I love how "nonpartisian" this story is.It's pathetic. Yes the republican party has made mistakes, no denying that, however at the present time we are the only ones trying to say hey the federal gov is getting to big and too powerful. So if saying that makes them the party of No then SO BE IT ! I say no and H** NO to Obama and his czars, his crazy a** speaker of the house, and his notion that we are all too stupid to know whats good for us so he is going to shove it down our throats. Really in the end he is going to A) destroy this country B) possibly get us all killed. Say what you want about Bush (and yes he wasnt perfect), but you could never accuse him of (and be thinking str8) some of the things Obama is clearly guilty of. Clearly the country is falling into three catagories of people: those that want to be taken care of and expect the federal gov to do so hence their fanatical and irrational support of Obama. Those who prefer to take care of themselves with limited government interference and control and those who for whatever reason, simply dont give a rats behind and have their heads buried in the sand like the perverbial Ostrich.
I want a government that supports LESS government control . Less taxes and more incentives for people to acutally work and not fear being punished for it by the IRS. I want a government that doesnt do everything in it's power to destroy the private sector like this one seems h** bent on doing and to some extent even the one before it( much ,much smaller extent however). I want a government that respect the Constitution and its founding fathers not scorn them and their crazy Freemarket capitalist ideas. I want a government that truly hears the voices of its people and not just the unions and special interest groups (of all kinds). I want politicans thats actually give a d*** about doing the right thing and not just paying back their donors and saving their own hides. I want a leader who inspires the same kind of respect as Regean did from the world.And those that didnt respect him feared him because he backed up his words with his actions. Where is that leader now? It sure as H** isn't Obama. I think I probably just want too much though. One can always dream I guess
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Tea Parties Vs. Hard-Left Protests
By L. BRENT BOZELL
This article seemed worth passing on becaue it says in words exactly how I feel the extreme fustration I feel with the media as a whole and with the idiots that believe them.
In the mind's eye of the conservative movement, the Tea Party phenomenon right now is maybe the crucial factor in slowing socialism in Washington, on everything from the federal health care takeover to the hidden taxes of cap-and-trade legislation.
It's also a fascinating visual. When was the last time you saw such a spontaneous eruption of conservative grassroots anger, coast to coast? On both counts, the Tea Party movement should be cause for massive television coverage. Except for one thing. It's a conservative uprising, so it gets different treatment.
It's ignored as long as possible, and when it's no longer possible to be ignored, it's savaged.
The movement was launched in February 2009, when CNBC's Rick Santelli suggested throwing a "tea party" to protest government takeovers. A new study by Rich Noyes of the Media Research Center found only 19 news stories on the Tea Party movement for the entire year on ABC, CBS and NBC. The Obama family dog received more attention.
How anemic is this? Compare those 19 stories in all of 2009 with 41 stories the networks gave the "Million Mom March" against gun rights in 2000 -- and all before the math-challenged protest even happened. Consider racist and anti-Semitic Rev. Louis Farrakhan's "Million Man March." On Oct. 16, 1995, ABC, CBS and NBC together aired 21 stories just on one night.
The difference in tone was just as dramatic. Amazingly, the Tea Parties were assumed to be racist, but Farrakhan's event was not. ABC anchor Peter Jennings devoted all but 75 seconds of his newscast to promotional goo for the Nation of Islam.
Jennings sanitized the gathering. "For most of the hundreds of thousands who came here today, the event far overshadowed the man who organized it," Jennings claimed. He concluded the show on Farrakhan's behalf, that "it would be a terrible mistake not to recognize that here today he inspired many people, and in a broader sense, as one participant here after another has reaffirmed, this day, at this time and at this place, really did mean unity over division."
Jennings defied logic, and his own ears. The event meant "unity over division" even as speakers angrily attacked whites for "rolling toxic waste" into black communities, and screamed about the "growing racism and incipient fascism of white America." A young poet called blacks "God's divine race." (and that isnt hateful or racist? my words)
Compare that to the Tea Party stories. The victory of Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts spurred heavier network TV attention, another 42 stories in 2010. But now that they had to cover the Tea Party, the tone turned negative: Overall, 27 of 61 stories (44%) openly suggested the movement was fringy or extremist.
