If you support our national security issues, you may love and appreciate the United States of America, our Constitution with its’ freedoms, and our American flag.
If you support and practice our fiscal issues, you may value worldly possessions.
If you support and value our social issues, you may love Judeo-Christian values.
If you support and practice all these values, that is all good; an insignia of “Wisdom” . - Oscar Y. Harward
National Debt Clock-Click Here-Real Time
Thursday, September 3, 2009
ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090903
Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!
No person will make a great business who wants to do it all himself or get all the credit. -- Andrew Carnegie
Don’t Forget to DELEGATE!
One of the most common mistakes made by supervisors – especially those who are new to leadership – is taking on unnecessary tasks … trying to do everything by themselves. As a result, they can easily find themselves buried under a ton of work. Sound familiar? Things move slower, not as much gets done, and job satisfaction is reduced. What’s the best way to avoid that trap? DELEGATION! You need to pass along certain duties and responsibilities to your direct reports so that: a) more actions are being done by more people, more of the time, b) you’re a facilitator of, rather than a barrier to, progress, and c) you can focus on – and accomplish – those important tasks that really must be done by you.
As you look at what’s on you plate that you might ask others the handle, keep the following in mind:
When TO Delegate
When the task or action is really someone else’s to do.
When it provides a fairly low-risk opportunity for someone to learn, grow, and develop.
When someone else is equally (or better) equipped to handle it.
When you are more concerned that something gets done and less concerned that it gets done in a certain way.
When NOT to Delegate
When you haven’t helped the person prioritize the new task relative to your other expectations.
When you won’t be accessible for any counsel and guidance that the person may need.
When someone is new, too inexperienced, or otherwise incapable of performing the task.
When you truly are the best person to handle it – due to sensitivity, confidentially, timing, experience, etc.
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
'Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: 'As surely as I live,' says the Sovereign LORD, 'you abandoned My flock and left them to be attacked by every wild animal. Though you were My shepherds, you didn't search for My sheep when they were lost. You took care of yourselves and left the sheep to starve.'(Ezekiel 34:7-8)
"The LORD is my shepherd..." (Psalm 23:1). This is one of the best known and most comforting passages in all of Scripture. Why does the knowledge that God is our Shepherd offer so much assurance? It comforts us because we know God is the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14). Unlike others in authority, He leads us flawlessly.
Many leaders do not care for us when we are weak, sick, or lost (Ezekiel 34:4, 6), or they harm or mistreat us to get what they want (Ezekiel 34:21). But God our Good Shepherd will never treat us carelessly or callously.
It may sound trite, but it's true---when you are lost, look to the Lord for guidance. When in danger, trust that He will rescue you. When wounded, know that He heals. When weak, be assured that He will provide strength. When hungry, find comfort in knowing that He will feed you. Our time on earth may be filled with trials and troubles, but our Good Shepherd will ultimately lead His people into eternal peace and rest.
"The Patriot Post"
"The pyramid of government-and a republican government may well receive that beautiful and solid form-should be raised to a dignified altitude: but its foundations must, of consequence, be broad, and strong, and deep. The authority, the interests, and the affections of the people at large are the only foundation, on which a superstructure proposed to be at once durable and magnificent, can be rationally erected." -- James Wilson, Legislative Department, 1804
"It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth -- and listen to the song of that syren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? ... For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." -- Patrick Henry
Income Redistribution: Cost of Government Day
Thomas Jefferson warned against "labor[ing] sixteen hours in the twenty-four" just to "give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government...." Apparently, the memo didn't get to Washington, DC. According to the Cost of Government Day (COGD) report http://www.fiscalaccountability.org/index.php?content=cogd-teas#, prepared by Monika Ciesielska for the Center for Fiscal Accountability, a project of Americans for Tax Reform, Americans this year worked from Jan. 1 to Aug. 12 -- a staggering 224 days -- just to cover the cost of government. This is nearly one month more than last year (July 16) and the first time COGD has pressed into August.
Of course, Cost of Government Day is only a national average. Some states are worse than others. Connecticut, New Jersey and New York had the highest cost of government. In Connecticut, COGD is Sept. 7 -- Labor Day, appropriately enough. Meanwhile, Alaska had the earliest COGD -- July 11.
