Obama complains about congressional law that he helped to approve. Go figure.


Halperin is a commentator who sometimes appears on Morning Joe (MSNBC). His depiction of the Obama performance, yesterday, at his news conference, pretty much sums up the thinking of this conservative. Understand that Halperin is as liberal as they come, but, it appears, we are all getting tired of the mindless antics and empty rhetoric of the nation's Head Honcho.

In this, his most partisan effort to date, Obama makes this claim: "
. . . I'm proposing we get rid of are [all] tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owner. . No one in the Marxist Media tells you that if we collected the Obama taxes he proposes in the above, collected those taxes for a 100 years, the total collected would pay for his deficit accumulated in the month of April . . . . . . . period.

He loves to talk about "fair share." The fact of the matter is this: "fair share" has already happened. 50% of the American people pay no income tax at all, and, the top 5% pay 59% of the federal income tax burden. Could they pay more? Certainly. But, with Obama, increased taxation simply means an increase in the spending habits of the Far Left. If we raised taxes and seriously cut spending, that single tax increase would be a final increase. But, we all know that one tax increase leads to another and another and another. For the Democrat Political Community, there is no ending for increasing taxes "on the rich," and the rich are defined by Obama and other nutcases as anyone making over $200,000 per year. That is stupid wrong but the mindless Left has no clue as to the concept of "net income." Consequently, a woman who earns a net income of $100,000 (that's $200,000 after taxes at all levels), is branded as "rich." Obama "earned" 7 million since becoming president with its associated salary of $400,000. I say that he only needs $200,000 to live a "good life." He should surrender the remaining 6.8 million. If not, why not? And that Fat Michael Moore? He thinks "wealth" is a national treasure that belongs to all . . . . . except, of course, for his several million dollars "earned" over the past three years. Obama and Company do not live out their own rhetorical requirements for other.

Also, what is not reported with this press conference is the fact that the "jet tax" Obama is complaining about, was ordered by his Stimulus in 2009 !! This guy talks out of both sides of his mouth more than any president in my memory.

FoxNews beats out the liberal competition again. But Nancy Grace is # 2 as she bleeds the Casey Anthony trial dry.

Well, we do not post this kind of information as often as we would like, but here are the ratings for cable news for June 29. They are fairly typical; O'Reilly is always on top, usually at 2,900,000 and FoxNews, as a collective, beats out the competition for the upteenth day-year in a row. Nancy Grace is never #2 but her coverage of the Casey Anthony trial has been substantial and the nation is most interested in this story. Sean Hannity, the Pleasant Partisan, continues to surprise all analysts. While Sean is a partisan conservative (good for him), his guests are often more liberal and present a balance that one would not expect. Shep Smith is rated much higher than the Burbon Boy deserves and Beck is the top spot for his time slot despite the fact that today, Thursday, is his last day with his program on FoxNews. The blowhard, Al Sharpton is where he deserves. Rachel Maddow is doing about as good as anyone could expect coming from someone who has no clue as relates to news broadcasting. Dr Who Drew ??? Again, it is the Casey Anthony trial that moved him up in the ratings.

WEDS., JUNE 29, 2011

FOXNEWS BECK 1,691,000
CNNHN DR DREW 1,667,000
CNN COOPER 632,000
CNN PIERS 405,000

File under "same old same old" - Jobless Report: last Thursday, 414,000; today, first time unemployed report is 428,000. (no article)

Obama and his HHS back off spying on the medical community . . . . like they didn't know we all would object !!!

Sarah Kliff / The Politico:
White House dumps ‘secret shopper’ survey of doctors

I reported on this a couple of days ago. The plan was to send "fake" patients to various doctors in an effort to document which were accepting patients covered by private insurance while rejecting others on government insurance (its legal, you know).

Anyone know who Congressman Paul Ryan is? Well, he is the guy Obama excoriated in the presence of God and the country proclaiming, "Ryan's plan would cut Medicare and send the poor and seniors off without insurance coverage." Not true, but who cares about truth. What was ignored by those who listened to Obama's fantasies was the fact that his plan cut half a trillion from Medicare . . . . . that's 500 billion dollars. How does that happen without cutting services and/or reducing pay-outs to doctors? Hint: it doesn't.

So Obama's plan, one that is currently law, makes draconian cuts to Medicare and no one seems to care while the Ryan "plan" is only in the talking stage and reportedly saves Medicare. My point is this: who really cares if the Ryan plan cuts into Medicare, it is not law; it is only the basis for a congressional discussion that must happen. Obama's plan is real, the Medicare cuts are part of the law, and there was no discussion . . . . . . just a couple of closed doors behind which sat Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Max what's his name from Montana, and few other select libs, plotting paybacks to their union buds while ignoring the need to balance the books as relates to ObamaCare. Make note that I did not include Obama's name in the above rant. Why? Because he played no role in writing the bill. It is not his bill and that is why he does not know what is in the thing.

Anyway, Obama's epiphany came in the form a request for waiver. Since the first request, he has handed out nearly 1,400 waivers, most of which went to democrat entities. The epiphany? Oh, that had to do with the fact that the bill was a far greater financial burden on "the people" than Obama had been told . . . . . something most of the conservative community already knew.

And the doctors taking Medicare patients? Well, they were receiving only 70% of what they requested, from Medicare, before the $500 billion cut to the program. Now that the bill is law, the additional cuts will render Medicare a negative financial assignment and many in the medical community are telling the government to drop dead.

They have the right to refuse service to Medicare patients. I officially live near Fresno, California. In that community, we have doctors who have had to wait for more than a year to receive payment from the Feds, and, then, the payments were only a fraction of what they needed to pay their bills. One of the greatest illusions fostered on the American public by the Class Warfare crowd is the notion that doctors are rich folks. My "general practice" doctors makes a little over $100,000 before the government(s) take half his pay in the form of taxes. You do the math. And how do I know this? He told me. My son is an ER doctor. He makes over $220,000 a year and pays nearly $40,000 in taxes, each quarter of the year. Is there anyone out there who actually knows how to add and subtract? If so, here is y0ur morning's assignment: take $220,000 and subtract $160,000. He gets a chunk of this back, to be sure, but, in the end, he lives in a $400,000 house(nothing exceptional -- but a nice home, nonetheless), owns a used Honda Pilot and three of those plastic bikes that go 4,000 miles per hour. Meanwhile, Barack Obama has earned more than $7 million since becoming president, Nancy Pelosi saw her multimillion dollar worth increase by 63% last year and Harry Reid became a millionaire since becoming a Senator, many years ago.

