<$BlogRSDURL$>

Friday, April 02, 2004

The Unions 

As I was getting my usual NRO morning fix, I ran across this. I've my share of problems with the Teamsters myself, which is why I have an interest in right to work laws. I live in MI which is a closed shop state although our public policy think tank the, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, looks at ways to increase job growth in MI and at the top of the list is to make right to work laws. As I defined my brand of conservatism yesterday, conservatism is mainly about conserving an individual's rights and freedoms, my issues with the Teamsters nonwithstanding, if unions are so good for workers, given the choice wouldn't workers choose to join the union that represents the workplace? The truth is, the union leaders want to take away the choice of the workers because they wouldn't be able raise money for the Leftists politicians who expand their power over the proletariat. As it stands now, the unions underreport the amount of money that they spend on election activities which are against Republican politicians, but in my time as a Teamster, I remember Jimmy Hoffa Jr. running away twice to make announcements, the Teamsters are in Washington DC, and Hoffa went to Miami to announce that the Teamsters were against liberating the Iraqi people. Why did he announce that? Why did he go to Miami instead of staying in the city with the most media scrutiny in the world? The reason he ran away I think was because he wanted his announcement to not be in major media, how many union members were actually asked as their position? I know I wasn't, and part of my compulsory dues went to pay for this trip. But the question comes up why wasn't my opinion asked? It can certainly be said that the rank and file vote for the president, but what is the difference in the people who run for union presidents? They're all corrupt socialists at heart. Just a look at the National Right to Work Foundation and they have several instances of lawsuits against unions for forcing people to pay full dues. In my own experience, the Teamsters never informed me as to the fact that I don't have to join them, but instead, have the option of paying them a fee for the services that they perform. Not that at anytime being in the Teamsters benefited me in anyway. In all of my dealings with me, they were uniformly dishonest (I'll admit, maybe I was somewhat naive for expecting them to be honest with me) which just might be the reason that more and more workers don't wish to join unions. Normally, I am against giving more power to the federal government, but I already pay taxes to them, why should I have to pay a right to work tax to a non-government entity? The government already has OSHA and NLRB. Why can't one of those take over? The government can't be anymore corrupt than the unions are.

Unrelated, Walter Williams is sitting in for Rush today and Thomas Sowell is with him on the phone. Sometimes life is perfect.

War for oil update 379 days after the start of the war for oil, gas prices remain high.
|

Thursday, April 01, 2004

April Fools Comes A Day Early 

Air America, the Left's answer to talk radio debuted yesterday. The radio network which is supposed to counter Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hanity. As usual, the Left has no concept as to how business works. You don't just appear and have people ready for you, never mind the fact that it is only in New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco. So then, Air America is only in cites that are heavily Democratic. That's no way to run a business. But then again as most of us know, this is only another media appendage for the Democrats because their stranglehold on newspapers and TV outlets isn't enough for them. The reason for that is, as most of us know, the Left is more interested in their power, not the power of the people. They always try to rewrite the Constitution in their own words, not in the clear words that are written in it that limit the power of the federal government, and give the people protection from that government in the First and Second Amendments. The Left likes big government because of the entitlements given to people who will then feel beholden to them and keep voting them into power. The EU is an excellent example of this. The power is taken away from the people of individual nations, and given to a group of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. Didn't something like that happen here once before sometime around 1776? From what I understand there is no provisions in the EU for member nations withdrawal from it. Sounds a bit like the UN also, a bunch of unelected bureaucrats try to make international policy. More than a few of those unelected bureaucrats come from nations that don't have elections. I know that the Leftstream media tends to define conservatives as "radicals," "racists," 'homophobes," "Bible thumpers," and of course others, but the truth is conservatism, as I define it, is the process of conserving individual rights. What the Left hope the people never catch onto, is that in their quest for power over the individual, they will say anything, witness Jean F'ing Ketchup who most people say that he doesn't believe what he says. He'll say anything to get elected. He'll pander to any group to get elected. His quest for personal power along with the rest of his liberal colleges knows no bounds. I guess that's why they like the UN and the EU so much. A one world superstate will increase the power of all politicians and bureaucrats and take away the powers of the people.

