Category Archives: The Left

The Racist PB and J we eat!


You know what the cheapest and fastest sandwich my parents or even me as a parent could put together was a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.  Kids love them!  Well actually only “privileged white kids” love them it seems.  This according to a Principal in Portland Oregon  that is a racist sandwich you are eating there.  Here is an excerpt from the Portland Tribune.

Verenice Gutierrez picks up on the subtle language of racism every day.

Take the peanut butter sandwich, a seemingly innocent example a teacher used in a lesson last school year.

“What about Somali or Hispanic students, who might not eat sandwiches?” says Gutierrez, principal at Harvey Scott K-8 School, a diverse school of 500 students in Northeast Portland’s Cully neighborhood.

“Another way would be to say: ‘Americans eat peanut butter and jelly, do you have anything like that?’ Let them tell you. Maybe they eat torta. Or pita.”

Guitierrez, along with all of Portland Public Schools’ principals, will start the new school year off this week by drilling in on the language of “Courageous Conversations,” the district-wide equity training being implemented in every building in phases during the past few years.

Through intensive staff trainings, frequent staff meetings, classroom observations and other initiatives, the premise is that if educators can understand their own “white privilege,” then they can change their teaching practices to boost minority students’ performance.

Last Wednesday, the first day of the school year for staff, for example, the first item of business for teachers at Scott School was to have a Courageous Conversation — to examine a news article and discuss the “white privilege” it conveys.

Most of the staff are on board, but there is some opposition to a drum class being offered to middle school boys of color at Scott School.

Fifty percent of the students at Scott are Hispanic; another 15 percent are black and 9 percent are Asian. Eighty-five percent are eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

Chuck Barber, who also offers boys’ drum corps at Vernon and Faubion schools in Northeast Portland, approached Gutierrez last year to start up a lunch-time drum class for black and Latino boys once a week. This year, it’ll expand to two classes a week, to accommodate new boys as well as those with experience.

At least one parent has a problem with the the class, saying it amounts to “blatant discrimination and equity of women, Asians, whites and Native Americans.”

“This ‘club’ was approved by the administration, and any girls who complained were brushed off and it was not addressed,” the parent wrote anonymously.

Gutierrez denies that any students were turned away from the drum corps, and vehemently rejects any suggestion that it is discrimination to offer a club catering to minority boys.

“When white people do it, it is not a problem, but if it’s for kids of color, then it’s a problem?” says Gutierrez, 40, an El Paso, Texas, native whose parents were Mexican immigrants. “Break it down for me. That’s your white privilege, and your whiteness.”

Okay you read it do you see it?  Who is really the racist here?  This woman is dangerous and she is being supported by her school district.   Even scarier is that she was trained to think this way by a California Based initiative.

A drum line of Hispanic and Black children, whoops BOYS, this group excludes the girls and every other race in the school.  But that is okay with Gutierrez.

Time to write the Portland School District and remove this hater from her position.  But I fear they took the same left leaning white guilt class she did.

One more point about the Portland Tribune and I will provide the link.  They misspelled her name within one paragraph of another mention.  Check it out

http://portlandtribune.com/pt-rss/9-news/114604-schools-beat-the-drum-for-equity

The paper and school district want to make this azzhole a hero but what she really does is hate.  She is not unifying she is dividing with the support of the press and the district.  oh and the published the word “the” back to back in the excerpt too.  I did not edit it.  Check for yourself.

A sad situation!

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under The Left

Occupy Wall Street, WHY?


The people who are currently occupying a park near Wall Street are protesting something. They claim it is the Wall Street Banks.  That is fine but they are protesting the wrong place. Here is what they say on their website in reference to their mission.

Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants.

Let’s address the 99% stuff.  It is an arrogant statement by these few hundred people to think they represent 99% of America.  I sincerely doubt that the couple of thousand protestors nationwide.  Seattle had a grand total of 50 people.  hardly the 99% the Occupy Wall Street folks are talking about.  Even the Tea Party which has really effected the political debate over the last three years will claim to be less than 20% of just one political parties voting block.  This shows the fallacy in the very nature of their movement.  Here is the 99% statement from these misguided Marxists.

We are the 99 percent. We are getting kicked out of our homes. We are forced to choose between groceries and rent. We are denied quality medical care. We are suffering from environmental pollution. We are working long hours for little pay and no rights, if we’re working at all. We are getting nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything. We are the 99 percent.

Well Occupy let me introduce you to the 20%  and what we believe.  They are entrepreneurs, small businesses, managers, engineers, working people with mortgages and families.  We provide a service to our employers and receive a salary negotiated with that employer.  We believe it is government intervention that caused the current financial mess we are in.  The banks were given the money by Washington.  And you go to Wall Street to protest?  Do your homework, revolutions are ugly people die.  Often those people are the very people who unwittingly started the revolution.  Because once you get the anti-rich revolution going the power void opens the door for someone who does not share your goals to step in. The 20% in the Tea Party is not advocating revolution but we are advocating common sense.  Which in your movement is sorely lacking.

