Union Rant # 467
My oldest and dearest friend was president of his Union local for 4 terms, and would have been re-elected had he not chosen to take a break from Union responsibilities for a while and concentrate on his real work.
We have often had some rather heated discussions about Unions in general over the years...well more like knock-down drag-out fights, but we have always managed to agree to disagree in the end and get back to the all important beer hoisting exercizes we were engaged in.
I sincerely believe that the Unions have become what they were created to fight...a managment structure that has it's own interests, not the workers, at heart.
I believe that this action by the AFL-CIO proves my point, and you can be sure that I'll be filing the information away for the next time the Beer Swilling Lushes Debating Society gets together.
Take note of the reason WHY the AFL-CIO has decided to release a fourth of their wage slaves skilled office technicians. Ask yourself, what would the Union have done to any company that would have released that percentage of workers due to TRUE budgetary need?
No, the Union has decided that it was going to cut back on their member services/recruitment activities and utilyze the money to go into the National Legislative business instead. Their main beef being the Presidents proposed partial privatization of Social Security...After all, should the sheeple get a taste of economic independence, they may just start wondering if the Union dues they have been paying are really worth the services they have been getting.
After all, membership has fallen drastically in recent years...Union demands having closed down the businesses where their members worked. Yes, the Union got their members the highest wage/benefits packages that could be extorted from Management, regardless of the economic realities of supply and demand.
It didn't matter that those packages only helped the workers for as long as it took for the company to move operations offshore to retain economic viability, after all, the Union could use that movement as propaganda to prove just how EVIL management was in convincing their other members of other companies to fight for THEIR new packages in the next negotiation, with the Union skimming the cream off the top in dues and fees.
Of course in the end, the Unions are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, but the officials at the top have already ensured their own nests have been feathered and made safe from economic stress, so why should they care?
The Union plans to increase it's political action funding to $45 million from it's current rate of $32M and cut it's organizing efforts by $15 million to pay for it.
Take a look at that sentence and see if you saw the same disconnect I did.....
A. "organizing efforts" is union speak for getting new members to grow the Union and providing services to them. In other words, the Union has become an unelected political Party, instead of a protection group to it's members.
B. The Union is making a $15 Million dollar cut to fund a $13 Million dollar effort...seems they believe that their average dues paying member won't notice the disparity, and/or they may just assume that the sheeple won't care if they did notice, who are THEY to question the ones on high?.... my question would be just how many of the top officials are in on the split of that $2 million difference?
1
Who is the only one getting paid when a strike takes place? Oh, yeah. And most of the meetings with management take place on weekends?
And you ever notice that union heads always seem to hold their meetings in Las Vegas or other 'centrally located' sites?
2
Former Teamster, Former IBEW. Combined 7 years of utter chaos, on strike 3 times, after 5 months of picket duty without pay, and being refused any compensation while off work, I left union work permanantly the day before the strike settled. Why? Because they were asking for 3% and after 5 months settled for just less than 2.5%. No wage increase can ever make up for nearly half a year's lost wages nor excuse the lack of strike fund support for those loyally supporting the strike for better wages and conditions. I was past being "broke", borrowing from everyone, behind on all my bills, and damn tired of risking my life on a picket line in hostile territory where two men had already died.It was purely political and not one of the "labor leaders" lost a penny of their compensation during the entire time.
Posted by: Jack at March 11, 2005 04:26 PM (4PpGp)
INSURRECTION !
I've been reading in a nymber of blogs about the possibility that soon the FEC would start monitering the content of our blogs and apply the BCRA regulations to them in regards to political speech.
Some (mostly on the Left, surprise surprise) say there is nothing to worry about, unless you've set your blog up to be a campaign tool for a particular candidate or party; others seem to think that the jackbooted thugs are pounding on the door.
I am in the middle on this one. I don't think the thugs are at the door quite yet, but setting the precedent will surely lead to that coming to pass. The right of every citizen to openly speak his mind on political issues WHENEVER and WHEREVER he wishes is the most precious freedom we have. It's only equal is the right we have under the 2nd Amenment to bear arms to protect that freedom of expression. Lest we require the use of the right to bear arms, we'd damn well better prevent any limiting of our 1st Amendment rights from occurring in the first place.
The Camel's nose is in the tent, I believe that we must prevent him from entering. Consequently I have decided to join the McCain-Feingold Insurrection. It's far better to fight a tyrany as a proposal rather than once it's become entrenched.
Posted by: ZiPpo at March 08, 2005 08:31 PM (P7XXv)
2
I know I tend to sound like chicken little. But when the BCRA was first being brought up for action..I was snickered at then "You have nothing to worry about. It will never effect your individual right to free speech." Perhaps not, but it DID set the precedent for future misuses and abuses. And we are seeing the potential fruit of that seed planted by Senators McCanin and Feingold.
Posted by: Guy S at March 08, 2005 10:11 PM (QrENj)
3
Comrade McCain collaborated with Comrade Feingold to strip freedom of speech from the general population during elections, now they want to extend that suppression. My biggest dissapointment is that Bush didn't have the balls to veto the bill and signed it into law. It is unconstitutional. I don't believe that this is the first time that McCain has collaborated against his fellow Americans.
Posted by: Jack at March 09, 2005 05:11 PM (75aNe)
4
This particular bunch on the FEC may come up with an OK rule - but what of the next? The law itself must be altered or repealed.
Posted by: John Anderson at March 10, 2005 01:23 AM (p5kTu)
Legitimizing IllegalsSlaglerock has a great post up concerning the state of Maine issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens, accepting documentation that would be insufficiant to citizens.
Italian "Reporter" Idiocy
Even the Italians are questioning the views expressed by that paragon of journalistic virtue(/sarcasm 0ff),Giuliana Sgrena.
It is Ms. Sgrena's contention that the US government ordered the execution of Ms. Sgrena and her compatriots after she had taken her leave of her insurgent Islamofacist kidnappers.
