Rather than seeing the Super Bowl as a big event for Indiana, Maddow’s guest, Indiana State Rep. Scott Pelath, sees it as a “national platform” for Big Labor “education” through disruption.

Indiana AFL-CIO union boss Nancy Guyott pulls no punches describing the chaos she intends to create; she has declared war on Super Bowl spectators. From Sterling Wong at Minyanville.com:

“They think they won a war because you fought this little skirmish like it was a war,” said Indiana AFL-CIO President Nancy Guyott. “I know the Indiana labor movement and our opponents haven’t seen nothing yet.”

So Super Bowl fans, the storming of Super Bowl Village on Wednesday was just a warm up for Big Labor’s Sunday fracas. Rather than working to make their current union members want to remain union members, Big Labor thugs would rather use their forced-dues-filled coffers to create chaos at the Super Bowl and in the streets of Indiana. Their goal is to disappoint millions of Americans and bring back legislation that compels people to pay to unions.

These Super Bowl shenanigans may become a game changer. Big Labor intimidation tactics may finally be seen for what they are: an attempt bully the nation. Maybe politicians like Pelath and commentators like Maddow will begin to feel the heat for embracing Big Labor’s thuggish tactics.

And, congratulations Indiana for giving Right To Work freedom Hoosiers so they can choose to join and pay for these thugs, or keep their own wages from them.

*** Just In *** Washington Post reports unions have backed down and will not disrupt the Super Bowl.  “The president of Indiana AFL-CIO is promising union members will not disrupt the Super Bowl festivities in Indianapolis”

They say, sometimes a picture can be worth a thousand words. In order to offer more perspective on the campaign against Sodexo, we’ve come up with a presentation on the SEIU smear-campaign against Sodexo. The object is to expose the underlying mechanics at work behind the campaign, to show how grassroots movements in universities in America are in reality financially and rhetorically linked to a major international union and expose the underlying architecture of actors in this campaigns.

This presentation is the fruit of over a year of research and makes use of information published during that time on campaignsreport.org in the hope that it will offer a compelling insight into the shady world of big unions’ economics.

Click the link below to watch the presentation on Prezi:

More on CampaignsReport

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca and Senator Jim DeMint to discuss the attack on Boeing by unions and the NLRB, their threat to Right to Work states and the debt ceiling debate.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Should Bond Buyers Bet on Stalling US Economy?
Another Labor Board Power Play
Boeing faces NLRB persecution
The NLRB’s Opening Of Pandora’s Box Beyond Boeing

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter
Follow Senator DeMint on Twitter

TRANSCRIPT

Senator Jim DeMint
May 27, 2011

Domenech: Well, thanks again Senator for joining us. It’s a real pleasure to have you on.

DeMint: Well Ben and Francis, it’s good to be with you. I appreciate what Red State does every day and the pulling of people together all around the country has been the main force to change things in Washington, so I’m honored to be with you.

Domenech: Well, it’s certainly a pleasure. I wanted to start off by asking you if you could just speak for a moment on what’s going in your state with the National Labor Relations Board, and Boeing, and that entire situation. It’s obviously been something that’s been a huge issue for folks on-line and I was wonder if you could walk us through what’s currently happening.

DeMint: Well, this is not just a South Carolina issue or a Boeing issue. It really is a freedom versus tyranny issue. I thought I had seen everything from this administration and I’ve really been outraged out. And people don’t know half of it because so many businesses, associations, companies, come through our office and tell us what this administration is doing to make it harder and harder to have a business, to hire people, and to produce in any kind of cost effective way.

But what’s happening with Boeing is truly extraordinary. And if folks don’t know the facts, what happened is Boeing was starting a new production line for a new plane called a Dreamliner. They are going to continue to produce more of them in Washington, but they decided to –

Cianfrocca: In Washington state.

DeMint: In Washington state –

Cianfrocca: Yes.

DeMint: – and to move, to open a new line, build a new building and everything in Charleston, South Carolina. They already had one of their suppliers there so in some ways this was an expansion of what they were already doing. And so they’ve moved this new line. They’ve spent $1 billion on the building. They’ve already hired over 1,000 people. It will ultimately, directly and indirectly, account for over 10,000 jobs. A pretty amazing story.

