Obama, the Threat to America

In an Feb. 14 Wall Street Journal article, Michael Medved asserts, by way of title, “Obama Isn’t Trying to ‘Weaken America.’” A film critic and generally conservative cultural commentator, Medved only approaches the primary thrust of his argument in his final paragraph when he writes:

Americans may not see a given president as their advocate, but they’re hardly disposed to view him as their enemy — and a furtive, determined enemy at that. For 2012, Republicans face a daunting challenge in running against the president. That challenge becomes impossible if they’re also perceived as running against the presidency.

As a 2012 political strategy, Medved’s final point is, as far as it goes, reasonable. However, the rest of his essay often argues against his thesis, which seems to be that Mr. Obama is not consciously trying to harm America and is a conventional American president and politician with conventional political goals and aspirations. If one assumes, for the sake of argument, that this is true — if Mr. Obama is, with the best intentions and with good will, pursuing policies that are manifestly harmful to America and Americans — the end result is the same. The matter of his motivations will doubtless be a ripe controversy for future historians, but will matter little to contemporary Americans, who will suffer regardless.

Medved begins his essay with a quote from John Adams: “I pray heaven to bestow the best of blessing on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May not but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.” Medved mentions some who were not so wise and honest in making the point that the quality of our presidents has always been limited by the fact that we are limited to choosing from the human race. “For all their foibles, every president attempted to rise to the challenges of leadership and never displayed disloyal or treasonous intent. This history makes some of the current charges about Barack Obama especially distasteful — and destructive to the conservative cause.” Perhaps, but only if Mr. Obama is unquestionably a member of that august company.

Mr. Medved quotes a number of prominent conservative commentators to level a blanket criticism:

None of the attacks on Mr. Obama’s intentions offers an even vaguely plausible explanation of how the evil genius, once he has ruined our “strength, influence and standard of living,” hopes to get himself re-elected. In a sense, the president’s most paranoid critics pay him a perverse compliment in maintaining that his idealism burns with such pure, all-consuming heat that he remains blissfully unconcerned with minor matters like his electoral future. They label Mr. Obama as the political equivalent of a suicide bomber: so overcome with hatred (or “rage”) that he’s perfectly willing to blow himself up in order to inflict casualties on a society he loathes.

Thinking that Mr. Obama is a conventional American politician who will react in predictable, rational ways to common American political stimuli is a common mistake, so it is unsurprising that Mr. Medved makes it. But Mr. Obama manifestly and demonstrably is not a convention politician. The evidence is stark and easy to find for those willing to see.

Mr. Obama is a doctrinaire socialist who does not, perhaps cannot, see that the pursuit of socialist policies is harmful to America and harmful to his electoral prospects. He simply can’t bring himself to believe that the public won’t ultimately be grateful to him and catapult him back into the White House. Recall that he has, on more than one occasion, said that people ought to be thanking him for imposing socialist policies, and in making those statements, seemed genuinely puzzled and angry that they were not.

Begin with the reality that Mr. Obama is a socialist. Those doubting this assertion of fact need only refer to Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. There, Stanley Kurtz meticulously and undeniably lays bare Mr. Obama’s socialist education, associations, mentoring, roots, beliefs, and actions. Let us also keep in mind that socialism, like Marxism, is fundamentally incompatible with freedom, democracy, and capitalism as embodied in America’s founding documents and as practiced in America. If Mr. Obama is indeed a socialist — and he is — then his belief system, his way of thinking, is innately hostile to America. Socialism and American democracy cannot coexist, so if Mr. Obama is pursuing socialist policies, American democracy must, of necessity, be weakened or destroyed.

But if this is true, how did Mr. Obama become president? It boils down to this: He lied. He lied about who he is, about his background, his fundamental beliefs, his intentions, and his methods. He employed standard Marxist/socialist tactics and concealed his true nature so as to seize power and impose his will, and for two years, he pretty much got away with it. A recurring theme of Mr. Medved’s article is that such things are impossible, as Mr. Obama — like all politicians — wants to be reelected. Put aside, for the moment, that Mr. Obama has addressed this issue explicitly, saying that he’d rather accomplish his (socialist) goals than be a two-term president.

Consider then the following examples, not by any means an exhaustive list:

(1) Mr. Obama’s 2012 budget flies in the face of fiscal and political reality. Not only does it fail to actually cut spending, it dramatically increases spending — and the deficit — far into the future, while raising taxes, ignoring the entitlement crisis, and continuing the promulgation of policies that can have no result other than to destroy the creation of wealth, jobs, and the economy. America is broke, beyond broke, and the utter dissolution of our existing entitlements — not considering ObamaCare — is imminent. Unemployment is arguably at 10.3%; virtually every economic indicator is in the toilet. Any responsible president, any president for whom the welfare of the nation is his first concern, will not propose a budget that spends, now and into the future, far more money than America produces and can possibly take in or repay. Yet Mr. Obama wants to spend billions on projects like high-speed rail, a boondoggle the public neither wants nor needs.

(2) Since taking office, Mr. Obama has serially and crudely insulted our strongest and most faithful allies, such as Great Britain and Israel, while extending “outreach” to virtually every thuggish, repressive, anti-democratic regime on the planet. His repeated threats to establish yet another deadline when Iran violates the last have established only his impotence. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, and all Mr. Obama can do is threaten to trot out even more threatening rhetoric.

(3) Mr. Obama’s neophyte involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” has served only to destroy it. He tried to force concessions on Israel that even Palestinian President Abbas admitted the Palestinians did not want, destroying any contemporary chance for peace.

(4) Mr. Obama’s statements and policies, across the board, are nothing less than Islamic boosterism. Any president serving as a cheerleader for say, Catholicism, would be rightfully criticized, but a starstruck media and a benumbed public have nothing to say when the head of NASA announces a new, primary mission, handed down from Mr. Obama, to make Muslims feel good about the scientific accomplishments of their ancient ancestors. Of course, since Mr. Obama has impaired NASA’s budget to the point of driving it entirely out of space, ancient Muslim outreach may be all that it can afford to do.

