February 20, 2011
By Jim Yardley
The evolving legislative crisis in Wisconsin has illuminated the political symbiosis of the Democrat Party and Big Labor. Not just the public sector unions, but all unions acting in concert to dominate the political fortunes of Democrats.
Richard Trumka, the head of the AFL-CIO, graced Madison, Wisconsin with his presence. Trumka, who rose from being a miner and active member in the UMW union in Pennsylvania to becoming head of the largest labor organization in the country in 1995, has a history of being confrontational. In front of a crowd of some 25,000 union supporters, he supplied a remarkably accurate dramatization of Vladimir Lenin railing against the “fat cats” and “corporations.” Trumka apparently views them as the sole motivating force behind the attempt of Governor Walker and the Republican majorities in the state’s Assembly and Senate to balance their state’s budget.
Wisconsin is no better off financially than any other part of the country, and it is struggling to maximize the public services it is able to provide to its citizens, while avoiding the only alternative available to them. The alternative would be to maintain the generous pension and healthcare levels currently enjoyed by Wisconsin’s teachers, police, firefighters and other public employees, and balance the budget by laying off hundreds, if not thousands, of state workers. The ones with lower seniority, who are not protected in the same way union officials are protected from layoffs.
Into this cauldron of heated rhetoric, supplied free of charge by the unions with assistance reported to have been provided by the Democratic National Committee and the President’s campaign arm, Organizing for America, President Obama himself has weighed in, stating his belief that the plans of Governor Walker and the Wisconsin legislature are an “assault on unions.”
One of the motivations for President Obama to insert himself in this dispute is the simple matter that unions bankroll Democrat candidates and Mr. Obama has already said that he plans on raising $1 billion for his re-election effort in 2012. The website Opensecrets.org lists the top campaign contributors for the period 1989-2010. The aggregate political contribution by unions to Democrats during this period was a total of $480,000,000. That’s nearly half a BILLION dollars. As the old saying goes, he who pays the piper, calls the tune. For a half a billion dollars, the unions should expect a full blown symphony.
Perhaps an observation by Hans A. von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow of the Heritage Foundation and a former member of the Federal Election Commission, will help put the claims by Mr. Obama and Mr. Trumka that the union workers in Wisconsin are both oppressed and that unions themselves are under assault into some context. Mr. von Spakovsky has noted that:
From 2001 to 2010, Wisconsin taxpayers paid more than $8 billion for state employee health care coverage, while state employees contributed only $398 million, less than 5% of the total costs. From 2000 to 2009, taxpayers paid $12.6 billion for public employee pensions, while the employees only contributed $55.4 million, less than 0.5% of the total cost.
This means that, with a population of about 5,500,000 people, the average annual costs to each Wisconsin resident for public employee healthcare and pensions have been $140 and $250 respectively. Not per family. Per citizen. For a family of four, that means a total of $1,560 each and every year in an additional tax burden.
This is what Mr. Obama and Mr. Trumka view as union members being oppressed and why unions are trying to intimidate lawmakers and Governor Walker, and by proxy, every citizen of Wisconsin.
It should also be noted, in the spirit of recognizing clueless irony, the Democratic Senators in Wisconsin, who are currently fugitives from Madison, are in hiding as part of a concerted effort to prevent the pertinent legislation from coming to a vote. This sounds remarkably like the accusations of “obstructionism” hurled by Democrats in Washington against their Republican colleagues who tried to hobble the passage of Obamacare.
Another contrast between Wisconsin and Washington was on display during Governor Walker’s press conference Friday evening. After making a relatively short statement of the situation as he saw it (which took about 10 minutes or so), the Governor took several questions from the assembled media.
What then is different in Madison from what we see every day in Washington? Two things, in fact.
First, the Governor was actually able to give straightforward answers to the questions.
Second, there wasn’t a teleprompter in sight.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/the_battle_of_wisconsin.html at February 25, 2011 – 08:30:49 AM CST
February 19, 2011
Can Truth Prevail in a Culture of Spin?
By Judith Anderson
The answer is yes. Absolutely! Truth is what is unequivocally true. It is not constrained by ideology, creed, or spin. Crushing debt destroys families and governments. Endless, deceitful war-making destroys republics. U.S. citizens are getting a huge dose of reality as our policies in Egypt are exposed to the light. For years we have borrowed money to prop up despots in the Middle-East who are out of touch with their own people. An insistent, vocal majority of Americans don’t want ObamaCare. They are ignored by politicians who intend to impose it on them against their will. Blatant, naked truth trumps spin.
Specious, false, fraudulent argument by czars, presidents, individuals and speakers for all manner of causes are being swept away in the bright glare of reality. Spin and in some cases outright lies in matters of national security, environmental protection and government spending are failing the smell test for all but the most ardent partisan ideologue.
The 9/11 Commission confirmed what many had suspected. The towers came down because our own immigration enforcement was lax. Federal bureaucracies were not effectively tracking and monitoring visas and overstays. If they had, those nineteen terrorists would have never gotten on those planes. Bureaucrats however are not entirely to blame. Border security like every other issue is driven by policy.