You think the Arab Spring was a good thing?  Yes dictators were overthrown.  But the void in power and the very scattered nature of the overthrow has left these nations open to an even more powerful force.  Islamic Fundamentalism.  And you in your dream world can’t see that.  Or you think it is a good thing.  Good or bad many of the Dictators who have been toppled in the Middle East have one thing in common. They ran a secular Government keeping religion out of the rules.  Why would they do that?  Because the Islamic Fundamentalism that is the undercurrent of much of the Middle East is too strict and needed to be controlled.  And you want to emulate this in a country that was founded as a Democratic Republic?  There is no reason.  And that my little occupying troop is why when you look around you see yourselves sitting in a small park in New York having almost no impact on the Real American 99%.

As for your stated goal of overthrowing the banks.  I want you to read this. This little tidbit was taken from a story on the 8 day Chicago Occupy group. Posted on Enews park Forest.

There are committees: a treasury committee, a press committee, an art committee, a bicycle committee. “If anyone asks you why you don’t have a job,” someone says into a megaphone that doesn’t work, “hand them your resume and ask them for one. And if you have a job, tell them! But if you don’t, join a committee and really put your time in. Your new job is to make a change in this country.”

How delusional are you?  You rail for the overthrow of our system and at the same time you tell the protestors to ask for a job?  Where do you think that job stems from?  Wall Street and the banking community!  You are out there biting the hand that feeds you and crying that it is unfair.  See the 99% remarks.  Then you tell people to ask for a job?  Go Home.  Take a shower, write  a resume, get out there and pound the pavement. The rest of us are tired of carrying you.  Register to vote and do so in every election.  You want to effect change?  Do it the American Way, that is what the 20% on the right are doing.

4 Comments

Filed under Banking, The Left

The Time for Compromise has passed.


The American Spectator published the following article on the current budget battle.

Budget Battles Demand Perspective

By on 3.18.11 @ 6:10AM

There’s nothing wrong with picking low-hanging fruit. Ground gained with position consolidated is always a good thing in battle. Incrementalism is not a character flaw. As Aesop’s turtle proved, slow and steady can indeed win the race.

Impatient conservatives should understand these things when adjudging the House Republican Leadership’s piecemeal advances against government bloat. Critics may quibble that the leadership hasn’t been bold enough, but the disagreement is only about degree, not about principle.

Were there probably a few more cuts the leadership could have forced through in this past round? Perhaps. Could at least one or two “policy riders,” like the one defunding Planned Parenthood, have survived a bout of brinksmanship? Maybe. Are conservatives wrong to want more, to push for more, and even to expect more? Not at all. Pressure for a good cause is a good thing.

Still, it is important that a revolution not eat its own. The adversary is the political left, not the Republican leadership. There is nothing wrong with making gains and banking them, and then going back immediately for more — which is exactly what Speaker Boehner and company are doing. The abdication of leadership, if there is one, will not occur unless and until the leaders surrender without further advances — and even then, it will not be abdication unless further advances were still reasonably possible. A stalemate after gaining all the presently gainable ground is an honorable stalemate, not a dishonorable one.

Sometimes what’s needed, to be sure, is a Patton, gobbling up contested ground at impressive speed. But not even Patton could do such a thing if the ground were held by forces more numerous, better equipped, and positionally advantaged. Sometimes the best strategy is, to borrow a football analogy, to fight for Woody Hayes’ “three yards and a cloud of dust.”

If you’ve played a lot of the board game Stratego, you discover that bold attacks rarely win. Careful, steady pressure, while keeping key pieces amply protected, almost always wins the day. Don’t attack an unknown opponent with your field marshal. Don’t sacrifice your miners when bombs still protect your opponent’s flag. And don’t leave your spy hanging out to dry unless he’s already made his kill.

Politics, especially in the multi-faceted constitutional system designed by James Madison and friends, almost always must be played like Stratego. American politics rarely allows for Patton-like advances. And it certainly does not allow for Patton, or even for a MacArthur-like Inchon landing, when the Senate, the presidency, and the establishment media is in adversarial hands.

Consider, as so many others have done, the lessons from the first Gingrich Congress of 1995-96.