But now that they’ve about finished their building a year later, there is an acting general counsel on the National Labor Relations Board who was appointed by the President, a former union guy. He has not been confirmed by the Senate, hasn’t been elected, he’s completely unaccountable. But he has filed charges against Boeing for moving their plant in relation for union strikes in Washington State. And it’s kind of, clearly not the case although Boeing did inform the unions there of the high cost of these strikes, and the interruption in production in trying to work with them to come up with some long term solutions.

And now the unions are using those negotiations as saying Boeing is doing this in retaliation. But what this is is an attack on any company that moves to one of the 22 right to work states in America. America is somewhat divided between forced union states and those free states that protect a worker’s rights not to join a union. Now, people in South Carolina can join a union if they want, but they’re not forced to. Even if their workplace is unionized, they cannot be forced to join a union and pay dues unless they want to. And the right to work states have better economy, better job creation, more people are moving to them –

Cianfrocca: You’re absolutely right.

DeMint: – we’ve seen 25 congressional seats, so this is just an absurd attack on freedom and free enterprise in America. And we’re trying to do everything we can to push back, but so far the President has not even weighed in on this.

Cianfrocca: Yes. I find it really remarkable that he’s been silent about it. And you know, just even sharpen a little more what you’re talking about, this plant, of course, the 787 Dreamliner, wonderful, wonderful product and it’s one of the things that I, as a businessman, am hoping, you know, is going to be huge for the United States as a global competitor. It’s just, you know, it’s a great thing that we’re putting it out there and we need more of them. And for South Carolina to be in a position to produce three of them per month, it’s terrific. And so that improvement in the US trade position, as well as our economy, is what they’re fighting against here.

DeMint: It’s pretty incredible. And the real irony here is Obama’s Chief of Staff, Bill Daley (phonetic sp.), I think that’s his name, was on the Boeing board when this decision was made. And now he’s got these appointments of his saying that Boeing broke the law. And the President has also put the president of Boeing in charge of his export commission. And so it’s just –

Cianfrocca: Macenerny (phonetic sp.)?

DeMint: I can’t believe it. Yes.

Cianfrocca: That’s remarkable.

DeMint: And so this is so wrong, but the problem here is this, is Boeing knows they’ll eventually win the case.

Cianfrocca: Yes.

DeMint: I mean, they’ll lose the first couple of appeals because they go back to the board that the President has stocked with union thugs basically, and –

Cianfrocca: “Union thugs”, may we quote you? That’s a great word.

DeMint: Once this gets in front of a fair and impartial judge they’ll win, but it’s only after millions of dollars in legal expenses and several years of chilling effect.

Cianfrocca: Yes.

DeMint: What they’re trying to do is to tell any company in America, don’t even think about moving to a right to work state or expanding to a right to work state or you’re going to have to go through millions of dollars of legal expenses and this type of government harassment. It’s pretty amazing in America that we’re dealing with this type of third world tyranny.

Cianfrocca: Well, the acting general counsel you mentioned, his name is Lafe Solomon.

DeMint: Solomon.

Cianfrocca: And I think that our listeners ought to know that name and put it, inscribe it on the wall of infamy. But you know, I’m wondering to what degree do you think, Senator, that this whole situation is being driven by Solomon and the NLRB and the union is getting dragged in, the International Association of Machinists, are they getting dragged along? I mean, you have to figure, people who run unions realize that their employer is their golden goose, right?

DeMint: Well, you would think but they don’t. They really do think that they have a monopoly on the workforce that they can extort just about any kind of demands they want. But the insidious relationship between the Democratic party and the union bosses, and I do want to make clear, this is not about the union workers. Because they’re great Americans, they’re out there working.

Cianfrocca: Yes. Indeed.

DeMint: But it’s when you can by law force people to join unions, force them to pay dues, unions are the only organization where dues can be used without the worker’s permission for political purposes. So much of the organization and money behind the Democratic party are coming from unions right now. And so the Democrats help expand unions, you know they are pushing collective bargaining now on our airport security. All of those, stimulus required union contractors are basically forced that, to move in that direction. So much of what they’re doing is forcing unionization because that is the financial and grass roots foundation of the Democrat party. And it’s really shameless at this point, even though the membership of unions is declining now in the private sector below 7%, they are being propped up by this type of government action that’s trying to intimidate and bully companies and states to accept this type of forced unionization.

Domenech: Senator, I wanted to take the opportunity as long as we had you on, I think Francis has said a number of things about the debt ceiling that I think could form an interesting question. Francis.

Cianfrocca: Well, yes. And I think Senator, you were among the signers of a letter that just went out to the President warning him of potential consequences should a debt ceiling not, increase not be enacted by Congress. What can you tell us about that letter?

DeMint: Well, we sent out a couple of letters. One was to Guidner (phonetic sp.) to tell him to stop threatening that we were going to default, because we’re not going to default –

Cianfrocca: Yes. I had a question about him, too.

DeMint: I mean, he’s stirring up, really a lack of confidence in America when we know we’re not going to default. If we never pass a debt ceiling increase we will not default. Now, what we’re trying to tell the President to do is develop a contingency plan to operate the country in the event the debt ceiling is not increased. It’s irresponsible for him to be looking ahead and all of a sudden say oh, gosh, it’s August 3rd, what do we do now? And so he needs to be preparing for operating the country based on our revenues rather than borrowing more money while this negotiation is taking place.

Cianfrocca: I think in technical terms, you know, just looking at it from a capital markets perspective, the way to avoid a technical default is to keep, is to stay current on debt service payments for already outstanding debt. And that seems to me entirely possible. We’re talking about two to $300 billion with interest rates so low. And so what that means, I think, and I’m just asking you to confirm this, part of that operational plan would be to make sure that the debt payments continue to be made on schedule and that there are corresponding spending cuts elsewhere.

DeMint: Well, that’s what Guidner needs to say clearly because it’s the truth. The Congressional Research Service said we would never be in any danger of default. We may have to trim other government programs and expenditures, but over 70% of our revenue is going to continue to come in from taxes. The debt ceiling budget is probably a budget from about six or seven years ago, so it’s certainly not doomsday. We just have to trim things back.

But the Secretary and the President needs to make it clear, what is obvious is if it was the last dime we had we would not default on our, the interest payments on our loans. And we need to tell the world that and to work out our domestic issues, but to try to create instability in the market and to create panic so he can force through more spending is completely irresponsible.

Cianfrocca: Well, one of the things that has been completely remarkable to me over the past week and a half or so, since we hit that technical debt ceiling, is this explosion in corporate debt issuance. It’s very clear that the investors out there in the country are just hungering for low risk assets and we’ve seen an issuance of high grade corporate debt to substitute for the, you know, for the missing supply from the government. It’s just huge. You know, the appetite for these assets is undiminished. And you know, my question for you is, we’re talking about a very, very large number in terms of not increasing US debt, something like $125 billion a month.

So, when we say, I think we need to be clear. At the same time we’re making the point that you just did, the spending cuts that would be needed to operate under a firm debt ceiling, a non increased debt ceiling are enormous. And we’re talking about very, very large spending cuts in programs and possibly entitlements, yes?

DeMint: Right. Well, I don’t think we need to cut entitlements. The checks for Social Security, Medicare need to continue to go out, but there is a lot of trimming that would have to take place. What we need to do, and hopefully media outlets like Red State will help us with this, is I think as Republicans we need to take a stand, particularly in the Senate. If we could get 41 Republicans that said we will not allow a debt ceiling vote to take place until we pass a balanced budget amendment, I think we would eventually get the balanced budget amendment passed. So frankly I think it’s easier to get 67 votes in the Senate for a non-specific long term budget balance requirements than it will be to get any significant specific cuts and get 60 votes for that.

So, but if we don’t take a stand we know we won’t get it. But I would be willing, I mean, I don’t want to vote for an increase in the debt ceiling no matter what, but if we got a balanced budget amendment passed, that would mean next year the states would be debating ratifying that amendment. And in two to three years we would probably have two thirds of the state have done that, then a five year implementation schedule. So somewhere six or eight years out we would move responsibly towards a balanced budget.

In that scenario, if we needed to do some accommodation short term to make sure that all our entitlements were paid and everything, I would work with them. But unless we pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution this government will bankrupt our country. I can tell you that definitively, because when you look at the debt we’re planning over the next 10 years, right now Biden has announced they’re looking at maybe cutting $1 trillion over 10 years and –

Cianfrocca: Nowhere near enough.