We have spent billions on an unworkable virtual fence on our southern border. Homeland Security has dramatically increased border patrol and immigration personnel. The government even sent a handful of National Guard to the Texas and Arizona borders but the policy wasn’t changed. Arizona is sued by federal policy makers for trying to stop illegals from entering the U.S.. A known, home-grown Jhadist is allowed to stay in the U.S. Army where he mows down thirteen un-armed comrades at Fort Hood. Using borrowed, off-budget money, U.S. military with huge contingents of National Guard troops are ordered to secure Iraq and Afghanistan. Our own borders are boldly breached daily.
A policy of organizing an entire economy around “climate change” is laughable to the average American. There is nothing funny about what it is costing or the co-opting of the academic community to sell it to our children. They and the politicians are creating a phony economy, with phony money backed up by phony science and fear- mongering.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s demonizing of carbon dioxide strikes everyone but the politicians and carbon merchants as ludicrous. CO2 passes out of our lungs when we breathe and enables plants to convert carbohydrates and water to oxygen. This is the very natural and necessary process of photosynthesis. If a business exhausts this colorless, tasteless, non-combustible gas, the EPA wants to demand that it buy expensive carbon credits if they intend to continue. If you are a manufacturer you may have to shut your operation down. If your business is a power plant, power rates to the customer would “go through the roof.”
Policy makers have locked up our natural resources and destroyed so many industries that we cannot work or produce our way out of our 14 trillion dollar debt. The President and Congress are betting our mortgaged chips on green technology. The U.S. Department of Energy is the primary investor. Sixty to ninety per-cent of the manufacturing will be done off-shore. Bankrupt California, gobbling up federal dollars while it drives out productive businesses in favor of green industry, is the DOE’s green show dog.
Our government has been cleaning up the nuclear waste at Hanford for the last quarter-century. They intended to create the most sophisticated garbage disposal system in the world. It has been one failed contractor after another. Billion dollar overruns have been billed to the taxpayer. The DOE and EPA are still pulling panels of scientists and researchers together to figure out what to do. This is the essence of green “family wage” job creation.
Lots of borrowed money is spent. Expensive jobs are created. Little of value is produced.
We simple citizens get the phoniness of official logic and notice the wasteful management that accompanies every government program and project. But, why are the policy-makers doing this? Are they simply ignorant? Do they lose all judgment when they feel they are spending someone else’s money? The Founders tried to warn us about the power hungry who would likely usurp the power of government and subvert it for their own selfish interests. They counseled that limiting it’s power was the only hope of limiting it’s inevitable corruption.
We have been taught since the 1930’s when Congress and President Roosevelt took the U.S. dollar off the gold standard to print more of it, that the dollar would henceforth be supported by the power and prestige of the U.S. Government. America’s enormous reserves of natural resources were additional collateral to secure confidence in the dollar. Unfortunately, our power and prestige are in the toilet since we can no longer pay our bills. We have no money to buy green technology even if it were viable. Our ability to mine, drill and produce are choked off by punitive regulatory fees, taxes and penalties.
We are awash in reality. Our financial future rests in Washington D.C. under the control of President Obama who believes our Constitution is flawed. In his opinion it is a document of negative rights. “It puts too many limits on government.” Americans perceive that they are no longer free to chart their own future. We are more like subjects waiting on the mercy of giant, bloated bureaucracies and a political class primarily concerned with taking care of themselves and their cronies. At home and abroad, our policy makers routinely violate principles of democratic government.
Policies created behind closed doors at the service of those who can buy access from our politicians have partially destroyed the freest, most prosperous and innovative country ever. We’ve had some warnings: 9/11, the 2008 collapse of financial markets, our borders over-run with criminals, drug gangs and scofflaws, a declining population of taxpayers left to deal with an over- whelming burden of government bailouts and handouts.
Arguing eloquently or fatuously that this analysis is wrong will not change the truth.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/can_truth_prevail_in_a_culture.html at February 25, 2011 – 08:03:31 AM CST
Feb. 20, 2011
By ANNIE KARNI
Columbia University students heckled a war hero during a town-hall meeting on whether ROTC should be allowed back on campus.
“Racist!” some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.
Maschek, 28, had bravely stepped up to the mike Tuesday at the meeting to issue an impassioned challenge to fellow students on their perceptions of the military.
“It doesn’t matter how you feel about the war. It doesn’t matter how you feel about fighting,” said Maschek. “There are bad men out there plotting to kill you.”
Several students laughed and jeered the Idaho native, a 10th Mountain Division infantryman who spent two years at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington recovering from grievous wounds.
Maschek, who is studying economics, miraculously survived the insurgent attack in Kirkuk. In the hail of gunfire, he broke both legs and suffered wounds to his abdomen, arm and chest.
He enrolled last August at the Ivy League school, where an increasingly ugly battle is unfolding over the 42-year military ban there.
More than half of the students who spoke at the meeting — the second of three hearings on the subject — expressed opposition to ROTC’s return. Many of the 200 students in the audience held anti-military placards with slogans such as, “1 in 3 female soldiers experiences sexual assault in the military.”
The university has created a task force polling 10,000 students on the issue, but would not release the vote tally of the 1,300 who have already responded.
