Posts Tagged ‘AFL-CIO’
Last year, Obama appointed three radical union hacks to the National Labor Relations Board to push a pro-union (and pro-Democrat) agenda. Knowing that they would never pass muster with the Senate, Obama declared that the Senate was in “recess” – when it clearly was not – and appointed them anyway, bypassing the constitutionally required vetting process.
Thanks to Mark Levin, a lower D.C. court has now recognized the unilateral appointments as blatant violations of the constitution and separation of powers:
Four days after President Obama pledged to “protect and defend the Constitution,” the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that he violated that oath in making several appointments last year.
The court said Obama’s three “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board weren’t recess appointments at all, since the Senate was still in session when he made them.
Assuming the Supreme Court upholds the panel’s ruling, all the decisions the board made over the past year will be nullified, since without those three there weren’t enough members on the board to make any rulings at all.
[…] Thankfully, there are still some judges around who see the virtue of protecting and defending our “messy” system, even if Obama and his sycophants don’t.
But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intra-session” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks. They said Mr. Obama erred when he said he could claim the power to determine when he could make appointments.
“Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers,” the judges said in their opinion.
The judges said presidents’ recess powers only apply after Congress has adjourned a session permanently, which in modern times usually means only at the end of a year. If the ruling withstands Supreme Court scrutiny, it would dramatically constrain presidents in the future.
And the court ruled that the only vacancies that the president can use his powers on are ones that arise when the Senate is in one of those end-of-session breaks. That would all but eliminate the list of positions the president could fill with his recess powers.
Still, the appointees refuse to step down, and the NLRB appointees are continuing to push forward their agenda as if the ruling never happened:
Mark Gaston Pearce, chairman of the National Labor Relations Board…indicated that the NLRB will attempt to continue on regardless:
The Board respectfully disagrees with today’s decision and believes that the President’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld. It should be noted that this order applies to only one specific case, Noel Canning, and that similar questions have been raised in more than a dozen cases pending in other courts of appeals.
In the meantime, the Board has important work to do. The parties who come to us seek and expect careful consideration and resolution of their cases, and for that reason, we will continue to perform our statutory duties and issue decisions.
Pearce, in short, is indicating that the NLRB’s strategy is to act as if the court’s ruling that the appointments were unconstitutional somehow only applies only to the particular case that went before the Appeals Court and hope that the White House can get the Supreme Court to quickly review the case.
Constitution? What constitution? Who needs a constitution or the rule of law, anyway?
The NLRB does not get to disagree with a Federal Appeals Court. It has already overstepped its jurisdiction infinite number of times. Its opinion of an Appeal Court ruling is completely irrelevant. It does not get to narrowly define the meaning of that ruling. It does not get to stay in business and declare that it will go on doing exactly what it was doing before because it is confident that the Supreme Court will rule in its favor.
But in ObamaTime that is exactly how it works. Powers are seized and the propaganda press starts screaming that this is the way it should be. Obama unilaterally declares the Senate in recess and appoints union lawyers to the NLRB. The NLRB ignores an Appeals Court ruling and declares it will go on functioning.
The rule of Obama is in direct conflict with the rule of law.
Stuart Varney Interviews Michelle Malkin: Unions Target Airlines, Ports, and Stores ahead of Holidays
View on YouTube
Why do these power-hungry thugs have to try and ruin everyone’s holiday? They’ve been planning this for months, full knowing that they were going to disrupt and hurt innocent people in the process…and they don’t care.
Fox News reports on the travel nightmare unions have deliberately created at LAX:
A labor dispute at America’s third busiest airport turned what was already a bad travel day into a nightmare for some travelers.
One of the nation’s biggest unions snarled traffic as it tried to block two entrances into the Los Angeles International airport Wednesday, in a protest police feared would turn the streets outside into a parking lot at a time when tens of thousands of cars are pouring into the airport.
What’s so important that SEIU has to torture people who just trying to get home to see their families for Thanksgiving?
They say that an airport contract is breaking the city law on living wages – which, of course, is nonsense, since that would be prosecutable. They also say that the contractor has eliminated “affordable healthcare” for over 400 workers. Which is, again, bull. After all, can’t the SEIU just rely on Obamacare?
Leave it to the unions to ruin Thanksgiving. They’ve ruined every other day of the year.
Talk about selfishness! I doubt this will leave people with much sympathy for their whiny grievances or any desire to join them. But no matter. The unions are already implementing their strategy to boost membership: intimidation and force.
The Daily Caller reports that George Soros‘ puppet MoveOn.org has been working to rally Walmart workers to strike on Black Friday in order to force the company to unionize:
MoveOn.org has jumped into the fight for a unionized Wal-Mart workforce.
The liberal group has sent emails to its list nationwide, urging a mass-protest outside Wal-Mart stores on Black Friday. The organization is encouraging people to strike against management even if they aren’t Wal-Mart employees themselves.
