Michigan and Right To Work

First off, congratulations to Michigan for allowing citizens to own their own labor and not be forced by law and coercion to join a union.

Congrats to Democrats and union supporters for acting like the moron goons we all know you are:

I’ve heard the point made in the last few days, though, that the thuggery is not just endemic to unions, but important to them.  When there are real threats put out there, people understand that they really mean it.  Though “it”, as always, is merely preserving their racket, while painting a picture of cackling mustachioed robber barons whipping child slave labor, and the idea that it was unions and not the free market that created the wholly subjective “living wage”.

It’s interesting to read the leftist point of view on this topic.  From HuffPo:

LANSING, Mich. — Over the chants of thousands of angry protesters, Republican lawmakers made Michigan a right-to-work state Tuesday, dealing a devastating and once-unthinkable defeat to organized labor in a place that has been a bastion of the movement for generations.

The GOP-dominated House ignored Democrats’ pleas to delay the final passage and instead approved two bills with the same ruthless efficiency that the Senate showed last week. One measure dealt with private-sector workers, the other with government employees. Republican Gov. Rick Snyder signed them both within hours, calling them “pro-worker and pro-Michigan.”

“This is about freedom, fairness and equality,” House Speaker Jase Bolger said during the floor debate. “These are basic American rights – rights that should unite us.”

After the vote, he said, Michigan’s future “has never been brighter, because workers are free.”

The state where the United Auto Workers was founded and labor has long been a political titan will join 23 others with right-to-work laws, which ban requirements that nonunion employees pay unions for negotiating contracts and other services.

Supporters say the laws give workers more choice and support economic growth, but critics insist the real intent is to weaken organized labor by encouraging workers to “freeload” by withholding money unions need to bargain effectively.

Protesters in the Capitol gallery chanted “Shame on you!” as the measures were adopted. Union backers clogged the hallways and grounds shouting “No justice, no peace.” And Democrats warned that hard feelings over the legislation and Republicans’ refusal to hold committee hearings or allow a statewide referendum would be long lasting.

Emphasis obviously added.  They wouldn’t just go out and say “Republicans bad, they hate workers, Democrats good, they love workers, and scabs are evil scum”.  Because, y’know, there’s nothing more democratic than getting forced by government to pay to an organization you don’t want to belong to, just for the priviledge of owning your own work.

But as always, unions aren’t about helping workers, they’re about pitting one group of workers against another group of workers.

Now, if you do happen to be a union guy, or a union girl (though they don’t like women or blacks or hispanics or chinese or ______  minority depending on the shop, and used unions to keep shops closed to non-white males, but I digress…), you’ll note that they said the problem is it will allow non-union workers to not have money stolen out of their pockets to pay for union negotiation.  Thing is, a company probably doesn’t have to hire somebody at the union rate if they aren’t a union member.  Also, union member dues don’t go to negotiation (except when they’re busy killing tire plants and bakeries) so much, and as visibly, as they go here.  Note that these are the top all-time donors, and unions are all boxed in blue.  Notice that their support goes overwhelmingly, if not absolutely, to Democrats:

Now if you go back and really look at the list, you’ll see that not only do unions make up over a third of the list there, they contribute almost exclusively to Democrats, and when you look at other “heavy hitters” that donate, they aren’t split anywhere near the way the unions are.  The most “even” distribution of union support is a split of 75% Dem, 17% Rep.

Of course Democrats will be mad about this.  If people don’t have to pay dues each month to support Democrats, they might have to turn to some of their other overwhelmingly powerful political action committees to get elected rather than just pick the pockets of voters while blaming Republicans for the failures the Democrats cause – The Curley Effect again.

Democrat Attack Ad on Allen West – Stupidly Offensive or Offensively Stupid?

Via The Blaze & Drudge:

Too Far? New Attack Ad Targeting Allen West Depicts Him Beating Women

It is hard to think of an attack ad lower than the one essentially blaming Mitt Romney for a woman’s death, but we may have just found one.

It’s from Florida, and it depicts Allen West (R-FL) in a boxing ring with red gloves on.  The cartoon-like video then shows West punching an old woman, a young lady and seemingly a family with children.  He also steals cash from the hands of the family and pockets it, all while laughing like a gremlin.