On one hand, about 95 percent of this recent Newt Gingrich column is correct: The GOP fared far better in the 1995 budget battles than it was given credit for, meaning that boldness absolutely can bear fruit. On the other hand, most of this recent piece by Glenn Kessler is also true: The Republicans “lost” when (and only when) they got “hung up on the numbers” and failed to “accept the winning headline.” The reality is, Republicans won the first shutdown of 1995, and lost the second one. And when they lost, they learned the wrong lesson by imagining they lost worse than they did — so, as time wore on, they ended up no longer even fighting. One lesson is that any loss against the entrenched regime can be psychologically devastating. That’s why John Boehner’s current strategy of racking up small victories, one after the other, is anything but cowardly. While we conservatives might want him to press a little harder, the general approach makes good strategic sense.

Kessler accurately reminds us of this: “In 1995, the 73 freshmen Republicans, about half of whom had never held public office, had been particularly reluctant to compromise on issues such as a $245 billion tax cut. But budget numbers are quite squishy to begin with, subject to wide variation in the later years of a multi-year budget because of factors such as economic growth and inflation. In calling for a shutdown, Republicans had rejected Clinton’s offer of an $81 billion tax cut as inadequate — and then ended up swallowing a $91 billion tax cut in the 1997 balanced budget deal.”

A similar thing, unfortunately little remembered, happened with proposed Medicare savings. (Note: My files are in an attic somewhere, and I am writing from memory, so the following numbers will be a little bit off, but I am certain they are well within the ballpark.) House Republicans were hell-bent on achieving something on the order of $265 billion in Medicare savings (over the course of however many years — I think it was seven — they were calculating in those days). The left loved to note that the proposed $245 billion tax cut was almost the same amount as the proposed Medicare savings. The GOP, said the Democrats with utter predictability, was taking money from poor senior citizens to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Unfortunately, the GOP positions played right into that narrative.

Staring the Gingrich brigades right in the face was a perfect answer, one suggested from the middle staff ranks but which was dismissed imperiously by the numbers-nimrods whose calculations showed that exactly $265 billion, not a penny less, was the right amount to save. As Kessler wrote about the tax cuts, so too with the Medicare cuts: Such budgetary exactitude in politics, especially with out-year projections, is sheer nonsense. Anyway, the perfect answer was this: Just two years earlier, Hillary Clinton’s monstrous health-care overhaul had included proposed Medicare savings of about $190 billion. If Republicans had been politically savvy, they would have adopted the Clinton numbers. If it had been good enough for Madame Hillary, then by definition it couldn’t be a heartless slashing of the very lifeblood of blue-haired old ladies living in derelict houses. So what if the Hillary numbers wouldn’t produce green-eyeshade perfection: Such cuts would have been a huge step in the right direction, and they would have been relatively impregnable against leftist demagoguery. A few jiggles elsewhere in the proposed budget, and the whole thing still could have shown a projected “balance” in the designated time frame — but without nearly the political risk.

As it was, Republicans were forced to accept Medicare savings far less than even the Hillary numbers — below $150 billion, if I remember correctly. So, just as with the tax cuts, they lost the PR battle while not even coming close to achieving the numbers they were fighting for — and, for that matter, achieved less than they might have done if they had asked for less up front but justified it more convincingly and cleverly.

Fast forward to today. Conservatives make a big mistake if they obsess about finding exactly $61 billion of savings in two-thirds of a year, from domestic discretionary accounts alone, when the annual deficit will exceed $1.4 trillion. Every dollar saved for the taxpayer is important, of course, but the big picture is more important still. The big picture is to position conservatives to balance the entire budget within a few years, and save a crushing debt burden from smothering unborn generations. A series of little victories, in one skirmish after another, can build a winning psychology, keep the pressure on the big-government bad guys, earn credibility with and trust from the public, reassure investors that big debts aren’t necessarily forever, and save the taxpayers at least some money in the process.

To repeat: Nothing is wrong with pushing the leadership for more savings. Nothing is wrong with trying to stiffen leadership spines. But conservatives should keep calm as they work out these intra-party differences, knowing that the real energy should be spent defeating the left, not bashing their own leaders. The leaders, for their part, should not snipe back. Conservatives have every right to press their case, and it is utterly appalling that Kevin McCarthy and company are losing their cool at Mike Pence and his budget hawks. This sort of cannibalism is inexcusable.

Bashing leaders can be useful in the right place and time. When everything rides on the result, as it did with the Obamacare battle, critics have every good reason to let loose a fusillade against leaders who don’t use every single arrow in their quiver to deny or further delay the left’s victory. But these disputes over the Continuing Resolutions are not that sort of situation. It’s not an all-or-nothing, do-or-die situation. Disagreements within the same team in these situations are fine, but they are nothing more than disagreements, not matters of sacred honor.

Save the vitriol, and the sharp knives (figuratively speaking), for use — from a united front — against the left. This is a long domestic war we’re fighting, and not every hill is one to die on.

