DID THEY REALLY JUST SAY THAT?

There may be hope yet!  The first step towards recovery is admitting there's a problem, right?  Can we consider this the first step?



Considering this is coming from the network that has been, by far, the most egregious offender, this is quite
an admission, isn't it?  Mika's tangible dismay is priceless.  You can see her having a "darn it, we do it too!" (or was it a "darn it, why were they stupid enough to get caught on camera?") moment.  I'm sure she won't stymied by it for long.

Oh, and don't you just love their nonchalance about something they are normally fervently, ardently and vociferously denying?   No need to deny when you're in the echo chamber, eh boys?

Read more...

DID THEY REALLY JUST SAY THAT?

PROJECTING FAILURE

The latest meme by the administration, which has officially hit the echo chamber that is the neo-pravda media, is an attempt to paint the tea party and conservatives as 'radicals'.  I'll give you a minute to stop laughing....

Yes, the administration that brought us communist Van Jones, Mao lover Anita Dunn, Ecoscience author John Holdren, and 'fisting' fan/NAMBLA supporter Kevin Jennings are pointing the finger of radicalism at the tea parties. 

It's called 'projection'.

I honestly never thought I would see the day when groups of americans gathering together to show their love and support for their country and demand a return to the observance of our founding documents would be called radical, while those who support marxist ideals, the welfare state and global governance are being portrayed as mainstream.  They assert that the call to "Take our country back" is some sort of attempt at a radical overthrow of the administration.  They miss the point entirely.  It is about taking our country back to it's constitutional roots; taking it back to the system that made it great, before it was perverted by the welfare state and yes, to a certain extent, taking it back from the career politicians on both sides of the aisle that have exploited and perverted the system. 

This latest attempt to control and distort the debate is about as transparent as saran wrap.  They cannot run on Obamacare.  they cannot run on the so-called 'recovery summer'.  They cannot run on any of their legislative wins, because of how unpopular they are.  All that is left is demonization of their favorite target, the tea party.  They are preaching to the choir on this one, attempting to motivate their base. Unfortunately, their base seems rather lethargic.  Instead, what they are doing is motivating the so-called radicals they are busy slandering. 

When in heaven's name did it become sound political strategy to demonize a large portion of the voting public?  How can this possibly work in their favor?  Not only did they misread their mandate in 2008, but now they are miscounting their base.  They seem to think that the 53% that Obama won by in 2008 is their new base.  In reality, only about 20% of americans consider themselves democrat/liberal/progressive.  About 40% self identify as conservative/republican, with 36% being fluid, identifying with neither party. 

There is a good chance that they will succeed in stimulating their base with all of the radical rhetoric they are spewing, but this level of discourse has traditionally been rather off-putting for moderates.  This is why most campaigns wait until the final weeks to sling mud.  This election season, there has been no attempt to debate the issues; mud slinging has gone from being the last-ditch 'nuclear option' to the only option for endangered democrats.  While this new tactic might just motivate their base, the demonization merely strengthens the resolve of conservatives to get out and vote.  This will backfire on them, simply because conservatives outnumber liberals by a 2-1 margin.  Add in the disillusioned moderates and the moderates who were on the fence but have been turned off by the negativity, and it's not a pretty picture for democrats.

Bottom line: is it really worth rallying 20% when it also means you will be alienating and energizing somewhere in the neighborhood of 60+% in opposition?  I'm no politician, but the logic seems a little...off. 

But, then again, this administration isn't really known for it's math skills.

Read more...

PROJECTING FAILURE

STAMPING OUT OBESITY

Last week, congress passed the "EduJobs" bill.  This bill is ostensibly to help save teacher's jobs in states with budget deficits.  In reality, many of the states that are to receive this "aid" don't need it, and it seems that the unions are the real beneficiaries, with $36 million going to the National Educators Association and an additional $14 million going to the American Federation of Teachers.  Let's not forget that unions are some of the biggest contributors for democrat campaigns, with teachers unions at the top of the list.

