What Planet Is CERTIFIABLE LOON Huckabee Living On In Preposterously Defending Obama's Claim Of Being Christian? - Traitorous Teachers, Union Whiners, And Democratic Fleebaggers - WI Republicans Take First Step In Freeing The People From Criminal‏ Theft By The Joint Efforts Of Democrats And Public Unions - Radicals Bringing Campaign For Shariah To White House - Delusional Obama Not Just Above The Law, He Is The Law In His Warped Mind - Landmark Exposes Teachers’ Union Tax Abuse


Obama's priorities

Posted: February 25, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

By Gary McCoy
© 2011 

Obama's priorities

Read more: Obama's priorities http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=267865#ixzz1EzZkrW5p

Huckabee defends Obama's Christianity
'I take him at his word. I have no reason not to'

Huckabee defends Obama's Christianity


If President Obama is looking for a conservative endorsement, he might find it from potential GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee – at least on the issue of family values.


During a speech at the National Press Club Thursday, Huckabee said it's time for some conservatives to quit questioning the president's Christian faith and added he thinks Obama is a role model for the "primacy of the American family."
"He has personally articulated, not once but numerous times, of his Christian faith. I take him at his word. I have no reason not to. For us to continue to dwell on that is missing the point. I have no disagreement with President Obama as a human being. In fact, I will go so far to say one of the things I respect very much is the role model that he has served as a husband and father," the conservative Republican said during the midday speech in Washington, DC.

- Memo to Huckabee:  Here are a few reasons not to.  Christians don't support the entirety of a culture-of-eternal-death to the extreme of non-support of Born Alive Infant Protection Acts.  Jesus told us to "bring the little children to Him," NOT KILL THEM, i.e., Christians don't put the pedal to the metal when it comes to "legally" killing 50,000,000+ and counting innocents in what should be their safest place of refuge, their mothers wombs.  Christians don't support the advocacy of sexual perversion under force of unjust law to the extreme of destroying our military in cowering to the lies of sexual perverts!  Christians don't intentionally destroy the livelihood of Americans to transform the country into a Godless totalitarian state via class warfare.  Christians don't destroy the future of our children and grandchildren by forcing them to worship at a secular altar of BAAL, damn the common good leading to a supernatural good in a Kingdom not of this world!  And here's one for you PERSONALLY, HUCKABEE!  Christians don't give pardons to violent felons contrary to the good advice of your entire legal establishment, one of whom later killed four policemen who would be alive today IF IT WASN'T FOR YOU, HUCKABEE! 
And I, as a father of State Trooper, am never going to let the world forget that!  You killed those policemen just as sure as the felon you released, Huckabee!


Maine Voters Reject Oxymoronic Sodomite Marriage Law - Obama Dealt A Blow As Dems Face Voter Backlash At Polls - House Democrats' Phony Amendment Claims To Remove Abortion From Health Care - Stopping The Tyrant Pelosi - Huckabee Losing Credibility - Using A Fallen Hero As A Prop



How Can A Responsible Governor Allow A Violent Felon To Walk? Four Policemen Are Now Dead Because Of Huckabee



The Very Serious Problems With The Potential Presidential Candidacy Of Mike Huckabee Have Just Been Underscored By The Lunatic Liberal Columnist, Leonard Pitt's Jr., Singing The Praises Of Huckabee - The Christian Witness Of A Remarkable Man - Iran Goes Nuclear, Obama Goes Swimming - Senators Line Up To Tell U.N. To Leave Our Children Alone - Obama Is Doing EXACTLY What He Intended, The Destruction Of America From Within - Obama And Union Leaders Continue To Advocate For Job Killing Legislation

YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY, HUCKABEE!  YOU ARE A FRAUD in unconscionably defending the Christianity of Obama.  Obama's master is Lucifer, not Jesus Christ.  Of that there can be no doubt whatsoever!   
It will be a cold day in hell before I support the likes of you, Huckabee, to get anywhere near the oval office!  In short, Huckabee, we're not all CERTIFIABLE LOONS like you in taking a proven pathological liar at his word! - Gary L. Morella

On DOMA, Obama's just being himself
Exclusive: Alan Keyes shakes head at 'conservatives' acting surprised by marriage move

Alan KeyesAlan Keyes


On DOMA, Obama's just being himself

Posted: February 25, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

© 2011 


After a little feigned deliberation, Obama has announced his "decision" to withdraw the U.S. government from participation in cases arguing in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), legislation passed when Bill Clinton was in the White House. I've received e-mails from several well-known conservative organizations with breathless subject lines like the one that speaks of Obama's "betrayal of the American people." Another announces "Obama comes out of the closet on marriage."

These subject lines make about as much sense as the Obama faction's contention that his decision has something to do with the fact that some federal judges have concluded that the DOMA is unconstitutional. Obama has little or no inclination to respect
the Constitution. He has little or no inclination to respect the unalienable right involved in the defense of the natural family. Just as he promotes the physical elimination of the child's life through abortion, he tacitly promotes eliminating the prospect of the child's life from the definition of marriage. That's what's involved in the assertion that as such, homosexual couples can lawfully marry without eviscerating the natural basis for the definition of marriage.

Government doesn't endow people with the ability to procreate the species. The Creator takes care of that. Like all unalienable rights, those associated with the natural family exist in consequence of this endowment. A couple that cannot,
by nature, procreate has no claim to those rights. Nor can government grant them a semblance of it without impairing the claims of one or both of the parents biologically implicated in the physical conception of the child. The DOMA simply makes more explicit the government's obligation to secure the Creator-endowed unalienable rights of the natural family. This obligation precludes government from fabricating other rights that impair them. In this respect, granting homosexuals the right to marry is like granting plantation owners the right to own slaves.

