Mar 12, 2012 Political
Imagine you belong to a union and that union is voting on something (contract, leadership, etc). You arrive at the union hall which belongs to the union and its members. Before you are allowed to vote you must show an ID. Why? What are the odds that the people in the room are not part of the union? Could they really get so many non union folks in there to affect the outcome of the vote without someone noticing they don’t belong? If there is any place where the likelihood of voter fraud is low it is in a union hall (with regard to non members voting, all kinds of fraud takes place in unions) so why is an ID required?
Better yet, why do the same unions that require an ID to vote in its processes oppose voter ID laws with regard to our state political elections?
The unions oppose voter ID when the general population is voting in political elections even though the potential (and actual) fraud is much higher than could ever be expected in a union hall where ID is required.
The reason is pretty simple. The unions do not want voter ID laws because those laws would keep the unions from committing voter fraud. The unions are heavily vested in the Democrat Party and the unions do a lot of fraudulent things. They intimidate people who are campaigning, they intimidate people who vote, and they help the dead get to the polls while also ensuring there are an adequate number of “extra” votes for the people they want to win.
Democrats and unions are one in the same. The same philosophy, same criminal activity, and same voter fraud (ACORN anyone) found in unions are found in the Democrat Party. They work hand in hand because unions work to get Democrats elected and then Democrats work to transfer taxpayer money to the unions. The violation of law leading to investors being shafted while unions took ownership of auto companies was a payoff and this kind of stuff happens all the time.
Since Democrats and unions are the same it should come as no surprise that Democrats oppose voter ID. Eric “The Red” Holder and his Justice Department just put the nix on a Texas voter ID law because of the phony claim that it might disproportionately affect Hispanics. Evidently, all those Hispanics in Texas who have jobs do not have ID. Evidently, all the Hispanics in Texas who receive welfare or drive a car do not have a valid ID. I can’t imagine how so many people could be affected by this law but evidently in Texas they let people work, drive, or receive welfare without an ID.
Let me tell you the real concern of Holder and the Obama regime. They are worried that a voter ID law would keep illegals from voting in elections and those would be lost Democrat votes. Illegals are not allowed to vote and ID laws would prevent more of them from doing so and this is a non starter for the Obama regime. The regime needs the illegals and all the other votes it can get in Texas because it is a very red state that contains a lot of electoral votes.
I know Texas is under special scrutiny because of past discrimination as are a few other states. It always seemed arbitrary to me because there are states not subject to the scrutiny and they were as discriminatory as any on the list.
Be that as it may, the argument that the law is discriminatory to Hispanics does not hold water. The Supreme Court has already ruled that a similar law in another state is Constitutional.
But Holder has pressed on with his crusade against voter ID.
He knows that those laws will likely be upheld by the SCOTUS (because they already have) but the legal process takes time.
And Holder only needs to delay until after this November.
If we are lucky, he will be in jail by then…
Never surrender, never submit.
Obama was out doing his Memorial Day duties and he laid the wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns. He also had a wreath laid at the Confederate Monument. This is something that he was urged not to do as some groups of people want the tradition stopped. As a compromise Obama had a wreath placed at the monument for blacks who fought in the Civil War.
Why is it that some people cannot get it through their heads that the men who fought and died as members of the Confederate Army were as patriotic as those who fought for the Union. The men of the Confederate States left the Union because of state’s rights. The issue of slavery was NOT the reason for the war. Slavery was but one issue in a host of them dealing with state’s rights.
The Southern States seceded from the Union based upon the agreement that all states entered the Union willingly and could leave it if they wanted. The South was getting the short end of the stick and they did not like it so they went left the Union.
The flag they used was based upon the Union Jack and though it has been associated with racism and slavery it is nothing of the sort. Only small minded, uneducated people believe that flag is a symbol of racism. It is a symbol of people who were tired of an abusive government and who wanted the states to have the rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The war of Northern aggression was a war designed to force states to comply with what the government wanted regardless of what the people from the states wanted. The federal government attacked former states and former citizens of the US in order to force them to comply with the wishes of big government.
Slavery was a terrible and inhumane thing to do. It was legal at the time but that does not make it any less inhuman or wrong just as it is no less a murder (inhuman and wrong) to abort a baby just because the law does not define a fetus as a person. However, slavery as an institution was on the way out in the more developed nations. The others ended it without bloodshed and it would not have lasted much longer here even without a war.
