What is Good for the Union...

Recently, the United Auto Workers (UAW) tried to unionize a Volkswagen factory in the South
It is interesting to note that when a vote is taken and the union doesn't win the vote, it is blamed on some outside factor, like the "South", as if this ubiquitous direction had some kind of influence.  The employees are the ones that vote, so why don't the employees get the blame, or the praise, or the Unions see no virtue in their rejection, and no introspection in their efforts.  Perhaps they could look at being relevant, instead of pushing their ever-present "redistribution of wealth" mantra.  Back to the vote...it seems that for those that rule, there is no respect to the vote, or to the principles that are the basis of the vote.  Look at recent initiatives to reinforce the definition of marriage.  There is no respect for the majority of voters and their moral basis for the success of the vote.  Where a definition-of-marriage initiative has been presented and voted-on by the public, it has won a majority of votes.  Then it is dismissed, out-of-hand by the ruling elite and then directed to a handful of people to decide its morality (the courts).  Is it to be assumed that the morality of a few would trump the votes of a majority?  It is like an answer in search of a question, and there is no "civil-right" in an institution first established as a sacrament of religion.  Wasn't it God that performed the first marriage?

The rule of Law has been disgraced by this process.  The courts have been established as a check-and-balance for the other branches of government, not as an arbiter of morality, that would try to trump the vote of the majority.

There is a movement afoot to establish Article V conventions, according to the Constitution, that would assert the rights of the States to establish law, when the branches of government are not doing their job.  I would assume that the future, being a reflection of the direction of the past, would tell us that the results of these conventions would come under the final scrutiny of the Judicial Branch.  The Constitution has no such provisions.  But they will certainly try, and cause that the Constitution "shall hang by a thread", and not be overtaken.

The rule of Law must be sustained if our form of government is to continue and I don't mean the rule of law that is activist, but one that is no respector of persons, that is even-handed and true, versus false.

Even though this is just an observation.....

Slight of Hand

Okay, this is a good one. The Democratic machine is bringing in the re-enforcements and trotting out the sympathies for all the discussion on Contraception and the government involvement. Rick Santorum has made a point of bringing up this social issue as a freedom of religion debate. Pres. Obama and his apologists have countered that this is a poverty issue, that the government should provide a means for the "poor" to have access to contraception, therefore they are requiring insurance companies to pay for patient's contraceptive costs, like it is a prescription or something. Self-insured employers, like the Catholic Church oppose contraceptive practices and feel that it is not the government's place to force policies on an employer that are contrary to the religious beliefs of the employer especially if it is a Church. The White House and the Democratic machine have been trying to pull the discussion away from the 2nd Amendment argument and more towards the poor and affordability argument. The have even demonized Mr. Santorum as anti-women's health (who would have thought that contraceptives made women healthier - "Vitamin S"?...for Sex). Anyway, the Catholic and other church don't want to be mandated to provide something that is against their beliefs....kind of like making the Rainforest Alliance buy S.U.V.s for their company vehicles (which I think they do voluntarily and hypocritically). Again, this is not an issue about women's health or the poor...it is about the government forcing someone to do something they don't believe in...aren't they pro-choice, meaning allowing options for all the consequenses?

So they march the Georgetown Co-ed in front of the congressional committee hearing to give testimony in support of their (the Democrats) argument. The actions of the polititians in this respect is reprehensible, in taking advantage of a young women that was willing to represent their position, but opening her up to public scrutiny without a full vetting of her testimony....sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

In the game of propaganda the end justifies whatever action needs to be taken.  With that course doesn't an effort like that de-legitimize the point that you are trying to make?  If you can't make a logical and thoughtful justification of your point, then you are just trying to push a lie.  Where does a lie take us?  Down a dead-end road; game, set, match.

Maybe we need to examine where we are going and what are people's motives.  If a movement is purely political, it is more often the result of a pushing a lie to make a point, no common sense, no conscience...but of course, this is just an observation....