FEEL THE BERN

The general consensus seems to be that Bernie can't win. Well, just remember, they said that about George McGovern and Walter Mondale, too. Bernie can win if YOU vote for him. So, hop on board the Bernie Express and I'm sure I can convince you to “Feel the Bern!” No need to worry about your carbon footprint. This train is powered by unicorn farts. Zero emissions! So sit back, enjoy a complimentary cup of kool aid and let me explain why you should vote for Bernie. Next stop – Egalitarian nirvana!

REASON 1

Thousands of teenagers can't be wrong!

The Bern has been drawing large and enthusiastic crowds at college campuses across the country. Generally speaking, these young people have never really done anything and their biggest accomplishment was scoring above average on the SAT, but hey, these kids are really smart! When faced with an important decision with far-reaching implications, the wise man asks, “What would a teenager do?” Thousands of teenagers can't be wrong, can they?

REASON 2

A national minimum wage of $15 an hour!

Bernie has stated he wants to create millions of jobs, and one of the ways he plans to do it is by raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. What a brilliant idea! 97 percent of economists at the prestigious Keynesian School agree that as the cost of labor goes up, the demand for that labor increases. This is what the select experts call “settled” economics. While I was hoping for $21.72 an hour, I'm sure the Bern is much more familiar with the intricacies of a command and control economy, so I will defer to his judgment on this. In any event, I think we can all agree that wages and prices are much too important to be left to the vagaries of the free market, which isn't really free at all. It's common knowledge the market is controlled by the Koch brothers through their manipulation of the military-industrial complex. I'm pretty sure Dick Cheney is pulling some levers in there, too!

REASON 3

Free college for everyone!

Bernie wants free college because it is the “right thing to do” and he laments the hundreds of thousands of Americans who cannot go to college “for one reason alone, their families cannot afford it.” It's a terrible thing! My wife and I could not afford college tuition for our children. My son went to war for our country and as a small measure of recompense, the United States provided him the GI Bill, which allowed him to attend college for “free.” My daughter, through hard work, diligence and academic and musical achievement, qualified for substantial scholarship awards and yet still finds herself in substantial debt. Should our young people have to risk their lives or work really hard just to get into college? Of course not. If I may borrow a line from President Obama, “That's not who we are!” What about the kid who has spent the last few years in his parents' basement playing video games and eating ding dongs? Or how about the aging hippie whose dream of pursuing a degree in women's studies was crushed by the weight of corporate greed. Don't they deserve the opportunities provided by a college education, too? You know in your heart they do. As an added benefit, the increase in college attendees along with “government” paying the tuition will help drive down the costs, because it is also “settled” economics that when the government is paying for something and the demand for that thing goes through the roof, the costs for that thing go down. Another win, win, win proposal from the Bern!

REASON 4

Save the starving children!

Bernie has adroitly recognized the cause of starvation in America. Too many consumer choices! Said the Bern “You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.” Who knew? If you are unable to grasp the symbiotic relationship between an abundance of personal hygiene products and starving children, might I suggest another glass of kool aid? Choice is good sometimes, to be sure. It's a basic human right to choose to kill your unborn child or to choose if you are a man or a woman, but Americans so often go to extremes with their selfish desire for more choices, ergo, starving children.

REASON 5

Stop climate change and end terrorism.

Bernie believes the greatest threat to national security is climate change and he argues that, “climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.” He explained, “If there is not enough water, if there is not enough land to grow your crops, then you’re going to see migrants of people fighting over land that will sustain them, and that will lead to international conflict.” This is why, before going on a murderous rampage or blowing themselves up in a crowd of people, the terrorists always scream, “I'M REALLY THIRSTY!” Some people might wonder why climate change seems to have such a disparate impact on Muslims as opposed to say Jews or Christians. While the latter group simply adjusts the thermostat up when we are experiencing catastrophic global cooling and then down when we are in the throes of catastrophic global warming, a significant percentage of Muslims start beheading, raping and blowing up innocent people. If you're one of the haters that wonders this, have some more kool aid. So, we gut the military and pour that money into windmills, solar panels and fairy dust converters. Save the planet AND end terrorism. That's Bernie “win, win” Sanders for you!

To close this out, let me be serious for a minute. This country is on a path to extinction. I don't know if we are beyond the point of no return but we owe it to ourselves, and, more importantly, posterity to never stop fighting. America is the greatest country in the world. Apparently, Bernie disagrees. In another speech to some idiot college students, he said the United States was founded “from way back on racist principles.” Bullshit! This country was founded on revolutionary and quite virtuous principles, the cornerstone of which is the recognition of the individual as a sovereign being and the concept that he is endowed by God with certain unalienable rights. That these principles were not always applied uniformly is a deep scar from our history but it does not invalidate those principles. This country did not invent slavery but it did end it. The ending of slavery was not inconsistent with our founding principles. In fact, the Constitution facilitated the end of that great scourge.

President Obama promised “change” and he certainly delivered. While clearly a Marxist, he seems reticent to fully articulate the case for socialism. Now we have a presidential candidate that will complete the change. Bernie is an avowed socialist and he has no problem saying it. His honesty is refreshing and makes for a clear and distinct choice.

Free individuals, acting in their own self-interest, will obviously create different and, as liberals would call them, unequal outcomes. For our Founders, equality was thought desirous only in the context of the law, not in income, social status or any metric that would require a limit on individual freedom to obtain. Socialism is antithetical to individual sovereignty. The goal of socialism is equality in all things. This necessarily means a limit on individual freedom and an increase in government power. Someone will have to determine what level of equality is acceptable and formulate laws applicable to a myriad of circumstances. Perhaps Bernie will establish a “Blue Ribbon Commission on Equality.” In fact, I know he will. Socialism always requires a central body to decide things. Then he will, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, erect a multitude of new offices, and send hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. Long ago, Adam Smith argued that free individuals, pursuing their own self-interests, actually did more to promote the general welfare of society than the politicians. He described this occurrence as being effected by an “invisible hand.” Socialism is an Iron Fist. We will not be free but we will all be equal in our misery. Just say no to the pasty white Marxist.

