O is for Obama and obfuscation
Written by Lee Wishing
September 28, 11:34 AM
On September 15, I was reading President Obama’s speech to the AFL-CIO and my blood pressure must have reacted in an unhealthy manner when I got to the line: “And that’s why I stand behind the Employee Free Choice Act—because if a majority of workers want a union, they should get a union.”
The reason I was angry is that President Obama pulled off a rhetorical sleight of hand. If a majority of workers want a union in the United States, they get a union. That’s been the law of the land since the National Labor Relations Act was approved in 1935. Today unions want the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) because union membership has been on the decline in the private sector for years. The EFCA would make it easier to form new local unions by virtually eliminating secret ballot union formation elections and replacing them with a “card check,” or card registration, process.
Imagine this scenario: My fictitious burly co-worker Fred at ABC Company asks, “Lee, would you please fill out this card and return it to me indicating your interest in forming a union?” Not wanting trouble, I fill out the card and hand it to Fred, creating the illusion that I’m in favor of his initiative. I’m willing to do this because I know that my positive response may only lead to the next step, which is a secret ballot election in which I can vote my conscience without worrying about what Fred thinks. Seeing my response on the card, Fred walks away satisfied and I’m relieved to get rid of him.
As labor law is currently written, if Fred and his like-mined friends can get 30 percent of their colleagues to fill out cards in favor of organizing a union, they may petition the National Labor Relations Board to conduct a secret ballot election to determine whether or not to form a union at ABC Company. Typically, however, union bosses will ask Fred to collect positive registration cards from 75 percent of workers because experience shows that many employees will give a false thumbs-up in the card collection process and end up not voting for the union during a secret ballot election that follows the card check process.
The Employee Free Choice Act, however, would do away with the secret ballot and rely on cards only. In other words, Fred could collect cards without worrying about a secret ballot election. “Since when is the secret ballot a basic tenet of democracy?” Teamsters President Jim Hoffa asked on March 10.
Imagine our earlier scenario if the Employee Free Choice Act were to become law. Do you vote your conscience when Fred hands you a card?
I wrote to a friend who teaches rhetoric at the graduate level and asked him to define President Obama’s rhetorical tactic quoted above. He called it obfuscation. The truth is that if a majority of workers want a union in America, they will get a union in a fair, secret ballot election.
see this article at World Magazine on line
please note: ignore the double underlines under the words that are in green. I did NOT do that. It is a program that I can't seem get rid of. It links you to other websites. I have no control over it right now.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Dave's Thoughts on "Cash for Clunkers"
by Dave Ramsey
With all the buzz about "Cash for Clunkers", it’s easy to think that it was a great way for people to get a better set of wheels. But was it really? No way! "Cash for Clunkers" was simply a way for broke people to buy cars that they really couldn't afford. It was a bad idea on multiple levels. But before digging into that, let’s take a little history lesson.
About a decade ago, a fair housing program was started, called a sub-prime lending market. The idea behind it was that everyone “needed” to own a home—including broke people. The government decided to start a program to reinvest in communities, which allowed pretty much anyone to borrow money to buy a house. Lending companies charged high interest rates, causing already struggling families to go even further into debt.
Basically, this was a program designed to encourage broke people to buy houses. Most people didn’t even know it existed until it unraveled and became the number-one cause of our recent recession. The government took those stupid loans back and securitized them, which created the financial mess last fall. Helping broke people buy houses didn’t turn out to be a great government program. Guess what?
Helping broke people buy brand-new cars—and now home appliances—will turn out just as bad.
The "Cash for Clunkers" program was designed exactly for people who should not take advantage of the program. You trade your $2,000 clunker in for a brand-new, shiny $20,000 car, and the only way you can afford it is with a high-interest payment. That just means you really couldn’t afford it to begin with. Doesn’t this sound like the sub-prime mortgage problem all over again?
When you drive that new car off the lot, you’re immediately going to lose $4,500. The worst car accidents happen on the showroom floor. New cars go down in value like a rock. The government thinks it’s going to save the American auto industry by putting broke people into cars they can’t pay for. It’s going to come back to bite them—and the rest of us—in the form of taxes galore.
Another bad thing about this program is that we, the taxpayers, are paying for the new cars! It’s morally wrong of the government to take money away from us—against our will—in the form of taxes and give that money to someone else to buy a stupid car they can’t afford in the first place!
This is theft, plain and simple.
