Unions Just Flushed $5 Million of Your Tax Dollars Down the Toilet
It is not every day we get to agree with the Obama administration. But after Sen. Blanche Lincoln defeated Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter in the Arkansas Democratic Senate primary runoff election, after the AFL-CIO, SEIU, AFSCME poured millions of dollars into Halter's campaign, a senior White House official told Politico: "Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet." But it wasn't just "their members" money that those unions were wasting. This year the Bureau of Labor Statistics confirmed that for the first time in the history of the United States, a majority of union members work for the government, not the private sector. To be exact, 52% of all union members work for the federal or state and local governments. That means more than half of the $10 million that unions wasted just in Arkansas first came from your tax dollars. And the waste goes well beyond Arkansas."Sharron Angle wins; Harry Reid gets race he wanted," the Las Vegas Sun headline tells us about Nevada's U.S. Senate race.
Sharron Angle, a former Reno assemblywoman and Tea Party favorite, emerged from Tuesday's Republican primary, lifted to a landslide by a solid base of conservative supporters but carrying political baggage that experts say gives the embattled Reid a new lease on political life.
And why would that be?
On Tuesday, Reid's advisers telegraphed their coming campaign, saying Angle's "dangerous ideas are wrong for Nevada." Once her victory was apparent, the Nevada Democratic Party issued a news release: "Sharron's 'Wacky' Angles: Dangerous Ideas Nevada Can't Afford."
Ah yes. If you believe in that Constitution Reid swore an oath to uphold, you're "wacky" and "dangerous." Let the conflation with extremists and haters begin. You know, the "progressive" M.O.
Count on Angle's support from gun owners being eroded by support for Reid from the National Rifle Association, his long-time endorsers. While a formal announcement has yet to be made, looking to past enthusiastic backing and traditional association support of friendly incumbents makes for a pretty reliable crystal ball, especially considering this statement from Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre:
"He is a true champion of the Second Amendment back in Washington, DC."
Self-styled political pragmatists will agree. They'll point to Reid's record, including opposition to the so-called "assault weapons" ban and lawsuits against gun manufacturers. They'll tell us of legislation he's blocked from the floor in his position as Senate Majority Leader, and bring up the potential of a committed Democrat anti-gunner assuming that position should Reid be ousted. And they'll patronizingly opine that We the People are too politically naive to understand the masterful chess game being played.
The NRA, the talking point goes (to persuade us to ignore the rest of Reid's "progressive" agenda), is a "single issue organization." What they'll not address is the core truth that none of this is really about guns, it's about freedom.
And what they'll ignore is the anti-gun rights chess game Reid is playing on a different board. They'll not address (or else just dismiss) Reid supporting a man NRA itself called "the most anti-gun president in American history." Ditto for his votes to confirm both Eric "Ban 'assault weapons' to fight Mexican crime" Holder and Sonia "The Second Amendment does not apply to the states" Sotomayor.
Any rating system that does not address giving aid and comfort to our political enemies is not only incomplete, it's misleading. But the thing is, after trying to avoid it, and because they could no longer publicly justify ignoring it, NRA finally committed to "punishing" senators who voted to confirm Sotomayor.
Just how, specifically, will that manifest itself with Sen. Reid, Mr. LaPierre? We members have a right to know. And not just for Reid, but for all the Democrats you're holding out to us as being worthy of our money, effort and votes...
Nevada gun owners have a choice--they can listen to the voice of accommodation and compromise, or they can be ridiculed--not just by "the left," but by gun lobby "realists"--as "principles freaks." Expect Angle's campaign to be subverted, if not overtly, then through lack of support, and that includes by a GOP establishment that wants to teajack and ride the wave of angry voter sentiment without actually upsetting their cushy status quo. Make no mistake: there are plenty of operatives on the "moderate" right who want to see a "conservative" fail, because returning to founding principles is the farthest thing from their ambitions and those of their supporters. And let's not forget the Quislin...uh..."Republicans for Reid": Expect more defections.
My unsolicited advice to Sharron Angle: Stay true to what you campaigned on. Do not moderate to appease--your enemies will still hate you regardless, and they'll use any olive branches offered them against you as clubs, and evidence of "flip-flopping" (not to mention it will demoralize your base).
Go on the offensive and never stop. Show why Harry Reid's "wacky" national socialism is a "dangerous idea Nevada can't afford."
