I just received a phone call from the New York State Union of Teachers (to which I belong) asking me to call my State Senator, John Bonacic, in favor of increases, or at least elimination of decreases, in the state education budget. This is the reason that the state budget is bloated. The state's education system is broken. Far too much money is spent on incompetently run schools. Vouchers are needed.
In response, the Tea Parties should call the legislature in favor of budget cuts. Please call your state senator about the need for school vouchers. Mr. Bonacic's phone number is as follows:
Albany Office:
Room 508 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
(518) 455-3181
District Offices:
201 Dolson Avenue, Suite F
Middletown, NY 10940
(845) 344 3311
111 Main Street
Delhi, NY 13753
(607) 746-6675
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
I Help Expose Faculty Union's Lies
Professor David Seidemann of Brooklyn College sued the faculty union of the City University of New York, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC). The suit concerned the far-left union's use of dues money for political purposes unrelated to contract negotiation or administration. The State of New York threatens any faculty member who would rather not pay dues to the union with violence. Those not in the union must pay an agency fee. The union has done little, if anything, to further the faculty's broad economic goals. Once the highest paid faculty in the nation, the CUNY faculty are now in the bottom quartile. But the union spends an inordinate amount of time in pro-left-wing and pro-Obama political activity. Initially, the current leadership's insurgency had been funded by one of George Soros's institutes. In effect, the leadership is using the union as a cash cow to fund left wing political activity while failing to competently operate a union.
Seidemann had sued to require that non-members who are violently forced to the agency fee be able to get a refund for the portion of their dues spent for political purposes. Initially the PSC claimed that less than 1% of the dues was used for political purposes. One of Seidemann's former students is now an attorney at the prestigious firm of Jones, Day and he took the case pro bono. Because of a pro-union federal magistrate, the case had to be appealed twice. As the case was appealed, more and more of the union's budget turned out to be devoted to political purposes. When they were still not fully examined, the PSC decided to cut its losses and offered to pay Jones, Day Seidemann's legal fees. By the time they settled, the court had forced the PSC to admit that over 14% of its budget is spent for political purposes. The true amount is even more.
Yet, in a statement to its executive committee, the PSC lied once again and claimed to have won the case.
Sharad Karkhanis asked me to write an article for his Patriot Returns newsletter, which is sent to 13,000 CUNY employees. The newsletter went out this morning. I had asked the PSC to comment on the case, but they did not respond. But this morning, after the newsletter was released, I received an e-mail from Dania
Seidemann had sued to require that non-members who are violently forced to the agency fee be able to get a refund for the portion of their dues spent for political purposes. Initially the PSC claimed that less than 1% of the dues was used for political purposes. One of Seidemann's former students is now an attorney at the prestigious firm of Jones, Day and he took the case pro bono. Because of a pro-union federal magistrate, the case had to be appealed twice. As the case was appealed, more and more of the union's budget turned out to be devoted to political purposes. When they were still not fully examined, the PSC decided to cut its losses and offered to pay Jones, Day Seidemann's legal fees. By the time they settled, the court had forced the PSC to admit that over 14% of its budget is spent for political purposes. The true amount is even more.
Yet, in a statement to its executive committee, the PSC lied once again and claimed to have won the case.
Sharad Karkhanis asked me to write an article for his Patriot Returns newsletter, which is sent to 13,000 CUNY employees. The newsletter went out this morning. I had asked the PSC to comment on the case, but they did not respond. But this morning, after the newsletter was released, I received an e-mail from Dania
Rajendra
Ed Koch Denounces Obama's Anti-Israel Stance
In 2008, Israel National News reported that 77% of American Jews voted for Barack Obama for president. Perhaps we might call this a suicidal commitment to political correctness. It was fairly evident at the time of the 2008 election that Obama would be anti-Israel. First, at a minimum Obama's upbringing was heavily influenced by the Islamic faith. He attended Islamic schools for several years while he lived in Indonesia. Second, Obama grew up with numerous far left influences. His mentor while he was growing up was Frank Marshall Davis. His mother was committed to a left-wing viewpoint. Third, Obama's cousin in Kenya, Raila Odinga, has led a violent insurrection that may have included appeals to support the imposition of Sharia law, and Obama went to Kenya to support him. Fourth, Obama has associated with far-left anti-Semites Reverend Michael Pfleger, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Louis Farrakhan as well as violent felon Professor William Ayers.
