Massive Projection on Display: Democrat Hank Johnson Wants to Limit Free Speech

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

We like to say that you always know what the Democrats are up to based on what they accuse everyone else of doing.  Here’s Hank Johnson, a Democratic Congress critter, on why he thinks free speech is a terrible thing…

OK, let’s look at some points here…

“They control the patterns of thinking,” said Johnson. “They control the media. They control the messages that you get. So, you are being taught to hate your government – don’t want government, but keep your hands off of my Medicare by the way. I mean, we are all confused people and we’re poking fingers at each other saying, well you’re black, you’re Hispanic, immigration, homosexuals. You know, we’re lost on the social issues, abortion, contraception.

Is this guy serious?  If this is so, why has every single Obama-related scandal been played down by the MSM?  If the corporations are in control, why haven’t the people heard of what really happened at Benghazi?  Why didn’t they know that ObamaCare would cause job losses and people’s hours to be cut?  Why don’t they know about “fast and the furious?”  Why did they lie about Sandra Fluke and $9 birth control at Target?  Why did they invent a war on women that didn’t exist?  Why didn’t they cover the voter fraud that occurred during the election?

I could go on for hours, but it does show how close to completely demented that they are.  They are essentially saying that the corporations are doing all of the things that the MSM is doing on behalf of Obama and the Democrats.

And let me guess, Corporations, whose workers voluntarily work, and whose customers voluntarily buy, are not people.  But, Unions, whose members are forced to join, are, right?

Projection is quite revealing, as it shows us what the other side is thinking and doing.

 

Share

Occupy, Unions and Communism: Oh my!

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

We’ve been seeing, more and more, the not so subtle relationship between labor unions and communism.  Mike Golash, the former president of the Amalgamated Transit Union local 689,  spilled the beans and once again pointed out the communism/union connection.  Gateway Pundit has the video…

It’s like they aren’t even trying to hide it anymore.  Fortunately, that helps us identify what is happening.  And, of course, it gives us bloggers more to write about!

 

Share

What if Occupy Wall Street Threw a Strike, and no one Showed up?

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Well, the occupods will show up, but as for cooperation, it would appear that they don’t play well with others.  To illustrate that point, let’s take a look at their latest stunt: having a general strike...

Occupy Wall Street, largely forgotten over the last few months, aims to make a comeback from this winter’s hibernation with an ambitious plan: a crippling May Day “general strike” in the tradition of 1930s radicalism.

The grand promise is what one occupier, Brendan Burke, described to BuzzFeed as “a day without the 99%.” But in the city where the movement was born, it’s already suffering from what has emerged as one of Occupy’s signal weaknesses, the lack of ability or interest to make alliances with liberal institutions. Despite public solidarity, there’s little relationship between the Occupy movement and organized labor. And as a result, even the most progressive New York labor leaders say their members will not participate in the May 1 strike.

“It won’t happen,” said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and one of the first labor leaders to embrace the Occupy movement. “They are not working with the unions in a serious way yet; nor are the unions working with them in a serious way. And it is the wrong strategy.”

I would like to add that there have been accusations of union funding and participation in OWS, but that isn’t the most important thing here.  Let’s take a look at the last paragraph of the BuzzFeed article…

“A general strike is a very specific thing,” said Bob Master, co-chairman of the Working Families Party and the legislative and political director of Communication Workers of America District 1. “It’s when all the workers in a city decide that they’re not working. It’s not when an outside group says, ‘How about we stop working for a day because we’ve got a set of demands that you weren’t part of formulating.’” (emphasis added)

That, more than anything else, exemplifies OWS.  They have their demands.  They want what they want, and the rest of us apparently don’t have a say in the matter.  They want their communist revolution, and all we have to do is shut up and obey the new order.   In the end, they claim to represent the mythical 99%, but it reality, they only represent themselves

Share

When a Difference isn't a Difference, is There a Difference?

Share

I know, strange title, but I think the idea will become clear.  Earlier this week, this blog, among others ran videos showing two professors teaching a class on labor relations.  I ended that post as follows…

And BTW, waiting for the claims that the video was taken out of context in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…

It took a few days, which I found surprising, but it happened none the less.

Now, there is a spirited defence of these professors in the lefty blogosphere.  It is summed up rather nicely at Crooks and Liars. They are relating the professor’s claims that the video was cut to create a false context. Here is their take on the edited version of the video…

Beginning with the first cut [:44 to 1:33] which appears to depict Giljum calling for union violence where warranted. Here is the edited version in transcript form:

GILJUM: And I think if you look at labor’s history over the years, you’ll find that we’ve had a very violent history with violent protests and certain instances strategically played out for certain purposes that industrial sabotage doesn’t have its place. I think it certainly does, but as far as — you know, and I can’t really honestly that I’ve never wished, that I’ve never been in a position where I’ve never wished harm on somebody — inflicting pain and suffering on some people —

[cut to Judy Ancel]

ANCEL: Violence is a tactic. And it’s to be — it’s to be used when it’s appropriate, the appropriate tactic.

And now for the unedited…

Transcript of unedited video. Parts in bold are missing from Breitbart’s posted video:

I tend to agree with you, because if you look at labor’s history over the years, you’ll find that we have a very violent history, with violent protests reaction to suppression. Okay? But as time has changed, the tactics have changed or the need for those have changed. Okay.

Now, that’s not to say that in certain instances, uh, strategically played out for certain purposes that industrial sabotage doesn’t have its place. I think it certainly does. But as far as — you know, I can’t really honestly say that I’ve never wished — have never been in a position where I have wished real harm on somebody or um…uh…inflicted any pain and suffering on some people that

[cut away] STUDENT, off camera: We’re all human

GILJUM: You know, didn’t ask for it but it certainly has its place. It certainly makes you feel a helluva lot better sometimes but beyond that, I’m not sure that as a tactic today violence or reaction to the violence we had back then would be called for here. I think it would do more harm than good.

OK then, Crooks and Liars bolded the area that were edited out.  I put sections of that same information in red.  Because, when you read the comments, the added content only confirms the original premise.  It’s kind of like a robber saying, “I really didn’t want to rob that convenience store, but it had to be done.”  You can’t say that you really don’t like something, but it “certainly has it’s place,” and then turn around and say you aren’t advocating for it.

Now, as for the advocating of violence, Crooks and liars again publish the unedited information…

Here is the full unedited transcript version of Ancel’s remark with sections in bold which were omitted from the Breitbart version:

ANCEL: The one guy in the film, one of the guys who had been one of the young, um, SNCC types, said

[crosstalk]

— he represented the kind of thinking that went into this student on the coordinating committee and then later probably — well, coinciding with the Black Panthers. You know, he said violence is a tactic and it’s to be used when it’s appropriate, when it’s an appropriate tactic. Whether — they never come back to him to ask him what he thought of the window-smashing in that march or whether or not that was done by them or others or provocateurs. We don’t know that.

If those unedited remarks are read as they stand, even without surrounding context, it’s clear the Breitbart video was edited to make it appear that Giljum and Ancel said the exact opposite of what they actually did say.

For the response to that I’ll quote the response to the claims posted by the maker of the video in question, Insurgent Visuals

Ancel is wrong. She distorts the quote from the film, as well as the context of the class discussion, in a transparent effort to divert attention from the damning content of our videos.

In fact, the activist she “quoted” from the 1993 film At The River I Stand, Coby Smith, said, “…we saw non-violence as a tactic, and a tactic alone,” not, as Ancel erroneously claims,”violence is a tactic, and it’s to be used when it’s appropriate, the appropriate tactic” (our emphasis). Smith’s original, full quote appears at 1:02 – 1:15, below:

If, as Ancel claims, those words were not hers, then they apparently weren’t the words of the activist she claims to have quoted, either.

Furthermore, the context into which she introduced the misquote was not, as she claims, a discussion of nonviolence, but a discussion of violence.

Just over a minute earlier, in discussing the act of smashing windows and looting, someone in the class had declared: “I’m not willing to put any tactics off the table.” Another student then declared: “When they’re willing to give up violence, I will, too, you know.”

That’s when Ancel introduced the idea that “violence is a tactic.” In our view, the fact that she was referring to the film was irrelevant–especially given the fact that she misquoted it, perhaps deliberately.

The very next statement was by a student following up Ancel’s point: “I don’t necessarily want to be a part of capitalist society. I want to take over the state with a revolutionary movement, which doesn’t exist.” Ancel did not comment on his call to overthrow the government.

Arguably, the only criticism Ancel made of violence during that lecture was implicit, when she spoke with approval about union “militancy,” “in-your-face tactics,” and breaking the law:

…true militancy means high levels of participation and willingness to undertake creative and in-your-face tactics, I think. And the American labor movement never would have had the successes it had without that kind of militancy. There isn’t any major labor battle in this country, clearly, before the era of the 1950s that did not, in fact, break the law. And–but they didn’t do it by destroying property and smashing windows. They did it tactically, by violating the laws they had to violate if they were going to be able to continue their movement…

So, the activist’s arguments are paper thin.  I’d encourage you to read both articles, and judge for yourself.  It’s my opinion that the context of the videos posted on Breitbart holds.  Additionally, while these professors, to my knowledge, had nothing to do with the protests in Madison, there certainly was a great deal of violence there, as well as in other location.  In fact, we’ve had an abundance of source material from the unions and their tactics.

And now for the last.  I thought you might like to see a textbook example of projection from the Crooks and Liars post…

Also, Media Matters points out that for all Breitbart’s bluster over free speech, he shows himself as the hypocrite we know he is. He is suppressing free speech in because in his world, only Tea Partiers have the right to it. The rest of us can live under their totalitarian regime for all he cares.

I was tempted to let this statement stand on it’s own fail, but I can’t resist.

How is Breitbart supressing free speech?  He is incapable of it.  Or is he having the rent-a-mob show up to shout down people he disagrees with?  Oh wait!  The left, including the unions, do that.

Tea Party members, at least all that I know or have read, are in favor of free speech.  For myself, I want “progressives” to speak loud and proud.  I do have to admit, however, that this assertion is born of a dual purpose.  First, I do believe in freedom of speech.  Second, their speech provides me with an abundance of source material.

And finally, “totalitarian?”  You mean like the government owning companies, controlling health care, causing  inflation, telling companies where they can build a factory, telling people how much they can be paid, running education, energy policy, violating privacy, and yes, advocating for forcing individuals to join unions?  Oh wait, that isn’t the Tea Parties.  Hmm, help me remember, who just might advocate for such things?

Of course, it’s just projection, but it is fun to destroy their points from time to time.

Share

Blog Focus: A Righteous Rant

Share

Most bloggers do rants from time to time.  We go off, in anger, or supreme determination, and publish some stream of consciousness.   Hopefully, the rant will convince or inspire.  The other day, our friend, the Mind Numbed Robot, linked to one of the best rants that I’ve ever read.  So, read on for a long excerpt from E Pluribus Unum at Redstate:

Democrat election workers currently cheating the vote: you’ll love federal prison

You may already know this: there will be a reckoning. Actually there will be three. This is primarily about the third one.

The first reckoning – America’s second Declaration of Independence

The first reckoning will be on election day, November 2, 2010, when Americans vote overwhelmingly to reject the Democrat agenda. It will be a down payment on the epic 10-year butt-kicking that will be delivered to the anti-American, anti-freedom, corrupt, anti-Constitution movement. We lost our vigilence, allowed this statism to creep up for the last 80 years. Now it’s run amok, and we’ll swing the pendulum back. As Dick Cheney would say, big time. Maybe you think it’s just a short-term temper tantrum, which the media hacks will of course assert. You’ll see.

It is a reckoning that will take your breath away. All your cheating will not keep the Republicans from taking 70 in the House, 8 in the Senate. That is the first reckoning. At least while you’re sitting in prison, you can comfort yourself in the knowledge that your cheating kept it from being 100 and 11.

The second reckoning – retribution

The second reckoning, I will relish this. I am not a nice person at all when it comes to retribution. I will savor it the way I savored the Texas Rangers’ 6-game beat-down of the Yankees (conservative country sure jammed it up left-wing country’s rear, didn’t it?). The events of November 2 will make it perfectly clear to all Americans not named Jimmy Carterthat the Democrats and the unions engaged in massive, epic-scale election fraud.