[..] Black Friday is traditionally the busiest shopping day of the year.
[…] Liberal union groups OUR Wal-Mart and Making Change at Wal-Mart, which are working to organize the planned strike, are aggressively trying to harness dues from Wal-Mart’s massive workforce.
But Wal-Mart is notorious for opposing organized labor’s efforts to unionize its workforce.
At every turn, since the days Sam Walton ran the company, Wal-Mart has mostly won its battles against those unions. That hasn’t stopped the nation’s big labor unions from continually trying to pry their way into the Arkansas-headquartered superstore chain, however.
They’re desperate to unionize as many new people as they can. They need the forced dues that let them buy politicians and power.
Now they’re planning to shut down the Port of Portland so that no shipments of Christmas cheer can get through.
This is the sick mentality we’re dealing with, people: the ends justify the means, no matter who they hurt.
The election may be over, but they already have the foot soldiers on the ground ready to go for the next fight.
Labor leaders said they plan to mobilize their members in the coming weeks to press Republicans to support the extension of tax cuts for middle income families. Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, said labor needs to remain “as engaged as we were in the election throughout the rest of this year to make sure we get the Republican House to say yes to tax cuts for the middle class.”
Unfortunately, unions in Oregon have a history of thuggish behavior like this. They’re terrified of a Wisconsin-like Scott Walker moment that would threaten their stranglehold on the purse strings and power in this state.
Voters in Oregon are receiving a mailer from the AFL-CIO that could imply their votes in the upcoming election will not be secret.
“Your voting history is a matter of public record,” the mailer says on the cover of a trifold pamphlet, which lists the union’s positions and its endorsed state and local candidates inside.
In fact, a voter’s precise vote is secret, though the fact that they have returned a ballot in Oregon’s mail-in elections would be a matter of public record.
The reverse cover of the pamphlet features an historic photograph of a union strike, in which the worker in front is carrying a poster that reads: “DO NOT CROSS OUR PICKET LINE.”
Labor unions suffered a setback in Wisconsin last week, but anyone who thinks they’ve been knocked dead is living in a dream world. There are laws on the books which ensure that the unions will always bounce back. Scott Walker knocked them down, but they will come back up like a bobo doll, and long after he is out of office, they will continue clutching for more power. All the laws are on their side.
The only certainties are death and tax [exemption]
Labor unions are categorized as tax-exempt 501(c)5 organizations. In 2010, these organizations collectively held $32,498,906,714 in assets. This number comes from the combined assets of all labor unions and farm bureaus. After all their expenses, lobbying efforts, and voter intimidation efforts, these organized labor gangsters still have more money than the entire GDP of many countries. None of it is taxed, and 92% of them are in violation of Dept. of Labor audits.
If this 32 billion were taxed at the corporate tax rate, it could pay for the entire Army Reserves budget and have 3.5 billion left over. For those counting at home, that’s about as much as the U.S. government loses in the time it takes our president to play a round of golf.
In other words, labor unions have more money that Wisconsin has. They are not afraid of Scott Walker. They will not wither up and die anytime soon. They are protected by tax exemption. If they have a bad year in Wisconsin, they will simply shift the funds around and pick a fight in another state where they can win, or they will lobby the federal government to override the states. Tax exemption guarantees that they will always have plenty of money for political work, and it is no secret that they own the soul of our president already.
Tax-exempt status was given to unions as a favor by a couple of leftist hacks during the passage of the Revenue Act of 1913, which came on the heels of the 16th Amendment (the income tax). The act was sponsored by Oscar Underwood, a career Democrat from Alabama, and Furnifold Simmons, a white supremacist Democrat from North Carolina. Tax exemption ensured that labor unions would have plenty of money on hand for political work, and that they would use it to reward the politicians who allied with them and punish those who didn’t. As long as this clause remains in the Revenue Act, unions will always have an advantage.
If there was any hope of limiting the growth and influence of tax-exempt labor unions, it was intentionally undermined in 1914 by the Clayton Anti-Trust Act. This law tightened restrictions against monopolistic business activities. However, it specifically went out of its way to include a clause giving labor unions freedom to monopolize against entire industries and spread inexorably into others. The law is a clearly stated government mandate for unions to monopolize labor markets against businesses, written into a law ostensibly about ending monopolies. This clause was added specifically to ensure that unions would always have the upper hand against businesses. Businesses pay the highest tax rate and are restrained from monopolizing. Unions pay no taxes and are encouraged to monopolize. The deck has been stacked this way for 100 years.
This is how one of our biggest unions, the AFL-CIO, has managed to accumulate over two billion in total assets and get its hands into the pockets of 57 different sectors of the U.S. economy, including nearly every teacher in the U.S. public school system, the U.S. postal service, and the National Football League without raising a single anti-trust eyebrow.