"Cash for Clunkers" is a program that redistributes wealth in the name of the environment, and it’s going to be a curse on the car dealer and the manufacturer that carries the paper. It’s going to hurt the broke person who bought a car he couldn’t afford. And it’s already a problem for our country, because it’s adding dollars to the national debt.
There’s always a twist with government programs like this. They try to think of creative ways to help people, but the situation usually ends up worse than it did before they “helped.” In the end, I should decide what to do with my own money. If I want to buy you a car, I will! And if you can’t buy a car without actually paying for the whole thing, then you’re better off keeping your “clunker.”
So good riddance to a really bad program that has done more damage than good.
www.daveramsey.com
note from Joie: please ignore underlined words in text. Somehow there's a program that takes words and links them to websites. I cancelled this program,but its still appearing in my text.
by Dave Ramsey
With all the buzz about "Cash for Clunkers", it’s easy to think that it was a great way for people to get a better set of wheels. But was it really? No way! "Cash for Clunkers" was simply a way for broke people to buy cars that they really couldn't afford. It was a bad idea on multiple levels. But before digging into that, let’s take a little history lesson.
About a decade ago, a fair housing program was started, called a sub-prime lending market. The idea behind it was that everyone “needed” to own a home—including broke people. The government decided to start a program to reinvest in communities, which allowed pretty much anyone to borrow money to buy a house. Lending companies charged high interest rates, causing already struggling families to go even further into debt.
Basically, this was a program designed to encourage broke people to buy houses. Most people didn’t even know it existed until it unraveled and became the number-one cause of our recent recession. The government took those stupid loans back and securitized them, which created the financial mess last fall. Helping broke people buy houses didn’t turn out to be a great government program. Guess what?
Helping broke people buy brand-new cars—and now home appliances—will turn out just as bad.
The "Cash for Clunkers" program was designed exactly for people who should not take advantage of the program. You trade your $2,000 clunker in for a brand-new, shiny $20,000 car, and the only way you can afford it is with a high-interest payment. That just means you really couldn’t afford it to begin with. Doesn’t this sound like the sub-prime mortgage problem all over again?
When you drive that new car off the lot, you’re immediately going to lose $4,500. The worst car accidents happen on the showroom floor. New cars go down in value like a rock. The government thinks it’s going to save the American auto industry by putting broke people into cars they can’t pay for. It’s going to come back to bite them—and the rest of us—in the form of taxes galore.
Another bad thing about this program is that we, the taxpayers, are paying for the new cars! It’s morally wrong of the government to take money away from us—against our will—in the form of taxes and give that money to someone else to buy a stupid car they can’t afford in the first place!
This is theft, plain and simple.
"Cash for Clunkers" is a program that redistributes wealth in the name of the environment, and it’s going to be a curse on the car dealer and the manufacturer that carries the paper. It’s going to hurt the broke person who bought a car he couldn’t afford. And it’s already a problem for our country, because it’s adding dollars to the national debt.
There’s always a twist with government programs like this. They try to think of creative ways to help people, but the situation usually ends up worse than it did before they “helped.” In the end, I should decide what to do with my own money. If I want to buy you a car, I will! And if you can’t buy a car without actually paying for the whole thing, then you’re better off keeping your “clunker.”
So good riddance to a really bad program that has done more damage than good.
www.daveramsey.com
note from Joie: please ignore underlined words in text. Somehow there's a program that takes words and links them to websites. I cancelled this program,but its still appearing in my text.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
8-19-09
Newsweek Reporter Witnesses an Abortion
by Kim Trobee, editor
Pro-abortion reporter, Sarah Kliff, is surprised by her reaction to witnessing an abortion.
Sarah Kliff has covered abortion at Newsweek for two years. So she was surprised at the discomfort she felt when faced with the prospect of watching an abortion for a story she was doing on Nebraska late-term abortionist, LeRoy Carhart.
Kliff spent four days at Carhart's Omaha clinic interviewing patients, hearing their stories and eventually viewing at least one first-trimester abortion.
"There was a discomfort I hadn't expected," she said, "my emotional reaction to watching abortions. I had (and still have) difficulty understanding my own reaction, both relieved to have watched…and distressed by the emotionality of the process."
It's something many in the pro-abortion camp are reticent to admit. Kliff faced odd reactions when she returned home.
"Friends who supported legal abortion bristled slightly when I told them where I'd been and what I'd watched," she said. "Acquaintances at a party looked a bit regretful to have asked about my most recent assignment."
Carrie Gordon Earll, senior bioethics analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said the inner struggle is hard to ignore.
