Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

Oregon readies its death panels, starting with the mentally ill

original article: Oregon Senate Committee Passes Bill to Allow Starving Mentally Ill Patients to Death
June 6, 2017 by TEVEN ERTELT

Yesterday the Oregon Senate Rules Committee passed out Senate Bill 494 on a party-line vote. Touted as a “simple update” to Oregon’s current advance directive, this bill is designed to allow for the starving and dehydrating to death of patients with dementia or mental illness.

Senate Bill 494 is little more than the state colluding with the healthcare industry to save money on the backs of mentally ill and dementia patients. This bill would remove current safeguards in Oregon’s advance directive statute that protect conscious patients’ access to ordinary food and water when they no longer have the ability to make decisions about their own care.

“It’s appalling what the Senate Rules Committee just voted to do,” said Gayle Atteberry, Oregon Right to Life executive director.  “This bill, written in a deceiving manner, has as its goal to save money at the expense of starving and dehydrating dementia and mentally ill patients to death.”

“Oregon law currently has strong safeguards to protect patients who are no longer able to make decisions for themselves,” said Atteberry. “Nursing homes and other organizations dedicated to protecting vulnerable patients work hard to make sure patients receive the food and water they need.  Senate Bill 494, pushed hard by the insurance lobby, would take patient care a step backwards and decimate patient rights.”

“Oregon Right to Life is committed to fighting this terrible legislation every step of the way,” said Atteberry.  “We have already seen the outrage of countless Oregonians that the Legislature would consider putting them in danger.  We expect the grassroots response to only increase.”

SB 494 was amended in committee yesterday.  However, the amendments did not solve the fundamental problem with the bill.  To learn more about what SB 494 will do, please watch testimony made to the Rules Committee on behalf of Oregon Right to Life yesterday by clicking here.  SB 494 likely heads to a vote of the full State Senate in the coming weeks.

Three additional bills (SB 239, SB 708 and HB 3272) that also remove rights from vulnerable patients were introduced this session.

“There is a clear effort to move state policy away from protecting the rights of patients with dementia and mental illness and toward empowering surrogates to make life-ending decisions,” Atteberry said.

Senate Bill 494 makes many changes to advance directive law, eliminating definitions that can leave a patient’s directions left open to interpretation. SB 494 would also create a committee, appointed rather than elected, that can make future changes to the advance directive without approval from the Oregon Legislature. This could easily result in further erosion of patient rights.

budget, corruption, crisis, culture, Democrats, eugenics, extremism, government, health care, ideology, left wing, legislature, liberalism, nanny state, political correctness, progressive, public policy, reform, relativism, scandal, socialism, tragedy, victimization

Advertisements

Filed under: budget, corruption, crisis, culture, Democrats, eugenics, extremism, government, health care, ideology, left wing, legislature, liberalism, nanny state, political correctness, progressive, public policy, reform, relativism, scandal, socialism, tragedy, victimization

When the shoe is on the other foot in politics

original article: God Bless Harry Reid
February 2, 2017 by CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Senate Democrats have Reid to thank for being powerless to block Gorsuch’s nomination.

There are many people to thank for the coming accession of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Donald Trump for winning the election. Hillary Clinton for losing it. Mitch McConnell for holding open the High Court seat through 2016, resolute and immovable against furious (and hypocritical) opposition from Democrats and media. And, of course, Harry Reid.

God bless Harry Reid. It’s because of him that Gorsuch is guaranteed elevation to the Court. In 2013, as then–Senate majority leader, Reid blew up the joint. He abolished the filibuster for federal appointments both executive (such as cabinet) and judicial, for all district- and circuit-court judgeships (excluding only the Supreme Court). Thus unencumbered, the Democratic-controlled Senate packed the lower courts with Obama nominees.

Reid was warned that the day would come when Republicans would be in the majority and would exploit the new rules to equal and opposite effect. That day is here. The result is striking.