The bigger question is how this $26 billion piece of legislation is going to be paid for?  Why, by appropriating from other programs, of course.  Let's remember before we discuss where funding is coming from, that this bill was sold as helping teachers and children.  The teachers unions love to invoke the children, and yet most of their demands help no one but themselves and their members.  The unions wanted the $26 billion to be counted as "emergency spending", but the democrats were afraid to give republicans more ammunition with yet another unfunded spending bill.  Instead they decided to abide by their oft ignored PayGo legislation and raid a few piggy banks - at some point in the future.  So where is the funding coming from (via Education Report):

Education Week reported that the bill takes $50 million from the Striving Readers adolescent literacy program, $10 million from the Ready to Teach program that pays for teacher telecommunications programs and $82 million from student financial aid administration. The bill would not take money from the "Race to the Top" fund, as earlier proposed, according to Education Week.

Some of the funding will also be coming from the charter school system - a system the teachers unions oppose - because most charter schools, like private schools, are not unionized.  This is also why unions (and democrats) oppose school choice - most parents would chose a private or charter school over a public one, and most of them are union free.  How very convenient for the unions that they are getting increased funding by stealing appropriating funding from the charter schools.  No doubt that was a happy coincidence.

The remainder of the funding will be coming out of the food stamp program, to the tune of about $12 billion...but not until 2014.  Why take the blame this year when you can pile it on another congress a few years later?  Kicking the can down the road - congress' favorite sport.

Congress seems to think the food stamp program is the newest cash cow, because they are now proposing to dip into the kitty yet again to fund Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign.  Perhaps it's because there was little outcry from the public over the funding of the edujobs bill, perhaps because there's just no where else to get it from (hey, how about what's left of the non-stimulating stimulus?), but either way, the food stamp program seems to be the congressional pot of gold du jour.

Taking money from the food stamp program to fund Mrs. O's "Let's Move!" program makes sense, though - the easiest way to crack down on obesity, particularly in the poorer neighborhoods where it seems to be reaching epidemic proportions, is by taking away the means to buy food in the first place.  There is a great deal of irony in taking food out of kids mouths in the name of education - aren't we told that good nutrition is essential to good education?  Let's not forget, too, the war on cheap convenience food (led by Michelle Obama) - so they are taking away cheaper alternatives, thus forcing poor parents to pay more for food, while at the same time reducing the amount of assistance they receive to buy food. 

Progressive humanitarianism - it's a frightening thing.

What is most galling about these programs and the way they are being funded is the moral superiority their backers are displaying.  The teacher's unions and supporters of Let's Move! are crying that these programs are necessary for the good of the kids.  No, they are for the good of the unions and progressive social engineering.  It is appalling that these groups are using children as human shields to further their agendas - agendas that seem to be more harmful than beneficial in the long run.  Unless, of course, your idea of beneficial doesn't include a decent education and food on the table. 

As for the fruits of the liberal tree of knowledge, things are looking pretty grim.  Better not be too vocal about questioning their success, though.

Read more...

STAMPING OUT OBESITY

COMEDY OR RACISM - DEPENDS ON THE MESSENGER

I am no fan of Bill Mahr.  And yet again, he has reminded me why:




Let's see - we now have blatantly racist remarks about our president from liberal 'supporters' Bill Maher, Harry Reid and Bill Clinton.  They have all made highly offensive, undeniably racist remarks, and every one has been dismissed by the left.  I wonder how they will spin this one.  Oh, that's right - it's comedy and he's a comedian, so we shouldn't hold him to the same standards as other people.  Isn't that how David Letterman gets away with his offensive remarks? 

If a conservative comedian (if there were any, of course) made a "joke" like this, they would be tarred, feathered and blacklisted.  Luckily for Mr. Maher, he has no moral code and is a card carrying liberal, so he is in the clear.  I personally find it sad that these far left idiots seem to think that a black man is only "authentically" black if he is a gun-toting, epithet spewing, 'gangsta' stereotype.  

