Tag Archives: Andy Stern

Expect the Institutionalized “progressive” Left to Come Out in Force

Comedian Bill Maher gave $1 million to one of President Obama’s SuperPACs. Actor Alec Baldwin’s on record saying that Obama’s re-election ‘In the Bag’. Lanny Davis, who writes for The Hill, is busy covering up for U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder during Congressional investigations into the murder of U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexican citizens resulting from the Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Fast and Furious gun-running scandal. MSNBC stopped inviting Conservative author Matt Lewis to contribute on-air after the site he works for, the Daily Caller, reported about the influence George Soros funded Media Matters for America wields over that Network. “Coincidentally”, Conservative pundit Pat Buchannan was also dropped by MSNBC around that same time.

As is always the case with any non-white or non-male Republican star, the institutionalized “progressive” left media is focused on Florida Senator Marco Rubio who, being a Hispanic from a crucial swing state, poses an existential threat to the re-election of Barack Obama. Not surprisingly, openly leftist actress Eva Longoria joined in the attack by saying “Marco Rubio has been coming up with some silly stuff that we really have to sort through”.

Meanwhile, the American mainstream media remains silent after a BarackObama speech where he joked: “I went to the speaker’s home town,” referring to a trip to House Speaker John Boehner’s battleground state of Ohio, “stood under a bridge that was crumbling.” Somebody in the crowd shouted, “Let him drive on it!”

Cue the sound of crickets.

This is the same press that had a field day back in 2008 when, on one or two occasions, a few folks attending McCain/Palin rallies shouted ugly comments from the crowd. These incidents were reported as major, top of the broadcast, front-page news. Repeatedly, with frequency and vigor.

During nationwide May Day demonstrations by OWS, occupiers themselves willing admitted that their protesters were taking marching orders from big labor and public service unions like the AFL-CIO and SEIU.

One of the leaders of the Occupy Cleveland movement, Brandon Baxter, was arrested for a terrorist plot to bomb a bridge in Cleveland Ohio. The plot has been directly linked to the Occupy movement. The names and the official complaint have been confirmed.

There were multiple incidences of violence around the country, with occupiers shouting the likes of “Pigs Go Home” and “Down with Capitalism”. With tear gas in Oakland, violence and vandalism in Seattle, SEIU members disrupting Los Angeles International Airport, with Occupiers calling themselves anarchists and hurling Molotov Cocktails; despite all evidence to the contrary, American taxpayer funded NPR is still calling the violent Occupy protests “restrained”.

By comparison, when the Tea Party was the topic de jour, Democrats and their “progressive” Party Pravda lapdogs were quick to blame the Tea Party for each and every violent incident around the country. More than one fringe leftist whack-job, impersonating responsible journalists on American television’s most irresponsible cable network, held Sarah Palin personally responsible for the Gabby Giffords shooting in Tucson Arizona. Their supposed rationale was her use of the word target when discussing campaign strategy. Never mind that in similar applications, the word “target” had been used frequently by members of the Democratic Party. Members of the institutionalized “progressive” left smear machine somehow forgot to inform the public that “target” was first used as political jargon by 1980 Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale’s political strategist Bob Beckel.

A review of the visitor’s log confirms that AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and former SEIU President Andy Stern have been frequent visitors to the White House. SEIU alone spent approximately $60.7 million to help elect Barack Obama to the White House in 2008. SEIU expects a return on their investment. Barack Obama was quick to embrace the Occupy movement when he saw his poll numbers sliding.

Before this November’s elections American voters should duly note such connections.

In case you haven’t noticed, or have yet to become fully convinced, bias within the institutionalized “progressive” left media is both very real and pervasive. With the presidential general election campaign about to get into full swing, expect it to get much, much worse. Truth coming from the institutionalized “progressive” left’s smear machine is as likely as them reporting that Elizabeth Warren can’t prove she has Cherokee blood in her veins.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/expect-the-institutionalized-progressive-left-to-come-out-in-force/

Obama’s Marxist 2012 Reelection Campaign

Barack Obama’s 2012 taxpayer-funded reelection campaign contains many elements, including massive doses of class warfare and racially-divisive rhetoric, (think, ” If I had a son he’d look just like Trayvon”) massive misinformation about the viability of taxpayer-funded green energy programs, the always-loved-by-the-far-left-radicals hate-speech directed at anyone in America who is successful (think taxing anyone making over $250k) with that last aspect also including the misinformation-laden Obama 2012 war on big oil companies. Barack Obama’s current 2012 reelection campaign rhetoric shows America a man who must attempt to distract American voters from looking at his dismal record during his historic failure of a first [and only] term as president of the United States of America.

What most Americans do not seem to be able to grasp today is the fact that Obama’s current campaign rhetoric follows very closely with another centuries-old form of using misinformation to nudge public perceptions campaign, that of one Karl Marx, the founder of what has now known worldwide as Marxism.