…

The ad is starting to garner attention from critics, including one who thinks there are some racial undertones.  Javier Manjarres, who is following the race closely, notes:

 ”The ad slyly uses a caricature of West and portrays him as a bully who hits women- more specifically, a white women- while he grabs money away from a “middle class” family that just happens to be a black family.”

The American Sunrise PAC is responsible for the video.  The group was incidentally founded by the father of Congressman West’s general election opponent, Democrat Patrick Murphy, who has funneled $250,000 into the PAC. 

Here’s the ad:

It was nice that they put the dates in there for their supposed citations.  Here’s the only Palm Beach Post story on Allen West between 11/23/11 and 11/25/11.

Rep. Allen West, a Plantation Republican, disagreed, saying the 10-year, $600 billion cut in defense spending included in the $1.2 trillion deficit-reduction plan would be devastating.

“I am not for these automatic cuts. It disproportionately will affect the military,” West, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, said.

..

West said Congress should revamp the nation’s tax code by broadening the tax base and eliminating some tax subsidies. He favors a plan floated by U.S. Rep. Patty Toomey, R-Pa., that would make tax cuts initiated by President George W. Bush permanent and would lower taxes from 35 to 28 percent for the wealthiest Americans. To make up the difference, Toomey’s plan would eliminate about $250 billion in tax breaks, including for college tuition and mortgages.

But at the top of the list, West said, Congress should pare back government spending by an estimated $200 billion.

“The most important thing is people need to go up thereand start doing the hard surgical scrutiny of looking for failed government programs that can be eliminated,” said West.

…

But some politicians of both parties appear to agree that cuts to Medicare should be averted and that tax reform is essential the nation’s economic security.

The across-the-board cuts, not scheduled to go into effect until January 2013, also hit Medicare providers, including a 32 percent reduction for in-patient hospital care, a 15 percent cut for physicians and a 7 percent cut for nursing homes.

“We don’t want to see that happen,” West said.

Wow, West really does want to beat white seniors and women and black families and steal their money… by extending the Bush tax rates, rather than letting them expire… so they can keep more of their money.  And he wants wealthy Americans to have less of their money stolen by the government.  And he doesn’t want people’s money stolen from government and redistributed through failed programs.  And he wants to make sure Medicare doesn’t take a hit.  That makes perfect sense to make Allen West into a boxer who takes people’s money… if you’re a Democrat ad writer.

So the exact same article, from 10 months ago, states he wants to extend the Bush tax rates, also known as the Bush tax cuts.  Those were broad cuts for everyone.  If West extends those, everyone gets to keep more of their own earnings.  If he shuts down failed government programs, there are some welfare leeches that might lose handouts that were taken from the working man’s pocket.  The only people who have a problem with that are welfare leeches who demand government steal from the working to give to them.  West wants tax cuts for the wealthy, which means business owners – people who turn around and generate jobs and spur the economy on. West wants to not make blind cuts to the military, though I’m sure he’d agree there are wasteful programs that could be cut, he also knows that the military projects that get cut aren’t necessarily the ones that should go when DC is making the decisions and not unit commanders.  West is concerned that Medicare cuts proposed by the super committee would harm Medicare providers, ultimately hurting those on Medicare.

He doesn’t “steal money” from anyone.  He’s for stopping the government from plundering one family to give to a mooching parasite.  Ending a handout is not stealing money.  It’s stopping the theft from someone else.  If A has been subsidized by the government and given favors and money from B’s pocket, saying B should keep their money is not stealing from A.  A loses nothing out of their own pocket, they have the same amount they started with – the same potential for income based on their own effort.  B gets to keep a larger percentage of their income because that money isn’t taken by government to give to A so A can indulge in sloth.

There’s also the racial component to this ad, which is almost inevitable with Democrats due to their own intrinsic racism, but it’s subtle.  The choice of “victims” is specific, but they don’t go over the top.  I’m sure were it directed the other way, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would scream racism, but realistically, it’s not terribly racist in its presentation.  It would be interesting to hear what was going on in the studio where they were making it, but ultimately in the final version of the ad, it’s only subtly racist.  It’s still offensive, but also so profoundly stupid and contrary to the story it quotes that it’s a toss-up between offensive and stupid.

Liberal “Civility” Concerning Obama Care Ruling

From Twitchy:

DNC Donkey (Photo credit: N-ree-K)

Here you go folks, straight from the mouths of the “let’s be civil” police, the good ole’ boys from the DNC:

Patrick Gaspard’s (Executive Direct of the DNC) tweet: “…its constitutional. bitches.”

Greg Greene’s (DNC’s News Media Director) tweet: “…take that motherf..ers.”

Wow, the class amazes me. How can any vote Democrat with people like that running their party.

 

Heckling and Presidents

Some idiot on MSNBC had this to say about Obama being called out for his amnesty speech today:

“…Democratic strategist Julian Epstein said on the channel this afternoon.

“I think it’s a vert important question because I think this is the first African-American president. We’ve never had a white president been told by the opposing party to shut up in the middle of a major address to the Congress. We’ve never had a president like this heckled so disrespectfully. We’ve never had this otherness afforded to any other president and I think the right wing has some explaining to do because to me it’s patently obvious,” he said.

Really, Epstein?

Really?  Here, LMGTFY!

And you can find Clinton heckled and H.W. Bush heckled, and Reagan heckled, and Carter, and keep on going back.  This isn’t new.  Obama’s mandates are (though they mimic Wilson and Roosevelt’s.)

Don’t Be This Guy on Memorial Day

 Chris Hayes from MSNBC:

I don’t know alot about this guy, it seems he has been around the liberal feeding trough for a while. But to not be able to call a man or woman who has died in defense of his freedom, “a hero” is pretty sad.  My question to him would be how is calling a fallen soldier or marine a hero a justification for more wars. I call it giving credit where credit is due. That includes all veterans and those who have fallen. These types of comments are probably why MSNBC’s ratings continue to decline.

A Facebook Conversation Concerning Obamacare

A few weeks ago and after much deliberation with myself concerning the following I have decided to let our readers in on a little conversation I had with a coworker on Facebook concerning Obamacare. I will also be providing some commentary (in bold italics) for the following comments in true Patriot Perspective style. In order to properly frame the following argument I will attempt to recreate  the conversation with some heavy editing because some of the conversation is slang or “shorthand” with little or no punctuation involved with I will correct as best I can. 

To begin I saw the following picture:

I couldn’t help myself so I made the following comment.

Me:

Healthcare isn’t a right gents….

Coworker:

 Well we as Americans feed the beast that is health care, so now we should just let it eat the poor? And your already providing healthcare for probably half the country in uninsured ER visits and Medicaid! I came from a blue-collar family and my parents always had a job with health insurance I was lucky, sounds like you must have come from a similar situation. Talk to someone who had to go hungry because they got sick and if you can look them in the eyes and tell them healthcare is for well off people your wired different then me (my emphasis).

 Notice the attempt to cause me to feel guilt? Also notice that this individual is propping themself up as a, “better than thou,” because my opinion is not his own.

Me:

I never said it’s for well off people. If someone wants the security of insurance they either need to find a better job that supplies it, or make some changes in their lifestyle such as getting rid of bills and stuff they don’t need and maybe buy some health insurance instead. It shouldnt be on me (and other hardworking folks) to provide someone else health care because they can’t or won’t work. I know it happens now, but when they take 50 or 60% of your paycheck how the hell are you supposed to live? And after they (the government) take money from all of us and give it folks who need it how long before there is no one else to produce the money so everyone who isn’t working gets their healthcare?

Coworker:

You are already paying for the people who don’t work. Wal-Mart has a human resource department to teach employees how to file for government assistance. These are working Americans, not lazy asses sitting around watching Jerry Springer, and a better job where at? Up and ups (I think he means people with money) and Halliburton can only hire so many people. Go to Bonham, Texas and look around go to Detroit and see how corporate America has left these people high and dry!

Another attempt to get me to “see” how he is right and I am wrong. Also the following picture is from Detroit, home of some of the most liberal (in a bad way) politicians in these United States.

