"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men
from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
(Thomas Jefferson)

Monday, February 28, 2011

Obama's Socialism

This video speaks for itself and is exactly what we have been saying on this blog that Obama was raised around radicals, socialist, and communist. No way should he be anywhere near the White House with his background but the mainstream media and their cover-up of his past are the culprits in this saga. He was never really raised as an American but raised as a socialist/communist (remember his high school mentor was the Communist Franklin Marshall Davis who was good friends with the father of Valerie Jarrett who is currently in the White House with Obama). This video points out the facts the media decided to hide on Obama.

Obama's Socialismby Uncommon Knowledge

President Obama’s cult of personality and feel-good message of “change” allowed him to sail through the 2008 campaign without being thoroughly vetted by the press. No one took the time to delve into his past and look at his influences, his actions, or his political theory. And when something did come up, the press allowed him to skate on by rather than press him for real information (Jeremiah Wright, anyone?).

Recent guest Stanley Kurtz decided to do what the press failed to do – take an honest look at Obama’s politics. His investigation resulted in Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. In this episode, Kurtz discusses the many socialist influences in Obama’s life, from his college years to his time as a community organizer, with men such as Bill Ayers, Frank Marshal Davis, and Jeremiah Wright.

In examining Obama’s main mentors, Kurtz begins to see a clear ideology that motivates the President’s disdain for the middle class, take-no-prisoners approach to passing socialized healthcare, reluctance to discuss political theory and desire for, ultimately, a socialist revolution.

Here is the full episode, you won’t want to miss it:

Source: Big Government

Hypocrite in Chief Obama to governors: Stop vilifying public employees!

You will have to go to RCP to view the Hypocrite in Chief's video because I don't want to log on here and see a big picture of Obama.  Call it a petty but I cannot stand to listen or watch him speak.  His speeches are lectures plus I find um's and ahh's, annoying  while he looks from side to side of his teleprompter.  If I wanted a lecture, I would go sign up for a class at OU.  From Hot Air comes this gem:
Barack Obama addressed the nation’s governors today with sympathy over budgetary crises, but a warning not to solve their shortfalls by infringing on the rights of public employees.  He also scolded governors for vilifying and denigrating PEUs, which raises the question of whether Obama has bothered to look at the protests in Wisconsin and elsewhere.  Besides, the governors in question are mainly fighting to limit collective bargaining rights to a standard that the federal government prohibits for its own employees. RCP has the video.
Finally someone has figured it out that Federal Employees have NONE of the benefits of the State and Local public service union employees -- no bargaining, no striking, paying an average of $400 a month for healthcare, and 7.5% for a pension plan plus you can contribute to Thrift Savings which will be matched by the Government, or never make more than 80% in retirement if you work for 70 years.

Maybe because our family has been involved with Federal Civil Service for years that I took such a burn at the coddled public service union employees.  Too many people lumped them all together but it is vastly different at the Federal level.  If the Feds want to freeze salaries and step increases, they can do it at will.  This is the second year of no raise yet the healthcare costs went up both years -- this time by almost $60 so instead of getting any increase, there has been a decrease.  Will Obama and his people freeze health benefit payments to the insurance companies for our policies -- no way -- they made sure that OPM approved the increase in charges while no pay raise.

Kimberly Strassel pre-emptively explained the hypocrisy in her column Friday at the Wall Street Journal:

It will no doubt surprise you to learn that President Obama, the great patron of the working man, also happens to be the great CEO of one of the least union-friendly shop floors in the nation.

This is, after all, the president who has berated Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal to limit the collective bargaining rights of public employees, calling the very idea an “assault on unions.” This is also the president who has sicced his political arm, Organizing for America, on Madison, allowing the group to fill buses and plan rallies. Ah, but it’s easy to throw rocks when you live in a stone (White) house.

Fact: President Obama is the boss of a civil work force that numbers up to two million (excluding postal workers and uniformed military). Fact: Those federal workers cannot bargain for wages or benefits. Fact: Washington, D.C. is, in the purest sense, a “right to work zone.” Federal employees are not compelled to join a union, nor to pay union dues. Fact: Neither Mr. Obama, nor the prior Democratic majority, ever acted to give their union chums a better federal deal.

Scott Walker, eat your heart out.

For this enormous flexibility in managing his work force, Mr. Obama can thank his own party. In 1978, Democratic President Jimmy Carter, backed by a Democratic Congress, passed the Civil Service Reform Act. Washington had already established its General Schedule (GS) classification and pay system for workers. The 1978 bill went further, focused as it was on worker accountability and performance. It severely proscribed the issues over which employees could bargain, as well as prohibited compulsory union support.

Democrats weren’t then (and aren’t now) about to let their federal employees dictate pay. The GS system, as well as the president and Congress, sees to that. Nor were they about to let workers touch health-care or retirement plans. Unions are instead limited to bargaining over personnel employment practices such as whether employees are allowed to wear beards, or whether the government must pay to clean uniforms. These demands matter, though they are hardly the sort to break the federal bank.
Obama wants the State/Local public service unions to have rights he won't grant the Federal Employee Unions.  I, for one, in my almost 13 years with Civil Service NEVER joined a union -- waste of money and not one dime of my money was going to Democrats. 

Remember the steward in one of the directorates who was recruiting for new members in our office when one of the guys asked why would anyone join and the steward said to help fund the Democrats who look out for us.  Can still remember him launching at that time about the union and how the union members were the laziest workers in the Federal Government.  He also told the steward to walk miles around me because they were not going to allow me to be intimidated by him or any other union jerk.  That was so funny to watch that union steward get put in his place.  Never would have joined the Union but they were making sure he wouldn't come near me.  I had all of three months as a Federal employee when that happened and all these years later I still chuckle. 

Must admit I was shocked to learn about the benefits of public service union members in Wisconsin and their benefits.  For some reason I assumed that they were similar to federal employees -- not even close as the Democrats in states like Wisconsin have taken great care to coddle their public service union employees in exchange for political donations.  The gravy train is about to stop for state public service unions in Wisconsin and other States -- about time is all I can say!

Guess Union organizer is another hat this President wears but he needs to stay out of State business once and for all.  Looks like when the SEIU tells Obama to jump, he asks 'how high?'

Obama Administration Shuts Down New Oil Production in the US -- WHY?

UPDATE:  Feb 28, 2011 -- Looks like the Administration getting hammered by members of Congress, the oil producers, Governors, and consumers is starting to break up the log jam of permit approval as they approved one permit today. Do we get a second one tomorrow? Here are the details on the first deep-water well permit issued in the Gulf since the disaster. That six-month moratorium 8 1/2 months yet we still only have one permit approved by the Obama Administration for a company that was already drilling before the disaster.

US approves first deep-water well in Gulf
Feb 28, 2011

By CHRIS KAHN - AP Energy Writer
NEW YORK -- The U.S. has approved the first deep-water drilling permit in the Gulf of Mexico since last year's massive oil spill.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement announced Monday that it issued a permit to Noble Energy Inc. to continue work on a well about 70 miles southeast of Venice, La.

Noble started drilling the well four days before the Deepwater Horizon exploded. Drilling activity was suspended on June 12 under a moratorium the U.S. placed on exploration in waters deeper than 500 feet.

Excerpt:  Read more at:  The Sun
We have two scenarios at play here -- one Obama and his Administration are totally incompetent or two he is doing the bidding of someone behind him pulling the strings to tank the United States through lack of oil production. Actually both might be part of this as Obama can be easily led around as he is lazy and incompetent. We think he sees himself as a Chavez type person to lead America and stay in office forever. It is a logical conclusion since he has never met a dictator he doesn't like and loves to dis our allies.

Obama will only go after a dictator when he is backed in a corner days after an initial uprising like we witnessed in Libya. His words ring hallow around the world because he never backs up anything preferring to go off for a round of golf or shoot baskets. Does he ever work an 8-hour day?

We thought Carter was bad but Obama is much worse. This is an unstable world and we seem to have a teenager in charge who would rather play basketball, golf, or fly around on Air Force One to be told how wonderful he is at the various locations. Standing up for the public service unions in Wisconsin was a much higher priority to Obama than Libya and getting our American citizens out of the Country.

No President who cared about America and its citizens would allow our domestic oil production to tank on purpose with the increased likelihood of oil flow problems from the Middle East but Obama and his people are doing just that. Personally believe it is dereliction of duty and the oath he took as President which seems to mean nothing to the man.

He totally missed the results of the last election or he would not be continuing down this path of denying new oil production which has come to a standstill. He could care less about loss of jobs in what he considers the 'evil' oil and gas industry. News to Obama -- his windmills are proving not to be any better than his high speed rail for this Country -- both boondoggles. There is a reason that Boone Pickens pulled out of the windmill industry because he wants to make money. They are not cost effective and do not provide anywhere close to the energy needed.

