End Public Sector Unions…Period

End Public Sector Unions…Period

By C. Edmund


It’s about time.  I’ve been waiting for this debate to mature for 15 years.
The battles in Wisconsin and New Jersey over public sector union benefits
are merely financial precursors to a much bigger ideological war that has been
on the horizon now for years, if not decades.  When you acknowledge the coming
battle, you realize that Governors Walker and Christie — courageously as they
are behaving — are only nibbling at the edges of the real issue.
And the real issue is whether public sector unions should even be allowed
to exist.  Frankly, when even a modicum of common sense is infused into the
equation, the answer is a resounding no.  And the foundational reason is
simple.  There is no one at the bargaining table representing the folks who are
actually going to pay whatever is negotiated.
Gee, what could possibly go wrong?
Well let’s see what went wrong: California, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan,
Chicago, New York State, New York City, Wisconsin…on and on I could go
including almost every city and state where government workers are
Oh, and have you seen pictures of Detroit lately?
The problem is that our country has been lulled to sleep over decades of
hearing that government workers are dedicated and low paid public servants who
trade good pay for security.  And every time a union pay debate came up, it
seemed like only cops and fire fighters and teachers were mentioned.  No one
stopped to think that most government workers are actually bureaucratic charmers
like those we see at the DMV and other government offices — and not “heroic
teachers” or crime fighters.
But as long as the private sector was humming along, there was no reason
for reality to permeate that myth in most peoples’ minds.  But the reality is
that government workers long ago passed private sector workers in pay and
benefits, and now the compensation is more like 150% or even double, factoring
in all the benefits, including more vacation days than private sector workers
enjoy.  And of course, the inestimable value of job security remains intact and
strengthened — while all of us in the private sector deal daily with the
risk-reward constraints of reality that are only getting riskier.
And along the way — with a public school teacher-educated population that
understands virtually nothing about economics — the sheer idiocy of the concept
of government unions escaped almost everybody.  It’s almost as if the union
teachers were lying to their students about economics on purpose.
Consider: Unions exist primarily for the function of collective bargaining,
where the union bosses will negotiate on behalf of all the workers with the
management of a company over pay and benefits and other conditions.  This
built-in adversarial relationship along with the realities of a limited resource
— known as operating revenues — do a pretty good job for the most part of
keeping contracts in line.
The union bosses represent the workers.  Management represents everybody
else, including the stockholders, vendors, customers and potential customers of
the company.  In other words, management represents everyone whose interests are
served by keeping payroll costs down.
In the case of a government workforce, those whose interests are served by
keeping costs down would include all who pay taxes and fees to said government.
In other words, the universe of folks represented by management is far larger
than that represented by the union.  This inherent tension is the invisible hand
of reality that keeps collective bargaining in line.
However, public sector “collective bargaining” is a bad joke, given that
there are only chairs on one side of the bargaining table.  The bigger universe
of interested parties have zero representation in the process.  There is no
natural force working to keep costs in line.
Moreover, quite often the very politicians who are “negotiating” with the
public unions are politicians who have been financed by those same unions.  At
least Bernie Madoff ripped off his clients with some panache.  No such style is
even required in a public sector union negotiation when the folks in charge are
bought and paid for Democrats.
Under any circumstances and in any economy, it is simply a matter of time
before these costs reach a tipping point.  We are at that time.  There is simply
no more money to give to these public sector unions — period.
And that is why we are seeing what we are seeing in Madison this week and
it is why we have seen the emergence of Chris Christie as a national
phenomenon.  And I welcome it.  Things are finally so bad — that they are
good.  And by good, I mean that folks now cannot help but pay attention to the
issue of public sector unions.
I submit that the very existence of these unions has only been allowed to
happen because it’s the kind of issue an electorate is never forced to confront
— until they are forced to confront it.  And now they are.  There is, as
Charles Krauthammer said, a bit of an earthquake in the country.  People are
sensing that the nation is spinning off a cliff.
And of course it is, and public sector unions are one huge reason why.
This conclusion is inescapable.  And when you understand that, you understand
that public sector unions cannot be allowed to exist.  If they are, we will
never turn back from the cliff.

