Free Michigan

Michigan is now the 24^th right to work state in America.

Public workers in Michigan are now free to work without being forced to pay legalized extortion to unions as a precondition of their employment.

As union labor gathered by the thousands, Michigan’s legislature voted approval Tuesday to “right-to-work” legislation.  The House and the Senate both approved the measure, making membership and payment of union dues optional.  Governor Rick Snyder has promised to sign it into law.

More than 12,000 protestors from around the Midwest gathered for the vote.  Union thugs dissatisfied with the vote attacked the Americans for Prosperity tent, tore it down and slashed it apart with knives while members of AFP were still inside.

Union promised there will be more to come.

From the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives, Democratic State Representative State Representative Douglas Geiss threatened “There will be blood.”

Barack Obama described the legislation thusly:  “These so called right-to-work laws, they don’t have anything to do with economics, they have to do with politics.”

This is coming from someone whose entire position on the so-called fiscal cliff negotiations in Washington DC has nothing to do with economics.  It is all about politics.  It is all about destroying the Republican Party and promoting a patently un-American fringe Marxist ideology.

Michigan’s right-to-work law makes it illegal to require financial support of a union as a condition of employment.  When it comes to recruiting businesses to Michigan it will make the state more competitive.  Critics claim it will cripple the ability of unions to fund their political policy objectives.

Unions are forgetting some fundamental principles.  No one should be forced against their will to join a union or to have their paycheck skimmed by unions.  If someone disagrees with their politics, no one should be forced to fund union politics.

For “progressives”, who lay claim to sole possession of concern for working people, forcing Americans who object to their political policy objectives to fund then as a precondition of employment is hypocrisy in the most classic sense.

Hypocrisy, when it comes to speaking about “progressives”, is par for the course.

It is morally right for workers to have the power of decision where it comes to supporting unions financially.  People should have the right to work without being forced to pay union dues.  Americans who want to work should not be enslaved by unions.

Close The Book Forever On The Failed “progressive” Experiment

The current White House occupant, in a calculated, targeted attack against Republican rival Mitt Romney, attempted to dismiss a key Romney rationale for his presidential candidacy by saying: “When you’re president, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot.”

It is quite obvious that occupy Oval Office is shockingly unfamiliar with the concept that jobs are downstream from profits, not the other way around. With the exception of the original staff, which is hired to launch a company via startup capital (notice that here too, private capital comes before hiring), businesses only become financially capable of hiring more workers after they have made profits. Being profitable gives them the capital needed to pay for expansion, which then creates the need to hire additional employees. This is especially true of small businesses, most of which are decidedly not over funded with start-up capital.

According to “progressives”, the rich are somehow preventing the middle class from having a fair shot because the rich are depriving the middle class by not paying “their fair share” of taxes. The “progressive” concept of the middle class having a fair shot is stealing money from those who have earned it through initiative, hard work, risk and sacrifice within the free market capitalist system through “progressive” taxation and use that money, acquired through legal extortion, to hire unionized government sector workers. Workers who will not only be paid more than their counterparts who are doing the same job in the private sector, but who will enjoy Cadillac healthcare and pension benefits provided to them by a taxpayer funded job from which, thanks to union demands, being fired will be a virtual impossibility.

Still wonder why “progressives” love government sector unions?

Such an arrangement is perfectly suited to “progressives”, who are huge proponents of centrally planned big government. Workers dependent upon government for their livelihood are reliably more likely to re-elect big government candidates. They are also far more likely to pay little concern to how much the rich are taxed, since the taxes of unionized government workers won’t be affected.  That is, if they’re even required to pay taxes. Their big government big brothers take care of them.

Winston Smith, where are you?

Of course, the “they don’t pay their fair share” rhetoric is a complete sham, a straw-man argument. Truth be known, the “they don’t pay their fair share” rhetoric is a bold faced lie. The top 10% earners in America pay 70% of the income taxes while 47% of Americans pay no income tax. They pay zero.

How much of a tax on the rich would be enough to satisfy “progressives”? How much of someone else’s money does the Oval Office need to take for the middle class to have “a fair shot”? The 100% rate Barrack Obama Sr. sought to impose on Kenya’s rich after he seized power?