Quin Hillyer misses one very important fact in his piece.  That the Democrats if still in power would not exercise the moderation he calls for from the Tea Parties, other Conservatives and his Republican party.  Hillyer lays out an argument for a measured approach which spares the Republicans a big altercation. My argument against the incremental approach is that every time the Democrats get in power they ram stuff down our throats.   Then when we the conservative/Republicans seize power we are urged to moderate our response.  Most of the kissing up is done by the very people who rammed through Obamacare.  We in our zeal to cut should ignore the overtures and cut with gusto.  We are heading into an economic abyss and the debt ceiling vote is around the corner.  Actually it is a huge cliff right in front of us.  I guarantee that our new hot-shot freshman will bow to the old guard and vote for a raising of the ceiling.  They will them come home and say they had to because we cold not work with the Dems.  I still stand on the platform that we should be ramming as much cost cutting measures through the house and passing a budget that crushes spending  Let Reid and the Senate take us over the cliff.

But barring a cohesive push from the right and center the left will win the argument solely on their inaction.  We need to make then say no.   They used the “party of NO” to some good measure on the Republicans.   Now we need to show them for what they really are.  To do that we need to get spending under control or at least make the attempt.  We have acquiesced twice now on the budget by passing two continuing resolutions.  5 weeks of stalling and what did we cut?  A scant few dollars.

This is not the first time the Republicans have been lulled to sleep by the Progressives on cuts.   Our bloated budget is the result of legislation pushed through without consideration or compromise by the left.  Then when the people vote for change the losers play the underdog game and say we need to compromise.   No folks we don’t,  now is the time to jump out of the car and let the Democrats go off the cliff alone.  Push for major cuts to the federal budget.  Push for reform of agency regulations that are not voted on by congress and costing business billions and jobs.  Push for a smaller federal workforce.  Push to totally repeal Obamacare.

But at the same time introduce legislation that makes sense and fixes what has been done. Give the states back their power on education, medical insurance (the debate was never about health care, it was health insurance), and even the environment.  Be the Constitutional party.  The contrast will be striking.  The support of the people will follow.  But if we listen to Mr. Hillyer we risk seeming to play the same old Washington game.  One the people resoundingly rejected in the 2010 election cycle and one the people of this country are preparing to reaffirm in 2012.

Leave a comment

Filed under 9/12 Burlco, Congress, Conservatives, Democrats, Economy, Elections, Environmentalists, Government Agencies, Health Care, Old Guard, Republicans, Senate, Spending, Taxes, Tea Party, The Left, The President, The Right, US Government

Frank Lautenberg: Lying to America.


Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) took to the Senate floor on March 10th to decry the spending cuts proposed by the Republicans.  Lautenberg went as far as to talk about “Toxic Tea”  a brew served up by the Tea party endorsed Republicans who understand that cutting spending is the only way out of the woods we find ourselves wondering.

Lautenberg endorsed tried and true waste of tax payer money lets look at what he had to say

Head Start?  This waste of tax payer money has already been proven not to have a long-term benefit.  The Head Start web site even says that the benefits of head start are gone my 3rd grade or before.  That kids in Head start have no advantage over kids who were not in the program before starting school.  SO pretty much Franky boy is just out-and-out lying to keep the funding and pander to his base.

Let’s continue with what the doddering old fool thinks about spending cuts.

Really Frank   Well here is a Brit who drives in both countries and how he feels about your vaunted traffic controls  Which are costly and restrictive to thought.

Distracting Miss Daisy

Why stop signs and speed limits endanger Americans

By John Staddon

There is a stretch of North Glebe Road, in Arlington, Virginia, that epitomizes the American approach to road safety. It’s a sloping curve, beginning on a four-lane divided highway and running down to Chain Bridge, on the Potomac River. Most drivers, absent a speed limit, would probably take the curve at 30 or 35 mph in good weather. But it has a 25-mph speed limit, vigorously enforced. As you approach the curve, a sign with flashing lights suggests slowing further, to 15 mph. A little later, another sign makes the same suggestion. Great! the neighborhood’s more cautious residents might think. »

We’re being protected. But I believe policies like this in fact make us all less safe.

I grew up in Great Britain, and over the past five years I’ve split my time between England and the United States. I’ve long found driving in the U.S. to be both annoying and boring. Annoying because of lots of unnecessary waits at stop signs and stoplights, and because of the need to obsess over speed when not waiting. Boring, scenery apart, because to avoid speeding tickets, I feel compelled to set the cruise control on long trips, driving at the same mind-numbing rate, regardless of road conditions.

Relatively recently—these things take a remarkably long time to sink in—I began to notice something else. Often when I return to the U.S. (usually to a suburban area in North Carolina’s Research Triangle), I see a fender bender or two within a few days. Yet I almost never see accidents in the U.K.

This surprised me, since the roads I drive here are generally wider, better marked, and less crowded than in the parts of England that I know best. And so I came to reflect on the mundane details of traffic-control policies in Great Britain and the United States. And I began to think that the American system of traffic control, with its many signs and stops, and with its specific rules tailored to every bend in the road, has had the unintended consequence of causing more accidents than it prevents. Paradoxically, almost every new sign put up in the U.S. probably makes drivers a little safer on the stretch of road it guards. But collectively, the forests of signs along American roadways, and the multitude of rules to look out for, are quite deadly.

There you go Franky.  Wrong again.     What else would you like to attack voters for.  You know the ones who took the house back and displaced a few Senators too.  Your next by the way, you and Bob Menendez.  SO let’s get back to your weak speech where it appears you can not even read your own text.

Folks 2 million women getting a mammogram would only cost 30 million dollars.  1 billion is much more.  Why all the expense?  If you divide that over 50 states that comes to approx 6 million a state at the local level.  But 1 billion that equals 20 million a state.  That is a big difference.

Lautenberg seems to think the Federal Government is in control here. It is time to call and write him.  The States have the power and his job in Washington is to look out for the best interests of the Taxpayers of New Jersey.  That would be the people footing the bill.  So here is the contact info

Contacts

Newark
Phone: (973) 639-8700
Toll Free: (888) 398-1642
Fax: (973) 639-8723

Camden
Phone: (856) 338-8922
Fax: (856) 338-8936

Washington, DC
Phone: (202) 224-3224
TTY: (202) 224-2087
Fax: (202) 228-4054

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/

Let’s wake him up from his afternoon nap.

Leave a comment

Filed under 9/12 Burlco, Bob Menendez, Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey, Senate, Spending, Tea Party, The Left, US Government

Illinois: Raising taxes and chasing jobs.


New Jersey Governor Chris Christie went to Illinois to lure a company or two into his state. At least one company made overtures to that effect.  I figure this would be a good time to go back and talk to some of the internet companies that operate in Illinois.   The Governor of that state proved that Liberal Democrats never learn.

Pat Quinn signed a new tax law in Illinois.  It taxes any internet company that links through any company in his state.  The idea being to tax Amazon, Overstock and other big internet sales companies that do not have ties except links on pages of companies that are headquartered in his state.  One such company is CouponCabin.com.  Here is a statement from the CEO of Coupon Cabin.com.  This from PRNewsWire.com.

In response to the Governor’s approval of HB 3659, Scott Kluth, CEO of CouponCabin.com, issued the following statement:

“The Governor’s approval of HB 3659 is deeply disappointing. As a result, Illinois will lose jobs, many thriving businesses like CouponCabin and other affiliate marketing firms will be forced to move to other states, and most important, this law will not generate the tax revenue Illinois thinks it will collect.

“Those of us who opposed HB 3659 made every effort to persuade the Governor that it is a misguided attempt to bring ‘fairness’ and new revenue to Illinois by requiring out-of-state merchants who advertise on websites operated in Illinois to collect sales taxes from Illinois customers.

“The reality is that just like other states that approved similar legislation, Illinois will not collect additional tax revenue. Instead, the merchants who would be affected by this law will simply sever their contracts with Illinois affiliate advertisers, as they have done in every other state. The only result of this law is that high-growth businesses like CouponCabin will be driven out of Illinois to maintain their relationships with out-of-state merchants.

“We support efforts to find a solution in Illinois that could correct the damage HB 3659 will cause. We will also continue to work within our industry toward a national solution to these tax issues that would enable our businesses to continue to grow and create more jobs, no matter where they are located.

“In the meantime, CouponCabin is actively exploring moving to Indiana. It’s a shame we have to consider leaving our longtime home in Illinois, but we will do what is best for our business.”

 

There you go.  If you think you can tax a company in one state they can just move to another.   It happens all the time.  It is time for Governments everywhere to look at spending and begin to cut and put money back in the people’s pockets.  BTW  this is the same Governor who just eliminated the death penalty in Illinois.

I do not understand the rise of these bad men.  It is obvious to me that they pander to the weak.  Making them feel powerful.  But so did the Marxists in Russia and the Maoists in China.  Even Fidel Castro led the poor to believe they were better off with him in power.  They are not.  We the People need to take our power back from these users.

1 Comment

Filed under Communism, Illinois, Indiana, Progressives, The Left, Uncategorized

Mr. President your showing your Naivete; Maybe!