And my advice to gun owners: Get involved. Not tomorrow, today. Make sure you're registered to vote. Contact the Angle campaign and find out how you can not just donate, but help. They need boots on the ground. Your boots. And while you're at it, support Gun Owners of Nevada. If this is going to be another "Profile in Apathy," if YOU are not going to lift a finger, you might as well just surrender now. That is, if it's not too much effort to raise your hands.
If you are an NRA member you might tell the NRA that support of Harry Reid is the worst possible thing they could. Harry Reid is a boot-licking ass-kissing supporter of Obama who is by far the greatest threat to our civil liberties including the second amendment that has ever happened in the US. Harry's supposed support of the second amendment is as phony as his office. If obama asked and it came to a 'final' vote, Harry would drop the second amendment like a used condom. If it is his alleged support of the second amendment that is keeping him office and your an NRA supporter, you better think twice about renewing your dues. gb
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
RED ALERT!!! Evidence Points To BP Oil Spill as a False Flag
Operation, what's the Endgame???
http://blacklifeamerica.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/red-alert-evidence-points-to-bp-oil-spill-as-a-false-flag-operation-whats-the-endgame/
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
"Bush Called For Reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008 Alone... Dems Ignored Warnings"
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
----------
reducing barriers for minority home ownership
He called for this, and succeeded.
the bailout
------------
succeeded at this
---------
and the longest list of clumsy misspoken lines since rock lyric
and this.
> http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/2010/05/16/obamas-faith-based-progr...
On Jun 8, 3:26 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Euwe, Euwe, Euwe. Just a few thoughts on your ramblings.....You should at
> least get your facts straight.....Let's review:
>
> failure to win popular vote,
>
> (It's called, "The Electoral College" and has worked quite well for over 200
> years. It serves a purpose, from allowing the large states too much power,
> in the vote....In this case, it prevented a bunch of folks who don't pay
> taxes and believe in sucking this Nation dry; e.g.; the "Welfare Crew in
> the inner cities" versus the rest of the American people who knew Al Gore
> was a threat not only to our Nation, but to Tipper, and buffet bars
> everywhere)
>
> bin Lostim,
>
> (Dead~~We just don't want to make a martyr out of him)
>
> "Mission Accomplished," loser;
>
> Obviously we still have troops in Iraq, and there is still an element of
> danger there. If the goal was to leave Iraq with a stable Republican form
> of government, which was democratically elected by the Iraq citizenry,
> capable of defending itself from internal as well as external enemies, and
> to leave a government that is friendly to our national interests, then I
> would surmise that we have achieved that goal.
>
> Although I don't necessarily believe that Democrats wished for American
> servicemen and women to be harmed, *per-se*, I do believe that many
> Democrats wished for President Bush and his Administration to fail, and if
> this cost American servicemen their lives, then this was a part and parcel
> of their objective. I recall not only Harry Reid, but also "Nanc" Pelosi,
> Ted Kennedy and other socialist agenda Democrats saying, "The War Is Lost";
> and opposing the surge which proved to be successful.
>
> Can you imagine, had the socialist agenda Democrats prevailed, and we would
> have actually pulled our troops from Iraq over two years ago, what the
> region would be like today? A region that would still be in conflict, with
> Iran dominating the region and Iraq being nothing less than a haven for
> terroristic individuals who wish to destroy Western Civilization.
>
> It is not an argument of whether we should have ever got involved in the
> conflict.....We did, and I think most thinking Americans from both sides of
> the aisle would agree that it was a mistake. An understandable mistake, but
> a mistake nevertheless. The distinction was how those with a very partisan
> agenda handled the situation. Instead of wanting to achieve victory and get
> our military out of the conflict while still accomplishing the goals, there
> were many Democrats whose only goal was to discredit the Bush
> Administration.
>
> Privatized Social Security,
>
> (It's coming, and should have come over twenty years ago, long before the
> Bush Administration, since Social Security is a dismal failure, and broken).
>
> Abortion,
>
> (In the United States, over 1.4 million abortions a year:
>
> http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
>
> and we have an Administration that covets partial birth abortions. What's
> wrong with this picture??? )
>
> "Faith Based Sinniative",
>
> What I don't understand from those on the far left, and even those who are,
> "Moderate" is their contempt for any charity that happens to be, "Faith
> Based". Why is this so troubling to Moonbats?
>
> For the record, the Obama Administration has continued the course:
>
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/764
>
>> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-oreilly-slams-bushs-immigration-polic...
