Friday, April 08, 2005

Terri Schiavo, Life, and Public Opinion Polls

Let me say from the outset that I was appalled at any poll being done to question public opinion on whether or not Terri Schiavo should be allowed to continue her life or be killed.

I believe that polls are essentially commissioned for one of four reasons. 1) to cajole politicians into actions and behaviors that the pollster and media outlet desires, 2) an effort to affect or sway public opinion, 3) an effort to undo or minimize the damage or effects of polls done for reasons one or two, and/or 4) to gage true public sentiment regarding a particular issue.

The Zogby poll fits into categories three and four. I won’t provide any further analysis of any of the polls at this time. I will need a chance to digest the information provided. But let me say that if anyone ever does a public opinion poll on whether someone I love should be allowed to continue their life, I would like to see the following questions asked of all participants:

Should your loved one be allowed to be killed through a court order which requires all food and water to be withheld until death and enforced by police surveillance?
a. Yes—it’s the law because a court ordered it.
b. Yes—that may have been a wish they articulated years ago.
c. Yes—they have a higher “right to die” than they do a “right to life”.
d. No—my loved one has a “right to life” and no “rule of law” or judge decree can violate that without violating the U.S. Constitution, their oath of office, the laws of “our Creator” as decreed in the Declaration of Independence, and the criminal code of our land.

Should you ever find yourself, as question number 1 suggests, in the position whereby a loved one is going to be starved and dehydrated through a court order requiring all food and water to be withheld until death and enforced by police surveillance, would you believe it to be OK for Congress and the U.S. President to step in and save the life of that person that you love?
a. No— I must stand beside principles of federalism and demand that Congress and the U.S. President jump back.
b. No—I believe that the general wish that my loved one made years ago regarding wanting to die under nebulous circumstances, that may or may not be true, should trump any “right to life” guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
c. No—The “checks and balances” of our government pertain to balancing the executive branch with the legislative branch and the judiciary gets the final word, even if the executive branch of the government agrees with the legislative branch and my loved one’s life is on the line.
d. Yes—That’s someone I love, who is innocent of any crime, and who has never even been charged with a crime, never had a jury to look at the facts of the case, despite a jury demand, and, besides, what was that about “checks and balances”. . .time is ticking away. . .save my loved one and I will worry about the rest later!

Any wagers on the poll results given those questions? OK, I am game, take out the “reasons” and just stick with the “yes” or “no”. Now what do you think the results would be?? Hmmm??

You’ll notice that nowhere do I mention the health condition of the loved one. I did that on purpose. Why? Stay tuned.

OK. Here is the link to the Zogby poll:

I got a pdf of the report, but blogger won’t let me upload it. If you can’t get it here, email me and I will send it as an attachment.

or look around here:

Some additional links:

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Swift Boat Vets and Terri Schiavo: Their Stealth Attackers

Question "Why do the media seem to act in concert?" Why did the media seem to be coordinated against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Why has the media seemed to be advocating for John Kerry with such organization? Why did the media seem to act in concert against Terri Shiavo? Why do most actors, singers, musicians, professors, members of the press and many very wealthy individuals seem to be democrats and socialists??

As I pondered these questions over the years, I couldn’t escape a glaring fact. There must be a common denominator between the organizations of what many call the Mainstream Media (MSM), Hollywood, universities, and the press. Since I don’t believe in telepathy, nor do I believe in “group think” as some have suggested, I went in search of that common denominator.

