Thursday, March 10, 2011

Violent Rhetoric, Unions and Wisconsin Democrats

Let me see if I get this...

A few months ago, Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot and seriously wounded. The shooting also took the lives of six others, including a state judge and nine-year-old Christina-Taylor Green, the granddaughter of former Major League manager Dallas Green. it was a tragic and horrible event perpetrated by a communist sympathizer who also listed Mein Kampf as one of his favorite books.

While it was almost immediately clear that the killer, Jared Laughner, was a leftist, the mainstream media, as well as the vast majority of left-wing websites, curiously blamed the attack of Sarah Palin and the right-wing. One of the reasons, the left exclaimed, was because Palin had listed Giffords' district in Arizona as a "target" for the Republicans to defeat in the election. Her use of a cross hairs image was considered to be so outrageous and condemned for bringing violet rhetoric to the public stage. The left became apoplectic over it and began calling for Palin's assassination (many comments on such sites a Gawker, the DailyKos, The Huffington Post and Democratic Underground, to name just a few, were the most outwardly vile).

As most people who are not unhinged will attest, using such language in politics is nothing new and in fact, in the 2006 election, the Democrat National Committee went a step further by not using cross hairs, but actually targets to show which districts they were targeting. However, due to the mainstream medias inability to refrain from extreme bias, that little bit of information was not mentioned.

From the moment the shooting was reported, all we heard (after blaming Sarah Palin, of course) was how uncivil the political rhetoric of the right wing was. Even President Obama, in his adress to the nation following the tragedy, made mention of the "words we speak" that could lead to violence. Even though it was found that Laughner never listened to right wing talk radio, hated George Bush and was simply a delusional nut-job, the press continued their call for the right to tone down the rhetoric. It was all great theater and completely biased.

For too long, the blame for violence has been thrown at the Republicans by the left. However, historically, the violent tendencies of politics have been a Democrat problem. For instance, growing up in Dallas, I learned early that the man who assassinated John Kennedy was a communist by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet, I also constantly heard, over and over again, that Kennedy was shot because of all the "right-wing" rhetoric surrounding his visit. But there was no rhetoric as violent as the actions of this far-left killer.

To hear the Congressional Black Congress tell it, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was only passed because we had a Democrat in office. What they fail to mention is that 80% of the Republicans voted for passage, while just 61% of the Democrats did. In fact, when the bill went through the Senate, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, who recently died and was considered by many Democrats as a hero, filibustered the vote for 14 hours!

Of course, Byrd wasn't just a Democrat senator. He was also the Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Clan. The clan, of course, was created as a domestic terror group strongly affiliated with the Democrat Party.

When we look back at American history, we see that John Wilkes Booth, Leon Czolgosz, the assassin of William McKinley, Charles Guiteau, the assassin of James Garfield and Oswald were all in no way aligned with the right-wing. And were more likely (and in some cases proven to be) leftists.

Of course, derangement is not solely a left-wing disease. There are crazy people on both sides of the aisle. But in today's United States, violent political rhetoric has become mainstream among the Democrats. Yet, no matter how many times videos prove the point, the media and other leftists project these attributes to the right-wing. It would be hysterical if it weren't so tragic.

And this leads me to the situation that is unfolding in Wisconsin. If you are unaware of what has been going on, then I suggest you Google it, because I haven't the energy to review it here. But, in a nutshell, Governor Scott Walker proposed a bill that would limit the ability of public service employees (those who are members of government unions) to bargain collectively. In addition, he asked the unions to pay a little more towards their pensions and health insurance. The proposal would still have meant that these union workers would pay far less for their benefits that private sector workers do.

The reason for Walker's proposal is that the state of Wisconsin can not meet its' bugetary commitments. The main reason is because the amount of unfunded pensions among the public sector unions will bankrupt the state. For weeks, Walker pleaded with the unions to negotiate. However, the union representatives consistently stated that they will not nudge one inch if their right to collectively bargain is taken away.

The problem is two-fold. Number one, Walker's proposal would only limit collective bargaining and make it available for wages only (as opposed to abolishing it entirely). Secondly, if the bill does not pass (it has, however, as of today), then hundreds of jobs would have been eliminated in order to save the states' financial outlook.

When I was a kid, I remember watching the movie "F*I*S*T" with Sylvester Stallone, and being moved by how important the unions were to this country. In some ways, I still agree. Even though I have been a member of a union, I was keenly aware of how the union drove a wedge between management and the workers. This always caused a stressful environment at work.

But there is a major difference between what was told in that movie and what today's realities are. The fight in Wisconsin is about public sector unions. These unions represent people who receive their wages from taxpayers. So when they negotiate a higher salary, they are asking for more money from you and I, since we are the taxpayers.

The problem is that when you negotiate between a union and a private company, both sides have a personal stake in the outcome. The company has to me careful not to give away too much or they will become insolvent and close up shop. There are limits as to how much they can spend.

This is not the same as with the government. Politicians only care about one thing - getting re-elected. They understand that re-elections cost a lot of money and unions have long been the largest contributors to the Democrat Party. So when a union negotiates with the government, that politician understands that the more money he gets for the union, the more money is donated by that union for the Democrat Party. It is a vicious cycle and being played on your dime.

So Scott Walker realized that he can not continue to give away the farm - especially since Wisconsin, like many other states, are going bankrupt. So, he proposes a bill that in reality, should never have been necessary. After all, even FDR understood that unions and federal employees make a very dangerous match.

So, what happens? Every public service union in the country traveled to Wisconsin to protest the bill. The Democrat congressmen - people whose sole responsibility is to vote for or against bills - decided to run and hide in the safe haven of Illinois. They did this to keep the Wisconsin legislature from being able to have a quorum, which is needed to pass the bill. It was exceedingly childish. In 2008, President Obama - when discussing his ObamaCare legislation - famously said, "elections have consequences." Yet, when the duly elected Scott Walker - who, by the way, was elected on a platform of reigning in union excess - legally passed a bill, the Democrats either ran away, or rioted in the capital.

Now that the bill has passed, we see how left truly feels about civility. Since Walker's name first made headlines back in January, the thugs who have been occupying the rotunda in Madison have lashed out with the ugliest, vile threats against the Governor, and Republicans in general. They have compared him to Hitler, called for his assassination and even threatened his mother!

Today, as the vote was made public, left wingers from all over the country posted tweets and Facebook messages calling for Walker's death. And yet, the mainstream media barely makes a sound. Just to show you how disgusting these comments are, here is a YouTube video regarding it:

As Professor Jacobson asks, "Why do these people, many of whom are professionals, feel no fear in expressing such death wishes in the open?"

To answer his question, it's because they know the media has a double standard and they know that Eric Holder's Department of Justice will never prosecute a leftist for an attack on a conservative.

In conclusion, until we put an end to the far left bias in today's media and recognize the hypocrisy of the left (I can't even say "far-left" anymore because it has become so mainstream within the Democrat Party), we will continue to decline as a nation. With a government that can not even admit who their enemies are, and can not stand for American exceptionalism, my hopes are dwindling and I pray for the future.

1 comment:

Y. Lopin said...


Did you catch this in the WSJ?