Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Left-Wing And Unions Plan Economic Terrorism

It's hard to say that unions like SEIU want to do what is best for the country after listening to what the SEIU leaders had to say about doing economic terrorism of this country. A terrorist act like this would be devastating to our country. They must know this with as much as the union leaders have gone to thew White House. These are the people President Obama spends most of his time with. It make me wonder about our President and if he isn't in cahoots with these left-wing terrorist groups. I can only hope he isn't, but it sure does look suspicious having so many radicals in the White House all the time. These are the weapons community organizers use to cause chaos to take control of power.

Union members must think about how causing another banking crisis will effect them personally. Will they have a pension or a 401K if the union and left-wing succeed? Union members and the left-wing need to stop thinking the way the unions want them to think and start thinking on how their actions will personally effect them. If the union members and left-wing keep thinking of the collective the only winners will be the people that end up with power after they have destroyed what we all have.

After seeing all the chaos, hate, violence and disrespect for person and property these unions and left-wing have we must take them for what they are. We can see why the left-wing has held hands with the Islamic extremists. But union members and left-wing need to ask themselves if that is who they are.

After 9/11 we asked where the moderates Muslims were? Why weren't they standing up against the extremists in their religion. I'm asking the same thing about union members and moderate left-wingers. Where is your outrage? If you are not against these radicals in the union leadership then you are with them. To say nothing and to do nothing makes you part of the problem. United you stand and united you will fall. The voice of the moderates in the union better start speaking out before they go down with the union ship.

Can the union members take a Hippocratic oath of doing no harm? Can the union members rise up against the call for economic terrorism and get a leadership that represents them rather then this radical agenda of their current leaders?

Things are bad enough as they are without having to worry about the enemy within. You better think about what side you are on. Because if you aren't against this radical union leadership or you are with them. Silence isn't an option. And putting your head in the sand is no different then standing with them. These are hard times and the union leaders and left-wing want to make them harder. Is that what you want?
Business Insider:
A former official of one of the country’s most-powerful unions, SEIU, is detailing a secret plan to “destabilize” the country.
Specifically, the plan seeks to destroy JP Morgan, nuke the stock market, and weaken Wall Street’s grip on power, thus creating the conditions necessary for a redistribution of wealth and a change in government.
The former SEIU official, Stephen Lerner, spoke in a closed session at a Pace University forum last weekend.
The Blaze procured what appears to be a tape of Lerner’s remarks, many of which many Americans will no doubt sympathize with. Still, the “destabilization” plan is startling in its specificity.
Lerner said that unions and community organizations are, for all intents and purposes, dead. The only way to achieve their goals, therefore–the redistribution of wealth and the return of “$17 trillion” stolen from the middle class by Wall Street–is to “destabilize the country.”
Read the rest of the Business Insider analysis here.


  1. VRW Conspirator23 March, 2011 09:32

    Everyone needs to contact the Governor’s office of the states around NY… NJ, Penn, Ver, NH, Conn, RI…contact the Governor’s office and the AG of these states… demand action against this group and man even if the Federal Government does nothing….force their hand…make them publically come out and defend their position to do nothing against “economic terrorism.”

  2. 1. He's not a SEIU leader. He got fired last November. Part of the reason was his belief in plans like these and the incoming president of the SEIU disliked.

    2. The SEIU is acting outside of the AFL-CIO which it left a few years back. Its taken a extremely radical stance that the UAW and the AFl-CIO aren't taking. In fact they are hoping that the newest president reins in the free-form activism and moves toward moderation. The firing of Stephen Lerner certainly was a move in that direction. At least thats how i see it.

    As a long time UAW member who grew up with family in the same, i am opposed to such extreme actions. There are better ways to strengthen America and her workforce against those that would destroy the American worker and its middle class. But only if start taking a positive lead again.

    Thats just how i feel.

  3. Wow, Joe is full of just so much bullshit. Here is why Lerner was fired, and here's a hint, it wasn't because of ideological differences:

    "This might be more compelling if not for the fact that the SEIU fired Lerner in November, as BI reports, for trying to spend millions of dollars on this very project. Apparently, the first rule of Labor Nihilist Club is not to talk about Labor Nihilist Club. The second rule of Labor Nihilist Club? Keep your hands off the union cash, dude. It’s a point of exceptional irony that just can’t be missed.

    So Lerner was canned because he was using union money. It’s doubtful there was a philosophical objection to what he was doing."

    and more here:

    "The high-level firing appears to confirm that the 1199 Ohio group (including Tom Woodruff and Scott Courtney) is consolidating power at SEIU, and Tasty is told that the issue came to a head over a dispute about the national union's organizing budget: Would SEIU spend millions of dollars on a multi-city campaign to organize low-paid workers and attack the banks (as Lerner wanted), or would the money be spent on more traditional organizing targets (and on propping up the UHW trusteeship in California, where SEIU has already sunk tens of millions of dollars)?

