In Heavy Snow, Massive Crowd Rallies in Madison

[Psychoblues]

Last Saturday in sunny weather they had approximately 55,000 or more. Today in temperatures of 17 degrees and heavy snow the crowd is expected to easily surpass 100,000.

Source: TalkingPointsMemo

by: Eric Kleefeld

February 26, 2011, 5:28PM


The state Capitol Square in Madison, Wisconsin, is now overflowing with protesters, in a demonstration that is even bigger than last Saturday's massive demonstration -- and in freezing, snowy weather to boot.

Last Saturday's protest was huge, with estimates of 55,000 or more. But many other reporters I've spoken to agree that there are even more today. The Wisconsin State Journal posted at 12:30 p.m. local time -- before the rally began -- that the crowd size was almost 70,000 people. I should add that it has only gotten significantly bigger since then.

On top of that, last Saturday was sunny and relatively warm for February, while this afternoon it's 17 degrees Fahrenheit with heavy snow coming down.

So take this as a clear sign that even if the Wisconsin Assembly has passed Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill, with its anti-public employee union proposals, the passion of demonstrators here is not dying down. The bill is still stuck in the state Senate -- where the minority Democrats have left the state in order to block the three-fifths budget quorum -- and each step of this process might only turn up the political heat.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...................................

More: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/in-heavy-snow-massive-crowd-rallies-in-madison.php

I wish them and EVERY GENUINE AMERICAN WORKER all the best.

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

Last Saturday in sunny weather they had approximately 55,000 or more. Today in temperatures of 17 degrees and heavy snow the crowd is expected to easily surpass 100,000.

Source: TalkingPointsMemo

by: Eric Kleefeld

February 26, 2011, 5:28PM


The state Capitol Square in Madison, Wisconsin, is now overflowing with protesters, in a demonstration that is even bigger than last Saturday's massive demonstration -- and in freezing, snowy weather to boot.

Last Saturday's protest was huge, with estimates of 55,000 or more. But many other reporters I've spoken to agree that there are even more today. The Wisconsin State Journal posted at 12:30 p.m. local time -- before the rally began -- that the crowd size was almost 70,000 people. I should add that it has only gotten significantly bigger since then.

On top of that, last Saturday was sunny and relatively warm for February, while this afternoon it's 17 degrees Fahrenheit with heavy snow coming down.

So take this as a clear sign that even if the Wisconsin Assembly has passed Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill, with its anti-public employee union proposals, the passion of demonstrators here is not dying down. The bill is still stuck in the state Senate -- where the minority Democrats have left the state in order to block the three-fifths budget quorum -- and each step of this process might only turn up the political heat.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...................................

More: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/in-heavy-snow-massive-crowd-rallies-in-madison.php

I wish them and EVERY GENUINE AMERICAN WORKER all the best.

Psychoblues

Elections have consequences. Those scumbag Dems are usurping the legislative power of the duly elected majority and are violating the will of the majority of the people of Wisconsin. They should be charged with malfeasance and removed from office.

[Psychoblues]

Elections have consequences. Those scumbag Dems are usurping the legislative power of the duly elected majority and are violating the will of the majority of the people of Wisconsin. They should be charged with malfeasance and removed from office.

No election caused this usurpation of power by the idiot of a governor that the State of Wisconsin now has. Neither the state nor the Union can unilaterally disengage from collective bargaining without express collective bargaining and agreement from the other side. That is the agreement from both sides no matter what any other dumb-asses think or attempt to spew as some kind of totally ill-informed truth. The Unions WILL prevail on this issue.

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

No election caused this usurpation of power by the idiot of a governor that the State of Wisconsin now has. Neither the state nor the Union can unilaterally disengage from collective bargaining without express collective bargaining and agreement from the other side. That is the agreement from both sides no matter what any other dumb-asses think or attempt to spew as some kind of totally ill-informed truth. The Unions WILL prevail on this issue.