All of their political influence would be irrelevant if the unions operated as charitable organizations. Charities are tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations. The only stipulation on this status is that they avoid all political activity. If the pastor of a church starts telling people whom to vote for, the church loses its tax-exempt status and is taxed at the regular corporate tax rate of 35%. Labor unions, of course, participate in extremely aggressive political activism without any restraint. In 2010, during the midterm elections, the AFL-CIO put over $20 million into a budget column openly labeled the “Militancy/defense Fund.” Think about this fact for a while. Do you think an organization with 20 million “militancy” dollars will simply fade away because of Scott Walker? Do you think an organization like this deserves to be tax-exempt?
What exactly is a militancy fund for? All sorts of things. In 1973, in United States v. Enmons, the Supreme Court ruled that labor unions are exempt from prosecution for violence related to collective bargaining goals. If you are upset that none of the threats against Governor Walker’s life were prosecuted, it is because they were legal. They have $20 million in their militancy fund, and permission from the Supreme Court to commit violence without prosecution. Do you think they are afraid of a new rule in Wisconsin?
Not only do they have $20 million marked off for militancy and defense, but they have another $23.8 million in the solidarity fund. What is that for? It is for “Political and Issues Mobilization work.” Not only do they have as much money as a small country, but they also have their own political wing and their own military/defense wing. The only difference is they don’t believe that their own members should have the right to vote.
If you’re counting, that’s a total of about $44 million spent on militancy and political mobilization, or about 40% of the AFL-CIO’s total annual budget. They are awash in money they don’t know what to do with, but nobody in Washington is willing to tax them because a century ago a couple of liberal cogs got cozy with the unions and wrote it into law.
This is a HUGE blow to Obama’s re-election campaign. His whole party is enormously dependent on union money and volunteers to help them win campaigns.
The AFL-CIO has told Washington Whispers it will redeploy funds away from political candidates smack dab in the middle of election season, the latest sign that the largest federation of unions in the country could be becoming increasingly disillusioned with President Obama.
The federation says the shift has been in the works for months, and had nothing to do with the president’s failure to show in Wisconsin last week, where labor unions led a failed recall election of Governor Scott Walker.
“We wanted to start investing our funds in our own infrastructure and advocacy,” AFL-CIO spokesman Josh Goldstein told Whispers. “There will be less contributions to candidates,” including President Obama.
The unions all but bought the 2008 election for Obama. Losing them now, just months before the November election, is very bad news for a President in need of a break (not as badly as the American people are in need of a break).
As for Mitt Romney, his strategy has been nearly perfect the past few weeks. As long as he can keep his campaign focused on raising massive amounts of campaign cash and out of the headlines, Obama is going to hand him the presidency.
This is, as the magazine points out, a major policy change for the organization that once provided much of the money and the muscle for the Democrats’ national campaigns. But whether it is being done out of spite or, as is entirely possible, merely a recognition that the shrinking union movement needs to concentrate its dwindling resources on keeping itself alive, it must be considered a blow to a Democratic campaign that has already found itself facing a Republican presidential campaign that may be able to match the president’s ability to raise money. Either way, it is just one more sign that the Democrats will not be enjoying the same fundraising advantage in 2012 that they had in 2008. It also means that the AFL-CIO is conceding that its days as a national political force to be reckoned with are finished.
The timing of the announcement is bound to feed into speculation that the unions are mad about the president’s wise decision not to waste any of his own political capital on the Wisconsin recall. In the closing weeks of that campaign, the White House rightly saw that there was much to lose and little to gain from a presidential campaign stop in Wisconsin to bolster the flagging effort to oust Republican Governor Scott Walker. Though he was rightly mocked for only contributing a solitary tweet of encouragement to Walker’s opponent, no amount of presidential involvement would have saved the unions from their foolish desire to exact revenge on Walker for his successful campaign to cut back their ability to hold the state hostage in contract negotiations.
But even without the anger about their loss in Wisconsin, the AFL-CIO’s decision marks a sea change in the way our national campaigns are fought. In past decades, the union movement was a central, if not the major player in organizing Democratic presidential campaigns. The Democrats are no longer solely dependent on big labor, and they also understand that the price paid for too much help can be politically expensive. Nevertheless, the unions remain an important part of the Democrat coalition, and if they have decided to stop being players in electoral politics, the void they are leaving behind will be difficult to fill.
S. C. AFL CIO Union Thug Attacking Gov. Haley Pinata With Ball Bat
View on YouTube
More Democrat “civility” and “tolerance” on display.
Here we have another union thug acting out a desire for violence. This time it’s Donna Dewitt, the President of the South Carolina AFL-CIO (a grand title for a chief thug, eh?), using a baseball bat to smack a piñata sporting the face of S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley on it.
Now, imagine, folks, if these were Republicans using a ball bat on an effigy of a Democrat Gov. — and a female one at that. This story would be the story of the day all over the news and would go on for weeks at a time. We’d never hear the end of it from the Old Media.
