After two weeks of attempted mob rule, aided by President Obama’s outside political organization,  it’s finally done.  On Thursday, as another apoplectic mob gathered inside and outside the Capitol building screaming, cursing and pounding drums, the Wisconsin State Assembly passed Governor Walker’s legislation to reduce the power of public employee unions.  The new law will:

• Restrict collective bargaining to only one issue, wages.  Benefits will not be subject to collective bargaining.  The union’s bargaining power is restricted to a percentage of base wage no greater than the increase in the consumer price index.  So, if there was 3% inflation last year the largest wage increase the new law would allow the union and the state/county/city employers to negotiate would be 3%.

• End collective bargaining over work rules and personnel procedures.  This is important because state and local government and public school personnel policies have been dictated by the unions in collective bargaining agreements rather than decided by the Legislature or local city and county officials or school boards.  For example, if teacher layoffs become necessary due to declining tax revenue or declining enrollment, school boards will now be able to keep the best and brightest rather than those with the most seniority.
  

• End the practice of forcing employees to pay union dues via payroll deduction.  Dues payment will become voluntary.

• Require an annual re-certification election in each bargaining unit, beginning this year.  The union will not continue in power without a yes vote from a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit.  Most current employees are union members not because they voted for certification but because they were required to join and pay dues as a condition of employment.  No longer will a union election held decades ago bind current employees.
  

This act is a major breakthrough.  It will reduce costs and improve government and schools for Wisconsin taxpayers.  But it will also reduce funding to the Democratic party which of course is the real reason for all the hysteria.

There aren’t many Republicans who are as steady and stalwart as Governor Walker.  In fact Republicans are known for “going wobbly” when opposition becomes forceful.  Any other state governors follow Walker’s lead and attempt overcome the powerful public employee unions deserve our enthusiastic support.

The message apparently will be that competitiveness has suffered because the federal government spends too little of our resources and doesn’t sufficiently impose itself in the private sector

Predictably, the President’s solution to “The Competitiveness Problem” will be the same as his solution to every problem:  Transfer more resources and decision making authority from the competitive, private sector to the central government which does not compete because it operates through the force of law and regulation.

The politicians and their regulation writing bureaucrats will then presume to improve the competitiveness of The People and our competitive businesses with yet another layer of regulating, controlling, subsidizing, taxing and penalizing.

As he has since the beginning of his Presidential campaign Obama will resolve to make America more competitive and more prosperous by forcing us to submit to ever more draconian restrictions on cost effective – and competitive – energy sources such as oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear.  Instead we must somehow rely on “alternative” energy schemes that are not yet competitive or cost effective or even reliable.

One wonders what it would take for President Obama and the so-called progressives to finally realize that government interference does not make American business more competitiv.

This is a conversation between two heroes of The Left, Jenine Garofolo and Keith Olberman.  Olberman opens with off-color remarks about “tea-baggers.”  Garofolo asserts that each of the millions who attended these first, spontaneous tea party events was a racist, driven by “hatred of a black man in the white house.”

Garofolo went on to assert that brain deformity and mental illness caused one to oppose the Obama Agenda.   Apparently a majority of voters were afflicted because 18 months later they swept the Democrats out of the House of Representatives in the biggest Congressional landslide in over a century.

It’s hard to find strong enough language to express the horror and outrage most of us experienced when we heard that a man had shot twenty people at a meet-and-greet event held by a member of Congress in a Safeway parking lot in Tuscon Arizona.  Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was gravely wounded, and six other people, including a nine year old child were murdered.

Multiple accounts confirm that the shooter, Jared Loughner, was/is mentally unbalanced and has been for some time.  He was even expelled from a local junior college for his bizarre, threatening behavior.  While it’s natural for us to ask why a person would commit such a heinous act the investigation will produce no credible or rational “motive.”  We’re reminded of the psycho who shot President Reagan and his Press Secretary on a Washington sidewalk in 1981.  His “motive” was infatuation with actress Jodi Foster.

But politicians and commentators from the left were quick to blame the tea party movement and conservative commentators, especially the one they most despise, Sarah Palin.  During the Congressional campaign she had published a US map with tiny cross-hair icons on twenty Congressional districts held by vulnerable Democrats, including Gabriel Giffords’ Arizona district.  Of course there is no evidence Loughner ever saw her map.