Middle East Chaos Demands U.S. Oil Production By DeRoy Murdock
Our economy requires energy, and we could find more at home.
May we drill now, please?

At this writing, circumstances in the Middle East may change between this sentence and my last paragraph.


Flowing through this real-life Hieronymus Bosch canvas is the same ingredient in the paints that define his masterpieces: oil.

Petroleum futures Thursday reached $103.41 per barrel, their highest price since September 2008. Unleaded gasoline averages $3.24 per gallon — up 55 cents, year-on-year. Summer road trips may push prices higher.

Amid all of this, the Obama administration treats America’s domestic-petroleum supply like the Smithsonian’s Hope Diamond: something to be observed and admired, but not touched.

“The Bureau of Land Management has created a lot of uncertainty related to onshore leases,” says the American Petroleum Institute’s Erik Milito. “They have added redundant steps in the land-use-study process. They are adding layers that delay opportunities for oil and gas development on federal land.”

The picture at sea is no better.

“The administration has at least 40 exploration plans and 40 development plans that have not been acted upon,” Milito adds. “We understand that dozens of oil-spill-response plans require action as well. This is in addition to the environmental assessments that must now be completed for the exploration plans. They cannot approve permits to allow drilling to commence until they address those items.”

“In addition, this may be the first year since 1964 where we will not have a lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico,” Milito continues. “A recently announced supplemental environmental-impact report for the Gulf may not be ready until 2012. Holding these lease sales is critical to our economic and energy security because they provide the opportunity for long-term investments in American jobs and energy sources.”

Short-term delays can cause long-term stasis. A Wood Mackenzie study commissioned by the API found that a one-year delay in granting permits could render “sub-economic” 13 out of 25 deepwater oil and gas fields. Those 13 fields represent 2.7 billion barrels in potential oil reserves (which would satisfy about five months of U.S. demand) and 540,000 barrels of daily output. Such a loss would slash Gulf of Mexico production by 27 percent.

President Obama can bow before windmills, and Vice President Biden can cheerlead for a shiny, new, national train set. But none of that changes the fact that — like it or not — America relies heavily on oil today, for jobs, commerce, and our very existence. As bad luck would have it, oil comes mainly from an area that is as stable as a prison riot. “Precarious” barely describes America’s predicament. And yet, a huge part of the solution — domestic oil and gas — lies just beneath our feet, if only Uncle Barack would let us open the basement door and light this dormant furnace.

May we drill now, please?

Excerpt: Read More at Weekly Standard
Has Obama ever owned a car? It doesn't seem to bother him how much we have to pay for a gallon of gas or he would make sure new drilling a priority instead of bringing it to a standstill. The number of people put out of work in the oil and gas industry thanks to this Administration is huge and includes not only the workers on the rigs but also the people who supply the rigs, etc. Looks to us like he wants to tank the economies of Red State America.   If he thinks this will buy him votes, think again as people are fed up paying over $3.00 a gallon for gas knowing that Obama and his liberal cronies have shut down any new domestic oil production.   Wonder what the Teamsters of thinking of this Administration?

Since Obama didn't hear the voices from the first election on November 2nd when Republicans took the House and gained in the Senate, it is time to make our voices even louder in 2012 and evict Obama from the White House. This Country cannot afford four more years of the incompetence we are seeing out of Obama and his Administration. First thing the new President needs to do is recommend to Congress that the EPA be disbanded and put back under the Energy Secretary.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Donald Trump for President? Why Not?

Decided to take a look at this poll that just came out on an Obama/Trump match-up and am still chuckling. Maybe Trump can fire Obama like he has the interns on his reality show who don't meet the standards required for the position. If Obama had to meet the standards to be President before announcing, he never would have been able to run with his very weak resume. He wouldn't have made it past week one as an intern for Trump because he would have been expected to work.

Barack Obama barely beats business tycoon Donald Trump in a head-to-head race for the presidency.

In the Newsweek/Daily Beast poll, Obama received 43 percent of the votes, while Trump — who has announced that he is seriously considering a run for the White House in 2012 — was right behind with 41 percent.
Frankly Obama and Clinton have been lousy interns in his job as President and in her job as Secretary of State for starters. Obama came into the job with no practical experience in anything but community organizing and it shows. Only thing he made comments immediately on was the Wisconsin Senators fleeing the state and his solidarity with the public service unions. Hillary had practical experience in hiding Rose Law firm records and ... Only foreign policy experience came when she was in the White House as First Lady and showed her true colors like the famous picture of her and the terrorist Yassar Arafat's wife.

As for Libya, Obama's schedule was too heavy for him according to Carney is press secretary to have any meeting on Libya including something important like getting American citizens out of Libya. The State Department answer was to send in ferries and not talk to the Defense Department? Our State Department is run by the same type person who runs the White House -- both kumbyya types who never met a dictator they didn't like and like to dis our allies. State Department spokesman refused to acknowledge Khaddafi was a dictator. From Stephen Hayes article, 'An Administration Adrift' in this week's The Weekly Standard:

On February 15, thousands of demonstrators filled the streets of several Libyan cities demanding the departure of the strongman who has ruled the north African nation for more than four decades. The Libyan regime immediately ordered state-backed militias and mercenaries to put down the violence, with force. A bloody battle followed. As the crackdown began, and then escalated, it was early afternoon on February 16, halfway around the world in the State Department briefing room, when the Obama administration faced questions about how it regarded Muammar Qaddafi.

“Is Qaddafi a dictator?”

State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley, at the podium for his daily briefing, smiled at the question and turned his head to call on another reporter.

“Are you stumped?”

“I’m not stumped,” Crowley responded tartly.

“So what’s your answer to the question? Is he a dictator?”

Crowley smirked. “I don’t think he came to office through a democratic process.”

It wasn’t a trick question. Qaddafi has survived as the unelected leader of Libya through a combination of wanton brutality and strategic bribery. His reign has been characterized by the systematic suppression of his own people and the eager exportation of terror.

Crowley’s answer—uncertain, hesitant, and morally ambiguous—would come to symbolize the Obama administration’s response to the massacre in Libya. Within days there were numerous, credible reports that the Libyan regime was using fighter jets to strafe protesters. Regime-hired mercenaries from other African countries roamed the streets of Libyan cities exercising Qaddafi-style restraint. First they fired warning shots in the air. If that didn’t work, they fired at the ground near the protesters’ feet. And if the demonstrators still refused to disperse, the mercenaries gunned them down.
Then there is the famous quote from his new press secretary that it was a scheduling conflict. Excuse me but Obama had time to dis the Governor of Wisconsin and insert himself into a state's rights matter in Wisconsin immediately but no time to make a statement on Libya or hold a meeting on the subject? Give me a break!

Yet pressure mounted for the White House to do something or, at the very least, say something. White House press secretary Jay Carney took the podium on February 23 to answer numerous questions about Obama’s bizarre silence. When CBS News Radio’s Mark Knoller pushed Carney for a better sense of when Obama might speak on Libya, Carney explained that Obama would be meeting with Clinton that afternoon.

“This is just a scheduling issue,” Carney said. “As I said, the president will meet with Secretary of State Clinton this afternoon, his regular meeting, and they will obviously discuss Libya. We will have something to say out of that meeting, and if possible, the president will speak this afternoon or tomorrow.”
Carney came off as inept -- we thought we had seen the last of that with Scott McClellan from the Bush Administration. Robert Gibbs, the previous press secretary came across as a buffoon who liked to talk around the questions and would ignore other reporters when he didn't want to answer but the remark by Carney was one dumb remark about Obama and his scheduling conflict. Would have thought the Americans still in Libya would have been a priority since our embassy is filled with public service types but they obviously received a priority way below the public service unions in Wisconsin that the White House and DNC helped organize events.

Another F for the Obama Administration when it comes to foreign policy.

At least Donald Trump knows something about running a huge business! His resume is also quite a few inches thicker than Obama, but then most of our resumes are thicker than Obama. You won't see any of us talking about 57 states or that the United States is one of the larger Muslim countries. Makes you wonder where Obama took his history courses with comments like that!

We will support Donald Trump if he gets the Republican nomination. Would be an interesting race.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Gov Rick Perry Calls Runaway Wisconsin Lawmakers "Immature and Juvenile"

Ardmore, Oklahoma, was the destination of the Texas Democrats who pulled this trick. It not only didn't go over well in Texas but in Oklahoma, Republicans solidified their hold on the Oklahoma in 2004 after they saw what the Texas Democrats did.