Question: so, who are the rich in this country, really, and why are they not paying their "fair share." Just askin'.

Michael Barone, a liberal analyst, is embarrassed for Barack Obama

No one in mainstream media seems inclined to mention Barack Obama’s horrifying mistake last Thursday when, speaking at Fort Drum, he said that SFC Jared Monti was “the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.” Alas, he was mistaken. He awarded the Medal of Honor to Jared Monti posthumously in 2009 and awarded the Medal of Honor in person to SSG Sal Giunta in person in 2011. Obama later apologized for this mistake, but it’s really dismaying that a president who spoke movingly and even eloquently in awarding the Medal of Honor made a mistake of this magnitude.

“It shouldn’t take a teleprompter for the C-in-C to get it right,” writes military blogger Black Five. It’s interesting that mainstream media journalists who are so eager to zing Michele Bachmann for getting John Wayne’s birthplace wrong, have not been interested in asking whether this was a mistake Obama made in ad libbing or whether the White House speechwriters and fact-checkers fell down on the job. You might think that their chief motive is to make Obama look good and to suppress facts that make him look bad. Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/mainstream-media-covers-horrifying-obama-mistake#ixzz1QdcwUpFl

Point of post? Just to demonstrate that conservatives can match, stroke for stroke, every rhetorical mistake the liberal community cares to "expose." Let's never forget Obama's solution to bring in oil from the Middle East. With words to this effect, he had this ingenious comment: "All we have to do to counter our need for Middle Eastern oil is to properly air up our tires and tune up our cars." Then there was the "shovel ready job" thingy. All of us aging contractors knew that was crap (he finally admitted there were no such jobs, btw). And we have the dark genius talking about visiting the 57 states "or was it 58." Some of his earlier "embellishments" are documented here, in a left leaning Politico article.

The difference between the Left and Right regarding "verbiage error" is found in the treatment of same. The Right laughs about and moves on. The Left always takes the mistake to the next level, using it to argue for the irrationality or stupidity of their latest victim. They did it with Bush 43, Sarah Palin, Supreme Court Thomas, and, of late, Michele Backmann. The Right wants to argue substance, the Left would much rather destroy their opponent in personal and trivial-minded ways. It is just the way they role.

Look what they have done with "evolution." You do not believe in it? Well, that makes you stupid. Never mind the fact that they - the pro-evolution crowd - have no choice but to believe in the eternity of some form of matter and the eternity of molecular motion. Where did matter come from? They do not know. What put all those particles into motion? Again, they do not know. Never mind the fact that there is not enough time for evolution to do its thing, on this earth. Never mind that the only demonstrable evolutionary process occurs in beings that measure under one centimeter in length. And never mind that my sons have heard the subject debated in college and came away surprised that the "anti-evolutionist" was able to effectively defend his position.

And, now, they are doing the same sort of thing with "man caused global warming." One of the several blogs I author or manage is this one on "global warming." Click on the link, if you dare.

If you are a lib, do yourself a favor and deal with the issues instead of laughing them off. Politically speaking and in today's political economy, we may be looking at a paradigm shift, away from mindless and defenseless chatter (i.e. pretending that calling the unborn a "fetus" means it is not an unborn child) and towards a demand for provable and reliable function. Three years of Obama has not helped in this department.

We are living in the very best of times if wealth and long life are critical considerations.

Going back to the time of Christ, we have a chart that quantifies history in two categories: one is life expectancy and the other is the amount of product sold or bartered. A couple of interesting points: one, the 20th century (the 1900's) saw more economic activity than all the previous centuries combined. The 21st century -- what happened?? Well, it is not half over. Take a pill.

Point of post? Not much. Just a curiosity.

Here is the problem with raising taxes . . . . . . .

The whole concept of raising taxes as a solution to federal debt is embedded in the fact that it is an admission that "we have no real solutions" to increased indebtedness. Of course, "we" could stop with the spending, but the Democrat Class has no genetic ability to do this. Here is proof of my point:

We have a social responsibility to help the poor.

"But we have no money to expand these programs."

Yeah, but we still must help these people.

"But, we have no money."

Yeah, but we must not only help the poor, we must support the unions because they are the
work force of the people and pay for health care and give every American their own homes.

"But we have no money."

Yeah, but . . . . . .

You get the point. The mental ability to comprehend "We have no money" is simply not there. Put these people in control of the national purse and you have nothing but problems.

Raising taxes is an admission by these folks that they have no other ideas. I believe that if they did, they would never revert to the Democrat mantra that includes "raising taxes on the rich." While some of you think this is a solution, you should know that increased taxes on the rich will not effect our national debt more than 5%. We are on track to charge up a 2 trillion dollar deficit bill in a single stinking year. We now over-spend by 1.6 trillion per year. 42% of every single dollar we spend in any given year is borrowed. Within 5 years, all of the national income from payroll taxes will be spent on Social Security, Medicare and interest on the national debt. Raising taxes on the rich ??!!!!!! Heck, the taxes of all working Americans will need to be raised by 40% within the coming decade in order to keep up with the redistributive policies of a know nothing Administration. This is why the current debate is so very important. If things do not change, you will be sorely effected.

Why should you resist increased taxes? Because, after the "rich," you are standing next in line and Greece is your future !!!!

Raising taxes is similar to my bother-in-law coming to me and asking me to give him money in order to continue paying for his new Mercedes and his million dollar home. He is in over his head, in this example, and the only thing he can think to do is borrow money. Taxes work just like this except they are not a loan. Taxes are legalized theft when misused on programs that must function without full disclosure and lies. What this country needs is innovative thinking that results in goods and services sold outside this country. As long as we are paying ourselves to work for ourselves, selling goods and services more to ourselves than outside this country, borrowing 40% more money from outside our country than we earn in order to maintain a given life style, the final result can be nothing less than a financial debacle of biblical proportions. It is just around the corner.

Macro economics does not work. It has destroyed the economy of the state of California and what has happened in my home state, California, will happen to the United States of America.
Little did we know that when Obama spoke of "fundamentally transforming" this country, he was speaking of destroying the national economy in the process of redistributing wealth earned by the hard working middle and upper class.

Point of post: when people shout, "Raise taxes," they are admitting that they have no other ideas. It is that simple. Raising taxes is, at best, a "stop gap" methodology that offers no lasting solutions because, in do time, the tax burden becomes more than we, as individuals, can afford.