On the other hand, there are accusations of racial epithets uttered by tea party protesters - none of which have been captured on tape for verification, even though there were literally hundreds of people video taping the event in question - including the people who were allegedly called the slurs.  These accusations have somehow become fact anyway, even with no real facts to uphold them, and are held up as proof that the tea partyers are racists.

No, no double standard here.  Move along, move along....

Read more...

COMEDY OR RACISM - DEPENDS ON THE MESSENGER

CHURCH AND THE STATE OF IOWA

This week in Davenport, Iowa, the City Administrator, Craig Malin, sent a memo to city employees announcing that the term "Good Friday" would officially be known as "Spring Holiday".   This has ignited a firestorm of criticism that caused the city council (who were not given the opportunity to vote on the change) to overrule the decision and restore Good Friday.

The argument used for this change was, of course, the old liberal favorite - "separation of church and state".

It's time to set the record straight on this once and for all.  The liberals are fond of saying that the term "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution.  It is not.  The only mention of church and state in the Constitution is this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

What that means is that the State is not allowed to impose a state-run religion on the people. or regulate how, what or where they worship.  The reason they added this language was because in England, the State runs the Church.  The situation with the Church of England has been a bone of contention amongst the British for centuries - one need look no further than  Henry VIII  and his daughter, "Bloody" Mary for proof of that. There are plenty of examples throughout european history as well, such as a little thing called the Spanish Inquisition.   Throughout history, state imposed religion in european countries has caused bloodshed and power struggles time and time again.

Our founders wanted to avoid the rise of one particular religion over the others as well as avoiding having the state control or mandate worship.  But at no point in time did they want no religion whatsoever.  Our founders were almost all practicing christians of some form or another and believed that faith in God was necessary to good governance.  God is all over the founding of our nation, from the four times He was mentioned in our Declaration of Independence to the numerous mentions in our Constitution.  "In God we trust" was emblazoned not just on our money, but also over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol.  God is in our Pledge of Allegiance.  Throughout our Capitol, there are countless references to God and the Bible on monuments and state buildings - the Supreme Court building has a relief of Moses and the Ten Commandments on the east entrance and throughout the building (no matter how they try to spin it).  One of the first books our new nation printed was a bible, which was sponsored by Congress and was actually printed to be used in schools as a textbook.  Our representatives must swear, on a bible, an oath of office that ends with "So help me God" before taking office.  The Supreme Court, in 1892, gave us the "Trinity Decision" which stated that "this is a Christian nation".  Over and over again, the Judeo-Christian ethic is shown to be a founding principle of this country.

The reason the left is desperate to rid the state of religion is twofold.  First, if God is in our government, it follows that there should be morality, accountability and ethics, too - things that are sorely lacking these days.  Second, the progressives want government to be god.  This desire has become quite evident.  When our Founding Fathers created our government, they understood that rights were things only God could bestow.  Our current government, however, in it's current incarnation as "god" has taken to bequeathing new "rights" on the people (more on "rights" in a minute).  They invoke the Constitution, even as they trample on it, in their arguments against religion; but, as usual, they misinterpret it.  Perhaps they should try reading it sometime.  In fact, it should be a requirement of federal office that a thorough knowledge of the Constitution be proved prior to being sworn in.  Many of our recent officeholders (on both sides of the aisle) find it easy to sidestep our founding document due to their complete ignorance of it.

As to "rights", a right is something inherent - endowed by our Creator, not by man or government.  It is something everyone has without having to deprive someone else of something.  The right to free speech is a God given right, as are the rights to life and liberty.  Owning a home or car, or getting a college education or health insurance are privileges.    Our government is trying to sell us on the idea that those things are rights, because then they can play at being the benevolent 'god' and dole those things out to us as they see fit.  And let's not forget - that which has been given by man can always be taken away.  It is about power and control, ultimately.

