Organized labor vs. the tea party ~ By Henry Lamb

Labor unions, especially public-employee labor unions, have become a threat to the republic. They have demonstrated a philosophy closely akin to Marxism, demanding ever more from taxpayers to redistribute to their members. These unions are different from those that organize in private industries. Private industries must negotiate with profits they earn. Public unions negotiate with employers who use unearned tax dollars they simply confiscate from unwilling payers. There is no natural barrier to prevent the unions from taking control. This is why public employees are paid so much more than people who do similar work in the private sector.

Tea parties get no automatic dues deductions from the employers of their members. They will have to continue fighting with truth, honor and determination. It will take a lot of all of these virtues to combat the tactics the unions will employ to unseat Republicans in the 2012 elections. From the courthouse to the White House, labor unions will do everything they can to reverse the gains made by Republicans in the November elections. Tea parties, 9/12 groups, property-rights groups, Tenth Amendment groups, gun–rights groups and every other individual, business and organization that cares about freedom should begin now to work toward expanding the number of Constitution-loving officials at every level of government.

Here's the thing: I could not think of anything that I could write that would not just be parroting Henry Lamb's excellent commentary. But fortunately, while surfing around youtube today, I happened to find the following video which illustrates what the Tea Parties are up against:

Video provided by SCRGov on Jul 22, 2009

Organized labor vs. the tea party

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

March 19, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

Gov. Scott Walker and the Wisconsin Legislature kicked a rattlesnake when they significantly reduced the power of the state's public-employee labor unions. Labor unions across the country have declared war on Republicans, even threatening death, and the tea parties that support them.



A battle between organized labor and the tea parties is decidedly a one-sided battle. Organized labor receives regular income from every member, often deducted by the employer and paid directly to the labor union. National Education Association attorney, Bob Chanin says:

"The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year. …"

Tea parties, on the other hand, survive on the voluntary contributions of people who give to support their beliefs.

Labor unions can lease buses and print signs and pay members of other unions to stack their demonstrations. Tea-party members must take time off from work and make their own signs if they participate in demonstrations.

Labor union protesters, to some significant degree, are essentially mercenaries; Tea-party protesters are patriots. This gives tea parties a decided advantage. People who are motivated by principle, a sense of fairness, honor and respect for the God-given freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution will win – in the long term.

In the short term, labor unions can and are likely to wreak havoc in every venue they can. In Wisconsin, labor unions disrupted operations, vandalized the Capitol and blocked people from entering the building.

In the short term, labor unions are organizing to recall eight Republicans. It is the 14 Democratic senators who should be recalled for abandoning their responsibility and hiding in another state for three weeks. Labor unions can assign and pay people to march up and down the streets to collect signatures. Labor unions can create and run TV and radio ads. Labor unions can, and do, threaten and intimidate people until they do the bidding of the unions. Tea parties rarely have the funds or inclination for such activities.

Tea parties have reason, right and determination on their side; labor unions have demonstrated their willingness to destroy whatever gets in their way.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Public schoolers: How's that indoctrination workin' out? ~ By Patrice Lewis

After reading what Patrice has to say in her column, would you really send your kids to a public school? And we can't even blame Obama for the sorry shape our public schools are in, because this started many decades ago, as you will learn here. However, I do kind of wonder if we can blame the public schools for Obama! Just sayin'...

Of course not every teacher agrees with the radical left-wing garbage pushed in schools. Most teachers enter the profession with a sincere love of children and a desire to shape their futures for the good. But their often mandatory involvement with teachers' unions and government mandates wipes away their innocent and naïve interest, leaving behind jaded, bitter and disillusioned people who once hoped to shape our children with great care.

Homeschool your kids, folks. It's the only way to save them.

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: April 24, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

I recently did something I haven't done in decades: I re-read the Laura Ingalls Wilder series (the Little House books). The contrast between the schools of Laura's time (late 1800s) and the schools of today is staggering. Utterly incomprehensible.

To illustrate, consider some recent headlines:

• Obama czar's "homo-genda" proposed for U.S. schools; Congressional legislation called "a sexual revolutionary's dream"

• Look what they're erasing from U.S. history! American heroes could get swapped for hip-hop culture in textbooks

• Survey asks students when they lost virginity; Results in newspaper show classes counseled "why not" be sexually active

• Schools' assignment: Squelch family values; State lawmakers urge "meaningful" counseling for wrong attitudes

• Liberal intolerance alive and well in moronic teacher from Oregon; Oregon teacher panel probes educator determined to "demolish" tea party

• Bill would require sex education starting in kindergarten

• Memo to public schools: Stop pushing sex! Group demands California implement programs promoting abstinence

Can you imagine these headlines happening during Laura's time?

