Regarding One-Trick Ponies.

Leo Pusateri26 Comments

The cover from this month’s edition from my teacher’s union magazine:


Minnesota, like many other states, is about to become a “Right To Work” state, and it is the unions themselves that are unwittingly helping it to happen.

The unions and the democrat party have long had a nearly exclusive, symbiotic relationship. As long as the democrats remained in power, the unions were protected by the democrats; and in turn, the unions were free to act in a blatantly partisan fashion and be an unrepentant, militant arm of the democratic party.

Because of this relationship, the unions never had to worry about public relations. They could afford to be as-in-your-face-nasty-as-they-damned-well-wanted-to-be. Conservative rank-and-file members were summarily ignored. They didn’t care what the average non-union person thought. They didn’t care about winning the hearts and minds of the average American voter. They were quite comfortable in their roles as the enforcement/thug/footsoldier arm of the democratic party. But now that the democrats are largely out of power in Minnesota, as well as in a host of other state legislatures, the unions are suddenly finding themselves in the precarious position of being the toady left on a street corner whose protector has suddenly left the scene.

Now, given that “Right To Work” will no doubt make it on the ballot this November as a Constitutional amendment in Minnesota (and other states) , one would think that the unions’ very survival would depend on improving their public image. One would think that the unions would be running a full court press on public relations, running ads 24/7 extolling their virtues, and the services that their members provide to the public.

But instead, the public unions, including the teacher’s unions (of which I’m a member) have doubled-down on their self-serving, narcissistic thuggery. They haven’t yet awakened to the fact that with Right to Work going to the ballot this fall, it will no longer be the legislators (whom they used to have in their hip pocket) that they’ll have to convince. They’ll have to convince the very voters of Minnesota why they should remain a viable, omnipotent, political force.

Ergo, when the union leadership organize angry demonstrations like so many 60s hippie throwbacks or cadres of Bolsheviks running roughshod in near-riotous mobs, they’re not doing themselves any favors. At the same time,  they just don’t seem to have a clue as to just how precarious their position is, or how to fix it.

Up to this point, Minnesota’s teacher and other unions, having had the luxury of being able to act like spoiled teenagers; largely without consequence, have been virtual one-trick ponies in terms of defaulting to in-your-face, thuggish tactics to get demands met.

But as Minnesota native Bob Dylan once crooned, “Oh the times, they are a changing.”

If Minnesota’s unions want to survive, they better damn well change with them.

Inflation and Gas Prices

Retired Spook27 Comments

Back when the banks and insurance companies were being bailed out in late 2008 and early 2009, and the nearly trillion dollar stimulus was passed, there was a lot of speculation that it wouldn’t take long for inflation to rear its ugly head.  The unprecedented increase in the monetary base by the Fed foretold, in many people’s minds, the main ingredient for inflation as soon as the velocity of money picked up.  So far those fears don’t seem to have been realized, although prominent individuals are still warning that massive inflation is just around the corner.

I’ve been kicking around the possibility of a blog discussion about inflation, how our fractional reserve banking system is predicated on around 2% annual inflation (non-technological goods double in price every 36 years) and just needed some impetus to kick it off.  Then yesterday I heard something that was so incredulous I had to check it out. The guy who does our local AM drive-time talk show was discussing the recent spike in gas prices that has most local stations over $4/gal. for the first time since the summer of 2008. He made the statement that, back in the 60’s and early 70’s, a quarter would buy a gallon of gas in most parts of the country — and a quarter will still buy a gallon of gas in most parts of the country today.  I checked it out, and it’s true.

So, in terms of hard assets, the price of gasoline really hasn’t gone up at all in over 50 years.  That got me to thinking, just how much of our perceived prosperity and increase in standard of living over the course of that 50 years is due to technological innovation resulting in greater economies of scale and increased productivity, and how much is simply due to inflation?  And finally, at what point does inflation become really worrisome for the average American?

Supreme Court Oral Arguments on ObamaCare – Open Thread

Retired Spook187 Comments

The Supreme Court is halfway through its 3 days of oral arguments on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, highlighted by this reaction from Justice Anthony Kennedy:

Justice Anthony Kennedy, a possible swing vote for the court, was rigorously challenging Verrilli. Kennedy said he needed to answer a “very heavy burden of justification” to show how the Constitution authorizes Congress to require that individuals buy insurance or pay a penalty.

At one point, Kennedy said the mandate changes the relationship between citizens and the government “in a fundamental way.”

Lots of news on this, and judicial bloggers are having a field day.  Good time for an open thread.

“Hello, Is This Thing On?”

Leo Pusateri54 Comments

Obama lifted his political skirt today as the media is now awash in how in a supposedly ‘hot mic’ unscheduled moment he told Russian President Dimitri Medvedev to pretty much ‘chill out’ and that he’d have much more ‘flexibility’ after winning his second term.

The main question to ask here, of course, is “Flexibility to do what?”

Well, perhaps candidate Obama can give us some clues:

In the full video, then-candidate Obama later stated that he is fully committed to the policy as outlined above, and that he will “keep (his) promises.”

