Public Sector Employees In Shocking Protest
Filed under: Elections, Local Party Politics, National Party Politics, Social Commentary, U.S. Economics, Unions
This Saturday public sector union employees were protesting in most of the most of major cities throughout the country. And holy of holies, they were protesting against the American taxpayer!
This is Roger Madon and this is what I think.
There was a time in our country when there weren’t public sector union employees. In fact there was a time in our country when there weren’t many public sector employees at all. Teachers, police officers and firemen, for example, were paid by individuals or paid by the government to private sector companies which hired private sector employees to perform the agreed upon service. That was at a time when 90% of all employees were working as farmhands when our cities were small and there were few workers available. All of this changed after the Civil War. Our cities grew, they grew fast and they grew in both size and complexity. For a city the size of New York, for example, which has 16 million people to serve during a working day, to have a private company provide fire retardation service just doesn’t make much sense. The government now provides for our pedagogical, criminal justice and firefighting services along with other numerous services which at one time were provided by the private sector.
So far, so good. But how did unions get involved in this? In the early part of the 20th century progressives, otherwise known as socialists, convinced the American people that public sector employees were an abused and discriminated group of workers and therefore should have the benefit of professionals who knew how to deal with those who hired, managed and fired these public sector employees. American voters however didn’t truly appreciate the fact that the managers who were assigned to negotiate the collective bargaining agreements with these public sector unions didn’t have their own skin in the game. The money with which they ultimately agreed to provide these public sector employees didn’t belong them. So it didn’t matter how much money the managers agreed through collective bargaining to pay these public sector employees they still went home with their own paychecks intact. The public FISC did not belong to the managers so there was no incentive for them to resist the unions’ demands. On top of this the politicians having received large contributions from these public sector unions encouraged the managers to shut up and agree to the unions’ demands. Now the American people have finally caught on to this corrupt practice and they are mad as hell and they want it stopped. Personally, I don’t think the Saturday protestors will have a chance on Monday.
This is Roger Madon and that’s what I think.
Progressives, Humbug! Live By Your True Name.. Socialists.
Filed under: Elections, International Reflections, National Party Politics, Presidential Watch, Social Commentary, U.S. Economics
This Tuesday evening at his State of the Union speech President Obama provided the nation a far clearer picture of what he intends to do as president for the next 2 years and the next 6 if he is re-elected. The rhetoric was elevated and mellifluous but the meaning was unrepentant.
This is Roger Madon and this is what I think.
From the first moment that President Barack Hussein Obama took the oath of office on that chilly January day in 2009 there was little doubt that the most liberal U.S. Senator was going to be the most statist, anti-capitalist president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The litany of Federal sponsored programs has been unrelenting: the takeover of the student loan program, a stimulus program of 850 billion dollars, regulating energy through cap and trade, regulating the financial industry, the takeover of the largest insurance company of America, providing billions for banks, undeservedly I might add, taking over 2/3rds of the American automobile industry and finally the government takeover of health care the result of which will lead to the destruction of the health insurance industry that took 200 years to develop and which will result in government control of an additional 16% of our GDP.
With soaring rhetoric President Obama, undaunted, revealed to the American people the final chapter in American free-enterprise and individual liberty by speaking about government investment in education, transportation and new energy development. Under President Obama’s reign our debt has more than doubled with no clear plan from his administration as to how it is to be reduced. Just yesterday the Congressional Budget Office reports an additional 1.5 trillion dollars in deficient spending.
The presidential election in 2012 will be a crossroads in American history. Socialists no longer hide behind the term progressive. They now bear that name with honor and with 46% of the electorate on some kind of governmental benefit they feel confident that a clear and unambiguous conflict between the ideology of statism and individual liberty will result in their permanent victory.
Policy wonks such as Congressman Paul Ryan or gentlemen politicians such as Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee are unprepared for this historic confrontation. What Republicans require now for the 2012 presidential election are street fighting, take no prisoners, moma bear candidates who are able to articulate the challenge and willing to tell the American people the awful sacrifices that must be made.. Got any ideas?
This is Roger Madon and that’s what I think.
Stealth Socialism With Barack Obama At The Helm
Filed under: Local Party Politics, National Party Politics, Presidential Watch, Social Commentary
Today in the Wall Street Journal President Barack Obama wrote what can only be considered an announcement entitled “Toward a 21st – Century Regulatory System.” Today the Socialist-in-Chief has finally come clean.
This is Roger Madon and this is what I think.
Socialists in America know that the vast majority of the American people have rejected policies when they were clearly identified as socialist. Socialists have therefore done everything in their power, including changing their name to Progressives, to mask their structured policies and programs in such a way as to obscure their true intention, namely for government to direct and control capital, income and benefits.
The most useful stealth apparatus that Socialists have used over the last 40 years has been community organizing. Socialists knowing that even the most vulnerable in our society would reject socialist programs organize and infiltrate neighborhood groups whose civic needs are great. And when they aren’t, Socialists manufacture them. Before entering into politics, by his own admission, Barack Obama received extensive training in community organizing by various Socialist institutions. While living in Chicago he associated with numerous well known Socialists such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers. All this is admitted and well documented.