THE AMERICAN WAY-PART 2-RACISM

The Liberal Way:

Liberals believe you are a racist if:

• You didn't vote for Obama
• You think the law applies to Obama
• You believe affirmative action laws are immoral and harmful to all concerned
• Same for welfare
• You like country music
• You like NASCAR
• You think we should secure our borders
• You support the Tea Party
• You are a conservative

The American Way:

While calling republicans and conservatives racist may serve to silence discussion and drive a wedge through this country based on skin color, it is, in fact, historically inaccurate. But then, being a democrat/liberal means being unencumbered by the facts. A cursory review of some history will show these democrat- liberal-progressive- elitist snobs to be a bunch of lying bastards.

America did not invent slavery but we did end it. It was a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that put forth the Emancipation Proclamation and conducted a bloody civil war to end that scourge on American history.

It was the Democrats, at their 1868 national convention, that honored the first grand wizard of the KKK.

Not one Democrat voted for the 14^th Amendment, which granted citizenship to former slaves.

It was liberal/progressive heroine Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, who developed what she called the “Negro Project.” In implementing this plan Sanger wrote: "[We propose to] hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

In 1957, it was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who sent the 82^nd Airborne to Little Rock, AR. to force Governor Orval Faubus, a Democrat, to integrate Arkansas' public schools. (Fun Fact: In 1956 Martin Luther King, Jr. publicly announced that he voted for Eisenhower.)

Democrat George Wallace, Jr. served 16 years as governor of Alabama. In his first inaugural speech in 1963 he stated: “In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was signed into law by LBJ. Conservative senator Barry Goldwater, speaking in opposition to the Act, stated, in part: “I wish to make myself perfectly clear. The two portions of this bill to which I have constantly and consistently voiced objections, and which are of such overriding significance that they are determinative of my vote on the entire measure, are those which would embark the Federal Government on a regulatory course of action in the area of so-called- '"public accommodations'" -and in the area of employment--to be precise, Titles II and VII of the bill. I find no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority in either of these areas; and I believe the attempted usurpation of such power to be a grave threat to the very essence of our basic system of government, namely, that of a constitutional government in which 50 sovereign states have reserved to themselves and to the people those powers not specifically granted to the central or Federal Government.” BAM! Boy did we get stuck with the wrong Barry as president.

Title II outlawed discrimination based on race in hotels, restaurants, theaters and all other “public accommodations.” This violates our freedom of association which courts have ruled is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition and it also violates our due process protections regarding liberty and property contained in the 14^th Amendment. Title VII prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race. We've been over the employer/employee contractual relationship before so I won't waste your time being redundant.

The racism of contemporary Democratic/liberal elites is manifested in a subtle and yet more insidious way. The have convinced generations of minorities they are victims of a racist American society. The Democratic Party has marketed itself as their advocate and protector. Through the welfare apparatus they have created a permanent condition of dependency among a large segment of the country. Democrat President Lyndon Johnson summed up their plan with his legendary eloquence: “I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” What a bunch of assholes.

True racism, being prejudicial of people based solely on their race, is morally bankrupt and an intellectual absurdity but that doesn't mean there should be a law against it. Not in America. America values freedom and the sovereignty of the individual. We have adopted free market capitalism as our economic system because it is most compatible with those values. Racist business owners and employers that act on their racism by discriminating will be punished because capitalism is a moral system that involves the voluntary commerce between consenting people. As Thomas Sowell observed: “Prejudice is free, but discrimination has costs.” Who among us would go into a bar or restaurant that advertised “No blacks allowed?” I don't know anyone. The place would be out of business in short order. Similarly, an employer that discriminates by hiring people based on criteria other than productivity is cutting his own throat. We don't need affirmative action laws because the free market is colorblind and will always be biased toward productivity.

Conservative Americans want all people to enjoy the blessings of liberty and the dignity of work that facilitates our independence. Liberal politicians fear and loathe independent people. They are a threat to their power. Dependent people are not free but they do vote Democrat and that is all liberal politicians care about.

THE AMERICAN WAY

The liberal/progressive ideology is not new in America. It has been a scourge in this country for well over 150 years. In the middle of the 19^th century there was Horace Mann, followed by John Dewey in the early part of the 20^th century, progressive socialists both, that gave us the train wreck known as public education. Woodrow Wilson was a big time progressive and of course FDR with his New Deal and LBJ with his Great Society have inflicted deep generational damage to the country.

During my lifetime, liberalism has continued to spread like an aggressive cancer. The cesspool of academia has provided a fertile breeding ground and facilitated liberal dominance in the media, our culture and the body politic. We are, in my opinion, now heading toward the ultimate manifestation of this depraved ideology.    

After the Constitutional Convention, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin what form of government had been established. “A republic,” replied Franklin, “if you can keep it.”

We are not a strict democracy where majority rules. We get to elect our leadership but they are bound by the constraints of the Constitution. It was intended that we be, in the words of John Adams, “A government of laws and not of men.” Considering what is going on in this country today, Franklin's cautionary response appears prescient. Every day now, it seems, we see the president or someone in his administration break the law, ignore the law or, without bothering to get the consent of the legislature, change the law. That so many American citizens, along with a complicit media, not only tolerate such lawlessness but actually endorse it is scary and terribly sad. In a rare moment of honesty, Obama said that he wants to “fundamentally transform” America. This is revealing. One would not want to “fundamentally transform” something they love. It is clear to me that Obama and the liberal elites have a deep- rooted animus toward this country and they are doing their best to change what it means to be an American.

The idea of America, I think, includes two aspects. Individual sovereignty and the law. Our culture was once predicated on freedom and individual sovereignty, conditions proclaimed as man's unalienable right in the Declaration of Independence and codified as law by the Constitution. Liberals, in general, and Obama in particular are able to corrupt the culture because the Constitution is not self-enforcing. It requires politicians of high moral character who respect their oath to uphold it. Today most Democrats are quite willing to subvert the Constitution and most Republicans are too scared and weak to hold them accountable. The American Way is in serious jeopardy.

By means of examining current events and legislative issues, I will attempt to illustrate how the Liberal Way is antithetical to freedom and individual sovereignty and, hopefully, provide a reasoned and compelling argument in support of our founding principles, which will convince readers to embrace “The American Way!”

This review is not intended to be a rigorous examination of every Supreme Court decision. I want people to read this without dying of boredom. Besides, on any particular issue, I could site Court decisions both in support and in opposition to my position. Supreme Court rulings have the force of law but that does not mean my interpretations are illegitimate.

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” Thomas Jefferson

As a man of ordinary understanding and common sense, I believe the Constitution needs to be interpreted within the context of the Founder's original intent. Fortunately, the Founders were prolific writers, bold and clear in stating their positions. From the Federalist Papers, Common Sense and countless personal letters, to the recorded history of the Constitutional Convention, their intentions were clear. They had recently won a war against a king and they were terrified of reimposing a strong centralized government on themselves. But they also recognized the need for a federal government strong enough to protect individual rights and freedom from enemies, both foreign and domestic and to “form a more perfect Union.” My Constitutional philosophy leans heavily on those parts of the document that, in my opinion, best illustrate their brilliance in achieving both these competing goals. The Ninth Amendment- “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” and the Tenth Amendment-”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” make it very clear that only certain powers were delegated to the federal government. The Ninth Amendment refers to Article I, Section 8 where very limited and concise powers are enumerated. And no, taxing hard working Americans so the government can pay for the birth control for some graduate school skank did not make the list.

Liberals, armed with neither ordinary understanding or common sense, prefer to search for interpretations in “metaphysical subtleties” which leads to inconsistent and ridiculous positions. To Wit:

MINIMUM WAGE

The Liberal Way: Barack Obama says, ”It's time to give America a raise.” He is promoting legislation that would raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour. “As Americans, we believe that honest work should be rewarded with honest wages. That certainly means that no one who works full time should ever have to raise a family in poverty....most workers who would get a raise when Congress passes this bill aren't teenagers taking on their first job. They average 35 years old,” he says. He lauds those few states that have already passed laws raising their minimum wage. He shows his business acumen when he explains, “Profitable businesses...pay higher wages too, not out of charity but because it reduces employee turnover, boosts productivity and improves the bottom line.”

The American Way: Article I, section 10 of the Constitution prohibits States from “impairing the obligations of contracts...” Through the years courts have seen fit to diminish the potential of this clause but they have also ruled that a right to enter into contracts free from unreasonable government regulations is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Sometimes whacky and often inconsistent jurisprudence aside, there can be no disputing the Founder's view that private property is considered sacred and a man's labor is his property. To quote Madison, workers have “free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which...constitute their property in the general sense of the word.”

I know to challenge Obama is considered racist but I wish someone would ask him a simple question. If $10.10 an hour is good, wouldn't $20 an hour be better? How about $50? Heck, why not just sign an executive order making it $100 and we can all party like rock stars! It's ridiculous. Even an economic midget like Obama knows there is a point where an artificially high cost of labor will result in reduced job opportunities. He just doesn't know what that number is. Neither do I but I know a great economic system that will find it. It's called the Free Market. A minimum wage that is higher than the competitive market wage level will result in an increase in unemployment and the greater the difference between the artificial wage and the competitive market wage, the higher the unemployment rate. The cost of labor, just like the cost of material goods, is subject to the law of supply and demand. Wages will rise as the demand for labor increases. If Obama really wanted to help low-wage workers, he would stop punishing those that actually create jobs.

In 1995, the congressional Joint Economic Committee published a review of 50 years of academic research on the minimum wage. The study concluded that effects of increasing the minimum wage included:

*Increasing the likelihood and duration of unemployment for low-wage workers;

*Encouraging employers to cut worker training;

*Increasing inflationary pressure;

*Encouraging employers to cut back on fringe benefits;

*Increasing teenage crime rates; and

*Encouraging employees to hire illegal aliens.

More specific to Obama's plan, the Congressional Budget Office recently released a report showing that an increase in the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour could help lift 900,000 workers out of poverty but would cost approximately 500,000 jobs! Gee, thanks comrade!

Once again, dipshit politicians commission a survey, paid for by us, with the hope that it will validate their idiotic schemes, then ignore it when it concludes that their ideas are idiotic. It would make more sense for Obama to promise low-wage workers magic beans and fairy dust. It would do them every bit as good as raising the minimum wage and in fact would do them much less harm.

ACCEPTABLE MEANS

It is becoming more apparent every day that liberals in general, and Barack Obama in particular, believe the end justifies the means.
 

In September of 2012, Obama was trying to get reelected. One of his campaign narratives was “GM is alive, Osama bin Laden is dead, and Al Qaeda is on the run.”

On September 11 the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was attacked and four Americans were killed. The historical significance of the date is obvious and we now know that Obama was informed that same day that it was a coordinated attack by Islamic terrorists. The attack went on for more than eight hours. As President and Commander In Chief, Obama has an obligation and duty to protect the people and the interests of the United States yet his response was to protect his desired end of being reelected. He needed to maintain the perceived veracity of his, “Al Qaeda is on the run” narrative so his administration initiated a cover-up by means of blaming some obscure anti-Muslim video. To this day no one in the Obama administration has been held accountable and none of the terrorists responsible for the attack have been caught or killed. But hey, Obama got reelected. The end justifies the means.
 

Obama wants to socialize our healthcare system. He knows that most Americans have yet to embrace socialism so he called it something else. During the 2008 campaign, Obama promised that all debate and negotiations regarding his healthcare bill would be televised on C-Span so all Americans would know what was going on. That was a lie. The bill was developed in complete secrecy with no Republican input. Republicans were given just hours to read the 2000-plus page bill before they were required to vote on it. This led to the crazed Nancy Pelosi saying, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it...” - The bill passed with not one Republican vote. He promised us that the typical family would save approximately $2500 in annual premiums. That was a lie. The typical family is seeing huge percentage increases in their premiums. He promised that if we liked our insurance plan, we could keep our plan. A lie. He promised that if we liked our doctor, we could keep our doctor. A lie. Obama wanted socialized healthcare so he cut backroom deals, gave out exemptions to the politically connected and lied repeatedly to the American people. But hey, he got his Obamacare. The end justifies the means. 
 

