There is nothing I enjoy more than receiving mail about my posts or comments, especially when whoever sent it disagrees! In a strange way, hate mail is my favorite.

Even though hate mail is my favorite, I will not be sharing any today. Instead I will share a message I received on Facebook. From time to time, I will share messages I receive and how I respond to them. I will never use any names, these postings are not meant to demean or expose the person that sends them, but rather to educate those who are willing to read.

Sent from Anonymous:

I would say that I believe strongly in welfare reform that helps people while encouraging them to help themselves by gaining marketable skills to either become employed or better their employment status. I don’t think any of us, liberals or conservatives, benefit from a system that encourages dependence on government aid. However, I am often upset by those who see no need for government assistance or intervention. I think there are two extremes, and I happen to fall in the middle. I am fortunate to have been raised by parents who taught me the value of hard work and I pride myself on being in the minority of those who will graduate from college. However, I am not ignorant of the fact that there are many who are not nearly as fortunate as I. I support a government that understands its role in ensuring that all of us, regardless of race, class, gender, socioeconomic status, or geographic location have access to the great opportunities this country affords its citizens. To me, this is not a matter of party, but instead a matter of principle. I enjoy the back and forth, and ask only that you not pretend to know what I know or where I stand on issues such as school vouchers and the like. For the record I believe that vouchers are merely bandages for an education system that is greatly flawed. I’m sure we can agree on that point.

My response:

I see you are a fan of Chris Matthews. Did you know he recently praised one of his heroes Saul Alinsky?

I actually agree with most of what you are saying. But if you believe we need to create a society wherein people are not dependent on government, then you simply cannot support Obama.

You are right when you say it is not a matter of party. The Republican party is in shambles, and trying to decide what they want to be. Will they be the party of Reagan or the party of McCain? I hope it is the former. Progressive policies adopted by the right have contributed to the economic mess we have today.

We can agree that the educational system is both bankrupt and god-awful, and I hope we can agree on why. It is impossible for government to run anything successfully. It also seems dangerous to me that the government is in the business of educating the most impressionable minds in America. Just as we have seen time and time again, educators in other countries throughout history have used the educational system to twist the minds of children to support agendas. My parents went almost broke sending me to private school, but I am grateful they did.
School vouchers are a small and easy step to take in order to both eradicate terrible schools and support our youth. Why are liberals so against this idea? It is easy, they are held by the balls by the teachers unions. Not only that, but why would you want to lift a person out of poverty when you can keep them dependent, ensuring a vote?

I completely agree with you when you say no one “benefits from a system that encourages dependence on government aid.” I believe there should also be government assistance, but as we can clearly see, there appears to be too much. The black community gets hit the hardest from the government assistance available to them. Young black boys and girls are told every day that white people are oppressing them, and that they will never make it (I did volunteer work at many of the schools in the greater Sacramento area). These young children begin to think the world is against them, and it seems futile for them to even try. So, a few years down the road they wind up making a few mistakes, never recover and find themselves living in the slums. They never bother to aspire to do something better because they are told whitey will keep them down.

This strategy has been used by progressives for a long time now, and unfortunately, it seems to be effective.
I have been called racist many times simply because I have never and will never support unequal right. I do not believe in things like affirmative action. Children should not be allowed into certain schools based on race. I do not believe in meeting “race quotas”, where a certain number of students MUST be a certain color of skin. It is unfortunate people like me get branded as racist for simply supporting equal rights. Martin Luther King did not call for special privileges, and we dishonor him when we try to make policy that does so.
I enjoyed your message. It is the first I have read in a long time where someone has said they believe in principle over party.

But as far as I can gather from what you are saying, Obama and the current administration do not stand for any of the principles you believe in. Can you support someone who hires the likes of Anita Dunn, Van Jones and also calls for the redistribution of wealth? Certainly you can’t seeing as how you have told me it is wrong to create a society in which people are dependent on government. Just as the Republican party is starting over, and trying to go back to it’s roots, I believe the Democrats need to do the same. The modern day Democrat should not be a Mao admiring, Marx quoting elitist, because that is not representative of the people who support them (people like you). Most people know these ideas are wrong, but will continue to elect people who support this nonsense.