(5) One of the only constants in Mr. Obama’s foreign policy is a reflexive, mindless support for Marxist and/or Islamist despotism. Take the example of Honduras, where a Marxist president attempted to overthrow the Honduran Constitution and install himself as ruler for life. Adhering to the rule of law, the Hondurans threw him out of office and out of the country. Mr. Obama immediately sided with the Marxist, and has personally, and through the State Department, supported him against the Honduran rule of law ever since.

(6) Mr. Obama has appointed avowed Marxists (Van Jones) and worshippers of Communist mass murderers (Anita Dunn) to high-ranking positions in his administration. For any other American president, even contemplating such appointments would be unthinkable. For Mr. Obama, so low have our expectations sunk that it’s almost unremarkable.

(7) Venezuela has taken delivery of some 2,000 Russian man-portable, anti-aircraft missiles. It has entered into an agreement with Iran to build ground-to-ground missile bases in Venezuela, stocked with Iranian missiles capable of carrying nuclear and/or biological warheads that could reach virtually anywhere in America. Mr. Obama has had nothing to say about this, and has apparently done nothing at all to stop it. Did I mention that Mr. Chavez is also going to build a nuclear reactor capable of producing weapons-grade materials? Neither did Mr. Obama.

(8) Mr. Obama has done enormous harm to immigration policy and national security. He has sued Arizona for daring to try to enforce immigration laws that he will not, and surrendered huge portions of the southern United States to terrorists and drug cartels, posting signs warning Americans to stay out of those areas for their own safety.

(9) Mr. Obama and his administration refuse to identify our Islamist enemy, and continue to pursue policies that make Americans far less safe, including trying terrorists in civilian courts and establishing a paralyzing regime of political correctness in every governmental institution. Despite recent speeches by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, all acknowledging not only the failure but danger of multicultural political correctness, Mr. Obama shows no sign of abandoning socialist multi-culti orthodoxy.

(10) When the Iranian public rose up against the mullahs, Mr. Obama ignored them, giving lip service to “bearing witness.” When the Egyptian uprising occurred, Mr. Obama flip- flopped, offering support to the protestors one day and to Mr. Mubarak the next. He succeeded only in alienating virtually everyone in the region, giving Islamists a boost by declining to delegitimize the Muslim Brotherhood, and encouraging its involvement in an Egyptian government. In so doing, he convinced the leaders of every Middle Eastern nation that as an enemy, America under Obama is harmless, and as a friend, fickle and treacherous.

(11) Under Eric Holder, Mr. Obama’s Justice Department has pursued blatantly racist and class warfare policies, refusing to pursue — as a matter of internally declared policy — cases where non-blacks are discriminated against in violation of federal law. Mr. Holder has also allowed states to blatantly violate federal law that requires that overseas members of our military receive absentee ballots prior to elections. (Our military members tend to vote overwhelmingly for conservatives.)

(12) While decrying America’s reliance on regimes hostile to American interests for energy, Mr. Obama has cut off domestic exploration and production, actually saying that he wants energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket” to better force socialist policies on the public. He has announced his goal of destroying the coal industry in America. His administration has ignored court orders to issue new drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico and has blatantly doctored scientific evidence — and been caught in the attempt — to support its unsupportable policies.

(13) Mr. Obama rammed through ObamaCare against the wishes of the public, and has continually lied about its contents, effects, costs, and consequences. Even though Great Britain and Canada are beginning to back away from the well-documented daily horrors of socialized medicine, Mr. Obama blindly rushes ahead into that pit of despair. The largest single entitlement program in history, ObamaCare alone will bankrupt the nation. This despite the fact that without considering ObamaCare, Mr. Obama has spent more money — money that we do not have — in only two years in office than every other president combined.   He is laboring mightily to make things worse, much worse.

(14) Mr. Obama federalized the entire student loan industry as part of ObamaCare (!) — apparently as prelude to his oft-expressed desire that everyone attend college on the public dime, equally apparently whether they need (or want) to or not. Add to this faulty calculation the bursting of the higher education bubble, fueled by out-of-control loan and tuition costs, and by the fact that a bachelor’s degree no longer guarantees employment or an enhanced yearly wage. Mr. Obama’s actions serve only to further depress the private sector, reducing tax revenues while providing no public benefit.

(15) Under the guise of saving it, Mr. Obama has federalized 2/3 of the domestic auto industry, enriching his union supporters.

(16) Mr. Obama and his various State Department functionaries, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have so berated America in foreign capitals and elsewhere that their enmity toward America can scarcely be denied. Any man who spoke of the alleged failings and faults of his wife the way Mr. Obama and his administration speak of America would be hard pressed to make anyone believe that he loved and respected her.

Imagine, if you will, a socialist/Marxist president whose party controlled both houses of Congress and who was determined to actually harm America diplomatically, domestically, economically, and in every other way. Apart from building a domestic KGB-like intelligence apparatus and paramilitary force, how would such a president and his actions differ from Mr. Obama and his own?

Each of the few examples I’ve provided are, by themselves, cause for alarm in a people dedicated to liberty and prosperity. Taken together, they suggest that far more than poor policy, incompetence, stubbornness, or stupidity are at work.

It may be argued that Mr. Obama’s expressed and implied beliefs and actions merely reflect a profound lack of experience, perhaps even utter incompetence, and there is doubtless some significant element of this present in the Obama administration at virtually all levels. Witness the recent pronouncement of CIA Director Leon Panetta, who admitted that the information on Egypt he gave the same committee was not the fruits of professional CIA analysis, but of media accounts.

Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano is likewise a fount of late night TV talk show jokes, and Vice President Joe “The Sheriff” Biden is in a gaffetastic class by himself.

The problem, for Mr. Medved, and the nation, is that mere incompetence cannot adequately explain away Mr. Obama’s background, his expressed and implied beliefs, or his associations, appointments, and official actions. Believing that he actually wishes America harm is, in light of the voluminous and growing evidence, not unfounded but logical — not a reactionary, emotional conclusion but a reasonable one based on objective evidence, most of which has been provided by Mr. Obama himself.

If this was not so, wouldn’t at least some of his policies have the consequence of substantially and honestly benefiting America?

And reelection? Wouldn’t any normal politician acting as Mr. Obama has acted and continues to act be committing political suicide? Wouldn’t he know this and engage in Clintonian triangulation, at least giving the appearance of tracking to the center? Yes. But Mr. Obama is not a conventional politician.

All politicians, particularly presidents, have healthy egos, but Mr. Obama’s narcissism is the stuff of legend. Consider his pseudo- presidential Great Seal of Obama; his extra-constitutional and non-existent “Office of the President-Elect”; his Marxist, Cold War-inspired propaganda posters and symbols; his announcement, upon receiving his party’s nomination for president, that history would record it as the moment the seas began to recede and the planet began to heal; or his response to a Democrat worried about the outcome of the 2010 Congressional election that Democrats had nothing to worry about “because you have me.” One might be forgiven for believing that Mr. Obama’s narcissism gets in the way of a clear-eyed, realistic view of the world.

Bill Clinton did indeed tack toward the center to ensure his reelection. He was not a socialist and did not surround himself with socialist radicals. There is reason to believe that Mr. Obama would like to be reelected, but there is greater reason to believe that he, first and foremost, sees the world through Obama-colored glasses. Peering through those lenses, he sees a world not only hanging on his words, grateful to receive them and anxious to act upon them, but breathlessly waiting for him to bestow his transformative words. He sees a world where his rhetoric and the force of his personality and matchless intellect can and will cause transformative change. He sees a world where foreign policy is an annoying distraction from his true interest in, as he has often put it, “fundamentally changing America.”

Despite his protestations (common God- and gun-clinging folk would call them “lies”) to the contrary, Mr. Obama sees as one of his guiding principles the necessity and morality of redistributing wealth. He made this clear when Joe the Plumber dared ask him if he was going to raise his taxes and Obama replied that he believed that things were better if you spread the wealth around. And of course, no one is more qualified to know to whom it should be spread than Mr. Obama, who makes a virtual sacrament of class warfare — particularly against the evil and greedy rich, a class to which one need make a surprisingly small amount to belong. (I seem to remember something about class warfare being an integral part of Marxist theory.)

Mr. Medved is correct in suggesting that it would be unwise for the GOP to attack the presidency, but he makes the same mistake made by Mr. Obama in equating Mr. Obama with the presidency. This is a significant part of the reason why Mr. Obama fails so badly in foreign policy: he speaks not as the president of the United States, willing and able to use its might and prestige to further American interests, but as Barack Obama, who routinely disparages America’s might and prestige, seeks to further his interests, and diminishes not only his office but the nation it exists to serve. His ego keeps him from understanding this distinction, but it is surely appreciated by foreign leaders who fear and respect him not.

The title of this article at Pajamas Media by Mike McDaniel is “Well Meaning or Not, Obama’s a Treat to America!”

“In the 2012 election, the GOP standard bearer should not make the same mistake made by Sen. John McCain. He must be willing and able to criticize every negative and foolish aspect of Mr. Obama’s ideas, policies, associations, appointments, and beliefs. He must be willing and able to point out exactly why Mr. Obama is not fit to occupy the Oval Office. He must make plain that the office of the President does not exist to empower its occupant to “fundamentally change” America, to ignore the Constitution, and to gain ultimate, intimate power over the lives of its citizens, but to faithfully uphold the Constitution and to ensure individual dignity and liberty. This is not attacking the presidency, but upholding its dignity and importance — a dignity and importance substantially diminished by Mr. Obama. John Adams would almost certainly think him neither honest nor wise.

Mike McDaniel is a former police officer, detective, and SWAT operator.

Obama Apparatchik, AFL-CIO Union man, Trumka, Advises: Raise Taxes!

Trumka: All we need is to raise taxes to create jobs

 

 February 27, 2011 by Bruce McQuain

If ever there was an example of the complete cluelessness much of the left commonly displays when it comes to economic matters, the AFL-CIO’s (and Obama advisor) Richard Trumka provides it:

What’s the best way to get Americans back to work?

Raise taxes, according to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Specifically, he wants to raise the federal gas tax as a means to fund infrastructure spending. “We need a dedicated source of revenue to create infrastructure in this country,” he tells Aaron Task in the accompanying clip.

“We need to create jobs. The best way to do that is through infrastructure development.” Simply maintaining the existing infrastructure in this country will cost $2.2 trillion over five years, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. That doesn’t include Obama’s objective of high-speed rails and green energy projects.

So, to sum up, raise one of the most regressive taxes there is (it hits the poor the hardest at the gas pump because they end up having to pay a larger portion of their disposable income for gasoline) and declare this will help “create jobs”.

What it will actually do, if that were to occur, is create more union jobs. And if the poor have to cut back on food or shelter, well, you know, a few eggs have to be cracked to make an omelet.   The key to economic recovery, per Trumka, is government created jobs with money taken from taxpayers who just might have a much different priority for it.  It calls for another “new revenue stream”.  And he has no qualms at all laying claim to your dollars to fund his nonsense.

Trumka didn’t say specifically how much he would raise the gas tax, but mentioned he’s shown the President a $256 billion plan to improve infrastructure.  If every billion spent on infrastructure creates 35,000 jobs, as he claims, this package would create close to 9 million jobs over the next five years.

The idea would also improve America’s fiscal and competitive future, says Trumka. “There’s also a downstream effect, you put people back to work, they pay taxes, they don’t use services, they’re contributing, other jobs are created along the way as well,” he explains.