Discover what military personnel and decorated vets think of ending DADT in Whistleblower magazine's dramatic February issue, "DROPPING THE H-BOMB"

Judging by the
evidence of his career as an activist and politician, Barack Obama does not now nor has he ever subscribed to the doctrine of Creator-endowed unalienable right the U.S. Constitution involves and implements. He is by his own admission a devotee of socialism. His speeches and actions reflect the substitution of History for the Creator as the judge of human actions and the authority for human rights.


As far as he is concerned, marriage is whatever those who control the government say it is, without respect to any rights associated with the bonds and obligations inherent in the way the Creator made humanity to be (human nature).

For reasons best known to themselves, many self-styled "conservative" leaders and organizations have been at pains to ignore the evidence. Some have declared emphatically that we must take Obama at his word. But we know from sad experience that in general many politicians say whatever serves their political advantage. We know from particular experience with Obama (repeated almost daily) that he is one of them. Why would any sane person take him at his word? It makes no sense, except we note that some people are motivated by fear that they will be called racists if they question his word in any way.


Thus (with apologies to the Bard of Avon) "cowardice doth make liars of them all." Unfortunately, the truth sacrificed on the altar of their fear includes the truth about Obama's utter contempt for the self-evident truths from which the American people derive their claim to liberty.

Obama is not coming out of some closet. He is simply reverting to type (i.e., acting according to evident, not hidden tendencies, incidentally repressed). He has not suddenly betrayed the American people, except in the same way that he has, throughout his public career, disregarded and betrayed the principles that make them free. This betrayal of principle has led him to prefer the guidance and instruction of people like Jeremiah Wright, the close associate of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.


Farrakhan has been honored and supported by such openly avowed and active enemies of the United States as Moammar Gadhafi.

If Obama's affinity for hard-line socialism hadn't led me to see through his faint professions of respect for the Creator-endowed institution of marriage, the obviously deep and lingering influence Islam exerted on his upbringing would raise suspicion from another point of view. Obama's ill-concealed hostility toward Israel and his pursuit of policies that have the effect of encouraging the supremacy of violence-prone Islamic imperialists in the Muslim world force me to doubt that the damage he has done to America's national security and international influence is just a matter of abject incompetence.

The greatest thinkers about war, such as Sun Tzu or Clausewitz, recognized that moral factors may ultimately determine the outcome. Destroy the moral cohesion of an enemy, and you can defeat him without costly battles. Is it just a coincidence that someone so comfortable consorting with ideologies and people inimical to America's way of life and liberty joins, by hook or crook, in the elitist assault against the moral basis of America's unparalleled success as a democratic, constitutional republic?

Moreover, by wrongly identifying America's idea of human rights with outcomes that contemn the basis for human and natural family life, leftists like Obama hand to our enemies throughout the world the opportunity to set the natural piety of people everywhere against the ideas of human rights thus identified with the American way of life. By promoting the shibboleth of "secular democracy," they ignore the God-fearing reality of America's heritage. In the Islamic world, by making it appear that God-deriding "democracy" is the American-backed alternative to violence-prone Islamic imperialism, this false secularization of the moral basis for constitutional, democratic self-government makes it repugnant to people of decent piety who might otherwise embrace a form of government that effectively acknowledges the authority of the God who made us all.

Obama's abandonment of the moral vision on which the American republic was founded thus undermines our domestic morale even as it empowers potent enemies of our survival as a free people. We need to stop pretending that this is a surprising coincidence. It only "surprises" those still blinded by cowardice, partisanship or selfishly ambitious calculation.

Read more: On DOMA, Obama's just being himself http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=267813#ixzz1EzZFnVgt








Human Life International e-Column
Volume 06, Number 9 | Friday, February 25, 2011

The Attack on Conscience Rights

On February 17th, Secretary for Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, announced the cancellation of significant protections for health care workers. Supporters claim that the new regulations leave standing the legal safeguards for those who oppose abortion and sterilization, but they remove the protection for procedures and services like in vitro fertilization, contraception, the so-called emergency contraception that really consists in causing early abortion, and the facilitation of sexual practices that violate natural law.   


Supporters of the new regulation insist their objective is to balance the rights of patients and health care providers. But the questions that come up immediately are twofold: First, are the services, the performance of which health care workers are no longer able to refuse, really therapeutic? That is, are they really medically necessary, or are they rather voluntary options of the persons that claim a right to receive?  To these questions, the answer is clear: If they are not therapeutic, there is not a right to receive them. To use an example, emergency contraception or any form of contraception cannot be defined as a basic form of health care for women; it is rather intended to avoid the natural and healthy consequences of freely chosen sexual activity.


Second, not only do many of these procedures not heal an illness, they pose a threat to the women who receive them. There is ample evidence that demonstrates that several of those procedures are dangerous for the health of women, besides being lethal to babies, like "emergency contraception." See, for example, here and here.


We have to uphold the right of pharmacists, for example, to refuse to fill or refer for prescriptions for contraception, "emergency" or otherwise. The policy of the American Pharmacist Association that pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions as long as they make sure customers can get their medication some other way thus does not seem to be very coherent. It is like stating: "I don't kill people myself but let me tell you about the guy down the street who does."  


To refuse these and similar services is not "discrimination", as advocates of the HHS decision have claimed. Unjust discrimination would be refusing to provide a service to which one has a right. But no one has the right to obtain immoral, non-therapeutic medical treatment or medicine.


