Sociable

Friday, March 25, 2011

What Do Libyans Think of Obama?

Sri Lankan Muslims beat and stamp on an effigy ...
Here's what we think about you, you Muslim traitor!
It looks like a Nobel peace prize, anti-Americanism, and his global "Whose Butt Can I Kiss Next" tour have really worked well for Obama.  Just ask these Libyan fans what they think...

And click here to see Obama's response to his humanitarian bombing plan:

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Obama Off Teleprompter - Bombing Libya

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Union Bosses Are Stealing From Union Workers




Doug Ross wrote an intersting article in The Washington Examiner about unions and their workers.  He provides a common sense view of the state of unions today, and explores the sordid past of Richard Trumka.

Take a look at his logic and share this with any union members you know. 

Mine workers -- According to a study by the United Mine Workers of America, a new EPA rule cracking down on "airborne toxins" could cost 250,000 workers their jobs.


Steel workers -- The United Steelworkers wrote last August that the EPA's new environmental regulations would cost "tens of thousands" of union members their jobs.


Farm workers -- Legendary unions like the United Farm Workers are threatened by oppressive EPA regulations ranging from oversight of spilled milk to dust kicked up by farm equipment. By making farming more expensive with onerous regulations, fewer dollars can be spent on workers' salaries and benefits. Layoffs of union members will be the inevitable result.


Labor -- For at least a dozen years, certain powerful union bosses have advocated open borders policies. In 2000, the AFL-CIO's bosses have "called for blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants."


And today, despite high unemployment, leaders of big unions like the SEIU still pursue the same policy of "comprehensive immigration legislation" (i.e., amnesty). This could cost union members hundreds of thousands of jobs as lower-wage workers displace American citizens throughout the economy.


When you get your next paycheck, take a minute to calculate how much money is going to union dues (say, for example, $90). Multiply that by the number of pay periods per year (say, 26). The total (in this example, nearly $2,500) is going to line the pockets of the union bosses who will give your money exclusively to one political party, Democrats.


Your money -- the product of your labor, of your finite time on Earth spent working -- is being stolen and funneled to the same political party bent on destroying you. The EPA is destroying jobs. The Department of the Interior is destroying jobs. The Department of Labor's open borders advocacy is destroying jobs.


All of these immense bureaucracies, which you pay for with your taxes (more money stolen from you) are targeting union workers, America's backbone. And these gigantic government regulatory bodies are doing so with the full knowledge and assistance of the union bosses who support Democrats.


And, just for a moment, consider how poorly the biggest labor leaders have performed. In 2009 alone, private-sector unions lost 10 percent of their members. Let me repeat that: In a single year, 10 out of every 100 folks like you were terminated, thanks to a failure of leadership on the part of union bosses. Worse still, these horrible results occurred the same year that government borrowed a trillion dollars from future generations for so-called "shovel-ready" construction projects.
Instead of saving up your dues for extra unemployment insurance or improved benefits, union bosses are helping fund the EPA, the Department of the Interior, rampant illegal immigration and other policies that will continue to destroy union jobs.


If you want to save this country for yourself and your children -- to save this country from rampant deficit spending, insane immigration policies, nightmarish environmental regulations -- you need to ignore the bosses whose mansions and boats you're funding with your hard work. You must throw out the Democrats bent on destroying you and your family.

Source

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Is The World Lacking Heroes Today? Be Inspired!



At What Would Ronald Regan Say we typically explore the events and issues that exist in the very real world we live in.  The core value that inspires us is to pursue the truth, and to expose the dishonesty and intentional misinformation that is rampant in the global media and the public discourse.  This often results in our use of satire, sarcasm, and other tools of illustration. 

While we remain committed to the use of any legitimate means of communication, we also appreciate the possibility of appearing cynical in our pursuit of truth.  So with equal measure of humility and awe, we will occaisionally bring you examples that we believe will inform through inspiration.  Ronald Reagan was, above all, an inspiration to all humanity.