Marxism, according to Bing Dictionary is defined as: a: the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in which class struggle is a central element in the analysis of social change in Western societies, and b:  political ideology based on the theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. (emphasis added)

There it is, Obama2012 defined in one simple sentence: Class struggle being promoted as a main element in a drive to effect social change. This also goes hand in glove with Obama’s Hope and Change campaign of 2008, where he promised to “fundamentally transform America” and where he told Joe the plumber that we must “spread the wealth around.”

 In yet another taxpayer-funded campaign speech last week, Obama continued his call for Karl Marx-inspired wealth redistribution in his continuing war on big oil companies, as Larry Kudlow explains:

“Once again this week, the president was out on the campaign trail bashing and oil and gas companies. And he continued to spread major falsehoods about this industry, which I guess is the polite way to put it.

 Obama is obsessed with oil and gas. He is a prisoner of the left-wing environmental groups. And really, he’s extending his leftist class-warfare attack from rich people to successful oil and gas producers.”
“What seems to have Obama especially steamed is the fact that the conventional-energy companies are profitable. Especially the five largest. So he wants to tax them. He then wants to redistribute their income to his favorite green-energy firms. Sound familiar? I don’t know which is more important to the president — the fact that he hates fossil fuel, or the fact that he hates success. Or that he wants an energy-entitlement state.” (emphasis added)
Enabled by the media-misfits of today, Barack Obama is being given a pass by political operatives posing as reporters on Obama’s obvious implementation of Marxist policies to transform America. Anyone who points out the definition of Marxism, and it’s obvious direct correlation of Barack Obama’s ideology in policy-making being based on the teachings of Karl Marx as a way to fundamentally transform a nation… are immediately labeled  as a right-wing extremist or other nasty Left-wing catch-phrases dug up from third grade name-calling contests.
Karl Marx is quoted from The Communist Manifesto he authored, as stating,  “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite!”  This last sentence  has been used frequently by Obama-Union-Operative Andy Stern, the head of SEIU and President Barack Obama’s most frequent White House guest, as stated during a discussion about his planned globalization of SEIU. In case our readers are not familar with just who Andy Stern truly is, along with his Obama connections and Marxist ideology, read this.
In summary, Barack Obama’s proven Marxist ideology has been evident for anyone actually interesting in vetting this man as a candidate for U.S. President during the 2008 presidential elections. That simply did not happen, by design. The media has steadfastly chosen to ignore these facts and still does today to the detriment of America. In the immortal words of the truth-telling Andrew Breitbart, may God rest his soul, “we fully intend to vet Barack Obama in the 2012 elections.” Barack Obama is a Marxist bent on transforming America by destroying her capitalistic system and free markets, empowering a statist central government over it’s people, while taking from one class of citizens to redistribute it to another to buy votes and power. This is right out in the open for all to see in one aspect or another, in every taxpayer-funded speech Obama gives today. All you have to do is listen for it.
The revolution made progress, not by its immediate tragicomic achievements but by the creation of a powerful, united counter-revolution, an opponent in combat with whom the party of overthrow ripened into a really revolutionary party.”  Karl Marx- 1850 from Class Struggle in France .

 

The Myths about the Myths of Social Security

For decades we’ve all known the Social Security was in trouble. No more!!  MoveOn.org has calmed the waters and published the truth – all while using an absolute fiction.

This post at the liberal site attempts to convince its readers that there is nothing wrong with Social Security – move on folks, nothing to see here:

Myth: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a ‘T’). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it’ll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits–and again, that’s without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

The source of footnote “1” is… yup, another liberally-slanted “news” site, new deal 2.0. To refute this myth about a myth, I submit – The 2009 Annual Report of the Board of  Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors  Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund (that’s the original name for the Social Security Trust Fund):

Under the long-range intermediate assumptions, annual cost will begin to exceed tax income in 2016 for the combined OASDI Trust Funds.

That just means they’ll dig into their piggy bank right?  Well, that piggy bank is not cash or any other easily liquid assets (stocks, money market funds, etc) – it’s government bonds.  In the event of Social Security running a deficit, they will have to cash in their government bonds, and their holdings aren’t small.  One must also realize that in order for the government to pay those bonds, they will have raise taxes, cut spending or both.  The exact same thing as if dealing with a deficit crisis.

I am not sure how they even throw this next one out with a straight face .. but hey, job security for me.

Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.3 What’s more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly–since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Checking the footnote source “3” .. The Center for Economic and Policy Research – A progressive economic “think-tank”.  Wow, what right-wing nut job counter-source will I use… uh, I know!  That whacked-out tea party infested non-partisan .. Congressional Budget Office :

Once the baby-boom generation retires, the portion of the nation’s output that the federal government will spend on Social Security will increase by more than 50 percent–from 4.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal year 2001 to an estimated 6.5 percent in 2030.<

This is just too easy.
Next up… a statement that is only true if you believe the first two falicies:

Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.