What I found is that the MSM, Hollywood, universities, the press, while ostensibly run by different entities, are really run by a labor “federation” of unions, the AFL-CIO, and in some instances, by labor unions not under the “federation.” Regardless, the common denominator is "labor unions." Here is a sample listing of some of the labor unions under the AFL-CIO and the sector under each labor unions control: (lists all unions in the federation) (American Federation of Television & Radio Artists/AFL-CIO) (Writer's Guild of America/AFL-CIO) (Communications Workers of America/AFL-CIO)

Additionally, there are unions under the AFL-CIO that cover other "liberal" TV personalities: (Actors' Equity Association/AFL-CIO) (Screen Actors Guild/AFL-CIO) (American Guild of Musical Artists/AFL-CIO)

Unions even affect what our children learn and our community: (American Federation of Teachers/AFL-CIO) (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees/AFL-CIO)

Of course, some unions are not a part of the AFL-CIO, but are nevertheless very instrumental in affecting our current cultural condition. Here are just a couple of unions that fit: (National Education Association) (American Association of University Professors)

From reviewing this list and visiting their site, it is clear that unions and the AFL-CIO control the vast majority of:

radio talk show hosts,
state, county and city employees.

How many of you consider a majority of the members of the list above "liberal" or "socialist"?

Before we move on, there are two things my readers must keep in mind. One is that there must be a distinction made between the “union” and the “members” a union purportedly “represents.” This distinction will become more important as we look at how the courts treat “unions” versus how the courts treat “the members.”

Here is an analogy. Your lawyer may represent you, but you are not your lawyer and your lawyer is not you. Your lawyer’s law firm is not made up of its clients; it is made up of lawyers. A labor union is not an aggregate of its members. A labor union “represents” its members. This is a very important distinction, and one I will delve into further in future posts. As you read more about how unions work and affect our culture, this distinction is very important to keep in mind, particularly when a labor union pushes for laws to either be passed or squashed.

Second, in any sector of the economy that has a heavy union presence, individuals cannot work in that sector without joining the controlling union. That is, if you want to be an actress in Hollywood, with rare exception you must join the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) to work. If you want to teach in America, you must join the National Education Association (NEA) or the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) to teach. If you want to be a radio talk show host, in many instances you must be a member of the American Federation of Television & Radio Artists (AFTRA).

When organizations, such as unions, can affect the employability of people, it is reasonable to assume those organizations will have considerable affect on how those individuals perform. That’s quite an axe to hold over peoples head—if they want to work in a particular sector, they must be a member of a particular union and of course pay those union dues. So if the union kicks a member out, that ex-member doesn’t work in that sector.

Many unions demand or “encourage” the "members" to do the union’s bidding or that “member” won't be able to work. Of course, by law, a person must join the union (or at least pay fair share) to enter and work in these fields. Given those powers and the antitrust exemption that unions enjoy, it is no wonder those in the MSM, Hollywood, and academia seem have the same liberal bent of labor unions.

Here is an item of “news” to consider (CWA is the Communications Workers of America with link above):

TNG-CWA to Honor Journalists Whose Work Reflects Spirit, Principles of Union's Activists

Washington, D.C. – The Newspaper Guild-CWA will honor journalists whose work reflects the principles and integrity of three leading TNG activists -- Herbert L. Block, Heywood Broun and David S. Barr -- at the annual Freedom Award Fund dinner on Wednesday, March 30 in Washington, D.C., at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill Media planning to cover the event should contact Shear Reich at 202-368-3838.

The event recognizes journalists' work that demonstrates the commitment to a free press long championed by "Herblock" in his creative editorial cartooning, the dedication to social justice and compassion pursued by Broun, TNG-CWA's founder, and the commitment to fairness pursued by Barr, TNG-CWA's attorney and mentor of 25 years.

Former longtime UPI correspondent and White House bureau chief Helen Thomas, currently a Hearst newspapers columnist, will deliver a keynote address. Radio icon Bob Edwards, current host of "the Bob Edwards Show" on XM Public Radio and former host of NPR's "Morning Edition" will serve as master of ceremonies; CWA President Morton Bahr and AFL-CIO President John Sweeney also will attend.

Read more link:

An example of group action I observed recently occurred last week. Terri Shiavo’s brother was holding a press conference with the family priest and spokesman. Terri’s brother spoke for just a few minutes. Then he turned the mike over to the family priest. Once the brother turned over the mike to the priest, almost in unison, the major networks cut back to each station’s respective reporter. I was unable to get the priests speech on air, anywhere. (I will address the Schiavo polls and the media in a later post.)