Trump’s cabinet appointments are essentially unstoppable because Republicans need only 51 votes and they have 52. They have no need to reach 60, the number required to overcome a filibuster. Democrats are powerless to stop anyone on their own.

And equally powerless to stop Gorsuch. But isn’t the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees still standing? Yes, but if the Democrats dare try it, everyone knows that Majority Leader McConnell will do exactly what Reid did and invoke the nuclear option — filibuster abolition — for the Supreme Court, too.

Reid never fully appreciated the magnitude of his crime against the Senate. As I wrote at the time, the offense was not abolishing the filibuster — you can argue that issue either way — but that he did it by simple majority. In a serious body, a serious rule change requires a serious supermajority. (Amending the U.S. Constitution, for example, requires two-thirds of both houses plus three-quarters of all the states.) Otherwise you have rendered the place lawless. If in any given session you can summon up the day’s majority to change the institution’s fundamental rules, there are no rules.

McConnell can at any moment finish Reid’s work by extending filibuster abolition to the Supreme Court. But he hasn’t. He has neither invoked the nuclear option nor even threatened to. And he’s been asked often enough. His simple and unwavering response is that Gorsuch will be confirmed. Translation: If necessary, he will drop the big one.

It’s obvious that he prefers not to. No one wants to again devalue and destabilize the Senate by changing a major norm by simple majority vote. But Reid set the precedent.

Note that the issue is not the filibuster itself. There’s nothing sacred about it. Its routine use is a modern development — with effects both contradictory and unpredictable. The need for 60 votes can contribute to moderation and compromise because to achieve a supermajority you need to get a buy-in from at least some of the opposition. On the other hand, in a hyper-partisan atmosphere (like today’s), a 60-vote threshold can ensure that everything gets stopped and nothing gets done.

Filibuster abolition is good for conservatives today. It will be good for liberals tomorrow when they have regained power. There’s no great principle at stake, though as a practical matter, in this era of widespread frustration with congressional gridlock, the new norm may be salutary.

What is not salutary is the Reid precedent of changing the old norm using something so transient and capricious as the majority of the day. As I argued in 2015, eventually the two parties will need to work out a permanent arrangement under which major rule changes will require a supermajority (say, of two-thirds) to ensure substantial bipartisan support.

There are conflicting schools of thought as to whether even such a grand bargain could not itself be overturned by some future Congress — by simple majority led by the next Harry Reid. Nonetheless, even a problematic entente is better than the free-for-all that governs today.

The operative word, however, is “eventually.” Such an agreement is for the future. Not yet, not today. Republicans are no fools. They are not about to forfeit the advantage bequeathed to them by Harry Reid’s shortsighted willfulness. They will zealously retain the nuclear option for Supreme Court nominees through the current Republican tenure of Congress and the presidency.

After which, they should be ready to parlay and press the reset button. But only then. As the young Augustine famously beseeched the Lord, “Give me chastity and continency, only not yet.”

congress, constitution, Democrats, government, ideology, legislature, politics, Republicans, unintended consequences

Filed under: congress, constitution, Democrats, government, ideology, legislature, politics, Republicans, unintended consequences

Woman Who Killed Her Baby Has Conviction Overturned, Court Says Six-Day-Old Baby Isn’t a Person

original article: Woman Who Killed Her Baby Has Conviction Overturned, Court Says Six-Day-Old Baby Isn’t a Person
October 30, 2015 by MICAIAH BILGER

A New York court recently ruled that a Long Island woman who killed her baby in a car accident cannot be convicted because her baby was not a person yet.

The Times Union reports Jennifer Jorgensen previously was found guilty of second-degree manslaughter for causing the death of her baby daughter in a car crash. She also was indicted for driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol and endangering the welfare of a child, according to the report.

Jorgensen was in her third trimester when the car accident occurred in May 2008. Her daughter was delivered by C-section after the head-on collision and died six days later, according to the report.