Reality: Social Security doesn’t need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here’s a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

But heck, this has been so fun, let’s see who this source “5” is.  The Economic Policy Institute which has a board of directors listing that reads like a collection of union leadership, socialists,and at a minimum heavily left-leaning academicians.

  • Andy Stern – SEIU Founder
  • Linda Sanchez (D-CA 39)
  • Ed Mcelroy – American Federation of Teachers
  • Ron Gettlefinger – United Auto Workers
  • R. Thomas Buffenbarger, Internation Association of Machinists & Allied Workers
  • Anna Burger, SEIU and “Change to Win” (Organized labor group)

I could go on, but you get the point, another progressive site sourced as if it’s a balanced credible source.

Next up, something we’ve all known for decades:

Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn’t full of IOUs, it’s full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market–which would have been disastrous–but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

I cringe at the thought, but yeah.. lemme go check this apparently omnipotent, clarifying and surely factual source.  Hey look, it’s Andy Stern and his union cronies at Economic Policy Institute again.  Now why would organized labor have an interest in Americans feeling secure about Social Security and also getting the rich to put more in than they will ever get out?  Probably because his union workers are going to get the shaft when they realize how badly unions have under-funded their pensions.  If the government can’t bail him out.. he’s looking at the collapse of organized labor.  Now to debunking the myth.. uh check the commentary under the first myth and the next one.. this is just a chain of lies where you tear down one and rest fall upon the weak foundation that first lie set.

I hope I don’t even have to post a rebuttal to this one, because if you’ve understood the rest of the article, it’s unnecessary:

Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It’s not just wrong — it’s impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can’t add one penny to the deficit.1

The source, New Deal 2.0 .. again.  As if the actual “New Deal” hasn’t actually perpetuated a deficit crisis, the new version is trying to say that not only did Social Security not cause the issue, it’s actually not even possible.  The first rebuttal should give you enough, but if not.. lemme try again.  During years of excess, the Social Security trust fund does not get to hang on to its excesses.  It has to put that money into government bonds and hold those instead.  Should they run into deficit, they will call on the government to give them cash for the bonds.  Since our government doesn’t have any free cash due to deficit spending… they’ll have to borrow money from somewhere else, raise taxes or cut spending – exactly the same actions as excessive debt.  Because the trust fund gave the government money and it received bonds in return, it holds debt of the U.S. government (I said debt right?).  The treasury got money from someone on a loan basis to cover costs it cannot fund on its own.  Most of us call that operating at a deficit.  Social Security absolutely enables our government’s deficit spending and if they call on the money in those IOUs, it will just get tacked-on.

So MoveOn.org posts an article based on the facts of union-run, far-left, liberal nut-job organizations – gave me something to do, but could really have used a challenge.

Obama's Choice for Deficit Reduction Panel Left Huge Deficits at SEIU

As I reported last month, Obama has nominated Andy Stern, the leader of the Service Employee’s International Union (SEIU).  Now the concerns are mounting over the quality of this choice and Obama’s true motives for his fiscal policy group.

The Washington Times reported that Mr. Stern has left SEIU in ruin while having protected his own benefits.

SEIU’s pensions are in even worse shape. Both of SEIU’s two national pension plans, the SEIU National Industry Pension Fund and the Pension Plan for Employees of the SEIU, issued critical-status letters last year. The Pension Protection Act requires any pension fund that is funded below 65 percent of what it needs to pay its obligations to inform its beneficiaries of the deficit ..  Unlike SEIU’s pension plans for rank-and-file members and union employees, SEIU’s officer pension plan, the SEIU Affiliates Officers and Employees Pension Plan, was funded at 102 percent in 2007.

The motivation for SEIU to support health care reform is becoming more clear each day.  The union will likely become insolvent if it can’t push a huge portion of it’s benefit liability on to the tax payers.  SEIU’s political agenda is even more in-questions when we learn that many of their protests against Bank of America were at a time when it owed $80 million to the same bank.

Not only did Stearn shirk his responsibilities to the union members by not funding their benefits, he increased the union’s liabilities from $7.6 million to $120 million (more than 15 times) from 2000-2009 while only increasing assets from $66 million to $187 million (just 3 times) and a large portion of that asset growth comes from IOU’s from it’s own local union organizations.

Obama’s self-touted Deficit Reduction Panel is looking more like a political machine intended to only further his free-spending agenda.  Andy Stern has shown no propensity for fiscal responsibility and no history of controlling liabilities.  The only reason Stern is on this panel is to thank him for the $85 million he spent to get Obama and his party members elected, $85 million that should probably have gone to the SEIU member retirement and benefits funds.