We give it up to Oklahoma Democrats who are in a huge minority in the House and now a minority party in the Senate -- they don't run away. They know better than to pull a stunt like that after being in charge in Oklahoma except for two years in the House since Oklahoma became a state. Here they would not get reelected if they ran away.

To run away is so lame because you are not getting your way. Guess the Democrats cannot stand being in the minority party and not dictating. Spoiled, selfish brats comes to mind. If public service unions thinks they are gaining support with all of this, they had better think again. They make more for less hours than a lot of taxpayers make not to mention their cadillac benefits which are far superior to the federal employees. Public Service Employees paying little to nothing for healthcare versus the $400+ a month federal employees pay for the same healthcare plan. Looks like Congress is a tougher negotiator than the states.

Governor Perry is telling it like it is. Still think he should run for President in 2012 and clean up DC.

Gov Rick Perry Calls Runaway Wisconsin Lawmakers "Immature and Juvenile"
by Robert Bluey

Long before Gov. Scott Walker watched Democrats flee Wisconsin last week, a similar scenario played out in Texas when another first-term governor faced a contentious political debate.

In 2003, Gov. Rick Perry was only beginning to make his mark on the Lone Star State. Eight years later, the experience gives him a unique perspective on Walker’s situation. During an interview Friday in Washington, D.C., Perry had nothing nice to say about the 14 Wisconsin senators who ran for Illinois to prevent a quorum in the state Senate.

“Instead of respecting the democratic process, they run off and somehow or another think that’s going to be productive,” Perry said. “I don’t think it is. I think people, they look at this like, you know, the kid who takes his ball. I can’t win, I can’t play, then nobody else is going to.”

He added: “That is immature, is juvenile and at the end of the day, I’ll betcha the folks of Wisconsin, they punish those senators rather than heralding them as heroes.

Read More at Big Government

Friday, February 25, 2011

Paul Ryan Reacts to the 'Fugitive 14' Fleebaggers

Cong Ryan hit on the topic that has been bothering a lot of us from Day One of the Senators fleeing Wisconsin for Illinois. Republicans were out manned by Democrats in 2006 when they control of the House but nothing compared to 2008 when they were few in number after the disastrous 2008 election.

Did they run away when bills were passed without their being able to read them or committee hearings held without them or bills drawn up in backroom deals that they had no input. Pelosi ran the House like a dictator something that is not happening in WI since Republicans took over. Republicans continued to fight and stand for us against all odds. Occasionally some Democrats would join Republicans but even then they didn't have enough votes to stop the Pelosi Progressives. As we kept hearing 'elections have consequences' and from Obama's own mouth -- "I Won!"

Now Wisconsin Democrats are waking up to the fact that 'elections have consquences' in Wisconsin, and they don't like the fact. Yet unlike when Democrats were in charge, the Republicans have allowed the Democrats to have plenty of debate time and offer amendments. Democrats got in a snit because their amendments failed. Excuse me but that is how it works if you are in the minority.

Maybe if Democrats hadn't been in charge all of these years in Wisconsin and made sweetheart deals with public service unions, the budget of Wisconsin would be in better shape.

The funniest part of all of this is the Illinois Senator who wants to tax the runaway Democrats since they are working in IL:

“If you make a movie in Illinois, we’re going to tax you. If you’re the New England Patriots and you play at Soldier Field, we’re going to tax you,” Tryon said. “We’re going to tax these legislators just like we tax the Packers.”
Since Wisconsin and Indiana legislators have chosen to work in Illinois instead of their home states, we agree -- TAX THEM!

The best part of the video comes in the very beginning, when Rep. Paul Ryan tells the WMC Business Day audience on Wednesday that he finds the flight of the Fleebaggers “curious.” The last two years of Democratic control in Washington weren’t a lot of fun for Republicans, Ryan says, but none of them ran away from their jobs. “Elections have consequences — they won, we lost,” Ryan says. “That’s the way it works. So I just don’t understand this lack of respect for the rule of law.”

The Fleebaggers continue to insist that all they want is negotiation and debate, but according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the debate in the Assembly was the longest that anyone can remember:

As debate on the budget-repair bill begins its 48th hour, longtime Capitol figures said it was the longest in their decades of memory.

The Assembly first came in shortly before noon on Tuesday to debate Gov. Scott Walker’s bill to repeal most union rights for public workers. Dick Wheeler, the dean of the Capitol press corps who has covered the Legislature since 1972, said he had not seen such a long-running debate.

“There has never been anything since I’ve been here that’s been a continuous 48-hour debate,” Wheeler said.

Longtime legislators of both parties agreed.
After 61 hours, some Democrats in the Assembly still complained that Republicans illegitimately “cut off” debate … after 84 amendments had been held for votes, most of them defeated. It isn’t about debate, it’s about the inability to accept the fact that elections have consequences, chief among them that the minority doesn’t control the agenda. Steve Eggleston reminds people that the last budget-repair bill in Wisconsin came when Democrats controlled the legislature and a Democrat was governor — and the debate lasted 24 hours combined in both chambers with no public hearings at all.

The Fleebaggers say they’re protecting democracy, but it would appear from those measures that democracy improved when Republicans took charge. That’s one consequence Wisconsin voters should appreciate.

Update: The fortnight-long campout at the capital is now over,

Excerpt:  Read More at Hot Air

Thursday, February 24, 2011

MoveOn.Org Rally to Save the American Dream -- Oklahoma and the Other 56 'States'

When I received this in email, it came from a university professor here in Oklahoma who found this notice in his OFFICIAL email account. So now MoveOn.org is using official mail of college professors to send out their organizing for a rally for public service unions. Since when is official email addresses from a university given to an organization like MoveOn.org. I have forwarded the email to a friend who is also a State Rep to alert him what this organization is doing.

For those of you not aware, George Soros funds MoveOn.org and his oldest son, Robert, runs it through Quantum Endowment. Now Soros has thrown his weight behind the union organizing movement to demonstrate by using MoveOn.org. Does this mean that Soros is going to support a general strike that some are calling for?

Now that MoveOn.org is coming into Oklahoma and the rest of the Right to Work states to demonstrate and can tell you right now it is not going over well.  The unions overstepped starting in Wisconsin but going into bright Red States they are in for a shock.  These are the same progressives who complained about the Tea Party people organizing -- looks like they feel only 'progressives' have the right to organize.

Still cannot get over they sent out the following email to faculty at Oklahoma universities which is not there for organizing partisan events.

Rally to Save the American Dream

South Steps of the Oklahoma State Capital Building - N. Lincoln & N E 21st ST, 2300 N.Lincoln Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Saturday, February 26th, 12:00 PM

Let's keep the momentum going! Please sign up for this gathering right away!

Message from your host, Patricia M.: *Emergency Call to Action *

50-State Mobilization to Save the American Dream

Saturday, February 26 at 12pm (local time)

Calling all students, teachers, union members, workers, patriots, public servants, unemployed folks, progressives, and people of conscience:

In Wisconsin and around our country, the American Dream is under fierce attack. Instead of creating jobs, Republicans are giving tax breaks to corporations and the very rich and then cutting funding for education, police, emergency response and vital human services. The right to organize is on the chopping block. The American Dream is slipping out of reach for more and more Americans, and we have to fight back.

We call for emergency rallies in front of every state house this Saturday at 12 Noon to stand in solidarity with the people of Wisconsin. We demand an end to the attacks on workers' rights and public services across the country. We demand investment, to create decent jobs for the millions of people who desperately want to work. And we demand that the rich and powerful pay their fair share.

After decades of stagnant wages and a crushing recession, this latest assault on the American way of life is one the middle class cannot endure.

We are all Wisconsin.

We are all Americans.


Share this event on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=165577953490982

YES! I'll be there!

* = required

Name: *
Email: *
City: *


Zip: *

I will: (optional)

Help out before, during, or after the event.
I'm a public employee and am willing to speak.
I'm willing to speak.
I have a phone that can take photos or video of the event.
Message to host (optional):

REQUIRED: I agree to the Ground Rules.

We think we may have found the '57' states that Obama referenced when he was running for office. Was he planning on making these territories states:
Puerto Rico, American Samoa, American Azores, Federated States of Micronesia Marshall Islands, Marshall Islands, Northern Mariana Islands,and the Virgin Islands.
We don't see the District of Columbia ever being a state the way it was set up originally but could Obama been out looking for votes in the seven territories by making them states? MoveOn.org includes them and some others.

When you hit the pull down tab for States at MoveOn.org all these states come up and I am asking myself what state has that abbreviation?

Had no idea why AA and AE which appears four times are listed but we just found out:
AA Armed Forces Americas (except Canada); AE Armed Forces Africa;
AE Armed Forces Canada; AE Armed Forces Europe; AE Armed Forces Middle East
They left out AP Armed Forces Pacific so they don't count to the folks at MoveOn.org.

After those, you see AS, FM, GU, MH, MP, PR, PW, VI plus the District Columbia which is the only one that  always appears with the other 50 on pull down menus. Seven listed we knew like American Samoa, Guam, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands, but have not heard of Palau.

Now we know that MoveOn.org is organizing events even in the territories and the Armed Forces for public service employees.  Soros is reaching around the world with this one.

Take a look at a few the organizations sponsoring this event:
Media Matters -- A non-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative media

Sierra Club, Energy Action Coalition, and Green for All -- What do they have to do with public service unions?
National People's Action -- Direct action community organizing for neighborhoods across the US.

Campus Progress -- Trains and supports the next generation of young progressive leaders.
My guess is the last group are the ones responsible for finding the email addresses of faculty members.  When you look at all the organizations behind this effort above, you realize this is all about campaign contributions to democrats and making sure they are in the majority.  Bottom line is forget the taxpayers and support the unions in order to elect more democrats to give unions more benefits.

American taxpayers have had enough of these coddled bunch of public service employees especially a lot of the union teachers whose students continue to perform at a low level but the unions protect them.  As long as we have teacher's unions, no amount of money is going to fix education. 

We The People spoke loud and clear in 2010, but it is obvious that Progressives didn't hear us so we need to speak even louder in 2012 and defeat Obama and the Democrats who vote for his agenda -- the American taxpayers deserve no less.

Still stunned they are organizing in Oklahoma, the reddest of the red states!

Republicans need a candidate for President with a backbone who is not afraid to stand up to the unions and the Federal Government.

Gov Perry are you listening?

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Michael Barone: Public unions force taxpayers to fund Democrats

How many people would have chosen FDR over Reagan when asked who was one of the greatest 20th century Presidents against unions for public employees who have civil service protection? Certainly not me!

That's why one of the great 20th century presidents was against unions for public employees who have civil service protections. No, not Ronald Reagan. It was Franklin Roosevelt who said, "Action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable."
Those words are as true today as when FDR said them. Looks like the Democrats rewrote history about FDR as well as everything else.

This article from Michael Barone clearly explains what a lot of us have been complaining about -- union dues from public service unions go to fund Democrat candidates from President to the local governments. They are funding their Democrat candidates to get more benefits and higher pay. There is something unseemly about that and is an affront to the taxpayers.

Stimulus money made sure states wouldn't lay off workers and now that is time to pay up health benefits and pensions for those who were kept on the job thanks to Obama/Pelosi stimulus, states are nearly bankrupt. Those employees should have been laid off.

Then you can add health benefits for some state legislatures like Oklahoma who only work officially for 60 days from February to end of May but their health benefits are paid like they are a full time state employees for the year.

Public unions force taxpayers to fund Democrats
By: Michael Barone 02/22/11 8:05 PM
Senior Political Analyst

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker walks away after talking to the
media at the state Capitol in Madison, Wis., Monday, Feb. 21,
2011. Opponents to the governor's bill to eliminate collective
bargaining rights for many state workers are in the 7th day of
protests at the Capitol.-Andy Manis/AP

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker walks away after talking to the media at the state Capitol in Madison, Wis., Monday, Feb. 21, 2011.

Opponents to the governor's bill to eliminate collective bargaining rights for many state workers are in the 7th day of protests at the Capitol.-Andy Manis/APEveryone has priorities. During the past week Barack Obama has found no time to condemn the attacks that Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi has launched on the Libyan people. 

But he did find time to be interviewed by a Wisconsin television station and weigh in on the dispute between Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the state's public employee unions. Walker was staging "an assault on unions," he said, and added that "public employee unions make enormous contributions to our states and our citizens."

Enormous contributions, yes -- to the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign. Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle.

Follow the money, Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party.

So, just as the president complained in his 2010 State of the Union address about a Supreme Court decision that he feared would increase the flow of money to Republicans, he also found time to complain about a proposed state law that could reduce the flow of money to Democrats.

And, according to the Washington Post, to get the Democratic National Committee to organize protests against the proposed Wisconsin law. Protests that showed contempt for the law, with teachers abandoning classrooms, doctors writing phony medical excuses, Democratic legislators fleeing the state and holing up in a motel. The lawmakers played hooky without losing any salary, which is protected by the state constitution.

It's true that Walker's proposals would strike hard at the power of the public employee unions. They would no longer have the right to bargain for fringe benefits, which are threatening to bankrupt the state government, and they would no longer be able to count on government withholding dues money and passing it along to them.

But what are the contributions that public employee unions make to our states and our citizens? Their incentives are to increase the cost of government and reduce down toward zero the accountability of public employees -- both contrary to the interests of taxpaying citizens.

An argument can be made that higher pay, generous benefits and lavish pensions will attract better people to public employment. But where are the studies that show that citizens of states with strong public employee unions get better services than citizens in states without?

What citizens of states with strong public employee unions do get are higher taxes and enormous pension burdens that threaten to squeeze out funds for ongoing services, as even Democratic governors like Andrew Cuomo of New York and Jerry Brown of California have figured out.

Excerpt:  Read more at the Washington Examiner

A strong argument in favor of Right to Work (featuring F.A. Hayek)

Yesterday on the Washington Examiner site, Timothy Carney defended Gov Mitch Daniels (R-IN) on his comments now is not the time to consider Right to Work. That was one of those 'are you kidding' moments. This morning it seems that a lot of people had the same reaction to his post in favor of no Right to Work. Kudos to Carney for listening and this morning posting a rebuttal to his comments which explains why Right to Work is a state's rights issue and only thing a Governor has to combat the Federal Labor laws which favor the unions. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is a nightmare for the states.

Here are his comments about his post yesterday and then the rebuttal which explains in detail what Right to Work is all about and how it affects our states. We have not excerpted as we normally do as we wanted everyone to view the full response to Carney's being against Right to Work.

A strong argument in favor of Right to Work (featuring F.A. Hayek)
By: Timothy P. Carney 02/23/11 8:44 AM
Senior Political Columnist

I got plenty of responses yesterday to my blog post on Right to Work laws. My friend Loren Smith wrote up a clear and thoughtful retort -- in which he marshalls F.A. Hayek to his side -- and so I'm posting it below.

In short, the strongest argument for Right to Work laws seems to be that federal law so distorts the management-labor relationship that RTW is the best a state government can do to counterbalance the federal intrusion. Below the fold is Smith's argument:

Right to Work Legitimacy: A Response to Tim Carney

The Indiana legislature is engaged in a fierce confrontation to determine if the Hoosier State will become the 23rd Right to Work state. Essentially, a Right to Work (RTW) law allows workers in a unionized shop to opt out of both dues-paying and membership in the union, although even under such a law the federal government still considers the union the collective bargaining agent for that worker. Republican legislators pushing the Indiana proposal argue that the current regulatory framework is an impediment to prosperity for both employees and employers. Meanwhile, unions argue that workers do better under their aegis, and the GOP is simply doing the bidding of their corporate paymasters to gut the unions.

Tim Carney wrote a provocative blog post yesterday in the Examiner. He asserted that even though the mainstream of self-identified free-market conservatives support RTW laws, the opt-out afforded to workers constitutes a government regulation on companies prohibiting them from reaching exclusivity arrangements with a union, and thus RTW laws are contrary to the free market.

Under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also called the Wagner Act, unions operate effectively as government-sponsored enterprises. Unlike normal private organizations, unions are empowered by the government to compel a company to form an association with them if a majority of employees vote to join the union.

Early on, opponents of the NLRA felt that it violated the First Amendment right of free association, as the corollary has long been established that one not only has the right to free association with another party under the Constitution, but also has the right not to associate with a given party. In this case, the company is compelled to form a contract arrangement with the victorious union, supervised by the National Labor Relations Board. The Supreme Court implicitly acknowledged the First Amendment critique of the NLRA by promulgating a compartmentalization of labor law that effectively insulated it from judicial review, a state of affairs that continues to this day.

With companies required under law to do business with the union, contracts can take months and even sometimes years to hammer out, but do eventually come into force, at which point the company and the union have an association that is essentially permanent, with union decertifications extremely difficult for workers or employers to force.

Perhaps also of interest to readers of a free-market bent, no less a figure than Friedrich von Hayek endorsed Right to Work laws in his 1960 work, The Constitution of Liberty (page 279, and reprinted on page 92 of A Tiger by the Tail: The Keynesian Legacy of Inflation, where I located the full quote):

If legislation, jurisdiction, and the tolerance of executive agencies had not created privileges for the unions, the need for special legislation concerning them would probably not have arisen in common-law countries. But, once special privileges have become part of the law of the land, they can be removed only by special legislation. Though there ought to be no need for special 'right-to-work laws,' it is difficult to deny that the situation created in the United States by legislation and by the decisions of the Supreme Court may make special legislation the only practicable way of restoring the principles of freedom.