Can you say redistributive dreams from my Marxist father?

This clearly demonstrates how clueless Barrack Hussein Obama is about the way America was designed by its Founding Fathers. Having a fair shot in America has never been about big government stealing from the rich to finance hiring unionized government sector workers.

Having a fair shot has always been about a constitutionally limited government not interfering with the private sector free market’s ability to afford equal opportunity to everyone, regardless of their starting point in life. In America, government’s job is not to “take care of us”. In America, a centrally planned big government can never replace the initiative, creativity, hard work, sacrifice, risk, and reward of free, private Citizens working to provide for their own needs through the pursuit of happiness within the private sector.

If it ever does, America will have ceased to exist.

Instead of digging the United States into an ever-deepening hole by reducing available free market capital through higher tax rates, how about creating some certainty for investors by making permanent changes to America’s needlessly complicated tax code? How about creating a simplified tax code that provides incentives for investment? How about creating a tax code that’s doesn’t punish small businesses by forcing them  each year to divert limited precious capital to pay the cost of hiring accountants and attorneys to decipher an ever “evolving”, increasingly complicated tax code? How about creating an economic environment where the rich, middle class and poor alike all feel it’s worth the risk to invest in a start-up business? Thanks to existing, unnecessarily high “progressive” tax rates and expanding, restrictive, needlessly expensive regulatory oppression, starting up a new business today is practically impossible.

Better still, how about “progressives” going back to school to learn what America is really all about? In the meantime, they should leave running America to Americans.

Obama has had four years.  He got his fair shot, and he blew it.

After 100 years of progressively expanding government intrusion into the God given Rights and Liberties of free people, it is now time to forever close the book on the failed “progressive” experiment.

Government Unions-A ‘progressive” Failure Foisted Upon America

Merriam-Webster’s definition of EXTORTION

1: the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property; especially: the offense committed by an official engaging in such practice

2: something extorted; especially: a gross overcharge

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extortion

From Chicago to Madison to Sacramento to Washington DC and points in between:

» Do as we say and nobody gets hurt. Get the picture sweetheart?

Those self-imagined, self-appointed “intellectual elites” within the ”progressive” Democratic Party and their tarnished Oval Office idol insist the 2012 election is a fight for the middle class.

» Union members make up only 12.9% of the middle class. If a smart politician wanted to fight for the remaining 87.1%, they would be against forcing those voters to pay more taxes so government sector unions can enjoy a job where dismissal for incompetence is virtually impossible, Cadillac benefits (with smaller payroll deductions than the private sector) are the norm, and exorbitant salaries and bloated retirement pensions are business as usual.

Government sector unions offer nothing of value to America. The prevention of workplace violations have long been secured by workplace rights legislation. The only value government sector unions have to offer to anyone is to crooked politicians who promise them cushy, taxpayer funded benefits in exchange for campaign funding and guaranteed election turnout.

Can you say criminal quid pro quo?

» You politicians better give us what we want or you will get no union support. Get the picture chum?

For those who propagate the misrepresentation that union’s “fighting for what they believe in” shows character:

» How can anyone truly believe that threatening small business owners with boycotts shows character? Small business owners are people who are hard-working individuals, who have invested overtime hours without pay for weeks, months and years on end in hopes they will achieve the American dream of success, who simply wish to remain neutral in the government sector union’s battle.  Bullying and intimidating these people displays character?

To paraphrase former U.S. President Bill Clinton: It depends on what your definition of character is.

» Support us whether you want to or not and nobody’s business gets hurt. Defy us and we’ll do everything in our power to make sure your business fails. Get the picture pal o’ mine?

On the other hand, when Conservatives peaceably assemble to petition their Government for a redress of grievances, they are rabid, violent, hateful extremists…

…and of course, RACIST!!

» What is extreme is acting like $16 trillion in national debt should be of no concern.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

» What is extreme is painting Conservative budget plans to cut a $3.7 trillion federal budget by $61 billion (less than 1%) as extreme.

» What is extreme is describing plans to freezes an already enacted 25% increase in federal government spending as a serious attempt to cut spending.

» What is extreme is classifying brave, self-sacrificing veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq as potential domestic terrorists.

