The Hidden Truth Behind Wisconsin’s Vote

Yesterday Wisconsin voters confirmed the validity of Gov. Scott Walker’s agenda and slapped unions hard enough to leave a welt. Ultimately, the recall election, spurred by union interests and hyped as “too close to call” for months, wasn’t that close at all. Walker jumped out to an early lead and prevailed easily over the generic and boring Democrat Tom Barrett. But there is more to this story.

Since taking power, Walker has knocked down unemployment a full point and has created some 28,000 jobs. Juan Williams on Fox, promoted the asinine idea that Walker should be recalled because he didn’t deliver 250,000 jobs. But if Walker could have spent the last 18 months doing his job rather than defending it, those employment numbers would be higher. This sad complaint also shows where the left really stands regarding jobs. After all, if Williams and the left are down on 28,000 jobs created then they must be really down on the pathetic results of Obama, who has netted zero. That’s zero, as in the number lower than one. But they aren’t because they don’t care about jobs. They care only about the expansion of government. They dream of an American society where public unions take money from government workers and funnel it to Democratic leaders. These leaders, in turn, pass laws to help perpetuate this cycle. Meanwhile, to pacify folks not involved with unions, they provide endless entitlement programs. But entitlement programs mean nothing if only a tiny portion of the population is collecting them. Therefore, Democrats do nothing about the economy. In fact, wrapped in lies about protecting people and the environment, they in fact, attack industries and businesses with straggling legislation to ensure the economy sputters. It’s simple really — more unemployed people means more entitlements and more entitlements means more people reliant on government. Those reliant on government handouts will vote for those writing the checks.

But the citizenry of Wisconsin rejected this. They see the illusion. They want to be working and independent not unemployed and reliant.

Scott Walker also wiped away $3.6 billion in deficits, ultimately creating a surplus, without raising taxes. Pay special attention to the word ‘without’ in the previous sentence. As progressives and Democrats continue to call for tax hikes rather than common sense cuts they’re only going to dig their grave deeper.

Over the next few weeks, the airwaves will be saturated with reasoning as to what the Wisconsin results mean. Unfortunately, with a presidential election still to come, virtually everyone that hits the airwaves will put a spin on this in hopes of concealing the real meaning. The right, still composed of too many political cowards, will resort to generic talking points like ‘a good solid win’ and ‘Walker’s accomplishments shows raising taxes isn’t necessary’ and ‘Wisconsin voters have had enough of big government’. Although these points are accurate, they are still a surface-based perspective concealing the reality.

And the left, utterly horrified, can’t afford to mention the true meaning of this vote. They will promote ideas all over the board like it was ‘merely a state election and therefore won’t have national implications’, or that Wisconsin shows why the ‘hardcore, radical right needs to be tamed’ or even ‘this is the beginning of the end of democracy’. Well, this is the beginning of the end of something, that’s for sure. Of what?

Oh, just the progressive-liberal movement.

Outrageous conclusion? Not really.

The fact is that all the supposed reasons and justifications for this recall are utter rubbish. The only issue Democrats and unions were really fighting is payroll deducted union dues. Nothing more. Unions, contrary to the hype, retained the ability to negotiate pay. Further, knowing the gig was up, they folded on benefit contributions early on. But when Walker took away mandatory dues, unions and Democratic politician’s hair stood up. By making union dues a choice for members rather than a payroll deducted requirement, Walker has changed the money river that funds the Democratic party into a stream. And this is the real reason behind Walker’s recall.

On the last day of May, Fox reported, “Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees-the state’s second-largest public-sector union after the National Education Association, which represents teachers-fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed Afscme’s figures. A spokesman for Afscme declined to comment.”

Cearly, given a choice, union members prefer not to pay dues. Whether members quit or were tossed out after they stopped paying dues is irrelevant. That discussion is a distraction. The point is for the first time in forty years, the money laundering scheme put in place by the Democratic party has been destroyed. Citizens paying government workers, who in turn pay unions, who in turn pay Democratic politicians is a scam that the Wisconsin citizens will no longer tolerate. Democrats and unions fought it hard but lost. But they lost more than just the Wisconsin fight. Forcing a recall vote after a legitimate election that put Walker in power, was, like Obama-care, another example of the Democratic party going against the will of the people. Democrats and unions looked selfish and low doing so. As the election year pushes forward, this shameful behavior will be remembered.

Wisconsin is a major step in dis-mantling of the progressive liberal movement. Obviously, Republican governors across the land will feel emboldened and initiate similar agendas. And stopping unions ability to steal from the citizens will be the goal. ”For many years, [unions] were the unquestioned biggest boy on the block, you didn’t dare cross them,” said Bill Wilson, president of the conservative group Americans for Limited Government. But “if they are unable to topple a governor in a state like Wisconsin, then their power is greatly reduced and greatly overstated. … If they can’t maintain it there, then I would have to contend that only in the most liberal of states — California, Illinois — are they going to be able to maintain it.”

Progressive liberals have always been in the minority and without money, their ability to promote and perpetuate their anti-American philosophy is damaged considerably. Look for infighting as pragmatic Democrats, for survival of the party, begin distancing themselves from liberals by bad-mouthing liberal philosophy and rejecting liberal spin. There are meaningful political struggles ahead, but if the cards fall correctly and the hands are played smartly we could see liberalism within the Democratic party marginalized for several administrations.

Follow I.M. Citizen at

Wisconsin Bodes Well For Republicans in November and America in General While Making Liberals Suicidal

  Bookmark and Share Last night’s trouncing of liberal Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in a rare recall election, marked a pronounced shift in American attitudes towards liberalism, big labor unions, and the agenda of the radical leftists who wish to hijack democracy and government in order to suppress the true will of the people.

The stunning victory by Walker over big labor union and bosses and the liberal Occupy forces, left Republicans and conservatives pleasantly surprised and it left Democrats and their liberal soul mates mired in anger and a depression so deep that at times at times, some of them seemed to show suicidal tendencies.

As seen in the video below, one Barney Rubble sounding Tom Barrett, big labor union, liberal activist broke down during a brief interview with a CNN reporter.  In the thirty second interview, the emotional Barrett backer held back tears and choked up several times as his quivering voice declared that Walker’s victory was “the end of the U.S.” and that “democracy was dead”.

What the ignorant, emotional wreck representing the liberal point of view did not realize was that Scott Walker’s landslide victory was not the end of democracy, it was merely the beginning of the end to the recent resurgence of American Socialist-Democrats in contemporary American politics.

Walker’s win was not an end of democracy, it was a vindication of the democratic process.  Voters of Wisconsin said three things last night.  They declared that when they elect someone to do a job, their vote should stick and that person should be afforded the opportunity to do that job until their term is up, not when liberals don’t get their way.  They also said that Scott Walker’s policies of fiscal austerity, getting control of the budget, and his attempts to rein in the out of control big labor union bosses, is the right way to go.  But their overwhelming support for Walker also said something else.  It said that a political leaders who are willing to take on the tough problems and who are willing to stand up to the most belligerent bullies and politically intimidating forces in our country, deserve our respect, our support, and a chance to deliver upon their promises.

Whether this bodes well for Republicans or not has yet to be seen, but it should.  However that really depends on whether Republicans get the right message from Walker’s win or not.

If Republicans like Mitt Romney fail to gleam from the election results the fact that Americans want reforms and that they want their politicians to actually enact reforms and not just talk about them, then they will be facing a tough electoral road ahead.  They will be risking the support of millions of Americans who are no longer tolerant of politics-as-usual and who are not particularly attracted to the go-along-to-get-along types.  If Republicans are not willing to accept the fact that a majority of Americans want more Scott Walkers and Chris Christies leading than Tom Barretts and Jerry Browns leading them, then they will go the way of names like Dick Lugar and Mike Castle, Republicans whose years of service were  ultimately rejected because they were viewed as part of the establishment and part of the problem and not as one of the people and a part of the solution.

Meanwhile the left is almost apoplectic.

Liberal opinion mavens like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz were distraught and stretching for the slightest hint of a silver lining in last night’s liberal loss.  They devoted entire segments to trying to convince everyone that Republicans undermined this recall election with an abundance of money.  They tried to suggest that voters did not really vote on the issues that mattered to them.  They simply voted for Walker because he spent more money.  But these suggestions ignored reality and such things as the fact that more than 80% of Wisconsin’s voters made up their minds about who they were going to vote for, over a month ago, well before most of the money was spent in this campaign.

Another aspect of the money angle that many liberal advisors and talking heads tried to ascribe credit or blame for Walker’s win to was the significantly larger amount of out of state campaign contributions that Walker received than Barrett received.   What was lost on the Rachel Maddows of the liberal loonasphere was the fact that the level of money contributed to the candidates in last night’s recall election was a reflection of the level of approval that each candidate’s cause had both in Wisconsin and in the nation.  They also failed to accept that it was a sign of things to come in November.

But that was a fact not lost on all liberals, such as the one featured in the video accompanying this post.