Footnote: Such legislation, to be consistent with our principles, should not go beyond declaring certain contracts invalid, which is sufficient for removing all pretext to action to obtain them. It should not, as the title of the 'right-to-work laws' may suggest, give individuals a claim to a particular job, or even (as some of the laws in force in certain American states do) confer a right to damages for having denied a particular job, when the denial is not illegal on other grounds. The objections against such provisions are the same as those which apply to 'fair employment practices' laws. [Emphasis added in bold. Reference link here.]

Carney and others have commented elsewhere that the proper free-market solution might be to simply repeal the entire NLRA. This is an interesting idea, if presently unworkable given the composition of Congress, but it begs the question of what state legislatures are to do. They are not empowered to undo federal laws; but they are empowered to allow workers to opt out of union membership and the dues that go with it.

Loren A. Smith, Jr. is an analyst for Capital Alpha Partners, LLC, and previously served as Special Assistant for Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of Labor.

Read more about this subject at the Washington Examiner

Tuesday, February 22, 2011


Source:  http://www.tobytoons.com/td/

Democrats trigger Statehouse showdown -- Indiana this Time!

Guess Democrats don't like what happened in the 2010 elections when they lost control of a lot of State Houses along with the Governor's Offices. In 2008, the Democrats told Republican to get over it starting with Obama and his "I won" -- now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats are running away from their elected duties this time in Indiana.

A source said Democrats are headed to Illinois, though it was possible some also might go to Kentucky. They need to go to a state with a Democratic governor to avoid being taken into police custody and returned to Indiana....

House Minority Leader B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, “has taken a page out of the Wisconsin Senate playbook apparently” by keeping his caucus in hiding, Bosma said. “They are shirking the job that they were hired to do.”
Now when Democrats don't like something they go into hiding rather than confront the fact they are no longer in charge of the agenda. What a bunch of self-serving, union influenced Democrat elected members of the Indiana House. 'Working hard' is being in the House not in hiding.

Obama and his friends at the DNC started this with using his campaign group, Organizing for America, SEIU, and other Democrats in Wisconsin and now it is spreading. Yesterday he tried to disavow his involvement but his own words and actions speak otherwise. He cannot even tell the truth that he backs the Public Service Unions 100%. He acts like he is in charge of unions not the President as he interferes in states issues where he has no business.  Remember this union President in 2012 and send him back to Chicago, Hawaii or wherever as long as it is not in the White House.

Imagine not wanting non-union members to have to pay a fee for the union to represent them. This is all about money for the unions and how much they have to put into the pockets of Democrats in the elections.

What group of state legislators are going to runaway next shirking their duties as elected officials?

Democrats trigger Statehouse showdown10:57 AM, Feb. 22, 2011
Mary Beth Schneider

House Democrats are leaving the state rather than vote on anti-union legislation, The Indianapolis Star has learned.


The House was came into session this morning, with only two of the 40 Democrats present. Those two were needed to make a motion, and a seconding motion, for any procedural steps Democrats would want to take to ensure Republicans don’t do anything official without quorum.

With only 58 legislators present, there was no quorum present to do business. The House needs 67 of its members to be present.

Rep. Terri Austin, D-Anderson, told House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, that Democrats “continue to be in caucus” to discuss potential amendments to several bills.

Bosma said he was “flummoxed,” adjoured until noon, and labor union members watching in the gallery and hallway outside cheered the work stoppage.

Today’s fight was triggered by Republicans pushing a bill that would bar unions and companies from negotiating a contract that requires non-union members to kick-in fees for representation. It’s become the latest in what is becoming a national fight over Republican attempts to eliminate or limit collective bargaining.


Asked at what point he would call in the Indiana State Police to attempt to round up the Democrats, Bosma said: “We’ll see how the day goes.”

Gov. Mitch Daniels had said he supports the policy his party is pursuing in this legislation, but said earlier that this is not the year to do it with so many other critical legislation in the works, including his education reform agenda.

Bosma said he spoke to Daniels and said the governor is “very supportive of our position to come in and try to do our work. He was not pleased that the Democrats weren’t here to do their work. And like me is just waiting to see how the course of the day proceeds.”

Austin told reporters that “it doesn’t matter where they (Democrats) are at this point. What matters is that they’re trying to figure out a way to save the state from this radical agenda.”

Asked if they were in the state, Austin said only: “They’re working hard.”


Excerpt: Read more at IndyStar.com

George Will: Out of Wisconsin, a lesson in leadership for Obama

Public Service Unions are fighting for their lives in Wisconsin and elsewhere while Obama has thrown them under the bus like he had nothing to do with any of this which is one big fat LIE! He has been involved with SEIU and ACORN since his days as a community organizer. All of the public service unions are there for union dues that they then pour into Democrat political campaigns. What benefits do their provide their union members except to protect mediocre and poor employees while lining the coffers of the union management and the Democrats?

No public service entity should be allowed to strike and if they do, then follow the lead of President Ronald Reagan and fire them like he did the Air Traffic Controllers.

Out of Wisconsin, a lesson in leadership for Obama
By George F. Will
Monday, February 21, 2011; 8:00 PM


Hitherto, when this university town and seat of state government applauded itself as "the Athens of the Midwest," the sobriquet suggested kinship with the cultural glories of ancient Greece. Now, however, Madison resembles contemporary Athens.

Serene at the center of this storm sits Republican Scott Walker, 43, in the governor's mansion library, beneath a portrait of Ronald Reagan. Walker has seen this movie before.

As Milwaukee County executive, he had similar dust-ups with government workers' unions, and when the dust settled, he was resoundingly reelected, twice. If his desire to limit collective bargaining by such unions to salary issues makes him the "Midwest Mussolini" - some protesters did not get the memo about the new civility - other supposed offenses include wanting state employees to contribute 5.8 percent of their pay to their pension plans (most pay less than 1 percent), which would still be less than the average in the private sector. He also wants them to pay 12.6 percent of the cost of their health care premiums - up from about 6 percent but still much less than the private-sector average.

He campaigned on this. Union fliers distributed during the campaign attacked his "5 and 12" plan. He says his brother, a hotel banquet manager, and his sister-in-law, who works at Sears, "would love to have" what he is offering the unions.

For some of Madison's graying baby boomers, these protests are a jolly stroll down memory lane. Tune up the guitars! "This is," Walker says, "very much a '60s mentality."

He does, however, think there is sincerity unleavened by information: Many protesters do not realize that most worker protections - merit hiring; just cause for discipline and termination - are the result not of collective bargaining but of Wisconsin's uniquely strong and century-old civil service law.

"I am convinced," he says, "this is about money - but not the employees' money." It concerns union dues, which he wants the state to stop collecting for the unions, just as he wants annual votes by state employees on re-certifying the unions. He says many employees pay $500 to $600 annually in union dues - teachers pay up to $1,000. Given a choice, many might prefer to apply this money to health care premiums or retirement plans. And he thinks "eventually" most will say about the dues collectors, "What do we need this for?"

Such unions are government organized as an interest group to lobby itself to do what it always wants to do anyway - grow. These unions use dues extracted from members to elect their members' employers. And governments, not disciplined by the need to make a profit, extract government employees' salaries from taxpayers. Government sits on both sides of the table in cozy "negotiations" with unions.

Excerpt: Read More at Washington Post

Doctor Excuses -- ON DEMAND!

Source:  TobyToons

Obama: I will 'paint the nation purple with SEIU'

This video discussed on American Thinker was discovered by Breitbart tv » Uncovered Video Obama Leads SEIU Chant After Vowing to Paint the Nation Purple

It is shocking to watch Obama on this video and then hear the claims of the White House after they supported the unions in Wisconsin say they didn't as we brought out on here yesterday. Watch the video and ask yourself how this man got elected President.

February 21, 2011
Obama: I will 'paint the nation purple with SEIU'
Andrew Thomas

After viewing the video below we can now say with certainty which side President Obama is on concerning the Wisconsin public union protests. Mr. Obama is not a public union supporter, he is their national leader. This is rapidly becoming a nationwide manufactured "crisis", as orchestrated by SEIU and Obama's Organizing for America. Is this what he meant when he said he would make us a nation of purple states?