In 2008 a largely white country elected a mixed race President.  This man was a one term Senator from Illinois.  The man’s campaign slogan was hope and change.  He said more that once that he was going to fundamentally change America.   This President took his election as a mandate from the people to make his changes.  Sadly the thing he naively or deliberately overlooked was his election was not a mandate for his plan.  It was a backlash against the economic meltdown and the Government bailout of business.  Many voters understood that this was wrong.  Some voted for Obama to retaliate against the Republican President and his party.  The people who formed the Tea Party were angry before the election but choices where limited.  Faced with the potential of no conservative on the ballot a group of Libertarian met and raised over 6 million dollars for Ron Paul.  The date December 16, 2007.  Which completely blows the Presidents argument that the Tea Party is solely about his policy and somewhat about his race.   Which he told a writer who is publishing a book on African-Americans in the White House.

Mr Obama is obviously one prone to knee jerk reactions.  Let’s look back at Cambridge his attack on the police.  They acted stupidly he said.   Then he found out his buddy the radical professor was dead wrong and decided to attempt to level the field by having the beer summit.   But what is the basis for his reaction.  Do we all know the phrase “Children Learn what they live”?  My parents had that on the wall of our kitchen.  And Everyday my parents showed us that hard work and honesty pays.  We had seven children and guess how many of us are contributing to society?  All seven.  We may not agree politically but we definitely believe in working hard to get what you want.  I sincerely don’t believe that Mr. Obama ever got this lesson.  It seems that what he was being taught was that we need to level the playing field.  We need to make everyone the same.  Here is an excerpt from the book.  This is how he feels about race taken to a simple level.

Obama was in a reflective mood. He began the interview by saying he had been “fully briefed” on my topic and was ready for me to “dive in.” He proceeded to methodically defend his effort to build a race-neutral administration. “Americans, since the victories of the civil rights movement, I think, have broadly come to accept the notion that everybody has to be treated equally; everybody has to be treated fairly,” the president told me. “And I think that the whole debate about how do you make up for past history creates a complicated wrinkle in that principle of equality.”

Past history?  Many whites in the Northern United States died to free the slaves.  The debt is paid in blood. While this has never been a perfect country, it is apparent that we strive for equality.  The results of the Civil War show that.  Some of the aftermath was not productive toward that end.  But the concept that everyone is treated equally is NOT really the American way.  The American way is that everyone has a chance to succeed.  Treating everyone equally is a Communist propaganda statement.  Think back to pre 1976 education.  We were taught the Communist Revolution was an effort by the poor for equal treatment.  Sadly for the poor in Russia they were being used by a few sick people with a power agenda of their own. They stirred the masses against the Government.  Sound Familiar?

Some at this point are saying “YES”  that is the Tea Party.  One problem here folks. The Tea party is a Pro-Government organization their platform is for a smaller less intrusive government.    The people that surround our current President are the true anti-government group.  Bill Ayers, Van Jones and even Valerie Jarrett.  So how do they shut our pro small government argument down?  Mr Obama intimated that race was an issue with the Tea party here is another excerpt  form the book.

But Obama, in his most candid moments, acknowledged that race was still a problem. In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent “Tea Party” movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages, and the poor, but wasn’t helping them nearly enough, he said.

This statement shows once again just how misinformed Mr Obama is.  He either chooses to ignore or is not getting all the information he needs to make these statements.  The people in the Tea Party never asked for a handout.  What they did say was that nobody is too big to fail.  This President got that phrase put into law.  The Tea Party believes the Health care system has flaws but should not be controlled by Government.  The Government should allow more competition.

To all the disenfranchised people out there.  You are being played by a true believer.  You are being stirred by an agenda driven President beholden to Big Unions, not you.    If you believe that Harold Schaitberger, Richard Trumka and Andy Stern are really working in YOUR best interest you are sadly mistaken.  Your local might be working for you since the folks in charge are your neighbors but the International ,of any Union, is nothing more than a BIG BUSINESS.  The only thing they can produce though is more laws.   That is bad for the Country.

Before you vote in one more election, before you tell somebody that the SEIU is looking out for you.  Do your research.  This President is in the pocket of the unions and he is now playing the race card against the American people.  Mr President you are acting “Stupidly”

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 9/12 Burlco, Business, George Soros, Tea Party, The Left, The President, Unions

Big Business will spend big bucks getting Republicans Elected!


How many times have you heard this since the Supreme Court struck down a section of the McCain Feingold Bill that limits contributions from business.   Our own President chided the court at the State of the union.   I posted the other day about the unions buying politicians in the Democrat party.   Well a woman named Susan O took great exception with my estimation of the situation.  She bought up the Koch Brothers and how they were buying the elections.   Well let’s dispense with her quickly.  The 2008 Presidential election was won by Democrats.  Lots of them were elected because people were just mad at the Republicans.  Understandable since they completely lost their way.  But to say that big business will buy elections for the Republicans is just plain uninformed.  Most businesses understand that picking sides in this country will get you in the outs real fast.  So they ride the middle.  Giving to one party slightly higher than the other.  But never leaning too far one way or the other in case of emergency.  Here are the top 140 donors since 1989.

LEGEND: Republican   Democrat   On the fence



= Between 40% and 59% to both parties
= Leans Dem/Repub (60%-69%)
= Strongly Dem/Repub (70%-89%)
= Solidly Dem/Repub (over 90%)
Rank Organization Total ’89-’10 Dem % Repub % Tilt
1 ActBlue $51,124,846 99% 0%
2 AT&T Inc $46,292,670 44% 55%
3 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $43,477,361 98% 1%
4 National Assn of Realtors $38,721,441 49% 50%
5 Goldman Sachs $33,387,252 61% 37%
6 American Assn for Justice $33,143,279 90% 8%
7 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $33,056,216 97% 2%
8 National Education Assn $32,024,610 93% 6%
9 Laborers Union $30,292,050 92% 7%
10 Teamsters Union $29,319,982 93% 6%
11 Carpenters & Joiners Union $29,265,808 89% 10%
12 Service Employees International Union $29,140,232 95% 3%
13 American Federation of Teachers $28,733,991 98% 0%
14 Communications Workers of America $28,376,306 98% 0%
15 Citigroup Inc $28,065,874 50% 49%
16 American Medical Assn $27,597,820 40% 59%
17 United Auto Workers $27,134,252 98% 0%
18 National Auto Dealers Assn $26,311,758 32% 67%
19 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $26,229,477 98% 0%
20 United Parcel Service $25,290,039 36% 62%
21 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $25,226,733 98% 1%
22 Altria Group $24,643,651 27% 72%
23 American Bankers Assn $24,048,220 40% 59%
24 National Assn of Home Builders $23,461,905 35% 64%
25 EMILY’s List $23,391,763 99% 0%
26 National Beer Wholesalers Assn $22,757,795 34% 65%
27 JPMorgan Chase & Co $22,514,838 51% 48%
28 Microsoft Corp $21,691,408 53% 46%
29 National Assn of Letter Carriers $20,943,434 88% 10%
30 Time Warner $20,327,541 72% 27%
31 Morgan Stanley $20,245,499 44% 54%
32 Lockheed Martin $19,839,004 43% 56%
33 General Electric $19,725,132 51% 48%
34 Verizon Communications $19,690,873 40% 58%
35 Credit Union National Assn $18,908,979 48% 51%
36 AFL-CIO $18,900,396 95% 4%
37 FedEx Corp $18,816,940 40% 58%
38 Bank of America $18,699,265 46% 53%
39 National Rifle Assn $18,209,746 17% 82%
40 Blue Cross/Blue Shield $18,197,594 39% 60%
41 Ernst & Young $18,183,788 44% 55%
42 Sheet Metal Workers Union $18,111,313 97% 1%
43 International Assn of Fire Fighters $17,731,993 81% 17%
44 Plumbers & Pipefitters Union $17,635,976 94% 4%
45 American Hospital Assn $17,562,729 53% 45%
46 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu $17,445,497 35% 64%
47 American Dental Assn $17,371,235 46% 53%
48 Operating Engineers Union $17,122,185 85% 14%
49 PricewaterhouseCoopers $16,699,488 37% 62%
50 Air Line Pilots Assn $16,586,697 84% 15%
51 UBS AG $16,428,222 40% 58%
52 Natl Assn/Insurance & Financial Advisors $15,984,854 42% 57%
53 AFLAC Inc $15,832,719 44% 55%
54 Boeing Co $15,641,085 47% 52%
55 Pfizer Inc $14,900,921 31% 68%
56 Union Pacific Corp $14,883,203 25% 74%
57 United Steelworkers $14,677,901 99% 0%
58 United Transportation Union $14,475,010 88% 10%
59 Merrill Lynch $14,295,360 37% 61%
60 Ironworkers Union $14,142,975 92% 6%
61 Reynolds American $13,687,778 24% 75%
62 Northrop Grumman $13,560,724 43% 56%
63 American Institute of CPAs $13,367,435 42% 57%
64 American Postal Workers Union $13,312,673 95% 3%
65 Credit Suisse Group $13,138,060 44% 55%
66 National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn $13,029,671 51% 48%
67 BellSouth Corp $12,993,782 45% 54%
68 Anheuser-Busch $12,862,221 48% 51%
69 General Dynamics $12,566,267 47% 52%
70 Comcast Corp $11,888,339 56% 43%
71 American Financial Group $11,760,437 18% 81%
72 Walt Disney Co $11,753,831 68% 31%
73 Exxon Mobil $11,677,631 13% 85%
74 National Air Traffic Controllers Assn $11,630,988 80% 18%
75 Chevron $11,530,759 24% 75%
76 GlaxoSmithKline $11,522,090 29% 70%
77 KPMG LLP $11,478,786 34% 65%
78 Club for Growth $11,357,288 1% 96%
79 DLA Piper $11,357,157 67% 32%
80 Raytheon Co $11,333,292 46% 52%
81 News Corp $11,270,692 58% 41%
82 Natl Active & Retired Fed Employees Assn $11,265,500 77% 21%