Psychoblues

The public employee unions have already lost...the Dem holdouts are only delaying the inevitable. I really can't understand why idiots defend a system that encourages and rewards mediocrity or worse. Why does standing on one's own merits terrify liberals so much? Deep down I suspect it's because liberals are really as useless as they are wrong-headed.

[Psychoblues]

The public employee unions have already lost...the Dem holdouts are only delaying the inevitable. I really can't understand why idiots defend a system that encourages and rewards mediocrity or worse. Why does standing on one's own merits terrify liberals so much? Deep down I suspect it's because liberals are really as useless as they are wrong-headed.

I find no truth in anything you just said. Are you reading from a rightwing talking points regardless of the truth textbook?

The Unions WILL prevail on this issue.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

I find no truth in anything you just said. Are you reading from a rightwing talking points regardless of the truth textbook?

The Unions WILL prevail on this issue.

Psychoblues


Why would anyone support the unions when they are sucking more and more money from the taxpayers?

PB, this is not the usual case where you can use the workers as victims and they are up against the evil CEO

These are public sector employees up against the taxpayers - who usually make LESS money then the people they are paying (the union workers)

[Missileman]

I find no truth in anything you just said.

Just like Progresso Soup...it's in there!

[red states rule]

Just like Progresso Soup...it's in there!

Even when sober, I doubt if PB could find his the Eiffel Tower in Paris

[Kathianne]

Maybe it's just me, but unless responding to personal attacks seems more civil to argue the posts and not perceived shortcomings of the poster?

[red states rule]

Maybe it's just me, but unless responding to personal attacks seems more civil to argue the posts and not perceived shortcomings of the poster?

I stand corrected Kat

I am surprised PB has not blamed Pres Bush for what is going on. After all, PB and his fellow libs have ben doing just that for the last 10 years

http://marklevinfan.com/PhotoAlbum/albums/userpics/10001/normal_MH-ML-0905-LiberalEducation~0.jpg

[Kathianne]

I stand corrected Kat

I am surprised PB has not blamed Pres Bush for what is going on. After all, PB and his fellow libs have ben doing just that for the last 10 years

http://marklevinfan.com/PhotoAlbum/albums/userpics/10001/normal_MH-ML-0905-LiberalEducation~0.jpg

No problem. I just don't like going after supposed weak spots, whether drinking, marital issues, cancer, etc. None of those have to do with opinions or debates.

Public figures, well many use individuals to tar whole groups. ;)

[red states rule]

I find no truth in anything you just said. Are you reading from a rightwing talking points regardless of the truth textbook?

The Unions WILL prevail on this issue.

Psychoblues


http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk279/rm7b/idiot.gif

[Palin Rider]

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk279/rm7b/idiot.gif

Oh goody, I didn't miss National Pot and Kettle day.

The award, obviously, goes to Burger King Kid for the above.

[Psychoblues]

Oh goody, I didn't miss National Pot and Kettle day.

The award, obviously, goes to Burger King Kid for the above.

Maybe I'm missing something, PR. What do you mean in the pot and kettle reference?

Psychoblues

[Palin Rider]

Maybe I'm missing something, PR. What do you mean in the pot and kettle reference?

Psychoblues

I meant that BKK's calling anyone else an idiot is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Too subtle? ;D

[Psychoblues]

I meant that BKK's calling anyone else an idiot is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Too subtle? ;D

My understanding of that colloquialism is just a bit different from the context in which you used it, PR. No prob, my friend.

:salute::laugh2::salute:

God Bless The Progressive United States of America

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Why would anyone support the unions when they are sucking more and more money from the taxpayers?

PB, this is not the usual case where you can use the workers as victims and they are up against the evil CEO

These are public sector employees up against the taxpayers - who usually make LESS money then the people they are paying (the union workers)

I would like to sit in on the classes where these "teachers" educate their students on the First Amendment

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/A4VDZ6UE5pM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[fj1200]

No election caused this usurpation of power by the idiot of a governor that the State of Wisconsin now has. Neither the state nor the Union can unilaterally disengage from collective bargaining without express collective bargaining and agreement from the other side. That is the agreement from both sides no matter what any other dumb-asses think or attempt to spew as some kind of totally ill-informed truth. The Unions WILL prevail on this issue.