Dick and Rick Hoyt are a father-son team that run marathons together.  This is footage of them competing in the Iron Man, the most gruelling and demanding display of endurance possible. I challenge you to view the video and remain unmoved, let alone inspired beyond words.

Finally, while we hope you will use this to inspire others by linking, forwarding, etc., we want to acknowledge the important players in this real life drama.  Dick and Rick Hoyt have a web site you should visit http://www.teamhoyt.com/ and the beautiful music is provided by Nicole C. Mullen.

Please be inspired!

Monday, March 7, 2011

Public Sector Unions Assault On Taxpayers

Public sector unions came under increased scrutiny due to the outrageous antics of the union machine - and the Democrat senators - in Madison.  Obama expressing "solidarity" with the unions just pumped 93 octane fuel onto the already billowing bonfire. 

They all got the attention they sought.  And it's probably a good thing they did, although I doubt they got the outcome they anticipated. 

This event brought some important issues into the public discourse.  It gave some flesh-and-bones to the topic of public sector unions.  It humanized it and gave some us some image of who "the union worker" really is, how they protest, and an idea of their collective values. 

It also allowed the public to experience the impact of unions on our political system.  While most people wouldn't read past the tag line of a piece exploring the legitimacy of public sectors unions in the 21st century, the drama and antics coming out of "Madtown" were simultaneously hard to ignore, and a guilty pleasure to watch.  A real time Survivor series, episode after episode, with no commercial breaks.

Mike Flynn wrote about this in Everything that is Wrong with Public Sector Unions in Thirty Seconds.  He walks through a brief history of PSU's, their massive growth, and their malignant legacy.  He even includes a YouTube clip, showing how the SEIU rolls. 

Always a questionable proposition, unionization of the public sector, for a period, seemed a luxury we could afford. Yeah, public workers had job security and great benefits, but their pay was lower, so it seemed a fair trade-off. Over the last couple decades that implicit understanding was upended…public sector pay moved much higher and those great benefits were jacked up on steroids. Worse, we’ve recently learned that the benefits aren’t actually ‘paid for.’ As a result, we face the prospect of far higher taxes to meet these past promises.

At the same time, globalization and the natural forces of competition changed the economic equation for many of us in the private sector. We have had to become more productive, shoulder a greater share of our benefits and assume greater responsibility over our retirement. We’ve also realized that past politicians’ promises about Social Security were checks that couldn’t be cashed.

For the past couple of years, we’ve stayed awake at night wondering whether we would keep our job or whether our employer would stay in business. We saw our take-home pay eroded by higher state and local taxes and higher contributions to our own benefits. We watched in December as politicians of both parties congratulated themselves that they weren’t going to take even more of our earnings–well, for at least a couple more years. After that, who knows…

The recap:
  • We’ve allowed labor unions to become monopoly personnel providers for many state and local governments
  • We force employees to make weekly payments to union leaders
  • The union leaders use these payments to hire lobbyists to agitate for more government spending
  • The union leaders use these payments to spend millions on campaigns to elect politicians
  • The union leaders then negotiate with these politicians to set pay, benefits and work rules for their members
  • The politicians know that if they cross the union leaders, their reelection plans are more complicated
  • We fund the whole thing
And so the public - whom the Democrats always assume to be their useful idiots - have an uneasy feeling as they are forced to wrestle with two key questions at a very personal level.

1) Why should I pay to give others job security AND a standard of living that I don't have?

2) If the Democrats, the unions, and the Obama political machine are all organized to promote this, doesn't that mean they are organized to take advantage of me? 

Public sector unions were a questionable concession that was tolerated initially.  One person's mole is another person's beauty mark.  But now it's time to surgically remove these radically malignant cells before they consume the host.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Public Employee Union Thugs Keep Democrats In Power At Taxpayer Expense

When the Wisconsin General Assembly voted to pass Gov. Scott Walker’s budget-repair bill, Democratic legislators made themselves indistinguishable from the protestors surrounding the assembly floor.