» What is extreme is saying that average, everyday Americans who simply want their government to follow the U.S. Constitution should be considered threats to national security.

» What is extreme is demanding an increase in the U.S. debt limit without restraint ad infinitum.

» What is extreme is a Department of Justice that picks and chooses which laws to enforce based on the White House’s “progressive” political agenda.

» What is extreme is a radical fringe leftist “progressive” Oval Office occupier who truly believes that being anti-Constitutional, anti-free speech, anti-free market, anti-business, anti-traditional energy, anti-religious freedom, anti-gun, pro-illegal immigration, pro-UN treaty restrictions on individual U.S. liberties is somehow in any way shape or form in America’s best interests.

» What is extreme is the empty class warfare rhetoric that “the rich”, those top 5 percent who still pay more than the bottom 95 percent, “don’t pay their fair share” of support to a slothful, bloated, deficit spending, ever expanding, spiraling completely out of control federal bureaucratic nightmare.

» What is extreme is the conscious choice made by big government collectivists to ignore economic realities and force every individual to purchase a commodity that imposes collectivist goals on everyone else.

» What is extreme is the conscious decision made by big government collectivists that the bottom 47 percent who do not pay any income taxes somehow magically qualify to receive an income tax refund.

The United States does not have a revenue problem.  The United States has a spending problem.  A major spending problem…  Recklessly continuing America’s massive deficit spending in the name of “social justice” or “economic justice” is suicidal.

The re-election of one current White House occupant ensures that America will be destroyed via the institutionalized “progressive” left’s Cloward-Piven strategy.  By foisting the government sector union failure upon America, what the institutionalized “progressive” left is doing is nothing short of criminal.  It is, by definition, extortion.

Instead of being elected to office, they should be imprisoned.

White House: Talk About Anything But Our Record

Ever since the 2009 GM bailout by “progressive” big government ended the pensions of 20,000 retirees at Delphi auto parts manufacturing, the White House and the Department of Treasury have laid the blame on the steps of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Internal government emails have been obtained that show the U.S. Treasury Department, run by Timothy Geithner, was behind those termininations.  All 20,000 of the pensions seem to have been ended strictly for the reason that those retirees did not belong to labor unions.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/07/emails-geithner-treasury-drove-cutoff-of-non-union-delphi-workers-pensions/

Perhaps the National Labor Relations Board was too busy preparing to harass another private sector company planning to hire non-union workers to get involved.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Eric Holder has yet to file any criminal charges against top Wall Street bankers with connections inside the Department of Justice or who had made political donations to the 2008 presidential campaign of the current White House occupant.

Over the years, both the Oval Office and Holder have talked tough, aggressively attacking big fat cat bankers, blaming their reckless speculation for the 2008 financial collapse.  The Government Accountability Institute has found that Holder still has not “filed a single criminal charge against any top executive of an elite financial institution.”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/07/report-cronyism-political-donations-likely-behind-obama-holder-failure-to-charge-any-bankers-after-2008-financial-meltdown/

All talk no action.  Sound tough for the union organized OWS crowd, but do nothing to upset potential campaign donors.  The heck with credibility, the “progressive” Party Pravda will run interference for the re-election campaign.

Overseas, Iran has vowed it will not allow Assad to fall in Syria.

“Iran will never allow the resistance axis – of which Syria is an essential pillar – to break,” said Saeed Jalili, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council secretary.  The “axis of resistance” includes Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, all of which are anti-Western and openly hostile towards Israel and the United States.

Assad reassured Jalili by saying: “The Syrian people and their government are determined to purge the country of terrorists and to fight the terrorists without respite.”

If Assad is overthrown, Iran will lose influence over Syria and a crucial link to Hezbollah.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9459321/Syria-Iran-vows-it-will-not-allow-Assad-to-fall.html

Could it be that Muslim Brotherhood influence over the White House has surreptitiously led to policies that support the creation of a regional Caliphate?  What other way is there to logically explain policies that support rebellions to overthrow some Middle Eastern dictators, but not support rebellions hostile to the Iranian regime or its allies?

