From an e-mail sent to me by tnjack:
The American Indians found out what happens when you don’t control immigration.
Good find from Van Helsing at Moonbattery:
Kudos to Gary Andres for putting his finger on the purpose of government from the liberal point of view: to grow in power and scope. Any other alleged objective is merely a means to this end. He quotes a senior House staffer:
I can write a policy that insures more kids, with less money, and provides better health outcomes. But if the federal government doesn’t get bigger in the process, they’re not interested. It makes me question what’s really important — better health or bigger government.
As Andres notes, this explains Dems’ hostility to many Republican initiatives:
School choice, personal retirement accounts and expanded consumer-directed health care are all Republican proposals aimed at helping people in new and innovative ways. Yet they face near universal scorn from liberals because they loosen the shackles of the federal government’s domination. Again, it doesn’t matter that they might help kids learn better or seniors secure a better retirement. If ideas don’t feed the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy, they don’t deserve a place on the menu.
Few Democrat objectives can be understood except from this point of view. Do they really think paying unwed mothers to stay unwed and crank out as many kids as possible is going to make for less poverty? Of course not: but getting a whole subclass hooked on welfare grows the government. Do they think draconian environmental legislation justified by the global warming hoax will improve the weather? No, but it will improve their prospects for controlling our lives and expropriating our money. Will socializing healthcare make it more efficient? Yes: efficient at enhancing the ubiquity of government.
Liberal government is The Blob — soft, repulsive, insatiably hungry, and relentlessly growing because its only purpose is to grow at the expense of everything that comes within its reach.
Good analogy, isn’t it?
Once in a while, the Supreme Court gets one right. From WND:
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision that could impact millions of public-sector employees nationwide, concluded today the First Amendment right of teachers trumps the speech privileges of organized labor.
The decision, in the consolidated Washington vs. Washington Education Association and Davenport vs. WEA cases, found organized labor, such as teachers associations, have no “constitutional right” to use money collected as “agency fees” from nonmembers for political purposes.
“We are elated that the U.S. Supreme Court has honored the First Amendment rights of teachers by overturning the state Supreme Court’s decision,” said Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, which has worked on the case for a decade. “The court understood that the constitutional rights of teachers should be protected and are not superseded by the union’s statutory rights.
“This ruling will help protect non-member teachers from having their agency fees used on union politics against their will,” he said.
Booker Stallworth, communications director for the foundation, told WND the case originated with a list of teachers who had a variety of complaints about the Washington Education Association’s dedication of its financial resources to help causes to which the teachers objected, including homosexual marriage and abortion issues.
Some of the teachers appreciate collective bargaining but don’t like union politics,” he told WND. “Some of the teachers are pro-life, some are against homosexual marriage. For a number of reasons they preferred to not have the union speak for them politically and have their own dollars used against them.”
Diane Lenning, an English and history teacher, said, “My major objections to the NEA are that there is an operative glass ceiling for moderate and conservative Republicans, independents and Christians.”
Added Cindy Omlin, a speech pathologist. “There were many political causes that they were funneling my union dues toward that I found to be very offensive.”
“I wanted to be congruent with my beliefs,” said Karen Petty, another instructor. “My dues were going to causes that personally I would go against.”
The case focused on a Washington initiative, approved by voters, that required labor organizations to get permission from nonmember workers before using mandatory dues for political purposes.
In many cases, workers are not required to be union members but must pay a fee equivalent to union dues because they are the beneficiaries of collective bargaining.
Unions, however, are increasingly active politically, and many times support causes such as homosexual marriage and the abortion industry under the guise of “rights” — issues Christians and others would choose not to back.
WEA had admitted to multiple violations of the Washington law during an investigation then was fined more than $590,000 for its actions. However, on appeal, the Washington state Supreme Court concluded the “free speech rights” of the union superseded the First Amendment rights of the individuals.
“The agency-fee cases did not balance constitutional rights in such a manner, because unions have no constitutional entitlement to nonmember-employees’ fees,” the U.S. Supreme Court countered. “For First Amendment purposes, it is immaterial that [state law] restricts a union’s use of funds only after they are within the union’s possession. The fees are in the union’s possession only because Washington and its union-contracting government agencies have compelled their employees to pay those fees.”
“As applied, … [Washington state law] is not fairly described as a restriction on how the union can spend ‘its’ money; it is a condition placed upon the union’s extraordinary state entitlement to acquire and spend other people’s money,” the Supreme Court said.
“The next step is to make sure the law is strongly enforced … to ensure the WEA and other unions are in compliance,” Williams said. “The WEA has been busily attempting to undermine the law while it was under Supreme Court review.” …
This is good news for teachers everywhere who object to their unions spending their dues on grotesque liberal policies and agendas.
This QOTD is brought to you by Ace:
What’s this you say? Hamas and Fatah senselessly murdering each other willy nilly? Why, I haven’t been this upset since the last time I got a bl-wjob.
Angelina Jolie’s true colors came out Wednesday as she promoted a film about freedom of the press and then tried to censor all her interviews.
Jolie is touting press freedom these days, playing the widow of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in a new movie called “A Mighty Heart.”
But Jolie turns out to be a mighty hypocrite when it comes to her own freedom of the press. Her lawyer required all journalists to sign a contract before talking to her, and Jolie instructed publicists at first to ban FOX News from the red carpet of her premiere.
Ironically, Wednesday night’s premiere of the excellent Michael Winterbottom-directed film was meant to support an organization called Reporters Without Borders. Jolie, however, did everything she could to clamp down on the press and control it.
Reporters from most major media outlets balked Wednesday when they were presented with an agreement drawn up by Jolie’s Hollywood lawyer Robert Offer. The contract closely dictated the terms of all interviews.