    Other sources tell Tasty that several key SEIU staffers feared Lerner's campaign would be more of the same smoke-and-mirror, media-driven gambits that have soaked up tens of millions of dollars without resulting in new members OR additional credibility for SEIU in the area of financial reform."

    Keep towing the Marxist line Joe!

    Is it just me, or is Joe A) pathetic at doing one-second Google searches or B) throwing up some smoke and hoping that nobody checks his bullshit? How about C) all of the above?

    Because here is even more bad news to rain on The Joecialist's parade:

    UPDATE V: It might be tempting to think that Lerner is a fringe kook with no larger influence, but Sam Foster at Left Coast Rebel observes an interesting coincidence: The day before Lerner made his presentation at Pace University, the AFL-CIO announced a new protest campaign against Morgan Chase:

    So much for working outside of the AFL-CIO asshole.

    How 'bout them liberal terrorists! Sounds like there was a room full of them. Just fringies, right Joecialist? I know, it must be a teabagger plant! Lerner must be one of them there teabagger sleeper agents! LOL

  4. Why doesn't Marxist Joe just denounce the economic terrorism? I sure don't see it in his post. Oh he says hes opposed to it, but I don't see anything stronger than that. Weak and pathetic. Didn't expect much else from the commie. I need to know exactly who is keeping the "American worker" and the "middle class" down?!? Last I heard we were a free country, which means you are free to pursue whatever gives you happiness. Nobody is forcing anyone to work the job they have. More attempted class warfare from The Joecialist.

  5. Joe, he was anounced at the union terrorist planning session as a leader in the SEIU. SEIU hasn't yet seperated themselves from him. Neither has the White House. From CNN they said they called SEIU and he still has a voice mail there.

    Joe are you unable to denounce this radical behavior from the unions? You are so tranparent trying to cover for them rather then denounce that kind of terrorism. That tells me volumes on how you feel.

  6. Anon, great points. I wonder if that is why anarchist like Michael Moore are all out in force saying that the banks,States and Federal government have tons of money and aren't broke.

    These purple shirts are acting like the brown shirts before they took those "greedy","rich" Jews away.

    Joe is smart trying to distance the UAW and AFL-CIO from the SEIU. Just like Muslims that call themselves moderates and show up too all the protests. Joe is standing with radicals,extreemist and terrorist but he's not one of them. I still haven't figured out the liberal mind.

  7. I think it is important to listen to the union leaders and the left-wing. The engine may have already been started with the unions plan of economic terrorism.

    Congress is going to look into this new fact about unions links to terror activity. Birds of a feather fly together and the law is going to kick the flock out of

  8. Anon,
    I read those pieces and they are what you would call admittedly biased POS. Not only are they filled with only off the record (lol) so called conversations, they take those conversations and come to stupid conclusions.

    Your even more stupid because you believe them.

    If Ms. Henry was philosophically inclined to agree with him and his methods then the use of Union funds would not be an issue. They would find some way to get the executive board to approve it. However they are not inclined to follow his plan. It is not in their best interest and they know it. So he got fired in November.

    So is it just him or does anon suck at finding non-biased sources that actually have intelligence? He does doesn't he.

  9. Chris,
    Really Hitler and Nazi blasts? I mean really. lmao.

    But since you got me thinking of it, i think it goes the other way. The Right blaming minorities buying houses they couldn't afford for the crisis and the the Unions taking all the money and not giving it back when they need an enemy to blame for budget woes.

    That makes me ask. Which ones are the Roma's and which are the Jewish to conservatives? I think the Unions are the Romas, but what does the RNC say in its talking points memo's?

    LMAO. Can we stay away from stupid Nazi Germany shit? We aren't like them and neither are you? Its one of the quickest way to lose an debate, mention Hitler.

  10. The right-wing didn't blame minorities for buying houses they couldn't agfford. We blame everyone regaurdless of color for buying houses they couldn't afford. Why is it always about color with you people? If someone bought something they couldn't afford how is that not their fault? Should minorities have different laws Joe? Are we not a country of equal justice?

    Joe why is it we have to stay away from "Nazi Germany shit" when you were throwing it around like mad at us? You liberals can dish it out but you can't take it. Sorry for offending you or hurting your feelings. Joe I take it you lost the debate a long time ago since you called us racists and brown shirts a long time ago? Maybe I should have compaired the unions to the Greece violent uprising and violence.

    Didn't the Nazi's go after the rich banks first and then the Jews? Can you see the compairison? This looks just like the Nazi youth going after the rich banker Jews in the early years. It's hard to debate that because it is true. You on the left need to be called out for your attacks that mimick the early Nazi Party tacticks. If unions don't want to be called brown shirts then they need to stop acting like them.

