Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Education’ Category

Wonder what you would find if you frisked US Senator Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) knowledge on the three branches of government?

Answer: He thinks the House of Representatives and Senate are separate branches of government.

Video transcript:

So I would urge my Republican colleagues, no matter how strong they feel — you know, we have three branches of government: we have a House, the Senate, we have a President, and all three of us are going to have to come together and give some. But it is playing with fire to risk the shutting down of the government, just as it is playing with fire to risk not paying the debt ceiling.

I guess Sen. Schumer is one of those elected officials who falls within the 51 percent of elected officials who can’t name all three branches of government, compared with 50 percent of the general public.

For those who think like Sen. Schumer, the actual three branches of government are the executive (run by the President), the legislature (which includes both the House and the Senate), and the judiciary.

Better luck next time Chucky.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked The Grand Rapids Education Association?

Answer: They are going after their own members that have refused to pay their dues!

Big Government reports:

The Grand Rapids Education Association, a local affiliate of Michigan’s largest teachers’ union, is attempting to pick off one-by-one 90-some members that have refused to pay their dues.

About 18 months ago, the school board voted to no longer deduct dues from employees’ paychecks, which meant union members had to physically write a check to the union.  Many saw it as their opportunity to protest the obnoxious behavior of union leaders during a previous contract negotiation period.  The union president, Paul Helder, was particularly pompous during negotiations, claiming the union was fighting a “war on terrorism.”  He even established “War Time Committees” to organize the fight against the school board and administrators.

Marjorie Hayward objected to her president’s behavior and refused to pay up.  So the union took her to small claims court.

The judge, citing the fact that Michigan is not a right-to-work state, ruled she has to fork over the money, regardless of whether or not the union is representing her interests.

Let that marinate for a bit – because of current Michigan law, the union has the right to take a school employee to court and extract money out of her. Isn’t that grand?

If there is ever an opportunity to make Michigan a right-to-work state, this is it.

As a Michigander, this news story hits home for me. For decades, Michigan has suffered from greedy and corrupt organized labor unions, including the Michigan Education Association (MEA). Unfortunately, as mentioned in the article above, Michigan is not a Right-to-Work state and union members can be forced to surrender their hard earned money to corrupt organized labor unions that do not represent their best interests.

I am a strong proponent of Right-to-Work and hope that with our new Republican governor and state legislature we can get something done that will loosen the death grip that organized labor unions have on private and public sector workers.

As for Marjorie Hayward’s case, hopefully this ruling will open the door for the teachers to file a class-action lawsuit against the union. After all, it’s quite clear that the union did not represent their best interests.

As Governor Snyder (R) says, “It’s time to reinvent Michigan.” Let’s hope he means it.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the 2010 United States Census data that was released yesterday?

Answer: Good news for red states and bad news for blue states.

The Washington Times reports:

The conservative “red” states should see their political clout enhanced as a result of the Census Bureau’s announcement Tuesday that the nation’s population grew 9.7 percent over the past decade to nearly 309 million, with the fastest growth centered in states that went Republican in the 2008 presidential election.

[…]

As a result of the 2010 numbers, eight states will gain House seats in the 2012 elections, led by Texas’ four seats and Florida, which gained two. Others gaining a single House seat were Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington.

New York and Ohio were the big losers, both shedding two House seats, while Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania will lose one seat.

Although the growing Hispanic-immigrant population is mainly responsible for Texas and Florida’s huge House seat pickups, the overall Census data still means a lot politically:

Most states gaining seats went for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the 2008 presidential election, while almost all states that lost seats were won by President Obama — many of them in the Rust Belt.

The westward movement of the U.S. population means six districts in states that went for Obama will shift to states that went for McCain — a small but significant shift that could help a GOP presidential candidate in 2012, provided they can hold those states for the party.

Most of the other new seats will be in swing states that went for Obama, which could also be won by Republicans in 2012.

It also doesn’t hurt the Republican Party, because our 2010 gains put us in control of the redistricting process and will help us with drawing new district lines. Although this is all good news, it still does not make the 2012 general election any easier. Not only do we have to worry about effectively relaying our message to the growing Hispanic-immigrant demographic, we have to stay extremely focused on the issues that favor Republicans. Since President Obama does not have a popular or effective record to run on, the Democrats will more than likely toss around the race-card like it’s going out of style.

Here’s another interesting observation in regards to the new 2010 Census data:

First, the great engine of growth in America is not the Northeast Megalopolis, which was growing faster than average in the mid-20th century, or California, which grew lustily in the succeeding half-century. It is Texas.

This leads to a second point, which is that growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England.

Altogether, 35 percent of the nation’s total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade.

Perhaps the Democrats will look to this as a lesson in understanding how high taxation affects states, citizens, and economies… Needless to say, I am not holding my breath.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the DREAM Act this afternoon?

Answer: It failed 55-41 on a procedural cloture vote to end the filibuster!

This is great news for America, because this disastrous piece of legislation will not be brought to the Senate floor to be voted on.

Politico reports:

The decade-old DREAM Act once again failed to break a filibuster in the Senate on Saturday morning, effectively killing the bill this year and shutting the door on what perhaps was the last cdhance for pro-immigration reform legislation until at least the 2012 election.

Senate Democrats came up five votes short of the 60 needed to advance the House-passed bill, which would provide a path to citizenship for up to illegal immigrants brought to the country as children if they attend college or join the military for two years. The 55-41 vote was mostly along party lines, though a handful of Democrats — perhaps fearful of their 2012 election outlook — also voted against the DREAM Act.