There at least two major problems with Ms Sgena's contentions:
First, the Italians had kept the hostage release deal secret, not informing the Americans. Second, they had not informed the Americans that she had been released and was heading for the airport.
Given those conditions, how could it be that she was deliberately targeted? EVEN given the unlikely event that the US would be so afraid of her writing that they would wish to do away with her?
1) They would have no reason to target her, being unaware of any ransom deal.
2) They would have no way to target her, being unaware that she was where she was when she was there.
Apparently, (in her own mind) Ms Sgena is the only one who can disseminate "the truth" of what is actually occurring in Iraq, and that "fact" led to the ordering of her execution prior to her being able to disseminate that truth.
She stated that the the vehicle she and her rescuers were hit by over 400 rounds by a machine gun; that she "scooped handfulls of bullets off of the seat"... Yet only one occupant of the vehicle was killed and Ms. Sgena was only wounded in the leg. Pretty sorry excuse for an "execution"! I for one have much more faith in the capabilities of our servicemen in the execution of their duties. (pun intended)
Anyone familiar with any type of firearms would know that staement to be a bald faced lie on the face of it. bullets that fly in such a hailstorm would have turned the vehicle and ALL the occupants into Swiss cheese, and any bullets entering the car wouldn't have magically stopped and fell onto the seats. And I have another question...IF the intent was to execute Ms. Sgena, why was she treated by the US and sent out on the next availible flight? Surely it would have been simple to simply ensure that every occupant of the vehicle was dead after it had been rendered immobile?
And while the cowed inhabitants of Eunichistan may like to believe that we would target journalists to prevent embarrassing "facts" to be made public, only the most inane of our own Moonbats would suscribe to such a position.
All you have to do is read any MS publication in the US to know the idiocy of such an allegation. If such a thing could be proven beyond any reasonable doubt; it would lead to a public uprising not seen since the halycon days of the 60's, and most likely the impeachment of the administration.
I am a supporter of the administration, and I would certainly believe that impeachment would be the only proper option in such an event. My loyalties lie with the Constitution, not any particular set of Politicians.
Let's recap...Communist Journalist is held hostage by the people that she holds up as the heroes in the Iraq conflict. Her (Italian) government may or may not have paid a ransom for her release, but in any case, a deal is brokered and Ms. Sgena is released by her captors to agents of her government. (according to US soldiers) The vehicle they were going to the airport in approached a military checkpoint at a high rate of speed and in a highly erratic manner, and didn't stop when ordered to by the soldiers manning the checkpoint. The soldiers fired on the vehicle, killing the driver and wounding Ms. Sgena. Now Ms. Sgena is claiming that they were assailed in a virtual hail of bullets, and that it was an intentional attempt to execute her.
Anyone that looks at this incident objectively must conclude that either:
A. Ms Sgena was correct, the US had a Sooper Sekrit™ way of determining her status and location,and wished to execute her for her views; and was capable enough to intercept her with no prior knowledge of her release, but incapable enough to finish the job.
OR
B. Ms Sgena is a raving Moonbat of the highest order that doesn't let little things like facts and logic interfere with her political agenda/idiology.
I know which scenerio seems more likely to me, or am I blinded by my own idiological bent?
UPDATE: Courtesy of the AP, here are two pictures of the car that Ms. Sgena says was "caught in a hail of gun fire", and from which she "scooped up handfulls of bullets bullets off the seat"
Those must have been some of the new sooper sekrit magic bullets™ that the US Army has been issueing..."handfulls of bullets" on the seat, and yet NO BULLET HOLES in the body work. WHERE can I get some of this Ammo?
1
I believe politicians are capable of many things , evil things. I believe there are those who would stoop to any level to attain their goal.
I do not believe any US soldier would willingly, deliberately, and knowingly fire upon a vehicle they knew contained innocent people. That is not to say that innocent people aren't dying daily, or that our troops may be responsible for their deaths. But those who die at the hands of our troops are more than likely victims caught in the middle of war. Which is almost certainly what happened in this instance. I can understand Ms. Sgena bitterness and anger. I can even understand her insistance that the incident was planned. It's called The Stockholm Syndrom. She is identifying with her captors. That is not unususal. It is as wrong to call her a moonbat (whatever that means) as it is for her to accuse those soldiers of anything other than doing their duty and following orders.
Posted by: wanda at March 08, 2005 04:17 AM (1ivbm)
2
I don't believe that Stockolm Syndrom applies in this case Wanda. Ms Sgena went to Iraq with the express purpose of highlighting the US with as black a brush as she could. She was bitter and angry long before her arrival in-country. And was already a backer of the "Insurgants", which made her kidnapping all the more ironic, don't you think?
The physical evidence shows just about every statement she has made to be a bald-faced lie.
Think about it; a car is suppossed to have been hit with 400 rounds of .50 BMG and only one out of four people in the vehicle suffers a fatal wound?!?
Ms Sgena only had a minor flesh wound, two others were not hit at all?!? AND the fatally wounded agent was supposed to have been hit in the head with a .50 BMG and still retained his head?! I can tell you from experience that HAD he been hit by a Ma Deuce, there would only be one way to identify him and that would be a DNA test. I would be interested to see an autopsy report on him.
They WERE "victoms caught in the middle of a war", but the subsequent statements of Ms Sgena proves that she's far from an "innocent".
Posted by: delftsman3 at March 08, 2005 01:00 PM (+7DMV)
3
Does being bitter and angry and disagreeing with the US's policy in Iraq, automatically make you sympathetic to the insurgents?
I know there are probably right wingnuts out there who would place me in the moonbat catagory and who would go so far as to say that I am sympathetic to the insurgents. While the former is merely a matter of opinion the ladder would be an outright lie. Therefore I tend to take it with a grain of salt when I see that MS Sgena was or is sympathetic to the insurgents.