Source: American Thinker

Monday, February 21, 2011

So now after Obama and the DNC supported and encouraged the Union protestors to go after Governor Walker and the Republicans including the runaway Democrat Senators, we have this spin coming out today:

White House now disavowing involvement in Wisconsin protests

The Obama admin must be seeing some polls that look even worse than Rasmussen’s. Doug Ross has both the new WH denial that it’s involved, and the evidence that they forgot about putting out last week, bragging that they are involved. But hey, that was Thursday, this is Monday. That’s practically a lifetime.
We have also have the liberal media who was backing Obama, the DNC, and the union thugs that rampaged through the State Capitol Building, and the union protestors who called in sick and got phoney doctor's slips against Governor Walker. In one fell swoop he has tossed the union protestors, media, and Democrat runaway Wisconsin Senators under the bus. When they going to learn that Obama has no core values and may be worse than Clinton when it comes to throwing someone under the bus. He doesn't care who he leaves in his wake as long as he looks better. In this case, he gets an "F" for trying to use this situation for his political purposes.

This paragraph from the article shows the length Obama will go for his reelection campaign. He has zero ethics to go with zero integrity. In the end this type of action will come back to bite and bite hard. Obama and his campaign's Organizing for America worked in close coordination to make this happen. Guess Obama still hasn't heard of the 10th Amendment and if he has, he will continue to ignore. What a poor excuse for a President.

The Wisconsin political blitzkrieg on Gov. Walker was not a spontaneous eruption. It is now clear that it was a highly organized operation planned in Washington, D.C., to unleash a national counterattack on the gains made by Republicans and Tea Party activists. Getting OFA and the president to act in close coordination was itself no small feat. The plan included busing in thousands of government employees, arranging for Democratic lawmakers to flee to an adjoining state, flying speakers and political organizers into Madison, organizing thousands to leave their jobs in public safety and in classrooms, and staging rallies inside and outside the statehouse. They even enticed sympathetic doctors to draft bogus doctor excuses for government workers.
In the end all of this support by the White House, DNC, and media most likely be putting nails in the union coffins in more states than in Wisconsin as taxpayers across America are fed up with the coddled public service union employees.

Government workers are demonstrating here in Oklahoma today for better pay while they have the day off for President's Day -- they are an association not a union. How about less state employees? Try and get a State Agency to help if you have a problem.

Under the former Democrat Governor the unemployment website to file a weekly claim would just 'happen to go down' every time an unemployment report was due to in DC. You couldn't file for several days so the weekly pay was late. Am I inferring that it was done on purpose -- no, I am saying it outright and one reason why I think the unemployment numbers are suspect.

With pay raises on hold for federal civil service and social security why should any state employee get a raise? They always cite surrounding states here but it is cheaper to live in Oklahoma. If they don't like the pay, get another job.

This is a must read article on how this all came about in hopes it would boost Obama's political campaign in 2012. Same tone deaf Obama who never understood how so many voters went against the Democrats in 2010 as he campaigned for people like Feingold who lost in Wisconsin. Obama is politically tone deaf and looks like the people around him are as well.

Don't think George Allen has to worry if Kaine who heads the DNC decides to run for VA Senate. This was a gross miscalulation on the part of the DNC as well as Obama.

Why Obama and the Dems Blundered in Wisconsin
Another stunning political miscalculation. (Also read: "White House now disavowing involvement in Wisconsin protests.")
February 21, 2011 - by Richard Pollock

It is becoming clear that the Wisconsin battle was a strategic political blunder for President Obama and the Democratic Party. The decision by the Democratic Party and its allies to draw a line in the sand in Wisconsin was the wrong strategy, in the wrong state, at the wrong time, on the wrong issue, and executed in the wrong way.

The White House, which for the last two years seemed so tone deaf over health care, jobs, and the economy, may again be displaying a stunning political miscalculation. Unless the Democrats pull the plug on their ill-conceived Wisconsin campaign, the statewide and national backlash now beginning to emerge may continue to resonate all the way to the 2012 presidential elections.

It will take time to unearth exactly who designed and sold the Wisconsin strategy to the president. But what is emerging is that the White House may have developed two strategies for 2011, not one. The first track, clear to us all, was for the president to tack to the right on the national stage, seek the statesmanlike high road, and negotiate deals with national Republicans.

The second strategy, now emerging, was to pick a target outside the beltway that could serve as a broad political narrative, attack it, nationalize it, and use it to rally Obama’s demoralized political base. It was a bold strategy. They chose Madison, Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker’s budget-tightening initiative, and his effort to rein in public employee unions. They further decided to let loose angry union members serve as shock troops. Wisconsin would be the first test case, which would be replicated in other states, including Ohio, Indiana, and Idaho.

The plan seems to have been born both within the war room of the Democratic National Committee and within the Oval Office. The overall coordination for the operation was the remnants of the president’s 2008 political campaign organization, Organizing for America (OFA). The strategy would be launched by the DNC and by the president, who, during the height of the Egyptian crisis, incongruously granted an exclusive interview to a Milwaukee TV reporter over union policy. While Cairo burned, he took time to decry a Wisconsin governor’s effort to rein in the budget and limit union benefits. Shaping the narrative for the attack, he said that Gov. Scott Walker’s effort “seems like more of an assault on unions.”


It all worked like a charm. Except that it struck all the wrong notes and portrayed all the wrong images. There is nothing more unseemly that to see a president serve as healer in Tucson and a political hack in Madison.

For in the end, the images and messages tell the story. The showdown in Madison pits pampered public employees against hard-pressed taxpayers. It portrays union workers as an angry mob against those seeking orderly legislative deliberation. It paints Democratic lawmakers as outlaws on the run, undermining the democratic process. It launched a national debate about the generous salaries and benefits for government workers during a time of economic shortages. And it showcased school teachers who abandoned their children in favor of narrow, partisan political gain.

This is a bad unraveling of a political campaign.

Excerpt: Read More at Pajamas Media

The more you read about this being a political calculation by Obama and the DNC the madder you get. People like the Tea Party Express better think long and hard before they take on any Republican incumbent and cost us any seat like they did in the last election when we could have had more Senate seats.

Please sign the MRC Petition to Create a Bias-Free Media Environment!

These three articles tell the story of the liberal media bias:

Nets Champion Wisconsin Public Employees 'Rising Up' in 'Mutiny' Against 'Extreme Cuts'

CBS Host's False Attack on Wisconsin Governor Falls Flat

ABC's One-Sided Take on Wisconsin Protests Includes an Interview With Top Secret, Hidden Democrat
Any first year journalism student should be able to rip these articles apart for their liberal bias. Actually anyone with a brain who thinks could do the same. The bias in favor of the Wisconsin Unions and Obama and against the Republican Governor are way over the top.

We thank the Media Research Center for providing us the details and ask you to consider signing their petition today to 'Create a Bias-Free Media Environment! It is time the so-called journalist of the news outlets live up to their obligation as members of the media instead of being a mouthpiece for Obama, Democrats, and the Unions.

MRC Petition to Create a Bias-Free Media Environment!

Demand the Media Stop Serving as a Mouthpiece for President Obama

The liberal media have become President Obama’s megaphone -- eagerly applauding his every move and repeating his talking points on everything from ObamaCare to his massive spending plans to government takeovers to the rest of statist proclivities. Beyond parroting the White House line on every national and international issue and event, the liberal media hide any story that exposes the many failures of this administration. The liberal media have no intention of truthfully reporting the news. Their goal is to discredit the opposition while dutifully and passionately reciting Obama’s liberal mantra as if it were news -- propagandizing in an attempt to reshape the political opinions of unwary Americans.

With our liberty and way of life in peril, the Media Research Center, the nation’s largest and most respected liberal media watchdog, is boldly moving forward to confront and defeat the unholy alliance between President Obama and the liberal media and demand objectivity and balance in news reporting.

In the weeks and months ahead, the MRC will leverage its formidable media resources and proactive grassroots members to expose and neutralize President Obama’s stranglehold on the liberal media.

The Petition States:

As a citizen of the United States, I am signing this petition to show my commitment with the Media Research Center to break President Obama’s unhealthy alliance with the Liberal Media that is threatening to undermine and destroy the foundation of our nation. I expect the news media to hold the President accountable for his actions and his policies rather than actively promoting them. Left unchecked and unchallenged, the liberal media will continue to manipulate the nation into supporting President Obama’s big-government, tax-and-spend, spread-the-wealth agenda to the detriment of our liberty and our economic freedom.

I demand the media stop serving as a mouthpiece for President Obama and I stand with the MRC in support of their efforts to expose and neutralize this deceptive and dishonest alliance.
Please Click Here to sign the petition.

We believe vast majority of the liberal media journalists completely ignore the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics. If they adhered to the principles, this petition would not be necessary.

SPJ Code of EthicsDownload a printable copy [PDF]

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.
Read more at SPJ Code of Ethics

Starting with the Preamble above, the liberal media ignores their responsibility as part of Freedom of the Press something an ethical journalist would care about. The lack of ethics in today's media is alarming as they continue to cover one side of an event and are some of the most biased journalist ever. Before we had some biased reporting like those reporting for the Hearst newspapers before the Spanish American War but then came the Vietnam War and journalists like Dan Rather took center stage. It has been downhill ever since at the broadcast news organizations until today when a journalist reports facts, it shocks you.

Once again, please sign the petition and let's put the liberal media on notice that the American people have had it with biased liberal reporting.  In fact we don't want biased conservative reporting either.  We want the facts of the situation as we are more than capable of making up our own minds which side we are on without some unethical journalist telling us how to think.

Rogers: CR is a "Monumental Accomplishment" for American Taxpayers

Details have emerged about H.R.1, Continuing Resolution, for FY11 that was passed early Saturday morning. Decided the best source was to go directly to the site of the Chair Harold Rogers of the House Appropriations Committee and found this press release that details the cuts.

It was a free wheeling 60 hours of debate with 580 amendments submitted of which 67 amendments were passed adding an additional $620 million in savings. The amendments were accepted from both sides of the aisle something that has been missing under the four years of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker as their bills were done behind closed doors and brought to the floor with little or no debate or amendments allowed and then passed.

We want to point out that Rep Dan Boren (D-OK) has an amendment that was in this bill that was passed BUT he voted against the continuing resolution in lockstep with Pelosi. Didn't take him long to get back on the Pelosi bandwagon. Is he going to continue to vote with Pelosi or go back to being the independent Congressman that has served him so well?

This one paragraph in this press release is probably one the reason the Democrat leadership was all over the Sunday Morning Talk Shows saying the Republicans want to shut down Government on March 4th as they didn't like the ball being in their court:

“So that we can promptly continue our regular budgetary work for this year, the House, Senate, and White House must come together to complete this process before March 4th – when our current funding measure expires. It is critically important that we move this CR, avoid a government shutdown, and get spending cuts passed by the Congress and signed by the President. The American people expect no less,” Rogers said.
This is not 1994 as our economy is in the tank and the deficit continues to grow thanks to the runaway spending of the last two years under Obama. The American people want the cuts and no amount of spin by the media and the Democrats is going to change that. This time the majority of American voters are going to blame the Democrats for not being willing to make the necessary cuts to start to right the ship.

Stay tuned as this should get interesting in the days ahead as we follow what the Senate is going to do. Will the Senate and Obama allow a Government shutdown? Time will tell!
Rogers: CR is a “Monumental Accomplishment” for American Taxpayers
WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers today praised the passage of H.R.1, the Continuing Resolution (CR). The legislation includes funding to continue federal government operations for the rest of the 2011 fiscal year, while making the largest single discretionary spending cut in the history of the nation.

“This bill is a monumental accomplishment for each and every American who believes that their government is spending too much. It dramatically scales back the size and scope of domestic government programs, eliminates $100 billion in spending compared to what the President asked for last year, and will mark the beginning of a new trend of reductions that will take place throughout the next year.

“We held no program harmless from our spending cuts, and virtually no area of government escaped this process unscathed. While these choices were difficult to make, we strived to spread the sacrifice fairly, weeding out waste and excess, with a razor-sharp focus on making the most out of every taxdollar.

“My Republican Committee members and I promised to slash spending and to help reduce our nation’s dangerous levels of deficits and debt so that our economy can grow and businesses can create jobs. This bill does just that,” Rogers said.

In addition to spending cuts, the legislation also contains multiple provisions to stop harmful regulations or programs that would hurt the nation’s economy and inhibit the ability of American businesses to create jobs, such as onerous EPA “greenhouse gas” regulations, the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility application process, and the Obama Administration’s health care reform act.

“The hand of government has reached too far into Americans’ everyday lives, hindering our freedoms and impairing our economic recovery. This legislation will help stop harmful regulations, misguided laws, and over-reaching bureaucracies to allow our businesses to create jobs and our economy to thrive,” Rogers said.

This legislation will now go to the Senate for a vote. If the CR is not enacted before the current funding measure’s deadline of March 4th, Congress must pass another short-term funding resolution or else risk a government-wide shutdown.

“So that we can promptly continue our regular budgetary work for this year, the House, Senate, and White House must come together to complete this process before March 4th – when our current funding measure expires. It is critically important that we move this CR, avoid a government shutdown, and get spending cuts passed by the Congress and signed by the President. The American people expect no less,” Rogers said.

The CR was considered in an historic and unprecedented open process on the House floor that included more than 580 amendments offered by both parties and a grueling 60-plus hours of public debate. Of these amendments, 67 were accepted or passed, changing the underlying legislation and reflecting the fair representation of the American people. In all, the successful amendments included more than $620 million in additional spending cuts.

“For first time after years of closed-door Democrat control, the House was able to work its will in an open and transparent fashion in full view of the American people. Hundreds of amendments were considered, the debate offered everyone a chance to be heard, and the legislation now contains changes that reflect the many varied interests of families, communities, and businesses across the country. I am proud that the House has returned to a regular and fair democratic process, and look forward to continuing this effort throughout the Appropriations process this year,” Rogers said.

A list of the successful amendments to the CR (H.R. 1) follows:

· An amendment by Rep. Rooney (R-FL) to eliminate $450 million in funding for the Alternate Engine, produced by GE-Rolls Royce, for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

· An amendment by Rep. Michaud (D-ME) to transfer $80 million from the Census Bureau to the Economic Development Administration, an agency within the Department of Commerce.

· An amendment by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to eliminate $34 million in funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center, a component of the Department of Justice that provides drug-related intelligence, training and support.

· An amendment by Rep. Holt (D-NJ) to ensure that the Department of Justice continues funding the National Instant Criminal Background Check at the current level of $20 million.

· An amendment by Rep. Weiner (D-NY) to transfer $298 million from NASA Cross Agency Support to the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program.

· An amendment by Rep. McClintock (R-CA) to eliminate $1.9 million in funding from the Bureau of Reclamation.

· An amendment by Rep. Pascrell (D-NJ) to transfer $510 million from the research and development programs of the Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology program to increase funding for Firefighter SAFER grants, which use federal resources for hiring local firefighters.

· An amendment by Rep. Burton (R-IN) to eliminate $2 million in funding from the Bureau of Land Management for holding pens created for wild horses and burros.

· An amendment by Rep. Pompeo (R-KS) to eliminate $8.4 million from the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Registry, a program that collects data on industrial greenhouse gas emissions, returning its funding to 2008 levels.

· An amendment by Rep. Reed (R-NY) to reduce EPA STAG grants by $10 million to defund sewer improvements in Tijuana, Mexico.

· An amendment by Rep. Walberg (R-MI) to decrease funding for the Grants and Administration portion of the National Endowment for the Arts by $20.5 million.

· An amendment from Rep. Canseco (R-TX) to eliminate $4.5 million from the National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs program, which has the primary purpose of providing grants to not-for-profit institutions for performing arts and exhibitions in Washington, DC.

· An amendment from Rep. Reed (R-NY) that eliminates all funding ($15 million) from the Presidio Trust Fund, removing all funding for the Presidio National Park, a former military compound in San Francisco.

· An amendment from Rep. McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) that increases funding for Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), which funds state grants, by $557.7 million, restoring IDEA funding to the current level of $11.5 billion. The increase is offset by a $500 million cut to Teacher Quality State Grants and a $336.6 million cut to School Improvement Grants, a program that received $3 billion in “stimulus” funds and has $554 million in leftover funds from fiscal year 2010.

· An amendment from Rep. Young (R-AK) that strikes the language that prohibits the Department of Education from using the Alaska Native Education Equity Act and the Native Hawaiian Education Program, providing supplemental education services to the Native Hawaiian and Alaska Native populations.

· An amendment from Rep. Whitfield (R-KY) to eliminate $1.5 million for the “Greening of the Capitol” initiative from the Legislative Branch section of the CR.

· An amendment from Rep. Weiner (D-NY) that eliminates $42.6 million in funding from the United States Institute of Peace.

· An amendment from Rep. Canseco (R-TX) that eliminates $10.7 million in funding for the East-West Center, an independent, public nonprofit that has historically not received funding in the Subcommittee bill.

· An amendment from Rep. McClintock (R-CA) that eliminates $20 million for tropical forest debt reduction, affecting the Department of the Treasury, Debt Restructuring portion of the CR.

