Democracy Begins in the Neighborhoods So Vote Republican at All Levels

Dennis Prager has spent much energy, great integrity, and passion along with his usual patience in profiding an endless listing of reasons Americans must vote Republican this November 2, 2010.

He, too, has been to the Soviet Union.  He too, used to be a Democrat until that Party left the arena of promoting American values.  Every American citizen should review all that is and has been special about our nation and its governing.

Never in its history has American democracy been so challenged and damaged as it has been since the election of Barack Hussein Obama.  But explaining more about this truth, is not my purpose in this message.

Please help strengthen America by voting for conservatives at every level.  Two of my friends, one of whom is a neighbor who lives down “the block” from me, Brian Grogan running for Minnesota House seat in District 43B.  His opponent is John Benson, a former public school teacher.  He has had his term in the district and has supported DFL willy nilly spending whenever his vote was needed.   It is time for a conservative to go to St. Paul to straighten out its financial mess. 

Good friend and devoted conservative, Norann Dillon is opposing a decided leftwinger, an ambitious one at that, Terri Bonhoff.   Norann is a strong candidate, a loyal conservative, and hopefully will be the winner in the 43rd District State Senate race. 

Keep in mind that without Republican Governor, Tim Pawlenty, and the state law requiring the legislature balance its budgets, with the overwhelming advantages the lefty spendy Democrats in both houses, our blue state would be as bankrupt as New Jersey.

Back in my more DFL days, (that’s Gopher State language for the Democrat Party) I became fairly well acquainted with then Governor Rudy Perpich, a great guy, really great guy from the Iron Range.  I had earlier  come to know his brother, George, who taught school in Hibbing.   Rudy’s characteristics must have run throughout the family.  Anyway, during his administration, I had a chance to meet Mark Dayton before he had all of his personal struggles.  A serious fellow, dedicated, but decidedly without any sense of humor.  He had been in charge of tourism, as I recall and did a creditable job, but I didn’t follow it closesly.

All that is about 30 years ago.  I am sure he believes in govenment service, but he is a patrician Democrat, and he has had a whirlwind of troubles since then.   If it weren’t for his name and money, the man never would have made it out of the DFL with its endorsement.  Re-election might be good for his therapy, but having this Democrat run the state for four years is not a good plan.

Tom Emmer is also a great guy and reminds me some of Rudy.  He is your neighbor kind of guy. Rudy was NOT a leftist.  He loved serving the state he adored.  Tom Emmer is a live and lively conservative ….a good tonic for what ails this state.   He needs our votes!!!!!

Say NO to Democrats and autocracy.  Vote straight Republican this year.   You have every reason to do so.

Is the Republican Party Alone Among Democracies To Question So-called Experts of Doomsday Climate Science?

Is it because, flawed as it is, our Democracy is the most people oriented, whose government before Obama, has been less tyrannical about controlling “science” and propagandizing for political advantage.  Relative to the populations, other democracies are far less democratic than is ours.

Here is an article by Jim Manzi of National Review Online on the subject, “Our So-called Experts”.

“Ron Brownstein wrote an article in National Journal arguing sorrowfully that America is the only democracy cursed with a major political party that gives voice to skepticism about the science behind anthropogenic climate change. Jonathan Chait chimed in, and asked at TNR, “Why are American conservatives the only climate science skeptics?”

I was going to comment on this, but Ross Douthat made my points faster and better. The essence of Ross’s reply is that actually public opinion in many major European democracies is surprisingly similar to that in the U.S. — so the really interesting question is why the U.S. political system is the only one that gives voice to this skepticism. After all, in a democracy, when 40–50+ percent of the population has an opinion on a topic of immense public importance, one of the parties will normally reflect this, if only to get votes.

The most interesting reply to Ross that I saw was by Ezra Klein, who called this “convincing,” and was admirably willing to call a spade a spade:

This isn’t a very popular statement, but there is a role for elites in public life. Just like I want knowledgeable CEOs running companies and knowledgeable doctors performing surgeries, I want knowledgeable legislators crafting public policy. That’s why we have a representative democracy, rather than some form of government-by-referendum. But of late, the elites in the Republican Party are abdicating their roles, preferring to pander to the desire for free tax cuts and the hostility to Al Gore than make tough and potentially unpopular decisions to safeguard our future.

It’s not so obvious to me that Republican elites have suddenly started to pander any more than the Republican and Democratic parties have for many, many decades. I have followed the climate change debate in the UK reasonably closely, and spoken at a number of panels on the subject in Europe, and it seems far more plausible to me that the tangible and enduring differences in the rules of the game that define the representative democracies account for this difference, at least between the U.S. and the UK.

