Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Greedy SEIU

I’m so sick of hearing those on the left complain about “greedy” bankers, capitalists, what have you. Protecting what is rightfully yours is not greedy. Taking from others what isn’t rightfully yours is. When the others are people on public assistance and the takers live the fat life while pretending to be allies, the theft goes beyond greedy. It’s unconscionable. And it’s par for the course for SEIU, other public sector unions, and their enablers and apologists.

In a piece from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, titled “Michigan SEIU Scam the Product of Government Collective Bargaining,” author Trey Kovacs details a scheme where the Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3) was created ostensibly to register providers as an aid to Medicaid recipients looking for home health care service. In fact, it was used to declare all such providers government workers, facilitating their covert and forced unionization.

Once the scam was completed, SEIU was given a collective bargaining agreement by the state, and the theft began. A mechanism was created to siphon union dues from Medicaid checks. Read that again: SEIU is quietly, deceptively, possibly illegally siphoning union dues from medicaid checks before they get to the recipients — people who cannot afford health care on their own.

Since 2006 SEIU has taken $28 million from medicaid recipients and their caregivers.

And this is just one such scam. How many more are there throughout the country?

The left always claims to be motivated by a greater measure of compassion for those in need, and by “fairness” for working people which can only be secured by unions fighting against the greedy interests arrayed against them. Where is the compassion for Robert and Patricia Haynes, the parents of two children with cerebral palsy, cared for at home with help from medicaid so they don’t have to be institutionalized. The Haynes are not health care workers but simply parents caring for their children in need, and they lose $30 / month to the greedy SEIU thugs and their legislator and bureaucrat partners.

Read the rest here:

Michigan SEIU Scam the Product of Government Collective Bargaining

Parents Forced to Pay Union Dues, Lawmaker Rakes In Health Care Money

Post to Twitter

Exploiting Youthful Idealism – Shamelessly

In the New York Times article, “Students Lose Zeal for Aiding Obama Again” (11/14/2011), are the following paragraphs:

Mr. Obama’s advisers, while acknowledging the shift, said they were confident that the loss of these workers would be negated by an influx of new students who have turned of voting age since 2008. Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, said there had been eight million voters ages 18 to 21 registered since the last election, most of whom were Democrats.

“Their brothers and sisters started it, and they are going to finish it,” Mr. Messina said Monday. “They are storming into our office. Our volunteer numbers are up from where we thought they would be.”

This would be a stunningly shameless admission if such blatant exploitation weren’t so commonplace as to numb the senses to being stunned any further. Note that Mr. Messina acknowledged the sentiment shift, but flatly ignored Obama’s responsibility and the people he harmed. There is no perfunctory (and disingenuous) “We feel your pain,” no pro forma (and dishonest) “We’re doing everything we can,” no confession that the students’ disaffection is well founded, no compulsion to address them or their issues at all. Rove Messina may as well have said: F - - - them. We moved on, they should too.

These exploited voters are simply being discarded for the next group of unwitting dupes. It’s not even a speed bump for the regime. They see a path to maintain their power and the disappointment and powerlessness of those who invested their hopes and dreams are of zero consequence. Sadly, using history as a guide, the message will be lost on those who can ill afford to miss it, whose futures are jeopardized most, the very ones exploited — in this case the young.

The natural idealism of youth is a valuable input, counterbalancing the equally natural circumspection of the not-so-young. The two forces should create productive tension. Another way to state this difference is: the young lack — dare I say ipso facto — tempering experience.

This does not assert that experience negates idealism. If that’s what you hear, re-read the introductory clause of the previous paragraph. The two innate characteristics counter-balance one another. My history includes the idealism of my youth. The young do not, cannot, share my subsequent hard earned experience. A thought experiment for the young, and useful for young and old alike: I understand and embrace your idealism to offset my certainly diminished capacity for same. Do you similarly value my input to offset your lack of experience?

There is an irony here. (Isn’t life full of them?) Of the two demands requisite to productive engagement between generations, the one placed on the young is necessarily the more challenging. The old must put aside whatever barriers they have to pulling existing items from the memory bank in order to recall the idealism of their youth. But we ask the young to accept as true what they have not yet experienced, so cannot know. We ask them to take it as an article of faith.