With the decision of HHS, we have instead unjust discrimination against those health care professionals who will be forced to violate their consciences, to provide treatment that is not lifesaving. The same holds true not only for those directly providing the care, but for all who are involved in serving the patient, directly or indirectly. A receptionist should not be forced to schedule an abortion or any other immoral treatment. A janitor should not be forced to clean a surgical facility where abortions are performed, or any other type of immoral procedures.      


Many of the proponents of this assault on conscience and freedom are using the faulty argument that they are doing so to protect the rights of the poor and the underprivileged. But they are just using the poor and underprivileged as a rhetorical weapon in an assault on all of those who have the moral clarity to refuse to help women harm their bodies and in many cases kill children. In reality, what will happen is just the opposite. If the conscience rights of the health care workers are removed, the net social consequence will be that many areas of the country that are already suffering critical shortages of medical professionals and institutions will suffer a greater shortage as more professionals are forced to leave the field in order to maintain their moral integrity.


Protecting conscience rights extends beyond just those who provide direct medical care. The health care worker who executes these procedures does it with the formal cooperation of insurance company staff who provide the economic means to execute these procedures. Insurance workers should not be forced to provide or facilitate insurance coverage for medical procedures that are objectively against natural law, like abortion, contraception or in vitro fertilization. Thus, if the health care worker has the right to exclude himself, the insurance worker has the same right to do so.


Indeed, we have seen several examples of the erosion of freedom of conscience, even beyond the field of health care, over the last several years. We have seen landlords sued for refusing to allow their property to be used for immoral business, or by those living a scandalous lifestyle. We have even seen photographers and caterers sued for respectfully refusing to work for those celebrating homosexual "marriages," even when other vendors were available and willing to provide the requested services.


The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith teaches, "Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct." This refusal to cooperate with or to facilitate immoral conduct is not only licit but obligatory.  


This decision of the current administration is a further descent on the slippery slope toward a totalitarian society, which we cannot sanction. We look forward to, and will support, an action by Congress to completely guarantee the conscience rights of all health care workers and others whose conscience rights are in jeopardy.   


Sincerely yours in Christ,  


Monsignor Barreiro Signature

Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro-Carámbula
Interim President, Human Life International






Traitorous Teachers, Union Whiners, and Democratic Fleebaggers
By Jim O'Neill Full Story

The adult stage of "traitorous americanus" generally are upscale social parasites

Traitorous Teachers, Union Whiners, and Democratic Fleebaggers

 By Jim O'Neill  Friday, February 25, 2011

“U.S. patriotism is inseparable from imperial warfare and white supremacy.  U.S. flags are the emblem of the invading war machine in Iraq today.  They are the emblem of the occupying power.  The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military.” Nicholas DeGenova Columbia University professor

“This is not a video game.  This is not a movie.  This is not like anything you’ve ever encountered in your life before.  The world is changing, and because of that we must change as well.  Darkness is growing.  But…shadows can only grow darker as the sun grows lighter.”Glenn Beck

“And I looked, and rose up, and said to the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not afraid…remember the LORD…and fight for your brothers, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.” —Nehemiah 4:14  

Earlier this week Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant, who was shot 9 times while fighting for America in northern Iraq was hissed, booed, heckled and laughed at when he tried to address his fellow students at Columbia University in NYC

I wanted to write about the incident immediately upon hearing about it, but thought it best to let it lay for awhile before addressing the subject—otherwise my anger might have detracted from my “journalistic detachment.”  As you’ll see, I’m quite calm now.  (Link)

Mr. Maschek is a true hero, and a class act who will not stoop to the level of his detractors.  I’m pretty much a class act myself, but I have a few years on Maschek, and I have no problem at all in stooping to the level of his detractors.  In fact,  they have no idea just how low I will stoop to defend myself, my family, and my country—and I have no doubt whatsoever that all three are currently under a widespread, well thought out, and well-planned systematic attack.    (Link)   

The attack is so widespread that it’s, of course, hard to choose where to begin any discussion of it, but I suppose that the incident at Columbia University, and the teacher’s strike in Wisconsin, make teaching as good a place to start as any.  (Link)

The “gutless wonders” that heckled Maschek did not come from a vacuum, they come from adult “gutless wonders”—who want their larval stage “traitorous americanus” trained in the same anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-freedom indoctrination that they went through.  They want them raised to be the same arrogant, atheistic a—holes as mom and pop—the ACORN doesn’t fall far from the tree, and all that.

The adult stage of “traitorous americanus” generally are upscale social parasites who have grown rich by stealing from “we the people” via crony capitalism, and various ways of gaming the system, while working to destroy America.  They have taken the phrase “biting the hand that feeds you” to new depths.  Incredibly, they are proud of their back-stabbing, traitorous lifestyle, and are self-righteously smug about it all.  (Link)

One can trace Columbia’s leftist slant to its infestation by Marxist professors from the German “Frankfurt School” in the 1930s - a “slant” perhaps most famously epitomized by the Cloward/Piven Strategy drawn up by two of Columbia’s professors in the 1960s.  These Columbia teachers drew up their strategy as a way to destroy America as a free republic.  Their fellow traitors across America think that the Cloward/Piven Strategy is just swell.