If you read the sobering history of public schools, it becomes painfully clear that their purpose is not (necessarily) education; it's social change. "The public schools movement began in the 1830s, led by Horace Mann," notes George L. O'Brien in "Government Schools in Crisis." "Supposedly, the goal was to ensure that every child would have access to an education. However, from the beginning there was another agenda, and that was to control what was being taught so as to create so-called model citizens. Public schools meant taking control of education from the parents and placing it in the hands of social engineers and the government."

The early successes of these social-engineering experiments were limited because most school districts were independent and under the power of a local school board (meaning parents). But then the "unified school" movement came along at the turn of the century, which destroyed the system of local control. After World War II, educational jurisdiction was transferred to state governments. Things spiraled down even faster under President Carter, who created the U.S. Department of Education.

"Once the parents lost control of the schools," laments Mr. O'Brien, "the schools quickly became laboratories for social-engineering experiments. … The central struggle, of course, is money. As long as the government schools take so much money from parents in taxes, it is hard for parents to afford to send their children to non-government schools. Attempts to change this through tax credits and vouchers have resulted in vicious counter-attacks from the NEA among others."

Since schools are the mandatory gathering place of our society's future, it's the natural laboratory for any agenda – anything at all – to be forced upon our children. Since teachers' unions are extremely left-wing, it's the left-wing propaganda that gets pushed. Anything green, anything abortionist, anything feminist, anything homosexual, anything victimized, anything revisionist – it's all there, shoved down our children's gullets.

And since the liberal education machine is obsessed with sex – and make no mistake, liberals as a whole are obsessed with sex – schools are unwilling to comprehend, much less encourage, family values. Therefore, children become corrupted.

Which is why we now have sex education in kindergarten. Can you imagine this happening during Laura's time?

It's to the point where all the "agenda-izing" has pushed out academics. Who has time for science, history, math, English, etc.? We've got graduates who can't even find the United States on a world map. No wonder we're unable to compete with Korea or Turkey on international math scores.

It also means we now have government thugs whose job it is to catch desperate parents who lie and claim their children are living in a better district (so the kids have a chance at a higher quality education) in order to force those children back to dangerous inner-city schools. "I was actually crying," said a grandmother, "and all I'm wanting to do is just to have my grandchild have a better education. … Why can't they just let parents to get in the school of their choice?"

Because, in the words of John Stossel, the government monopoly thinks it knows best.

As if this isn't bad enough, we hear from a furious mother in Wyoming – Wyoming of all places! – on the Rush Limbaugh show that her high-school son was told by his government teacher, "The old people just need to shut up and go along with what needs to be done for this country. … This country will be better off when the old people are gone."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

Union-controlled disasters ~ By Star Parker

Star explains why unionized teachers are failing to educate minority children in public schools.

A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed reported on the glowing success of charter schools in Harlem. "Nationwide the average black 12th-grader reads at the level of a white eighth-grader. Yet, Harlem charter students … are outperforming their white peers in wealthy suburbs."


Yet, in 2009 the New York teachers union successfully lobbied the state legislature to freeze charter school spending and now is pushing to limit penetration of charters in school districts.

By Star Parker

Posted: March 20, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Speaking a couple years ago about technology and education, Apple CEO and founder Steve Jobs said that technology wouldn't matter as long as you can't fire teachers.

"I believe that what is wrong with our schools in this nation is that they have become unionized in the worst possible way," he said.

Jobs likened schools to running a small business, which he said could never succeed if you can't hire and fire.

Reasonable? I think so.

Would anyone question that there is no single thing more critical to a nation's future than educating its children?

Yet, consider that 88 percent of our children get K-12 education in public schools and that 70 percent of the teachers in these schools have union-protected jobs.

Gallup has been polling public opinion about unions since the 1930s. Last year, for the first time, less than half (48 percent) of those surveyed approved of unions. Fifty-one percent said unions "mostly hurt" the U.S. economy, and 39 percent said they "mostly help."

The percentage of the nation's private-sector work force that belongs to a union has dropped precipitously. In the 1950s, over 30 percent belonged to unions. Today it's a little over 7 percent.