Given that spending through July skyrocketed by 21 percent ($530 billion) over 2008 and that Washington has amassed a revised 2009 budget deficit of $1.6 trillion -- almost quadruple 2008's $459 billion -- the taxpayer overtime hardly comes as a surprise. The government will burn through 61 percent of national income this year just to fuel itself. Hardly a bright dawn to the promised "new era of responsibility."
This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award
"Look at it this way: There's Federal Express, there's UPS, and there's DHL. The public option is a stamp; it's e-mail. And because of the e-mail system, and because of the post office, it keeps DHL from charging $100 for an overnight letter, or UPS from charging $100 for an overnight letter." -- Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) expounding on Barack Obama's ill-advised comparison of the public option to the Post Office
News From the Swamp: Intimidation Time
"In a move some fear is a reprisal for opposing President Obama's health care plan, Democrats sent 52 letters to health insurers requesting financial records for a House committee's investigation," Fox News reports http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/19/health-insurers-fear-probe-house-dems-reprisal-opposing-obamas-plan/. "Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., sent a letter warning health insurers that the House Energy and Commerce Committee is 'examining executive compensation and other business practices of the health industry.'" Politico has a list http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26254.html of the 52 companies targeted. Health insurers have until Sept. 4 to provide information on all employees who earned more than $1 million a year between 2003 and 2008, as well as documents about transportation, food, lodging, entertainment, conferences and events held on company property, and even gifts. Waxman's letter gives no indication as to what or why the information is being requested, but the message is clear: Cough up the info or else. "This is using the raw power of the Congress to extort information and humiliate citizens," says former Speaker Newt Gingrich. "It is a chilling example of intimidation." Indeed.
Abortion Will Be Part of ObamaCare
It should come as no surprise that the health care overhaul being designed by congressional Democrats include provisions for federally mandated coverage of abortions by insurance providers. After all, liberals embrace what President Obama has called "reproductive justice," which apparently includes killing unborn children. (The "justice" aspect has us scratching our heads.) Some members of Congress and the president himself on occasion have stated publicly that no such mandate exists, but they are lying.
The word abortion does not appear in the draft legislation, but several provisions would not only force insurance companies to cover abortions, they would override several state laws and would ultimately lead to taxpayer funded abortions. This is what groups like Planned Parenthood have worked for all along, but the secret is out now, thanks in part to some liberal members of Congress who brazenly admit their stance that taxpayers should pay for abortions, regardless of their moral stance on the issue. "Abortion will be covered as a benefit by one or more of the health care plans available to Americans," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), "and I think it should be." Naturally, a broad cross-section of the public is opposed to this idea, but that's never stopped liberals before.
This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award
"We are God's partners in matters of life and death." --Barack Obama
"No stream or gas drives anything until it is confined. No Niagara is ever turned into light and power until it is tunneled. No life ever grows great until it is focused, dedicated and disciplined." -- Harry E. Fosdick
Obama's Green Jobs Czar Van Jones: Republicans Are "A**holes"
Officer Does Not Like anti-Obama Poster: "It ain't [America] no more, OK?"
Letter From Secretary Arne Duncan to School Principals
Folks, take a look at this one. It is scary for me as President Obama goes into our entire public schools and maybe start his first effort to organize "community organizations". Closely evaluate each and every word President Obama or his left-wing Cabinet members and/or staff. Our children are being fed. Be careful to make certain the food (verbiage) is for a healthy diet. Download and save the "Classroom Activities" in PDF and/or MS Word as directed below. - oyh
August 26, 2009
PDF (64K) | MS Word (32K)
PDF (108K) | MS Word (80K)
Please note that the time of this speech has changed to 12:00 noon eastern standard time.
In a recent interview with student reporter, Damon Weaver, President Obama announced that on September 8 — the first day of school for many children across America — he will deliver a national address directly to students on the importance of education. The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens.
Since taking office, the President has repeatedly focused on education, even as the country faces two wars, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and major challenges on issues like energy and health care. The President believes that education is a critical part of building a new foundation for the American economy. Educated people are more active civically and better informed on issues affecting their lives, their families and their futures.
