When you see the following regarding someone’s experience with the backscatter X-Ray machine and someone opting out, it should be obvious why they’re doing it.
Remember, they claim the necessity is for our safety, but given who the TSA hires and comments like this, it’s to get their rocks off.
H/T to Uncle.
This past December the DC Metro announced that it was going to start randomly searching DC Metro riders.
Evidently trying to travel to your job at work is grounds to consider you a criminal. Again the claim of necessity is much like that used for aircraft and these shenanigans even involve A Security Theater. This has absolutely nothing to do with security, but giving them more control. The TSA is out of control and it seems some still feel like they need more.
Just when it seemed when it couldn’t get any worse, this new article surfaces.
"It’s not as much about detection as it’s about deterrence," he said in an interview on WTOP radio.
(Emphasis mine.) They even admit publically that they will probably fail to detect someone attempting to smuggle explosives on. It’s all about “deterrence”, aka, providing the illusion of security. This is the second time this idea has been pushed, the first time it was shot down. The person who pushed it the first time was recently promoted to a higher position. Given all of that I guess someone really wants to run around saying “Respect my Authoritah!”
H/T to myself, I emailed it to myself and then forgot about it, I discovered it while cleaning up my inbox tonight.
In San Diego evidently a cabbie either fell asleep or blacked out, he then crashed into 25 people, critically injuring six.
There has been no screaming for outlawing automobiles in the wake of this event. Unlike in the wake of Arizona. Actually the press is so light on it, it was discovered and posted in the GBC by someone in Australia. There has not been a single mention though of requiring additional safety devices as a result of this accident. Despite there being systems which can detect inattentiveness of the driver.
It becomes obvious that safety isn’t the real goal. People might claim it to be, but obviously if it was they would be screaming for changes with regards to automobiles after this accident.
H/T: jigsaw
So here’s the trailer for your enjoyment. I didn’t even know they were coming out with a movie. If you haven’t read the book, I highly suggest you do. I’m reading it again because I read it a long time ago.
H/T: David
Our fearless leader feels that he has the right to call himself “The Gipper”. The only person, other than The Gipper himself, who has the right to call himself the Gipper is Ronald Reagan.
The Gipper, for those who do not know, was a young college football player for The University of Notre Dame by the name of George Gipp. He died at a young age from strep throat at a time when antibiotics weren’t available yet. On his death bed this is what he said to his coach:
Ronald Reagan, before he was President, was an actor who portrayed George “The Gipper” Gipp in the film Knute Rockne, All American and was referred to as The Gipper. Reagan later used the line “Win one for the Gipper” in a political slogan in 1988.
His most famous use of the phrase was at the 1988 Republican National Convention when he told Vice President George H. W. Bush, "George, go out there and win one for the Gipper."
Obama has, in no way, earned the name “The Gipper” and how dare he try to refer to himself as such.
Breda created a wonderful list of manners that you should follow when open carrying. These rules are truthfully common sense for most of us, but it’s still good to enumerate them.
- Be exceedingly polite – use words like “please,” thank you,” and “ma’am.”
- Smile a lot.
- Do not touch your gun. Ever.*
- Do not call attention to your gun. Ever.
- Do not talk about your gun unless someone asks. Ever.
*Unless you need it, obviously.
Manners and attitude make all the difference especially since you are having to overcome the negative stereotype created by the media. Once when I was in Safeway a woman wide eyed and looking at me very nervously. She had walked up behind me while I was waiting in line. I noticed her reaction just after she walked up, I just smiled and said, “Hi.” She relaxed considerably but was still a little put off. After getting through the checkout line I smiled at her, said “Have a nice day ma’am” as I walked away. She not only but smiled back, but also said to have a nice day.
That is what we want, we want to destroy this negative stereotype. When carrying openly you are an ambassador for all gun owners. Your actions not only reflect on yourself, but on all of us. The above rules aid in accomplishing that goal.
So evidently there was a way for TMW to opt out of the Union. However there was still a small caveat, the 3% that would go to the dues still has to go elsewhere. More specifically it has to go to a charity of her choice.
Then we had an epiphany. We’re going to just have the 3% go to the Second Amendment Foundation. I guess that’s a compromise since I already send money their direction anyway. I would send it to someone that works against the unions, but I am not aware of any organizations that do so.
I highly recommend sending donations their way, they have produced very good results.
Today TMW was happy she had a “job interview”. I use quotes because it ends up it was really just a job offer. It would be a regular day shift which makes life considerably easier on us. Rotating schedules and night shifts are a pain.
So the above was the “Yea”, now for the “Boo”. It ends up that this job offer had one string, one serious string which has placed my rage meter through the roof.
Image courtesy of Robb Allen found via JayG
This string violates one of our core morals, evidently the facility CNAs are unionized. She has no choice if she takes the position, she must join the union and pay 3%, yes 3%, of her salary to the union. She must pay 3% of her earnings so that someone can “represent” her, to “collectively raise wages” and aid in the event of “wrongful” termination.
Think about that for a second, the dues paid to the union are a percentage of wages and the union is collectively bargaining for higher wage. They make more money by getting raises for workers that aren’t that productive. The union automatically gets new members when someone wants a job. They get new income to use to support their political ends, because someone wants to work. They get this income even if the new employee does not want anything to do with the union.
Unions are dying. Especially when you consider the fact that many are in unions because they are given no choice to get employment. Morally we have a serious issue, we want absolutely nothing to do with the union. She doesn’t have to take the new job, but she would actually make more in the new position, the commute is considerably shorter, and the hours and schedule would be more regular. The difference in pay is more considerable when given the fact she is paying more in income tax to a state she doesn’t live in than she would in dues. The main thing we want is the shorter commute, and the wage isn’t really higher than Idaho, it is mainly the shift in taxes versus dues. She would take the job even if she was returning back to the night shift. Those extra perks are nice, but we’d ditch them to get rid of the union. At the same time Unions have helped contribute to the fiscal problems in government and need to be destroyed. The union of choice in this case also appears to be one of the most despicable, SEIU.
Unions are pointless and do nothing more than take money to fund politicians that wouldn’t get elected any other way. Now it ends up that their method of collection is by force, preventing employment of those unwilling to pay. If you want to work, you have to be willing to fund whoever they like. If we really had “free employment”, union membership would be optional and not forced. Though if that were to ever happen, unions would finally die and their power would be lost.
Raw Feed
FeedBurner Feed
Subscribe by Email