They wore the same pro-union orange T-shirts. They behaved in the same sophomoric way, breaking out in a noisy, finger-pointing demonstration. They chanted the same ubiquitous word: “Shame!” They might as well have brought guitars onto the floor for a Woody Guthrie sing-along and touted “Walker = Hitler” signs.



The fight in Wisconsin has focused on collective-bargaining rights, but that is not the main event. As Daniel DiSalvo of the City College of New York-CUNY notes in a Weekly Standard article, 24 states either don’t allow collective bargaining for public workers, or permit it for only a segment of workers. Even if Walker prevails, Wisconsin will allow more wide-ranging collective bargaining than these states.

Not to mention the federal government. Obama may lecture Walker about union rights, but he can go straight to Congress with a highly political proposal to freeze the pay of federal workers because they can’t collectively bargain for wages or benefits.

No, the most important measure at stake in Wisconsin is the governor’s proposal for the state to stop deducting union dues from the paychecks of state workers. This practice essentially wields the taxing power of the government on behalf of the institutional interests of the unions. It makes the government an arm of the public-sector unions. It is a priceless favor.

Wisconsin doesn’t collect dues for Elks lodges or the NRA. What makes these organizations different from public-sector unions is that people freely choose to join them and freely choose to pay their dues. They are truly voluntary organizations that don’t rely on the power of the state for their well-being. Walker wants to give members of public-sector unions a measure of this same autonomy.

Perhaps some of these members aren’t liberal Democrats, so they don’t want to pay dues — roughly $1,000 annually in the case of teachers — which will overwhelmingly go to funding and organizing for Democratic candidates. Perhaps some of them, regardless of their politics, want to spend that money on their families or other pressing needs. Walker will allow them to exercise a choice now closed to them. In most of 21st-century America, that surely sounds like common sense; for the unions, it sounds like a dire threat.

When Indiana governor Mitch Daniels ended collective bargaining and the automatic collection of dues in 2005, the number of members paying dues plummeted by roughly 90 percent. In 2007, New York City’s Transit Authority briefly stopped automatically collecting dues for the Transport Workers Union, and dues fell off by more than a third. Without these dues, the ability of public-sector unions to influence elections — what they care about most — drastically diminishes.

This is why Wisconsin Senate Democrats preferred to flee the state rather than stay and vote on a proposal that would curtail their fundraising and organizational base. They can dress up their opposition in the rhetoric of workers’ “rights,” but even if all collective bargaining were stripped from all Wisconsin public workers, they’d still have extensive civil-service protections. For Democrats, the issue is whether they can continue to rely on state government to grease an essential cog in their political machine.

Public-sector unions are a creature of government, and the Democrats are the party of government. The two of them have identical interests and worldviews, and both want to leverage government to swell their campaign coffers. How to characterize this? The word “shame” comes to mind.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Racism Is Good - Unless You're White

Or, The Continuing Media Narrative of ‘Acceptable’ Racism.

Dr. King once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Apparently, US Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t get the memo.


As reported and applauded by Politico, Holder announced Tuesday that he was fed up with listening to whining whites who claim the justice department deliberately blocks investigations of black on white racism. Predictably, the Establishment media sides with Holder.
“Think about that,” Holder said. “When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia, which was inappropriate .. .to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people,” said Holder, who is black.
Holder noted that his late sister-in-law, Vivian Malone Jones, helped integrate the University of Alabama.
“To compare that kind of courage, that kind of action, to say some Black Panther incident is of greater concern to us, historically, I think just flies in the face of history,” Holder said with evident exasperation.”
So the obvious takeaway from this is that some racism is worse than others. Some racist injustice is worthy of prosecution, other racism is not. Apparently, whites simply haven’t suffered enough. They don’t deserve legal protection. So, any injustices committed against white people should be swept under the rug. It’s not worth Eric Holder’s time.

