted as the go-between to try to have Valerie Jarrett parachuted into Mr. Obama’s former Senate seat. The only question was: What did Mr. Blagojevich want in exchange?
This is not simply sleazy Chicago machine politics. It is the systematic breaking of the law - bribery, attempt to interfere (and manipulate) elections using taxpayer-funded jobs, influence peddling and abuse of power.
The common misperception on the right is that Mr. Obama is another Jimmy Carter: an incompetent liberal whose presidency is being reduced to rubble under the onslaught of repeated failures. The very opposite, however, is true. He is the most consequential president in our lifetime, transforming America into something our Founding Fathers would find not only unrecognizable, but repugnant. Like all radical revolutionaries, he is consumed by the pursuit of power - attaining it, wielding it and maximizing it. Mr. Obama's fledgling thug state must be stopped.
If Republicans win back Congress in November, they should - and likely will - launch formal investigations into this criminal, scandal-ridden administration. Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has promised as much. Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from 5 to 7 p.m.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC.
Washington Times Calls for Impeachment of Obama
Posted on August 31, 2010
by dancingczars
1 Comment
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
The Washington Times
President’s socialist takeover must be stopped
President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.
He is slowly – piece by painful piece – erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there – yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism.
(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Like Venezuela’s leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above – one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It’s time for him to go.
He has abused his office and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. His health care overhaul was rammed through Congress. It was – and remains – opposed by a majority of the people. It could only be passed through bribery and political intimidation. The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the $5 billion Medicaid set-aside for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson – taxpayer money was used as a virtual slush fund to buy swing votes. Moreover, the law is blatantly unconstitutional: The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power.
Yet Obamacare’s most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens. Traditionalists – evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Orthodox Jews – have been made complicit in an abomination that goes against their deepest religious values. As the law is implemented (as in Pennsylvania) the consequences of the abortion provisions will become increasingly apparent. The result will be a cultural civil war. Pro-lifers will become deeply alienated from society; among many, a secession of the heart is taking place.
Mr. Obama is waging a frontal assault on property rights. The BP oil spill is a case in point. BP clearly is responsible for the spill and its massive economic and environmental damage to the Gulf. There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia’s Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee. In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda. Billions will be dispensed arbitrarily in compensation to oil-spill victims – much of it to Democratic constituents. This is cronyism and creeping authoritarianism.
Mr. Obama’s multicultural socialism seeks to eradicate traditional America. He has created a command-and-control health care system. He has essentially nationalized the big banks, the financial sector, the automakers and the student loan industry. He next wants to pass “cap-and-trade,” which would bring industry and manufacturing under the heel of big government. The state is intervening in every aspect of American life – beyond its constitutionally delegated bounds. Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper.
To provide the shock troops for his socialist takeover, Mr. Obama calls for “comprehensive immigration reform” – granting amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens. This would forge a permanent Democratic electoral majority. It would sound the death knell for our national sovereignty. Amnesty rewards lawlessness and criminal behavior; it signifies the surrender of our porous southern border to a massive illegal invasion. It means the death of American nationhood. We will no longer be a country, but the colony of a global socialist empire.
Rather than defending our homeland, Mr. Obama’s Justice Department has sued Arizona for its immigration law. He is siding with criminals against his fellow Americans. His actions desecrate his constitutional oath to protect U.S. citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. He is thus encouraging more illegal immigration as Washington refuses to protect our borders. Mr. Obama’s decision on this case is treasonous.
As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site. A Justice Department lawyer intimately involved in the case, J. Christian Adams, resigned in protest. Mr. Adams says that under Mr. Obama, there is a new policy: Cases involving black defendants and white victims – no matter how much they cry for justice – are not to be prosecuted. This is more than institutionalized racism. It is an abrogation of civil rights laws. The Justice Department’s behavior is illegal. It poses a direct threat to the integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our electoral process.
Corruption in the administration is rampant. Washington no longer has a government; rather, it has a gangster regime. The Chicago way has become the Washington way. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a political hit man. He is an amoral, ruthless operator. It was Mr. Emanuel who reached out to Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, offering a high-ranking job in the hopes of persuading Mr. Sestak to pull out of the primary against Sen. Arlen Specter. It was Mr. Emanuel who offered another government position to Andrew Romanoff to do the same in the Colorado Democratic Senate primary. And it was Mr. Emanuel – as the trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has revealed – who acted as the go-between to try to have Valerie Jarrett parachuted into Mr. Obama’s former Senate seat. The only question was: What did Mr. Blagojevich want in exchange?
This is not simply sleazy Chicago machine politics. It is the systematic breaking of the law - bribery, attempt to interfere (and manipulate) elections using taxpayer-funded jobs, influence peddling and abuse of power.
The common misperception on the right is that Mr. Obama is another Jimmy Carter: an incompetent liberal whose presidency is being reduced to rubble under the onslaught of repeated failures. The very opposite, however, is true. He is the most consequential president in our lifetime, transforming America into something our Founding Fathers would find not only unrecognizable, but repugnant. Like all radical revolutionaries, he is consumed by the pursuit of power - attaining it, wielding it and maximizing it. Mr. Obama's fledgling thug state must be stopped.
If Republicans win back Congress in November, they should - and likely will - launch formal investigations into this criminal, scandal-ridden administration. Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has promised as much. Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from 5 to 7 p.m.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC.
Predator Drones To Patrol Entire U.S.-Mexican Border
From AFP and The Heritage Foundation:
Predator drones to patrol entire US-Mexico border
(AFP) – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON — The United States beginning Wednesday will add a third Predator drone to patrol its border with Mexico, allowing authorities for the first time to monitor the entire stretch of land separating the two neighbors using the unmanned aircraft.
The latest drone joins two others in covering the 2,000-mile (3,200 kilometer) frontier which runs across the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, the US Department of Homeland Security said.
With immigration a hot-button issue ahead of looming midterm elections in November, US President Barack Obama earlier this month signed a 600 million dollar bill aimed at reinforcing border security.
His administration is seeking to step up security as it presses for a comprehensive immigration reform measure that likely would allow many of the millions of illegal migrants in the United States to legalize their status.
Many Republican lawmakers say no immigration measure can be considered unless the federal government can ensure security along the southern US border to prevent a spillover from Mexico's crime-ridden north and to prevent the arrival of more undocumented migrants.
The United States, which is deeply concerned by the raging drug war in its southern neighbor, deployed 1,200 National Guard soldiers and 1,500 new agents to the border in recent weeks, as provided for in the recent legislation.
Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano said the first unmanned aerial system (UAS) flight from Corpus Christi in Texas would mean the whole border from California to Texas was now covered.
"With the deployment of an UAS in Texas, DHS unmanned aerial capabilities will now cover the Southwest Border-from the El Centro Sector in California all the way to the Gulf of Mexico in Texas-providing critical aerial surveillance assistance to personnel on the ground," she said.
Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved.
Predator drones to patrol entire US-Mexico border
(AFP) – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON — The United States beginning Wednesday will add a third Predator drone to patrol its border with Mexico, allowing authorities for the first time to monitor the entire stretch of land separating the two neighbors using the unmanned aircraft.
The latest drone joins two others in covering the 2,000-mile (3,200 kilometer) frontier which runs across the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, the US Department of Homeland Security said.
With immigration a hot-button issue ahead of looming midterm elections in November, US President Barack Obama earlier this month signed a 600 million dollar bill aimed at reinforcing border security.
His administration is seeking to step up security as it presses for a comprehensive immigration reform measure that likely would allow many of the millions of illegal migrants in the United States to legalize their status.
Many Republican lawmakers say no immigration measure can be considered unless the federal government can ensure security along the southern US border to prevent a spillover from Mexico's crime-ridden north and to prevent the arrival of more undocumented migrants.
The United States, which is deeply concerned by the raging drug war in its southern neighbor, deployed 1,200 National Guard soldiers and 1,500 new agents to the border in recent weeks, as provided for in the recent legislation.
Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano said the first unmanned aerial system (UAS) flight from Corpus Christi in Texas would mean the whole border from California to Texas was now covered.
"With the deployment of an UAS in Texas, DHS unmanned aerial capabilities will now cover the Southwest Border-from the El Centro Sector in California all the way to the Gulf of Mexico in Texas-providing critical aerial surveillance assistance to personnel on the ground," she said.
Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved.
A Flash Point For Social Security
From The Daily Caller and The CATO Institute:
A Flash Point for Social Security
by Jim Powell
Jim Powell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is the author of The Triumph of Liberty, FDR's Folly, Wilson's War, Bully Boy, Greatest Emancipations and other books.
Added to cato.org on August 27, 2010
This article appeared on The Daily Caller on August 27, 2010.
PRINT PAGE CITE THIS Sans Serif Serif Share with your friends:
ShareThis
On August 5th, Social Security trustees released their report showing that permanent annual Social Security deficits will begin in 2015, when next year's high school seniors graduate from college.
Since there are more than 50 million Social Security beneficiaries, and their numbers are growing faster than the number of taxpayers, there will be intense, politically irresistible pressure to continue paying benefits by raising payroll taxes and income taxes. But taxes won't be enough to save Social Security, because Medicare and Medicaid are also going broke, and payments on all the debt are skyrocketing.
Social Security was set up to have each person pay for somebody else's benefits. Current payroll taxes go to pay current Social Security benefits, and nothing is set aside for the future retirement of people working now. In the past, when current payroll taxes exceeded current benefits, the Social Security Administration used the surplus to buy special issue U.S. Treasury bonds. The surplus was mingled with the government's general funds and immediately spent on other programs. Now that Social Security is in deficit, the Social Security Administration will start redeeming those bonds, and the Treasury will draw on current revenues other than payroll taxes. Current Social Security beneficiaries believe they are entitled to their checks, but their total benefits tend to exceed the taxes they paid, and in any case their taxes were spent years ago. The money is long gone. There is no investment fund, no lockbox.
Jim Powell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is the author of The Triumph of Liberty, FDR's Folly, Wilson's War, Bully Boy, Greatest Emancipations and other books.
More by Jim Powell
The flash point for Social Security could come when hard-pressed taxpayers conclude that even though they're paying monstrously high payroll and other taxes to support current beneficiaries, Social Security will be broke before they get any benefits. Nobody will be supporting them as they supported other people.
Outraged taxpayers will probably realize that they cannot both provide for themselves and continue paying for everybody else. It's a good bet that they will start trying to make up for lost time by building up their savings as rapidly as possible. Since it would be hard to increase income dramatically, it would be necessary to dramatically cut taxes they're paying for other people. Probably increasing numbers of taxpayers will work off the books, in the underground economy, beyond the government's greedy hands. By the time these things are happening, there could already be a flourishing underground economy due to inflation, price controls, wage controls, profit controls, exchange controls, import restrictions, rationing and other regulations. More people will do business in cash to avoid leaving a paper trail. There could be a resurgence of barter.
When most people hear about the underground economy, they tend to think of drugs, weapons or other disreputable things. But as government expands its power over our lives, all sorts of good things become contraband. Perhaps the most perennially sought after are compact, high-value goods that could be used as money. One smuggler moved Swiss francs across a border, hidden in Polish sausages. Or diamonds — James Bond's creator Ian Fleming wrote a book about diamond smuggling. Gold and silver coins are more popular, since less expertise is needed to determine their value. For decades, private gold ownership was restricted in the U.S. and other countries. Journalist Timothy Green reported that "gold travelled amid a clutter of goats and pilgrims on Arab dhows in the Arabian Gulf, or hidden in the engine casing of freighters outward bound from Hong Kong. One shipment of movie projectors into India was ingeniously filled with canapé-sized bars of gold, while 560 cans of motor grease swung ashore in Yokohama docks — laced with gold."
At one time or another, contraband goods have included coffee, cigarettes, watches, whiskey, spices, perfume, silks, motor oil, rare stamps and sex hormones. Whatever the principal reason for such illegal trade, it's unreported, and taxes aren't paid. The point here is that as the years go by, more taxpayers are likely to conclude that Social Security won't be around for them and that they must start providing for their old age by paying less in taxes. Federal revenues will fall as a result, accelerating the collapse of Social Security.
Such a scenario will remain a serious possibility as long as Social Security continues to be a system where a declining percentage of the population must pay ever higher taxes to cover everybody else's benefits.
A Flash Point for Social Security
by Jim Powell
Jim Powell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is the author of The Triumph of Liberty, FDR's Folly, Wilson's War, Bully Boy, Greatest Emancipations and other books.
Added to cato.org on August 27, 2010
This article appeared on The Daily Caller on August 27, 2010.
PRINT PAGE CITE THIS Sans Serif Serif Share with your friends:
ShareThis
On August 5th, Social Security trustees released their report showing that permanent annual Social Security deficits will begin in 2015, when next year's high school seniors graduate from college.
Since there are more than 50 million Social Security beneficiaries, and their numbers are growing faster than the number of taxpayers, there will be intense, politically irresistible pressure to continue paying benefits by raising payroll taxes and income taxes. But taxes won't be enough to save Social Security, because Medicare and Medicaid are also going broke, and payments on all the debt are skyrocketing.
Social Security was set up to have each person pay for somebody else's benefits. Current payroll taxes go to pay current Social Security benefits, and nothing is set aside for the future retirement of people working now. In the past, when current payroll taxes exceeded current benefits, the Social Security Administration used the surplus to buy special issue U.S. Treasury bonds. The surplus was mingled with the government's general funds and immediately spent on other programs. Now that Social Security is in deficit, the Social Security Administration will start redeeming those bonds, and the Treasury will draw on current revenues other than payroll taxes. Current Social Security beneficiaries believe they are entitled to their checks, but their total benefits tend to exceed the taxes they paid, and in any case their taxes were spent years ago. The money is long gone. There is no investment fund, no lockbox.
Jim Powell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is the author of The Triumph of Liberty, FDR's Folly, Wilson's War, Bully Boy, Greatest Emancipations and other books.
More by Jim Powell
The flash point for Social Security could come when hard-pressed taxpayers conclude that even though they're paying monstrously high payroll and other taxes to support current beneficiaries, Social Security will be broke before they get any benefits. Nobody will be supporting them as they supported other people.
Outraged taxpayers will probably realize that they cannot both provide for themselves and continue paying for everybody else. It's a good bet that they will start trying to make up for lost time by building up their savings as rapidly as possible. Since it would be hard to increase income dramatically, it would be necessary to dramatically cut taxes they're paying for other people. Probably increasing numbers of taxpayers will work off the books, in the underground economy, beyond the government's greedy hands. By the time these things are happening, there could already be a flourishing underground economy due to inflation, price controls, wage controls, profit controls, exchange controls, import restrictions, rationing and other regulations. More people will do business in cash to avoid leaving a paper trail. There could be a resurgence of barter.
When most people hear about the underground economy, they tend to think of drugs, weapons or other disreputable things. But as government expands its power over our lives, all sorts of good things become contraband. Perhaps the most perennially sought after are compact, high-value goods that could be used as money. One smuggler moved Swiss francs across a border, hidden in Polish sausages. Or diamonds — James Bond's creator Ian Fleming wrote a book about diamond smuggling. Gold and silver coins are more popular, since less expertise is needed to determine their value. For decades, private gold ownership was restricted in the U.S. and other countries. Journalist Timothy Green reported that "gold travelled amid a clutter of goats and pilgrims on Arab dhows in the Arabian Gulf, or hidden in the engine casing of freighters outward bound from Hong Kong. One shipment of movie projectors into India was ingeniously filled with canapé-sized bars of gold, while 560 cans of motor grease swung ashore in Yokohama docks — laced with gold."
