The simple proposition that no one should be forced to pay tributes to labor bosses or they will lose their job, is not a conspiracy.  It is freedom from tyranny.  Using forced dues to finance politicians who vote to force citizens against their will to pay union bosses in order to keep their own jobs, is a conspiracy.

The fact is, until 1935, the United States Government did not force people to pay tributes to union bosses in order to get or keep a job.  If there was a conspiracy, it was between the AFL, CIO, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and a Democrat Congress passed the Wagner Act, selling the concept as “workers rights.”  The Wagner Act foisted union servitude on millions of working Americans overnight.  We see the AFL-CIO, the president, and Congress attempting the same scam today.

The only workers who can escape from Wagner Act compulsion work in the 22-states which chose a Right to Work law to protect their citizens from this tyranny.  This Wagner Act forced-dues tyranny can be clearly blamed on Big Labor Bosses.

Then-A.F.L. president William Green boasted of Big Labor’s role in the Wagner Act in Liberty Magazine: “We helped write it. We thought of it as ‘Our Baby’.”  And at a union convention Green said, “The A.F.L. is wholly and fully responsible for the Wagner Labor Relations Act.”

Mr. Hoffa, freedom is no conspiracy.  Freedom is an ideal that both men and women aspire to obtain.

(more…)

REP. CHARLES RANGEL:  Hiya boys and girls.  It’s me again, your Uncle Chollie in Washington.  I help your Uncle Sam take care of you and your mom, and your dad, too, if he hasn’t run off yet.

I’m here to introduce someone special, a person who can calm the raging Maxine Waters with a look, sell solar panels below cost and still make a profit, and cause the stock market to plummet with a single word.

C’mon, kids, give it up for the President of the United States, Baraaccck Obama!

FADE TO:

A Command and Control bunker deep beneath the White House.  Wearing a headset, the President is sitting at a console facing three large-screen HD monitors showing complementary views of a tactical assault in progress.   He is issuing orders.

At a break in the action, the CIC swivels to face the camera, covers his mike, and whispers:

Hey kids.  Good to see you again.   Hold on a sec; I’m just finishing up a mission here.

He turns back to direct the closing moments of the operation:

Zulu 1: secure perimeter.  Henderson: white SUV fleeing site.  Task Predator to take it out.  Bravo 1: Standoff See-Through Infrared shows targets at top of stairwell. Body signatures confirmed.  Authorization granted. [pause] Roger that.  Well done.  Bring me back some ears. (more…)

“This I am sure, whoever, ruler or subject, by force goes about to invade the rights of either prince or people, and lays the foundation for overturning the constitution and frame of any just government, is highly guilty of the greatest crime, I think, a man is capable of….Whosoever uses force without right, as every one does in society, who does it without law, puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it; and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor. This is so evident, that Barclay himself, that great assertor of the power and sacredness of kings, is forced to confess, That it is lawful for the people, in some cases to resist their king…”

- John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 1690

The words and ideas of philosopher John Locke stirred the Founders of our nation to rise in revolution against the British crown. Alongside the Gadsden flag–”Don’t Tread On Me”–that has become a favorite emblem of today’s Tea Party, the forces of George Washington also flew the Pine Tree Flag with the motto: “An Appeal To Heaven.” It was a reference to Locke’s teaching that power and right ultimately lay in the hands of the people themselves.

In 2008, the American people elected a man whose life story represented the fulfillment of the Founders’ nascent vision of the equality of all human beings, and whose rise to power bespoke the very American exceptionalism he himself declined to profess. Yet this man, who could have achieved greatness far beyond his oratory skill, could not transcend the left’s rhetoric of violence and conflict, and could not resist the temptation to divide and rule.

For three years, he and his political allies have used violent words: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Senator Obama said as he campaigned in 2008. “Punch back twice as hard,” Obama’s deputy chief of staff (now campaign manager) told Democrats in 2009. “Punish” your “enemies,” Obama told Latino voters in 2010. “Take out” the “sons of bitches,” a union leader said before Obama at a rally this month. Today Democratic strategists justify Obama’s naked class warfare by accusing Republicans of a “war on the middle class”–a false charge, calculated to incite and inflame hatred.

For three years, that rhetoric has had real and regrettable results: physical intimidation at a polling place in Philadelphia, which the Obama justice department refuses to prosecute; assault, battery and mayhem committed by union thugs against citizens at town hall meetings; harassment of executives at their homes by bussed-in “community organizers; and, most recently, hostage-taking by union members engaged in illegal strikes–real hostage-taking, not the trumped-up kind Obama has invoked in rhetorical attacks against his political opponents.

Violence is wrong, and anyone who uses violence to achieve a political purpose does violence to our American values. Yet from Bill Ayers to James Hoffa, Jr., the left has embraced–and the media has largely ignored–Obama’s violent associates. Until CNN finally acknowledged the Tea Party as a legitimate political movement by hosting its recent presidential debate, the media generally assisted the left in casting the Tea Party as extreme, racist, and “terrorist,” blaming it for events like the Tuscon atrocity.

(more…)

The Left’s working motto consistently turns out to be “do as I say, not as I do.”  How else could they possibly make bold pronouncements to the media but live the exact opposite?

The day before his declaration of war on the Tea Party movement, Teamsters President James Hoffa appeared on CNN and deemed American companies as “unpatriotic,” according to the Political Ticker.

“I think the president should challenge the patriotism of these American corporations that are sitting on the sidelines,” Hoffa said. “The problem in America isn’t that we don’t have enough money. We’ve got more money than any other country in the world. The problem is American businesses not spending it and not getting it in the game.”

Is Hoffa willing to have his own patriotism challenged?  Because some inconvenient truths emerge from the financial report his Teamsters union filed with the federal government.

According to an LM-2 report filed earlier this year, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which represents truck drivers and some school employees, ended 2010 with $108,608,477 in the bank.  That’s a whopping 24.9% increase in net assets over 2009, when the union reported $86,942,076 in assets.

In contrast, the Teamsters reported $88,371,439 in liabilities.  So if the union could afford to go without any new revenue and still meet its obligations for well over 12 months.

(more…)

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…)

In politics the media seems to have a tier system for how they report on scandals. Republicans who fall from grace are vilified. They are the butts of countless inappropriate jokes and cartoons and expected never to be heard from again. Recent right scandals (examples, Governor Mark Sanford and Mark Foley) dominated the news, but, besides Fox News, the media barely covered Obama adviser Van Jones or delved deeply into the dealings of Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson.

Unfortunately for America, the media has been filtering news for years and this practice has allowed some of the main figures in the Teamstergate scandal to assume top spots in the Democrat party. Part 1 of this series reviewed the history of the scandal and its strong ties to ACORN and President Obama.  In order to help readers fully appreciate the connections, I discuss below some of the major players in the Teamstergate saga who were named in indictments and a Congressional report on in a scheme that reached all the way into the White House.

The Congressional report, on Teamstergate, reached a number of damning conclusions that implicated organizations like Project Vote  and Citizen Action. It also raised a number of questions about campaign finance and “soft money” donations. Something that ACORN seemed concerned with as detailed in a spring blog post here. Were these questions raised by ACORN political director Zach Polett a result of the following statement in the Congressional report:

The issue of soft money abuses is inevitably tied to the question of how access to political figures is obtained through large contributions of soft money. It is also tied to the question of how tax-exempt organizations have been used to hide the identities of soft money donors. A system that permits large contributions to be made for partisan purposes, without public disclosure, invites subversion of the intent of our election law limitations.

(more…)