Teacher Deems Student’s American Flag Drawing ‘Offensive’–but another student — in the same class – was praised for drawing a picture of President Obama

Fox News Radio: The battle over the American flag has reached a middle school art class in California’s Santa Rita School District where a student was told not to draw Old Glory because it was “offensive,” but another student — in the same class – was praised for drawing a picture of President Obama.


War On Terror: Shhh! Our “ally” Saudi Arabia isn’t really cooperating in the fight against terrorists. In fact, a top U.S. official warns that it’s still the prime source of terror funding.

The ‘Hussein’ memory hole

The ‘Hussein’ memory hole

Bruce Thompson

In responding to Hillary Clinton’s latest ad, the Obama campaign has once again slipped the name “Hussein” down the memory hole. Specifically Saddam Hussein. Obama’s answer to the question as to who is best prepared to take a 3 A.M. call is that he is better than Clinton because he did not support dealing with Saddam to a final conclusion.
Just because Clinton does not want to open the issue doesn’t mean others cannot. Obama needs to be grilled on what other actions should have been taken against Saddam. A recent 60 Minutes segment with FBI agant George Piro revealed Saddam’s plans directly from Saddam
“In fact, Piro says Saddam intended to produce weapons of mass destruction again, some day. “The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there,” Piro says.
“And that was his intention?” Pelley asks.
“Yes,” Piro says.
“What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?” Pelley asks.
“He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program,” says Piro.
“Chemical, biological, even nuclear,” Pelley asks.
“Yes,” Piro says. “
So Obama wanted us to mimic the Three Little Monkeys, who See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Speak No Evil. Then Saddam’s efforts to bribe the venal through the Oil for Food program and fool the willfully ignorant like Obama, would have given us a bloodthristy dicatator who was re-developing “Chemical, biological, even nuclear” weapons”.
That’s quite a resume enhancer (at least in Kos Kiddieland)!

Islamists Threats in the U.S.


Islamists Threats in the U.S.    
Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Throwing acid in the face of women who fail to don the hijab, flogging people for sporting non-Islamic haircuts, and stoning to death violators of sexual norms are only a few examples of a raft of daily barbaric acts of Islamists in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and many Islamic lands. Other forms of Islamic brutalities such as Honor Killing have already found their way to Germany and other European countries with the ever-burgeoning Muslim populations.Wherever Islam goes, so goes its ethos.

Reading about these religiously-mandated horrific acts and even seeing them on television or the Internet may momentarily repulse, but does not terribly concern many Americans. After all, those things are happening on the other side of the world, and those people deserve each other; we are safe in fortress America, so goes the thinking.

But “fortress America” is a delusion that even the events of 9/11 seem to have failed to dispel. Many prefer to believe that the assault of 9/11 was an aberration, since nothing like it has happened again, and it is unlikely that anything of the sort will ever happen again, so goes the wishful thinking.
The reality portrays a vastly different picture. America is far from a fortress given its vast wide-open borders. It is a nation of laws where all forms of freedom are enshrined in its constitution; is where Americans live by humane ethos diametrically different from those of Islamist savagery. Sadly, these differences confer great advantage to the Islamists and place America in imminent danger.

The breach of “Fortress America” from the air on 9/11 is only the first installment of much more forthcoming heinous assaults, unless we abandon our complacency; stop relying on the invincibility of the law-enforcement people; and willingly make the sacrifices that would protect our way of life.