In 2005, when the university last voted to reject ROTC’s return, it cited the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
That policy was overturned in December, but resistance remains.
“Transpeople are part of the Columbia community,” said senior Sean Udell at the meeting, referring to the military’s current ban on transgender soldiers.
Faculty members are divided.
“Universities should not be involved in military activities,” Sociology Professor Emeritus Herbert Gans told The Post. “Columbia should come out against spending $300 billion a year on unnecessary wars.”
A group of 34 faculty colleagues, including historian Kenneth Jackson and former Bloomberg adviser Esther Fuchs, plan to announce their support of ROTC tomorrow.
José Robledo, 30, a Columbia student who commutes to Fordham University for ROTC coursework, said he found the treatment of Maschek abhorrent.
“The anti-ROTC side has been disrespectful and loud. They hiss and they jeer,” he said. “It’s been to the detriment of the argument.”
NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc.
NYPOST.COM , NYPOSTONLINE.COM , and NEWYORKPOST.COM are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.
February 20, 2011
Government Worker Unions: The Long Good-bye
By Steve McCann
The “Madison Uprising” is the beginning of the end of the incestuous relationship between government and the unions. That fact has been recognized by the public sector unions and the Democratic Party and is why they have pulled out all the stops and reverted to their 1960’s playbook in order to maintain the status quo. However, it is a battle that the unions and the Democratic Party will lose regardless of the immediate outcome in Wisconsin.
The Democratic Party has sold its soul to the public sector unions. In the 2010 mid-term election, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees poured over $87 million dollars into the election. (A new spending record). AFSCME’s $87 million was greater than the campaign spending by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($75 million) and American Crossroads ($65 million). Other public sector unions also ratcheted up their spending such as SEIU ($44 million) and the National Education Association ($40 million).
The three major public sector unions spent over $171 million in the 2010 election plus an estimated $250 million equivalent value of so-called volunteer activity such as get out the vote efforts, door-to-door campaigning and poll watching.
There is nothing wrong with private people or organizations, including private unions, spending money on political campaigns as institutional sources are disclosed. However, AFSCME, the NEA, the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) or the public union sector of SEIU are government employees. Their salaries are paid by the taxpayers and a portion of their salaries go to union dues which are slush funds for political activity and the promotion of left-wing causes. In 2008 the NEA and the AFT made contributions and grants totaling over $96 million of union dues; all to liberal organizations irrespective of the desires of the rank and file or the taxpayer.
It is wholly inappropriate for public employees to spend dues money on political contributions. Public officials are chosen through popular elections and the government employee should be indifferent as to the outcome of the election. However, by maintaining such a heavy hand in not only monetary contributions but election activity the politician becomes too dependent upon the union largess and is essentially blackmailed into acquiescing to all the demands of the union, particularly pay and benefits which have sky-rocketed and are now unsustainable.
President Franklin Roosevelt, the Progressive icon, recognized this problem back in 1937. In a letter to Luther Steward, then President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, he wrote that “meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government”. He went on to say that government employees should not have bargaining rights or a closed shop similar to private sector unions.
However, since the public sector unions were granted those rights beginning in the 1960’s they have achieved the virtual ownership, together with the private sector unions, of the Democratic Party. In the 2010 election cycle, per the Center for Responsive Politics, AFSCME donated 99.5% of contributions to Democrats; The NEA donated 96% and the AFT, 99.7%.
These dues were funneled to Democratic candidates who promised to raise workers salaries and hire more public sector workers-even though statistics show that total compensation for federal and state workers is nearly 50% higher than for private sector employees.
Government workers have access to elected officials during negotiations to set wages and benefits and can hold the promise of campaign contributions over these politicians’ heads during negotiations. There is, in effect, no one representing the taxpayer who is the source of all income to the government.
This means runaway compensation for government workers, higher taxes for the general public and higher deficits. The taxes go from the electorate to government paychecks to union dues-then to more campaign contributions until the state, municipality or the federal government faces bankruptcy.
The clout of this unholy alliance was further on display when the unions were able to siphon off roughly $160 billion dollars of the 2009 stimulus to save the jobs of state and local workers.
The unseemly goings-on in Wisconsin portray, in microcosm, the disastrous policy of allowing government workers to unionize and bargain for wages and benefits. The unions are fighting to preserve their source of income and clout (i.e. union due) and the Democrats have shown the world their cowardice and dependence by slinking out if the state in order to maintain their bought status.
By these actions they have drawn back the curtain for all to see the true nature of this incestuous relationship and the impact on the future of the country.
It has taken Wisconsin and the near bankruptcy of the country and of many states and municipalities to finally awaken the American people to this fraud and theft. They must demand that public-sector unions can only be associations that can seek better workplace conditions or to facilitate employer-employee disputes but cannot have bargaining rights or mandatory dues.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/government_worker_unions_the_l.html at February 20, 2011 – 10:17:26 AM CST
The 5 Wisconsin proposals in a nutshell that have public employee union members nationwide in an uproar:
– Ask government workers to pay half the cost of their pensions – still less than private employees pay for their pensions
– Ask government workers to pay 12% of their own health insurance premiums – the national average for the private sector is over 20%
– End collective bargaining for government unions for pensions and benefits. Allow bargaining only for raises that are less than inflation.
– End forced union dues, collected by the state. Union dues would become voluntary.
– Union members get to vote yearly on whether to keep their union.
By John Taylor Gatto
How public education cripples our kids, and why: http://www.spinninglobe.net/againstschool.htm
Now, you needn’t have studied marketing to know that there are two groups of people who can always be convinced to consume more than they need to: addicts and children. School has done a pretty good job of turning our children into addicts, but it has done a spectacular job of turning our children into children. Again, this is no accident. Theorists from Plato to Rousseau to our own Dr. Inglis knew that if children could be cloistered with other children, stripped of responsibility and independence, encouraged to develop only the trivializing emotions of greed, envy, jealousy, and fear, they would grow older but never truly grow up. In the 1934 edition of his once well-known book Public Education in the United States, Ellwood P. Cubberley detailed and praised the way the strategy of successive school enlargements had extended childhood by two to six years, and forced schooling was at that point still quite new. This same Cubberley – who was dean of Stanford’s School of Education, a textbook editor at Houghton Mifflin, and Conant’s friend and correspondent at Harvard – had written the following in the 1922 edition of his book Public School Administration: “Our schools are … factories in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned …. And it is the business of the school to build its pupils according to the specifications laid down.”
It’s perfectly obvious from our society today what those specifications were. Maturity has by now been banished from nearly every aspect of our lives. Easy divorce laws have removed the need to work at relationships; easy credit has removed the need for fiscal self-control; easy entertainment has removed the need to learn to entertain oneself; easy answers have removed the need to ask questions. We have become a nation of children, happy to surrender our judgments and our wills to political exhortations and commercial blandishments that would insult actual adults. We buy televisions, and then we buy the things we see on the television. We buy computers, and then we buy the things we see on the television. ….
Now for the good news. Once you understand the logic behind modern schooling, its tricks and traps are fairly easy to avoid. School trains children to be employees and consumers; teach your own to be leaders and adventurers. School trains children to obey reflexively; teach your own to think critically and independently. Well-schooled kids have a low threshold for boredom; help your own to develop an inner life so that they’ll never be bored. Urge them to take on the serious material, the grown-up material, in history, literature, philosophy, music, art, economics, theology – all the stuff schoolteachers know well enough to avoid. Challenge your kids with plenty of solitude so that they can learn to enjoy their own company, to conduct inner dialogues. Well-schooled people are conditioned to dread being alone, and they seek constant companionship through the TV, the computer, the cell phone, and through shallow friendships quickly acquired and quickly abandoned. Your children should have a more meaningful life, and they can.
First, though, we must wake up to what our schools really are: laboratories of experimentation on young minds, drill centers for the habits and attitudes that corporate society demands. Mandatory education serves children only incidentally; its real purpose is to turn them into servants. Don’t let your own have their childhoods extended, not even for a day. If David Farragut could take command of a captured British warship as a pre-teen, if Thomas Edison could publish a broadsheet at the age of twelve, if Ben Franklin could apprentice himself to a printer at the same age (then put himself through a course of study that would choke a Yale senior today), there’s no telling what your own kids could do. After a long life, and thirty years in the public school trenches, I’ve concluded that genius is as common as dirt. We suppress our genius only because we haven’t yet figured out how to manage a population of educated men and women. The solution, I think, is simple and glorious. Let them manage themselves.
by Lila Rose
Over the past week, Live Action has released six videos revealing Planned Parenthood’s willingness to aid and abet the sex traffickers of underage girls (see: liveaction.org). Since the beginning of our release, Planned Parenthood has attacked our organization and attempted to discredit the growing evidence of institutional and rampant abuse cover up. Here is a top six list of some of the deceiving statements that Planned Parenthood has made in just the past few days.
Deception 6) “We reported this to the FBI”
Planned Parenthood wrote the FBI a letter a week after our investigation, only after they realized that Live Action had conducted the sting.They say this themselves. As much as they may pretend, Planned Parenthood was not attempting to help send human traffickers to jail; they were attempting to pre-empt the release of Live Action’s footage.
If Planned Parenthood really cared about reporting potential sex traffickers to authorities, they would have called police while the pimp was in the clinic, or immediately after. Not wasting a minute. Planned Parenthood, where are the reports from the now SIX clinics we’ve released, that you immediately called the police?
Why did all your staffers, instead of refusing service or gathering information from the pimp about his sex ring to inform authorities, GIVE the pimp information about how to access the Planned Parenthood system for secret services?
Deception 5) Live Action Videos Are All “Doctored” and a “Hoax”
We have heard this tired claim from Planned Parenthood every time we release a video. Yet every time we’ve released a video, we post the full, unedited footage online for all to see, and send the full, unedited footage to state and federal authorities. Planned Parenthood can’t argue with the full footage.
See Vice-President Stuart Schear on camera claiming our tapes are doctored, then admitting he hasn’t even seen them.
Planned Parenthood, if you really think our videos are “fake”, “doctored” and a “hoax”, why did you yesterday claim that you will be retraining your entire staff of 11,000?
Deception 4) “We are retraining our entire staff of 11,000″
First of all, we have heard the “retraining staff” excuse before.
