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.