DeMint: – that hasn’t included some tax increases.

Cianfrocca: Yes.

DeMint: They’re not even on the same page of reality.

Cianfrocca: They’re off by a zero. They’re off by (unintelligible) it’s got to be closer to 10 trillion.

DeMint: Well, and so the Democrats don’t even have to talk responsibly about Medicare or anything because they don’t believe we have to cut spending. They don’t believe we should balance the budget. That is something Republicans and the American people have to force on this political system here if we expect to save our country.

Domenech: Senator, I know that your time is limited and I want to thank you for taking the time to talk to us. Let’s close with this question then, do you think Republicans are going to hold the line on this issue and on the issue of Medicare reform? Or are they going to pull back away from it in sort of cowardice and miss this moment? Because this is kind of the question that everybody is really asking right now, it seems to me.

DeMint: Well, I’ll tell you, there are two ways to do this. If we announced our demands boldly now and got the American people to get behind us, how could you argue with balancing a budget six or eight years out? American people would be with us. If we put those out there, then I think we would stand through the storm and the crisis that the President tries to create and we could hold our ground until we got the real cuts, and the caps on spending, and the balance that we need. But if we do it the way we’re doing it now, and we don’t have any clear position, and we negotiate behind closed doors while Biden is actually putting the negotiations in public by throwing out these figures, it’s going to be just like the continuing resolution debate a couple of months ago where they come out with this historic deal that actually does nothing. And if we’re going to, unless we’re bold, unless we get Americans with us, we’ll cave in.

Cianfrocca: And I’d just like to sharpen one thing that you said a moment ago, Senator, which is, you kind of laid the gauntlet down for us. I mean, we’re talking to you as citizens about what our representatives in Congress need to do, but you a moment ago said it’s up to us. People at places like Red State and Coffee and Markets, it’s up to us to get the word out and start convincing people.

DeMint: Well, yeah. I would love to see all the conservative media, the conservative groups have a massive signing ceremony, you know, it’s either balance or bust here in Washington. If the movement on the outside pushes then I think we’ll hold the line here. But if we do this quietly and just wait until the last minute, it’s going to be just like the continuing resolution debate and I, I think all the conservatives will be deflated. It’s just a matter, if we believe it let’s put it out there. Let’s draw the line in the sand and let’s hold with the American people until we get done what needs to be done.

Domenech: Thank you so much, Senator. We truly appreciate you taking the time to talk to us. And it’s a pleasure. We hope you will come on again with us in the future.

Cianfrocca: And have a great Memorial Day.

DeMint: Glad to do it. Thanks a lot.

We all know Democrats and public unions plays dirty. That’s not the question. The question is only how dirty, and in their bid to get Kloppenburg on the court, they played it as dirty as anyone can — going so far as to exploit a victim of sexual abuse. Here’s a disgusting smear that’s been airing non-stop in Wisconsin for a week now:

—–

The ad buy was for a full $3 million but immediately upon release the victim, Troy Merryfield, asked Kloppenburg to call for the ad to be taken down, calling it “offensive, inaccurate, and out of context.” Incredibly, Kloppenburg refused, and residents of my home state tell me that as of yesterday the smear was still airing ad nauseum on every channel.

Obviously disgusted with the Left shamelessly exploiting what was obviously as traumatic and painful an experience anyone can go through, Merryfield bravely took to the airwaves today with a devastating ad that Milwaukee talk radio host Charlie Sykes has learned is part of a massive buy:

—–

Other things are happening as well, not all of them good. Obviously timed for maximum effect, former Wisconsin Governor Patrick Lucey — a Democrat — abruptly resigned as honorary co-chair of the Prosser campaign last night and endorsed Kloppenburg. A stunning betrayal … but this is what Democrats do.

The good news is that yesterday, after an unprecedented public scolding from the Department of Justice, the Dane County (Madison) District Attorney’s office finally stopped dragging its feet and charged a Wisconsin teacher for sending vile death threats to GOP lawmakers.

Moreover, the local television media in the state has finally gotten around to covering the outright extortion of local businesses by the unions — coverage that focuses on terrified small business owners intentionally put in an unwinnable situation by these remorseless thugs. In this economy, to say these proprietors are worried a public boycott would be an understatement. The good news is that once word got out, business actually increased as people stopped by to show their support and spend a little money. That includes some rank-and-file union members obviously embarrassed by what’s being done in their name.

That’s what you call a backlash.

Unfortunately, my sources tell me that internal polling doesn’t look good for Prosser, but things are happening fast and obviously turnout will be the crucial deciding factor.

Please spread the word. Spread this ad.

With Twitter and Facebook we’re all activists today.

I knew something was up when the following day, Fortune magazine editor Nina Easton, a neighbor of the targeted residence, published an account of the incident and was almost immediately attacked by what seemed like practically a coordinated dogpile of writers from several specific sources.

In almost mirror fashion to the Town Hall events last August, when both the Huffington Post and Media Matters seemingly tried to cover up and dismiss the violent acts that SEIU committed against Kenneth Gladney, the same players were again out in full force.  As our Larry O’Connor wrote, both outlets behaved less like journalists and more like arms of the SEIU press office, dismissing SEIU’s bad behavior and attacking an innocent party with fabricated conflicts of interest as a method of distraction and intimidation.

Bob Borosage, Erica Payne, and John Podesta

And now we learn this:  Erica Payne, the guest who was invited to appear Friday on Megyn Kelley’s Fox News show and proceeded to blame the Tea Parties for the behavior of SEIU?  She was co-founder of Democracy Alliance, the very organization that spawned and is a donor to Media Matters.  SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger is also the Vice-Chair of its Board.

Payne’s appearance was a lucky development for SEIU – it fit right into the union’s media defense plan.  First came the regurgitation of SEIU talking points from Huffington Post and Media Matters, and now this TV appearance from Payne.  As it turns out by the way, Payne is also a Huffington Post blogger herself, and a glowing fan of Media Matters, among several other progressive associations that are too many to note in this post.

Throughout her several minute segment, as our Larry O’Connor explains, Ms. Payne repeatedly distracts viewers away from the real story to fixate instead on an obscure lone incident that was supposedly related to the Tea Party movement.  (She also repeatedly implies that a house’s gas line was cut by that individual when in reality, it was the gas line to an outdoor barbecue grill that was allegedly vandalized).  The attempt was entirely transparent and laughable.  Her rhetoric was scripted and her points forced into the storyline in a clumsy and awkward fashion.  So much so that as I watched it myself, I became suspicious.  I realized I had seen her name before, and I knew Ms. Payne definitely had an agenda.

That’s what led me to look through my research and recognize Payne’s name as the co-founder of Democracy Alliance (before she departed and became involved with helping some of the other progressive infrastructure groups get started).  The main founder Rob Stein, is a former Clinton Treasury official who was Chief of Staff in the Department of Commerce from 1993 through 1995.

Oddly enough, before taking his position at Bank of America as Deputy General Counsel for the company’s Bank Regulatory and Public Policy legal group, Gregory Baer, the target of SEIU’s protest,  also served in the Treasury Dept. under President Clinton where he was Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions. There, Baer coordinated Treasury policy on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and led the development of presidential initiatives on financial privacy and consumer protection – not unlike the new position that Eric Stein holds today. Baer also previously served as managing senior counsel at the Federal Reserve Board.

Other than the fact that he works for Bank of America, why target Greg Baer?

In 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed and portions of the Glass-Steagall Act were repealed to allow banks, brokerages and insurance companies to merge in order to provide a full array of financial services to consumers.  Baer had direct responsibility for policy in this area, and as a Democrat, his views on deregulation are today often criticized by the more liberal-progressive Democrats.

In fact, the Huffington Post published a piece last November by Robert Scheer, who was critical of deregulation and even specifically called out Greg Baer for what Scheer perceives as Baer’s role in the financial crisis.

“Baer went to work as a corporate counsel for Bank of America, which announced his appointment with a press release crediting him with having “coordinated Treasury policy” during the Clinton years in getting Glass-Steagall repealed. As a result of deregulation, B of A too spiraled out of control and ended up as a beneficiary of the Treasury’s welfare program.”

I won’t use this post to debate the merits of Mr. Scheer’s arguments one way or the other, rather I include his article to demonstrate the public criticism of Baer from members of his own political party.

