Guest Contributer: Tom From NJ: Big Starker & Little Schnook

Support for public unions certainly is the Progressives' current litmus test and grand tactic, so it is right to identify the unions as part of their sine qua non. But I'd like to take things a step further. In terms of strategic goals, the Progressive sine qua non is POWER, grabbing it, using it, keeping it. This is why the public unions are playing such a critical role in the Progressive coalition because they understand power and will let nothing -- not the law, the constitution, or the political process -- get in their way. The rest of the Progressive coalition is composed mainly of eggheads, far-left ideological cranks, MSM types, Alinsky disciples, elderly hippies and others of the drug-addled classes, professional agitators (aka. Community Organizers), permanent collectors of welfare and SSI, etc., and therefore lack the muscular intimidation factor that union thugs always bring to the table, even when allegedly "representing" school teachers (Miss Bishop and Mr. Chips are long gone!). As Andy Stern said when he was still head of the SEIU, "If the power of persuasion fails, we will use the persuasion of power."

The Progressive movement of today reminds me of the ninety-pound weakling in school who gives his lunch, his allowance money, whatever it takes, to make some muscle-bound brute his loyal protector and keep him that way. Thus can Little Schnook talk and act big, because he knows he has Big Starker around to do his dirty work for him. Despite his "cool" self-image and basketball pretensions, Barack Obama is Little Schnook. His alleged street smarts and Chicago toughness are a pose made even remotely credible --although not abroad, apparently -- largely by his association with Big Starker, i.e., the labor movement, especially the public unions. BTW, Saul Alinsky was just the same, basically an egghead sociologist who liked to pose as a streetwise tough guy, especially when safely in the friendly company of real tough guys. But I digress.

The American political "game", if you will, has rarely been played for stakes higher than those on the table right now and right through November 2012. The Progressives know this and so do their great comrades, the public unions, and they do not intend to give up power no matter what We the People may say at the polling place. What is the true Progresssive idea of "democracy" today? Check out Wisconsin 2011 or -- same thing --St. Petersburg, Russia, 1917. In both cases, the Little Schnooks cheered on the Big Starkers as they applied "the persuasion of power" to their opposition. Of course, the Russian "workers" were far more successful in grabbing, using, and keeping power than their American counterparts have been to date. However, hope springs eternal, especially in those radical precincts where, in the end, power is really the only sine qua non. Of course, between now and 2012 it may become increasingly unclear who is master and who is servant, Little Schnook or Big Starker.

Waves

As elections approach, one hears it more and more: election fraud. When Bush was elected they said, he was selected, not elected. What will they say after this one? I never heard anything of the kind after Obama became our president; yet, this time, even before all the ballots are cast and counted, I’m hearing rumors.

Not sure when the system changed. Absentee ballots, yes. Early voting, no. Military ballots, maybe. There was a brief flare-up when Democrats accused Diebold of manipulating results. Not much came of it.

This time, there’s noise all around. They say it’s a wave; that Democrats will be swept from office. I’m not so sure. Already there have been too many reported irregularities. It’s generally acknowledged that nobody is looking into it. Just noise.

Wave, yes! But some say, it’s a wave of fraud. Who is in charge of maintaining the voting machines? SEIU. Could that really be true? Who’s in charge of prosecuting election fraud? Eric Holder? Could that be true? Anyway, that’s what I hear. I also hear nobody is much concerned - even among Republicans. They say the wave is big enough. Which wave?

Have we reached the point where a relatively simple system has been overwhelmed? Where the simple task of casting and counting ballots no longer works? Have we lost faith in the system all together? Will the losers be satisfied? Will the winners be satisfied? And what about that election recently in Afghanistan that, by all accounts, was so riddled with fraud - which we all signed off on?

I hate to say it folks; but it doesn’t look good. I guess it’ll depend on which wave is bigger.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/