So the next time some lefty spouts off about "separation of church and state", set them straight.  Tell them to read the Constitution before they try to invoke it, and not spin it to fit their theories.  Suggest, too, that they research the backgrounds of our Founding Fathers - knowing the men who created our country and the times in which it was created are very important to understanding our founding documents.  Explain that the so-called "separation" was to protect the church from state control, not to protect the state from church control.  It's well past time to set them straight and stop their revision of our history.

In the meantime, is anyone up for a rousing rendition of "God Bless America"?

Read more...

CHURCH AND THE STATE OF IOWA

(YET ANOTHER) OBAMA HEALTH CARE SPEECH

I'm sitting here trying to listen to Obama's speech to the Democrat Caucus, but I'm having a hard time.  I keep bursting out in laughter.

The line that really got me?  Obama claiming that the bill is "middle of the road".

Needless to say, the bs is flowing fast and thick at this meeting.  The meeting is basically a pep rally for The One to encourage the troops to vote for this mess.  Now that demon pass is not an option, they are going to have to suck it up and vote for the toxic Senate bill.

The meeting was also most likely a ruse to get the dems out of their offices and in a closed meeting so that they didn't have to face their constituents, who have stormed the Capitol to have their voices heard. 

Finally, a moment of truth from the Deceiver-in-Chief:

"Now, is this bill perfect?  Of course not.  Will this solve every single problem in our health care system right away?  No."

But it will tax us right away, so at least there's that....Oh boy, here's the liberal guilt push:

"If you honestlly believe, in your heart of hearts, in your conscience, that this is not an improvement over the status quo, in spite of all the information that's out there that says that without serious reform efforts like this one, people's premiums are going to double over the next five, ten years; that folks are going to keep on getting letters from their insurance companies that their premiums just went up 40 or 50%, if you think that somehow it's okay that we have millions of hard working Americans who can't get health care, and that it's alright, it's acceptable, in the wealthiest nation on earth that their children with chronic illnesses that can't get the care that they need, if you think that the system is working for ordinary Americans rather than the insurance companies, then you should vote no on this bill.  If you can honestly say that, then you shouldn't support it." 

One minor point, Mr. President - I know the image of sick kids is always an effective liberal tool to conjure up votes, but, um, didn't you take care of the uninsured children problem last year with the expansion of SCHIP?   Or is that program working as well as most other government agencies, and thus the uninsured kids?  I know it's hard to say no to sick kids - which is why SCHIP passed last year.  Sorry, Mr. President, those human shields have already been used. 

Oh, and, as for the increasing premiums, one of your own has disabused us of the notion this bill will fix that problem, as has the CBO.

Oh, and more people would have health insurance if they had a JOB!!!  It's going to be hard to get jobs for the millions of people who are out of work, so how about untying insurance from employment?  Another thing that might help is dropping state line rules and allowing the free market to work it's magic.  But those are republican ideas, so obviously they won't work and shouldn't even be considered.

There is only one other part of the speech that I agree with, aside from the moment of truth:

You're here to represent your constituencies, and if you think your constituencies honestly wouldn't be helped, you shouldn't vote for this."

Amen, brother.

Stay tuned tomorrow for the big vote....

Read more...

(YET ANOTHER) OBAMA HEALTH CARE SPEECH

CRAZY TALK

Today a very disturbed man flew his small plane into an Austin, TX building housing IRS personnel.  The pilot, Joe Stack, and an unnamed victim died at the scene and 13 people were injured.  Prior to this act, the Stack set fire to his home.

Stack  posted a long anti-government rant before he flew his plane into that building.  Because of these lunatic ravings, there are many on the left who are calling this a terrorist act that they are linking to the Tea Party movement.  Now, one would expect something like this from lefty blogs, but the Washington Post has picked up the meme, as have other mainstream media outlets (I'm sure Olby and Maddow will be all over it tonight).  As of this writing, if you google 'Joe Stack', 'Joe Stack Tea Party' is number 8 on the suggested search list.

There is much about Stack's post that they aren't talking about, though - things that would change the post from an anti-government Tea Party slanted rant into what it really was - the rabid ramblings of a man teetering on the brink.