At one time or another, contraband goods have included coffee, cigarettes, watches, whiskey, spices, perfume, silks, motor oil, rare stamps and sex hormones. Whatever the principal reason for such illegal trade, it's unreported, and taxes aren't paid. The point here is that as the years go by, more taxpayers are likely to conclude that Social Security won't be around for them and that they must start providing for their old age by paying less in taxes. Federal revenues will fall as a result, accelerating the collapse of Social Security.
Such a scenario will remain a serious possibility as long as Social Security continues to be a system where a declining percentage of the population must pay ever higher taxes to cover everybody else's benefits.
Monday, August 30, 2010
The SEC's Sop To The Unions
from AEI:
The SEC's Sop to Unions By Paul S. Atkins
Wall Street Journal
Friday, August 27, 2010
The Securities and Exchange Commission is busier than ever in the wake of the financial crisis and the most significant financial legislative changes since the 1930s. So it has been more than a little puzzling to watch SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro stake out another partisan position on a peripheral issue called "access to the proxy." On Wednesday this rule was approved: Shareholders will now be able to place their own nominees for corporate boards directly on the company's proxy card, at company expense.
Ms. Schapiro's goal? To assuage politically powerful trade-union activists, self-nominated shareholder-rights advocates, trial lawyers, and the White House.
Unions and special-interest groups successfully lobbied Congress to include a provision in the recent Dodd-Frank Act to empower the SEC to make rules regarding proxy access. With the so-called card-check bill dead in Congress and an election looming in November, the White House needed another carrot for these groups. It found an opportunity in proxy access and a willing collaborator in the SEC. . . .
Ms. Schapiro got the commissioners, 3-2, to approve the rule, which will allow some shareholders to override the normal director-nomination process.
A fundamental principle of state corporation laws is that all shareholders holding the same class of securities have the same rights. The new rule will discriminate among shareholders, since the SEC would increase the clout of special-interest groups at the expense of the vast majority of shareholders.
On its face, increased proxy access seems to embody a traditional democratic value: Give shareholders a choice, and they can decide whom they want as their directors. But average shareholders have not been clamoring for this special privilege because they would never have the access that is envisioned.
That is because the SEC decided who is in and who is out. In a cynical game of picking numbers, the SEC considered 5%, 3%, 2% and 1% of outstanding shares and various holding periods as thresholds before which shareholders can use the new rule. The winner, after much behind-the-scenes maneuvering with favored parties: 3% and three years. The idea was to find the magic number where "good" shareholder groups (like state pension funds) are in, but "bad" groups (politically incorrect shareholders, like hedge funds) are out.
It's no coincidence that only unions and cause-driven, minority shareholders want this coveted access. They would use it to advance their own labor, social and environmental agendas instead of the corporation's goal of maximizing long-term shareholder wealth. The rule will give them pressure points with which to hold companies hostage until their pet issues are addressed. Many corporate managements and boards will acquiesce to avoid a contested director election.
Transparency and fairness will suffer because the rule invites abuse. Institutional representatives admitted--at a public 2007 SEC roundtable on the proxy process--that they already use the machinery of shareholder proposals as leverage to accomplish private objectives behind closed doors. In other words, they threaten to propose a proxy measure and see what the company will give up to keep it off the proxy ballot. The company may even adopt some or all of the proposal, even though the measure would likely fail in a shareholder vote. This rule adds another powerful tool to that arsenal of threats.
Many are praising this development as a gift for shareholders. In truth it's a Trojan Horse.
Paul S. Atkins is a visiting scholar at AEI.
The SEC's Sop to Unions By Paul S. Atkins
Wall Street Journal
Friday, August 27, 2010
The Securities and Exchange Commission is busier than ever in the wake of the financial crisis and the most significant financial legislative changes since the 1930s. So it has been more than a little puzzling to watch SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro stake out another partisan position on a peripheral issue called "access to the proxy." On Wednesday this rule was approved: Shareholders will now be able to place their own nominees for corporate boards directly on the company's proxy card, at company expense.
Ms. Schapiro's goal? To assuage politically powerful trade-union activists, self-nominated shareholder-rights advocates, trial lawyers, and the White House.
Unions and special-interest groups successfully lobbied Congress to include a provision in the recent Dodd-Frank Act to empower the SEC to make rules regarding proxy access. With the so-called card-check bill dead in Congress and an election looming in November, the White House needed another carrot for these groups. It found an opportunity in proxy access and a willing collaborator in the SEC. . . .
Ms. Schapiro got the commissioners, 3-2, to approve the rule, which will allow some shareholders to override the normal director-nomination process.
A fundamental principle of state corporation laws is that all shareholders holding the same class of securities have the same rights. The new rule will discriminate among shareholders, since the SEC would increase the clout of special-interest groups at the expense of the vast majority of shareholders.
On its face, increased proxy access seems to embody a traditional democratic value: Give shareholders a choice, and they can decide whom they want as their directors. But average shareholders have not been clamoring for this special privilege because they would never have the access that is envisioned.
That is because the SEC decided who is in and who is out. In a cynical game of picking numbers, the SEC considered 5%, 3%, 2% and 1% of outstanding shares and various holding periods as thresholds before which shareholders can use the new rule. The winner, after much behind-the-scenes maneuvering with favored parties: 3% and three years. The idea was to find the magic number where "good" shareholder groups (like state pension funds) are in, but "bad" groups (politically incorrect shareholders, like hedge funds) are out.
It's no coincidence that only unions and cause-driven, minority shareholders want this coveted access. They would use it to advance their own labor, social and environmental agendas instead of the corporation's goal of maximizing long-term shareholder wealth. The rule will give them pressure points with which to hold companies hostage until their pet issues are addressed. Many corporate managements and boards will acquiesce to avoid a contested director election.
Transparency and fairness will suffer because the rule invites abuse. Institutional representatives admitted--at a public 2007 SEC roundtable on the proxy process--that they already use the machinery of shareholder proposals as leverage to accomplish private objectives behind closed doors. In other words, they threaten to propose a proxy measure and see what the company will give up to keep it off the proxy ballot. The company may even adopt some or all of the proposal, even though the measure would likely fail in a shareholder vote. This rule adds another powerful tool to that arsenal of threats.
Many are praising this development as a gift for shareholders. In truth it's a Trojan Horse.
Paul S. Atkins is a visiting scholar at AEI.
AFL-CIO's Trumka: A Thuggish Union Leader Who Advocates Violence, Spends Union Pension Money On Politics
from Big Government:
AFL-CIO Pres. Bashes Palin, But He’s The One With a Record of Violenceby Jeff Dunetz
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, gave a speech in Sarah Palin’s home state accusing her of using rhetoric that could lead to violence by her supporters. Trumka’s words were certainly disingenuous, because if anybody has a track record of inciting violence, its Richard Trumka. He had a reign as President of the United Mine Workers where his inflammatory rhetoric lead to bloodshed and death.
Here’s a sampling of what the AFL-CIO leader said about Sarah Palin:
And down in Tyler, Texas, she’s talking about — and I quote — ‘union thugs.’ What? Her husband’s a union man. Is she calling him a thug? Sarah Palin ought to know what union men and women are,” Trumka will say. “That’s poisonous. There’s history behind that rhetoric. That’s how bosses and politicians in decades past justified the terrorizing of workers, the murdering of organizers…..She’s using crosshairs to illustrate targeted legislators. She’s on the wrong side of the line there. She’s getting close to calling for violence. And some of her fans take that stuff seriously. We’ve got legislators in America who have been living with death threats since the health care votes.
Governor Palin responded to Trumka on her Facebook page:
Trumka purposely misquoted something I said in a speech I gave in Texas a few months ago. Let me clarify things for him: I never called union members “thugs.” You lie. I called some union leaders “thugs.” And I refuse to apologize for that because they have acted like thugs – at least in this day and age.
The Governor was being too kind.
When she talked about some union leaders being thugs, she could have held up a picture of Richard Trumka. During his thirteen years as President of the United Mine Workers of America (1982-1995) he was the poster child for union thuggery. His rhetoric successfully incited violence and even death. Union members who dared to continue to work during a strike were especially targeted for attack by the Union Boss.
Below are some of his incendiary comments.
•“UMWA President Richard Trumka…urged union members to…‘kick the (expletive) out of every last one of ‘em.’” (“Sabotage Attempt Foiled at Peabody Coal Beltline.” Nashville News [Nashville, IL] 8 Sept. 1993)
•“You’d have to be very naïve to believe that if management brought in scabs, there won’t be something somewhere.”(Sands, David R. “Striking miners: Big Coal not serious.” Washington Times 3 Sept. 1993)
•“I’m saying if you strike a match and you put your finger in it, you’re likely to get burned. That doesn’t mean I’m threatening to burn you. That just means if you strike the match, and you put your finger in it, common sense will tell you it’ll burn your finger.”( McClain, John D. “Violence possible UMW chief says.” Virginian-Pilot [Hampton Roads, VA] 3 Sept.1993)
Mr. Trumka can’t be accused of being “all talk.” With the help of his fellow union thugs his words were translated into violent action.
•1993 UMW strike against Peabody Coal — Eddie York, a 39 year old nonunion worker, “was shot in the back of the head and killed” leaving a job in Logan County, West Virginia. “Guards told police the truck careened across the road and went into a ditch. When guards rushed over to check on York, they continued to be pelted with rocks, guards told police.”(Sanders, Pat. “Trumka calls for peace as probe continues.” Charleston Daily Mail 24 July 1993)
•In a detailed account of the York murder and subsequent investigation, Reader’s Digest noted that “UMW President Richard Trumka did not publicly discipline or reprimand a single striker present when York was killed. In fact, all eight were helped out financially by the local.” Eventually, the union agreed to let the company “dismiss the eight original defendants if they were convicted,” but when the company “issued letters of dismissal to the seven pickets who pleaded guilty,” the union filed a grievance on their behalf.(Fitzgerald, Randy. “Murder in Logan County.” Reader’s Digest Feb. 1995)
•1985 UMW strike against A.T. Massey Coal — “At the Sprouse Creek Processing Co., Buddy McCoy was a union man who crossed the picket line to become a foreman. ‘I had a family to care for,’ says McCoy, who received a three-stitch gash in the head from marauding strikers after his defection.” (Trippett, Frank. “Violence in the Coalfields.” Time. 21 June 2005)
•1989 UMW strike against Pittston Coal — Virginia Circuit Court JudgeDonald McGlothlin Jr. declared that “the evidence shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that violent activities are being organized, orchestrated and encouraged by the leadership of this union.” (Feder, Don. “Senate takes a walk on issue of labor unrest.” Boston Herald 29 Apr. 1990)
•Unanimous Virginia Supreme Court reinforced Judge McGlothlin’s findings: “Union officials took active roles in these unlawful activities. Notwithstanding the large fines, the Union never represented to the court that it regretted or intended to cease its lawless actions. To the contrary, the utter defiance of the rule of law continued unabated.” (Miller, Steven. “Louts and Rat World.” Nevada Journal July 1990)
Even after he left the Union to go to the AFL-CIO, Trumka incited violence in the UMWA
•When Trumka and UMWA President Cecil Roberts came to Bentleyville, Pennsylvania in April 1998, fifty rank-and-file union members gathered outside the hall where they spoke to protest their leaders’ policies. “Within minutes,” wrote leftwing journalist Paul Scherrer, “a group of UMWA officials and their supporters attacked the protesting miners, ripping leaflets and protest signs from their hands. Several miners were punched, knocked to the ground and kicked repeatedly. [Richard] Cicci was hit with a piece of lumber and suffered a large gash on his head.” “Richard Trumka,” reported Scherrer, “refused to answer questions about the assault.” In other words, by his silence he gave tacit assent to such violence.
Before he brands other people as using incendiary language AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka should look at his own house, because he is a union thug of the worst kind. Sarah Palin has never told people to harm others. On the other hand, as UMWA President Richard Trumka used rhetoric that not only seemed to be calling for violence, but excused it after it happened.
AFL-CIO Pres. Bashes Palin, But He’s The One With a Record of Violenceby Jeff Dunetz
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, gave a speech in Sarah Palin’s home state accusing her of using rhetoric that could lead to violence by her supporters. Trumka’s words were certainly disingenuous, because if anybody has a track record of inciting violence, its Richard Trumka. He had a reign as President of the United Mine Workers where his inflammatory rhetoric lead to bloodshed and death.
Here’s a sampling of what the AFL-CIO leader said about Sarah Palin:
And down in Tyler, Texas, she’s talking about — and I quote — ‘union thugs.’ What? Her husband’s a union man. Is she calling him a thug? Sarah Palin ought to know what union men and women are,” Trumka will say. “That’s poisonous. There’s history behind that rhetoric. That’s how bosses and politicians in decades past justified the terrorizing of workers, the murdering of organizers…..She’s using crosshairs to illustrate targeted legislators. She’s on the wrong side of the line there. She’s getting close to calling for violence. And some of her fans take that stuff seriously. We’ve got legislators in America who have been living with death threats since the health care votes.
Governor Palin responded to Trumka on her Facebook page:
Trumka purposely misquoted something I said in a speech I gave in Texas a few months ago. Let me clarify things for him: I never called union members “thugs.” You lie. I called some union leaders “thugs.” And I refuse to apologize for that because they have acted like thugs – at least in this day and age.
The Governor was being too kind.
When she talked about some union leaders being thugs, she could have held up a picture of Richard Trumka. During his thirteen years as President of the United Mine Workers of America (1982-1995) he was the poster child for union thuggery. His rhetoric successfully incited violence and even death. Union members who dared to continue to work during a strike were especially targeted for attack by the Union Boss.
Below are some of his incendiary comments.
•“UMWA President Richard Trumka…urged union members to…‘kick the (expletive) out of every last one of ‘em.’” (“Sabotage Attempt Foiled at Peabody Coal Beltline.” Nashville News [Nashville, IL] 8 Sept. 1993)
•“You’d have to be very naïve to believe that if management brought in scabs, there won’t be something somewhere.”(Sands, David R. “Striking miners: Big Coal not serious.” Washington Times 3 Sept. 1993)
•“I’m saying if you strike a match and you put your finger in it, you’re likely to get burned. That doesn’t mean I’m threatening to burn you. That just means if you strike the match, and you put your finger in it, common sense will tell you it’ll burn your finger.”( McClain, John D. “Violence possible UMW chief says.” Virginian-Pilot [Hampton Roads, VA] 3 Sept.1993)
Mr. Trumka can’t be accused of being “all talk.” With the help of his fellow union thugs his words were translated into violent action.
•1993 UMW strike against Peabody Coal — Eddie York, a 39 year old nonunion worker, “was shot in the back of the head and killed” leaving a job in Logan County, West Virginia. “Guards told police the truck careened across the road and went into a ditch. When guards rushed over to check on York, they continued to be pelted with rocks, guards told police.”(Sanders, Pat. “Trumka calls for peace as probe continues.” Charleston Daily Mail 24 July 1993)
•In a detailed account of the York murder and subsequent investigation, Reader’s Digest noted that “UMW President Richard Trumka did not publicly discipline or reprimand a single striker present when York was killed. In fact, all eight were helped out financially by the local.” Eventually, the union agreed to let the company “dismiss the eight original defendants if they were convicted,” but when the company “issued letters of dismissal to the seven pickets who pleaded guilty,” the union filed a grievance on their behalf.(Fitzgerald, Randy. “Murder in Logan County.” Reader’s Digest Feb. 1995)
•1985 UMW strike against A.T. Massey Coal — “At the Sprouse Creek Processing Co., Buddy McCoy was a union man who crossed the picket line to become a foreman. ‘I had a family to care for,’ says McCoy, who received a three-stitch gash in the head from marauding strikers after his defection.” (Trippett, Frank. “Violence in the Coalfields.” Time. 21 June 2005)
•1989 UMW strike against Pittston Coal — Virginia Circuit Court JudgeDonald McGlothlin Jr. declared that “the evidence shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that violent activities are being organized, orchestrated and encouraged by the leadership of this union.” (Feder, Don. “Senate takes a walk on issue of labor unrest.” Boston Herald 29 Apr. 1990)
•Unanimous Virginia Supreme Court reinforced Judge McGlothlin’s findings: “Union officials took active roles in these unlawful activities. Notwithstanding the large fines, the Union never represented to the court that it regretted or intended to cease its lawless actions. To the contrary, the utter defiance of the rule of law continued unabated.” (Miller, Steven. “Louts and Rat World.” Nevada Journal July 1990)
Even after he left the Union to go to the AFL-CIO, Trumka incited violence in the UMWA
•When Trumka and UMWA President Cecil Roberts came to Bentleyville, Pennsylvania in April 1998, fifty rank-and-file union members gathered outside the hall where they spoke to protest their leaders’ policies. “Within minutes,” wrote leftwing journalist Paul Scherrer, “a group of UMWA officials and their supporters attacked the protesting miners, ripping leaflets and protest signs from their hands. Several miners were punched, knocked to the ground and kicked repeatedly. [Richard] Cicci was hit with a piece of lumber and suffered a large gash on his head.” “Richard Trumka,” reported Scherrer, “refused to answer questions about the assault.” In other words, by his silence he gave tacit assent to such violence.
Before he brands other people as using incendiary language AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka should look at his own house, because he is a union thug of the worst kind. Sarah Palin has never told people to harm others. On the other hand, as UMWA President Richard Trumka used rhetoric that not only seemed to be calling for violence, but excused it after it happened.
America To Be Rviewed On Its Human Rights Record By Thuggish Nations On U.N Human Rights Council
From The American Thinker:
August 30, 2010
America to Be Reviewed by Thugs of U.N. Human Rights Council
By Eileen F. Toplansky
On May 11, 2009, Vaclav Havel, the former president of the Czech Republic, expressed his deep concerns about the United Nations Human Rights Council. Havel had led the dissident movement in then-communist Czechoslovakia during the 1970s and 1980s and had also spent several brutal years in prison. Thus, he understood only too well the machinations of totalitarian governments. His op-ed in the New York Times criticized the U.N. Human Rights Council, which had replaced the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
Governments seem to have forgotten the commitment made only three short years ago to create an organization able to protect victims and confront human rights abuses wherever they occur.
An essential precondition was better membership. The council's precursor, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, was folded in 2006 mainly because it had, for too long, allowed gross violators of human rights like Sudan and Zimbabwe to block action on their own abuses.
The council was supposed to be different. For the first time, countries agreed to take human rights records into account when voting for the council's members, and those member-states that failed to, in the words of the founding resolution, ‘uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights' would find themselves up for review and their seats endangered. For victims of human rights abuses and advocates for human rights worldwide, the reforms offered the hope of a credible and effective body.
Now, it seems, principle has given way to expediency. Governments have resumed trading votes for membership in various other United Nations bodies, putting political considerations ahead of human rights. The absence of competition suggests that states that care about human rights simply don't care enough. Latin America, a region of flourishing democracies, has allowed Cuba to bid to renew its membership. Asian countries have unconditionally endorsed the five candidates running for their region's five seats - among them, China and Saudi Arabia.
Anne Bayefsky, long in the forefront of highlighting U.N. abuses, was appalled that in May of 2010, Libya was to be included in the U.N. Human Rights Council. Although the United States Department has stated that in "Libya there is routine torture and abuse of detainees, legally-sanctioned amputations and flogging, sentencing of political opposition members without trial, [and] indefinite detention of women and girls 'suspected of violating moral codes, ...'" the Obama administration made no move to deny Libya a seat.
The Council also comprises Malaysia, Mauritania, Uganda, Angola, and Qatar. In Uganda, "wife-beating [is] a husband's prerogative." Monitoring of internet chat rooms and widespread rape of inmates occurs in Angola, while "in Malaysia, religious authorities arrest 'deviants' in order to return them to the ‘true path of Islam.'" In Qatar, "the law calls for 10 year sentences for individuals proselytizing anything but Islam, [and] conversion away from Islam is a capital offense." Furthermore, "the legal system treats with leniency men who murder women where there has been ‘immodesty' on the part of the victim." Syria promotes the infamous blood libel against Israel, and Algeria describes Israelis as "butchers."
Many of these Council members criticize free speech, constantly denounce Israel, exonerate Muslim extremists, and deny basic freedoms to their own people. In fact, Israel-bashing is a persistent theme of the Council. Furthermore, at no time have Iranian calls for genocide been criticized by this body.
Notwithstanding all this, joining the Council was one of Obama's priorities, and this occurred in May of 2009. Thus, Obama was content with joining current Council members like Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Russia, Egypt, and Kyrgyzstan. Previously, "Bush had decided not to seek a seat on the Council on the grounds that the reform had been a sham."
So against this backdrop, Barack Hussein Obama now has the United States positioned to come under international review by some of the most brutal and despotic nations in the world. The Obama administration has issued a 29-page report, the first ever "Universal Period Review (UPR) report" to the United Nations by the United States.
And lo and behold, the State of Arizona is included in this report. In section 94, the report states that
[u]nder section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, DHS may delegate authority to state and local officers to enforce federal immigration law. DHS has made improvements to the 287(g) program, including implementing a new, standardized Memorandum of Agreement with state and local partners that strengthens program oversight and provides uniform guidelines for DHS supervision of state and local agency officer operations; information reporting and tracking; complaint procedures; and implementation measures. DHS continues to evaluate the program, incorporating additional safeguards as necessary to aid in the prevention of racial profiling and civil rights violations and improve accountability for protecting human rights.
95. A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.
96. President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system, because he recognizes that our ability to innovate, our ties to the world, and our economic prosperity depend on our capacity to welcome and assimilate immigrants. The Administration will continue its efforts to work with the U.S. Congress and affected communities toward this end.
As Doug Hagmann has written, "The stakes for our national sovereignty have been just raised by the submission of this document, which is the first step of 'voluntary compliance' to the provisions of the United Nations' Human Rights Council."
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer writes that "the idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional. Human rights as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions are expressly protected in S.B. 1070 and defended vigorously by my Administration."
In fact, S.B. 1070 clearly states that "a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection[.]"
Furthermore, Governor Brewer has said that "the State of Arizona will fight any attempt by the U.S. Department of State and the United Nations to interfere with the duly enacted laws of the State of Arizona in accordance with the U.S. Constitution."
Because of Obama's decision to have America join the Council, American taxpayers are now financially supporting anti-Israel, anti-American rhetoric and hatred "posted, translated and broadcast around the world." That a single dollar is used to promote this disgusting agenda is deplorable; that the man who is supposed to represent the best interests of America should sanction it makes one wonder about his true allegiance.
August 30, 2010
America to Be Reviewed by Thugs of U.N. Human Rights Council
By Eileen F. Toplansky
On May 11, 2009, Vaclav Havel, the former president of the Czech Republic, expressed his deep concerns about the United Nations Human Rights Council. Havel had led the dissident movement in then-communist Czechoslovakia during the 1970s and 1980s and had also spent several brutal years in prison. Thus, he understood only too well the machinations of totalitarian governments. His op-ed in the New York Times criticized the U.N. Human Rights Council, which had replaced the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
Governments seem to have forgotten the commitment made only three short years ago to create an organization able to protect victims and confront human rights abuses wherever they occur.
An essential precondition was better membership. The council's precursor, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, was folded in 2006 mainly because it had, for too long, allowed gross violators of human rights like Sudan and Zimbabwe to block action on their own abuses.
The council was supposed to be different. For the first time, countries agreed to take human rights records into account when voting for the council's members, and those member-states that failed to, in the words of the founding resolution, ‘uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights' would find themselves up for review and their seats endangered. For victims of human rights abuses and advocates for human rights worldwide, the reforms offered the hope of a credible and effective body.
Now, it seems, principle has given way to expediency. Governments have resumed trading votes for membership in various other United Nations bodies, putting political considerations ahead of human rights. The absence of competition suggests that states that care about human rights simply don't care enough. Latin America, a region of flourishing democracies, has allowed Cuba to bid to renew its membership. Asian countries have unconditionally endorsed the five candidates running for their region's five seats - among them, China and Saudi Arabia.
Anne Bayefsky, long in the forefront of highlighting U.N. abuses, was appalled that in May of 2010, Libya was to be included in the U.N. Human Rights Council. Although the United States Department has stated that in "Libya there is routine torture and abuse of detainees, legally-sanctioned amputations and flogging, sentencing of political opposition members without trial, [and] indefinite detention of women and girls 'suspected of violating moral codes, ...'" the Obama administration made no move to deny Libya a seat.
The Council also comprises Malaysia, Mauritania, Uganda, Angola, and Qatar. In Uganda, "wife-beating [is] a husband's prerogative." Monitoring of internet chat rooms and widespread rape of inmates occurs in Angola, while "in Malaysia, religious authorities arrest 'deviants' in order to return them to the ‘true path of Islam.'" In Qatar, "the law calls for 10 year sentences for individuals proselytizing anything but Islam, [and] conversion away from Islam is a capital offense." Furthermore, "the legal system treats with leniency men who murder women where there has been ‘immodesty' on the part of the victim." Syria promotes the infamous blood libel against Israel, and Algeria describes Israelis as "butchers."
Many of these Council members criticize free speech, constantly denounce Israel, exonerate Muslim extremists, and deny basic freedoms to their own people. In fact, Israel-bashing is a persistent theme of the Council. Furthermore, at no time have Iranian calls for genocide been criticized by this body.
Notwithstanding all this, joining the Council was one of Obama's priorities, and this occurred in May of 2009. Thus, Obama was content with joining current Council members like Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Russia, Egypt, and Kyrgyzstan. Previously, "Bush had decided not to seek a seat on the Council on the grounds that the reform had been a sham."
So against this backdrop, Barack Hussein Obama now has the United States positioned to come under international review by some of the most brutal and despotic nations in the world. The Obama administration has issued a 29-page report, the first ever "Universal Period Review (UPR) report" to the United Nations by the United States.
And lo and behold, the State of Arizona is included in this report. In section 94, the report states that
[u]nder section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, DHS may delegate authority to state and local officers to enforce federal immigration law. DHS has made improvements to the 287(g) program, including implementing a new, standardized Memorandum of Agreement with state and local partners that strengthens program oversight and provides uniform guidelines for DHS supervision of state and local agency officer operations; information reporting and tracking; complaint procedures; and implementation measures. DHS continues to evaluate the program, incorporating additional safeguards as necessary to aid in the prevention of racial profiling and civil rights violations and improve accountability for protecting human rights.
95. A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.
96. President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system, because he recognizes that our ability to innovate, our ties to the world, and our economic prosperity depend on our capacity to welcome and assimilate immigrants. The Administration will continue its efforts to work with the U.S. Congress and affected communities toward this end.
As Doug Hagmann has written, "The stakes for our national sovereignty have been just raised by the submission of this document, which is the first step of 'voluntary compliance' to the provisions of the United Nations' Human Rights Council."
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer writes that "the idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional. Human rights as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions are expressly protected in S.B. 1070 and defended vigorously by my Administration."
In fact, S.B. 1070 clearly states that "a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection[.]"
Furthermore, Governor Brewer has said that "the State of Arizona will fight any attempt by the U.S. Department of State and the United Nations to interfere with the duly enacted laws of the State of Arizona in accordance with the U.S. Constitution."
Because of Obama's decision to have America join the Council, American taxpayers are now financially supporting anti-Israel, anti-American rhetoric and hatred "posted, translated and broadcast around the world." That a single dollar is used to promote this disgusting agenda is deplorable; that the man who is supposed to represent the best interests of America should sanction it makes one wonder about his true allegiance.
Woodrow Wilson And Barack Obama: Lifestyles Of The Rich And Progressive
from The American Thinker:
August 30, 2010
Woodrow Wilson and Barack Obama: Lifestyles of the Rich and Progressive
By David Pietrusza
By now, the adjectives have become commonplace for Barack Obama and his administration.
Progressive.
Game-Changing.
Wilsonian.
Yes, similarities do exist between Barack Obama and his Democratic predecessor, Woodrow Wilson. Both are frigidly demeanored but messianic academics. With barely two years of government experience in statewide office, each assumed the presidency and presided over fundamental overhauls of the existing American system.
But here's where one can find another little-noticed but perhaps telling comparison: their work habits.
Barack Obama is already more famous for vacations, golfing, and theater-going than he ought to be. In a period of economic crisis, he is off to Maine and Hawaii and Broadway and Martha's Vineyard. His wife communes with the King of Spain. In time of war, he ducks a Memorial Day ceremony to vacation in America's favorite sun-and-fun vacation spot -- Chicago. He plays basketball. He works out. He golfs and golfs -- and golfs.
The pattern and the perception are set. Aside from Barack Obama's time before the teleprompter, the American public, now out of work, remains unsure of just when this fellow works.
And that brings us back to Mr. Wilson.
It is quite well-known that Woodrow Wilson spent much of the last two years of his tenure stroke-ridden and unable to really work. This is fully understandable and to be sympathized with, not condemned.
But even before his crippling strokes of September and October 1919, President Wilson was no great workhorse.
Again, his health was in play. Even before assuming the White House, he had suffered two lesser strokes. One in 1896 temporarily restricted the use of his right hand. Another in 1906 seriously damaged the vision in his left eye.
Wilson was, as well, diagnosed with arteriosclerosis. Accordingly, Wilson's White House physician, Dr. Cary Grayson, recommended a severely restricted work schedule for his patient. As President, Woodrow Wilson never normally worked more than three or four hours per day. He rarely worked on Sundays. His summer schedule was even more relaxed. He enjoyed cruises upon the Potomac and Chesapeake Bay aboard his presidential yacht. He rode horses. He took long rides in his Pierce-Arrow limousine. After one confusing 70-mile Wilson jaunt through New Hampshire, the Washington Post noted, "STOPS OFTEN TO INQUIRE WAY." When he finally got back, he golfed [i].
Beyond that, Wilson loved to while away his time in light amusements. He thrived upon the theater, particularly vaudeville, and spent every Saturday that he could at B.F. Keith's High-Class Vaudeville Theatre.
"I like the theater ... ," he wrote in 1914, "especially a good vaudeville show when I am seeking perfect relaxation; for a vaudeville show is different from a play. ... if there is a bad act at a vaudeville show you can rest reasonably secure that the next one may not be so bad; but from a bad play there is no escape."
A plaque dedicated at the Keith Theatre in 1931 even marked the frequency of Wilson's attendance (to be fair, the greatest period of that attendance was his stroke-ridden post-presidency). History records him attending the Philadelphia Orchestra at the National Theater or his delighted 1915 presence at stage star Chauncey Olcott's debut in "Shameen Dhu" at Washington's Columbia Theater in January 1915 (Wilson's golf was fogged out that morning) or at Louis Mann's opening night as a German-American in "Friendly Enemies" in 1918.
Like the Obamas, in November 1914, Wilson visited Broadway. But unlike them, for once, he did not attend the theater. Following an afternoon of eighteen holes on Long Island fairways (he shot an 80), Wilson visited his adviser Colonel Edward M. House in the city. Together, they attempted an incognito Broadway stroll. The pair progressed as far as an open-air Salvation Army camp meeting before all hell broke loose. Eventually, Wilson and House took safety from overzealous admirers in the old Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, before Secret Service agents packed the President of the United States off on a passing Fifth Avenue bus and back to Colonel House's 115 East 53rd Street apartment [ii].
Wilson enjoyed motion pictures as well. Following a White House screening of director D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation, Wilson allegedly commented that the controversial film was "like writing history with lightning. My only regret is that it is all so terribly true." In any case, Griffith eventually partook of several "fireside chats" with Southern-born Wilson -- although the film pioneer later complained of the president's distinct lack of personal hospitality [iii].
Wilson loved attending baseball games. He was the first president to throw out the first pitch at a World Series. And though he was wise and responsible enough to forgo attendance at Washington's Griffith Stadium during wartime, before the outbreak of hostilities, his attendance at games was fairly common -- at least by president standards. In April 1913 alone, he not only threw out the season's first pitch, but also attended three games of a four-game Senators-Red Sox series.
Vacations? For the first three summers of his presidency, Wilson understandably abandoned Washington for Cornish, New Hampshire's cooler climes. In 1916, he summered at the Jersey shore. Such vacations were lengthy, involving "a month or two"[iv] from his desk -- and they hardly seemed to be working vacations. In August 1915, for example, the Washington Post noted that "a mass of work" awaited Wilson's return from his recent three-week New England stay. Yet a month later, he was headed back to New Hampshire. "He may be away for a week," speculated the Post. "He may stay two or three weeks" [v]. Secretary to the President Joseph Tumulty did not accompany him [vi].
Even when the nation went to war in 1917 and Wilson abandoned such absences, the Post noted he did not forgo his "customary morning golf game" [vii].
Wilson scholar John Milton Cooper also references Wilson's "daily round of golf" and notes that it was when Wilson was departing for the course in May 1915 that he learned of the sinking of the British passenger liner RMS Lusitania by the German U-boat U-20. Wilson canceled his golf. He waited for more news -- it was, however, reported he did not communicate with Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan -- and then went for another limousine ride.
It was, however, after returning from golf one day in March 1915 that the recently widowed Wilson chanced to meet the widow Mrs. Edith Bolling Galt. His frenzied courtship threw his already leisurely work schedule into chaos. Recalled White House Chief Usher Irwin "Ike" Hoover,
The President was simply obsessed. He put aside practically everything, dealing only with the most important matters of state. Requests for appointments were put off with the explanation that he had important business to attend to. Cabinet officers, Senators, officials generally were all treated the same. It had always been difficult to get appointments with him; it was now harder than ever, and important state matters were held in abeyance while he wrote to the lady of his choice. When one realizes that at this time there was a war raging in Europe, not to mention a Presidential campaign approaching, one can imagine how preoccupied he must have been. There was much anxiety among his political friends, who just had to accept the inevitable, but who began to look about for a way to postpone it until after the election, for fear lest the people would not approve [viii].
Yet Wilson survived a Republican resurgence to narrowly gain another term in 1916. The early Wilson years, after all, were years of prosperity. And in comfortable times, it matters not at all whether Ike golfs or LBJ pulls beagles up by their ears. Conversely, when unemployment or inflation stalk the land, it remains of similar low consequence if solemn engineers Herbert Hoover or Jimmy Carter burn the midnight oil to fiddle with the details of a sinking ship of state.
The bottom line: if the American people are at work in 2012, it matters not at all if Barack Obama plays.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] Washington Post, 11 July 1913, p. 1. Regarding a Vermont motor jaunt the Post noted; "WILSON LOST IN WOODS . . . RESENTFUL COW HALTS CAR." (Washington Post, 28 June 1915, p. 10). A month later the presidential motorcar was rear-ended in Newport, New Hampshire. (Washington Post, 11 July 1915, p. 1)
[ii] Washington Post, 15 November 1914, p. 8.
[iii] Hart, James (ed.), The Man Who Invented Hollywood: The Autobiography of D. W. Griffith Louisville: Touchstone, 1972, p. 21.
[iv] Washington Post, 25 June 1915, p. 7.
[v] Washington Post, 4 July 1915, p. 2.
[vi] Washington Post, 4 July 1915, p. 2.
[vii] Washington Post, 25 June 1917, p. 7.
[viii] Hoover, Irwin Hood "Ike." 42 Years in the White House. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1934, p. 67.
August 30, 2010
Woodrow Wilson and Barack Obama: Lifestyles of the Rich and Progressive
By David Pietrusza
By now, the adjectives have become commonplace for Barack Obama and his administration.
Progressive.
Game-Changing.
Wilsonian.
Yes, similarities do exist between Barack Obama and his Democratic predecessor, Woodrow Wilson. Both are frigidly demeanored but messianic academics. With barely two years of government experience in statewide office, each assumed the presidency and presided over fundamental overhauls of the existing American system.
But here's where one can find another little-noticed but perhaps telling comparison: their work habits.
Barack Obama is already more famous for vacations, golfing, and theater-going than he ought to be. In a period of economic crisis, he is off to Maine and Hawaii and Broadway and Martha's Vineyard. His wife communes with the King of Spain. In time of war, he ducks a Memorial Day ceremony to vacation in America's favorite sun-and-fun vacation spot -- Chicago. He plays basketball. He works out. He golfs and golfs -- and golfs.
The pattern and the perception are set. Aside from Barack Obama's time before the teleprompter, the American public, now out of work, remains unsure of just when this fellow works.
And that brings us back to Mr. Wilson.
It is quite well-known that Woodrow Wilson spent much of the last two years of his tenure stroke-ridden and unable to really work. This is fully understandable and to be sympathized with, not condemned.
But even before his crippling strokes of September and October 1919, President Wilson was no great workhorse.
Again, his health was in play. Even before assuming the White House, he had suffered two lesser strokes. One in 1896 temporarily restricted the use of his right hand. Another in 1906 seriously damaged the vision in his left eye.
Wilson was, as well, diagnosed with arteriosclerosis. Accordingly, Wilson's White House physician, Dr. Cary Grayson, recommended a severely restricted work schedule for his patient. As President, Woodrow Wilson never normally worked more than three or four hours per day. He rarely worked on Sundays. His summer schedule was even more relaxed. He enjoyed cruises upon the Potomac and Chesapeake Bay aboard his presidential yacht. He rode horses. He took long rides in his Pierce-Arrow limousine. After one confusing 70-mile Wilson jaunt through New Hampshire, the Washington Post noted, "STOPS OFTEN TO INQUIRE WAY." When he finally got back, he golfed [i].
Beyond that, Wilson loved to while away his time in light amusements. He thrived upon the theater, particularly vaudeville, and spent every Saturday that he could at B.F. Keith's High-Class Vaudeville Theatre.
"I like the theater ... ," he wrote in 1914, "especially a good vaudeville show when I am seeking perfect relaxation; for a vaudeville show is different from a play. ... if there is a bad act at a vaudeville show you can rest reasonably secure that the next one may not be so bad; but from a bad play there is no escape."
A plaque dedicated at the Keith Theatre in 1931 even marked the frequency of Wilson's attendance (to be fair, the greatest period of that attendance was his stroke-ridden post-presidency). History records him attending the Philadelphia Orchestra at the National Theater or his delighted 1915 presence at stage star Chauncey Olcott's debut in "Shameen Dhu" at Washington's Columbia Theater in January 1915 (Wilson's golf was fogged out that morning) or at Louis Mann's opening night as a German-American in "Friendly Enemies" in 1918.
Like the Obamas, in November 1914, Wilson visited Broadway. But unlike them, for once, he did not attend the theater. Following an afternoon of eighteen holes on Long Island fairways (he shot an 80), Wilson visited his adviser Colonel Edward M. House in the city. Together, they attempted an incognito Broadway stroll. The pair progressed as far as an open-air Salvation Army camp meeting before all hell broke loose. Eventually, Wilson and House took safety from overzealous admirers in the old Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, before Secret Service agents packed the President of the United States off on a passing Fifth Avenue bus and back to Colonel House's 115 East 53rd Street apartment [ii].
Wilson enjoyed motion pictures as well. Following a White House screening of director D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation, Wilson allegedly commented that the controversial film was "like writing history with lightning. My only regret is that it is all so terribly true." In any case, Griffith eventually partook of several "fireside chats" with Southern-born Wilson -- although the film pioneer later complained of the president's distinct lack of personal hospitality [iii].
Wilson loved attending baseball games. He was the first president to throw out the first pitch at a World Series. And though he was wise and responsible enough to forgo attendance at Washington's Griffith Stadium during wartime, before the outbreak of hostilities, his attendance at games was fairly common -- at least by president standards. In April 1913 alone, he not only threw out the season's first pitch, but also attended three games of a four-game Senators-Red Sox series.
Vacations? For the first three summers of his presidency, Wilson understandably abandoned Washington for Cornish, New Hampshire's cooler climes. In 1916, he summered at the Jersey shore. Such vacations were lengthy, involving "a month or two"[iv] from his desk -- and they hardly seemed to be working vacations. In August 1915, for example, the Washington Post noted that "a mass of work" awaited Wilson's return from his recent three-week New England stay. Yet a month later, he was headed back to New Hampshire. "He may be away for a week," speculated the Post. "He may stay two or three weeks" [v]. Secretary to the President Joseph Tumulty did not accompany him [vi].
Even when the nation went to war in 1917 and Wilson abandoned such absences, the Post noted he did not forgo his "customary morning golf game" [vii].
Wilson scholar John Milton Cooper also references Wilson's "daily round of golf" and notes that it was when Wilson was departing for the course in May 1915 that he learned of the sinking of the British passenger liner RMS Lusitania by the German U-boat U-20. Wilson canceled his golf. He waited for more news -- it was, however, reported he did not communicate with Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan -- and then went for another limousine ride.
It was, however, after returning from golf one day in March 1915 that the recently widowed Wilson chanced to meet the widow Mrs. Edith Bolling Galt. His frenzied courtship threw his already leisurely work schedule into chaos. Recalled White House Chief Usher Irwin "Ike" Hoover,
The President was simply obsessed. He put aside practically everything, dealing only with the most important matters of state. Requests for appointments were put off with the explanation that he had important business to attend to. Cabinet officers, Senators, officials generally were all treated the same. It had always been difficult to get appointments with him; it was now harder than ever, and important state matters were held in abeyance while he wrote to the lady of his choice. When one realizes that at this time there was a war raging in Europe, not to mention a Presidential campaign approaching, one can imagine how preoccupied he must have been. There was much anxiety among his political friends, who just had to accept the inevitable, but who began to look about for a way to postpone it until after the election, for fear lest the people would not approve [viii].
Yet Wilson survived a Republican resurgence to narrowly gain another term in 1916. The early Wilson years, after all, were years of prosperity. And in comfortable times, it matters not at all whether Ike golfs or LBJ pulls beagles up by their ears. Conversely, when unemployment or inflation stalk the land, it remains of similar low consequence if solemn engineers Herbert Hoover or Jimmy Carter burn the midnight oil to fiddle with the details of a sinking ship of state.
The bottom line: if the American people are at work in 2012, it matters not at all if Barack Obama plays.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] Washington Post, 11 July 1913, p. 1. Regarding a Vermont motor jaunt the Post noted; "WILSON LOST IN WOODS . . . RESENTFUL COW HALTS CAR." (Washington Post, 28 June 1915, p. 10). A month later the presidential motorcar was rear-ended in Newport, New Hampshire. (Washington Post, 11 July 1915, p. 1)
[ii] Washington Post, 15 November 1914, p. 8.
[iii] Hart, James (ed.), The Man Who Invented Hollywood: The Autobiography of D. W. Griffith Louisville: Touchstone, 1972, p. 21.
[iv] Washington Post, 25 June 1915, p. 7.
[v] Washington Post, 4 July 1915, p. 2.
[vi] Washington Post, 4 July 1915, p. 2.
[vii] Washington Post, 25 June 1917, p. 7.
[viii] Hoover, Irwin Hood "Ike." 42 Years in the White House. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1934, p. 67.
Joe Miller, Alaskan RINO Killer
From The American Spectator:
Political Hay
Joe Miller, RINO Killer
By Robert Stacy McCain on 8.30.10 @ 6:08AM
Joe Miller's ascent to political stardom has been astonishingly sudden. When I first interviewed Miller in early July, he was "Joe Who?" After last Tuesday's stunning upset -- defeating Sen. Lisa Murkowski by 1,668 votes in the Alaska Republican primary -- he has become a hero to grassroots conservatives nationwide.
That Miller has beaten Murkowski is something the incumbent has not acknowledged. After coming up short on Tuesday night, the senator said she would not concede until the absentee ballots had been counted and then held a Wednesday press conference where she declared, "It ain't over."
The senator's non-concession has forced reporters to spend the past several days contorting their stories into euphemistic pretzels with talk of Miller "leading" Murkowski, as if it were still an active campaign. In fact, the campaign is over and Miller is the winner, pending a count of those remaining ballots that will likely only confirm what a majority of Alaska's 92,000 Republican primary voters decided on Tuesday: They're sick and tired of the GOP establishment.
That establishment is nevertheless still powerful, even in (apparent) defeat. Conservatives could only shake their heads and curse in impotent frustration last week when it was reported that the National Republican Senatorial Committee had flown its top lawyer Sean Cairncross to Anchorage to advise Murkowski's campaign in what may turn into an ugly fight over the absentee ballots.
The actual number of those ballots has been a moving target. On the night of the primary, it was reported that there were 8,000 absentees, but this was only the number of such ballots received by Election Day. While absentee ballots must be postmarked no later than Aug. 24 to be valid, the deadline for receiving ballots mailed within the U.S. is not until Sept. 3 and overseas ballots may qualify if received as late as Sept. 8. And by late Saturday, the Anchorage Daily News reported, the total number of uncounted ballots received by the Alaska Division of Elections had swollen to 23,472, including 9,069 "questioned" ballots cast on Election Day. By the time they start counting the ballots tomorrow, the number will likely increase by a few hundred more, and the more ballots, the greater the possibility for the kind of vote-counting shenanigans Americans have come to expect in close elections since the Florida presidential deadlock of 2000.
Miller's supporters were therefore dismayed to learn over the weekend that Murkowski -- who still has more than a million dollars in her campaign fund -- had retained the services of Mike Roman, a key player for Republican Norm Coleman's team in the nightmarish 2008 Minnesota recount that eventually produced five of the most dreaded words in the English language: United States Senator Al Franken.
Murkowski's campaign is "bringing in the big shots," Miller campaign spokesman Randy DeSoto said in a telephone interview late Sunday. Meanwhile, voters who cast absentee ballots were reporting that they had gotten calls asking how they'd voted -- the names of absentee voters are a matter of public record in Alaska -- and when Miller's campaign suggested this was evidence of mischief by the senator's team, Murkowski accused Miller of being "paranoid."
Of course, it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you, and Miller's supporters already had solid reasons to suspect that Murkowski would stop at nothing to retain her Senate seat. Chief among these reasons was the fact that Anchorage political consultant Andrew Halcro placed a call first thing Wednesday morning to Scott Kohlhaas, chairman of the Alaska Libertarian Party. Halcro was asking whether the Libertarians would be open to having Murkowski replace their Senate nominee, Dave Haase. Halcro is a former Republican state legislator best known for his boundless hatred of Sarah Palin. After Palin won the GOP gubernatorial nomination in 2006, Halcro waged a third-party campaign aimed principally at attacking the Republican and earned him the nickname Mr. Nine Percent, that being his share of the vote. Since being chosen as John McCain's running mate two years ago, of course, Palin has become world-famous and Halcro's bitterness toward her has only increased.