Contrast ABC's Peter Jennings then with ABC's Dan Harris now. Farrakhan was somehow a uniter, not a divider. But Harris warned Tea Party protesters "waved signs likening Obama to Hitler and the devil. ... Some prominent Obama supporters are now saying that it paints a picture of an opposition driven, in part, by a refusal to accept a black president." (which for the majority of us is a stinking pile of crap- my words) And with that, everyone associated with the Tea Party movement, and everyone in sympathy with the Tea Party movement, had just been neatly tarred with the racism brush. What dramatic selectivity of "news judgment"! At left-wing rallies, reporters consistently and easily ignored hateful and extremist podium speeches from protest organizers. They paid no attention to objectionable signs. "Bush Lied, Thousands Died!" Big deal! But at a conservative event, they go searching high and low for the kookiest, fringiest protester in a crowd of tens of thousands, so they can smear the entire crowd as a racist gathering.
The sanitize-the-left pattern happened at antiwar marches before the Iraq war in 2003. Signs at one January protest included "Bush Is a Terrorist," "USA Is #1 Terrorist" and "The NYPD Are Terrorists Too." Hateful? Objectionable? Not on your life!
ABC's Bill Blakemore ignored them, lauding the diversity of the marchers, "Democrats and Republicans, many middle-aged, from all walks of life." As one ABC producer admitted during the George H.W. Bush years, "We were looking for mainstream demonstrators."
The other networks echoed that approach. Take the issue of violence. On Feb. 15, 2003, "peace" demonstrators in New York injured eight police officers, and several protesters were arrested. But CBS reporter Jim Acosta still referred to the event as peaceful: "Despite some arrests and clashes with police, it was, for the most part, a peaceful reminder to the powerful that there is a divide over whether the nation should go to war." (So we have NOONE arrested and we are violent? REALLY?)
Just weeks ago, when the Tea Party crowd came to Capitol Hill against ObamaCare, no one was arrested. But network anchors like NBC's Brian Williams were still lamenting that the health care debate had "veered into threats of violence."
This isn't "news" coverage. It's carpet-bombing.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Union thug president of SEIU "retires"
Purple People upheaval: What’s behind SEIU thug-in-chief Andy Stern’s resignation?; Update: The shadow of Richard Trumka; SEIU issues statement
By Michelle Malkin • April 12, 2010 10:28 PM Scroll for updates…SEIU issues statement…Stern to address rumors on Friday…
Will he declare “Mission Accomplished?” The news tonight of SEIU thug-in-chief Andy Stern’s resignation is quite a shocker given how much he reveled in his power and intimacy with the White House as its most frequent visitor. ( This should tell you something folks. The unions by and large are your friends-don't believe the lie that they are)Indeed, here he is on Twitter just a few weeks ago bragging about an ego-inflating profile of himself in Washingtonian magazine — which describes Stern as the “new face of Labor” and the Big Labor boss who “helped elect President Obama” while “wired to the White House.”
Hardly sounds like someone “tired of the daily grind.”
Via Politico, the resignation deets:
Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern, one of America’s most prominent labor leaders, is set to resign, according to a member of the union’s board and another SEIU official.
The President of an SEIU local based in Seattle, Diane Sosne, broke the news to her staffers at 11:35 this morning, local time.
“Last night I received confirmation that Andy Stern is resigning as President of SEIU. He has not yet made a public announcement; we will share the details as we become aware of them,” Sosne wrote in an email obtained by POLITICO.
Sosne offered no explanation for the move, but another SEIU official speculated that Stern had finally tired of the draining job.
“Health care getting done is a good culmination,” the official said.
HuffPo lefties also confirm the rumors.