We have to make stuff and sell stuff or we are all so screwed.

News Alert: Obama planning on spying on the medical community.

There is reporting that the Obama Administration is planning on spying on the medical community in order to [eventually] force doctors into receiving patients on some form of government insurance aid. Understand that doctors have the right to refuse Medicare [for example] patients, but, in so doing, they must reject all such patients, not just a few. One of the weak links in ObamaCare is the fact that doctors can refuse to receive those on some form of government healthcare. If enough doctors refuse to be puppets to Obama, the weight of their refusal could actually enhance a failing atmosphere as to national healthcare, reducing doctor/patient access and forcing an increase in healthcare rationing. We all now know that rationing must be a part of ObamaCare. Understand that my son - an ER doctor in central California - owe's more than a quarter of a million dollars in school expenses only to find that the Obama government hopes to force a regimented medical pay scale complete with associated social responsibilities, all in the name of being "fair" to the society in which they live. While a struggling student at San Francisco Medical School, he was in the good graces of Obama with his system of class warfare. Now that he is suddenly making "good" money, he has become an enemy "of the people." Anyone think he will ever vote Democrat again???

The Democrat/Marxist plan is to -- in effect -- draft the medical community into government social healthcare services. While may doctor son is not much effected by the new Nazi approach to national healthcare implementation, being that he is an ER doctor, he sees the dangers of a dictatorial federal government standing over the healthcare industry. Under the proposed Hillary Care of years gone by, the approach to program development under Hillary Clinton was to assemble a council of over 500 professionals, none of whom were from the GOP and, worse, none were practicing doctors . . . . . none. As a consequence, her proposals were grossly uninformed. Ditto ObamaCare by a multiplier of 10.

Many voted for Obama and his promise to install universal, single payer, healthcare. Instead, after the election, we witnessed the creation of a poorly thought out monster that had nothing to do with Obama, a process he completely turned over to Pelosi and Harry Reid. Pelosi's idiotic statement, "We must pass the bill in order to find out what is in the bill" sums up the disaster that we now call ObamaCare. In the end, ObamaCare is a healthcare program developed by those who are not medical professionals, a bill that infuses millions into the unions of this country and forces the end of private health insurance, not to mention the end of a robust research program, the best in the world.

Point of post: if you are a doctor, I say, "Save yourself !!!"

For the record - new jobless claims rose from 414,000 last week to 429,000 today. Same old same old . . . . .for the past 2 1/2 years. (no article)

What is missing in this Obama photo - same stage - that is present for all other recent president's?

Someone tell me why this clown makes these kind of decisions?




The Conservative national "war" to "take back America" began in earnest after the 2006 elections. That election saw the Democrats win back the Senate and the House. Nancy Pelosi took power in the House and Harry Reid became the Senate's leader. Both proved to be among the most partisan congressional leaders in history. The 110th Congress spent its time bashing Bush while shirking its responsibility as watchdogs over the nation's economy. Barney Frank, the toothless gay finance leader in the house joined Chris Dodd, Senate finance chairman, in ignoring the developing crisis that was the housing industry we know and love as "Affordable Housing." While most called the exploding crisis the "sub-prime" crisis, I simply call it the "Affordable Housing Crisis."

What folks miss with regard to "Affordable Housing," as a national social politcy, is that it was based in the pursuit of the notion that "all Americans deserve the right to own their own home." George W Bush bought into this notion as well as many within the GOP Establishment


Fat Gore breaks with Obama on climate change.

Al Gore, the so-called "warming guru," a man who has refused nearly 600 invitations to debate his claims on global warming and will not appear on the same stage with an anti-warming scientist, has gone on the attack against Barack Obama and Obama's failure (thank gawd) in dealing with global warming. Anyone remember Copenhagen and the world conference on climate change? It wound up being one of the most forgettable conferences of all time. A "meeting of the minds" with less consequences than the Cairo speech. When you stop to think about it, Obama has done next to nothing in pushing forward the liberal agenda. Good for him.

The Democrats' leading environmental messenger, Al Gore, is declaring that President Barack Obama has failed to lead on the issue of global warming.

In a 7,000-word essay posted online Wednesday by Rolling Stone magazine, Gore says the president hasn't stood up for "bold action" on the problem and has done little to move the country forward since he replaced Republican President George W. Bush.

Bush infuriated environmentalists by resisting mandatory controls on the pollution blamed for climate change, despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is responsible. The scientific case has only gotten stronger since, Gore argues, but Obama has not used it to force significant change.

"Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis," Gore says. "He has not defended the science against the ongoing withering and dishonest attacks. Nor has he provided a presidential venue for the scientific community ... to bring the reality of the science before the public." (link)

Blue State Schools: The Shame of a Nation

Blue State Schools: The Shame of a Nation — When it come to excellence in education, red states rule — at least according to a panel of experts assembled by Tina Brown's Newsweek. Using a set of indicators ranging from graduation rate to college admissions and SAT scores

It has become a common refrain at the White House and among administration supporters that President Obama's aggressive efforts to stimulate growth prevented an economic catastrophe.

"We had to hit the ground running and do everything we could to prevent a second Great Depression," Obama told supporters last week.

Politically, the claim makes sense. Casting the challenge Obama faced as immense can help explain the economy's lackluster performance in the two years since the recession officially ended.

But is it an accurate portrayal of what really happened?

IBD reviewed records of economic forecasts made just before Obama signed the stimulus bill into law, as well as economic data and monthly stimulus spending data from around that time, and reviews of the stimulus bill itself.

The conclusion is that in claiming to have staved off a Depression, the White House and its supporters seem to be engaging in a bit of historical revisionism.

Economists weren't predicting a Depression.

White House economists forecast in January 2009 that, even without a stimulus, unemployment would top out at just 8.8% — well below the 10.8% peak during the 1981-82 recession, and nowhere near Depression-era unemployment levels.

The same month, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that, absent any stimulus, the recession would end in "the second half of 2009." The recession officially ended in June 2009, suggesting that the stimulus did not have anything to do with it.

The data weren't showing it, either.

The argument is often made that the recession turned out to be far worse than anyone knew at the time. But various indicators show that the economy had pretty much hit bottom at the end of 2008 — a month before President Obama took office.