What I am basically saying is, if you are being honest with me, and you do not believe people should be dependent on government, then you cannot support the current administration.

Thank you for sending me this message, and maybe I’ll hear back from you.

Unfortunately, I never heard back from Anonymous. I can only hope I enlightened him or changed his perspective. Being the pessimist I am, I doubt that was case.

Until I know for certain, I will assume he read my response, called me a slew of inappropriate things and created a voodoo doll in my image.
‘Til next time…?

Clearly, math is not a Progressive’s strong suit. $700 billion over 6 years is peanuts compared to what we are spending under the Obama regime. Do Progressives realize Obama is also spending money on “Bush’s illegal war?” Not long ago, a war supplemental totaling $93 Billion passed through congress.

Let’s have a little intellectual honesty. The financial cost of the war is big, regardless of whether you or I supported it. But if you believe $700 billion to be a large sum of money, then you must agree that Obama’s budget is astronomically massive. If you don’t like Bush spending $700 Billion on a war over 6 years (which is being continued by Obama), then you have to not like the over $10 trillion in deficits projected in Obama’s own budget (not to mention that’s after the largest tax increase proposal in U.S. history) over the next 8 years (double what Bush’s was).
So, are Progressives going to be intellectually honest and say both are egregious sums in their book? (That’s a rhetorical question.)
I am going to make this as simple as possible. Let’s take a look at this equation:
10,000,000,000,000 > 700,000,000,000
Notice that 10,000,000,000,000 is greater than 700,000,000,000, yet this does not deter Progressives from being outraged by Bush’s spending, but content with what Obama is spending.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Progressives only care about money when the right person is spending it. Unlike many Conservatives who became angry with Bush for his spending (and subsequently left the Republican party), Progressives are perfectly content with towing the party line and going down with the sinking ship that is the Democrat party. To the Obama administration, does not matter how many jobs are lost, how high unemployment is or how many businesses go under. We know now after enduring a year of this incompetence, that Obama and the Progressive radicals in the Whitehouse only care about power and the redistribution of wealth.

It is time to sit down and do the math. The only numbers that went down this year were private sector job positions and Obama’s approval rating. The American people are waking up, and are realizing Obama’s numbers don’t add up.

But he clearly is not scared, for if he were scared, he would be headed to Church.

Instead, he is off to Massachusetts to help the embattled Democrat Martha Coakley win “The People’s Seat.”

But so far, the People’s Seat seems that it will go to Republican Scott Brown; and, if it does, it will eliminate the Super-Majority Stranglehold the Democrats have on the country.

Brown, a populist, has been able to energize a nation around his election.  Millions of dollars have poured in from all over the country because this is more than just a Massachusetts Senate seat.  This is a sign of how things are, as well as a sign of what is to come.

Coakley has barely been able to energize the rank and file Democrats.

Now in comes Bami.

What President Panty-Waist will try and do is energize that group–that group of elitist, pro-establishment, truly anti-democratic liberals–of rank and file Democrats so that maybe, just maybe, Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat can stay in the same ideological hands.

Clearly Bami is scared for his agenda.  I amend my piece of advice to Mr. Obama based on the poems of the Great American Poet, Ice Cube:

If you scared, go to Mass.

The Great American poet, Mr. Cube

Read–My Way News

This post was written by Mr. Enos and Mr. Harrington…

So, another one for the record books. Virginia and New Jersey now have a pair of very Republican governor-elects now and New York City still has a Republican–if you can call him that–Mayor, but what will the media and the Obama administration talk about until our ears bleed? NY23.

No, it has nothing to do with the world series, what I refer to is of course the hotly contested Congressional race in New York’s 23rd district between Bill Owens (D), Doug Hoffman (C), and the certifiable Dierdre Scozzafava (R).

Why does it matter, you ask?

