Jurors who have been interviewed so far will not identify the juror, other than to say the juror was a female.

FOX Chicago News reported that speculation is centering on juror Jo Ann Chiakulas of Willowbrook, after a second-hand acquaintance said that she has been saying for weeks that she would find Blagojevich not guilty.

Chiakulas is a retired director from the Illinois Department of Public Health.

Contacted Tuesday night, she told FOX Chicago News she would call on Wednesday if she wished to talk about the case.

On one count at least, Chiakulas voted with her fellow jurors, agreeing to convict Blagojevich of lying to federal agents.

This was since confirmed by CBS local news Chicago.

They actually could have reported more — because pre-trial, they had this to say about a female “retired public health director” on the jury panel:

Juror # 106, a black female believed to be in her 60s, is a retired state public health director who has ties to the Chicago Urban League. She has handed out campaign literature for a relative who ran for public office. She listens to National Public Radio and liberal talk radio shows.

Media accounts mention the campaign literature, but they don’t mention NPR and liberal talk radio. Why?

We know they read this description — why do they end their repetition of it at that point?

The media is quick to stereotype conservative-tilting Americans and attribute to them bad motives.

Think they’ll do the same here?

What were her motives for so egregiously ignoring the law to set a guilty man free that her fellow jurors had to confront her with her own oath to render a true verdict?

I am pretty accustomed by now to having my motivations questioned by the media, and having unethical or vile motives assigned to me.

How about this Chicago politics fan?

You know, to date, the Tea Party has done zero damage to anyone, and yet it is castigated daily by our hectoring press.

This woman just sprung a guilty man free and cost the taxpayers millions. And she bragged for weeks before deliberations she was set on doing just that.

Where did she get her ideas from?

I know FoxNews gets blamed a lot for all the “poison” it’s putting into the body politic — what poison did she ingest from NPR and liberal talk radio?

From where did she get the idea that it was right to spring a guilty man in the interest of some political gamesmanship?

Think it’s just an oversight that they left this out there for a blogger to find?

I know this is already known to reporters from my source.

More at Ace of Spades HQ.

Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich starts his federal trial today. And the Illinois Democrats who clung to his coattails for years are desperate to pretend they don’t know him. Back in 2003, Rep. Jan Schakowsky proclaimed of Blago: “He really is very smart. I don’t laugh at the idea [of his running for President] at all.” She added that when he walked into a room, “there was this crackle of electricity. Everyone wanted to touch him.”

That electricity prompted Rep. Schakowsky to donate $28,000 to Blago’s campaigns for governor. Her husband, convicted felon and political strategist Robert Creamer, made $541,000 helping Blago get elected in 2002. She lobbied him heavily in November 2008 in the hope that he would appoint her to fill the Senate seat being vacated by Barack Obama, and is thought to be “Senate Candidate 3” in the original criminal complaint.

Now she is trying to laugh it off, nervously telling the Politico that the trial will be a “soap opera.”  She and other Illinois Democrats are trying to pretend that even though Blago’s alleged crimes involved prominent figures in federal, state, and local government, he was a lone wolf. But they are nervous, because the connections are there. (Is it just a coincidence that President Obama chose last weekend, of all others, to visit Chicago?)

The story they are all sticking to is that Blago is a special case–and he has done his best to prove them right. Rather than laying low, he has used every camera and open mic to denounce the federal prosecutor and the allies who abandoned him. Yet selling the Senate seat–the “f***ing valuable thing,” to quote Blago–was what Plunkitt would have recognized as “honest graft.” It is the rule in Chicago, not the exception.

David Axelrod said it himself in an article he penned for the Chicago Tribune in August 2005. Back then, he was advising both Obama and Mayor Richard Daley, and defended Daley against allegations of corruption. Trading favors for votes, Axelrod said, was not a  scourge, but a better way of doing business. Political grease made government “a well-oiled machine,” he wrote, elevating corruption from a problem to a philosophy.

Blago has claimed, repeatedly, that he will be vindicated. He may be right, in one sense: he will be brought down for “honest graft,” not the “dishonest” kind. Along the way, the public will get a close-up view of how Axelrod’s “well-oiled machine”–now exported to Washington, DC–really works. And people are more curious now than ever, because in the midst of a budget crisis at every level, we are aware of the true costs of corruption.

