When it formed in 2005, the Change to Win coalition was heralded as a dynamic organizing force that would rejuvenate the labor movement and swell membership rolls for constituent unions.  However, U.S. Department of Labor figures show that only one union organization has benefitted from its affiliation with Change to Win while the others have lost out.

The Service Employees International Union’s (SEIU) membership has risen from about 1.5 million to more than 1.8 million and its annual receipts are up to about $75 million since 2005, according to government records. SEIU has in turn contributed $5.7 million to support the coalition, which is far more than any other coalition member. By contrast, the other six unions that split off from the AFL-CIO to form Change to Win have either flatlined or declined.

In 2006, the first year Change to Win filed Labor Department financial disclosure forms, the coalition claimed over 5.3 million members but its most recent filing in 2008 shows it had less than 4.8 million members; that’s a decline of almost 11 percent. In 2006, Change to Win listed $11.7 million in assets, a figure that dropped to $8.8 million in 2008. During that time, liabilities spike by more than 130 percent from about $550,000 in 2006 to more than just $1.25 million in 2008.

Annual receipts have also plummeted, falling from $18.7 million in 2006 to just $6.5 million in 2008. In 2006, revenues far exceeded expenditures, but this ratio was turned upside down in 2008 with Change to Win’s spending outpacing its revenues.

“Despite being a coalition of several unions, Change to Win has been of material benefit to one union only, and that is the SEIU,” Glenn Spencer, the executive director of the Workforce Freedom Initiative with the Chamber of Commerce has observed.   “The coalition started with great fanfare and was meant to be an alternative to the AFL-CIO – the new front of labor organizing, but it just hasn’t worked out that way.  It’s now an organization struggling to justify its existence.”

(more…)

[UPDATE (7/2/2010): Pelosi plan worked  239-182]

Pelosi is using important money for armed services fighting a war as an opportunity to reward Big Labor with another federal power grab:

From National Right To Work President Mark Mix:

I don’t know about you, but I’m OUTRAGED.

In a matter of just a few hours, union-label Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies will take up emergency war funding.

And attached to the war supplemental is Big Labor’s Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill!

The union bossed and their allies have proved they will stop at nothing to pass this scheme.

That’s why it’s vital you contact your Congressman at (202) 224-3121 or send an email here IMMEDIATELY to urge a vote against the Obey Amendment to H.R. 4899.

You see, if passed, this dangerous bill could force every police officer and firefighter in the country under union boss control, override state and local labor laws across the nation and lead to MAMMOTH state and local tax hikes.

So what does this Big Labor payback scheme have to do with the Afghan War or national security?

Literally NOTHING

(more…)

During the healthcare debate conservatives spent months trying to figure out why the leadership of the American Medical Association signed the nation’s doctors up in support of Obamacare.

The AMA endorsed Obamacare when member physicians were fiercely opposed. The groups early support was one factor that contributed to the bill’s passage, contrary to the expressed will of the majority of member physicians.

The answer lies in the AMA’s revenue stream. The AMA has been a puppet of the government since the early 1990’s in order to protect their multi-million dollar monopoly on the CPT coding system that all doctors have to use to bill Medicare and insurance companies, the licensing of which provides the AMA over 70 percent of its income.

The AMA earns only a fraction of its revenue from dues it receives from doctors, representing only 17 percent of doctors nationwide, according to their website. The lion’s share of AMA’s revenue, about $118M, comes from the sale of copyright publishing of billing codes for medical procedures and services.

How the AMA made medical code writing a multimillion dollar business

Before CPT Codes existed and when ICD-9-CM codes were just being developed, doctors had to write out in words what symptoms a patient had, what the diagnosis most likely was, and what visits, services, and procedures they thought they should get paid for. Then in 1966 Current Procedural Terminology or CPT was designed by the AMA to assist doctors in billing Medicare and health providers using codes. Doctors use the CPT Codes to specify to health care providers the service rendered so that they can get paid.

Headquartered in Chicago (Obama’s hometown, no citation needed), the AMA also controls the CPT Editorial Panel and CPT Advisory Committee, along with the staff which is responsible for editing, adding, and deleting CPT Codes.

Until now, doctors had rarely been politically active (unlike lawyers); their tendency was to back away, knowing they could do little as individuals. For years the membership ranks of the AMA have dwindled, but when the AMA betrayed the very people it was ostensibly meant to represent, doctors began organizing on their own.

(more…)

I sat chuckling all through Obama’s immigration speech Thursday. Forgive me, but that has been my recent response whenever I listen to Obama’s speechifying. I am somewhat surprised at my recent response to his outlandish rhetoric, but he makes such a mockery of his very words, of America, and of capitalism, that he is, invariably, comical.

He recited Emma Lazarus’s poem “The New Colossus,” which is engraved at the base of the Statue of Liberty, yet he has disparaged American exceptionalism and prides himself on being post-American. How can you not bust a gut?

So I listened to his speech on immigration and chuckled as he lectured us, yet again, on what America is — as if he had a clue about what America is. His contempt for us is so palpable. As if he had any respect for what makes America great – free speech, individual rights, entrepreneurship, and privacy rights. As if he had a clue as to why legal immigrants come here — to escape tyrants and would-be tyrants like him.

I understand why he must ram immigration through now. And why he is taking this issue on now after destroying the American healthcare system. He has no shot of re-election without a base of amnestied illegal immigrants voting for Democrats. It is his only motive — but I digress.

What about the Gulf? This is a catastrophe of unfathomable proportions, the decades-long repercussions of which have not yet begun to be understood or calculated. What about those people, those communities? Whole swaths of coastline, entire towns, even entire counties may face evacuation.

Why isn’t the President of the United States working on the problem 24/7? I want to know why the nation’s Chief Executive has not been holed up in a war room, 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the past 72 days, working with the world’s finest scientific minds and oceanographic and energy experts to solve the oil spill crisis.

(more…)

In October, 2009, at an Illinois GOP Governor Candidate Debate, moderator Chris Robling opened the debate with the line, “The on-going concern of the State of Illinois is in question!”  He was right, and the primary reasons Illinois is such a mess is the Chicago Democratic Machine.  This engine of self-dealing, corruption, and greed was powerful enough to put forth one of its own get him elected president.

It’s ironic then, that this powerful machine is trembling in fear of Cedra Crenshaw, a conservative, middle class, African-American mother in Will County, Illinois!

Why is the machine afraid?  Because a new class of leadership is starting to develop.  These new leaders threaten to end the shell game of taxes, politics, and patronage. Cedra Crenshaw is one of those new leaders, and she’s is running for state senate against one of the Chicago Machine’s rubber-stamp apparatchiks.

She’s  an accountant who wants to spearhead a forensic audit of Illinois state government.  A former auditor at Deloitte and Touche, Cedra supports an audit of the half a trillion dollars of Democrat controlled state spending during the blow-off historic corruption of Blagojevich/Quinn.  The Democrat Machine- contractors, politicians, and patronage army- stand in naked fear of the result that such an audit would bring.

Such an audit would fumigate thousands of campaign cash-for-patronage hires in agencies, boards and commissions; rescind bloated, rigged bid or mis-awarded contracts; stop the stealing, waste, and legalized graft that do-nothing, ribbon-cutting pork hounds like Cedra’s opponent  -  Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi -  thrive on…at your expense.

(more…)

When, in The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton writes that “energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government,” he refrains from asserting that energy in the executive is the leading character in the definition of good government. He is right to deploy the indefinite, rather than the definite, article. Had he chosen the latter, Thomas Jefferson’s accusations would have been on the mark: our first Secretary of the Treasury really would have been a monarchist of sorts.

What Hamilton had in mind, however, when he insisted on the necessity that the new nation be endowed with an energetic executive is the fact that a government in which the laws are not vigorously executed and in which emergencies are not confronted and handled with decision and dispatch is hardly a government at all. He knew that wisdom, prudence, and moderation are also required for a government to be good, and he recognized as well that the ends and sphere proper to government are limited. He was no less committed to the principles of the Declaration of Independence than was the man who had drafted it.