When Live Action released undercover footage in December of 2008 showing the sexual abuse cover up of a 13 year old girl at Planned Parenthood, the organization called for “re-training”. Clearly, that re-training (whatever it was) didn’t last very long, if two years later Planned Parenthood workers are caught on tape working with human traffickers to provide services, ways to get around pesky parental involvement lawsthat protect children, tax-funded discounts and even business advice.
But more to the point: Are Planned Parenthood workers “trainable”? Our tapes show them repeatedly and unabashedly doing “business as usual” with the self-disclosed seller of underage girls’ bodies for sex. The brutal business of human trafficking cannot be taken seriously enough.
Yet instead of showing even basic concern for the victims, Planned Parenthood workers across the board are happy to help the serial abuser.
And another important question: Can Planned Parenthood be trusted to train its staff sufficiently? What does it say about an organization’s leadership if their staff–from managers, to supervisors, to clinicians, to staffers–unequivocally and without question show willingness to do secret business with a pimp?
A final question: How exactly will Planned Parenthood be “training” it’s staff? Will the training be a special seminar on how to recognize Live Action cameras?
Deception 3) Virginia Staff Acted “Professionally”
This is one of the most disturbing statements we have heard yet from Planned Parenthood higher-ups.
Virginia staff, on all four tapes released in Virginia, were very helpful to the self-identified pimp of underage sex slaves. Staffers assured him it was confidential, offered him information on how to get cheaper birth control (link: ), on how to get free STD testing, told him how to use the website and phone system and even coached him how to use judicial bypasses to get secret abortions for his underage sex slaves.
These are the actions that Planned Parenthood is calling “professional”. Does anyone think that it is professional to give a brutal sex trafficker of children advice on how to use the system?
This is not professional; this is criminal. It is criminal and incredibly offensive and harmful to the victims of abuse across our nation.
And keep in mind: If Virginia staff acted “professionally”, then is this how the public can expect Planned Parenthood to “train” their staff of 11,000?
Deception 2) This is an “isolated incident”
A favorite of Planned Parenthood’s. Every time Live Action releases a video (and we’ve released over 16 now), it is “an isolated incident”. Let the facts speak for themselves. Look at the evidence. For over three years our team has been investigating the institutional sex abuse cover up at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. Even before the human trafficking footage, we released 10 clinics that revealed the sexual abuse cover up of minors as young as 13. In these 10 clinics, we had actors posing as the underage girls, self-reporting abuse and asking for help. In every case, Planned Parenthood worked to cover up the abuse of the underage girl and did not comply with the mandatory reporting laws for sexual abuse. Instead of help and safety, the underage girls are coached by Planned Parenthood staffers on how to cover up abuse and get secret abortions.
Live Action has now released six more clinics in the past week, all showing Planned Parenthood workers, at all levels of the organization, willing to aid and abet the human traffickers of underage girls.
This is an institutional crisis that has engulfed the whole organization. No matter how many times Planned Parenthood’s PR firm says “isolated incident”, the growing body of evidence still stands.
Deception 1) We have a zero-tolerance policy for abuse, and you should trust us.
If anyone can still believe this, I don’t know if there is any evidence in the world that will convince them otherwise.
The growing body of evidence reveals that Planned Parenthood unequivocally covers up the sex abuse of young victims and is willing to work with the abusers. Our undercover actors could not have said who they were and what they represented more clearly. Planned Parenthood repeatedly looked the other way. It is a federal crime to aid and abet in the trafficking of underage persons. What is a better way to aid and abet a pimp of young girls, then give him all the secret abortions, birth control and the services that a pimp would need to keep his sex slaves on the street?
To see the videos and learn more, visit http://www.liveaction.org
To take action now: http://www.exposeplannedparenthood.com
Pieces from the above article By: Linda Kimball
“Thought crime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for awhile…but sooner or later they were bound to get you.” George Orwell, 1984
“The fact is we are witnessing an all-out drive to impose thought control that seeks to ban the ability—the right—to think or speak for one’s self. Thinking is becoming a crime.” (Globally Acceptable Truth and the Crime of Thinking, Tom DeWeese, Address to the 10th Annual Freedom 21 Conference, 10/16/09)
Supremely immoral, reeking of perversity, a double-speaking transnational green-progressive leviathan is moving with crushing force across our nation, fostering obscenity and blasphemy, instilling fear and confusion into the hearts of Americans and stifling individual liberty while it perverts Americas’ youth, imposes mind-control and relentlessly destroys the spiritual foundations of America’s traditional Christian-based order. Its’ devilish tactics come into focus in the following examples:
1. Cultural Marxism: the politics of rebellion, perversity, and nihilism fueled by satanic pride.
2. Multiculturalism: the insidious destruction of America’s traditional culture by way of elevating all other cultures in the name of politically correct tolerance.
3. Political correctness, speech codes, and hate crime laws: a psychic-cage for the soul/mind of traditional-values Americans.
4. ‘Gay rights/’gay’ marriage: rebellion against the idea of normal.