A diligent blogger at Verum Serum has posted Palin’s map plus two maps published by the Democratic party showing bulls eyes on specific GOP Congressional districts.  One of the Democrats’ maps includes a caption that begins “Behind Enemy Lines…”

The local, Pima County Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik was among the first to irresponsibly politicize the tragedy.  In a press conference held just a few hours after the mass shooting he blamed “vitriolic” political speech on radio and TV.  In a interview with Megan Kelly on Fox News the next day he doubled down.  Here are some excerpts:

Question: Is it clear to you that Gabriel Giffords was his target?

Sheriff Dupnik: There’s no doubt in my mind that this was an act of a very troubled individual.

Question: “Was there something about Congresswoman Giffords that set him off?

Sheriff Dupnik: “There are a whole lot of people in this country that are very angry at the politics of people like Gabriel.  There was a lot of vitriolic statements made, night and day, on radio and TV about her support of health care about her support of other things and some of the vitriol got a lot of people agitated…but you’re talking about irrational behavior here and there is no way you can rationalize irrational behavior.”

So which is it, Sheriff?  Was “vitriolic” political language on radio and TV a rational motive for shooting not only a politician but nineteen other, randomly targeted people, including a nine year old child?  Or, was this indeed “irrational behavior,” not subject to political explanations?

Question: is there anything you have uncovered in your investigation that suggests this suspected killer was listening to radio or watching television and was in any way inspired by what he saw?

Sheriff Dupnik: Well, I know there has been some contact with Gabriel Giffords in the past.  We have a letter from her dated in 2007…she invited him to a similar event back in 2007.  So there is some history

Let us not forget that 2007 was two years before the Tea Party movement began in response to several initiatives by President Obama and the Democrats.

Question: Do you have reason to believe this suspected killer was taking in information or was any way influenced by the vitriol or the rhetoric you’re referring to that had gone out on the airways?

Sheriff Dupnik: If your question is specific I have to be specific and say I don’t have that information yet…But my belief, and I’ve been watching what’s going on in this country for the last 75 years and I’ve been a police officer for over 50 years, there’s no doubt in my mind that when a number of people night and day try to inflame the public there’s going to be some consequences from doing that.

Isn’t the Sheriff being inflammatory himself?  Is he not blaming political speech for what he admits is irrational behavior, even as he admits he has no information?

Question: Some people question if this is the time you should be injecting speculative opinion…

Sheriff Dupnik: Well I think difference of opinion is what makes the world go around…

What?  Apparently the Sheriff wants us to conclude that his difference of opinion is just fine but difference of opinion from people who oppose expanding government’s size, power and cost is an attempt to “inflame the pubic” and to blame for the irrational violence committed by a mentally deranged man.

Question: I know you’re a Democrat…and some of our viewers are asking themselves why you are putting a political spin on this when they maybe asking why you – the Sheriff – aren’t just focused on the facts?

Sheriff Dupnik: Well, I think it’s more than just a political spin.  I’m not sure that it has anything to do with politics.  It used to be that politicians from different parties could sit down forget about their ideology and work on the country’s problems.  we don’t see that happening today.  As a mater of fact we see just the opposite.  We see one party trying to block the attempts of another party to make this a better country.

Thus the Sheriff, appearing on national TV in his role as the top law enforcement officer of his county departed from facts to deliver a blatantly partisan message.  As the election results demonstrate, a majority of Americans do not believe the Obama/Democrat agenda will make this a better country.  Obviously, a majority of voters believe an agenda of massive deficit spending and government intervention will harm America, not make it better, and they rewarded the GOP for trying to block it.

It turns out that Sheriff Dupnik himself has been an active participant in “vitriolic” TV, appearing on MSNBC with liberal flame thrower Keith Olbermann, to denounce the Arizona Legislature as “racist” for enacting SB 1070 that empowered local law enforcement officers to identify illegal aliens and turn them over to federal authorities.

In the coming days there will likely be more attempts by the Left to use this horrible crime as a pretext to silence those of us who advocate for more liberty and less intrusive government.

• NPR did provide a microphone to Juan Williams because his point of view was in compliance with that network’s leftist/progressive ideology.
• Then, NPR managers fired Williams to punish him for the offense of uttering one sentence in conflict with their politically correct dogma.
• Fox News provides a microphone to Juan Williams (and several other liberals) because his point of view conflicts with most of Fox’s conservative commentators.

Just sayin’!

• Demonize Arizonans for seeking to enforce the federal law that forbids foreigners from entering the U.S. without authorization and requires deportation of those who do;
  
• Call on Congress to enact “comprehensive” immigration reform;
• Insist that while we await action on “comprehensive” immigration reform it is “not fair” to deport anyone who entered the country illegally.