Tammany Hall fell when it could no longer pay the mortgage on its lavish headquarters. In the same way, today’s political bosses are up against the financial reality of massive public debt and underfunded pensions. They know the federal spending can only last so long; they’re just taking their opportunities, like Blago and Plunkett did–and like the White House hoped Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff would. November brings a different kind of opportunity–an opportunity for voters to bring about real reform. It is a chance that may not come again.

This past September Lisa Snyder, a 35 year old Michigan mother,  made the news when she received a disturbing letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services.  In it, the letter warned her that she was in violation of the law.  Her offense?  Watching a handful of neighborhood kids  each morning for about 20 minutes as they waited at the end of her driveway for the school bus to arrive, with the blessing of their parents. State law in Michigan prohibits the home supervision of unrelated children for more than four weeks in a year without a child care provider license.  Turns out a neighbor had complained and the Michigan Department of Human Services, the watchdog for home child care licensing, intervened by sending the warning letter.  In Michigan, state employees for the DHS are represented by the United Auto Workers (UAW) labor union.  Coincidentally, the union that represents the state’s home child care workers?  Also the UAW.

AFSCME: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
FCC: Family child care   |   FNN: Family, friend and neighbor
” Building a Union of Family Child Care and FFN Providers”
by SEIU & AFSCME members to the National Women’s Law Center

So, are these the unintended consequences of, as Michigan Rep. Brian Calley described it, “agency officials interpreting a 36-year-old statute regulating day care centers more broadly than necessary”? Or intended consequences that UAW is the union that represents both the home child care workers  AND the government agency that serves as its enforcer and watchdog in the first place?   Let me point out that in 15 out of the 16 states in its home child care organizing strategy, SEIU designates the organizing lead either to itself or to its collaborating partner union, AFSCME – Michigan is the only state in which they deviate and incorporate UAW.

Also in Michigan, a story of three women who run their own independent businesses out of their homes, caring for neighborhood children. They each recently  received a letter indicating that they are now dues-paying members of the Child Care Providers Together Michigan union – a complete surprise to them.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

After a 2006 Executive Order by the Michigan Governor awarded the union (a partnership of UAW and AFSCME) bargaining rights for home child care workers, all it took for the union to convert all 40,000 child care workers to dues paying members was 5,900 signed union authorization cards.  That left some independent home child care workers, who’d for years considered themselves self-employed, feeling dismayed and stunned. Such began cries of forced unionism and initiated a lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Human Services.  The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Patrick Wright from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, explains that the whole arrangement -

is nothing more than “a government ’shell corporation‘ designed to get around possible political and constitutional obstructions to the arrangement”.  Wright offers a detailed backgrounder on this case and a fantastic explanation of the scheme behind the actions.

So, was this an instance of unintended consequences that were simply unforeseen by the state of Michigan and its representatives working with the unions?  Or was unionizing 40,000 child care workers under the quiet cover of an apparently under-advertised vote by mail campaign an intended consequence for AFSCME and UAW?  More importantly, why is SEIU’s part in this production so downplayed?  Their joint documents clearly indicate that SEIU is driving the national movement to unionize home child care workers all across the country.  Not to mention SEIU’s “Kids First” program, which is both the beneficiary and the business driver behind all of these new home child care union members, in concert with AFSCME’s efforts.

Some of these examples seem to be reminiscent of other SEIU unionization efforts.

Most recently, there is the case of the National Union for Healthcare Workers (NUHW), an independent union that was formed by the democratically elected Executive Board members and stewards of SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West (SEIU-UHW), the result of Andy Stern’s two year hostile takeover of the union before it became SEIU-UHW. Fellow BigGovernment contributor, Publius, wrote about their recent struggles with SEIU in the post, “Union and Whistleblower Complaint Documents SEIU Ballot Fraud”. On the heels of that post comes another titled “Whistleblower Video Reveals SEIU Ballot Fraud“, which exposes scandalous video of SEIU’s typical unionizing tactics from a June 2009 union election against the NUHW, which I’ll reference here for convenience (but be sure to read the full post above!):

There are of course countless articles that recount  the landmark 2005 action by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich when he issued an executive order that gave home-based child care providers the freedom to form a union for the first time ever in the state’s history. One of many unintended consequences of that decision was the empowerment of SEIU to visit workers at their workplace – their homes.  This opened up the door for similar problems in a number of states.

And stories of unintended consequences abound in California, not just in reference to the struggles of what has since become UHW, but also on the struggles that existed between SEIU and other labor unions, such as the California Nurses Association (a struggle that still remains) and for a time in multiple states, even labor union partner AFSCME.

