John Fund opens his Greco-Roman wrestling in the Wall Street Urinal today with this astonishingly dumb formulation: “Who’s in charge of our political system—voters or unions?”
OK: Is it dumb, or is it evil? (Recall Occam’s Dull Razor: Never ascribe to evil what stupidity will explain just as well.) The implication is that unions are NOT composed of voters, that they are anti-democratic and somehow bullying our “political system.”
And that’s the quintessence of the Evil campaign to destroy the last vestiges of the union movement, using hired thugs like John Fund to do it. Fund is merely an asshole and sycophant. (As discussed in “In Which We Use Our New Word,” 7 Feb 2011) What is more disturbing is the manner in which the secret Masters have engaged in an endless campaign to dissolve and destroy unions. And their catamites roil [sic] themselves out in front of the media, and explain how nobody likes unions and how public employees are the problem with the budget, and not the greatest financial ripoff in American history. Or, as Matt Taibi termed it:
The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who’s Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.
And one prominent beneficiary of the Koch brothers’ largess is Scott Walker.
According to Wisconsin campaign finance filings, Walker’s gubernatorial campaign received $43,000 from the Koch Industries PAC during the 2010 election. That donation was his campaign’s second-highest, behind $43,125 in contributions from housing and realtor groups in Wisconsin. The Koch’s PAC also helped Walker via a familiar and much-used politicial maneuver designed to allow donors to skirt campaign finance limits. The PAC gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, which in turn spent $65,000 on independent expenditures to support Walker. The RGA also spent a whopping $3.4 million on TV ads and mailers attacking Walker’s opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. Walker ended up beating Barrett by 5 points. The Koch money, no doubt, helped greatly.
Walker’s plan to eviscerate collective bargaining rights for public employees is right out of the Koch brothers’ playbook. Koch-backed groups like Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Reason Foundation have long taken a veryantagonisticview toward public-sector unions. Several of these groups have urged the eradication of these unions. The Kochs also invited (PDF) Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, an anti-union outfit, to a June 2010 confab in Aspen, Colorado; Mix said in a recent interview that he supports Governor Walker’s collective-bargaining bill.
You really should read the whole article. And who’s supplying logistical support for today’s COUNTER demonstration?
From FORBES, of all places, Americans for Prosperity is organizing the counter-protest tomorrow (probably paying for the buses as well)
Koch Brothers Behind Wisconsin Effort To Kill Public Unions
Feb. 18 2011 – 6:45 pm
If you are reluctant to believe that this is a coordinated attack, consider this-
This afternoon, Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin Public Workers Union, sent a message to the Governor’s office agreeing to the cuts to pension & welfare benefits sought by Walker in his bill. The governor’s response was “nothing doing.” He wants the whole kit and kaboodle – the end of the collective bargaining rights of the public unions.
As noted in my earlier post, this is, indeed, the first shot in the final battle to end unionism in America.
UPDATE: The Americans for Prosperity group, a Tea Party group that is a Koch Brothers front, has put up a website and petition called http://www.standwithwalker.com. The website attacks all collective bargaining – not just for public employees’ unions. Americans for Prosperity is also organizing a rally tomorrow in Wisconsin to support Gov. Walker.
Why are the Koch Brothers so interested in Wisconsin? They are a major business player in the state….
[In case anybody's interested, let's not forget that it was UNIONS (not Reagan) that brought down the Soviet Empire, beginning with the Solidarity Union of Polish shipworkers.]
But I’d like to take you back a little bit, to the summer of 2006, when Howard Rich’s “Americans for Limited Government” group held its confab in Chicago — ALG which was shortly to split, like the hydra, into the Sam Adams Alliance (which was the first group to promote the Tea Party) and the Illinois Policy Institute, whose head, John Tillman, has been, respectively, the “President” (meaning, the guy who talks to the media) of ALG, SAA and now IPP. (See “A Demitasse of Dumbitas” 20 April, 2010 for more.)
From 30 August, 2006, “Unlimited Terms of Endearment, Part XV: Oregon, Chicago, ALG and Al Capone“:
According to one source [a reporter] who was at a different panel entitled “Understanding The Opposition”:
I also caught the Q and A, during which — in context of a discussion about using cameras as a violence- or scare-deterring measure when “union thugs” are blocking petition circulators — [panelist Mike Flynn* from The Center for Union Facts] made a comment something to the effect of: “You can get more with a smile, a kind word and a gun than you can with a smile and a kind word. It’s time for us to have the gun.” And in the context of “earned media,” he said Union Facts does ads with the media as a target — so that the media will notice the ads and then do a story on the issues they raise. “The important thing,” he said, “is for you to set the terms of the debate.”
[* According to Mike Hall writing on the AFLCIO blog, the founder of the Center for Union Facts, Rick Berman, was there as well: "the Associated Press reported Aug. 21 that Berman attended a weekend conference of the group Americans for Limited Government and made a presentation about the anti-union ads." I am unable, however, to find said AP report, although others have noted that he sent staffers to the ALG event, which has been doubly confirmed by two in attendance. - HW]
And, here’s what happened immediately thereafter (from my blog):
An apt, Oregonian metaphor. The “alternative media” present in Chicago are reminiscent of the Honey mushroom, all interconnected, and only seeming to be individual publications, as are the endless profusion of friends of Howie Rich Groups: ALG, US Term Limits (his original franchise), Club for Growth, State Action,; the Cato Institute, LEAD Foundation, Fund for Democracy, Parents in Charge and many others that, in turn, spawn still further groups: the newly-minted “Protect Our Homes and Churches,” “America At Its Best,” “Renewal Voter Outreach,” “This House is MY House,” and, perhaps not directly connected to the friends of Howie Rich, but eerily in harmonic, “The Center for Union Facts.”
None of the newly-minted “grassroots” subgroups mentioned in the preceding paragraph EXISTED one year ago.
In the week following the ALG “Action Conference” Rick Berman’s “Center for Union Facts” went on the attack — here in Oregon, and across the West.
In May 2006 the Center for Union Facts, launched its first TV ad campaign. The 30-second spot (http://www.unionfacts.com/ads/downloads/tv_unionBosses.wmv), running on Fox News and local markets, has “actors posing as workers” saying “sarcastically what they ‘love’ about unions,” like paying dues, union leaders’ “fat-cat lifestyles,” and discrimination against minorities. The ad campaign cost $3 million, which was raised “from companies, foundations and individuals that Mr. Berman won’t identify.”* [* The Online Wall Street Journal URL]
And last week, following the ALG pep rally, the CUF (thank goodness they didn’t name it the “Knowledge Center for Union Facts”)attacked again. The OREGONIAN reported:
Anti-Union ads appear in media in Oregon election-
The ads, sponsored by a Washington, D.C., group, are sharply critical of public employees
Friday, August 25, 2006
Just in time for election season, Oregonians are seeing TV and newspaper ads featuring grouchy public employees this week, thanks to a new Washington, D.C., group that doesn’t name its donors.
The Center for Union Facts also is running similar ads in Michigan, Montana and Nevada. Like Measure 48 on Oregon’s ballot this November, those states have similar initiatives that will ask voters to cap state government spending. While the ads don’t refer to those measures, they contend that public employees have wrangled expensive compensation packages…
Weirdly, it’s an “issue” ad without an issue. There is nothing on the Oregon ballot in the fall that has anything to do with public employees.
Another puzzling attack was reported in New West’s (an online magazine) Missoula page:
Are Anti Union Ads a Push for Spending Cap Initiatives?
By Pete Talbot, 8-27-06
… anti-union ads that were launched this week in Montana. The TV, radio and newspaper campaign portrays department workers as overpaid, lazy and nasty … Montana isn’t the only targeted state. The advertising campaign is also running in Oregon, Nevada, and Michigan. Three of these four states have initiatives on the November ballot that cap state spending. The fourth state, Michigan, is in the process of certifying signatures for a similar ballot initiative.
The most active opponents of the initiatives are the unions that represent public employees. Others oppose the initiatives, including The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), but it’s “more difficult to slam seniors,” one union official [Eric Feaver, president of MEA-MFT] said … He’s not sure who exactly is paying for the ad campaign. “It’s impossible to follow the money,” he said, “but it’s just too coincidental” that the ad campaign is running in states with spending cap initiatives on the November ballot …
The organization behind the ad campaign is the Center for Union Facts. It is located in Washington, D.C., and its executive director is lobbyist Richard Berman. Berman has headed similar organizations that lobby for tobacco, alcohol and other industries, according to labor officials.
The organization’s communications director, Sarah Longwell, said that the ads are an “educational campaign” and the advertising budget is $1 million. She called the ads “funny, edgy.” “It was taken into consideration,” [Longwell] noted, in placing the ad campaign in four states with spending cap initiatives, but it wasn’t the main factor. The campaign “is not trying to influence people,” she added, but to drive them to the Center for Union Facts’ website …
[Note: to be fair, "[Guest Columnist Pete Talbot] … is a board member of Missoula’s Sustainable Business Council and treasurer for Missoula Community Access Television (MCAT). Politically, Pete has served on the Montana Democratic Party Executive Board and was chairman of the Missoula County Democrats.”]
But he soundly makes the point that doesn’t require a partisan lens: The sudden appearance of CUF anti-union ads are a political attack, and probably to hobble the unions in organizing opposition to the SOS and “Rainy Day” spending caps and KELO/Eminent Domain stuff. Talbot only links the CUF attacks to spending caps.
But he doesn’t ask two even more pertinent questions: Isn’t it an ODD coincidence that the Center for Union Facts launches million dollar campaigns in the same four states that the ALG is pushing its spending cap initiatives in? And isn’t it even odder that CUF manages to ALSO be funded by mysterious funders whose identity they ALSO won’t reveal in Montana?
As union president Feaver notes: it is impossible to follow the snaking tendrils of this shoestring root. And yet, one asks oneself: Where have we seen THAT modus operandi before?
Here’s the Oregon local angle: my ALG Chicago source writes: “Other panelists with Flynn were Patrick Tuohey, Missourians in Charge; Bob Adney, Nevada Tax and Spending Control Committee; and Don McIntire, Taxpayer Association of Oregon.” [NB 2011: his page has been deleted and added to "taxpayer revolt in Oregon," to which I've relinked.]
Don McIntyre is an interesting fellow. According to Wikipedia:
“The leaders of the tax revolt include Don McIntire, president of the Taxpayer Association of Oregon, and Bill Sizemore, leader of Oregon Taxpayers United. Much of the money spent to promote these anti-tax measures were provided by out-of-state backers including Americans for Tax Reform headed by Grover Norquist.”
Norquist’s ATR was the OTHER contributor to Howie Rich’s “US Term Limits” term limits initiative on the Oregon ballot this November, just by the by.
[As I said, this is about political incest, so avert your eyes if you become too uncomfortable, Gentle Reader.]
Rick Berman’s (founder/proprieter of CUF) stated philosophy [emphasis added]:
Richard Berman claims to help the average consumer. In fact, he works for corporate America.
… “Our offensive strategy is to shoot the messenger,” [Rick Berman] once told Chain Leader Magazine, a trade publication for restaurant chains (whose readership presumably doesn’t include too many ordinary consumers). “We’ve got to attack [activists'] credibility as spokespersons.”
(for a more in-depth report on the link between Berman’s CUF and the Richies, see Sandlapper’s DailyKos diary:http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/27/182257/896
All of which recalls another Al Capone quote:
“I have built my organization upon fear.”
Berman’s group – the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. — then stealth-attacked the AirAmerica affiliate that I was a weekly pundit for:
This is the actual bogus “Public Service Announcement” CD and mailer
that KOPT received and ran ads from, which I have in my possession
And I busted them here:
KOPT-AM, the local AirAmerica affiliate — for whom I’ve been a regular guest since early 2005 — began running a strange ad that Friday. (CLICK HERE to download the mp3)
A woman’s voice told you how your union was using your union dues for (gasp!) politics, and how the SUPREME COURT said you have a right to tell them not to. And contact this phone number or website to find out how YOU CAN GET YOUR MONEY BACK!