The phrase “comprehensive immigration reform” can mean almost anything.  Obviously, the system needs dramatic improvement.  Anyone who has observed the plight of foreigners who try to learn and then meet the requirements for legal immigration knows the INS is one of the world’s most dysfunctional bureaucracies.  Even as illegals stream across the Mexican border people who try to immigrate legally encounter endless, bewildering, bureaucratic barriers.

But what do immigrant rights groups and the political-media establishment think “comprehensive immigration reform” is? Speakers at the Immigrant and Workers Rights Rally in Foley Square, New York City on May 1 provided some interesting quotes to help us understand what they think it is.  SIEU Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina said:

Every day without immigration reform means that students will not be able to continue their education because of their  legal status.

Every day without immigration reform means more workplace raids, more deportations, more families being separated, and more needless suffering.

Mr. Medina’s vision for reform would simply transform illegal immigrants into legal residents who could stay in school – at taxpayer expense – and continue their employment without risk of being caught and deported by immigration authorities.

New York Congressman Charlie Rangle bellowed:

Any country that people don’t want to leave and escape but want to come in to, should open up those doors to be as great as we can be.

Again, open  “those doors” so unlimited numbers of foreigners may enter, without meeting any qualifications.

New York Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus called for the law to grant illegals the same status as citizens:

We must continue to fight for the rights of all workers and that means undocumented workers…that is why it is time for comprehensive immigration reform.

Like most immigrant rights activists Ms Velazquez refers to people who have entered the country illegally as “undocumented” as if it were all just a paperwork problem, like a missing receipt.  She then said to this audience of mostly non-citizens:

I want for everyone here who is not registered to vote to register.  I want everyone here to come out to vote and I want you to out out Republicans and Democrats who oppose comprehensive immigration reform!

A member of the United States Congress urged non-citizens to illegally register and vote!

Barbara Bowen a professor and official with the union that represents the faculty of City University of New York shouted:

You have reminded us that workers know no borders and no human being is illegal.

She too urged the audience of non-citizens to register and vote.

When you hear calls for “comprehensive immigration reform” in order to “end illegal immigration,” remember that it’s not about sending illegals home.  It’s not about securing the borders.  It’s not about greater efficiency at INS or simplifying the process for controlled, legal immigration.

It’s about throwing open the border to unlimited numbers of new immigrants who will immediately be granted the full panoply of tax-supported entitlements, and will overwhelm the social services infrastructure.  Illegal immigration will end because no form of immigration will be illegal!

By now virtually every American has heard the hysterical chants from the political-media establishment:

• ‘Toughest anti-immigrant law in American history.”
• “Racial profiling will target all persons with brown skin.”
• “Just like Nazi Germany – police will demand ‘your papers.’”
  

President Obama’s remarks were outrageous.  In a campaign style speech he attacked the law and the people of Arizona:

Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to get harassed — that’s something that could potentially happen… That’s not the right way to go.

Later, on Air Force I, Obama told reporters:

What I think is a mistake is when we start having local law enforcement officials empowered to stop people on the suspicion that they may be undocumented workers …”

It seems the media and most government officials, from the President on down have either not read the law or have decided to lie about it.

The truth:

• Arizona is suffering a wave of violent crime committed by Mexican gang thugs who cross the border illegally.  Congress refuses to do what is necessary to secure the border and keep people from from crossing without permission.
  
• In compliance with long-standing Supreme Court rulings, the new law does not permit the police to stop or initiate contact with someone without probable cause.  “Being brown” does not does not qualify as probable cause.
• Police are required to consider a drivers license or a non-driving state ID card proof of citizenship or legal residence.
• If after the police initiate contact upon probable cause they find that the person has no license or state ID, and if there is some reason to suspect that person might be an illegal alien, the police are then empowered to ask for proof of legal presence in the U.S.
• Federal law requires every non-citizen who is in the country legally to carry government iessued documentation of his/her legal status.  These are in the form ID cards, not “papers.“

The President, Members of Congress, and the political-media establishment have been furiously selling, and are now very close to enacting, dramatically expanded government intervention in health insurance and medical services.  If they succeed, government commissions will decide what your insurance policy will and won’t cover.  New coverage mandates will increase the cost.  If you don’t want to buy it, you’ll be hit with a federal fine.  If they succeed in their long term goal the only insurance available will be government insurance.

What do the President and his gang promise you in exchange for curtailing your liberty?

Security.

.

The political promise – contradicted by thousands of pages of dense legalese – is that health care will no longer be a financial challenge and you’ll always receive whatever medical services you need.

This isn’t the first time such a promise was part of a sales pitch for increased government power and reduced liberty.