It is unfair however, to single out Columbia University for censure, as it is hardly alone in promulgating political correctness, identity politics, multiculturalism, et al.  (multiculturalism is a doctrine so spurious, destructive, and putrid that even the spineless political elites of Europe are turning their backs on it).      (Link)    (Link)

The adult “traitorous americanus” were originally indoctrinated by “teachers” who passed on their own perverted anti-American ideology to their students.  The same sort of “teachers” who are vociferously whining about the fact that the state of Wisconsin wants them to pony-up, and help the non-union taxpayers out.        (Link)

The teachers we see marching in Madison are the kind of teachers who hold up the late Far Left Chicago thug Saul Alinsky as an icon.  The same Alinsky that Secretary of State Clinton idolized in her youth (she may still have an Alinsky poster tacked to her bedroom wall for all I know).  The same Alinsky that Columbia alumni Barack Hussein Obama used as a template for his “organizing” in Chicago (and elsewhere).  (Link)

The same Alinsky that learned much of his extortion-style techniques from the Chicago mob.  The same Alinsky that formed what he named the country’s first “#####-in,” and the country’s first “fart-in”—ha, ha.  (Link)

After carefully reading Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals” (which Alinsky dedicated to Lucifer) I wrote an article about it a couple of years ago, in which I summed up his “philosophy.” 

“So if we connect the dots in Alinsky’s portrait of the uber mensch, the ideal revolutionary/organizer, what do we see?  A nihilistic schizophrenic, with a monumental ego (who is NOT, however, vaguely, or remotely egotistical), who uses the wrong reasons, irrationality, and any means necessary to reach a nonexistent goal.  People buy this garbage?  You bet—and they passionately promote this dangerous insanity.”  (Link) 

Alinsky was a traitorous, infantile ideologue who was, and is, revered by other traitorous, infantile ideologues.  His evil, inane, insane doctrines are promulgated by his followers which include the National Education Association (NEA)—the huge teacher’s union (the largest in the country).

Do you have any idea of what a lousy job America’s “teachers” do educating our children?  The more money “we the people” pour into the US educational system, the dumber our kids seem to get.      (Link)

There’s an eighth grade civics test from 1954 that can be accessed on the Internet.  It asks such questions as “Tell the provisions of each of the amendments,” and “Write the Preamble to the Constitution.”  My daughter tells me that the Bill of Rights was mentioned briefly in passing one day in her school—that was the extent of her schooling in America’s founding principles.  You call THAT an education?    (Link)

I’m of an age where I can vouch for the fact that “back in the day” we were taught American civics in school, and we were taught to be proud of America, and the fact that we were Americans.  Nowadays, more often than not the kids are taught to be, at best, neutral about the United States, and at worst ashamed of it.  No, I take that last bit back—at worst they’re taught to hate America.  (Link)

Not content with dumbing down America’s children, many of our “teachers” (some, no fountains of knowledge themselves) have promoted anti-American propaganda, globalism, an entitlement mentality, and other NWO, Marxist, Fascist crapola—more indoctrination than education. 

I understand that there are more than just the “teacher’s” union involved in the protests in Wisconsin, and that the numbnuts marching in Madison are not representative of many, or even most union members.  It’s the union leaders and the"Marching Moron Brigade” that I find detestable.  (Link)

Their idea of a “debate” is apparently shouting “Fox lies, Fox lies, Fox lies,” or some other clever. catchy meme.  Speaking of catchy chants, I’ve got one for them—“HEY, HEY, HO, HO, GREEDY UNIONS GOTTA GO!”      (Link)

And then there’s the runaway Democratic Representatives, or as Michelle Malkin calls them the “fleebaggers”—an apropos term as the fleebaggers, like their post-Civil War carpetbagger namesakes, are avaricious, sneaky, and duplicitous. 

It makes sense that both the Wisconsin and Indiana Democratic fleebaggers should have fled to Illinois—perhaps the most corrupt, liberal, and fiscally irresponsible state in the union (and that, by God, is saying something).  I imagine that all the fleebaggers are enjoying their paid vacations, plotting with their cohorts on how best to avoid work and still get paid.      (Link)

I’m glad I waited until after I had calmed down before writing this article, I don’t like writing when I’m angry, heck I don’t like the flash-bulb explosion of anger, period.  A nice slow-burning “fire in the belly” will do just fine. 

Laus Deo.

P.S. File under “a glimmer of sunshine:”  The five Commissioners of Carroll County, Maryland voted to abolish their “Office of Sustainability” (as in “sustainable development”).  They also “voted unanimously to drop out of the UN’s International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). They are the first governmental organization to do so.”    (Link)

Bravo to the Commissioners of Carroll County!  I pray this catches on like wild-fire.  (Proof positive that the November elections changed the political scenery of America, top to bottom).  (Link) 


Wis Assembly passes bill to reduce union power...

Wisconsin passes bill to protect the people from unions
By Michael Whipple Full Story

Collective bargaining is extortion, Wisconsin Republicans have taken the first step in freeing the people from the criminal theft by the joint efforts of Democrats and public unions

Wisconsin passes bill to protect the people from unions

 By Michael Whipple  Friday, February 25, 2011

Posted with Permission from usACTIONnews.com

The Democrats in the Wisconsin senate have fled for their political lives. Without being able to access taxpayer funds via union dues for their campaigns they are much less likely to win election. They may also lose an army of campaign workers. Unions typically man phone banks, make calls, and provide campaign workers to their favored candidates. In return those candidates continue the upward spiral of wages and benefits that has contributed to bankrupting cities and states all over the country.

Katrina Trinko at National review Online has a great article exposing the taxpayer dollars going to the cowardly senate Democrats. Taxpayer dollars for campaign funding? Remember these are mostly public employee unions. They get paid by states, counties, and cities. They also receive federal taxpayer dollars.


For example the Wisconsin schools received $669.6 million federal dollars in fiscal year 2008. All wages of public employee union members are subject to dues. The dues are then used to elect Democrats both directly through PAC contributions and indirectly through advocacy ads and campaign workers.