But in our public schools, the direction is completely opposite. In 1960, about 35 percent of public school teachers belonged to unions, and today it's twice that at 70 percent.

Is it not counterintuitive that most Americans feel unions hurt us, that we allow increasingly fewer goods and services produced in our private sector to be controlled by unions, but we turn increasingly more of our most precious commodity – our children and their education – over to a union-controlled workforce?

In an article in the latest edition of Cato Journal, Andrew Coulson notes that, on average, compensation of public-school teachers is about 42 percent higher than their counterparts teaching in non-unionized private schools. Yet, according to Coulson, research shows that private schools consistently outperform public schools.

He attributes the higher average wages of public-school teachers less to union collective bargaining and more to the political clout of unions to maintain the public-school monopoly over K-12 education.

Over 95 percent of the political contributions of the two national teachers' unions – the NEA and AFT – go to Democrats or to the Democrat Party. Their $56 million in political contributions since 1989 equals that of "Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Lockheed Martin and the National Rifle Association combined."

The main beneficiaries of education alternatives are minority children. Yet, at the state level, unions provide a unified lobbying front to block such initiatives.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Is Obama really 'brilliant'? ~ By Burt Prelutsky

Commentary from WorldNetDaily. Like Burt says, I wish people like O'Reilly or MSNBC would give examples of why they think Obama is "brilliant." I myself haven't ever noticed any emanating intelligence coming from Obama.

But I wouldn't want to leave liberals and some goofy conservatives entirely speechless when it comes to describing the president. So to fill the void, I'm happy to supply them with some options, such as stubborn, pompous, inflexible, dishonest, officious, partisan, unpatriotic, duplicitous, socialist, untrustworthy and dictatorial.


Any of those words is far more fitting than brilliant, as are self-enamored, egotistical, narcissistic, long-winded and boring.

By Burt Prelutsky

Posted: February 19, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

During his State of the Union address, with eight of the Supreme Court justices sitting right in front of him like clay pigeons, Barack Obama told the world that he would have to correct their mistake by bringing back McCain-Feingold. Well, why wouldn't he say such a stupid thing? After all, he's been wrong about everything else.

It's perfectly reasonable that Obama would oppose corporations donating money to political campaigns. Where do oil, coal and pharmaceutical companies get off thinking they should have the same right as the UAW, the SEIU, ACORN and George Soros to finance elections? For that matter, while whining about some corporations playing a role in the election process, I haven't heard Obama say boo about the role such corporations as NBC, CBS, ABC, the Washington Post or the New York Times have played in creating and burnishing his image.

But, then, who are regular, run-of-the-mill, taxpaying Americans to question Obama? He's brilliant, after all. It's not just liberals who say so, either. I keep hearing people like Bill O'Reilly saying so day after day. The problem is that I keep looking for signs of his brilliance, and looking and looking. It doesn't help that the O'Reillys of the world never point out any examples.

Still, if Obama is so brilliant, why does he parrot the words and thoughts of a bunch of schmucks like Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky, Al Gore and Michael Moore? Why does he insist that the trouble with the Constitution and the civil-rights movement is that they didn't focus on the redistribution of wealth? Why would he hand over the federal budget to a couple of morons like Pelosi and Reid? And why on earth would he put Henry Waxman in charge of his energy program? A brilliant person wouldn't trust Waxman to bring baked beans to a picnic.

READ FULL STORY >

'Bolshevik plot,' Obama? Bingo! ~ By Erik Rush

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Erik Rush Posted: February 04, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 Late last week, radio and television commentator Glenn Beck touched on something at which I hinted in my last column – that rather than putting on the brakes in light of Scott Brown's recent senatorial win and the summative occurrences leading up to same, the Obama administration would probably stomp on the gas. Beck's assessment was based on instructions contained in "Rules for Radicals," the Saul Alinsky tome that has been a holy text for President Obama's variety of progressives; this protocol calls for fierce augmentation of goal-oriented actions when threatened or thwarted, rather than falling back and regrouping. And it would appear that Beck – or perhaps Beck and I – were correct. As reported, early this week, Obama released his new $3.8 trillion budget plan, nearly half of which is deficit spending and which includes approximately $1.4 trillion in tax increases on businesses and "the wealthy."