Me:

Now I am paying for folks that don’t work. I also know that I don’t want to pay anymore. Where is the origin of debt? (Borrowed that from Andrew Wilkow, thanks Andrew!) Who decides that I owe somebody something? You? The government? If I came to your house every day and took half of the food out of your pantry for your kids to eat you wouldn’t be upset? What does Halliburton have to do with anything? Also Detroit has been run by liberals since the 1940′s that’s why it’s jacked up from entitlement programs. Because folks there sure don’t want to do anything to better their live. Why would they? They can just go get a handout. You tell me where the origin of debt is to pay for someone else’s healthcare, whether they work or not…. You show me the Constitutional authority for the government to order me to pay for anything that someone else can buy on their own.

I consider the above comments by myself to be rock solid. I provided this coworker the opportunity to completely shut my argument down here is the much-anticipated response.

Coworker:

That’s fine I got my house in order. If you can look in the mirror and shave knowing your just as greedy as the rest more power to you but I can’t (my emphasis).

Really? Did I ask about your house being order? I asked where the constitutional authority was for Obamacare. Once again notice the attempt at guilt and to position themself as better, more compassionate than myself. My response is as follows.

Me:

I’m not being greedy, I just want what I work for, and why not? It belongs to me doesn’t it? And you didn’t answer my question. Where is the origin of debt and where is the Constitutional Authority? If you can’t answer lets not resort to name calling or calling me greedy. After all, how can I be greedy if I just want more of the money I work for?

Pretty solid response to an illogical argument I think. But wait! There’s more.

Coworker:

And the people need help. Most of them work and pay taxes just like you … the working poor!

At this point I then decided to throw a link in with the cold, hard fact that close to 50% of people in the United States do not pay taxes.

Me:

‎50% of the population doesn’t pay in to the IRS, check this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105131/HALF-Americans-dont-pay-income-tax-despite-crippling-government-debt.html

Coworker:

 Poor key word. 100 percent of blind people don’t see well dude, come on!

I must admit the above comment confuses me still nearly two weeks later. I am not sure what my coworker means or which “key word” this individual is referring to.

Me:

Ok, not sure what you are saying to me there. It is fact 50+ percent (of people) do not pay taxes in this country, I think you need to reformulate your argument…. The point I am trying to make is most of those folks at Wal-Mart probably don’t pay into the IRS.

From here the conversation begins to end and seems to devolve especially on my coworkers side.

Coworker:

I don’t have time to argue this because I am going to work. The money I make today, I will pay taxes on don’t worry, I don’t need a tissue. I don’t mind paying taxes. I support a household of 5 with my income so 4 of the lazy no good tax dodgers in my house don’t have too (my emphasis)! Go back and look at your numbers, 50 percent! My spouse stays at home , they part of 50 percent along with my 7, 4, and 1-year-old kids. No it’s true they are the 50 percent!

Now the individual insult his own family members calling them tax dodgers? Three of them are children and a stay at home wife. Even saying they are part of that 50% isn’t correct. No they may not pay taxes, its true, however, they do have healthcare coverage courtesy of this individuals hard work. Also this person says that they don’t have a problem with paying taxes. Guess what fellow coworker, I don’t mind either, I just want to ensure that my money is used by the government Constitutionally and not to pay for a service that people should pay for themselves. This was pretty much the end of the conversation, I closed it out with the following statement, mainly because of the liberal tendency to hate people whose opinions to resemble their own.

Me:

 Look its nothing personal, and it is ok that you don’t agree with me. I am not mad at you or anyone else, I simply am proving my point of view and nothing else.

The above statement is the truth. I don’t have any issue with anyone that I get into discussions with. All I ask is that they prove to me that I am wrong. All this person above did was manufacture an epic fail in the logic department.

WWII Heroes’ Graves Desecrated In Libya By Islamic Mob

Video here.

Somehow this story slipped through the cracks.

Apparently a lot of these were British Forces’ graves, but US troops and other allies were among them.

Again, a friendly reminder from The Religion of Peace.  Of course, TheReligionOfPeace keeps up on them.

Occupy Protesters: “Only the blood of the rich will stop occupy!”

Via Jawa Report:

Vandals from Occupy St. Louis vandalized historic park buildings and statues:

The statue is called “The Naked Truth” and was made back in 1914.

St. Louis Today has the story.

The discussion page at St. Louis Today is rather interesting:

There’s a big problem with all this, beyond the Marxist call for violence.  It’s basically that the entire concept of class warfare requires people to buy into a class system that is itself an artificial construct.

While there are people who do, Americans, in general, view socio-economic class as variable and fluctuating, which, in the US, it is.  You can go from an orphan to a multibillionaire by hard work (or at least by ripping off Xerox).  You aren’t born into a class as a caste, and you are free to move up or down depending on your own decisions, determinant on hard work, luck, and the vicissitudes of life.  Maybe you’ll be born into money and squander it.  Maybe you’ll be born poor and work your way up to a gigantic media empire.  Maybe you’ll be born with a little and through a lifetime of work, end up with a lot more than you started with.  Maybe you’ll live for the day and live a full life without material possessions or wealth because it’s not your concern.  Whatever the case may be, you’re free to live your own life.

With the exception of government, there really isn’t anyone oppressing you.  “The rich” have no more rights than you do in a republic that is a nation of laws (though they may have more expensive lawyers, and an exception is made for progressive-types that use the government as a tool to control the citizen “for their own good” and try to turn a republic into a nation of men instead of laws).  But realistically, the guy making $200K per year isn’t oppressing the guy making $25K per year.  The guy making $25K per year is subsidized with his EIC based on the $200K guy’s taxes.  The guy making $200M per year is employing the guy making $200K, and the $200M and $200K guys are employing the guy making $25K, and providing him with goods and services that make his $25K go further.  Everyone benefits.

The Occupy crowd claiming to be the “99%” seem to forget that to 99% of the world, you (if you’re reading this) are “the rich”.

I would happily swap every entitled snot-nosed Occupy protester on a 1 for 1 basis with Indian garbage picking “untouchable caste” children.  The kids above, if given the resources and advantages of the self-titled 99%, would make something of their lives rather than whine that someone else owes them something simply for existing.

Those kids know that if they’re making $50 a year, that’s not at someone else’s expense, and the guy making $50M a year doesn’t make it at their expense.  They know that the people who work hard, even in sweatshops, are making a bit more, but their lives are improving, and they know that the employees there are just selling their labor in order to benefit themselves.  They could be using that same work to pick through trash or try to subsistence farm or poach.  They know that handouts are given to them as a means of charity by individuals who care, not by a government that equalizes misery – taking from one poor man to give to another, while the rich bureaucrat justifies his own wealth as necessary so he can “do good”.  These kids know that those who do better produce more for others, which leads to benefits for those who are further down the ladder, and up the ladder.  In a direct (but sad) way, the better the garbage the next guy up the ladder makes, the better things they kids find; the harder the trash-picker works, the better things he finds through his efforts (though luck plays a role).  In less sad way, the guy who does better can hire them for something, or can fund a charity, or can fund philanthropic schooling or aid for them.

They don’t demand the blood of the rich or destroy public property declaring “class war” because they don’t have enough to get by.  They work hard to make sure they get by, and every chance they get, they try to improve their lives, even if only slightly.

They do not write on computers that “the rich elite” must be targeted with “vandalism and violence”.  They do not destroy public buildings and statues (unless maybe stealing something to sell for food to live).

Who in that child’s eyes is the good person?  The one who works hard to earn their living, provide for their family, provide for others if they choose, or even just solely to selfishly provide for themselves (which invariably results in buying and selling goods from others – which benefits everyone); or is it the person who is handed everything and then throws a tantrum demanding more?  Those kids understand the natural law, and they understand how labor relates to value – they understand it on a primal level that the Occupy protestors are woefully ignorant of.

We’re the Wackos Mr. Rock?

Author Jason Mattera’s surprise interview with Chris Rock:

apparently Mr. Rock is having issues. He was asked a question concerning his comments on the tea party. That was how he responded.

And the tea party is supposed to be the wackos…?

Liberals? Intolerant?

HT Jawa Report.  Via Investor’s Business Daily:

Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.

In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy  — such as, say, uniting diverse Americans — liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics. …

The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That’s double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

The proportion jumps even higher when someone on a social site disagrees with a liberal’s post.