Crowd laughs as Chicago Teachers Union president talks about killing the rich

Jan. 9, 2013 - Karen Lewis, president of the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU), thinks killing rich people is funny. So funny, in fact, that she recently joked about the prospect of union members killing the wealthy.

Karen Lewis, CTU Prez
(Chicago Magazine)

Her audience, a bunch of like-minded socialists, thought it was funny too. And why not? A good class warfare joke about murdering the rich is always welcome at these kinds of gatherings, nyet? Da!

Lewis delivered her speech to the Illinois Labor History Society “Salute to Labor’s Historic Heroes from the History Makers of Today,” on Dec. 2, 2013. It attracted attention this week after video of the event surfaced online, says the Daily Caller. "Lewis earned scattered applause from her audience by noting that, approximately 100 years ago, pro-union activists were ready to murder their rich bosses."

Lewis did not disappoint the crowd of class warriors. "She threw gasoline onto the fire of class warfare," notes EAG News, "and even mentioned mob killings of wealthy Americans." EAG quoted Lewis:

“… Do not think for a minute that the wealthy are ever going to allow you to legislate their riches away from them. Please understand that. However, we are in a moment where the wealth disparity in this country is very reminiscent of the robber baron ages. The labor leaders of that time, though, were ready to kill. They were. They were just – off with their heads. They were seriously talking about that.” Some in the audience laughed and clapped at her remark. She was just joking, the Liberal apologists on the Left will say. Uh huh, joking about murder.

"He who jokes confesses," says an old Italian proverb. Lewis's joke about killing the wealthy strikes a chord deep within the hearts of her supporters. Deep down, some of them actually do want to kill the wealthy. A lot of people who support unions really want to kill the rich.

And you can bet your rear end that there are plenty of CTU members who would actually kill the wealthy if ordered to. Of course, they would not kill the wealthy union bosses like Karen Lewis, who pulls down Big Bucks as CTU's pampered president.

Is this Karen Lewis's
spirit animal?

Lewis became CTU's president in June of 2010. "The previous CTU president pulled down nearly $300,000 a year in base salary and compensation," reported TownHall last year. "Local union watchdogs reported that top CTU officers and staff with six-figure salaries and bonuses also received:" 

In addition, top CTU officials received "... a monthly expense account for each administrator -- officers, coordinators and field representatives -- of $1,500; a car allowance of $7,000 per year (whether or not you have a car); 85 percent of car insurance and expenses paid; parking allowance; cellphone allowance; life insurance paid with union dues; and among other perks, a 53rd week of yearly pay for "working" over the Christmas holiday."

The TownHall report also said, "records show that [Lewis] made more than $71,000 for half a year's work in 2010 -- along with compensation from the Illinois Federation of Teachers in 2011 totaling at least an additional $64,000 on top of her unknown base salary and benefits."

Hope. Change. Murder.

EAG asks, "Big salaries with an average income in the $70,000 range. Generous benefits and pensions. Limited work days and nine-month work years. What are these people complaining about?"

Union leaders like Karen Lewis really don't give a damn about the quality of the education your kids are getting in the public schools. All of their agitation and protesting and striking is not "for the children." It's for them, it's for power, it's a means of advancing their socialist power agenda. Well, and a touch of personal greed for all the goodies they can soak the taxpayers for, too.

Lewis's fat salary is probably just barely enough to support her obvious gluttony. A raise might be in order for her, if only to protect the lives of others. After all, if she runs out of food she is likely to eat some of her fellow rich folk.

Related:

• CTU President Talks About Killing The Rich, Crowd Laughs Weasel Zippers 
• "A" Is for Agitation: Radical Chicago Teachers on Parade Town Hall
• Are Socialists Now Calling the Shots In The Chicago Teachers Strike? Red State
• CTU President Karen Lewis Wants To Eat Your Children Chicago News Bench
• Video Proof: Communists Indoctrinating Chicago School Children YouTube

Homicidal Occupier Says "Kill Billionaires"

Too many of those loons on the Left are like this guy, who said, "I tell you right now. I am for killing billionaires."

And you thought Occupiers were just a bunch of drug-addled rapists? You were wrong. Some of them openly advocate mass murder, too. They would have no problem with killing people just to further their sick agenda. That's class warfare: Literally.

Why stop with billionaires? Why not millionaires, too? Why not everyone earning over $250,000 a year? This is frightening. The video here was made on September 17, 2012 in Zuccotti Park, New York City, which has been ground zero for the Occupy movement for just over a year. (Continues below the video.) The murderous leftists in the top video here are so stupid that they believe that no billionaires create jobs. Really? Apparently they've never heard of people such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and even George Soros, all of whom create jobs.