Fantasy.  A) it is, as usual, the left’s answer to everything – tax and spend.  Someone tell Mr. Trumka that it is precisely that mindset that the majority of Americans have rejected.   B) it assumes something not in evidence.  We just spent over $800 billion on “infrastructure” – look around you, did you see the unemployment rate dip significantly or go up?  C) after the stimulus was spent there has apparently been no down-stream effect for jobs, service use is up and tax revenue is down.

If Trumka’s solution had any credibility, unemployment would be down below 8% (that was the promise, remember – spend the money on infrastructure and see jobs created) and we’d be riding the recovery train.  We have a million little signs up everywhere in America right now touting infrastructure projects – and the unemployment rate?

In fact, what Trumka is doing is asking for more to be spent on a plan that has already failed miserably and expecting different results.  Isn’t that the definition of “insanity”?

That’s precisely what this plan is – insane.  Government has wasted trillions on nonsense like this.  The solution to this isn’t government creating jobs.  It is private industry doing so.  That requires low taxes and a stable business atmosphere where government hasn’t declared war on business and corporations.  That requires less government, not more – something the Richard Trumkas and Barack Obamas of the world can’t quite seem to get through their heads.  In their world, government is always the answer.   Unfortunately, we’re living in their world right now.

Happy with it?

Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?

Bruce McQuain blogs at Questions and Observations (QandO), Blackfive, the Washington Examiner and the Green Room.

Comment:  Marxist Governments including their Nazi cousins, depend of the duties and skills of the bureacrats performing them  to make and keep the dictatorships secure.

Irani Regime Feels Pressure?

Michael Ledeen at Pajamas Media wrote the following article, “Iranian Regime Kidnaps Mousavi and Karroubi.”

“Yes it is true, not exactly as any one source has been reporting, but the two top leaders of the Green Movement, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, were kidnapped on Thursday night — when the streets of Tehran were full of armed men.  It was a typical Mafia-style snatch.  The two men — already under house arrest — were beaten and bloodied, and then were led out of their homes in blindfolds and handcuffs, stuffed in the trunks of the cars of their captors  from the Revolutionary Guards and, along with their wives, taken to a location in Tehran, then, on Friday, to another in Parchin, and finally to a third location, a heavily protected private residence.

So far only a few voices,  most notably that of Ayatollah Dastgheib (sorry for the link in Persian, but I can’t find a translation online yet), have been raised to denounce the action and call for the release of the hostages.  Needless to say, no Western leader has done anything yet, and nobody should expect any tough talk from Western capitals.  After all, Mousavi and Karroubi were never contacted by any Western leader after the electoral hoax of June, 2009, although at least some of those Westerners sent intermediaries to negotiate with representatives of the Iranian regime.

Terror works, you see.

I do not know if we will see Mousavi or Karroubi alive. For the moment, I imagine they are being interrogated and tortured in an effort to extract “confessions” of their obedience to foreigners. Indeed, the very evening of the kidnapping, Intelligence Minister Moslehi — whose name is on a list of Iranians under EU consideration for being sanctioned for their role in grave human rights violations — gave a late evening interview on national television  in which he spoke extensively of the “foreign hand” behind Iranian protests, and the next day he was quoted in a national news service as identifying yours truly as the inspiration behind at least some of the dissidents (again, it’s in Farsi, but in compensation there’s a flattering picture of me). He claimed that an Iranian arrested as a CIA agent was somehow inspired by my writings to work against the regime.

Actually it’s the other way around. It’s the courage of the Iranian opposition, and the hope that one day this evil regime will be removed, that inspires these blogs. And to judge by Moslehi’s rant, it’s doomed, because he has real trouble with information.  For all the attention and vitriol these fanatic buffoons direct at me, their Intel Minister does not even know where I work. He and his vaunted network can’t manage to find out that I have been at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies for two and a half years, which is pretty amazing when you consider that they have obviously been reading Pajamas Media.

So what’s next for the Greens?  They were well prepared for the move against Mousavi and Karroubi. How could they have failed to prepare, when for many months the two leaders were provoking the regime to arrest them and put them on public trial? Just a few days ago, Karroubi said he would stand with the people all the way:

We are standing firm in defending people’s rights and we will honor our promise we gave to the people. The government should be be from and for the people. We always have said that it is the people and the people’s vote which should determine their destiny not whatever the rulers say. Government must be based on people’s choice and vote. And in this path that we have chosen we will overcome all hardships and sufferings as they are sweet rather than bitter.

And Mrs. Mousavi, Zahra Rahnavard, added her own voice, and is sharing the same destiny as her husband. Ironically, Iranian women have been awarded equal rights in the matter of regime brutality.

The Green Movement was never a top-down organization, and there are several groups of leaders prepared to step forward, as we will see in the next few days. The new leaders have already been acting for some time, especially after Mousavi and Karroubi were put under house arrest, and they are now preparing for the next demonstrations this coming Tuesday, and successive Tuesdays.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei long resisted calls to move forcefully against Mousavi and Karroubi, because he feared it would inflame the Iranian masses. Those who urged him to do it are the same people who told him that the Greens had been crushed, and they lied to him in the past ten days, insisting that there really hadn’t been any significant protest (when in reality the country saw the biggest anti-regime demonstrations in a year). He was furious when he discovered they were either totally misinformed, or were deliberately misleading him, and he approved the kidnappings out of a mixture of rage and fear. His passions were undoubtedly further jangled by the hugely embarrassing failure of the country’s vaunted nuclear project at Bushehr, where the whole thing has to be shut down, and the nuclear rods removed.

As everyone else in the Middle East, Khamenei is watching the global insurrection with the full knowledge that the revolt against his regime is a model for the others, and we can expect to see another huge mobilization of his thugs on Tuesday.

We can also expect new tactics from the Greens, including stepped-up sabotage of pipelines, refineries and petrochemical plants, and more strikes (remember that five hundred workers have announced a strike at the Abadan oil refinery).

The attacks on Mousavi and Karroubi prove the gravity of the Iranian crisis and the panic at the highest levels of the Islamic Republic, and we’ll soon know if Khamenei was right to dread the consequences.