Katrina Trinko’s article points out that 13 of the 14 Democrat senators who fled the state received generous contributions from unions:


their cumulative donations range from $5,750 to $113,603.

And of the 13 Democrats in the state senate who accepted labor-union funds, ten received a third or more of their PAC or political-committee donations from unions. Five have collected over half of such donations from unions.”


Even greater amounts are expended in election help to avoid contribution limits. In the case of the Wisconsin Democrat senators unions spent millions as Katrina pointed out:

“The Wisconsin Education Association Council’s PAC spent nearly $1.6 million supporting state-level Democratic candidates during the 2010 election cycle. Other unions also spent in support of Democratic candidates, although in smaller amounts: $45,000 ($65,000 total, with the remainder supporting a Republican candidate) from the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, $13,000 from the International Union of Operating Engineers, and a little over $9,000 from Madison Teachers Inc.”

It simply recycles your money. Your funds pay teacher or other public union salaries. Unions collect dues from those salaries which they use to pay Democrats in the form of contributions and campaign work to keep them in office so they can fund union salaries and benefits at higher and higher rates. Your tax money is being used to campaign against you.

The same kind of quid pro quo relationship is happening all over the country at every level of government. Money equals power. Campaign money means election, election is power. Damn the people full spending ahead!

At the federal level the amounts spent by unions to elect Democrats is mind boggling. Our recent editorial “Like a Mafia Don, Dem lawmaker tells unions ‘Get a little bloody when necessary’” gives the facts and figures on the worst perpetrators.

Notice how most of the stories you are seeing about unions refer to collective bargaining ‘rights’ trying to frame the discussion as one of civil rights. Baloney.

It wasn’t always allowed. It was put in place by John Kennedy with an Executive Order 10988 January 17, 1962.

Even leftist hero FDR was against unions for public employees. He wrote a long letter opposing them to Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, of August 16, 1937. Here are a few excerpts:


“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.




“Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”


Shane Atwell has a good description of what ‘collective bargaining’ really means in today’s labor dominated world:

‘Collective bargaining’ is not what its name indicates (hence the scare quotes). It is not bargaining. In fact it means exactly the opposite of what you’d guess. Collective bargaining refers to the obligation of an employer to recognize the elected representatives of a group of workers and his further obligation to negotiate with those representatives. This last part is what makes ‘collective bargaining’ extortion. Under collective bargaining laws, employers have to recognize an elected union and have to negotiate with them, i.e. employers are forbidden from firing their unionized employees. Under threat of fine, confiscation and/or police occupation. But a negotiation that doesn’t allow one party to walk away from the table and say ‘no’ is not bargaining. If this kind of ‘bargaining’ reigned in normal society, then anyone responding to a craigslist ad would have the ‘right’ to purchase despite not making an offer the seller likes. If the purchaser insisted, the seller would have to continue ‘bargaining’ with purchaser until he got tired of it and sold at a personal loss. In the same way employers are obliged to keep on employees who’s salaries or benefits they consider a loss to their company. Collective bargaining is in fact union extortion.

Obama has made it very clear that the union agenda is his agenda. Obama said he believes he can make SEIU‘s agenda the agenda of the country. In this video he thanks SEIU for their support and tells them ‘your agenda has been my agenda.’ He even says that before working on his policies he consulted with the union.

AFL-CIO union boss Richard Trumka claims in this video to speak with someone at the White House every day and to visit there two or three times a week. Former SEIU union boss Andy Stern was the top visitor to the Whit House in Obama’s first year. Obama reiterated his staunch advocacy for unions recently as he said he would ‘walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America.’ in this video.

Recent paybacks to unions by Obama include overturning a 76 year old rule to make it easier to unionize airlines and more importantly a new executive order requiring all government contracts be to union companies. Both of these union payoffs were done without needing or even asking for congressional approval.

Close to half of Obama’s first $820 billion stimulus bill went ‘to entities that sponsor or employ or both members of the Service Employees International Union, federal, state, and municipal employee unions, or other Democrat-controlled unions’ according to Ben Stein in an article last year in The American Spectator about the stimulus. More recently, congress passed the $30 billion ‘teacher bailout’ bill which funneled approximately $16 billion to union teacher and other public employee union jobs.

Obama usurped a long history of banking and creditor laws when he bailed out GM and Chrysler. In return for campaign support Obama gave partial ownership of both auto companies to the UAW and shafted the bond holders who had legal legitimate claims on the assets of the companies.

Its a vicious cycle that can only be broken in two ways. First, union supporting Democrats must be voted out of office. Some should probably go to jail. Then all cities and states should end collective bargaining for public employees.

Work in your state to at least make it a right to work state where workers are free to work without joining a union if they so choose. We must break the cycle of unions supporting Democrats supporting unions.

Pelosi edits honorary resolution -- to add more praise... 
- "He who exalts himself will be humbled" - God







Radicals bringing campaign for Shariah to White House

'Islam is the solution and … the perfect system that needs to be implemented'

Posted: February 25, 2011
12:50 am Eastern

By Michael Carl

© 2011 WorldNetDaily



WASHINGTON – Three British Islamic activists are planning a pro-Shariah law rally in front of the White House next week, arguing that it is the solution for all of America's problems.


The March called Shariah-4-America will call on American Muslims to advocate Shariah law, and for Americans to run the country's business by Shariah.


The Muslim clerics are Anjem Choudary, Abu Izzadeen and Sayful Islam, all of whom have been associated with Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad's group al-Muhajidoun.


Read about plans for the United States, in "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America"


Sayful Islam says the message is clear: The American dream is a farce.