  11. Joe you can't denounce these unions and their tactick can you? If we have to beg for it you must not denounce it.

    Did you hear the beginning of the audio when Lerner was introduced as SEIU? I wonder why they made that mistake if he isn't with them any more?

  12. Wow, Joe denounces anonymous' sources and then goes on to give his empty theories. Anon presented the FACTS Joe. Just because you say they aren't facts doesn't make it so! I bet you wished it did, but it doesn't, sorry Joe! Why don't YOU have any links to YOUR "facts" Joe?

    Way to support the Marxists Joe! You're pro-economic terrorism. You're a protectionist loser who wants to control everything about our economy because ... well because he wants to, after all a shop rat knows best!

    I hope the justice system finds its way and throws all you terrorists in jail, or better yet exterminates you (after a trial natch, and if found guilty of course) like FDR did to those German terrorists in WWII. We don't need people like you around. I'm pro-death penalty for people that want to destroy my freedom and bring my country to its knees.

  13. Chris, i have rarely if ever used Hitler blasts. And i don't believe i have made any here. I don't believe i called you brown shirts. I never use that term. So it would be nice if you and I could agree to stay away from the Nazi stuff. It doesn't make our debate better or prove anything so i'm willing to if you are.

    As for my denouncement. I've told you many times in this blog that i don't agree with the tactics of the SEIU. I don't agree with Lerner's this time either. What would you like? He's wrong. I won't support the UAW doing it, and i won't support the SEIU doing it either.

    Chris stop with the conservatives don't see race bit. Thats easy to dismantle. Please go to my blog and find the post with all the wonderful non-racist things Republican officials put out. That way we can stop with this useless battle.

    And lol, if you knew your Nazi history you'd know that plenty of non-Jewish rich banks funded Hitlers rise and that the Jewish boycott took place within months of Adolph's rise to power.

    You have a messed up sense of history brother and a strange thoughts on analogies. Did you study logic, debate or any philosophy classes beyond 100 level in college?

    Analogies are one of the weakest forms of debate and incredibly easy to subvert and overcome. They are typically used in fallacious manner and not well thought out. You could never prove the "Truth" of this analogy. Its what you think.

  14. Anon.
    Different Anon or are you in third person?

    As far as facts are concerned, i don't present them. I prevent evidence and logic when i'm engaging in serious debate. Very rarely does anyone present FACTS in a debate. What Anon posted was someone else's theories about the firing. Neither of those two theories are facts, as not one of us knows "WHY" he was fired. We could speculate as the original writers of the quotes did but that doesn't make it fact.

    In order to prove even more extensively that he presented theories, I draw your attention to the 2nd quote of Anon's 23 March, 2011 15:29 comment in which the author presents a full fledged philosophical difference in SEIU leadership over what the strategy should be.

    Anonymous said...
    "and Tasty is told that the issue came to a head over a dispute about the national union's organizing budget: Would SEIU spend millions of dollars on a multi-city campaign to organize low-paid workers and attack the banks (as Lerner wanted), or would the money be spent on more traditional organizing targets (and on propping up the UHW trusteeship in California, where SEIU has already sunk tens of millions of dollars)?

    Other sources tell Tasty that several key SEIU staffers feared Lerner's campaign would be more of the same smoke-and-mirror, media-driven gambits that have soaked up tens of millions of dollars without resulting in new members OR additional credibility for SEIU in the area of financial reform."

    How exactly is this not a philosophical difference?

  15. JoeC said...

    "As far as facts are concerned, i don't present them. I PREVENT evidence and logic when i'm engaging in serious debate."

    Truer words were never written, I completely agree with Joe on this point. He prevents logic and evidence every chance he gets. That's an interesting debating method. Not one that an intelligent person uses, but nobody every accused you of being one of those, did they Joe?

    Joe also says "Very rarely does anyone present FACTS in a debate." Sounds like Joe has stuck to debating liberals. Every debate I've been witness to involves the presentation of facts as support of the thesis. But then again I'm not a liberal douchebag who uses anecdotes and non sequiturs as debate material.

    With regards to your final question, it is not a philosophical difference douche, it's a financial difference. The same way if I don't like lobster, I say "I don't want to eat lobster". If I can't afford to eat lobster I say "I can't afford to buy lobster". Wow, are you on life-support? How are they managing to keep your brain running so that you can type?

    So here is where we stand: Your two original assertions have clearly been blown out of the water. He was fired for reasons obviously different than those suggested by you, since it was merely for spending or how he wanted to spend SEIU money, not due to any ideological differences. Since you can present no evidence for YOUR view (and believe me, I looked), we'll just have to conclude that the facts as presented outweigh your gut feeling or whatever ouija board you happened to consult.

    It also appears equally clear that the AFL-CIO is targeting JP Morgan Chase already, if you were to follow the link and read even more.