In Speech to CPAC, Rand Paul Says Obama Loves Rich Cronies

February 10, 2012 - U.S. Senator Rand Paul gave a powerful speech yesterday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C. Rand said that Obama "doesn't really hate all rich people, if you're a crony, stop by the White House, they've got a deal for you." (Full transcript below.)

Video and Full Transcript of Sen. Rand Paul's 2012 CPAC Speech
February 9, 2012, Washington, D.C.

I have a question. A question for the President. Do you hate all rich people? Or just those who aren't campaign contributors.

The President sure seems to like George Kaiser, the twentieth richest man in America. President Obama likes him so much that he gave Kaiser's company, Solyndra. a half a billion, taxpayer dollars, which you may have heard got flushed down the drain.

To get Mr. Kaiser his money, the President came up with a brilliant plan. Let's appoint people to approve the loans who are related to people who are going to get the loans.

So Solyndra's attorney simply called up her husband who works for the Department of Energy to secure the half a billion dollar loan. What a great way to encourage campaign contributions, give away enormous taxpayer loans to campaign contributors.

So, to be fair, the President doesn't really hate all rich people, just those who don't contribute to his campaign.

They say it's not easy being rich, especially if you inherit the money. It's hard sometimes just playing polo and laying by the pool. So when I heard that Robert Kennedy, Jr. was starting his own company, I first thought, good for him I hope he will find satisfaction in good old fashioned work.

My good feelings soured, though, when I learned the Robert Kennedy's idea of work included $1.6 billion of taxpayer money.

So while the President roams the country moaning about millionaires and billionaires not paying their fair share, his aides in the White House are making sure that millionaires and billionaires get their fair share -- of your money.

How did Robert Kennedy, Jr. come by his $1.6 billion? The same way George Kaiser got his. Kennedy got one of his employees a job at the Department of Energy and then that former employee approved the loan. Where is the Taxpayer in all of this? Well, left holding the bag. Where is the country? Left with a $15 trillion debt.

So the President doesn't really hate all rich people, if you're a crony, stop by the White House, they've got a deal for you.

I have question. Another question for the President. Do you hate poor people or just poor people with jobs?

Your Chinese- made energy efficient light bulbs cost 4 dollars apiece. Who can afford them? Not to mention that you need a HAZMAT team if one of them breaks.

Mr. President, Don't you realize that as you've piled the debt on the backs of working people that gas prices have doubled, food prices are rising at double digits. 11 million people are out of work.

When you forbid the mining of cheap sources of energy, when you ban the new oil pipeline, senior citizens and working families are forced to pay higher electric bills.

I really want to know, Mr. President, does your ideology, your yen for windmills trump your concern for the poor? Does it bother you that Americans who live paycheck to paycheck are asked to pay for Mr. Kaiser's loan, to pay for Mr. Kennedy's loan?

Do you, Mr. President, ever reflect that a country that borrows $40,000 a second is heading for a cliff and you are at the wheel and stepping on the gas.

Spending is accelerating. We now spend almost 25% of our GDP in Washington and nearly half of all spending is borrowed.

Entitlements and interest on the debt will consume all tax revenue in the near future. It is not a question of will a debt crisis occur in America. It is only a question of when.

Now, in all seriousness, I don't think the President hates rich people or poor people. In fact, I don't impute to him bad intentions at all-a misguided philosophy, yes, but bad intentions, no.

Meanwhile, the President roams the country claiming millionaires and billionaires are not paying their fair share.

This is objectively false. Millionaires, on average, pay about 29% of their income. And, on average, non-millionaires (the rest of us) all pay less than 29%.The top ten percent of earners, pay over 70% of the income tax. Let me repeat: those earning more than $200,000 pay 70% of the income tax.

The rich and the upper middle class pay virtually all of the income tax. The bottom 47% of earners pay NO income tax. To put it kindly, the President is being disingenuous.

Is anyone out there tired of hearing about Warren Buffett's secretary? We are encouraged to mourn Warren Buffet's poor secretary, who some have estimated may make more than $200,000 per year.

Realize, though, that this is all a charade purposefully designed to attack any Republican candidate who happens to be successful. The truth is that Warren Buffet pays tens of millions of dollars in taxes and his secretary pays thousands of dollars in taxes. Buffet, in fact, pays about 1000 times more in taxes than his secretary.

I believe this election will be about the American Dream and whether we still believe in the greatness of our founding documents. Do we believe in an America where "we the people" interact voluntarily to determine the winners or do we want the President to dictate the winners and losers? Do we really want a Fairness Czar to enforce equality on us?

It's not as if we haven't seen attempts at a fairness doctrine before. The Soviets tried it. So did the Chinese.

A recent NPR story described the Chinese experiment with enforced fairness.

In 1978, in a small village in a remote region of China, several farmers gathered in secret and signed a compact. This compact was extraordinary and very dangerous. They immediately hid it inside a piece of bamboo in the roof of one farmer's hut.

The compact called for illegal action. The compact called for dividing the collective farm into plots by family and then letting each family keep the profits. Because capitalism and profit were illegal and could command a death sentence, each farmer agreed to raise the children of any farmer that was caught and executed.

The result was phenomenal. The largest harvest in recent memory. So large, that it did not escape notice and one of the farmers was hauled before the local commissar. But just as the interrogation was proceeding to a possibly violent end, word came from Beijing that the long dark veil of communism was being lifted.

As China awakens to capitalism, our President embraces big government to debt.

This election may be the last best hope of saving the American Dream. As we gather to make the choice of who will lead Conservatives, I am reminded of a story by Paul Kengor.

On a brisk evening in Dixon, Illinois in 1922. Returning home from a basketball game at the YMCA, an 11 year old boy is stunned by the sight of his father sprawled out in the snow on the front porch. "He was drunk," his son later remembered. "Dead to the world . . . crucified." The dad's hair was soaked with melted snow, matted unevenly against the side of his reddened face.

The boy stood over his father for a minute or two. He wanted to simply let himself in the door and pretend his dad wasn't there. Instead, he grabbed a fistful of overcoat and heaved his dad to the bedroom, away from the weather's harm and neighbor's attention.

This young man didn't retreat or admit defeat. His family's struggles did not lead him to say, the world is against me and I can't succeed. When his family moved 30 times when he was growing up, he was not deterred.

This young boy became the man, Ronald Reagan, whose sunny optimism and charisma shined so brightly that it cured the malaise of the late seventies, an optimism that beamed so broadly that it pulled us through a serious recession, and an optimism that tugged so happily at all hearts that a generation of Democrats became Republicans.

Who will be our heroes? Who will become the next generation of great leaders?

America is great because we've always embraced individual liberty. This belief in the individual is the American dream.

To lead us away from the precipice that is the looming debt crisis, it will take someone who believes in America's greatness, who believes in and can articulate the American dream.

If the American Dream dies, so does our country. Our prosperity comes from our freedom, a freedom enshrined and protected by the Constitution.

Washington, today, is ruled by a different sort. Special interests on the right and the left clamor for more of your money. Even our party has yet to grasp the significance and imminence of the coming debt crisis.

It will take bold leadership to avert this crisis. It will take someone able to transform the coldness of austerity into the warm, vibrant embrace of prosperity.

We are in the process of discovering who that leader will be. My hope is that in searching for that leader, we also rediscover the passion for individual liberty that made America great. (END)

Related articles

• Sen. Rand Paul Offers STOCK Act Amendment To Ban Obama-Style Cronyism for Federal Loans (biggovernment.com)
• Ron Paul 2012: Misses CPAC 2012, but Rand Paul Generates Support (ibtimes.com)
• Rand Paul is Not Like His Father (thedailybeast.com)

Video: Jimmy Hoffa Jr. Declares Class Warfare Against Tea Party "Sons of Bitches"

September 5, 2011 - Detroit -Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. called Tea Party people "son of a bitches" in a Detroit rally today. He made the remark as he stirred up the crowd prior to Barack Obama's Labor Day speech. "President Obama," he said, "this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of a bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added. (Watch the video below.) UPDATE 9/6/2011: Bastard Obama Won't Apologize For Bastard Hoffa's Offensive Labor Day Speech Perhaps Hoffa doesn't understand that, with his words today, he has effectively declared war on many Teamsters rank and file members. Those are the ones whose paychecks are regarded as open cookie jars by union leaders, and not just the Teamsters. A call for violence: As I've written before, I am hearing calls for violence on the streets of Madison, Wisconsin. Several self-described "progressive liberals," who did not know they were speaking to a Tea Party conservative, told me that union leaders in Milwaukee have said privately that "violence would be justified" in their fight against Gov. Scott Walker. Other folks have said that they themselves would be "okay with violence" in "the struggle for collective bargaining rights." Liberals have been violent on a massive scale in the past. Why should we believe that they would not be so again? The folks I have spoken with are itching to rumble. One must wonder about the hints of violence in Hoffa's remarks today. When he said "Let's take these son of a bitches out," did some lunatic take that the wrong way? After all, in the wake of the Giffords shooting earlier this year, Democrats went balistic (no pun intended) over "vitriolic rhetoric" of conservatives. They rushed to link such "vitriol" to a motivation for the attack on Giffords. So, today, we hear the leader of the Teamsters offer his union members up as conscripts in Obama's "army," for the purpose of "taking out" the opposition. "Alright, alright, Jimmy Hoffa Jr. was not calling for blood in the streets," wrote John Romano at the Yes But Whatever! blog, " but his rhetoric will surely be worrisome to many. It hasn’t been a year since Gabrielle Giffords was shot and the media attacked Sarah Palin for using a target graphic in a campaign ad for Congressional candidates her PAC backed in 2010. Where is the new era of civility that the Democrats called for?" Good question. Where is the civility, Mr. Hoffa? You can bet that no Democrats, and certainly not Comrade Obama, will call Hoffa's words "vitriolic." In fact, Obama let it slide. "Naturally," wrote Warner Todd Huston today, "the Constitutional Professor in Chief said nothing about Hoffa’s disgusting display. But that shouldn’t be surprising. Obama himself has been known to employ all manner of violent tinged campaign rhetoric. He likely saw nothing wrong with Hoffa’s words nor those of the race-baiters in Congress from earlier." In fact, after Hoffa made his vitriolic speech, Obama told the crowd that he was proud of Hoffa. Civility, anyone? Hoffa's words are a tinny echo of a call to "get a little bloody" made by Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) in February, 2011. "I'm proud to be here with people who understand that it's more than just sending an email to get you going," he said. "Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary." (Watch a video here, and see a couple of videos about union violence below.) So here's to the Little Guys, the unions members who are abused by their own union leaders for the sake of enriching themselves and bastards like Hoffa. More and more union members are fed up with those corrupt union leaders, and it should be no surprise to anyone that union membership is down. Nationally, less than 7% of private sector employees are union members. While unions were beneficial and necessary in the past to help fight workplace abuse, the tables have turned. Long gone are the days of sweat shops, and we have a five-day work week. Thanks are owed to unions of the past for those advances. Today, however, it is the unions themselves that are the abusers. RELATED: Hoffa Threatens GOP: "Take These Son Of Bitches Out" - Real Clear Politics Jimmy Hoffa Declares War on Non-Union America - Yes But However Union membership goes down in Wisconsin - Stevens Point Journal John F. Kennedy and Madness of the American Left - American Spectator The Numbers Behind the Union Decline - Indiana Chamber

Cinqo de Mayo Confusing for Liberals

O Liberals! How confusing May 5th must be for you. Cinqo de Mayo is a celebration of nationalism, sovereignty, and violence. To top it off, it encourages drunk driving and is therefore a threat to the safety of children all over the U.S. My, my, my. Cinqo de Mayo encourages drunk driving. Where are Mothers Against Drunk Driving on this? Cinqo de Mayo," an excuse for drunks in the United States to tie one on, as with St. Patrick's Day, is more of a U.S. celebration than it is in the countries they pretend to celebrate. Cinqo de Mayo celebrates nationalism! Yep, it was all about the Battle of Pueblo, in which Mexicans defended their national sovereignty! Yes, their borders! Cinqo de Mayo celebrates violence in defense of national sovereignty! So, how do all those nutty Liberals who wear buttons that say "Violence Is Not The Answer" feel about this celebration of carnage at the Battle of Pueblo? The Battle of Pueblo is what Cinqo de Mayo commemorates. It was a battle that Mexico won against French imperialist forces, but did not prevent France from actually winning the war. The French forces suffered some embarrassing early defeats, [such as the Battle of Pueblo] but were able to occupy Mexico City in June 1863. They established a puppet government under Austro-Hungarian Archduke Fernando Maximilian, who was named emperor of Mexico in 1864. (Source) So, eventually, the French won the war. Cinco de Mayo remembers the Mexican victory over France on May 5th, 1862 at the Battle of Pueblo.... The French would regroup and eventually take Mexico City. The Emperor Maximilian ruled portions of Mexico on behalf of France until he was executed in 1867. However, the heroism of the Mexicans at Pueblo showed the French and the world that they were willing to defend their country. The Mexicans had no intention of losing badly as they had in the Mexican-American War a mere 15 years earlier. (Source) As would be with their Panama Canal effort, the French just couldn't complete the mission and ultimately failed miserably. But the Battle of Pueblo had nothing to do with the ultimate failure of the French occupation. Tonight, while you're getting sloppy on tequila and margaritas, toast the brave efforts of those violent patriots who so bravely defended their national sovereignty.

Class Warfare: Why It Won't Work

It Won't Work for Democrats
A nice explanation of the futility of trying to foment class warfare. Written by Stephen Rose at Real Clear Politics:

"Yet the core argument in the liberal case for this sort of class-interest populism is deeply flawed in at least two important respects." FULL ARTICLE....