Katherine Kersten Reviews the Rights of the Union Annointed

Katherine Kersten is about the only conservative connected to the once proud and professionsl Minneapolis StarTribune.  On two occasions she has generously set time aside to address our local chapter of the Dennis Prager Discussion Group.   Leper was the word that came to mind which best described the staff’s view toward her, although they maintained Minnesota Nice habits.   The StarTrib published her article here:  “The Good Life;  for Unions anyway.”

“Here’s a quiz: Who said that the prospect of a strike by a government union is “unthinkable and intolerable?”

Who said, “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government”?

Was it Reagan? Palin? Did Wisconsin’s Gov. Scott Walker utter these provocative words?

No, no and no. The first quote is from Franklin Roosevelt — that champion of working people. The second is from George Meany, the AFL-CIO’s legendary first president.

Today, Gov. Walker is under siege in his bold fight to rein in public unions.

Walker is one of a growing number of governors who aim to close their state’s yawning budget deficit while engineering long-term fixes that will head off a fiscal train wreck — the otherwise inevitable result of exploding public-union pensions and benefits.

Walker’s reward is to hear enraged Wisconsin teachers liken him to Adolf Hitler.

President Obama condemns Walker’s “assault” on unions, and our own Gov. Mark Dayton denounces his “drastic” attempts to “steal” workers’ rights.

Public-union supporters would have us believe that government employees’ right to bargain collectively was handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai. In fact, these unions are of relatively recent vintage, and some states don’t allow them.

“The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create,” explained labor expert James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation in the New York Times.

“Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers.'”

So why did public unions catch on, then grow exponentially in the 1960s?

Because union leaders and Democratic politicians, like New York City’s Mayor Robert Wagner, figured out they could benefit big-time from scratching one another’s backs.

They could guarantee full campaign coffers for Democratic candidates while arming public employees with a power to dictate their own wages and benefits that private-sector unionists could only dream about.

Here’s the vicious cycle: Union leaders take money from union dues and pass it to Democratic candidates. Once elected, the politicians “negotiate” with the unions that helped elect them.

In essence, the unions hire their own bosses who face them across the bargaining table. Eat your heart out, Delta Air Lines union members.

Politicians repay unions’ financial support by doling out hefty pensions and benefits. It’s easy to be generous when you’re spending taxpayers’ money, not your own.

Elected officials aren’t accountable to a board of directors or shareholders, and they don’t have to worry about going bankrupt, as private companies do.

Government is a monopoly, or near monopoly, so it has no concerns about competitiveness or efficiency to keep it honest. To keep unions happy, politicians need only kick the can down the road.

Today, public unions are among the Democratic Party’s largest donors, and form the core of its on-the-ground campaign machine.

AFSCME was the biggest outside spender in the 2010 elections, shelling out $91 million. War chests of this magnitude strike fear in the hearts of politicians of both parties.

When New Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christie took on the teachers union last year, he faced a $6 million barrage of attack ads in just two months.

Government unions’ cozy relationships with the politicians who write their checks short-circuits the democratic process, giving partial control of public agencies to unelected labor leaders.

The public good suffers. Today, for example, union power makes it almost impossible to fire a bad teacher.

But the gig is up.

Increasingly, taxpayers understand that the structural deficits this arrangement generates will bankrupt us. Already, taxpayer-subsidized pensions and benefits are edging out other spending priorities — from schools to parks and highways.

Scott Walker joins New York’s Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey’s indefatigable Chris Christie in shining the light of truth on this situation.

Recently, Christie confronted a crowd of catcalling union firefighters.

“I understand you feel deceived and betrayed,” he told them. “For 20 years, governors … have lied to you, promised you benefits that they had no way of paying for … just hoping that they wouldn’t be the man or woman left holding the bag.”

Christie is trying to save the state’s public-employee pension system, he said, which is close to bankruptcy. “What I don’t understand is why you’re booing the first guy to tell you the truth.”

Walker’s battle is our battle. Christie puts it bluntly: “If we don’t win this fight, there’s no other fight left.”

Katherine Kersten is a Twin Cities writer and speaker. Reach her at kakersten@gmail.com.

Comment:    With the collapse of Christianity especially among and due to  the university so-called ‘educated’  politics has become, in general, the religion of replacement.   This  religion, much favored by the American court system,  is Marxism which is the same Marxism as the economic system dictating government that bred the good old USSR, Mao’s China, Fidel’s SeanPenn paradise, Pol Pot’s graveyard, Greece’s bankruptcy, the United Kingdom’s pre-Thatcher grime of Marxist union rule, East Germany’s Stasi, Poland’s People’s Republic, Ho Chi Minh’s Jane Fonda Garden of Eden,  Caucescu’s  Romania,  and the Pyongyang Democracy of North Korea……some of the governments who have brought Progressive transition into Marxism through  peace or disruption, mostly the latter.

This list should also  include  the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama with its devotion to increasing government power, government ownership, government interference and manipulation of the law, and government micromanagement of citizen and local affairs to heights never seen before in America.  

Lefty “SLATE” Writes about Sex and the Impotence of the American Male

The following article is likely an accurate one  within the myopia of the Slate feminists, Marxists, and their fellow travelers.  Their politics of the past 40 years have been to remove  the western male from  previous transactions of  human behavior.  These  Marxists  by dogma demand equality throught the  authority of dictated law. 

This Marxism is the religion on-the-march with these people and they have infested all aspects of American life to make certain its faith is registered in law and in all aspects of  folk life.  Its present preacher and president is college educated, Barack Obama.

Slate is lefty.   Lefties glorifiy in talking sex, especially when displaying bananas to first graders to get their children prepared for their Lefty future…..Life with drugs and sex free of responsibilities except the remain equal to others of like backgrounds.     Success seems assured.   Sex sells……and it makes male and female feel free from Christian restraints.

