It seems like the liberals politicians will use any reason to turn the argument around towards an anti second amendment push. A rational person cannot think that more gun control laws will have anything to do with safety either from terrorists or criminals, as he only people obeying laws are NOT the terrorists or criminals. And don't forget, Mayor Bloomberg is the same elitest, socialist snob who thinks he knows better than anyone else.
The following is an Legislative Alert from the National Rifle Association.
According to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the recent terror bombings in Boston require a new interpretation of the Constitution to give the government greater power to protect
"The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry," Bloomberg said during a recent press conference. "But we live in a complex world where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."
According to a Breitbart.com article, the anti-gun Bloomberg claims that recent attacks on the Second Amendment have left him confident that such re-interpretation is possible.
"The Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws," Bloomberg said. He employs the tactic of incrementally "lowering the bar" by suggesting that Americans should be willing to give up a degree of freedom in exchange for a degree of security.
"It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks," he said. "We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can't do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection."
Bloomberg would do well to remember what Benjamin Franklin had to say on the subject back in 1775: "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Cowboys and the Tea Party political movement have a lot on common. Both believe in individual responsibility; judging a man by his actions not words; and, both are disgusted with government intrusions into our lives and particularly our God given rights.
Showing posts with label liberal politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberal politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Pelosi: Oh No! The Government May Start to Disappear If We Make Any Cuts
When I hear that there will be “very little” of the “public space” of the government left, my first reaction is to smile and fist bump the closest person to me. After all, the private sector is the productive sector.
In the video above, click on the link, and you can see Pelosi, when asked about Boehner’s stance that any increase in the debt ceiling should be matched dollar for dollar with spending cuts, she said (via CNSNews.com):
“Yes, that’s what the Speaker says, and that is certainly in keeping with the anti-government ideologues that are in his caucus,” Pelosi said. “If you keep cutting investments in the future that way in order to do something that should be pro forma here to pass the debt limit, this shouldn’t even be this kind of a debate.”
“I mean, you can have the debate, but there shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s mind as to what the outcome is about the full faith and credit of the United States of America,” she said.
“If you keep saying ‘dollar for dollar,’ you will have very little in terms of the public space,” Pelosi said.
Believe it or not, it is [somehow] understandable from where the Democrats are coming, but there just must be a better solution than what they are offering. There is soooooo much waste in government spending it is unbelievable; Kyle Becker has reported on the DHS buying 1.6 billion bullets just because it was a good deal and also on a federal grant to study duck penises, and I have written about the Senate barbershop costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars each year while the National Science Foundation is spending over $1 million studying the impact of playing video games on seniors’ brains.
So Mrs. Pelosi, it’s fairly hard to believe that there aren’t cuts to be made in our government, and if we have to get rid of a few pointless government expenditures, I think we will be okay. If they do it smartly, they can even do it without just slinging pink slips to government employees. However, it will take both sides sitting down to look through all of the government spending to find the waste – it’s not any different than what an efficient business would have to do to save money.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Constitution Skirting Obama Executive Orders
Constitution Skirting Obama Executive Orders is the title of an article by Calvin Woodward and Richard Lardner of the Associated Press. This is what "Forward" looks like. Fast forward, even. President Barack Obama's campaign slogan is springing to life in a surge of executive directives and agency rule-making that touch many of the affairs of government. They are shaping the cost and quality of health plans, the contents of the school cafeteria, the front lines of future combat, the price of coal. They are the leading edge of Obama's ambition to take on climate change in ways that may be unachievable in legislation.
Altogether, it's a kinetic switch from what could have been the watchword of the Obama administration in the closing, politically hypersensitive months of his first term: pause.
Whatever the merits of any particular commandment from the president or his agencies, the perception of a government expanding its reach and hitting business with job-killing mandates was sure to set off fireworks before November.
Since Obama's re-election, regulations giving force and detail to his health care law have gushed out by the hundreds of pages. To some extent this was inevitable: The law is far-reaching and its most consequential deadlines are fast approaching.
The rules are much more than fine print, however, and they would have thickened the storm over the health care overhaul if placed on the radar in last year's presidential campaign. That, after all, was the season when some Republicans put the over-the-top label "death panel" on a board that could force cuts to service providers if Medicare spending ballooned.
The new health law rules provide leeway for insurers to charge smokers thousands of dollars more for coverage. They impose a $63 per-head fee on insurance plans — a charge that probably will be passed on to policyholders — to cushion the cost of covering people with medical problems. There's a new fee for insurance companies for participating in markets that start signing customers in the fall.
In short, sticker shock.
It's clear from the varied inventory of previously bottled-up directives that Obama cares about more than "Obamacare."
"I'm hearing we're going to see a lot of things moving now," Hilda Solis told employees in her last day as labor secretary. At the Labor Department, this could include regulations requiring that the nation's 1.8 million in-home care workers receive minimum-wage and overtime pay.
Tougher limits on soot from smokestacks, diesel trucks and other sources were announced just over a month after the Nov. 6 election. These were foreseen: The administration had tried to stall until the campaign ended but released the proposed rules in June when a judge ordered more haste.
Regulations give teeth and specificity to laws are essential to their functioning even as they create bureaucratic bloat. Congress-skirting executive orders and similar presidential directives are less numerous and generally have less reach than laws. But every president uses them and often tests how far they can go, especially in times of war and other crises.
President Harry Truman signed an executive order in 1952 directing the Commerce Department to take over the steel industry to ensure U.S. troops fighting in Korea were kept supplied with weapons and ammunition. The Supreme Court struck it down.
Other significant actions have stood.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an order in February 1942 to relocate more than 110,000 Japanese-Americans living on the West Coast to internment camps after Japan's attack on the Pearl Harbor naval base. Decades later, Congress passed legislation apologizing and providing $20,000 to each person who was interned.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush approved a series of executive orders that created an office of homeland security, froze the assets in U.S. banks linked to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, and authorized the military services to call reserve forces to active duty for as long as two years.
Bush's most contentious move came in the form of a military order approving the use of the military tribunals to put accused terrorists on trial faster and in greater secrecy than a regular criminal court.
Obama also has wielded considerable power in secret, upsetting the more liberal wing of his own party. He has carried forward Bush's key anti-terrorism policies and expanded the use of unmanned drone strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan and Yemen.
When a promised immigration overhaul failed in legislation, Obama went part way there simply by ordering that immigrants brought illegally to the United States as children be exempted from deportation and granted work permits if they apply. So, too, the ban on gays serving openly in the military was repealed before the election, followed now by the order lifting the ban on women serving in combat.
Those measures did not prove especially contentious. Indeed, the step on immigration is thought to have helped Obama in the election. It may be a different story as the administration moves more forcefully across a range of policy fronts that sat quiet in much of his first term.
William Howell, a political science professor at the University of Chicago and the author of "Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action," isn't surprised to see commandments coming at a rapid clip.
"In an era of polarized parties and a fragmented Congress, the opportunities to legislate are few and far between," Howell said. "So presidents have powerful incentive to go it alone. And they do."
And the political opposition howls.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a possible contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, said that on the gun-control front in particular, Obama is "abusing his power by imposing his policies via executive fiat instead of allowing them to be debated in Congress."
The Republican reaction is to be expected, said John Woolley, co-director of the American Presidency Project at the University of California in Santa Barbara.
"For years there has been a growing concern about unchecked executive power," Woolley said. "It tends to have a partisan content, with contemporary complaints coming from the incumbent president's opponents."
The power isn't limitless, as was demonstrated when Obama issued one of his first executive orders, calling for closing the military prison at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba and trying suspected terrorists housed there in federal courts instead of by special military tribunals. Congress stepped in to prohibit moving any Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S., effectively blocking Obama's plan to shutter the jail.
Among recent actions:
—Obama issued presidential memoranda on guns in tandem with his legislative effort to expand background checks and ban assault-type weapons and large capacity magazines. The steps include renewing federal gun research despite a law that has been interpreted as barring such research since 1996. Gun control was off the table in the campaign, as it had been for a decade, but the shooting at a Connecticut elementary school in December changed that overnight.
—The Labor Department approved new rules in January that could help save lives at dangerous mines with a pattern of safety violations. The rules were proposed shortly after an explosion killed 29 men at West Virginia's Upper Big Branch mine in 2010, deadliest mining accident in 40 years. The rules had been in limbo ever since because of objections from mine operators.
—The government proposed fat, calorie, sugar and sodium limits in almost all food sold in schools, extending federal nutritional controls beyond subsidized lunches to include food sold in school vending machines and a la carte cafeteria lines. The new proposals flow from a 2010 law and are among several sidelined during the campaign.
The law provoked an outcry from conservatives who said the government was empowering itself to squash school bake sales and should not be telling kids what to eat. Updated regulations last year on subsidized school lunches produced a backlash, too, altogether making the government shy of further food regulation until the election passed. The new rules leave school fundraisers clear of federal regulation, alleviating fears of cupcake-crushing edicts at bake sales and the like.
—The Justice Department released an opinion that people with food allergies can be considered to have the rights of disabled people. The finding exposes schools, restaurants and other food-service places to more legal risk if they don't accommodate patrons with food allergies.
—The White House said Obama intends to move forward on rules controlling carbon emissions from power plants as a central part of the effort to restrain climate change, which the president rarely talked about after global-warming legislation failed in his first term. With a major climate bill unlikely to get though a divided Congress, Obama is expected to rely on his executive authority to achieve whatever progress he makes on climate change.
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to complete the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from new coal-fired power plants. The agency also probably will press ahead on rules for existing power plants, despite protests from industry and Republicans that such rules would raise electricity prices and kill off coal, the dominant U.S. energy source. Older coal-fired power plants have been shutting across the country because of low natural gas prices and weaker demand for electricity.
—In December, the government proposed long-delayed rules requiring automakers to install event data recorders, or "black boxes," in all new cars and light trucks beginning Sept. 1, 2014. Most new cars are already getting them.
—The EPA proposed rules to update water quality guidelines for beaches and control runoff from logging roads.
As well, a new ozone rule probably will be completed this year, which would mean finally moving forward on a smog-control standard sidelined in 2011.
A regulation directing federal contractors to hire more disabled workers is somewhere in the offing at the Labor Department, as are ones to protect workers from lung-damaging silica and reduce the risk of deadly factory explosions from dust produced in the making of chemicals, plastics and metals.
Rules also are overdue on genetically modified salmon, catfish inspection, the definition of gluten-free in labeling and food import inspection. In one of the most closely watched cases, Obama could decide early this year whether to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to Texas.
Altogether, it's a kinetic switch from what could have been the watchword of the Obama administration in the closing, politically hypersensitive months of his first term: pause.
Whatever the merits of any particular commandment from the president or his agencies, the perception of a government expanding its reach and hitting business with job-killing mandates was sure to set off fireworks before November.
Since Obama's re-election, regulations giving force and detail to his health care law have gushed out by the hundreds of pages. To some extent this was inevitable: The law is far-reaching and its most consequential deadlines are fast approaching.
The rules are much more than fine print, however, and they would have thickened the storm over the health care overhaul if placed on the radar in last year's presidential campaign. That, after all, was the season when some Republicans put the over-the-top label "death panel" on a board that could force cuts to service providers if Medicare spending ballooned.
The new health law rules provide leeway for insurers to charge smokers thousands of dollars more for coverage. They impose a $63 per-head fee on insurance plans — a charge that probably will be passed on to policyholders — to cushion the cost of covering people with medical problems. There's a new fee for insurance companies for participating in markets that start signing customers in the fall.
In short, sticker shock.
It's clear from the varied inventory of previously bottled-up directives that Obama cares about more than "Obamacare."
"I'm hearing we're going to see a lot of things moving now," Hilda Solis told employees in her last day as labor secretary. At the Labor Department, this could include regulations requiring that the nation's 1.8 million in-home care workers receive minimum-wage and overtime pay.
Tougher limits on soot from smokestacks, diesel trucks and other sources were announced just over a month after the Nov. 6 election. These were foreseen: The administration had tried to stall until the campaign ended but released the proposed rules in June when a judge ordered more haste.
Regulations give teeth and specificity to laws are essential to their functioning even as they create bureaucratic bloat. Congress-skirting executive orders and similar presidential directives are less numerous and generally have less reach than laws. But every president uses them and often tests how far they can go, especially in times of war and other crises.
President Harry Truman signed an executive order in 1952 directing the Commerce Department to take over the steel industry to ensure U.S. troops fighting in Korea were kept supplied with weapons and ammunition. The Supreme Court struck it down.
Other significant actions have stood.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an order in February 1942 to relocate more than 110,000 Japanese-Americans living on the West Coast to internment camps after Japan's attack on the Pearl Harbor naval base. Decades later, Congress passed legislation apologizing and providing $20,000 to each person who was interned.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush approved a series of executive orders that created an office of homeland security, froze the assets in U.S. banks linked to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, and authorized the military services to call reserve forces to active duty for as long as two years.
Bush's most contentious move came in the form of a military order approving the use of the military tribunals to put accused terrorists on trial faster and in greater secrecy than a regular criminal court.
Obama also has wielded considerable power in secret, upsetting the more liberal wing of his own party. He has carried forward Bush's key anti-terrorism policies and expanded the use of unmanned drone strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan and Yemen.
When a promised immigration overhaul failed in legislation, Obama went part way there simply by ordering that immigrants brought illegally to the United States as children be exempted from deportation and granted work permits if they apply. So, too, the ban on gays serving openly in the military was repealed before the election, followed now by the order lifting the ban on women serving in combat.
Those measures did not prove especially contentious. Indeed, the step on immigration is thought to have helped Obama in the election. It may be a different story as the administration moves more forcefully across a range of policy fronts that sat quiet in much of his first term.
William Howell, a political science professor at the University of Chicago and the author of "Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action," isn't surprised to see commandments coming at a rapid clip.
"In an era of polarized parties and a fragmented Congress, the opportunities to legislate are few and far between," Howell said. "So presidents have powerful incentive to go it alone. And they do."
And the political opposition howls.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a possible contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, said that on the gun-control front in particular, Obama is "abusing his power by imposing his policies via executive fiat instead of allowing them to be debated in Congress."
The Republican reaction is to be expected, said John Woolley, co-director of the American Presidency Project at the University of California in Santa Barbara.
"For years there has been a growing concern about unchecked executive power," Woolley said. "It tends to have a partisan content, with contemporary complaints coming from the incumbent president's opponents."
The power isn't limitless, as was demonstrated when Obama issued one of his first executive orders, calling for closing the military prison at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba and trying suspected terrorists housed there in federal courts instead of by special military tribunals. Congress stepped in to prohibit moving any Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S., effectively blocking Obama's plan to shutter the jail.
Among recent actions:
—Obama issued presidential memoranda on guns in tandem with his legislative effort to expand background checks and ban assault-type weapons and large capacity magazines. The steps include renewing federal gun research despite a law that has been interpreted as barring such research since 1996. Gun control was off the table in the campaign, as it had been for a decade, but the shooting at a Connecticut elementary school in December changed that overnight.
—The Labor Department approved new rules in January that could help save lives at dangerous mines with a pattern of safety violations. The rules were proposed shortly after an explosion killed 29 men at West Virginia's Upper Big Branch mine in 2010, deadliest mining accident in 40 years. The rules had been in limbo ever since because of objections from mine operators.
—The government proposed fat, calorie, sugar and sodium limits in almost all food sold in schools, extending federal nutritional controls beyond subsidized lunches to include food sold in school vending machines and a la carte cafeteria lines. The new proposals flow from a 2010 law and are among several sidelined during the campaign.
The law provoked an outcry from conservatives who said the government was empowering itself to squash school bake sales and should not be telling kids what to eat. Updated regulations last year on subsidized school lunches produced a backlash, too, altogether making the government shy of further food regulation until the election passed. The new rules leave school fundraisers clear of federal regulation, alleviating fears of cupcake-crushing edicts at bake sales and the like.
—The Justice Department released an opinion that people with food allergies can be considered to have the rights of disabled people. The finding exposes schools, restaurants and other food-service places to more legal risk if they don't accommodate patrons with food allergies.
—The White House said Obama intends to move forward on rules controlling carbon emissions from power plants as a central part of the effort to restrain climate change, which the president rarely talked about after global-warming legislation failed in his first term. With a major climate bill unlikely to get though a divided Congress, Obama is expected to rely on his executive authority to achieve whatever progress he makes on climate change.
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to complete the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from new coal-fired power plants. The agency also probably will press ahead on rules for existing power plants, despite protests from industry and Republicans that such rules would raise electricity prices and kill off coal, the dominant U.S. energy source. Older coal-fired power plants have been shutting across the country because of low natural gas prices and weaker demand for electricity.
—In December, the government proposed long-delayed rules requiring automakers to install event data recorders, or "black boxes," in all new cars and light trucks beginning Sept. 1, 2014. Most new cars are already getting them.
—The EPA proposed rules to update water quality guidelines for beaches and control runoff from logging roads.
As well, a new ozone rule probably will be completed this year, which would mean finally moving forward on a smog-control standard sidelined in 2011.
A regulation directing federal contractors to hire more disabled workers is somewhere in the offing at the Labor Department, as are ones to protect workers from lung-damaging silica and reduce the risk of deadly factory explosions from dust produced in the making of chemicals, plastics and metals.
Rules also are overdue on genetically modified salmon, catfish inspection, the definition of gluten-free in labeling and food import inspection. In one of the most closely watched cases, Obama could decide early this year whether to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to Texas.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Best Summation of Barack and Michelle Obama Yet
This is from Mychal Massie is a respected writer and black talk show host in Los Angeles. His website is mychal-massie.com The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."
The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.
And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.
I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequaled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood..
Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.”
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Labor Unions Destroying Businesses
Mychal Massie and the Daily Rant on Unions, specifically the Hostess (Twinkee) case. I was wondering just how thankful members of the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union were this past Thanksgiving. Specifically those formerly employed by Hostess.