Now President Obama in his Wall Street Journal article today argues that the American people have not been served well by the cacophony of Federal agencies which Congress has created over these last 100 years. He argues that the rules they have established, without Congressional approval mind you, are burdensome and in many cases do not do that for which they were promulgated. So, in his article, he announces the signing of an executive order which, he claims will remedy this problem by providing these unelected bureaucrats with even more power while narrowing the constitutional powers of our elected officials in Congress with respect to oversight and control. President Obama, by signing this executive order, has provided the American people Sarah Palin’s “Death panels” on steroids. And all this is presented within the context of a seeming benign Wall Street Journal article. You have before you America Exhibit A in stealth socialism.
This is Roger Madon and that’s what I think.
How Well Do You Know The U.S. Constitution?
Filed under: Courts, Local Party Politics, National Party Politics, Social Commentary
So, during her last debate, Christine O’Donnell, Republican candidate for Senate in the State of Delaware blurted out in response to a question, “Where in the Constitution does is say ‘separation of church and state’?” and Progressives all over the country started laughing. Well, boys and girls, where in the Constitution does it say “separation of church and state?” It doesn’t.
This is Roger Madon and this is what I think.
For Progressives the U.S. Constitution has always been an impediment to their stated principals: a large and overarching government which provides numerous social benefits at the expense of individual liberty. That’s what the current election is all about and why the Tea Party movement, which supports limited government, fiscal conservatism and individual liberty has acquired such an influence over its outcome. So for Progressives to react risibly to Ms. O’Donnell’s statement about the Constitution, a document which they consider seriously flawed is truly ironic.
Unlike our President, I am not a professor of Constitutional Law. But I am an American and I take the reading of the U.S. Constitution very seriously. If Ms. O’Donnell asked rather, “Where in the Constitution does it say ‘freedom of speech’ or ‘the right [to] peaceably assemble’ or ‘the right [to] bear arms’” I would be forced to join the Progressives in their criticism. However I wouldn’t be laughing, I would be concerned that a Tea Party candidate didn’t know some fundamental facts about our beloved Constitution.
But there is nothing in our Constitution that refers to the separation of church and state. That concept is one that the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted into the First Amendment of the Constitution in 1878 in Reynolds v. U.S. almost 90 years after the Constitution was ratified by the States. In that case the court adopted the phrase, “separation of church and state” upon referring to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 wherein he stated that the establishment clause and the free exercise clause as found in the First Amendment which refer to religion build “a wall of separation between church and state.” The U.S. Supreme Court has been visiting this matter ever since even as recently as 2002 when it addressed the question of the Pledge of Allegiance. So Ms. O’Donnell is not technically right she is absolutely right And as for the Progressives they should stay out of subject for which they have little if any credibility.
This is Roger Madon and that’s what I think.
Uncle Sam Wants To Carry A Gun
Filed under: National Party Politics, Social Commentary, U.S. Economics
Imagine taking a walk in any city park in America one hour after sundown. Are you packing?
This is Roger Madon and this is what I think.
I don’t know what you imagined the first time but I’ll bet the farm that when you imagined it the second time you were carrying a loaded pistol. And that boys and girls separates conservatives from progressives.
Progressives support an economic and political philosophy that holds to the proposition that the government knows best and that people generally are better off following the dictates of an educated and powerful few rather than leaving them to their own devices. But it goes beyond that. In the progressive philosophy people just can’t be trusted and to have a fully armed citizenry is grounds for worry. The fact is that in those states where carrying a concealed weapon is lawful, Arizona, Vermont and Alaska crime rates are substantially lower than the rest of the country. But that doesn’t cut it for progressives. Their view is that on balance it is better that the citizenry suffer the additional burden of experiencing more violent crime from hoodlums than having them armed for self-defense.
Conservatives on the other hand have little faith in the good intentions of government or its usually stated claim that it will be there when needed. They are quite willing for example, to accept the unhappy of consequences of the occasional accidental discharge of gun going off in the house than dealing with a home invasion with no real ability of the home dwellers to protect themselves from the unhappy consequences of that event.
It all boils down to control. Progressives are consistent in their view that government control of our economy, our politics and our social arrangements create a better and more dynamic society. Is there any wonder what with the current administration carrying out their progressive policies that there is the Tea Party movement in the United States?
This is Roger Madon and that’s what I think.
FDR and Obama
The election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932 represented the end of the governing regime, believe or not, of Abraham Lincoln. The election of Barak Obama in 2008 represented the end of the governing regime of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
This is Roger Madon and this is what I think.
The election of FDR resulted in 70 years of progressive-Socialist policies and programs which the American people accepted undeterred even while fighting 3 major wars resulting in nearly 500,000 deaths. Rather than heralding in a new regime it is now becoming clear that the election of President Obama in 2008 represents the final drama of the old regime of FDR.
Barak Obama was characterized throughout the 2008 campaign, even by none other than Colin Powel, as a transformative figure in American politics. However, it is not President Obama who will transform America but rather his election shall finally clear the way for the true transformation of this nation. President Obama has brought this country to the point of utter rejection by the American people of the progressive-Socialist policies and now demand a market economy and a more dynamic political system which provides greater rights and individual liberties than ever contemplated by our Founders.
The American people know that more taxes and more programs promoting equal rights will not defeat the onerous debt that the progressive-Socialist regime has placed upon us, our children and our grandchildren. The American people are coming to realize that the only solution to address this debt is to grow our economy. Only in this sense is President Obama a transformative president that he will have served only one term for the sole purpose of heralding in a new regime of years of economic prosperity, individual liberty and the complete rejection of the progressive-Socialist philosophy.
And this is Roger Madon and that’s what I think.
Proud Conservative
Roger on iTunes
Affiliates
Subscribe