Monthly GDP, for example, stopped free-falling in December 2008, long before the stimulus kicked in, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. (See nearby chart.) Monthly job losses bottomed out in early 2009 while the Index of Leading Economic Indicators started to rise in April.

The stimulus timing is off.

When the recession officially ended in June 2009, just 15% of the stimulus money had gone out the door. And that figure's likely inflated, since almost a third of the money was in the form of grants to states, which some studies suggest they didn't spend, but used to pay down debt.

Other programs Obama often touts — Cash for Clunkers, mortgage help, homebuyer tax credits, the auto rescue plans — either came as the recession had ended or was ending or were widely deemed to be busts.

GOP dream might become a nightmare: McCain is rumored to be considering another presidential run.

Our headline is the bad news. The good news is that McCain told Ann Curry on the Today Show that a second shot at the presidency was not in the works. Understand that millions of conservatives stayed away from the polls in 2008 because of McCain. He lost by only 7% of the popular vote and would not have fared as well as he did if it had not been for Sarah Palin. If he ran again, Obama would win. It is that simple. Millions of conservatives would, again, stay away from the polls, believing that nothing important would get done or undone during a McCain presidency.

I have not forgotten that during the 2008 campaign, he talked of having Al Gore work as an adviser to the president as a climate consultant !! McCain would not reverse ObamaCare and would not stand up to the Marxist Liberals in our congress, believing that "moving along," legislatively, is more important that taking a stand on key Constitutional issues.

He is the poster-boy for everything that is or was wrong with the GOP, he and Lindsey Graham. "Never Again !!!" must be the motto for the New GOP. McCain is no fan of the right wing and he has voiced his opinion on this point many times in the past. He lost the nomination to George Bush in 2004 precisely because of his rhetorical assault on conservatives within the GOP. While he changed his tune in 2008, millions knew this was purely cosmetic. He is not as liberal as a Chuckie Schumer, of course, but he is so far Left that he cannot help the GOP make a stand for a return to States Rights and Constitutional Principles.

We are glad that he sees the light. He does not have one chance in 800 hells of getting the nomination and the knows it. Thanks for saving us the embarrassment of losing another election.

Presidential no-show miffs Hispanics...

Presidential no-show miffs Hispanics...

. . . . . president has been 'very clear' about his 'evolving' position on gay marriage...

OK, that is not my headline. It is found at the Left leaning Politico. Am I the only one who sees a problem in the wording of this headline? He is clear in his evolving position !!!!??? Isn't that the same as saying, "I could not be more clear as I change my mind from one stance to another to another?"

The fact is this: I think it was all a lie from the very beginning. But what is the lie? The King of Talking from both sides of his Mouth, remains a mystery on this point. He needs votes and the gay community does not have that kind of power. But he is a committed liberal so what can he do?

On thing for certain, he cannot be trusted in this matter . . . . . . . by anyone, and, I am writing of conservatives and gays. To be sure, he will "go with the accepted gay position," but, in the end, he will not have benefited their "cause." Ditto the Black community, which is in worse shape than before his presidency, and the Hispanics, who were promised "before the end of my first year, there will be comprehensive immigration legislation." In the days of 2009, when he could have crafted such legislation without any opposition from the Right, he chose to pay off his union buds and do other stupid stuff until his political power had dissipated in a wash of ineffectual bunglings and anti-American "reconstructionism." And now, he is thoroughly irrelevant.

I continue to believe that his re-election campaign will end in total disgrace, a rejection of the man and his socialist idealism in monumental proportions.

He has no energy policy that offers any hope for at least two decades. "No drilling" is not a sustainable policy and we all know it. His foreign policy is another less than funny joke.

His rejection of our traditional allies, England and Israel, and the push for Arab nation status for the Palestinians is proof of one who does not understand the transient evils of the geo/political world, a fact that threatens our great nation.

Under his watch, he has allowed Iran to become a nuclear power and an increasing political force. Under his watch, Hamas has been encouraged and the Muslims driving the Arab Summer, are given aid without any serious hope that they will become allies of the Great Satan. And now, he is "negotiating" with the Taliban, enemies of our country and murderers all.

His economic policies have been an unmitigated disaster, as well, and the business community is gathering in opposition to his re-election. Understand, it is not that he is a Democrat or even a secular socialist. It is that he does not know what he is doing and refuses to consider that fact as a possibility. He has thrashed around in the workings of this country like the proverbial bull in a china cabinet, and we are very nearly in ruins because of his presidency. Growing opposition to this nutcase is becoming, more and more, a bi-partisan affair for good reason.
As editor of this small political blog, I use liberal news sources almost exclusively to make my points . . . . proof of the "bi-partisan" opposition of which I write.

He has golfed nearly 80 rounds of golf in the two and half years he has been in office. That is nearly a month and a half, literally, of time spent on the links; a month and a half of playing games while the world around him burns; a month and a half out of 28 months in office. Incredible. And his wife is on her 8 vacation in 28 months, this time without Hubby !!!!!!

Understand that he is our first 9 to 5 president, a five day a week fellow when he is not in campaign mode . . . and, I know, "exactly when was he not in campaign mode?"

He has earned more than 7 million dollars since being in office; 28 months and 7 million big ones . . . not bad for a man "of the people,'' the Minister of the Middle Class, Mr. Do Your Fair Share, King of the Redistribution of Wealth as long as it is not My Wealth, crowd.


John Stewart makes a fool of himself before God and the nation. But it was interesting. Lucky for him, he is a comedian.

‘You are insane!’ The moment comedian Jon Stewart lost his cool with Fox News host Chris Wallace — It was pitched as a classic grudge match between the left and right of network television. — And when Daily Show host Jon Stewart entered the ‘lions den’ of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, the results did not disappoint. . . . .

This storyline came from a European news paper and gives us a little insight as to why they - the Europeans - could not win the war without our help. If any of you watched the "debate" between Stewart and Wallace, Stewart was anything but hot headed and belligerent, as the headline suggests. "You're insane" was much more a comedic response than it was a hot headed insult against Wallace. The interview was a test of wits, to some extent, but the context was one of congeniality and shared respect.

Two things about this Sunday discussion. First, it actually disproved what Stewart spent time denying . . . . that he was not an ideologue. Silliness on Stewart's part. His Daily Show is among the best in half hour comedy, but it is thoroughly driven by his ideology despite Jon Stewart's denials. Look, 80 to 90 percent of his political humor is directed against conservatives and this is an improvement over The Daily Show of the Bush years. His is an ideologue of the worst order because he is effective and he is that because of his sense of humor. Comedy carries his ideology into the mainstream. The notion that Stewart is not an ideologue is simply stupid wrong. One cannot be supportive of every liberal issue without being an ideologue. Whether that is by happenstance or not is of no consequence, here. Ideology is ideology.

A second point is this business that conservatives are ill-informed. Stewart made this point in the Sunday interview and without serious challenge. Wallace wanted to talk about other things, but this an issue that Chris should not have let slide. Indeed, the right has its share of "one toothers." But their ignorance does not overshadow the ignorance of the educated Left. Nothing is more of an existential disappointment than a stupid but educated man. And the Left is replete with their presence.

It is the educated that pushes as science, a thing we call the "big bang." Of course this is not science. Rather, it is a philosophical conclusion driven by a specific and intolerant bias. "Science" is "the experiment" and the reporting of the experiment. There is no "experiment" that demands a "big bang," only a philosophical persuasion that cannot allow for the supernatural. In the end, these educated folks have to bow to the eternity of matter and molecular motion, because neither can be explained into existence apart from a rabid faith in that which cannot be explained. "Where did matter in its most elemental form and molecular motion come from" has but one answer: "They were just always there." And with that, the whole of the scientific conclusion against God (and I am only talking about the Christian God by whatever name you call Him) falls apart.

Until one can honestly believe that a hundred pennies thrown into the air for millions of years will ever result in them falling perfectly on top of each other, all heads up, I will not believe that the complications of a leaf just happened. While the likes of Jon Stewart thinks little of that example, it is, in fact, the logical end to a mindless belief in a godless evolution.

There are other examples. We have the Left telling us that we can prevent climate change. Another point of silliness. Apparently the ice ages of the past, prehistoric, would never have happened if [certain educated] man had been around. These folks have no answer for the climate change that parallels this globe and is occurring on other plants in our solar system.

Maybe its Bushes fault.

Ah!! And there is another example. The Left loves to talk of the "disastrous" economy of the Bush years, all eight years, pretending (a) this was a fact and (b) the one man, Bush, did all the damage as if the Democrat controlled congress of 2007 and 2008 did not exist. Barney Frank, the toothless gay congressman, head of the finance committee in the House, and Chris "Sandwich" Dodd, the head of finance in the Senate were both in charge of this nation's financial oversight during the very time the economy collapsed. Stewart cannot be taken seriously (lucky for him that he is a comedian) when he goes along with the Bush criticism. On the other hand, Obama did not inherit anything. He and his congressional buds voted for virtually all of the Bush spending and are equally to blame, for that very reason.

The notion that the two political persuasions are separated by an imagined "intelligence" factor is ridiculous in a demonstrable way.

Update: it might surprise you to learn that the listeners of the Daily Show are as well informed as are the listeners of Rush Limbaugh. The difference is this: there are a couple of million Daily listeners and 23 million in the Limbaugh camp -- and they are all going to vote in 2012.

Click on this sourse: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/20/jon-stewart/jon-stewart-says-those-who-watch-fox-news-are-most/

About those hecklers at the Weiner resignation announcement: they weren't Republicans !!

Read that headline again. It is mine. And it is the truth. I wrote the headline after listening to liberal commentators proclaim their disgust at the heckling that occurred as Weiner made his wiener announcement. I wrote that headline because I know that the hecklers were two guys sent over by the degenerate, Howard Stern . . . . hardly a conservative or a Republican.

Understand that the Democrat election strategy is to use whatever means possible to win this election. For many reasons, it is more important to them than it is to us. If we win, and win big, we undo all that they have done over the past three years and will have set their anti-American cause back two or three decades. More than that, the Obama episode has put the light on needed legislative changes, preventing the kind of subversion witnessed over the Obama Years. If we win the election, and, again, win big, we can set our sights on the following:

"Signing privileges" need to be eliminated. Executive Privilege needs to be defined and restricted. The czar thingy needs to be eliminated; Executive Order needs to be given a well defined and restrictive boundary if not eliminated altogether. And the orders restricting a presidential war effort that circumvents congress needs to be revisited. Finally, "rule by regulation" must be revisited, legislatively. We have the EPA enforcing climate policy that has not been legislated. Ditto for the FCC and internet rules.

If this American Experiment is a government "by the people, for the people and OF THE PEOPLE," all the above must be declared as subversive nonsense and eliminated or sorely revised. As things stand, Obama can rule by fiat, apart from the oversight of congress. Not his fault !!! We have allowed this to happen and we must put a stop to it.

If we win this election, we can take back this country,
just in the nick of time

Now that Weiner is gone, what does the radial Left have up its sleeve: More sandal.

I am one of those folks who celebrate Weiner's fall from grace. He was and is a classless jerk, partisan to the core, and as insulting a fellow as one can find in congress. The GOP has no equal. None. So, I am more than glad this moron is gone. Unlike Bill O'Reilly, you will get no self-serving pronouncement about a needed civil and sympathetic reaction to Weiner's circumstance.

Weiner got exactly what he deserved. Understand one thing. If we had an Anthony Weiner in the GOP, I would be as opposed to him as I have been against the disgraced congressman. For example, I am not a fan of David Vitter, Republican Senator who has now come [back] into the lime light.

Who is David Vitter? Well, for starters, he is the only name you will hear from the Left as they try to "balance the scales," after the Weiner fisco. Understand that the Dems have more problems than Wiener. There is Maxine Waters, the criminal congresswoman from LA, who used here position to gain millions of dollars for her husbands banking concerns. She is still in the congress and the ethics investigation is a year old. And the black congressman from up-state New York, who scammed millions in unpaid taxes, but remains in the House of Representatives. We have John Edwards, committing adultery on his sick wife while running for the office of President of the United States. We have Bill Clinton, running around the White House with his pants on the floor, during working hours by the way. And there was Chris Dobb and Ted Kennedy and the "sandwich" episode in a local bar, under reported but a real event, nonetheless.

Of course, we could go on while including a fair share of GOP dignitaries. What is note worthy in this very brief review is this, the guilty parties in the GOP are eventually driven out of office, including Richard Nixon.

