Remembering the old adage, “all politics is local,” Republican candidates weighed in on this topic during two consecutive debates in New Hampshire earlier this month. Mitt Romney claimed “Right-to-work legislation makes a lot of sense for New Hampshire.” In fact, it makes more sense for New Hampshire’s legislature to implement this policy than for most other local governments. How can the “Live Free or Die” state deny its workers the basic liberty to choose which organizations they associate with and contribute money to? Why would one of the first states to ratify our national Constitution continue to impose a policy that contradicts that document’s emphasis on freedom of assembly? In a nation of citizens who value their freedoms, right-to-work should be a common sense principle rather than a rare policy only enacted by 22 of 50 states. No one is doubting a worker’s right to join a union, so why must today’s liberals doubt their right to not join one?

Next Rick Perry asserted that a right-to-work labor market would make New Hampshire a “powerful magnet” for jobs in the region. Indeed since no other Northeastern state has adopted similar legislation yet, if New Hampshire became right-to-work, that state would be the first in the region to do so. As a result, any skilled workers in the area hesitant about union membership or businesses unable to meet the demands of unreasonable union bosses would flock to New Hampshire, providing a significant boost to its economy.

Although purporting to be the party that supports workers’ rights, the Democrats have risen in unified opposition to guaranteeing American laborers one of their most fundamental freedoms: the ability to choose whether or not to join a union. For instance, the Democratic Governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch, vetoed a previous right-to-work bill passed overwhelmingly by his state’s legislature.

Even President Obama has injected himself into these local disputes, claiming: “When I hear some of these folks trying to pass so-called ‘right to work’ laws for private sector workers, that really means the right to work for less and less and less. When I hear some of this talk, I know this is not about economics. This is about politics.”

However did the President consider the economic impact of his actions when he sided with the National Labor Relations Board to prohibit thousands of new jobs being created in South Carolina purely because those jobs were not unionized? Did the President consider the economic impact of his actions when he awarded labor unions significant shares in the same auto companies that they helped bankrupt through unprecedented wage and benefit demands? Did President Obama consider the economic impact of his fellow Democrats’ actions in Wisconsin when they childishly fled their state in order to preserve the unions’ right to collectively bargain at the expense of their fellow taxpayers? Repeatedly President Obama and the Democratic Party have prioritized their lucrative relationship with Big Labor over the economic concerns of their constituents.

Through his unwavering support of labor unions, President Obama consistently refuses to take into account the negative effect those institutions have on the American economy and, in consequence, the workers they claim to protect. Winning a higher wage and more extravagant benefits for workers in a particular industry might benefit those individuals in the short term. However in the long term as American businesses struggle to compete in a competitive global marketplace, those demands harm the average worker by encouraging his employer to outsource his job elsewhere. Is the temporary increase in benefits and salary that unions provide worth the higher likelihood of unemployment that will result from an increased burden on the employer?

Apparently we are not the only ones who have realized the destructive force of American labor unions. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2011 union membership fell to 11.9% of the American workforce, its lowest percentage in over 70 years, demonstrating the increasing irrelevance that such institutions possess. Although labor unions face declining membership, declining usefulness, and declining purpose in our society, the Democratic party functions as their last life-line, using every legislative measure necessary to artificially keep a dying system alive. Right-to-work legislation, card-check bills, and a sympathetic National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are all examples of measures designed by liberals to artificially boost the ranks of labor unions in response to their declining influence and membership. President Obama even granted labor unions special waivers from his health care plan in order to protect their valuable Cadillac insurance agreements, negotiated through collective bargaining. Democrats claim that, by supporting unions, they are supporting the American worker, but the motivations are unfortunately much more selfish.

While President Obama ironically criticizes Republicans for playing politics with the issue of labor relations, only his own motives for supporting the unions’ efforts are actually very shady. The Center for Responsive Politics has cited three labor unions as being among the top five donors to political candidates in the last campaign season. Collectively these entities donated 170 million dollars to Democratic candidates during the 2010 midterm elections. AFSCME, a public sector union representing government workers, earned the distinction of being the biggest donor of that election, handing over 90 million dollars of its members’ salaries to liberal campaigns. Although liberals protest corporations and Big Business for controlling politics in America, labor unions spend more annually in lobbying expenditure than any private market industry.

