MSNBC quoting senior Democratic Senators on Obama's competence:

This one pretty much stands on its own.  Just a few comments.

These revelations come from the uber-left cable network of the "I am not a liberal, I'm a Socialist" and the "thrill (of Obama) goes up my leg".  They are from the Liberal, Progressive Socialist leadership of the Democratic Party, who pushed the unsustainable Socialist/
Keynesian/Statist policies that built up the mountain of misery we now face; only nominally resisted by weak or Progressive Republicans.

As O'Reiley would say, "Go." :





[Last word: Foreign, anti-freedom, billionaire/hypocrite George Soros and other Global Socialist opportunists have already put the word out that they are "disappointed" in Obama.  Not because of his reckless spending, damaging policies and anti-American actions, but because he has not done enough to advance the cause of Marx, Mao, Hitler and Castro against American resistance.  Don't allow anyone to think that installing another "Progressive", "Liberal", or other Leftist in Obama's place would be more than changing masks, editing labels and an adjustment in strategy.  Statist/Keynesian policies must be exposed, rejected and outlawed forever.]

Teacher gets an A.

Well, an A-. In her March 2nd letter in Inland papers, "Don't blame teachers", Theresa A. correctly stated several important facts. I am assuming she is a teacher, which makes her forthright statements very refreshing. Over the last 30 years, governments (state and federal) did "give more and more of the state budget pie to other programs, especially social programs." Teachers are not solely to blame for the budget crisis.

However, I would like to offer some margin notes. First, these social entitlement increases were not simply 'possible because of prosperity' as she seems to imply. Rather, they were increasingly hidden in bills or openly forced through, despite the Constitution and will of the people. L.A. spends $1.6 billion annually (their numbers) just on feeding and educating illegal alien children. Just imagine all the other programs and other jurisdictions. The prosperity occurred despite the unlawful misappropriations, and only became painfully obvious when all that dead weight finally sank the boat in 2008.

Second, while most teachers (and firefighters and cops) are honorable public servants and not 'milking' the system, they now work for unions, not local taxpayers and the unions are largely to blame. It is worse(especially in public safety*) in the East than in California. These unions spend hundreds of millions on advertising, lobbying, etc and still enrich their non-productive union bosses. They also organize Wisconsin-style protests, paying protesters and arranging for bogus doctors' notes to further defraud their districts out of sick pay. Also, Theresa's assumed "$100,000" salary sounds fair, until you remember that teaching has a 9-month year, making it a $133,333 annual pay scale. Pretty opulent.

Unions themselves do have a purpose and had more decades ago, but over the years regulations have been enacted making most safety and condition issues a matter of law, not collective bargaining. The rest can now be set by employers, with workers selecting where they want to work. It is important to remember that Progressive Socialist President F.D.R. and union pioneer George Meany (and his colleagues) agreed that unions and collective bargaining were unworkable and dangerous in public service. Unions should be able to donate, endorse and lobby, but giving money to their elected official 'employers' (overwhelmingly [D]) creates a major conflict of interest.

President Obama agrees, despite his anti-state rhetoric. Wisconsin's proposed legislation (tied up by A.W.O.L., pro-union, Democratic legislators) doesn't address private industry unions at all, and only seeks to limit public employee's collective bargaining of health care and retirement issues that have bankrupted the state (they have not been paying anything toward their benefits; do you?). Obama knows that they would then be closer to federal employees, who do not have collective bargaining. No one has proposed "busting" or banning public unions.

Meanwhile, union protests get more and more like those of Greece, Spain, Portugal, England and other European Socialist states: disruptive, trashy, destructive, threatening (if not violent), fraudulent, ignoring the law and will of the people, and oblivious to fiscal reality.  They've been at it a while.

Teachers (and other public servants) deserve to be free from the union gorilla living off their efforts and corrupting their profession. Americans deserve to have their school taxes, as Theresa tells us, spent on teaching.

[*In fairness, I have to point out that most western (especially California) cops never walk out or campaign on duty or in uniform, and commonly only seek "median" pay as compared to other departments. While a few "milk" the system to pile up benefits, many voluntarily deferred on pay raises or benefits as soon as the economy collapsed, in order to take pressure off their Cities and all of them have always contributed far more toward their health care and retirement benefits than the Wisconsin unions are being asked to do. They have bargaining Associations rather than unions. This is also generally true of the western firefighters I am aware of]

I'm not much into commercials, but...