I am sympathetic of the Iraqi people. Many of whom ARE involved in the resistance to the US's involvement in their country. That does not make me a supporter of those who would use violence to further their own political cause.
While I don't think any troops are ever told to target journalist, I do believe it is probable they are told not to feel the need to go out of their way to protect journalist. It is possible they are even told that some journalist (especially those who are deemed sympathetic to the other side ) should be treated no differently than those with whom they sympathize. For instance I doubt that any soldier was ever instructed to go out of his/her way to harm Geraldo Rivera, but it is unlikely they would have gone out of their way to protect him either.
cont...
Posted by: wanda at March 08, 2005 05:19 PM (1ivbm)
4
The role of journalist in war is of extreme importance. If we only hear from those who agree with our agenda how can we ever know the whole truth?
The truth is neither left or right, but lies somewhere in between. It is the journalist who carry the burden of bringing both sides of the story to the table.
The bottom line is while I might not agree with what you say, I would defend your right to say it. This should be the goal of every person who claims to desire the spread of freedom and democracy. There can be no freedom nor democracy without freedom of the press.
Posted by: wanda at March 08, 2005 05:20 PM (1ivbm)
5
Wanda, disagreeing with the US doesn't necessarily mean that you side with the Islamofacists, but if you read her past articles, Ms. Sgena certainly WAS a sympathizer.
Not to surprising, since she is a Communist working for a Communist publication.
She still has the right to put out her POV., that wasn't the issue. The issue here was her contention that she was targeted for execution.
and her continuing series of assertions that are demonstratably false, but that are seized upon as proof of US policies that fit her agenda, but which in fact,do not exist.
As far as "protecting journalists", that isn't the military's job. And every jounalist going into a war zone knows it. They go in knowing the risks they may have to take, and accept them as part of the job.
BTW, you don't need to split your comments, there is no cut off size in here, unlike Haloscan.
Posted by: delftsman3 at March 08, 2005 06:33 PM (+7DMV)
6
I would also argue that "many of the Iraqi's" are involved in the uprising...only three of the fourteen provences have a large problem, and they are all the strongholds of Saddam's Baathist cohorts, so it's not too surprising that they are where the trouble lies. The LEADERS of the movement mostly seem to be Egyption, Saudi, and Syrian though.
Incidentially? those WMDS?, care to lay odds on what may be found in the Bekka valley in Lebanon?
Where Lebanese troops just found and dismantled two long range rockets purportedly targeted towards Israel? With all the truck traffic going to that area from Iraq in the months prior to the invasion, that just may be where Saddam had his cache.
And NO, I'm NOT proposing that we invade there. All we need do is support the Lebanese in their fight against Syrian control, and IF the WMD's are there, the truth will come out.
Posted by: delftsman3 at March 08, 2005 06:48 PM (+7DMV)
7
One word (man I loved those halcyon daze!): FUKENEH!
Posted by: ZiPpo at March 08, 2005 07:45 PM (P7XXv)
8
So we are suppose to believe that any WMD's found anywhere in the Middle East are those WMD's? Come on be realistic.
Saddam had no WMD's. If he had he would have used them. That is if he was the sadistically insane man he has been portrayed to be (which I believe he is).
But I thought we'd all decided the prevailing cause for invading Iraq was to spread democracy. Or are we back to the WMD's theory now? Man talk about your flip-flopping around.
Posted by: wanda at March 08, 2005 11:01 PM (1ivbm)
9
Think about it Wanda. The last time he was confronted, the world blinked. It's entirely possible that he believed that it would happen again, and hiding those weapons In an allies territory would make perfect sense. We will know where they were made IF and when we find them.
I don't KNOW they are there, it's just an intriguing possiblity. Once the Lebanese take back control of their country, we will find out.
It's not a flip-flop, I do believe that the main goal of the invasion was/is a transformation of the political landscape in the ME.
Finding the WMD's would be just the icing on the cake.
Posted by: delftsman3 at March 08, 2005 11:22 PM (+7DMV)
Moonbattery Extrodinair
I've talked about some of what I perceive as wrongs promulgated by Moonbats in my country, and the country of my birth, but apparently the Moonbats ARE a truly multi-national source of idiocy.
For a country that (rightly) prides itself on the high level of patriotism shown by members of it's citizenry, this must be a particulary embarrassing incident.
For a Church, ANY Church, to dishonor a long-time member and veteran by not allowing him the normal protocall of a military funeral as his last request shows the height of disrespect for that member and the service he rendered for "God and Country".
Things like this are occurring here in America too, I have no doubt, although I can't cite any specific incident.
The churches decry that they are losing members at large rates, and I believe that it is the mindset demonstrated by incidents like this that are part of the reason why. All too many churches have adopted the secularist mindset to the point where they are really no longer houses of worship, but merely social clubs for (politically) like minded idiots.
Thanks to Silent Running for the link. You ought to go read his take on this too...I KNEW there was a I reason I had him in my blogroll!
Posted by: Delftsman3 at
09:51 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 2 kb.
Another evil gun story
Type: Double Action Only or Single Action (in Tactical model)
Chambering: 5.7x28mm SS190
Length: 208 mm
Barrel length : 122.5 mm
Weight: ca. 620 g with empty magazine; ca. 760 g loaded
Magazine: 20 rounds
Seems that the GFW's of New Jersey are all atwitter because a dreaded "assault" pistol was found in the (illegal) possesion of a suspected drug dealer. Do they go after the criminal for an illegal buy?, No, they go after the weapon. The fact is that this weapon is not availible to the general public, so the fact that a non military/law enforcement had possession of it is what should be cause for concern, not the weapon itself. There is NO such thing as an "assault pistol" this is just a weapon with a specialized type of ammunition that has a higher capacity to defeat body armor.
I have a very large problem with one passage in the story:
The lawmakers said there is no legitimate reason for members of the general public to own the gun _ you wouldn't buy it for hunting, for example.