With so much baggage for the White House to carry through the campaign, their “Priorities” are to have their “progressive” allies run misleading ads that attempt to tie Mitt Romney to death.

Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting the Oval Office is running a new ad that blames Mitt Romney for a family losing health insurance which contributed to a woman dying from cancer.

It apparently makes no difference to the “progressive” super PAC that Romney left Bain Capital years before the GST Steel bankruptcy in 2001.  In addition, the cancer casualty Ranae Soptic died in 2006, long after the GST plant had been closed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/priorities-ad-ties-mitt-romney-to-cancer-death/2012/08/07/d723d8c0-e084-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html

In another move to distract attention away from the dismal economic performance of the White House, the Oval Office occupier was overheard whispering to a top fundraiser that GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney wants to name Gen. David Petraeus as his choice for Vice President.

http://drudgereport.com/flashgp.htm

The White House was more than happy to clutter the news cycle by dismissing the Drudge Report.  Anything to keep the pathetic economic record of the White House out of the headlines will suffice.

Press Secretary Jay Carney reminded reporters to “be mindful of your sources” when asked about the Petraeus rumor.  “I can say with absolute confidence, such an assertion has never been uttered by the president.  And again be mindful of your sources” said Carney.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-disses-drudge-report-be-mindful-of-your-sources/article/2504233

And so it goes for the most open, transparent White House in American history.  They are more than happy to talk about anything but their own record.

Antonio Villaraigosa: America’s First Latino President?

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is a long-time supporter of the current occupier in chief.  Over the course of the past year Villaraigosa has done no less than 20 official or campaign events on the White House’s behalf.  He will be in the national spotlight when he gavels the opening of the 2012 Democratic National Convention in September.

Questions are already being raised about whether Villaraigosa, mayor of the country’s second largest city and part of the rapidly growing Hispanic population, has presidential aspirations.

“The answer is no.  The job I’ve said to people I would like is I would like to be governor of the state of California” he said.

As did his hero during the 2008 presidential campaign, Villaraigosa demonstrates enough politically savvy to paint himself as a centrist.  He has publically expressed support for the Simpson-Bowles Commission and concerns over the strength of government sector unions.  Much like those of his idol in the White House, Villaraigosa’s expressions of concern are empty rhetoric.

In the state of California, a growing number of cities are teetering on the brink of or have already filed for bankruptcy.  Mammoth Lakes, Vallejo, Stockton, Compton, Bell and San Bernardino are all guilty of mishandling their finances.  They have spent years shuffling monies from fund to fund in attempts to hide huge budget deficits.  The city of Los Angeles is right there with them.

“The enemy is algebra” says San Jose city councilman Sam Liccardo, a Democrat.   “The fact is the unions own the Democratic Party” he said.  Government employee unions call the shots for the Democratic Party in California.  California’s widespread, growing fiscal problems are directly tied to the corrupt quid quo pro relationship between government sector unions, the Democratic politicians they elect, and the ballooning costs of government sector union salaries, benefits and pensions.  “Party orthodoxy is much more strictly enforced at the state level, because the unions decide who wins and who loses” said Liccardo.

There is a solution: San Diego, a California city that is projecting five years of budget surpluses, addressed their biggest fiscal concern by switching most of its government union pensions to a 401(k)-style plan.

Villaraigosa talks tough about fiscal matters and reining in the power of government sector unions, but as mayor of Los Angeles, his actions belied his words.  As mayor of the country’s second largest city, Villaraigosa has never led any such action, has never made any such attempt, never proposed any such policy.

Villaraigosa caused great concern when he openly spoke of bankruptcy in regards to the fiscal future of Los Angeles.  Says Kevin James, a stalwart Republican fiscal Conservative running to replace him: “He says a bankruptcy won’t happen under his watch, but his watch is over in a few months. He didn’t say anything about what happens after that.”

Do not be misled by the centrist smokescreen.  Villaraigosa is as “progressive” as Democrats come, which is to say that he is as much a radical fringe leftist as are House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and the current Oval Office occupant.  The outgoing L.A. mayor’s expressed support for Simpson-Bowles is undoubtedly rooted in the Commissions’ willingness to raise taxes…not exactly a trail blazing innovative position for a “progressive” to take.