In 1965 President Johnson held an emotional media event at the home of former President Harry Truman to celebrate enactment of Medicare.  He and Truman repeated the hype that had persuaded The People that the promise of government security was worth the loss of liberty, that submitting to this compulsory, government program was a small price to pay for government guaranteed health care security.

Truman was first to speak:

This is an important hour for the Nation, for those of our citizens who have completed their tour of duty and have moved to the sidelines…These people are entitled, among other benefits, to the best medical protection available.

Then Johnson took over:

There are more than 18 million Americans over the age of 65…Most of them are threatened by illness and medical expenses that they cannot afford.  And through this new law, every citizen will be able, in his productive years when he is earning, to insure himself against the ravages of illness in his old age.

No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later years.

Fast forward to 2009 and note the attitude of the political-media establishment toward Medicare and the promises Johnson made.  We’re told that too much is spent on “the last year of life.”  President Obama insists Medicare pays for billions in wasted treatments and openly attacks Medicare Advantage, the choice of a third of seniors. When the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a financial analysis of the the gargantuan Senate health care bill, the  headline was that it would cover millions who are now uninsured while – incredibly – reducing the government’s deficit.  How is this possible? By cutting the amounts Medicare pays for medical services and treatments.

The government will simply reduce the amount it pays physicians and hospitals for various services and procedures.  Medicare already pays about 15% less than private insurance companies.  The Senate bill’s deficit reduction promise requires an additional 21% reduction in those payments.

More reductions in Medicare will be recommended in the future by a new commission.  Commission recommendations will automatically become law unless Congress passes legislation to block them.

Obviously, President Johnson’s Medicare promises will be broken by today’s political establishment, led by Barack Obama, to divert funds to the latest political priority, a total government take-over of health care, and a reallocation of medical resources away from retirees.

Back to the 1965 Medicare ceremony at Harry Truman’s home.  President Johnson said:

During your working years, the people of America–you–will contribute through the social security program a small amount each payday for Medicare insurance protection. For example, the average worker in 1966 will contribute about $1.50 per month. The employer will contribute a similar amount…And through this new law, Mr. President, every citizen will be able, in his productive years when he is earning, to insure himself against the ravages of illness in his old age.

Adjusted for inflation $1.50 would be about $10.00 today.  So today, the Johnson promise, adjusted for inflation, would be a combined employer-employee cost of $20 per month for the “average worker.”  But, at today’s average salary of  about $44,000,  the  cost is $106 per month, more than five times what Johnson promised.

Both Medicare and Social Security were sold as savings or insurance programs enabling each of us to financially prepare for our own retirement.  Both were cynically calculated to ensnare the nation in financial traps from which there could be no escape without great pain.  But in fact, both are crude income transfer schemes that simply seize money from the young and transfer it to the old.  Because of the government promise of security, most people have not financially prepared for medical expenses in their senior years, and are dependent on Social Security as a major portion, if not the entirety of their retirement income.

Until recently we thought there was no political will to diminish Medicare because it would leave millions of seniors with less health care than they’ve paid for their entire lives.  But Obama and the Democrats in Congress proved us wrong.  They’re quite willing cut medical services to seniors AND force younger folks to keep paying full price for less in future benefits just to fund the 2009-10 version of the eternal, political  promise of…

Security

…in exchange for liberty.

In their great wisdom the nation’s founders conceived a brilliant Constitution, limiting government’s scope to a few essential functions.  Those functions did not include involuntary retirement or health care programs, or the power to intervene and dictate the terms of private insurance policies. But over the past century politicians and the Supreme Court have chipped away at Constitutional limits on government power.

Grayson’s campaign website, “congressmanwithguts.com” proudly solicits contributions with video of his hysterical diatribes.

Recently, a Florida Republican Activist, Angie Langley opened an opposition website, “mycongressmanisnuts.com.”   Langley’s “nuts” site is a parody of Grayson’s using the same colors and similar graphic elements.

Last week Grayson revealed that he can dish it out but can’t take it. He filed a four page complaint against Ms. Langley with Attorney General Eric Holder asking him to prosecute and imprison her.

According to Grayson, Ms. Langley’s prosecutable offenses are:

1. Inferring that he is her Congressman when she lives outside his district, and
2. Putting up a site that is “utterly tasteless and juvenile.”

What did Alan Grayson get for his petulant attempt violate Ms. Langley’s First Amendment rights?  More media attention and new visitors to her site than money could ever buy.