So you're saying that the union bargained for collective bargaining? I doubt that and if it was granted by the state then it could be removed by the state.

DE-CERTIFY ALL PUBLIC UNIONS!!! ;)

[logroller]

I meant that BKK's calling anyone else an idiot is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Too subtle? ;D

Nah, too trite.


So you're saying that the union bargained for collective bargaining? I doubt that and if it was granted by the state then it could be removed by the state.

DE-CERTIFY ALL PUBLIC UNIONS!!! ;)

By that same standard, we should do away with corporate personhood and class-action lawsuits. The goal, IMO, of such collectivization is to streamline the process of reconciliation, bargaining and/or pursuing the mutual interest; as is our republic. The issue here is the officials have reached an impass, to which the minority has chosen to abandon their duties rather than face defeat. The jurisprudence of any bill signed into law may be challenged in a court, not by that of the public, majority or otherwise; and the executive may veto a law seen as unwarranted. Isn't that what the separation of powers is meant to uphold, a separation. "What we have here is, a failure to communicate. Which is the way he wants it; well, he gets it" If you take it upon yourself to circumvent the powers that be, expect a check to your own powers -- Be it in court or at the ballot box. I hate sound like a Federalist but, I say, the feds need to bring them in under arrest, as it is obvious the WI minority senators have fled across state lines to interfere with the operation of the state govt, a blatant deriliction of duties which is derisive of the republic. If that's not a crime that exceeds the protection from arrest extended legislators, then I don't know what is.

[logroller]

18 U.S.C. § 245 prevents willful interference with certain federally protected activities. The statute aims to prevent the abuse of an individual’s civil rights by force or threat of force, or disruptions or attempted disruptions that are not a part of the functioning of a state’s legal process.

Conversely, not a protection to WI Senators, who ARE a part of said functioning. We have the right to go to another state, but this would be excluded in this situation, wouldn't it?

[logroller]

18 U.S.C. § 245 prevents willful interference with certain federally protected activities. The statute aims to prevent the abuse of an individual’s civil rights by force or threat of force, or disruptions or attempted disruptions that are not a part of the functioning of a state’s legal process.

Conversely, not a protection to WI Senators, who ARE a part of said functioning. We have the right to go to another state, but this would be excluded in this situation, wouldn't it?

I was mistaken in my application of this law, however this comment sums up my position

The only way Gov. Walker can send the State Police after those Dem legislators is if a court has issued a Writ of Mandamus. See Section 3455 of the Wisconsin State Law. Once a Writ of Mandamus has been issued fleeing the State to avoid being compelled to appear in the State Assembly becomes felony Interstate Flight to Avoid a Court Order.

While the Wisconsin State Police do not have the Jurisdiction to arrest those Dem Legislators in Illinois, the Wisconsin State Attorney General can then issue a Felony Interstate Flight arrest Warrant and send it to the Illinois State Attorney General and request that the Illinois State Police execute it and extradite those Dem Legislators back to Wisconsin.

If that happens and those Dem Legislators are arrested they face a near certain Felony Conviction and removal from office according to Wisconsin State Law.

Gov. Walker isnt screwing around with these guys…
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/02/wisconsin-state-troopers-sent-out-to-retrieve-awol-dems/

[Psychoblues]

I was mistaken in my application of this law, however this comment sums up my position

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/02/wisconsin-state-troopers-sent-out-to-retrieve-awol-dems/

I believe you are still mistaken, lr. You maintain that the "derelict" Senators could be charged with "felony Interstate Flight to Avoid a Court Order." I don't believe a court in Wisconsin would issue a Writ of Mandamus. Judges don't just issue those for any reason especially when it is clear that the offended party in this case seems to just "want one". If these or some of these Senators return to Wisconsin, were served with proper summons and then returned to Illinois or wherever then I believe you might have a point.