Labor unions unfairly contribute their members’ dues on these liberal campaigns regardless of those individuals’ political leanings. Therefore whenever union membership is increased, and such organizations collect more dues as a result, the Democratic Party benefits financially. It is thus no coincidence that all their initiatives relating to labor consequently result in greater union membership. When Democrats cannot encourage more workers to join unions, they force them to through opposing right-to-work legislation. Liberals’ opposition to right-to-work is not based on any fundamental concern they have for the American worker, but instead a well coordinated political scheme to fund their campaigns.

Meanwhile Republicans’ labor relations policies result in millions of dollars worth of attack ads being spent against their candidates and highly motivated union representatives organizing protests and recalls against their initiatives. The fact that conservative candidates, such as Governor Scott Walker, Governor Chris Christie, and Governor John Kasich, continue to reveal the same truths about unions without fearing the repercussions listed above demonstrates that their actions regarding labor relations are based on convictions rather than their future reelection campaigns. Can the same be said about Democratic candidates who accept millions of dollars in campaign funds from such organizations each year?

Whether granting waivers to unions from Obamacare, opposing Governor Walker’s efforts to reduce public workers’ benefits in Wisconsin, or outlawing non-unionized jobs, President Obama and his Democratic Party have blindly accepted the demands of America’s labor unions for their own political expediency. As the debate over the Keystone pipeline reveals, the only group liberals pander to more are the environmentalists, another major Democratic campaign donor. Who will buy the Democratic Party next? Hopefully a group that actually values the free market.

Written by Evan Draim

Besides legal measures, the only current means to defeat The Cold War Within: The Fight for America’s Future is for the Republican dominated congress to utilize its budgetary power and defund the Rogue NLRB. Such action is even more imperative now, according to Phil Wilson in his latest issue of Union Bailout Update, where he expresses that the two new Democratic appointees, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, are even more radical than Craig Becker, which is unimaginable. Additionally, Mr. Wilson expressed that Board Chairman Mark Pearce is the true engine behind achieving Card Check, and that the recent appointments provide Pierce the radical majority he needs to achieve Obama’s and Big Labor’s coveted goal of an Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) style regulatory scheme, aka “EFCA Through the Backdoor,” in time to support Obama’s 2012 Presidential run.

The goal is to implement new regulations such as the “Persuader Rule,” “quickie elections,” and the Posting Rule,  as described in Phil Wilson’s 2012 Predictions that will allow Big Labor to utilize the Persuasion of Power to prosecute brutal Corporate Campaigns against employees and employers in time to raise money, register voters and put union foot soldiers on the ground for the 2012 Election. The frightening political machines behind them are recounted in my new book The Devil at Our Doorstep.

Don’t believe that this administration and its Big Labor allies are that conniving and unethical? Read the following e-mail received from the Daily Kos supporting the President’s decision and re-election:

Yesterday President Obama used recess appointments to name Richard Cordray the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and to fill the vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board.

Please, send President Obama an email thanking him for this bold move.

Without these appointments, The National Labor Relations Board would cease to function as a defender of workers’ rights. Without a director, the CFPB couldn’t fulfill its critical function as a watchdog working to stop the fraudulent practices of mortgage companies, payday lenders, debt collectors and other financial interests that are bleeding Americans dry.

Republicans are livid. Failing to grind consumer and worker protections to a halt at the request of their Wall Street masters, Republicans are now claiming these appointments are unconstitutional (they’re not). Within hours of announcement, they began setting up congressional hearings.

This is a big effing deal, and credit should go where credit is due. Please send a thank you email to President Obama for making these recess appointments.

Keep fighting,
Chris Bowers
Campaign Director, Daily Kos

P.S. Please chip in $5 to help support Daily Kos.

One must be naïve or in denial if this type of straightforward language isn’t bothersome!  This group insinuates the goal of the NLRB is only to protect workers from employers. In fact, the Act has recognized the risk posed by labor unions. Pursuant to the language of the Act, the NLRB has two primary functions:

• To conduct secret-ballot elections among employees to determine whether or not the employees wish to be represented by a union; and
• To prevent and remedy statutorily defined unfair labor practices by employers and unions.

The implications are frightening if this administration, through the use of the NLRB, achieves its goal of neutering business and resurrecting the Gasping Dinosaurs as it will surely be A Death Penalty for Employees and Employers!

It is time to become involved and contact your elected representatives and ask them to defund the NLRB before it is too late. Further, support Right to Work! Newt Gingrich is right America, We are at War! Armageddon is at Hand! Please Wake up!

This is the first legal challenge regarding these NLRB Board appointees who Obama appointed without a U.S. Senate confirmation process; but, more are expected.

From the NRTW release:

Washington, DC (January 13, 2012) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed a motion in federal court challenging the legality of President Barack Obama’s recent purported recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The legal challenge is part of a larger case attacking controversial new NLRB rules that require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never violated or been accused of breaking federal law. The NLRB’s posting rules do not require union officials to issue information about workers’ rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues. Currently employers can only be required to post notices if the Board has ruled that a violation of labor law occurred.

The Foundation’s case has been consolidated with other legal challenges to the biased NLRB notice posting rules brought by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW), and two small businesses. Those parties filed the joint motion today raising the issue of the NLRB’s lack of authority to implement the rule given the unprecedented recess appointments.

The new filings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia case comes after NLRB lawyers notified the court that President Obama’s recent recess appointees were now parties in the ongoing legal battle. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s New Process Steel decision, the NLRB needs three members to act. However three of the five current NLRB members were installed by unilateral Presidential appointment earlier this year, despite the fact that the Senate was not in a self-declared recess.

In the motion papers, Foundation attorneys argue that the controversial appointees to the Board are not legitimate because the U.S. Senate is still in session per the body’s rules, so there was no “recess” for the President to make appointments without Senate confirmation. Therefore the NLRB lacks the necessary quorum to implement the new posting rules. Foundation attorneys are asking the judge to rule on the constitutionality of the three recess appointees.

“President Barack Obama has already shown time and again that he is willing to abuse his executive authority to force more workers into union-dues-paying ranks,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Now Obama’s executive abuse jeopardizes the constitutional balance our country holds very dear, all in the name of paying back his Big Labor benefactors.”

The implementation of the NLRB’s new posting rules, originally supposed to be in August of last year, has been twice delayed due to the legal challenge in the Foundation’s case. The rules are currently scheduled to be effective on April 30, 2012.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) is also a party in the case, but is not party to the Foundation’s motion.

Virginia Seitz, assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, said her office concluded that Congress may only stop these appointments “by remaining continuously in session and available to receive and act on nominations,” not through pro forma sessions.

But, the DOJ memo not only addressed legal issues. It also blamed Republicans for the recent use of pro forma sessions, observing that 20 Senate Republicans and 80 House Republicans asked House Speaker John Boehner to refuse to pass any resolution allowing the Senate to recess or adjourn for more than three days. The hypocrisy in the memo is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), who previously held pro forma sessions in order to block appointments by President George W. Bush, said that he supported President Obama’s decision to ignore the pro forma sessions in order to push through his appointments.

The DOJ’s memo has already quelled some potential legal challenges to the appointments, perhaps most notably from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, whose president, Thomas Donohue, went from a condemnation of the appointment of Richard Cordray, to the statement: “I’m sure the Department of Justice gave it a very fair look.”

Not wasting any time, congressional staffers received invitations to attend Thursday’s “Meet and Greet” for the new NLRB appointees. As Heritage.org points out, they wouldn’t have needed a “Meet and Greet” if Senators had become familiar with the candidates during their normal duties and vetting procedures.

Obama is terming his appointments “recess” appointments. They are nothing of the sort, because Congress is not in recess. Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days …” To prevent any recess appointment, the Republican-controlled House has refused to consent to Senate adjournment, resulting in the Senate coming into pro forma session every three days. But as Ed Meese, who served as Attorney General under Ronald Reagan, points out: these pro forma sessions aren’t gimmicks. The two-month extension of the payroll tax holiday was approved during a pro forma Senate session.

But in an unprecedented power grab, Obama has decided that he can decide when Congress is or is not in session. Meese rightly calls it a “constitutional abuse of a high order.” If this abuse stands, the U.S. Senate’s constitutional role to advise and consent in the confirmation of key executive appointees, already undermined by Obama’s many czar appointments, could become moot.

The response to these outrageous and unconstitutional appointments was swift and severe. The editors at Bloomberg immediately splashed an editorial on its website warning that the “president is playing with fire” and choosing “politics over principle” with these appointments. “He risks an election-year legal challenge that could hamstring the consumer bureau and several other financial regulators whose pending confirmations will probably now stall,” they warned.

Any substantial actions by Obama’s pretend appointees at the CFPB or the NLRB would, it can seriously be argued, “null and void.”

Nonetheless, Barack Obama appears undeterred by such considerations.

The Cordray appointment, in particular, earned the ire of Senate Republicans who filibustered this nomination in December 2011. According to The Washington Times:

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.

The NLRB has scheduled a vote this Wednesday, November 30, 2011 where they Plan to Ease Way for Unions to rapidly organize employers through quickie elections. This vote is no more than “Card Check” in disguise (see the Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking here). Why is this pair in such a hurry? Member Becker’s term expires at the end of December 2011, and this is the last time the rogue NLRB is guaranteed to have a democratic majority to combat the pending legislation to reign in the NLRB and to pass regulations that favor Big Labor (see Workplace Fairness Act Set to Move to the House Floor).

Just as important, the timeline referred to above is obviously a blatant move to provide big labor with the tools to rapidly force unionize unsuspecting businesses in order to provide Obama and the Democratic party a huge campaign fund source derived from the new influx of membership dues just in time for the 2012 elections. This is obviously a simple “pay to play” maneuver that will be A Death Penalty for Employees and Employers.

This is a classic case of Political Aspirations & Payback Ahead of American Jobs, because this President and the rogue NLRB are intent on Overwhelming the System in order to achieve their labor agenda, first pronounced in the Employee Free Choice Act (see EFCA Through the Backdoor).

Contrary to disingenuous mainstream media and liberal Democrat rhetoric, this Sleight of Hand from the Rogue NLRB has nothing to do with protecting employee rights, social justice or protecting the middle class. In fact, it will provide Big Labor the ability to do just the opposite by providing it with the tools to intimidate employees into signing union cards well before petitioning for an election, while removing employer ability to educate employees by shortening the election process to 10 days or less. This will virtually eliminate the employer’s ability to expose its employees to the truth that just because they signed a union card doesn’t mean they have to vote union during the secret ballot election as vividly detailed in The Devil at My Doorstep.

The truth is, this is much less about the rights of employees to organize than it is about the president winning the 2012 election, the future survival of the big labor Gasping Dinosaurs, and the redefining of America into a socialistic form of government.

However, the NLRB Putsch could have a monkey wrench thrown into its plans by the lone remaining Republican NLRB board member, Mr. Brian Hayes. In a recent letter to Congressman Kline, Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mr. Hayes indicated that he has been removed from the regulatory process, and that he may resign or boycott the vote to eliminate the chance of passage on Wednesday (see NLRB Member Hayes Details Outrageous Pearce Strong-Arming on Quickie Election Rules, Hayes Letter to Cline and Chairman Pearce Response to Member Hayes).

The circus continued when Big Labor lover and beneficiary California Congressman George Miller took Hayes to task concerning his threats to resign and incapacitate the board (see Representative Miller Weighs In On Potential Hayes Resignation and Miller’s Letter to Hayes). Congressman Miller is well aware the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that two members alone lacked the legal authority to issue new regulations, which would obviously derail the president and his appointees ruling if Hayes decided to take such action, an action Hayes needs to take if we are to avoid Rule by Fiat and the associated massive loss of jobs/high unemployment.

When Will Congress and the Main Stream Media Wake Up and ask “Why are Businesses Sitting on the Sidelines?” They must realize, before it is too late, that this President and his backers are not interested in Restoring America’s Prosperity, but fundamentally changing it to a socialist/communist state. His biggest Big Labor backers such as the SEIU have been involved in rallies that raise the question, is Communism at the Highest Levels?

We must act before Becker’s NLRB Forces Unionization through Administrative Action. Please do your part and Click to Contact your Elected Officials NOW! Ask them to request Hayes to step down before Wednesday’s vote so that we may stop the Administration’s agenda. Such action is necessary to reign in the Rogue NLRB and this Administration’s destructive path towards socialism. Remember the cold war is now from within and America’s future and soul depends on all Americans understanding that The Problem with Socialism is Socialism.