Like the goofy leftist in that clip, may liberals are beside themselves and not just because they lost, but because they lost by so much.  And not just in their attempt to defeat Scott Walker.  Last night liberals lost in almost every attempt to recall all those who opposed their socialist, big labor union agenda, including their attempt to remove Wisconsin’s Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch as well as in at least three of the four Republican State Senators that were target for removal by the left.   The fourth one, Van Wangaard of the 24th Senate District, is too close to definitively declare to have been defeated yet.

The resounding losses are frightening liberals so much that many are beginning to suffer from what in 2004,  psychologist and executive director of the American Health Association, Rob Gordon called “post-election selection trauma” or PEST.  According to author David Limbaugh in his book Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party”, Gordon described symptoms of the disorder as having “feelings of withdrawal and isolationism, anger and bitterness, loss of appetite, sleeplessness, nightmares, intense moodiness, and preoccupied anxiety over the country’s future”.    In 2004, PEST was running rampant in the liberal loonasphere.  According to Limbaugh, Renana Brooks, a Washington, D.C. clinical psychologist observed that people were suffering from post-traumatic stress and total despair when George W. Bush was reelected.  Brooks added that PEST sufferers were believing that “America was pretty much destroyed”.

It was even reported that after the election, a liberal 25 year old Gerogia boy by the name of Andrew Veal, committed suicide with a shotgun blast to his head because of John Kerry’s loss in the 2004 election.

Upon witnessing the tears and emotional breakdowns of the left last night, I would say that post-election selection trauma is going to become a national epidemic among liberals.  In fact I think liberals will be dropping like flies because not only will they be stressing over the post election results in Wisconsin, their anxiety will only be compounded by the pre-election jitters that they will have to try survive in advance of their now anticipated losses in the House of Representatives, U.S. Senate, gubernatorial elections, and the White House come November.Bookmark and Share

Down With Hayes Because Our Military Men and Women Are Heroes

Bookmark and ShareOn Sunday, the day before our nation was suppose to collectively take some time to pay homage to our fallen warriors, liberal media pundit Chris Hayes took to the airwaves and discussed how uncomfortable he was to refer to the men and women who gave their lives in their service to this county as heroes.

According to Hayes;

I think it’s interesting because I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words “heroes.” Why do I feel so [uncomfortable] about the word “hero”?  I feel comfortable — uncomfortable — about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that. (see video below)

Well Chris, certainly was wrong about that.

People who are willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of others most certainly are heroes.  There are few other words that can be ascribed more accurately to men and women who are so giving and strong in character that are willing to die for the founding principles of our nation and willing to give up their own lives so that even an ignorant American whose only claim to fame are the connections which got him his job, can spew the type of liberal vitriol and disrespectfully politically correct, talking points that Chris Hayes did on the day before Memorial Day.

Hayes tried to trace his discomfort with calling “all” America’s war dead heroes, to his belief that doing so seems to justify war.  And therein lies one of Chris’ problems.  He does not believe that any war is justifiable.  He believes that no matter what, it is better to ignore the enemy or to conform to their wishes than it is to say “no” to them or to refuse to compromise with them.  And that is because as you will find out, Chris Hayes has a silver spoon stuck in his mouth and lacks any real passion for principles or for anyone other than himself.  He is a shallow follower of hypocritical liberal doctrine who believes that ours is not a particularly special nation or that our role in the world is any more significant than say, Uganda’s role in the world.  He is a typical liberal elitists and that is what accounted for his truly stupid attempt to try to avoid calling those who gave their all for us, heroes.

No one likes war and no sane person wants war.  And no one dislikes war more than modern day warriors.  But the men and women who voluntarily enlist in our military to defend the values and principles of America and the freedom and rights of individual Americans, know that there are things worth fighting and even dying for.  And that is exactly what made those who died in the service of our nation heroes.  They were brave enough to do what most of us aren’t…..risk it all for their beliefs.

Following Hayes’ ignorant Sunday remarks on his obscure little MSNBC talk show “Up With Chris Hayes”, he issued a carefully phrased apology on Memorial Day that read as such;

On Sunday, in discussing the uses of the word “hero” to describe those members of the armed forces who have given their lives, I don’t think I lived up to the standards of rigor, respect and empathy for those affected by the issues we discuss that I’ve set for myself. I am deeply sorry for that.

As many have rightly pointed out, it’s very easy for me, a TV host, to opine about the people who fight our wars, having never dodged a bullet or guarded a post or walked a mile in their boots. Of course, that is true of the overwhelming majority of our nation’s citizens as a whole. One of the points made during Sunday’s show was just how removed most Americans are from the wars we fight, how small a percentage of our population is asked to shoulder the entire burden and how easy it becomes to never read the names of those who are wounded and fight and die, to not ask questions about the direction of our strategy in Afghanistan, and to assuage our own collective guilt about this disconnect with a pro-forma ritual that we observe briefly before returning to our barbecues.

But in seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don’t, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry.

Personally, after reading that, I wasn’t quite sure which was more offensive, his original attempt to try to explain why he won’t call our war dead heroes, or his fake apology regarding that explanation and continued refusal to call those dead warriors heroes?

That question arises because you might note that Hayes did not apologize for trying to deny those in the armed forces who gave their lives  proper credit as heroes.  Instead he states that he is deeply sorry for not living up to his own standards for himself in the areas of respect and empathy.  What he does not say he is deeply sorry for is his desire to deny calling those who made the greatest sacrifice heroes.

Instead of apologizing for that, this stuck up, pseudo-intellectual, liberal snob, tries to redeem himself  by attempting to reinforce the validity of what he describes as the real point of the discussion that led him to make his inappropriate remarks.   In his apology he goes on to claim that his desire to avoid using the term heroes in regards to our deceased military fighters was an example of the disconnect that most people have with what our service members do and with the reasons for their actions.  The inference being that by not calling those we memorialize on Memorial Day heroes, he too was demonstrating a disconnect of his own therefore his “greater” point was correct.

Not once does Hayes state in his apology that contrary to his initial remarks, those Americans who died on the field are in fact heroes.  Instead he tries to shift the focus away from his disrespectful thought process and shine it on something which he claims he is right about……… that most Americans do not fully comprehend what our military men and women go through.   His claim is that his remarks demonstrated the same “social distance” between the military and civilians that he was addressing and that in doing so he accidentally demonstrated the same lack of appreciation for what our military members go through that he was trying to explain.  And so as he put it, “for that I am truly sorry“.

His regret is not for denying that the members of the armed forces who have given their lives are heroes, it is simply for his claim that  coming off people gleemed from his remark a sense that he doesn’t understand what our veterans went through.

That just goes to show you that Chris Hayes just doesn’t get it.

He doesn’t understand that the vast majority of people who heard about his remark (most people only heard about it through other media sources because few people actually see his show) are offended by his inherently liberal desire to try to avoid justifying any American military actions.  And in this case to do so by denying the participants in those actions the right to be considered heroes.

This whole incident and the thinking behind Hayes’s remarks and the Memorial Day weekend timing of them, was hard for me to understand.  At least up until I found out who Chris Hayes is.

You see, like most people, I never heard of this guy.  And like most people I never heard of or saw his two hour long, weekend talk show on MSNBC called “Up with Chris”.

So I poked around a bit and what I learned allowed me to make perfect sense of it all.

Chris Hayes is nothing but a purely partisan, liberal propagandist who was born in to money, married in to power, and given a career because of who is father-in-law is.

This Bronx, New York born MSNBC star happens to be the husband of Kate Shaw, the Associate Counsel for President Barack Obama.  And Kate happens to be the daughter of award-winning Chicago journalist Andy Shaw, a frequent liberal guest on MSNBC and a reporter with close ties to President Obama.  And to make the picture even more clear, Hayes brother Luke is a Democrat party operative.

Prior to his big job on the low rated MSNBC, Chris recieved an undergraduate education at Brown University where he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy.  Philosophy!

In 2006 Hayes parlayed that expertise in philosophy into a gig as a contributing write for the pro-communist rag called The Nation.  In 2007 that liberal stink tank made him their Washington, D.C. editor.  Now he writes for a a monthly liberal tabloid in Chicago called “These Times”.

As for his show on MSNBC, that came about in 2011, after he filled in several times for the legendary liberal lesbian Rachel Maddow of the too low to be rated Rachel Maddow Show.  Hayes also filled in for such MSNBC liberal luminaries as Ed Schultz, self described socialist Lawrence O’Donnell, and the king of liberal lunatics, Keith Olbermann.

These details helped  me to understand what was really at the heart of the controversial remarks that tried to deny our military men and women who died in combat, the proper respect and right to be called heroes.  The problem is nothing more or less than liberalism and I have come to realize that liberalism is not really an ideology or set of beliefs.  It is merely a mental disease that denies its victims of any sense of proper perspective or logic.  It is a malady that erodes at our cognitive abilities and chips away at the heart of our founding principles.  Liberalism is nothing other than a corrosive contaminant that courses through our national fiber and erodes everything from our pride in our nation to our acceptance of reality.

Once you come to realize that, you also come to realize that Chris Hayes is just another random metastatic cell to come out of MSNBC the, nation’s largest incubator of this disease called liberalism.

But from the answer come two questions.  Will we ever find a way  to cure liberalism? And will we ever find “without invoking the word  hero“, a conservative leader who can finally show people the way to try to even find a cure?

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: