As this election season drags on, and the GOP, lead by it’s new standard bearer, John “Maverick” McCain, lurches even further to the center-left than it had already been drifting; and given the near third party status of the Republicans in Washington State (after the Democrat party, and Really Democrat Party) , I am finding myself out in right field, without a Party to support.

I am not alone, by any stretch of the imagination.  There are many others out here.  We can see each other, and even converse with each other, commiserating in our sad new existence.

We find the basic tenants of the Democrat Party politically repugnant. Some of us even find Democrat stands on certain issues immoral, naive, reckless, or even suicidal, on a national level.  The Democrat party has been, for most of it’s history and to this day, the party of Racism and Separation.  It is a party that sees the Constitution as blunt instrument (when it can be twisted to fit their agenda), and a malleable “living” document when they can use the Judiciary to redefine it’s passages. Or, when all else fails, they simply ignore it.  They are what we fought the Cold War against - a party run by a privileged elite (Super-delegates, in current parlance), dedicated to retaining and reinforcing racial separation (now known as Diversity), protectionism (under the guise of human rights, and “fair-trade”), appeasement and surrender to our enemies (far too many example to cite).  They are, in short, a Party dedicated to remaking America into a third world banana republic, with a Democrat Politburo in charge.  They are not Democrats, in any true sense of the word.

The GOP (who should be forced to renounce the name Republican, as they no longer deserve it, or adhere to the principals the party was founded on), the party that championed emancipation of the slaves, women’s suffrage, and the civil right act (despite Democrat opposition to all of the above), has become corrupted by power, and is now attempting to move to the left, to court the less fervent fellow travellers of the Democrat party.  The ultimate expression of this is the elevation of a man who has opposed many Conservative - no REPUBLICAN - principals, as our nominee for the highest office in the land, and along with it, leadership of the party.

I used to be a Libertarian, once upon a time, when I thought that some of their stands might soften with time.  Unfortunately, the Libertarians have done the ONE thing that the Republican Party has not - stayed true and locked in to their core principals.  While that includes many things that I do support, including a firm grasp of the Constitution (what is now known as strict constructionism), and personal liberty, they also take many stands that are logically cohesive to their philosophy, but are naive at beast, and suicidal at worst.  Among these are their stands on unfettered and uncontrolled immigration, and their policy of “military protectionism” - that the US Military is and should only be a self-defense force.  These are wonderful ideas, and lofty goals, but in the real world, they are very likely to get you killed.

There is also the Constitution Party, which is part Libertarian, and equal parts Protectionist and Isolationist, with some Christian philosophy on the side.

I am sure there are many other parties out there, many of which I am not familiar with.

But I, and the others out here in Right Field, see none of these as a new home for us.

What are we looking for?  I can’t answer for everyone, only for myself.  If I could invent a party, it would have the following stands:

1) The Constitution should be interpreted with the original intent of the framers.  Specifically the Bill of Rights should be enforced as intended, with emphasis on the 9th and 10th amendments.

2) Immigration is a positive force, and necessary to the future growth and prosperity of the nation, but our borders must be controlled, and we must have a single official language for the business of the nation, to bind us together.

3) The United States must remain strong enough militarily to defeat any enemy that would attempt to harm our citizens, either directly, or by attacks on our economic or strategic interests. 

4) We must help nurture democracy and freedom around the world, using all tools at our disposal.

5) We must support and promote free trade.

6) In support of all of the above, we must be engaged with other nations, but we must never forget that diplomacy is only credible when backed up by the threat (or promise) of force - be it economic or military.

I am sure there are other planks that would be important, but these seem to cover it.

If anyone knows what party may meet these criteria, please let me know.  I think I have a lot of friends who would be interested, as well.

UPDATE:

A commenter asked for some support to my allegation as the historical racism of the Democrat party.

Trail of Tears & Indian Removal Act- Supported by Andrew Jackson, President, Democrat

The Republican Partywas formed in 1854, primarily as an Abolitionist (anti-slavery) party, to oppose the Democrat Party.  Indeed, many anti-slavery Democrats joined the Republicans.  See also the Kansas-Nebraska act.

The Copperheadswere anti-civil war Democrats, some of whose action went over the line into treason.  Think about today’s House and Senate leadership, when you read about them.

The Ku Klux Klan formed in 1865, had, by 1868 become a virtual military arm of the Democrat party in the south. Indeed the Klan became synonymous with the Democrats.  They were such a powerful force in that party, that the 1924 convention was referred to as the “Klanbake Convention”.  Even today, a former Klansman is an Elder Statesman of the Democrats in the US Senate - Robert Byrd of W. Virginia.

The Internment(and confiscation of property) of Japanese (and other asian) Americans during World War II was performed under Executive Orders (#9066 and 9095 respectively), issued by Franklin Roosevelt, President, Democrat.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964was passed with support of 82% of Republican Senators, and 80% of Republican Representatives.  Only 69% of Democrat Senators, and 63% of Democrat Representatives voted for it.

After this, the Democrat party began to shift to more subtle forms or racism.

Entire Bureaucratic industries have risen up, ostensibly to help the poor, the economically disadvantaged, the immigrant.  What they have done, is to ensure the failure of anyone that becomes entangled in their web.  Welfare (and WIC) were instrumental in destroying the African-American nuclear family.  Bi-Lingual education (and indeed, in many places, multi-lingual government services) have ensured that many immigrants are kept isolated in their cultural “ghettos”, and do not fully integrate into American society. 

The crown jewel of todays Racism from the Left (which, there can be no argument, means the Democrat Party, for all intents and purposes), is the concept of Diversity.  The very term “Diversity” is meant to be warm and fuzzy, inviting, even welcoming.  In truth it’s basic underlying theme is DIFFERENCE and SPERATION, keeping every little Ethnic, Racial, and Religious groups in their own little space, separate, distinct (but EQUAL) to all others.  It is the ultimate expression of Racism and Separatism.

The nemesis of the great evil of Diversity is a concept that reigned in America previously - the Melting Pot.  It is in the melting pot, that all races, creeds, and colors combine, bringing along much of the good, less of the bad, and making a new and better whole.  Diversity can never deliver an integrated society (look at Canada).  It can only deliver an equal society, where all values, and morals, and ethics are equally valid, and therefore, equally invalid.  Through Integration, and the Melting Pot, the many join to become one, not by forgetting who they were, but by adding that to the mix.

The ultimate expression of Diversity is the proposed menu requirements for the Democrat National Convention this year:

…caterers must provide foods in “at least three of the following five colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white,” garnishes not included, according to a Request for Proposals, or RFP, distributed last week.

I think I would rather have a good Stew…

I have long been opposed to ethanol (and many bio-fuels) on many grounds, not the least of which is that I feel it immoral to use foodstuffs to create fuel while millions starve in the world.

Many others have noted that as the population increases, along with standards of living in the developing world, that the most basic resources will become scarce, including the two most basic: Food and Water.

I will leave speculation on the coming water wars for another time, as shortages of food are far more pressing today.

I had not given much thought to food shortages in the past, as, like most Americans, I was content that the Breadbasket of the World (in which I include the US and Canada) could easily produce enough to feed not only the North America, but the world. 

I began to reevaluate this stand when the ethanol craze began to kick in, and perfectly good food crops, and wonderfully arable land, began to be dedicated to the production of an absolutely horrible alternative energy source.

Then, in December, I read a piece in the Economist (excepts below):

Rising incomes in Asia and ethanol subsidies in America have put an end to a long era of falling food prices.

The Economist’s food-price index is now at its highest since it began in 1845, having risen by one-third in the past year.

The overall rise in the price of Cereals (grains, including Corn), was due to to major factors:

One is increasing wealth in China and India. This is stoking demand for meat in those countries, in turn boosting the demand for cereals to feed to animals. The use of grains for bread, tortillas and chapattis is linked to the growth of the world’s population. It has been flat for decades, reflecting the slowing of population growth. But demand for meat is tied to economic growth… and global GDP is now in its fifth successive year of expansion at a rate of 4%-plus.

Not surprisingly, farmers are switching, too: they now feed about 200m-250m more tonnes of grain to their animals than they did 20 years ago. That increase alone accounts for a significant share of the world’s total cereals crop. Calorie for calorie, you need more grain if you eat it transformed into meat than if you eat it as bread: it takes three kilograms of cereals to produce a kilo of pork, eight for a kilo of beef. So a shift in diet is multiplied many times over in the grain markets. Since the late 1980s an inexorable annual increase of 1-2% in the demand for feed-grains has ratcheted up the overall demand for cereals and pushed up prices.

Because this change in diet has been slow and incremental, it cannot explain the dramatic price movements of the past year. The second change can: the rampant demand for ethanol as fuel for American cars. In 2000 around 15m tonnes of America’s maize crop was turned into ethanol; this year the quantity is likely to be around 85m tonnes. America is easily the world’s largest maize exporter—and it now uses more of its maize crop for ethanol than it sells abroad.

Ethanol is the dominant reason for this year’s increase in grain prices. It accounts for the rise in the price of maize because the federal government has in practice waded into the market to mop up about one-third of America’s corn harvest. A big expansion of the ethanol programme in 2005 explains why maize prices started rising in the first place.

With the twin gravities of Ethanol production, and increased Meat (and Cereal) consumption by the developing nations, we find ourselves in a food crunch.  Supplies are short, and the modern “just in time” replenishment model used in the industrialized world, is having a hard time coping:

From the New York Sun:

Major retailers in New York, in areas of New England, and on the West Coast are limiting purchases of flour, rice, and cooking oil as demand outstrips supply.

Spiking food prices have led to riots in recent weeks in Haiti, Indonesia, and several African nations. India recently banned export of all but the highest quality rice, and Vietnam blocked the signing of a new contract for foreign rice sales.

“I’m surprised the Bush administration hasn’t slapped export controls on wheat,” Mr. Rawles said. “The Asian countries are here buying every kind of wheat.” Mr. Rawles said it is hard to know how much of the shortages are due to lagging supply and how much is caused by consumers hedging against future price hikes or a total lack of product.

“There have been so many stories about worldwide shortages that it encourages people to stock up. What most people don’t realize is that supply chains have changed, so inventories are very short,” Mr. Rawles, a former Army intelligence officer, said. “Even if people increased their purchasing by 20%, all the store shelves would be wiped out.”

Now, this is far from the doomsday scenario painted by the Club of Rome in The Limits of Growth(or the Charlton Heston classic film Soylent Green), but it is certainly a foreshadowing of the coming wars for resources on this planet.  However, this is, by no means a certain result.  There are action which can avert the food crisis, at least.  One of these is the use of Genetically Modified (GM, aka Biotech) foods.

Courtesy of the International Herald Tribune:

Soaring food prices and global grain shortages are bringing new pressures on governments, food companies and consumers to relax their longstanding resistance to genetically engineered crops.

In Japan and South Korea, some manufacturers for the first time have begun buying genetically engineered corn for use in soft drinks, snacks and other foods. Until now, to avoid consumer backlash, the companies have paid extra to buy conventionally grown corn. But with prices having tripled in two years, it has become too expensive to be so finicky.

In the United States, wheat growers and marketers, once hesitant about adopting biotechnology because they feared losing export sales, are now warming to it as a way to bolster supplies. Genetically modified crops contain genes from other organisms to make the plants resistance to insects, herbicides or disease.

In Britain, the National Beef Association, which represents cattle farmers, issued a statement this month demanding that “all resistance” to such crops “be abandoned immediately in response to shifts in world demand for food, the growing danger of global food shortages and the prospect of declining domestic animal production.”

The chairman of the European Parliament’s agriculture committee, Neil Parish, said that as prices rise, Europeans “may be more realistic” about genetically modified crops: “Their hearts may be on the left, but their pockets are on the right.”

Of course, the Ludditesstill oppose GM/Biotech foods:

Opponents continue to worry that such crops have not been studied enough and that they might pose risks to health and the environment.

Biotechnology still certainly faces obstacles. Polls in Europe do not yet show a decisive shift in consumer sentiment, and the industry has had some recent setbacks. Since the beginning of the year France has banned the planting of genetically modified corn while Germany has enacted a law allowing for foods to be labeled as “GM free.”

In the end, however, this resistance will give way to public acceptance, and continuing development.  Or people will go hungry (best case) or starve (worst case - which is actually happening now in less developed places).  People are already rioting in places where food is scare, or growing too expensive for average people to buy.

Another part of the rise in food prices, is the cost of production and transportation.  As the price of Oil increases, the price of nearly everything else increases with it.  Oil, and Petroleum products, are used in nearly ever phase of food production, in some capacity or another, up to, and including, running the trucks that take the produce to the market.  The ripple effects of sharp increases in fuel prices are large and sweeping.

And many of the same factors that contribute to the spiraling food costs are also helping to spike the price of Oil:  Increased demand from developing nations, with burgeoning middle-classes, and all the things to go into making and supporting the lifestyle that we North Americans, and (to a slightly lesser degree) Europeans have enjoyed for many years.

And the REAL fun hasn’t even started yet.  Along with Climate Change (always has, always will - man has little or nothing to do about it) will come changes to the availability of fresh water supplies.  That’s when things will start to get really nasty.

Not that they have too… For much of the world, water conservation, and Desalination can alleviate the worst of this problem, if not eliminate it entirely.  But for regions, this will be the greatest threat they will face.

None of the problem that will cause the Resource Wars are inevitable, or unsolvable.  Indeed, many of the answers are at hand today.  We just need the courage to move ahead. 

We must try new things, and new technologies, if we are to save lives, and ensure everyone a decent lifestyle.  We must be willing to try GM/Biotech foods.  We must be willing to exploit existing fuel reserves, while working on ways to exploit new ones.  We must stretch beyond the confines of this single planet, to the veritable cornucopia of resources that awaits us on the moon (including Hydrogen 3, which can be used for Fusion power) and other bodies (every type of metal we need, in enough quantity that it is virtually limitless).

Or we can play it safe.  Cut back, economize, refuse to use GM foods, refuse to install Solar Power farms (because they would displace some desert tortoises) or Wind-farms (because the ruin the view from Hyannisport), or drill for oil off the coast (not that we can stop our neighbors from doing so) and keep converting food into fuel…

UPDATE:  Just ran across an intersting, and related editorial at USA Today, by Oliver Thomas.  While I find his faith in the IPCC and antropogenic Global Warming distrubing, though not surprising from a man of Faith, he has some very good points to make.

UPDATE 2:  Japan’s hunger becomes a dire warning for other nations

Since 1971, when the 26th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted, it has been legal for anyone of at least 18 years of age on Election day to vote (though that right had existed at the Federal election level since 1970, as a provision added to the Voting RIghts Act of 1965).

The result has been, to date, less than earth-shattering.

That may change this election cycle, with the first Generation X’er, Barak Obama, (though he is technically a tail-end baby boomer, having been born in 1961) with a shot at actually winning the White House.

Anecdotal ecidence suggests that Obama pulls vastly more young voters (17-24 range) than other candidates (way too many sources for this - here’s one). 

In the late 90’s and to the current day, evidence has mounted that the decision making capabilities of the average American are somehwat less than desirable until later than previously supposed.  One recent study suggested that while there is individual variation, :

indicates the juvenile brain is still maturing in the teen years and reasoning and judgment are developing well into the early to mid 20s.

Which should come as NO suprise to anyone that has lived through the horror of having Teenage children in the house.

Experts say that even at ages 16 and 17, when compared to adults, juveniles on average are more:

_impulsive.

_aggressive.

_emotionally volatile.

_likely to take risks.

_reactive to stress.

_vulnerable to peer pressure.

_prone to focus on and overestimate short-term payoffs and underplay longer-term consequences of what they do.

_likely to overlook alternative courses of action.

All of which could lead them to do something colossolly stupid, like voting for an empty suit, whose main talent is that he can read a Teleprompter REALLY well, and make it sound inspiring; is married to a woman whose College Thesis suggests a belief in Black Seperatism, who only decided that she was Proud Of America when her husband became the front runner for the Democrat nomination for President; attends what appears to be a Black Seperatist church; who is associated with a domestic (unrepentant) terrorist; and did, from all appearances, nothing during his single partial Senate term, except raise money for his Presidential run.

But I digress.

In the last several years, we have, as a society, determined that are young are, to put it simply, incompetent to make rational and reasonable decisions about many things.

Here in Washington, new restrictions were placed on new drivers.