The IRS targeting conservative groups, red lines that Obama drew then said he didn't, Fast and Furious, rule by executive fiat. I could go on and on but you get the idea.
 

The end justifies the means is not an American philosophy. It is more indicative of the governing ethos of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. In America, the ultimate end is always freedom and the sovereignty of the individual. As the great Milton Friedman said, “Desirable or not, any end that can be obtained only by the use of bad means must give way to the more basic end of the use of acceptable means."    

CHANGE? YOU GOT IT!

In the words of John Adams, America was to be “a nation of laws, not of men.” Barack Obama and his minions have destroyed that ideal. In his efforts to “change” this country he has adopted the concept that his progressive ends justifies his lawless means. In so doing, he, along with his contemptible Attorney General, have demonstrated their disdain for the rule of law and our concept of the separation of powers. It is clear they have a deep-rooted animus toward the very framework of our constitutional republic.

Liberals don't seem to have much of a problem with Obama ruling by executive decree but I wonder what they would say if things were reversed. Suppose, just for fun, that in a shocking and unforeseen moment of clarity, the American people suddenly understood the need for reason, integrity, competence and a love of freedom in their leaders and they elected me president of the United States. Awesome! If the American people had the good sense to elect me then this fantasy assumes they also voted for substantial Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. Now, for an indeterminate time, I will govern by the new paradigm as established by Obama.

First, I would encourage the Republican leadership in the House to form a new alliance. Let's call it the Nancy Pelosi Caucus. Their job would be to don hideous masks and pass legislation in support of my agenda. Debate would be rendered superfluous. When the Democrats and media types start whining, the leader of the Nancy Pelosi Caucus can tell them, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.” The first thing on their agenda would be the repeal of the Affordable Care Act- (I've noticed the liberals have stopped calling it Obamacare). The second thing I would like them to do is pass the Affordable Bible Act. As I am governing by the Obama paradigm, I am not terribly concerned with constitutional constraints, but that's not even an issue with the ABA. Now that the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John “WTF” Roberts, has ruled that it is quite acceptable for the federal government to compel Americans to buy a product, the ABA would surely pass constitutional muster. Yes, it is our birthright, as Americans, to have affordable access to bibles. And by affordable access, of course, I mean that all Americans are compelled to purchase a bible. I'm sure the Democrats will be apocalyptic over this law but I will demonstrate my willingness to compromise and “reach across the aisle” by granting waivers to select groups. In fact, I will grant waivers to any religion that doesn't think it's okay to strap explosives to their chest and blow themselves up in a crowd of innocent people or condones the beheading of anyone that disagrees with them.

Over in the Senate, a once august assembly referred to as the greatest deliberative body in the world, they will now be operating under Reid's Rules of Order. Reasoned debate and measured deliberations? I don't think so. The Republicans will broaden Reid's Rules to cover all Senate business. Why even waste time talking. Just vote. Fifty-one votes wins! Hey, libtards, you lose again, you bunch of losers!

Now that things will be moving expeditiously in the legislative branch, I can get on with the business of wielding executive power. Remember now, under the Obama Doctrine, the chief executive is still called the president but he now has the power of a king or dictator. The president can change codified law at his pleasure. Under the Obama regime, when he did this, his administration and media types simply called it “tweaking” the law. No worries, it's just a little “tweak.” Well girl, I'm just a tweakster for your love! I will be tweaking away on the thin ice of a new day! The possibilities for good here are endless but let me mention a few of my priorities. I would “tweak” the tax code by establishing a ten percent flat tax. This should allow us to get rid of 90 percent of the IRS leviathan. Most of the remaining staff could be organized into a new department. Let's call it the Department of Jack-Booted Thugs. Their job would be to levy and collect confiscatory taxes on any individuals, institutions or businesses that have anything to do with windmills, solar panels or electric cars. We've been subsidizing this garbage for years. Time to re-coup our losses. They would also engage in “heightened scrutiny” of community organizers, race pimps and anyone having anything to do with George Soros. Perhaps this will strain credulity, but the Department of Jack-Booted Thugs will be run by three low-level staffers out of the Omaha office with no connection to or knowledge of by anyone above middle management.

A top priority of mine will be to tweak abortion law. I would make all abortions illegal after the first day of pregnancy. Coupled with a newly instituted three day waiting period, I'm sure many libtards will cry foul. Well let me just say, and I want to be very clear with this, If you like your abortionist, you can keep your abortionist, period!

America, when led by someone who loves freedom and recognizes the sovereignty of the individual, can once again save the world.

 

BREAD & CIRCUSES

The rise of the oceans has begun to slow and the planet has begun to heal. Thanks to Hillary and Barry pushing the “reset button” with the Russkies, those commie bastards are now our new BFF. There is peace in the Middle East, health care is free and everyone loves us! I think now is the time the Dear Leader would like us to obsess over our bread and circuses.

So, lets talk some football! 49ers coach Jim Harbaugh thinks Clay Matthews is a dirty player. Back in the fifties there was a defensive back named Emlen Tunnell who had a reputation for clothes-lining people. Of the Claymaker's allegedly late hit on the 49ers quarterback, Harbaugh said, “I was standing there and was kind of struck....I'm seeing Emlen Tunnell here.” What a coincidence. After about 80 close up shots of Harbaugh's reaction after every play, I was kind of struck: I'm seeing Forest Gump with a scorching boil on his ass here. Stupid and irritated is as stupid and irritated does, Jim.

The Mighty Packers blasted the Washington Redskins last weekend. It's early but I'm getting that Championship Season feel with the Pack. Not so for the Redskins. Not only are they stuck with Master Splinter for a coach but now they got the Indians after them again bitching about their team name. About two dozen protesters showed up at Lambeau on Sunday to let Packer Fans know that they consider “Redskins” to be a derogatory term. The protest was organized by the Wisconsin Indian Education Association's Mascot and Logo Task Force. (I bet those meetings are a blast.) According to Brandon Stevens of the Oneida Tribe, “We're actively and proactively creating an avenue of education and seeking out remedies to see how we can come to an understanding where the offender isn't the one dictating what the intent of the mascot is.” Consulting my Libtardese to English dictionary, a rough translation of this jibberish is, “We're going to be throwing hissy fits until we get everything we want.”

Now comes the first jackass out of the box. Sports Illustrated's Peter King says he will no longer use the “Washington team nickname.” Wow! Check out Pete's prodigious social conscience! Before I develop a debilitating case of social conscience envy I need to respond so here is what I'm going to do. I will no longer be using the name of that Sports Illustrated writer. From now on I will refer only to Sports Illustrated's ELF. (Elitist Liberal Fool) There you go ELF. We have both engaged in the same empty symbolism and accomplished nothing. But I bet you feel better about yourself. I know I do.

Jackass No. 2: NFL Commissioner Rodger Goodell said, “If one person is offended, we have to listen.” What if one million people are not offended? Will they listen to them also? I think the NFL owners need to call an emergency meeting to fire this idiot. Do they really want someone this breathtakingly stupid running their league?

This sort of crap is happening more and more often in this country. A few malcontents dictate societal standards for all. In this case the claims of the offended are demonstrably false. They say that Indian mascots demean their culture and they feel personally disrespected. But team names have never been intended to impugn anyone's culture or ethnicity. Names and mascots of this nature are chosen to represent what the team aspires to be. Warriors, Minutemen, Vikings, Seminoles, Fighting Illini, Patriots and so on. Team names are meant to conjure images of a fearsome and formidable foe. They are a source of pride for both the team and their fans. Nobody wants a nickname that encourages laughter and derision. For cripes sake, no team would ever call themselves the “Fighting French.”

The owner of the Redskins said he will never change the name. Good for him but the grievance culture of Obamaland has so elevated the status of the perpetually offended that I put the over/under for a name change at three years. Accepting the inevitability of this change, I think an effort should be made to get in front of this thing and avoid the dreaded “Golden Eagles” or “Senators” or “Red Storm” suggestions that are sure to pop up. If we all commit to this effort we can get a much better name into the social conservation. From now on I will be referring to the Washington football team as the Washington “Cracka's.” Will you join me? This name is a winner on many levels. First of all, doesn't it just fit? Washington Cracka's. Just sounds right. Also, it's not offensive to anyone who counts. Oh sure, maybe some white supremacist will bitch but really, who cares. Besides, those hillbillies have nothing to complain about. It's not a racist term. As explained by Trayvon Martin's girlfriend to Piers Morgan, “Cracka” should not be construed as a pejorative by white people: “...that's a person who act like they're a police...,” she said. Well, I guess it's settled then. Go Cracka's!

WRONG AGAIN BARRY

So, just like that, our constitutional scholar president has invented another “right.” Barack Obama recently stated: “...in the United States of America, health insurance isn't a privilege – it is your right.” Of course, he made no mention of the corollary to this assertion. To wit: If Americans are born with the right to health insurance, than somebody, somewhere is born with the obligation to provide it. Liberals respond with the tired platitude, - “It's a societal obligation.” But, in Obamaland today, our society consists of two roughly, in numerical terms, equal groups. Those that pay taxes and those that don't. I think it is important to remember, and this applies to all the sundry liberal programs, that when liberals talk about “societal obligations or responsibilities” they are referring to only half of the people.

Liberals also never want to contemplate how securing their invented “rights” might infringe on those rights that are actually enumerated in the Constitution. Examples abound how the implementation of Obamacare is diminishing individual liberty, privacy rights and religious freedom. A true right never places a positive obligation on another. We have the right to “the pursuit of happiness” but that does not mean somebody is obligated to make us happy. And while we have the right to speak, nobody is obligated to listen to us.

Obama went on to excoriate Republicans that oppose Obamacare. “They're actually having a debate between hurting Americans...just because they've been sick – and harming the economy and millions of Americans in the process... A lot of Republicans seem to believe that if they can gum up the works and make this law fail, they'll somehow be sticking it to me. But they'd just be sticking it to you.” I expect this type of vitriol from the Solidarity Singers and other assorted malcontents in Madison, not from the president of the United States. This nonsense illustrates another thing about many liberal politicians that I find irritating. They live with the self-righteous delusion that their willingness to spend other people's money somehow makes them more benevolent and caring than the rest of us. Not true. In fact, their profligate spending on “entitlements” only serves to cultivate a culture of dependency. Dependent people are not free people but they do vote Democrat and that's what matters to liberals in power.

ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION

Many liberals describe the constitution as a “living document.” They fabricated this term because if they said what they really believe, that the document means whatever they need it to mean in order to validate whatever ridiculous scheme or policy they come up with, well, that would just sound silly. This “living document” theory holds that the Constitution has to evolve with the changing times which allows for a new or contemporary interpretation. Take the second amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A liberal can read that and conclude that the federal government, at a minimum, has the authority to regulate all guns and even impose an outright ban if they deem it necessary. How is this possible? For liberals, the first part of the amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state is the operative phrase here. I'm sure liberals are positively giddy with the Framers use of the term “A well regulated militia.” If there is one thing liberals like, it's regulations. Regulation implies government involvement and “well regulated” connotes a lot of government involvement. And militia? Well, that was their army back then and now we have a huge military to protect us. We have no need for armed citizens. Of course, they are wrong on both counts. The militia and the Continental Army were two separate and distinct entities. The Second Continental Congress created the Continental Army in June of 1775. Long before this, local militias were being formed amongst the individual colonies. In the lexicon of the revolutionary period “well regulated” was understood to mean efficient or effective as opposed to government authorized and controlled. The concept that government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force was not something the Founders subscribed to. Having just recently extricated themselves from the tyranny of King George, the Founders had a profound fear and mistrust of a strong central government. The dirty little secret that liberals just cannot accept and are loath to even contemplate is that militias were never intended to function under the auspices of the federal government. They were intended as the final check on oppression, whether foreign or domestic, and to do so in a “well regulated” manner depended on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Like many living things, the “living constitution” can sometimes be made to do tricks. A favorite of the lefties' is the assertion that the constitution provides for a “wall of separation between church and state.” This trick works particularly well with young people, who after after 12 years of public schooling, are well versed in the plight of the polar bear and have a profound appreciation for the moral superiority of organic gardening but know nothing of American history in general or our founding principles in particular. Many liberals actually think “separation between church and state” is in the constitution. It's not. It is a metaphor used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to some Baptists in Connecticut. It is amazing to me how liberals are perfectly willing to ignore 99.9 percent of everything Jefferson said but will take one line from an obscure letter and use it to twist the intent of the First Amendment. But again, they get it all wrong. Looking at Jefferson's tenure as governor of Virginia, it is reasonable to conclude that Jefferson's wall should be looked at in the context of federalism. Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of the wall with state governments and religious institutions on the other. Jefferson understood that the First Amendment was meant to limit the federal government, not religion. Just as the First Amendment restricts the government from messing with the press, it also restricts them from messing with religion. That does not mean that the press can't question the government or that religious beliefs can't influence government policy.

Speaking of Thomas Jefferson, I consider myself a man of ordinary understanding and I subscribe to this bit of Jeffersonian wisdom: “Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.”

TOLERANCE FOR 1ST AMENDMENT

Thomas Jefferson said: “Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” It took a man so extreme and dangerous as Barack Hussein Obama to do it, but I think the silent majority of reasonable, hard working and virtuous Americans has awakened. We have begun the process of abolishing the forms to which we have become accustomed. Namely, Liberals running amok.

When Dan Cathy, president of the fast food chain Chick-fil-A, stated his not-at-all-extreme belief in the biblical definition of the family and marriage (a position held by Obama until just recently when his beliefs “evolved”), gay rights activists were infuriated. As always, when a liberal constituency group is offended, liberal politicians, waxing indignant, are sure to follow. The Democrat mayor of Boston made a public threat not to allow Chick-fil-A to open a franchise in that city. He wrote a letter to Cathy laced with invective and insults. Some time after this the mayor must have taken 10 seconds out of his busy schedule to read the First Amendment. Imagine his shock and horror! He has subsequently backed off his threat. “I can't do that. That would be interference to his rights to go there,” said the mayor. Quick study, that lefty.

Then we have Chicago mayor Rahm Emanual who said: “Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values. They're not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you're gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.” Apparently the mayor believes Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, reflects Chicago values because he just welcomed the anti-Semite into his city. But then Islam is super tolerant of gays. Along with a local alderman, Emanual is determined to block Chick-fil-A from expanding in Chicago. The mayor apparently sees no First Amendment issue in using his power to punish speech he disagrees with. This is not surprising as Emanual was a big wheel in the Obama administration and he is undoubtedly still exempted from constitutional constraints, as the whole Obama administration seems to be.

Well, those reasonable, hard working and virtuous Americans I mentioned decided enough was enough. Whether motivated by their belief in traditional marriage or their belief that the constitution matters, a “buycot” was organized and on one day thousands upon thousands of people made a point of going to a Chick-fil-A. I don't know the actual numbers and the major media has no desire to cover this story but Chick-fil-A has reported that the effort resulted in their biggest day ever!

These are Americans of all stripes. They are not protesters by nature. They are too busy working. They have just had enough of being lectured to by liberal elites. They are tired of being called greedy, racist, bigoted, homophobic or just plain haters when they are anything but. They are the most compassionate, generous, hard-working, responsible and tolerant people in the world. But the small, vocal minority representing all manner of the perpetually offended, along with their political allies, don't want mere tolerance. Oh sure, that's what they say. They say we need to be tolerant of Muslims but what they really want is for us to celebrate Islam. They say we should be compassionate to those on welfare when they really want us to help them promote dependency. They say we need to be tolerant of homosexuals but treating them with the same dignity and respect we treat everyone just doesn't cut it for them. We have to abandon our own long held traditions and beliefs and, if need be, abdicate tenets of our faith.

The Democrat Party has been adopting an ever more radical agenda for years now. I think many Americans are now starting to realize just how extreme the Democrat Party, in general, and President Obama, in particular, truly are. I am feeling more confident about success in November. 

LEAVE THOSE TEACHERS ALONE, YOU MEANIES!

READER WARNING! The following snippets, taken from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, depict an incredibly sad series of events unfolding in our midst. Grab your hanky or a box of kleenex and have a good cry.

SORROW FOR MORROW

Excerpted from: Harsh rhetoric casting pall over profession, some say.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Whenever Ann Morrow gets down, she knows where to go. Over her 34 years as a teacher she has collected thank you notes from her students in a large shoebox. “And that tells me I must have done something right,” says Morrow, who is planning to leave her job. She wasn't even really thinking of retiring before this year. Then, Scott Walker released his proposal to repeal most of the collective bargaining granted to public-sector workers like her. She has even received a couple harsh emails from parents! “The mood-the mood is so different that it makes it even more draining,” she said. Sniff sniff.

Their motives and commitment to their profession have been questioned. They have been called lazy and greedy on blogs and website comment boards. Shame, shame shame on you bloggers and comment board people!

Wisconsin's public school teachers have found themselves at the epicenter of a widespread fight over public sector workers' earnings and the burden they pose to taxpayers. And yet, they feel an expectation to shrug off the criticism, report for work every day and meet an ever growing set of demands on their performance. Your courage and strength inspire me!

No wonder Morrow characterized the mood among her colleagues as “pretty bleak.” “I'm not sure when I became public enemy No. 1,” she said. Oh, you poor thing! You hang on to that shoebox girl because you did SOMETHING right!

MOORE EXPLORES OPTIONS

Excerpted from: Harsh rhetoric casting pall over profession, some say.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

37 year old Shelly Moore is a third generation Wisconsin public school teacher. An English and drama teacher of 13 years, Moore just finished turning the high school's production of Shakespeare's “As You Like It” into a musical featuring songs from the 80's. Sounds like MUST SEE theater! What a rare talent, I'm sure!

She's nationally board certified, the only Advanced Placement teacher in the school, and participates in a national, independent commission on effective teachers and teaching. Very impressive! Aren't we the fortunate ones to have Ms. Moore! Board certified, Oh my!