War for oil update 378 days after the war started, OPEC is cutting production causing gas prices to rise. I'm still waiting for the cheap oil that the no blood for oil people said we're getting. If there's any of you out there, could you let me in when the cheap oil is going to get here?
|

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Aussies Stand Firm 

Most of the Alliance of Anglophones continues to support democracy and world security. For anyone who thinks that the France and Germany is the "international community," should check this out from the The Canberra Times
[...] As well, a poll showed almost two-thirds of respondents believed the troops should stay in Iraq until their job was done and Labor MP Dick Adams said a Labor government might allow troops to stay there under the United Nations.

I'm sure the 61% of the Aussies who support us would be interested to know they are part of a "fraudulent coalition."
The tense showdown over Iraq came in Parliament during a debate on Mr Howard's motion which praised the professionalism of the Australian troops and said no arbitrary deadline should be set for their withdrawal. The Prime Minister said a withdrawal of Australian troops would be the first unconditional break in ranks in the international coalition against terrorism.

How dare he praise the troops? How dare he want to see the job done? How dare he represent the people? Oh wait, Australia is a democracy.
"If the world at the present time trembles and shows any kind of equivocation in the face of the threat posed by terrorism, I believe that the world of which Australia is inextricably a part will pay a very heavy price in the future," he said.

At least someone learned the lessons of the Madrid bomobings
Mr Howard said Mr Latham might have been seduced by the opinion polls to make the promise to withdraw the troops by Christmas.
"Maybe it is his deep-seated latent anti-Americanism.
"The real message that will come from what the Leader of the Opposition has suggested, if he was allowed to implement it, will be that terrorist intimidation will bring the results the terrorists want," he said.
"The terrorists want governments and oppositions and leaders and political groupings around the world to react to what the terrorists do.
"It is a very dangerous time to be giving the impression that we are no longer rock solid with our traditional allies and friends."

Anyways, great story I saw on Newsmax about a month ago. Four navel officers at a conference are talking, an American, a Brit, an Aussie and a Frog. They are speaking in English, and the Frog asks why they are speaking in English, and I think it was the Brit who answered by saying something along the lines of "Because the British, Americans, Aussies, and Canadians fought and died so that you don't have to speak German."
|

Enough Grandstanding Already 

Is there anyone out there who really thinks that the 9/11 commission is interested in the truth or in assigning blame? Is there anyone who thinks that the timing of the commission's hearings so close to the election is just a coincidence? Does anyone think that Dick Clarke apologizing for 9/11 was sincere and not just an attempt to sell more books? Dr Condi has already spent more than a few hours with the 9/11 commission in private. What is not said though is that only half the commission listened to the private testimony of Dr. Condi. Apparently, if there are not TV cameras present, the commissioners can't grandstand in front of America. We have former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D NE) wringing his hands because FNC's Jim Angle found a transcript of Dick Clarke contradicting himself. I thought the commission was all about the truth. Apparently, the only acceptable truth to some people is that the Bushies are at fault. Just this morning, I saw someone repeating the tired DNC talking point that Dick Clarke is a Republican. Not so, Drudge (as usual) found FEC records that show that Dick Clarke only donated to Democrat candidates. The Dick Clarke as a Republican is false but trumpeted as true because in the 2000 Republican primary, in an open primary, he voted for Bush. In the 2000 general election, he voted for Gore. I don't remember if it was Hitler or Goebbels (head of Nazi propaganda) who said repeat a lie often enough and it becomes true (common DNC tactic), but John F'ing Ketchup's metrosexual surrogates keep on trumpeting a charge that is untrue in the hopes that those of us unwashed masses who don't get the whole picture from the network news will pin the blame on Bush. Clarke was terrorist czar under Clinton. If he wasn't worried about terrorism then, when did he suddenly become worried? My guess is when he didn't get the promotion he wanted, and became a disgruntled employee. He is a career bureaucrat, not a partisan. He wanted power, but failing that, he'll take money and fame.

War for Oil Update 377 days after the start of the war, gas prices are still high.
|

