Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
“I don’t think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon,” said totally-in-da-pocket-of-da-unions Barry Hussein.
Okay, so it’s bad to denigrate or vilify public employees.
Except the governor of the state, who is a public employee whom the public UNION employees have damned as Adolf Hitler and as a Nazi. Barry could care less about vilifying the governor as Hitler. Because if he had one more particle of hypocrite inside of him it would explode right out of his thin skin.
Barry Hussein’s on the side of chief AFL-CIO thug Richard Trumka, you see. And since Scott Walker is a public employee who ISN’T in the union’s pocket, it’s FINE to tee off on him in the most hateful way imaginable:
The head of one of the nation’s most powerful labor unions did not condemn the violent rhetoric in placards and signs held by union supporters demonstrating in Wisconsin despite two direct attempts Sunday to get him on the record declaring them inappropriate.
On several occasions over the past two weeks of demonstrations in the Wisconsin capital of Madison news media have zeroed in on signs that liken Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and recently ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
Appearing Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka was twice asked whether he found the tone at the nearly two-week long demonstrations “wrong” or “inappropriate.”
Trumka did not answer […]
Apparently it is PERFECTLY okay to denigrate public employees. At least by Barry Hussein’s twisted standards. That’s the way scumbags like Trumka and Obama roll.
That’s one lie from Barry Hussein. Another one is that he gives a damn about jobs. Because his rigid union ideology is about to cost at least a thousand of them tomorrow:
MADISON, Wisc. (Reuters) – Republican Gov. Scott Walker on Monday gave absent Democratic lawmakers an ultimatum to return to Wisconsin within 24 hours and vote on a proposal to reduce the power of public sector unions or the state would miss out on a debt restructuring.
Walker stepped up the pressure on 14 Senate Democrats who fled the state to avoid a vote on the bill as he prepared to unveil on Tuesday a two-year state budget that he said cuts $1 billion from funding to local governments and schools.
What began as one small state trying to rewrite the rules of labor relations has blown up into what could be the biggest confrontation with American labor unions since then President Ronald Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers in 1981.
For the second time since the controversy erupted, President Barack Obama weighed into the debate on Monday criticizing the Wisconsin plan without mentioning it by name.
“I don’t think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon,” Obama told the nation’s governors gathered in Washington.
Wisconsin’s Walker immediately issued a response, saying: “I’m sure that President Obama simply misunderstands the issues in Wisconsin.”
Pro-union demonstrators continued to occupy the State Capitol building on Monday after some of them refused to leave on Sunday night. Capitol police, who had allowed the protesters to stay in the building for more than a week, on Monday prevented more from entering even though it was a week day.
So far the police have been tolerant of the protesters and no arrests have been made.
Walker’s budget proposal brought out the biggest protest crowd since the Vietnam War in Madison over the weekend.
A new poll released on Monday suggested that if the 2010 election could be replayed the Wisconsin governor might lose. The Public Policy Polling survey found that if the election were repeated the result would flip with Walker’s Democratic opponent Tom Barrett getting 52 percent and Walker 45 percent. Walker won with 52 percent in November. The shift came mainly from union households.
The Wisconsin proposal would require public sector employees to pay more for pensions and health care, strip some of their unions of bargaining rights except for wages up to the rate of inflation and require yearly recertification votes.
The proposal was approved by the state Assembly last week but is stalled in the Senate because the 14 Democrats have fled the state to avoid a vote.
The proposal includes a restructuring of the state’s debt that Walker said would save $165 million. Walker said this restructuring deal was in doubt if the Democrats did not return.
“Failure to return to work and cast their votes will lead to more painful and aggressive spending cuts in the very near future,” Walker’s said in a statement.
Under Walker’s proposal, Wisconsin’s general obligation bonds would be restructured and that would push debt service payments due by March 15 into future years.
Democrats differed from Walker’s estimate, quoting on Monday a report from state fiscal analyst Al Runde saying that the restructuring Walker wants would add more than $42 million of interest payments over the long term.
In an interview broadcast on Sunday, Walker said he hoped to delay sending layoff notices to state workers if the legislature makes progress on fixing the budget deficit, according to website wispolitics.com.
But to postpone the layoffs, Walker said it will be necessary that his budget repair bill, including the move to end collective bargaining, go into effect by April 1.
There has been speculation that Walker would send out layoff notices to more than 1,000 state workers if no progress was made soon on the budget.
(Additional reporting by Stefanie Carano in Madison and Wendell Marsh in Washington; Editing by Greg McCune)
For what it’s worth, “Public Policy Polling” is rather like asking what Media Matters thinks about something. It is very left leaning with Democrat connections. Try most accurate Rasmussen and you get a dramatically different result.
I mean, everyone I talked to says Walker is right-on. And the fact that I only talked to Republicans really doesn’t have anything to do with anything.
The most important thing for the moment is tomorrow’s deadline for Democrats to return. We can take the first two and last two sentences of the Reuters article to cut to the chase:
MADISON, Wisc. (Reuters) – Republican Gov. Scott Walker on Monday gave absent Democratic lawmakers an ultimatum to return to Wisconsin within 24 hours and vote on a proposal to reduce the power of public sector unions or the state would miss out on a debt restructuring.
Walker stepped up the pressure on 14 Senate Democrats who fled the state to avoid a vote on the bill as he prepared to unveil on Tuesday a two-year state budget that he said cuts $1 billion from funding to local governments and schools. […]
But to postpone the layoffs, Walker said it will be necessary that his budget repair bill, including the move to end collective bargaining, go into effect by April 1.
There has been speculation that Walker would send out layoff notices to more than 1,000 state workers if no progress was made soon on the budget.
The fact of the matter is that Walker may have to end up laying off 6,000 workers, not just 1,000:
Wisconsin is broke. The current budget is already $137 million in the red. The 2011–2013 biennial budget faces a $3.6 billion hole. So Governor Walker has called the legislature into special session and presented them with an emergency budget. His plan closes the deficit without raising taxes.
Government employees in Wisconsin get amazing benefits. They get a generous defined-benefit pension with minimal contributions on their part. They also only pay 6 percent of the cost of their health-care premiums. Few taxpayers enjoy anything this generous.
Government employees get these benefits because of the special privileges government unions enjoy. Government workers in many states — including Wisconsin — must pay union dues or lose their jobs. The state subsidizes their fundraising by using its payroll system to collect these forced dues.
This gives the union movement billions of dollars, which it uses to elect favored candidates. The American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees (AFSCME) spent more than any other outside group in the last election. Government unions have used this political clout to hijack state government to serve their interests.
Governor Walker could have raised taxes or fired 6,000 state employees. Instead, like Governor Christie, he decided to actually fix the problems that brought Wisconsin to this point. His budget limits government collective bargaining to just wages, taking benefits and work rules off the bargaining table. He would also require voters to approve any raises above inflation. Walker would prevent government unions from forcing taxpayers to cough up for their gold-plated benefits.
Democrats don’t give a damn about creating jobs. They only care about UNION jobs.
FDR never wanted to see public sector unions. FDR wrote:
“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”
[Well, that hasn’t really come to pass now, has it? FDR continues]:
“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that ‘under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.'”
Why did FDR say that?
Read this article from The Wall Street Journal and understand the inherent threat of public unions. And then open your eyes:
It’s now official: In 2009 the number of unionized workers who work for the government surpassed those in the private economy for the first time. This milestone explains a lot about modern American politics, in particular the paradox that union clout with Democrats has increased even as fewer workers belong to unions overall.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported recently that 51.4% of America’s 15.4 million union members, or about 7.91 million workers, were employed by the government in 2009. As recently as 1980, there were more than twice as many private as public union members. But private union membership has continued to decline, even as unions have organized more public employees. The nearby chart shows the historical trend.
Overall unionism keeps declining, however, with the loss of 771,000 union jobs amid last year’s recession. Only one in eight workers (12.3%) now belongs to a union, with private union employment hitting a record low of 7.2% of all jobs, down from 7.6% in 2008. Only one in 13 U.S. workers in the private economy pays union dues. In government, by contrast, the union employee share rose to 37.4% from 36.8% the year before.
In private industries, union workers are subject to the vagaries of the marketplace and economic growth. Thus in 2009 10.1% of private union jobs were eliminated, which was more than twice the 4.4% rate of overall private job losses. On the other hand, government unions offer what is close to lifetime job security and benefits, subject only to gross dereliction of duty. Once a city or state’s workers are organized by a union, the jobs almost never go away.
This means government is the main playing field of modern unionism, which explains why the AFL-CIO and SEIU have become advocates for higher taxes and government expansion in cities, states and Washington. Unions once saw their main task as negotiating a bigger share of an individual firm’s profits. Now the movement’s main goal is securing a larger share of the overall private economy’s wealth, which means pitting government employees against middle-class taxpayers.
And as union membership has grown in government, so has union clout in pushing politicians (especially but not solely Democrats) for higher wages and benefits. This is why labor chiefs Andy Stern (SEIU) and Rich Trumka (AFL-CIO) could order Democrats to exempt unions from ObamaCare’s tax increase on high-cost health insurance plans. To the extent Democrats have become the party of government, they have become ever more beholden to public unions.
The problem for democracy is that this creates a self-reinforcing cycle of higher spending and taxes. The unions help elect politicians, who repay the unions with more pay and benefits and dues-paying members, who in turn help to re-elect those politicians.
The political scientists Fred Siegel and Dan DiSalvo recently wrote in the Weekly Standard about the 2006 example of former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine shouting to a rally of 10,000 public workers that “We will fight for a fair contract.” Mr. Corzine was supposed to be on the other side of the bargaining table representing taxpayers, not labor.
From time to time, usually requiring a fiscal crisis, middle-class taxpayers in the private economy will revolt enough to check this vicious political cycle. (See Scott Brown.) But sooner or later, the unions regain their political advantage because taxpayers have other concerns while unions have the most to gain or lose.
This is why most Democrats once opposed public-sector unionism. Such 20th-century liberal heroes as New York Mayor Fiorella LaGuardia and Franklin Roosevelt believed fervently in industrial unions. But they believed public employees had a special social obligation and could too easily exploit their monopoly position. How right they were.
As we can see from the desperate economic and fiscal woes of California, New Jersey, New York and other states with dominant public unions, this has become a major problem for the U.S. economy and small-d democratic governance. It may be the single biggest problem. The agenda for American political reform needs to include the breaking of public unionism’s power to capture an ever-larger share of private income.
The things about economics and the economy that FDR believed in were wrong. They were proven wrong in history. That’s why the industrial unions that he adored have nearly vanished; they simply create too many impediments to a strong economy – particularly in today’s competition with countries like China that do not have “a union problem.” And so Americans in our free market system decided long ago that it was better to have an actual job than it was to belong to a union and wonder why they had no jobs.
Modern Democrats, in desperation, turned to the very thing that they saw as an inherent un-American threat in the past. They have to be hypocrites and liars because they have abandoned the very nature of their previous beliefs about the nature of the economy in a democracy. Now public unions – once rightly an anathema – have become the foundation of their strength. Big Union money constitutes more than TEN TIMES any Republican special interest money; and it obviously comes overwhelmingly from the public sector unions that FDR warned us about.
And in doing so, the Democrat Party has become an un-American and inherent threat themselves.
Jesus’ words in Luke 22:25 sum up Democrats and unions so well today: “Jesus said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors.'” Because liberals and unions literally take our money from our children and then tell us they’re doing it for our own good. And the Democrats who take and take and take from us while calling themselves our “benefactors” today is hardly anything new. And hardly anything Jesus approved of.
If you’re like me, you never heard of this evil event that was reported in an Los Angeles Times editorial below. It has been hidden from you, just as the truth about so much history has been hidden by the teachers and historians who were supposed to teach the truth, but instead have fed us on propaganda and lies.
As terrible, and as evil, as the following event was, which has been deliberately omitted from virtually everyone’s history books, it represents only one of many evil and ugly incidents in the history of labor unions.
The blast that rocked labor: The bombing of the Times Building 100 years ago set off a chain of events that devastated America’s unions.
by Lew Irwin
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Page A27, Los Angeles Times
Shortly after 1 A.M. on Oct. 1, 1910, 100 years ago Friday, a time bomb constructed of 16 sticks of 80% dynamite connected to a cheap windup alarm clock exploded in an alley next to the Los Angeles Times. It detonated with such violence that for blocks around, people ran panic-stricken into the streets, believing that an intense earthquake had hit the city.
The explosion destroyed the Times building, taking the lives of 20 employees, including the night editor and the principle telegraph operator, and maiming dozens of others. Two other time bombs – intended to kill Gen. Harrison Gray Otis, the publisher of the newspaper, and Felix J. Zeehandelaar, the head of a Los Angeles business organization – were discovered later that morning hidden in the bushes next to their homes. Their mechanisms had jammed.
Eventually two brothers, J.B. McNamara, who planted the bombs, and J.J. McNamara, an official of the International Assn. of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers union who ordered the attacks, were arrested, convicted, and imprisoned.
In it’s day, The Times bombing was equivalent to the 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center. It was called “the crime of the century,” and it remains the deadliest crime to go to trial in California history. It would lead to investigations, arrests and trials of union leaders across the country who, it turned out, funded hundreds of terrorist bombings at mostly nonunion construction projects between 1907 and 1911. They included officials of the California Building Trades Council in San Fransisco, the ironworkers union and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters in Indianapolis, the Machinists Union in Syracuse, N.Y., and the Building Trades Council in Detroit. Hirelings of the union involved in executing the bombings were also brought to trial – 46 members of the ironworkers union alone. In addition to the McNamaras, who were sentenced in 1911, 39 men were convicted and sent to prison in 1912; five others received suspended sentences.
The testimony during their trials and their convictions devastated the American labor movement, virtually paralyzing it until the New Deal. […]
The terrorism that gripped America 100 years ago is barely mentioned in California history books today…. The bombing is now regarded as an embarrassment to organized labor, which has never gotten around to an unequivocal denunciation of it.
A 1996 history of the Ironworkers Union says that … “The international officers stretched the limits of zeal in a righteous cause.” […]
Former President Theodore Roosevelt reacted against those “foolish sentimentalists” who urged that the McNamaras be regarded with sympathy because they were struggling in a war on behalf of their class, pointed out that all of their victims had been “laboring people.” “Murder,” Roosevelt said succinctly, “is murder.”
“Bomb.” “Violence.” “Murder.” “The equivalent to the 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center.” The “the crime of the century.” “The deadliest crime to go to trial in California history” to this very day. Labor unions. All of those words and phrases go hand in hand together.
A century of evil. That’s the legacy of labor unions.
Interestingly, the article points out that the American labor movement was virtually paralyzed until the New Deal. So let’s pick up with the New Deal. From “Why Did FDR’s New Deal Harm Blacks?“:
By giving labor unions the monopoly power to exclusively represent employees in a workplace, the Wagner Act had the effect of excluding blacks, since the dominant unions discriminated against blacks. The Wagner Act had originally been drafted with a provision prohibiting racial discrimination. But the American Federation of Labor successfully lobbied against it, and it was dropped. AFL unions used their new power, granted by the Wagner Act, to exclude blacks on a large scale. Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, and Marcus Garvey were all critical of compulsory unionism.
From violent terrorist bomber murders who committed the crime of the century equivalent of the 9/11 terrorist attack to racists who hurt poor blacks.
Thirty years later, the unions got a second chance. And they were still genuinely evil.
Let’s also point out that while labor unions were being violent racists in America, they were in the process of being the source of the greatest evil in human history in Europe. It was the labor unions that formed the core of Lenin’s violent communist movement. The Marxists started out in 1898 by forming the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. Just as labor unions formed the core of Hitler’s National Socialist German WORKERS Party.
“A Socialist Workers’ Government has achieved a workers revolution in Germany without resorting to, tho in some respects it approximates, Communism. Adolf Hitler has done it by wiping out all class privileges and class distinction, but the economics foundation of property rights and private capital has been left almost intact – for the present time.”
“The Third Reich, under Hitler, has wiped out corporate trade-unionism by forcing all workers to join one great government union, the National Socialist Union of Employers and Workers…”
While American labor unions were basking in the light of FDR’s pork barrel political favoritism and doing everything they could to keep poor blacks down, their European counterparts were at work preparing to set the world on fire.
So far, I can’t say I’d be proud to be a member of a labor union.
“…we need to fundamentally restructure our economy and re-establish popular control over the private corporations which have distorted our economy and hijacked our government. That’s a long-term job, but one we should start now.
I Hate the Media points out the scary parallels to the ugly history of the past:
“Re-establish”? Wouldn’t that imply that there had once been popular control over private corporations?
Richard. Mr. Trumka. Sir. Pardon our impertinence, but we believe that what you’re talking about here is National Socialism.
As in Adolf Trumka.
Meanwhile, while AFL-CIO head Trumka was flirting with National Socialism, recently retired SEIU president Andy Stern was kissing up to socialism’s more famous sister, communism, saying:
“Workers of the world unite – it’s not just a slogan anymore. It’s the way we’re gonna have to do our work.”
On the orders of the United Mine Workers (UMW), 16,000 miners went on strike in 1993. One subcontractor, Eddie York (who was not a UMW member), decided it was important to support his wife and three children and crossed picket lines to get to his job. He was shot in the head as he left the job site to go home. UMW President Richard Trumka (now Secretary-Treasurer at the AFL-CIO) told The Washington Times that “if you strike a match and put your finger in, common sense tells you you’re going to burn your finger.” UMW strike captain Jerry Dale Lowe was found guilty of weapons charges and conspiracy in York’s death, and York’s widow Wanda sued the union for her husband’s wrongful death. The UMW fought the lawsuit for four years, but settled with Wanda York only two days after federal prosecutors announced that they would share evidence from the criminal trial with York’s attorneys.
As head of the United Mine Workers, Trumka ordered a nationwide strike against Peabody Coal in 1993. On July 22, a non-union worker, Eddie York, was shot in the back of the head and killed as he attempted to pass striking coal workers. Picketers continued to throw rocks after York was shot, preventing his would be rescuers from assisting him.[14]. Trumka and other United Mine Workers officials settled a wrongful death lawsuit with Mr. York’s widow out of court in 1997.
And it was following that vicious display of supremely ugly violence that Richard Trumka delivered his “he got just what he deserved” remark.
Labor groups will be invited to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to talk about an alarming shortfall in state employee pension plans that some believe could lead to a new government bailout.
Randy Johnson, the Chamber’s senior vice president for Labor, Immigration and Employee Benefits, told The Hill the total shortfall for state pension funds could run as high as $3 trillion.
And when the system can’t pay the unions, there will be blood. We’ll see the kind of violence and outright anarchy that has been gripping Europe in recent months. Only we’ve got a lot more guns in America.
Labor unions have destroyed every single industry they have ever been allowed to contaminate. From manufacturing (airline, auto, steel, textile, etc.) to teaching. And Superman aint coming, because labor unions are the strength-sapping, lethal Kryptonite.
Labor unions have represented genuine evil for more than a century. And if we don’t vote out the Democrats who use public money to keep their voter-turnout apparatus going in a sick game of political patronage, they will murder this country.
I have said it again and again: the quintessential defining essence of liberalism is hypocrisy.
And it’s not just in the big picture, in which ‘to be a liberal’ means ‘to be generous with other peoples’ money.’ It’s in everything they say and do, like that little bit of yeast which works its way through the whole batch of dough (Galatians 5:9).
Today we have AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka showing us what a particularly vile species of hypocrite liberal looks like:
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka will tell Alaskans on Thursday that there’s something “just not right” with their former governor, Sarah Palin, who he says is “getting close to calling for violence” in her rhetoric.
He’ll also predict that Palin will “go down in history like McCarthy,” referring to Wisconsin Republican Sen. Joseph McCarthy, whose unsubstantiated labeling of Americans as communists and communist sympathizers during the 1950s gave the world the word “McCarthyism.”
“Palinism will become an ugly word,” Trumka will say at a convention in Anchorage, according to prepared remarks. “Who is this woman, anyway? What happened to her?”
[snip]
“In this charged political environment, her kind of talk gets dangerous. ‘Don’t retreat … reload’ may seem clever, the kind of bull you hear all the time, but put it in context. She’s using crosshairs to illustrate targeted legislators. She’s on the wrong side of the line there. She’s getting close to calling for violence. And some of her fans take that stuff seriously. We’ve got legislators in America who have been living with death threats since the health care votes,” he will say.
For the record, “Trumkaism” has been an ugly word at least since 1993. You’ll soon know why, if you don’t already.
At least she didn’t call upon her followers to bring guns and gun down their opponents, like Barack Obama did, right?
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”
But enough about talking about Obama and his own hypocritical demagoguery. Let’s keep our focus on AFL-CIO President Trumka and his massive demagogic hypocrisy.
The following astonishing video posted on WorldNews.com tells the story of the union’s Bizarro-world nonviolence answer to Gandhi:
Do you mind if I call you “Dick,” Richard? Because you surely are one in every derogatory sense of the word.
On the orders of the United Mine Workers (UMW), 16,000 miners went on strike in 1993. One subcontractor, Eddie York (who was not a UMW member), decided it was important to support his wife and three children and crossed picket lines to get to his job. He was shot in the head as he left the job site to go home. UMW President Richard Trumka (now Secretary-Treasurer at the AFL-CIO) told The Washington Times that “if you strike a match and put your finger in, common sense tells you you’re going to burn your finger.” UMW strike captain Jerry Dale Lowe was found guilty of weapons charges and conspiracy in York’s death, and York’s widow Wanda sued the union for her husband’s wrongful death. The UMW fought the lawsuit for four years, but settled with Wanda York only two days after federal prosecutors announced that they would share evidence from the criminal trial with York’s attorneys.
As head of the United Mine Workers, Trumka ordered a nationwide strike against Peabody Coal in 1993. On July 22, a non-union worker, Eddie York, was shot in the back of the head and killed as he attempted to pass striking coal workers. Picketers continued to throw rocks after York was shot, preventing his would be rescuers from assisting him.[14]. Trumka and other United Mine Workers officials settled a wrongful death lawsuit with Mr. York’s widow out of court in 1997.
And it was following that vicious display of supreme ugly violence that Richard Trumka delivered his “he got just what he deserved” remark.
Which is to say, the man whose union thugs murdered a man, and then threw rocks at the rescue workers trying to save his life – the man who subsequently so callously said, “If you strike a match and put your finger in, common sense tells you you’re going to burn your finger” – THAT MAN IS DARING TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF SARAH PALIN INCITING VIOLENCE????
And this ugly, fat, loathsome pig of a man has the naked hypocrisy to claim that Sarah Palin is inciting violence? For using the word “reload” and for using what is now proven to have been surveyor symbols to pinpoint vulnerable Democrat districts? Really?
In promoting Richard Trumka, the AFL-CIO demonstrated that they are perfectly at home with violence. Not only “calling for it,” but actively causing it. And until they fire this fat rat bastard, they can kindly keep their obnoxious hypocrite mouths shut when it comes to taking the moral high ground on anything, let alone accusations of inciting violence.
Barack Obama was going to be different. He was going to be the Messiah who replaced God with Government, and would be anointed as the Savior of the world.
“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal… This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation …”
I mean, wow. It’s not like he didn’t promise the world, well, the world or anything.
Statements like that help you understand why liberals like Spike Lee went just a little bit beyond absolutely insane:
“It means that this is a whole new world. I think…I’ve been saying this before. You can divide history. BB Before Barack. AB After Barack.”
And why people like Nation of Islam racist demagogue Louis Farrakhan proclaimed Obama as The Messiah:
“You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”
But something happened to Captain Amazing after he actually took office: a fundamental inability to even begin to walk his talk.
We tend to forget about how he promised his stimulus would prevent unemployment from reaching 8% (it’s now 10.2% and rising), or how pathologically pathetic his administration has since been in fabricating statistics to show his $3.27 trillion porkulus has been anything other than an abject failure.
Obama can’t even pretend his useless policies work without spectacularly screwing up. As ABC puts it:
There’s one problem, though: There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona; the state has only eight districts. And ABC News has found many more entries for projects like this in places that are incorrectly identified.
It turned out that not only was he basically not able to do anything to create jobs, but he couldn’t even do nothing right. As Charles Krauthammer put it:
“When they speak seriously about this and how precise all of this is – 640,329 jobs saved – comical precision. And then it turns out a lot of these are fictional jobs in fictional districts, what happens is an administration that has already been satirized by Saturday Night Live as “do-nothing,” is now going to be seen as an administration that cannot even do nothing competently.”
Conservatives predicted his partisan stimulus slush fund would fail to deliver jobs. And now liberals are finally recognizing it too:
With unemployment among blacks at more than 15 percent, the N.A.A.C.P. will join several other groups on Tuesday to call on President Obama to do more to create jobs.
The organizations — including the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group— will make clear that they believe the president’s $787 billion stimulus program has not gone far enough to fight unemployment.
They will call for increased spending for schools and roads, billions of dollars in fiscal relief to state and local governments to forestall more layoffs and a direct government jobs program, “especially in distressed communities facing severe unemployment.”
Obama passed off a pretty clever (though blatantly fallacious) load of hooey onto an equally dishonest and ideological lamestream media when he ginned up the bogus “created or saved jobs” statistic. As Allan Meltzer, professor at Carnegie Mellon University put it, “One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called ‘jobs saved’.”
But since then, his self-justifying fabrications have been increasingly absurd and asinine.
To those brainwashed liberals who insist that the economy would have been worse if Obama hadn’t passed the stimulus, let me put it this way: the economy would have been worse if George W. Bush hadn’t done everything he did, too. I mean, one load of baloney deserves another.
Obama has watched the American death toll in Afghanistan double from George Bush’s last year in office. And his dithering over making the obvious decision to send the troops his own general requested has turned any momentum we may have been able to create into abject failure. Both friend and foe alike should question Obama’s commitment, along with his competence.
And now even the liberals in Europe are turning on Obama as a colossal fraud and impostor. As the German der Spiegel put it:
Barack Obama cast himself as a “citizen of the world” when he delivered his well-received campaign speech in Berlin in the summer of 2008. But the US president has now betrayed this claim. In his Berlin speech, he was dishonest with Europe. Since then, Obama has neglected the single most important issue for an American president who likes to imagine himself as a world citizen, namely, his country’s addiction to fossil fuels and the risks of unchecked climate change. Health-care reform and other domestic issues were more important to him than global environmental threats. He was either unwilling or unable to convince skeptics in his own ranks and potential defectors from the ranks of the Republicans to support him, for example, by promising alternative investments as a compensation for states with large coal reserves.
Personally I cannot for the life of me understand why Obama’s plan –
“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
– failed. I mean,who wouldn’t want shockingly high energy prices?Who doesn’t want to freeze in the dark?
Sorry, Barry Hussein. If you want to live up to your promise to lower the oceans and heal the planet, I guess you’ll just have to start doing a lot more shutting the hell up and saving the planet from all your useless hot air. Because other than that, you did squat.
House Democratic leaders, worried they’ve appeared unresponsive to rising unemployment because they were absorbed by healthcare, are aiming for a legislation solution by Christmas.
That focus follows a similar shift in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told colleagues he also plans to bring up a jobs measure, The Hill reported first last week.
The House change began Monday night when leaders scheduled AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and Robert Kuttner, co-editor of The American Prospect, to address the House Democratic Caucus.
And it could end with an economic package on the floor sometime in December, Democratic sources said.
But some leadership aides cautioned that leaders are still debating whether to do one large package or a series of smaller bills.
And they say the Obama administration has yet to get on board.
One way or another, aides say, House Democrats’ message from now to Christmas will be about jobs.
“We continue to look for opportunities to build on the recovery package and other actions Congress has taken to bolster the economy,” said Nadeam Elshami, spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Leaders want members to have something to take home with them to show that they’re working on the economy. But they have to balance that against growing discomfort among voters about skyrocketing government spending.
It’s not that Democrats give a damn about jobs; they just want to make sure like they LOOK like they give a damn about jobs.
To get as far as the bill did so far, it appears the administration might have spread some money around. California Rep. Jim Costa was wavering but told a local newspaper last week that his vote could be contingent on getting some federal money for a new medical school in his district along with help for local hospitals.
When a constituent named Bob Smittcamp e-mailed him to complain about his vote for the House bill, the congressman explained he’d been offered the dollars he was looking for — $128 million in federal money.
“He responded to me by basically saying that he did not like many of the elements there were in the legislation. However, he was able to procure $128m for the University of California medical school in Merced,” Smittcamp told Fox News.
And all the Democrats can say is “full steam ahead!”
A few things come out of this “Pelosi switches to jobs” article:
1) The Democrats are literally afraid that the American people will recognize the truth and get angry about it.
2) Democrats have absolutely no clue how to create jobs. And Obama has even less of a clue than the other Democrats.
3) The Democrats are turning their “job creation” over to the unions.
And it’s number three that frankly pisses me off the most.
It’s amazing that the SEIU only has 2.2 million members, but more influence than anyoneelse bar none in the Obama administration. SEIU president Andy Stern – basically a confirmed Marxist – has had more visits to the White House (22 so far) than ANYONE.
The words of Barack Hussein Obama, as presidential candidate:
“Your agenda has been my agenda in the United States Senate. Before debating health care, I talked to Andy Stern and SEIU members. Before immigration debates took place in Washington, I talked with Eliseo Medina and SEIU members. Before the EFCA, I talked to SEIU. So, we’ve worked together over these last few years and I am proud of what we’ve done. I’m just not satisfied.”
“We’re trying to use the power of persuasion. And if that doesn’t work, we’re going to use the persuasion of power”
And Obama’s union thugs are all about using “the persuasion of power.”
Glenn Beck pointed out that he had a solid 3 million viewers. And he wondered how the American people would act if HE had had more visits than anyone else to the Bush White House, and got to write the stimulus and the “job creation” legislation.
The AFL-CIO has about 11.5 million members, based on their own information. With a total of 15.4 million union members in the United States. Rush Limbaugh has 14.2 to 25 million listeners, according to the Washington Post. And I wonder how liberals would react if Rush Limbaugh had more visits to the White House than anyone, and got to write the laws that will run the nation.
So you start to see just how blatantly partisan and ideological the Democrat Party truly is. The union agenda is just as hostile to what Republicans want for the nation as Glenn Beck’s or Rush Limbaugh’s agenda is to what Democrats want for the nation.
We’re not just talking about partisanship; we’re talking about HYPER–HYPER-partisanship.
In pursuit of an Eagle Scout badge, Kevin Anderson, 17, has toiled for more than 200 hours hours over several weeks to clear a walking path in an east Allentown park.
Little did the do-gooder know that his altruistic act would put him in the cross hairs of the city’s largest municipal union.
Nick Balzano, president of the local Service Employees International Union, told Allentown City Council Tuesday that the union is considering filing a grievance against the city for allowing Anderson to clear a 1,000-foot walking and biking path at Kimmets Lock Park.
“We’ll be looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails,” Balzano told the council.
These unions don’t give a damn about you. They don’t give a damn about your family. They don’t give a damn about your community. They don’t give a damn about altruism or volunteerism or doing right. And they would burn a Boy Scout’s house down if they thought it would serve their greedy partisan interests.
And the Democrats don’t give a damn about you, either. Frankly, the Democrats aren’t much different from their number one special interest group. Democrats are now rushing to cover their hindquarters because they ignored the economy while they were focused on trying to TAKE OVER the economy via their health care agenda.
At the core of representative democracy is the idea of the secret ballot: when you go into the booth to vote, you vote YOUR values and YOUR will; not the values and will of someone who is out to intimidate you into voting any other way.
But Democrats and unions think that kind of individual freedom is dangerous and unfair: better that everyone be forced to vote openly and publicly, so that their version of the fascist blackshirts can pay a visit to their home and “persuade” them to vote their way.
‘Card Check’ in Action
Matt Milner works as a “tracker” for the Colorado Republican Party: He follows Sen. Michael Bennet, a newly appointed Democrat, around and videotapes his public appearances. The Denver Post reports what happened when he went to an AFL-CIO meeting where Bennet was speaking Saturday:
Milner, with his tripod and video camera, garnered the attention of event organizers just as Bennet bid his adieu to hundreds of audience members, some of whom had grown passionate over politically tricky labor issues, such as the Employee Free Choice Act. . . .
The 5-foot-6-inch Milner found himself surrounded as the event wound down, he said.
“This hulking guy comes flying at me, and he’s yelling ‘Who are you with?’ There’s a flurry of F-words,” Milner said. “They circled around me. I’d try to move, and they’d move to block my path.”
[Mike] Cerbo [executive director of the Colorado AFL-CIO], one of the five men who spoke to Milner after Bennet’s speech, disputed that version of events Sunday. He said the young interloper was aggressive and tried to provoke a confrontation, though he declined to say how.
“He came in uninvited. . . . I’d call him a trespasser,” Cerbo said. “He didn’t get the incident he wanted, so he’s clearly lying about what happened.”
Milner says the men demanded that he erase his recording, and one of them took his camera, while Cerbo claims, in the Post’s words, that he “offered to erase his tape because he hadn’t been invited to the event.” No one disputes that Milner was outnumbered, or that it was he who called 911.
If this is what happens to a man at a public event, what do you expect a woman to do when these guys show up at her house with a card to sign?
A working mom was repeatedly intimidated by union organizers. They approached her going to work, leaving work, at breaks, at lunches, saying, “You’ve got to sign this card. We’ve got to have your information.” Telling them “NO” meant nothing to them. They came to her house. They waited outside. She had two small children in the house. She said, “We have a secure vote to elect the president; why can’t we have one when it comes to our paycheck and our home and everything else?” She also said, “If this is my livelihood we should be able to have a choice – and card check isn’t a choice.”
The same intimidation happened to workers at Dana Corp. in Albion, Indiana when UAW organizers came to harass and intimidate them.
‘Card Check’ is flagrantly undemocratic and unAmerican – and so are the liberals who are trying to push it onto working people.
You might find the following unrelated. I personally believe it is just another example of the same sort of ‘Card Check”-like crap that the left is trying to shove down our throats in the name of warped and redefined “fairness” and “tolerance.”
This kind of ruthless assault on people’s private beliefs being “outed” – and attacked if it doesn’t measure up to the left’s agenda – goes on all the time.
The campaign against Miss California Carrie Prejean is an example of this liberal pressure by intimidation. Similar to what liberals want to do through Card Check, Carrie Prejean was forced to answer a question by a liberal that she clearly would never have wanted to publicly answer while running for the crown in a beauty pageant. For a liberal, Perez Hilton’s question was a chance to shine with the politically correct answer that beauty pageants thrive upon; for a conservative, it amounted to being forced to answer the McCarthyesque question, “Are you now, or have you ever been, a Christian?”
Prejean gave her honest answer. And you would have thought she had said she liked eating babies (when we all know it’s liberals who favor baby meat). And thus the left pounced, following the lead of the homosexual activist who forced this issue by demanding Prejean answer his question (only to call her “a stupid bitch” because he didn’t like her answer).
Media Matters called Prejean “dishonest” because she said, “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.” On their view, every state that doesn’t allow homosexual marriage doesn’t allow their citizens to choose. But in fact, THEY are the ones who are throwing out falsehoods: Carrie Prejean – as Miss California – represents a state where citizens CHOSE to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Miss California Carrie Prejean, who became the bombshell of the Miss USA pageant by saying gay couples should not be allowed to marry, said her state sponsors urged her to apologies afterward but she rejected the advice.
Ms Prejean, 21, said officials from the Miss California USA pageant were worried that her comments would cost their contest financial backing and tried to prepare her for a string of post-pageant media interviews by discouraging her from discussing her religious beliefs.
“You need to apologize to the gay community. You need to not talk about your faith. This has everything to do with you representing California and saving the brand,” Ms Prejean recalled being told.
Prejean has since had her private medical records exposed and “outed” for having had breast implant surgery. There was nothing improper with this; pageant officials actually paid for the procedure. It was nothing more than harassment.
OLBERMANN: There it is here, Miss California is opposed to same-sex marriage, which is at least marriage between two human beings, but she has fully endorsed now marriage between a man and a woman who is partially made out of plastic.
MUSTO: Well, she’s dumb and twisted. She’s sort of like a human Klaus Barbie Doll. I mean, you tell Perez Hilton you’re against gay marriage? That’s like telling Simon Cowell you’re against screeching a show tune. This is the kind of girl who sits on the TV and watches the sofa. You know, she thinks innuendo is a Italian suppository.
Can I keep going? On the pageants now, they really should have easier questions, like what’s your middle name or what show was Seinfeld on. I mean, this girl’s a ding-dong. I didn’t even like her earrings.
OLBERMANN: The cruelest cut of all. The outcomes here, too. Perez Hilton looks like an intellectual titan and some sort of civil rights leader. And the new poster girl against same-sex marriage is not just a boob, but a fake boob. This is a real win for this cause, is it not?
MUSTO: Well, Perez is the new me, let’s leave him alone. And using the C word is something I wouldn’t do. But yes, Carrie Prejean, however you say it, she’s getting something off her chest. But what she really needs to get off is the price tag there.
The “girl” was dumb and a ding-dong, Michael Musto explained, as he struggled with her last name. (Olbermann fake-mispronounced her name too, right at the start of the segment. He added the fact that the girl is a boob.) Did we mention that Prejean’s position on the issue at hand resembles that of almost all major Dems? Resembles that of President Obama, to cite just one example?
At any rate, the boys went on and on—and on—with their clever boob jokes. Musto proved he was a progressive when he announced that he wouldn’t call Prejean a “c*nt” (or even a “b*tch,” one might assume), as Perez Hilton has done. Because the gentlemen were so clever, we offer you more of their minstrelsy:
OLBERMANN: Now, the moral in this is what? Never cross a beauty pageant official who knows you’ve had implants?
MUSTO: Yes, exactly, that’s it. This has escalated to a public shaving. I mean, and what Moakler has left out, Keith, is they also paid for Carrie to cut off her penis, and sand her Adam’s Apple and get a head-to-toe waxing. I know for a fact that Carrie Prejean was Harry Prejean, a homophobic man, who liked marriage so much he did it three times. Now he’s a babe who needs a brain implant. Maybe they could inject some fat from her butt. Oh, they have?
How could Keith Olbermann or Musto have been more vicious or more vile? If this isn’t the kind of propaganda attack that would have made Nazi Joseph Goebbels proud, I don’t know what is. They certainly have been doing everything they could to dehumanize her and make her an object of mockery and hate.
One might ask where the feminists were to defend this strong, independent, successful woman who is being so attacked just for having the courage to stand up for her convictions. But feminist Gloria Feldt actually used the same reasoning in attacking Carrie Prejean as a fake person with breast implants when she came on the O’Reilly Factor.
Even as activists who could care less about the intent of the voters immediately went to work nullifying the will of Californians so they could impose their own will.
They immediately flooded the courts so that a few judges could throw out the will of Californians. It’s not about the will of the people. Liberals don’t give a damn about the will of the people. All they care about is power, and their ability to impose their will upon the people by any means necessary.
The left loves to call conservatives “fascists,” and have been shouting the label for years. It is time they look at the mirror and recognize that THEY are the fascists, and always have been.
Fascism comes from the left, being a form of socialism. “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei,” which means, “National Socialist German Workers’ Party.” If we had a “National SocialistAmericanWorkers’ Party,” would it be filled with conservatives or liberals? The Nazi Party’s platform and its underlying philosophy were decidedly leftwing.
And the point is that the big labor “workers’ parties” in America are every bit as fascist as the German “workers’ party” that gave fascism such a horrible reputation in the first place.
And homosexuals themselves – who ultimately ended up being persecuted by the Nazis – were themselves instrumental in bringing about Nazi power. It was they who filled the ranks of Ernst Roehm’s SA (also known as the stormtroopers or the Brownshirts) and brought Hitler to power. The fact that Hitler later turned on them does nothing to mitigate that role.
The same players, playing the same fascist games, yesterday and today. The left constantly scream and whine about being victimized, when THEY are the victimizers. THEY are the attackers. THEY are the sick, twisted freaks who continually harass and intimidate the innocent and the helpless to impose their will upon society whether that society be the majority or not.
Liberals and Democrats have become fascists. If they don’t like being called “fascists,” they should quit acting like fascists and let people express their consciences in their opinions and their votes.
![[1unions]](https://i0.wp.com/sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AK923_1union_NS_20100202181620.gif)
Start Thinking Right 