It will be the bridge too far. Regular Americans are not like you and your patronage buddies, union thugs, organized criminals, communists, and radical social engineers. Nor are we anything like the snotty rich baby-killer limousine liberals that control you. Regular Americans are generous and magnanimous. Your mistake is that 80 years of tolerance you have mistaken for cowardice and lack of resolve.

What will happen after this election, when it’s clear that you stole 20-30 House seats and 3-4 Senate seats, you are not ready for. What happens will be fought on your territory, using rules you know but never expected to have turned on you, by a fiercely resolute people possessed of righteous anger that’s been stacking up ever since liberal judges started flouting the consent of the governed. When pressed, they are smarter and more devious than you. They plan. And they stick the knife in the place that will hurt the most.

And let me tell you something. Regular Americans don’t riot. They don’t demonstrate or boycott (very well). They don’t astroturf. They don’t terrorize innocents. They don’t commit indiscriminate violence or indiscriminate property destruction. They know, or will know, the people and organizations who are controlling you. Retribution will be clean and efficient. It will cost you, and your owners,a good bit more than it was worth to save a handful of House and Senate seats that ultimately won’t stop what we do.

Just shooting in the dark here, because like I said, I’m not in on anything. But it hurts a whole lot more to have the stock values of your benefactors wrecked (Soros does not possess especially secret knowledge), deliberately and maliciously by hidden hands, than it does to have some of your low-level thugs beat up. It will hurt tons more when union pensions never see another penny of taxpayer bailouts starting… well, already starting now.

If you have a union pension, let me just say…..no you don’t.

And it will really, really ruin you when a national right-to-work bill gets signed the fourth week of 2013, days after EO10988 is rescinded, making it illegal (again) for government employees to unionize. We will enjoy breaking you.

You’ll see. You yourself will not escape retribution, although I’ll have to say that in the big scheme of things, you are just a tool. Americans will be taking care of the kingpins.

So, follow the link, and read the rest at Redstate.  Obviously, I have no idea if any of this could be done, but if it can, it should.  We need to make union thuggery, and voter fraud,  a thing of the past, and this rant lays out a framework for accomplishing just that.

Share

Union Thugs Strike Again

Share

In public, “official” statements, Union leaders make pleasant statements about protecting worker’s rights.  They tout their history of improving safety and wages, but in the real world-on the streets, their actions tell an entirely different story.

Here is the latest example of what union really do, by Kathleen Brady Shea of the Pilly Inquirer.

Violence erupted at a King of Prussia construction site Wednesday, and today, police are seeking the public’s help to apprehend some bat-wielding assailants.

Upper Merion Township police gave this account:

Officers responded at 7:10 a.m. Wednesday to the King of Prussia Plaza area of Mall Boulevard for reports that union protestors were blocking the entranceway to the new Toys R Us building site. While en route, an assault was reported in the mall parking lot.

Upon arrival, police found two construction trucks with their rear windows completely shattered, and one victim bleeding from the head. The victims said they were blocked by numerous union protesters from entering the construction site, and so they drove to the mall area to await police assistance.

A short time later, a black sedan pulled up and several men exited with baseball bats, ran up to the two trucks and repeatedly slammed the bats into the windows. As the workers exited the trucks, at least two were then physically assaulted with the baseball bats, and one victim had to be hospitalized. Another victim was able to use his cell phone to photograph the assailants and their vehicle.

Police said the construction site is being protested by Local 401 of the Iron Workers Union.

The vehicle was described as a black, four-door Chevrolet with a Pennsylvania license plate. One of the assailants was described as a clean-shaven, white, mid-30s man with short blondish brown hair, about 6-foot-1 with a husky build.

Anyone with information is asked to contact Upper Merion Police Det. James Godby at 610-265-3232.

Here are the images of the attackers.

So, the unions put forth a public image, yet their statements to supporters are quite different.

Then again, their actions speak louder than their words, don’t they?  You can listen to a person or a group has to say.  However, their actions will ALWAYS point to their true beliefs.

That is what labor unions really think of you, and Obama is in bed with them.

Elections have consequences.

H/T: Doug Ross

Share