But before you go dismissing out of hand the notion that Barack Obama keeps any of his promises, consider this:

Obama promised that health care ‘reform’ will pass; it did so, even though via the auspices of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, we indeed did not find out what was in the bill until it was passed.

During the campaign, then-candidate Obama also promised that under his policies, the cost of electricity/energy will “necessarily skyrocket.”

That too, has become reality.

There are some promises, of course, that Obama chose not to keep; and one could argue never intended to keep. One was that you’d be able to keep your doctor and your health plan under Obamacare; another that the public would never be forced to pay for an abortion under Obamacare; you know, lipstick-on-a-pig type stuff.

But make no mistake. Obama is a dyed in the wool socialist. Any promise he has made that will serve to further his neo-socialist agenda, and in the process compromise America’s economic and military security (remember, America is arrogant and needs to be taken down a few notches), you can bet your bottom dollar (that is, if you have any dollars left when he’s done with the economy) he will keep.

So, sleep peacefully under Obama’s second term, knowing that he fully intends to bring the United States into the community of feckless, neutered, third-world nations.

How’s that hopenchange working for you, anyway?

Our Rich Pay More Than Your Rich

Retired Spook38 Comments

I’ve lost track of the number of time our resident Liberals have cited the “fact” that American tax rates are among the lowest in the world, and our rich aren’t paying their fair share.  Now, however, a noted liberal pundit is admitting publicly that that’s not true

On CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS Sunday, the perilously liberal host actually complained about America’s tax code being too progressive while noting, “The top ten percent in America pay a larger share of total taxes, 45.1%, than do the top ten percent in any of the 24 countries examined” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

I hope that one of the major focuses of this election campaign will be our tax system.  For too long we’ve punished initiative and entrepreneurism and rewarded sloth.  That has to change.

Hat tip to Cluster for the link for this post

The Hunger Games

Retired Spook25 Comments

The movie, “The Hunger Games” debuted Friday with box office sales of nearly $70 million, and is on track to book between $130 and $140 million in its first 3 days.  My neighbor’s daughter read the book for school, and has been telling me a little about it.  Although she hasn’t come right out and said it, I suspect that one of the reasons the movie, based on the first book in a trilogy by Suzanne Collins, has resonated with young people in particular, is that many of them have a relatively hopeless view of the future and don’t see the premise as all that unrealistic.

There have been apocalyptic/post-America books and movies around for as long as I can remember.  What are some of your favorites, and why do you think this latest example of the genre has so captivated audiences?

The Political Spectrum (Left vs. Right)

Federalist 2012185 Comments

This is the first in a planned series of posts about the Constitution and political ideology.

Aside from the belief of the Founding Fathers for the need of an “enlightened electorate” which are both educated on the issues and of high moral standing—the misguided effort of the Progressives to march out the quite often disproven yardstick of “Communism on the Left” and “Fascism on the Right” is one of many of my pet peeves commonly employed by this very same group of uneducated potential voters.

The Communism = Left, Fascism = Right misnomer has more to do with the seating arrangement of the parliaments of Europe than it does with where the political system actually falls on the left-right spectrum. Plain and simple–government is power by rule or control. Political systems (not parties) can be measured by how much coercive power or systematic control the system employs over its people. Remove the monikers from the parties because this argument has nothing to do with parties but rather power and control. Nothing to do with Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, Progressives, or even the Green party–the measurement is not one of political parties, but rather political power.

Image

The founders considered the two extremes to be anarchy (no government, no law) on one hand and tyranny (absolute control) on the other. On one side, the left, of the scale was tyranny or complete domination which they called “Ruler’s Law” and at the other extreme of their scale (on the right) was “No Law” or total anarchy. What the founders designed was a system shy of total anarchy but based on as much freedom as possible which they called the “People’s Law.” Try to remember this has nothing to do with political parties but rather the amount of systematic control the “ruling class” exerted over the ruled.

Ruler’s Law

Some of the characteristics of Ruler’s Law (which was often described as a tyrannical monarchy) echo the thinking of Progressives; People are not equal, but are divided into classes, all are looked upon as subjects of the King.   The entire country is considered to be the property of the ruler(s) who speaks of it as his/her realm. Thrust of Government is from the top down, and not from the people up. “Subjects” have no unalienable rights; rights are issued and rescinded by government hence government is by the whims of men and not fixed by the rule of law. As Jonah Goldberg explains (in Liberal Fascism) “They have a desire to form a powerful state which coordinates a society where everybody belongs and everyone is taken care of; where there is faith in the perfectibility of people and the authority of experts; and where everything is political, including health and well-being.”

People’s Law

This country was therefore founded under Anglo-Saxon Common Law, Natural Law, or what was called the People’s Law, where the people were considered a commonwealth of freemen and the decision and selection of its leaders had to be with the consent of the people. Laws were considered natural law given by divine dispensation, power was delegated among the people, and the rights of the individual were considered unalienable. The primary responsibility for resolving problems was first with the individual, then the family, then the community, then the religion, and finally the government or nation.