The Senators and the Unions WILL prevail on this issue.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

By that same standard, we should do away with corporate personhood and class-action lawsuits. The goal, IMO, of such collectivization is to streamline the process of reconciliation, bargaining and/or pursuing the mutual interest; as is our republic. The issue here is the officials have reached an impass, to which the minority has chosen to abandon their duties rather than face defeat. The jurisprudence of any bill signed into law may be challenged in a court, not by that of the public, majority or otherwise; and the executive may veto a law seen as unwarranted. Isn't that what the separation of powers is meant to uphold, a separation. "What we have here is, a failure to communicate. Which is the way he wants it; well, he gets it" If you take it upon yourself to circumvent the powers that be, expect a check to your own powers -- Be it in court or at the ballot box. I hate sound like a Federalist but, I say, the feds need to bring them in under arrest, as it is obvious the WI minority senators have fled across state lines to interfere with the operation of the state govt, a blatant deriliction of duties which is derisive of the republic. If that's not a crime that exceeds the protection from arrest extended legislators, then I don't know what is.

??? I don't follow your reasoning. Personhood is based on a SC ruling, collective bargaining is not (I don't know the origin of C-A suits to comment).

Re: the WI Dem legislators, they were elected to represent not just parrot their constituents opinions so fleeing the state is contrary to that; That seems to be the basis for a republic and not a pure democracy.

[red states rule]

http://www.newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/cartoon_500/cartoons/payne_wisconsinunions.jpg

[Palin Rider]

Nah, too trite.

Fair point. Guess I'll have to think of more creative ways to humiliate Burger King Kid.
:laugh:

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/02-28-11wiscRGB20110228071206.jpg

[logroller]

??? I don't follow your reasoning. Personhood is based on a SC ruling, collective bargaining is not (I don't know the origin of C-A suits to comment).

Does it matter by what means law is perfected? The intention is the same; increased efficiency. Collective Bargaining is faster than every employee coming in and asking for xyz. Class action lawsuits are more efficient because they limit the number of cases which must be presented on the same merits. Corporate personhood increases the efficiency of operations between the owners, workers and creditors. Representative democracy too presents such credence, as it would be ineffective to have a direct popular vote for every bill destined for law. Seems a common thread here: efficiency. Not to say any of these are perfect, but they are meant to be an improved over time, albeit to slow for some.


Support:
Collective bargaining, as a matter of current law, was first established by the Railway Labor Act(1926), was subsequently challenged and upheld in Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Ry. Clerks, 281 U.S. 548 (1930) More broad application to other labor groups is found in the National Labor Relations Act (1935) 29 U.S.C. § 151–169).

29 U.S.C.§ 157 Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158 (a)(3) of this title.

29 U.S.C.§ 158 (a)It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer— (3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization...(5)to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 159 (a) of this title.

29 U.S.C.§ 159 (a) Exclusive representatives; employees’ adjustment of grievances directly with employer
Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment: Provided, That any individual employee or a group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer and to have such grievances adjusted, without the intervention of the bargaining representative, as long as the adjustment is not inconsistent with the terms of a collective-bargaining contract or agreement then in effect: Provided further, That the bargaining representative has been given opportunity to be present at such adjustment


Is that the beef in WI, required participation in the union by public employees? Because it seems quite clear they can't, legally, "throw unions out" or "de-certify them" - that can only be done through a majority consensus of employees themselves.


FYI-
The case law precedence for Class Action originated in West v. Randall (29 F. Cas. 718 (R.I. 1820)" The first line in the District Courts opinion stated
"It is a general rule in equity, that all persons materially interested, either as plaintiffs or defendants in the subject matter of the bill ought to be made parties to the suit, however numerous they may be." The court continued, reasoning
"[the court] may prevent future litigation by taking away the necessity of a multiplicity of suits, and make it perfectly certain, that no injustice shall be done, either to the parties in the court, or to others, who are interested by decree..."



Re: the WI Dem legislators, they were elected to represent not just parrot their constituents opinions so fleeing the state is contrary to that; That seems to be the basis for a republic and not a pure democracy.