Villaraigosa has been a corrupt, free spending, fiscally irresponsible mayor in Los Angeles.  Despite protestations to the contrary, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that he would make anything but an equally disastrous choice for either governor or president.

These Numbers Do Not Lie

In each of the States that elected Republican governors during the Tea Party dominated 2010 midterm elections, unemployment rates have gone down. According to an Examiner.com analysis, since Tea Party Republicans took over in January 2011, the average reduction in unemployment for those 17 States has been 1.35%.  When compared nationally, job creation in those States has been 50% better than the rest of the country.

The unemployment rate in States that elected “progressive” Democrats in 2010 saw a drop in rates matching the .9% national rate of decline.  In one of these “progressive” run States the unemployment rate actually went up, not down: New York – 8.2% to 8.6% = an increase of 0.4%.

• Witness how unemployment rates have been reduced in the 17 States that elected fiscally Conservative governors back in 2010: Michigan -2.4%, Florida -2.3%, Nevada -2.2%, Alabama -1.9%, Ohio -1.7%, Tennessee -1.6%, South Carolina -1.5%, Georgia -1.2%, Wyoming -1.1%, Iowa -1.0%, New Mexico -1.0%, Wisconsin -0.9%, Kansas -0.8%, South Dakota -0.7%, Maine -0.6%, Pennsylvania -0.6%.

This is another substantiated example of how, when compared to fiscally Conservative Tea Party solutions, “progressive” economic policies fall short.  It also blows a gigantic hole in the “we’re making progress but can’t go back to policies that caused our economic problems” talking point “progressives” insist on repeating ad nauseam.

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-republican-governors-rapidly-bringing-down-unemployment-their-states

What this also indicates is that the real problem in America is “progressive” ideas, which have been being imported into the United States from Europe since the early 20^th century.  Since then, America hostile “progressive” ideas have managed to infiltrate and infest both of America’s major political Parties.

The Republican vs. Democrat political paradigm is obsolete.  This is especially true where economic policies and government power are concerned. To more accurately describe the philosophical divide in today’s political landscape, think Americans vs. “progressives”.

It should be noted, “progressives” easily occupy a space within the “globalist” category.  Globalism is a clear and present danger to the very concept of national sovereignty; any nation’s national sovereignty.  Be assured that United States sovereignty is definitely being targeted.  “progressives” are eagerly playing a large part in this.

http://www.americanfreedomalliance.org/microsite/global-governance/program.htm

Americans want the United States to follow the Constitution, which limits the size, scope, reach and power of the central government to that prescribed by the Constitution.  “progressives” wish to “evolve” beyond America’s foundation document, favoring a central government that usurps the maximum amount of power possible from the States and from the people.

Although many Americans supported the invasion of Iraq and George W. Bush’s strong backing of the U.S. military, a careful examination of his Presidency shows that Bush increased the size and cost of the federal government.  He created the DHS, a large, expensive and essentially unnecessary Cabinet level bureaucracy.  If the underlying cause of the 9/11 terrorist attacks was the FBI and the CIA not sharing information, that could have been rectified with the proper use of an Executive Order directing the two intelligence agencies to share pertinent data.  Bush also greatly expanded the size, cost and presence of the TSA.  Remember that the next time your 87 year old grandmother or 4 year old niece is being openly groped by an overly-controlling faux uniformed union member who will be practically impossible to fire.  Bush worked with a Republican majority Legislature to enact Medicare part D, which imposed the financial burden onto the States.  Near the end of his Presidency he and his Goldman Sachs Treasurer promoted TARP, which put taxpayers on the hook to the tune of $700 billion.  He then used some of that money when the Feds bailed out GM and Chrysler.  While it can be argued that GMAC was a financial institute and therefore qualified for funds, there was no such justification for bailing out Chrysler. Not to mention adding $5 trillion to the national debt and nominating the current Supreme Court Chief Justice, who recently sided with “progressives” in preserving the biggest farthest reaching government power grab in U.S. history: the obama”care”tax.

Like it or not, it is a defensible position to say that the results of George W. Bush’s presidency indicate that in many instances he acted as a “progressive” Republican.