The only remaining villain is Sen. David Vitter. I am not going to defend the man, but I do want to put his sin into a time related context. Understand that his phone number showed up on a 15,000 number list from a local brothel. Not good. But he did apologize for the circumstance back in 2007 for the event of 4 years before that. I am saying this: the Dems have to go back more than 7 years to find a Republican they can hold up as an example of GOP hypocrisy. Again, I have no defense for the GOP congress that allowed him to continue, but, let's not forget that it was the Bush congress that was rejected by conservative voters in 2008. The TEA Party Movement began its rebellion against the Established GOP back in 2006, and the likes of Vitter were and are a park of that angst.

Expect to hear a lot about Vitter because the Dems have no one else to hold up to the light of revelation. And make note that they will forget that Pelosi and Reid both called for Weiner's resignation as they fail to mention any of the above stated examples.

It should be a rule of law that when our congress people violate accepted codes of conduct, they have to retire, whether Democrat or Republican or, dare I say, Libertarians.


Defiant Anthony Weiner resigns from Congress


Rasmussen Reports:
45% of GOP Primary Voters Say It's Bad for Party If Palin Enters Presidential Race

Aren't we all getting more than tired of the teaching community opposing nearly everything we all stand for. 7th graders taking a sex quiz ?? Geeesh

A Massachusetts middle school has sparked outrage after forcing students to answer questions about oral sex.

Parent Arlene Tessitore made an official complaint after her seventh and eighth grade daughters were forced to take the Youth Risk Behaviour Study at Memorial Middle School.

After her daughters objected to answering the questions, she said one was told they had to, while the other was taken to a counsellor before also being made to take part.

According to Mrs Tessitore, the school operates on a form of 'passive consent' where students take notes home for parents to sign.

If the school does not hear back, then consent is considered to be given.

Permission: Mrs Tessitore (right) was shocked to discover her children had been asked to complete the graphic survey

Permission: Mrs Tessitore (right) was shocked to discover her children had been asked to complete the graphic survey

As part of the complaint, Mrs Tessitore wants schools across the country to only carry out the tests only after explicit written permission has been given - as the law currently states.

Outraged Mrs Tessitore told Fox News: 'One of the questions is, 'have you ever had oral sex.''

'You’re talking about kids who probably don’t even know what oral sex is.

'It’s adult material.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004256/Mother-outraged-middle-school-children-forced-oral-sex-survey.html#ixzz1PSaX01hJ

I really do not have time to comment on this story but it is too important to ignore. Teaching should be about facts and history and nothing more, period. Anything having to do with morality is a "spiritual" matter, at some level. There was a time when moral issues could not be presented in our public schools because they were deemed as having too much to do with religion.

Time for a revolt, right after a mass firing, don't you think?

Another week with the same old old story: 414,000 new jobless applicants

Understand this, when Obama laughed and said," Turns out the shovel ready jobs were not as shovel ready as we had supposed," no one in the construction trade was surprised. But this admission is not just about "shovel ready jobs." It is about the larger scheme of things, i.e., Obama's plan on saving the economy. Turns out, he had no plan, just a fantastic notion that the jobs were already "out there," waiting for some pointed headed academic to come along and order us back to work.

This "shovel ready" thing was at the heart of his "jobs solution." As such, it cannot be dismissed as a minor happening that did not have serious consequences if, in fact, there were no shovel ready jobs. Filling potholes was never going to be the solution to our problem, but he talked about such things as if they offered meaningful solution.

He wants us to be the "world leader" in weather stripping, the manufacturing of light bulbs and energy windows and solar panels when half the world lives on the side of a road or in a grass hut. The amateur nature of these suggestions is mind numbing. If our economic salvation depends on electric cars, weather stripping, electric windmill motors, window and light bulb manufacturing, well and in the words of Rush, " we are all so screwed."

Anyway, another week with a jobs report that promises us this: there is no end in sight, as we position ourselves, today.

Here is why Obama seems confused . . . and it is not what you think

We begin with this story-line from the Left leaning Politico:

Google denied Wednesday that it gave President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign special access to a new advertising program, something a sales representative from the search and advertising giant had claimed in an email to customers.

The new ad program would charge clients for every email address (or other piece of user data) they collect. The program is attractive to campaigns eager for that information, so when a staffer at the National Republican Senatorial Committee saw what appeared to be an Obama ad built on this technology on the RealClearPolitics website last month, she emailed a Google sales rep to ask about creating a similar ad campaign for Republicans. . . . .

In short, the end of the matter is this: Google rejected the Republican request. Understand that Google, Yahoo, and AOL/HuffPost are all as Leftest as they can possibly be. I believe we are in the midst of a huge generational struggle . . . . traditionalist versus post-modern and the post-modern mind "is running the joint."

A traditionalist or modernist is one who honors what I call "the larger narratives." I am talking about the Bible, the Constitution, the Civil Code, traditional moral ethics, etc. Try talking to a young college age person about the Bible or the importance of the Constitution or the need to have a military code, etc., etc. and see where the conversation goes. But talk to the same young person about "inner spirituality" or the idea of "living for the moment," and you will have a conversation. You are looking at the Larger Narrative versus the Smaller Narrative, that which governs or has appeal for the greater and historic population versus what is existential and personal and "real" in terms of personal experience. What is critical, here, in my humble blue collar opinion, is this: the conflict is [also] about a collective sense of direction based on historical agreements and witness (the Larger Narratives) versus the existential claims of the moment. The former has a foreign policy plan, for example, rather than charting foreign policy based on knee-jerk reactions that are borne of a personal and idealistic agenda.

Of course, I have Obama in mind as the "typical post modern man." His foreign policy is a maze of reactional decisions with no sense of direction. He has rejected the larger narrative of "fighting for freedom in foreign lands" and has no clue as to what comes next. In May of 2008, months before the election, Michelle had this to say and it fits in perfectly with what I am saying. Understand that as you read, the words may sound good, but where is the alternative to the changing history and traditions. Neither Michelle nor Barack know.

MICHELLE OBAMA: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."

Until he states otherwise, all he has left are his personal feelings about national/international politics - the way things should be versus the way things are. Social justice is a good thing, for example, except when it is driven by folks who do not understand or admit to basic economic principles (the Larger Narrative). It is good to feed the "poor," give them their own homes and pay for their healthcare but what about the Larger Narrative that screams, "We have no money !!!!"

The reason why that objection is not a driving consideration for the Flaming Liberal is found in the fact that he has moved away from the prevailing narrative, all in the name of "changing times." The phrase "that is soooooo yesterday" is a post-modern phrase, a rejection of the prevailing narrative. The phrase and the concept moves us away from our history but offers nothing concrete as an alternative. The "real" reason Obama seems lost is because his narrative has no transcendent text. History transcend time and there is direction in that fact. The existential moment does not.

