Category: Uncategorized

Yes — there is a time for everything. And now is the time for taxpayer “fleas” to bite back at the bodies of public sector unions. What started in Wisconsin is headed towards California and other states….

The War of the Flea
By Ned Ryun

“By any standard, unions are a behemoth in American politics. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that between 1990 and 2010, the 24 largest unions gave more than $500 million in campaign contributions, 95 percent of it to Democrats. Most of the biggest contributors were public sector unions, the largest being the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which over that 20-year span gave $40,281,900 to Democrats and $547,700 to Republicans. Outside the two major parties, no entity is so heavily invested and wields so much power in American politics.

In a vicious cycle, the public sector unions take dues from their members, who are paid in tax dollars, and then use those dues to work for more influence and more tax dollars from the American taxpayer. With each cycle, more and more money flows from the taxpayer to the public sector unions.

This process has made the public sector unions in particular a significant force in American politics, but American taxpayers increasingly understand that much of that influence and power has been gained off their backs. Thanks to the tea partiers, these unions are starting to encounter a counter-insurgent “war of the flea.” When massively superior forces confront a much smaller force, one would expect that, at least on paper, the massive force would easily prevail. But history shows it doesn’t always work out that way. In his book Violent Politics, William Polk describes a war of independence from the early 20th century:

The elephantine British army in Ireland was harassed constantly, from dozens, if not hundreds of points, a war of attrition that attacked financial interests, making Ireland ungovernable while gaining support from the world community. Against a flea, massive force appears attractive, but the elephant typically uses violent methods, repugnant to the public and actually seem to prove the militant’s propaganda.

I have been saying for some time that public sector unions and the Tea Party are on the front lines of a growing conflict. One side seeks statism, more government, more taxpayer-funded benefits, and public officials who put their interests ahead of the majority of the American people. The other side realizes that government has grown well above and beyond what the Founders envisioned, that we are well down the path of financial destruction due to fiscal irresponsibility, and that too many elected officials no longer serve the interests of the American people.

On February 20, on the steps of the state capitol in Madison, Wisconsin, the first public manifestation of this conflict played out. At a rally organized by local American Majority staff and tea partiers, some 10,000 people voiced support for Governor Walker’s Budget Repair Bill, while on the other side of the capitol, two to three times that many union members gathered to chant, “Kill the bill, kill the bill!”

The interesting aspect of the pro-Walker bill rally was that it was organized in less than 48 hours. Unions are no longer the only ones with this organizing skill. Some will note that the unions protested in the tens of thousands nonstop for weeks, while the tea partiers held only one, one-day rally. But it should also be noted that the tea partiers moved past the protesting into real action: Days after the Madison rally, Tea Party leader Dan Hunt of Kenosha filed recall papers against state senator Bob Wirch, one of the 14 Democratic state senators who fled the state in an effort to avoid addressing the Walker bill. Another Tea Party leader, Kim Simac of Eagle River, did the same against Jim Holperin, another senator who fled the state. The petition drive to force a recall effort is in full force at the writing of this column, with the hope that enough signatures will be gathered to force a special election against Wirch, Holperin, and potentially Dave Hansen of Green Bay before the end of June. (Hansen, incidentally, is a former Green Bay Department of Public Works employee and a 20-year Teamster. Today he is part of the Democratic leadership in the state senate.)

BEYOND WISCONSIN, tea partiers have also taken up the fight against the public sector unions. Chris Littleton and the Ohio Liberty Council (OLC), a coalition of nearly 60 Tea Parties in Ohio, flexed a little muscle to encourage passage of Ohio senate bill SB-5, which abolishes state collective bargaining rights. Littleton and the OLC are now working to attach four amendments to the House version that deal with right to work, designation of dues, paycheck protection, and limiting the number of accrued sick days for union members.

While hardly as well funded as the public sector unions, the tea partiers have an advantage in the long run should American taxpayers, as a whole, follow their lead. Why? Because tea partiers are the first responders, the early adopters, of a very significant percentage of the American population. The tea partiers, in the end, are fighting on behalf of the American taxpayer, and are really the tip of the spear. Consider that we have roughly 310 million people in our nation. Of those, an estimated 130 million are wage earners, of which 53 percent, or 69 million, pay federal income taxes. Of those 130 million, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 11.9 percent are unionized, or some 15 million. Of those, 7.6 million are public sector employees.