It was Palin's early endorsement of Joe Miller that was widely credited with launching the underdog to victory, and thus the intrusion of ex-Republican Halcro into the post-primary phase of the Senate campaign is scarcely surprising. Certainly Miller's supporters could be forgiven for wondering if Halcro would be reaching out to the Libertarians on Murkowski's behalf without the senator's permission, especially after he disclosed to the Anchorage Daily News that he had spoken by phone with Murkowski.
For their part, Alaska LP officials initially said they were receptive to Murkowski's interest and seemed dazzled by their newfound status as potential kingmakers (or at least, senator-makers) in what had suddenly become the hottest political story of the summer. Yet Halcro's attempts to play matchmaker were clearly hampered by the vast difference between Murkowski's big-government Republicanism and the anti-statist ideology of the Libertarians. Harley Brown, vice chairman of the Alaska LP, told me Saturday that his feeling was "99 percent… no way" that his party would replace Haase with Murkowski. The top leadership of the LP held a two-hour meeting Sunday to discuss the idea and have scheduled a press conference for today. If, as seems likely, the Libertarians say they won't take Murkowski as their nominee, that will end all talk of the senator seeking re-election as a third-party candidate.
That would leave those 23,472 remaining uncounted ballots as the only obstacle between Joe Miller and one of the most surprising upsets of what has already become a banner year for political surprises. His conservative supporters view Murkowski as a RINO (Republican In Name Only), a breed they're determined to hunt to extinction. Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter and Utah Sen. Robert Bennett have already been bagged, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is now pursuing dwindling third-party hopes of being elected to the Senate. If Miller can hold on to defeat Murkowski, the RINO species will become more endangered than ever.
Letter to the Editor
Political Hay
Joe Miller, RINO Killer
By Robert Stacy McCain on 8.30.10 @ 6:08AM
Joe Miller's ascent to political stardom has been astonishingly sudden. When I first interviewed Miller in early July, he was "Joe Who?" After last Tuesday's stunning upset -- defeating Sen. Lisa Murkowski by 1,668 votes in the Alaska Republican primary -- he has become a hero to grassroots conservatives nationwide.
That Miller has beaten Murkowski is something the incumbent has not acknowledged. After coming up short on Tuesday night, the senator said she would not concede until the absentee ballots had been counted and then held a Wednesday press conference where she declared, "It ain't over."
The senator's non-concession has forced reporters to spend the past several days contorting their stories into euphemistic pretzels with talk of Miller "leading" Murkowski, as if it were still an active campaign. In fact, the campaign is over and Miller is the winner, pending a count of those remaining ballots that will likely only confirm what a majority of Alaska's 92,000 Republican primary voters decided on Tuesday: They're sick and tired of the GOP establishment.
That establishment is nevertheless still powerful, even in (apparent) defeat. Conservatives could only shake their heads and curse in impotent frustration last week when it was reported that the National Republican Senatorial Committee had flown its top lawyer Sean Cairncross to Anchorage to advise Murkowski's campaign in what may turn into an ugly fight over the absentee ballots.
The actual number of those ballots has been a moving target. On the night of the primary, it was reported that there were 8,000 absentees, but this was only the number of such ballots received by Election Day. While absentee ballots must be postmarked no later than Aug. 24 to be valid, the deadline for receiving ballots mailed within the U.S. is not until Sept. 3 and overseas ballots may qualify if received as late as Sept. 8. And by late Saturday, the Anchorage Daily News reported, the total number of uncounted ballots received by the Alaska Division of Elections had swollen to 23,472, including 9,069 "questioned" ballots cast on Election Day. By the time they start counting the ballots tomorrow, the number will likely increase by a few hundred more, and the more ballots, the greater the possibility for the kind of vote-counting shenanigans Americans have come to expect in close elections since the Florida presidential deadlock of 2000.
Miller's supporters were therefore dismayed to learn over the weekend that Murkowski -- who still has more than a million dollars in her campaign fund -- had retained the services of Mike Roman, a key player for Republican Norm Coleman's team in the nightmarish 2008 Minnesota recount that eventually produced five of the most dreaded words in the English language: United States Senator Al Franken.
Murkowski's campaign is "bringing in the big shots," Miller campaign spokesman Randy DeSoto said in a telephone interview late Sunday. Meanwhile, voters who cast absentee ballots were reporting that they had gotten calls asking how they'd voted -- the names of absentee voters are a matter of public record in Alaska -- and when Miller's campaign suggested this was evidence of mischief by the senator's team, Murkowski accused Miller of being "paranoid."
Of course, it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you, and Miller's supporters already had solid reasons to suspect that Murkowski would stop at nothing to retain her Senate seat. Chief among these reasons was the fact that Anchorage political consultant Andrew Halcro placed a call first thing Wednesday morning to Scott Kohlhaas, chairman of the Alaska Libertarian Party. Halcro was asking whether the Libertarians would be open to having Murkowski replace their Senate nominee, Dave Haase. Halcro is a former Republican state legislator best known for his boundless hatred of Sarah Palin. After Palin won the GOP gubernatorial nomination in 2006, Halcro waged a third-party campaign aimed principally at attacking the Republican and earned him the nickname Mr. Nine Percent, that being his share of the vote. Since being chosen as John McCain's running mate two years ago, of course, Palin has become world-famous and Halcro's bitterness toward her has only increased.
It was Palin's early endorsement of Joe Miller that was widely credited with launching the underdog to victory, and thus the intrusion of ex-Republican Halcro into the post-primary phase of the Senate campaign is scarcely surprising. Certainly Miller's supporters could be forgiven for wondering if Halcro would be reaching out to the Libertarians on Murkowski's behalf without the senator's permission, especially after he disclosed to the Anchorage Daily News that he had spoken by phone with Murkowski.
For their part, Alaska LP officials initially said they were receptive to Murkowski's interest and seemed dazzled by their newfound status as potential kingmakers (or at least, senator-makers) in what had suddenly become the hottest political story of the summer. Yet Halcro's attempts to play matchmaker were clearly hampered by the vast difference between Murkowski's big-government Republicanism and the anti-statist ideology of the Libertarians. Harley Brown, vice chairman of the Alaska LP, told me Saturday that his feeling was "99 percent… no way" that his party would replace Haase with Murkowski. The top leadership of the LP held a two-hour meeting Sunday to discuss the idea and have scheduled a press conference for today. If, as seems likely, the Libertarians say they won't take Murkowski as their nominee, that will end all talk of the senator seeking re-election as a third-party candidate.
That would leave those 23,472 remaining uncounted ballots as the only obstacle between Joe Miller and one of the most surprising upsets of what has already become a banner year for political surprises. His conservative supporters view Murkowski as a RINO (Republican In Name Only), a breed they're determined to hunt to extinction. Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter and Utah Sen. Robert Bennett have already been bagged, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is now pursuing dwindling third-party hopes of being elected to the Senate. If Miller can hold on to defeat Murkowski, the RINO species will become more endangered than ever.
Letter to the Editor
Being Broke Costs Illinois $550 Billion
from The Chicago Sun-Times:
Being broke costs state $550 million
BAD BOND RATING
Borrowing money has gotten a lot more expensive
Comments
August 30, 2010
BY DAVE McKINNEY Sun-Times Springfield bureau chief
SPRINGFIELD -- The state's miserable bond rating has driven up borrowing costs for state government by more than $500 million since last year, a government watchdog group says.
The nonpartisan, Chicago-based Civic Federation analyzed the near-record borrowing that the state has undertaken since last September and looked at similar borrowing during the same period in other states that have higher bond ratings than Illinois.
» Click to enlarge image
The most borrowed during any 12-month period in Illinois history came under ousted former Gov. Rod Blagojevich
(Dom Najolia/Sun-Times)
The result was a staggering $551.3 million extra that state taxpayers are having to devote to support the state's thirst for debt because of a series of rating downgrades, the group says in a report being released today.
"This is an actual quantification of what the cost of the state's fiscal irresponsibility has been because of the Illinois General Assembly and governor's failure to stabilize state finances and to allow our credit rating to drop so low we are now the lowest credit-rated state in the country, with California," said Laurence Msall, the Civic Federation's president.
Since September 2009, the state has borrowed $9.6 billion, which is the second-largest borrowing spree in state history. The most borrowed during any 12-month period in Illinois history came under ousted former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who signed off on a $10 billion borrowing plan in 2003 to shore up the state's underfunded retirement systems.
Illinois' credit rating has been downgraded four times by one bond-rating agency in the past 18 months because of the state's record budget deficits, its underfunded pension liabilities, revenue shortfalls, spending jumps and debt increases.
"If the state had acted appropriately when the Great Recession began and we saw revenues decline, and if we'd have cut spending to match revenues, it's likely we wouldn't have had so many downgrades, and in this one year, we'd saved over $550 million in borrowing costs," Msall said.
Because of the way the $9.6 billion is spread over three decades, the state won't pay all $551.3 million in one year. But $72.9 million will have to be paid in 2011, while $301.2 million of the overall amount will have to be paid over the next five years, the group said.
"The failure of Illinois government to stabilize its finances means Illinoisans will be forced to pay more for their government while it delivers fewer services," Msall said.
Being broke costs state $550 million
BAD BOND RATING
Borrowing money has gotten a lot more expensive
Comments
August 30, 2010
BY DAVE McKINNEY Sun-Times Springfield bureau chief
SPRINGFIELD -- The state's miserable bond rating has driven up borrowing costs for state government by more than $500 million since last year, a government watchdog group says.
The nonpartisan, Chicago-based Civic Federation analyzed the near-record borrowing that the state has undertaken since last September and looked at similar borrowing during the same period in other states that have higher bond ratings than Illinois.
» Click to enlarge image
The most borrowed during any 12-month period in Illinois history came under ousted former Gov. Rod Blagojevich
(Dom Najolia/Sun-Times)
The result was a staggering $551.3 million extra that state taxpayers are having to devote to support the state's thirst for debt because of a series of rating downgrades, the group says in a report being released today.
"This is an actual quantification of what the cost of the state's fiscal irresponsibility has been because of the Illinois General Assembly and governor's failure to stabilize state finances and to allow our credit rating to drop so low we are now the lowest credit-rated state in the country, with California," said Laurence Msall, the Civic Federation's president.
Since September 2009, the state has borrowed $9.6 billion, which is the second-largest borrowing spree in state history. The most borrowed during any 12-month period in Illinois history came under ousted former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who signed off on a $10 billion borrowing plan in 2003 to shore up the state's underfunded retirement systems.
Illinois' credit rating has been downgraded four times by one bond-rating agency in the past 18 months because of the state's record budget deficits, its underfunded pension liabilities, revenue shortfalls, spending jumps and debt increases.
"If the state had acted appropriately when the Great Recession began and we saw revenues decline, and if we'd have cut spending to match revenues, it's likely we wouldn't have had so many downgrades, and in this one year, we'd saved over $550 million in borrowing costs," Msall said.
Because of the way the $9.6 billion is spread over three decades, the state won't pay all $551.3 million in one year. But $72.9 million will have to be paid in 2011, while $301.2 million of the overall amount will have to be paid over the next five years, the group said.
"The failure of Illinois government to stabilize its finances means Illinoisans will be forced to pay more for their government while it delivers fewer services," Msall said.
Caught Red-Handed With Voter Fraud In Texas, Left Accuses Right Of Suppressing Votes
from The New Ledger:
Glenn W. Smith Thinks the Right is Suppressing Votes in Houstonby Brad Jackson
Last week I covered the story of a citizen watchdog group, True the Vote, discovered a massive, intentional voter fraud campaign being orchestrated by a liberal-funded group, Texans Together. Just a couple days later, a fire at a Houston warehouse destroyed virtually all of Harris County’s electronic voting machines. Now Glenn W. Smith, a Texas Democratic operative, former MoveOn.org employee, and one-time Ann Richards campaign manager who now claims to a journalistic mantle for the Huffington Post, is smearing Texas Republicans with baseless accusations of arson, racism and voter suppression.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again, whenever Democrat groups are caught red handed perpetrating blatant voter fraud their immediate reaction is always to accuse Republicans of suppressing voter turnout. Smith here is following the exact same tract, but now adding a new twist. Through his power of deduction, and his journalistic superiority, Smith has determined that Republicans burned down that warehouse. It’s part of the GOP broader voter suppression efforts.
Smith also claims this:
There are simply no machines available to replace the loss of Houston’s machines. That means either a return to paper ballots (there may be very few scanners to count them) or a greatly reduced number of polling locations. The latter would require the emergency suspension of state law and run afoul of the Voting Rights Act. In any case, confusion will reign, and confusion reduces turnout.
As a “journalist” Glenn W. Smith utterly fails. With just two phone calls, I was able to talk to Randall Dillard at the Texas Secretary of State’s office who said that Secretary of State Hope Andrade has spoken to officials in Harris County and has pledged the support of her office and the muscle of the State of Texas to find enough voting machines for the Houston area for November. They have a plan to borrow machines from the 100 other counties that share that technology, get loaned machines from the vendor and will provide any other assistance necessary to ensure a fair and accessible election. See Glenn, all it takes is some actual journalistic work to find that the Texas (run by a Republican Rick Perry) is not going to suppress voter turnout, but is instead bending over backwards to ensure that everyone is allowed to vote without a great deal of disturbance.
Smith didn’t stop with his accusations at just voter suppression, he also claimed that the Right, specifically True the Vote, is racist. As is standard Democrat practice these days, whenever you disagree with them, or work against a policy or political initiative they are supporting, you are immediately racist. What’s his basis for this? Well the head of True the Vote is white, and as he says, “a video on their website pictures only people of color when it talks of voter fraud.” The video is linked here, and embedded below. I want you to go to the 2:10 mark in the video and look at who is holding the ACORN sign behind the speakers head. Who is that in the middle of the screen Glenn? A white lady. Sure, there are African-Americans in the picture, but there are also whites, however, Smith tends to ignore things that don’t support his argument.
ADVERTISEMENT
Liberal hacks like Glenn W. Smith will, sadly it seems, continue to hurl baseless accusations at the Right in order to stir up trouble. After all, Democrats need something to excite their base for 2010, which polls show are less enthused about the election than conservatives. More specifically, Smith is trying to help Democrat Gubernatorial nominee Bill White, whose well funded campaign has been plastering the airwaves and newspapers with old fashioned mud-slinging in an effort to beat up on Rick Perry. Despite all that money and effort, White still lags in the polls, but hey, if Smith can fire up the liberal base in Texas by falsely claiming that the racist right is trying to burn their way back into office, then why not
Glenn W. Smith Thinks the Right is Suppressing Votes in Houstonby Brad Jackson
Last week I covered the story of a citizen watchdog group, True the Vote, discovered a massive, intentional voter fraud campaign being orchestrated by a liberal-funded group, Texans Together. Just a couple days later, a fire at a Houston warehouse destroyed virtually all of Harris County’s electronic voting machines. Now Glenn W. Smith, a Texas Democratic operative, former MoveOn.org employee, and one-time Ann Richards campaign manager who now claims to a journalistic mantle for the Huffington Post, is smearing Texas Republicans with baseless accusations of arson, racism and voter suppression.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again, whenever Democrat groups are caught red handed perpetrating blatant voter fraud their immediate reaction is always to accuse Republicans of suppressing voter turnout. Smith here is following the exact same tract, but now adding a new twist. Through his power of deduction, and his journalistic superiority, Smith has determined that Republicans burned down that warehouse. It’s part of the GOP broader voter suppression efforts.