"This is not a Second Amendment issue," Corzine said. "Who needs one of these? The only reason is for violence."
The fact is that the Second Amendment is NOT ABOUT hunting in any case, it's about the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms in their own protection, whomever the attacker might be. The Founding Fathers regarded it as the ultimate check against a government turned tyranical.
And for the second point, ALL guns have the capacity for being used in a violent manner, this weapon is no more or less than any other. The ammunition is designed to penetrate body armor...so what? Criminals can't wear body armor too? This ammunition isn't the first round capable of defeating body armor, nor will it be the last. The point is, prosecute those that misuse the technology, don't restrict the technology. I was a LEO for over ten years, and every time I put on that uniform, it was with the realization that I may not come home to my family after the end of my shift, that was one of the facts of life of the job.
I am a firm believer that anyone who has not demonstrated criminal or mental problems has the right to be armed, and the bearer has the right to whatever weapon will stand him in the best stead. In carrying a weapon, the bearer must ALSO assume the responsibility not to misuse it and be liable to punishment if he does.
Most people will not choose a weapon such as the FN Five-seveN, for myself, I would wish that it would remain an option open to me. I'm sure that if the hero in Tyler Texas had had one, the incident may have turned out very differently, with at least one less loss of life and two less injuries to POLICE OFFICERS. Just some food for thought....
1
I am petrified of guns. Yes I know guns don't kill people. People kill people. If they don't have guns they'll use whatever is available to them. Be it knives, baseball bats, or cars. Still guns terrify me.
Still I believe every American (well those who haven't comitted a felony) should have the right to own one if they choose to do so.
I see no sense in blaming the gun for the crime. I remember hearing someone say, when you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have the guns or something like that. I agree. The criminal element in this country, or any country for that matter, will find a way to secure the weapons they want. Legal or otherwise.
How about that, we actually agree on something!
Have I ever said thank you for visiting my blog and keeping us lefties on our toes? I do appreciate your presence and your opinions!
Posted by: wanda at March 04, 2005 08:27 AM (1ivbm)
2
I an extremely gratified that this is one of the (few) issues that we DO agree on Wanda; it's one of the bedrock issues in our country.
"I remember hearing someone say, when you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have the guns or something like that."
I don't remember who said that either, but, as they say, the "proof is in the pudding". In every locality in the US where the strictest gun control laws have been enacted, it's a truism that "only criminals have guns" (well, criminals and certain Liberal anti-gun Senators)and violent gun crime has gone up. When citizens can no longer have the means to protect themselves, they are no longer citizens, but subjects.
Thank You for allowing me to put my 2 cents in on your blog. We may not agree on much, but the interaction helps us both define and defend our positions. I certainly welcome you to do the same here, help me stay honest!
Someday I hope to welcome you into the VRWC.LOL.
You are honest enough that maybe when you really learn the facts of an issue and not just go with the DNC/Al Jazeera talking points and "feelings" as the Gospel, you will have an epiphany and join me over here on the "dark side". Well, I can dream anyway...
Posted by: delftsman3 at March 04, 2005 08:00 PM (3BvSr)
3
New Jersey Democratic Sens. Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., might have known it. The liberal disarm the public scheme really works, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have all shown the great reduction in crime their policies have made. I'm all for arming the general public and executing on the spot any and all drug dealers found possessing drugs or a gun.
Posted by: Jack at March 04, 2005 11:19 PM (e9+99)
MORE Vermin....
Well, Mama did it to me AGAIN. We went to the local pet shop to get some food for the animals...dog,cat, and rat chow. I made the mistake of going on ahead to the dog food section...and when I rounded the corner of the rat supply section, I heard those fatal words...."Oh look, they're SOOooo Cuuuute"....and winded up with two new additions to our rodent population.
Here's a picture of Beth, one of the new additions (you can barely see Denita in the left corner).
Husbands; keep your wives out of pet stores! I gotta go see someone about borrowing a python.....
U[pdate: Just realized, we forgot to get the cat chow! I guess I'll have to go back tomorrow...SOLO, don't want to risk another aquisition!
1
Take note Insanity, they are the SPOUSAL units choice, not MINE. I just have to co-exist weith them without roasting them as appitizers for when my progressive friends come to visit.
Posted by: delftsman3 at March 03, 2005 08:27 PM (3BvSr)
2
Have you read the book 'King Rat'? Fire up the BBQ.
Posted by: Jack at March 03, 2005 11:36 PM (jZicr)
3
It would appear that Mama bought mobile dog and cat food. Or at least that's what my critters would think. As for Insanity, at least rats don't crap where they eat too bad the same can't be said of liberals.
Rey
PC in the Netherlands E.U.
It seems that I may have been at least partially incorrect when I asserted that the Dutch government may just be waking up to the threat of excessive Muslim immigration.
One section of the government is trying to clean out the radicals, and another is trying to "normalize" the Muslim culture; mixed messages are counter-productive and in the end just plays right into the hands of those that would make Dutch society adapt to Islam, rather than Islam adapting to the society where it finds itself.
There needs to be a movement by the people to try to force the government to take more assertive action, unfortunately, the people seem to have fallen sway to the general sense of malaise in the EU. I pray that they shake it off before it's too late.
update: As bad as the situation it's even worse in Sweden...now there courts are starting to apply Sha'ria law to it's Muslim citizens, and course, it makes the conditions for the women worse than for the men.
WHY didn't the court just follow Swedish law? I guess the concept of "equal protection under the law" is a concept that the EU is starting to lose, all in the name of PC multiculturalism.
1
This is scary stuff. It is absolutely, frighteningly amazing that Sweden is de facto changing its laws to accommodate a portion of its population.
I'm afraid that there are those in the US that would have us do the same.
Posted by: Jack Army at March 02, 2005 03:55 PM (L20+G)
2
Actually, with the Supreme Court decision on teenage executions that came down today, it's occurring HERE right now....part of the reasoning of the majority was "there's a world concensus that executing offenders under the age of 21 is morally wrong"....
Wish we could get SC judges that would rule strictly by the Constitution rather than taking in "penumbras" and "world opinions"!
Posted by: delftsman3 at March 03, 2005 05:53 AM (L7g7C)
3
I wonder what would happen if the intolerance you seem to support was put fully in effect in this country...your immigrant ass would have been deported a long time ago based on the missconception that Netherlanders are agnostic, liberal stoners. The rest of your right wing friends will be waiting in the depths of hell for you.
Posted by: voice of reason or am I?! at March 03, 2005 05:45 PM (0qeQv)
4
There's a difference between tolerance and ceding your sovereignty, "reason". Tell me just how a country is served by subjegating their law to a foreign system? Maybe you think that we should start allowing Muslims to stone women that have been raped here too?
"The rest of your right wing friends will be waiting in the depths of hell for you."
That an example of Liberal tolerance?
I ran into many examples of bias against emigre's in my youth. Interestingly,mostly by the liberal side of the aisle... The only thing conservatives were concerned about was if you could pull your own weight.
Posted by: delftsman3 at March 03, 2005 08:39 PM (3BvSr)
U.seless N.itwits Scandal
Well, as the investigation into the Oil for Food scandal goes ever deeper into the records, it's becoming ever cleared that the scandal goes all the way to the Secretary General's office. Unlike it was formerly claimed, it was the Secretariat's Office that oversaw the auditing reports, NOT the Security Council.
This puts to rest for all time wether or not the U.N. has any moral authority whatsoever. It's been shown to be a thoroughly corrupt, dictater coddling,genocide ignoring,socalism spreading, graft machine for the leaders at the very top of the organization. It's time that it was relegated to the ash heap of history.
Posted by: Delftsman3 at
12:25 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.
Leftist Propaganda
Elliot over at Spare White Guy has a post about a group of Nitwits that are using the names of some of our fallen heroes in an anti-war display.
Had the families of those brave men had any input into making up the display, I wouldn't have any problem with it, They have the right to voice their opinions, but this group just picked the names from the causelty lists and put them up as if they have agreed with the groups anti-war/anti-Bush views.
To so use these men's memories as anti-war propaganda cheapens the sacrifice that they and their families have made in a way that anyone with compassion would find disgusting.
The organizers of this charade + rope + tree, some assembly required.
Posted by: Delftsman3 at
02:39 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.
More on Terri Schaivo
Judge Orders Schiavo's Feeding Tube to Remain for Three Weeks
Breaking from NewsMax.com
Supporters of Terri Schiavo's right to life scored a big victory late
Friday when a Florida judge ordered her feeding tube to remain for an
additional three weeks.
"Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer made his decision after
pleadings from the woman's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, that they
need more time to pursue additional medical tests which might prove their
daughter has more mental capabilities than previously thought." the AP
reported.
The judge's stay will remain until March 18. But the legal battle to
keep Terri alive is far from over.
Fla. Governor Jeb Bush has also ordered the state to investigate
allegations Schiavo has been abused or mistreated. The state is reportedly
seeking a 60-day delay in removal of the feeding tube.
Terri's father Robert is leading the legal effort to save his daughter.
He has set up a legal defense fund. He needs your help.
Irani girl sentenced to 100 Lashes
Here's yet another example of the barbaric Iranian "legal" system at work.
Tell me again Moonbats, how we should "negotiate" with people such as these?!
And don't give me a lot of blather about "cultural differences", some things are just WRONG, no matter what the culture.
1
100 lashes for her and 40 to 50 for the men, better than outright stoning, yet with that type of beating they still might die. The leftist loonbats will defend this type of treatment as cultural justice, what they refuse to acknowledge is it will soon be the law of the land, our land, if we don't act to stop IslamoFascism. Yet they'll continue to set there with their hats on backwards and sip the brew of knowledge espoused by the liberal establishment all the while tearing down our system of freedom never complaining of the human injustices of these animals.
Posted by: Jack at February 26, 2005 04:56 PM (r43QR)
The Obesity Police Strike
Well, the Nanny state war against obesity has begun.
It's true that this story comes out of the UK, so why should we here in the US be concerned about it? Well how about the GFW's citing the UK as a model of "proper" gun control? Can the Fat Police be far behind here?
1
The case is interesting. If we oppose the "nanny-state" taking him to a hospital, we really need to oppose the state's war on drugs. Food is certainly a more lethal addiction, when it's this extreme, than the continued use of hallucinogens or opiates. I would agree that the state needs to step back on this one.
Posted by: Karlo at February 23, 2005 04:28 PM (HoLw7)
P.S. ravings
The Imperial Dungeonmaster has a post up at the Rott outlining one example of the Public SchoolIndoctrination Center method of instilling Moonbattery to our young. It's all the more personal because the soldier who recieved the morale busting letters is the brother of one of the Loyal Citizens, Imamommy.
Her father is scheduled to be on the Hannity and Colmes show tonight (Feb,22,2005) I think it would behoove you to watch and see just kind of effect this type of incident can evoke, not just among the soldiers themselves, but their familys and friends as well.
1
What would you do as teacher in this case, Deftsman? Censor all letters that don't meet a certain ideological standard? I think it says something for U.S. education that we don't do that. I checked out the "objectionable content" at the link and all I could make out was that there are some kids who have different views than their government. Is this so objectionable? Is it so awful that kids are worried about civilian casualities? The site had a bunch of nonsense about the views being leftwing academic propaganda. If grade-schoolers are now reading Chomsky or Das Kapital, Bush's No Child Left Behind is working wonders! Just a few years ago, half of the young tykes couldn't write their own names. As for the ideological deviations, perhaps we need to start a Bush Youth Corp and dress the younguns in freshly pressed brown shirts with identical American flags sown across the front. We can then instill some patriotic views in their bosoms before they get to uppity and start thinkin' for themselves.