This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation's school children about persisting and succeeding in school. We encourage you to use this historic moment to help your students get focused and begin the school year strong. I encourage you, your teachers, and students to join me in watching the President deliver this address on Tuesday, September 8, 2009. It will be broadcast live on the White House website www.whitehouse.gov 12:00 noon eastern standard time.
In advance of this address, we would like to share the following resources: a menu of classroom activities for students in grades preK-6 and for students in grades 7-12. These are ideas developed by and for teachers to help engage students and stimulate discussion on the importance of education in their lives. We are also staging a student video contest on education. Details of the video contest will be available on our website www.ed.gov in the coming weeks.
On behalf of all Americans, I want to thank our educators who do society's most important work by preparing our children for work and for life. No other task is more critical to our economic future and our social progress. I look forward to working with you in the months and years ahead to continue improving the quality of public education we provide all of our children.
Obama’s Address to Students Across America September 8, 2009 Menu of Classroom Activities PreK-6
Bold, conservative Bachmann hints at 'Mrs. President' future
Says many colleagues still believe in 'founding principles we share'
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
She began her political career simply, as a Christian mom concerned about the content of school papers her children brought home in their backpacks, but today she has become one of the leading defenders of liberty and conservative principles on Capitol Hill.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., laughs at her humble start in politics.
"I attended my caucus, not intending to run for office," Bachmann told WND. "I had on jeans and a sweatshirt with a hole in it and tennis shoes. But the people said, 'Michele, you need to run,' and I did."
Bachmann went on to beat out Minnesota's longest-sitting state senator in the 2000 Republican primary and then defeated her Democratic opponent in the general election. Six years later, she overcame millions of dollars in Democrat campaign spending to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, and, in an exclusive interview with WND, Bachmann hinted her underdog campaigns may even lead to the White House.
Bachmann, a federal tax litigation attorney before serving in elected office, told WND that she is "first and foremost a mother." In the late 90s, the mother of five and foster mom to another 23 children through the years, grew concerned about what her foster kids were bringing home from the public school.
"Through the Goals 2000 program, the federal government was pushing knowledge, facts and information out of classroom study, substituting them with a study of attitudes, values and beliefs," she said, "but not necessarily the values that moms and dads would like."
Using her background as an attorney, she investigated the federal Goals 2000 contracts between Minnesota and the local school districts.
"I discovered that the federal government had effectively federalized all our local public school classrooms," she said. "We were losing local school authority."
Bachmann then began a campaign to stir Minnesota's parents at a grassroots level to repeal the federal Goals 2000 standards, succeeding to become the only state at the time to reject the federal foray into education and replace it with state standards.
Shortly thereafter parents asked her to run for office, and she's been battling big government ever since.
Read how you can revitalize a conservative vision for America in Mark Levin's best-selling manifesto, "Liberty and Tyranny," from the WND SuperStore!
"I started my career in politics believing the federal government should not have a role in the classroom," Bachmann told WND. "Going forward, we have to pare back dramatically the size, scope and reach of the federal government. It's extending its hand over almost every area and aspect of people's lives, and that needs to come back if we are to remain free and prosperous. We can't be free and prosperous if we go in the direction we're heading."
When asked to describe her political convictions, Bachmann responded, "Before party, I'm a conservative first.
"I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of result, and that's the big dividing line between liberals and conservatives," she said. "Conservatives believe that each individual is important and deserves protection of their inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
"These rights come from our creator," she continued, "Government neither gives them nor does government have the power to take them away. … I believe my job as a member of Congress is to secure those inalienable rights.
"The heart and soul of who we are as a nation is in the Declaration of Independence; the Constitution is the framework for how we uphold those rights; and the Bill of Rights goes on to secure those rights to the individual, protecting individual rights from big government," she said.
A conservative in socialism's court
Bachmann also took time during her interview with WND to blast three areas of massive government expansion that have been proposed over the last several years, even faulting fellow Republicans for the bailouts under President Bush:
"I voted against the bailout, and I worked feverishly within my own caucus, begging, urging Republicans not to vote for it," she said. "That was a big mistake Republicans made on the bailout last fall. It laid the groundwork for the slide toward socialism that we've seen since."
