America against the Unions

Opinion at large

The Wisconsin standoff has lasted two weeks. The sissy Wisconsin State democrats exiled to the People's republic of Illinois to hide in shame. We can call Wisconsin ground zero, however, this issue has spread like wild fire throughout the country. What is the real issue? Is it collective bargaining (right of entitlements)? Or is it simply the state governments just trying to break the unions? First, I think you would admit that government union employee entitlement programs are seriously costing the states and municipalities a huge portion of their overall revenue. My, what a wicked web we weave. The union member pays union dues to the union, the union contributes huge money to the democrat politician running for office, gets the democrat elected, then bargains these cushy entitlement deals for the unions. If this was private sector, I'm sure laws would be broken. Notice how the democrats who should be concerned with the pathetic state of our nation's economy, comments on the poor unions and the brutal assault on the working middle class workers and their families. What about the millions of Americans that work their butts off to put 5 to 10% of their incomes in a 401K and pay hundreds of dollars towards their healthcare expenses? Should those people also pay 95% to 100% of the government union members pensions and healthcare debt service through higher taxes? NO, they should not. The teachers unions are the most temperamental, because they teach our kids. I am so happy my Son is grown and I don't have to deal with him being indoctrinated into the progressives' army. Wisconsin, in example, eighth graders cannot read proficiently. Wisconsin hardly can fire a teacher, seniority rules, even for bad teachers and so on. This has to stop. This can bankrupt the states and ultimately, the country. I written in previous posts, I believe we need to get rid of the Department of Education. Education needs to be ran from the state level. Union heads like Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO, portrays what Governor Walker State plans is an attack on all unions. To the contrary, this couldn't be farther from the truth. Wisconsin's plan would strengthen private unions.  


Socialist and Unions-two peas in a pod:



Listen to his words:



In 41 states, public union members make more than their private sector counterparts. I guess it is all about "workers unite"? Some of the media is drawing comparisons between unions and socialist/communist groups. I can say first hand, at the Tea party rallies, you would never see a socialist or communist party attendance in any form, unless they were protesting us, the Tea Partiers. Not to mention, the liberal union members are getting violent as the days pass by. Mike Tobin, Fox reporter, was assaulted by a union protester, they really don't want any other opinion except their own. So much for first amendment rights and freedom of the press. 


Union thugs and the police does nothing:





Will the American people and the union liberals end up in riots? It sure seems that is a possibility. If the Wisconsin issue continues and the union thugs get more inpatient, and you have the American taxpayer tired of being taxed for the wrong reasons. I promise you, we will not back down. It could turn out to be a deja vu' of the 1968 riots. I have never been a fan of unions and my Father was a union democrat all his life. Yes, it was very interesting in my family's house at dinner. In closing, I hope Wisconsin stays the course and wins this battle to save their state. Maybe then, the other fragile states will follow suit. 


Pathetic funnies:

Dramatizing Governor Walker’s Point February 28, 2011 1:10 P.M. By Christian Schneider If you were watching the Oscars in Wisconsin last night, chances are you were treated to anew anti-Scott Walker ad by a group calling itself “America’s Families First.” The ad, entitled “Prank Call,” begins, “What kind of governor would refuse to meet with nurses, teachers, and firefighters, but takes a 20-minute call from an oil billionaire?” Based on their website, it’s hard to figure out exactly who America’s Families First is, but any betting person would conclude that it’s union money attempting to dissuade voters from supporting Walker’s attempts to roll back collective bargaining in Wisconsin. (The AFL-CIO also began running anti-Walker ads a few days ago.) If so, then it follows a long line of innocuously named groups in Wisconsin suspected of being funded by organized labor (Independent Citizens for Democracy, Building Wisconsin’s Future, the Greater Wisconsin Committee, etc.). But this ad makes one of Scott Walker’s strongest points for him. The public-sector unions have successfully shifted the conversation in Wisconsin to collective bargaining — they claim it’s not about the money, having conceded Walker’s financial demands. Yet they are using the sacrosanct concept of “collective bargaining” as a carapace to protect what they truly value: union dues. Public-sector unions use these compulsory dues to run ads like this one. WEAC, the state’s largest teachers’ union, reports spending $3.6 million on such ads in the past two election cycles. Walker’s plan allows union members to discontinue paying these dues. When Gov. Mitch Daniels gave them the option in 2005, 95 percent of Indiana’s public-sector workers chose to halt paying their dues. If such a thing were to happen in Wisconsin, it would harm the attempts of public-sector unions to elect sympathetic lawmakers (who then do things like fleeing to other states to protect the unions’ revenue stream). The next time Walker speaks to public-sector-union members, he should pull out a copy of the “Prank Call” ad. He should ask the workers whether they’d rather pay for political ads or keep that money in their pockets. Somehow, I don’t think union leadership would like the answer. — Christian Schneider is a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. 3 things about Islam: CHURCHILL ON ISLAM    (check Wikipedia - The River War)   I am sending the attached short speech from Winston Churchill, delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many but expressed in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language, of which he was a past master. Sir Winston Churchill was, without doubt, one of the greatest men of the late 19th and 20th centuries. He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time. He died on 24 January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, and was accorded a State funeral.   HERE IS THE SPEECH:   "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.  No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."   Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 London ) Is this why Obama returned the bust of Winston Churchill?  Quote du jour: "Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master." Dwight D. Eisenhower WRITINGS OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS FEDERALIST PAPERS || Federalist No. 77 || The Appointing Power Continued and Other Powers of the Executive Considered From the New York Packet. Friday, April 4, 1788. Author: Alexander Hamilton To the People of the State of New York: IT HAS been mentioned as one of the advantages to be expected from the co-operation of the Senate, in the business of appointments, that it would contribute to the stability of the administration. The consent of that body would be necessary to displace as well as to appoint. A change of the Chief Magistrate, therefore, would not occasion so violent or so general a revolution in the officers of the government as might be expected, if he were the sole disposer of offices. Where a man in any station had given satisfactory evidence of his fitness for it, a new President would be restrained from attempting a change in favor of a person more agreeable to him, by the apprehension that a discountenance of the Senate might frustrate the attempt, and bring some degree of discredit upon himself. Those who can best estimate the value of a steady administration, will be most disposed to prize a provision which connects the official existence of public men with the approbation or disapprobation of that body which, from the greater permanency of its own composition, will in all probability be less subject to inconstancy than any other member of the government. To this union of the Senate with the President, in the article of appointments, it has in some cases been suggested that it would serve to give the President an undue influence over the Senate, and in others that it would have an opposite tendency, a strong proof that neither suggestion is true. To state the first in its proper form, is to refute it. It amounts to this: the President would have an improper INFLUENCE OVER the Senate, because the Senate would have the power of RESTRAINING him. This is an absurdity in terms. It cannot admit of a doubt that the entire power of appointment would enable him much more effectually to establish a dangerous empire over that body, than a mere power of nomination subject to their control. Let us take a view of the converse of the proposition: "the Senate would influence the Executive." As I have had occasion to remark in several other instances, the indistinctness of the objection forbids a precise answer. In what manner is this influence to be exerted? In relation to what objects? The power of influencing a person, in the sense in which it is here used, must imply a power of conferring a benefit upon him. How could the Senate confer a benefit upon the President by the manner of employing their right of negative upon his nominations? If it be said they might sometimes gratify him by an acquiescence in a favorite choice, when public motives might dictate a different conduct, I answer, that the instances in which the President could be personally interested in the result, would be too few to admit of his being materially affected by the compliances of the Senate. The POWER which can ORIGINATE the disposition of honors and emoluments, is more likely to attract than to be attracted by the POWER which can merely obstruct their course. If by influencing the President be meant RESTRAINING him, this is precisely what must have been intended. And it has been shown that the restraint would be salutary, at the same time that it would not be such as to destroy a single advantage to be looked for from the uncontrolled agency of that Magistrate. The right of nomination would produce all the good of that of appointment, and would in a great measure avoid its evils. Upon a comparison of the plan for the appointment of the officers of the proposed government with that which is established by the constitution of this State, a decided preference must be given to the former. In that plan the power of nomination is unequivocally vested in the Executive. And as there would be a necessity for submitting each nomination to the judgment of an entire branch of the legislature, the circumstances attending an appointment, from the mode of conducting it, would naturally become matters of notoriety; and the public would be at no loss to determine what part had been performed by the different actors. The blame of a bad nomination would fall upon the President singly and absolutely. The censure of rejecting a good one would lie entirely at the door of the Senate; aggravated by the consideration of their having counteracted the good intentions of the Executive. If an ill appointment should be made, the Executive for nominating, and the Senate for approving, would participate, though in different degrees, in the opprobrium and disgrace. The reverse of all this characterizes the manner of appointment in this State. The council of appointment consists of from three to five persons, of whom the governor is always one. This small body, shut up in a private apartment, impenetrable to the public eye, proceed to the execution of the trust committed to them. It is known that the governor claims the right of nomination, upon the strength of some ambiguous expressions in the constitution; but it is not known to what extent, or in what manner he exercises it; nor upon what occasions he is contradicted or opposed. The censure of a bad appointment, on account of the uncertainty of its author, and for want of a determinate object, has neither poignancy nor duration. And while an unbounded field for cabal and intrigue lies open, all idea of responsibility is lost. The most that the public can know, is that the governor claims the right of nomination; that TWO out of the inconsiderable number of FOUR men can too often be managed without much difficulty; that if some of the members of a particular council should happen to be of an uncomplying character, it is frequently not impossible to get rid of their opposition by regulating the times of meeting in such a manner as to render their attendance inconvenient; and that from whatever cause it may proceed, a great number of very improper appointments are from time to time made. Whether a governor of this State avails himself of the ascendant he must necessarily have, in this delicate and important part of the administration, to prefer to offices men who are best qualified for them, or whether he prostitutes that advantage to the advancement of persons whose chief merit is their implicit devotion to his will, and to the support of a despicable and dangerous system of personal influence, are questions which, unfortunately for the community, can only be the subjects of speculation and conjecture. Every mere council of appointment, however constituted, will be a conclave, in which cabal and intrigue will have their full scope. Their number, without an unwarrantable increase of expense, cannot be large enough to preclude a facility of combination. And as each member will have his friends and connections to provide for, the desire of mutual gratification will beget a scandalous bartering of votes and bargaining for places. The private attachments of one man might easily be satisfied; but to satisfy the private attachments of a dozen, or of twenty men, would occasion a monopoly of all the principal employments of the government in a few families, and would lead more directly to an aristocracy or an oligarchy than any measure that could be contrived. If, to avoid an accumulation of offices, there was to be a frequent change in the persons who were to compose the council, this would involve the mischiefs of a mutable administration in their full extent. Such a council would also be more liable to executive influence than the Senate, because they would be fewer in number, and would act less immediately under the public inspection. Such a council, in fine, as a substitute for the plan of the convention, would be productive of an increase of expense, a multiplication of the evils which spring from favoritism and intrigue in the distribution of public honors, a decrease of stability in the administration of the government, and a diminution of the security against an undue influence of the Executive. And yet such a council has been warmly contended for as an essential amendment in the proposed Constitution. I could not with propriety conclude my observations on the subject of appointments without taking notice of a scheme for which there have appeared some, though but few advocates; I mean that of uniting the House of Representatives in the power of making them. I shall, however, do little more than mention it, as I cannot imagine that it is likely to gain the countenance of any considerable part of the community. A body so fluctuating and at the same time so numerous, can never be deemed proper for the exercise of that power. Its unfitness will appear manifest to all, when it is recollected that in half a century it may consist of three or four hundred persons. All the advantages of the stability, both of the Executive and of the Senate, would be defeated by this union, and infinite delays and embarrassments would be occasioned. The example of most of the States in their local constitutions encourages us to reprobate the idea. The only remaining powers of the Executive are comprehended in giving information to Congress of the state of the Union; in recommending to their consideration such measures as he shall judge expedient; in convening them, or either branch, upon extraordinary occasions; in adjourning them when they cannot themselves agree upon the time of adjournment; in receiving ambassadors and other public ministers; in faithfully executing the laws; and in commissioning all the officers of the United States. Except some cavils about the power of convening EITHER house of the legislature, and that of receiving ambassadors, no objection has been made to this class of authorities; nor could they possibly admit of any. It required, indeed, an insatiable avidity for censure to invent exceptions to the parts which have been excepted to. In regard to the power of convening either house of the legislature, I shall barely remark, that in respect to the Senate at least, we can readily discover a good reason for it. AS this body has a concurrent power with the Executive in the article of treaties, it might often be necessary to call it together with a view to this object, when it would be unnecessary and improper to convene the House of Representatives. As to the reception of ambassadors, what I have said in a former paper will furnish a sufficient answer. We have now completed a survey of the structure and powers of the executive department, which, I have endeavored to show, combines, as far as republican principles will admit, all the requisites to energy. The remaining inquiry is: Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility? The answer to this question has been anticipated in the investigation of its other characteristics, and is satisfactorily deducible from these circumstances; from the election of the President once in four years by persons immediately chosen by the people for that purpose; and from his being at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office, incapacity to serve in any other, and to forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution in the common course of law. But these precautions, great as they are, are not the only ones which the plan of the convention has provided in favor of the public security. In the only instances in which the abuse of the executive authority was materially to be feared, the Chief Magistrate of the United States would, by that plan, be subjected to the control of a branch of the legislative body. What more could be desired by an enlightened and reasonable people? PUBLIUS. References: www.hotair.com www.theblaze.com www.dailycaller.com www.nro.com www.americanthinker.com www.thehill.com www.michellemalkin.com www.drudgereport.com www.politico.com Library of Congress/Federalist Papers Founding Fathers Quotes Christian Scheider www.youtube.com White Roses