Behind the scenes and under the radar screen, as I’ve reported over the last year, Stern has installed a cadre of labor management stooges embroiled in financial scandals across the country and rankled rank-and-file watchdogs within the Big Labor organization. Obama paid no heed – appointing Stern to the federal joke of a “fiscal responsibility” panel.
And while fatcat union bosses toss hundreds of millions of dues into Democrat coffers, low-wage SEIU members’ pension funds are eroding and the organization’s debt is piling up. The union also remains under investigation by federal prosecutors for potential illegal lobbying activities at the White House.
A nasty fight in San Francisco with a rival union, UNITE HERE, has caused Stern major headaches and litigation costs.
As I reported in December, health care workers in Washington state also revolted against SEIU pressure.
And the Blago scandal, in which Stern plays a central role, still looms.
Union heavies don’t just relinquish their control and throw themselves under the bus for the standard bogus Beltway excuses (the need to “spend more time with family,” etc.).
This smells. Stay tuned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Stern bowing to the ascendancy of AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka? Trumka has ratcheted up the class warfare rhetoric, scored far Left accolades for his corporate-bashing speech at Harvard, and is planning to lead a march on Wall Street on April 29. An interesting passage buried in the Washingtonian piece Stern bragged about:
Stern has played a prominent role in the mood of factionalism, engineering SEIU’s departure from the AFL-CIO in 2005 to found Change to Win with a clutch of other growth-minded labor organizations such as the United Food and Commercial Workers.
Change to Win’s agenda was essentially to elevate the SEIU model of organizing—recruiting members and pressuring employers via corporate-accountability campaigns that targeted the public image of management—to serve as the industry standard for labor organizing. A no-less-prominent goal of Change to Win was Stern’s vision of a reorganized national leadership for labor—a federation that would streamline smaller, traditional craft-affiliated union locals into bigger operations able to organize across an economic sector. The textbook model of the corporate campaign was SEIU’s Justice for Janitors initiative in the 1990s, which proved influential in shoring up the International union’s power base.
But on balance, the Change to Win experiment has proved disappointing—and the federation may well be on the verge of being folded into a new accord to bring Stern and his allies back into strategic alliance with Richard Trumka, the former United Mine Workers head who last September was elected to succeed retiring AFL-CIO head John Sweeney. Negotiations with the former mother union are delicate, Stern says, but are moving gingerly forward—thanks in large part to the efforts of former Michigan representative David Bonior, an ardent labor advocate who once served as House Democratic whip, to bring both federations to the bargaining table this summer.
“You now have the first chance for every major labor union in the country to be in the same organization,” Stern says. The challenge, he stresses, will be to redress the schism that triggered the Change to Win camp’s defection in the first place—the mandate to keep growing versus focusing on politics and politicians.
“It’s a political-will question,” Stern says. “I’d say John Sweeney was still concerned about people having left the AFL, and his idea was everyone should rejoin it. I think the answer to this is really building something new that takes the best ideas from everybody, building something that works for the 21st century.”
He won’t project a timeline for an AFL agreement but says, “We’re extraordinarily close to solving this issue in a couple-of-stages process.
Gulp: Are we about to see a re-merger of SEIU and AFL-CIO into a new 21st-century Big Labor Frankenstein?
Question: Are we looking at the death throes of forced unionism — or its resurrection
(stay tuned-my words)
By Michelle Malkin • April 12, 2010 10:28 PM Scroll for updates…SEIU issues statement…Stern to address rumors on Friday…
Will he declare “Mission Accomplished?” The news tonight of SEIU thug-in-chief Andy Stern’s resignation is quite a shocker given how much he reveled in his power and intimacy with the White House as its most frequent visitor. ( This should tell you something folks. The unions by and large are your friends-don't believe the lie that they are)Indeed, here he is on Twitter just a few weeks ago bragging about an ego-inflating profile of himself in Washingtonian magazine — which describes Stern as the “new face of Labor” and the Big Labor boss who “helped elect President Obama” while “wired to the White House.”
Hardly sounds like someone “tired of the daily grind.”