Agreed. I would stand with them in chambers, but disagree with their actions, very disruptive of an already belabored legislative process.

[red states rule]

More on the "abused underpaid overworked teachers"

Watch how the mob goes after Republican Sen Grothman, and to his credit, Dem Brett Hulsey steps in and stops the thugs

These rent a mob creeps are going nuts

The telling moment is at the 2:50 mark of the video


<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9Cx77K8e3WE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Kathianne]

Does it matter by what means law is perfected? The intention is the same; increased efficiency. Collective Bargaining is faster than every employee coming in and asking for xyz. Class action lawsuits are more efficient because they limit the number of cases which must be presented on the same merits. Corporate personhood increases the efficiency of operations between the owners, workers and creditors. Representative democracy too presents such credence, as it would be ineffective to have a direct popular vote for every bill destined for law. Seems a common thread here: efficiency. Not to say any of these are perfect, but they are meant to be an improved over time, albeit to slow for some.


Support:
Collective bargaining, as a matter of current law, was first established by the Railway Labor Act(1926), was subsequently challenged and upheld in Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Ry. Clerks, 281 U.S. 548 (1930) More broad application to other labor groups is found in the National Labor Relations Act (1935) 29 U.S.C. § 151–169).


Is that the beef in WI, required participation in the union by public employees? Because it seems quite clear they can't, legally, "throw unions out" or "de-certify them" - that can only be done through a majority consensus of employees themselves.


FYI-
The case law precedence for Class Action originated in West v. Randall (29 F. Cas. 718 (R.I. 1820)" The first line in the District Courts opinion stated The court continued, reasoning




Agreed. I would stand with them in chambers, but disagree with their actions, very disruptive of an already belabored legislative process.

One of the complaints regarding public unions with 'collective bargaining' specifically is the defacto closed shops that have formed. Dues are taken automatically from the employee, whether or not they choose to be in the union or not. What is telling is that when the alternative is presented in making the employees choose whether or not to join pro-union folks call that union busting. Furthermore when the suggestion is made that those employees that choose to stay with the union, should be able to choose auto deduct or choose to pay dues on their own, cries of 'it would destroy the unions' are common.

Closed shops are supposedly illegal even in the private sphere, but in many instances work just like the WI scenario.

Union leadership, like their business counterparts have become fat cats. They are not 'middle class' and they are not the little guy.

In the public arena at least, the taxpayer cannot afford what is still occurring. In the private sector, consumers have choices at least of what to buy and from whom. Even FDR realized that unions and public servants shouldn't mix.

[logroller]

One of the complaints regarding public unions with 'collective bargaining' specifically is the defacto closed shops that have formed. Dues are taken automatically from the employee, whether or not they choose to be in the union or not. What is telling is that when the alternative is presented in making the employees choose whether or not to join pro-union folks call that union busting. Furthermore when the suggestion is made that those employees that choose to stay with the union, should be able to choose auto deduct or choose to pay dues on their own, cries of 'it would destroy the unions' are common.

Closed shops are supposedly illegal even in the private sphere, but in many instances work just like the WI scenario.

Union leadership, like their business counterparts have become fat cats. They are not 'middle class' and they are not the little guy.

In the public arena at least, the taxpayer cannot afford what is still occurring. In the private sector, consumers have choices at least of what to buy and from whom. Even FDR realized that unions and public servants shouldn't mix.

I don't question any of the foregoing, except, what FDR realized- can you provide documented support?

[fj1200]

Does it matter by what means law is perfected? The intention is the same; increased efficiency. Collective Bargaining is faster than every employee coming in and asking for xyz. Class action lawsuits are more efficient because they limit the number of cases which must be presented on the same merits. Corporate personhood increases the efficiency of operations between the owners, workers and creditors. Representative democracy too presents such credence, as it would be ineffective to have a direct popular vote for every bill destined for law. Seems a common thread here: efficiency. Not to say any of these are perfect, but they are meant to be an improved over time, albeit to slow for some.