In a Washington Post article in January 2008, Richard Cohen wrote about Obama's membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ and that church's newsletter's having given an award to Louis Farrakhan. The newsletter said that Farrakhan ""truly epitomized greatness."
Cohen pointed out that "the Obama camp takes the view that its candidate, now that he has been told about the award, is under no obligation to speak out on the Farrakhan matter." Despite his perceptiveness, Cohen lapses into denial: "I don't for a moment think that Obama shares Wright's views on Farrakhan."
Based on what?
During the course of the election, a televised interview of former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton (see video embedded below) revealed that Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, personal advisor to the king of Saudi Arabia (recall Obama's bow to King Abdullah), had called him when Obama was applying to Harvard Law School. Mansour asked Sutton to intervene with Harvard on Obama's behalf.
I know that Ed Koch knew about all of this because I recall writing him an e-mail two years ago when I was shocked to hear of his support for then-candidate Obama. Mr. Koch was intelligent enough to know better. His failure was moral. He allowed political correctness and the desire to conform to the benighted opinions of the Democratic Party media to overcome his sense of decency.
The same is true of the Jewish community at large. The 77% of Jews who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 are worse enemies of their fellow Jews than the most virulent of anti-Semites in America. They are a moral disgrace.
Now, in the video directly below (h/t Phil Orenstein and my cousin Don, the video of Sutton follows) Mr. Koch complains about Mr. Obama's all-out attack on Israel. The one perplexing question: why is Mr. Koch surprised?
In a Washington Post article in January 2008, Richard Cohen wrote about Obama's membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ and that church's newsletter's having given an award to Louis Farrakhan. The newsletter said that Farrakhan ""truly epitomized greatness."
Cohen pointed out that "the Obama camp takes the view that its candidate, now that he has been told about the award, is under no obligation to speak out on the Farrakhan matter." Despite his perceptiveness, Cohen lapses into denial: "I don't for a moment think that Obama shares Wright's views on Farrakhan."
Based on what?
During the course of the election, a televised interview of former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton (see video embedded below) revealed that Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, personal advisor to the king of Saudi Arabia (recall Obama's bow to King Abdullah), had called him when Obama was applying to Harvard Law School. Mansour asked Sutton to intervene with Harvard on Obama's behalf.
I know that Ed Koch knew about all of this because I recall writing him an e-mail two years ago when I was shocked to hear of his support for then-candidate Obama. Mr. Koch was intelligent enough to know better. His failure was moral. He allowed political correctness and the desire to conform to the benighted opinions of the Democratic Party media to overcome his sense of decency.
The same is true of the Jewish community at large. The 77% of Jews who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 are worse enemies of their fellow Jews than the most virulent of anti-Semites in America. They are a moral disgrace.
Now, in the video directly below (h/t Phil Orenstein and my cousin Don, the video of Sutton follows) Mr. Koch complains about Mr. Obama's all-out attack on Israel. The one perplexing question: why is Mr. Koch surprised?
Obama, HHS Covered Up True Health Care Costs Prior to Vote
Bob Robbins just forwarded an American Spectator article that begins:
>The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama's health care "reform" law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius's staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.
One might wonder whether the policy making process in the United States is broken. The left-wing, Democratic media repeatedly claimed that adding 30 million uninsured to the welfare rolls would be free. It now turns out that the Obama administration deliberately covered up the facts.
>The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama's health care "reform" law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius's staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.
One might wonder whether the policy making process in the United States is broken. The left-wing, Democratic media repeatedly claimed that adding 30 million uninsured to the welfare rolls would be free. It now turns out that the Obama administration deliberately covered up the facts.
