**Posted by Phineas
Forget the overheated rhetoric and signs comparing democratically elected governors and legislators to Hitler and rapists. Forget the spoiled-brat demands and Athens-style protests for the unquestioned continuation of gold-plated benefits that most private-sector workers would give their eye teeth for. You want to know just how much of a threat to democracy, representative government, and the general safety public-employee unions can be when threatened?
Try to take away their goodies, and they’ll go after your mother:
Idaho has a “superintendent of public instruction,” and his name is Tom Luna. He has proposed some measures that the teachers’ union doesn’t like, at all. And his opponents have made sure that he feels good and threatened.
Someone went to his mother’s house — his mother’s. Someone slashed his tires and spray-painted a threat onto the door. As reported in this article, Luna has said, “Family and personal property are off-limits. You don’t cross that line . . .”
Oh, yes, you do. At least some do. I will repeat what I have already said this morning: I don’t want to hear from the Left about “civility” for the rest of my life.
Neither “civility” nor “democracy.” And this is in deep-Red Idaho!
This isn’t just (or at all) a fight over benefits or economics; this is a struggle over who has power — the elected representatives of the people or union bosses and their paid-for allies in the Democratic Party. Right now it’s just Idaho, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana, but the battles here and, inevitably, in other states will determine who has that power. The Left has drawn such hard lines already against any reform that the governors can’t afford to back down, lest they let Labor know the elected representatives of the people can be intimidated through intransigence and thuggery. It’s a sad thing for decent union members who would likely have accepted reasonable compromise if the situation had been honestly explained to them, but their leaders have lead them into a battle that forces the governors to break the unions in order to keep faith with their voters — the taxpayers who are the public employees’ real bosses.
More than being about fiscal soundness, this is a battle between representative democracy and corporatism.
Regarding the President’s shameful insertion of himself into what is purely a matter for state governments, Matt Welch at Reason cuts through the bull and asks “Is this how a President should act?”
I have written in the past about how libertarians are pretty lonely in the political scheme of things in terms of constantly being challenged to defend themselves against the “logical conclusion” of their philosophy. But I think it’s time to amend that. We are witnessing the logical conclusion of the Democratic Party’s philosophy, and it is this: Your tax dollars exist to make public sector unions happy. When we run out of other people’s money to pay for those contracts and promises (most of which are negotiated outside of public view, often between union officials and the politicians that union officials helped elect), then we just need to raise taxes to cover a shortfall that is obviously Wall Street’s fault. Anyone who doesn’t agree is a bully, and might just bear an uncanny resemblance to Hitler.
The president’s heavy-handed involvement, along with House Republicans’ refusal to sign off on any new bailout of the states, means that this may very well be America’s biggest and most widespread political fight in 2011. It’s a cage match to determine first dibs on a shrinking pie. A clarifying moment.
And that clarity will not work to the unions’ benefit. The public is on to their racket.
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)
It’s not been a very good week for Wisconsin Democrats. First you have the petulancy of union marchers on display in the state capitol, along with Senate Democrats cutting and running from their responsibility to represent taxpayers. And now, something even worse. A US Congresswoman arguing on the floor of the US House that we need to keep funding Planned Parenthood so expectant mothers can ‘safely’ abort their unborn children rather than have them face having to eat … Ramen noodles or mayo sandwiches. No, I’m not kidding. Click below to watch:
This is truly moral bankruptcy at its absolute worst, no matter where you stand on the abortion issue. Arguing that unborn babies are better off having their body parts sucked out of the womb of their mother rather than having to face the grave prospect of being forced to eat Ramen noodles or mayo sandwiches. So, essentially, Moore is saying that it’s for the best that a baby’s life is best extinguished because having to eat Ramen noodles and mayo sandwiches is worse than living.
I’m especially disgusted by these types of rationalizations for abortion because I used to make similar arguments myself. Mine went along the lines of, “What if the baby is born unwanted and unloved? Does he really need to be brought into this world with the possibility of that happening?” There was a major moral void in my mind when it came to my advocacy, because I didn’t think about what the procedure of abortion actually involved. I didn’t actually think about the fact that at just a few weeks, the baby already has a heartbeat and developing organs. That’s the problem with many fanatical pro-abortion types. They don’t think about what they’re advocating. The terms “pro-choice” and “right to choose” are rallying cries and talking points that I don’t believe rank and file pro-aborts dive much into understanding. They’re just so elated that they’re a part of what they believe is a “pro-woman” movement that it never occurs to them that what they advocate literally sucks away the life of a developing baby. On the other hand, movement leaders and politicos who are associated with it know exactly what abortion involves, which makes it all the more horrifying that they would so casually advocate it.
They should look at their brothers, sisters, neices, nephews, friends, etc and wonder what life would be like without them in it. And then they should think about how, in hindsight knowing those people as they do now what they’ve have done if their loved ones had decided to abort their brothers, sisters, neices, friends, etc, never giving them the chance to experience life to the fullest. Or for that matter, look at their own children. It absolutely confounds me that any mother could look at their own child and say that abortion is a “necessary right.” Wrong. It is an unnecessary evil, and you don’t have to have children – nor do you have to be a woman or a mother – to view it that way.
Rep. Moore, thank you. Thank you for putting the ugly face on what we so rarely see given in public as the justification for the hundreds of thousands of convenience abortions done every year. To paraphrase: ‘The baby might not be given a good diet at first, so why should we bother giving them that chance to grow up to “eat better” and to be a productive member of society? Planned Parenthood via taxpayer $$ can take care of putting that baby out of its misery.’
Truly, truly, truly sick. Have you no shame, woman?
BTW, the House voted today to defund Planned Parenthood, along with ObamaCare.
Related: Make sure to read this powerful post from Rebecca Wales at Liberty Pundits – Rep. Gwen Moore – I’m Unplanned. I’m Alive. And I like Ramen.
Update – 6:19 PM: Here’s the full video of Moore’s remarks:
Where’s the media outrage? Where are Bill Maher and Jon Stewart issuing strong denunciations? That’s the other story that is coming out of Wisconsin this week: Not just that disgruntled liberals whose demands aren’t met will use hostage-taking style thug tactics to try and get their way, but that the mainstream media is displaying an unusually overt double standard in their coverage of the protests versus how they’ve covered and treated Tea Party rallies.
None of this is surprising, of course – but it is worth noting.
Related Reading: Michelle Malkin – Apocalypse Now: Wisconsin vs. Big Labor