And, now you know why things are a mess. We have rejected the traditions of the past, complete with the associated structures and replaced it with . . . . . . . . . . . . . nothing much to speak of.

Udated : 10 am

I give you a second "update," some words about Palin and Bachmann that seem pertinent to this particular discussion:

Sarah Palin, by way of contrast, is one who is steeped in American traditions as to the beginnings of this great nation and its continuance. As such, she often sounds like a genius when compared to Obama. She would never betray Israel or challenge Great Britain or side with the Communists in the Venezuela or send aid to Hamas or, or , or, well, you get the drift. She understands that there is a "right" and a "wrong." Obama, seriously, is not so sure. As a result, Sarah exemplifies the traits of a leader, having a since of foundation and direction that is beyond her own thinking. Obama is lost in a sea of transition and has us, as his captive audience. In the larger scheme of things, there is no alternative to foundational truths and a historicity that has been tried, correct and evolving, all within the boundaries of what has been put in place before, dating back to the beginnings of this great nation. Sarah and, I must admit, Michele Bachmann, know this. If Sarah is not getting into the race, I plan to support -- with zeal - Michele Bachmann. She has actually practiced her law trade, Obama has not. She has fostered 23 children in addition to raising 5 of her own - an "anti-abortionist" who is helping deal with unwanted children, and she is a committed conservative, a leader in the Tea Party Movement and strong conservative voice in the House of Representatives. She has real world experience, as does Sarah Palin and is an excellent "other choice" to the Governor from Alaska.

Know this, taking back our country from the know-nothing existential Left is a job that will demand years of time into the future. I am hoping that before I pass on, and I am 66, I can see that this country is great hands and the nation for which thousands have given their all to defend, will remain. Bachmann and Palin are my choices for leadership into the future.

Did you know that Iraq, Russia and China are setting up shop in South America? Hurry, someone tell Obama !!!

Here is a scary thought: AHMADINEJAD JOINS CHINA, RUSSIA AT SUMMIT... Somehow, this headline passes for "news" in spite of the fact that each of the three evil allies have been working on their own and together right in our back yard, making deals with Brazil for oil, Venezuela for military aid ($5 billion with a "B" from Russia alone) and low range missiles and, finally, with military aid to Daniel Ortega (president of Nicaragua).

In short, "they," the evil ones, are "everywhere" in South America and have been there since the first year of Barack Obama. They even have a presence in Mexico. Obama does not know how to handle these people and, consequently, the United States of America is in far worse shape in terms of military threat from those who are our neighbors than before Obama ascended the throne.

I do not know how many times I have written this, but "before he gets out of office, he is going to get us all killed." That may be more true than you might suppose. The damage being done to the U.S. because of Obama's novice foreign policy agenda may be something we, as a nation, never overcome.

Point of post: to scare the hell out of anyone who is thinking Obama deserves a second term.

Prediction: Anthony Weiner is gone by the end of next week. I do not think this will happen this week. (no article)

Prediction: Anthony Weiner is gone by the end of next week. I do not think this will happen this week (no article)

Obama is nothing "special" and that is the only reason he won in 2008.

For the sake of context, I remind the reader of a comment and implied pledge Obama made in 2007. It went something like this: “the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.” The implications of this criticism were great; the reality under the Obama Administration, has been quite another matter.

We start with this little fact: more than 200 of Obama's top donors have benefited from their donations in substantial ways. Of course, we all know that this happens with all politicians, but Obama made a promise not to be this kind of president. Now we found out that he is a "pay off type guy," and is as bad at this as any previous president we have ever had.

More than this, the monies dispersed under the 2009 $787 Stimulus Act actually went to several states, mostly "blue states" ( by a ratio of 2 to 1) since they are the ones in the biggest trouble, in addition to stimulus funding for union jobs (any contract over $25 million could only be awarded to a union shop) . Since there has never been a detailed and non-partisan accounting for that "stimulus,' we have no idea as to the degree of favoritism evidenced with the stimulus funds, we simply know from the above that favoritism played a major role in the disbursements.

More recently, we know that Telecom, a big time contributor to the Obama campaign ($500,000 plus) is one of many to benefit from its contributions to Obama. In exchange for the half million in contributions, Telecom executive, Donald Gips, was appointed ambassador to South Africa and and a company named Level 3 Communications, was awarded millions in contracts funded out of the stimulus, a company in which Gips was and is heavy invested as a stock holder.

There are literally hundreds of these examples. Understand that when Obama is bragging about collecting $1 billion for the 2012 campaign, he collected $880 million in 2008. A billion is really no big deal for this man. Never let yourself forget that he spent double the McCain camp and won election by only 7% of the popular vote. Anyone think he remains just a popular as he was in 2008?

Point of post: to add one more nail in the Obama re-election coffin and to encourage the conservative base that Obama is more than "beatable."

Suddenly Obama and Gibbs get religious:

The following two headlines are stupid funny. The notion that Obama is claiming to be non-partisan brings me to wonder if he really understands the meaning of the word "partisan." How many times has this genius told us, "I will not tolerate 'that' any more.\" or spoken of us as needing to ride in the back of the bus? At a San Fran fundraiser, this white man pretending to be black (hey, he was raised 'white,' everyone in his immediate family including his atheist mom was white. He went to the white man's schools. He never once demonstrated for the black cause and, oh, he IS half white) was laughing at those who believed in the Bible. Understand that it was not the "clinging to their guns and religion" that got me angry. Nope. Rather, it was the fact that the would be President of the United States was making fun of and laughing at a full one half of this nation's population. Come November 2, 2012, we are all going to show him what we think of him.

Obama 2.0: If You're Looking For Partisan Rhetoric, I'm Probably Not Your Guy...

Gibbs 2.0: Election is not about blaming someone for the economy...

And then, we have Gibbs telling us, let's not spend time, this election cycle, blaming folks for the economy. You all know what I am going to say about that. I mean, it is more than obvious. He spent the last four years blaming Bush and now that it is clearly his turn in the fiery furnace, well, he is saying, "No Mas, no mas !!!"

What should happen to those in the Leftist Media ? A few thoughts as we give you a video review of Palin with Chris Wallace.