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Controlling the Information 

In its quest to stomp out the fires of democracy, and elevate the dictatorships of the world, the UN seems to want to control the flow of information on the internet. It's been awhile since I read 1984 so I might not have the quote exactly right, but as I recall George Orwell reminds us that he who controls the present controls the past, and he who controls the past controls the future. I'm sure the UN would love to control information, it would make it harder for the truth to be told. Rowanda, the great UN General-Secretary, Kofi Annan was in charge of the UN's peacekeeping. The Oil-for-Food program was run out Kofi Annan's office, the Balkans situation was only temporarily resolved when the US went in, and is spiraling out of control now that the US is out. Yeah, I want an organization like the UN to control the information flow. The UN has shown itself to be a corrupt and inept institution. Although, if something like this gets voted down by the Senate (I don't think that for a moment anything like this would be anything else than a landslide for free speech) we can always hope that we get treated to another of Al Gore's performance where he is hysterically shrieking at the top of his lungs about how his "invention" must be administered only at the behest of the UN. The major problem with the UN, is that the unelected dictators have a voice. The UN is not and will not be a voice for freedom until only democracies are allowed admission. The only solution I will accept for the UN's continual existence is for the immediate banning of any country whose leader is not elected by the people of that country in a free and fair election. The countries that want UN control of the internet are not elected and want to keep their power and internet is the purist form of free speech. Anyone can say whatever they want, but no one has to listen to them. This is how free speech works, in spite of the ravings of the "Constitutional scholars" in Hollywierd who complain about "censorship" if they aren't listened to by the unwashed masses. Everyone has a right to speak, there is no right to be heard. The US is the defender of democracy and Western Civilization. The problem is that the countries who hate us for our freedoms and willingness to defend it have gained the voice of the UN. It's time for the US to get out of the UN, and the UN to get out of the US. NATO is all democracies, now that the Warsaw Pact is no longer an issue, let NATO to rise as an alternative to the UN and defend the freedoms that the UN stands against.
|

Monday, March 29, 2004

In a "protest", a bunch of "immigrant advocates" invaded Karl Rove's house. The Drudge has it. I thought the Left was all about the Fourth Amendment and it's "right to privacy." I understand that Karl Rove is a government official, but that doesn't give anyone the right to trespass on his property. If they have an issue with him, then they should either make an appointment with him or march in the capital. Both of those are legal ways of making themselves heard. But, they don't want to open a debate, because this issue is about allowing illegal immigrants to go to college at the same rate as in state tuition. The fallacy in this argument is that these are illegal aliens (I refuse to bow the absolute foolishness of trying to move away from the "racist" illegal aliens it's what they are). If they want to go to college in the US, do what other foreigners do, get a student visa. But then again, maybe doing things the legal way is also "racist" after all mainly Asians do that.
|

UN=League of Nations 

I am one of those people who has a firm belief that history repeats itself unless one takes the tome to learn the lessons of the past. Case in point, the UN and the League of Nations. Why did the League fail? The answer is simple, when the Japanese invaded China, the League stood by. When Germany invaded the Rhineland, the League stood by. The League of Nations was a completely impotent body. UN apologists can say that the League failed because the US was not a part of it even though Woodrow Wilson created it. Not true, the UN has the backing and most of their funding comes from the US, but the UN has all the power and backbone of a high school debate club. A perfect example is the recent Iraq war, the UN security council passed 14 resolutions in 12 years telling Saddam to disarm, and he ignored the first thirteen of them with no consequences. 1441 called of dire consequences if Iraq did not disarm, and it passed unanimously. But, as we all know now, the security council really didn't mean it, after all, it's only a piece of paper with words on it. GWB even tried to appease the "international community" by seeking a resolution to enforce 1441. High school debating club indeed. I'm sure that most high school debaters can back up what they say. France was the major opposition to enforcing 1441. Why is France even on the security council? When the UN was drawn up at the Yalta (I think) conference, the major Allied powers were to be given a permanent seat. I guess France got it as a consolation prize for being the first and only major Allied power to give up. That's also the same conference where FDR was advised by Soviet agent Alger Hiss to give up Eastern Europe to "Uncle" Joe Stalin. But of course this "august" body stood by while Stalin engineered a famine in the Ukraine killed approximately 20 million people. The UN stood by during the Rwanda massacre. The UN gives such countries as Cuba, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia seats on the "Human Rights" commission. The Oil-For-Food program was nothing more than a program designed for Kofi and Kojo Annan and their cronies to line their pockets, and Saddam to make a ton of money. The UN ignored the plight of 50 million Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq. History has repeated itself, the UN is nothing more than the League of Nations part 2. The way I see it, NYC either needs more parking lot space, or a munitions plant. I perfect location for it too. If France puts so much stock in the UN, let them host it and fund it. As for me, if my tax dollars are going to support an international body, then that international body better support the spread of democracy. The UN is a total failure in that respect. And I didn't even get into the attempt by the UN to control information by controlling the internet. Maybe tomorrow. Some things never change.
|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?