One might be shocked by the statements. One might even wonder why the media chooses not to attack Holder for his patently racist statements. After all, were a white man to suggest this, his career would be over in a hail of media machine-gun fire. Reporters would fall over themselves to attack him, and his family would be ruthlessly attacked in the community. His kids would have to stay home from school (assuming their teachers weren’t on strike, anyway), and he’d get hate mail and death threats for decades.

But the Establishment Media’s lack of moral indignation isn’t surprising. In America, it’s blasphemous to even suggest that whites could be victims of racial injustice.


Whites are the permanent “oppressors” in the mainstream media narrative, while all other races are the permanent “victims.” In fact, “white” and “oppressor” are essentially synonymous — meaning: whites are the bad guys. All whites have been lumped together and typecast in a bad reality TV show. Because whites as a group do not have clean hands, therefore, they are denied the right of seeking justice.

If that isn’t stereotyping, I don’t know what is.

The larger issue, of course, is that “whites as racists” constitutes the fundamental lens through which Holder views issues in America. During the healthcare debate, Holder likened opposition of Obamacare to opposition to civil rights. Not civil rights in the sense that, “all Americans share civil rights,” mind you, but “Civil Rights” as in the struggle for black legal equality in America during the 40’s-60’s. Translation: those who oppose Obamacare are racists.

Such language is naked race-baiting and scapegoating. But Holder doesn’t care. Whites are the bad guy bogeymen, trotted out when it gets tough to pass legislation. And his recent comments reveal his paradigm: white Americans are generally racist and any time they oppose any Obama policy or “injustice” at the hands of a racist group, they’re either being racists or they’re simply not entitled to equal protection because they haven’t suffered as much as other groups.

Nobody is seeking to belittle the suffering of other people, here, but America seeks equality. This means equal protection under the law, not equality in historical racial suffering.

Holder’s statements are completely sadistic, and they betray his motives. He has a score to settle, and by his figure whites have a lot more suffering to endure before they have a right to expect justice from the “Justice Department.” Satisfying vendettas is for Mob Bosses, not the US Attorney General’s Office.

The Establishment media’s silence regarding his racist statements demonstrates agreement and approval. Such hypocrisy. Such shame. Such racism.

Source

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

What Does The New Arab Revolt Mean For The Western World




Daniel Pipes writes an interesting article today regarding the conflict that is exploding and intensifying in the Middle East and Africa.  I'd highly suggest you read it:  http://bigpeace.com/dpipes/2011/03/01/the-new-arab-revolt/

The following is my reply to his ideas.  I will add Dr. Pipes' commentary if he responds.

Your optimism is encouraging Dr. Pipes.  And your thought that "Conspiracy theories have been the refuge of decayed rulers, not exuberant crowds." seems eloquently self-evident.  But I'm concerned about what happens a couple of moves into the game.

Would you concede it as likely that radical interests are fueling this general status of revolt?  The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. are far are in a far more advantageous place from which to achieve their strategic goals once the tyrannical rulers are removed.  Isn't this a replay of 70's Iran where the liberals were instrumental in overthrowing The Shah?

Once the "kumbayah's" died down, and The Shah was in exile, the theocracy seized power.  Wouldn't the modern day equivalent result in a more unified, anti-West "Axis of Islamofaciscm"?

While I can't imagine any liberty-concious, freedom-loving individual would support the Quadaffi's of the Middle East, wouldn't a push (from the EU, UN, NATO, US) toward a more orderly transition to regionally realistic democracy be advantageous to everyone?  My fear is that the Western "powers that be" will naively support and champion the cause of individual freedom, only to have the end result of a far greater global menace, and a drastically worse human condition for the so-called newly free.

I explored this last month when I wrote:

http://rwreagan1.blogspot.com/2011/01/more-powerful-government-less-freedom.html

Please allow me to sincerely and humbly submit that your knowledge of the region, and geopolitics in general, is far greater than mine.  But I would appreciate your thoughts (or those of anyone willing to offer their insight) regarding what will happen when the tyrants have been toppled.  Are we saving ourselves from drowning only to be burned at the stake?