5. Sex education: called ’sex pol’ by Marxist-socialists, it’s purpose is the subversion and perversion of our youth, the awakening of the Devil, as Bakunin said. (Read: The Gay- Straight Alliance and the Quiet Revolution,
6. Social justice: the hammering down of everything good, everything excellent, everything normal, everything true into the perversely foul mud of demonic nothingness.
7. Critical theory: the mindless vomiting out of the acid of destructive criticism upon everything good, true, excellent, normal, and traditional.
8. Redistributive Justice: the evisceration of our standard of living and individual liberties in order to ’save the planet’—in other words, death and slavery on behalf of Gaia.
9. Sustainability: Extreme population control and theft of private property to achieve the ‘new’ communism–communitarianism.
10. Religious Pluralism: the erasure of America’s founding Christian-based worldview by way of elevating Wicca, animism, Islam, New Age occult spirituality, Buddhism, shamanism, and atheism in the name of politically correct tolerance and diversity.
Busting a depraved organization, who advance cultural Marxism, pollute the minds of high schoolers, kill hundreds of thousands of babies yearly and receive 1/3 billion tax payer dollars annually, for which Mike Pence has submitted HR217 to terminate their Title X funding.
Report: Political Correctness Prevented FBI, DoD from Stopping Maj. Hasan
POSTED AT 9:39 PM ON FEBRUARY 3, 2011 BY JOHN SEXTON
Today the Senate Homeland Security Committee released an independent report on the Ft. Hood shootings. The 91 page report is titled A Ticking Time Bomb: Counterterrorism Lessons from the US Government’s Failure to Prevent the Fort Hood Attack. The gist of it is that the FBI and Hasan’s superiors had more than enough information to prevent the shootings and likely would have done so if not for political correctness.
You may recall that the FBI was aware that Hasan was in contact with al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the shootings. Unfortunately, a confusion between two competing FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF’s) resulted in neither one taking action:
The JTTF that had reviewed the initial [REDACTED] communications dismissed the second JTTF’s work as “slim” but eventually dropped the matter rather than cause a bureaucratic confrontation. The JTTFs now even dispute the extent to which they were in contact with each other in this case. Nonetheless, the JTTFs never raised the dispute to FBI headquarters for resolution, and entities in FBI headquarters responsible for coordination among field offices never acted. As a result, the FBI’s inquiry into Hasan ended prematurely.
But the most stunning portion of the report is the section that offers details about the nature of Hasan’s radicalization as witnessed by his fellow officers:
Hasan advanced to a two-year fellowship at USUHS…Less than a month into the fellowship, in August 2007, Hasan gave another off-topic presentation on a violent Islamist extremist subject instead of on a health care subject. This time, Hasan’s presentation was so controversial that the instructor had to stop it after just two minutes when the class erupted in protest to Hasan’s views. The presentation was entitled, Is the War on Terror a War on Islam: An Islamic Perspective? Hasan’s proposal for this presentation promoted this troubling thesis: that U.S. military operations are a war against lslam rather than based on non-religious security considerations. Hasan’s presentation accorded with the narrative of violent Islamist extremism that the West is at war with Islam. Hasan’s paper was full of empathetic and supportive recitation of other violent Islamist extremist views, including defense of Osama bin Laden, slanted historical accounts blaming the United States for problems in the Middle East, and arguments that anger at the United States is justifiable…The instructor who stopped the presentation said that Hasan was sweating, quite nervous, and agitated after being confronted by the class.
Hasan’s promotion of violent Islamist extremist beliefs continued after the presentation. One classmate said that Hasan supported suicide bombings in another class. He told several classmates that his religion took precedence over the U.S. Constitution he swore to support and defend as a U.S. military officer.
It’s pretty hard to understand how anyone could miss signals that amounted to yelling “Bomb!” in an airport. The report suggests that the real underlying problem was political correctness:
One of the officers who reported Hasan to superiors opined that Hasan was permitted to remain in service because of “political correctness” and ignorance of religious practices. That officer added that he believed that concern about potential discrimination complaints stopped some individuals from challenging Hasan. We are concerned that exactly such worries about “political correctness” inhibited Hasan’s superiors and colleagues who were deeply troubled by his behavior from taking the actions against him that could have prevented the attack at Fort Hood.
This same concern for political correctness likely explains the tremendous gap between Hasan’s actual performance and his official performance reviews:
Hasan was a chronic poor performer during his residency and fe llowship. The program directors overseeing him at Walter Reed and USUHS both ranked him in the bottom 25 percent…Yet Hasan received evaluations that flatly misstated his actual performance. Hasan was described in the evaluations as a star officer, recommended for promotion to major, whose research on violent Islamist extremism would ass ist U.S. counterterrorism efforts.
One report said “His unique interests have captured the interest and attention of peers and mentors alike.” That’s certainly true, though not in the way it sounds. Another review listed “Islamic studies” as a “unique skill” that Hasan possessed. The only criticism of him made in any review involved his failure to take a PT test.
To bring this full circle, it was in part Hasan’s positive performance reviews that helped convince the FBI’s JTTF that Hasan’s contacts with al-Awlaki were legitimate research and not signs of radicalization. Had the reviews contained any hint of concern about his behavior, it’s far more likely the FBI would have acted prior to the shootings. As it was, it was moments after word of the shootings hit the airwaves that the FBI connected the dots:
Shortly after the media began reporting on Hasan’s attack at Fort Hood, the FBI agent told his DClS colleaguc in San Diego, “You know who that is? That’s our boy!”
