Democrats peddle their propaganda

Hendersonville Times-News ^ | September 5, 2003 | John Fogle

[Gritty]

It's time for another report on the cattle calls, also known as "debates," among the Democratic candidates for president.

North Carolina's Sen. John Edwards, who gets most of his contributions from fellow tort lawyers, recently saw his fund raising eclipsed by some of the other candidates.

Because I'm always here to help, I have a suggestion to move him back to the top. He should purchase a second hand ambulance and slowly circle the courthouse in each town he visits. After a few minutes, when 10 to 20 tort lawyers are jogging along behind the ambulance, he can slam on the brakes, hop out and rake in contributions. Well -- it might work.

Roughly half of the candidates are providing inspiration to the Saddam loyalists in Iraq by implying that, if elected, they will withdraw our troops, and turn the country back to Saddam's supporters. Who knows whether they would actually do it? There is always a chance that they would grow up before taking office, but by alleging that the war is illegal and immoral, they are giving hope to the enemy, and quite possibly contributing to U.S. casualties.

Most of the debates are sponsored by organized labor, with friendly questions either coming from the host, or carefully selected from the audience. Because they are in front of union audiences, and because a substantial chunk of Democratic campaign resources come from unions, it is no surprise that increasing the power of unions is presented as the solution to most of the world's problems.

The more money unions are able to extort from workers, the more money the Democratic Party will have, and that's a good thing in their minds.

Listening carefully, we learn that if a manufacturing plant is moved to Mexico, putting U.S. citizens out of work, the situation can be made right simply by moving the international union to Mexico as well. So, if Mexican workers can be forced to support the lavish lifestyles of U.S. union bosses, and the bosses continue to tithe a certain portion of the bounty to Democrats, all is well.

The so-called "card-check" gets much attention at these forums. Basically, card-check is a term used to disguise a nondemocratic union certification, where union thugs go door-to-door, bullying workers to sign union cards. The union is certified when it reaches 51 percent of the nonsecret ballots.

Considering that Kim Jong-Il was recently able to get 100 percent of the North Korean vote using card-check, it seems rather insulting that a union would strive for only 51 percent. Whatever happened to pride of thugmanship?

Here is the key question no one asks: "Would you agree to `card-check' for union decertification? Why not?"

And, whenever the question involves the environment, Democrats traditionally drift into fantasyland. We can avoid drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, they assert, just by increasing the mileage of all of our vehicles by one mile per gallon. Shall we wave a magic wand over all of the vehicles currently on the road? And why stop at one mpg, why not increase everybody's mileage by 100 mpg? I'm for that.

The problem here, as I see it, is that Democrats are so accustomed to ignoring any law with which they disagree, they think they can ignore the laws of nature as well. "Force equals mass times acceleration" and "energy can neither be created nor destroyed" are not just idle platitudes to be ignored like the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

Large vehicles are safer than small vehicles because it takes more force to stop them (f=ma). So, when a 4,000 pound vehicle collides with a 2,000 pound vehicle, the smaller vehicle experiences much higher deceleration, resulting in more passenger injuries. And, by the same token, the larger vehicle takes more energy to set in motion, and therefore, gets lower gas mileage. It's the law.

But, they say, the technology already exists to increase gas mileage. Sure it does, but at what cost in safety and comfort? You can increase the mileage of your vehicle simply by bolting the chassis to the axles, so that your springs no longer do any work. Remember that the springs are absorbing energy -- energy that must be supplied by the engine -- energy that you purchase at the gas pump.

Let's see some of the environmental nuts risk their own family members in a gussied up go-cart on the interstate. Or, let's see them rearrange their internal organs by riding around with no springs.

John Fogle, a Times-News community columnist, can be contacted at fogle222@bellsouth.net. His column appears on the first Friday of the month.

[schaketo]

=== Cut === Paste === Email to Friends and Family ===

In the upcoming democratic primary (2004) ...

BIG AL NEEDS OUR HELP NOW MORE THAN EVER!
*** Register as a democrat and vote for Crazy Al! ***

During the May 3, 2003 demoncrap debate in Columbia, S.C., our man Al stated “The way to move a donkey is to slap the donkey,” and “I’m going to slap the donkey until the donkey kicks”.

Let’s help Crazy Al slap the donkey until it kicks.

GW has the Republican nomination sewn up. Its time for all good republicans, libertarians, and independents to stand up and be counted. Lets take a page from Sen. McCain’s play book. Prior to the 2004 democratic presidential primary in your state, re-register as a democrat and vote for Al Sharpton!

Lets ensure Crazy Al gets prime time speaking rights at the 2004 nationally televised democratic convention. You gotta love it. Line up, sign up, and send this to all your like-minded friends.

Here is a link to planned 2004 primary dates from the National Association of Secretaries of State:
http://www.nass.org/Issues/04primaries.html

Check here for the rules governing primary voting in your state:
http://www.fec.gov/votregis/primaryvoting.htm

In case you’d like to send Big Al a donation:
http://www.al2004.org/

Anyone need a bumper sticker or button?
http://democraticbuttons.freeservers.com/

How about an Al Sharpton yard sign?
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/victorystore00/pryasi.html

Want to keep up on the latest on Big Al’s progress? Go to the Republicans for Sharpton website at:
http://www.republicansforsharpton.com/

Oh yea, and don’t forget to call the local demoncrap party headquarters and ask them the following before the primary election:

1. Can I get a ride to the polls – help them spend their money during the primaries so they’ll have less during the national election. Have them take you the scenic route and stop off and do some shopping on the way home.
2. Are you giving anything away free for voting democrat? Cigarettes, booze, box of cigars, box lunch, etc. Ask for two of each.
3. Send 25 cents in the mail to the DNC and watch how much they spend on mailing you to give to the party. Always send their solicitation back to them with all associated literature in the prepaid envelope included in the mailing. They have to pay that postage upon return. Great way to help them spend money and keep you up to date on their propaganda.

Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003

Main Phone Number: 202-863-8000

Can you think of any other questions we should ask them?

=== Cut === Paste === Email to Friends and Family ===

[PROUDAMREP]

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, for posting this article.
Free Republic has been sounding more like a liberal forum every day. Why are we not up in arms about the constant
Bush bashing (debate? ha!) with very little rebuttal. The
dems are giving aid and comfort to the enemy with their constant diatribe. The problems in Iraq are encouraged by
their retoric and actions. Bush did not lose the jobs. NAFTA did. Congress needs to review the laws they passed to allow them to move offshore to avoid taxes and the unions.

[mathluv]

I am thrilled, and amazed, to see something from a newspaper that actually tells the truth! When will some of these Bush-bashing, saddam supporting thugs be accused of treason? While we are at war, they are giving aid and comfort to our enemy.

[Gritty]

Why are we not up in arms about the constant Bush bashing (debate? ha!) with very little rebuttal.

Most of us on this forum are. But, the mass media feeds it for free for the Liberals and the GOP seems either unwilling or unable to evercome it with their own determined campaign to get out the truth. Maybe they think it will hurt somebody's feelings?

[Graybeard58]

The so-called "card-check" gets much attention at these forums. Basically, card-check is a term used to disguise a nondemocratic union certification, where union thugs go door-to-door, bullying workers to sign union cards. The union is certified when it reaches 51 percent of the nonsecret ballots.

Considering that Kim Jong-Il was recently able to get 100 percent of the North Korean vote using card-check, it seems rather insulting that a union would strive for only 51 percent. Whatever happened to pride of thugmanship?

Here is the key question no one asks: "Would you agree to `card-check' for union decertification? Why not?"


Couldn't help but notice a teeny error here.
Unions are not certified by "card check" as stated. Card check is used to obtain 51% of potential member signatures. When that happens an election is held (By secret ballot) if the union gets 51% of THAT vote, then the union is certified.
Another small point here: Unions can indeed be decertified, by the same process by which they are certified.
There's plenty of things to bash unions about but get your facts straight, then bash away.

[WOSG]

This idea assumes falsely that Al Sharpton is somehow more unpalatable and looney than the rest of the nine dwarves:

Dennis the Soviet Menace to Society Kucinich,
Howard Dean - the Baathist's favorite candidate running for the UN commisar overseeing the former USA,
Carol Mostly Medicare Fraud Braun,
John Vive Le French Kerry,
Gephardt - sucking up to big unions big-time,
etc.

This group is a menagerie of trolls, and the sad fact is the media would love displaying their lunacy in the most positive light possible. It would be best for us if Lie-berman got the nomination, at least keep the danger in bounds; if the Democrats went totally looney left, we would have no choice but to support GOP 100%, and the RINOs would use that fact to their advantage.

JMHO.

[Graybeard58]

I would not vote for Lieberman on a bet but you are right, he is the best of a sad lot.