Of the things that I think create significant structural advantages for the non-elites in the U.S. versus the UK, two stand out: open primaries, and lack of membership in a supra-national organization like the E.U. Party elites have vastly greater say in picking who gets on the ballot in the first place in the UK (as a thought exercise, imagine the Tea Party movement without the ability to challenge incumbents and establishment-backed candidates in Republican primaries). Further, many of the most important decisions relevant to the issue are taken by an E.U. apparatus that is, even seen in its most democratic light, democracy on a very long leash. The elites therefore have an easier time suppressing a popular uprising on the topic before it can get off the ground.

It is interesting that in the U.S. the greatest successes for important emissions mitigation restrictions appear likely to arise from the threat of regulatory action by the EPA, supported by a Supreme Court decision. That is, it threatens to come from those components of the American system that are most insulated from direct democracy.

Both the UK and U.S. experiences appear to validate what Matthew Sinclair — the amazing research director of the Taxpayers Alliance in the UK — has called the iron law of climate-change policy: Restrictions will always proceed by the least democratic route available.

Of course, the reply of a progressive to this observation is presumably: Bravo, the system is working as intended.

But I think this raises the crucial question in this debate: What is the valid scope of expertise?

In the case of climate change, there is actual scientific knowledge about the properties of CO2, but advocates of emissions mitigation schemes constantly attempt to drape the mantle of science, or more broadly expert knowledge, around public policy positions that, as I have argued many times, do not follow even from the core technical reports produced by the asserted experts.

Bill Buckley famously said that he “would rather by governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the Harvard faculty.” So would I. But I would rather fly in an airplane with wings designed by one competent aeronautical engineer than one with wings designed by a committee of the first 20,000 names of non-engineers in the Boston phonebook. The value of actual expertise in a technical field like wing design outweighs the advantages offered by incorporating multiple points of view.

The essential progressive belief that Klein expresses in undiluted form is that crafting public policy through legislation is a topic for which, in simplified terms, the benefits of expertise outweigh the benefits of popular contention. Stated more cautiously, this would be the belief that the institutional rules of the game should be more heavily tilted toward expert opinion on many important topics.” than they are in the U.S. today.

This would be a lot more compelling if the elites didn’t have such a terrible track record of producing social interventions that worked when subjected to rigorous testing.

An aeronautical engineer can predict reliably that “If you design a wing like this, then this plane will be airworthy, but if you design it like that, then it will never get in the air.” If you were to build a bunch of airplanes according to each set of specifications, you would discover that he or she is almost always right. This is actual expertise. I’ve tried to point out many times that the vast majority of program interventions fail when subjected to replicated, randomized testing. Our so-called experts in public policy talk a good game, but in the end are no experts at all. They build castles of words, and call it knowledge.

9th Circuit Court Strikes Down Democracy…..Rules for Voter Fraud in Arizona

On almost the eve of a political contest  which will decide much about the future of America, the notoriously LEFT WING 9th Circuit Court declared null and void a requirement that those who register  to vote in the state of Arizona MUST show proof of citizenship.

Many of the decisions by these Court Leftists have been over turned by the U.S. Supreme Court, but there will be little time available to accomplish this before the November 2 balloting.

If any readers don’t think that we in America are under siege by Marxists and other leftists on all fronts,  please think again.  Here is a news article from the East Valley Tribune:

“A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out a state mandate for people to provide proof of citizenship before being allowed to register to vote.

In a divided decision, the majority of the three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded the requirement, approved by Arizona voters in 2004, runs afoul of the federal National Voter Registration Act. That law spells out what states can and cannot require to vote in federal elections.

Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing the majority decision, specifically concluded that the requirement to produce one of a list of specified documents proving citizenship is on that list of what is not allowed.

That conclusion drew derision from Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who oversees elections and who said the proof is necessary to protect the integrity of elections.

“If you buy that argument, then I assume they are going to let us go through airports signing a certificate saying that ‘I am not a terrorist, I promise I don’t have any explosives in my underwear,’ ” Bennett said. He vowed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, who crafted the 2004 measure, said the ruling “flies in the face of common sense.”

“It should go without saying that states have the right to ensure that only citizens vote,” he said.

Nina Perales, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, one of the groups that sued, said there are parallels between this case and the more recent challenge to the state’s new immigration law. In both cases, she said, judges have struck down efforts by Arizona to usurp federal authority.

“What the federal courts have done consistently now, recently, is told Arizona that these schemes that it’s coming up with, whether it’s voter registration schemes or whether they’re immigrant regulation schemes, are outside the bounds, and that Arizona has to comply with the superseding federal law,” she said.

Tuesday’s decision comes less than a week before the 9th Circuit hears arguments about whether a federal judge correctly enjoined the state from enforcing that new immigration law. And in December the U.S. Supreme Court will review a different Arizona law allowing the state to suspend or revoke the business licenses of firms found guilty of knowingly hiring undocumented workers.

Nothing in the decision will affect Tuesday’s election, as the deadline to register to vote was Oct. 4.

The new ruling split the three-judge panel.

Siding with Ikuta was retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who was sitting in as an acting appellate judge. Judge Alex Kozinski dissented, arguing that the full 9th Circuit reached a different conclusion three years ago.