This report by Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins makes clear that there has been a very dear price paid by the United States in the name of political correctness toward Islam.
February 02, 2011
The Left and Their ‘Good Victims’
By Robin of Berkeley
A number of years ago, I was the victim of a brutal street crime. Although I was left with a broken nose and two black eyes, I learned soon thereafter that I wasn’t a “good victim.”
A progressive friend, Fran, clued me in. When I told her what happened, she said, “What you went through wasn’t half as bad as what he has suffered.” Fran was referring to the fact that I am white and the assailant was black. In other words, my suffering didn’t matter.
Fran’s reaction is not at all unique in these parts; here, there are good and bad victims. For instance, a couple of years ago, a middle school teacher was stoned and beaten in her classroom by a vicious mob of students. And yet, because of the racial makeup of the victim and the assailants, the media had little to say, except to imply that the teacher may have been a racist.
When I mentioned my horror about this heinous crime to yet another leftist friend, she responded in the prescribed, politically correct way. Without showing an ounce of compassion toward the battered teacher, my friend blamed “white privilege.”
With Obama and the hard left in charge, we see nationwide what I’ve witnessed up close and personal here in Berkeley. Thus, when a young white couple were beaten unconscious after leaving a GOP fundraiser, the mainstream media did not find their plight worthy of reportage. Similarly, when a conservative had his finger bitten off, or when a frail, diabetic conservative was beaten, the silence was deafening. Sarah Palin’s church being torched with children in it didn’t deserve even a blip on the evening news.
When thirteen U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood, including a pregnant woman, were mowed down (and thirty more wounded) in cold blood, President Obama didn’t interrupt a Native American shout-out to renounce the horror. When Obama finally did speak, he urged us not to jump to conclusions. Since then, next to nothing has been said about the slaughter. The fact that the murderer was a Muslim automatically disqualifies the soldiers from being “good victims.”
In contrast, during the recent, also horrific Tucson massacre, twenty people were injured and six killed by an apparently psychotic 22-year-old. Given that the Fort Hood murders involved an internal jihad, doesn’t this incident pose a greater safety risk to this country than a lunatic in Tucson? Consequently, shouldn’t Fort Hood have been dissected and analyzed for months on end?
However, since the politicos found a way to blame Tucson on conservatives, this latter atrocity has garnered much more publicity. In fact, Obama presided over a huge memorial service for the families and survivors of Tucson. No comparable event was held for the loved ones of Fort Hood. While there was a dignified, military-style Memorial Service for Ft. Hood victims, in Tuscon, Obama presided over a huge, pep-rally event attended by about 30,000 people
The left divides the world into good and bad victims. People who are viewed as part of an aggrieved group are “good victims.” Those who suffer at the hands of these protected groups are not afforded this same status. In fact, “bad victims,” like the middle school teacher, as well as me, are made to feel responsible for being assaulted. Good victims are showered with attention because they reinforce the leftist party line.
The left needs to control popular opinion by censoring information that’s unflattering to its cause. If the populace were fully informed about leftist violence, there would be a mass stampede rightward. New Black Panther leader King Samir Shabazz railing about murdering “crackers” and their babies isn’t exactly the best PR for the progressives.
But there’s an even more disturbing reason why so many hardcore leftists divide the world into good and bad victims. It is because many of them don’t care about human beings.
Think I’m exaggerating? Then why haven’t progressives spoken out against the death threats received by Sarah Palin and her family? People on the left relish telling Palin rape jokes — or laughing at them. Several leftists fantasized publicly about conservatives dying painful deaths. Comedian Wanda Sykes thought it would be a hoot if Rush perished from a kidney disease.
And we’re not talking here solely about contempt towards conservatives. Many progressives don’t appear to be fans of the human race. Euthanasia for the dying and death panels for the old are discussed with cold, steely indifference.
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich tells elderly people that with government-run health care, “We are going to let you die.” Editors at Newsweek Magazine think nothing of splashing a cover feature about “Killing Granny.”
Obama himself doesn’t seem to be a big people-lover. He’s buddies with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, who bombed living, breathing humans. Obama appointed John Holdren — a man who has advocated forced abortions and sterilizer in our drinking water — as science czar.
When Obama was an Illinois state senator, he refused to protect live babies who survived late-term abortion. While abortion is a hot-button topic, who among us would not agree that if the baby is born alive, he or she should be allowed to remain in that state?
Another disturbing example: progressives have had a field day blogging about how Palin should have aborted her Down Syndrome child, Trig. Part of the reason Palin resigned her governorship is because of the vicious things said about Trig. Isn’t it offensive in the extreme when people wish death by abortion on a fully formed child?
It makes me wonder: what has happened to these people to make their hearts grow so cold? Perhaps it’s all the violent TV shows and movies desensitizing people. Maybe it’s a result of the left’s Alinsky-like tactics that pit groups against each other for limited resources.