We do a disservice to them and to ourselves when we fail to acknowledge that the young have the more difficult end of the bargain. It is a lack of empathy that our experience should warn to guard against, but too often doesn’t. And this is the gap exploited by partisans, ideologues, tyrants, and other power-hungry lovers of self.

Post to Twitter

Race, Nanny State, Confusion

New Year’s eve I caught a clip of ABC’s Deborah Roberts (20/20) interviewing Michael Oher, the subject of the movie The Blind Side. (It must have been a recap of the year’s stories, because the interview is a year old, corresponding to the movie’s release.) What captured my attention was her asking Michael Oher about black people refusing to see the film. It seems they were offended by the story of a rich, white family rescuing another black kid from the poverty of the ghetto, perpetuating the notion it’s the only means for escape.

The disconnect is stunning — even for a journalist.

Let me connect two simple and obvious dots.

• Liberals, including the most prominently recognized black “leaders,” promote the nanny state. Their message: it is fairness, even justice, for the government to “lend a hand” to those “less fortunate.”

• Liberals, including those same black “leaders,” promote taxing “the wealthy” to pay for the nanny state. This too falls under the same asserted “justice.”

Don’t blame me, but those same black leaders have made this into a racial argument. Black people, many of them poor, must be propped up, when it’s really about poor people, many of whom happen to be black. (This oft-used sleight of hand suggests correlation == causation.) The issue has been hijacked, the perpetrators doing the bidding of their Democrat plantation owners. A black isn’t even authentically black if they don’t buy the agenda that they need help from the state. I didn’t say it; they did.

Now, connect the dots. They’re offended that the Tuohy family would provide help directly, of their own initiative, but demand the same family give more money for the government to provide the same help (sans the effectiveness). Am I the only one who sees through this stupid three-card Monte game?

I’m glad blacks are offended at the suggestion they’re lost without help. They’re right. They are as capable as anyone. But why the denial that it’s their own poverty pimps selling them the lie that they are lost? Where does government help come from if not the same rich people (many whiteys) causing them such angst?

And what about the oblivion surrounding a journalist asking such a question?

(Hat tip: Paula Mooney, at the Cleveland During my search, I found details about the 20/20 piece in her article. Her politics are unknown to me, so I don’t want to unfairly associate her with mine, but she expressed discomfort with the question as well.)

Post to Twitter

CAIR lies

CAIR is not about improving relations between Muslims and the rest of America. It is about shutting down any and all unflattering speech, truth be damned, using lies and intimidation. The latest:

“NPR should address the fact that one of its news analysts seems to believe that all airline passengers who are perceived to be Muslim can legitimately be viewed as security threats,” said CAIR National Executive DirectorNihad Awad. “Such irresponsible and inflammatory comments would not be tolerated if they targeted any other racial, ethnic or religious minority, and they should not pass without action by NPR.” [source:]

Juan Williams did no such thing. He did not say anything about security policy. He simply expressed, with honesty and some obvious discomfort, his own personal fear. He neither suggested it was legitimate, nor that it should form the basis for any policy. He has been an outspoken critic of “racial profiling” in public security policy, sometimes against all reason. For him to be tarred in this manner proves just how fearful the left is of some truth, from any quarters.

The claim that similar comments would not be tolerated regarding other races and religions, coming from a group that tolerates vile anti-semitism in its own ranks, is laughable. There is an unending litany of bigoted speech targeted at Christians and Jews.

Compare this episode to discussions of the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic church. By CAIR’s standards, talking about an endemic problem in the church was “irresponsible and inflammatory.” One notable difference: the vast majority of non-pedophilia-tolerating Roman Catholics rose up to clean up their own mess, starting with honest self-criticism, and without trying to shut down discussion–even from outside their faith and way out-of-bounds. When the vast majority of “peace loving” Muslims stand up in similar fashion, instead of cowering behind the skirt of the thought police, the disquiet felt by 100’s of millions will begin to dissipate. Shutting down criticism and remaining otherwise silent on the sidelines won’t cut it.