Smith also claims this:
There are simply no machines available to replace the loss of Houston’s machines. That means either a return to paper ballots (there may be very few scanners to count them) or a greatly reduced number of polling locations. The latter would require the emergency suspension of state law and run afoul of the Voting Rights Act. In any case, confusion will reign, and confusion reduces turnout.
As a “journalist” Glenn W. Smith utterly fails. With just two phone calls, I was able to talk to Randall Dillard at the Texas Secretary of State’s office who said that Secretary of State Hope Andrade has spoken to officials in Harris County and has pledged the support of her office and the muscle of the State of Texas to find enough voting machines for the Houston area for November. They have a plan to borrow machines from the 100 other counties that share that technology, get loaned machines from the vendor and will provide any other assistance necessary to ensure a fair and accessible election. See Glenn, all it takes is some actual journalistic work to find that the Texas (run by a Republican Rick Perry) is not going to suppress voter turnout, but is instead bending over backwards to ensure that everyone is allowed to vote without a great deal of disturbance.
Smith didn’t stop with his accusations at just voter suppression, he also claimed that the Right, specifically True the Vote, is racist. As is standard Democrat practice these days, whenever you disagree with them, or work against a policy or political initiative they are supporting, you are immediately racist. What’s his basis for this? Well the head of True the Vote is white, and as he says, “a video on their website pictures only people of color when it talks of voter fraud.” The video is linked here, and embedded below. I want you to go to the 2:10 mark in the video and look at who is holding the ACORN sign behind the speakers head. Who is that in the middle of the screen Glenn? A white lady. Sure, there are African-Americans in the picture, but there are also whites, however, Smith tends to ignore things that don’t support his argument.
ADVERTISEMENT
Liberal hacks like Glenn W. Smith will, sadly it seems, continue to hurl baseless accusations at the Right in order to stir up trouble. After all, Democrats need something to excite their base for 2010, which polls show are less enthused about the election than conservatives. More specifically, Smith is trying to help Democrat Gubernatorial nominee Bill White, whose well funded campaign has been plastering the airwaves and newspapers with old fashioned mud-slinging in an effort to beat up on Rick Perry. Despite all that money and effort, White still lags in the polls, but hey, if Smith can fire up the liberal base in Texas by falsely claiming that the racist right is trying to burn their way back into office, then why not
Are You Helping To Fund America's Bankruptcy?
from Big Government:
Voting With Your Wallet: Are You Helping to Fund America’s Impending Bankruptcy?by LaborUnionReport
The question in the title of this post is more rhetorical because, in answer to the question, we are all (to varying degrees) helping to fund the demise of America and, for most of us, we are doing it every day. In so many ways, we do it every time a decision is made to purchase something—anything—be it groceries, appliances, and even bigger ticket items like vehicles.
For example, the new Chevy Camaro is a hot looking car. By all accounts, in addition to its looks, the Camaro fast and affordable. But, despite all of its cool accouterments, I won’t buy one.
Moreover, despite owning two trucks that are American made (read: union-made), a significant principle was breached over these past two years that, for the foreseeable future, will not be undone. You see, it was bad enough when the UAW banned the marines from using the union parking lot (before the union quickly retracted it) a few years ago, but when the UAW’s new boss, Bob King, recently reiterated the UAW’s ban on nonunion-made vehicles in the union’s parking lot (even if made by Americans in American plants), that cinched it.
Much like those who refuse to buy British Petroleum because of the gulf oil spill, a personal decision was made to, whenever possible, not spend money on companies whose employees’ union dues are being used to help bankrupt America, whose union bosses shamelessly and egregiously are currying special favors from political puppets, transforming the nation to to a quasi-socialist state, all the while demonizing people who believe in freedom. It’s that simple.
As noted elsewhere, unions collect more than $13 billion per year in union dues and fees from workers*, the majority of whom have no choice but to pay the union or be fired from their jobs. As outrageous as that seems, it’s been the case for 75 years, when Congress enabled unions to mandate dues as a condition of employment with the passage of the National Labor Relations Act.
The Act permits, under certain conditions, a union and an employer to make an agreement, called a union-security agreement, that requires employees to make certain payments to the union in order to retain their jobs.
Democrats: America’s de facto Labor Party
While union bosses, like crony capitalists, have always curried special favors from bought-and-paid for politicians (think Boston’s “Big Dig“), their influence was mostly limited to a politician or two from certain areas. Until recently, however, unions never had a choke hold on an entire political party, let alone the country, as they do now with the Democrats and America.
Consider these few examples:
•Democrats (with some help from a few Republicans) pushed through a failed $862 billion “stimulus” package wherein artificial Davis-Bacon union wage rates were mandated, but also one third of the stimulus went to state and local governments “with the effect of propping up the pay and saving the jobs of public employee union members.”
•The $100 billion bailout of General Motors and Chrysler gave the United Auto Workers billions in company stock at the expense of stockholders and unpolitically-connected dealers
•The Obama Administration issued an Executive Order discriminating against union-free construction workers on federal projects
•Unions were the “prime movers” behind nationalizing health care, so much so that, on the day of ObamaCare’s signing, former SEIU boss Andy Stern boasted of changing America forever
•With nationalizing health care out of the way, and before moving on to nationalizing America’s retirement system, unions are heavily pushing a $165 billion bailout of their under-funded pension plans
•Union bosses were especially pleased with the recently passed financial reform where, for the very first time, union bosses now have the ability to sit on corporate boards of directors.
•And, if the nationalization of the private sector wasn’t quite firm enough, it will be when the Democrats try to push through Andy Stern’s idea of using the social security trust to invest in Wall Street.
•Then, of course, there’s the mother of all union bailouts, the hallucinogenically-named Employee Free Choice Act which gives unions the right to unionize companies without a secret-ballot election, but also places a government bureaucrat in control of dictating workers’ wages and benefits through a process called binding arbitration. While today’s union bosses and the vast majority of Democrats (including President Obama) are pushing EFCA, even the late AFL-CIO president George Meany viewed binding arbitration as an ‘abrogation of freedom.’
Union Thugs? If the shoe fits.
Last week, AFL-CIO boss Richard “the Fifth” Trumka tried to blast Sarah Palin for her use of the term “union thugs.” However, to discerning Americans, as well as American businesses, today’s union bosses are living up to the “union thug” imagery very well. Take, for example, Trumka who, with his own questionably thuggish past, remarked last year:
“We need to be a labor movement that stands by our friends, punishes its enemies and challenges those who, well, can’t seem to decide which side they’re on,”
If a corporate head had made the same statement, the leftist media would be in an uproar. However, despite the fact that unions spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence elections, when the Target corporation contributed to an organization that backs a candidate who opposes gay marriage spawned outrage and a boycott from the Left, there was no uproar from the media. In fact, the hypocrisy is largely ignored.
Making Choices.
While union members (and agency fee payers) can opt out of having their dues used on politics, many do not know how to go about having their dues withheld for such purposes. However, those members who do know that they have the right to demand that their dues not be used to fund union bosses’ agenda, yet do nothing about it, are tacitly approving their union bosses tactics, as well as their goals.
Therefore, as a consumer, while there may be no choice (except at the ballot box) in supporting the government appartchik through higher taxes (which unions are pushing for), there is a choice when it comes to how to spend a buck. And, whether supporting a company whose employees fund union bosses’ political agenda, or a company whose employees do not fund a union is a matter of knowledge and choice.
Unions have boycotts, Americans can have buycotts.
Last year, in the midst of the health care debate, Whole Foods’ CEO John Mackey had the apparent temerity to write an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that offered free market-oriented alternatives to the health care debate. Rather than having his views considered, the UFCW quickly organized a boycott of Whole Foods. This was quickly countered with a Whole Foods “buycott.”
Two Votes: November 2nd and every day at the cash register.
Despite the concept of a buycott on behalf of Whole Foods having quickly taken hold, it was almost as quickly forgotten. However, the union crusade against America’s free enterprise system has not stopped.
As unions are projected to spend more than $200 million on their November 2nd Get Out the Vote efforts in order to save Democrats from defeat, that election will be over on November 3rd. Yet, every day, Americans make choices that enable unions to further their agenda, and that is at the cash register.
Here are a few examples:
Shipping:
•FedEx or UPS? There are two big shipping companies in the U.S., United Parcel Service (UPS), which is unionized by the Teamsters, and FedEx which is primarily non-union. At UPS, it is estimated that the Teamsters collect more than $10 million dollars every month in union dues. Where will you spend your money?
•YRC Trucking. Teamster-represented YRC Trucking, one of the companies lobbying for the $165 billion pension bailout and has been teetering on the brink of bankruptcy for nearly two years. Who does your company use in its LTL shipping?
Can you hear them now?
•AT&T Mobility, which supplies wireless phone service is largely unionized by the Communications Workers of America, a union attempting to get the government to fund high-speed internet as a “basic right.” Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless are among the wireless providers that are predominantly non-union.
Bagging the UFCW:
•The grocery stores are where most Americans spend a lot of their time and money. The grocery stores are also where consumers are getting more and more choices on where to shop. While there are many unionized grocers, there is also a growing number of non-union grocers as well.
The list of union versus non-union companies across most industries where consumers can make personal choices is vast. In some cases, there are even companies that are partially unionized, but also have non-union locations. But, knowing the difference is the key.
Earlier this year, Big Government blogger Liberty Chick made the case for Americans making a choice between union or non-union on her personal blog, as well as provided the resources to start discovering which companies are unionized:
Just as corrupt union bosses will shakedown companies that are not union shops, why can’t consumers do the same to put pressure on those companies that ARE corrupt union shops? If we don’t want these criminals taking over whatever remains of our shambles of an economy, we’re going to need to do it ourselves. Congress and the White House have prostituted themselves out to these pimp union bosses and it’s all gone too far for them to turn back now.
So go ahead. Take charge of it yourself. Check out this partial list of the companies (including government and other public sector employers) with labor union collective bargaining agreements registered with the Department of Labor. Look for those that employ the biggest union offenders, like SEIU, and the others in Andy Stern and Anna Burger’s Change to Win labor coalition. Then tell them you don’t appreciate their support for the same corrupt unions bosses who are taking our hard earned dollars from us and redistributing it to others, while they also get off tax-free with their Cadillac health care plans.
I started by not renewing my Verizon account (sorry to my brother in law…). And instead of food shopping at my local Change to Win supported A&P, I shopped at a different supermarket. One whose workers’ union doesn’t abuse its members’ union dues to purchase Congressional votes. One that doesn’t swindle the American people and make a mockery of our political system. Wherever I can, I’ll make that conscious choice now. And I feel better already. Perhaps we should all combine forces and do it – including you union members who yourselves are tired of the abuse and corruption. That might be the only thing strong enough to actually change anything.
Download the complete list of collective bargaining agreements in PDF
View the list online at the Department of Labor website
While unions and their allies may decry that an American “union-free buycott” of products and services offered by non-union companies hurts workers, on the whole that is misleading. While unionized companies and their workers may lose in an American union-free buycott, other Americans will be helped. Ultimately, it is the consumers choice and, if consumers choose to support the unions’ political agenda, they can. If not, then they can take their business elsewhere.
In the early 1900s, Samuel Gompers, the father of the modern American labor movement, fought both socialism and government interference in labor unions. He knew that both would eventually ruin the movement. He knew that, were unions to become too reliant on government, that the pendulum would swing and, history has proven he was right.
On November 2nd, Americans will have the choice at the polls whether or not to support unions’ political agenda. However, Americans also make that choice every day when they make the decision to buy goods and services. The question is, are you helping to fund the demise of America?
* Note: This number ($13 billion per year) is an extremely conservative estimate that only includes private-sector (not government workers). If government workers dues are included, union dues collected may actually surpass $26 billion per year.
__________________
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
Voting With Your Wallet: Are You Helping to Fund America’s Impending Bankruptcy?by LaborUnionReport
The question in the title of this post is more rhetorical because, in answer to the question, we are all (to varying degrees) helping to fund the demise of America and, for most of us, we are doing it every day. In so many ways, we do it every time a decision is made to purchase something—anything—be it groceries, appliances, and even bigger ticket items like vehicles.
For example, the new Chevy Camaro is a hot looking car. By all accounts, in addition to its looks, the Camaro fast and affordable. But, despite all of its cool accouterments, I won’t buy one.
Moreover, despite owning two trucks that are American made (read: union-made), a significant principle was breached over these past two years that, for the foreseeable future, will not be undone. You see, it was bad enough when the UAW banned the marines from using the union parking lot (before the union quickly retracted it) a few years ago, but when the UAW’s new boss, Bob King, recently reiterated the UAW’s ban on nonunion-made vehicles in the union’s parking lot (even if made by Americans in American plants), that cinched it.
Much like those who refuse to buy British Petroleum because of the gulf oil spill, a personal decision was made to, whenever possible, not spend money on companies whose employees’ union dues are being used to help bankrupt America, whose union bosses shamelessly and egregiously are currying special favors from political puppets, transforming the nation to to a quasi-socialist state, all the while demonizing people who believe in freedom. It’s that simple.
As noted elsewhere, unions collect more than $13 billion per year in union dues and fees from workers*, the majority of whom have no choice but to pay the union or be fired from their jobs. As outrageous as that seems, it’s been the case for 75 years, when Congress enabled unions to mandate dues as a condition of employment with the passage of the National Labor Relations Act.
The Act permits, under certain conditions, a union and an employer to make an agreement, called a union-security agreement, that requires employees to make certain payments to the union in order to retain their jobs.
Democrats: America’s de facto Labor Party
While union bosses, like crony capitalists, have always curried special favors from bought-and-paid for politicians (think Boston’s “Big Dig“), their influence was mostly limited to a politician or two from certain areas. Until recently, however, unions never had a choke hold on an entire political party, let alone the country, as they do now with the Democrats and America.
Consider these few examples:
•Democrats (with some help from a few Republicans) pushed through a failed $862 billion “stimulus” package wherein artificial Davis-Bacon union wage rates were mandated, but also one third of the stimulus went to state and local governments “with the effect of propping up the pay and saving the jobs of public employee union members.”
•The $100 billion bailout of General Motors and Chrysler gave the United Auto Workers billions in company stock at the expense of stockholders and unpolitically-connected dealers
•The Obama Administration issued an Executive Order discriminating against union-free construction workers on federal projects
•Unions were the “prime movers” behind nationalizing health care, so much so that, on the day of ObamaCare’s signing, former SEIU boss Andy Stern boasted of changing America forever
•With nationalizing health care out of the way, and before moving on to nationalizing America’s retirement system, unions are heavily pushing a $165 billion bailout of their under-funded pension plans
•Union bosses were especially pleased with the recently passed financial reform where, for the very first time, union bosses now have the ability to sit on corporate boards of directors.
•And, if the nationalization of the private sector wasn’t quite firm enough, it will be when the Democrats try to push through Andy Stern’s idea of using the social security trust to invest in Wall Street.
•Then, of course, there’s the mother of all union bailouts, the hallucinogenically-named Employee Free Choice Act which gives unions the right to unionize companies without a secret-ballot election, but also places a government bureaucrat in control of dictating workers’ wages and benefits through a process called binding arbitration. While today’s union bosses and the vast majority of Democrats (including President Obama) are pushing EFCA, even the late AFL-CIO president George Meany viewed binding arbitration as an ‘abrogation of freedom.’
Union Thugs? If the shoe fits.