Democrats do it… and crickets.
In fact, if this was a video of Republicans doing such a thing, the GOP candidate for president would be tarred with their actions. Right now we’d be hearing calls from every last Democrat, every last member of the media (but I repeat myself) for Governor Mitt Romney to disavow this violence.
Again. Democrats do it…. and crickets.
Remember back when all Sarah Palin did was put the icon of a target on a map of targeted districts during the 2010 election? Remember how that became a symbol in the Old Media of the “violence” being urged by those evil Republicans? Well, here we have a ball bat being used on the face of a female Governor and… yep, crickets.”
I don’t care what your politics are…this is disgusting behavior, and there’s NO excuse for it!
The intro was done by Andrew Breitbart himself, shortly before his death:
View at Breitbart.tv
Breitbart.com has received exclusive tape of an Occupy Strategy Session at New York University, billed as a group talk on “The Abolition of Capitalism.” One of the headline speakers at this session was Stephen Lerner, former leader and International Board Member of the SEIU and frequent Obama White House visitor. Lerner argued in favor of people not paying their mortgages and “occupying” their homes; he spoke in favor of invading annual shareholders meetings to shut them down. But his big goal was to get workers to shut down their workplaces. That’s where the SEIU agenda and the Occupy agenda truly meet: once workers begin to occupy.
These anti-capitalist activists – many of which hold prominent and powerful positions within unions and higher education – openly admit that democracy cannot coexist with capitalism, and they’re right. Free markets require individual liberty, which is the antithesis of tyranny by majority vote. That’s why they want to destroy what’s left of America’s free market system (much has already been socialized).
Our founders gave us a constitutional republic based on the rule of law instead of simple majority vote for this very reason. They knew from history that democracy inevitably dissolved into anarchy and finally totalitarianism.
What the Left in America wants is nothing less than the destruction of our free market, liberty-oriented constitutional republic and the establishment of a new socialist economy and system of government.
They cry openly for the overthrow and takeover of our nation. If this isn’t treason, what is?
Across the nation, many states are going bankrupt trying fulfill promises to public workers that are unsustainable, and that politicians KNEW were unsustainable when they made them (they knew that the bill wouldn’t come due until they were personally out of office and left the fallout for us to deal with). This has become all the more apparent in the past three years as continued recession, massive debt and unsustainable government spending have brought the issue front and center nationwide. The stark reality is that most governments from the local to federal level are flat out BROKE, and taxpayers can’t afford to meet public union demands any longer. Something has to give.
Courageous Gov. Walker of Wisconsin was one of the first to try and broker a realistic deal with the unions in his state, but they wouldn’t have it. They fought tooth and nail because they’re terrified of that other states who are swimming in debt and unsustainable demands will finally get the courage to face reality and tell the unions “no.” Gov. Christie in New Jersey has faced similar opposition.
In California, the state is deeply in the red, and many workers are legally forced to join and fund the unions that are bankrupting their state. The California “Paycheck Protection” Initiative is designed to prevent unions from using the government to automatically deduct dues from worker’s paychecks and give workers a choice.
Unions in California are determined to defeat this initiative because they know that it could threaten their confiscatory revenue stream and with it, their iron grip on the state’s budget. The intimidation tactics have already started:
The California State University Employees Union is encouraging its members to intimidate people who are gathering signatures for a so-called “Paycheck Protection Initiative” that would limit the ability of unions to use automatic payroll deductions to gain political contributions from their members. […]
These tactics clearly are designed to scare people away from signing petitions by using bullying techniques that could become confrontational and even violent. They certainly are meant to keep people from exercising their political rights and are tactics that would not be tolerated if they came from organizations on the political right.
A similar idea was tried in Oregon in 2008 but was smashed by union resistance.
The SEIU, AFL-CIO, UAW, and other unions know that they can’t survive without compulsory union dues taken automatically from worker’s paychecks. They don’t have enough people who are willing to voluntarily support them any longer. They are overwhelmingly dependent on coercion: both forced unionization and forced union dues.
The politicians they support are dependent on member dues being funneled into political contributions for candidates and causes that workers have little to no say over. In fact, the future of the Democratic party is largely dependent on union contributions, the loss of which would critically cripple their political machine. This is a fight for mutual survival.
Obama used the National Labor Relations Board to institute the “card check” system that couldn’t get passed through congress, which eliminates secret ballot elections and allows unions to organize an entire workforce with only a fraction of the workers turning in signed cards, or even being aware that an election was happening. This allows the unions to begin deducting forced dues before many workers even realize that they’ve even been unionized.
Late last month, union representatives visited night shift workers at group homes under false pretenses, urging employees to sign a survey they were told was for Fellowship, Dziobek said.
He claims that the papers were actually union authorization cards.
The union needs to get at least 30 percent of employees to sign authorization cards for the labor board to authorize a vote on whether to unionize, Dziobek said.
“What I take exception to is the tactics,” he said. A staff person at a group living program in Eastham turned union representatives away at 9 p.m. but they came back at 12:30 a.m. and left only after the staffer threatened to call the police, he said.
Fellowship employees also have complained about being visited three or four times at home by union representatives, Dziobek said. “Staff are pretty upset,” he said. They are asking, “How did they get my personal cell phone number?“
How did the union bosses get non-union workers’ phone numbers and home addresses?
Obama’s NLRB changed the rules to require employers to turn over their employees’ personal information to union bosses, so that organizers could hound them into unionizing:
View at Breitbart.tv
In 2008, Obama promised union thugs he would ‘paint the nation purple with SEIU’:
No wonder they love him. They’re truly dependent on his reelection to boost their ranks and keep the cash flowing, or they won’t survive. They’re willing to do almost anything – legal or not – to make sure he wins and that legislation or ballot measures that threaten their gravy train are stopped.
In January, Obama made three illegal appointments to the NLRB, circumventing background checks and the Senate confirmation process in order to hide his radical union agenda. Their job is to shore up union support for Obama in 2012 by any means necessary – including forced unionization to increase membership and forced dues which can be funneled into contributions for his campaign.
The unions are virulently opposed to the Tea Party, knowing that if we succeed in lowering taxes, shrinking government and implementing fiscal responsibility, there will be fewer cushy benefits and government workers to keep them in power. Union thugs have been repeatedly caught on camera intimidating and even physically assaulting Tea Partiers.
They are the key organizers and funders behind the Occupy Wall Street protests, knowing that raising taxes on “the rich” is the only thing that will feed their voracious appetite at the taxpayer trough – at least until those individuals and businesses are driven offshore or bankrupted like so many before them.
Last March, an Service Employees International Union (SEIU) official named Stephen Lerner was caught on tape outlining a “secret plan to destroy JP Morgan, crash the stock market, and redistribute wealth in America.” After the snafu, SEIU claimed that Lerner had been dismissed – but he wasn’t. Lerner still works there and attends executive board meetings.
Here he is at a SEIU meeting “Getting Ready To Terrify D.C.”:
View on YouTube
At a “Future of the Unions” roundtable in April 2011, AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka was filmed boasting, “Forget about the law! We’re looking at new types of organizing…” Then SEIU, the same union thugs who tried to intimidate citizens at townhall meetings during the Obamacare debate, organized street mobs to intimidate bankers, burst into an Ohio restaurant and harrassed workers to confront Republican senators who were eating dinner, and started planning a nationwide, Madison-style, class warfare protest movement.
That movement became Occupy Wall Street, and they are planning an all-out class war offensive in the spring, an organized taxpayer shakedown the likes of which we’ve never seen.
Buckle up. This is going to be a bumpy ride.
The job of these three NLRB appointees is to shore up union support for Obama in 2012 by any means necessary – including forced unionization to increase membership and dues which can be put towards campaign contributions.
Two of President Obama’s “recess” appointments will begin their tenure at the National Labor Relations Board without having undergone background checks required of all nominees to the board, which are used to determine any past impropriety or conflicts of interest.
The Senate committee handling the nominations of Democrats Sharon Block and Richard Griffin to the NLRB never received the required paperwork from the two nominees. The president submitted the nominations to the Senate on December 15, a day before it entered pro forma session, with most Senators returning to their home states.
The paperwork includes information required for a background check, “which addresses whether taxes are paid and if the nominee is facing any pending civil or criminal investigations,” according to a committee release. “This also ensures that there are no conflicts-of-interest before being confirmed for the position.”
After the committee receives that information, staff generally conduct interviews during which they ask nominees about the information provided. A source familiar with the committee’s advice and consent work said its staff – and hence committee members – would be woefully uninformed on the nominees until paperwork was filed and those interviews took place.
The president has invoked alleged congressional gridlock as justification for his likely-unconstitutional “recess” appointments (not actually made during a recess), repeatedly invoking his “We Can’t Wait” slogan.
“Senate Republicans’ disposition towards [the NLRB nominees] could not have been more clear,” claimed White House press secretary Jay Carney on Thursday. But committee spokesman Joe Brenckle said members had not taken positions on the nominees, for the simple reason that they had not undergone even the most basic vetting procedures. In other words, there is no evidence that the committee – let alone the full Senate – would have blocked those nominations even if they had come up for a vote.
In fact, HELP committee rules specify that action cannot be taken on a nominee until five days after the paperwork is filed. So even if members had wanted to move Block and Griffin forward, they would have been unable to do so by the committee’s own written procedures.
The Senate’s advice and consent duties act as a check on the executive, but they are also a mechanism for weeding out unsuitable or unqualified nominees. The president’s end run around the Senate is not just an affront to the separation of powers; it undermines the practical and immediate importance of the Senate’s role in vetting candidates for federal office.
So what does this mean for employers and employees of non-unionized businesses?
The framers of the Constitution required the President to get the consent of the Senate before appointing senior government officials. They wanted to prevent the President from appointing those who would abuse the public trust. President Obama’s purported appointment of Richard Griffin to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) yesterday illustrates the importance of this constitutional restraint.
The union movement has a problem: Just one in 10 nonunion workers wants to join a union. Few workers believe that unions have much to offer, and even fewer want their company to wind up like General Motors. Consequently, private-sector union membership has fallen below 7 percent.
The union movement wants to reverse this decline, but it does not want to fundamentally reform itself to appeal to today’s workers. So it has turned to the government to make it difficult for workers to decline its services. Unions lobbied Congress to end the secret ballot in union elections, forcing workers to publicly tell union organizers whether or not they wanted to join. Fortunately, that bill went nowhere.
Unions have now turned to the NLRB to boost their ranks—even though the NLRB is supposed to serve as a neutral arbitrator between unions and employers. President Obama appointed Craig Becker—former counsel for the AFL–CIO—to the board. Becker had an already-developed plan to use the board’s powers to increase union membership, and the board has been implementing this agenda.
In just the past year, the NLRB shortened union elections to as little as 14 days, limiting employees’ ability to hear from both sides before they vote; allowed unions to cherry pick which workers in a company can vote on unionizing; and prevented workers from insisting on a secret ballot in union drives. These initiatives will make life easier for union organizers at the expense of individual workers’ rights.
Unionized companies create fewer new jobs than nonunion companies. Union dues cost hundreds of dollars a year. Workers have the right to unionize if they want, but a government agency should not press them into it—and certainly not when former officials of those unions run that agency.
Becker’s recess appointment expired at the end of the last session of Congress, and with it the activist majority on the NLRB. To replace Becker, President Obama nominated Richard Griffin, the general counsel for the International Union of Operating Engineers. Another union lawyer would continue the board’s agenda-driven activism.
The Senate’s advice and consent powers exist to check such appointments. Senate conservatives are right to demand that the President nominate board members who see their mission as protecting workers’ rights, not increasing union membership. The President cannot constitutionally ignore their advice.
And yet, that is exactly what he is doing.
”President Obama, this is your army, we are ready to march . . . Let’s take these son-of-a-bitches out.” ~ James Hoffa
A few weeks ago, you were provided with a PowerPoint overview overview of the battle ahead in 2012 and what must be done to become a Force Multiplier.
With the Obama re-election campaign in full swing since January when ex-SEIU political director Patrick Gaspard left the White House to help run the campaign through OFA, union bosses have expectedly begun lining up their endorsements.
In mid-November, stealing the #OccupyWalltStreet 99% slogan, the SEIU endorsed Obama.
Now, with its ground game ready, it’s AFSCME’s turn to give Obama its nod (and money pledge).
Via The Washington Post:
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees voted Tuesday to officially endorse President Obama in the 2012 election.
Union officials have already said they planned to spend upwards of $100 million to help Obama win reelection, so the endorsement itself is not a surprise.
AFSCME officials said their ground-level organization in several presidential battleground states is finely-tuned following battles over public-sector worker bargaining rights in Ohio and Wisconsin.
Tuesday’s vote was so important to Obama’s team that campaign manager Jim Messina attended the meeting. He told the AFSCME board the union’s backing “demonstrates that its workers know President Obama is the only one willing to make the hard choices.”
In 2008, unions spent an estimated $1 billion in both hard dollar donations, as well as ‘educational outreach’ and GOTV operations. During the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, unions spent $2.2 billion.
For those of you who are Constitution-loving Americans, with that much union money going to buy the White House again, you need to become more engaged…now.
If you don’t know what to do, start here:
Horowitz was raised by Communist parents and has known most of the big players behind OWS personally. He should know.
Conservative activist and author David Horowitz tells Newsmax that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are “morons” being exploited by the organized left.
He also says the Republican presidential candidate could win in a landslide in 2012, warns that the Democrats are “character assassins” who will vilify their GOP rival, and predicts that the tea party will play a huge role in the outcome.
Horowitz is the founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and editor of FrontPage Magazine. His latest book is A Point in Time: The Search for Redemption in This Life and the Next.
The Freedom Center’s stated mission is to “combat the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values in a time of terror.” The organization will convene its annual Restoration Weekend in South Florida beginning on Nov. 17.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Horowitz, a former radical leftist who converted to conservatism in the 1980s, was asked about the Occupy Wall Street protesters and their ongoing demonstrations in Manhattan and elsewhere.
“They are idiots,” Horowitz declares.
“If you’ve watched their interviews you know that they’re morons. But what is behind them is ACORN, George Soros, and the core of the Democratic Party. That’s why we ought to pay attention to them.”