Posted by: Karlo at February 23, 2005 07:16 PM (HoLw7)
2
And the part about how some grade-schooler's letter might ruin morale was a real hoot. You've got people sitting out in the Iraqi sun and dust getting shot at, people flipping them off or throwing rocks at them all day, and they're going to all pack their bags and leave because of the questioning of some little grade-schooler.
Posted by: Karlo at February 23, 2005 07:18 PM (HoLw7)
3
Karlo, that's not the point and I'm sure you know it. These guys aren't ready to pack their bags and leave because of some sarcastic, uninformed little 6th graders. But if you have ever been lonely, homesick, far from family and friends, you understand how much something like that cuts at your heart.
Haven't you ever felt strongly about something or someone, felt you were doing the right thing for them, felt as though you were doing the best that you could do under bad circumstances or conditions, only to have it thrown back at you as "not good enough" or completely wrong? Haven't you ever loved something or someone deeply enough to lay down your life for him, her or it, only to be rebuffed cruelly by the very thing or person you loved enough to make that sacrifice? The cruelties of love feel the same, whether it's a hostile, ungrateful lover or a hostile, ungrateful populace.
Sure, you can look at it as "big macho soldiers too sensitive to what little kids say" but you can also look at it "snarky know-it-all pre-teens try to act like they have a clue" as well.
I'm sure even Marx had days when the cruelties and lack of understanding within his own circle were unbearable.
Posted by: Mamamontezz at February 25, 2005 04:53 AM (61vfJ)
4
Instead of being upset about such letters, I would see them as an opportunity for dialogue. As for motivations, I know from personal experience that many of the soldiers in Iraq in elsewhere believe in what they're doing. But the same could be said of the "insurgents." I'm sure they have bad days too when they are angry with the local population for not giving them adequate support. One conservative meme seems to be that we should all band together like members of a tightknit tribe. Personally, I feel like the world has enough tightknit tribes. Instead of true-believers, it could use a more independent thinkers who feel little loyalty to tribes or nations.
Posted by: Karlo at February 28, 2005 03:22 PM (ddf+l)
5
"Instead of true-believers, it could use a more independent thinkers who feel little loyalty to tribes or nations."
You know Karlo, Stalin had a term for those who had no loyalty to their nation, he called them "useful idiots".
While dissent within the nation is good, indeed it's necessary to ensure non-stagnation of the body politique, such as occurring in Europe right now. Politics ends at the borders edge, from there, a united front is best for the security of the people.
At any time in history, when any group lost the basic cohesion to form a stable society, (ie when there was no longer loyalty to the society) that society has been destroyed by the groups that had maintained that cohesiveness.
"I'm sure they ("insurgents") have bad days too when they are angry with the local population for not giving them adequate support."
Yes they do Karlo, and take note of how they treat with those that "do not give them adequate support". WE have discussions and debates, THEY just put the dissenting population up against the wall and shoot them.
Dissent and discussion can only occur among people that have respect for others opinions and viewpoints. The "insurgents" idiology precludes any such differences and works to stamp them out, and preferably in the most brutal manner possible, to discourage further dissent in the future.
Posted by: delftsman3 at February 28, 2005 06:15 PM (61vfJ)
Ali,Wilders in Prison
I saw this story at The Dutch Report and I was sickened by the thought that the situation there had deteriorated to the point that representatives of a legitimate government had to be housed in a maximum security prison to try to guarentee their safety.
I know that it would seem to affect me more than the majority of my readers, after all, we live in unprecedented safety here in the United States, and Holland is the country of MY birth, not their's; but if they think about it, they would realize that if it could happen in a country known for it's tolerance and freedom, it could happen here. Don't think that it can't. (it would be poetic justice to see Sen."Splash" Kennedy under that type of protection protocall....wonder if they could "lose" the key to his cell?)
If we don't wake up to the threat that Islamofacism presents everywhere in the world, how long will it be before WE provide housing at the Greybar Hotel for our Senators and Congressmen to provide for their safety? I don't believe that we will ever go that route, thats what we have the Secret Service for, but still, it does give one food for thought. When a small group of fanatics can disrupt the nomal conduct of governmental members, that government is in serious trouble.
It will be a tricky thing here in the U.S. to maintain the level of freedom we enjoy and still have an effective means of combating this scourge, in the end, we'll have to accept a certain level of danger to keep those freedoms intact, but I believe that more can be done than is being done at present.
We must never trade freedom for security, but we must be more vigilant and responsible for our own safety, and realize that that safety IS under attack. We have one advantage over the Dutch, and that is our Second Amendment, which not only affords us the freedom to bear arms, but tacitly recognizes our individual freedom to protect ourselves, with deadly force if need be, without the EU attitude that only the official defenders of the law can provide protection.
UPDATE:Here are some comments by security specialists and government officials on the situation.
The reaction by some of the governmental apparatchiks is, to say the least, inexecusable, and the voters should remeber this the next time they go to the polls.
1
Its sad to see whats going on the Netherlands.
You are correct it could happen here.
it will be interesting to watch the situation in Holland.I dont have a real warm fuzzy feeling about the Islamists over there.
Cheers from Sunny Tampa Bay
Posted by: NeilV at February 21, 2005 10:50 PM (YpRpk)
Anti-Military Hatemongors
Recently I received a heads up on the existance of the site http://www.forsakethetroops.info, from several of my friends.
I went there and read the inane, deceitful, and singularly hate filled diatribes there, and experienced the most powerful RCOB moment I have had in my memory. I was so angered by what I read there that I was unable to post a coherent post about it.
Luckily, my nephew over at the Slaughterhouse could and did write a reasoned post. Go there, read what he wrote and follow your own consciounce(sic). I agree wholeheartedly with Slaglerock.
There are times when free speech just becomes an expression of unreasoned hate, and should be exposed to the world to see, and to provoke a response against it. The ONLY difference between he and I is that I WILL call the site owners scumbags, for that term describes them perfectly.