HotAir's Allahpundit has a great rundown of the liberal slant:

5. He was mad at the IRS, and left what CNN reports was a suicide note on a local website, detailing his trials with the agency. In fact, a lot of his rhetoric could have been taken directly from a handwritten sign at a tea party rally.

Yeah, it could, although I confess to not having noticed a strong “capitalism is for suckers” vibe at rallies that are, let’s face it, driven mainly by laissez faire libertarian impulses. Meanwhile, Time magazine, while mentioning the anti-Bush passage, slipped the following hyperlink into its story on Stack:

According to news reports, 199 IRS employees work in the building, and all are accounted for. Toward the end of what appears to be his final note, Stack wrote, “Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.” (See the making of the Tea Party movement.)

What is really interesting is the media response to the University of Alabama murderer as opposed to the fervor of the coverage of Stack's actions.  This woman was obviously sick, but, by the same standard the media is using for Stack, Amy Bishop should be making headlines for her rabid obsession with Barack Obama (a clearly disturbed woman obsessed with the President?  not good) and obvious feelings of entitlement towards tenure - very liberal positions.

But we're not hearing too much about Ms. Bishop, are we?  We're not hearing about her liberal congressional protector.  We're not hearing that this Obama worshipping, Harvard-trained university faculty member was a Socialist (but only after class!).  If a Tea Partier had perpetrated this crime, do you think it would have made the news cycles that the three victims were minorities? 

I'm not trying to say that Bishop killed Adriel Johnson, Maria Ragland Davis and Gopi Podila out of some sort of ideology (although there actually was an attempt to lump her in with the Tea Partiers, if you can believe it).  She is a seriously ill woman who had a history of violence who had gotten away with murder and attempted murder before.  Violence became an acceptable solution.

As for Joe Stack, he was a frustrated man who was pushed to the brink by a system that, in his unbalanced mind, became predatory.

These events are not politically motivated, they are the product of unstable minds.  On the surface, John Hinkley, Jr.'s assasination attempt on Ronald Reagan could have been politically motivated.  But just scratch the surface a little, and it's obvious the attempt was based on the movie Taxi Driver and was designed to impress Jodi Foster, not make a political statement.

For those who say he was a terrorist, I can see that point.  But, then, so would Amy Bishop - murder, attempted bombing, random violent attacks.  For me, though, a terrorist is someone who is participating in a campaign of terrorist attacks, be it based on religious or political ideologies.  The Ft. Hood shooter was a terrorist.  IRA bombers were terrorists.  Stack and Bishop were just plain crazy. 

In this post 9/11 world, it is easy to see dire subtexts in everything, but sometimes the acts of a crazy person are just that - the acts of a crazy person.

Read more...

CRAZY TALK

AN UTTER DISGRACE

President Obama has said numerous times over the past few years that education is a main focus for him and his presidency.  Unfotunately, his actions since obtaining office have put the lie to that claim. 

Last year he when he signed the omnibus spending bill, he also signed on to cut off funding for the Opportunity Scholarship Program in Washington, DC, forcing approximately 1,700 DC students back to the horrible public school system. 

Under OSP, hundreds of children were given vouchers to escape the public schools to go to the private school of their choice. The democrat's attempt to end the program was met with a backlash from parents and Republicans (who passed the program in 2004 under Bush) and they were forced to compromise - all current recipients would be allowed to finish high school, but no more new scholarshiips would be awarded.   Unfortunately, even that promise had an expiration date.   Obama has done what this administration seems to always do - snuck it through the back door.  He has included the demolition of the program in his 2011 budget by slashing funding yet again and refusing any funding at all after 2011.

The program, started under Bush in 2004, was wildly successful.  Mostly minority children were given the opportunity to thrive and learn, and they took it and made the most of it.  Dropout rates for OSP recipients were minimal, as opposed to their public school peers.  The number of OSP children who went on to college was also impressive in comparison to their peers.  Best of all, where it costs around $18,000 per year to send a child to the horrific DC public schools, the vouchers only cost the district $7,500.  Parents liked the program, children thrived, reading scores improved, and it was cost effective,  but still the democrats cut the program.

Why?

For me, the main theory is that unions opposed the program because it was taking children (and thus tax dollars) from the union controlled public schools and putting them in non-union controlled private schools.  It's all about the money, like most things in the liberal agenda.

What kills me is that liberals are always talking about conservatives holding down the black community, but when it comes to actions, they are really the ones who are relegating them to lives spent in subpar schools, dangerous communities and wasted potential.  They are relegating those children to lives of poverty, living off the largesse of the government's entitlement programs.

(On a quick sidebar, I saw Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) talking about the success of the stimulus bill and how the new jobs bill will serve the same purpose. He was touting the additional food stamps, increases in Medicaid spending and extended unemployment handed out by the two bills. Hey Ed, if the 'jobs' bills actually created jobs, people wouldn't need food stamps, unemployment and Medicaid.  You know, because they'd have ...jobs?)

Obama vowed that his Education Secretary Arnie Duncan would work for the best interests of all children in his speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in March 2009:

“Secretary Duncan will use only one test when deciding what ideas to support with your precious tax dollars: It's not whether an idea is liberal or conservative, but whether it works.”

This program works, Mr. President, so why are you pulling the rug out from under all of those kids?

For all their talk of a 'hand up, not a handout', democrats sure don't put their money where their mouths are.

Read more...

AN UTTER DISGRACE

REALITY BREAKTHROUGH?

There is a fascinating op-ed by columnist Bob Herbert of the NY Times that deserves attention. 

Mr. Herbert, it is safe to assume, is left of center.  HIs columns run from social trends to politics to urban affairs, but always with a liberal viewpoint.  It was with much surprise that I saw this article from him in the Headlines section of Hot Air (I don't really make a practice of reading the NY Times if I can avoid it - I get dizzy from the spin and my stomach just isn't up for it anymore).

The article discusses the true ramifications and sneaky hidden taxes that the democrats have set us up for. 

It is a surprisingly frank and critical piece, which gives me hope that there are some rational people out there who aren't blindly following the party line.  It really starts out with quite a bang:

There is a middle-class tax time bomb ticking in the Senate’s version of President Obama’s effort to reform health care.

He goes on to describe the "confiscatory 40 percent tax" on Cadillac health plans.

In fact, it’s a tax that in a few years will hammer millions of middle-class policyholders, forcing them to scale back their access to medical care.


Which is exactly what the tax is designed to do.

\He goes on to explain how the rising costs of health care are going to eventually lead to an increase in the number of families hit by this tax. 

Within three years of its implementation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax would apply to nearly 20 percent of all workers with employer-provided health coverage in the country, affecting some 31 million people. Within six years, according to Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax would reach a fifth of all households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 annually. Those families can hardly be considered very wealthy.

Finally, somebody on the left gets it!  Not only that, but he also sees the "dirty little secret" of the bill:

Proponents say the tax will raise nearly $150 billion over 10 years, but there’s a catch. It’s not expected to raise this money directly. The dirty little secret behind this onerous tax is that no one expects very many people to pay it. The idea is that rather than fork over 40 percent in taxes on the amount by which policies exceed the threshold, employers (and individuals who purchase health insurance on their own) will have little choice but to ratchet down the quality of their health plans.

According to Herbert. this means saying buh-bye to dental, vision, and mental health coverage.  I guess those things aren't a right.   The whole purpose of health care 'reform' was to bring down costs, wasn't it?  Well, it turns out that this bill is actually going to cost us a hell of a lot more than if we were to just allow the current system to 'skyrocket' like they keep squawking about. 

