I’m a few days behind on this story, primarily because I spent the majority of my weekend monitoring and/or Tweeting about Hurricane Irene developments, but I think you’ll find it a fascinating case study in terms of the contrasts it portrays between well-behaved young children at a private school versus “gimme mine” unionistas petulantly protesting outside the school … because Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was visiting. The Wisconsin Reporter has the story:
MILWAUKEE — The anti-Walker protest movement is kicking it up a notch.
Protesters on Friday hoisted “Recall Walker” signs and chanted outside Messmer Preparatory School in Milwaukee, where Walker was slated to read Dr. Seuss’ “Oh! The Places You’ll Go” to elementary school students.
Just hours ahead of Walker’s visit, vandals destroyed locks at the Catholic school, said school officials.
Jacob Flom, of the Milwaukee Students for a Democratic Society, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he did not know who vandalized the property, but he did say Walker opponents would bring the protest to the governor, wherever he goes.
“We’re not going to let him go anywhere, especially in our community, without him being protested,” he told the newspaper. The society is a liberal organization of students and youth who advocate against war and for education rights, according to its website.
In a statement released Friday morning to FOX6 News in Milwaukee, Messmer President the Rev. Bob Smith said the Catholic school’s mission is to educate students and instill values.
“We teach our students to respect adults and individuals they disagree with. Our students work hard and succeed. There are no gimmicks or tricks here, just a focus on traditional values,” Smith said in the statement.
Hmph. A far cry from what was going on outside, as this MacIver Institute video clearly demonstrates:
Make sure to watch it all the way through, and note especially the differences between how the kids inside acted versus the “adults” who were
stomping their feet marching outside. Also of note: the jerk towards the middle of the video attempting to intimidate a female school employee who was standing outside quietly watching the protesters. Kyle Olson, writing at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government blog, is calling for people to come forth and identify the man who got into this woman’s face:
The protests got so raucous that at least one parent said that she felt unsafe entering the school with her child.
But the low point occurred when a protester got in the face of a female school employee who was standing quietly on the sidewalk, not engaging the mob in any way. He told her:
“I’m ashamed to have you in my neighborhood. I’m ashamed. Where do you live, by the way? Do you live here? Do you live in this neighborhood? Do you live in the suburbs and drive here for work? You don’t even live here, do you? I’ve got some advice for you: stay where you came from. We don’t want you here.”
Could this be the face of the 21st Century Ku Klux Klan? Think about it. Union thugs are now using intimidation tactics against anyone who dares to disagree with Big Labor’s agenda, and tell them they are not welcomed in the community. The union only wants to associate with “their kind.”
Keep in mind that during the height of the Madison protests, union supporters bullied local business owners into displaying pro-union signs in their store windows so union members would know who was “with them” and who wasn’t.
Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey’s summary of the protests was spot-on:
It got ugly on the street outside the facility, which is no surprise, since Messmer is a “choice school” — an alternative to the union-gripped public school system. It’s an alternative that sends 85% of its high-school graduates to college. It’s also no surprise that “choice schools” threaten the union’s power in the state, which gave them extra added incentive to protest Walker’s visit … and to attempt to intimidate Messmer staff while doing so. The video provides a jarring disconnect between the well-behaved students on the inside and Brother Bob’s explanation of teaching positive discipline and self-control to the self-indulgent nastiness taking place on the sidewalk outside.
Finally, have unions bothered to change their protest marching cries in 40 years? We hear the ubiquitous “hey hey ho ho” rallying cry, and a chorus of “Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye,” last seen on the charts as recently as 41 years ago. For the unions, it’s the same old, tired song, the same old, tired rallying cries, and the same, old, dismal failure in both public schools and public relations. I’d call them childish, but that would insult the well-behaved and well-educated students at Messmer Prep. Let’s just call them ugly. This is what it looks like when those who feel entitled to power and control lose both.
Does that not describe modern-day liberalism to a “t”? Still pushing for old big government ideas that don’t work, and throwing temper tantrums when they don’t get their way. It’s a sad commentary for today’s left that representatives for their warped belief system get shown up by well-behaved young students during a visit from the Governor of their state. And for any liberals reading this who may think I’m suggesting that liberals sit silent, in awe, and giggle approvingly at their political opposition, get a clue. If you don’t understand the reason for the study in contrasts between the school kids and the marchers outside, then you in your infinite cluelessness are PART of the problem, NOT the solution to it – the solution being to respectfully disagree with your political opposition by way of acting like adults who have even the tiniest modicum of understanding about when and where how it is appropriate to stage protests against your government’s policies.
Unionites remind me of little kids who have been given “shut up candy” by their parents for years every time they visit the grocery store. The parents, tired of fighting with the child over the candy request at the check out counter and too weary from a hard day at work to say no, give in to the child and buy it candy time after time, to the delight of the child, who eventually becomes spoiled by it. Then one day, the parent says no, and in response the child pitches a fit in the middle of the store, laying down and stamping its feet, slamming its little fists sideways on the floor as it yells and screams to the point its face gets red. The parent has decided its time to wean the child off the candy, and naturally the child protests violently at this perceived “injustice.”
But … there is a difference in that child versus the children masquerading as adults at these anti-Walker protests: Eventually, the child grows into a young adult and learns to do without the candy, and at some point gets a job where he earns the money he needs to be able to buy that candy himself when he wants it without having to rely on his mom and dad to purchase it for him. He doesn’t always buy it; the candy is a luxury item he can’t always afford, but when he can, he treats himself – and appreciates it more.
This is exactly the way “gimme mine” public sector unionistas need to be treated. They should to be weaned off the luxury taxpayer-provided health benefits and retirement plans until/unless they’re willing to contribute more to pay for them out of pocket. Families struggling to make ends meet should not have to sacrifice a portion of their family’s quality of life just so someone who makes their living at the government’s expense can get a Cadillac health coverage and retirement plan that Joe and Jane Six-pack could not afford even on their best days.
Liberals talk big on the issue of “shared sacrifice” by way of suggesting that the “middle class” should not have to “shoulder society’s tax burden”, and suggest that “the rich” ought to cover it instead. Interestingly enough, however, they don’t apply that same “rule” when it comes to the middle class paying out the wazoo in the form of tax dollars in order for the government to provide fancy perks for public sector union workers that the average American worker doesn’t get to enjoy. They’d rather a non-union worker go without than to have a union worker “robbed” of “what’s his.” We’ve seen this play out often over the last several decades, most recently with the changes put in place by the Walker, Kasich, and Christie administrations respectively, and with the shameless attempt by Big Labor via their allies on the NLRB to rob South Carolina workers of jobs because Boeing thought it made good sense to put a facility in a non-union state like South Carolina.
It’s liberal duplicity at its most transparently disgusting – and it’s high time their two-faced tactics were exposed for what they are.