Quite simply, (and more pundits than just myself have said this more than once tonight), the Democrat win in New York will serve only to give the Obama Administration and the media elites–my colleague likes to refer to them as the “drive-by media”–a story to latch onto so they can sweep the 20 percentage point loss they suffered in Virginia and, more importantly, the loss in New Jersey under the rug. Tonight, average Americans voted on the policies and direction that Obama and the Democrats have set for our country, and they don’t like it one bit and they made their discontent known loud and clear for all to hear. Now, faced with the choice of acknowledging that his policies are wrong, or ignoring the obvious message that voters sent, the president is left with what should be a simple choice, except the right choice (acknowledgment) isn’t the easy choice (deny, deny, deny).

Mr. Harrington’s input:

Now, folks, I’m looking at the numbers for New York Congressional District 23–as of 10:40 PM Pacific, and, not surprisingly, Scozzafava raked in 5%…

What is the difference between Owens and Hoffman?

4%.

The National Republican Congressional Committee must be so steamed.

But, this isn’t the issue.  The issue is that Conservatives kicked some major Democratic ass tonight.

Not only was a message sent to Bami–who, coincidently didn’t watch the results according to Robert Gibbs, but an even louder message was sent to the Republican Party.

The GOP shifted left, the American people sent a clear message to the GOP to get back to basics.

Also, this race shows that third parties are a tricky way to play politics.  There are times for a third party, but, what ultimately needs to happen is the Republican party return to the party of Reagan: Increased Individual Liberty, Economic Freedom, and continued belief in unwavering American Optimism.

Don’t let the Liberal Elite try and convince you that Reagan Conservatism is dead because of one congressional district.

Clearly Reagan Conservatism lives in the blood of Americans everywhere.

UPDATE:

The Damage control has begun.

Robert Gibbs:  ”…Anger can get you 45% of the vote.”

“We watched a party pick a candidate and then purge that candidate. And I think the result was an election (in which) that district sent its first non-Republican to Congress since before the Civil War.”

Read

Nancy Pelosi:  ”From my perspective, we won last night.”

Read

David Axelrod:

The White House interim communications director, Anita Dunn, was talking to a group of high school seniors this last summer. What was she talking to them about, you ask? She gave a very inspiring speech about how these students will have to make decisions in their lives…oh… and how Mao Tse Tung is one of her favorite political philosophers, that old chestnut.

“And then the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa — not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you’re going to make choices. You’re going to challenge. You’re going to say, “Why not?” You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here’s the deal: These are your choices. They are no one else’s.”

Just when I was getting worried that perhaps some people in the Whitehouse held extremist views, news of Anita looking up to arguably the greatest mass murderer in history makes me feel so much better!

How dare she utter the names Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa in the same breath! Are you tired of it yet? Are you sick of reading how twisted the members of Obama’s administration are? How can this woman stand at a podium in front of high school children and speak about her beloved mass murdering “political philosopher” Mao?

Few Americans can fathom what life under Mao was like for the Chinese people. I know I can’t, and I know very few of us would like to find out. Those that do are so ignorant, I weep for them.

And what makes this scene even more sickening is when the whole picture is considered. How befitting is it that Anita Dunn, who’s been hired to watch FOX News and report what is inaccurate (FOX News Czar, anyone?) admires Mao Tse Tung for his political philosophies? When the image of her, the mass murderer she admires and the job she was hired to do all come into perspective, a terrible fear should strike you. These are the people who are in charge of our country, and because the masses fell for Obama’s cult of personality (much like the Chinese fell for Mao’s), we are all suffering for it.

Suddenly, the oppressive forms of government we thought the United States would never fall prey to do not seem like a distant danger. The ugly, oppressive statists are here, and they are determined now more than ever to “fundamentally transform America”. Will we let them?

Philadelphia, PA

The Philadelphia School District has decided to hold principals accountable for how many students eat breakfast at schools.

The school district in Philly serves approximately 160,000 students, and offers free breakfast to all students, regardless of income.  In the last year, it is reported that 54,000 of those students ate breakfast at school.  This move was enacted to increase the number of students who eat breakfast, according to Jonathan Stein, who is a lawyer with Community Legal Services.  Community Legal Services, along with Public Citizens for Children and Youth (PCCY)  were major players in enacting the move that will make Philly principals accountable for how many students eat breakfast at school.

Supporters claim that this will help the high percentage of students who come from high-poverty areas in Philadelphia.

Read–Philly.com

Now let’s examine some of the many things wrong with this issue.  However, I would like to begin by presenting some word definitions first.

Parent (noun): One who begets, gives birth to, or nurtures and raises a child; a father or mother. [American Heritage Dictionary]

Parenting (noun): the rearing of children [Dictionary.com]

Rear (verb): To care for (children or a child) during the early stages of life; bring up. [American Heritage Dictionary]

Now, the first question I would like to ask is:  Why shouldn’t the PARENTS of the child be held accountable for the rearing of their own offspring? I would (perhaps foolishly) assume that feeding your child would be one of the aspects of caring for a child during the early stages of life.  It is also to my understanding that the most common form of feeding in society is the three basic meals: BREAKFAST, LUNCH, and DINNER.  It is perfectly fine in my humble opinion if the schools wish to offer breakfast to students for a price (I will touch on the FREE breakfast issue later).  However, it is another thing entirely to take the responsibilty of providing breakfast to students from the child’s parents, and bestow it upon the school principal.  The idea of critiquing the principal on how many students eat breakfast at school is simply laughable.

Next, I would like to address the ever lessening role of parents in the raising and education of their children.  We have seen many times how schools are now given free lisence to do as they please in regards to what they teach students (e.g., singing praise to President Obama, among other things).  Parents should wake up, and take a more active role in the education of their students.  PARENTS are the one’s responsible in instilling values in their children, not the government’s schools.

Now we come to the free breakfast issue.  Let us remember that taxpayer dollars are the source of funds for public schools.  The supporters of this move claim that this is a help to those students coming from high-poverty areas in Philadelphia.  Now, I do believe that “high-poverty areas” contain families and people who do not make much money.  To people who do not make much money, they are eligible to recieve assistance from programs like welfare along with food stamps for well, food.  These programs are paid for by the taxpayer.  So if the taxpayer pays for the FAMILIES to have food to feed themselves and their children, why should the taxpayer also pay for the schools to give the students free breakfast?  The logic simply escapes me.  Although, none of this ridiculousness makes any sense to me.

(Image Curtsey of the AP)

Media Matters is reporting that the child in question was of legal age. I–Matt Harrington–am working with the author of this post–Graham Enos–to resolve this situation. Update below:

Hypothetical situation:

The year is 1988. You are a high school teacher in Concord, Massachusetts and one day a 15-year-old sophomore tells you that an older man he encountered in a Boston bus station restroom had sex with him.

Do you:

A. Do nothing.
B. Ask for more information about the situation, inform your superiors so that they can inform his parents, Child Protective Services and the proper Authorities.
C. Tell him to use a condom.

If you’re a normal, rational, compassionate human being, you would obviously answer ‘B’.

If you are Kevin Jennings–Obama’s “safe schools czar” and the founder of the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) –you pick ‘C’.

You read that right. The guy Obama tapped–perhaps a poor choice of words–to be in charge of ensuring that children in our nations schools are safe told a kid who was sodomized that he “hoped he used a condom”. Admittedly, the young man was gay, but regardless of his sexual orientation, he was a minor who in the eyes of the law was sexually assaulted and Jennings did nothing about it. He has since apologized, admitting in a statement issued Wednesday that “Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities.” Of course, where child rape is concerned hindsight is always 20/20.

This guy influences Obama’s policy decisions. How did this happen?

As more and more of Obama’s Czars are embroiled in scandals, this intrepid bloviator cannot help but wonder if anyone is actually vetting these people before they get the keys to their offices in the west wing.