Well, given the shows that it ran during — Stephanie Miller, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Ed Schulz — it was tantamount to offering a free steak dinner for two during a vegetarian talk show. Evidently, several angry callers complained about the “ad” which turned out to be a PSA — a Public Service Announcement — which meant that the anti-union ad was running for free during the entire Friday lineup. FCC rules demand that a certain number of PSAs be run to comply with stations’ broadcasting license requirements.
This seems particularly ironic in light of this week’s news that the business-controlled National Labor Relations Board has just ruled that nurses, and other workers numbering about 8 million are “supervisory personnel” and, therefore, cannot belong to unions.
Unions are, right now, the only counterweight to unlimited spending in state campaigns, as in the case of Howie Rich & Friends’ several ballot measures in several states. I am not, please note, suggesting that Rich has the political clout or stature to lead or even influence such a movement, but he certainly is riding the wave.
And there is an odd connection between Howard Rich and that PSA that was yanked from the air by the weekend. It’s not what you would think, but I’m getting ahead of the story.
The PSA group’s letter to the station reads, in part:
“That’s why I hope you’ll utilize the enclosed PSAs to inform your listeners of their rights regarding this vital issue which affects unionized employees throughout the state.”
The letterhead at top contains a 72 point process blue legal scales, along with a standard lawyerly-looking name and address block of type.
And the 8 point name “Stefan Gleason,” is followed by the 6 point title “Vice President.” (Tiny, in other words).
Radio stations get these mailers by the barrelful, and often shuffle them in without actually looking very closely at them. At least, that’s what I’m told.
The boldface and underlined paragraph of the letter (the only part that the reader is likely to skim) reads:
“The enclosed public service announcements describe how employees can receive free information and free legal aid [sic] in reclaiming forced union dues spent on political causes they find objectionable.”
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I have seen the actual CD that was sent (which is probably what was read, and not the florid PR letter that accompanied the disc). Now, see if you, as someone who gets dozens of these square white CD mailers a week, get an entirely different message from the CD label itself.
At about a 50% screen in the background, a montage, with a pretty black girl of about 9 or ten, with flowing curly tresses looking at what seems to be a flower, but on closer inspection is revealed to be her “working mother’s” hand holding a green bug. The mother-figure is presented in profile, facing right, but is mostly obscured by the type.
In the upper right hand corner, a blue shirted, blue-jeaned man holding a clipboard, and in the upper left — I kid you not — there is a man wearing a tangerine hardhat, staring purposely upwards (towards the future, one supposes) wearing a white shirt and an enormous purple satin-finish tie. The knot on it looks half as long as the (engineer? foreman? hardhat model?) fellow’s face. It seems a rather odd fashion choice, given, but that’s not the point.
The photo in the back is merely meant to express something about labor and kids on casual examination. OK. Labor and kids. A cute little black girl. That’s important somehow. But how, we really can’t say.
Below the red line it says in straight Helvetica bold: Public Service Campaign. Below that, in italics, centered:Overcoming the Illegal Use of Forced
Union Dues for Partisan Politics.
And then here are the titles:
1. Working Man/
2. Single Mom/
3. Working Woman/
Union Politics PSA, :30
Politics PSA, :60
(You can find all of these, plus more at:http://www.nrtw.org/media/psa.php )
But that 50% screened photo — faded back from 100% where the type would be swallowed by the shadows — is meant to say:
Hey, we’re about having pretty young black girls learn to be scientists and unions and warm and fuzzies. The “Single Mom” and “Working Woman” and “Teacher/Union” all neatly overlays the girl’s mother/teacher’s head, which is why the first thing you see is the cute little black girl.
Little Girl. Working Mom. Union Dues. Public Service.
And the type suggests “Overcoming Illegal” — hey who’s not for overcoming illegal? — and “Union Dues” and we can see all those “union” people on the cover. (I presume that the beautiful child is a member of the Beautiful Children’s Modeling Union).
And so, without realizing it, someone at KOPT ran the PUBLIC SERVICE CAMPAIGN CD and is currently catching hell for it. Or not.
The real point is that the ad ran, just as they’d planned the ad to run: for free and under the radar. If you hate unions, you use mobster caricatures and big stogies and lots of forearm hair. No: the warm and fuzzy nature of the “Public Service” CD was meant to deceive. Just the way that those YOU WON $1,000,000 Envelopes with their official certificates are meant to deceive.