1
The information at http://www.forsakethetroops.info/ is information we should know. Admitedly the writer is angry and upset but what can people expect when the election is stolen from them to proceed with an illegal war.
Posted by: milo at April 26, 2005 07:24 PM (W8clH)
2
Why is it ok for *you* to excercise *your* free speech to criticise what *he* does, but not ok for *him* to excercise *his* right?
Free speech either works *all* ways, or it doesn't work at all. That is, after all, what the US military is supposed to fight for - or have they dropped the oath soldiers take to protect the Constitution know,?
Posted by: Eoghan Ryan at April 28, 2005 01:03 PM (BL77V)
3
listen, Crook is a hyprocrite... he himself censors us service members when we wanna give him a piece of our own mind. Heres his censor disclaimer: "Because of the ignorant actions of a few, who can't express their opinions without obscenity, insults, and disrespect, the message board requires that you register to read or post. Also, the guestbook is now moderated. Amazingly, no one is trying to voice their opinion. It's surprising what happens when anonymity is taken away. Peoples' balls fall off. There's free speech, folks, but only to a limit, and it has been abused..we have been abused. Disagree with us, fine, but do it with respect and couth." So it sounds like he can bash people like me with insults and disrespect and get away with it...and when people like me bite back, he reserves the right to censor us... does that sound right at all? NO!
Posted by: ADAA Ryan. Y at April 29, 2005 01:40 AM (hm/j9)
4
What can you expect when we had an illegal president send troops into an illegal war. Congress was never asked to 'declare war', so it's illegal. We were also lied to about the reasons for going to war. We have George Bush junior who never served a day in his life in active combat and served in the national guard back in the Vietnam days when EVERONE knew that guard duty was the rich man's way of DODGING THE DRAFT. Bushie's rich papa enabled him to dodge the draft to Vietnam. Of course now, you have millions of people very upset with Bush and the military.
If you want to blame someone, the blame lies solely at W's feet.
Fighting some stupid nonsense war over in Iraq, in no way protects or garauntees my rights of free speech or any other freedom expressed in the U.S. Constitution. Why the hell aren't we fighting all the other horrendous dictatotors in the world???
Blame George for this upset guy who built this upset website.
-bd
5
That dolt Michael Crook IS NOT against the war...he's against the TROOPS. He is an army basic trainee wash out. He even wrote about his "military experience" and how he regrets his decision not to appeal when they booted his rear for fraud. Can't blame Bush for a guy who hates the troops. The military has been around ALOT longer than Bush and will be around long after he is gone. All you have to do is go check out his site to see just what a loser Michael Crook is. Go to forsakethetroops and see his idiotic ramblings. Go to his personal site michaelcrook.com and see for yourself what a brainless wonder he is. Or better yet, go to his 'wife's' site sillygoose109.com and read her moronic ramblings. Can't blame anyone for these people being as stupid as they are. Michael Crook is a self proclaimed gay nazi wanna be who admittedly got the crud beat outta him by his ex wife. Yeah, he's a winner i'd stand up for.
Posted by: diana at May 20, 2005 08:36 AM (JXX4i)
6
all of you Bush haters need to be ashamed of yourselves. It's punitive minds like yours that are what's wrong with the united states today. take into consideration the people that have saved lives overseas. Yes, we all know you are still bitter about losing the election, but just for a moment, let's pretend you're adults. When's the last time You had the responsibility of leading a country? Hmommm, you think you know everything there is to know about the situation overseas? Have you been there? Half of you haven't set foot outside the perimeter of your hometown or city. life is about experience, so the next time You're president of the united states, let us know how it goes. The next time You're putting that military uniform on knowing that you're going to save someone's life today or help a country develope into the 21st century, by all means, speak your mind. But until then, why don't you try educating yourselves with fact instead of fiction. As for everyone else that is proud of calling themselves an American, don't even worry about michael crook. he's nothing but a spineless man who's lost his ba**s and his 15 min of fame will be over with soon. as for all you supporter's of him, we're not worried about you because all we have to do is look at your source.
Posted by: kim, USAF at May 26, 2005 08:12 AM (Zv+BP)
7
Michael Crook got kicked out for fraud and that is too funny! What a whiny-BITCH he is. He was challenged to a fight by, get this, a 60 y.o. Vietnam Vet but Crook declined! What a fvcking pussy. A poster child for the Libs!
Posted by: GunnyG at May 31, 2005 05:49 PM (PXaeY)
8
The sh*t-eating liberal's site got shut down. The Planet acted fast and nuked the piece of sh*t.
Posted by: Devil Dog at May 31, 2005 05:58 PM (PXaeY)
9
I think this website business is as offensive to my American (not to mention HUMAN) sensibilities as anyone else does.This Crook guy is an insult to America not to mention a very sad mixed up human being. I would feel sorry for him if I didn't hate him so damn much. After all, I call myself a liberal. If you listen to the comments of many on either liberal or "conservative" sides of the political aisle, you'll find that they generally agree. The guy has no place among decent folks. What the reader will not see however, are sentiments such as: "That Crook guy is a right wing plant to make Democrats and civil libertarians look foolish. Those lunatic fringe hate mongering wingnuts think they're gonna provoke us into calling them inbred meatheaded retards who are married to their sisters. Those goddamn low rent trailer trash neocon redneck, red-baiting, snake handling jerks only have a IQ of 13 between them. Those gun-happy, ned -beatty-raping assholes must think we're all as poorly spoken and ill informed as they and their poorly spoken, draft dodging, coke snorting, alcoholic leader. The wingnuts are coming, boys, run for the hills- I hear banjo mus
ic!!"
I realize that those to whom I addressed those comments didn't get my point, so I'll explain: We can disagree on issues and still be neighborly , patriotic Americans. If all one can do to support one's position is to smear the landscape with perjorative opinions of one's opponents, I don't hold out much hope for their point of view. If that's the best they can do, they have my sympathy. Americans are generally smarter than that, last fall's elections notwithstanding. You know who you are and so does America. Nevertheless I wish you peace because you're my neighbor. Oops- sorry I said the "p" word. I'll go wash my liberal mouth out with soap now. Shame.