More profoundly, in our secular world, people are alienated from the life force, from the Source of all love in the universe. You can see it; the light has gone out of so many people’s eyes. And they reveal this darkness by sexually degrading Palin, wishing bodily harm on Rush, or promoting the early deaths of our old people.
For many progressives, their indifference, even hatred, springs from a deep sense of spiritual alienation. Because it is an alienated person, a lost soul, who has forgotten this essential truth: that every life matters, even that of a Down Syndrome baby or a political opponent.
A frequent American Thinker contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a psychotherapist in Berkeley. Robin’s articles are intended to inform and entertain, not to offer treatment or diagnosis. You can comment on this article here.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/the_left_and_their_good_victim.html at February 03, 2011 – 05:16:31 PM CST
February 03, 2011
How Pacifism Led to the Great War — and Could Lead Us into the Next One
By Robert Morrison
When then-Sen. Barack Obama made a short video for the “peace caucus” delegates to the 2008 Iowa Caucuses, he captured the enthusiastic support of his party’s pacifist wing. It was enough to propel him to the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton’s ad — showing a red telephone ringing at 3 a.m. — only emphasized to party pacifists that Obama was their man.
And, of course, leading antiwar figures like George Soros heavily bankrolled MoveOn.org and other liberal media outlets — all echoing the same pacifist line. Pacifism — as the name implies — ought to lead to peace. But it too often doesn’t.
In one famous case, pacifism doubtless led the world into a cataclysm. In 1914, Great Britain was governed by the Liberal Party. Their leading statesman was Sir Edward Grey, the foreign secretary.
On June 28 of that fateful year, the heirs to the thrones of Austria-Hungary, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, were assassinated. Serbian nationalists killed them in the Bosnian city of Sarajevo. All Europe staggered toward the abyss.
Great Britain might have stayed out of it if only Germany had not invaded Belgium. Both Germany and Britain had an eighty-year treaty to protect Belgian neutrality and territorial integrity. Sir Edward repeatedly issued statements calling upon “all parties” to honor their commitments. Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany dismissed treaties as “mere scraps of paper” and gave his generals the go-ahead to attack France through Belgium. The infamous Schlieffen Plan required that “the last man on the [German] right will brush the Channel with his sleeve.” That would be the English Channel.
Sir Edward never said openly and directly to Germany: If you violate Belgian neutrality, Britain will declare war on you. Why not?
G.K. Chesterton, the famed English writer, tells us why in his memoirs. Chesterton was well-connected in Liberal Party circles. He wrote the Liberals were indebted to Manchester millionaires for their party’s campaign financing. Those Manchester millionaires were religious pacifists. They would not have tolerated any blunt, direct warning to Kaiser Wilhelm from Sir Edward Grey or from the Liberals’ prime minister, H.H. Asquith.
To close this loop, however, it is necessary to show that the headstrong Kaiser would have been deterred by such an unambiguous warning. Fortunately, such evidence exists.
Sir John Wheeler-Bennett is the greatest of diplomatic historians of the interwar period of 1919-1939. In the summer of 1939, Sir John visited the ex-Kaiser at his exile home in Holland. There, on the eve of a second horrific conflagration, the deposed German emperor confirmed to this young British scholar that if he had only known that Britain would declare war, he would never have allowed his generals to invade Belgium!
Thus, we see how the entire world was dragged into the cataclysm of World War I — with its 20 million dead. Out of what Winston Churchill called the world crisis was born Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Japanese Imperialism, and Arab nationalism. We can trace to World War I some of what we are seeing on the streets of Tripoli, Cairo, and Amman even today.
I was fortunate to have Sir John Wheeler-Bennett as my professor of diplomatic history at the University of Virginia. I have not forgotten his worldly wisdom. It was thus with the deepest misgivings that I watched as our unprepared president advanced from one dangerously naïve statement to another as he sought and won the presidency.
Mr. Obama’s bowing to desert despots, his fawning speech in Cairo, his signing of an appeasing treaty with Russia — within days of the exposure of a Russian spy ring! — all of these communicate U.S. weakness and increase the danger to steadfast American allies — like Israel and the newly free states of Eastern Europe.
Let us hope that President Obama pulls back from his party’s pacifist majority in time.
There was never a real prospect that Britain would not fight if Germany violated its treaty on Belgium. But a clear, strong “shot across the bow” might have prevented the horror of the trenches.
Ronald Reagan said that “no war in my lifetime has taken place because America was too strong.” He set about rebuilding our “hollowed-out” military and repairing the damage done by four years of the invertebrate Jimmy Carter.
President Obama is gutting our defenses and broadcasting his belief that America has been the obstacle to world peace — until, that is, the Obama administration, bedecked with olive leaves and holding doves in its extended hands, was installed. No more hazardous mindset can be imagined. Peace through strength has ever been the safest of policies for this Great Republic.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/how_pacifism_led_to_the_great.html at February 03, 2011 – 01:55:56 PM CST
A Planned Parenthood manager in New Jersey coaching a man and a woman posing as sex traffickers on how to secure secret abortions and other services for their female underage sex slaves.
The Planned Parenthood manager explains to the “pimp” how to make their operation “look as legit as possible” and how to lie to avoid mandatory reporting laws.