    Joe, you sure are a sore loser aren't you? Your little argument gets blown out of the water, and you just can't bring yourself to admit that I am right. Typical liberal. And Joe, when you try to defend such a nutjob you know you are throwing yourself in with that lot.

  16. Anon,
    You have yet to blow anything other than smoke here, so i'm not in the least bit upset. I also am not defending him. Lost in the fog of your delusions of self-grandeur is that simple fact.

    But i am seriously intrigued at how you could act so superior to me in your writings and yet miss a simple quote within your own work that destroys your whole theory multiple times.

    I will discuss with you this one last time. The spending of available money (rules out your lobster bullshit) in a strategic manner involves having a concept of how you see things working the best. If your concept and his concept don't meet, then you have a matter of philosophical difference do you not?

    I probably should stay away from rhetorical questions because you might not understand what they are either. In the end call it what you wish. I know that i have made my point and clearly bested your line of bullshit.

  17. ROFLMAO ... So if a particular party simply cannot afford to fund a certain policy, that means it is an ideological difference? Wow, that is BRILLIANT. You are a complete and total idiot. You are simply stating that if they had the money to fund his economic terrorism they would do it. I cannot believe what morons you lefties are!

    Joe, where is the fact, the link, the slightest indication that what you stated holds a kernel of truth (i.e. he was dismissed due to ideological differences)? You have NONE. Everything you say is made up, and now you are strainin' to do some explainin'!

    ROFLMAO ... you seriously can't make this bullshit up!! If they could afford it they would have had surf and turf, but they couldn't so they bought the steak. It doesn't mean they don't like lobster idiot!!! I see my simple analogy has lost the great thinker Joe. Sorry Joe, I can't really dumb it down any more for you idiot shop rats.

  18. Calls 'em Like I Sees 'em24 March, 2011 16:09

    Hey anonymous, leave it to a liberal to not be able to comprehend budgeting or spending LOL

  19. Anon,
    wow, how f'ing dumb are you? I'm not saying that so stop playing the stupid word games and take your whuppin like a man.

    They have the money to do what they choose. Its "not" a case of having the money. They have it.

    Its a case of not wanting to do it. The incoming president and her supporters don't wish to go that way. It says as much in the second piece we've been debating.

    I'm struggling to figure out what part of that you couldn't comprehend in what you posted. He was positioning money for something they didn't want to do. Want being the word you should concern yourself with. Nowhere in your piece of mine did it say "couldn't afford to do" or "didn't have the money for".

    What the F is so hard to understand about that. A difference of opinion nothing else. Jesus your a loon sometimes. 3 or 4 posts ranting the same bullshit line that was wrong the first time.

  20. Joe said "They have the money to do what they choose" ... nobody is disputing THAT Joe, but you seem to be suggesting that they can do EVERYTHING they want to do, to which we have to laugh at your imbecility. EVERYONE has to budget Joe, including the SEIU. They can pursue what might, in their estimation, give them the biggest ROI, but they aren't going to do everything that everybody suggests because they do have limited resources. It has NOTHING to do with the ideological differences that you are claiming.

    AWWWWWW ... let's go back to Joe's earliest post on this, shall we!?!? LOL

    "1. He's not a SEIU leader. He got fired last November."

    STOP RIGHT THERE! Already with item #1 Joe is making shit up! Because as of today, it doesn't even appear this guy was fired:


    UH-OH for JOE! You would think with this massive ideological battle they would get rid of this crazy loose cannon ... unless of course they agree with him ... LOL But go on ahead Joe, what were you saying?

    "... Part of the reason was his belief in plans like these and the incoming president of the SEIU disliked."

    So JOE, again I ask, WHERE do you come up with this assertion? Or should I say ASSertion, because it certainly is an ASS that is making the claim. Where is it stated that the incoming president of the SEIU "DISLIKED" his plans? From the EVIDENCE presented "... the issue came to a head over a dispute about the national union's organizing budget". OH, so you see, it has NOTHING to do with ideology, it has to do with BUDGET, and prioritizing for said budget. Joe, again, where are your FACTS?!?! If it is a clear-cut case, as you seem to suggest, of them having ideological differences instead of resource allocation differences, then why can't your provide One. Shred. Of. Evidence? Bring it Joe! I've looked for it, but I have found NONE. What I HAVE found is evidence of the AFL-CIO already beginning their campaign against JP Morgan Chase. Stinky stinky Joe. Because that blows your second assertion out of the water.

    "2. The SEIU is acting outside of the AFL-CIO which it left a few years back. Its taken a extremely radical stance that the UAW and the AFl-CIO aren't taking."

    LOL ... Joe you little idiot, all you have to do is provide proof that it is an ideological difference.

    So Joe, I guess I don't even have to ask, I already KNOW that you are dumb. There is nothing F'ing hard to understand about that. Keep coming back for your whupping, I am enjoying this immensely.


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.