She received her layoff notice earlier this year. Noooooooooo!

Moore thinks she might get recalled, at which point she calculates she'll lose about $6000 per year under Walker's plans. Her salary without benefits is less than $50,000. “So I pay $6000 just to keep my job, and I have less people around me and more students in my classes,” Moore said. Gasp!

Moore adores teaching. But she's smart and single, which makes it easier to switch careers. “I think it would be fun to work in a bank,” she said. “I've thought about going to law school, and I applied for a job with the Minnesota Arts Board.” We hate to see you go but spread your wings and fly smartie pants!

A SAD ENDING FOR HYPHENATED LAST NAME LADY

Excerpted from: Uncertain about future benefits, many veteran teachers are retiring early.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Two days before the April 1 teacher retirement notification deadline in Milwaukee Public Schools, Karen Scharrer-Erickson drove to the district's human resources office on her lunch break. The teacher of 43 years entered the room. Then she burst into tears. “I'm totally not ready,” Scharrer-Erickson said this week. “I never thought about retiring until the Scott Walker situation, because this school is so special and I am working with the most incredibly caring teachers I have ever known.” Pitter patter, pitter patter. Hark! What's that sound? Oh, it's my tears striking the keyboard as I type this. Shame, shame, shame on you Scott Walker!

Okay. Enough of this nonsense. Forget the kleenex, you may want a barf bag for the rest of the story. Not wanting to ruin their sob stories, the paper decided to just ignore the impetus behind Governor Walker's plan. Namely, the outrageous salary and benefit packages granted to public employees through collective bargaining. Well, here's the truth. According to wisconsinopengov.org, Ann Morrow made more than $70,000 in salary and another $37,000 + in benefits for a total of more than $108,000 in compensation. Shelly Moore, despite what the article said, made more than $53,000 in salary and another $22,000 in benefits for a total of more than $75,000 in compensation and Karen S-E made more than $72,000 in salary with another $37,000 in benefits for a total of more than $110,000 in compensation. And lets not forget that this is for working less than nine months a year! Morrow and S-E are retiring with an incredible package of benefits equal to roughly 70% of their salary. Don't go away whining, just go away!

Teachers and their intransigent union have been gouging our eyes out for years. Anyone with the temerity to question education costs or oppose the continuous string of referendums asking for more money was labeled “greedy” or “heartless” or perhaps just plain stupid. “It's for the kids” they would say. “Don't you care about the children?” We are now seeing how much some of these teachers care about the children. As soon as they are asked to contribute a nominal amount to their own retirement fund and pay a measly 12% of their own health care premiums, they bale out. Bunch of insolent, whiny, hypocrites.

The Journal-Sentinel, as so often happens, has kicked my gag reflex into high

gear. I am really getting sick of the deference paid to public employees in general and teachers in particular. The tone of the article makes me want to hurl. “No wonder Morrow characterized the mood among her colleagues as “pretty bleak.”” Actually I find quite a bit to wonder about regarding the mood of Morrow and her colleagues. I would think their mood would be shaped by a sense of relief and gratitude that they still have a gravy job with air tight security and four months vacation. I would think they could recognize what is going on all around them. Over nine percent unemployment, those still employed being required to take wage and benefit cuts and our state and country floundering with the burden of crushing debt. All they are being asked to do is pay a few extra dollars toward their own damn benefits!

And, another thing. Why is it just accepted as fact that all teachers are smart. Again, the Journal-Sentinel: “Moore adores teaching. But she's smart and single, which makes it easier to switch careers. …” How do we know she's smart? Just because she's a teacher? Teachers, along with their friends in government and the media, would have us believe their career options included nuclear physics and rocket science but they chose teaching out of pure altruism. Give me a break! Am I the only person that remembers high school? Think about it. Do your high school years conjure memories of walking the hallowed halls of academia with scholarly teachers there to guide you in the sacred pursuit of knowledge? Not me. I recall an environment where excellence and achievement were talked about while mediocrity was not only accepted but often celebrated. Standards were low for both students and teachers. It was kind of like a four year party and then you graduate and discover you don't know jack.

Ms. Moore has “thought about going to law school” and she thinks “it would be fun to work in a bank.” I dare you. I double dare you! Go work in a bank. Your first dose of reality will be discovering that your degree in education qualifies you for an entry level teller position. Then you will find that you are expected to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. You will probably get one week vacation your first year. You will be required to pay 30 to 40 percent of your health insurance premiums and maybe the bank will match three percent of your contributions to a 401K plan. And oh, by the way, your salary will be about half of what you make now and you will be held accountable, which means you can be fired if you suck. With all her potential options, its illuminating to see that the one thing she actually has done is apply to the Minnesota Arts Board, another institution that feeds at the public trough.

Public sector labor costs were a major factor in the $3.6 billion deficit Walker inherited. Former Governor Doyle chose to raise taxes, raid other funds and borrow money in an effort to avoid cutting costs. Governor Walker, instead, chose to make MINOR cuts in public sector wages and benefits to balance the budget. It is an indicator of just how much fat there is that he was able to do this with no negative affects on the taxpayers. The time is coming for all these whine bags. They want us to “spread” the wealth around. We've been doing that for generations and the wealth is gone. Time to “spread” the austerity.

THE AUDACITY OF DOPES

The Democratic Party has been tacking to the left for fifty years. Unfortunately, a timid and often witless Republican Party has allowed themselves to be pulled along. The depressing result is plain old crappy ideas being accepted as compromise to insanely crappy ideas. Well, not anymore in Wisconsin! We finally have a principled, conservative governor. His perfectly reasonable proposals will save a State that has been swirling the drain after eight years of democrat control. As an added benefit, we get whining liberals exposing the vacuum of their ideology.

That big ol' blob of liberal goo, Michael Moore, was in Madison recently to show solidarity with the workers paradise crowd. This is the same guy that claims individual wealth in this country has been stolen and rightfully belongs to the collective. Classic socialist drivel.