"When you come face to face with the violence of what abortion really is," she said, "it can be a different story, as this reporter learned. Abortion kills children, and witnessing an abortion demands a response to that truth."
Kliff acknowledged that abortion is not just another medical procedure.
"Abortion involves weighty choices that, depending on how you view it," she said, "involve a life, or the potential for life."
Earll said, "The finality of abortion is almost palpable and once it's done, someone has died and you cannot reverse it. That may be what the reporter experienced."
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000010778.cfm
Newsweek Reporter Witnesses an Abortion
by Kim Trobee, editor
Pro-abortion reporter, Sarah Kliff, is surprised by her reaction to witnessing an abortion.
Sarah Kliff has covered abortion at Newsweek for two years. So she was surprised at the discomfort she felt when faced with the prospect of watching an abortion for a story she was doing on Nebraska late-term abortionist, LeRoy Carhart.
Kliff spent four days at Carhart's Omaha clinic interviewing patients, hearing their stories and eventually viewing at least one first-trimester abortion.
"There was a discomfort I hadn't expected," she said, "my emotional reaction to watching abortions. I had (and still have) difficulty understanding my own reaction, both relieved to have watched…and distressed by the emotionality of the process."
It's something many in the pro-abortion camp are reticent to admit. Kliff faced odd reactions when she returned home.
"Friends who supported legal abortion bristled slightly when I told them where I'd been and what I'd watched," she said. "Acquaintances at a party looked a bit regretful to have asked about my most recent assignment."
Carrie Gordon Earll, senior bioethics analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said the inner struggle is hard to ignore.
"When you come face to face with the violence of what abortion really is," she said, "it can be a different story, as this reporter learned. Abortion kills children, and witnessing an abortion demands a response to that truth."
Kliff acknowledged that abortion is not just another medical procedure.
"Abortion involves weighty choices that, depending on how you view it," she said, "involve a life, or the potential for life."
Earll said, "The finality of abortion is almost palpable and once it's done, someone has died and you cannot reverse it. That may be what the reporter experienced."
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000010778.cfm
Friday, July 3, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Obama, the African Colonial
By L.E. Ikenga
June 25, 2009
Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama's skin and instead paid more attention to his cultural identity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa.
Like many educated intellectuals in postcolonial Africa, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was enraged at the transformation of his native land by its colonial conqueror. But instead of embracing the traditional values of his own tribal cultural past, he embraced an imported Western ideology, Marxism. I call such frustrated and angry modern Africans who embrace various foreign "isms", instead of looking homeward for repair of societies that are broken, African Colonials. They are Africans who serve foreign ideas.
The tropes of America's racial history as a way of understanding all things black are useless in understanding the man who got his dreams from his father, a Kenyan exemplar of the African Colonial.
Before I continue, I need to say this: I am a first generation born West African-American woman whose parents emigrated to the U.S. in the 1970's from the country now called Nigeria. I travel to Nigeria frequently. I see myself as both a proud American and as a proud Igbo (the tribe that we come from -- also sometimes spelled Ibo). Politically, I have always been conservative (though it took this past election for me to commit to this once and for all!); my conservative values come from my Igbo heritage and my place of birth. Of course, none of this qualifies me to say what I am about to -- but at the same time it does.
My friends, despite what CNN and the rest are telling you, Barack Obama is nothing more than an old school African Colonial who is on his way to turning this country into one of the developing nations that you learn about on the National Geographic Channel. Many conservative (East, West, South, North) African-Americans like myself -- those of us who know our history -- have seen this movie before. Here are two main reasons why many Americans allowed Obama to slip through the cracks despite all of his glaring inconsistencies:
First, Obama has been living on American soil for most of his adult life. Therefore, he has been able to masquerade as one who understands and believes in American democratic ideals. But he does not. Barack Obama is intrinsically undemocratic and as his presidency plays out, this will become more obvious. Second, and most importantly, too many Americans know very little about Africa. The one-size-fits-all understanding that many Americans (both black and white) continue to have of Africa might end up bringing dire consequences for this country.
Contrary to the way it continues to be portrayed in mainstream Western culture, Africa is not a continent that can be solely defined by AIDS, ethnic rivalries, poverty and safaris. Africa, like any other continent, has an immense history defined by much diversity and complexity. Africa's long-standing relationship with Europe speaks especially to some of these complexities -- particularly the relationship that has existed between the two continents over the past two centuries. Europe's complete colonization of Africa during the nineteenth century, also known as the Scramble for Africa, produced many unfortunate consequences, the African colonial being one of them.
The African colonial (AC) is a person who by means of their birth or lineage has a direct connection with Africa. However, unlike Africans like me, their worldviews have been largely shaped not by the indigenous beliefs of a specific African tribe but by the ideals of the European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period. AC's have no real regard for their specific African traditions or histories. AC's use aspects of their African culture as one would use pieces of costume jewelry: things of little or no value that can be thoughtlessly discarded when they become a negative distraction, or used on a whim to decorate oneself in order to seem exotic. (Hint: Obama's Muslim heritage).
On the other hand, AC's strive to be the best at the culture that they inherited from Europe. Throughout the West, they are tops in their professions as lawyers, doctors, engineers, Ivy League professors and business moguls; this is all well and good. It's when they decide to engage us as politicians that things become messy and convoluted.
The African colonial politician (ACP) feigns repulsion towards the hegemonic paradigms of Western civilization. But at the same time, he is completely enamored of the trappings of its aristocracy or elite culture. The ACP blames and caricatures whitey to no end for all that has gone wrong in the world. He convinces the masses that various forms of African socialism are the best way for redressing the problems that European colonialism motivated in Africa. However, as opposed to really being a hard-core African Leftist who actually believes in something, the ACP uses socialist themes as a way to disguise his true ambitions: a complete power grab whereby the "will of the people" becomes completely irrelevant.
Barack Obama is all of the above. The only difference is that he is here playing (colonial) African politics as usual.
In his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father -- an eloquent piece of political propaganda -- Obama styles himself as a misunderstood intellectual who is deeply affected by the sufferings of black people, especially in America and Africa. In the book, Obama clearly sees himself as an African, not as a black American. And to prove this, he goes on a quest to understand his Kenyan roots. He is extremely thoughtful of his deceased father's legacy; this provides the main clue for understanding Barack Obama.
Barack Obama Sr. was an African colonial to the core; in his case, the apple did not fall far from the tree. All of the telltale signs of Obama's African colonialist attitudes are on full display in the book -- from his feigned antipathy towards Europeans to his view of African tribal associations as distracting elements that get in the way of "progress". (On p. 308 of Dreams From My Father, Obama says that African tribes should be viewed as an "ancient loyalties".)
Like imperialists of Old World Europe, the ACP sees their constituents not as free thinking individuals who best know how to go about achieving and creating their own means for success. Instead, the ACP sees his constituents as a flock of ignorant sheep that need to be led -- oftentimes to their own slaughter.
Like the European imperialist who spawned him, the ACP is a destroyer of all forms of democracy.
Here are a few examples of what the British did in order to create (in 1914) what is now called Nigeria and what Obama is doing to you:
Convince the people that "clinging" to any aspect of their cultural (tribal) identity or history is bad and regresses the process of "unity". British Imperialists deeply feared people who were loyal to anything other than the state. "Tribalism" made the imperialists have to work harder to get people to just fall in line. Imperialists pitted tribes against each other in order to create chaos that they then blamed on ethnic rivalry. Today many "educated" Nigerians, having believed that their traditions were irrelevant, remain completely ignorant of their ancestry and the history of their own tribes.
Confiscate the wealth and resources of the area that you govern by any means necessary in order to redistribute wealth. The British used this tactic to present themselves as empathetic and benevolent leaders who wanted everyone to have a "fair shake". Imperialists are not interested in equality for all. They are interested in controlling all.
Convince the masses that your upper-crust university education naturally puts you on an intellectual plane from which to understand everything even when you understand nothing. Imperialists were able to convince the people that their elite university educations allowed them to understand what Africa needed. Many of today's Nigerians-having followed that lead-hold all sorts of degrees and certificates-but what good are they if you can't find a job?
Lie to the people and tell them that progress is being made even though things are clearly becoming worse. One thing that the British forgot to mention to their Nigerian constituents was that one day, the resources that were being used to engineer "progress" (which the British had confiscated from the Africans to begin with!) would eventually run out. After WWII, Western Europe could no longer afford to hold on to their African colonies. So all of the counterfeit countries that the Europeans created were then left high-and-dry to fend for themselves. This was the main reason behind the African independence movements of the1950 and 60's. What will a post-Obama America look like?
Use every available media outlet to perpetuate the belief that you and your followers are the enlightened ones-and that those who refuse to support you are just barbaric, uncivilized, ignorant curmudgeons. This speaks for itself.