Last week, AFL-CIO boss Richard “the Fifth” Trumka tried to blast Sarah Palin for her use of the term “union thugs.” However, to discerning Americans, as well as American businesses, today’s union bosses are living up to the “union thug” imagery very well. Take, for example, Trumka who, with his own questionably thuggish past, remarked last year:
“We need to be a labor movement that stands by our friends, punishes its enemies and challenges those who, well, can’t seem to decide which side they’re on,”
If a corporate head had made the same statement, the leftist media would be in an uproar. However, despite the fact that unions spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence elections, when the Target corporation contributed to an organization that backs a candidate who opposes gay marriage spawned outrage and a boycott from the Left, there was no uproar from the media. In fact, the hypocrisy is largely ignored.
Making Choices.
While union members (and agency fee payers) can opt out of having their dues used on politics, many do not know how to go about having their dues withheld for such purposes. However, those members who do know that they have the right to demand that their dues not be used to fund union bosses’ agenda, yet do nothing about it, are tacitly approving their union bosses tactics, as well as their goals.
Therefore, as a consumer, while there may be no choice (except at the ballot box) in supporting the government appartchik through higher taxes (which unions are pushing for), there is a choice when it comes to how to spend a buck. And, whether supporting a company whose employees fund union bosses’ political agenda, or a company whose employees do not fund a union is a matter of knowledge and choice.
Unions have boycotts, Americans can have buycotts.
Last year, in the midst of the health care debate, Whole Foods’ CEO John Mackey had the apparent temerity to write an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that offered free market-oriented alternatives to the health care debate. Rather than having his views considered, the UFCW quickly organized a boycott of Whole Foods. This was quickly countered with a Whole Foods “buycott.”
Two Votes: November 2nd and every day at the cash register.
Despite the concept of a buycott on behalf of Whole Foods having quickly taken hold, it was almost as quickly forgotten. However, the union crusade against America’s free enterprise system has not stopped.
As unions are projected to spend more than $200 million on their November 2nd Get Out the Vote efforts in order to save Democrats from defeat, that election will be over on November 3rd. Yet, every day, Americans make choices that enable unions to further their agenda, and that is at the cash register.
Here are a few examples:
Shipping:
•FedEx or UPS? There are two big shipping companies in the U.S., United Parcel Service (UPS), which is unionized by the Teamsters, and FedEx which is primarily non-union. At UPS, it is estimated that the Teamsters collect more than $10 million dollars every month in union dues. Where will you spend your money?
•YRC Trucking. Teamster-represented YRC Trucking, one of the companies lobbying for the $165 billion pension bailout and has been teetering on the brink of bankruptcy for nearly two years. Who does your company use in its LTL shipping?
Can you hear them now?
•AT&T Mobility, which supplies wireless phone service is largely unionized by the Communications Workers of America, a union attempting to get the government to fund high-speed internet as a “basic right.” Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless are among the wireless providers that are predominantly non-union.
Bagging the UFCW:
•The grocery stores are where most Americans spend a lot of their time and money. The grocery stores are also where consumers are getting more and more choices on where to shop. While there are many unionized grocers, there is also a growing number of non-union grocers as well.
The list of union versus non-union companies across most industries where consumers can make personal choices is vast. In some cases, there are even companies that are partially unionized, but also have non-union locations. But, knowing the difference is the key.
Earlier this year, Big Government blogger Liberty Chick made the case for Americans making a choice between union or non-union on her personal blog, as well as provided the resources to start discovering which companies are unionized:
Just as corrupt union bosses will shakedown companies that are not union shops, why can’t consumers do the same to put pressure on those companies that ARE corrupt union shops? If we don’t want these criminals taking over whatever remains of our shambles of an economy, we’re going to need to do it ourselves. Congress and the White House have prostituted themselves out to these pimp union bosses and it’s all gone too far for them to turn back now.
So go ahead. Take charge of it yourself. Check out this partial list of the companies (including government and other public sector employers) with labor union collective bargaining agreements registered with the Department of Labor. Look for those that employ the biggest union offenders, like SEIU, and the others in Andy Stern and Anna Burger’s Change to Win labor coalition. Then tell them you don’t appreciate their support for the same corrupt unions bosses who are taking our hard earned dollars from us and redistributing it to others, while they also get off tax-free with their Cadillac health care plans.
I started by not renewing my Verizon account (sorry to my brother in law…). And instead of food shopping at my local Change to Win supported A&P, I shopped at a different supermarket. One whose workers’ union doesn’t abuse its members’ union dues to purchase Congressional votes. One that doesn’t swindle the American people and make a mockery of our political system. Wherever I can, I’ll make that conscious choice now. And I feel better already. Perhaps we should all combine forces and do it – including you union members who yourselves are tired of the abuse and corruption. That might be the only thing strong enough to actually change anything.
Download the complete list of collective bargaining agreements in PDF
View the list online at the Department of Labor website
While unions and their allies may decry that an American “union-free buycott” of products and services offered by non-union companies hurts workers, on the whole that is misleading. While unionized companies and their workers may lose in an American union-free buycott, other Americans will be helped. Ultimately, it is the consumers choice and, if consumers choose to support the unions’ political agenda, they can. If not, then they can take their business elsewhere.
In the early 1900s, Samuel Gompers, the father of the modern American labor movement, fought both socialism and government interference in labor unions. He knew that both would eventually ruin the movement. He knew that, were unions to become too reliant on government, that the pendulum would swing and, history has proven he was right.
On November 2nd, Americans will have the choice at the polls whether or not to support unions’ political agenda. However, Americans also make that choice every day when they make the decision to buy goods and services. The question is, are you helping to fund the demise of America?
* Note: This number ($13 billion per year) is an extremely conservative estimate that only includes private-sector (not government workers). If government workers dues are included, union dues collected may actually surpass $26 billion per year.
__________________
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
Arizona Responds Angrily To United Nations Human Rights Report Submitted By Obama Regime
From Floyd Reports:
Arizona Fights Back over UN Human Rights Report
Posted on August 30, 2010 by Ben Johnson Arizona is fighting back against the Obama administration’s decision to haul her state before the United Nations Human Rights Council. Governor Jan Brewer has penned a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Friday expressing her “concern and indignation” at the administration’s report to the UN, which cited a federal lawsuit against Arizona’s immigration bill as part of its efforts to fight human rights violations. This author was the first person to report that provision of the administration’s brief.
“Apparently, the federal government is trying to make an international human rights case out of S.B. 1070 on the heels of already filing a federal court case against the State of Arizona,” the governor wrote in a line that echoed the opening of my own piece.
She rightly noted the Orwellian aspect of a sitting president appealing to a world government to quash a popular state law. “The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a State of the United States to ‘review’ by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional,” she wrote. Brewer vowed to challenge the report all the way to the UN:
I again respectfully request that you amend the Report to remove Paragraph 95 relating to the State of Arizona and S.B. 1070. If you choose not to do so, the State of Arizona will monitor the proceedings and assert any rights it has in this process. Be assured that the State of Arizona will fight any attempt by the U.S. Department of State and the United Nations to interfere with the duly enacted laws of the State of Arizona in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
A little-discussed portion of her letter pins the blame for the increased deaths of illegal aliens where it belongs: squarely on the shoulders of Barack Obama and his Open Borders allies.
The previous administration built a border fence securing the border near San Diego, California., eliminating that as a viable port of entry. Brewer noted Obama’s “failure to secure the entire border” and his decision “not to enforce major portions of our federal immigration laws” has encouraged alien traffickers to enter through the Arizona desert, leading to at least 170 dead illegals along that state’s border so far this year.
The letter challenged Hillary to compare human rights conditions in Arizona with those in member nations of the UN Human Rights Council “and publish that comparison.” We’ll be looking forward to that book, which will probably come out the same day the administration begins holding all its back room negotiations on C-SPAN.
The only thing missing in her gutsy letter is mention of the human rights violations American citizens face because of Obama’s de facto amnesty program, such as paramilitary clashes, drug trafficking, murders, increased gang activity, rampant kidnappings, sexual assaults, crime, welfare use, home invasions, overcrowded schools, hospital closures caused by soaring medical costs, job losses, bulging prison detentions, bilingual status, property damage, environmental degradation, and overburdened infrastructure.
Obama turns a blind eye to American suffering in hopes of granting amnesty to millions of poorly educated welfare recipients (or, as they’re typically known, Democratic voters).
Instead, he continues to legally harass Sheriff Joe Arpaio. On Thursday, Eric Holder gave a second ultimatum for Arpaio to participate in his own star chamber proceedings.
Brewer is standing up for her state and the whole country — and not merely on the immigration issue. Although few media outlets have covered it, I reported last week that the remainder of Obama’s report to the UN Human Rights Council establishes new categories of “rights” for the UN to enforce, including the “right” to gay “marriage” and military service, ObamaCare, card-check union registration, taxpayer-funded daycare, bilingual education, race-based voting schemes, and Affirmative Action. Three foreign nations will then draw up a plan for the United States to follow, in order to implement these “rights” — and check up on our progress four years from now, regardless of whether Barack Obama is president. The body reserves the right to “decide on the measures it would need to take in case of persistent non-cooperation.”
The Left has increasingly used foreign law to promote its agenda, which the vast majority of Americans reject. In this report, he appealed for international socialists to help foist his agenda on the American people. Glenn Beck‘s “Restoring Honor” rally and Brewer’s letter show he will succeed without a fight. I’m gratified if my reporting played some small role in this rebellion.
Arizona Fights Back over UN Human Rights Report
Posted on August 30, 2010 by Ben Johnson Arizona is fighting back against the Obama administration’s decision to haul her state before the United Nations Human Rights Council. Governor Jan Brewer has penned a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Friday expressing her “concern and indignation” at the administration’s report to the UN, which cited a federal lawsuit against Arizona’s immigration bill as part of its efforts to fight human rights violations. This author was the first person to report that provision of the administration’s brief.
“Apparently, the federal government is trying to make an international human rights case out of S.B. 1070 on the heels of already filing a federal court case against the State of Arizona,” the governor wrote in a line that echoed the opening of my own piece.
She rightly noted the Orwellian aspect of a sitting president appealing to a world government to quash a popular state law. “The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a State of the United States to ‘review’ by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional,” she wrote. Brewer vowed to challenge the report all the way to the UN:
I again respectfully request that you amend the Report to remove Paragraph 95 relating to the State of Arizona and S.B. 1070. If you choose not to do so, the State of Arizona will monitor the proceedings and assert any rights it has in this process. Be assured that the State of Arizona will fight any attempt by the U.S. Department of State and the United Nations to interfere with the duly enacted laws of the State of Arizona in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
A little-discussed portion of her letter pins the blame for the increased deaths of illegal aliens where it belongs: squarely on the shoulders of Barack Obama and his Open Borders allies.
The previous administration built a border fence securing the border near San Diego, California., eliminating that as a viable port of entry. Brewer noted Obama’s “failure to secure the entire border” and his decision “not to enforce major portions of our federal immigration laws” has encouraged alien traffickers to enter through the Arizona desert, leading to at least 170 dead illegals along that state’s border so far this year.
The letter challenged Hillary to compare human rights conditions in Arizona with those in member nations of the UN Human Rights Council “and publish that comparison.” We’ll be looking forward to that book, which will probably come out the same day the administration begins holding all its back room negotiations on C-SPAN.
The only thing missing in her gutsy letter is mention of the human rights violations American citizens face because of Obama’s de facto amnesty program, such as paramilitary clashes, drug trafficking, murders, increased gang activity, rampant kidnappings, sexual assaults, crime, welfare use, home invasions, overcrowded schools, hospital closures caused by soaring medical costs, job losses, bulging prison detentions, bilingual status, property damage, environmental degradation, and overburdened infrastructure.
Obama turns a blind eye to American suffering in hopes of granting amnesty to millions of poorly educated welfare recipients (or, as they’re typically known, Democratic voters).
Instead, he continues to legally harass Sheriff Joe Arpaio. On Thursday, Eric Holder gave a second ultimatum for Arpaio to participate in his own star chamber proceedings.
Brewer is standing up for her state and the whole country — and not merely on the immigration issue. Although few media outlets have covered it, I reported last week that the remainder of Obama’s report to the UN Human Rights Council establishes new categories of “rights” for the UN to enforce, including the “right” to gay “marriage” and military service, ObamaCare, card-check union registration, taxpayer-funded daycare, bilingual education, race-based voting schemes, and Affirmative Action. Three foreign nations will then draw up a plan for the United States to follow, in order to implement these “rights” — and check up on our progress four years from now, regardless of whether Barack Obama is president. The body reserves the right to “decide on the measures it would need to take in case of persistent non-cooperation.”
The Left has increasingly used foreign law to promote its agenda, which the vast majority of Americans reject. In this report, he appealed for international socialists to help foist his agenda on the American people. Glenn Beck‘s “Restoring Honor” rally and Brewer’s letter show he will succeed without a fight. I’m gratified if my reporting played some small role in this rebellion.
Bush's Approval Rating Higher Than Obama's In Louisiana
from The Heritage Foundation:
Why Does Louisiana Think This is Obama's Katrina?
President Barack Obama finished-up his 10-day vacation on Martha's Vineyard yesterday by flying down to New Orleans where he gave a speech at Xavier University marking the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. The President specifically linked the 2005 disaster with the region's most recent troubles telling the audience: "Even as you’ve been buffeted by Katrina and Rita, even as you’ve been impacted by the broader recession that has devastated communities across the country, in recent months the Gulf Coast has seen new hardship as a result of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill." Obama then rattled through all that has administration has done for the Gulf since the oil spill before concluding that the legacy of Katrina must be "not one of neglect, but of action; not one of indifference, but of empathy."
But if the Obama administration has treated New Orleans with action and not neglect, with empathy and not indifference, then why does the latest survey from Public Policy Polling, a liberal polling firm, show that not only do Louisianans disapprove of Obama's actions in the aftermath of the spill by a 61%-32% margin, but a majority, 54%, believe that President George W. Bush did the better job of helping Louisiana through Katrina? The answer was given by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) shortly after the President's Xavier speech when Jindal told reporters: "The experts all agree, we can end this moratorium before six months. Let’s put our people back to work."
The moratorium Gov. Jindal was referring to was President Obama's job-killing oil drilling moratorium which was put in place a full month and a half after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20. The experts Gov. Jindal were referring to was the Bipartisan Policy Center which issued a report to the President's national oil spill commission last Thursday recommending that the ban be lifted. Jindal continued:
I don’t think they understood how the energy industry worked – I think they really thought that the rigs could simply flip a switch. I hope [they] now have a better understanding of what’s at stake, the jobs that are at stake. Until they came down here, they didn’t understand the human impact in terms of the small businesses and jobs.
President Obama's oil drilling ban is set to end on November 30, but hopefully the White House will begin to show some understanding of how the Gulf economy works by ending the ban before that. But don't hold your breath. President Obama made no mention of his oil drilling ban in his Xavier speech. And the mainstream media is intent on letting him get away with it. Brian Williams interviewed President Obama for NBC News last night and asked only two questions about the oil spill and another about the economy, but made no mention of the oil ban.
The President's oil drilling moratorium aside, there's another larger lesson from both Katrina and the Deepwater spill: the federal government can better defend the homeland domestically by returning power to states and localities. For far too long states have grown dependent on FEMA for their disaster response capabilities. As we wrote in April:
In the short span of 16 years, the yearly average of FEMA declarations has tripled from 43 under President George H. W. Bush to 89 under President Clinton to 130 under President George W. Bush. In his first year, President Barack Obama issued 108 declarations—the 12th highest in FEMA history—without the occurrence of one hurricane or other major disaster. In the first three months of 2010, President Obama has issued 32 declarations, which puts him on pace for 128 declarations for the year—the sixth most in FEMA history.
