Today marks the 101st anniversary of Reagan’s birth. If you miss him and wish for another like Reagan, join The Heritage Foundation in sharing your thoughts in their new Facebook app:

And be sure to check out the Reagan Library for more information.

You have no doubt been following the fight over the unconstitutional recess appointments by the Obama administration to the National Labor Relations Board and Consumer Financial Protection Board. But fewer are aware the fight over Obama’s efforts to help Big Labor bosses by rigging the rules of union elections so that employees don’t even have enough time to get information about why the union may not be in their best interest.

Right now, employees have an average of 40 days to get both sides of the story—the union sales pitch and the employer’s side. But union bosses need more dues-paying members so they are shortening the election period so employees only hear the sales pitch. It’s clearly wrong—and as some business groups, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and US Chamber of Commerce, progressed with their lawsuit against the government to overturn Obama’s regulatory gift last week, they dug out this historical nugget:

Based on the legislative history of the 1959 amendments to the Act, it is clear Congress believed that an election period of at least 30 days was necessary to adequately assure employees the “fullest freedom” in exercising their right to choose whether they wish to be represented by a union. As explained by then Senator John F. Kennedy Jr., who chaired the Conference Committee, even in the context of eliminating pre-election hearings, a 30-day period before any election was a necessary “safeguard against rushing employees into an election where they are unfamiliar with the issues.” Senator Kennedy stated “there should be at least a 30-day interval between the request for an election and the holding of the election” and he opposed an amendment that failed to provide “at least 30 days in which both parties can present their viewpoints.” [italics mine]

So, as Obama chooses the side of Big Labor bosses, he not only stands against employees, employers, job growth, and economic recovery—but he’s also squarely opposite the position of JFK.

Of course, this is the same president who spends most of his time pushing the position that “ask not what you can do for your country; ask what your country can do for you.”

While the Obama administration doesn’t seem to want to listen to small business owners, other leaders in D.C. will get the message. So sign a petition to top national leaders via Halt The Assault or contact your Member of Congress to support commonsense legislation to make the playing field fair once again (Americans For Prosperity’s site can help if you wish to support the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act).

Bloggers can do even more by embedding a petition code into their site.

Every little bit helps when small business owners live in a world where facing federal bureaucrat regulations is their biggest single problem and Americans just want to get back to work.

What was once seen as a second-tier candidacy has been catching fire. From 9-9-9 to that Florida straw poll, Mr. Cain has been building momentum. Now, a firm has created a clever experiment to figure out if he can really do well beyond the small purview of committed GOP primary activists. Evolving Strategies allowed respondents to view several key clips and overlaid a behavior game that allowed people to donate or take away money from a candidate. According to the group, it’s the first to have real information on how electable Cain is with the general audience.

Good news for Herman Cain supporters: he’s tested quite well.

In fact, in a world where people have to act like they’re voting (as opposed to simple polling on favorability), CAIN EDGES OBAMA 35-34. That’s not a real-world win yet, but it means he’s in the game.

Full cross-tabs here. What’s your analysis?

* For this story, we have relied on a trusted source. Our tipper says there were several such signs, each powered by gas generator such as the black and yellow box partially obscured by the fence above.

What do you think? Share your thoughts — and your best captions — in the comments!

As America’s big-government “leaders” take us down the tubes, here’s what the future will record for the last couple days:

• A bill in the California legislature would force parents to pay state-level minimum wage to babysitters, as well as provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers’ compensation coverage, overtime pay, and a meticulously calculated timecard/paycheck
• President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board has issued two more rulings that will carpet-bomb employers with “micro-union” organizing drives and repeal one of the last protections employees had if they wanted to choose a union by secret ballot election

• Just days before, the NLRB issued a rule that will force millions of employers to post advertisements for employees to join a union shuttered the comment period for a rule that will ensure employees only hear the union side of a sales pitch
• Union bosses told a businessman that, because he had the audacity to appear in a video discussing the impact Big Labor has on business and the economy, “there’s going to be a price to pay for that”
• The EPA has a handful of new regulations that will cost $125 billion — per year — as “factories, hospitals, universities, power plants and even churches are in the cross hairs of hyperaggressive regulators” (ex: a dry cleaner in Pennsylvania says the regulations will cost him $50,000 for new equipment)
• And, of course, all these new regulations disproportionately harm small businesses who are forced to “spend 36% more per employee than large Corps complying with new federal rules”
• And, of course, don’t forget the guy who got shot while a perpetrator was looking to slash his tires, having already completed the word “scab” into the vehicle

Photo credit here

Mr. Elk feels, apparently, treated unfairly by us directly quoting him, so we’re airing his grievance and letting you decide. He claims that listing his Tweets out of order (to improve readability) was “unethical journalism.” We are greatly amused at such talk from a guy who was seemingly, allegedly bounced from his unpaid gig writing at Huffing Post because he used the guise of journalism to support highly aggressive union organizing actions. But check out his Twitter stream for yourself (see Wednesday, July 20, 2011) and you be the judge if his direct quotes misrepresent him.

More importantly, the Elk’s Dodge was “I dont promote physical violence of any kind against scabs, just verbally heat exchanges w/ scabs, u misinterpted plz correct”. Unfortunately for that flimsy claim, he’d already added that “I dont support physically violent attacks on scabs just verbally violently attacks on scabs which I was referring to there”. Verbal violence? When does verbal violence turn into physical violence?

So is the takeaway that some sorts of violence are ok and others are not? Is this what the modern labor movement really believes but is generally too afraid to acknowledge, or is he a rogue writer who failed to tame his Tweets? That he is defending one form of violence ought to be instructive.

Finally, Mr. Congeniality asked that we include a picture that “more accurately reflects” his “current state of balding” (though we sort of prefer this one). He would also like to share photo credit with Maria Bryk, so it is so shared.