Our economy has lost 7 million jobs over the last two years. And our government is deeply in debt. – President Obama, Feb. 1, 2010

This reality somehow renders all of the spending a perfectly rational and prudent course of action, I suppose. Obviously I'm being facetious, but one would think that given the Brown win, Republican gubernatorial wins in Virginia and New Jersey, and the ongoing battle within his own party over health-care reform legislation, Obama might have revising his budget or delaying its release. But he didn't. He unveiled it with a flourish, and on schedule, warts and all. Like in the stimulus bill of 2009, no doubt there will be billions in sheer, shameless waste, billions going to phantom ZIP codes, earmarks and pork, and untraceable billions that will find their way into the hands of Obama cronies (such as ACORN and SEIU), unions and uber-progressive states. READ FULL STORY >

Obama Only Interested in Bailing Out Union Buddies

Buying Up – Not Bailing Out Industries By JB Williams ©2009 USA Obama is on the cusp of making American taxpayers the proud new bankrupt owners of what is now affectionately referred to as “Government Motors.” – As GM follows Chrysler into Fed forced bankruptcy, Obama’s economic guru has already worked out the details of how GM will emerge from bankruptcy court a wholly owned asset of the Fed. According to reports, the US Treasury will own 72.5% of GM, after Obama carves out 17.5% for the United Auto Workers Union thugs, leaving the “old General Motors” with only a 10% stake in the new “Government Motors.” In the good ole days, we didn’t have Czars in America because the land of the free and home of the brave did not have government owned and operated industries. That stuff only existed in the Soviet Union ... Now, we need a Czar for every industry as the leftists in DC swallow up industry after industry. With blessings from the Bilderberg Group, Timothy Geithner proceeds with Obamanation plans to industrialize the US Fed by consuming yet another major private sector industry. As Obama rushes to buy up [you didn’t really think it was a bailout did you?] private sector industries, one after another, it becomes more and more clear exactly what kinds of “change” Obama had in mind. Too bad his voters never bothered to ask before voting... Guess which Chrysler dealerships Obama and Geithner saw no need to save? Blogger Doug Ross provides facts you are not likely to see on CNN... [Continue reading]

Digg story

Chrysler's 'hit list' targets GOP donors ~ By Chelsea Schilling

Dealers who give to Republicans much more likely to be shuttered Posted: May 27, 2009 ~ 7:54 pm Eastern By Chelsea Schilling © 2009 WorldNetDaily As part of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Chrysler is terminating one-fourth of its franchises – but some say its catalog of doomed dealerships looks more like a hit list that specifically seeks to put Republican donors out of business. Chrysler will now be eligible for up to $8 billion in taxpayer-funded federal aid. The federal government has already provided $8.58 billion to Chrysler and Chrysler Holding between the months of January and May of this year. The Treasury also loaned $1.5 billion to the automaker's lending arm in January. President Obama has said the bankruptcy will give the company "a new lease on life," after his administration spearheaded a plan requiring the company sell to Italian automaker Fiat. Chrysler's stronger operations will be owned by Fiat, labor and the U.S. and Canadian governments. The sale could close as early as this Friday. Obama said the bankruptcy would be a "quick" and "efficient" step toward Chrysler's "survival." "The necessary steps have been taken to give one of America's most storied automakers, Chrysler, a new lease on life," Obama said. "This is not a sign of weakness." But WND reviewed the list of 789 closing franchises and databases of political donors and found that of dealership majority owners making contributions in the November 2008 election, less than 10 percent gifted to Democrats while 90 percent gave substantial sums to Republican candidates. The listed franchise owners contributed at least $450,000 to Republican presidential candidates and the GOP, while only $7,970 was donated to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign and $2,200 was given to Sen. John Edwards' campaign. Obama received a combined total of only $450 in donations – $250 from dealer Jane Baldock in Wenatchee, Wash., and $200 from Waco, Texas, dealer Jeffrey Hunter. [Continue reading]

digg story [Editors note: Because of time restraints and other issues, I will no longer be stating who submitted the stories to digg.]

Congress May Help Make Starting a Union Easier - By Duane Lester

When the Congress returns next year, one of the top priorities for them will be to pass the misleadingly titled bill, the Employee Free Choice Act. This bill will eliminate privacy when voting for or against a union in your workplace. ~ PabloMac

In the column by Duane Lester, he says that a better name for the bill would be the Employee 'Forced' Choice Act. It would be both unfair to workers and horrible for our economy, as is explained in this terrific opinion piece. read more | digg story, submitted by PabloMac