A great, detailed timeline of SEIU’s history of attacking other labor unions, including its own, is maintained by UNITE HERE’s specialty website that issues an open call for SEIU to change its course.

But why is SEIU so eager to carry out its strategy to turn all of these home child care workers into state employees and unionize them?  AFSCME answers it well in their own talking points:

“By employing millions of independent providers across the country, states are undercutting public employee wages and conditions, and threatening our jobs. AFSCME must organize independent providers to fight for decent wages and benefits, and to prevent the erosion of our own living standards.“

Click to view flyer

There’s also the benefit of billions and billions of dollars in state and federal aid that goes not only to the care providers (for nutritious food and expenses), but to the unions for education and research and various other things. And when you have independent home child care providers who, given the choice to unionize and receive government food subsidies, would prefer to give up food subsidies if it meant remaining independent and self-employed, why would you deny them that?  Why place that burden on the state and federal taxpayers when it does not need to be there?

Well, that simply solidifies the next benefit, which is the benefit of thousands of additional dues-paying union members at a time.  And with more members of course comes more power and leverage.  In fact, it’s worth pointing out what others have also noticed tucked away inside the Senate health care bill.  SEIU’s leverage would seem rather evident in a few key sections:

The Personal Care Attendants Workforce Advisory Panel, one of a multitude of new bureaucratic agencies created in the bill, will help dictate how many workers staff our health care facilities and home workers, along with their benefits and wages, etc.

SEIU will also benefit from a likely appointment on the National Health Care Workforce Commission (Page 1279), a commission of 15 members to be appointed by the Comptroller General to include individuals  with national recognition for their expertise in health care labor market analysis, including health care workforce analysis, in addition to health care workforce education and training, among other expertise.

It’s not so much the workers’ rights that anyone really takes issue with – unions of course have every right to make recommendations for the best wages and benefits on behalf of their members.  And it’s not so much the notion that labor unions would have input to the analysis and education of health care workers that some might take issue with.

The real issues at hand are those of unintended consequences:

• As states negotiate their health care, home care and child care contracts and turn more of them over to labor unions like SEIU, the universe of unionized health care workers expands.  Add to that the government-run option, and that universe expands exponentially – to an unbalanced level. It’s hard to imagine there would be any private health care workers left in a few years. (Especially when the union repeatedly assaults any defense of the free market system and capitalism).
• With the recent behavior of SEIU and its incessant attacks on companies and individuals they perceive to be “too wealthy”, will a union with so much power granted to it by the government take it upon itself to determine to whom and how care is delivered?  Rather than boycott advertisers, will they refuse care if they don’t like what you say or how much you make?
• Will SEIU’s notoriously aggressive tactics in negotiating contracts seep into our personal health affairs?  Think about it – this is a union that has allegedly harassed its own affiliates, stalked home care workers and nurses at their homes for not electing SEIU to represent them, forced home child care workers into unionism, and broken into people’s mailboxes to steal their voting ballots.  What will its leaders do when health care workers’ contracts don’t go the way they’d like?  Will they go on strike and leave patients stranded?
• How many other “babysitter” laws will be added into legislation or their interpretation stretched to fit the needs of growing SEIU’s membership?
• What else will SEIU try to somehow attach to health care, in an effort to embed itself into every facet of our personal care?  Aside from actual health care workers, SEIU currently ties the following workers, all SEIU members, to health care:  Cafeteria Workers, Laundry Service Workers, Janitors, Building Service Workers, and others.
• If state governments like Michigan can unionize workers who happen to receive public subsidies as part of their private business operations, how will this apply in the arena of health care with a government-run plan?  Will SEIU seize this as an opportunity to step in and unionize any facility or provider receiving subsidies?  And what about individuals?  The government and SEIU enforce this logic for business bailouts.  Government also  uses the same logic to enforce mandatory participation in the Green for All weatherization programs in states like NJ.  What’s to say the same logic won’t be applied to individuals in the public option?
• With a monopoly on the health care workers in the country, what kind of “Justice for All” plan of accountability will the SEIU launch after their “close the wealth gap” issue isn’t achieved?  Will they embark upon a “close the health wealth gap” instead?
• Once SEIU has expanded to all of health care, what’s left?  Will they come after your union next?  Or try to unionize you?  Perhaps they’ll unionize private consultants, accountants, home caterers, writers, Joe the Plumber, homemakers and moms.

Will we conveniently chalk it all up to the law of unintended consequences? Or will anyone in Congress or average American citizen voters have enough sense to start looking for intent in such consequences?