I’m not a big Juan Williams fan.  Some have suggested he has softened his liberal opinions over the years. I don’t see it that way. He has become more Pavlovian in his defense of Obama, more willing to unthinkingly avail himself of talking points brewed in the incestuous pot of liberal groupthink. For someone as intelligent and capable of independent thought as he has proven himself to be, this is sometimes maddening.  He does, however, deserve credit for fearlessness to engage in debate. He presents himself in venues likely to be hostile to his views and does battle.

During those exchanges there may be hostility towards his political beliefs, but never any directed towards him personally. This is the way a pluralistic society is supposed to carry on political debate. Far too few on the left seem capable of this engagement (and some on the right as well), opting instead to discredit people, not their ideas, in an effort to shut them up. CAIR, darling of the left, deftly wields this sledgehammer, does it while pretending to sing Kumbaya, and rarely is called on their deceptions.

Post to Twitter

Another Media Lie About the Tea Party

The more liberals fear someone, or some idea, the bolder their lies become. I had the misfortune of stumbling across Paul Begala on CNN Wednesday night and he lived down to expectations as usual. His riff was about the Tea Party in particular, conservatives in general, and hypocrisy he perceives in them regarding fidelity to the Constitution.

But what bothers me — and it’s not just Christine O’Donnell, I think, who can plainly — who can plainly plead ignorance as a defense — but across the conservative movement, there is this schizophrenia, this claimed fidelity to the Constitution, when, in fact, they want to shred a whole bunch of it.

As you pointed, they want to repeal the 17th Amendment, the direct election of senators, the 16th Amendment, which allows an income tax. They want to change the First Amendment to ban flag- burning. They want to allow school prayer, which change the First Amendment. They want a balanced budget amendment, a line item veto amendment. They want to change the 14th Amendment, so that people who are born here, some would not be citizens.

I could go on. They want to ban same-sex marriage and put that in the Constitution. So they — they don’t really like the Constitution. It’s a little like saying — say you get married, and you’re on your honeymoon, and turn to your wife and you say, honey, I love you, but you need a butt job, a boob job, liposuction. Could you put this wig on?

I mean, you know, if you love the Constitution, love it or leave it alone.

This is at best ignorance and at worst willful deception.  I’ll bet on the latter, and that he’s banking on the CNN audience not detecting the sleight of hand, and knows the CNN hosts will never challenge him.

What conservatives abhor, and liberals admire, is the shredding of the Constitution by unelected, unaccountable judges. Conservatives also loathe, and liberals love, politicians who take an oath to uphold the Constitution, then spend their time in office subverting its intent.

This inspired document contains its own provisions for legal modification. Only a dolt, or a liar, could support those who ignore and circumvent the Constitution, claiming this inanimate object is a living thing pliable in their hands, then refer to those seeking to follow the legally prescribed process as wanting “to shred it.”  Mr. Begala might glance in the mirror before tossing his tired and predictable cheap shots–and plead ignorance himself.

Post to Twitter

What is a “Special Interest?”

In a daily mailing from Silicon Valley Mercury News, the following blurb caught my attention:

The predicted flood of money behind Proposition 23 has yet to materialize. With barely more than two weeks to the election, opponents of the controversial ballot measure to suspend California’s landmark global warming legislation have far outpaced the proponents in fundraising. As of Thursday, the No on 23 campaign — a coalition that includes environmentalists, venture capitalists, social justice groups and some of Silicon Valley’s hottest cleantech companies — had raised $19.6 million while Yes on 23 had raised $9.1 million.

It was the innocuous description of those raising money to defeat the proposition that stood out.  They are a “coalition” not “special interests.”  It reminded me of something I once read (believed to be from George Will but couldn’t be found) that can be paraphrased: A special interest is a group that contributes to the other guy’s campaign. Those who contribute to mine are constituents.

To be fair, the full article includes this quote:

“It appears that the billionaire hedge fund manager and the venture capitalists — some from California, some from other states — who are bankrolling the No on 23 campaign have decided that defeating Proposition 23 is a good investment that will reap them huge returns,” [spokeswoman for Yes on 23] Mangels said. “Investing in No on 23 is the ultimate self-interested political ploy that will help the rich campaign contributors get richer and make it even harder for struggling California families to make ends meet.”