Knowing Islam intimately and having experienced its systemic savagery has compelled me to warn repeatedly of the deadly imminent threat it poses to all non-Muslims(Why Confront Islamism) attempting to present a comprehensive treatment of the evil precepts and practices of Islamism, I am listing a few facts that should be enough to alarm anyone who cherishes liberty and freedom; awaken anyone who is comforted by the belief that all the Islamic mayhem is limited to an illiterate gang of primitive Middle Easterners and has no implications for America. Sorry, bad news is here already.
•    Some 26 percent of American Muslims, ages18-29, support suicide bombings “in defense of Islam,” according to findings of a recent Pew poll
•    According to Pew, there are 2.35 million Muslims in America, 30 percent of whom are in the 18-29 age range. Some claim that the number of Muslims is in fact much larger. Even using the conservative Pew numbers, over 180,000 Muslims in America is bomb-approving. This is an alarmingly large number, given that Muslims, as an article of faith, practice dissimulation in dealing with infidels and under-report their true intentions. How many human bombs and bomb-approving people does it take to wreak havoc on our country?
•    The 180,000 Muslims living among us don’t define what “defense of Islam” is. It could be anything that they feel constitute an attack on Islam and Islamic values, such as the reported flushing of the Quran down the toilet, the Danish Cartoon, Rushdie’s book, a newspaper article, an Internet posting, or even women not donning the hijab
•    When religious fanatics unreservedly advocate wanton acts of mass murder, they are not likely to shy from coercion and intimidation measures to impose their will on the larger society. In tandem with the cold murder of Van Gough in Holland, for instance, Islamists had been striving to supplant civil laws with the Islamic Sharia in the country. In other lands such as France, England and Canada, Muslims have also been waging serious campaigns for adoption of the Sharia or some of its provisions, just for starters.
•    Ever since 9/11, and possibly before, America has been concerned about terrorists coming from Islamic lands. For this reason, some people advocated profiling as a safeguard against the 9/11 type mass murderers. But how do you profile hundreds of thousands of Muslim Americans who are already here and look and act like other Americans? How can an open free society such as ours safeguard the individual freedom we so greatly value and protect the safety of its citizens?
•    The immensely difficult task of safeguarding our freedom while ensuring our safety is seriously and repeatedly undermined by Islamist apologists, pontificating academes, vote-hungry politicians, and the mainstream media, each for their own reasons. Here are some of the comfort pills dispensed by the mainstream media’s polls: “Most Muslims seek to adopt American lifestyle” (USA Today); “Muslims assimilate better in U.S. than Europe, poll finds” (New York Times); “Poll: US Muslims Feel Post-9/11 Backlash Despite Moderate Outlook” (Voice of America).
•    It is said that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The mainstream media’s manipulation of statistics goes beyond selective reporting and qualifies as outright disinformation. Is the U.S. Muslims’ outlook moderate? All U. S. Muslims? What about the self-reported outlook of hundreds of thousands who support mass murder in the “defense of Islam?” 
•    Even if most Muslims seek to adopt an American lifestyle, a great many Muslims are dead set on using violence to make America conform to their barbaric way of life. Islamism is cancer. Cancer cells are always few at the beginning. Left unchecked, they keep on expanding and eventually devour the non-cancerous.
•    There is an important lesson to be learned from the drama presently unfolding in Turkey. Modern Turkey, the only democracy in the Islamic Middle East, was established by Mustafsa Kemal Ataturk . He abolished the caliphate in 1924, replaced Islamic rules with modern secular laws and barred the mosques from politics. Ever since, the mosque has been fighting and gradually succeeding in dragging Turkey back under its rule. Presently, what the Western Mainstream media calls a “mildly Islamist” party rules Turkey under the rightfully suspicious eyes of the staunchly secularist heirs of Ataturk, the Turkish military. All kinds of Western leftists loudly proclaim that there is nothing to worry about, that the forthcoming Turkey election that is going to install mildly Islamists as president as well as the Prime Minister is no cause for the millions of Turkey secularists to pour into the streets against such an outcome millions of Turkey secularists pour into the streets. Why all the fuss, by the military and the millions of Turks? After all, the mildly Islamists are not all that bad and they are coming to power through free elections, the leftists keep preaching. In reality, even coining the term, “mildly Islamist” is a clear instance of the leftists’ treachery. Being mildly Islamist is as plausible as being mildly pregnant. There is no such a thing as mild Islam. It only starts mildly, just the way Muhammad himself started it in Mecca. Then, it builds momentum and settles for nothing less than the total imposition of its dogma and will. Being mildly Islamist is only the head of the camel poking into the room. Wherever the head of the animal goes, if it is not chopped off the body eventually follows. And the body of Islam is a disease-bearing body that will infect the healthy secular societies.
•    Escalation of demands, intolerance of differences, and contempt for the non-Muslims are hallmarks of Islam. The deluded leftists as well as the publishers of the leftist are destined to be among the very first victims of the mild Islamism as it gathers power.
•    The Turkish people demonstrating against creeping Islamism in their government are still a minority. A minority that has first-hand experience with both secularism and Islamism. They also see the horrors of Islamism next door in Iran and are rightfully alarmed by the ever-encroaching Islamism in their government. They know full well that they must resist the backward march of their country and must do all they can to protect their precious freedom. Do we, in America and the West, have the same sense and the will to forestall mild Islamism from evolving into a real Islamism?