But Ikuta said that 2007 ruling “was rooted in a fundamental misreading of the statute.” She said it was based on the premise that Arizona could either accept the federal registration form created under the NVRA, which does not require proof of citizenship, or develop its own.

“The NVRA commands without exception that states ‘shall’ accept and use the federal form,” Ikuta wrote. “And if they develop their own form, it can only be used ‘in addition to’ accepting and using the federal form.”

While striking down the proof-of-citizenship requirement, the court let stand the other key provision of the law which require people to provide identification before being allowed to cast a ballot.

The registration and voter ID requirements were part of a larger measure approved in 2004 which bars those not in this country legally from getting certain benefits. But it also included the changes in voting laws that supporters said were necessary to ensure that only those legally entitled to vote will affect the outcome of elections.

Various groups representing Hispanics and Native Americans sued, saying the requirements amount to illegal racial discrimination. But U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver, in a 2008 ruling, rejected the challenges.

She said while requiring proof of citizenship makes the process more cumbersome, it has not prevented most people from completing the process. She also said the inconvenience of having to gather the required documents “does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.”

Ikuta, in Tuesday’s ruling, said the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government control over voting procedures for national elections and lets Congress supersede any state election laws. She said Congress specifically approved the NVRA to preclude “discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures” which can affect voter participation.

That law mandated creation of a federal voter registration form which may require “only such identifying information … as is necessary to enable the appropriate state election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process.”

It also requires that those attempting to register be informed of all requirements, including citizenship; new voters must attest, under penalty of perjury, that they meet the conditions.

But Ikuta noted the law says the form “may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication,” language she said precludes proof of citizenship.

Technically speaking, the ruling covers only registration to vote in federal elections. But Arizona has a single registration process to vote for not only the president and members of Congress but also the governor, legislators and other state and local officials.

Bennett said that would make it theoretically possible for the state to keep the citizenship requirement for those state and local elections if the Supreme Court does not overturn this ruling. But Perales said any effort by Arizona to create a state-only registration process with a proof-of-citizenship requirement could run afoul of other federal laws which prohibit states like Arizona, with a history of discrimination, from altering procedures in any way that would impair minority voting.

Pearce criticized “activist judges ignoring the rule of law. And he singled out O’Connor, an Arizona native, for special criticism.

“It is particularly disturbing that retired Justice O’Connor, who seems more and more like a politician these days, signed onto a decision that could undermine the integrity of our elections,” he said.

Comment:  Sandra Day O’Connor was never capable of deep thought.  Please review some of her writings and you will find a fairly empty head.  She was chosen because she was a woman, not because she was used to thinking.

…………….Fox News reported the following on the Circuit Court’s Decision:

“A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a key part of Arizona’s law requiring voters to prove they are citizens before registering to vote and to show identification before casting ballots.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law requiring voters to prove their citizenship while registering is inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act. That federal law allows voters to fill out a mail-in voter registration card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but doesn’t require them to show proof as Arizona’s law does.

The ruling left in place a requirement that voters provide proof of identity when casting ballots.

Lawyers for several civil rights groups that sued argued thousands of Arizonans have had their federal registration forms rejected because they failed to provide other documents required by the state. That violates the federal law, they argued.

The state law in question, Proposition 200, was passed by voters in 2004. It required proof of citizenship during voter registration and of identity at the polls, and also while receiving certain state benefits.

It has been upheld by state and federal courts until Tuesday’s decision.

In a statement, one of the attorneys who argued the case said his group was “elated” by the decision.

“This will enable the many poor people in Arizona who lack driver’s licenses and birth certificates to register to vote,” said Jon Greenbaum, legal director for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard’s office issued a statement saying it intends to ask a full panel of 9th Circuit judges to reconsider the case.

The ruling applies only to voter registration and the deadline for voting in the Nov. 2 general election has passed, so it will have no practical effect on voting, the statement said.

Appeals Court Judge Sandra S. Ikuta’s opinion was joined by retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who heard the case as a temporary appeals court judge. Ikuta said the federal voter registration law laid out specific requirements for the mail-in registration form that the state can’t make more onerous.

“There is no room for Arizona to impose … an additional identification requirement as a prerequisite to federal voter registration for registrants using that form,” Ikuta wrote.

The panel’s ruling overturned a previous 9th Circuit panel ruling that found Proposition 200 did not violate the National Voter Registration Act.

The 9th Circuit’s chief judge, Alex Kozinski, wrote a sharp dissent, saying the ruling ignored precedent and was flat wrong on its legal analysis.

“Few panels are able to upset quite so many apple carts all at once,” Kozinski concluded. “Count me out.”

Gov. Jan Brewer and Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett issued a joint statement calling the decision an “outrage and a slap in the face to all Arizonans who care about the integrity of their elections.”