America, don't be fooled. The Igbos were once made up of a confederacy of clans that ascribed to various forms of democratic government. They took their eyes off the ball and before they knew it, the British were upon them. Also, understand this: the African colonial who is given too much political power can only become one thing: a despot.
L.E. Ikenga can be reached at leikenga@gmail.com.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obama_the_african_colonial.html at June 26, 2009 - 05:04:55 PM EDT
_uacct = "UA-31527-12";
urchinTracker();
By L.E. Ikenga
June 25, 2009
Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama's skin and instead paid more attention to his cultural identity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa.
Like many educated intellectuals in postcolonial Africa, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was enraged at the transformation of his native land by its colonial conqueror. But instead of embracing the traditional values of his own tribal cultural past, he embraced an imported Western ideology, Marxism. I call such frustrated and angry modern Africans who embrace various foreign "isms", instead of looking homeward for repair of societies that are broken, African Colonials. They are Africans who serve foreign ideas.
The tropes of America's racial history as a way of understanding all things black are useless in understanding the man who got his dreams from his father, a Kenyan exemplar of the African Colonial.
Before I continue, I need to say this: I am a first generation born West African-American woman whose parents emigrated to the U.S. in the 1970's from the country now called Nigeria. I travel to Nigeria frequently. I see myself as both a proud American and as a proud Igbo (the tribe that we come from -- also sometimes spelled Ibo). Politically, I have always been conservative (though it took this past election for me to commit to this once and for all!); my conservative values come from my Igbo heritage and my place of birth. Of course, none of this qualifies me to say what I am about to -- but at the same time it does.
My friends, despite what CNN and the rest are telling you, Barack Obama is nothing more than an old school African Colonial who is on his way to turning this country into one of the developing nations that you learn about on the National Geographic Channel. Many conservative (East, West, South, North) African-Americans like myself -- those of us who know our history -- have seen this movie before. Here are two main reasons why many Americans allowed Obama to slip through the cracks despite all of his glaring inconsistencies:
First, Obama has been living on American soil for most of his adult life. Therefore, he has been able to masquerade as one who understands and believes in American democratic ideals. But he does not. Barack Obama is intrinsically undemocratic and as his presidency plays out, this will become more obvious. Second, and most importantly, too many Americans know very little about Africa. The one-size-fits-all understanding that many Americans (both black and white) continue to have of Africa might end up bringing dire consequences for this country.
Contrary to the way it continues to be portrayed in mainstream Western culture, Africa is not a continent that can be solely defined by AIDS, ethnic rivalries, poverty and safaris. Africa, like any other continent, has an immense history defined by much diversity and complexity. Africa's long-standing relationship with Europe speaks especially to some of these complexities -- particularly the relationship that has existed between the two continents over the past two centuries. Europe's complete colonization of Africa during the nineteenth century, also known as the Scramble for Africa, produced many unfortunate consequences, the African colonial being one of them.
The African colonial (AC) is a person who by means of their birth or lineage has a direct connection with Africa. However, unlike Africans like me, their worldviews have been largely shaped not by the indigenous beliefs of a specific African tribe but by the ideals of the European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period. AC's have no real regard for their specific African traditions or histories. AC's use aspects of their African culture as one would use pieces of costume jewelry: things of little or no value that can be thoughtlessly discarded when they become a negative distraction, or used on a whim to decorate oneself in order to seem exotic. (Hint: Obama's Muslim heritage).
On the other hand, AC's strive to be the best at the culture that they inherited from Europe. Throughout the West, they are tops in their professions as lawyers, doctors, engineers, Ivy League professors and business moguls; this is all well and good. It's when they decide to engage us as politicians that things become messy and convoluted.
The African colonial politician (ACP) feigns repulsion towards the hegemonic paradigms of Western civilization. But at the same time, he is completely enamored of the trappings of its aristocracy or elite culture. The ACP blames and caricatures whitey to no end for all that has gone wrong in the world. He convinces the masses that various forms of African socialism are the best way for redressing the problems that European colonialism motivated in Africa. However, as opposed to really being a hard-core African Leftist who actually believes in something, the ACP uses socialist themes as a way to disguise his true ambitions: a complete power grab whereby the "will of the people" becomes completely irrelevant.
Barack Obama is all of the above. The only difference is that he is here playing (colonial) African politics as usual.
In his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father -- an eloquent piece of political propaganda -- Obama styles himself as a misunderstood intellectual who is deeply affected by the sufferings of black people, especially in America and Africa. In the book, Obama clearly sees himself as an African, not as a black American. And to prove this, he goes on a quest to understand his Kenyan roots. He is extremely thoughtful of his deceased father's legacy; this provides the main clue for understanding Barack Obama.
