Speaking truth

There were three instances—events where truth was spoken this week. One was well known, another slightly less so, and the third was a TV show. I doubt many caught the connotations and the truth in that TV show although it was not hidden.

The TV show was NCIS-LA. In the episode shown February 19th, a 1970s violent, radical group reappeared. One of the original members was found murdered, the other remaining members were in prison or thought dead.

At the same time a new group, feeling the Occupy protests were ineffectual, decided to add violence, to exploit peaceful protests.  In the end, the perpetrator, the mentor behind the new radicals, was a member of that original group. He was their mentor. The show described him as the same as Hitler’s mentor, Dietrich Eckart. The character was a university history professor who had been indoctrinating his students over a thirty-year period. The last few minutes went into detail how socialist infiltration of our education system was fermenting disruption, dissent and terrorism.

It’s a rare event when Hollywood truthfully acknowledges the radical takeover of education and their real motives. This episode is worth viewing if you didn’t at the original broadcast.

The  next instance occurred on the Mark Levin radio show last night. He read most of an article by Angelo Codevilla in Forbe’s Magazine. The column is worth a full read. It is quite lengthy but confirms other reports about the ineffectiveness of the ‘Pub establishment and how they are now blocking reform movements in their home states.

As Country Club Republicans Link Up With The Democratic Ruling Class, Millions Of Voters Are Orphaned

By Angelo Codevilla, 2/20/2013 @ 4:49PM

On January 1, 2013 one third of Republican congressmen, following their leaders, joined with nearly all Democrats to legislate higher taxes and more subsidies for Democratic constituencies. Two thirds voted no, following the people who had elected them. For generations, the Republican Party had presented itself as the political vehicle for Americans whose opposition to ever-bigger government financed by ever-higher taxes makes them a “country class.”  Yet modern Republican leaders, with the exception of the Reagan Administration, have been partners in the expansion of government, indeed in the growth of a government-based “ruling class.” They have relished that role despite their voters. Thus these leaders gradually solidified their choice to no longer represent what had been their constituency, but to openly adopt the identity of junior partners in that ruling class. By repeatedly passing bills that contradict the identity of Republican voters and of the majority of Republican elected representatives, the Republican leadership has made political orphans of millions of Americans. In short, at the outset of 2013 a substantial portion of America finds itself un-represented, while Republican leaders increasingly represent only themselves.

By the law of supply and demand, millions of Americans, (arguably a majority) cannot remain without representation. Increasingly the top people in government, corporations, and the media collude and demand submission as did the royal courts of old. This marks these political orphans as a “country class.” In 1776 America’s country class responded to lack of representation by uniting under the concept: “all men are created equal.” In our time, its disparate sectors’ common sentiment is more like: “who the hell do they think they are?”

The ever-growing U.S. government has an edgy social, ethical, and political character. It is distasteful to a majority of persons who vote Republican and to independent voters, as well as to perhaps one fifth of those who vote Democrat. The Republican leadership’s kinship with the socio-political class that runs modern government is deep. Country class Americans have but to glance at the Media to hear themselves insulted from on high as greedy, racist, violent, ignorant extremists. Yet far has it been from the Republican leadership to defend them. Whenever possible, the Republican Establishment has chosen candidates for office – especially the Presidency – who have ignored, soft-pedaled or given mere lip service to their voters’ identities and concerns.

Thus public opinion polls confirm that some two thirds of Americans feel that government is “them” not “us,” that government has been taking the country in the wrong direction, and that such sentiments largely parallel partisan identification: While a majority of Democrats feel that officials who bear that label represent them well, only about a fourth of Republican voters and an even smaller proportion of independents trust Republican officials to be on their side. Again: While the ruling class is well represented by the Democratic Party, the country class is not represented politically – by the Republican Party or by any other. Well or badly, its demand for representation will be met.

If you read between the lines, this column is a call for the creation of a third party. The core premise is that the current republican party has isolated itself from its roots and those roots, acknowledging their isolation, are looking for alternatives—a new means to re-establish their representation in government.

As I said, it is lengthy. I urge you to read the entire column here.

The third instance acquired nation-wide attention and was the headline on the Drudge Report all yesterday afternoon. It was a monologue by Rush Limbaugh. I don’t know if he had read Angelo Codevilla’s article but it echoed many of the same tenets.

For the First Time in My Life, I Am Ashamed of My Country


RUSH:  Folks, I’m sorry here.  I can’t help but think that we are all being played for a bunch of fools, a bunch of suckers on this sequester business.  I don’t know.  Are you like me?  Do you really think 800,000 people are gonna lose their jobs in the Pentagon because we cut $22 billion?  Do you really think air traffic control’s gonna shut down?  Do you really think there aren’t gonna be any meat inspectors?  Do you really think that all of these horror stories are going to happen?  I don’t. 

I feel like I’ve been here.  This is deja vu all over again.  I remember the 1995 budget battle.  That involved a legitimate government shut down.  That wasn’t just $22 billion we were not gonna spend.  We’re still gonna spend $3.5 trillion.  We’re just not gonna spend $22 billion, if it happens.

RUSH: Everything gets repeated. The cycle, the claims, the threats, the crisis, Armageddon, it’s the same. And we’re talking $22 billion. It’s not as though we’re not gonna spend anything. If the sequester happens, the first year is $44 billion. Half of that’s defense. We’re still going to spend $3.5 trillion or $3.3 trillion, even if we don’t spend the $22 billion. Then there’s this guy who draws an analogy to the Oklahoma City bombing.

Plus, we have our old buddy Ron Fournier. He used to be at AP, and is now at the National Journal. This is quite instructive, actually. Let me just read a portion of this to you. “You May Be Right, Mr. President, But This Is Crazy — Your federal government is almost certain to blow past the March 1 deadline for averting $1.2 trillion in haphazard budget cuts that could cost 700,000 jobs.” But see, it’s not $1.2 trillion.

It is over ten years, but it’s not this year and it’s not next year. This year’s portion of it is $22 billion. Besides, does anybody really think that, even if the sequester happens, it’s not gonna get fixed for ten years? Anyway… “Don’t worry. We know who to blame. President Obama makes a credible case that he has reached farther toward compromise than House Republicans.” He has? Well, I guess he has, since the media says so. “President Obama makes a credible case that he has reached farther toward compromise…”

“But knowing who’s at fault,” writes Mr. Fournier, “doesn’t fix the problem. To loosely quote Billy Joel: You may be right, Mr. President, but this is crazy. Is this fiscal standoff (the fifth since Republicans took control of the House in 2011)…” Is that not an interesting perspective, by the way? It’s not “the fifth standoff since Obama was inaugurated.” No, no. It’s “the fifth standoff since Republicans took control of the House” two years ago. “Is this fiscal standoff … just about scoring political points, or is it about governing?”

Unbeknownst to Mr. Fournier, he has now swerved right into my theory: Political points versus governing, and he says it’s all about politics. “If it’s all about politics, bully for Obama. A majority of voters will likely side with the president over Republicans in a budget dispute because of his popularity and the GOP’s pathetic approval ratings.” Speaking of that, I don’t want to depress you out there, but Obama’s approval rating is as high as it’s been since 2009. It’s 55%.

The Republicans’ approval is as low as it’s been since 2009. Chris Christie goes on Letterman, eats a doughnut, and he’s at 74% approval. Christie is at 74%. Obama is at 55%, his highest approval in four years. But then Mr. Fournier writes, “If it’s all about politics, bully for Obama” but “[i]f it’s about governing, the story changes” for Obama ” Yes, siree, Bob. That’s my whole point. “You see,” as Mr. Fournier writes, totally unaware that he’s totally confirming my brilliant theorem of last week, “If it’s about governing, then the story changes for Obama.”

Fournier highlights an op-ed written by a Republican who blames everybody on both sides for it and we all gotta get together and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That’s what Fournier thinks Obama needs to read. “With a few tweaks, Obama could make it a presidential address. … ‘Americans are fed up with the jousting.… There is a lot of public posturing but apparently not much genuine conversation.'” That gets to the root of what’s bothering me here. The jousting never ends. I just feel like I’m being played for the fool here to get sucked into this narrative and this template every day.

I’ve cut a lot from his transcript due to space limitations.  A number of “pundits” are speculating Rush is calling for a third party due to the ineffectiveness of the establishment ‘Pubs and their lack of initiative and leadership combating the continuous push by the dems and libs toward tyranny. If the ‘Pubs won’t or can’t do that job, then, perhaps, it is time to find another party or organization that will. (No, I’m not joining the Libertarians. They are as much a collection of fools as are the dems and ‘Pub establishment.)

All three examples spoke truth this week—one, a Hollywood TV show acknowledged liberal infiltration in education. The second is another confirmation of the existence of The Ruling Class, how they work to maintain their personal political power at the expense of the country. The third documents the lack of leadership and the ineffectiveness—the uselessness of the ‘Pub establishment, in fighting the lies and propaganda of the left.

Levin commented on his show last night, as best I remember, “Perhaps, like the Whigs, it is time for the republican party to fade into history.

The Truth about Right to Work

There has been a series of Face Book posts recently about passing Right to Work (RTW) in Missouri. There is also a small but very vocal group of people posting just as heavily against Right to Work. I’m in favor of Right to Work but until now I’ve stayed out of those arguments.

What is amazing to me is the disinformation being spread by those opposing RTW: RTW will outlaw unions (No, it won’t). RTW will force employers to fire union workers (No, it won’t). RTW will force union workers to leave the union (No, it won’t). RTW will prohibit employers from hiring union members (No, it won’t). The series of outright lies continues.

Right to Work is two concepts:

  • The end of the closed and union-only shop. Employees will not be forced to join a union against their will and will not be required to join a union as a condition of employment.
  • The end of forced payment of union dues. Non-union employees will not be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

Right to Work Law & Legal Definition

Right-to-work laws are state laws that prohibit both the closed and union shop. A right to work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union. However, employees who work in the railway or airline industries are not protected by a right to work law, and employees who work on a federal enclave may not be.

Under federal labor law and state right to work laws, which exist in slightly less than half of the states, you have the right to resign from membership in a union at any time. If you resign from membership, you may not be able to participate in union elections or meetings, vote in collective bargaining ratification elections, or participate in other “internal” union activities. If you resign, you cannot be disciplined by the union for any post-resignation conduct.

If you resign from union membership, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union remains obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pension, health insurance) will not be affected by your resignation. Howver, the union may exclude you from some “members-only” benefits. Although you may resign from union membership at anytime, you may be limited to a specific “window period” before you are able to end any automatic dues deductions.

Right to Work is supported by Federal law as noted above. It protected by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947—a backlash of the Labor Relations Act, or as it’s also known, the Wagner Act of 1935. The Taft-Hartley Act defines what Right to Work is, and is not.

Union propagandists ignore these facts. They continue to claim that wages are lower in RTW states. This claim has been refuted in a 2004 study.

Nominal Wages evidence:

Opponents of Right to Work like to point out that the average wage in Right to Work states is lower than the average wage in non-RTW states.  For example, on the issue section of AFL-CIO’s website, they cite the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001: “The average worker in a ‘right to work’ state earns about $5,333 less a year than workers in other states” (“RTW States Are”).  Proponents of Right to Work do not dispute the above statistic, but suggest that the statistic is overly simplistic, manipulative and misleading. 

On a nominal basis, wages are lower in Right to Work states, but proponents argue, and this paper confirms, that once the above statistic is adjusted for cost of living, real spending power is at least the same and perhaps higher in Right to Work states.  For example, when the National Institute for Labor Relations Research used The Economist Magazine’s data to adjust the poverty rate in 2001 for cost of living they found that this adjusted rate was 10.8% in states with Right to Work laws as compared to 12.9% for non-RTW states (“Independent Study”).

While some RTW states appear to have lower wage rates than some non-RTW states, the availability of jobs is much greater in the RTW states. Why? Because companies are moving from those union dominated states to RTW states where union power can’t break a company—like Hostess Brands.

Survival is a strong motivator. If you examine the wasteland of the Rust Belt and compare that with Texas, the South and the Central states, the economic divergence is astounding. Job and economic growth in the RTW states is increasing. Those same job and economic growth rates are falling in the non-RTW states.

The AFL-CIO likes to call RTW the Right-to-Work-for-less. That statement is meaningless if you don’t have a job.  All too many unemployed in those union controlled states would be happy to work for less—except they can’t. The unions are forcing jobs and companies to migrate to states where those companies can survive.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see which system—RTW and non-RTW works.


By groupies, I mean social network groups like those in Facebook.  Politics and political organizing has moved to Facebook.  That’s a natural evolution in a growing digital world.  This blog is another manifestation of that same evolution.  Prior to Facebook, other social networks and blogs, e-mail and e-mail lists were the mechanisms used by the political savvy.

With e-mails and e-mail lists, we also received SPAM.  It became necessary to scrutinize whether any particular e-mail was from a friend or from some one with an agenda or was a malicious attempt to do you damage. We now have anti-virus, SPAM detectors and malware applications to protect us.

With Blogs, we also were presented with propaganda, with statements presented as truth but in reality are fantasy. Some of those mis-truths and lies were driven by personal and political agendas. They were attempts to spread misinformation to support an agenda.  There are no apps yet to prevent the spread of propaganda. We must decided whether to accept or reject information as it is presented. We must develop personal propaganda filters.

We have all that with social networks like Facebook and LinkedIn.  There are more than these two networks. I’m just using them as examples.  Social networks have all the advantages of e-mail lists and blogs.  And they also have all the failings.

I didn’t use a social network much until this last year and I did so with a large degree of skepticism.  It is easy to create a false persona.  It is easier to present a false agenda to collect “friends” to persuade them to accept you viewpoints.  It’s easier if you do so while keeping your agenda at a low profile.

Hook ’em while you “educate” them.

I have joined three Facebook groups. I dropped two and remain with the third.  The first group I joined was purported to be a local Tea Party group.  Maybe it was…originally.  It didn’t take long to realize it was one person with an agenda who was trying to create a following. When I uncovered the agenda, it was one that I could not subscribe.  The organizer was pushing the so-called Fair Tax.  He had all the usual talking points and refused to acknowledge any alternate views.

I’ve written about the Fair Tax and my opposition to it in previous blogs. Suffice to say I believe the implementation of a national sales tax will evolve into a Value Added Tax as practiced in Europe and we will have a national VAT tax as well as an Income Tax.  The Income Tax is anchored in the 16th Amendment.  If you want to remove the income tax, you must first repeal the 16th Amendment.  That will not happen.

The next group I joined was a state-wide group of conservative activists.  They are a 501(C)3 organization and are prohibited from campaigning for any particular candidate.  I hadn’t known that when I first joined.  My error.  I’m still a member of this group although in light of recent events I have to review how this revelation will affect my activities within the group.

The third group, one I left yesterday, was another with an agenda. An agenda that I disavow.  I was invited to join a week or so ago.  I observed the posts, made a few to get a feel for the group.  

It had been presented as a grass-roots organization to support conservative issues.  Or so I thought.  After observing the posts and reading the comments I discovered two agendas of this group.  

One agenda was the Fair Tax.  There was a so-called expert in the group who repeated the usual talking points. No alternate view tolerated. The second agenda was pushing the candidacy of Ron Paul. Paulbots.

I’ve said in other posts that in my opinion Ron Paul is unfit to hold any elected or appointed public office.  Some of his comments such as supporting Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons make me question his sanity. Once I discovered this group’s agendas, I left.

Social networking groups can be the avenue to link people of like minds, and many are. Others, however, are the modern equivalent of the Snake Oil salesmen of the 19th century.  They sell a worthless, and sometimes dangerous product. Con artists. When you interact with these groups you must also shield yourself with a large amount of skepticism.  When dealing with people whom you have no personal knowledge, Ronald Reagan’s advice is appropriate, “Trust but Verify.”  The degree of trust must be built as you investigate and verify the purported positions of these people and organizations.

If you do not and cannot not subscribe to the agenda(s) of the group, you must leave.

All too many people accept whatever is presented to them on the internet as truth.  I heard an acquaintance recently repeat some information he read on the internet or something that he heard and found some corroboration on the internet. You can find anything on the internet. Just because it’s there doesn’t make it true.  It was an outlandish position. One supposedly engineered by the government. However it was obvious to anyone who had at least a high school level of science education that the supposed acts were beyond and contrary to scientific fact. The position was completely false.

Ignorance prevailed.

Perhaps we should modify Reagan’s advice, “Verify then Trust.”  Verification is not just one instance of corroboration.  It must be a multitude of corroboration. Not a single piece, or even two or three pieces that appear to support a position but hundreds, thousands of articles that supports the issue or position.

Skepticism is a good and necessary attribute to acquire when dealing with the internet. All too many people don’t and they provide food for the predators in social networks and elsewhere.

It’s OK to be a groupie.  But be a smart groupie, understand the agenda of your group and accept their agenda or leave. That’s what liberty is all about. The freedom to leave when you do not or can no longer abide with the agenda of your group.

Be smart. Educate yourself and develop your own positions and political stance. Don’t be a robot following other’s agenda. Be an individual and make your own                

Lies and more Lies

Blogger Doug Ross has documented how a single agency, FamiliesUSA, inserted the same false story varied only in minor details, into the Main Stream Media. It turns out this organization is a front for ACORN.

Let me repeat that. ACORN sent a lie about healthcare coverage to the Main Stream Media and they printed it without ever verifying the facts.

Here is an excerpt from Doug’s post.

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

The curious case of 200 nearly identical MSM headlines

The following headlines have appeared in newspapers within the last 24 hours. This is not an inclusive list.

Third of Illinoisans went without health insurance in last 2 years: Sun-Times
Report: 2.5M in Michigan lacked health insurance: Chicago Tribune
Study: 29% of Ohioans have gone without health insurance: BizJournals
Report: More NJ residents lacking health insurance: Forbes
Study: Many Kansans are uninsured: BizJournals
Report tallies uninsured in Hawaii: KPUA AM 670
Study: 1 in 3 Alabamians have no insurance: BizJournals
1 out of 4 NH residents lacked health insurance within last two years: WBZ
1 out of 3 Coloradans lacked insurance in past two years: Denver Post
Nearly 1 in 3 Idahoans lack health insurance, study says: Idaho Statesman

There are more. I just stopped listing them because I grew weary — so weary — of the physical labor associated with cutting and pasting.

All of the stories were marketed by a liberal “advocacy group” called Families USA .

According to Discover the Networks, Families USA is a member of the “Progressive States Network”, which works closely with (you guessed it) ACORN and the SEIU. These ultra-partisan groups have truly one agenda: big government.

Read the entire posting here.