[Gritty]

FYI

[driftless]

Fogle accurately points out that above all else, liberals are stinking hypocrites. Those Dems, who think by voting for leftist-liberals like Dean, that they are fighting against those nasty, evil corporations are cutting their own throats. I'd love to see Kucinich get in and start making my Dem-voting family members and friends turn over their SUVS and increasing their taxes by fifty percent. You'd hear the squealing then. That's just a fantasy, but at least I realize it's a fantasy. Dems have been living a fantasy for more than thirty years. It's time for them to grow up.

[Gritty]

I'd love to see Kucinich get in and start making my Dem-voting family members and friends turn over their SUVS and increasing their taxes by fifty percent. You'd hear the squealing then.

You sure would, but it wouldn't be about Kucinich. How do I know this? Look at the Liberal States that are train wrecks. Are they blaming Liberals?

[Aegedius]

You have described the current legal situation, but the Democrats want to change that so that the union is certified as soon as the cards reach 51%. There would be no secret ballot. On the AFL-CIO web site, Here
For example, the position of Howard Dean
"I support a number of specific proposals to protect the right of workers to form a union:
Card Check. Federal labor law should be amended to declare that a union is established whenever a majority of workers have signed cards stated that they wish to unionize. This would avoid protracted and divisive campaigns in which employers use intimidation and coercion to block unionization."

Read the positions of the other Democrats at the same site.

[Aegedius]

And, BTW, you are mistaken about de-certification as well. Under current law, a union is certified with 51% of the votes, so non-voters are not counted. But, for de-certification, the union is de-certified only when 51% of the affected workers vote to de-certify. A somewhat tougher hurdle.

[Graybeard58]

"And, BTW, you are mistaken about de-certification as well. Under current law, a union is certified with 51% of the votes, so non-voters are not counted. But, for de-certification, the union is de-certified only when 51% of the affected workers vote to de-certify. A somewhat tougher hurdle".

"I am wrong about decertification as well"? As well as what? By your own admission certifaction is just as I said. Not the way some democrats want it to be. So I am not wrong on that point. So there can be no, being wrong "as well" on the other point.
On the second point about decertifacation - What other way would you have it? Guessing at what the non voters want?
Sounds a whole lot like what the dems wanted in Florida.

[Aegedius]

Here is what you said. Unions can indeed be decertified, by the same process by which they are certified.

But it is not the same process. If non-voters don't count in certification, then they shouldn't count in de-certification. If they do count, they should count in both elections. Bottom line... the two processes are not the same, and the tilt favors union bosses.

[Graybeard58]

"But it is not the same process. If non-voters don't count in certification, then they shouldn't count in de-certification"

Non voters do not count in either process.
To certify requires first 51% of the potential members to sign a card check, if that happens then an election is held and if 51% of those people who vote, vote to certify then and only then is the union certified.
To decertify, 51% of members must sign to decertify, just as in the certification process and in the decertification election 51% of those voting must vote to decertify. How else would you have it?
When you speak of "Union bosses" Your prejudices are showing. In my 35 years as a union member, I never met one.I met many elected union representatives and I was even one myself. I never met one that I agreed with politically but on the other hand I never met one who tried to "boss" me nor did I try to "boss" anyone else.
In my 35 years I was well represented in the collective bargaining process and the only thing I hated about the union was they took a small portion of my union dues and sent it directly to the democratic party. Only in my last year of work did I learn there was something I could do to stop this and thats exactly what I did. It is not publicized by the unions but a person can "opt out" of paying that portion of union dues that goes for political purposes.

[Aegedius]

Sorry. I was wrong about decertification. I don't remember where I read that a majority of employees is required, but I found a source on the internet stating that only a majority of voters is required.

[Graybeard58]

"Sorry. I was wrong about decertification. I don't remember where I read that a majority of employees is required, but I found a source on the internet stating that only a majority of voters is required".

Then you will please pardon me for my tone.
I spent too many years among otherwise intelligent, good hard working people who were,pro life, pro second amendment, anti welfare state, anti big government, pro tax relief, Republican in their hearts and beliefs but when it came election time they voted for democrats.
They truly believed that republicans were only for the "rich" and against the "working class" people.
When president Reagan fired the air traffic controlers, I thought I'd never hear the end of it. Never mind that he warned them and warned them and warned them first. Never mind that Harry Truman Democrat told striking coal miners that if they didn't return to work he would draft every one of them, nationalize the coal mines and put them back in as government workers. Probably unconstitutional but they believed him and returned to work.
To be sure, there are republican voters who are union members but they are the minority and for the most part tend to keep their sentiments to themselves rather than have to put up with arguing with the majority. I on the other hand have never been able to keep my mouth shut. My hope is that over the years I may have convinced a few that since their beliefs were Republican maybe they should vote that way.