So on top of our regular premiums (which most liberals will happily concede are too high - thus the desperate need for health care 'reform'), we will have to pay a 40% tax.  Okay, we don't want to pay the tax, so we decide to get cheaper insurance, usually meaning less insurance.  Which means we pay less right?  Technically, yes, but not really, because now we will have higher deductibles, so in an effort to save on those costs, we will be less likely to go to the doctor.  Good for the system - keeps wait times down - but bad for us, because that also means there will be more people waiting until a condition really gets bad before getting treated.  This, of course, means more expensive treatments - a larger portion of which will be coming out of our own pockets.  Gee, whatever happened to more preventative care, anyway?  This bill is the exact opposite of that promise.  Seems to be par for the course, these days....

But I digress.  There are just so many points of attack on this bill that it is easy to get sidetracked.  Let's get to the dirty little secret that "requires a monumental suspension of disbelief":

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, less than 18 percent of the revenue will come from the tax itself. The rest of the $150 billion, more than 82 percent of it, will come from the income taxes paid by workers who have been given pay raises by employers who will have voluntarily handed over the money they saved by offering their employees less valuable health insurance plans.


Can you believe it?

So...now the liberals are telling us that the greedy corporate fat-cat pillagers are going to take the savings they will be raking in from the cheaper insurance policies their employees will be federally mandated and taxed into settling for will be rolled over into raises for said employees. Which our betters in government will then tax heavily to subsidize someone else's health care - quite possibly a nice little union cadillac plan with dental, vision and mental health coverage.  What are the odds that the formerly evil demonspawn CEO's (now reformed into kindly, benevolent givers of 'trickle-up' economic stimulus, apparently) will so generously reward their workers for the savings pouring into their coffers?  Mr. Herbert asks Richard Trumka, president of theAFL-CIO:

I had to wait for him to stop laughing to get his answer. “If you believe that,” he said, “I have some oceanfront property in southwestern Pennsylvania that I will sell you at a great price.”

Bah, that's just one guy, the liberals sneer.

A survey of business executives by Mercer, a human resources consulting firm, found that only 16 percent of respondents said they would convert the savings from a reduction in health benefits into higher wages for employees. Yet proponents of the tax are holding steadfast to the belief that nearly all would do so.

Hope springs eternal, no?

Mr. Herbert seems to be of the opinion that the powers that be need to level with the American public on the realities of this bill.  In a rare cry for truth and transparency from the left, he finishes as strongly as he started:

The tax on health benefits is being sold to the public dishonestly as something that will affect only the rich, and it makes a mockery of President Obama’s repeated pledge that if you like the health coverage you have now, you can keep it.


Those who believe this is a good idea should at least have the courage to be straight about it with the American people.

Amen.

So when do you think he will be denounced and ridiculed by the left for refusing to toe the party line?   I bet he was bouight by those mean old insurance companies....

Read more...

REALITY BREAKTHROUGH?

HOLLYWOOD'S INDOCTRINATION

Here's a great article on the upcoming History Channel presentation of 'The People Speak', via Michelle Malkin. 

I like the History Channel.  I watch it on a nearly daily basis.  I have been seeing the ads for this show and have been wondering what it will be all about.  Considering the line-up of far left actors in the promo and the communist clenched fist logo, I was assuming it would be pretty liberal leaning. 

I was right.

The creator of this newest piece of indoctrination is apparently a marxist 'historian' who feels that too many facts are being taught in our schools.

“There is no such thing as pure fact,” Zinn asserts.

The show is, according to Malkin, a military bashing, free market hating, white oppression touting liberal extravaganza, written, co-produced and bankrolled by Howard Zinn and actor Matt Damon.

The fact that they have a documentary isn't the problem.  You can just change the channel if you don't want to watch it.

The fact that they also have a teaching plan to go with the documentary for when it is shown in schools nationwide is a problem, however.  A big problem. 

The indoctrination of our children is going strong, and Hollywood is upping the ante with their star power. 

Please read Ms. Malkin's whole article - it's quite an eye-opener.  The description of the math program Mr. Zinn and his cohorts are promoting will make your jaw drop.

If your child's school decides to run this program, demand an opt-out.  I know I will.

Read more...

HOLLYWOOD'S INDOCTRINATION