"The message we're going to present is two-fold. The first is the fallacy of the American dream. The American dream has become a nightmare. The message of freedom and democracy has failed the people it's trying to help," Islam remarked.


"The American people are suffering and are seeing oppression. They need to remove the tyrants of our time. The biggest tyrant of our time is Barack Obama, the American president," Islam commented.


Islam says the second part of the message is Shariah law.


"Shariah is the solution for all of the problems that mankind is facing today, economically, socially, judicially and politically. Islam is the solution and Shariah is the perfect system that needs to be implemented," Islam claimed.


Islam says the activists are starting the Shariah-4-America campaign outside the White House because of its symbolic value.


"The White House is the symbol of America and its call for freedom and democracy. We want to show that the White House is no longer the centerpoint of the world and that everyone can no longer look to it as a sign of freedom and democracy," Islam claimed further.


"It's in contrast to the Black House which is in Mecca in Saudi Arabia. We must make that (the Black House) the focal point of the people. They should no longer look to the White House for freedom, but look toward submission to the creator," Islam commented.


March co-organizer Anjem Choudary says the event will highlight a historic date in Islamic history.


"We want to invite the Muslims and non-Muslims in America to think about Islam as an alternative way of life. What took place in Egypt and Tunisia and what we're seeing now in Libya is people fighting against oppression," Choudary claimed.


"As far as Islam is concerned, oppression is not having put Mubarak in charge or Ben Ali (the Tunisian leader). Oppression is those people who do not survive by the divine law," Chourdary said further.


"Just as Muslims are obliged to call for Shariah in Muslim countries, they are equally obliged to call for Shariah in non-Muslim countries. As the bastion of freedom and democracy and the center of the Western world, it is only appropriate that the call for the Shariah should be there (at the White House," Choudary said.


"We believe that we should be propagating Islam to the British, to the Americans, to the French and other nations because we believe that (Shariah) is superior and that is the way forward for mankind," Choudary also said.


Abu Izzadeen is the third member of the group.


Izzadeen was sentenced to four and a half years in prison in Britain for encouraging Muslims at a London mosque to join the Mujahadeen and fight British and American troops in Iraq.


A report in Family Security Matters says that before this conviction, Izzadeen was deported to Lebanon in 2005 with cleric Omar Bakri Muhammad. Lebanese authorities said that Izzadeen could not have refuge in Lebanon because Izzadeen was a British citizen.


Izzadeen went to prison under the 2000 British Anti-terrorism Act and was released in May 2009 for good behavior.


The Daily Mail reported that a parole violation sent him back to jail in July 2009, but Izzadeen is out of prison again and free to organize the Washington, D.C., rally.


Centre for Social Cohesion Director Douglas Murray explains that Omar Bakri Muhammad was the leader of al-Muhajidoun before he was deported to Lebanon and that Choudary took over as leader of the group. Murray adds that Choudary started another group, Islam4UK.


A story in the British newspaper, The Guardian, says that al-Muhajiroun and Choudary's organizations were outlawed by an order from former Home Secretary Alan Johnson. Membership in either group carries a 10-year prison term.


Murray also says he will be surprised if Abu Izzadeen is let into the United States.


"I would be amazed if the American border authorities allow him in. I think they should obviously not allow him in. Anyone convicted of terrorism in the U. K. should obviously not be going to the U. S. to do the same thing there," Murray stated.


"To give you an idea (of Izzadeen's activism). He was quoted in 2007 as saying, 'So we are terrorists. Terrorists fight the enemies of Allah. The Americans and British only understand one language. It's the language of blood,'" Murray related.


Murray says Izzadeen went on to justify the killing and decapitation of the British hostage Ken Bigley.


"It isn't a matter of him making inciting speeches. It is the matter that he has been convicted of inciting murder for fundraising for terrorism," Murray continued.


The Department of Homeland Security is not commenting on whether any of the march organizers have been barred from entering the United States.


Choudary believes that because both Izzadeen and Islam are British citizens, they should be able to enter the country without applying for a visa.


Choudary also cites the Constitution and the First Amendment principles as guaranteeing him a right to promote Islam.


Islam agrees, also citing America's principle of Freedom of Speech.


"This country (the U. S.) has freedom of speech. Let the Muslims have their turn now. We've heard enough from the West and Western commentators," Islam said.


Islam believes the Muslims have the momentum and the campaign in the U.S. is designed to coincide with the upheavals in the Middle East.


"It's about time the Muslims stand up and raise their call for Islam and the Shariah. What we're trying to show the people is that the tyranny they're facing is man-made. The head of this serpent is the United States of America. They're the ones promoting this all across the world," Islam said.


Choudary says the date of the event is the 87th anniversary of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the last caliphate and the last nation with Shariah law.


"I intend to have with me Sayful Islam and Abu Izzadeen to address the masses on how Islam will solve their problems and bring them out of the hegemony of man-made law," Choudary described.


"The Muslims around the world are currently boiling, rising up and getting rid of dictators and oppressors and part of that oppression is the presence of American bases in American countries, American citizens who are looking after their own interests at the cost of the welfare of the ordinary people in those countries," Choudary claimed.


The British cleric adds that Americans are fighting against the Muslim tide.


"This is not a time for the Americans to have any kind of presence in Muslim countries. They need to withdraw from there and we will be giving that warning as well that the Muslims are arising," Choudary remarked.


"If you want to help them to establish the Shariah, or if you want to help them to develop. That's fine. But if you want to maintain your interests by trying to force upon the Muslims democracy and freedom in our countries, we believe that the Shariah is the way forward and we will be giving them a warning," Choudary stated.