The article lists Thomas Steyer (hedge fund), John Doerr (and wife Ann) (venture capital), and Vinod Khosla (venture capital) as 3 of the top 4 contributors against prop 23, having given $8 million to the cause. There is no hand-wringing about the probable self-interest of the donors at the expense of regular California citizens.  There is no hue and cry over “special interests” buying our democracy.

There should be yet another layer concern.  Presumably the listing of John and Anna Doerr is because that money came from their foundation.  If so, those are tax advantaged funds paid, likely, to protect vested commercial interests. The probable “defense” of all this monied influence would be that the self-interest is incidental, that the intent is serving the “public interest.” Should that be blindly accepted?

I submit the reason for the blind eye is not simple hypocrisy, but willful ignorance.  If you think you can have a government that limits rent seeking only to those causes you approve, and that such monied influence can be kept benign, than you know nothing of human nature, nor the history of government.  Some would probably argue that lower carbon emissions are an unmitigated public good, the benefits to be enjoyed by all.  Tell that to the people who lose their jobs.

Post to Twitter

Obama ‘BFD’ T-Shirt

Barack Obama, following the Clinton (D-Arkansas) tradition, is soiling the office of the President and embarrassing the nation.  Joe Biden’s F-Bomb is being marketed for profit.

I can’t say it any better than already written at Freedom Eden.  Please read it there.

My only addition is: just when I think this administration and their bottom-feeding cabal can find no new depths to plumb, they find a new way to disgust me.

Post to Twitter

Dallas Tea Party Push Back at Racist Meme

This isn’t new, but I saw the videos below for the first time today and thought them outstanding.

Fear of ideas has long prevailed on the left and, as La Shawn Barber exquisitely stated, to cowardly attack the messenger is witlessly confused with refuting the message in those parts.  The Tea Party movement has been subjected to particularly vicious attacks. From labeling participants with a slang term for a vile sex act to fatuous accusations of ra-a-a-a-a-cism, the haters on the left have held nothing back while trying to marginalize conservatives standing up for American values and the founding principles.

One such and typical attack came from Keith Olbermann of MSNBC.  The Dallas Tea Party organization posted the following response to the obviously ill-informed propaganda.

Dimwits like those at MSNBC aren’t interested in expanding their understanding, so they failed to accept the invitation to attend a Tea Party function and see for themselves what it was about.

The Tea Party people extended another invitation, which was also ignored.  The inhabitants of the incestuous echo chamber on the left know what they know and aren’t the least bit curious to explore beyond their comfortable bubble.

Post to Twitter

Talk so cheap it’s worthless

On Saturday, President Obama fired back at former Vice President Cheney, referring back to his inauguration day speech as proof his administration is on a war footing.   A post from Paul Mirengoff at Power Line under the title “The limits of self-reference” points out the President’s unusual insistence that his spoken words should be dispositive.  Not that it is unusual Obama would attach great importance to himself and his rhetoric, but that the actual execution of policy is so completely contradictory.

These quotes bracket an article worth reading with the contrasts it draws between the inaugural speech and subsequent policy actions.

So there you have it: if Obama’s rhetoric has, at one time or another, employed the word “war” in connection with words having some relationship to terrorism, then he must be waging war on terrorism.

If Obama wants to convince an increasingly skeptical public that he takes the fight against terrorism seriously, he needs to change both his posture and his policies. Referring to past speeches won’t do the trick.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Mirengoff, but would take it a step further. This President is so busy trying to pretend he is all things to all people, and has given so many speeches in furtherance of the sleight of hand, that his talk isn’t just cheap. It is worthless.

Post to Twitter

Time to throw them all out

Incumbency is a cancer on this country. It’s time to throw them all out.

Sure there is a small handful in Washington standing for the principles on which this country was founded. Sure there are a few who represent our interests before their own. If they must go to rid us of the rest, then I say let them go. And those few patriots would say the same.

No man or woman is essential to this great nation. The founding principles, born of God’s gracious providence, are. We will survive with new patriots. We will not if we the people do not take back the power that was intended to reside with us.

Hey hey ho ho
All of them have got to go.
Republican, Democrat keep nary a one;
The Revolution has begun.

Post to Twitter