Further, I point out that again, the information came courtesy of one of the same two outlets that seem to have become a ubiquitous support mechanism to the SEIU.  It’s interesting, to say the least, that so many of the same people involved with the Boards and funders and patrons of these two organizations are now popping up as players in the public eye of this protest incident.

• We’ve already seen the example that illustrates the funds paid by SEIU to Media Matters, along with a timeline of the articles that were published by Media Matters just prior to those donations.
• We’ve already seen the example that illustrates the outstanding debt that SEIU owes to Bank of America
• We’ve already seen examples of the union’s prior intimidation in their efforts to force unionization of bank tellers.
• Below, you’ll see an example of SEIU’s contributions to Democracy Alliance, an organization for which SEIU’s Anna Burger serves as Vice-Chair, and that provides funds to Media Matters
• Below, you’ll see an example of SEIU’s patronage to Huffington Post.  Their purchase of a subscription service is most likely for some form of legitimate advertising or email campaign services; but this establishes that SEIU has a working relationship with HuffPo as a customer.

I’m especially curious to know why Greg Baer was selected in the first place.  Who suggested him and for what reasons?  And did it have anything to do with Baer’s time in the Clinton administration, where his policies on deregulation apparently became a more current trigger for some of the progressive rage regarding the financial crisis?  Did any of the progressive new media outlets, through their mutual relationships with one another,  have any input or advance knowledge of Baer as a target?

It may be a tangled web of progressive organizations out there, but the same few always seem to make their way to the surface.  Perhaps it’s too soon to tell if there’s any conflict of interest in any of their activities, but we’ve got plenty more research we’re holding onto.  One thing is for certain, we will keep watching and waiting.

Nina Easton just became the left’s latest target.  Why?  So that SEIU can hide from the truth about its financial liabilities to Bank of America (more on that after the jump).

Easton, a Washington Editor for Fortune Magazine, wrote a column early morning Wednesday, addressing the outrageous protest organized by SEIU and National People’s Action, where 700 protesters stormed the front lawn of the private residence of Greg Baer, deputy general counsel for corporate law at Bank of America.

As I wrote in my post yesterday, “SEIU Storms Private Residence, Terrorizes Teenage Son of Bank of America Exec,” Easton is actually a neighbor of Baer.  When she was startled by the loud, screaming, bullhorn-rattling protesters, she called Baer’s teenage son to check on him.  Home alone, the frightened teenager had locked himself in the bathroom.  After witnessing the entire incident as it unfolded on her neighbor’s private property, Easton criticized the SEIU and left wing groups in her article for crossing the line this time.

Alinsky’s Rule # 12 states,

“Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”

In almost coordinated lock-step fashion, the 12^th Rule was promptly and firmly applied.  As Larry O’Connor posted on Big Journalism yesterday, a series of several posts soon followed the publication of Nina Easton’s article:

• Late Wednesday evening, John Vandeventer of SEIU posted “Nina Easton & the Bank Lobbyists: Too Close for Comfort” in response.  Conveniently, Vandeventer distracts readers by recounting the sob stories of foreclosure “victims”, then quickly focuses the attention on Easton and polarizes his target.  He proceeds to play a guilt by association game to tie her husband to Bank of America through Business Roundtable.  You can read my post from yesterday about that here.
• Then came Arthur Delaney’s piece from the Huffington Post, with the headline: “Nina Easton, Fortune Columnist, Compares Bank Protesters To ‘God Hates Fags’ Group.”  He ends his piece with a link to an open letter to Easton penned by Al Marshall, SEIU Local 1021 shop steward in Oakland, CA.  Marshall begins his letter by mentioning that he flew out to DC for the protest  from CA because “Wall Street caused” his wife to lose her job, and then him and his wife to lose their house.  (I’d like to know how he could possibly afford those plane tickets, in that case).  The whole tenor of the post is undoubtedly less jovial than his prior day’s, when he gleefully bragged about the whole event.
• And then, the much anticipated and expected Media Matters post: “Attacking SEIU, Nina Easton fails to disclose husband’s ties to Bank of America“.

Of all of the responses, not a single one of the posts actually addresses any of the issues. None will account for the fact that the protesters were on the private property of a private citizen, though Vandeventer tries to rationalize their actions as acceptable because the police supposedly followed the crowd to the location.  Then, he paints the picture that Baer is lurking in the crowd trying to blend in; rather, the man was trying to get to his front door without creating a scene so that he could get to his frightened son inside as quickly as possible.