Alexa.com, tabulates visitor counts and ranks every website in the world against every other site.  For example, Google is ranked #1, Facebook #2, Amazon #17, New York Times #97, and Fox News #224.  LibertyWorks is ranked #376,155

Three months ago”mycongressmanisnuts.com” was ranked #3,482,129.  But it’s rank for the past seven days was #51,471 and rising.

The delicious irony: Grayson’s site is ranked #220,323 and falling for the past seven days.

Please Congressman Grayson, file a complaint against LibertyWorks.com!

The Obama Administration responded with what has become the tediously predictable political correctness that makes it so reluctant to admit that terrorists exist.  Here’s the White House press release:

For Immediate Release: November 27, 2009

Statement by the Press Secretary on the Train Derailment in Russia

We are deeply saddened by the terrible loss of life and injuries resulting from the reported derailment of a train between Moscow and Saint Petersburg. As authorities investigate the circumstances of this tragedy, our hearts go out to the families of those who lost loved ones, and we wish a speedy recovery to the injured.

“Derailment”?  “This tragedy”?  Appropriate terms for an accident.  What makes these people so reluctant to say terrorists attacked a train in Russia?

The Administration continues to equivocate and avoid acknowledging that the Ft. massacre was a terrorist act.

We can only hope that eventually our President will learn to think as clearly and speak as directly about terrorist attacks as the Russians.

This anniversary is a reminder that human destiny will be what we make of it…Even in the face of tyranny people insisted that the world could change.

One is reminded of the summer of ’08, during the Presidential campaign, when Obama traveled to Berlin to deliver a speech referencing the wall.  Back then, as now, he dismissed the efforts of President Ronald Reagan, giving the credit to unnamed “people.”  In that speech he said:

Look at Berlin, where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity. People of the world — look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.

Anyone who lived through those years knows Obama’s memory of the world standing as one is a preposterous fantasy.  Indeed the Soviet Union that had built the wall was part of the world, was it not?  The Soviets backed up their power to maintain the wall by installing medium range nuclear missiles aimed at Western Europe.

President Reagan and German Chancellor Kohl persuaded the NATO allies to position American nuclear missiles in Europe that could counter-attack if the Soviets fired theirs.  In Western Europe there were massive street demonstrations demonizing Reagan and protesting the placement of the missiles.  The notion that “the world stood as one” is simply delusional.

The Berlin Wall finally fell because the Soviet Union was imploding and could no longer enforce an ownership claim over Eastern Europe.  Several factors led to the demise of the Soviet Union but Ronald Reagan’s efforts were most significant.

Ronald Reagan prevailed over the virulent objections of many in Europe and America who demanded accommodation with the Soviets that would have allowed the wall to remain, kept Europe divided, and left Soviet missiles in place without challenge.

Obama demonstrates malign contempt and disrespect by presuming to celebrate the destruction of the Berlin Wall without acknowledging President Reagan.

Obama did however find a way to insert himself into the celebration as a retroactive symbol of the victory of twenty years ago. He referenced President Kennedy’s famous 1961 speech in Berlin and then asked:

Who would have foreseen on that day that that a united German would be led by a woman from Brandenburg, or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent?

How concerned are you about the tone of the political debate, in terms of people talking about anti-government rhetoric and so on and the possibility of violence?

Ms. Pelosi appeared to be near tears as she spoon fed this response to the adoring reporters :

Well, I think we all have to take responsibility for our actions and our words. We are a free country, and this balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance.

I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this, myself, in the late ’70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it created a climate in which violence took place.

So I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, so that understanding that some of the people — the ears that it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume.

But, again, our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe. But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.

One could say she got all wee-weed up.  Perhaps Ms. Pelosi was referring to this, said by President Obama in July, at a prime time press conference called to sell government health care:

“Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that’s out there… So if your child has a bad sore throat, or repeated sore throats the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out,’”

In an August town hall, another event contrived to hype government health insurance, Obama suggested that physician diagnoses are driven by greed for money:

Let’s take the example of something like Diabetes…Right now if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet…they might get reimbursed a pitience, but if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that’s 30,000, $40,000, $50,000 immediately the surgeon is reimbursed.

The American College of Surgeons issued a public rebuttal that said in part:

President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

Speaker Pelosi herself hasn’t been muted in her vilification of private citizens who showed up at town halls to protest ObamaCare.  In July she said

They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town hall meeting on health care.

We were reminded of these recent photos, taken of protesters wielding incendiary signs in Ms. Pelosi’s home district of San Francisco.  Presumably these folks would be  loyal Pelosi voters:

.

Finally, former reprobate comedian, now Senator Al Frankin appeared on the Dave Letterman show to joke about execution in this 47 second video: