I am sometimes concerned about my basic feelings about unions. There are many ways in which union protection is good…maybe even great. Take in point the action by NYC police officers toward the leftist mayor, Bill de Blasio, when he walked through the hospital where the two executed police officers were taken. As the liberal mayor walked by the police all turned their backs on him in a show of disrespect as they fee that he does not have their backs.Â Without union protection these officers would surely be hunted down and punished.Â Hell hath no fury like a liberal scorned.
Yesterday’s mail included this littel gem from the Ameriacn Federation of State and Municipal Employees (“AFSME”).Â I am not a member…please, but am FORCED to pay my “fair share” to the organization.Â I have to pay them one percent of my salary even though they DO NOT REPRESENT my views.Â My money pays for this crap!Â I know that they’ll argue that my money only goes to pay them to negotiate on my behalf…a function that I did not request.Â The idiots forget that money is fungible and any money that I am FORCED to pay to an organization who supports views opposite of mine is criminal or it should be.Â Actually they know that money is fungible…they are relying on the fact that public education has so eroded people’s understanding of economics that YOU won’t know.Â They know!
Yet again an Associated Press story is the muse fo a Parsimony post.Â Â I donâ€™t seek out AP stories, but it often seems like their reporting often shows the bias of the mainstream media.
First the headline (with a link to the original story)â€¦
â€¦Now the story
INDIANAPOLIS – After losing their fight against right-to-work legislation, labor organizers are making a desperate bid on shop room floors and at union halls to persuade members to keep paying their union dues and avoid crippling labor’s influence in Indiana [and all across the country although that has been the trend for more than a decade with decreasing membership in the private sector].
“Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt contended that the president has not broken his promise on [taking money from] lobbyists, saying in a statement that the Times analysis â€œmisses the forest for the trees.â€
The accusation has to be particularly hurtful to Obama since it came from their long-time pubic relations firm, The New York Times.Â If you factor in “liberal-speak” there is aÂ missing word in the quote from Obama’s spokesman and that would be the wordÂ “directly.”Â Once the money is bundled and rebundled and given by lobbyists, but from their personal accounts it’s all mixed up.Â Who could follow it.Â You would have to be as naive as a mass media journalist to believe that lobbying money doesn’t make its way into Obama’s coffers.Â
I’d like to suggest that the Obama Administration be renamed the OBA Administration or the Obama Back-Assward Administration.Â When most of us have a problem we try to find and fix using logic.Â For instance, my car was having some trouble starting so I had the battery and alternator checked.Â If I were to act like the Obama Back-Assward Administration, I would probably have my key checked.Â It would be funny except that these folks are “running” the country or should I say “ruining” the country…
One of the typical accusations about labor union leaders is that they no longer really represent their members and pursue their own agendas…agendas that most of their members do not support even to the extreme of advocating a socialist or even communist viewpoint regarding collective bargaining.Â There can be no denying that labor unions spend hundreds of millions of dollars collected from members to support Democrat candidates that push for stronger union control of labor markets.Â When union members voluntarily give their pay to union bosses that is free choice.Â However when workers, like myself, are force to pay a “fair share” to unions to which we do not wish to belong that should be illegal.Â My earnings are taken from my pay, given to unions, and often given to the very politicians who forced me to pay the unions.Â They didn’t make me join, but they take a percentage of my pay without my approval.Â
I am going to allege something that may shock you.Â I have observed a national politician who may change his message based on the audience to which he is speaking.Â Some, including me, would call this type of behavior two-faced.Â If you read the title you probably have a guess to whom I am speaking…our President Obama.Â PoliticiansÂ have always done this and pretty much gotten away with it, but Mr. Obama has perhaps taken the “skill” to a new level and is in many cases “three-faced.”Â Building on his most favored status in the lame-stream media and his Pied Piper-like hypnosis over his minions he seems unabashed and does not even attempt to hide this form of politics.Â I guess if it keeps working he’ll keep doing it.
As a rational man it is hard to watch what has been going on in the Democrat Party without feeling pity for their plight. Donâ€™t get me wrong I really hope their woes continue for the next several decades even though they need to win once in a while to keep the Republicans-In-Name-Only (â€œRINOâ€) in their place. But their recent level of disdain for the founding principles of our country is outrageous. Michelle Malkin wrote a great article on the hide-and-seek Democrats and offered this quote;
As we limp through this arduous winter toward spring I look forward to warmer weather and sunshine. Something about shining light on stuff has a healing affect. Perhaps that is why laws requiring that government meetings and hearings are open to the public are referred to as â€œsunshineâ€ laws. A common rule-of-thumb about personal behavior used to be for you to consider whether you would want your mother to read about your actions in the local paper. Today I guess it would translate on whether she would learn about your activities on FaceBook.
It’s been a whole day since I updated the Union Liberal Alter, but the events in Wisconsin scream for comment.Â First off a little recent history.Â In 2008/2009 we were repeatedly told that “elections have consequences” and that Democrats won and they could rule as they pleased.Â It turns out that the electorate was not very pleased and in 2010 we had more of those election consequences only this time the Republicans swept.Â The Republican sweep in the U.S. House was the primary focus of most news reports, but perhaps more importantly was the Republican sweep in the states.Â The Republicans now have 29 governorships and have “more seats in the state legislatures than they have had since 1928” and they are itching for real change.