Perhaps the most important piece of information of all that was left out of the posts from SEIU, the Huffington Post, and Media Matters is the fact that Bank of America is one of SEIU’s major creditors.

In 2007, the SEIU owed Bank of America nearly $95 Million.

By the end of 2008, SEIU owed more than $156 Million in total outstanding liabilities.  Only six years prior, its liabilities were $8 Million.  And we’re not even addressing their debts to other banks, like $15 Million with Amalgamated Bank.

Perhaps all that campaigning for President Obama has emboldened the union to think that they deserve a free pass on their debts to Bank of America, and encouraged them to employ their usual thuggish shakedown tactics.  Typical Chicago political machine style.  At the very least, Huffington Post and Media Matters should disclose that their beloved union is part of that machine.  And it’s looking more and more every day like there could be validation for suspecting that there’s a bigger reason why SEIU paid Media Matters some nice cash last year.

More importantly though, who could possibly defend this sort of behavior?  Let’s review the facts here and remember there’s a teenager home alone inside that house, frightened by all of the screaming crowds on his front lawn.  As his father arrives home from his other son’s Little League game, with his younger son in tow, they arrive to this mob scene.  The father is forced to park his car around the corner and leave his younger son behind, while he tries to wade through the crowd to reach his teenage son inside the house.  He asks the protesters to make way for him to get to his frightened son, but the mob is more concerned about making a scene for their own selfish manufactured rage than they are for the safety of a child.

I lost my job in late 2007 at the start of the crisis, then became ill for over a year and unable to work.  I did the responsible thing when I was facing foreclosure:  first I called my bank every week.  They gave me 8 months of reprieve and worked with me on a plan.  And when it seemed I’d be in it for the long haul, I got rid of every luxury – cable, cell phone, car, I sold my furniture.  And I even got a roommate.  In the end, I made it out of the red.  I had to make the effort and sacrifice, but I did it.  I know I am not the only one with such a story.

So why do we only see SEIU’s side of the drama playing out in front of the cameras today?  We see this intrusion on personal private property all too often nowadays.  Have all our left wing “advocates” lost their souls entirely for a cause that is nothing more than a facade?  When and where will this madness stop?

By now, you’ve probably seen the mob-scene that developed on the front lawn of the private residence of Greg Baer, deputy general counsel for corporate law at Bank of America.  This was planned for some time by the SEIU as part of a larger national event, their Showdown on K Street, which was shared with National People’s Action and thousands of other activists from MoveOn.org and other left-wing groups.

Prior to the main event on K Street in Washington DC, SEIU and company made a little pit stop.  According to Fortune magazine Washington editor Nina Easton, 14 busloads of riled up protesters unloaded on Baer’s private property and stormed up to his doorstep, while his teenage son was home alone.  Easton is a neighbor of Baer’s and had called to check on her neighbor’s son when she heard and saw all the commotion outside. Easton writes,

“Waving signs denouncing bank “greed,” hordes of invaders poured out of 14 school buses, up Baer’s steps, and onto his front porch. As bullhorns rattled with stories of debtor calls and foreclosed homes, Baer’s teenage son Jack — alone in the house — locked himself in the bathroom. “When are they going to leave?” Jack pleaded when I called to check on him.

Baer, on his way home from a Little League game, parked his car around the corner, called the police, and made a quick calculation to leave his younger son behind while he tried to rescue his increasingly distressed teen. He made his way through a din of barked demands and insults from the activists who proudly “outed” him, and slipped through his front door.

“Excuse me,” Baer told his accusers, “I need to get into the house. I have a child who is alone in there and frightened.”

Imagine what you would have done if your child were inside that house and that mob was on your front lawn as you tried to reach him.

Amazingly, the SEIU has actually taken aim at Easton for reporting on this incident.  Their defense? Easton’s husband is a Republican strategist and has a lobbyist as a client – oh, the horror!  (Especially considering that the SEIU itself is also a lobbyist).  In their post “Nina Easton & the Bank Lobbyists: Too Close for Comfort,” SEIU’s crack Googlers researchers break the case wide open:

“The really interesting question here is: why is Ms. Easton so angry? And why has she decided to use her position as a member of the media to air her own personal rant at the people who showed up to share their foreclosure stories?

Nina Easton’s husband’s firm has Business Roundtable as a client, a special interest group that counts giant banks like Bank of America as members.

One Google search clears it up pretty quickly. Her husband is Russell Schriefer, Republican strategist and consultant to several big corporate interest groups. In fact, her husband’s client list includes the Business Roundtable, a special interest group that counts Bank of America and other Wall Street banks among its members.

Ms. Easton’s husband used to be a corporate lobbyist himself, before he started his own consulting firm for Republican politicians and corporate interest groups like the Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce. Now, according to his website, he helps garner positive media for “a wide range of corporate clients including Fortune 500 companies and national associations.”

Wow.  Amazing.  That kind of muckraking puts my time working at LexisNexis to shame.  Perhaps I should take SEIU’s employment recruiters up on one of their recent job offers sitting in my email inbox. (really, they are hiring, and they did email…can you imagine that job interview?)

But what’s even more interesting, to use SEIU’s phrase, is the labor union’s odd relationship with its own business and advocacy partners.  They specifically mention above their disdain for Business Roundtable, for their part as what they term as a Republican corporate interest group.  But, just like Bank of America – which is a lender to SEIU, mortgage partner to ACORN, and is also the leading lending partner to SEIU advocacy partner, Center for Responsible Lending – one of SEIU’s own partners is also Business Roundtable.

“Today, three of the nation’s leading consumer, business and labor organizations announced that they will work together to urge action from political leaders in a partnership called Divided We Fail.  AARP, Business Roundtable and SEIU will use the influence of their over 50 million combined memberships to amplify the message that attaining health and long-term financial security is vital for all Americans and these issues must be included in the national political debate.

Divided We Fail is a national effort designed to engage the American people, elected officials and the business community to find broad-based, bi-partisan solutions to the most compelling domestic issues facing the nation – health care and the long-term financial security of Americans.”

Ouch, talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

The current circumstances are also rather interesting because recently, Tea Party and 912 Project groups have been protesting Bank of America, too.  For SUPPORTING the financial regulatory reform bill currently in Congress.  You know, the one that Big Labor is supporting with Democrats – the one that proposes the big banks and government spy on your bank accounts and report your loan info to a big government database for all to see?  Yeah, that bill.  Bank of America lobbyists have been busy lobbying Democrats and donating money to Democrats.

I think the folks at SEIU may be a bit confused over there – first they storm private property and intimidate a teenage child, then they bite the hands that feed them, and they overlook all the money flowing into the Democratic coffers on this bill and selectively go after only seemingly Republican targets.  Only, their targets aren’t Republican at all.  This one in particular – definitely not a Republican, as Easton describes Baer:

“Instead, a friendly Huffington Post blogger showed up, narrowcasting coverage to the union’s leftist base. The rest of the message these protesters brought was personal-aimed at frightening Baer and his family, not influencing a broader public.

Of course, HuffPost readers responding to the coverage assumed that Baer was an evil former Bush official. He’s not. A lifelong Democrat, Baer worked for the Clinton Treasury Department, and his wife, Shirley Sagawa, author of the book The American Way to Change and a former adviser to Hillary Clinton, is a prominent national service advocate.”

Just imagine if the union of We the People mobilized its own protests to put a stop to the tactics of domestic terrorism of today’s leftist unions.

——–

Also be sure to catch this related post from LaborUnionReport titled “The SEIU, the NPA & Organized, Premeditated Intimidation“.

The really interesting question here is: why is Ms. Easton so angry? And why has she decided to use her position as a member of the media to air her own personal rant at the people who showed up to share their foreclosure stories?

Nina Easton’s husband’s firm has Business Roundtable as a client, a special interest group that counts giant banks like Bank of America as members.

One Google search clears it up pretty quickly. Her husband is Russell Schriefer, Republican strategist and consultant to several big corporate interest groups. In fact, her husband’s client list includes the Business Roundtable, a special interest group that counts Bank of America and other Wall Street banks among its members.

Ms. Easton’s husband used to be a corporate lobbyist himself, before he started his own consulting firm for Republican politicians and corporate interest groups like the Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce. Now, according to his website, he helps garner positive media for “a wide range of corporate clients including Fortune 500 companies and national associations.”