Murray believes that Omar Bakri Muhammad, Anjem Choudary and their followers have always been "problematic" for the press. He says this has created an unfortunate picture in the eyes of the public.


"They are very, very willing to say exactly what it is they want to do and the result is a lot of people have dismissed them as clowns or loud mouths and so-on," Murray explained.


"Conclusive research and comprehensive research by the Centre for Social Cohesion has revealed that between one-in-six and one-in-seven people convicted in the U. K. of Islamic terrorism related offenses in this decade have been linked to, or been members of, this group," Murray detailed.


"So I would strongly advise that the people don't take them lightly. Don't think that it's all talk. Do make sure these people are not allowed into the U. S.," Murray cautioned.

Read more: Radicals bringing campaign for Shariah to White House http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=267785#ixzz1F0RaONCp




Obama: Not just above the law – he is the law
David Limbaugh takes on the 'imperial president' over refusal to enforce DOMA


David LimbaughDavid Limbaugh


Obama: Not just above the law – he is the law

Posted: February 25, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

© 2011 

President Obama's brazenly calculated move to unilaterally abandon the federal Defense of Marriage Act showcases his attitude that he is above the law.


DOMA defines marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" for purposes of all federal laws, rules and regulations (Section 3). It specifies that no state shall be required to honor laws of other states that treat same-sex relationships as legal marriages – effectively carving out an exception to the Constitution's full faith and credit clause (Section 2).


Congress passed this law by enormous majorities (Senate 85-14, House 342-67) in response to political pressure in some states to redefine marriage, especially a Hawaiian court's decision suggesting the Hawaii Constitution conferred the right to same-sex marriage. Congress was worried that, among other things, same-sex couples living in other states might go to Hawaii to marry and demand that their home states recognize their marriages.


It seems that in enacting this law, the federal government was quite scrupulous in deferring to the sovereignty of the states by pronouncing a federal standard for marriage applicable to federal laws but not presuming to encroach on states' authority to set their own standards. It affirmed the states' prerogative by providing that their marriage laws would not be abrogated or diminished by conflicting laws of other states but did not preclude them from honoring, if they so choose, laws of other states validating same-sex marriages.


David Limbaugh lays out the evidence count by count -- get your copy of his new book, "Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama"


During his presidential campaign, Obama stated that he did not support same-sex marriage but that he did believe that DOMA should be repealed. He gave no hint that he would take it upon himself to issue a presidential edict, without a congressional bill placed before him, forbidding the executive branch from enforcing the law. But that is precisely what he did this week.


Attorney General Eric Holder announced that President Obama had concluded that the administration would no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA. Holder acknowledged that the Justice Department had previously defended DOMA in court under a "rational basis standard." (It's interesting they chose Section 3, because many legal scholars believe Section 2 is more vulnerable to a constitutional challenge.) But he said Obama now believes that "a more heightened standard of scrutiny" should be required for laws involving same-sex marriage – the same standard that applies to "laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination."


To understand the magnitude of Obama's action, we must again consider the above-cited fact that both chambers of Congress passed DOMA by overwhelming majorities reflecting the will of the people that marriage be defined, for legal and policy purposes, as it always had been. Also, no federal appellate court has ruled the statute unconstitutional.


As he has in so many other areas (EPA, the offshore drilling ban, IMF), Obama has usurped the authority of the other two coequal branches of government to make himself, in effect, not just chief executive but super-legislator and a supreme judicial authority.


Holder admitted in his statement that the Justice Department "has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense," but not otherwise.


But it is preposterous to suggest there are no reasonable arguments to defend the statute when 5,000 years of human history and the express act of Congress fly in the face of that statement. According to professor John Yoo, "in the few cases that the Supreme Court has heard gay-rights cases, it has never adopted (the standard Obama is applying)."


In announcing a new standard, Obama claims that the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since DOMA was passed. You know the drill: Society has "evolved." That's highly dubious in view of the fact that even people in some liberal states have expressed their preference for preserving the traditional definition of marriage. Further, it is not Obama's place to make this determination, especially when the people have already done so in such emphatic terms through their duly elected congressmen. If the people want the law changed, they can lobby their congressmen to change it or marshal their lawyers to argue their position in actual cases before the courts.


In response to leftists arguing that President George W. Bush also declined to enforce a federal statute, Yoo says that Obama's action is distinguishable. Bush did so in cases in which he was resisting congressional intrusions into the executive's constitutional authorities in the area of national security. Here there are no alleged encroachments on executive authority; it's just that Obama has a different opinion than the American people and has decided to implement it unilaterally.


So now we have an imperial president who is refusing to enforce a law passed by powerful congressional majorities while persisting in enforcing a law (Obamacare) that two federal courts have already invalidated. The only common denominator is that Obama believes he is the law.

Read more: Obama: Not just above the law – he is the law http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=267853#ixzz1F0NvUPoP





WorldNetDaily Exclusive

'Collective bargaining costs money' Breaking News
Wisconsin senator: AWOL Dems 'must answer to the people'




Government Unions Play Key Role in Shutdown Fight

Posted By Ernest Istook On February 25, 2011 @ 10:00 am In Ongoing Priorities | No Comments



The potential government shutdown is not just history repeating itself between a Democrat President and a Republican House.  It’s also a repeat of a key role played by government employee unions.

What’s different now is that the public has awakened to how they’ve been duped with false promises about big government.

In the 1995-96 shutdowns, the public worker unions reportedly played a huge role behind the scenes; today their role has been brought into the open, becoming common knowledge even before the mass union protests at the Wisconsin state capitol.