The war was waged over state’s rights and slavery was a part of that. To get upset because we honor great people who fought for what they believed in and, I might add, were defending themselves against unprovoked aggression is to ignore the history of this country. Lincoln started the war. The South would have been very happy to secede and be done with it. They were compelled to respond with force because they were attacked.
It is right and just to honor those men just as we honor any others who have died in the service here. After all, they are buried in a national cemetery or does some group want to dig them up and move them as well?
The monument and the wreath are appropriate.
Any group that does not think so dishonors the memories of those who are laid to rest in that most solemn place and dishonors what they truly fought and died for.
ABC Political Punch
Feb 7, 2009 Political
The Associated Builders and Contractors today denounced the repeal of Executive Order 13202. Barack Obama repealed the EO which “prohibited federal agencies and recipients of federal funding from requiring contractors to sign union-only project labor agreements (PLAs) as a condition of performing work on federal and federally funded construction projects.”
Obama repealed the EO so now agencies can make union only agreements when bidding out the projects funded with taxpayer money. This is a payoff for union support.
There is no other reason to repeal EO13202 since companies that use union employees were free to bid on contracts. The EO prevented agencies from requiring companies to use union employees but never prevented them from competing with companies that did not.
Typically, non union labor is not as costly and bids are more reasonable. The repeal of the EO will, according to ABC, discriminate against 84% of the construction workforce:
“Construction contracts subject to union-only PLAs are designed to be awarded exclusively to unionized contractors and their all-union workforces,” said Pickerel. “Absent the economic benefits of competitive bidding, union-only PLAs are known to increase construction costs between 10 percent and 20 percent and discriminate against minorities, women and qualified construction workers who have traditionally been excluded from union membership.
“Union-only PLAs drive up costs for American taxpayers while unfairly discriminating against 84 percent of U.S. construction workers who choose not to join a labor union,” added Pickerel. “All taxpayers should have the opportunity to compete fairly on any project funded by the federal government.” ABC Press Release
The so called stimulus plan is nothing more than a spending bill that is designed to put in place a bunch of items Democrats have tried to get for a long time. Despite their assurances that no “pork” would be in the bill, the thing is comprised almost entirely of pork projects that do little, if anything, to stimulate the economy.
The bill is a payoff and the repeal of EO 13202 is another step in the process of rewarding those who supported the sainted one.
Look for more of this as Democrats work to pay off debts and to build stronger support for the next election.
Change we can believe in?
As far as I am concerned, they can keep the change.
Dec 5, 2008 Political
Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has proposed a plan that would require nearly 70,000 state employees to take up to 5 days off without pay in order to help with budget problems. The furloughs would be graduated with those in the lower salary ranges receiving 2 unpaid days and those in the upper ranges receiving 5. The magnanimous governor will also take 5 days. Those providing emergency and essential services will not be affected.
Last year this governor called a special session to increase taxes in order to cover a budget shortfall. He had already squandered the excess money left by his predecessor and needed more to feed the insatiable appetite the state has for spending. His Democratic super majority passed the largest tax increases in history despite warnings that it was not wise to raise taxes in a tough economy. But Democrats know better.
The result was that revenue (what they call the tax money they confiscate from us) went down. People stopped spending money on unnecessary things and cut way back on the basics. They also took advantage of nearby states with either lower or no taxes. Delaware and Virgina received more business from Marylanders who wanted to pay fewer taxes.
Now they have an even worse problem and the short term fix is to furlough state employees. I imagine that the near future will call for more tax increases which will only make the problem worse. Democrats never learn so they will try to raise fees and taxes on all kinds of things which will result in even further belt tightening. Maryland is a wealthy state but the legislature refuses to cut spending or eliminate unnecessary services and to top it off they always legislate new requirements without a funding source. They require some new program but they have no way to pay for it.
The state’s union employees are not happy and are trying to block the furloughs. The union always backs the Democrat running for governor (and for many of the legislative seats) and it strong arms its members to support the candidates as well. The union backed O’Malley and now their members are getting what they so richly deserve. They backed all the Democrats who tax and spend and now they are suffering the blowback from their choices.
I don’t feel one bit sorry for them and any of their members who voted for Martin O’Malley. He told everyone he was going to raise taxes and now that he has been an ineffective leader and has led us into financial hard times they will have to suffer.