Slate claims the fewer men the greater the sex…..for young men.  Slate, being Marxist, does not tend to mention much about the universal law of supply and demand in its writings.    Its socialist brain loosened by religious devotion to Nature and its love of weed ‘weeds’ out  the rational from its newly created unisex female mind in favor of the wished for.

Dennis Prager often comments correctly, unfortunately, that the Left prefers to feel rather than think.   Feeling about the future is more comforting than thinking about the future.

The Left in America has created SEX as the principal American entertainment.   All Americans are entitled to the best orgasms  possible.  Americans have certain “unalienable Rights.”

Slate writes the following article titled “SEX IS CHEAP”.      The sub-head  reveals more with its  question, “Why young men have the upper hand in bed, even when they are failing in life.”   

(Remember it has been Leftwing SEXIST policy for 30 years to create American male failure through court directives, school preachings and practices, university propaganda and censorship, quotas, false and pretended science research and simple Marxist dogma and preachings  that there are no differences between the human male and female except for socialization.”)

 Slate “says:”

“We keep hearing that young men are failing to adapt to contemporary life. Their financial prospects are impaired—earnings for 25- to 34-year-old men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971. Their college enrollment numbers trail women’s: Only 43 percent of American undergraduates today are men. Last year, women made up the majority of the work force for the first time. And yet there is one area in which men are very much in charge: premarital heterosexual relationships.

When attractive women will still bed you, life for young men, even those who are floundering, just isn’t so bad. This isn’t to say that all men direct the course of their relationships. Plenty don’t. But what many young men wish for—access to sex without too many complications or commitments—carries the day. If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired, we’d be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more marrying going on. Instead, according to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (which collects data well into adulthood), none of these things is occurring. Not one. The terms of contemporary sexual relationships favor men and what they want in relationships, not just despite the fact that what they have to offer has diminished, but in part because of it. And it’s all thanks to supply and demand.

To better understand what’s going on, it’s worth a crash course in “sexual economics,” an approach best articulated by social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs. As Baumeister, Vohs, and others have repeatedly shown, on average, men want sex more than women do. Call it sexist, call it whatever you want—the evidence shows it’s true. In one frequently cited study, attractive young researchers separately approached opposite-sex strangers on Florida State University’s campus and proposed casual sex. Three-quarters of the men were game, but not one woman said yes. I know: Women love sex too. But research like this consistently demonstrates that men have a greater and far less discriminating appetite for it. As Baumeister and Vohs note, sex in consensual relationships therefore commences only when women decide it does.

And yet despite the fact that women are holding the sexual purse strings, they aren’t asking for much in return these days—the market “price” of sex is currently very low. There are several likely reasons for this. One is the spread of pornography: Since high-speed digital porn gives men additional sexual options—more supply for his elevated demand—it takes some measure of price control away from women. The Pill lowered the cost as well. There are also, quite simply, fewer social constraints on sexual relationships than there once were. As a result, the sexual decisions of young women look more like those of men than they once did, at least when women are in their twenties. The price of sex is low, in other words, in part because its costs to women are lower than they used to be.

But just as critical is the fact that a significant number of young men are faring rather badly in life, and are thus skewing the dating pool. It’s not that the overall gender ratio in this country is out of whack; it’s that there’s a growing imbalance between the number of successful young women and successful young men. As a result, in many of the places where young people typically meet—on college campuses, in religious congregations, in cities that draw large numbers of twentysomethings—women outnumber men by significant margins. (In one Manhattan ZIP code, for example, women account for 63 percent of 22-year-olds.)

The idea that sex ratios alter sexual behavior is well-established. Analysis of demographic data from 117 countries has shown that when men outnumber women, women have the upper hand: Marriage rates rise and fewer children are born outside marriage. An oversupply of women, however, tends to lead to a more sexually permissive culture. The same holds true on college campuses. In the course of researching our book Premarital Sex in America, my co-author and I assessed the effects of campus sex ratios on women’s sexual attitudes and behavior. We found that virginity is more common on those campuses where women comprise a smaller share of the student body, suggesting that they have the upper hand. By contrast, on campuses where women outnumber men, they are more negative about campus men, hold more negative views of their relationships, go on fewer dates, are less likely to have a boyfriend, and receive less commitment in exchange for sex.

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health data offer other glimpses into just how low the cost of sex is for young men ages 18 through 23. Take the speed with which these men say their romantic relationships become sexual: 36 percent of young men’s relationships add sex by the end of the second week of exclusivity; an additional 13 percent do so by the end of the first month. A second indicator of cheap sex is the share of young men’s sexual relationships—30 percent—that don’t involve romance at all: no wooing, no dates, no nothing. Finally, as my colleagues and I discovered in our interviews, striking numbers of young women are participating in unwanted sex—either particular acts they dislike or more frequent intercourse than they’d prefer or mimicking porn (being in a dating relationship is correlated to greater acceptance of and use of porn among women).

Yes, sex is clearly cheap for men. Women’s “erotic capital,” as Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics has dubbed it, can still be traded for attention, a job, perhaps a boyfriend, and certainly all the sex she wants, but it can’t assure her love and lifelong commitment. Not in this market. It’s no surprise that the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds who are married has shrunk by an average of 1 percent each year this past decade.

Jill, a 20-year-old college student from Texas, is one of the many young women my colleagues and I interviewed who finds herself confronting the sexual market’s realities. Startlingly attractive and an all-star in all ways, she patiently endures her boyfriend’s hemming and hawing about their future. If she were operating within a collegiate sexual economy that wasn’t oversupplied with women, men would compete for her and she would easily secure the long-term commitment she says she wants. Meanwhile, Julia, a 21-year-old from Arizona who’s been in a sexual relationship for two years, is frustrated by her boyfriend’s wish to “enjoy the moment and not worry about the future.” Michelle, a 20-year-old from Colorado, said she is in the same boat: “I had an ex-boyfriend of mine who said that, um, he didn’t know if he was ever going to get married because, he said, there’s always going to be someone better.” If this is “the end of men,” someone really ought to let them know.