Support:
Collective bargaining, as a matter of current law, was first established by the Railway Labor Act(1926), was subsequently challenged and upheld in Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Ry. Clerks, 281 U.S. 548 (1930) More broad application to other labor groups is found in the National Labor Relations Act (1935) 29 U.S.C. § 151–169).

I would say yes it does matter. CH can not be taken away where CB is not an automatic. It's something granted in some states and not in others. It can be, presumably, taken away even after being granted in the first place.

Efficiency is should not be a reason for a law or continuation of such.


Is that the beef in WI, required participation in the union by public employees? Because it seems quite clear they can't, legally, "throw unions out" or "de-certify them" - that can only be done through a majority consensus of employees themselves.

I think a union can be decertified, CB can be taken away, forcing of dues can be taken away as well. It's also a matter of closed shop vs. right-to-work.


FYI-
The case law precedence for Class Action originated in West v. Randall (29 F. Cas. 718 (R.I. 1820)" The first line in the District Courts opinion stated The court continued, reasoning

Thanks, you can of course always opt out of a C-A and pursue your own redress.


Agreed. I would stand with them in chambers, but disagree with their actions, very disruptive of an already belabored legislative process.

:cool:

[Kathianne]

I don't question any of the foregoing, except, what FDR realized- can you provide documented support?

Letter he wrote, spoke to collective bargaining:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445


Franklin D. Roosevelt
112 - Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service
August 16, 1937
Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br>1937
Franklin D. Roosevelt
1937


The American Presidency Project

Promote Your Page Too
My dear Mr. Steward:

As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.

Very sincerely yours,

Mr. Luther C. Steward,
President,
National Federation of Federal Employees,
10 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.

APP Note: Although this letter appears to be signed, "Very sincerely yours, Mr. Luther C. Steward, President, National Federation of Federal Employees, 10 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.," the letter is from Roosevelt to Steward. The placement of the addressee's name and address at the bottom of the document was an editorial decision in the original "Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt." The American Presidency Project's policy is to reproduce documents in their original form

[red states rule]

I believe you are still mistaken, lr. You maintain that the "derelict" Senators could be charged with "felony Interstate Flight to Avoid a Court Order." I don't believe a court in Wisconsin would issue a Writ of Mandamus. Judges don't just issue those for any reason especially when it is clear that the offended party in this case seems to just "want one". If these or some of these Senators return to Wisconsin, were served with proper summons and then returned to Illinois or wherever then I believe you might have a point.

The Senators and the Unions WILL prevail on this issue.

Psychoblues

What is going on in WI, and how the liberal are behaving in less then 60 seconds




As the standoffs in Wisconsin and other states continue, we are no longer getting "civility" lectures from President Obama, or his stenographers in the State-Controlled Media.

Apparently, a month after Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others were shot in Arizona, it's acceptable for the left to use Twitter to beg for sombody to assassinate Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. It's acceptable for a Wisconsin Democrat assemblyman to point to a Republican assemblywoman in her seat and yell, "You're f-ing dead!" -- and take three days to apologize. It's also acceptable for an elected Massachusetts Democrat to tell union members to take to the streets and "get a little bloody."

On left-wing cable news shows, there's no footage of the protesters carrying signs comparing Walker to Hitler, and no one's blaming left-wing media personalities for stoking uncivil behavior. There's also no report from Homeland Security equating union members to terrorists -- as opposed to what was reported about the Tea Party.

Likewise, there's no mention of "disenfranchised voters"; elected Democrats fled because they don't have the votes to prevail. In November, citizens went to the polls and made a choice to replace Democrats. The Democrats -- supposedly the champions of voting rights -- are now resorting to bullying and running to deny voters in these states their right to prevail in elections.

Republicans in Wisconsin's assembly have not resorted to lying, claiming protesters spit on them, or yelled epithets (as Democrats did when they passed Obamacare). The truth is a one-way street, and liberals avoid it like the plague.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030111/content/01125101.member.html