Conclusions

With anarchy marking the right boundary of the scale while tyrannical monarchy marks the left side of the scale it becomes easy to mark where on this scale differing political systems, not parties, fall. As we traverse this scale from left to right, political systems like Communism and Fascism are placed at the far left, if not totally on the left side of the scale because of the oppressive nature of the rulers, state ownership, or state control over, of all industry and farms, and the lack of individual rights. Progressive-based systems are next, as is Liberalism (a “child” of Progressive think), but definitely left of center on the scale no matter the form. As Goldberg points out, an effort of Liberal Fascism is “to create an “all-caring, all-powerful, all-encompassing” state” but concludes with “Simply because the nanny state wants to hug you doesn’t mean it’s not tyrannical when you don’t want to be hugged”. No matter how benevolent they attempt to appear–political systems are based on control and power. Finally on the right side of the scale stands our Representative Republic as far to the right without falling into total anarchy allowing its people as much freedom as possible while living under a rule of law. The question of how far to the left on the scale they fall is answered by how much power and control they exert over the individual.

Make no mistake, since the foundation, this country has been shifting left by hook and crook through the likes of Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, and Johnson, among others but that is neither the original framers’ intention nor those of us who uphold the Constitution today as an outline for the best means of governing the country. We hope this post, as well as subsequent related posts, leads to meaningful, civil discussions about exactly what kind of country and what level of government we want for future generations of Americans. As a final note: A great deal of this posting goes to many people but not least folks like W. Cleon Skousen, Cicero, J. Goldberg, and some residents of this blog.

Open Thread

tiredoflibbs219 Comments

This had to go at the top…..

What is really sad it that African-American teens are murdered every day in the inner city for stupid reasons (they are unarmed, outside playing, walking home with candy and drinks, murdered for their shoes or jackets, etc. etc.), but only ONE alleged murder get the national attention from politicians, activists, liberal media and proggy bloggers. 

Maybe, because the shooter is “white”.  They are not interested in black on black crime. …… If they put the energy into other murders they do on this one maybe they can curb some of the inner city crime and murders.  There should be rallies every day for the murders that take place across the country EVERY DAY!

It is truly pathetic.

Now have at it.

Since our leftist bloggers out there want to deflect and dodge away from the issues Americans care about and try to reshape the debate into one of social issues, here is their chance to hoist their own petard or hang themselves.

Update: Wow, no takers.  With the dumbed down talking points being obAMATEUR’s stellar record, you would think that the lefty bloggers would have something to brag about…..

But, today marks one of the most remarkable statistics to come out of Washington in a long time: Today, Tuesday, March 20 2012 marks the 1,056th day since Congress passed a yearly budget for the federal government.

The fault does not lie with Congress as a whole. The President has failed to lead. Senate Republicans have tried to do the same. But after passing a budget resolution in 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has refused to allow passage of a new budget in 2010, 2011, and, it appears, 2012 as well.  He has refused to allow Republican budgets to the floor for debate.

“We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year,” Reid told reporters last month, arguing that legislation setting limits on spending is sufficient.  Of course we know that a budget loaded with deficit spending is not a good tactic in an election year.

“The fact is, you don’t need a budget,” agreed fellow Democrat and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer a few weeks ago. “We can adopt appropriations bills. We can adopt authorization policies without a budget. We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending.”

In fact, the lawmakers are REQUIRED BY LAW to pass a budget each year. That’s made clear by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. But why let the rule of law get in the way.  Just like that pesky Constitution, the law does not allow Democrats to do what they want, because they feel we are too stupid to take care of ourselves.

Update…..
More on the debt:

ObAMATEUR made a grand-standing speech as a Senator calling Bush’s spending unpatriotic and attacking him for putting this debt on our children and grandchildre.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUPZJDBJI84.

At the time, Bush’s debt accumulation was $4.89 trillion for EIGHT years.  This according to the obAMATEUR was “unpatriotic”.   And of course, his fellow Democrats and media minions parroted these talking points, ad nauseum.

obAMATEUR’s debt accumulation has surpassed Bush’s “unpatriotic” spending in just OVER THREE YEARS.  His debt, which has been saddled on our children and grandchildren, sits at $4.94 trillion and still growing PLUS obAMATEUR’s “health care” has not kicked in yet.  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

The CBO came our a few days ago stating that its cost will be DOUBLE what was originally estimated by the White House.

The country’s financial state is in dire straits.  The rising deficits and more debt accumulation than any president in history are the reasons Democrats don’t want to pass a budget during an election year.  This action will bring the country’s financial state into the limelight front and center and the pResident will have to answer for it, guaranteeing certain doom for his election chances.

As I said before, the LAW requires Congress to pass a budget.  All the budgets are being held up by Harry Reid in the Senate.  Democrats trash the law and the Constitution to save this poor excuse of a pResident.

Democrats Actually Believe Americans Like Obamacare

Matt Margolis147 Comments

Direct from their Flat Earth Society meeting, congressional Democrats are claiming that the more Americans learn about Obamacare, the more they like it.

Of course, that completely contradicts virtually all polling on the matter, but since when has reality mattered much to the Democrats?

But, hey, let them believe what they want. If they want to go down with the ship, I won’t stop them.