 But I can't wait to see this one:



Thank you.  Now back to you regularly scheduled blog.

Pitts’ “nonsense” in a pit all its own

Where do you even begin?  It is wrong from start to finish.  Leonard Pitts’ latest diatribe, “Illegal immigration debate has become nonsense” (Feb 11) is a pail of offal: mendacity, after insult, after invention, after slur, after deception.  To quote the Pulitzer Laureate, "nonsense".

First, Pitts pretends to want (a)tougher border security in order to gain (b)open borders and (c)universal amnesty. That’s pretty easy.  Next is the Leftist’s friend, an all-or-nothing statement; because Americans are obviously not able to operate in between, make decisions, walk and chew gum, etc.  “OR [emphasis mine] pass a bill to protect us from anchor babies.”  He owns up to the first plan, though he ignores the fact that it was a Progressive Democrat controlled Senate that defeated it, due to the “flawed” (a) part.  Then he throws a night-soil bucket full of ‘evidence’ at us to ridicule the second.

Pitts then pretends that the Fourteenth Amendment is not what was written.  Research it yourself (71% have, about Arizona’s fair and mild laws).  You will learn that the 14^th was adopted, (between the 13^th and 15^th, each establishing rights for freed slaves) to reverse the Dred-Scott decision that blacks COULD NOT be citizens.  It does not say that “all comers are citizens”.  It states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”, plus more protections. The emphasized part does not mean just that ‘our laws apply to you’.  That would be ridiculous. 

Of course, our laws have always applied to everyone within our jurisdiction, and the Constitution does not waste words.  If it needed to describe color, it would not say “green; and blue plus yellow; sort of a seafoam”.  The 14^th  was crafted for the slaves, who did not choose their presence here (southern Democrat slave traders did that).  Records of the time prove that it means ‘with loyalty and obedience only to the U.S., (not some foreign national)’.  As a correct 1884 SCotUS decision stated, “The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” 

Later decisions by courts (packed by Progressive Socialist Roosevelt) ignored the factual meaning for a simplistic one.  This creates more welfare for Big-Government to hand out, more big programs to tax for, more people beholden to them and more potential voters. Sound familiar?  Pitts tries to evade reality with, “…even if immigrant women were coming here to give birth…”, though 8% of all births, 340,000 annually, are to illegal alien parents (ABC/Pew Research).  And of course, the Leftists’ DREAM act would officially grant citizenship to these families (though burdening the "children" up to 35 years old with accepting free education).  Those entering legally have always encouraged to apply for citizenship.

The next nightsoil that Pitts throws at us is to mis-invoke Reagan (someone he completely disagrees with and could never comprehend), like Obama does.  The tough, conservative Republican did endorse a strictly controlled guest worker program, but never open borders or general, uncontrolled amnesty.  He also did not have persistent unemployment over 9% and another 9% that the government no longer even counts.

I will invoke great grandfather Edgar and granduncle George.  Pitts wants you to believe that “draconian” immigration laws are new, unfair and based in racism.  Edgar was a master cabinet maker in England.  In 1907, his skill were in demand, he had his tools and money for passage and his first year of expenses.  Even so, he had to obtain a citizen sponsor and wait seven years to get a visa.  In his 1948 letter, George was still being delayed in Canada, because he did not “have enough money”, even if he sold his insurance policies.  He guessed that there were “too many Canadians trying to go to the U.S.” 

The fact is, over five billion people would love to live here.  We simply cannot allow everyone in without destroying our lifestyle and environment.  Even half a billion would make America look like that hillside ghetto in “the Hulk”, from sea to overfished sea.  The millions that sneak across the border (uneducated, unskilled and destitute; many diseased, criminal or terrorist-linked) cannot just get “dibbies” because they are within walking distance.  We accept 75,000 refugees, grant permanent visas to 1.1 million immigrants and allow a whopping 182 million temporary visas every year (D.H.S. figures).

The last of Pitts' garbage is calling these facts “a temper tantrum, the incoherent bawling of those who see fundamental demographic change and… scream in the face of an oncoming wave.”  Here’s one he gets right: “But the wave comes just the same.”