83 Koch Industries $11,002,235 10% 89%
84 Honeywell International $11,001,355 47% 52%
85 Human Rights Campaign $10,501,271 90% 9%
86 National Restaurant Assn $10,354,545 16% 82%
87 New York Life Insurance $10,274,174 52% 46%
88 Associated Builders & Contractors $10,264,858 1% 98%
89 Wal-Mart Stores $10,178,938 27% 71%
90 Southern Co $10,162,887 31% 67%
91 Saban Capital Group $10,139,185 99% 0%
92 American Health Care Assn $10,114,879 52% 46%
93 American Academy of Ophthalmology $10,043,708 52% 47%
94 Prudential Financial $10,033,181 50% 49%
95 MBNA Corp $10,029,256 17% 82%
96 Newsweb Corp $9,957,850 98% 0%
97 UST Inc $9,950,761 21% 78%
98 American Society of Anesthesiologists $9,867,537 42% 57%
99 MetLife Inc $9,867,248 54% 45%
100 AIG $9,828,364 50% 49%
101 Freddie Mac $9,819,600 43% 56%
102 American Crystal Sugar $9,792,339 62% 37%
103 CSX Corp $9,791,929 33% 65%
104 Associated General Contractors $9,753,590 15% 84%
105 Indep Insurance Agents & Brokers/America $9,698,525 40% 59%
106 General Motors $9,678,878 39% 60%
107 Securities Industry & Financial Mkt Assn $9,678,182 44% 55%
108 Eli Lilly & Co $9,630,679 31% 68%
109 National Cmte to Preserve Social Security & Medicare $9,610,115 80% 18%
110 Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance $9,606,748 39% 59%
111 American Optometric Assn $9,477,163 59% 40%
112 Lehman Brothers $9,357,030 54% 44%
113 American Maritime Officers $9,285,471 46% 52%
114 Transport Workers Union $8,994,649 95% 4%
115 Amway/Alticor Inc $8,872,278 0% 99%
116 Seafarers International Union $8,727,594 85% 14%
117 National Cmte for an Effective Congress $8,707,940 99% 0%
118 National Fedn of Independent Business $8,608,362 7% 92%
119 Archer Daniels Midland $8,522,673 44% 55%
120 American Airlines $8,467,294 47% 52%
121 Ford Motor Co $8,453,192 38% 61%
122 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp $8,383,535 31% 68%
123 Fannie Mae $8,362,326 54% 45%
124 Painters & Allied Trades Union $8,337,796 88% 10%
125 National Assn of Broadcasters $8,218,537 45% 54%
126 Skadden, Arps et al $8,135,046 78% 21%
127 MCI Inc $8,092,972 46% 53%
128 Wachovia Corp $8,059,347 31% 68%
129 American Council of Life Insurers $7,930,665 38% 61%
130 Amalgamated Transit Union $7,776,918 93% 6%
131 Aircraft Owners & Pilots Assn $7,713,366 45% 54%
132 American Trucking Assns $7,704,240 28% 71%
133 Marine Engineers Beneficial Assn $7,598,877 74% 24%
134 Bristol-Myers Squibb $7,370,699 22% 77%
135 Bear Stearns $7,145,772 55% 43%
136 Enron Corp $6,548,235 28% 71%
137 Andersen $6,253,977 37% 62%
138 BP $6,231,474 28% 70%
139 MGM Resorts International $6,190,170 48% 51%
140 Vivendi $4,704,596 66% 32%

Look how many companies sit on the fence.  Why do you think that is?   How many time has control of Government changed hands in your lifetime?  Plenty I bet.  And the business people are smart enough to give to everyone to get what they need.  Susan O is a leftist mime who has no original thought and has never once looked into where the money comes from.   She reads her leftist blogs and quotes them as if they are facts.   But the reality is that Big Business needs big friends and contrary to what Barack Obama, The Daly Kos and Media Matters say they will not lean heavily one way or the other.

Sure there are zealots like Soros and the Koch Brothers but their money is their own and not corporate.  This is a fact that seems to elude the left.  Who is really being impartial?   The unions, they make up less than 13 percent of the work force and wield more power through lobbying and direct contact with the Democrats than any special interest group.   So spare me you rants about the right and look at where the real walk around money is generated.  In the Minority of the unions.

4 Comments

Filed under Business, Daily Kos, George Soros, Koch Brothers, Media Matters, Public Unions, The Left, The President, Uncategorized, Unions