On a national level, the sale of Alcohol is banned to anyone under 21.

Going back to the study:

It’s one thing to say teens don’t control their impulses as well as adults, but another to show that they can’t, he said. As for peer pressure, the new brain research “gives credence to the idea that this isn’t a choice that kids are making to give in to their friends, that biologically, they’re more vulnerable to that,” he said.

Consider the lobes at the front of the brain. The nerve circuitry here ties together inputs from other parts of the brain, said Dr. Jay Giedd of the National Institute of Mental Health.

This circuitry weighs how much priority to give incoming messages like “Do this now” versus “Wait! What about the consequences?” In short, the frontal lobes are key for making good decisions and controlling impulses.

Brain scans show that the frontal lobes don’t mature until age 25, and their connections to other parts of the brain continue to improve to at least that age, Giedd said.

The inexplicable behavior and poor judgments teens are known for almost always happen when teens are feeling high emotion or intense peer pressure, conditions that overwhelm the still-maturing circuitry in the front part of brain, Giedd said.

Peer Pressure like is found on College Campii, and at Political Rallies.

Different mental capabilities mature at different rates, Steinberg notes. Teens as young as 15 or 16 can generally balance short-term rewards and possible costs as well as adults, but their ability to consider what might happen later on is still developing, he said.

Like the consequences of electing someone completely unexperienced to the highest office in the land, who talks freely about giving credibility to the worst tyrants and bloodiest dictators in the world today, by meetind with them for photo-ops and “talks”.

So, the obvious answer is that if we, as a society deem someone mental imcapable of making a rational decision about something as minor as Alcohol consumption before they are 21 - and while medical studies confirm this judgement - it is irrational on our part to allow them to make what will most likely be - based on medical evidence of mental development - a bad decision.

Repeal the 26th Amendment.  If we think 21 is old enough to buy a beer, then it should be OK to let you vote.

But trying to have it both ways - saying that at 18 you can’t make a considered decision about personal alcohol consumption, but you are mature enough to help decide who the leader of the free world (and keeper of the keys to the Nuclear Button) should be - is less than rational.

From the mouth of the enemy (AP);

Analysis: Clinton calm in hostage crisis

When the hostages had been released and their alleged captor arrested, a regal-looking Hillary Rodham Clinton strolled out of her Washington home, the picture of calm in the face of crisis.

Easy to be poised and calm, when you were hundreds of miles away from the incident.  I mean, c’mon, it’s not like she was office where it nutbar was threatening the lives of people Hillary has probably only met in pasing, if at all.

The image, broadcast just as the network news began, conveyed the message a thousand town hall meetings and campaign commercials strive for — namely, that the Democratic presidential contender can face disorder in a most orderly manner.

“I am very grateful that this difficult day has ended so well,” she declared as she stood alone at the microphone….

It was a vintage example of a candidate taking a negative and turning it into a positive. And coming just six weeks before the presidential voting begins, the timing could hardly have been more beneficial to someone hoping to stave off a loss in the Iowa caucuses and secure a win in the New Hampshire primary.

Okay, that last line is about the only thing is this whole puff piece that could even remotely be considered “objective”…

Aides said Clinton was home Friday afternoon, getting ready to deliver a partisan speech in Virginia to the Democratic National Committee, when she was told three workers in her Rochester, N.H., headquarters had been taken hostage by a man claiming to have a bomb….

The aides said Clinton immediately canceled her trip and began working the phones. She later told reporters she had New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch, a fellow Democrat, on the phone in eight minutes.

Over the ensuing five hours, as a state trooper negotiated with the suspect and hostages were released one-by-one, Clinton continued to call up and down the law enforcement food chain, from local to county to state to federal officials.

“I knew I was bugging a lot of these people, it felt like on a minute-by-minute basis, trying to make sure that I knew everything that was going on so I was in a position to tell the families, to tell my campaign and to be available to do anything that they asked of me,” the New York senator said.

THAT is how she is “Calm in the face of a crisis”?  By pertering the first responders, who were just a tad busy trying to save lives?  But then she quickly recovers:

“They were the professionals, they were in charge of this situation, whatever they asked me or my campaign to do is what we would do,” Clinton said.