And yet while young men’s failures in life are not penalizing them in the bedroom, their sexual success may, ironically, be hindering their drive to achieve in life. Don’t forget your Freud: Civilization is built on blocked, redirected, and channeled sexual impulse, because men will work for sex. Today’s young men, however, seldom have to. As the authors of last year’s book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality put it, “Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and authority tend to be decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty sexy.” They’re right. But then try getting men to do anything.”

Comment:  Mark Regnerus is recorded as the source of this article.     Usually, if you read one writer at Slate, you have read them all……therefore, “Slate ‘says’:.

Sex is especially ‘in’ at university.  Life is usually boring is such dull environments.  Catherine Hakim seems to lighten up when discussing human sex as commodities for trade.   I might too, mighten you?  Slate ‘reported’:

“Yes, sex is clearly cheap for men. Women’s “erotic capital,” as Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics has dubbed it, can still be traded for attention, a job, perhaps a boyfriend, and certainly all the sex she wants, but it can’t assure her love and lifelong commitment. Not in this market. It’s no surprise that the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds who are married has shrunk by an average of 1 percent each year this past decade.”    Yes, this all seems plausible. 

But Slate claimed the assumption that “young men are failing in life” as they seem to be  to the joy of  leftist man and woman who hate men.  Slate forgets that not all men are Americans men and few of today’s American men are actually men…….but boys and  American women have become girls who seem never to reach womanhood. 

American leftists love Marxist Europe, the fathercontinent of Karl Marx their hero.  Europe creates Julian Assange as its male model.  It creates protections for its women through censorship and imprisonment.  Europe has Marxist standards Leftwing America craves for and is striving to achieve.  Its males are femaled as well.   But not all males.

Males elsewhere in the world, particularly in the world of Islam seem to be doing quite well with their testosterone.   They have become the hot topic of television, press and radio whether I, Lefties, or university propogandists like it or not.   This attraction should be a warning to  all Americans and Europeans that  not all the world’s males are as emasculatedas their Marxists would like.  Some still are trained to exercise the gift Nature provides the human male that is not generously distributed among its females:

The human male is by Nature a killer.   The human female by Nature is a security seeker.   History’s pages are filled with recordings of her disloyalties.  Despite Marxist dogma, the American male and female  beneath  all of the fun and hope of their pretendings,  are no different.

As our schools rather play with bananas to aid American physical pleasures rather than to educate to create adults to solve crises and problems of our and their  future, known and unknown, the human in this male animal still resides just below his skin.    We can jail the rising numbers of male discontents all we want…..but the human male is still an animal with animal instincts which, sorry Marxist gals, don’t quite fit into your forced equality program for America.

Remember Toynbee’s truth:   “Great civilizations are not murdered.  They commit suicide.”

Wikileaks Reveal Muslim Brotherhood Ties to Iran

The following article was written by Brian Fairchild at Pajamas Media:

“The Obama administration believes that the Muslim Brotherhood is an acceptable player in forming a new government in Egypt despite the fact that about a dozen very public quotes from the former and current leaders of the Brotherhood, which I provided in a Pajamas Media article last week, reveal the Brotherhood’s Salafi-jihadi worldview and support for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

These quotes are readily available to anyone who wants to take the time to look for them, but the Obama team’s acceptance of the Brotherhood is all the more mystifying due to the fact that the government’s own classified State Department cables document that Iran, our arch-enemy in the region, has been clandestinely supporting it as a proxy in Egypt.

This information is contained in a classified June 29, 2010, cable from the American Embassy in Cairo titled “General Petraeus’ Meeting With EGIS Chief Soliman,” in which General Petraeus, then the commander of Central Command, and Omar Soliman, then the chief of the Egyptian General Intelligence Service, discussed this specific threat.

During the conversation, Soliman complained to Petraeus that:

• “Egypt suffers from Iranian interference through its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies, and its support for…the Muslim Brotherhood….We hope Iran will stop supporting Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and other cells.”

It should be noted here that Hamas, listed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the U.S. government, is not an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is simply a violent chapter of the organization as proven by Article 2 of its own charter which states:

• “The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine.”

The Hamas charter and Iran’s use of the Brotherhood in Egypt as a proxy prove that it is a violent organization and that Iran is using it to destabilize Egypt. Given Iran’s operational style, it is only prudent to believe that our Middle Eastern nemesis is also providing clandestine support to Brotherhood chapters in Jordan, Yemen, Algeria, Tunisia, and elsewhere. Supplied with this information, it is difficult to grasp how President Obama thinks that the Brotherhood’s participation in forming a new Egyptian government is a good idea.

But our government’s own revelations about the dangers of the Brotherhood do not stop there. If the Obama administration needed any more proof that the Brotherhood poses a danger, it need look no further than a classified State Department cable titled “Scenesetter for Counterterrorism Coordinator Crumpton’s Visit to the UAE.” It written in 2006 by the American Embassy in Abu Dhabi.

In this cable, one of our most important allies in the region, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, felt it important enough to warn Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs C. David Welch of the “dangers of free elections in countries with a well-organized Muslim Brotherhood presence.”

Shedding light on how the Brotherhood threatens the security of the United Arab Emirates itself, the sheikh revealed just how precarious the situation is by stating that “if there were an election in Dubai tomorrow, the Muslim Brotherhood would take over.”

So clear is the Brotherhood’s danger to his country that the sheikh declared that the Emirati leadership will not allow Islamists to participate in any election.

Moving from elections to violence, in 2005, in a classified cable from the U.S. Embassy in Madrid titled “Spain: An Active Front in the War on Terror,” the embassy’s political section provided an excellent history of Islamic terrorist groups in Spain that clearly blames the Muslim Brotherhood as the organization that started it all:

• “The first Islamic terrorist organizations were formed by Syrian members of the Muslim Brotherhood who had fled repression by the Asad regime and settled in Spain in the late 1980s.”