Chris Matthews Interviews Ron Paul
This is a decent interview. Matthews is surprisingly even handed. BUT, notice that he thinks that Hoover or Coolidge were free market libertarians. This is ignorance of history. The last libertarian president was Grover Cleveland, elected in 1892 and in 1884. The fact that Matthews is broadcasting news to millions of Americans and the names of Coolidge and Hoover are meaningless to him, they are merely names, is telling. America is a nation where the blind lead the blind. No wonder the left is so ignorant, yet considers itself well informed.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Letter to Alabama's Attorney General Requesting Investigation of Southern Poverty Law Center
PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494
April 25, 2010
Mr. Troy King, Attorney General
Alabama State House
11 South Union Street, Third Floor
Montgomery, AL 36130
Dear Mr. King:
I am a former contributor to the Southern Poverty Law Center and would like to request that you investigate whether the SPLC has engaged in fraud. I contributed to the SPLC over a number of years in the 1980s and 1990s. The SPLC claimed to be an organization that fought extremist and hate groups, and based on those representations I contributed over $100 per year over at least five years, likely more.
I have noticed news reports about the SPLC’s taking partisan positions concerning the so-called Tea Parties, a partisan movement that is concerned with conservative views and opposes socialism. As well, the leaders of the SPLC have been vocal about their support for President Barack Obama.
I have written separately to the IRS enforcement division concerning the SPLC’s potentially fraudulent claim that it is exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. As you know, political activity, lobbying and support for candidates are not legally exempt activities. Yet, the leaders of the Southern Poverty Law Center have repeatedly engaged in such activities in connection with the Obama campaign and in connection with attacking individuals who disagree with Mr. Obama’s socialist views.
As well, I wonder if the SPLC may be violating various laws concerning charities in your state. In particular, the group bills itself as an anti-hate group organization, which roped me in, but this claim is only partly true. Rather, the SPLC has released a report attacking a wide range of opponents of President Obama who have absolutely nothing to do with hate activities. It seems possible that the SPLC is functioning as a political organization, using anti-hate activities as a pretext. I might add that in the 1980s when Morris Dees had several important successes, the Klan had seen some rise in importance. The Klan now is of much less consequence than it was then, and it may be that rather than limit their activities, the SPLC has simply spun off into activities unrelated to their earlier mission that are not tax exempt under federal law and possibly under Alabama law.
Please investigate whether the SPLC is defrauding contributors and taxpayers. After having donated hundreds of dollars to the scammers at the SPLC, I now fear that I was defrauded by hate-filled socialist extremists.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
West Shokan, NY 12494
April 25, 2010
Mr. Troy King, Attorney General
Alabama State House
11 South Union Street, Third Floor
Montgomery, AL 36130
Dear Mr. King:
I am a former contributor to the Southern Poverty Law Center and would like to request that you investigate whether the SPLC has engaged in fraud. I contributed to the SPLC over a number of years in the 1980s and 1990s. The SPLC claimed to be an organization that fought extremist and hate groups, and based on those representations I contributed over $100 per year over at least five years, likely more.
I have noticed news reports about the SPLC’s taking partisan positions concerning the so-called Tea Parties, a partisan movement that is concerned with conservative views and opposes socialism. As well, the leaders of the SPLC have been vocal about their support for President Barack Obama.
I have written separately to the IRS enforcement division concerning the SPLC’s potentially fraudulent claim that it is exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. As you know, political activity, lobbying and support for candidates are not legally exempt activities. Yet, the leaders of the Southern Poverty Law Center have repeatedly engaged in such activities in connection with the Obama campaign and in connection with attacking individuals who disagree with Mr. Obama’s socialist views.
As well, I wonder if the SPLC may be violating various laws concerning charities in your state. In particular, the group bills itself as an anti-hate group organization, which roped me in, but this claim is only partly true. Rather, the SPLC has released a report attacking a wide range of opponents of President Obama who have absolutely nothing to do with hate activities. It seems possible that the SPLC is functioning as a political organization, using anti-hate activities as a pretext. I might add that in the 1980s when Morris Dees had several important successes, the Klan had seen some rise in importance. The Klan now is of much less consequence than it was then, and it may be that rather than limit their activities, the SPLC has simply spun off into activities unrelated to their earlier mission that are not tax exempt under federal law and possibly under Alabama law.
Please investigate whether the SPLC is defrauding contributors and taxpayers. After having donated hundreds of dollars to the scammers at the SPLC, I now fear that I was defrauded by hate-filled socialist extremists.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