A recent column by Matthew Hayes in the Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, Einstein, socialism and the Wisconsin budget, continues on this theme. In a feeble attempt to bring credibility to his argument, Hayes cites some statements made by Einstein in a 1949 essay titled, “Why socialism?” I read the essay and found it somewhat interesting. I will save further comment on Einstein for another day. Right now, I want to focus on some of the comments made by Hayes.

He states, “The governor's recent budget proposal...reflects a political ideology that believes that government is providing too much to too many people.” Seeing as we are flat broke and facing a $3.6 billion deficit in the next biannual budget, that would be correct. Ding!

“It also reflects the fear that government is invasive and dangerous.” Founding Fathers, what do you think?: Ding! Ding!

“Those of us who believe that the government should maintain a strong role in certain aspects of human endeavors, such as health care, consumer protections and workers' collective bargaining rights, are now often labeled as socialists.” Here's how it works. Those things that fly in the sky are birds, those things that swim in the lake are fish and people like you are socialists. It's really quite simple.

“However, we should not fear socialism. ...In fact, there are many thriving democracies throughout the world that have been shaped by strong socialist political movements.” Is he referring to that workers' paradise in Cuba or maybe those thriving countries in the European Union. The only reason those little socialists even lasted this long is because they had Big Daddy, The U.S.A., protecting their sorry asses.

“The ideology that produced this budget fails to consider that government intervention does not necessarily mean a loss of individual rights or a loss of individual initiative.” Only every time it's been tried! Yes, indeed, those that do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING & OTHER LIBERAL NONSENSE - PART 2

Two weeks later Roland is back at the District GAS Station. After a 30 minute wait, he is directed to the office of Mr. Doyle, State certified arbitrator. Doyle offers a soft and clammy hand in greeting. “Hi Roland. Please have a seat.” Roland takes a place at a large conference table where Mr. Kohl and Mr. Feinwad, along with four men he has never seen before are already seated. Dolye takes his place at the head of the table. “I have reviewed this case and I am confident that my ruling will find agreement with all parties.” begins Doyle.
“Excuse me,” replies Roland, “You've already made your decision?”
“Yes, it was a pretty straight forward case.”
“Don't I get to say anything?”
“Of course Roland, What would you like to say?”
Pointing at the four suits Roland says, “Who are these guys?”
“They are council for Mr. Kohl and Mr. Feinwad. Anything else?”
“Well, what is your ruling?”
“I have ruled that the proposals offered by Mr. Kohl and Mr. Feinwad are reasonable and customary. Your have been awarded four new Adequate brand tires, a brake job and a new muffler system for the negotiated price of $3600.”
“What, that's it?”
“Pretty much.”
“All I wanted was four decent tires! Now I got all this other crap that I don't want or need and can't afford!”
“Well Roland, it has been well documented that you are not an automotive expert. What your car needs should be left to the experts. Furthermore, your claim as to affordability is irrelevant.
State arbitration law allows me to basically ignore your ability to pay. My responsibility is only to evaluate how your deal compares with what other GAS Stations are offering. When I did this, as I said in my ruling, your deal is reasonable and customary.”
“This is outrageous!”
“I think you should be happy Roland. The initial offer was four tires for $4000. You now get tires, new brakes and a new muffler for $3600. The union has clearly bargained in good faith here.”
“It's only a good deal when you compare it with the insanely bad deal they started with!
I might as well forget the whole thing and buy a new car!”
“You should have thought of that before you agreed to binding arbitration,” replied Mr. Doyle
“You are now legally bound by my ruling.”
Roland slumped in his chair. “I'm going to have to get a short term loan for the $3600. Probably take me a few days.”
“Make that loan for $8600, Roland. It is your obligation to pay for this hearing.”
Something struck Roland like a bolt of lightening. Maybe an epiphany, maybe an aneurysm.
He rose from his chair, turned to Mr. Feinwad and blasted him right in the face. He then took his seat and watched with amusement as Mr. Doyle opened the window behind him and jumped out, Mr. Kohl scurried under the table and the lawyers ran screaming out a side door.

EPILOGUE

Roland was arrested and charged with battery. Unfortunately, an overzealous prosecutor attached a hate crime enhancer to the charge arguing that Roland hated all government employees. He was convicted and sentenced to five years in state prison.

Mr. Feinwad sued Roland in civil court for his medical expenses and mental anguish. He retired on full disability from his Government Automotive Service job and now spends his time traveling the world as part of his therapy.

As a result of the civil suit, Roland and his wife were wiped out. His wife and kids now live with her parents. She works two jobs and feels blessed to have her parents help.
On the bright side, she now qualifies for free automotive care.

POSTSCRIPT

While a mere product of my imagination, this story does portray an accurate scenario as to the insidious nature of collective bargaining in the public sector and liberal silliness in general.

Many liberals are perfectly willing to lie and obfuscate to defend the indefensible. As a principled conservative, I don't do that. Liberals might say that Obama hasn't declared “car care” a right or nationalized the auto service industry and they are right. A few short years ago this would have been a ridiculous notion. I'm sure that many would agree with me that this does not seem to be much of a stretch in today's America.

The collective bargaining scenario in the story is based on fact. School Districts in Wisconsin must work within a system where virtually every aspect of their employees (teachers) work environment is subject to negotiation. Teachers have input regarding class size, school hours, the school calender, curriculum and all their sundry benefits. School Districts have essentially no flexibility. Any changes, however minor or beneficial to the District, are perceived as “concessions” by the union and require some form of compensation. There is no mechanism to actually cut costs.

A 2009 report by the U.S. Department of Education indicates that 66 percent of Wisconsin eighth graders could not read at a proficient level.

The Gas Station Trust is a reference to WEA Trust, the health insurance provider for approximately 80 percent of the School Districts in Wisconsin. WEA Trust is owned by WEAC, the States largest teachers union.

In the last biannual budget, Gov. Doyle did away with the Qualified Economic Offer (QEO),
the only option available to Districts to control costs and avoid arbitration. Not only did Doyle make arbitration more likely, he also removed a provision in the law that required arbitrators to give “greatest weight” to local economic conditions and how they affect a community's ability to pay. Basically - “Screw you taxpayers. If you can't afford it, go borrow the money!”