As to whether the Occupy movement has been spontaneous or manipulated by the organized left, Horowitz says: “I think it’s both. It’s like a chicken-and-an-egg question.
“Some of the motivation must have been that the Democrats have created this horrific situation in our education system, where you get what looks like a free ride because there are all these student loans, and it’s not a free ride.
“So you have these kids, they’ve got a $100,000 debt and there are no jobs, thanks to the Democrats. So that became an occasion, and once there’s a happening — the first Occupy Wall Street — then these big unions come in behind it, there’s money there, and ACORN. So there’s already a very organized left and it grows.
“When you’re 20 years old and kind of stupid, you want to be involved in what’s happening. It’s exciting. We’re making history. No you’re not. You’re just dirtying the streets and the neighborhood.”
Asked about the Occupy Wall Street movement’s future, Horowitz responds that it’s fueled by the old left “that was demoralized by the collapse of socialism and was dormant for a few years, and then came back. We can expect this to go on and on in the future. You’re not going to persuade them. They’re going to be there.”
Discussing the 2012 elections, Horowitz tells Newsmax that Republicans “need point out the damage the Democratic Party is doing. They sabotaged the war in Iraq. They sabotaged our foreign policy in the Middle East, so now we have a real war situation. We have Iran on the brink of nuclear weapons, thanks to the Democrats.”
Asked whether he agrees with conservative pundits who predict the Republicans will win the White House next year, Horowitz responds: “I think it could be a landslide in our favor, and I think we can lose, so I wouldn’t be so confident.
“A lot depends on the candidate. All of our candidates have vulnerabilities that worry me, and the Democrats are character assassins. That’s what they do. They don’t have ideas or plans to fix things. What they have is the weapons of slander and vilification and the politics of personal destruction, which is what is going on now with Herman Cain.”
As for the tea party’s role next year, Horowitz declares: “The tea party is the most important development in the history of modern conservatism, and of this country. If it is out there it will be a hugely important force for stiffening the Republican spine, which is the big problem that Republicans have.”
Horowitz also says Obama is “easily” the most radical president in American history.
“Obama comes from the left that I came out of, except the worst part of it,” he says.
“These are the people on the left who didn’t leave when they saw all their lies exposed. The left said socialism is the answer and still says that. They said America was wrong in Vietnam. They were wrong. They killed a lot of people. Some of us woke up but most stayed, and that’s who they are.
“Obama presents himself, at least in the first campaign, as a centrist, a uniter, and so forth. Those were all bald-faced lies. Based on his whole career you would have known that.
“The left doesn’t really have a positive agenda. It’s an anti-American agenda. Bankrupting the country for a leftist is a good thing because America is the ogre.”
Horowitz adds that his organization’s upcoming Restoration Weekend is “a kind of rejuvenation. We have a stellar cast — Glenn Beck, Herman Cain, Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, and others.
“It’s to fire up the troops and give them some hope in these dark times that we live in.”
The folks at Pajamas Media have done a fantastic job compiling a confirmed list of all the individuals and organizations that have come out in support of Occupy Wall Street.
The 99%: Official list of Occupy Wall Street’s supporters, sponsors and sympathizers
Communist Party USA
American Nazi Party
Ayatollah Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran
The government of North Korea
Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam
Revolutionary Communist Party
Revolutionary Guards of Iran
Black Panthers (original)
Socialist Party USA
US Border Guard
Industrial Workers of the World
Communist Party of China
International Bolshevik Tendency
International Socialist Organization
PressTV (Iranian government outlet)
Marxist Student Union
Freedom Road Socialist Organization
Party for Socialism and Liberation
You’re known by the company you keep..
Three years into this disaster of a presidency, and the vetting STILL isn’t finished.
Just twenty or so years ago, Barack Obama wouldn’t just have supported the Occupy protests.
He would have organized them.
From Stanley Kurtz’s essential Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, pp. 117-8:
In fact, Obama personally helped plan one of UNO’s most confrontational actions of the eighties [in 1988]: a break-in meant to intimidate a coalition of local business and neighborhood leaders into dropping a landfill expansion deal.
We know of Obama’s involvement in this demonstration only because his supporters in 2008 felt it necessary to rebut charges that, contrary to his claims of inter-racial healing, he had organized exclusively with blacks. Only then did Obama’s former colleagues from UNO [United Neighborhood Organization, a largely Mexican group] of Chicago reveal that he had helped to plan and lead this multi-ethnic demonstration against landfill expansion on Chicago’s South Side.
…Shouting “No deals!” somewhere between eighty and a hundred UNO-DCP [Developing Communities Project, a black group organized by Obama] marched to a local bank. There they broke into a meeting being conducted by the bank president and local community leaders. The group was exploring the possibility of a deal with Waste Management. The protestors, presumably including Obama, surrounded the meeting table while [Mary-Ellen] Montes [of UNO] told the negotiators, “We will fight you every step of the way.”