Nonetheless, Bachmann pledges she's got more fighting to do, particularly against Obama's proposed cap-and-trade system for regulating energy use.
"My number one goal is to make sure that the left is not successful in passing their 'global warming' tax," she told WND. "I want to see the United States be producers again, and to do that we need to change our tax environment and open up American energy resources."
Bachmann also had harsh words for Obama's proposed health care reform.
"Over the weekend, I read a 1986 book – 'Destroying Democracy' by James T. Bennett and Thomas J. Dilorenzo – that talked about ACORN's agenda, and it was as fresh as everything President Obama has been advancing since he took office," she said. "Complete nationalization of health care, energy tax, government taking over the economy – now that we have 'bailout nation,' the U.S. government owns or controls 30 percent of the American economy. If Obama gets his way and effectively nationalizes 18 percent of the nation's wealth in healthcare, that will put 48 percent of our economy controlled or owned by the federal economy. That's outlandish.
"Americans have got to melt the phone lines of the Democrats on the health care bill," she continued. "If the president gets his way with nationalized health care, it will be almost impossible to ever turn it back and restore to us our freedom."
Catching heat for her convictions
Bachmann's determination to defend individual rights from an ever-expanding federal government, however, has sometimes led her out of the mainstream among Washington's powerful elites to take unusual stands on issues she sees as an affront to personal liberty.
WND reported, for example, on Bachmann's charge against the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which will begin a ban on incandescent light bulbs over the next few years, requiring Americans to purchase only compact fluorescent bulbs.
"Most Americans, if you ask them, have no idea that the government has already made a choice for them," Bachmann said in a televised MSNBC interview. "The government has substituted its choice for the American consumer's choice."
WND also reported on Bachmann's defense of the dollar standard and opposition to a global currency.
Bachmann has also taken public stances against abortion, same-sex marriage, Obama's plans for expansion of public service under the federal AmeriCorps program and the questions on the 2010 Census, which she contends are invasive. Bachmann pledged in a Washington Times interview that when census workers come knocking, she will answer only the question about the number of people in residence, "because the Constitution doesn't require any information beyond that."
To Bachmann, light bulbs, the census and the dollar standard are issues simply because liberty is at stake. To her detractors and political opponents, however, her unorthodox stances are fuel for ridicule.
Bachmann has been labeled across the Internet as "kooky," MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has named her to his "World's Worst" list, and, according to Bachmann, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has named Bachmann one of her top eight targets to get rid of in the next election.
The ire has grown so fierce, Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity refers to Bachmann as "the second most hated Republican woman" (after Sarah Palin).
Bachmann, however, is not surprised by the criticism.
"In some ways, it's an honor, because it means that I must be effective. Otherwise, they'd be ignoring me," Bachmann told WND. "The other side seems to have two tricks that they pull out of their bag: the Republican is stupid, or the Republican is crazy. … It's straight out of Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals': they identify their target, then try to marginalize their target."
Bachmann explained much of the ridicule she endures is because powerful women with conservative views don't fit liberals' desired image.
"I'm not afraid to be a social or fiscal conservative, and that doesn't fit their template," she told WND. "Democrats see women as yet one more dependency group, but I defy that. I don't need government programs to succeed. I worked my way through college, my husband and I started our own business, and we didn't need the government to be the answer.
"I also think they're upset that I'm willing to go on radio and TV shows and call them out on their policies," she continued. "They've thrown just about everything they can throw at me and they haven't prevailed yet, and I think that infuriates them."
Hope for the likeminded?
In the wake of tea party protests, where many fiscal conservatives have blasted Republicans and Democrats alike for supporting federal bailouts, WND asked Bachmann if those who agree with her principles can still look to her party for leadership.
"After the election of 2006, when I was sworn in in 2007," Bachmann replied, "I was expecting a fairly liberal group of people in Congress. But that's not what I found. I have been pleasantly surprised by a number of my colleagues, who believe in the founding principles we share.