Finally, in a classified cable from the American Embassy in Qatar titled “Talking Points for Visit of Qatar’s Prime Minister to Washington January 4-5, 2010,” the embassy forwarded talking points for an upcoming meeting between American officials and Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani. Key among the talking points was one that chastised the prime minister for allowing Muslim Brother and Qatari resident Yousef Al-Qaradawi to continue to support Hamas.

A little background on Mr. Qaradawi is enlightening.  Yousef Al-Qaradawi is considered to be the most influential Muslim Brotherhood cleric in the world today as illustrated by the fact that he was offered the organization’s top position of supreme guide in 1975 and 2004. Qaradawi, however, turned down the offers because he said he had more freedom to operate out of Qatar.

In 1999, the U.S. government banned Qaradawi from entering the United States because of his support for suicide bombings against Israeli men, women, and children, and on May 15, 2010, Qaradawi urged Palestinian factions to unify ranks and launch a “jihad” against Israel and to consider the peace process as nothing more than a “mirage.”

Incidentally, this firebrand of jihad is directly connected to the American Muslim Brotherhood, as he is the chairman of the Muslim American Society’s Islamic American University, a  position from which he helps shape the minds of young American Muslims.

So no longer does the Obama team have to rely on biased and meddlesome outside observers to advise it on the dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood.

If it just reviews its own classified State Department cable traffic it will learn that the Brotherhood in Egypt is the clandestine proxy of our arch-enemy Iran, that our allies in the UAE regard it is as too dangerous to participate in free elections, that Muslim Brothers created Spain’s first Islamic terrorist organizations, and that the jihad-mongering Muslim Brother Qaradawi, who is closely associated with our own Muslim American Society, continues to support Hamas, which we ourselves list as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist organization.

Mr. Obama, which of these Brotherhood qualifications convince you and your team that this organization would be a positive player in forming the new Egyptian government?”     

Brian Fairchild served as a career Operations Officer in the Central Intelligence Agency’s Clandestine Service

What America’s Teacher Thugs Have to Say About Their ‘Rights’

If you wonder why public education has collapsed in today’s America click on the following:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/25/video-union-protesters-figure-out-who-the-real-terrorists-are/

Video: Union protesters figure out who the real terrorists are

 by Allahpundit

“Two spoonfuls of video sugar to cleanse the palate. Please click on above:   The second clip comes from this morning’s budget vote in the Wisconsin state assembly; if you’re not at work, I recommend turning up the sound nice and loud so you can get the full effect of the screeching. The first comes, I think, from the protest outside the statehouse today in Trenton, where embattled, possibly insane dictator Chris Christie clings desperately to power while urging his lackeys to dance and sing.”

N.Y. Times David Brooks Plays Lefty Again. “Parties Don’t Represent the People”

In a recent blog article I referred  to David Brooks and an odd day conservative, the closest thing to a conservative the New York Times would dare hire to be their token “white” reporter.   Here in the video below Brooks is in one of his wuss moments where he bows to his superiors and pander purrs to them with nonsense.  

He is not at his best….and not at his worst.  He is a New York Times David Brooks.

He states that the two Parties don’t represent the people.  One Party is Progressives on a fast track train ride to Marxism, and the other Party in in transition just now awakening to its momunental task of saying “NO TO MARXISM”.

David Brooks lives somewhere in the environs of New York City.  Why should we wonder he doesn’t know the country in which he lives.   He claims the country is a bell curve….with the fat part being in the middle.   Well, why doesn’t he survey to find out what these fat parts worry about.

The Democrat Party and its Marxist associates have taken America to the edge of ruin in the social, religious and cultural sabotage it has stirred in the coulntry since the Vietnam war years and the ugly Cultural,  Racist, Drug, and Sexual  Revolution of 1967-1980.   The ash is still settling.   Some  Americans are very, very fed up with the David Brooks wusses and pusses in Congress and the state capitals. 

Mr. Brooks in his flat in Gotham City somewhere has no idea there is a ground swell of counter revolution rumbling here in parts of the midwest, likely in small town and upstate New York.     When do  these overwashed and super-soft, spoiled-rotten  snobs,  the PBS  intoxicated, those lefties mesmerized by  the soft porn of Obamalies, visit that other world, the one they consider the tar pits of the primitives, the too dumb to accept the superior wisdom of the writers at the New York Times or Washington Post or those at Harvard or Yale, Columbia and Princeton.

David Brooks is a product of and a chief salesman of the censorship of political correctness.   The Tea Party should be applauded for its daring to begin to put an end to this Leftwing, Racist, Sexist, Marxist, Antidemocratic assault on citizen free expression.   Most Americans hate multiculturalism which has been foisted by the David Brookses upon us at university.  Most Americans wonder why the wusses in Washington don’t put an end to illegal immigration.   Most Americans are sick and tired of cowing to vulgard, obnoxious, insulting, antiAmerican muslims and mulim propaganda straight from the madrassas of Saudi Arabia.  

Most Americans are sick and tire of the plantation culture  the American Leftwing has created among America’s inner city black population….a crime filled, racist filled, drug filled, sociopathic population of animal human males running wild.    

Most Americans are not interested in the Marxist state, Mr. Obama, the American academy, press, entertainment, and victimhood industries, schools and class warfare unionists are creating.

Mr. Brooks doesn’t know America very well.   I am sure a lot of his type Republicans in Congress don’t either.   How would they know anything outside of the leftwing playgrounds anyway.

This is a helluva good time to be a Pragerite.   Right is on our side….We are on the Right side….whichever one says it.

Christianity may be damaged  and of course among  the Obama Marxists, dead.   But there is still a lot of its good  left in the red state mind.    Americans are not set for Marxism yet…..sorry to disappoint you, President Obama and David Brooks.    The War against Political Correctness is just beginning.    Click on to see and hear David perform on a video provided at the Daily Caller:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/26/david-brooks-more-people-own-ferrets-than-watch-fox-news/