> Amnesty,
>
> Here Euwe, we might actually agree. I find it laughable, Iand deeply
> disturbing, that a Presidential Administration, (both Republican and
> Democrat) can ask the American people to give up some of their inherent
> rights, in the name of security, but do nothing in order to secure our
> borders.
>
> As compared to the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration is clearly
> championing Amnesty, and the Obama Administration pales in comparison in
> stopping illegal immigration to the Bush Administration, which I openly
> admit, was pitiful. Here is a discussion between O'Reilly and former Bush
> Administration Chief Of Staff, Karl Rove. Interesting discussion, the point
> being, is that the Obama Administration could do much more:
>
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum>
> outsourcing,
>
> What, prey tell, do you think the Federal government should be doing about
> this, other than lowering taxes on corporations? We need no more "Nanny
> State"!!!
>
> deregulation of banks and oil drilling,
>
> *See* the "Democrats'/Socialist-Elitists'/Anti-American's" policy called,
> "Communiuty Reinvestment Act" which caused the whole economic debacle.
> Attached is a post I wrote to Euwetopia (and PF) almost two years ago:
>
> call for wilderness drilling, incentives for oil companies,
>
> We should! The disaster in the Gulf is partially caused by
> environmentalists push for drilling in deep waters away from our shores.
>
> reducing barriers for minority home ownership,
>
> *See* Attached. All Democrats/Socialist-Elitists/Anti-Americans who caused
> this.
>
> the bailout and the
> longest list of clumsy misspoken lines since rock lyrics.
>
> > On Jun 7, 1:15 pm, JSM <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Anatomy of a failing President
>
> > > The following is an interesting article. You might ask how long
> > Dr.
> > > Hunt can remain at NIH once the White House gets wind of this article.
>
> > > Dr. Hunt is a social and cultural anthropologist. He has had
> > nearly
> > > 30 years experience in planning, conducting, and managing research in the
> > > field of youth studies, and drug and alcohol research. Currently Dr. Hunt
> > is
> > > a Senior Research Scientist at the Institute for Scientific Analysis and
> > the
> > > Principal Investigator on three National Institutes of Health projects.
> > He
> > > is also a writer for American Thinker.
>
> > > ____________________________________________________
>
> > > An article from American Thinker by Geoffrey P. Hunt:
>
> > > Anatomy of a Failing Presidency
>
> > > Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed
> > > presidency since Woodrow Wilson. In the modern era, we've seen several
> > > failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have
> > > one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat
> > out.
> > > Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into
> > > oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in
> > > disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored
> > by
> > > his triumphant overture to China .
>
> > > But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And
> > failing
> > > everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly,
> > in
> > > forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy
> > > Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing
> > > because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed
> > > loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing
> > because
> > > he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman
> > of
> > > American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is
> > > failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his
> > > intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.
>
> > > But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new
> > president
> > > riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited
> > his
> > > tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in
> > free
> > > fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point
> > > advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?
>
> > > No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative
> > about
> > > himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly
> > disguised
> > > or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and
> > doesn't
> > > connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon
> > the
> > > rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the
> > American
> > > character that intersects with their own where they display a command of
> > > history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that
> > > resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We
> > > admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who
> > > seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are
> > > aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with
> > our
> > > own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.
>
> > > But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows
> > > nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully
> > small
> > > minded for the size of the task--all contributory of course. It's that
> > he's
> > > not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of
> > > content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper.
> > > Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our
> > own
> > > common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things
> > > work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the
> > > world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our
> > experience.
>
> > > In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of
> > > this man, he's dissed just about every one of us -- financiers, energy
> > > producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses,
> > > hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a
> > > non-green job.
>
> > > Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For
> > those
> > > of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended,
> > you
> > > just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could
> > have
> > > offended you too."
>
> > > Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787
> > > devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for
> > both
> > > houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable
> > Congress
> > > can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of
> > > legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years
> > after
> > > that.
>
> > > Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes
> > > howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.
>
> > > Margaret Thatcher: "The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later
> > you
> > > run out of other people's money."
>
> > > "When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." -
> > James
> > > Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union
>
> > > "The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
>
> > > "A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own."
> > -
> > > Unknown
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.> Democrats.Fannie.Freddie..doc
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>
>
> 107KViewDownload
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