Reporters were asked to agree to “not ask Ms. Jolie any questions regarding her personal relationships. In the event Interviewer does ask Ms. Jolie any questions regarding her personal relationships, Ms. Jolie will have the right to immediately terminate the interview and leave.”
The agreement also required that “the interview may only be used to promote the Picture. In no event may Interviewer or Media Outlet be entitled to run all or any portion of the interview in connection with any other story. … The interview will not be used in a manner that is disparaging, demeaning, or derogatory to Ms. Jolie.”
If that wasn’t enough, Jolie also requires that if any of these things happen, “the tape of the interview will not be released to Interviewer.” Such a violation, the signatory thus agrees, would “cause Jolie irreparable harm” and make it possible for her to sue the interviewer and seek a restraining order.
I am told that USA Today and the Associated Press were among those that canceled interviews, and eventually Jolie scotched all print interviews when she heard the reaction.
“I wouldn’t sign it,” a reporter for a major outlet said. “Who does she think she is?”
A call to Offer was apparently one that could be refused. He didn’t return calls. An associate, Lindsay Strasberg, said, before hanging up: “You’re a reporter? I can’t talk to reporters. Goodbye.”
So much for reporters without borders.
Yeah, so much. Also, add Brangelina to the already long list of Hollyweirdos who sidle up to dictators:
After Shiloh was born, Jolie and Pitt gave a news conference, but limited it only to Namibian journalists. No reporters from neighboring countries were allowed.
The couple sat on the dais with Sam Nujoma, Namibia’s first president, aka dictator, who ruled for 15 years.
In 2002, Nujoma abruptly appointed himself minister of information and broadcasting. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Nujoma has routinely attacked reporters from his country calling them “unpatriotic” and “the enemy.”
During the time Pitt and Jolie were in the country, a former photographer for the Namibian, the daily newspaper, was arrested twice for trying to get a picture of the couple.
South African John Liebenberg was arrested on municipal property during the Jolie-Pitt stay and pronounced guilty of trespassing. His passport and camera equipment were confiscated as well.
Treatment of the press is so bad in Namibia, in fact, that an organization called the National Society for Human Rights was formed several years ago to protect reporters’ rights.
The NSHR, which is usually busy with more important matters, issued a statement on April 24 strongly condemning the deportation of foreign journalists from Namibia who wanted to cover the Pitt-Jolie visit.
“As the principal human rights monitoring and advocacy organization in this country, we strongly repudiate this unprecedented and blatant violation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and expression, which includes freedom of the press and other media,” the statement read.
It’s a little unclear how Mariane Pearl, whom Jolie plays in “A Mighty Heart,” feels about her portrayer’s position on freedom of press for some, but not all. On Wednesday, I spoke to Jeff Julliard, the editorial director of Reporters Without Borders in Paris.
“Paparazzi should be allowed to do their job,” he said, adding that he condemned Jolie’s banning of FOX News and actions taken on her behalf in Namibia.
Does this bimbo NOT see the irony of her actions, or does she simply not care? If the former, that speaks ill of her intelligence. If the latter, she should abandon all pretense that “freedom of the press” is important to her.
From the San Franistan fishwrap:
For the second straight day, minority House Republicans ground the House to a standstill Wednesday as they drove home their objections to a Democratic plan to deny a floor vote on lawmakers’ thousands of pet projects.
Public anger over the surging number of special member projects called earmarks — derided as pork barrel spending — was a factor in the Republicans’ loss of House control last November, GOP members concede, and now they say they’ve gotten religion on the need for openness in government.
Charges of hypocrisy flew in floor speeches as House leaders huddled behind closed doors to seek a way out of a dispute that Republicans said showed Democrats led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi had backed down on promises of openness and disclosure made when they took power last January.
Democrats had hoped this week to pass four of the 12 annual bills that pay for federal operations beginning Oct. 1. Instead, Republicans have offered 116 amendments to a $37.4 billion Homeland Security spending bill — the first of the bills on the floor — in a bid to stall it. And on Tuesday they offered repeated motions to adjourn the House, each requiring a vote, keeping a wary House in session until 2:10 a.m. Wednesday.
Democrats argued Republicans were engaging in partisan attacks to try to embarrass Pelosi (yeah, like THAT would be tough to do! – Ed.). They charged the GOP lawmakers lacked credibility on earmarks, the number of which exploded during their 12 years of House rule.
The GOP does indeed lack credibility when it comes to earmarks. However…
“The new majority ran on a policy of openness, honesty and candor, and I suggest this is a policy that hardly promotes openness, honesty or candor,” said Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga.
When Democrats took over the House last January, they passed rules saying that members behind all earmarks had to be identified, and that earmarks on all spending bills would be identified “before members are asked to vote on them,” as Rules Committee Chairwoman Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., told the House.
Taxpayers for Common Sense, an outside watchdog group, said earmarks must be disclosed early in the process.
“Taxpayers have the fundamental right to know about all earmarks. Both congressional and administration projects should be disclosed in legislation before the full House casts a single vote,” the group’s president, Ryan Alexander, said in a statement.
Congressman “Prostitution Ring” decided to chime in:
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., heaped scorn on the Republicans. “What’s funny is that many of the Republicans who are fighting for the right to vote against earmarks … never met an earmark they didn’t like,” he said.
Correct, Ms. Franks, your Republican counterparts were fond of earmarks when they held the purse strings. However, you guys vowed to restore fiscal responsibility to Washington, right? Then you passed rules in the House that basically demand openness when it comes to pork projects, and now that you’ve been exposed as hypocrites, your only defense is “Yeah, well, the Republicans are hypocrites, too”? As if that makes your behavior somehow more palatable?
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett