Friday, December 14, 2012

Newtown, Connecticut...December  14, 2012
Today we join the angels in crying for all those lost, especially for the littlest innocent souls...the souls of the children...may they Rest in Peace in God's embrace forever and a day.

Marine Double Amputee ‘Humiliated’ to Point of Tears on Delta Flight Gets Helping Hand From Fellow Vets

by
 
Marine Lance Cpl. Christian Brown Gets Help From Fellow Vets Following Delta Treatment

Facebook: Marine Lance Cpl. Christian Brown


“I have been flying with Delta for a gazillion years and this crew treated Chris worse than you’d treat any thing, not even any body.” That was the opening line of retired Army Lt. Col. Keith Gafford, during a phone interview about the egregious treatment on Delta Airlines of fellow veteran, Marine Lance Cpl. Christian Brown, who is now a double amputee following severe injuries acquired while serving in Afghanistan.

“I did 27 years in the military. I have seen a lot of things and have seen a lot of guys die, but I have never seen a Marine cry,” added Gafford. “What the kid said was, ‘I have given everything that I can give and this is the way I am being treated? This is how I will be treated for the rest of my life?’”

Gafford’s stern words came in defense of Brown, who just last Sunday was “humiliated” to the point of tears during a Delta flight from Atlanta to Washington. According to the Washington Post, the Marine was treated disrespectfully and clumsily when he was wheeled to the very back of the plane.

To make matters worse, retired Army Col. Nickey Knighton, who along with Gafford were on board at the time provided a detailed and scathing “customer care” report to Delta after other vets attempted to move Brown from coach to a first class seat offered by another flyer, but were refused by the in-flight crew. WaPo provides context including the fact that Brown was ill with a 104 degree temperature at the during the flight:
On Dec. 13, 2011, Marine Lance Cpl. Christian Brown was leading his squad on a foot patrol in Afghanistan’s Helmand province when he stepped on an explosive device that blew off both his legs, one above the knee, the other below his hip. He also lost part of his right index finger.
Knighton, a former helicopter pilot with nearly 30 years of service, who turned out to be seated in the same back row as Brown, assumed that because he boarded last, he would be seated up front for comfort and ease of exit in case of emergency. Instead, she wrote in a complaint obtained by “She The People,” he was squeezed into a narrow aviation wheelchair that “bumped up against stationary aisle seats as he was wheeled through the aircraft. [He] was obviously humiliated by being paraded through the aircraft and was visibly upset. I touched Brown on his shoulders and asked if he was okay. Tears ran down his face, but he did not cry out loud.”
What Knighton did not tell Delta, perhaps because she did not know, was that Brown, 29, was also very ill with a high fever. He was returning, via Atlanta, from a hunting trip in Alabama for injured service members to the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md.  Injured on his second deployment to Afghanistan after joining the Marines in April, 2009, Brown has spent nearly a year at the complex outside Washington, D.C.
Brown, a strapping six-footer when he enlisted, was flying back to Washington with a military “escort buddy,” but his mother told me that had she been with her son, “it would have turned out a little bit differently. I just can’t imagine what it was like for him, being that sick. He had a 104-degree fever and he was shaking. He was quite obviously sick.”
Brown and his mother, who live 25 miles north of Memphis in the town of Munford, declined to offer specifics about what he actually experienced on the plane.

During his phone interview, Gafford added that two first-class passengers offered Brown their seats, “but the flight attendant said we have to go.”

“How many times have we sat on the tarmac for 45 minutes? You could close the door and still make an adjustment,” he said soberly before blasting the flight-crew for being “hard as woodpecker lips.”
Meanwhile, Delta communications spokesman Michael R. Thomas offered an email-statement addressing Knighton’s letter:

Marine Lance Cpl. Christian Brown

Marine Lance Cpl. Christian Brown Gets Help From Fellow Vets Following Delta Treatment“The story in no way reflects either Delta’s standard operating procedure or the very high regard we hold for our nation’s service members. We are sorry for the difficulties that transpired and are investigating this event to determine the appropriate next steps.”