Barack Obama Sr. was an African colonial to the core; in his case, the apple did not fall far from the tree. All of the telltale signs of Obama's African colonialist attitudes are on full display in the book -- from his feigned antipathy towards Europeans to his view of African tribal associations as distracting elements that get in the way of "progress". (On p. 308 of Dreams From My Father, Obama says that African tribes should be viewed as an "ancient loyalties".)
Like imperialists of Old World Europe, the ACP sees their constituents not as free thinking individuals who best know how to go about achieving and creating their own means for success. Instead, the ACP sees his constituents as a flock of ignorant sheep that need to be led -- oftentimes to their own slaughter.
Like the European imperialist who spawned him, the ACP is a destroyer of all forms of democracy.
Here are a few examples of what the British did in order to create (in 1914) what is now called Nigeria and what Obama is doing to you:
Convince the people that "clinging" to any aspect of their cultural (tribal) identity or history is bad and regresses the process of "unity". British Imperialists deeply feared people who were loyal to anything other than the state. "Tribalism" made the imperialists have to work harder to get people to just fall in line. Imperialists pitted tribes against each other in order to create chaos that they then blamed on ethnic rivalry. Today many "educated" Nigerians, having believed that their traditions were irrelevant, remain completely ignorant of their ancestry and the history of their own tribes.
Confiscate the wealth and resources of the area that you govern by any means necessary in order to redistribute wealth. The British used this tactic to present themselves as empathetic and benevolent leaders who wanted everyone to have a "fair shake". Imperialists are not interested in equality for all. They are interested in controlling all.
Convince the masses that your upper-crust university education naturally puts you on an intellectual plane from which to understand everything even when you understand nothing. Imperialists were able to convince the people that their elite university educations allowed them to understand what Africa needed. Many of today's Nigerians-having followed that lead-hold all sorts of degrees and certificates-but what good are they if you can't find a job?
Lie to the people and tell them that progress is being made even though things are clearly becoming worse. One thing that the British forgot to mention to their Nigerian constituents was that one day, the resources that were being used to engineer "progress" (which the British had confiscated from the Africans to begin with!) would eventually run out. After WWII, Western Europe could no longer afford to hold on to their African colonies. So all of the counterfeit countries that the Europeans created were then left high-and-dry to fend for themselves. This was the main reason behind the African independence movements of the1950 and 60's. What will a post-Obama America look like?
Use every available media outlet to perpetuate the belief that you and your followers are the enlightened ones-and that those who refuse to support you are just barbaric, uncivilized, ignorant curmudgeons. This speaks for itself.
America, don't be fooled. The Igbos were once made up of a confederacy of clans that ascribed to various forms of democratic government. They took their eyes off the ball and before they knew it, the British were upon them. Also, understand this: the African colonial who is given too much political power can only become one thing: a despot.
L.E. Ikenga can be reached at leikenga@gmail.com.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obama_the_african_colonial.html at June 26, 2009 - 05:04:55 PM EDT
_uacct = "UA-31527-12";
urchinTracker();
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Quote of the day:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
Norman Thomas--6-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America (1884-1968)
taken from Mark Levin's website Friday 6/19/09
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
Norman Thomas--6-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America (1884-1968)
taken from Mark Levin's website Friday 6/19/09
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Once, We Would Have Called It a Scandal
by Newt Gingrich
There was a time when we would have called it a scandal.
In 1921, oil tycoon Harry Sinclair gave several prize head of cattle and around $269,000 to President Harding's Secretary of the Interior, Albert Fall.
In return, Sinclair got the exclusive rights to drill in an oil field in Wyoming. Sinclair's no-bid contract became the Teapot Dome scandal, the most notorious example of political corruption in America prior to Watergate.
Between 2000 and 2008, the United Auto Workers (UAW) union gave $23,675,562 to the Democratic Party and its candidates.
In 2008 alone, the UAW gave $4,161,567 to the Democratic Party, including Barack Obama.
In return, the UAW received 55 percent of Chrysler and 17.5 percent of GM, plus billions of dollars.
But nobody's calling this a scandal. It's time we start.
2000-2008 UAW Giving: $23.7 million to Democrats. $193,540 to Republicans
The almost $24,000,000 the UAW has given to Democrats since 2000 compares with the $193,540 the union has given to Republicans.
In the 2008 presidential election, President Obama was by far the biggest recipient of UAW contributions, raking in $27,340 compared to the $10,600 given to Hillary Clinton, the No. 2 recipient of UAW money.
And so it was no surprise to the cynical Washington political class when the payback began with the Chrysler bankruptcy.
In a rigged proceeding in which the federal government disregarded bankruptcy law in favor of the political outcome it desired, the Chrysler bankruptcy laid the predicate for the much larger General Motors bankruptcy to come. Against law and precedent, the unions were moved to the front of the line when it came to who would benefit from the bankruptcy.
The Obama Treasury Department strong-armed Chrysler's creditors into a deal in which the UAW was given 55 percent ownership of the company while Chrysler's secured creditors - investors who would have received priority in a non-political bankruptcy proceeding - were left with just 29 cents on the dollar.
On Monday, the Supreme Court Delayed the Completion of the Chrysler Bankruptcy
Some of these secured creditors, led by a group of Indiana retirement funds, are fighting back. They've charged in court that the Chrysler bankruptcy violated the bankruptcy laws and violated their rights as senior lenders.
On Monday, the Supreme Court put a hold on the Chrysler bankruptcy to hear their case.
We don't yet know which way the high court will rule, or if it will rule at all. But we do know what's at stake. Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock put it well:
"The issue of secured creditors' rights is bigger than Chrysler. It's an essential foundation of our capital markets. And fundamentally, this is about the law."
"Never Has an American Union Done So Well At the Expense of Shareholders and Creditors"
But the Chrysler bankruptcy was just prelude to the Obama-Administration-brokered General Motors bankruptcy deal announced last week.
The GM deal is yet another example of rank, taxpayer-financed political favoritism.
Once again, the big losers are GM's bondholders, who include substitute teachers in Florida and retired tool and dye supervisors in Michigan. They hold $27 billion in GM debt but are receiving a 10 percent stake in the new company.
In contrast, the UAW, which is owed about $20 billion from GM, is walking away with 17.5 percent of the company and a cool $9 billion in cash.
According to one analysis, while the bondholders will be lucky if they recover 15 cents on the dollar, the UAW can expect to recover up to 60 to 70 cents on the dollar - four to five times what the bondholders will receive.
As Barron's Magazine wrote, "Never has an American union done so well at the expense of shareholders and creditors".
"At a Time When Some American Workers are Facing Stiff Pay Cuts, UAW Workers Gave Up Their Customary Paid Holiday on Easter Monday"
Of course, the Obama Administration has assured us that the United Auto Workers has made "substantial concessions" as part of the bankruptcies that have literally saved the union from extinction.
But as no less than the Washington Post put it, the "union concessions were 'painful' only by the peculiar standards of Big Three labor relations: At a time when some American workers are facing stiff pay cuts, UAW workers gave up their customary paid holiday on Easter Monday and their right to overtime pay after less than 40 hours per week. They still get health benefits that are far better than those received by many American families upon whose tax money GM jobs now depend.
"Union members also preserved their right to have six unexcused absences from work before they can even be considered to be fired.
Can you feel the pain?
The Unions Have Been Rewarded With Ongoing Subsidization by the Taxpayers
It is a sign of the degree to which raw politics has dominated its handling of Chrysler and General Motors that the Obama Administration has a 31-year-old who has not yet graduated from law school determining the fate of two multi-billion dollar companies.
For their political support of the Democratic Party, the auto unions have been rewarded, not just with ownership stakes in two giant companies, but with ongoing protection and subsidization by the U.S. taxpayers.
The President has said repeatedly that he wants to get out of the auto business as soon as possible. But does anyone seriously believe that he would accept an arrangement in which GM becomes profitable at the expense of the union and its gold-plated benefits?
Having spent $50 billion to "save" GM and the UAW, does anyone really believe that the Obama Administration will now allow economics and not politics to dictate its future decisions?
In the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, the Obama Administration has trampled on the rule of law. It is using the taxpayers' money to pay back a political group for its political contributions.
There was a time when we would have called that a scandal.
see story here
by Newt Gingrich
There was a time when we would have called it a scandal.
In 1921, oil tycoon Harry Sinclair gave several prize head of cattle and around $269,000 to President Harding's Secretary of the Interior, Albert Fall.
In return, Sinclair got the exclusive rights to drill in an oil field in Wyoming. Sinclair's no-bid contract became the Teapot Dome scandal, the most notorious example of political corruption in America prior to Watergate.
Between 2000 and 2008, the United Auto Workers (UAW) union gave $23,675,562 to the Democratic Party and its candidates.
In 2008 alone, the UAW gave $4,161,567 to the Democratic Party, including Barack Obama.
In return, the UAW received 55 percent of Chrysler and 17.5 percent of GM, plus billions of dollars.
But nobody's calling this a scandal. It's time we start.
2000-2008 UAW Giving: $23.7 million to Democrats. $193,540 to Republicans
The almost $24,000,000 the UAW has given to Democrats since 2000 compares with the $193,540 the union has given to Republicans.
In the 2008 presidential election, President Obama was by far the biggest recipient of UAW contributions, raking in $27,340 compared to the $10,600 given to Hillary Clinton, the No. 2 recipient of UAW money.
And so it was no surprise to the cynical Washington political class when the payback began with the Chrysler bankruptcy.
In a rigged proceeding in which the federal government disregarded bankruptcy law in favor of the political outcome it desired, the Chrysler bankruptcy laid the predicate for the much larger General Motors bankruptcy to come. Against law and precedent, the unions were moved to the front of the line when it came to who would benefit from the bankruptcy.
The Obama Treasury Department strong-armed Chrysler's creditors into a deal in which the UAW was given 55 percent ownership of the company while Chrysler's secured creditors - investors who would have received priority in a non-political bankruptcy proceeding - were left with just 29 cents on the dollar.
On Monday, the Supreme Court Delayed the Completion of the Chrysler Bankruptcy
Some of these secured creditors, led by a group of Indiana retirement funds, are fighting back. They've charged in court that the Chrysler bankruptcy violated the bankruptcy laws and violated their rights as senior lenders.
On Monday, the Supreme Court put a hold on the Chrysler bankruptcy to hear their case.
We don't yet know which way the high court will rule, or if it will rule at all. But we do know what's at stake. Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock put it well:
"The issue of secured creditors' rights is bigger than Chrysler. It's an essential foundation of our capital markets. And fundamentally, this is about the law."
"Never Has an American Union Done So Well At the Expense of Shareholders and Creditors"
But the Chrysler bankruptcy was just prelude to the Obama-Administration-brokered General Motors bankruptcy deal announced last week.
The GM deal is yet another example of rank, taxpayer-financed political favoritism.
Once again, the big losers are GM's bondholders, who include substitute teachers in Florida and retired tool and dye supervisors in Michigan. They hold $27 billion in GM debt but are receiving a 10 percent stake in the new company.
In contrast, the UAW, which is owed about $20 billion from GM, is walking away with 17.5 percent of the company and a cool $9 billion in cash.
According to one analysis, while the bondholders will be lucky if they recover 15 cents on the dollar, the UAW can expect to recover up to 60 to 70 cents on the dollar - four to five times what the bondholders will receive.
As Barron's Magazine wrote, "Never has an American union done so well at the expense of shareholders and creditors".
"At a Time When Some American Workers are Facing Stiff Pay Cuts, UAW Workers Gave Up Their Customary Paid Holiday on Easter Monday"
Of course, the Obama Administration has assured us that the United Auto Workers has made "substantial concessions" as part of the bankruptcies that have literally saved the union from extinction.
But as no less than the Washington Post put it, the "union concessions were 'painful' only by the peculiar standards of Big Three labor relations: At a time when some American workers are facing stiff pay cuts, UAW workers gave up their customary paid holiday on Easter Monday and their right to overtime pay after less than 40 hours per week. They still get health benefits that are far better than those received by many American families upon whose tax money GM jobs now depend.
"Union members also preserved their right to have six unexcused absences from work before they can even be considered to be fired.
Can you feel the pain?
The Unions Have Been Rewarded With Ongoing Subsidization by the Taxpayers
It is a sign of the degree to which raw politics has dominated its handling of Chrysler and General Motors that the Obama Administration has a 31-year-old who has not yet graduated from law school determining the fate of two multi-billion dollar companies.
For their political support of the Democratic Party, the auto unions have been rewarded, not just with ownership stakes in two giant companies, but with ongoing protection and subsidization by the U.S. taxpayers.
The President has said repeatedly that he wants to get out of the auto business as soon as possible. But does anyone seriously believe that he would accept an arrangement in which GM becomes profitable at the expense of the union and its gold-plated benefits?
Having spent $50 billion to "save" GM and the UAW, does anyone really believe that the Obama Administration will now allow economics and not politics to dictate its future decisions?
In the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, the Obama Administration has trampled on the rule of law. It is using the taxpayers' money to pay back a political group for its political contributions.
There was a time when we would have called that a scandal.
see story here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)