Uncivil Unions
By Ann Coulter

As Obama rakes in historic campaign contributions from Wall Street money, liberals claim Republicans are beholden to “the rich.” However that may be, it is far more true, and far less remarked upon, that the Democratic Party is the party of public sector unions.

And now, the nation watches helplessly as public sector unions and their Democratic allies say to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: Nice state you got there, governor. Be a shame if something bad happened to it.

For Democrats, the purpose of government is to generously provide jobs for people who otherwise couldn’t be hired — because their skills, attitude or sense of entitlement are considered undesirable in the private sector. And no, I’m not just talking about Barack Obama.

Democrats use taxpayer money to fund a government jobs program, impoverishing the middle class and harming the people allegedly helped by the programs — but creating a vast class of voters who owe their jobs to the Democrats.

This is a system designed to ratchet up costs. Look at the history of every entity where public employees have unionized, and you will find that not only are government workers paid more, but there are also a lot more of them doing a lot less useful work.

There could be two students per class, and the Democrats would still be campaigning for “smaller class size,” so that the government would be required to hire more public school teachers to staff classes with one student. For Democrats, the purpose of public education in this country is not to teach children; it’s to create jobs for “educators.”

Forget the nonsense about working men with dirt under their fingernails, slugging it out at dangerous jobs with a heartless management riding them to get more production at lower wages –- those guys are what liberal journalist Harold Meyerson calls “dead weight.”

We’re talking about government employees, most of whom — when they show up to work at all — sit in comfortable, air-conditioned offices, kick off at 3 p.m., are entitled to endless sick days, personal days and holidays, whose performance can never be evaluated and who retire at age 50. (Again, I’m not focusing just on Barack Obama here.)

Government employees are even worse than welfare layabouts. In a triple-whammy for the taxpayer, they are: (1) hideously expensive, (2) impossible to fire, and (3) doing things you don’t want done at any price.

Hey, guess what? I’m from the government, and I can burn down your garage for $300!

NO! I’M NOT INTERESTED!

OK, fine, I’ll do it for you for $20.

BUT I DON’T WANT MY GARAGE BURNED DOWN AT ANY PRICE!

OK, the guys with the matches and gasoline will be by sometime between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. one day next week.

As with so many other things, such as vegan restaurants and the crack epidemic, California leads the country in destruction by government unions.

California’s civil service unions have employed all the usual thug techniques –- regular strikes (illegal until the California Supreme Court approved them in 1985), rolling strikes, the “blue flu” (cops and other public-safety workers calling in “sick”) — all of which are almost as harmful to the state as when they actually show up for work.

Continue

As many of you know, in early December I went into a coma and was being treated for a number of related issues at Victoria Hospital in London, Ontario. At four points, my heart stopped, and it was through 90 minutes of CPR and the use of a rare device called an ECMO machine that my life was saved. Despite what happened, and despite predictions from medical professionals, it appears that there are no lingering effects (expect for the loss of 30 pounds from the “Feeding Tube Diet.”) There was no brain damage. In other words, I’m still a conservative.

Contrary to what some people have tried to do, I have no intention of making this into a debate about healthcare. The fact remains, I’m alive, and I’m now home and ready to get back to Strictly Right.

I want to send a special thanks to Michael Coren, Ann Coulter, Mark Steyn and Wendy Sullivan — all of them were wonderful at keeping me in their prayers and sharing with the online community what was happening. Wendy’s persistant stalking of my family was able to keep the Twittersphere apprised of what was happening.

Wendy also did a special episode of Brass Balls Radio in my honor with Kathy Shaidle, Jimmie Bise and Mike Williams (with messages from Jon Siemko, Kimberly Haney and Dina Fraioli) that was very therapeutic for both my family and myself. Connie Fournier at Free Dominion kept a prayer chain going in my name.  I thank all of them from the bottom of my heart.

Most importantly, I need to share with all of Strictly Right’s readers how amazing my family is. While in Victoria Hospital’s Critical Care and Trauma Center, my parents, Jim and Trish Lawton, were virtually living at the hospital. My brother Adam and his extraordinary wife Lesley were at the hospital daily and were the filter for information through to the internet.

This whole experience — the cards, Tweets, Facebook messages and phone calls — has been humbling. To know that there were people all around the world keeping me in their thoughts and prayers and the fact that I barely made it proves to me that miracles do, in fact, exist.

Thank you for everything, and let me just say how happy I am to be back.

God bless,
Andrew

Krugman wrote:

Hey, has anyone noticed that “A Christmas Carol” is a dangerous leftist tract?

I mean, consider the scene, early in the book, where Ebenezer Scrooge rightly refuses to contribute to a poverty relief fund. “I’m opposed to giving people money for doing nothing,” he declares. Oh, wait. That wasn’t Scrooge. That was Newt Gingrich — last week. What Scrooge actually says is, “Are there no prisons?” But it’s pretty much the same thing.

Anyway, instead of praising Scrooge for his principled stand against the welfare state, Charles Dickens makes him out to be some kind of bad guy. How leftist is that?

As you can see, the fundamental issues of public policy haven’t changed since Victorian times. Still, some things are different.

…So in this holiday season, let’s remember the wisdom of Ebenezer Scrooge. Not the bit about denying food and medical care to those who need them: America’s failure to take care of its own less-fortunate citizens is a national disgrace.

How original. Not exactly the first time Newt Gingrich has been called Scrooge:

On the other hand, Ann Coulter titled her weekly column “Scrooge Was a Liberal.”  Coulter’s argument is that while liberals have a monopoly on “caring” it is religious conservatives who put their money where their mouths are:

Religious conservatives, the largest group at about 20 percent of the population, gave the most to charity — $2,367 per year, compared with $1,347 for the country at large.

Conversely, secular liberals are particularly stingy:

secular liberals give to charity at a rate of 9 percent less than all Americans and 19 percent less than religious conservatives. They were also “significantly less likely than the population average to return excess change mistakenly given to them by a cashier.”

However, Newt did say “I’m opposed to giving people money for doing nothing,” and that settles who the real Scrooge is, right?

What Newt was saying in the 90s and a week ago is that government funding of bad behavior only reinforces bad behavior. If you pay able bodied people not to work, they will remain wards of the state.

But this isn’t about good policy, it’s about which ideological camp Scrooge really falls into; an easily answered question.

Near the beginning of A Christmas Carol Scrooge is solicited for a donation to provide food and shelter for the poor over Christmas. Scrooge refuses to part with so much as one sent. His explanation? Scrooge claims that he pays enough for the poor in taxes, and that they should seek food and shelter in local prisons, poorhouses and workhouses.

Ebenezer Scrooge’s position and justification are a doctrinaire liberalism. Scrooge’s belief that government programs are there to care for the downtrodden in lieu of charities is a fundamental tenet of modern liberalism.

By the end of A Christmas Carol Scrooge becomes a conservative. Reversing his miserly attitude, Scrooge discovers that the best way to help the indigent, and everyone else, is with private charity. Instead of sending people to government-run poorhouses, Scrooge decides that he knows how to help his neighbors better than anonymous government bureaucrats. Could there be a more conservative message?

In any case, if you’re interested in reading the interview you can do so here. (Please note that I did not select the photograph used; you know, the one that makes me look rather evil. Actually, I kinda like it…)

Not all Canadians are lefties – indeed I hear that some of Canada’s aboriginals are keeping PETA very busy this year. Besides, America’s neighbour has given us the wonderful Mark Steyn, the laugh-out-loud-funny Closet Conservative, and, today’s subject, Andrew Lawton.

Well, I’m a fan. Lawton is a political analyst and freelance columnist. But in addition to a regular column for the Toronto Examiner, he gave birth to Strictly Right, an award-winning blog. But there’s more. His Strictly Right Radio show on iTunes packs some great punches.

What’s your opinion of Harper? Is he doing a good job or are you angry at the Conservatives now?

I’m not angry at the Conservatives. I’ve never been one of those people that wanted to throw the Conservative Party under the bus. I am a member of that party. I will vote for that party in the next election, most likely, unless something really major comes up. From an analytical standpoint, I think Harper does need to do a lot between now and the next election to get back some of the base—our listeners, people who read our blog. There are some genuine conservatives out there, who have been conservatives their whole life who have issues with Harper as a leader. They feel he has been going too much to the centre. I think there are reasons for making compromises in government. I’m not blind, however. I do think he has some work to do to hold onto the base.

University president and former Liberal Party Cabinet member Allan Rock isn’t as innocent as he claimed, with emails aquired by the Canadian Press showing some disgusting things said about Ann, and that Rock was the one who told Francois Houle to write the famous letter in the first place. Not only did Rock tell Houle:

“You, Francois, as Provost, should write immediately to Coulter informing her of our domestic laws. … You should urge her to respect that Canadian tradition as she enjoys the privilege of her visit.”

But, he also approved the letter before it was sent to her.

“Quel excellent message! Merci et felicitations. I am sure she has never been dressed down so elegantly in her life!”

In true university fashion, comments found in Allan Rock’s emails also reveal an interesting take on the kind of open-mindedness and liberal thought that is so common on college campuses:

“Ann Coulter is a mean-spirited, small-minded, foul-mouthed poltroon.”

“She is ‘the loud mouth that bespeaks the vacant mind’.”

“She is an ill-informed and deeply offensive shill for a profoundly shallow and ignorant view of the world. She is a malignancy on the body politic. She is a disgrace to the broadcasting industry and a leading example of the dramatic decline in the quality of public discourse in recent times.”

Rock, who attempted to position himself as being far removed from this situation was for days spreading his vitriol (interspersed with random French words) among the highest levels of governance at the University of Ottawa.

I suppose it’s called the “U of Zero” for a reason.

Allan Rock slithered into the shadows and let his underling take all of the blame for the threatening letter. Once the story was out of the news, Allan Rock admitted his responsibility.

Allan Rock is not only a coward. He is a member of the Liberal Party of Canada and a former Justice Minister. Ironic, seeing as he approved a letter that created a security risk for a guest to his campus.

Here is the story from the National Post Blog:

________________________________________________________

Adrian MacNair: Allan Rocks admits his role in Coulter fiasco – April 19, 2010

The President of the University of Ottawa, Allan Rock, has broken his silence on the cancelled Ann Coulter speaking engagement on March 23 and acknowledged his involvement. The address was cancelled when angry student protesters showed up to physically block her from speaking.

The incident made a mockery of the free speech debate, and fans of Ann Coulter were angry at the cancellation, blaming an  e-mail from University Provost Francois Houle. Mr.Houle had welcomed the American Conservative in a letter also sent to media organizations, while at the same time warning her that Canada has strict laws on hate speech and that she could face criminal prosecution if she violated those laws.

In retaliation, Ms.Coulter has been reported as launching a Human Rights complaint that Mr. Houle incited hatred against an identifiable group. In her case, that would be conservatives. She also denigrated the University in her typical joking style, before moving on to the University of Calgary, which went ahead without further incident.

Mr. Rock, had previously served in the Cabinet of Jean Chrétien, most notably as Justice Minister and Health Minister, before beginning his jobs as University of Ottawa President on July 15, 2008. While Mr. Houle took the brunt of the outpouring of criticism, he all but disappeared. Until, three weeks later, he has admitted in an interview that he knew of Mr. Houle’s letter all along.

To read more, click here to visit the National Post Blog site.

3. In A Clockwork Orange, Malcolm McDowell is strapped in with his eyes propped open and forced to watch images until he was “cured.” If you could give President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the “Clockwork Orange treatment,” what movie would you make them watch?

COULTER: The Passion of the Christ.

[...]

8. Tell me about a public or private moment when you thought to yourself, “This is what Elvis felt like every day.”

COULTER: That would probably have been during my “free speech tour” of Canada, when I almost got sent to prison for giving a speech. Every time I turned on the TV in Canada it was either a hockey game or me.

[...]

10. What’s the coolest thing you’ve been able to do because of your role in the political arena?

COULTER: I got an amazing offer to help a wealthy Nigerian prince once.

[...]

12. Tell me about the moment you decided to enter the political arena.

COULTER: It was a Thursday, I believe, in April. I had just gotten home from kindergarten and I realized that my teacher was just completely wrong on the causes and objectives of the Vietnam War.

Few minority groups have been as discriminated against as the gays and lesbians. But major breakthroughs have occurred, and homosexual people are stepping out of the shadows.

Firstly, I hope that no homosexual person ever steps out of the shadows when I’m walking by…that could be a little creepy. Secondly, this is is a statement that proves Ann Coulter to be correct once again. As she said in a recent speech, “gays wish they were black.” Over and over again the gay community pretends that they have been forced into slavery (not counting the times they voluntarily get chained down,) were subject to gays-only water fountains,  had to overcome “homosexuals need not apply” signs, and ultimately that they have experienced and continued to experience some sort of systemic discimination that borders on genocide.

With the exception of gay marriage, there does not remain a single iota of evidence that gays experience any sort of discrimination from a governmental or political level. Of course, anyone who declares that they don’t think there needs to be an anti-homophobia day will, of course, be labeled as a homophobe. However, there remains a huge difference between supporting a goal and supporting a smoke-and-mirrors approach to attempting to achieve that goal.

I support any individual’s right to be gay, that doesn’t mean I think the government should pay $500,000 for a gay pride parade.

I condemn anyone who commits an act of violence against a person for their sexuality; but I don’t believe those instances should be used as an excuse to push through ineffective “hate crimes” legislation.

I oppose gay marriage because I believe that the government should be completely removed from marriage altogether; that doesn’t mean that I don’t support the right for gays to engage in civil unions or common-law partnerships.

To create a special day for an issue accomplishes nothing but gives people a platform to create for themselves a victim identity. As an incremental approach, I think we should just rename April 1st “Whiny Victim’s Day” and let all groups who perceive themselves to be victims get it out at once so that the other 364 days of the year can be filled with people not being pathetic.