“Arizona voters have made their will crystal clear — non-citizens do not have the right to vote,” they wrote. “We will continue to pursue any and all legal remedies to prevent fraudulent voter registration in the State of Arizona, as well as the right of our state citizens to craft appropriate protections.”

The panel agreed with a district court judge who ruled in 2008 that the law does not constitute a poll tax or disproportionally impact minority voting. It also rejected two constitutional arguments brought by the groups that sued.”

Voter Fraud Expected to be High

The following article, “Voter Fraud Watch;  What to Watch for,” was written by J. Christian Adams at Pajamas Media:

“There’s been lots of talk about voter fraud this election season. Already machines have purportedly preselected candidates and in other places, documents demonstrate non-citizens are registered to vote. Anyone who says voter fraud doesn’t exist has no credibility. I’ve covered elections for over 10 years. I’ve seen it over and over again with my own eyes. I’ve proved it in federal court. It is significantly more common than Sasquatch.

But what does voter fraud look like? What can citizens be on the lookout for when they participate in their election? Let me share some examples:

Commands to vote

I’ve seen election judges telling voters for whom to vote. In Philadelphia, I have repeatedly seen the people who sign you in and check off your name give instructions to voters for whom to vote. It isn’t supposed to work that way, and if you see it, get the name of the election official and report it to their boss. Better yet, try to get the name of the voter.

Mass illegal assistance

One of the most outrageous behaviors is campaigns of illegal assistance. I’ve seen lone soldiers of a political machine march dozens of voters into the booth and vote for them. In some instances the voter provided little or no input. Remember that disabled citizens have a right under federal law to have anyone assist them, as long as it is not an employer or union representative. Illiteracy and inability to speak English well also trigger this right. So just because someone is in the booth with a voter doesn’t mean something illegal is happening. But if you see van loads of voters being “voted” without expressing their own input, get the tag number of the van and remember what illegal assistant looked like.

Phony voters

I’ve watched people in states without voter ID seek to vote who were clearly not the people they said they were. During one election, I saw a young man give a name. It caused the women working the polls who knew him to laugh at him and tell him to stop fooling them. He insisted, even under watchful eyes, that he was this person everyone knew him not to be. Everyone was laughing, but the poll workers relented and reluctantly gave him a ballot, somewhat perturbed that he pushed the issue. For a brief moment, he was someone else. And since voter ID was not the law in this state, he voted a regular ballot.

Absentee ballot signature mismatches

In some states, there must be signature verification on the absentee ballots. Signatures of the voter must match with supposedly identical signatures. Some states even have a review process open to the public that allows scrutiny of the matching process. Pay attention. Hang out after the polls close and watch. Mississippi, for example, has a rigorous process where every absentee ballot must be reviewed and they are subject to challenge for defects. Even defects as small as a signature not being across a flap properly are potentially fatal defects.

Cash for votes

The last few years have seen numerous indictments for people being paid to vote. In one southwestern Virginia county, it wasn’t even cash. Instead, votes were being bought for pork rinds. Whatever the payout, it is illegal to pay someone something to vote.  If you see wads of bills around the election site, it is usually a problem. I once watched a woman keep the wad of cash in her bra.  She pulled it out over and over throughout the day.

Loiterers

It most states, there are laws against just hanging out at the polls. Know your state law. In Texas, for example, nobody is allowed inside the polls or within a certain distance of the entrance if they are not voting. Video of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee potentially violating this law was shown on the internet in the last few days. Loiterers can be a sign of a bigger problem. If nothing else, election officials who fail to enforce rules against polling place loitering can hardly be counted on to enforce other important integrity safeguards. And loitering rules are an integrity safeguard.

Intimidation of poll watchers

Poll watchers serve an important role in our elections. They are eyes and ears that make sure illegal behavior is recorded.  Naturally, the deployment of dozens of highly trained poll workers in Houston at every early voting site in Houston unsettled some. Law abiding citizens with pen and pad can do more to stop election fraud than anything else. It is no wonder incident after incident of intimidation was directed to the poll watchers. Poll watchers prevent voter fraud. No quarter should be given to those intimidating poll watchers. Get names, tag numbers, physical descriptions of the intimidators, and, if state law allows, video evidence.

There are few things as nasty as election officials cranking their wishes into a machine instead of the voters.  Remember, however, that voters can have anyone assist them, even going so far as to push the screen or buttons – even an election official.  This is a right under Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. Yet some states prohibit election officials from casting a ballot or pushing the screen for voters. This is an unresolved conflict in the law in some places. Either way, be aware when election officials are pushing ballots.

Software glitches

I am entirely unconvinced that the software on machines sometimes has candidate choices pre-marked. I believe this is an urban myth spawned by unfamiliarity with the machine inputs. Even Sasquatch may be more common. But I reserve the right to be wrong. Obviously if you encounter this, move slowly, don’t touch buttons, call for help, and then call Pajamas Media.