Just a sobering note: Mild Islamism is already here in our country. The Muslim cab driver of the Minneapolis Airport refusal to ferry passengers with alcohol or even those with seeing-eye-dogs; Muslim inmates demand to be served only hala Food ; Muslim students badger universities for special facilities for their meetings; and, the first ever Muslim Congressman assumption of office by swearing on the Quran and not the Bible.

Mild Islam is not all that obtrusive, since it is similar to the early stages of pregnancy. Yet, pregnancy it is. And before long the full-term beast will make its appearance. If we don’t want to deal with the beast, we need to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.

The Coming Great Divide in American Political Culture

The Coming Great Divide in American Political


By J.R. Dunn

Michael Barone’s occasional forays into sociology are always a pleasure to come across. Like the rest of his work, they are concise, well-researched, original, and always marked by clarity. Barone goes where the data takes him, and never seems to have an agenda or an ideological ax to grind.

All this is true of his latest such piece, “The Realignment of America” which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, May 8. While going through recent census estimates, Barone discovered a pattern until now overlooked: the old coastal cities, or “Coastal Megalopolises” are steadily becoming dominated by immigrants, while at the same time native Americans are repopulating the thriving heartland cities.
Since 2000, Barone tells us, New York City has seen “a domestic outflow of 8% and an immigrant inflow of 6%”. Boston, LA, Washington, and San Diego show similar turnovers. The total outflow of native-born Americans from these cities amounts to 650,000 a year.
At the same time, cities such as Orlando, Charlotte, Phoenix, and Tampa have had dramatic leaps in native-born population, in all cases exceeding 10%, and in that of Las Vegas approaching 20%. So while the coastal cities remain static in population numbers despite the turnover, interior cities are booming.
What does this mean for our political culture? Barone touches on the question, noting that “The economic divide in New York and Los Angeles is starting to look like the economic divide in Mexico City and São Paulo”, but doesn’t go much further. But if the process continues, the implications will be profound.
If Barone is correct – and there’s no reason to believe he isn’t – then we’re headed for an even more serious social schism between the heartland and the coastal metropolises. The heartland (along with smaller cities and towns on the coasts) will be comprised of melting-pot Americans, the coastal cities a bewildering melange of immigrants from all points of the compass, topped with an exceedingly thin layer of ultra-wealthy natives.
Miami, as it has been for the past thirty years, can serve as an example, with these differences: the Cubans represented a single homogeneous group; they had very good reasons – hatred of Fidelista communism above all – to appreciate American society; and they already understood American culture. This will not necessarily be the case with the new arrivals. Above all, PC and multiculturalism have removed all reason for immigrants to adapt to their new country.
With no particular pressure to fit in, the new immigrants will cling to their traditions, worldviews, and customs, many conflicting with ours and with those of other immigrant groups. NYC’s asinine decision to establish a madrassah in Brooklyn is only the opening wedge – now all hundred-odd ethnicities residing in New York will demand the same treatment, and they will get it. The result will be Babel.
So thank the Archangels you’re not living in NYC. But there are implications that may affect us all. Many of these people will have emigrated from failed polities of one type or another. Too many of the countries of Africa and Asia and Latin America, are operating in something resembling free fall, to put it kindly. Government is whoever has the most guns; civil society goes its own way with little reference to governmental activity; whatever political entanglements that can’t be avoided are dealt with in the most primitive manner conceivable, through processes characterized by kinship and tribal relations, bribery, and paternalism. It’s those conditions many people were fleeing when they came to the United States.
But it’s those same conditions that, even with the best will in the world, they are going to bring with them. People cannot shed elements of their culture the same way they may change the dishdash for slacks and shirt. They are going to look for the Big Man. They are going to wonder whom to bribe, and how much. They are going to gravitate toward whoever operates in the manner closest to their country, region, or tribe. They will, without the least intending to, recreate in the U.S. the same situation they were fleeing from back home. With the added complication that dozens of other ethnicities will also be trying to grab the political levers to ensure that things are done their way, all at once.