The chief discernible distinction between “progressive” Democrats and “progressive” Republicans is the rate at which government grows.

The government of the United States needs to shrink, not grow.  Europe has been growing their governments for decades.  That is one of the major reasons why their economies are failing.   “progressives” are trying to make America more and more like Europe.  Increasing government spending while expanding the size and scope of government bureaucracies and increasing the people’s dependency on government is not the way to fix a problem caused by big government spending, bloated bureaucracies and government dependency.

The last time America had an anything like an American president was when Ronald Reagan presided over the Oval Office.  Under the influence of the anti-American “progressive” economic policies of barrack obama, America’s GDP growth is currently 1.9%.  At this point in his first term, under the influence of Reagan’s pro-American economic policies, America’s GDP growth was 7.2%.

Unlike the passionately emotional “pay their fair share” argument used by “progressives”, the more dispassionate American view of looking at the numbers works.  Numbers do not lie.

For the America envisioned by its founders to survive, “progressives” must be stopped. Forget the (R) and the (D).  These political Party designations are growing increasingly meaningless.  Voters need to realign their thinking and begin voting for Americans and against “progressives”, regardless of Party affiliation.

If “progressives” currently living in America want to live in a European country doomed to economic failure, they can move to Europe.  They would be doing America a great favor.  An even bigger favor would be if they sent disenfranchised Europeans who want to live the American way to the United States.  America would definitely benefit from that exchange.

Biased Media Reports Non-News

Once again, a proud, card-carrying member of the “progressive” Party Pravda is wasting readers’ time.  The headline reads: “On eve of health ruling, Ruth Bader Ginsburg predicts ‘sharp disagreement’”.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77479.html

How is it possible that Kyle Cheney is getting paid to spell bind readers with such gems as: “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg laid waste Friday to all those rumors about the fate of the Affordable Care Act in the Supreme Court.” Yet the article contains no information about Ginsburg making such a claim.

Cheney continues Pravda’s collective non-information/misinformation campaign by saying: “Although she offered no insight into the tightly held decisions of her colleagues, Ginsburg did indicate that many of the court’s decisions over the next two weeks — which are also expected to include an FCC indecency ruling — might be close.”

“Might be close”? That is the basis for claiming to have a statement from Ginsburg that “laid waste” to “all those rumors” about the pending health care decision?

Seriously, is this what earns “reporters” a paycheck nowadays?

“Reporting” Ginsburg’s “revelation” that Supreme Court rulings on highly controversial cases in the coming weeks “might be close” is “reporting” “news” as cutting edge and unpredictable as each day beginning with a sunrise.

By intentionally including a reference to the pending health care ruling in a faux headline, yet including zero content in the article revealing any such information clearly demonstrates the impotence of today’s “mainstream media”. That this story reports “sharp disagreement” exists between members of the Supreme Court is as fresh and as newsworthy as: dog bites mailman.

The real, clear, political divide between traditional, patriotic Americans and their “progressive” adversaries the makeup of the Supreme Court currently reflects is the story. One that is not told.

The philosophical division between Constitutionally protective Americans and “progressive” assailants of America’s Republic is as distinct as is the temperature difference between earth’s equator and its two poles.

On the one hand there is the Tea Party, a spontaneous grassroots movement which clearly expresses a strong, unified desire to restore the United States to it’s Constitutional roots. A platform calling to reduce the size, scope, power and cost of government, and to reinstate the traditional American values of self reliance, individual liberty and a return to truly representative government. The Tea Party was hugely influential in the 2010 mid-term elections, when “progressive” Democrats were denied retention of unbridled, unchecked power. The Tea Party remains influential in the 2012 campaign to remove “progressives” from Congress, the Senate and the White House.

On the other hand there is Occupy. A handful of people who disagreed with the existence of income disparity were quickly co-opted by Communist aligned big labor unions thugs in an astro-turf copycat attempt to counter the voice of America’s no longer Silent Majority. This artificial movement rapidly discredited itself through illegal occupancy and destruction of public and private property, and by descending into disparate, disorganized messaging that contributed as much to America’s political discourse as a screen door does to the functioning of a submarine. Unlike the peaceful, respectful approach taken by the Tea Party, Occupy’s attempts to gain public support disintegrated into violence, arrests and criminal charges.