In October, the New York Court of Appeals reversed Jorgensen’s conviction, ruling that she was not guilty because she fatally injured her daughter before she was born.

The court ruling compared Jorgensen’s actions to self-induced abortion and called it an offense that is “no greater than a misdemeanor.”

According to the report:

“… the central question in the case was whether the state Legislature intended ‘to hold pregnant women criminally responsible for engaging in reckless conduct against themselves and their unborn fetuses, such that they should be subject to criminal liability for prenatal conduct that results in postnatal death? Under the current statutory scheme, the answer to this question is no.’”

Not all of the judges agreed on the ruling. In a dissent, Judge Eugene Fahey wrote, “I cannot join in a result that analyzes our statutes to determine that a six-day-old child is not a person.”

Conservative blogger Warner Todd Huston notes that as outrageous as the ruling may seem, the court is right that current state laws do not recognize unborn babies as “persons.” Jorgensen is no longer being held accountable for her baby’s death because, in the eyes of the state, her unborn daughter did not have the rights of personhood when her reckless behavior fatally injured her child.

Huston wrote, “In this case it is clearly the legislature’s fault, not the court’s, and shows how iffy it is to say that a human doesn’t count as human until after they are ‘born.’”

Currently in the U.S., 37 states recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in some circumstances, according to the National Right to Life Committee.

New York has two conflicting statutes about the protection of unborn children from violence, according to National Right to Life. One statute calls the killing of an unborn child after 24 weeks for reasons other than abortion “homicide.” However, a separate statutory provision defines the victim of a homicide as a “human being who has been born and is alive.”

JenniferJorgensen

abortion, babies, bureaucracy, government, ideology, legislature, political correctness, public policy, relativism, tragedy

Filed under: abortion, babies, bureaucracy, government, ideology, legislature, political correctness, public policy, relativism, tragedy

Growing Rejection of Common Core

June 10, 2014 by Phyllis Schlafly

The most controversial issue in education today is clearly Common Core. It’s being more hotly debated than bullying, zero tolerance, sex ed, abortion or even school lunches.

Common Core is the title of a new set of standards the Obama administration has been trying to force the states to use. Even before the standards were written, 45 states and the District of Columbia signed on, encouraged by inducements of federal funds. The principal outliers are Texas, Alaska, Nebraska and Virginia.

Now that parents and teachers are finding out what is commanded by Common Core State Standards and what is being taught by “Common Core-aligned” materials, moms and teachers are raising a ruckus, trying to get their respective states to repeal their involvement. Many are demanding that their state withdraw altogether from Common Core, principally because they believe it is a takeover by the Obama administration of all that kids are taught and not taught.

The backlash against Common Core has developed into a potent political force. About 100 bills have been introduced into various state legislatures to cancel, stop or slow down Common Core requirements.

read full article: Growing Rejection of Common Core

children, education, government, ideology, legislature, nanny state, public policy, reform, regulation

Filed under: children, education, government, ideology, legislature, nanny state, public policy, reform, regulation

Apparently some people need racism (and it may not be who you think)

On Sunday’s Melissa Harris-Perry MSNBC show (h/t to Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters) viewers witnessed yet another example of an all too common phenomenon in American politics. It’s the same phenomenon we witnessed during the Henry Lewis Gates controversy (where the Cambridge police department, including black police officers, defended their white comrade against accusations of racism made by Prof. Gates) and the Duke Lacrosse team controversy (where members of the Duke Lacrosse team were falsely accused of racism and the account of their accuser changed too many times to know what was true and what wasn’t). It’s the phenomenon, as the honorable Bob Parks put it, of finding racism even when it isn’t there.

Evidently some people need racism. Acknowledging that there has been a great deal of progress against racism since the 1960s is not the same as saying or in any way suggesting racism has been eliminated. That some unnamed Americans claim racism has been eliminated is a red herring perpetrated by people who make their living criticizing racism, even if they have to manufacture it in order to have something to criticize. To keep themselves employed these individuals and groups must charge someone else of racism or of somehow diminishing the importance of race issues. In reality, charges of false racism damage efforts to fight real racism – often racism ignored by the so called defenders of civil rights.

