Partisan “non”-partisanship–more manipulating veteran images
As CJ has stated clearly, it appears that VoteVets is a front for MoveOn.org. VoteVets has been quiet on the issue, but still claims to be a “non-partisan” organization whose purpose is to support veterans who run for office.
What part of legislation furthering the aims of organized crime labor involves veterans? By manipulating information, such as the percentages of combat veterans who are employed and those making less than $22,000/year, VoteVets claims that this is a veteran’s issue. It’s not. As a matter of fact, for all their claims of loving veterans, many unions don’t even give full credit for seniority for time spent on deployment. Now that’s love. How can they get away with that?
Well, they’re not subject to the same laws that real employers are. Real employers have to give that one-for-one credit. Granted, some of them try to get around it, but at least there are some baby-toothed critters out there who can call them on it. Not so with the unions… and they do take advantage of it. Because unions are the fairest and greatest and wonderfullest caringest organizations in the whole wide world. That’s why they can have legislation submitted the acronym for which is pronounced, “eh, fucya.”
We are talking about the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, pronounced “eh, fucya,”) and it means that unions will have free reign to establish themselves wherever they set their sights. They want to do to the rest of our employers what they have done for Detroit. We are also talking about VoteVets, their liberal agenda, and their claims to further veteran’s issues when they are stretching the truth to find ways to support the liberal agenda, which is asshattery.
VoteVets points out that 18 percent of veterans return from deployment to unemployment, and claims that 25% of those who do find work are making less than $22,000/yr. They do not give statistics on how many veterans who return from deployment are still in the service (none of whom would make less than $22,000/yr.) They also do not give statistics on how many of these individuals are attending school, and if they recently left active duty, how many of them found jobs shortly afterwards. Painting a simple picture instead of the complex issue that exists is manipulation. If a goodly percentage of service members who left active duty were attending school, would their GI Bill benefits be counted as income? Probably not.
In short, they are painting another dire picture of the “predicament” of veterans, doing what is to veterans like myself inexcusable… they are painting veterans as pitiable in order to garner support for a cause that is not in the interests of veterans to push. A “veteran’s group” should have nothing whatsoever to say about this issue. I resent the living hell out of them for stepping in on it, and for claiming to speak for me when they do so.
“The freedom to organize is an American value, one of the many values we veterans fought to protect,” said Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran, and Chairman of VoteVets.org. “Past generations of veterans were able to enter the middle class because unions were there to fight for fair wages and benefits. The Employee Free Choice Act ensures that veterans and civilians in the workforce will continue to get a fair shake, which is why we’re proud to support it.”
Now, if there had been some major change, since all those veterans of past generations had been able to enter the middle class, this might make sense. There has been no such change. Why would what existed before not be good enough now?
Because Jon Soltz has to support the aims of his masters. If MoveOn says, “Jump,” Soltz has to find a way to make it look like it’s actually a veteran issue. For this lie, Jon Soltz, you are our second recipient of the “Asshat of the Month.”
Congratulations, bitch.
Jon Soltz, May, 2009 Asshat of the Month
Posted on May 24th, 2009 by Andy Wahl
Filed under: Congressional branch, Economic
Leave a Reply