But the reporter still has to give the impression that Hillary was in control:

Along with taking charge while giving the professionals free rein, Clinton offered up a third dimension to her crisis character: humanity. She said she felt “grave concern” when she first heard the news of the hostage-taking.

“It affected me not only because they were my staff members and volunteers, but as a mother, it was just a horrible sense of bewilderment, confusion, outrage, frustration, anger, everything at the same time,” Clinton said.

Ah yes, play the mommy card. 

It was a thawing moment for a stoic figure who once snapped that she opted for professional life instead of staying home to bake cookies…

You can just imagine the reporter casting a longing gaze at a freeze frame of Hillary from the news conference as he writes the piece.

And them he implies that Hillary has “schooled” us:

Class dismissed.

It’s too bad that the “class” wasn’t on journalistic ethics and objectivity.

A quick search of “Glen Johnson AP” beings up a number of his pieces for that news service.  From a glance at the first page of results, I see a number of negative pieces on Mitt Romney, and one positive on Rep. Barney Frank (D- GLBT).

The Washington Times reports on a new revelation that, indeed, the Democrat Party is the party of the RICH.

Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

This should come as no surprise to anyone who lives in the Seattle or Portland areas. Indeed, we are reminded of it every election cycle.

My personal theory is that these people (the Money behind the Democrat Party, if not the foot-soliders), are, to a minor extent, Old Money (not so much on the Left Coast as on the East) who have little or no concept of the value of Work and sacrifice.  But far more so New Money, that DO understand the value of work and personal sacrifice - but little else.  Unfortunately, most have been raised and indoctrinated through the schools, and worse, Higher Education, to be souless, amoral, and with only progressive oriented ethics.  Since they are spending a great deal of their time amassing, and maintaining, wealth and possessions (se McMansion), the guilt-load becomes almost unbearable, and they must enlist others to “do good for them” (see Affluenza).

In steps the Democrat Party, and their affiliated hangers on and fellow travellers, willing to take their money to support the Party’s goal of taking more of everyones money, to DO GOOD.

The most egregious case is Warren Buffett, constantly complaining that his Taxes aren’t high enough.  Strange, since I am unaware of ANY law preventing him from paying MORE than the required amount of taxes - or from donating his entire wealth to the government - or better, directly to charity.  What he really means is, everyone should pay more taxes, because the Government is a better arbiter of where your money gets spent than you are.

Imagine my shock and horror this morning, when I began to go about the normal Sunday morning routine, and discovered that it was 60 minutes later than we thought it was.

It took about 240 seconds for me to realize what had happened:  My alarm clock (which we both use, as it has two alarm settings) had, thinking the old DST rules were still in effect, fell back one hour last night.

As my wife said, hurrying out the door, as she was now running very late, “time for a new alarm clock”.

This is particularly annoying as the changeover to the new DST was very disrtruptive to my industry, having a large cost in software upgrades and manhours to patch and update older systems, whose programmers had no inkling that COngress, in a fit of trying to show the people that they were trying to DO something about Energy Conservation, cost the economy a huge some of money.

To date, I cannot find a recored that anyone has calculate to the to the economy of the change to the new start/stop dates, but I am sure that there are many people (like me) and companieis that got over the first hump, and neglegted to make a permanent fix, so the total cost is still rising.  An old Estimate is $500 Million, to $1 Billion dollars. 

So, Congress is going to cost me another $40 today, for a new alarm clock. 

And it will STILL be dark when I get up.  Oh, and research seems to be coming up to speed with common sense.  DST may be bad for you.

Oh, and there is still the possibility that DST may go back to the previous rules, (so I am keeping the old clock, just in case), becuase, according to the Act:

SEC 110 DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME

    (c) Report to Congress.–Not <<NOTE: 15 USC 260a note.>> later than 9 months after the effective date stated in subsection (b), (March 1, 2007 -ed.) the Secretary shall report to Congress on the impact of this section on energy consumption in the United States.

By my calculations, that is Nov 1, 2007.  Though, considering that Congress is still working on Appropriations Bills that were due Oct 1st, I doubt they will get to this anytime soon.