Ron Christie was the sole conservative voice on a 5 person panel on the MSNBC program. As is typical of main stream news venues, when a conservative voice is permitted at all it is vastly outnumbered (in this case 4 to 1, including the ultra left wing host Harris-Perry). One of the guests, Angela Rye, unsurprisingly perpetuated the myth that racism permeates the Tea Party. Her particular charge was that referring to the still unprovable incident of Rep. John Lewis being spit upon while walking through a Tea Party protest.

The problem with this particular charge is that there is ample video footage of the alleged incident where no N-word can be heard and no spit can be found being hurled at Rep. Lewis. And as Ron Christie explains, he was physically present at said event. But, in the world of those who get paid to find racism, mere accusations and syndication of those accusations qualify as evidence. Many people regard opinion polls on matters of race as “studies” and treat as legitimate overtly left wing “news” reports with loaded questions and rigged metrics. (One blogger finds no reason to question left wing sources or narrative which filters any and all information about the Tea Party, Republicans, or conservatives at large – all while dishonestly denying they are suggesting ALL members of these groups are racist, when in fact that is precisely what they are suggesting).

Angela Rye was in fact arguing the Tea Party is a racist organization. While having real evidence to support the assertion is not required, she does have popular sentiment among fellow progressives who likewise accept these accusations simply because so many other progressives believe them too. Following the narrative is what satisfies left leaning logic in political matters. For Rye, an eye witness account and lack of video evidence among plenty of video footage will not trump propaganda. All evidence for right wing racism must be treated as self evident of the character of the entire entirety of the political right. Why? Because looking at a situation without anti-conservative bias would not yield the necessary “racist undertones” required for progressivism and race baiting to survive. Among progressives, the Tea Party is widely “known” as a racist organization primarily because it is what progressives have already decided to believe, thus it becomes a self fulfilling perspective – reality be damned. (no need to talk about racism found at left wing protests)

Instead of evidence, progressives simply repeat the typical ultra-left play book. This means, as we saw with the Gates situation and the Duke Lacrosse situation, one can make accusations and not bother with the facts. In all three cases (Gates, Duke, and the Tea Party) accusations of racism are made, the accusations get wide news coverage, and evidence may or may not be disclosed later – because the evidence is not what is important. As in the case of the Gates and Duke Lacrosse incidents, a total lack of evidence is largely ignored by the left. Why ignore evidence of left wing racism and foment racial strife with the political right? One may get the impression that combating racism really isn’t the point. The battle is against the political right, against conservatives. Because, to the progressive, what is really at stake is not freedom or justice, but power.

It’s easier to fight against freedom and promote supposedly benevolent oppression if everything the other side says and does can be portrayed as evil. So you don’t have to listen to “kill the bill” when members of the Congressional Black Caucus walk through a protest. You don’t have to worry about the fact that the federal government can now punish you for NOT purchasing a particular product – at a rate of $4000 dollars per year. Anything and everything the Tea Party, Republicans, or conservatives say must be interpreted with ill intent, so the words they actually say no longer have meaning – it’s better to pretend we know what they “really” meant to say – and put words in their mouth or presume their true intent. The entire progressive movement NEEDS racism if they are to maintain their political power, even if it means manufacturing racism.

If Ray, Harris-Perry, and so many others find it so necessary to discuss racism among the Tea Party I humbly suggest they should be equally zealous to expose left wing racism as well. But it seems easier to just pretend there isn’t any left wing racism, or at least pretend any incidents of left wing racism are isolated (which is somehow supposed to make them insignificant), and any incidents of right wing racism are common place (even if they have to be invented).

Regarding the alleged spitting incident, there is some video evidence of this happening, but not with Rep. John Lewis as is so often stated. As is often the case, what happens on screen can be interpreted quite differently, depending on the bias one brings to the table. This video shows Rep. Emanuel Cleaver walking behind Rep. Lewis. You’ll see Rep. Cleaver walking up the steps with protesters yelling “kill the bill”. [Note to leftists reading this post: “kill the bill” is not code for “I want to kill you” or anything other than opposition to a piece of legislation.] As the video shows, the Congressmen walk in close proximity to some yelling protesters, one of whom has his hands clasped over his mouth forming something like a megaphone. This particular protester yells his “kill the bill” message at Rep. Lewis and others who walk in front of Rep. Cleaver, and continues the yelling as Rep. Cleaver walks past. It appears as thought fluid does in fact leave the protester’s mouth. But rather than acknowledge a likely possibility, that saliva built up in his mouth during his yelling and he ACCIDENTALLY spit on the passing Congressman, the progressives would have you believe the man is skillful enough to continue yelling and hock a luge at the same time, DELIBERATELY spitting on the Congressman. Likewise, progressives selectively acknowledge the difficulty in understanding anything said at the loud protest, but insist with absolute certainty racial epithets were stated, undiscernible though they may be. Of course, being a Tea Party protest, only the worst possibilities are be acknowledged. No benefit of the doubt is necessary. While the expectoration could easily have been accidental the baseless accusations of racial epithets and race hustling cannot.

bias, bigotry, congress, conservative, culture, discrimination, fraud, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, legislation, legislature, news media, pandering, political correctness, politics, propaganda, protests, racism, racist, relativism, right wing

Filed under: bias, bigotry, congress, conservative, culture, discrimination, fraud, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, legislation, legislature, news media, pandering, political correctness, politics, propaganda, protests, racism, racist, relativism, right wing

Placing an undue burden

A recent article explains that a federal judge in Texas thinks a recent state anti-abortion law places an undue burden on women in some instances. That’s ironic, considering the “undue burden” argument could also be said of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) an the entire American people. But with the way things are progressing these days (please forgive the pun) abortion will be protected against undue burdens, but the burdens themselves will be protected in regard to Obamacare.

abortion, bias, health care, hypocrisy, ideology, judiciary, legislature, politics, public policy, regulation

Filed under: abortion, bias, health care, hypocrisy, ideology, judiciary, legislature, politics, public policy, regulation

It’s easy to blame Republicans when you don’t know how things work

The current government shutdown is, as we’ve all been told, a result of Congress failing to agree on funding measures. Since Congress controls federal money they have the responsibility of appropriating that money. If they don’t, stuff doesn’t get funded (well some stuff, a LOT of stuff is funded automatically). A curious thing about propaganda is that it works with the illusion of keeping people informed. But it does so in a way that makes people think they know what’s going on without ever looking into the situation for themselves. Propaganda works best when people are diverted away from thinking for themselves. If you haven’t looked into the situation, or if you have but you’ve made sure to protect yourself from the supposed lies of the other side, how do you really know what’s going on with only the one narrative you’ve been exposed to?

Thinking people ask questions. They don’t blindly accept someone else’s word on a controversial issue. Some people recognize the fact that both parties and both houses of Congress have failed to reach an agreement. With the news media insistent on finding someone to blame, with just the failure of Congress we should be blaming both parties. And some are doing that. But that is not what we’re supposed to do, because our faithful gatekeepers of the news are to determined to make sure you blame only Republicans for the shutdown. That’s especially odd considering how our American government actually works. So let’s take a closer look at that by following a simple and well known axiom: follow the money.

Once tax receipts are in the hands of the federal government, how does it make its way to the people who depend on it? It begins in the House of Representatives. According to the law of the land, Article I Section 7 begins with:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

So the House of Representatives starts the government funding process by producing funding legislation. And have they been doing this? How many funding measures has the House of Representatives approved recently? Since September 20, in efforts to avoid a shutdown before October 1, and in efforts to keep essential programs funded after October 1, the House has passed 22 pieces of legislation to fund the government. Since House Republicans are continually blamed for the shutdown Speaker John Boehner created this page to keep track of bills passed by the House.