Polk writes in Violent Politics that the fight is won if the majority of the population begins to accept and see the world the way the insurgents do. The war of the flea will end if insurgents win backing by numbers far more significant than the forces they face. If the tea partiers can help awaken the American taxpayer to the reality of the unions, the fight will become one of 54 million nonunion taxpayers vs. 15 million union members. Currently we are nearing the tipping point of this struggle. 

April 30, 2011 |

Sentence will affect honor-killing message
by M. Zuhdi Jasser – Apr. 30, 2011 12:00 AM
.
On April 15, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Roland Steinle brought to a close the tragic story of Noor Al-Maleki with the sentencing of her father, Faleh Hassan Al-Maleki, to 34 ½ years in prison.

Judge Steinle, a respected jurist on all sides of the bench, made an uncharacteristically emotional statement to Faleh with his decision.

“Although well intended, Judge Steinle’s remarks ventured into many theological, cultural and social areas from which he should have steered clear. His comments only exacerbated the harm done by the jury with their conviction on the lesser charge of second-degree murder.

Combined, these decisions are a significant blow to America’s messaging against honor killings.

Judge Steinle is correct to state that the Quran says “nothing at all about carrying out vengeance in order to gain back honor in some way.” He was still misguided to assert that it was not an honor killing.

The reasons are complicated, but there is profound import placed on family “honor” and, more importantly, on “shame” in some Muslim communities across America.

The attention given to these tribal perceptions has great impact on the treatment of women within those communities. Shame and honor understood this way are a slippery slope of more pervasive cultural, social and, yes, religious mores that oppress women and cannot be ignored. Judge Steinle chose to ignore them. The jury sadly appears to have taken into account these mores as an excuse for Faleh’s actions.

Although many are lauding this sentence as a “virtual” life sentence for Faleh, the sentence is only 16 years for the vicious murder of his daughter.

This sends an enabling message. Faleh was motivated by the shame he felt his daughter’s actions brought him. The Phoenix New Times reported that he told detectives, “If your house has got a fire (in) just part of the house, do we . . . let the house burn or (do) we try to stop the fire?” Noor Al-Maleki was the small “fire” he had been forced to extinguish.

From jail he told his wife, “The Iraqi honor is precious. . . . For an Iraqi, honor is the most valuable thing.”

Noor Al-Maleki’s actions were probably judged negatively within various circles of their Iraqi community. This communal shame is the root that leads to abuse, violence and, at times, honor killing. Our legal system had an opportunity to make an unequivocal statement against Faleh’s mindset, but it fell short. For any Muslim defenders of the oppression of women, the verdict and sentencing sadly left many openings for apologetics.

Tragically Noor Al-Maleki’s death is but the tip of the iceberg. We cannot deny that there are some Muslim women in our American society who are shunned for how they dress or behave. Physical and mental abuse are often used to force a girl to understand the consequences of shame. Honor killings in the West are only increasing because our communities have avoided any open discussion about the interplay of culture, tribalism, family, honor, shame and faith. The self-destruction of families like Al-Maleki’s cannot be prevented when society enables such deep-seeded denial.

How many Noors do we need to lose before we begin to take some responsibility for reform against the cultural and theological ideologies that denigrate women? The jury should have convicted Faleh of first-degree murder. At sentencing, Judge Steinle should have made clear to the entire world that in the United States we do not tolerate or mitigate for shame or honor.

As someone obsessed with Islamic modernization, I had prayed that Faleh would feel the full force of the law and get a maximum sentence for first-degree murder – ideally the death penalty. But he did not.

The more lenient sentence will affect how honor killings are viewed in America, reinforcing a belief that these actions are understandable. That is in line with what would happen in Middle Eastern countries guided by fundamentalist interpretations of Shariah law, in which lip service is given to stopping the behavior, but light punishment is the law of the land.

It is my hope that they now openly embrace Noor’s story and begin the dialogue that is necessary to reform the insular mindset among some Muslims that view women as inferior. In the aftermath of this case, we American-Muslims must make Noor Al-Maleki a beacon for change within the Muslim consciousness.

M. Zuhdi Jasser is a medical doctor. He is founder and president of Phoenix-based American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2011/04/30/20110430jasser30.html#ixzz1L4OUOdfj

A federal judge this morning rejected a plea deal for surgeon Mark Weinberger, a Chicago doctor who was arrested in the Italian Alps in 2009 after spending five years hiding in Europe while he faced federal fraud charges and hundreds of lawsuits from former patients.

Billboards throughout the region — which he had chosen as a site for his practice because of the allergy-causing poor air quality and the number of factory workers with insurance — advertised him as “TheNoseDoctor,“ and the practice boomed.

Many of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s field agents assigned to an elite cyber investigative unit lack the skills needed to investigate cases of cyber-espionage and other computerized attacks on the US, the Justice Department inspector general reported Wednesday. The FBI cyber-squads were also not as effective as they could be because the squads did not always have intelligence analysts embedded in their units to provide a strategic perspective.

We spend trillions for this?
Why not farm it out to Google?

FirenzeSage48@gmail.com

Share this:

• LinkedIn
• Tumblr
• Print
• Twitter
• WhatsApp
• Facebook
• Reddit
• Telegram

Here we thought no more earmarks. Nope. Still 4.8 billion remain. Time to discuss this issue openly and cut them. See below:

“USA Today reported this week that billions in earmarks remain tucked into the funding measure that keeps the federal government running for the remainder of the fiscal year. Congress is debating right now how much to cut from the measure, yet these secret earmarks are not being openly discussed by members of Congress.

“That’s unfortunate. Earmarks should be low hanging fruit for the cost-conscious legislator. They are special interests projects requested by individual members of Congress.

The USA Today story indicates that the House-passed short term funding measure fully funds $5 billion in existing earmarks. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has submitted legislation, in the form of an amendment to a “small business jobs bill,” to remove these projects.

According to USA Today, (Half of ‘earmark’ spending untouched in GOP bills,) $4.8 billion in earmarks are hidden in the defense, military construction and veterans affairs were left untouched by the Continuing Resolution (CR) that funds the government until April 8th:
House Republicans who crafted two short-term spending bills made $5.3 billion in cuts by going after some of Washington’s least popular spending: those congressional pet projects known as “earmarks.” Even so, a congressional report shows they left $4.8 billion in earmarks untouched — and critics of congressional pork say they should go after it. “Many in Congress promised taxpayers a full earmark moratorium, not a half moratorium,” says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., an earmark opponent who requested the report from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. “Protecting nearly $5 billion in earmarks from cuts sends the wrong message to taxpayers.”

Much of the information comes from a March 17 report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). According to that report, “funding that was made available to accounts for earmarks in FY2010 would still be available to the agency for obligations in FY 2011.” Uh-oh. The CR that states that “all of the earmark disclosure lists from the FY 2010 appropriations ‘shall have no legal effect’ for FY2011.” This leads one to conclude that all of these apparent reductions in earmarks are fake spending cuts.

If the Congress were to delete the approximately $10 billion in earmarks from the FY2010 process, one could make an argument that those funds never would have been expended (because of the “no legal effect” language) and that the American people should not believe that $10 billion in the final number of cuts are real cuts to spending for this fiscal year.

Sen. Coburn’s legislation would eliminate all of these old earmarks and other special interest earmarks from the federal budget. One earmark Coburn would repeal is a tax credit for “Volumetric Ethanol.” That move alone would save $6 billion in taxpayer money.

Another Coburn legislative item would bar federal unemployment benefits to those earning over $1 million a year. The senator’s office says this amendment would save taxpayers $20 million:

According to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, as many as 2,840 households who have reported an income of $1 million or more on their tax returns were paid a total of $18.6 million in unemployment benefits in 2008. This included more than 800 earning over $2 million and 17 with incomes exceeding $10 million.

Coburn also defunds earmarks in the FY 2010 defense appropriations bill. One example: a $20 million earmark for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate in Massachusetts. Elsewhere, highway and mass transit earmarks call for nearly $700 million in extra spending.

A major obstruction to Coburn’s efforts to pull the plug on earmarks is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Coburn has been offering this legislation as amendments to pending bills. Leader Reid has refused to let the Oklahoman call up any of his amendments to the small business jobs bill preventing a vote. The President also shares some blame for not calling for the CRs to eliminate all earmarks. Nor do House Republicans win any plaudits here; they have yet to pass a short term CR without earmark funding.