Obama was also likely involved with other aggressive UNO protests, including protests for school reform, through which he likely met former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Ayers is involved in the Occupy protests today.
In the 1990s, Obama maintained his ties to radical activists, and “channel[ed] foundation funding to his confrontational Alinskyite colleagues.”
It’s clear that Obama’s ties to the Occupy movement–its forbears, its tactics, and some of its current luminaries–run deep.
This is what “community organizing” looks like.
Glenn Beck: This Is A Marxist Revolution That’s Global In Nature
View on YouTube
In the beginning, I was willing to accept that a group of unhappy citizens utilized their First Amendment rights to protest what they believe to be an injustice (as I have written here and here): the picking of winners and losers by government with a weak coverup attempt via cronyism. I accepted, at first, their claims of being a “non-violent” group wanting to have their grievances heard.
Yet, as the “movement” began to grow, it became obvious that being “non-violent” is “non-correct.” Quickly, the OWS protesters were co-opted by those who believe in violence as a legitimate means of achieving their objectives: Van Jones, who wants to see an “American Autumn” emulating the Arab Spring (which was, and still is, very violent), Michael Moore — who has stated publicly that the “rich” can give up their money now, peacefully, or later (though he doesn’t elaborate on what happens to get the money later, one can imagine), and even Roseanne Barr got into the mix. Barr actually said she longed for the return of the guillotine and re-education camps for those who don’t give up their wealth willingly.
In my appearance on CrossTalk, I was joined by Jason Del Gandio – assistant professor of rhetoric at Temple University and author of “Rhetoric for Radicals,” (a handbook for 21st century activists) and Kevin Zeese, organizer of October 2011.org and activist. In that program a few things came to the surface:
Both Del Gandio and Zeese pushed the meme that the organizations across the nation were non-violent. Zeese made it clear that they were not allowing themselves to be co-opted by Jones, Moore, the Democrat party or anyone else, claiming:
Van Jones is not part of the Occupy movement…he’s a Democrat…if Obama and the Democrats embrace us, they gonna be very sad to see that we will be protesting them as well…we see them as part of the crony capitalist corrupt economy that has resulted in 400 people having as much wealth as 154 million, not because they are smarter or work harder, but because they are politically connected and essentially bribing through campaign donations…
I pointed out that Democrats have both embraced and have co-opted the movement. How else could you explain the petition on the DCCC website asking people to support the OWS crowd? I then pointed out that the issue is not “crony capitalism.” Who wouldn’t be opposed to people who break the law to get ahead? Rather, the issue is that OWS is opposed to Capitalism and people being able to keep what they earn. The conversation went south from there:
Me : “You’re opposed to Capitalism. That’s the problem. You’re opposed to the idea of people working for what they earn…you think it should just be given to them. This is what you believe.”
Zeese: “That is not true. That’s not true. You’re absolutely wrong about that. You’re absolutely wrong about that, Tony.”
Me: “I’m not wrong about that. Take a look at your own words and your own actions. Take a look at the video by Andrew Breitbart where people are booing Capitalism.”
Zeese: “Tony is a loudmouth who makes up stuff. Tony is a loudmouth who makes up stuff….puts out false information.”
Let’s take a look at the video tape – courtesy of Mr. Breitbart:
People. Booing. Capitalism. It’s not made up. It’s not false information.
While there is much more in the video, the most frightening moment appears towards the end, when Del Gandio pushed the idea of “direct democracy” (emphasis mine):
Lavalle (Host): “Is this really a test of democracy in the United States? Because we talked about Capitalism but its about participation, isn’t it?”
Del Gandio: “…it’s about direct democracy. about reclaiming our democracy, redefining our democracy, repracticing our democracy in a way that is responsive to each of our wants, needs and desires.”
Me: “….we are not a direct democracy, and the Founding Fathers knew better. We’re a Constitutional Republic, that way we don’t have mob rule.”
Del Gandio: “Well, we can change it. Let’s change it.”
Me: “And from the outside looking in, that’s exactly what you have in Occupy Wall Street. You guys gotta figure that one out.”
Del Gandio: “Let’s change the system. Change the system.”
There can be no more doubt that Occupy Wall Street is NOT in favor of reforming the system but rather dismantling the system. The brazen desire of “change the system,” if uttered by a member of the Tea Party, would be front page news for weeks in the mainstream press. It would be followed up by the usual suspects claiming that the Tea Party is in favor of violent overthrow of the government.
The Tea Party believes in government, just less of it. Occupy Wall Street has shown that it does not favor free markets, nor our Constitutional foundation. They wish to change both.
When the clip of my appearance was posted to the RT YouTube channel, the commenters went on a violent, homophobic, anti-Semitic rant about my appearance.