According to the list, on October 1 the Speaker of the House attempted to create a conference between the House and the Senate specifically to negotiate about funding measures to end the shutdown – which Democrats refused. Seeing the shutdown before it actually hit, the House passed the Pay Our Military Act on Sept. 28. That bill passed in the Senate and President Obama signed it into law. All other measures designed to avoid a government shutdown either died in the Senate or the President simply hasn’t moved on it.

The only two measures both houses of Congress could manage to agree on funding were the Pay Our Military Act (Sept.28) and the Honoring Families of Fallen Soldiers (Oct. 9). The president hasn’t done anything with the latter. That leaves 21 other funding measures passed by the House but killed by the (Democrat controlled) Senate.

Here is the list of these funding measures:

  • Continuing Resolution (to keep government funded)
    passed by the House Sept. 20 – died in the Senate
  • Continuing Resolution (to keep government funded)
    passed by the House Sept. 28 – died in the Senate
  • Continuing Resolution (to keep government funded)
    passed by the House Sept. 30 – died in the Senate
  • another Continuing Resolution (to keep government funded)
    passed by the House Sept. 30 – died in the Senate
  • Provide local funding for the District of Columbia Act
    passed by the House Oct. 2 – died in the Senate
  • Open our National Parks and Museums Act
    passed by the House Oct. 2 – died in the Senate
  • Research for Lifesaving Cures Act
    passed by the House Oct. 2 – died in the Senate
  • Pay our Guard and Reserve Act
    passed by the House Oct. 3 – died in the Senate
  • Honoring our Promise to America’s Veterans Act
    passed by the House Oct. 3 – died in the Senate
  • National Emergency and Disaster Recover Act
    passed by the House Oct. 4 – died in the Senate
  • Nutritional Assistance for Low-Income Women and Children Act
    passed by the House Oct. 4 – died in the Senate
  • Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act
    passed by the House Oct. 5 – never brought up in the Senate
  • Food and Drug Safety Act
    passed by the House Oct. 7 – died in the Senate
  • Head Start for Low-Income Children Act
    passed by the House Oct. 8 – died in the Senate
  • Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth Working Group Act
    passed by the House Oct. 8 – died in the Senate
  • Federal Worker Pay Fairness Act
    passed by the House Oct. 8 – died in the Senate
  • Flight Safety Act
    passed by the House Oct. 9 – died in the Senate
  • Honoring Families of Fallen Soldiers
    passed by the House Oct. 9 – passed by Senate, stalled by President
  • Border Safety and Security Act
    passed by the House Oct. 10 – died in the Senate
  • Nuclear Weapon Security and Non-Proliferation Act
    passed by the House Oct. 11 – died in the Senate
  • American Indian and Alaska Native, Health, Education, and Safety
    passed by the House Oct. 14 – died in the Senate

Some on the political left don’t like the term “Obamacare”. They want to make sure you understand the legislation is called the Affordable Care Act (actually it’s the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). Doesn’t that sound lovely and compassionate? Who would dare oppose such benevolent government? If the title of a piece of legislation is all you need to know about it (how may of the roughly 2800 pages of Obamacare have you read?) take a look again at the bills listed above.

The Republican controlled House has passed bill after bill for funding the government to end the shutdown. Senate Democrats and President Obama have decided not to negotiate until they get everything they want. The Senate has killed the vast majority of spending measures sent their way during this “crisis”. Apparently that’s what negotiation means in American politics today.

In this shutdown there is only one possible way the House of Representatives could be responsible for it – and that’s by refusing to appropriate money. They have refused to fund Obamacare, but Republicans have not refused to fund the rest of the government. It is the Senate and President Obama who have done that. House Republicans did exactly what the constitution says they should to fund government. Republicans did their job but the Senate can’t pass up an opportunity to politically exploit the situation. This is a Democrat shutdown, according to the law of the land.

congress, constitution, crisis, Democrats, diplomacy, economy, funding, government, health care, indoctrination, legislature, pandering, president, propaganda, public policy, spending

Filed under: congress, constitution, crisis, Democrats, diplomacy, economy, funding, government, health care, indoctrination, legislature, pandering, president, propaganda, public policy, spending

Does the president know what negotiation means?

So President Obama will talk with terrorists. But he won’t talk with Republicans. Republicans decide to give in to a major demand of Democrats. And the president and Democrat controlled Senate reject the offer, demand more.

Now you might be tempted to say that’s exactly how negotiation works, and Democrats are executing it brilliantly. If that were the only factor to consider you’d be right. But to reject almost every offer made by Republicans and yet continue blaming Republicans for the government shutdown doesn’t compute. Without willing accomplices among the information gatekeepers logic leads us to conclude the people who won’t accept any deal unless they get EVERYTHING they want are in fact responsible for the shutdown. But with a news media who does for Democrats what marketing does for business all you need is to put out a ridiculous narrative about how Republicans won’t play nice and it gets blindly repeated at almost every media outlet.

Thinking for yourself is tantamount to racism, so don’t bother trying. With a team like this who needs to negotiate?

bias, congress, crisis, Democrats, diplomacy, economy, government, health care, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, legislature, liberalism, nanny state, news media, pandering, politics, president, propaganda, public policy, racism, racist, Republicans

Filed under: bias, congress, crisis, Democrats, diplomacy, economy, government, health care, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, legislature, liberalism, nanny state, news media, pandering, politics, president, propaganda, public policy, racism, racist, Republicans

Obama attacks core of organized labor

In trying to criticize Congressional Republicans over the government shutdown President Obama had these remarks:

“Everybody here just does their job, right? If you’re working here and in the middle of the day you just stopped and said ‘you know what, I want to get something, but I don’t know exactly what I’m gonna get. I’m just going to stop working till I get something – I’m just going to shut down the whole plant until I get something’ – You’d get fired, right?

Cuz the deal is, you’ve already gotten hired. You’ve got a job. You’re getting a paycheck. ..And so you also are getting the pride of doing a good job, and contributing to a business, and looking out for your fellow workers. That’s what you’re getting. It shouldn’t be any different for a member of Congress.”

You hear that union members? The very thing that makes organized labor work, the President finds humorous, greedy, and not worth taking seriously.

budget, congress, crisis, economy, government, left wing, legislature, politics, president, public policy

Filed under: budget, congress, crisis, economy, government, left wing, legislature, politics, president, public policy

More politics as usual – exploiting WWII vets

October 1, 2013: federal government shuts down – both parties blame each other.
Somehow the controlling party finds money to not only barricade an open air WWII memorial (typically open 24/7 – showing no logical reason for the barricades) but to also post guards with orders (from the Executive Branch) to arrest any WWII veterans trying to visit said memorial. House GOP moves to fund WWII memorial (not that a lack of funding really affects it) and the President threatens to veto it. Members of GOP greet veterans at the memorial who are visiting in violation of law.
(see WWII Vets Return to Their Memorial
National WWII Memorial – Washington, D.C.)

Democrats also specifically choose NOT to fund veterans benefits unless they get everything they want.
(see Report: Nancy Pelosi urges ‘no’ vote on funding for veterans’ benefits)

Social media keeps nation informed of the situation.

October 2, 2013: politicians from both parties greet veterans visiting their own WWII memorial.

Democrats, fraud, funding, gaffe, government, hypocrisy, ideology, legislature, oppression, pandering, politics, president, public policy, scandal, spending, troops

Filed under: Democrats, fraud, funding, gaffe, government, hypocrisy, ideology, legislature, oppression, pandering, politics, president, public policy, scandal, spending, troops

Pages

Categories

September 2017
M T W T F S S
« Aug    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930