Why is Cheney wasting people’s time “reporting” on unremarkable utterances of a Supreme Court Justice who, while on a recent trip overseas, made public statements that disrespected the United States Constitution? Why is Ginsburg, whose views are considered seditious by many patriotic, Constitution loving Americans, painted in such a fawning light?

This is non-news presented to readers by a biased media source.

Was “The Private Sector is Doing Fine” Really a Gaffe?

When obama uttered the words “the private sector is doing fine” speculation ran rampant, declarations occurred and questions abounded.

Obedient spokes-fools within the “progressive” Party Pravda remained largely mum, dutifully neglecting or downplaying the story. Conservatives pounced on the statement, speculating aggressively about obama’s lack of perceptive abilities while declaring it to be the biggest gaffe in his presidency. Questions were asked as to why standard operating procedure had been abandoned and a presidential press conference was being held in the White House when no major announcement was being made.

That obama followed up the initial remark by saying the problem with America’s economy is a loss of government jobs at the state and local level suggests various possible explanations. One is that it’s a sign of his commitment to growing government as the sole solution to each and every one of the world’s problems. Another is that he is so out of touch with economic reality that the remark really was a gaffe.

But there is at least one other possibility to consider.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is coming under heavy congressional scrutiny for his role in the failed Fast and Furious gun running scandal. Hard questions are being raised on both sides of the aisle about the risks posed to the country through national security leaks possibly emanating from the White House. obama’s been accused of allowing the leaks to occur for personal political gain. There are ongoing discussions and mounting evidence regarding obama’s membership in Chicago’s extremist “New Party”, coupled with continuing avoidance of or denials about it among obama’s political apparatus. There is major embarrassment about obama’s “entire grassroots machinery” being resoundingly drubbed in the Wisconsin recall election. There is growing “progressive” left wing extremist frustration with obama’s perceived inability to deliver on his pledge to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”.

Go back to the question: Why was a presidential new conference being held when there was no major announcement being made? Even given that there was only the remotest possibility that the “progressive” Party Pravda might actually uncover a hitherto undiscovered ounce of journalistic integrity within itself and ask hard questions on a myriad of topics, why was this press conference being held?

Is it possible that the biggest gaffe in obama’s presidency was committed on purpose? That it was an intentional diversion? A coldly calculated politically driven distraction away from other bad news that had been dominating the weekly news cycle?

Was it an accident that it occurred on a Friday morning, contributing to the likelihood that the weekend political talk show discussions will focus on this rather than the myriad of other, more damaging news about obama’s failed attempt to be the nation’s Chief Executive?

If so, it was an extreme abuse of the power of the presidency.

Given that this “gaffe” originated from a once humming along firing on all cylinders well oiled political machine that has repeatedly engaged in “the art” of misrepresentation, distortion, distraction, diversion and smoke and mirror parlor trickery, is pondering such questions an unreasonable activity?

With obama in the White House, do you now consider such a line of questioning to be unpatriotic?

Do you really?

You may wish to reconsider come November 6^th.

Momentum Goes to Republicans

For the first time in US history, a sitting governor survived a recall attempt. The Wisconsin recall magnified a microcosm of American society and highlighted the contentious mood of the national debate over jobs, budgets, and how to best trigger America’s economic recovery.

The results in Wisconsin are especially revealing when examining the mood of American voters. That mood will play a critical role in determining November’s presidential election results. Wisconsin is one of several crucial swing states that could decide which economic direction American voters choose for their country.

In a traditionally liberal State, Governor Scott Walker ran as and has been governing as a fiscal Conservative. He stood his ground, staking the Governor’s mansion on defense of Conservative economic principles

The nation was watching closely. Neighboring states were too. Voters in a state obama won by double digits in 2008 had chosen to follow a different path in 2010. That decision to change course was re-confirmed by the outcome of the 2012 re-call attempt.

The looming national fight is real and based on substance. The upcoming presidential election will not be just about personalities. For obama, who’s personal polling numbers remain high, this is not particularly good news.