The brilliant job of guidance and concern the union provided and showed for the Hostess workers has to stand as one of their pivotal achievements. Their example of negotiation was a stellar example of the reason the members had paid their dues for so many years. Given the choice of accepting the concessions requested by Hostess and keeping their jobs, the union ordered the workers to strike. The union's idea being that they would show those evil owners who had explained that the concessions were necessary because their liabilities were 2.5 greater than their assets.
Of course, I'm being facetious. My point is that the union people will suffer because of the action Hostess was forced to take because of the union bosses.
Union president, Frank Hurt, may have opined that "Hostess Brands is making a mockery of the labor relations system that has been in place for nearly 100 years." But as Hostess CEO Gregory F. Rayburn pointed out the arithmetic speaks for itself saying: "We simply do not have the financial resources to survive an ongoing national strike."
Thus, Hostess is scheduled to close its doors, and the inflexible union employees found their Thanksgiving a somber event. Their Christmas will not be any better. It's reasonably uncertain that they will receive their first unemployment check by Christmas. But their union president will suffer no such concerns.
This should be a grime reminder to Walmart employees who have been under assault to become unionized for at least several years. And it should certainly be a reminder to other union members that businesses cannot continue to yield to every union demand. It should also give workers cause to question not only why they need union representation but also to consider why unions are even needed.
Meritorious pay raises, reasonable participation in health co-pays, the number of vacation and sick days, can be worked out without union gangsters and thugs using threats and intimidation. Union protests may make for good theater on the evening news, but it doesn't help companies like Hostess stay in business.
The brilliant job of guidance and concern the union provided and showed for the Hostess workers has to stand as one of their pivotal achievements. Their example of negotiation was a stellar example of the reason the members had paid their dues for so many years. Given the choice of accepting the concessions requested by Hostess and keeping their jobs, the union ordered the workers to strike. The union's idea being that they would show those evil owners who had explained that the concessions were necessary because their liabilities were 2.5 greater than their assets.
Of course, I'm being facetious. My point is that the union people will suffer because of the action Hostess was forced to take because of the union bosses.
Union president, Frank Hurt, may have opined that "Hostess Brands is making a mockery of the labor relations system that has been in place for nearly 100 years." But as Hostess CEO Gregory F. Rayburn pointed out the arithmetic speaks for itself saying: "We simply do not have the financial resources to survive an ongoing national strike."
Thus, Hostess is scheduled to close its doors, and the inflexible union employees found their Thanksgiving a somber event. Their Christmas will not be any better. It's reasonably uncertain that they will receive their first unemployment check by Christmas. But their union president will suffer no such concerns.
This should be a grime reminder to Walmart employees who have been under assault to become unionized for at least several years. And it should certainly be a reminder to other union members that businesses cannot continue to yield to every union demand. It should also give workers cause to question not only why they need union representation but also to consider why unions are even needed.
Meritorious pay raises, reasonable participation in health co-pays, the number of vacation and sick days, can be worked out without union gangsters and thugs using threats and intimidation. Union protests may make for good theater on the evening news, but it doesn't help companies like Hostess stay in business.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
What A Disgrace!
After a ton of complaints, Lake County Democratic Party officials took down the flag. "It's absolutely disrespectful," Jim Bradford, a 71-year-old veteran who participated in the Bay of Pigs Invasion told FoxNews.com. "It's totally ridiculous. To put somebody's picture there, to me, it's a disgrace to do that."
Bradford, an organizer with the Veterans Memorial at Fountain Park in Leesburg , Fla., snapped photos of the flag and distributed them to fellow veterans and friends. By late afternoon, he and several other veterans delivered a copy of the federal flag code to Nancy Hurlbert, chairwoman of the Lake County Democratic Party.
"We read that to her, but she would not accept that," Bradford said. "The discussion finally got a little bit heated."
The flag, which had been flying for several months was later removed by Hurlbert.
Bradford said Hurlbert apologized for the incident, but did not offer any promises that it wouldn't fly again.
"What really upsets me is that the flag had apparently been flying for months and no one had done anything about it," Bradford said. "I've got no hard feelings toward [Hurlbert], but people will be driving by there to make sure it doesn't go up again."
Hurlbert believes "........that it's not about the flag," she told FoxNews.com, "Certain elements cannot accept Barack Obama as president."
Really?
Well Hurlbert, you dolt, it is about the flag, but with Obama's image, it is adding insult to injury. Nobody in elected office has done more damage to this country than the Clown in Chief. If you want to do something for Obama the Destroyer, then nominate him for a Peace Prize or something,....oh wait,..someone already did that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)