To the state’s union employees I can only say, you backed him and you voted for him. You said he was the best to lead us so you need to quit your whining and do what your leader has decided is best. Besides, you work for the taxpayer who pays your salary and if times are tough for us they need to be tough for you as well.
The only good to come from this is that if it lasts long enough O’Malley might be a one term wonder though I would not hold my breath. The people of Maryland have short memories and they always vote for Democrats who promise them something for nothing (nothing meaning paid for with other people’s money).
There is no doubt the union will back him when he runs for reelection.
Yep, people get the government they deserve.
Jan 19, 2008 Political
Rule Number 2, If you ever start to believe him refer to Rule Number 1.
Bill Clinton is in Nevada fresh off his defense of a lawsuit designed to disenfranchise voters and the Clinton campaign attempts to screw the union workers of the union that endorsed her opponent, B. Hussein Obama. Today is caucus day and lo and behold Bill Clinton has witnessed voter suppression first hand. He even has Chelsea to back him up because no one would want to call Web Hubbell’s daughter a liar. Here is what Clinton alleges [from The Politico]:
There is this whole business of the new politics. Well I got a taste of the new politics today. We need a new politics where we all love each other. Youâ€™ve heard all that. Thereâ€™s a radio ad up in the northern part of Nevada telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesnâ€™t sound like the new politics to me.
Today when my daughter and I were wandering through the hotel, and all these culinary workers were mobbing us telling us they didnâ€™t care what the union told them to do, they were gonna caucus for Hillary.
There was a representative of the organization following along behind us going up to everybody who said that, saying ‘if youâ€™re not gonna vote for our guy were gonna give you a schedule tomorrow so you canâ€™t be there.’ So, is this the new politics? I havenâ€™t seen anything like that in America in 35 years. So I will say it again â€“ they think they’re better than you.
OK, let me be the one to say it, this is BS. Clinton did not witness any such thing and he is lying to try to show there are voter problems so it can cast doubt should Hillary lose. Bill is lying. No, I was not there but he is lying. He would have us believe that a union representative is so stupid that he would say such a thing in Clinton’s presence knowing that Clinton is looking for any reason to cry foul. Bill would have us believe that a union is forcing its employees to all vote for one person or they will be punished despite the fact that the employees can just ask for the day off. Bill would also have us believe that there was a huge crowd of people saying they would defy the union. If the union is as Bill describes it, why would the employees say anything? Wouldn’t they just be quiet and vote how they wished?
Clinton is a pathological liar and he is lying about this whole episode. What amazes me is that he is taking the leadership of a union to task based solely on the fact that it did not endorse Hillary. If they had endorsed Hillary, Bill Clinton would not have personally “witnessed” any of this. He is making it up now to make the union leadership appear to be goons. I wonder why he would do this after all the years that the unions supported him and his wife as well as the rest of the Democrats. Why is Bill now indicating that union leadership is nothing more than a bunch of thugs? He has not called the leaders of the unions that back Hillary thugs and for that matter, neither has Senator Obama. Obama has not called any of the union workers or leadership names or accused them of wrong doing regardless of whom they have endorsed. The Clinton campaign, particularly Bill, is the only entity to cast the unions in a bad light.
This is what happens when you do not play ball the Clinton way. You cross this crime family and they have it out for you. You don’t endorse them or if you disagree with them they are ready to chew you up and spit you out. They are a well oiled mean machine that knows how to use the politics of destruction against anyone who does not march in lock-step to the Clinton cadence. This is why there are so many people who speak on the condition of anonymity when they discuss Hillary. These people are afraid of repercussions from the Clinton Crime Family with Billy the “Don” in the lead and Queen Hillary “the Destroyer” on the warpath. People in politics know how the Clintons can destroy a career and how they can cast doubts about anything anyone does.
Bill Clinton is a liar. I would be happy to inform him of this to his face and let him know that I call BS on him and his lies. Maybe the MSM and the people who are in a love fest with these idiots will not do it but I have no problem. Bill Clinton is a confirmed liar who has proven he will say and do anything to win and to stay out of trouble. He lied to the nation and he lied under oath. He has made a lifelong habit of lying and he cannot be trusted.
Bill, you are a liar. Hillary is Satan.
ADDENDUM: This should pretty much shut the mouths of the idiots at Kos who say Republicans always cry about voter fraud. Bill Clinton is crying about it FROM HIS OWN PARTY.
One other question, how would Bill feel if the union bosses refused to let workers vote in the Republican Caucus?