It’s difficult to see how this is particularly congruent with American democracy as we understand it today. Nor that there is any way to make it compatible with any form of democratic practice. So something will have to give. And it seems likely that what will give will be the members of America’s sole native criminal class, the politicians.
What politician could resist such an opportunity? Masses of helpless, ignorant, and needy people requiring guidance, requiring a protector, requiring a leader. We’ve seen this before. Consider how the black vote has been manipulated by Democratic politicians since the days of the New Deal. Multiply that by a few dozen ethnicities, and the magnitude of the problem becomes manifest. (What’s that? New immigrants can’t vote? Do you really think so?)
But let’s not be unfair to Democrats. If you think the GOP would hesitate a minute to leap into the same role, your introduction to practical politics remains before you. All the same, the Democrats are the prime suspects here, seeing how they control the surviving political machines in cities up and down the Eastern seaboard. Many of these machines have been in operation since the last big immigration wave early in the 20th century. Adapting them to the new conditions will simply be a matter of integrating the new arrivals into the places once held by Italians and Irishmen.
But there’s another factor at work as well – even as the pols are gathering in the new flock, the new flock will be exerting pressure on them to conform more to the style that they’re used to. How are they going to resist becoming something along the lines of a tribal chieftain? Many of them think of themselves in similar terms in any case. And with that shift will come a level of corruption that will make New Jersey or Louisiana look like the Palace of the Just. If you think that New York resembles a third-world country now… you ain’t seen nothing yet.
At the same time, we’ll have a native-born American population that has reconnected with its roots, and very likely, after years of dealing with terrorism, undergone a resurgence of patriotism, much as Great Britain did in the course of the lengthy Napoleonic Wars. (And, as Barone points out, will have grown more Republican, too.) This will represent quite a contrast to the teeming multilingual coasts, and create inevitable and unavoidable grounds for conflict.
We can dismiss any thoughts of civil war. Conflicts in advanced societies aren’t settled that way, and a situation in which isolated urban areas are opposed to the country at large doesn’t lend itself to such an outcome. But there are plenty of other ugly possibilities. (And some benefits as well – the coastal cities, which wield far too much influence today, will find their sway over the rest of the country dwindling, no doubt a good thing.) Most of the downside factors will involve native politicians released from any responsibility to the population of the country as a whole, a nightmare in and of itself. Corruption will grow to proportions not easy to imagine today, particularly as it takes on an international dimension.
Mayors, representatives, possibly even governors and senators, will be running their own sub rosa foreign policies in order to fulfill the wishes of their foreign-born constituencies. Foreign groups and organizations of all types — religious, political, social, and criminal — having no current connection to American society will establish strong beachheads by manipulating and playing off native politicians. This will create new challenges for law enforcement, particularly as it shades into foreign intelligence. Questions of national security will begin to take in the policies of the administration the next town over.
Potential solutions are less than obvious. Education of new immigrants as to what the American system is and how it works would appear to be the key, but who would handle that? With the educational system as it exists, enraptured with the doctrines of multiculturalism, the cure would be worse than the disease.
It may in the end merely be a matter of muddling through, of using law enforcement and social pressure to hold the fort while the new immigrant masses ever so slowly adapt themselves to this country (or, rather, their children and grandchildren do). It doesn’t seem like much, but it may be the best we can hope for.
Of course, we could always return to a sane immigration policy. I have yet to hear what would be wrong with that.
J.R. Dunn is contributing editor of American Thinker.