Thanks to the American Thinker, we learn that:

Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana) has been a stalwart supporter of the American-Israel alliance. He recently introduced an amendment to the foreign aid bill that would prohibit groups that deny Israel’s right to exist from receiving American (taxpayer dollar) foreign aid. The amendment passed 390-30.

Of the 30 members of Congress who have no problem with giving money to groups that advocate and plan for the destruction of Israel, 27 of them were Democrats.

I am more aware than most of the reasons the Union movement was so popular in the United States around the turn of the century, and through the 40’s and 50’s.  I am also more aware than most of the reasons Union membership has declined so precipitously in recent decades.

Coming from a long line of Coal miners (and still having some relatives in that industry today) I am painfully and personally aware of the working conditions and treatment of workers that lead to Unionization.  The unbridled expansion and growth of the American economy from the end of the War of Northern Agression, and the hard times of the Depression, led to widespread and horrendous abuse and mistreatment of emplyees, and horrible working conditions, in many industries.

A lot of things began to change after World War II.  Criminal takeovers of some Union leadership, the transformation of America into a manufacturing and industrial powerhouse, and the return of millions of war veterans changed the complexion of the workplace.

As the economy grew and changed, the average worker had to become more educated, and technically savvy.  To compete, business had to adopt, and in some cases exceed, Union type benefits.  This led to the decline of the Unions in all but the most menial, and low skilled jobs, or in those industries where they had a death grip, such as the teamsters, and government employees.

Wait!  Government employees?  What’s up with that?  Are they not skilled, technically adept, and educated?  The inital goal of the Government workers unions were (and remain) the retention of Government jobs as career civil service positions, supplanting the old Patronage system of political appointment. 

Unfortunately, as is always the case when a great deal of money, and therfore Power, is at stake; corruption inevitably follows.  And when the onerus demands of the Union become oppressive, and the “return on investment” of the workers in supporting the Union becomes a liability, the Union loses membership.  And with that Membership, goes both Numbers and Money.

In an effort to stem the tide, the Union bosses have joined with the other bastion of corruption in America, the Political Aristocracy.  As the Arab saying goes, the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend; so the Unions and the political Left work to the same end goal of growing the Unions, and in return, the Unions support the Left - and since many of their end goals are similar, this is also a fairly comfortable marriage of convenience.  The only real disagreement on the end goal, is who will be in charge when all is said and done, but the goal is the same - the complete control of the people and the means of production.  Dress it up in any semantic clothes that you want.

We can see this most evident in Washington State, and on a National Level:

SVC Alumnus has done yoemans work following the HB 2079 scandal here in Washington.  For those unaware, HB 2079 was put forward by the Unions friends on the Left as a way to side step what will surely be an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling that they CANNOT USE AGENCY FEES (monies from non-uinion members that they are REQUIRED to pay the Union in compensation for contract negotiation that the non-union employee benefits from) to support Political spending.  HB 2079 essentially erases the distinction from monies the Union raises for political activities from all other funds collected. 

Nationally, the Employee Free Choice Act  would ELIMINATE the Secret Ballot for votes to Unionize a shop.  Where today, all ballots are secret, under the Act, Union Thugs would be present to see each employee vote, opening the employee up to psychological, and physical, coercion.  If this Act is passed (already in the House, pending in the Senate) and not Vetoed, there would be a wave of unionization unlike anything seen previously.  The economic carnage would be unimagineable, and the political effect profound, and decided left.  America would, in short order, become France, where being just left of center makes you a Right Wing Reactionary, and 35 Hours in the work week is considered akin to being a fuedal serf.

How people can look at Europe, and think that Left wing politics, and powerful, omni-present Unions are a GOOD thing defies logic and common sense.

Most of us in America today (around 85%) are At Will employees.  We are free to quit and move at any time, and we bargain for ourselves in the workplace.  Likewise, our employer can terminate our employment At Will.  In a competetive job market, this system works well, and those that work hard, and improve their job skills, typically advance.  In the world of the Left, and the Unions, Seniority rules, and personal accomplishment and skill means little or nothing.  It is the consistent message of the left, that everyone must be dragged DOWN to the same level, that equality of result is the most important thing.

Except for the Union Bosses, and Political Aristocracy…

NOTE:  For some Fun Facts, check out the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Union Facts.