Via Politico, the resignation deets:
Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern, one of America’s most prominent labor leaders, is set to resign, according to a member of the union’s board and another SEIU official.
The President of an SEIU local based in Seattle, Diane Sosne, broke the news to her staffers at 11:35 this morning, local time.
“Last night I received confirmation that Andy Stern is resigning as President of SEIU. He has not yet made a public announcement; we will share the details as we become aware of them,” Sosne wrote in an email obtained by POLITICO.
Sosne offered no explanation for the move, but another SEIU official speculated that Stern had finally tired of the draining job.
“Health care getting done is a good culmination,” the official said.
HuffPo lefties also confirm the rumors.
Behind the scenes and under the radar screen, as I’ve reported over the last year, Stern has installed a cadre of labor management stooges embroiled in financial scandals across the country and rankled rank-and-file watchdogs within the Big Labor organization. Obama paid no heed – appointing Stern to the federal joke of a “fiscal responsibility” panel.
And while fatcat union bosses toss hundreds of millions of dues into Democrat coffers, low-wage SEIU members’ pension funds are eroding and the organization’s debt is piling up. The union also remains under investigation by federal prosecutors for potential illegal lobbying activities at the White House.
A nasty fight in San Francisco with a rival union, UNITE HERE, has caused Stern major headaches and litigation costs.
As I reported in December, health care workers in Washington state also revolted against SEIU pressure.
And the Blago scandal, in which Stern plays a central role, still looms.
Union heavies don’t just relinquish their control and throw themselves under the bus for the standard bogus Beltway excuses (the need to “spend more time with family,” etc.).
This smells. Stay tuned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Stern bowing to the ascendancy of AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka? Trumka has ratcheted up the class warfare rhetoric, scored far Left accolades for his corporate-bashing speech at Harvard, and is planning to lead a march on Wall Street on April 29. An interesting passage buried in the Washingtonian piece Stern bragged about:
Stern has played a prominent role in the mood of factionalism, engineering SEIU’s departure from the AFL-CIO in 2005 to found Change to Win with a clutch of other growth-minded labor organizations such as the United Food and Commercial Workers.
Change to Win’s agenda was essentially to elevate the SEIU model of organizing—recruiting members and pressuring employers via corporate-accountability campaigns that targeted the public image of management—to serve as the industry standard for labor organizing. A no-less-prominent goal of Change to Win was Stern’s vision of a reorganized national leadership for labor—a federation that would streamline smaller, traditional craft-affiliated union locals into bigger operations able to organize across an economic sector. The textbook model of the corporate campaign was SEIU’s Justice for Janitors initiative in the 1990s, which proved influential in shoring up the International union’s power base.
But on balance, the Change to Win experiment has proved disappointing—and the federation may well be on the verge of being folded into a new accord to bring Stern and his allies back into strategic alliance with Richard Trumka, the former United Mine Workers head who last September was elected to succeed retiring AFL-CIO head John Sweeney. Negotiations with the former mother union are delicate, Stern says, but are moving gingerly forward—thanks in large part to the efforts of former Michigan representative David Bonior, an ardent labor advocate who once served as House Democratic whip, to bring both federations to the bargaining table this summer.
“You now have the first chance for every major labor union in the country to be in the same organization,” Stern says. The challenge, he stresses, will be to redress the schism that triggered the Change to Win camp’s defection in the first place—the mandate to keep growing versus focusing on politics and politicians.
“It’s a political-will question,” Stern says. “I’d say John Sweeney was still concerned about people having left the AFL, and his idea was everyone should rejoin it. I think the answer to this is really building something new that takes the best ideas from everybody, building something that works for the 21st century.”
He won’t project a timeline for an AFL agreement but says, “We’re extraordinarily close to solving this issue in a couple-of-stages process.
Gulp: Are we about to see a re-merger of SEIU and AFL-CIO into a new 21st-century Big Labor Frankenstein?
Question: Are we looking at the death throes of forced unionism — or its resurrection
(stay tuned-my words)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