Posted by: Feral at September 14, 2005 12:16 AM (zBKec)
Terri SchiavoRead this and tell me that you don't experience a "RCOB" moment.
Here we have a judge presuming to make a medical determination against the sworn affidavits of qualified medical personnel, not even allowing a brain scan that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Terri was "in there". This to provide relief to a sick puss-bag of a husband that took money awarded into his trust for rehabilitative care for his wife, and never provided that care.
In my own humble opinion, he should suffer the fate he would visit upon his wife, he should be strapped down to a bed and allowed to starve/dehydrate to death.
Bloodthirsty? Maybe....I prefer to call it poetic justice.
1
I'm not sure what to think of the husband in this case. The way I look at it is if he wants to move on with his life let the court order him divorced or whatever and let the people who love her take care of her. Her husband said that this is only hurting Terri. However, on the other hand he said she was not aware of her surroundings. If that's the case then she realy don't care. She is only assisted with the feeding tube. How do we know when she had this so called disscussion with her husband about what she wanted in the case something like this happened that she was talking about something keeping her heart and lungs going. Not a feeding tube. As I understand her heart and lungs are working on their own.
on 8/12/2003 I had a nephew born with a deadly disorder called trisomy 13. He to had to have a feeding tube. His brain was not fully developed so in a since he was like Mrs. Schiavo. We were told he could live days or years no one could say. No one ever would ever think of taking his feeding tube away. It would have been seen as cruel and inhumain. So I ask who has the say to value one LIFE but not the other. The news, goverment,courts,and people of the world would have judged my family badly but their are so many that seems to think this is ok. It's NOT. She smiles and looks around she is alive. My nephew passed away at the age of 2 months. I can tell you one thing for sure his mother and father took every day they had with him as a blessing as well as the rest of the family. We have memories that we never would have had if we would have let him starve to death.
Thank You.
Posted by: Melissa Giles at February 23, 2005 05:26 AM (6krEN)
2
I have read the doctor's reports and am appalled that the courts keep ruling with the husband. His complete disregard for his wife's life, however less than perfect, is an indicator of his culpability. I think that the injuries she sustained that left her in her present state were supposed to have killed her. I think that the husband's repeated efforts to legally kill her are only more evidence that he wants the money and he wants her dead so he doesn't have to share it with her. Otherwise, why didn't he just divorce her years ago and let her be taken care of by her parents?
I have worked with autistic children and patients who had severe brain injuries. Her condition is by no means "vegetative." If she received the rehabilitation that the money was supposed to provide, perhaps she would recover to the point that she could communicate to her caregivers just WHAT happened the day she was found so badly injured.
Perhaps this is precisely why her husband is fighting so much for her to die?
Posted by: Lorraine at February 24, 2005 03:28 AM (5ufV9)
3
I think you have hit the nail on the head Lorraine. I was a LEO for almost ten years, and in every investigation, there was a 85% chance that in a situation such as this, a family member was responsible for the injuries done.
That the court has sided with the husband in almost every instance points out one of the flaws in our legal system, ie, that the closest family member is held to have the highest standing in decisions regarding an incapacitated person. It makes some sense, but every individual case should be examined on it's own merits. In this case, I believe it's obvious that Mr. Schiavo has not acted in the best interests of his wife, to the point of being not merely negligent, but criminally culpable.
Posted by: delftsman3 at February 24, 2005 04:04 AM (LmMJW)
4
I tend to agree with the postings that I find in this discussion thread. But if Terri Schiavo is to be terminated, it should be done by instantaneous means, since removing a feeding tube is not as easy as switchting off a machine. Starvation is a cruel way to die, bringing forth more of the euthanasia or "assisted suicide" controversy. It might mean killing her as a veterinarian would a terminally ill pet or an overcrowded animal shelter would "put to sleep" its excess clientele, and also the lethal injection used as execution in the case of prisoners held for capital offenses! I can think of other ways for a quick "humane" death but they might sound morbid.
Next-of-kin should be established by "blood" or DNA kinship, which the Schindlers are and Mr. Schiavo is not. Terri's intentions were never established by a Living Will, so the husband's claim is hearsay, inadmissible in a court of law. She is thus more a part of the ones who sincerely love her, and definitely not the man's property.
This case reminds me of the famous "Solomonic" trial in 1 Kings 3:16-28.
Posted by: Juan Rivera at March 24, 2005 06:34 AM (PkOUT)
Theft as anti-war statement
From the Rotweiller, I learned of an Idiotarian promoting theft as as an anti-war statement. I don't live in Dallas, so I hope that this movement doesn't affect me, but I would echo the Emperor's sentiment should it occur here in Indy:
"Just remember that you'll be approaching our private property with malice aforethought."
"To answer the unasked question: Yes, we will. And we'll enjoy it too."
Peace process? WHAT peace process?
It's official, the peace process is dead in the Israeli/PalistinianMisplaced Arabs. Abbas has authorized the execution of three citizens of the PA for treason, the treason being that these three men gave Israel information on wanted terrorists. Abbas himself should have taken care of these terrorists if he were really serious about establishing a true peace. This action, along with his inablity to rein in Hammas and Hezbolla will sink the peace process as surely as if the PA were the Titanic and True Peace the iceburg.
Posted by: Delftsman3 at
07:36 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.
France speaks out again
Many Moonbats decry that President Bush didn't take enough time to get France and Germany on board the bandwagon prior to taking on Saddam, but HERE is yet another example of why they would have NEVER gotten onboard. France is "concerned with ruining their good relations" with a terrorist organization? Wonder what arms contracts they have in the pipeline.....
Posted by: Delftsman3 at
07:28 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.