President Obama’s allegiance toward government unions is well-known.  The failed $800-billion stimulus was mostly about protecting government jobs.  His minions in Organizing for America have orchestrated the Wisconsin protests, which Obama labeled “an assault on unions.”  And it’s well-known how the unions spent $400-million for the 2008 election.

That’s the backdrop as House Republicans insist on billions in spending cuts before they will approve funds for the rest of government.  The House spent long days and nights in session to create their plan; the Senate Democrats sit inactive instead, criticizing lots but doing nothing.

So the action comes from the public workers, as their demonstrations provide visual proof of who wants big government to continue unchecked.  Their key role was behind-the-scenes in the 1995-96 shutdowns, but every bit as vital.

These unions believe they will benefit from accenting the negative of a shutdown, just as they did when Bill Clinton was President.  That story is rarely told, but needs to be.

As reported by
The Washington Times in March, 1996:


President Clinton’s close ties with federal employee unions enabled him to weather two record government shutdowns and an unprecedented $80 billion raid on federal retirement funds while laying the blame on Republicans.

Internal documents from both the administration and unions reveal close coordination between the unions and Mr. Clinton in developing a strategy of confrontation with Republicans over the spending bills needed to keep the government open and prevent hundreds of thousands of government employees from being furloughed.

The unions not only took the administration’s side in the confrontation, but the largest union – the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) – urged Mr. Clinton to veto the bills and shut the government down for weeks rather than compromise with Republicans.

Meanwhile, the unions provided critical political cover for the administration and Democrats on Capitol Hill by waging an extensive public relations campaign designed to blame the confrontation and shutdowns entirely on the Republicans, particularly on the House’s 73 freshmen.

Leaders of the union, which says it represents 700,000 of the government’s 2 million employees, deduced that throwing employees out of work for a few weeks with no guarantee of pay would be better than the higher federal pension contributions and large agency cuts the GOP was planning, which might force extensive layoffs.


Now our 2011 showdown is different both because the public opposition to big government is sky-high and because of widespread awareness that public employee unions are a major factor in the explosive growth of government.  Their activism brought them salary, benefit and retirement packages that dwarf many in the private sector, but at the expense of the rest of us.  As other Americans feel the pain of hard times, they also resent the unshared sacrifice from many who call themselves public servants.

Today is also different because the Tea Party movement is paying extreme attention—using modern communications and social media to bypass liberal reporters who dominated the coverage of the last shutdown.

That’s why this time is different.  A shutdown is really just a slowdown, because hundreds of thousands of federal workers remain on the job to defend the country, patrol the borders, keep travel flowing, tend to VA patients, and send out Social Security checks.  (And the postal service stays open.)

The real battle is for the hearts and minds of Americans, lest their desire wane to get government back under control should wane under shutdown stress.

Those who wish a shutdown are few in number, but so are those who can be manipulated into blaming conservatives.  Their goal is to downsize government, not to shut it down.

Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.: http://blog.heritage.org

URL to article:

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/government-unions.jpg











Big Government: Landmark Exposes Teachers' Union Tax Abuse

Wednesday, February 23th, 2011

Big Government: Landmark Exposes Teachers' Union Tax AbuseTax Scofflaw, Pro-Union WI Ed. Assoc. (WEAC) Corrupt?



Dan  Riehl

Tax Scofflaw, Pro-Union WI Ed. Assoc. (WEAC) Corrupt?

by Dan Riehl


The Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) caught the eye of the Landmark Legal Foundation long before they gained national prominence due to their pro-union position around the tense debate currently playing out in Wisconsin. But not only have they recently stepped up to pay some back taxes, presumably due to pressure from Landmark, if Governor Walker is correct, they are also gouging taxpayers for health care costs at the same time they failed to pay the appropriate taxes – and the stance taken by truant Wisconsin teachers appears calculated to allow what some are calling a scam to continue.

In April, the Landmark Legal Foundation asked federal officials to investigate its claim that WEAC failed to report or pay taxes on $430,000 in contributions to the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee between 2000 and 2002 in apparent violation of federal law.

The Wisconsin Education Association Council has voluntarily made $171,091 in payments to the Internal Revenue Service after a review of past federal tax returns, the state’s largest teachers union said Wednesday.

WEAC previously created the WEAC Trust, which, among other things, provides health insurance for Wisconsin school districts.

If the bill proposed by Governor Walker were to pass, the teachers union could still employ collective bargaining for wages but their ability to control the benefits portion of the contract would go away. Walker claims that would immediately reduce health care costs for WI school districts by 68 million dollars. Obviously, it would also impact the WEAC Trust’s bottom-line.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker has proposed a bill which would have school districts optionally join the state employees’ health insurance plan.[9] Walker says the bill would save $68 million a year for Wisconsin school districts, and $224 million for local governments.[9] WEAC is against the bill and said that it would fight its implementation.[9]

Given the circumstances, it’s fair to ask what, precisely, is WEAC’s motivation for opposing the Wisconsin bill supported by Governor Walker and Republicans, while Democrats have fled the state.

In a worst case scenario, not only would WEAC be gouging tax payers through the WEAC Trust due to inflated health care costs, given Landmark’s discovery, they might not even be paying their own taxes at the right level, or in a timely manner.

Certainly the big dollars at stake for WEAC casts a shadow over their alleged support for teachers. Given that Walker claims up to 5,000 people might lose their jobs if the bill fails to pass, WEAC could conceivably be putting their own financial interests over the plight of Wisconsin public employees.

It appears WEAC stands to gain, or at least keep profiting, while a large number of workers would become unemployed thanks, in part, to WEAC’s position.