Read – FoxNews

UPDATE: As mentioned above Media Matters (a highly progressive organization) has latched onto this story, as has CNN, claiming that the student in question was in fact of legal age when he approached Jennings. However, Regardless of the student’s age at the time Jennings has, by his own admission, categorically stated that he “should have handled this situation differently”.  As for the other accusations of him promoting a gay agenda in schools, I have no proof of that nor do I believe that he has or would engage in that kind of behavior. However, there have been accusations that his failure to take action in 1988 may have put a child at risk and, again, his admission that he should have done more for that child as a teacher shows that he is–at the very least–not taking his role as “safe schools czar” seriously enough. And as with the other czar scandals, eventually the facts will come out, but the accusations raised should not be taken lightly and should be seriously investigated.

We will update as the facts of this matter unfold. You can see CNN’s take on this story after the jump.
Read – Media Matters

UPDATE 2: Upon further review, the evidence Media Matters has brought forward appears to be valid, and after a lengthy examination of the facts released today the editorial staff now believe that Mr. Jennings was incorrectly accused of involvement in the coverup of statutory rape. However, due to our internal editorial rules, we are unable to redact or in any way subtract from–in whole or part–any post after it has been published, regardless of the validity of its content. As a result the post will remain on the site as it is. To that end, we also believe that further independent review of the situation is required and we will continue to cover this story, both through updates to this post and in new posts as the facts of the story are unfolded.

–The Harrington Report Editorial Staff

Continue Reading

DISCLAIMER: This post contains information regarding illegal immigration.  Before reading, it should be noted that this post was written by the son of a LEGAL immigrant from Cuba.  With that knowledge, please refrain from any comments that might label the author as a racist, a hater of immigrants, or any other similar accusations.

Thank You.

A popular and trendy clothing company, American Apparel, will now be firing about 1,800 workers within the next few days.  These 1,800 employees make up more than a quarter of American Apparel’s workforce.  This news comes after a federal investigation revealed that a number of American Apparel’s employees failed to correct discrepancies in their legal documentation.

American Apparel is a Los Angeles based apparel company that sells and manufactures clothing that is branded as “Made in the USA”.  The company also openly shows support on many issues, such as gay marriage and granting legal status to illegal immigrants, through it’s products.  American Apparel manufactures t-shirts with printed slogans such as “Legalize L.A.” or “Legalize Gay”.

Regardless of the company’s political stance, the issue of illegal immigration is still at hand.  Whether or not they choose to support the granting of legal status to illegal aliens, the fact remains that it is currently ILLEGAL, meaning against the law.  These firings are the outcome of President Obama’s tactic to pressure the companies who hire illegal immigrants, rather than perform workplace raids, as was the policy under President Bush.  The mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, has called the investigation and related firings “devastating,” as he believes the government should punish only the companies who exploit their workers.  It seems he missed the point that the investigation was not regarding employee exploitation, but the hiring of immigrants who did not have proper documentation.

Immigration is a great thing, and is truly one of the major factors that makes this country great, but the issue remains that immigrants need to enter this country through the legal process.

Read–NY Times

American Apparel Headquarters, Los Angeles, CA

          The reason you are unfamiliar with the name Joseph A. Palermo is not a failure on your part. It is because of Palermo’s failings to rise up in the liberal ranks to make a name for himself. But believe me when I say this race-baiter has done everything imaginable to be recognized by the delusional left, and the public in general.

This is from his Huffington Post bio:

            “Associate Professor, History, CSU, Sacramento. Bachelor’s degrees in Sociology and Anthropology from UC Santa Cruz, Master’s degree in History from San Jose State University, Master’s degree and Doctorate in American History from Cornell University. Expertise includes political history, presidential politics, presidential war powers, social movements of the 20th century, movements of the 1960s, civil rights, and foreign policy history.”

            I actually had the displeasure of experiencing Palermo’s preaching my sophomore year at California State University, Sacramento. It wasn’t the fact that Palermo was saying things I’d never heard before, but his zeal and brazenness that made him stand out among the other patchouli loving professors. In the ideological monopoly known as College, Palermo stood out as a Chief Executive Officer… or at the least a store manager. Palermo is a perfect product of academia: A non-thinking person plagued with the disease of Marxist regurgitation.

Continue Reading