When Thomas was pressed on what those next steps might be, he replied by email: “As previously stated, we are actively looking into the incident and have no additional details to share at this time.”

At the end of the day, what matters most to Knighton is that other wounded warrior are not degraded or treated in such a disrespectful manner.

“I don’t want another wounded warrior, a veteran, or anyone with any type of disability to be handled in this fashion.  It was just senseless to me to the point of, ‘I can’t believe this is happening.’”
Op-ed:

Susan Rice...sacrificial lamb and too blind to see it
By: Diane Sori

Susan Rice has withdrawn her name from consideration as the next Secretary of State to replace the retiring Hilary Clinton (good riddance by the way). 

Like this wasn't expected.

After her 'performance' of lies on the Sunday talk show circuit soon following the Benghazi fiasco, the oh so NOT professional Susan Rice tried to squirm her way out of responsibility for her own actions (typical liberal) when she testified at the Benghazi hearings. After all, she knew damn well that the attack was NOT because of a YouTube video and she knows the true reason...gun and weapons running gone horribly wrong...yet she either willingly chose of her own free will to play along and cover for her boss or she really is just too stupid and gullible to ever hold the position of Secretary of State.

As much as I dislike Hillary one thing you can never call her is stupid...yet the name fits Rice well.

Susan Rice, US ambassador to the U(seless) N(ations), Rhodes scholar, and with a long history of government service, was too 'stupid' to see that her 'anointed one' used her as his sacrificial lamb so he could get his first choice, 'Swiftboat' John Kerry, as his next Secretary of State.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama is an expert at manipulation and manipulate Rice he did. Knowing that Kerry would NOT fly, at first that is, he had to set someone up that he could use to deflect blame off himself and keep Kerry off the radar for the time being...someone he knew would never be able to take the heat he knew was coming, and Rice fit the bill well because he knew Rice was loyal to him, would do anything for him, would take the heat for him.

Obama knew Rice would draw heavy criticism from Republican lawmakers after saying she was given the information she used on the talk shows by the CIA, and he knew that even after she would later admit that her statements given were indeed incorrect, he knew that those on the Benghazi committee would actively work against her candidacy, and he didn't care.

And on that he was right as Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham never let up on her and rightly so. And while her defenders try to paint this as partisan politics done just to set a damaging precedent to stop Obama from surrounding himself with the (anti-America) people he believes he needs...to pay him back for the Republican presidential loss...nothing could be further from the truth because we know Susan Rice was used...was sacrificed...so that John Kerry could be snuck in in the aftermath of Rice's fall from grace.

Obama knows he can manipulate the gullible RINOS into thinking, 'OK, he withdrew on Rice now we need to play nice-nice and work in the spirit of bipartisanship so we'll let him have Kerry.' This, in my opinion, was Obama's plan all along for he needs to surround himself with those who hate America and all she stands for as much as he does, someone whose very words and actions show they are loyal to his plan of reforming our beloved America into his socialist dream, and Mr. Swiftboat, ubber liberal John Kerry, fits that bill well.

And manipulate the game board Obama did and the RINOS will fall for it and play along. And now we will have a traitor as president and a traitor as Secretary of State, and the descend towards socialism just drew even closer than it was before.

Better Be Glad Obama Won

by / Personal Liberty Digest

Better Be Glad Obama Won
OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTO BY PETE SOUZA

I’m beginning to think it doesn’t much matter whether this country plunges over the so-called fiscal cliff in two weeks. Regardless of whether Congress and the President reach some sort of accommodation over how much the “rich” will be taxed, a financial train wreck looks almost unavoidable.

Consider a few of the warning indicators that are flashing.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics just reported that 847,000 new jobs were created in the United States in the past six months. While that’s not enough to make a meaningful dent in the unemployment numbers, it’s at least a step in the right direction, right?

Not when you read the fine print in the BLS report. When you do, you’ll discover that 73.3 percent of those new jobs are in government. That’s right; of all the new jobs created in the United States since June 1, the Labor Department says only one in four were in private enterprise. All of the rest are new government employees. No wonder government spending is going through the roof.

Speaking of government spending, in the first two months of Fiscal 2013 (which began Oct. 1), the Federal government spent $638 billion. But it collected only $346 billion in revenue. This means that it borrowed 46 cents for every dollar it disbursed.

Some of that money went to all the people who have been added to the food stamp rolls — more than 1 million in August and September alone. I haven’t seen the numbers for November yet, but I doubt if they’ll be much better. The Labor Department reports that some 350,000 people left the workforce last month — nearly three times the number who actually got jobs.

The short-term picture doesn’t look very good, does it? Well, I’m sorry to tell you that the longer-term picture is even more alarming.

The latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office are that Federal deficit spending will surpass 100 percent of the gross domestic product of this country by 2025. And that it will double from there after another 12 years, reaching almost 200 percent of GDP by 2037.

But don’t worry about these astronomical levels of government spending. We’ll never reach them. Long before that can happen, the economy is going to crash. As former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said: “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”

The Federal behemoth will run out of “other people’s money” long before it is gobbling up 200 percent of our GDP.

So what happens when the feathers hit the fan? What happens when unemployment soars and tax revenues fall? What happens when it becomes obvious to everyone and his brother that our massive entitlement programs can’t be sustained?

The Federal government won’t be able to borrow its way out of the mess it’s created. And it won’t be able to print its way out, either.

Oh, sure, for a while it will try to do both. That’s why I’m so certain that the dollar will continue to decline in value, while tangible assets (with gold and silver leading the list) will continue to climb.

But sooner or later, things are going to get really messy. And when they do, I hope there will be a massive repudiation of the tax-and-tax, spend-and-spend policies that brought us there.

Sadly, that’s not what happened during our last economic catastrophe. The Great Depression got blamed on capitalism. As a result, the country took a massive turn to the left under Franklin Roosevelt and his comrades.

But even the talking heads on MSNBC will have a hard time blaming the coming crisis on the right. When that day comes, conservatives should be very glad that Barrack Hussein Obama won re-election in November.

That’s why it’s so vital that we conservatives hold our ground, that we continue to defend and promote the principles we know are true and that we do everything in our power to explain the economic facts of life to our families, friends and neighbors.

At a time when the future looked even bleaker than it does today, George Washington said: “Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.”

That’s the best advice I can offer today to help sustain you in the difficult days that lay ahead.

Oh, and one more thing. Until next time, keep some powder dry.

Media shocked Ground Zero mosqueteers are liars

Exclusive: Pamela Geller teaches reporters realities of effort to establish 'victory' facility

by Pamela Geller / WND Commentary 


“It’s all pray and no play,” said the New York Post on Sunday. “The Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero that opened with great fanfare a year ago is now an empty space with no community programs. And while the developers behind Park51 insisted for two years that the project was more than a mosque, it now appears to be just that. Dozens of worshipers gather at the site on Park Place Friday for prayer services – but that’s the only activity in the building.”

The New York Post sounds surprised that the Ground Zero mosqueteers turned out to be liars. I’m not. It’s the modus operandi of mega-mosque builders. Sell it as one thing, but build a beachhead for Islamic supremacism.

Aren’t you glad we defeated that mega-monster? Don’t fall for the “they opened the mosque” – or the “community center” – lie. They were always praying in the Burlington Coat Factory building that was partially destroyed in the September 11 attacks, the same building that houses “Park51″ now. Look at the story at my website AtlasShrugs.com back in December 2009, when I first took up the fight. They were praying there then. It was never about that. They pray everywhere. They pray in the streets at Ground Zero – facing Mecca, of course. So what else is new?

What we were fighting was the 15-story mega-mosque they had planned to build at Ground Zero. And we won. The rest is all propaganda.

And there has been plenty of propaganda. The New York Times kept pimping for the hustler who is the “developer” of Park51, Sharif El-Gamal, long after we exposed him as the fraud and two-bit gangster he is. El-Gamal thinks that beating people up is a great “stress reliever.” He threatened Muslims who think that the triumphal mosque is offensive. He is a deadbeat who didn’t pay his taxes – to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars. He defaulted on not one bank loan, but two. And he was evicted from his Soho properties offices. On top of all that, he lost in a series of lawsuits ConEd filed for back payment of rent. ConEd is trying to evict him.

The imam who had been closely associated with the project, Faisal Abdul Rauf, is another slick liar. As I revealed in August 2010, he is not at all as “moderate” as the media are so desperate to portray him.

Speaking on July 12, 2005, at the Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Centre in Australia, Rauf delivered a few choice sound bites that belied his moderate image and raised questions about what the mega-mosque would really have stood for if it had gone up.

Here’s Rauf saying the U.S. is worse than al-Qaida:

“We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al- Qaida has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims. You may remember that the U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was secretary of state and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.”

No mention of the millions of victims of over a millennium of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilation and enslavement. No mention of the recent slaughter by Muslims of Christians, Hindus, Jews, non-believers in Indonesia, Thailand, Ethiopia, Somalia, Philippines, Lebanon, Israel, Russia and China.
Rauf’s words manifested no candor, no criticism of Islam or Muslim – in other words, none of the mutual respect and willingness to take responsibility we might expect from such a celebrated “moderate.”

And on the question of expunging Islamic texts of the mandates for violence and conquest that modern-day jihadists point to, Rauf said: “Islam does not need a reformation.”

Rauf also praised the worst extremists and inciters to genocide. In his address in Australia he said he had just come from a conference in Jordan featuring “over 170 leading Muslim scholars from almost every part of the Muslim world, including some of the most important names like Sheikh Tantawi of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, who is the chief mufti of Egypt, the chief mufti of Jordan, the Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, who is a very, very well-known Islamic jurist, highly regarded all over the Muslim world.”

The late Sheikh Tantawi several years ago endorsed suicide attacks against Israelis, as did Sheikh Qaradawi, who has praised Hitler and prayed to Allah to destroy the Jews. Sheikh Gomaa has defended Islam’s death penalty for apostasy and sanction for wife-beating, and has endorsed the jihad terror group Hezbollah.
Moderates?

Yet those who favored construction of a 15-story mega-mosque at Ground Zero said that those who opposed it were racists and bigots. It was absurd to suggest that the 70 percent of Americans who oppose the building of the mosque did so out of hatred of Muslims. Americans just didn’t want a victory mosque marking the site of the 9/11 attacks. They don’t want an insult to the 3,000 Americans who were murdered there by Islamic jihadists and for whom Ground Zero is a cemetery.

And Americans prevented that mosque from being built – no thanks to the enemedia, which is still claiming victory even as their narrative crashes to the ground all around them. There has been, and will not be, any media mea culpa.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/media-shocked-ground-zero-mosqueteers-are-liars/#3GkUPXxUH2CoLpqg.99

Did president lie to America about Osama raid?

Government's own evidence undermines timeline


by Bob Unruh / WND
osama_obama
A persistent critic of Barack Obama claims in a report that the president lied to the American public about the U.S. military raid in Pakistan in which Osama bin Laden was killed, basing her allegations on evidence released by the U.S. government itself.

The report by Pamela Barnett, who was a plaintiff in legal cases challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility, first was published by the Western Center for Journalism, although both AP and Judicial Watch also have reported on the release of the emails.

Critically important is one of the redacted military emails regarding the bin Laden death that references plans for a burial, dated April 29, 2011.

Under a subject line of “burial,” Samuel Perez, commander of Carrier Strike Group One, said, “Do I need any special religious/ceremonial preparations?”

But it was on May 1, 2011, that Obama announced to the world that the mission “today” had killed bin Laden.

“Obama lied to every American and the rest of the world about the date of the alleged Osama bin Laden killing,” Barnett charged in the report. “According to a live speech … given to the country late night on May 1, 2011, Obama stated, ‘Today at my direction the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound … in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.’”

Barnett said the “emails in my possession received directly from the Department of Defense as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request for Osama bin Laden’s killing and burial related documents, reveal that the mission to allegedly ‘kill Osama’ occurred April 28, 2011, or earlier, not May 1, 2011, as Obama claimed.”

Critics say Obama has withheld key details about the mission from the American public yet reportedly allowed classified details to be handed over to moviemakers.

Images of the bin Laden “burial at sea” have been withheld, and the administration hasn’t explained why only a handful of members of the military among the thousands aboard ship were allowed to witness the burial.

In a post at Breitbart.com, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton suggested the email evidence means “preparations for receipt of bin Laden’s body were considered three days before the raid, which as Catherine Herridge at Fox News notes, ‘raises an interesting question over whether the administration’s statement that it was first and foremost a capture mission was accurate.’”

Barnett, in an interview with WND, noted that Obama twice stated on May 1 that the bin Laden attack happened “today.”

And she has her own perspective on why the statement was made on that date.

“So why did Obama lie about the date that Osama was killed? Was it timed to further control the media by giving them a new, sexier story than a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing the next morning in Pasadena, Calif., that confirmed that Obama’s real, unforged constitutional credentials had/have NEVER been vetted by any court or anyone in any state or federal government agency?”

She said the court “eventually ruled that no one had standing after the 2008 election, except possibly a candidate; and Ambassador Allen Keyes was not running for president again, so the case was dismissed.”
Barnett and other plaintiffs pursued several cases in both state and federal courts over Obama’s 2008 election. All were rejected by courts up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Over the course of the arguments in the cases, it was, however, revealed that there is a precedent for removing a top elected official from office. In the 1930s, the Supreme Court of North Dakota removed a governor after it was discovered he did not meet the state constitution’s residency requirements.

The facts undermined the repeated arguments by the Obama administration, as well as many court decisions, that the courts had no authority to intervene in an election regarding a candidate’s eligibility.

Many similar arguments are being raised again following the 2012 election.

Barnett noted that prior to the bin Laden statement from Obama, the “major news networks were going to cover an actual court hearing on Obama’s ineligibility and fraud crimes the very next morning.”

“Obama and his operatives saw this coming and wanted to further keep the American people and media in the dark regarding his ineligibility, forged documents, and use of a Connecticut Social Security number never assigned to him,” Barnett said in her report.

Her report also noted a military leader, Rear Adm. Charles Gaoutte, was included in the released emails with a statement from him explaining the “paucity” of records on bin Laden reflected the “security” surrounding the mission.

A short time later, Gaoutte was unceremoniously dumped from his command.

“Was [he] relieved from command because he did not like that the U.S. military and Obama were lying to the American people?” Barnett questioned. “Was the admiral being set up by the Obama administration for not wanting to keep the Osama lie quiet?”

Barnett said the circumstances of the mission and the lack of information being released show that Obama and those surrounding him, “including high members of the military, are willing to go to any lengths to put Obama in a good light.”

The scenario is reflective, she said, of someone intent on being all-powerful.

“He’s completely grabbed the reins of control. [In the coming term], I expect Internet controls coming down the line. I expect more unconstitutional actions on hyper drive,” she said.

“Also, the judiciary is completely being unaccountable. … They’ve gotten away with hiding Obama’s ineligibility by making tyrannical rulings not based in fact or law. … I feel like I live in a banana republic right now.”

In one of the released military emails, the sea burial was described:

Traditional procedures for Islamic burial was (sic) followed. The deceased body was washed (ablution) then placed in a white sheet. The body was placed in a weighted bag. A military officer read prepared religious remarks, which were translated into Arabic by a native speaker. After words were complete, the body was placed on a prepared flatboard, tipped up, whereupon the deceased’s body slid into the 
seas.

But commentators note that the “religious remarks” never were released, and there appears to be no record of them.

In the Breitbart report, Fitton wrote that if Navy regulations were followed, Islamic remarks for a funeral could have included the prayer, “O Allah, forgive him, have mercy on him, pardon him, grant him security, provide him a nice place and spacious lodging, wash him with water, snow, and ice, purify him … make him enter paradise and save him from the trials of grave and the punishment of hell.”

“I can imagine that this prayer might upset more than a few Americans,” Fitton said.

Hail, Hail Michigan

If you read me regularly, you’ll know that there are very few things that I feel strongly about ;-). I’m kind of a wilting violet in print, who tries hard not to impose his views on readers. Instead, I paint words pictures of objective fact, interlaced with strongly-reasoned logical progressions that allows readers to form their own opinions unguided by me. (Take a deep breath here, and clean the coffee off your nose, chin, lips and computer screen) 

Today is no different.

Unions suck.

Really they do. I have said this before, as an objective fact:

“They suck the money out of our wallets,” I wrote in July, “they suck productivity out of workers; and suck up all the leavings from the public trough. Increasingly, the public has had it with the private country clubs known as ‘public’ unions.”

The trouble with education, much public policy, government spending and the every-twenty-five-year bailout of auto companies in this country starts and ends with unions. I continued:
They are out-of- touch museum relics, fitting for a day that used rotary presses to distribute the news, but wildly inappropriate for an age that‘s both wired and wireless. Unions have prevented, and continue to prevent, much-needed reforms in education, public finance and government. They cultivate a sense of entitlement wholly out of order for the times, which call for more self-reliance and entrepreneurship.
Union advocates like to reply to this thesis- with good reason- by sticking fingers in their ears, jumping up and down in place, saying “pork, pork, pork,” while vaguely threatening the voting public with vengeance if unions don’t get more “pork.” 

The good reason they chose this line of attack is that they have no logical argument to make.

They are like the man told to us by Patrick Henry.

Amid the general joy and shouts of triumph by the freezing, threadbare American army that accepted the surrender of the British army under Cornwallis at Yorktown, Henry tells us, was one John Hook, who could only think of the beef he lost, confiscated to provide food for the starving, yet victorious army.

“But hark!” says Henry. “What notes of discord are these that disturb the general joy and silence the acclimations of victory? They are the notes of John Hook, hoarsely bawling through the American camp

‘Beef! Beef! Beef !’” in protest of his loss.

So it goes with unions.

Cities may go bankrupt, police may be laid off, public safety endangered and public finance corrupted but the unions get paid first, no matter what.

As real-life mobster and union delegate Henry Hill explained it in the movie Goodfellas: “Business bad? F-- you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? F-- you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning huh? F-- you, pay me."

That’s why it shouldn’t surprise us that while most of America hails Michigan for victory in passing a right-to-work law in the union-controlled state that borders Canada, the unions are complaining about their beef- and their benefits. They did much the same in Madison in 2011 as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker forced unions to compete in an open way for benefit contracts. And despite union grousing, the world did not come to an end in Wisconsin. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

Magically, school districts on the verge of financial ruin suddenly were able to find millions of dollars in new money. How did that magic act happen?

“When the Appleton School District put its health-insurance contract up for bid for instance,” writes the City-Journal, “WEA Trust [the benefit provider run by the union] suddenly lowered its rates and promised to match any competitor’s price. Appleton will save $3 million during the current school year.” That open bidding process outside of the union monopoly was a result of Walker’s reforms.
And it reduced costs without degrading benefits.

So now, $3 million will go directly into the classroom, which is what teachers tell us they really care about.

So now, $3 million will allow the district to retain employees, which what the union ought to care most about.

And that’s also what’s at stake in Michigan.

Right-to-work means an end to the union monopoly on employment. It means that more people can have jobs. It means that unions have to provide a competitive environment or their customers will leave.

But in the up-is-down, black-is-white and right-is-wrong world of unions, progressives and mental patients, a competitive environment must be avoided at all costs. That's way too much pressure.

“Exclusivity for a union with majority support is not a monopoly, it is democracy,” said Brenda Smith, local head of the AFL-CIO affiliated American Federation of Teachers and apparently an Orwell fan. “It is order rather than chaos. It allows employees to select their representative freely, without coercion from the employer. It allows them to amplify their voice through collective action under our constitutionally protected right to freedom of association.” And for unions freedom of association means workers are given only one representative, one association, one, non-dissenting voice carefully following the party line. 

Spoken like a true Menshevik.   

Freedom of association, in a free society, also includes the right to NOT associate, especially with known associates, like union thugs.

And the right not to associate is what’s at issue in Michigan.

All hail Michigan.

Ps.- This column in no way modifies my oft-stated contempt for the University of Michigan Wolverines, it’s alumni, faculty, football team, basketball team, traditions or history. I’m not even sure they are still an accredited university.

Go Ohio State! Buckeyes rule, Wolverines drool.

Republicans Do Have Leverage; Use It!

By: David Limbaugh / Townhall Columnist

 At this stage of the fiscal cliff pseudo negotiations, do the American people have any idea what the Republicans stand for other than to protect the wealthy and cut Medicare and Social Security to harm the sick and aged?

People constantly invoke Ronald Reagan, but one thing is certain and very relevant: If Reagan were on the national stage today, the public would not be confused about what the Republican Party stands for and why it matters.

The GOP is having difficulty even consolidating around a central message, much less selling it to the public. There is no excuse for that.

Though following its election defeat the party has all the confidence of an abandoned stepchild, it needs to shake the dust off, stand up and begin fighting like it truly believes the nation is worth fighting for.

It is automatically assumed in virtually all corners that President Obama has all the leverage in these budget talks. But is that necessarily true?

Let's look briefly at our current economic and fiscal condition and then compare the outcomes of going over the cliff versus reaching a deal and avoiding the cliff.

We have nation-threatening debt, and it's overwhelmingly because our spending is out of control. To the extent that revenues are contributing, it is not because tax rates on the rich are too low. It is because we have an anemic economy.

We have the worst recovery and the longest sustained period of high unemployment in 50 years because of Obama's anti-growth, private sector-smothering taxing, spending and regulatory policies. These policies ensure an endless circular pattern of debt explosion by destroying jobs, which shrinks the tax base and reduces revenues but also increases spending as the unemployed move to the welfare rolls.

Obama has jacked up federal spending across the board, save defense spending. Though he didn't cause the demographic changes leading to runaway entitlements -- except for adding Obamacare -- he is single-handedly standing in the way of reforming these programs.

This is Obama's economy and his financial crisis.

That's where we are. How about where we're headed?

If negotiations fail, we'll end up with automatic spending cuts, which, except for defense, would be a step in the right direction, and tax increases for everyone, not just the rich. Forget whether this is the result Obama wants. The question is whether it's better for the country than what the GOP would have to agree to for Obama to sign a deal averting the cliff.

Obama won't agree to serious spending cuts or entitlement reform, and he's demanding punitive, revenue-negligible tax increases (and elimination of deductions) for the wealthy. Further, he insists Republicans unconstitutionally delegate to him unilateral authority over future spending ceilings and thus abandon any future leverage they would have to force him to cut spending.

Why is it just assumed by Republicans and even conservative commentators that Republicans can't make their case against a reckless president who is primarily to blame for our problems and for any budget breakdowns?

Why, indeed? Fox News just released a poll showing that 89 percent of Americans believe that if taxes go up on the wealthy the president should agree to major spending cuts.

Polls also show the public fears the reduction of entitlement benefits more than it fears an economic collapse mostly caused by entitlements. So Republicans must explain clearly that entitlement reform is what ensures they will keep their benefits and that without reform we will have an economic collapse in which everyone will lose their benefits or receive substantially less.

Republicans appear feckless, unconfident and tongue-tied. They need to go on the offensive and show that Obama is causing these problems and preventing their solution. They need to refuse any deal that doesn't include major spending reductions and substantial entitlement reform, because such a deal would accelerate the bankruptcy of America, while tax increases on the rich won't help at all.

Even going over the cliff would be preferable to accepting Obama's unreasonable demands, which would be destructive to the economy and our financial situation and pointless, except to punish the rich and damage the Republican brand. While the automatic tax increases would be anti-growth, at least we'd have spending cuts, and Republicans will have stood on principle.

Thus, if the negotiations break down and we go over the cliff, it will mostly be Obama's fault. Obama refuses to address the financial crisis. Republicans insist we do. And we can't win this argument? Are we 2-year-olds who can't complete a simple sentence?

It's time for Republicans to draw their line in the sand and spell this out with a strong, unified, articulate voice. And while they're at it, perhaps they could make their case for a pro-growth society rife with opportunity, as contrasted to a future of ever-increasing economic malaise and government