If I had the money, I would investigate each and every reporter in the Leftist Media. What these traitorous/hypocrites are doing with Sarah Palin is so far over the top that it defies comparison. I am 66 years old and this particular witch-hunt concerning Palin's emails is a first in American history. And to think that they have asked the larger population to join them in their Nazi type "investigation." You member the Nazi social agenda? It included children snitching on their parents and citizens "rating out" citizens . . . . . exactly what Obama has encouraged during his term in office. And now the socalled "free press" is doing the same.

Understand that Palin has been fully investigated and all, without any scandal. Typical to this moronic lust for Palin's destruction is the "scandal" of a used tanning bed she bought for use in her home. When I say "typical," I mean to imply that this circumstance is representative of the nonsense being foster on us all.

All you Palin haters out there: you need to admit her excellent performance against Joe Biden in their VP debate back in 2008. Biden had years of experience on Palin and barely eked out a "tie" with the woman. Let's not forget her speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention - it was universally described as a major "home run," one of the more memorable political speeches of modern times. Her first book, Going Rogue, sold 3 million copies. It was the number one non-fiction book of 2009 and out sold all of Obama's books, combined. Heck, it out sold Limbaugh's best seller. Oh, and let's not forget her Alaska film series. It set cable records and convinced many that she was a serious citizen.

More currently, her interview on FoxNews with Chris Wallace (June 5) was one of the best interviews in years. After the interview, Wallace admitted what many of us already know, that Palin "can beat Obama."

The fact of the matter is this: Palin has decided that if she is to survive as an influential citizen of this great nation, she has to resist the GOP Establishment and the Marxist Media. On the one hand, the vortex generated by GOP powers is little more than toilet water circling the drain and Palin knows this. For her to submit to their "selection" processes is to find herself in the company of the undistinguished. Why on earth would she prefer that . . . that world is a man's world, anyway. She's got Todd. She does not need any other men in her life. And the Marxist Media? Well, they are about one thing and one thing only, her total destruction. They are Hamas and she is righteous Israel. It is that simple. The Marxist Media forfeited its right to vet our politicians when then joined Obama and his anti-freedom campaign back in 2008.

Here is the interview:

We have video of the Obama Administration pumping up the Gay/Lez agenda. . . . . . in our high schools !!



(CNSNews.com) - David Hansell, who runs the federal government’s Administration for Children and Families, told a group of high school students at the U.S. Department of Education’s “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)” youth summit on Tuesday that the Obama administration is recruiting “LGBT parents” to adopt children.

“[O]f course, we’re also trying to recruit more foster and adoptive parents who are lesbian and gay,” Hansell said in a general session of the summit held at the Washington Court Hotel in Washington, D.C. (As CNSNews.com previously reported, the Department of Education barred reporters from attending the summit’s breakout sessions, which were also held at the hotel.)

Question: who in the world told us his views on this subject was "just like the conservatives?"

Hillary as head of the World Bank? Hey, not a bad idea. Maybe she and Bill will move to somewhere outside of this country !! Maybe not.

An article by a one world liberal international reporter, Toby Harnden, carries these remarks about a supposed Hillary Clinton presidency of the World Bank.

"If she served out a five-year term, that would take her beyond the 2016 election, when she would be 69. On the other hand, if she stepped down early from the World Bank she could enter the 2016 race for the White House with historically unparalleled experience in foreign policy, economic policy, on Capitol Hill and as First Lady. " Link

Here is my problem with this clown's assessment of Hillary: before Bill became president (and he really was not that bad of a president, on the occasion that his pants were not dragging the floor, if you know what I mean), Hillary was a practicing lawyer without a noteworthy caseload. After Bill's ascension to the presidency, she, of course, was one of the more active First Ladies in modern times, attempting but failing to institute her version of a national healthcare bill. The difference between her healthcare revision and Obama's is found in the fact that she actually assisted in writing the bill. More than than that, the bill was not a payout to unions and other special interest groups as is much of the current ObamaCare bill. As a sitting senator from New York, she served her time but without distinction (seriously, can you tell us how she set herself apart from the Democrat herd, while Senator?). Finally, as Secretary of State, she was tied to the thoughtlessness of the Obama administration and was unable to distinguish herself in this stately function, as well. My point in all this negativity is this: Hillary is hardly the qualified giant Mr. Harnden imagines.

I have read her BA thesis and compared it to the writings of Barack and Michelle Obama. By comparison, her writing is head and shoulders above that of either Obama. She actually writes quite well, on a graduate level, in fact. Barack and Michelle do not.

Make no mistake, however; Hillary is every bit the radical as Barack. While in college, she served as an intern for Saul Alinsky and her BA thesis was about this classic radical, the author of Rules for Radicals, a book still in print after more than 30 years, a radical whose ideas are used by the current regime. While Obama knows of this radical, Hillary actually worked under his tutelage and was befriended by Alinsky. More than this, she is much more the student of the man. In the near future, I intend to publish an article detailing Alinsky's advice and Obama's bumbling of that advice. Suffice it to say, as a radical reformer, Hillary would have never made the mistakes Obama has.

Thoughts about government unions and their innate anti-American functioning

The education bureaucracy is full of absolute liars…..

Quote of the Day

"With politicians and education policy-makers preoccupied by budget cuts and layoffs, it is easy to overlook why we find ourselves in this position. Fortunately, the U.S. Census Bureau rides in to remind us. Each year the bureau publishes a comprehensive report on public school revenues and expenditures. Coupled with education staffing statistics from the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data, it gives us a fundamental picture of the finances and labor costs of the American public school system. The latest Census Bureau report provides details of the 2008-09 school year, as the nation was in the midst of the recession. That year, 48,238,962 students were enrolled in the U.S. K-12 public education system. That was a decline of 157,114 students from the previous year. They were taught by 3,231,487 teachers (full-time equivalent). That was an increase of 81,426 teachers from the previous year. This is not new information. We knew last October that the entire public education workforce -- teachers, principals, administrators and support workers -- grew by more than 137,000 employees during the recession. What the Census Bureau numbers add to that information is that we almost replaced every lost student with a new employee. Twenty-seven states had fewer students in 2009 than in 2008, but 16 of them hired more teachers. . .. It's an odd enterprise that reacts to fewer clients by hiring more employees" -- education journalist Mike Antonucci writing at eiaonline.com on May 31.

Michael Der Manouel, Jr., Chairman

Lincoln Club of Fresno County


Lincoln Club on Facebook

Twitter @LincolnFresno

In a 1937 letter to the head of an organization of federal workers, FDR noted that "a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."