· An amendment from Rep. Scalise (R-LA) that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay the salaries and expenses of the following “czars,” or special presidential advisers who are not required to go through the Senate confirmation process: Obama Care Czar, Climate Change Czar, Global Warming Czar, Green Jobs Czar, Car Czar, Guantanamo Bay Closure Czar, Pay Czar and Fairness Doctrine Czar.

· An amendment from Rep. Cole (R-OK) that restricts public funds from being used for the Presidential Election Campaign Fund or political party conventions. This amendment correlates with the “YouCut” bill that passed the House in January, saving $38 million in fiscal year 2012.

· An amendment from Rep. Price (D-NC) that creates a subsidy for the operating expenses of state and local communities by waiving the cost share and eligibility requirements for SAFER (Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Responders) Grants.

· An amendment from Rep. Walden (R-OR) that blocks funding for the Federal Communications Commission to institute Net Neutrality rules.

· An amendment from Rep. Carter (R-TX) that prohibits the use of funds to implement, administer or enforce the rule entitled “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants,” published by the Environmental Protection Agency on September 9, 2010, which limits the levels of mercury in cement.

· An amendment from Rep. Lummis (R-WY) to put a moratorium, for the duration of the CR, on the payment of legal fees to citizens and groups who sue the government, in order to study abuses in the system.

· An amendment from Rep. Fortenberry (R-NE) that prohibits U.S. military assistance to Chad, due to its continued use of child conscription, consistent with the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2007.

· An amendment from Rep. Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) that provides $30 million to carry out the provisions of title I of the PROTECT our Children Act.

· An amendment from Rep. Lowey (D-NY) that prohibits the use of funds for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, State and Local Programs to provide grants under the Urban Area Security Initiative to more than 25 high-risk urban areas.

· An amendment from Rep. Hastings (D-FL) that increases funding for the HIV-AIDS within the Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services account by $42 million.

· An amendment from Rep. Kline (R-MN) that bans funding for the Department of Education regulations on Gainful Employment, as-yet-unpublished rules that would restrict federal student aid to for-profit colleges whose students have high debt-to-income ratios and require the schools to report more information about student outcomes.

· An amendment from Rep. Pence (R-IN) to prohibit federal funds from being made available to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any of its affiliates.

· An amendment from Rep. Young (R-AK) to prohibit funds from being used by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to consider, review, reject remand or other invalidate any permit issued for Outer Continental Shelf sources located offshore of the States along the Arctic Coast.

· An amendment from Reps. Poe (R-TX), Barton (R-TX) and Carter (R-TX) that defines specifically what greenhouse gases are and prohibits the EPA from imposing regulations on those gasses emitted by a stationary source for seven months.

· Nine amendments to defund various aspects of President Obama’s health care law, effectively blocking the administration from carrying out the planned health system overhaul, including:

o An amendment from Rep. Rehberg (R-MT) that prohibits federal funding from being used to pay any employee, officer or contractor to implement the provisions of President Obama’s health care law, stopping the Department of Health and Human Services from implementing the law.
o An amendment from Rep. King (R-IA) that strips funding for any provision of the President’s health care law.
o An amendment from Rep. King (R-IA) that prohibits the payment of salaries for any officer or employee of any federal department or agency with respect to carrying out the President’s health care law. (This amendment has virtually the same effect as Rep. Rehberg’s amendment.)
o An amendment from Rep. Emerson (R-MO) that bars the use of funds in the bill from being used to implement the individual mandate and penalties and reporting requirements of the President’s health care law.
o An amendment from Rep. Price (R-GA) that prohibits the use of federal funds from being used to carry out the medical loss ratio restrictions in the President’s health care law. These provisions require insurers to spend at least a certain percent of their premium revenues on medical care.
o An amendment from Rep. Gardner (R-CO) that blocks funds for Health Insurance Exchanges, a set of state-regulated health care plans offered under the President’s health care law.
o An amendment from Rep. Burgess (R-TX) prohibiting the use of funds for employee and officer salaries at the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Department of Health and Human Services, created by the President’s health care reform bill.
o An amendment from Rep. Pitts (R-PA) that prohibits the funding of salaries for any officer or employee of the government to issue regulations on essential benefits under section 1302 of the President’s health care law.
o An amendment from Rep. Hayworth (R-NY) that prohibits funds for the independent payment advisory board.

· An amendment from Rep. McClintock (R-CA) that prohibits funds from being used to implement the Klamath (California) Dam Removal and Sedimentation Study, conducted by the US Bureau of Reclamation and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

· An amendment by Rep. Herger (R-CA) that prohibits the use of funds to implement or enforce the Travel Management Rule, which would close roads and trails on National Forest System land.

· An amendment from Rep. Boren (D-OK) that prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from collecting information on multiple sales of rifles or shotguns to the same person.

· An amendment by Rep. Forbes (R-VA) that prohibits the use of funds to take any action to effect or implement the disestablishment, closure or realignment of the US Joint Forces Command.

· An amendment by Rep. Forbes (R-VA) that prohibits the use of funds made available to the Department of Defense for official representation purposes.

· An amendment from Rep. Johnson (R-OH) to prohibit the use of funds for the Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) from moving forward with a proposed rule that would effectively eliminate the Stream Buffer Zone Rule, a rule that presently allows surface mining operations with qualified permits to work within 100 feet of a stream.

· An amendment from Rep. Reed (R-NY) that prohibits the use of funds for the Overseas Comparability Pay Adjustment, an increase in pay for overseas Foreign Service Officers approved by President Obama under the supplemental appropriations bill in 2009.

· An amendment from Rep. Matheson (D-UT) that prohibits the use of funds for the Community Connect broadband grant program administered by the Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture.

· An amendment from Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA) that would prohibit EPA funding for enforcement of total maximum daily loads in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

· An amendment by Rep. Weiner (D-NY) that bans foreign aid to Saudi Arabia.

· An amendment by Rep. Weiner (D-NY) that prohibits the use of funds to provide nonrecourse marketing assistance loans to mohair farmers.

· An amendment from Rep. Rooney (R-FL) that prohibits funding for the EPA to impose and enforce federally mandated numeric Florida water quality standards.

· An amendment from Rep. Stearns (R-FL) that prohibits funds for UN construction within the US.

· An amendment from Rep. Flake (R-AZ) that prohibits funds from being used to construct ethanol blender pumps or ethanol storage facilities.

· An amendment from Rep. Hall (R-TX) prohibiting funds to implement a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Service, part of the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request.

· An amendment from Rep. Griffith (R-VA) prohibiting the EPA, Corps of Engineers and the Office of Surface Mining from implementing coordination procedures that have served to extend and delay the review of coal mining permits.

· An amendment from Rep. Jones (R-NC) that prohibits the use of funds from being used to develop or approve a new limited access privilege program – “catch-shares” – for any fishery under the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New England or Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.

· An amendment from Rep. Luetkemeyer (R-MO) that prohibits funds for the study of the Missouri river projects.

· An amendment from Rep. Luetkemeyer (R-MO) that prohibits the use of funds for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

· An amendment from Rep. Sullivan (R-OK) that blocks funds for the EPA to implement a waiver to increase the ethanol content in gasoline from 10 percent to 15 percent.

· An amendment from Rep. McKinley (R-WV) that prohibits funding for the EPA to deny proposed and active mining permits under Section 404 (c) of the Clean Water Act, specifically to revoke retroactively a permit for the Spruce Mine in West Virginia.

· An amendment from Rep. McKinley (R-WV) that prohibits funding for the EPA to implement regulations to designate coal ash reside as hazardous waste.

· An amendment from Rep. Pompeo (R-KS) that prohibits funds for a government sponsored “consumer products complaints database.”

· An amendment from Rep. Noem (R-SD) to prohibit funding for EPA to modify the national primary ambient air quality standards applicable to coarse particulate matter (dust).

· An amendment from Rep. Burgess (R-TX) that prohibits funds to implement a provision specific to the State of Texas in the “Education Job Fund.”


Source: Appropriations.house.gov.
Congratulations to the Republicans in the House for the passage of this bill and allowing a free wheeling debate along with all the amendments. This is what the House is all about not a dictatorship like Pelosi when she was in charge. 

One of the favorites was the amendment by Cong Tom Cole (R-OK) that restricts public funds from being used for the Presidential Election Campaign Fund or political party conventions. This amendment correlates with the “YouCut” bill that passed the House in January, saving $38 million in fiscal year 2012.  Why should the taxpayers be expected to pay one red cent for political party conventions.  If the parties cannot raise enough money, put on a less elaborate convention. 

We love the EPA being a target as they have overstepped their authority time and time again going around Congress.  The only thing we would like better is to see the EPA defunded as a separate entity and put back in one of the cabinet departments.  They do not need to be a separate bureaucracy.