I have been puzzled by the extent of the media coverage of some crank’s prediction that the world would come to an end today. People are always predicting the end of the world. So far they have always been wrong. Was there something about this particular prediction that was newsworthy? Did any significant number of people expect to wake up this morning and see graves opening and people ascending into Heaven? This morning, there were news stories to the effect that the world still exists. Really! Did reporters expect their readers to be surprised? Why, in short, was this silliness a major media event?
I wish reporters would pay as much attention to a more important failed prediction: the Obama administration’s assurance that its policies, including the “stimulus,” would foster job creation and prevent unemployment from reaching 8 percent.
And here are some charts from John’s post.
Community organizer Obama predicted that his $800 billion dollar stimulus program would keep unemployment below 8%:
Stimulus Job Creation Prediction
Ooops! Never send a community organizer to do an economist’s job.
How about all that spending? Surely ALL the spending must have created more jobs?
This should be the end of the belief that government spending creates jobs, but it won’t be, because the university is not committed to teaching what gets results, but what produces feelings of superiority. The secular elites feel that they should be allowed to redistribute the wealth created by businesses and workers. This feeling of entitlement to control and distribute is best put into practice with large-scale taxation, spending and redistribution of wealth. The professors think that their good feelings (subjective) will somehow, mysteriously, cause good effects in the real world (objective). The chart proves their mysticism wrong, but the university is insulated from feedback from the real world.
That is why we need to elect business owners like Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain.
It’s hard to imagine Uncle Sam telling Walt Disney where to make movies or McDonald’s how many hamburgers to make, but if you take a look at the case of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) versus Boeing, you’ll see that the federal government is trying to do just that: dictate where and how private industry may do business. And it’s doing so to bolster one of President Barack Obama’s favorite special interests—labor unions.
To catch you up on the story, Boeing Corporation decided to build a new assembly plant in Charleston, South Carolina, in order to produce the 787 Dreamliner. The NLRB (which is responsible investigating unfair labor practices) got wind of the decision and last month filed a complaint against Boeing, alleging that the company decided to build the plant in South Carolina out of retaliation for union strikes at its Washington state facilities. Nevermind that Boeing actually added 2,000 jobs in Washington on this particular project.
South Carolina is a right-to-work state, meaning that Boeing can hire non-union workers. For fans of big labor (like President Obama and his allies), right-to-work states are a threat to unions’ dominance. (It’s worth noting that the NLRB today is composed of four members, three of whom are Obama appointees.)
The NLRB’s intentions, then, could be easily inferred. It is doing all it can to help unions at the expense of right-to-work states, corporations and at the end of the day, American workers. But in this case, we have even more than inference.
This is important. The way to destroy the Democrats as a political party is to go after their funding.And a lot of their funding is taken from union workers, many of whom are social conservatives who don’t agree with Democrat priorities like taxpayer-funding of abortions and legalizing same-sex marriage.
As Oregon teachers and lawmakers continue brainstorming various education reforms, getting rid of mandatory union dues should be at the top of the list.
That’s nothing against the Oregon Education Association. As far as I can tell, OEA has well-meaning, knowledgeable people working for it. And unlike in Washington, where the state-level teachers union was recently riddled with lawsuits over how it spends members’ dues, Oregon teachers who have had unacceptable run-ins with their state-level union either don’t exist or are hard to find.
But no matter how decent a job a union does, a teacher should never be forced to give it money as a condition of his or her employment, especially when unions are known to engage in all sorts of politicking. Just imagine if your employer took a portion of your paycheck each month and spent it furthering causes and issues and candidates with which you disagreed.
As Susan Stacy, a special education teacher in Seaside, said, “I don’t agree with a lot of the policies or pursuits of the NEA or the OEA. And when they support organizations or causes I flat out disagree with, I don’t think I should be forced to support them. Even when it comes to organizations I think are good, it should be my choice to support them.”
Stacy has been teaching in Oregon for 12 years. Before that, she taught for five years in Utah, a state without compulsory unionism. When she was hired here, she was surprised when she received her first paycheck to find a deduction for union dues. She asked her district what it was all about since she wasn’t planning to be a member and then was informed that in Oregon she had to pay dues.
“I was incensed,” she said.
[…]Taxpayers should be against compulsory union dues, too. After all, taxpayers employ teachers, not unions. It’s crazy that the state allows a union to take hundreds of dollars from 47,000-plus educators each year to help further its agenda. While the majority of the union’s work involves collective bargaining, the union regularly opposes charter schools and partakes in legislative battles to eliminate them. It routinely backs Democrats, endorsing just eight Republicans from among 90 state races in 2008.
There is a move to pass a right-to-work law on right now in New Hampshire. This would allow workers to work without being forced to join a union, and to pay union dues.
A new pro-life website set up by two teen siblings exposes the links and connections between the Girl Scouts of America and the Planned Parenthood abortion business.
Last year, the Girl Scout organization came under fire nationally when the World Association of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides hosted a no-adults-welcome panel at the United Nations where Planned Parenthood was allowed to distribute a brochure entitled “Healthy, Happy and Hot.” The brochure, aimed at young people living with HIV, contains explicit and graphic details on sex, as well as the promotion of casual sex in many forms.
In 2004, a report from a pro-life group that monitors Planned Parenthood indicated more than one-quarter of GSA troops work with the pro-abortion group. Of the 315 Girl Scout councils in the U.S. at that time, 17 councils reported having a relationship with Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, and 49 reported they do not. The other 249 refused to disclose any relationship.
After learning of these disturbing links, teen siblings Sydney and Tess Volanski decided to leave their local Girl Scout group after eight years of involvement and they have decided to launch a new web site called “SPEAK NOW: Girl Scouts” exposing the distribution of the brochures at the UN meeting and other links between the young girls’ organization and the abortion business.
Sydney told the pro-life group Concerned Women for America, “Even though they denied this involvement … we wanted to make sure that we knew what we were supporting by being a Girl Scout, so we continued to research the connection.”
“We found shortly after this ‘Healthy, Happy, Hot’ issue, that The World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts also called WAAG, which is the international organization that Girl Scouts is a part of, had a post on their website demanding safe, affordable, and accessible abortions for women as young as I am, 15,” she said.
[…]In fact, Kathy Cloninger, CEO of the Girl Scouts of America, appeared on NBC’s “Today” show many years ago and said, “We partner with many organizations. We have relationships with our church communities, with YWCAs, and with Planned Parenthood organizations across the country, to bring information-based sex education programs to girls.”
I would NOT send my future daughters to Girl Scouts or YWCA. These are not good organizations for children to be involved with.
WINTERY KNIGHT 