Hamilton was also aware that that Julius Caesar and Oliver Cromwell had been energetic executives, and to their number we can now add such luminaries as Napoleon Bonaparte, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Fidel Castro, and Pol Pot. The executive temperament necessary for good government is not, alas, sufficient to guarantee its achievement.

If, as I argued in mid-June, it is now abundantly clear that Barack Obama lacks the temperament requisite in an executive, if, as I contended, he is inclined to shirk responsibility, shift the blame, dither, and punt, his administration is beyond question a government insufficient for our needs. This does not mean, however, that – merely by demonstrating energy, vigor, and dispatch in shouldering the responsibilities of executive office – Bobby Jindal of Lousiana, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Jeb Bush of Florida, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, or any of the other potential presidential aspirants in the Republican Party who have been effective governors has demonstrated that he possesses all of the qualities called for in the grave crisis we now face.

All of the individuals I have named are impressive – as are, for example, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. The moment has not yet arrived, however, for a thorough assessment of the qualities and outlook of each. There will be plenty of time for sorting through the candidates after the midterm elections.

(more…)

Today, in 1776, the Continental Congress adopted a resolution severing our ties with Great Britain. That is important, but we are more interested in the fact that the first Wal-Mart opened today, in 1962. Both events have had a profound impact on our lives.

An old family friend, Daniel Sinykin, sends in the following video of his potential solution to the BP Oil disaster. His idea is an improvement on the hair based techniques that have received attention in the wake of the ongoing spill. (According to one report the hair booms are not being used because in early tests they became water logged and sank.)

In the following clips, Daniel demonstrates the potential effectiveness of using high density wool to soak up the oil.

Daniel is hoping for two things over the coming days and weeks. First, he hopes that field trials in the Gulf prove successful. And second, he hopes that he can get the attention of BP and Federal Government.

(more…)

I’m the innocent bystander…not anymore!

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

And so, our 2nd Amendment right to firearms settles into its proper place among our pantheon of fundamental rights.  The truth of the matter is that we always retained that right, but the law had been interpreted contrary to the Constitution.

Two arguments were the focus of McDonald v. Chicago: (1) the narrow interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s “privileges and immunities” clause adopted in the Slaughter-House Cases should be rejected; and (2) the 14th Amendment’s “due process” clause incorporates the 2nd Amendment right.  Justice Thomas addressed the first argument in a concurring opinion (arguably the bigger precedent), but we will turn to that topic in Part II.  Justice Scalia skewered Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion in another concurring opinion, but that will be the topic of Part III.  First let us examine Justice Alito’s plurality opinion concerning the second argument, and the dissent of Justice Breyer. (more…)

I get a sense of the threat we may face, from a Supreme Court influenced by Elena Kagan, in her vow to defer to the political branches of government when interpreting the Constitution. This is a stance now being trumpeted by, e.g., environmental(ist) trade press outlets like E&E News. E&E runs a headline right now: “Kagan stresses deference to Congress, agencies” (subscription required).

That curious turn of phrase is Kagan’s own. It is not one nuanced with, say, a concern for divining legislative intent, but instead is a broad expression of deference to bureaucrats and politicians. Not to the Constitution. This is illuminating.

Taken in context, it is chilling. As Yahoo News writes:

“In her opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Elena Kagan vowed to show restraint and deference to Congress and the will of the people if ultimately confirmed to the Supreme Court, emphasizing the court “must recognize limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.”

“The Supreme Court is a wondrous institution,” Kagan said. “But the time I spent in other branches of the government reminds me that it must always be a modest one — properly deferential to the decisions of the American people and their elected representatives.”

The reporter first conveys the by now de rigueur implication of the attitude of restraint. But presumably in seeking to preempt claims that as someone with an extensive political history she would be an activist justice, Kagan manages to nonetheless betray the feared disregard for the Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s role is to apply the Constitution to laws enacted by the legislature, and to how those laws are being executed (or otherwise as the political branches choose to interpret or assert authority). It is the Constitution to which our non-political branch of government the courts, and certainly Supreme Court Justices, must defer.

Not the political branches. Political branches give us, say, Power Grabs. Courts are a check, to apply the Constitution to rein politicians and bureaucrats in.

(more…)

Whether it’s Arizona’s controversial new law or President Obama’s decision to send additional national guard troops to the US/Mexico border, immigration remains one of the most contentious issues in contemporary politics. As the battle over “comprehensive” reform heats up, everyone has an opinion.

As the Fourth of July approaches, Reason.tv caught up with immigrants to learn why they moved to a country that defines itself as a multicultural melting pot.

(more…)

You probably don’t recognize the name J. Christian Adams  Mr. Adams name, but you will very soon. Adams recently resigned from his position as Attorney in the Voter Rights Division of the Department of Justice to protest the racism, perjury, and obstruction of justice surrounding the DOJ’s dropping of the election day 2008 voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther party.

On election day 2008, members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, wearing black berets, black combat boots, black shirts and black jackets intimidated Caucasian voters with racial insults, slurs and nightsticks.  They were arrested with another party member who was accused of managing, directing and endorsing their behavior. The entire event was captured on videotape.

Two months later the Justice Dept filed a civil complaint against the New Black Panther Party. When the court date arrived In April, a federal judge had ordered default judgments against the Panthers because they refused to respond to the charges or appear in court, basically a guaranteed win.

The Justice Department was in the final stages of of recommending a sentence when a delay in the proceedings was ordered by Loretta King, a brand new Obama political appointee who was the acting assistant attorney general.

King met with Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the department’s No. 3 political appointee, and another political appointee, Steve Rosenbaum, and decided to  drop the case. Along with the dropping of the case Adams says the DOJ issued a directive that the Voting Rights division was no longer allowed to bring cases such as this against minorities.

(more…)

The Left is far more organized than you might imagine, but a little investigation can turn up some fascinating examples of how they coordinate with front groups and the media to advance their policies.  Consider this New York Times editorial. The FCC is attempting to play musical chairs with regulatory authority until they find one that will let them regulate the Internet. A lot of Congressional Republicans and Democrats–in fact, a majority of them–have questioned that move.

On Tuesday, the Sunlight Foundation, which promotes itself as an organization working “to make government transparent and accountable”, released a strange bit of “research” showing that a few of the pro-net neutrality organizations didn’t spend as much money on lobbying the federal government as the companies who were being threatened with regulation.  They didn’t even attempt to figure out whether the money was being spent on net neutrality, or how much was spent by relevant organizations that weren’t at one particular meeting.  They didn’t mention, or calculate the value of, all the “behind closed door” lobbying that is being done by activist front-groups like Free Press.

Of course, the New York Times just regurgitated their sloppy advocacy. Sunlight used numbers! With decimals! So it must be facts!

But there is something else that the New York Times did not bother to check before writing this editorial about the influence of money in politics.

Who funds the Sunlight Foundation?

It turns out, the Sunlight Foundation’s “research” is funded by organizations who just happen to have a direct interest in net neutrality regulations.

Look at record:

Google, which strongly favors government “neutrality” regulation, has given Sunlight nearly $100,000 during the past two years. And Google executive Kim Scott sits on Sunlight’s board of directors.

But when Big Government exposed ethics violations by Deputy Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin, who came to the White House from Google and yet continued private email coordination with them about policies effecting the company – possibly violating federal archiving rules – did the Sunlight Foundation investigate?  Or even call for more transparency from the White House to prevent such abuses?

Sunlight did not say a word.

(more…)

For years, liberals in Washington have tirelessly thwarted America from tapping its domestic sources of energy, while hypocritically lamenting our “addiction to foreign oil.” They have forsworn abundant energy supplies just off our coasts and erected boundaries against drilling and energy development right here at home. The unfortunate effect of their effort is to unnecessarily drive exploration further and further offshore, to deeper and deeper depths.

Suddenly, those same forces are forging a marriage of convenience with BP to scapegoat the entire energy industry for BP’s individualized failures. In his Oval Office speech to the nation, for instance, President Obama resorted to sloppy slurs against “oil industry lobbyists” and “an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.”

By doing so, the far left factions of Congress and the administration seek to use the Gulf spill as a political opportunity to shove an ulterior agenda down America’s throat. In that same Oval Office speech, Obama exposed his real agenda, saying, “we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires,” and, “the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission.”

Does the phrase “never let a crisis go to waste” ring a bell?

What these liberal opportunists forget is that oil helped propel our nation’s very economic growth and prosperity for over a century. The overwhelming majority of America’s energy enterprises possess a proven track record and have managed to safely extract oil for decades. According to the Interior Department, offshore drilling produced seven billion barrels of oil between 1985 and 2001, with a spill rate of just 0.001%. The Obama Administration, however, is attempting to punish others for the failures of BP, which has long suffered from an abysmal safety record relative to its peers.

One disturbing byproduct of the recent Gulf spill is the light it shed on the cozy relationship between BP and the Obama Administration. Despite the usual empty tough talk from the White House, the close association between the White House and BP is a commonly known fact inside the Beltway. The reality is this crisis has brought to light the codependency of BP and the Obama administration – each gaining from the others cooperation.

(more…)

This morning, President Obama will deliver remarks on the need to fix America’s broken immigration system. Undoubtedly, millions of illegal aliens, and those people who are thinking about jumping the border will be listening intently to make plans. But the largely ignored legal immigrants will also be listening in hopes for legal immigration reform. I am referring to the legal immigrants who followed America’s laws, and who have been stuck in the broken, backlogged, and dysfunctional United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) for years.

I am also referring to the serious plight of legal immigrants who contributed to America’s national security, and who are facing deportation which for some of them means fighting for their life, like the author of the Son of Hamas, Mosab Hassan Yousef.

Will President Obama address this group or just the millions of illegals with a slap on the wrist and a fine?

Time will tell but in the meantime, let’s look at legal immigration to compare with whatever President Obama will propose tomorrow.

Following are some of the filing fees and applications required to legally immigrate.

First, legal immigration requires several steps. For instance, whether an immigrant is applying for permanent residence (Green Card) through employment-based, marriage or a relative petition, they must file and pay for the I-485 and I-485A –Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, and the Supplement A to Form I-485, Adjustment of Status Under Section 245(i) respectively, in addition to earlier fees required during the legal immigration process. The 485s are essentially the background checks before being granted the green card.

(more…)

We’ve theorized previously that there may be a smoking gun tying the connection between President Obama and ousted-Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich:  That smoking gun being the Service Employees International Union.

Well, the smell of gunpowder is filling the Illinois courtroom where Blago’s trial is still going on:

Top [SEIU] union leader Thomas Balanoff said he was at dinner the night before the November Presidential election when he got a call that was blocked.

So he didn’t take it.

Later he listened to his messages: “I walked outside, listened to it and it was from President Obama,” Balanoff said.

“Tom, this is Barack, give me a call,” the soon-to-be President-Elect said on the message.

After Balanoff sent word through an Obama aide to call him back, Obama returned his call later that night.

“Tom, I want to talk to you with regard to the Senate seat,” Obama told him.

Balanoff said Obama said he had two criteria: someone who was good for the citizens of Illinois and could be elected in 2010.

Obama said he wasn’t publicly coming out in support of anyone but he believed Valerie Jarrett would fit the bill.

“I would much prefer she (remain in the White House) but she does want to be Senator and she does meet those two criteria,” Balanoff said Obama told him. “I said: ‘thank you, I’m going to reach out to Gov. Blagojevich.”

Balanoff then described a Nov. 6, 2008 meeting he had with Rod Blagojevich to recommend Valerie Jarrett for Barack Obama’s Senate seat.

Though this is technically not a contradiction of then-President Elect Obama’s public “report” that there was no contact between he and Blagojevich, it does seem that SEIU top boss Tom Balanoff [shown here at a 2009 May Day rally] clearly served as the middleman between Obama and Blago.

(more…)