I don't believe that there is "group think" as some suggest. It's too much of a coincidence that many in the MSM have the same talking points, the same buzzwords, essentially the same actions, citing the same nebulous polls, attacking the same “demons”, etc.

As you visit the websites of these various unions, and you should, see how they portray President Bush’s Social Security plan. In particular, visiting many of these unions web sites reveal that they are definitely against President Bush's proposed individual accounts as part of Social Security Reform.

So why do the unions dislike President Bush? Why did the labor unions want John Kerry to win the election so bad? One reason is the unions want certain laws to pass that benefit the unions, but not the members or individuals. The unions know they would never get those laws enacted with a republican congress and a republican president.

In many ways, the unions enjoy a legal position that allows them to significantly affect many sectors of the economy, by controlling the members of that sector. Additionally, the unions can force the members to pay union dues through the force of law. All other organizations must compete to get revenue. Unions do not have to compete to get their revenue. For more than half a century, unions have enjoyed laws that force members to join and pay union dues, whether that member wishes to associate with the organization or not.

As this blog develops, I will show you how the unions exert control over members, the laws that affect unions and their members, and how the courts treat unions and union members respectively. Contrary to popular belief and union propaganda, members of unions really have less protection and fewer rights than individuals.

There are many destructive forces caused by labor unions. Major events that reveal the effects of those forces can be found in the Swift Boat Vet phenomena, the 2004 election cycle, and the Schiavo case.

Some argue that unions have provided this country with so many benefits. Although that is arguable, it is important that we see how these organizations affect our country and culture today and if those benefits are worth the costs. Any benefits that unions may have provided in the past have been long paid for by the dues members have been forced to pay. Payment has been paid in full, a long time ago.

Final Note: There are some states which are "Right to Work" states. Those states and corresponding laws will be addressed in future posts.

Sunday, March 13, 2005

LibertyView Journal--Launched!

Welcome to LibertyView Journal (LVJ), an online publication devoted to promoting and protecting the U.S. Constitution. In particular, LVJ will focus on the rights and liberties of the individual and how they have been and are being eroded. The areas were the individual has been and is most vulnerable are in law(s), property, academia, and employment.

When it affects it affects rights or liberties of the individual, LVJ will provide commentary on current events and news items. On occasion, we will relay unrelated news reports, other commentary, or items of interest that the readership may nevertheless find noteworthy.

Now that you have had a basic introduction to LVJ, if you are like me, you would also like a basic introduction of the founder and editor of LVJ, Alexzandra Zamitrius.

I have a Bachelor of Science from a major state university. Most of my college credit was in accounting, mathematics, business, and education. If it weren’t for the low (or no) pay, I would still be a student. I love to learn. The best investment anyone can make is an investment in one’s self.

So how did I get to the point that I feel compelled to publish LVJ?

It began four years ago. Due to circumstances that I will reveal to you in more detail as time permits in future posts, I was forced to do an inordinate amount of legal research. As my research unfolded, I learned how the legal system works. And it didn’t match what I had been told, taught, or lead to believe. As an example, I learned of a set of laws that was purportedly passed to increase our “rights,” but in reality are ‘obligations” that force individuals to yield property and rights for the “greater good” of a group. “Not in America,” you say.

Stay tuned.

I can’t share four years of research with you in one post, but I will share this information with you in bite-size chunks. You will see how these laws affects many aspects of our lives from the taxes we pay, to the education provided by our public schools, to why the media operates the way it does, to the real source of many of the events in the last election cycle.

Finally, I am NOT an attorney. LVJ is NOT here to provide any legal advice, whatsoever. LVJ is here to provide you with a perspective and commentary on court cases, opinions, news items, and other information contained in the “public domain.” Should you need legal advice or services, you are urged to seek competent legal counsel.

Here, all you are getting is the publication of opinions, observations, commentary, and other speech and expressions protected by and under the U.S. Constitution.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?