"Three years ago, the Republican Party had overspent and had been a part of the problem of enhancing the power of government over the power of the individual," she continued. "And I think the GOP got the comeuppance it deserved at that point in that it had lost fidelity to its founding principles.
"What I have seen birthed out of the hardship of the elections in 2006 and 2008, however, is a winnowing of that mindset that caused the Republican Party to lose so badly," she said. "There is still a remnant, a strong fighting element in the House Republican Caucus that is more in line with the principles of, say, Mark Levin's 'Liberty and Tyranny' than they are with the principles that cause the GOP to lose."
Finally, WND asked Bachmann if she could see a day when the candidate who began her political career in jeans and a holey sweatshirt would one day run for the presidency.
"If I felt that's what the Lord was calling me to do, I would do it," she answered. "When I have sensed that the Lord is calling me to do something, I've said yes to it. But I will not seek a higher office if God is not calling me to do it. That's really my standard.
"If I am called to serve in that realm I would serve," she concluded, "but if I am not called, I wouldn't do it."
Barack Obama and Alinsky's Rules for Psychopaths
By James Lewis
"... the community organizer ... must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression.' -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
"THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT --- An analysis of the Alinsky Model." -- Hillary Clinton, BA Honors Thesis, Wellesley College, 1969.
"(Barack) Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing...." -- The Nation
A psychopath is a person without conscience; someone who constantly breaks the moral rules of the community. Saul Alinsky was a "community organizer" who found a career that fit that personality disorder. In the Orwellian upside-down world of the Left, community organizers disorganize communities. That is the meaning of revolution, to overturn whatever exists today in the raw pursuit of one's own power.
Alinsky boasted about his close alliance with Frank Nitti, Al Capone's second in command in the Chicago Mob during the 1930s. Al Capone's Mob were domestic terrorists, and not for any noble cause either. They poisoned the Chicago politics of their era. Alinsky's close alliance with Frank Nitti tells us something crucially important today. Alinsky was also a lifelong ally of the Stalin-controlled Communist Party, at a time when Stalin was known to have murdered tens of millions of people. He was proud of building a bridge between organized crime and the power hungry Left. That tacit alliance may continue today.
Alinsky's personality fits the definition of a psychopath -- someone who has no guilt or shame toward others. But Alinsky also discovered how to teach psychopathic behavior to college students. That is the key to his success: To persuade hundreds of thousands of ignorant young people that it is much more moral to be immoral. Or, as Bill Ayers famously said, "Bring the Revolution home; kill your parents."
Bill Ayers is now a highly influential professor of education. That is not an accident; it reflects a deliberate program of radical agitation and propaganda through the school systems. If you want to know who brought down American education, Bill Ayers is part of the answer.
A lot of the Boomer Left is marked by psychopathic behavior, in politics and in the rest of life. That is why the actions of the Left are so shocking to many of us.
Alinsky's disciples -- including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- have a warlike political style. They learned politics as war from the Master. Obama is so well-trained in Alinsky tactics that he used to teach workshops on it. That is why Obama can knowingly violate Federal law against usurping the presidential power to negotiate with Iraq before ever getting elected. Actual election to head of state by the voters means nothing, just as it means nothing to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, who have negotiated with Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood in clear violation of law while serving in Congress.
Teaching hatred for the normal majority is the key to power for radicals. But Alinsky taught that you can't easily hate millions of people. To do that effectively you need a one-person scapegoat to focus all your hatred on. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." That is the politics of personal destruction, and it doesn't matter if the target is black like Clarence Thomas, or a woman like Sarah Palin, or a severely wounded war veteran like John McCain.
That is why Obama is now instructing his followers to "get in their faces" of those Americans who are not down for his cause. Obama acts like a nice guy, but he is a political warmonger. He's been very clear about that: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." That's the language of gang war.
Today we can see the Left's rage reaction to John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin. The New York Sun quoted one feminist saying "All of my women friends, a week ago Monday, were on the verge of throwing themselves out windows ....People were flipping out. ... Every woman I know was in high hysteria over this. Everyone was just beside themselves with terror that this woman could be our president -- our potential next president."
The "comedienne" Sandra Bernhard suggested that Sarah Palin would be "gang-raped by blacks in Manhattan" if she dared to go there.
A British Leftist writing for Pravda (!) called "Sarah Palin - The Devil in disguise...
Sarah Palin, Mrs. Nobody know-it-all shreiking cow from Alaska, the joke of American politics, plied with a couple of vodkas ... cheap little guttersnipe ... suppose you shut up .... you pith-headed little bimbo from the back of beyond ... So next time suppose you keep your mouth shut and while you're at it, make sure the members of your family keep their legs shut too. .... "
That warlike rage has been systematically whipped up over decades by the Left. That's what college "Women's Studies" does, just as "Black Studies" is deliberately designed to whip up black rage and victimhood. Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis is a case in point.
Alinsky called ordinary Americans "the enemy." Normal people don't declare war on all of society. But Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals that radicals
"...have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt ... They are right .... "
Normal, decent America is the enemy for these people.
Obama and Hillary are lifelong followers of Alinsky. They use his tactics and ideology. That is why American politics became the politics of personal destruction when the Boomer Left came to power.
These claims require proof; but we have been looking straight at the evidence since the first Clinton term. Bill Clinton fits the diagnostic description of psychopathic personality, now relabeled "antisocial personality' in the DSM IV, the official diagnostic manual for psychiatry. Three out of the following seven criteria nails the diagnosis:
1. Failure to conform to social norms ...
2. Deceitfulness ... or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. Irritability and aggressiveness ... ;
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. Consistent irresponsibility ... ;
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
I would give Mr. Clinton credit for Numbers 1, 2, 6, and 7, and possibly 3 (impulsivity) and 4 (irritability and aggressiveness). Dick Morris, who advised the Clintons for 20 years, describes dramatic scenes that certainly fit the description. Or Bill's inability to stick with a meeting agenda, impulsively running endless bull sessions at the White House. As for 5, his picking up women opportunistically and in a way that put his career, not to mention his family life and American security, at risk. The Monica affair showed an impulsive, reckless president who got into power by endless lying and conning.
Liberal Democrats used to be normal Americans before the Boomer Left rose to power. Hubert Humphrey and Harry Truman had a strong sense of American morality. They despised the Stalinist Left and fought to keep them out of the Democrat Party. They were sensitive to ordinary shame and guilt, the emotions that make us civilized. When Bob Dole asked "Where is the shame?" in the 1996 presidential election, the answer came out: Not in the modern Democrat Party. People without guilt or shame make merciless power mongers.
Normal people slow down in School Zones where kids might run across the street -- not because they're afraid of getting a speeding ticket but because they can't stand the thought of hurting kids. They don't need to cheat compulsively on wives and husbands to prove how irresistible they are. Normal people have internalized some modesty and humility, and are capable of respect and love for others. A common feature of psychopaths is the inability to feel authentic love and respect for others.
True psychopaths are often charming, seductive, and treacherous. They make natural con artists. Many psychopaths are extremely manipulative -- and what is more manipulative than stirring up hatred among victim groups to empower oneself? That is Jeremiah Wright, the diabolical Father Pfleger, James Meeks, and by his own definition of radicals, Saul Alinsky.
The worst are "malevolent psychopaths" -- people who sadistically hurt others. Hitler and Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, and probably many famous Western intellectuals fit the description of malevolent psychopaths. That is tragic and shocking. Historian Paul Johnson presents compelling evidence for malevolent psychopathy in the life of Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, and many others in his important book Intellectuals. Western intellectuals have been the home team of Leftist radicalism for a century now.
But the single most important point about Alinsky's "community organizing" strategy is that normal people can be trained to act like psychopaths: To become convinced that a "higher morality" allows them to act without conscience. As Alinsky wrote admiringly about V.I. Lenin, well known as a large-scale murder leader:
"Lenin was a pragmatist; ... he said that the Bolsheviks stood for getting power through the ballot box but would reconsider after they got the guns!"
That is a laugh line, believe it or not.
Alinsky called this "pragmatic radicalism." He differed from his Communist friends only in being more practical and less ideological. Alinsky was a radical because it suited his personality, because it was fun, brought him power and influence, and made him feel good. He was very clear in saying that, and he inspired the Boomer Left to follow his lead.