The internal politics at the radio station are their own concern and don’t need addressing to understand that the group behind the PSA just snookered a “liberal” radio station into running free union-busting advertising all day.
How many “conservative” radio stations are running that free advertising, right at the height of the political season, right in the midst of an all-out war on Unions?
We don’t know.
And I included the actual PSA spot they ran on KOPT:
The cut that they played on the radio was the sixty second cut: Single Mom/Union Politics. (CLICK here to listen)
And I noted the ultimate purpose of the PSA:
And, as that stealth campaign moved from its shadowy sources, SCOTUS enabled it in 2007, just as they enabled unlimited corporate cash in elections last year:
FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 2007
SCOTUS Kicks Open the Union-Busting Door
by Hart Williams
I subscribe to opposition newsletters, and reading through the various (generic) Right Wing hatespeak that spewed forth with my morning mail, I came across a link to this:
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 15, 2007; Page A02
The Supreme Court yesterday unanimously upheld a Washington state law that requires public employee unions to get permission before making political contributions using fees they collect from nonmembers.
The law, unique in the nation, was adopted in a 1992 referendum to limit unions’ spending of the “agency fees” they deduct from the paychecks of employees who do not belong to the unions but are represented by them in collective bargaining.
… Though no other states have adopted laws similar to Washington’s, yesterday’s ruling confirms that they have a right to do so.
The Supremes have handed Right Wing zillionaires a huge gift, and it ain’t even Christmas.
To get some idea of the magnitude of this, imagine for a moment that the Supreme Court ruled a law constitutional that banned corporations from contributing to political campaigns, unless they had the permission of all their stockholders. Would you support such a law? I know I would….
And I WARNED about what’s happening in Wisconsin today at the end of that 2007 posting:
So, be forewarned: the head of the “Center for Union Facts” (allegedly shady lobbyist Rick Berman) explained the strategy at the Americans for Limited Government astroturf conference in Chicago last August. Whether we win or not, he said, we pin down the unions and force them to play defense.
You need to understand that this all runs UNDER the national radar, and most national news outlets will cover it sparingly, if at all. The locals generally have their one big state newspaper, and that’s about it. Trust me, whether they win or not, a massive attack on the unions will pin down progressives on defense, which is just what the Right would like, as a distraction to keep their crappy incumbents in office, come November ’08.
An ounce of prevention, as they say.
In my long investigative series on the money cabal behind literally three dozen initiatives last year (and lord knows how many over the past decade), it became increasingly clear that they view unions as the ONLY institutional entity standing in their way to gut safety laws; and most expecially to eliminate taxes, corporate responsibility, land use law, labor law and even minimum wages. And, of course, eliminating unions altogether is a high priority.
Now, they’ve got the wedge issue they need to cripple union funding. For details see my investigative report on the bogus PSA’s that managed to fool the local AirAmerica affiliate into running anti-union spots from the “National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.”
SCOTUS has declared open season on unions. Watch the hunters flock to the chase.
The judgment was a rare 9-0. Take that as you will. (Interestingly, Justices Breyer, Roberts and Alito refused to sign on to portions of Scalia’s majority opinion.)
You’ve been forewarned.
So, how are the Kochs connected to all this?
The money behind the movement: term limits is touted as a grassroots uprising. But guess who’s paying the bills?
Amy E. Young
… a Common Cause Magazine analysis of campaign finance reports filed in the 14 states suggests that something else is fueling the fire: More than three-fourths of the movement’s financing in 1992 came from four national groups and a relatively small number of wealthy individual donors.
According to the analysis, term-limit committees in 14 states raised $5.9 million in cash and in-kind contributions, of which 80 percent was raised from the four groups and just 624 donors of $500 or more. The groups — USTL, the now-defunct Citizens for Congressional Reform (CCR), Americans Back in Charge and Americans to Limit Congressional Terms — supplied more than $2.2 million, while more than $2.5 million came from the 624 individual donors.
Term-limit proponents say they were forced to raise big money in anticipation of a strong opposition financed by special interest groups out to protect their friends in Congress. While powerful interests indeed helped finance opposition efforts, term-limit backers outspent them by nearly 6 to 1.
From the very beginning the term-limits movement was financed by large donors. The first major national term-limits group, CCR, spent more than $1 million in California, Washington and Michigan and then closed shop amid controversy surrounding its funding sources. CCR was bankrolled largely by two conservative billionaire industrialist brothers, Charles and David Koch of Wichita, Kan., who often wired money from their bank accounts directly to the term-limit committees. The group disbanded in late 1991, just after term-limit opponents filed a complaint with the Michigan secretary of state questioning the validity of a list of donors CCR filed to comply with a state law.
In early 1992 Howard Rich bought CCR’s assets — mainly a mailing list and some office furniture — assumed its liabilities and set up shop as USTL.
USTL still exists, but in 2006, it shared Glenview, Illinois offices (blocks from John Tillman’s home) with Americans for Limited Government.
Oh, and CNN noted this about their modus operandi, which you might want to keep in mind:
They were the “Term Limits” bunch from the early 1990s, and were part of Newt’s Contract with America, but fell from grace with the new GOP because oftheir “my way or the highway style”:
How Not to Lobby
U.S. Term Limits all but killed a popular cause through inflexibility and meanness.
For a lesson in how not to lobby, look no further than the recently failed attempt to enact congressional term limits. In 1995 term limits had won overwhelming voter approval in 23 states, and the issue was one of the ten planks of Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America. But its lead interest group, U.S. Term Limits, committed two fundamental lobbying errors: It refused to compromise, and then it attacked supporters for deviating even slightly from what it considered the righteous path. According to GOP Rep. Bill McCollum of Florida, a term-limits enthusiast: “For U.S. Term Limits, winning meant defeating everything except its own view, which has hurt the movement considerably.”
At the insistence of New York developer Howie Rich, U.S. Term Limits’ president and major benefactor, the organization prescribed one, and only one, kind of limit: three two-year terms for the House and two six-year terms for the Senate. Why three House terms? Because public opinion polls of term-limit backers indicated three terms is what they liked best. That sounds like a preference, but to Rich and his associates, the poll results were akin to divine sanction.
Politicians like Bob Inglis, Republican of South Carolina, pleaded with U.S. Term Limits to be flexible; six terms was the most popular alternative, he told them, because it gave lawmakers in both chambers 12-year limits. “But they refused,” Inglis recalls. “They said, ‘If you get in our way, we’ll mow you down.’ ” And in fact, lawmakers who didn’t support U.S. Term Limits’ position were labeled traitors to the cause in advertisements. Worse, at the group’s urging, nine states passed “scarlet letter” laws that placed next to the names of candidates on the ballot a notation stating whether they supported a specified type of limit. Such coercion is resented on Capitol Hill and has resulted in a deep decline in the issue’s prospects. Today, Rich says he was naive to think politicians would ever curtail their own service. Then again, his actions have assured that they probably never will.
Several GOP leaders who have abandoned the cause assert privately that U.S. Term Limits doesn’t really want to win but instead wants to use the movement for its own fundraising purposes. Even Cleta Mitchell, once Washington’s most visible proponent of term limits, has given up. At the urging of her friends in Congress, Mitchell has taken a job with the National Federation of Independent Business. Says Mitchell: The views of people who run U.S. Term Limits are “nuts.” [CNN Total Politics, 18 Nov 1997]
And here’s the kicker, from the old Media Transparency site:
Citizens for Congressional Reform Foundation
470 L Enfant Plaza SW
Washington, DC 20024
NOTE: EXACT same address as the Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation (note is Media Transparency’s, not mine — HW)
Now why would that sound funky? Wikipedia:
Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) (1984–2004) was a conservative political group operating in the United States, whose self-described mission was “to fight for less government, lower taxes, and less regulation.” In 2004, Citizens for a Sound Economy split into two new organizations, with Citizens for a Sound Economy being renamed as FreedomWorks, and Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation becoming Americans for Prosperity.
Yeah. The guys busing in “counterprotesters” to Madison, Wisconsin today.