There are two pernicious effects from this dependency: 1) states and localities lose their disaster response capabilities since they believe the federal government will bail them out: 2) FEMA becomes distracted by routine disasters instead of focusing their resources on truly national threats. Let’s save FEMA and its resources for the Hurricane Katrinas and place the burden of responding to routine natural disasters back in the hands of states and localities.
The Obama administration's approach to the fallout from its oil drilling ban illustrates why that local approach is a better one. Gov. Jindal explained: "In the beginning, the administration suggested people file BP claims with unemployment claims. We made it clear that people want to go back to work." Less dependency. More work. The Obama administration must end the oil ban and let Louisiana heal.
Why Does Louisiana Think This is Obama's Katrina?
President Barack Obama finished-up his 10-day vacation on Martha's Vineyard yesterday by flying down to New Orleans where he gave a speech at Xavier University marking the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. The President specifically linked the 2005 disaster with the region's most recent troubles telling the audience: "Even as you’ve been buffeted by Katrina and Rita, even as you’ve been impacted by the broader recession that has devastated communities across the country, in recent months the Gulf Coast has seen new hardship as a result of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill." Obama then rattled through all that has administration has done for the Gulf since the oil spill before concluding that the legacy of Katrina must be "not one of neglect, but of action; not one of indifference, but of empathy."
But if the Obama administration has treated New Orleans with action and not neglect, with empathy and not indifference, then why does the latest survey from Public Policy Polling, a liberal polling firm, show that not only do Louisianans disapprove of Obama's actions in the aftermath of the spill by a 61%-32% margin, but a majority, 54%, believe that President George W. Bush did the better job of helping Louisiana through Katrina? The answer was given by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) shortly after the President's Xavier speech when Jindal told reporters: "The experts all agree, we can end this moratorium before six months. Let’s put our people back to work."
The moratorium Gov. Jindal was referring to was President Obama's job-killing oil drilling moratorium which was put in place a full month and a half after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20. The experts Gov. Jindal were referring to was the Bipartisan Policy Center which issued a report to the President's national oil spill commission last Thursday recommending that the ban be lifted. Jindal continued:
I don’t think they understood how the energy industry worked – I think they really thought that the rigs could simply flip a switch. I hope [they] now have a better understanding of what’s at stake, the jobs that are at stake. Until they came down here, they didn’t understand the human impact in terms of the small businesses and jobs.
President Obama's oil drilling ban is set to end on November 30, but hopefully the White House will begin to show some understanding of how the Gulf economy works by ending the ban before that. But don't hold your breath. President Obama made no mention of his oil drilling ban in his Xavier speech. And the mainstream media is intent on letting him get away with it. Brian Williams interviewed President Obama for NBC News last night and asked only two questions about the oil spill and another about the economy, but made no mention of the oil ban.
The President's oil drilling moratorium aside, there's another larger lesson from both Katrina and the Deepwater spill: the federal government can better defend the homeland domestically by returning power to states and localities. For far too long states have grown dependent on FEMA for their disaster response capabilities. As we wrote in April:
In the short span of 16 years, the yearly average of FEMA declarations has tripled from 43 under President George H. W. Bush to 89 under President Clinton to 130 under President George W. Bush. In his first year, President Barack Obama issued 108 declarations—the 12th highest in FEMA history—without the occurrence of one hurricane or other major disaster. In the first three months of 2010, President Obama has issued 32 declarations, which puts him on pace for 128 declarations for the year—the sixth most in FEMA history.
There are two pernicious effects from this dependency: 1) states and localities lose their disaster response capabilities since they believe the federal government will bail them out: 2) FEMA becomes distracted by routine disasters instead of focusing their resources on truly national threats. Let’s save FEMA and its resources for the Hurricane Katrinas and place the burden of responding to routine natural disasters back in the hands of states and localities.
The Obama administration's approach to the fallout from its oil drilling ban illustrates why that local approach is a better one. Gov. Jindal explained: "In the beginning, the administration suggested people file BP claims with unemployment claims. We made it clear that people want to go back to work." Less dependency. More work. The Obama administration must end the oil ban and let Louisiana heal.
Beck Preaches Faith, Honor, Charity To Hundreds Of Thousands
from CNN:
Beck talks faith in rally coinciding with anniversary of King's speechBy the CNN Wire staffAugust 28, 2010 -- Updated 2341 GMT (0741 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
America today begins to turn back to God, conservative talk show host Glenn Beck tells the crowd
The "Restoring Honor" rally is unfolding on the same day and place as King's "I Have a Dream" speech
Critics say the event dishonors the civil rights movement
The Rev. Al Sharpton and other civil rights leaders are marching in a rally just a few miles away
- iReport: Whole family attends Beck rally
- Are you at the rally? Share your images
Washington (CNN) -- In what resembled more a revival than a political rally, conservative talk show host Glenn Beck urged the large crowds at his "Restoring Honor" event Saturday to "turn back to God" and return America to the values on which it was founded.
"Something beyond imagination is happening," he told participants who packed the National Mall in Washington. "America today begins to turn back to God. For too long, this country has wandered in darkness."
The rally drew fire for its timing and location.
People filled the park by the Lincoln Memorial's reflecting pool, in the shadows and echoes of the most pivotal civil rights address in America's history -- the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous "I Have a Dream" speech, which he delivered there 47 years ago.
Some of those who marched with King said Beck had usurped the day for his own political gain. The Rev. Jesse Jackson told CNN that Beck was mimicking King and "humiliating the tradition."
Other civil rights activists gathered nearby with the Rev. Al Sharpton and his National Action Network in a "Reclaim the Dream" rally. Participants marched from a high school in northwest Washington, D.C., to the site of the future Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial, just a few blocks from the Lincoln Memorial.
Video: Glenn Beck: 'Turn back to God'
Video: Palin: 'We must restore America'
Video: Conservatives disagree over Beck message
Video: Sharpton, King weigh in on Beck RELATED TOPICS
Glenn Beck
Martin Luther King Jr.
Civil Rights
Beck said the site of his rally was appropriate to reflect on the legacy of King, "the man who stood down on those stairs and gave his life for everyone's right to have a dream."
A hero to many conservative voters across the country, Beck said his rally was nonpolitical and its mission was to honor American troops.
He struck a spiritual tone throughout the day, saying his role was to wake America up to the backsliding of principles, values and most importantly, faith. Earlier, he said "God dropped a giant sandbag on his head" to push him to organize the event.
"Look forward. Look West. Look to the heavens. Look to God and make your choice," he said. "Do we no longer believe in the power of the individual? Do we no longer believe in dreams?"
Beck, keenly aware of his critics, opened the rally shortly after 10 a.m. with the national anthem and immediately drew attention to the large crowd that stretched for six city blocks from the Lincoln Memorial along the parks surrounding the reflecting pool.
"I have just gotten word from the media that there are over 1,000 people here today," Beck said sarcastically.
"We are humbled that you are here," he said. "The reflecting pool holds about 200,000 people. This field back here holds about 250- to 300,000 people. They are not only full here, they're full in that field, they're full behind me, and they are now across the street approaching the Washington Monument."
Tea Party activists from across the country attended the event.
Speakers included former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a Fox News contributor, who said she came to speak not about politics but as "something more" -- as the mother of a soldier. She said America's men and women in uniform exemplified the virtues and values of America.
"Say what you want to say about me, but I raised a combat vet and you can't take that away from me," she said to a crowd that broke out in chants of "U.S.A! U.S.A!"
She also noted the anniversary of the famous civil rights speech, saying, "We feel the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr."
"We are so honored to stand here today," Palin added.
Rally organizers said Saturday's event was not political and asked participants not to carry signs, unlike past Tea Party demonstrations. The atmosphere Saturday was almost festival-like and participants were careful to say: "We're not angry."
Sue Maliszewski of Phoenix, New York, described herself as not conservative but someone who feels that her beliefs are no longer reflected in government.
"I believe that we are dysfunctional as a country," she said.
"I believe it's hopeless unless we get back to our roots," Maliszewski added. "And that means our faith, and it means, reorganize our time. We have been so busy earning a living and raising our children that we have let different small groups overpower our opinions. And we're here to ... reclaim what's wonderful about this country."
Beck had been heavily promoting the event on his Fox News Channel program and on his radio broadcasts. He said that the timing of the rally wasn't intentional.
"It was not my intention to select 8-28 because of the Martin Luther King tie. It is the day he made that speech. I had no idea until I announced it," he said on his radio show in June, soon after the announcement of the rally.
"Whites don't own Abraham Lincoln. Blacks don't own Martin Luther King. Those are American icons, American ideas, and we should just talk about character, and that's really what this event is about. It's about honoring character," Beck said.
Alveda King, a niece of the late civil rights leader, also participated in the "Restoring Honor" rally, saying that her uncle would have approved of the event.
"If Uncle Martin could be here today, he would sure commend us of giving honor where honor is due," she told a large, cheering crowd.
King said earlier she's been accused of hijacking "the dream," but on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" on Friday night, she said "the dream" is in her genes.
"I don't have to reclaim the civil rights movement, I'm part of the civil rights movement," she said, noting her family's home and her father's church were bombed when she was younger. While the NAACP put out a cautious statement regarding the rally, there has been plenty of criticism of the event.
Lenny McAllister, an African American Republican, was asked by the Tea Party to speak at Saturday's rally but declined. He said the rally was disrespectful to the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"I cannot sit on stage and co-sign on this irresponsibility," he said. "I made sure I wore my elephant pin today. I am a proud Republican but I am also a proud African American man."
But Lloyd Marcus, another black Republican, said he supported Beck's efforts.
"Go Beck," he said. "This is a fantastic rally and the people there don't give a hoot about race."
CNN's Paul Steinhauser, Kate Bolduan and Rachel Streitfeld contributed to this report.
Here's a Town Hall slideshow:
Here are pictures from various sources on the internet:
Beck talks faith in rally coinciding with anniversary of King's speechBy the CNN Wire staffAugust 28, 2010 -- Updated 2341 GMT (0741 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
America today begins to turn back to God, conservative talk show host Glenn Beck tells the crowd
The "Restoring Honor" rally is unfolding on the same day and place as King's "I Have a Dream" speech
Critics say the event dishonors the civil rights movement
The Rev. Al Sharpton and other civil rights leaders are marching in a rally just a few miles away
- iReport: Whole family attends Beck rally
- Are you at the rally? Share your images
Washington (CNN) -- In what resembled more a revival than a political rally, conservative talk show host Glenn Beck urged the large crowds at his "Restoring Honor" event Saturday to "turn back to God" and return America to the values on which it was founded.
"Something beyond imagination is happening," he told participants who packed the National Mall in Washington. "America today begins to turn back to God. For too long, this country has wandered in darkness."
The rally drew fire for its timing and location.
People filled the park by the Lincoln Memorial's reflecting pool, in the shadows and echoes of the most pivotal civil rights address in America's history -- the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous "I Have a Dream" speech, which he delivered there 47 years ago.
Some of those who marched with King said Beck had usurped the day for his own political gain. The Rev. Jesse Jackson told CNN that Beck was mimicking King and "humiliating the tradition."
Other civil rights activists gathered nearby with the Rev. Al Sharpton and his National Action Network in a "Reclaim the Dream" rally. Participants marched from a high school in northwest Washington, D.C., to the site of the future Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial, just a few blocks from the Lincoln Memorial.
Video: Glenn Beck: 'Turn back to God'
Video: Palin: 'We must restore America'
Video: Conservatives disagree over Beck message
Video: Sharpton, King weigh in on Beck RELATED TOPICS
Glenn Beck
Martin Luther King Jr.
Civil Rights
Beck said the site of his rally was appropriate to reflect on the legacy of King, "the man who stood down on those stairs and gave his life for everyone's right to have a dream."
A hero to many conservative voters across the country, Beck said his rally was nonpolitical and its mission was to honor American troops.
He struck a spiritual tone throughout the day, saying his role was to wake America up to the backsliding of principles, values and most importantly, faith. Earlier, he said "God dropped a giant sandbag on his head" to push him to organize the event.
"Look forward. Look West. Look to the heavens. Look to God and make your choice," he said. "Do we no longer believe in the power of the individual? Do we no longer believe in dreams?"
Beck, keenly aware of his critics, opened the rally shortly after 10 a.m. with the national anthem and immediately drew attention to the large crowd that stretched for six city blocks from the Lincoln Memorial along the parks surrounding the reflecting pool.
"I have just gotten word from the media that there are over 1,000 people here today," Beck said sarcastically.
"We are humbled that you are here," he said. "The reflecting pool holds about 200,000 people. This field back here holds about 250- to 300,000 people. They are not only full here, they're full in that field, they're full behind me, and they are now across the street approaching the Washington Monument."
Tea Party activists from across the country attended the event.
Speakers included former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a Fox News contributor, who said she came to speak not about politics but as "something more" -- as the mother of a soldier. She said America's men and women in uniform exemplified the virtues and values of America.
"Say what you want to say about me, but I raised a combat vet and you can't take that away from me," she said to a crowd that broke out in chants of "U.S.A! U.S.A!"
She also noted the anniversary of the famous civil rights speech, saying, "We feel the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr."
"We are so honored to stand here today," Palin added.
Rally organizers said Saturday's event was not political and asked participants not to carry signs, unlike past Tea Party demonstrations. The atmosphere Saturday was almost festival-like and participants were careful to say: "We're not angry."
Sue Maliszewski of Phoenix, New York, described herself as not conservative but someone who feels that her beliefs are no longer reflected in government.
"I believe that we are dysfunctional as a country," she said.
"I believe it's hopeless unless we get back to our roots," Maliszewski added. "And that means our faith, and it means, reorganize our time. We have been so busy earning a living and raising our children that we have let different small groups overpower our opinions. And we're here to ... reclaim what's wonderful about this country."
Beck had been heavily promoting the event on his Fox News Channel program and on his radio broadcasts. He said that the timing of the rally wasn't intentional.
"It was not my intention to select 8-28 because of the Martin Luther King tie. It is the day he made that speech. I had no idea until I announced it," he said on his radio show in June, soon after the announcement of the rally.
"Whites don't own Abraham Lincoln. Blacks don't own Martin Luther King. Those are American icons, American ideas, and we should just talk about character, and that's really what this event is about. It's about honoring character," Beck said.
Alveda King, a niece of the late civil rights leader, also participated in the "Restoring Honor" rally, saying that her uncle would have approved of the event.
"If Uncle Martin could be here today, he would sure commend us of giving honor where honor is due," she told a large, cheering crowd.
King said earlier she's been accused of hijacking "the dream," but on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" on Friday night, she said "the dream" is in her genes.
"I don't have to reclaim the civil rights movement, I'm part of the civil rights movement," she said, noting her family's home and her father's church were bombed when she was younger. While the NAACP put out a cautious statement regarding the rally, there has been plenty of criticism of the event.
Lenny McAllister, an African American Republican, was asked by the Tea Party to speak at Saturday's rally but declined. He said the rally was disrespectful to the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"I cannot sit on stage and co-sign on this irresponsibility," he said. "I made sure I wore my elephant pin today. I am a proud Republican but I am also a proud African American man."
But Lloyd Marcus, another black Republican, said he supported Beck's efforts.
"Go Beck," he said. "This is a fantastic rally and the people there don't give a hoot about race."
CNN's Paul Steinhauser, Kate Bolduan and Rachel Streitfeld contributed to this report.
Here's a Town Hall slideshow:
Here are pictures from various sources on the internet:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)