Alinsky dedicated Rules for Radicals:
"... to the very first radical . . . who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer."
If that doesn't send a shiver down your back, you haven't been paying attention.
UAW Has Reason to Celebrate This Labor Day
Networks downplay union criticism while Obama's control of auto companies pays off for labor.
By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute
The Labor Day holiday is almost upon us and the networks are likely to spend it talking about vacation, barbequing and holiday sales instead of examining the 2009 victories of the labor unions. In fact, all year they avoided talking about the many recent blessings organized labor has enjoyed.
The United Auto Workers (UAW), which donated more than 99 percent of its $25.4 million to Democratic federal candidates in the past 20 years, had a particularly good year, at least compared to other stakeholders as General Motors and Chrysler struggled and were forced into a government-managed bankruptcy by the White House.
Those auto company bailouts and bankruptcies were major stories this year, yet the network news media rarely discussed union causes of the car companies’ inability to compete, and the high cost of union labor compared to non-union labor. In fact, in some cases the UAW was portrayed to evoke sympathy from viewers.
NBC’s Lester Holt said that the UAW had “made major concessions,” on May 29 which would save GM $1.3 billion a year. CBS described it as “swallowing a bitter pill.” That’s a surprising choice of words since, when all was said and done, the UAW’s health fund ended up with 17.5 percent of GM shares and 55 percent of Chrysler shares.
What were those “major concessions?” Hans Bader at the Competitive Enterprise Institute http://www.openmarket.org/2009/06/03/union-keeps-special-privileges-through-taxpayer-bailout-of-general-motors/ cited the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060203217.html, which described them as “‘painful’ only by the peculiar standards of Big Three labor:”
“UAW workers gave up their customary paid holiday on Easter Monday and their right to overtime pay after less than 40 hours per week. They still get health benefits that are far better than those received by many American families upon whose tax money GM jobs now depend. Ditto for UAW hourly wages, though according to the task force, GM's labor costs are now within ‘shooting distance’ of those at nonunion plants run by Honda, Toyota and other foreign firms. Cumbersome UAW work rules have only been tweaked.”
The Heritage Foundation has said that hourly workers at Big Three auto companies cost over $70 in wages http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2162.cfm and current and future benefits.
Bader concluded that the UAW hadn’t sacrificed its “privileged position” at all.
Yet the networks were sympathetic to the union label. ABC’s “20/20” ran a lengthy segment July 10 on the history of GM and defended the UAW against the charge that “the union is part of the problem.”
After Bill Weir mentioned the claim that the union is responsible for the auto companies’ woes he brought on two people to refute it including UAW shop steward Brian Fredline who said:
“Back in the days when the UAW had those fat labor contracts, the Big Three were making billions of dollars. So, their employees profited by that money. But now that things have turned around, the UAW has been proactive and cost cutting. We’ve given up our jobs bank, we’ve cut our wages, we’ve cut our performance bonuses, we’ve cut our overtime, we’ve given up our cost of living.”
NBC also found someone other than the unions to blame on April 30. Phil LeBeau repeated White House claims that hedge funds pushed Chrysler into bankruptcy “by refusing to exchange their debt for cash.”
LeBeau didn’t include a rebuttal from those Indiana bondholders who had loaned money to Chrysler.
Stealing GM and Chrysler for the Unions
After spending tax dollars to prevent GM and Chrysler from going under, the Obama administration forced those companies into bankruptcy anyway, and one big winner was the UAW.
Bankruptcy law exists to liquidate assets of a failed company or to negotiate debts in the case of a struggling, but viable company.
But in the case of GM and Chrysler, the government stepped in and orchestrated the bankruptcy process (after spending $50 billion), declaring winners and losers.
The Heritage Foundation president Edwin Feulner described the unusual bankruptcy as “crafted” http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed061909a.cfm by the Obama administration. Andrew Grossman, Heritage’s Senior Legal Policy Analyst, testified to the House Judiciary Committee that the White House “is abusing bankruptcy law to benefit a favored constituency, the United Auto Workers union”
Yet, the news networks basically ignored claims that the managed bankruptcy could be illegal or unconstitutional.
However, Investor’s Business Daily described this as a new era: “one where government, not investors and consumers, is the final arbiter of success.”
IBD explained that in the case of GM’s bankruptcy “the government, with roughly two times what private bondholders have on the table, gets a stake five times bigger. And the union, with about a third as much ‘invested,’ gets a 70% bigger stake. Even the Canadian government, with its $9.5 billion "invested," ends up with 12%.”
“They call it ‘restructuring.’ We call it theft”
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=328747531802969&kw=GM,bankrupt IBD concluded.
The UAW also received a majority stake (55 percent) of Chrysler after its bankruptcy.
released their own statement attacking that deal, saying, “We believe the offer to be a blatant disregard of fairness for the bondholders who have funded this company and amounts to using taxpayer money to show political favoritism of one creditor over another.”
Big Labor, Big Donors
The White House’s decision to spend $50 billion rescuing the auto industry wasn’t a surprise. After all, liberals like Big Labor and vice versa.
“In the last 20 years, the U.A.W. has donated more than $25.4 million to federal candidates, 99 percent of it to Democrats, according to OpenSecrets.org, a site that tracks campaign contributions,” The New York Times reported on April 29.
That Times article pointed out that UAW “stands to become one of the industry’s few winners”
in the wake of bankruptcy. However, the network news didn’t emphasize that point.
The UAW was a strong supporter of Obama during the campaign. The union’s Web site included an article touting Obama’s record and advertising his 93 percent rating on key UAW issues
http://www.uaw.org/solidarity/08/0808/feature05.php. According to Forbes, UAW spent nearly $5 million
to get Obama elected and the president is supportive of another of their pet issues: the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) or “card check.”
According to The Heritage Foundation, EFCA http://www.heritage.org/news/employee-free-choice-act.cfmwould take away workers’ rights to a secret ballot and put government bureaucrats in control of the workplace.
AT's Rich Baehr on Arab carbon emissions
Richard Baehr notes the disproportionate impact that wealthy Arab oil nations have on annual CO2 emissions in the latest issue of inFocus magazine.
The oil producing nations in the Middle East, particularly those with small populations, such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), now rank among the world's wealthiest nations in terms of per capita income. They also rank among the world's worst performing countries in terms of per capita emissions. In fact, the world's four worst offenders in terms of per capita emissions relative to per capita income are: Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait.
Major broadcast networks have devoted prime time segments to the amazing glamour, conspicuous wealth, modernization, and excess in the UAE (notably the emirates of Dubai and Abu Dhabi) and Qatar. Among the most documented of these excesses is Ski Dubai, an indoor ski slope connected to a shopping mall. Dubai has also constructed no less than ten golf courses in the middle of its desert, and lures the world's best golfers each year for the Dubai Desert Classic. Indeed, the Gulf Arab states have created unnatural marvels at great expense, and with heavy energy consumption (not to mention water use).
Turns out that the stately pleasure domes featured in architectural journals and travel magazines, numerous automobiles driven with abandon, and other profligate waste of energies has a price: huge emissions of CO2.
Yet, these nations escape censure and criticism. Bill Clinton and AL gore regularly travel to hat area to deliver speeches for greats sums of money. Do you think they ever point out the fact that some of the nations in that part of the world among the highest per capita emissions of Co2 in the world?
"The e-mail Bag"
When U Black, U Black
This was written by a black gentleman in Texas and is so funny. What a great sense of humor and creativity!!!
When I was born, I was BLACK,
When I grew up, I was BLACK,
When I went in the sun, I stayed BLACK,
When I got cold, I was BLACK,
When I was scared, I was BLACK,
When I was sick, I was BLACK,
When I bruise, I'm still BLACK,
And when I die, I'll still be BLACK.
NOW, You 'white' folks.....
When you're born, you're PINK,
When you grow-up, you're WHITE,
When you go in the sun, you get RED,
When you're cold, you turn BLUE,
When you're scared, you're YELLOW,
When you get sick, you're GREEN,
When you bruise, you turn PURPLE,
And when you die, you look GRAY..
So who y'all callin' COLORED folks?