Counting errors

One of the worst ways to run an election is with paper ballots. We want to minimize the human inputs in our elections.  Electronics are the way to go. When paper ballots are counted by humans, humans get to decide so many things — like which box is that “X” really in. Or, that isn’t an “X,” that’s a stray mark, so the “X” is really meant for this candidate. Get my point?  Dishonest clerks can find lots of discretion in paper ballots. Lord over them while the count goes on, if the law allows.

Politicking inside the room

Another terrible behavior is when people are chatting, talking, or carrying on and telling others how to vote. A modern version of this is cell phones in the booth. In most states, one may not make calls on the phone while voting. Typically, down ballot contests see people break the law and chat — “Who should I vote for city council?”  Sometimes they even call a friend. This is not allowed in most places and observers should alert election officials while it is happening.

Would you like to vote a straight party ticket?

Many places in America still see large amounts of straight party ticket voting. In places where this fading behavior is more common, election officials tend to improperly ask the question of voters getting assistance from the election official. In fact, I have never once heard the Republican version of this illegal behavior. “Would you like to vote a straight Republican Party ticket” are words I have never heard an election official improperly ask a voter. In fact, “Would you like to vote a straight Democratic Party ticket” is something being uttered all over Houston in early Texas voting right now.  If you hear it happen, write down who said it, write down what you heard right after you heard it, and call election officials at the headquarters — then reach out to Pajamas Media.

That should get everyone started. This year has seen an amazing amount of citizen interest in standing watch against voter fraud. Even if you don’t see it, remember, those who stand watch also serve. Go volunteer with your local political party. Ask a candidate if you can serve as a poll watcher. Make Election Day the active, participatory, national event it was meant to be.

A final note. Too often political parties cobble together a poll watching operation at the last second. And the training is weak, with folks being thrust into the field with no wisdom or experience. This is changing. Groups are establishing systemic training well before the election.  The old way of a political party doing things is fading. A New Model Army of poll watchers is taking the field this election, totally separate from political parties, with an eye toward deploying thousands of highly trained watchers in 2012. Next Tuesday is just the beginning.”

 

Is the Battle for America a Choice Between Obama and Reagan?

A Society of Beggars?  Obama Battles Reagan!

“Obama or Reagan….

…In the end, that’s the choice.

As the country enters the final week of what may be the most important election in a lifetime, these two presidents and their starkly differing visions of America are at the center of what has become a political earthquake.

Barack Obama, of course, would seem to have the advantage. He is the flesh-and-blood sitting president of the moment, with actual, real-time command of the White House and all the accompanying assets that includes. Air Force One responds to his beck and call, along with the helicopters, shiny limousines, the staff and the entire executive branch of the United States government.  Not to mention the total control his party has had over the House and Senate. The seal may have fallen off his podium the other week, but no matter. As he accurately pointed out, everyone does indeed know exactly who he is.

A bit late, some would say. Amid all the exuberance about electing a man because of his skin color was a deliberate refusal to understand that this particular man was a hard-core radical leftist. For some, the knowledge of just what then-Senator Obama intended to do if elected president was apparently hard to discern. For others, electing a man who had sat in the pews of Jeremiah Wright’s church for twenty years and launched his first campaign from the living room of Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers was an appallingly dangerous mistake.

What else, they now ask, could America possibly have expected? 

The unexpected answer? . . .  

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/26/a-society-of-beggars  ”

The above article was written by Jeffrey Lord and was sent to me by Mark Waldeland.

Public Employee Unions Force Money to Democrats – Like it or Not!

“Public Employee Unions Funnel Public Money to Dems,” is the title of this article  by Michael Barone of the Examiner:

“Who is the largest single political contributor in the 2010 campaign cycle? You can be pardoned if you answer, erroneously, that it’s some new conservative group organized by Karl Rove. That’s campaign spin by the Obama Democrats, obediently relayed by certain elements of the so-called mainstream media.

The real answer is AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The union’s president, Gerald McEntee, reports proudly that AFSCME will be contributing $87.5 million in this cycle, entirely or almost entirely to Democrats. “We’re spending big,” he told the Wall Street Journal. “And we’re damn happy it’s big.”

The mainstream press hasn’t shown much interest in reporting on unions’ campaign spending, which amounted to some $400 million in the 2008 cycle. And it hasn’t seen fit to run long investigative stories on why public employee unions — the large majority of which work for state and local governments — contribute so much more to campaigns for federal office.

Nor has it denounced the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision last January allowing unions to spend members’ dues on politics without their permission and without disclosure.

AFSCME’s No. 1 status is emblematic of a change in the union movement over the years. Before public employee unions won the right to represent employees in New York City in 1958 and federal employees in 1962, almost all union members worked in the private sector.

But unions today represent only 7 percent of private-sector workers. In 2009, for the first time in history, most union members were public employees.

This would not have gone down well with President Franklin Roosevelt. “The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,” he said in the 1930s. A public employee strike, he said, “looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

It still is at the federal level, thanks to presidents of both parties and especially to Ronald Reagan’s firing of the striking air traffic controllers in 1981. But successful strikes in many states and cities have given public employee unions huge clout and hugely generous salaries, benefits and pensions.

Even more important is the political reality that, as New York union leader Victor Gotbaum said in 1975, “We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.”

The anomalies don’t end there. Public employees’ union dues and contributions to union PACs come from directly from taxpayers. So if you live in a state or city with strong public employee unions, you are paying a tax that goes to elect Democratic candidates (plus, perhaps, a few malleable Republicans).

The problem is that, as Roosevelt understood, public employee unions’ interests are directly the opposite of those of taxpayers. Public employee unions want government to be more expensive and government employees to be less accountable.

Yes, some union leaders like the late Albert Shanker of the American Federation of Teachers have been concerned about the quality of public services. But they have been the exception rather than the rule.

Public employee unions have collected big time from the Obama Democrats. The February 2009 stimulus package contained $160 billion in aid to state and local governments. This was intended to, and did, insulate public employee union members from the ravages of the recession that afflicted those unfortunate enough to make their livings in the private sector.

How it benefited the society as a whole is less clear. State governments in California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey are facing enormous budget deficits and much, much greater pension liabilities. Much of the life of their private-sector economies has been sucked out by the public employee unions, with a resulting flight of middle-income citizens unable or unwilling to bear such burdens.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, elected in 2009, has become a kind of folk hero for his defiance of the states’ teacher unions, which expect 4 percent raises in years of no growth or inflation and balk at having members pay any share of health insurance premiums.

Public employee union members have become, as U.S. News Editor in Chief Mortimer Zuckerman writes, “the new privileged class,” with better pay, more generous benefits and far more lush pensions than those who pay their salaries — and who are taxed to send money to their leaders’ favored candidates.

Franklin Roosevelt thought public-sector unions were a lousy idea. Do you?

Michael Barone,The Examiner’s senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blo

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Public-employee-unions-funnel-public-money-to-Dems-1342297-105812358.html#ixzz13bBBpCkr

Dennis Prager: This is a Referendum, Not an Election!

“Next Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010 is not Election Day. It is Referendum Day.

It may be commonplace for commentators to announce that every election is “the most important election in our lifetime” or something analogous. But having never said that of a presidential election, let alone an off-year election, this commentator cannot be accused of crying wolf when I say that this off-year election is not simply the most important of my lifetime. It is the most important since the Civil War.

The reason is that unlike all previous elections, this one is actually a referendum on the direction of the United States of America.

If the Democrats win:

– The American people have announced, consciously or not, that they support the Democratic Party’s “fundamental transformation” — those were President Obama’s words when he campaigned, and he has lived up to them — of America from a liberty-based state of limited government into an equality-based welfare state with an ever-expanding government.

– America will change from a country that emphasizes producing wealth to a country that emphasizes redistribution of wealth.

The left has never been primarily interested in creating wealth. Its primary goal always and everywhere has been to redistribute it. That so many businessmen and much of Wall Street are only now awakening to this fact is only a testament to the staggering lack of wisdom in big business.

– America will produce increasingly narcissistic citizens.

For proof, just look at the virtual shutdown of much of France and the ubiquitous rioting of vast numbers of its citizens over a tiny change in its welfare state — raising the age of retirement from 60 to 62. The idea that one will work two more years before receiving benefits until death so offends vast numbers of French — including young people who have every reason to believe they will live until the age of 100 — that they are fighting it as if their very lives were in jeopardy. That is the self-centeredness that all welfare states engender in their citizens.

– America will further reinforce the conviction that minorities are victims — who must be protected from their fellow Americans by the state.

Latinos, blacks, Muslims, gays and vast numbers of women have been told by the left and its political party that they are all persecuted by a country that is SIXHIRB — Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist and Bigoted. That America is the least SIXHIRB country in the world is a fact that has been all but drowned out by the left-wing domination of television and print news media, all the entertainment media, and the high schools and universities.

– America will continue to undermine its unique ability to Americanize people of all ethnic, national, racial, and religious backgrounds.

With a Democratic victory the country’s very motto — E Pluribus Unum, “Out of Many One” — will continue to erode as ethnic and racial identities rather one American identity are increasingly celebrated. Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel has just announced that Germany’s experiment with multiculturalism has “utterly failed,” but the left and its political party, the Democrats, have redoubled their efforts to supplant E Pluribus Unum with multiculturalism.

– America will continue its economic slide.

With a Democratic victory, unsustainable debts will mount, wealth-producing companies will continue to flee from higher taxes and more regulations, energy use will be taxed in the name of environmentalist utopianism, and the government will continue to print dollars.

– America will become increasingly secular.

With a Democratic victory, the left’s goal of rendering America’s other motto, “In God We Trust,” an anachronism will come closer to fruition. Leftism is a jealous god. As in Western Europe, the Judeo-Christian roots of this country are ceasing to play the indispensible moral role they have played since before 1776.

And what would constitute a Democrat victory next Tuesday? Anything other than a Republican landslide. Any other result will be interpreted by the media and by the Democrats as solely a result of the economic recession and as the normal losses of the dominant party in off-year elections.

In other words, the only way to ensure that the electoral results are seen as a repudiation of the growth of the state and the other Democrat and leftist goals is through an enormous Republican victory.

Only then will America understand that this election was not first about jobs. It was above all about America!”

Dennis Prager can be heard Monday through Friday  in the Twin Cities area from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM  at AM1280 , the Patriot station of Salem Radio.

Despite ObamaCampaign Duplicity, Democrats Outspend Republicans by $40,000,000!

From the New York Times comes yesterday’s article by Michael Luo and Griff Palmer which reports statistics contrary to the whining  of Barack Obama of Republican wealth on his campaign trail this past week:

“Lost in all of the attention paid to the heavy spending by Republican-oriented independent groups in this year’s midterm elections is that Democratic candidates have generally wielded a significant head-to-head financial advantage over their Republican opponents in individual competitive races.

Even with a recent surge in fund-raising for Republican candidates, Democratic candidates have outraised their opponents over all by more than 30 percent in the 109 House races The New York Times has identified as in play. And Democratic candidates have significantly outspent their Republican counterparts over the last few months in those contests, $119 million to $79 million.

Republican-leaning third-party groups, however, many of them financed by large, unrestricted donations that are not publicly disclosed, have swarmed into the breach, pouring more than $60 million into competitive races since July, about 80 percent more than the Democratic-leaning groups have reported spending.

As a result, the battle for control of the House has been increasingly shaping up as a test of whether a Democratic fund-raising edge, powered by the advantages of incumbency but accumulated in the smaller increments allowed by campaign finance law, can withstand the continuing deluge of spending by groups able to operate outside those limits, according to an analysis of political spending by The Times.

It is difficult to provide an accurate, up-to-the-moment comparison that includes all three streams of campaign money — money spent by candidates, money spent by party committees and money spent by outside groups — because candidates have had to file financial reports that cover only up until mid-October. Moreover, certain types of so-called issue advertisements, which do not explicitly urge voters to cast their ballots one way or another but still attack or praise candidates ahead of the general election, had to be filed with the Federal Election Commission only beginning in September, or 60 days before voters go to the polls.

While activities like television and radio advertisements and mass mailings are reported to the commission soon after they are purchased, other kinds of spending, like get-out-the-vote efforts, are not.

In mid-October, however, based upon the campaign finance data available, Democrats actually had the spending advantage in about 60 percent of the 109 competitive House races and had invested, collectively, about 10 percent more money into the contests than Republican candidates and their aligned groups had over the previous few months.

Those outside groups have proven crucial, though. Expenditures by Republican-oriented independent groups in carefully selected races have been financial difference-makers in dozens of cases, more than enough to help put the Republicans within striking distance of recapturing the majority, especially considering the political headwinds faced by Democrats.

With the Democratic and Republican Congressional campaign committees essentially battling each other to a draw, Republican-leaning groups have used their financial heft to broaden the political map. Since July, they have put $100,000 or more into more than 80 percent of the races in play, many more than Democratic-leaning groups, who have invested $100,000 or more in about half of the competitive races.

Only in the last two weeks or so have Democratic-oriented groups finally begun to come close to matching the spending of their counterparts on the right. But in many cases they appear to be playing defense, rushing to bolster Democratic candidates in races in which Republican outside groups had been swamping them.

America’s Families First Action Fund, for instance, a new Democratic-aligned group that is able to accept contributions of unlimited size from individuals and corporations but regularly reports its donors to the election commission, has emerged in the last few weeks as a major player. But in almost all of the races it has been involved in, it is mostly laboring to keep up with Republican outside group spending.

Last week, for example, the group spent $362,000 on a television ad attacking Steve Southerland, the Republican challenger to Representative Allen Boyd, Democrat of Florida. But the 60 Plus Association, a nonprofit advocacy group that bills itself as a conservative alternative to AARP, began attacking the Democratic incumbent on television as early as late August.

In the closing stretch of the campaign, Democratic candidates in competitive races generally have had more money in the bank to spend than their Republican counterparts. As of Oct. 13, Democrats in House races in play collectively had about $45 million in cash on hand, compared with about $32. million for Republicans.

In contest after contest, however, Democratic candidates with huge financial advantages over underfinanced Republican opponents have found themselves under siege.

Outside group spending has already far exceeded the total for the last midterm election cycle, in 2006, and is on track to surpass even what was spent by independent groups in 2008, a presidential election year, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The hand-to-hand political combat between candidates, who must inch along in their own fund-raising in relatively modest bites, and these groups, which are able to leapfrog ahead with the help of a single giant donation, casts in bold relief the kind of outsized influence corporate and individual megadonors to such organizations can exert on specific races.

Take, for example, the tight race in New York’s 20th Congressional District. Representative Scott Murphy, a Democrat who was elected in 2009 to replace Kirsten Gillibrand, after she ascended to the Senate, has spent $1.5 million since late August, compared with less than $400,000 by his Republican challenger, Chris Gibson, a retired Army colonel.

But Mr. Gibson has been helped by more than $700,000 in spending by Republican-leaning outside groups, while Democratic-leaning groups have spent less than $200,000 supporting Mr. Murphy.

American Crossroads, one of a pair of independent groups tied to Karl Rove, spent about $200,000 in mid-October on a television commercial attacking Mr. Murphy for his support of the health care overhaul.

The group’s most recent filings with the election commission revealed $14.7 million in donations since September, two-thirds of which essentially came from two people, Bob Perry, a Houston home builder, and Robert B. Rowling, a billionaire from Dallas.

Leading the way in independent group spending on House races has been the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has reported spending more than $12 million on “issue ads” in House races dating back to September, mostly attacking Democratic candidates.

Other top-spending Republican-oriented groups in House races include: American Action Network, a nonprofit advocacy group created this year by Republican operatives, which has reported spending about $10 million; the 60 Plus Association has disclosed expenditures of roughly $8 million; and American Future Fund, an Iowa-based nonprofit, has reported investing about $7 million in House races.

At over $5 million, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a labor union, has been the biggest outside group spender on the Democratic side, followed closely by America’s Families First Action Fund, with about $4.8 million.”

Mark Dayton’s Family War Chest Buying Minnesota Governorship!

Friend and fellow teacher collegue, Mark Waldeland sent me the following note and financial statistics:

“Well, look who’s the real populist in the Minnesota gubernatorial race.  (Hint to literacy-challenged libs: it’s the one who’s raised more than twice as much money from individuals than his department-store-scion liberal opponent has.)

[St. Paul Pioneer Press story]  . . .”Dayton has raised $4.5 million and spent $4.2 million this year, according to campaign finance reports released Tuesday. The heir to his family’s department store fortune loaned his campaign $3.4 million.

“Emmer had raised $2.7 million and spent $2.2 million through mid-October.

“He raised $2 million in individual contributions, while Dayton collected $884,000 from individual donors.”

Note:  It should be mentioned and mentioned often, that despite the yellings of Barack Obama (called Obamatruth)  on campaign that Republicans  have too much money to spend, Democrats nationwide have out spent Republicans in this 2010 election season, $119 million to $79 million.  That is not including all the free advertising the NPR radio, national  television and newspapers provide  the Democrats.

The Obama Government Hiding Its “Junk”

This government which Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi advertised would be the most honest and most open in American history should be cited for violations as indicated here in an article, “Portecting the Family Junk,”  written by Scott W. Johnson at Powerline. 

“The late Bloomberg News reporter Mark Pittman died at age 52 late last year while his Freedom of Information Act request filed with the Treasury Department was being processed. Pitman had asked the Treasury in January 2009 to identify $301 billion of securities owned by Citigroup that the government had agreed to guarantee. Pitman made the request on the quaint understanding that taxpayers ought to know how their money was being used.

More than 20 months later, after saying at least five times that a response was imminent, Treasury officials responded with 560 pages of printed-out e-mails, none of which Pittman requested. None of the documents responded to Pittman’s request for “records sufficient to show the names of the relevant securities” or the dates and terms of the guarantees.

The government withheld 866 pages of documents, asserting that each was exempt from disclosure under FOIA on one of four grounds: trade secrets, personnel rules and practices, memos subject to attorney-client privilege and violations of personal privacy. Bloomberg News tells the story in “Treasury shields Citigroup as deletions undercut disclosure,” from which I have freely drawn here.

The government also cited the trade-secrets exemption in responding to a separate, similar FOIA request by Bloomberg News for details about Citigroup’s segregated bad assets. In that response, 73 of 104 pages were completely blacked out except for headings. Only six pages — the cover, contents, a boilerplate list of legal disclosures and a paragraph titled “FOIA Request for Confidential Treatment” — were free of redactions.

The Bloomberg News report adds that the federal government is Citigroup is the largest shareholder in Citigroup as of October 1, according to regulatory filings. “Taxpayers’ stake, 12.4 percent, was three times the second-largest investor’s.”

The government’s response to Bloomberg’s FOIA request suggests that secrets of state are being kept under wraps. The CIA used to call its big secrets “the family jewels.” Is the government now protecting the family junk?

UPDATE: Via Instaupundit, I meant to link to this report by J.P Freire of the Treasury hiring FOIA officers to “withhold information from release” to the public. It’s a full-time job.”

Comment:  I wonder if all those Democrats and “Independents” who shivered with ecstacy when listening to Barack Obama advertise himself, in 2008 really believed in his fantasies.   I’ll bet most of the women did.   They seem to prefer romantic novels to reality.

---