Statement from the General President Regarding the Events in Huntington, WV (Parlock Vindicated!)

The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades ^ | September 17, 2004 | James A. Williams

[Dont Mention the War]

Statement from the General President Regarding the Events in Huntington, WV

The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades believes in the fundamental right for civil discourse, freedom of speech and activism to support our candidates and issues.

What happened in Huntington, West Virginia yesterday is an affront to everything we, as a union, pride ourselves to represent. We extend our apologies to the Parlock family, especially Sophia, for the distress one of our overzealous members caused them.

I have personally taken steps to address this issue internally, and will take immediate disciplinary action to the full extent allowed under U.S. Department of Labor regulations and the constitution of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades.

It is my hope that this incident reminds all of our members that every last citizen in this country has the right to express his or herself freely. Not one single one of us has the right to tell them otherwise.

General President James A. Williams
The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

He's twice previously been involved in violent altercations while counter-demonstrating. That's fine; if it were his own life or well being he were risking, I would honor him for it. But he knows, as anyone else who'd dealt with these goons knows, that it's a dangerous situation where small children do not belong.

First, this was not a "dangerous situation." This was a public place in the United States of America, not even a space licensed for a partisan demonstration. And it was in public with cameras and witnesses all around. If one cannot expect to be safe with children in the open like that, then where can one expect to be safe? If the other side doesn't care about being seen commiting acts of violence, then one could say that demonstrating, voicing an opinion or even openly wearing a button anywhere is a "dangerous situation."

I applaud Mr. Parlock for having the courage to take his family out to exercise their constitutional rights. And I am glad that DemonRats had yet another opportunity to show that they are still the party of "Bull" Connor and violence, albeit with a different direction. Sofia Parlock and her Dad on multiple occasions have done more to expose them than most and should be applauded for it.

Blaming the victim in any way is justifying the violence, no matter what you say. And sharing the blame just plays into the hands of the real perpetrators.

[dinasour]

Was she yelling at or in favor the perp/goon?

Can't really tell. Is there a video. I've only seen stills.

At any rate, I my comment was referring to the apparent honorable behavior of owning up to a problem rather than the Dem standard practice of claiming "I'm innocent, but if I'm not innocent it was a setup by Karl Rove"

[Dont Mention the War]

How do you figure this amounts to vindicating Parlock ????

Uh, read the thread?

[God bless Texas]

Email Sophia at pparlock@ezwv.com Let her and her family know we are on their side.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The crowd was jeering and others besides the IUPAT guy were also involved in ripping signs, according to Parlock this morning on the Glenn Beck Show.

[Connservative]

Please don't zot me for saying this...

...but other than the blogs and Glenn Beck, I have heard nothing regarding this incident. Rush didn't touch it, Hannity hasn't yet touched it, and Fox hasn't brought it up.

This indicates to me that they don't want to touch this with a 10 ft poll.

Again, please don't zot me. Just making an observation

[zip]

He's twice previously been involved in violent altercations while counter-demonstrating.

Source?? What were the circumstances?? I counter-demonstrate against leftist/socialist/communist/"peace" demonstrators every Saturday, does that make me guilty of something. (not a rhetorical question)

I personally think he is a great American father, teaching his children the beauty of freedom.

[Right Wing Professor]

If the other side doesn't care about being seen commiting acts of violence, then one could say that demonstrating, voicing an opinion or even openly wearing a button anywhere is a "dangerous situation."

Indeed one could. We've recently seen videos of union thugs choking and jumping on Bush demonstrators. Parlock was himself knocked over in a previous demonstration. You don't think being knocked over while carrying a three-year old is dangerous?

These guys acted like thugs in front of a camera. Yet you insist they wouldn't have done anything worse. I think you have more faith in them than I.

Blaming the victim in any way is justifying the violence, no matter what you say.

The victim was the three year old. When have I blamed her?

But in any case, i don't accept your premise. Normatively, one should be able to freely express one's political views in any public space in America. Pragmatically, it's unwise to express your political views in certain situations. A father owes his children his pragmatic judgement.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The picture was on Drudge last night, which was good for some views. I think the talk shows should have covered it and I applaud Glenn Beck. But it is really made more for blogs and emails and radio really wouldn't contribute much more to the visual. They may even be afraid of alienating union votes, even though this is particular to union DemonRats. GB got the straight scoop out there. It's now up to us and we are up to it.

[BohDaThone]

Most major unions style themselves "International" because they represent workers in both the US and Canada. This is particularly true in Autos, as there are major Canadian Auto plants that are under the same master contracts as the US plants, but it is also the case in many other craft and industrial areas. Management is generally international (look at the attendence industry trade shows), so unions are, as well.

[Eaker]

I don't want to click through anything.

Fine.

I don't run their website and I don't decide where they put things or what format they use.

The truth is the truth and it is indeed on their website.

[NHPapa]

I'm sure it's been said but I am happy to see this guy did not stonewall like Dan Rather did. I intend to email him that it is nice to see someone step up and take it on the chin when it is the right thing to do so.

[YOUGOTIT]

Our letters to the Union worked.

[DollyCali]

Thanks Ron.. I don't want to be suspicious and I am normally too gullible... But I hope she too is NOT a set up. I fell for many of the "teases" this past year.. recall the fella theoretically from Poland who posted for many months very patriotically & then told about his wife being killed... some FReepers did some checking. all lies.. never heard from him again.

So I want to be careful for all of our sakes here.

[JesseJane]

Blaming the victim in any way is justifying the violence, no matter what you say.

The victim was the three year old. When have I blamed her?
=======
Sheese, you are NO RIGHT WINGER.. that's for sure.

To SUGGEST that the dad was WRONG for taking his kids to a dangerous place.. SUGGESTS *PROFESSOR* that the DAD was in the wrong.. GOT IT?

What is it with professors?? DOH!

Geezuz..

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

"If the other side doesn't care about being seen commiting acts of violence, then one could say that demonstrating, voicing an opinion or even openly wearing a button anywhere is a dangerous situation."

Indeed one could.

Oh that's great. Now you'd condemn anyone with children from displaying or expressing an opinion anywhere. That kind of timidity does all Americans proud.

Do you have children? Suppose someone traces your comments from here and does something nasty to them? Is that your fault too?

You don't think being knocked over while carrying a three-year old is dangerous?

One expects that civilized people won't knock you over if you have a three-year-old with you.

Yet you insist they wouldn't have done anything worse. I think you have more faith in them than I.

I never said that. They COULD have been shot too. But one expects people to not be idiots.

The victim was the three year old. When have I blamed her?

Now you are trying to slick by. Not a good sign for your argument. They were all victims, including the dad whom you are blaming.

A father owes his children his pragmatic judgement.

While HE may have been previously attacked, it is fairly pragmatic that people won't attack a three-year-old in front of cameras. These people have cost Kerry-Edwards far more nationwide than the trip into WV could possibly have gained. Pragmatically, one would not expect people with half a brain to do that. If anything, Mr. Parlock is guilty only in overestimating the basic intelligence of those around him.

[capocchio]

Healthy skepticism never hurt anyone

I don't think that is what the questioning was. I think it was DU trolling (see related thread). Consider the following

Point 1: Purlock was accused of "doing this before". Doing what before? What he did before was stand in a rally with his family with a Bush/Cheney sign (or equivalent). I've been posting on this forum for almost 4 years, does that make my current posts suspicious?

Point 2: This accusation is worded in such a way that we are supposed to believe that this was a setup. But the statement is typical DU/liberal innuendo, using a seemingly innocent statement to imply a lie.

Point 3: To say a person shown in profile (the union thug) is the same as a person shown face on (the son) is the height of folly - and false accusation. Especially since none of us have seen these people before. All we have are the same two pictures - family portrait and rally photo.

Point 4: It is my understanding that the rally was in the area in which Purlock lived, and thus others who knew him and his family could be expected to be in attendence. It thus makes no sense for him to try to fool those around him, as they would know his son.

Point 5: Add to which the son in question was elsewhere, in the service.

Point 6: Note the meaness in the black woman behind him - she certainly is in sympathy with the thug. So too are most of the others. Only the son to the right is glaring at the thug.

Point 7: Of course I would expect such logic to be beyond the cranial capabilities of most DU lurkers. Thus those who first called Purlock's actions a hoax should themselves be questioned as a potential hoax.

[Southack]

"Most major unions style themselves "International" because they represent workers in both the US and Canada."

Yes, but it is *illegal* for Canadians (or any foreigner) to campaign for an American President.

So my question still stands: what is an *INTERNATIONAL* union doing in West Virginia campaigning for Kerry and Edwards?

The AWB Has Expired - Gun Owners Have Won Again For All Americans!

[Warren_Piece]

I think you're being unfair, calling those who were sceptical "DU trollers". I had a moment of doubt during the 2nd Beck interview. Keep in mind that up till that moment I had been in the foreforont of pushing this story. I've seen enough now to be relatively certain that this wasn't a hoax.

Considering all the angles is not trolling, it's strengthening your agrument. Think of all the vetting we did over the Rather memos!

[Hildy]

That was a good letter.