Unions formed as a way for workers to unite and push back against abusive employment practices. If public employees see the government they’re working for as abusive, there is a real problem. Either that government should be removed from office or the unions should curtail their expectations. Perhaps both. In Wisconsin, voters sided with the government. A Conservative government

A growing number of voters nationwide now believe public sector unions have gone too far and are milking a corrupt system. This is to the detriment of the ordinary folks who fund union demands with their taxes. The depth of animosity toward public employees is palpable. They keep demanding more until the taxpayers can no longer support them.

obama is closely tied to unions. For years he has openly supported them and worked to expand their role and increase their power. For a growing number of voters, that fact will come into play this November.

By visibly staying away from Wisconsin and mailing his support for Milwaukee Mayor Barrett in at the eleventh hour, obama may have made a crucial mistake. Rank and file union members might now see him as someone who was unwilling to stand up for them in their hour of need. Will they decide to stand up for him when he needs their votes come November’s election?

Make no mistake about it; the result of the Wisconsin recall election is a boost in moral for Republicans nationwide. On the other hand, it is a blow to Democrats, their union supporters and the rest of the institutionalized “progressive” left. Conservatives and the left went three rounds in Wisconsin and the left lost all three.

Whether the “progressive” Democratic Party and their press secretaries in the “progressive” Party Pravda/”mainstream media” want to accept, acknowledge or even report it, the momentum goes to Republicans.

Wisconsin: Tea Party Beats Unions

The Tea Party sparked Conservative wave that swept most of the United States in 2010 was a contributing factor in many races, including the elections of Scott Walker, Rebecca Kleefisch and a Republican legislative majority in Wisconsin. Governor Walker and his fiscally Conservative allies in the State House set about enacting the reforms they promised during their campaign. Balancing the State budget without raising taxes, reigning in spending and creating a more business friendly environment where private sector businesses could create jobs.

Once the reforms were enacted, government sector unions went rogue, holding demonstrations, occupying the State House and basically going out of their way to create a ruckus over perceived wrong doings by Walker and his fellow Republicans.

The allegations were that the Republicans had wrongly stripped the public unions of all their collective bargaining “rights”. This allegation was false on multiple counts.

First of all, collective bargaining is not a right. A right is something that is inherent, which belongs to you without costing another. Wielding monopoly bargaining power to extort exorbitant salaries, pensions and benefits in excess of those enjoyed by the taxpayers footing the bill from politicians seeking re-election to office is not a right.

Second, collective bargaining is a negotiating tool, agreed upon by both sidesof the negotiations. A mutually agreed upon negotiating tool, like any such tool, is subject to rejection by one side or the other at any time.

Thirdly, the unions did not lose all their bargaining power. They still retain the ability to collectively bargain for salaries. What changed was their power to collectively bargain over pensions and benefits was removed. Those are budgetary line items that for the State of Wisconsin had reached the point of insolvency. The cost of those pensions and benefits were sending the State of Wisconsin down the fast track to bankruptcy.

In response, every national union in America spent huge bankrolls and invested big muscle in multiple recall attempts within the State of Wisconsin; culminating in the recall attempts against Governor Walker and Lieutenant Governor Kleefisch. In each and every recall attempt, the big, free spending, bullying tactic practicing union failed. The hardest core, institutionalized “progressive” left threw everything they had at Walker, Kleefisch and Wisconsin and fell short. Their noisy, irreverent public displays of selfishness went to no avail.

The win in Wisconsin is a win for the Silent Majority…otherwise known as the Tea Party. Remember them? The “progressive” Party Pravda and “progressive” politicians of all stripes want you to believe they’ve disappeared from the electoral map.

Remember the Tea Party. The ordinary mom and pop citizens who had finally had enough, who got up off the couch, skipped a few of their regularly scheduled activities and demonstrated against big government, big spending, higher taxes and irresponsible regulations.

The Tea Party stood eyeball to eyeball and went toe to toe with the unions in Wisconsin. The Tea Party took the unions’ best punch and won each and every round. Unions and their incessant demands for more of the fruits of the taxpayer’s labor are on retreat in Wisconsin. Unions and their institutionalized “progressive” left allies are on notice. It’s time for them to retreat in America. The people have spoken.

The Tea Party and America are on the rise.