As I have said before, do not be fooled by the name of this bill. The real goal of the DREAM Act is to provide amnesty for those who chose to enter our country illegally and make it even harder to enforce our immigration laws.

One of my friends said it best, “Welcome to America, please use front door… Okay, thanks.”

VICTORY:

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked Attorney General Eric Holder and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s op-ed in today’s Washington Post?

Answer: More proof that liberals have the hardest time understanding why the government can mandate one type of insurance and not another.

Here is their op-ed where they continue to bring up the same ol’ debunked argument:

Everyone wants health care to be affordable and available when they need it. But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people who carry insurance, and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014.

If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it’s essential that everyone have coverage. Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.

The same is true for health insurance. Without an individual responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn’t work.

Apparently the mind of liberal doesn’t allow for the common sense comparison between auto-insurance and Obamacare to seep in. If the Democrats are capable of understanding and passing a 2,000+ page piece legislation (which is debatable), then why can’t they understand the distinct differences between auto-insurance and Obamacare?

First of all, auto-insurance places requirements on the voluntary act of driving and not on life itself. Second, there is a difference between the powers of the federal and state governments – shocker, right? Thirdly, auto-insurance requirements are limited to individuals that choose to drive on public roads (private property is off limits). Lastly, auto-insurance only covers injuries to others, not yourself. If you still don’t see the differences between auto-insurance and Obamacare, Ed Morrissey – from Hot Air – put together a good article that explains it in further detail:

Drivers carry required insurance to cover damage done to others, not themselves, for one thing.  It’s not applicable at all.  Furthermore, states impose the insurance requirement, not the federal government, because states license drivers and vehicles.  Driving is, after all, a voluntary activity conducted on public property (roads); there is no requirement for licensing or insurance for those who drive only on their private property.  People who don’t drive on public roads aren’t required to buy a license or the insurance.

There are other problems with this analogy as well.  Those who do have auto insurance only file claims when significant damage occurs.  Auto insurance doesn’t pay for routine maintenance, like oil changes, lube jobs, and tire rotation.  That’s why auto insurance is relatively affordable.

Also, auto insurance is priced to risk.  If a driver lives in a high-crime area, then the premiums will rise to cover the risks associated with theft.  If they drive badly (get moving violations and accidents), premiums will go up, or in some cases, the insurer will drop the driver.  Policies are priced for risk according to age as well; the youngest and oldest drivers pay more due to their propensity for causing losses.   Those who drive well and present a lower risk get rewarded with lower premiums.  Right now, the federal government is preventing insurers in some instances from risk-pricing health insurance to impose government-approved fairness.  That means we all pay more, removing the incentive to lower risk.

Debunked once again.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the tail end of cars in the states of Texas, Virginia, and Nevada?

Answer: Soon you might find a Gadsden Flag license plate.

Fox News reports:

Fans of the Gadsden Flag may soon be able to display its familiar rattlesnake and “Don’t Tread on Me” message every time they pull out of the driveway.

At least three states — Virginia, Nevada and Texas — are weighing or have already approved proposals to add “Don’t Tread on Me” specialty license plates to their state rosters.

[…]

In Texas, the first state to propose and approve the plates, officials said they didn’t have politics in mind, but simply getting more people interested in displaying specialty plates, which bring the state more money then regular plates.

[…]

On Oct. 14, Virginia House Delegate John M. O’Bannon III submitted a proposal to bring “Don’t Tread on Me” plates to Virginia. Unlike revenue-sharing plates, which raise money for a specific organization, O’Bannon says any money raised by these plates will go straight to the Virginia DMV.

“Some people try to politicize it, but the nice thing about this symbol is that it has a very positive and patriotic heritage and a lot of people past the Tea Party folks think favorably of this and I think would like to have it,” O’Bannon told FoxNews.com.

Unfortunately, an all yellow license plate will not look that pleasant on the tail end of a lot cars, because the colors would clash. Either way, the license plate alone is quite badass.

Far-left liberals: Click here to learn the history about the Gadsden Flag before you begin to spew your anti-Tea Party talking points… It just gets old.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked one of the “evil” companies that falls within the top tax brackets that President Obama and the Democrats are trying desperately to raise taxes on?

Answer: A company who is not overwhelmed with wealthy executives smoking cigars, sipping on cocktails, feet resting on their desks, and laughing at the rest of middle-class America.

As you can tell, I was definitely exaggerating the descriptions of the employees who work hard at Leland (the company in the video). However, President Obama and his loyal Democrats are trying desperately to portray that image of the so-called “wealthy” Americans who make more than $250,000 a year. Unfortunately, the Democrats do not understand (or chose not to understand) that a majority of small businesses make more than $250,000 a year and don’t earn enough for it to make financial sense to file their taxes in the corporate bracket. With that said, this is where Steven Crowder’s latest video comes in to help make sense of the issue.

After watching the video, you will notice that if a company ends up entering the top tax brackets with an income of more than $250,000 a year they still have to pay their employees from those earnings before taking home their own cut. Therefore, if the federal government decides not to extend the Bush tax cuts for ALL  tax brackets, it is likely that employers and entrepreneurs would be hit extremely hard.

Overall, Steven Crowder’s latest video was informative and entertaining. I sense the attacks from the Left will include the rhetoric such as “This is only one company! Therefore, it proves absolutely nothing.” Yeah, if you are an individual thinking that, I recommend you pull your head out of that dark place where the sun does not shine because the GOP tidal wave is coming in less than two weeks! …Hold on tight!

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »