This 10-minute segment about NPR’s firing of Juan Williams is a MUST-SEE.
The CEO of NPR (Vivian Schiller) is a radical leftist. She even worked for the New York Times – the most radically left-wing newspaper in the entire nation.
Look, I love to watch Juan Williams. Sure he’s a lefty, and he says some crazy things sometimes, but he’s a great guy and a good journalist. Conservatives ought to go to the mat for Juan Williams because he has always been willing to come on Fox News and mix it up with people on the other side of the aisle – that makes him a stand-up guy in my book. NPR should be ashamed. And they should not be funded by the government if they are only going to present left-wing views. If they want to be Air America The Sequel, then let them do it with their own money, until they go bankrupt.
Sarah Palin calls for NPR to lose all government funding
At a time when our country is dangerously in debt and looking for areas of federal spending to cut, I think we’ve found a good candidate for defunding. National Public Radio is a public institution that directly or indirectly exists because the taxpayers fund it. And what do we, the taxpayers, get for this? We get to witness Juan Williams being fired from NPR for merely speaking frankly about the very real threat this country faces from radical Islam.
We have to have an honest discussion about the jihadist threat. Are we not allowed to say that Muslim terrorists have killed thousands of Americans and continue to plot the deaths of thousands more? Are we not allowed to say that there are Muslim states that aid and abet these fanatics? Are we not allowed to even debate the role that radical Islam plays in inciting this violence?
I don’t expect Juan Williams to support me (he’s said some tough things about me in the past) – but I will always support his right and the right of all Americans to speak honestly about the threats this country faces. And for Juan, speaking honestly about these issues isn’t just his right, it’s his job. Up until yesterday, he was doing that job at NPR. Firing him is their loss.
If NPR is unable to tolerate an honest debate about an issue as important as Islamic terrorism, then it’s time for “National Public Radio” to become “National Private Radio.” It’s time for Congress to defund this organization.
NPR says its mission is “to create a more informed public,” but by stifling debate on these issues, NPR is doing exactly the opposite. President Obama should make clear his commitment to free and honest discussion of the jihadist threat in our public debates – and Congress should make clear that unless NPR provides that public service, not one more dime.
If you want to see how far on the left NPR really is, read this story by Byron York. They will tolerate any insult directed at the center-right, but they can’t bear to even hear a mainstream conservative point of view.
One of the greatest sources of confusion and deception is the difference between leftists, progressives, socialists, communists and fascists.
I thought about this as I caught a glimpse of the Oct. 2 “One Nation” march on Washington.
[…]The gathering had the support of the AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, stalwarts of the Democratic Party such as Al Sharpton and organizations such as the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, Green for All, the Sierra Club and the Children’s Defense Fund.
Let’s look at some of the history of socialism and communism.
Nazism is a form of socialism. In fact, Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Nazis murdered 20 million of their own people and in nations they captured.
The unspeakable acts of Adolf Hitler’s Socialist Workers’ Party pale in comparison to the horrors committed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Between 1917 and 1987, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and their successors murdered, or were otherwise responsible for the deaths of, 62 million of their own people.
Between 1949 and 1987, Mao Tse-tung and his successors were responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese. The most authoritative tally of history’s most murderous regimes is in a book by University of Hawaii’s Professor Rudolph J. Rummel, “Death by Government.” A wealth of information is provided at his website.
[…]When Hitler, Stalin and Mao were campaigning for political power, you can bet they didn’t campaign on the promise to murder millions of their own people, and probably the thought of doing so never crossed their minds. Those horrors were simply the end result of long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the quest for “social justice.”
It was decent but misguided earlier generations of Germans, Russians and Chinese, like many of today’s Americans, who would have cringed at the thought of genocide, who built the Trojan horse for a Hitler, a Stalin or Mao to take over.
[…]The primary goal of communism and socialism is government ownership or control over the means of production. In the U.S., only a few people call for outright government ownership of the means of production. They might have learned that government ownership would mess things up.
Instead, they’ve increasingly called for quasi-ownership through various forms of government regulation, oversight, taxation and subsidies. After all, if someone has the power to tell you how you may use your property, it’s tantamount to his owing it.
These are important things to understand about socialists/progressives/leftists/communists.
When you allow someone else to control the means by which you earn your living – by taxing you or by regulating your employer, for example – then you are giving up your freedom to earn your own money and to spend it as you see fit. Socialist dictators always get elected by people who have been duped into exchanging their liberty for the promise of “social justice” – equal life outcomes regardless of your free decisions. But the end is always the same – violence and poverty. To avoid mass murder, it makes sense to decentralize power over many individuals and businesses. And that’s why conservatives favor the free market and limited government.
French refineries remained shut, trains were on half service, schools closed and gas stations ran dry as unions held their fourth strike in two months against President Nicolas Sarkozy’s plan to raise the retirement age.
Sarkozy has refused to retreat from a proposal to increase the retirement age for a full pension to 67 from 65. His plan would bring France closer to Germany and the U.S., which are moving toward setting 67 as the full-retirement age, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The French Senate is set to vote on the pension measure this week, giving final parliamentary approval to a plan to eliminate the retirement-system deficit by 2018.
“This reform had been postponed for too long and the deadline couldn’t be push further anymore,” Sarkozy said at a press conference in Deauville, France. “I hope that everyone stays calm so that things don’t go beyond certain limits. We cannot live without gasoline. I will see to it with the security forces that public order is guaranteed.”
Some protests turned violent, with youths today fighting police in the Paris suburb of Nanterre. In Lyon, some demonstrators broke shop windows and pillaged stores, L’Express magazine said on its website. Television reports showed snaking lines of drivers waiting to fill up on gas as about a quarter of the country’s 12,000 service stations carried signs saying they’d run out of fuel.
Government ministers said France has enough fuel to last several weeks and that they’ll continue to use police to break up barricades at oil depots.
[…]France’s 12 refineries have been on strike for a week, and no crude is arriving at the ports of Marseille, Le Havre and Nantes.
[…]Exxon Mobil Corp. declared “force majeure,” in France, saying it will be unable to meet some of its oil supply obligations and that it has begun shutting down its Gravenchon refinery, the larger of its two oil-processors in the country.
“A complete shutdown of the refinery is now under way,” Catherine Brun, an Exxon spokeswoman in Paris, said by phone today. “We cannot deliver products out of tanks.”
Total SA, the country’s biggest oil company, said a quarter of the 4,000 service stations it operates in France face shortages of one or more fuel products because of the strike.
[…]In France, the average retiree gets a net 65 percent of his average qualifying wage in government pension payouts, compared with 61.5 percent in Germany, 47 percent in the U.S. and 44 percent in Britain, according to the OECD.
I’m not sure why, but the word “extortion” pops into my mind. Or maybe I was thinking of “arrested development”. What is it called when grown men and women refuse to grow up and take responsibility for their own lives and insist on receiving entitlements provided by their harder-working neighbors?
Could a public sector union pension crisis happen here in the USA? Well, consider this article from The Economist, a radically-left-wing pro-Obama magazine. (H/T ECM)
Excerpt:
CHUCK REED is the Democratic mayor of San Jose, California. You might expect him to be an ally of public-sector workers, a powerful lobby in the Golden State. But last month, at a hearing on pension reform held by the Little Hoover Commission, which monitors the state’s government, Mr Reed lamented his crippling public-pensions bill. “City payments for retirement benefits have tripled over the last ten years even though our workforce has declined dramatically, and we have billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities that the taxpayers must pay,” he said.
Mr Reed estimated that the average cost to his city of employing a police officer or firefighter was $180,000 a year. Not only can such workers retire at 50, but some enjoy annual pension payments greater than their salaries. They are also entitled to cost-of-living increases of 3% a year, health and dental insurance for life and lump-sum payments for unused sick leave that could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Plenty of similar bills are looming in America’s public sector: in municipalities, in the federal government, and especially at state level. Defined-benefit pensions, which link retirement income to salary, are expensive promises to keep. The private sector has been switching to defined-contribution plans, in which employees bear the investment risk. But the public sector has barely begun to adjust, and has built up a huge liability to its staff. Worse, it has not funded the promises properly.
Joshua Rauh, of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, and Robert Novy-Marx, of the University of Rochester, estimate that the states’ pension shortfall may be as much as $3.4 trillion and that municipalities have a hole of $574 billion. Mr Rauh calculates that seven states will have exhausted their pension assets by 2020—even if they make a return of 8%, a common assumption that looks wildly optimistic. Half will run out of money by 2027. If pension promises are to be kept, this will place immense strain on taxes. Several have promised annual payments that will absorb more than 30% of their tax revenues after their pension funds are exhausted (see chart 1).
Now the problem is making headlines, especially in California, where taxpayer groups have been highlighting the generous pensions of some former employees. More than 9,000 beneficiaries of CalPERS, the largest state retirement plan, receive more than $100,000 a year.
The stage is set for conflict between public-sector workers and taxpayers. Because almost all states are required to balance their budgets, any extra pension contributions they make to mend a deficit will come at the expense of other citizens. Utah has calculated it will have to commit 10% of its general fund for 25 years to pay for the effects of the 2008 stockmarket crash. But attempts to reduce the cost of pensions are being challenged in court and will be opposed by trade unions, which still have plenty of members in the public sector.
It’s not good for people to go through life becoming more and more accustomed to bailouts and redistributed wealth from their neighbors. Everyone should have to earn their own money and provide for themselves during their own retirement years. It’s not good to be dependent on other people – it’s better to make your own way in the world, and to share with others who have less than you do.
WINTERY KNIGHT 