Rank-and-file Dem blasts pro-union fascism

Big Bedfellows stories: hereMore worker-choice stories: here

Forced-labor unionists conjure a new fascistic Progressive Era

After hearing about labor and business collaborated to negate our right to vote on several amendments, I was disgusted to hear that once again our governor sold out to the labor unions and agreed to fight Coloradan's right to work. Catch that carefully...the governor is opposed to right-to-work. He has totally sold out to the labor unions who want to raise the price of everything by compelling workers to join unions and pay union dues.

Right to work is not only the Colorado way, it is the American way. There is a strong reason why union membership keeps falling, now perhaps at the lowest level in the 20-21 st centuries. Remember Hoffa and Gotti? And most recently Robert and Michael McKay, Michael "Mickey" Annucci, and this: Tom Baker, who headed Boeing's largest union for 12 years, was sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison. Baker's crime: embezzling $33,531 from the 35,000 members he represented.These types and other union goons are apparently the type of people the governor want to oversee and control Colorado workers.

Obviously Ritter wants to sell workers rights to the unions, who have an unsavory past.As a life-long Democrat, I am disgusted by Ritter's actions, and will never support him again. I feel that he has betrayed everything we Democrats stand for...helping the workers, average people, and the middle class. Ritter's actions are nothing more than a low-class sellout to his new buddies, and intend to sacrifice the rights of Colorado workers to be free from union intimidation. We must all band together and fight FOR Amendment 47 and save our right to work.

Fie on you, governor. You are a disgrace.

Alan Beshany, Lakewood, CO


Progressives forge end to Era of Prosperity

More ACORN stories: herefraud stories: here

"The Man from ACORN" knows how to collapse economy

When Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other upstanding Democrats point to the "failed policies" of the Bush administration as the cause of the current chaos in the financial markets, they are deliberately trying to transfer the spotlight from their own party's mistakes. The current crisis can be traced directly to President Clinton's revision of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA.

The revision essentially required banks to expand their loan portfolios to include more low-income customers. Bank examiners rated banks on their compliance with these revisions. Community organizations such as ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) were empowered to comment on bank compliance. Banks quickly learned that a generous donation to these organizations was easier than defending themselves against complaints filed by these organizations. Loans made to low-income borrowers were immediately sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose policies also were revised to allow the purchase of these loans.

The task of revising Fannie Mae's regulations fell to Herb Moses, director of product initiatives, who was also the homosexual "lover" of Rep. Barney Frank, who was a member of the House Banking Committee, which had oversight of Fannie Mae. These policy revisions were, in hindsight, spectacularly stupid. Rather than income verification and standard debt-to-income analysis, a welfare check stub or enrollment in a credit-counseling program were acceptable as "proof" of ability to make mortgage payments.

Freddie Mac specialized in the repackaging of these mortgages into securities that carried the federal government's seal of approval, and resold them through the financial markets.

The structure of disaster was almost complete. The Clinton administration directed federal agencies to expand credit, particularly home loans, to low-income buyers. ACORN and other community organizations were empowered to promote loans and encourage banks to make them, and Fannie and Freddie were instructed to buy the loans. The Federal Reserve joined the parade by reducing interest rates to help facilitate these loans.

No wonder the housing market exploded.

Countrywide, once heralded as the nation's largest CRA lender, with $600 billion in sub-prime mortgages, was among the first to fall. Lehman Brothers, an eager buyer of Freddie Mac securities, also collapsed. Then fell Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the ripples are still rippling across the financial markets.

As early as 2004, the Bush administration tried to increase regulation of Fannie and Freddie, but ran into stiff opposition from Democrats, especially from Barney Frank, who was afraid that lending activities would be sacrificed in the name of market risk. Now, Frank is blaming the Republicans for failing to enact reforms that he and his party blocked.

During the high-flying days at Fannie and Freddie, more than $200 million was spent on lobbyists and political contributions. Chris Dodd, Democrat chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, collected $165,400. Barack Obama received $126,349, and Barney Frank got $42,350, of the $4.2 million the two housing giants gave to lawmakers.

Clearly, the Democrats caused the problem by insisting that mortgage money be made available to people who could not qualify for a mortgage under normal banking procedures. Democrats, led by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, blocked Republican efforts to tighten the regulations that governed Fannie and Freddie. Now, Democrats point the finger of blame at the Republicans.

The current crisis is yet another example of the mess government makes when it indulges in social engineering by trying to manage a free market. The declaration that all people have a "right" to housing was a popular theme among liberals in the 1990s. So popular, in fact, that in 1994, a lame-duck Democratic Senate ratified a U.N. treaty that effectively adopted the obligation to provide housing to everyone. Relaxation of the lending requirements at Fannie and Freddie was one way of meeting this new U.N. obligation.

The division in Congress, and in the country, about what caused the problem and what to do about it is a bright line between the people who believe government power must be limited by the people who are governed, and the people who believe government must limit the power of people who are governed. The people who subscribe to unlimited government power have achieved ascendancy in Congress and in the country. This philosophy results in disaster.

On the other hand, people who believe that the power of government must be limited by the people who are governed may see the urgency of getting angry, active and involved in government at every level. The people who share this belief are the people who have the power to unseat socialist politicians and unleash another era of freedom and prosperity.


Community Organizing: Progressive Fraud

More ACORN stories: hereVoter-fraud stories: here

Unstoppable destructive force seizes power over U.S. voters

These ACORN people are nuts. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, has been putting together bogus and forged voter registration applications in Lake County, say local Democrats and Republicans in county politics, and both sides want it stopped.

If there is going to be any vote fraud, by golly, we can handle that ourselves without any help from outsiders. Anyhow, ACORN, which on Feb. 21 endorsed Barack Obama, is doing him no favors by clogging Lake County with an avalanche of fake registrations that could foul up the Nov. 4 election.

They're up to their old tricks, the locals say, which earned them felony charges in Seattle in 2007 when they used phone books to create bogus voter registration cards.

According to the ACORN Web site, it "helps those who historically have been locked out" of the electoral process.

You know, people like "Jimmy John," who oddly enough shares a name and address with a Crown Point sandwich shop. Or the man from Gary who died in November but was somehow resurrected in August to register to vote.

The allegations and others came from Lake County GOP Chairman John Curley at a Thursday news conference.

Now, one could accuse Curley of playing partisan politics, but one of the people who blew the whistle is Elections Board Director Sally LaSota, whose credentials as a Democrat are unquestionable.

Why would the Democrats and Republicans get together on this? Maybe they remember how poorly Lake County fared at the hands of the national media in the primary and are determined that this time no one is going to make us a laughingstock.

At least no one from outside the county, like the jamokes from ACORN, which is based in New York City, New Orleans and Washington, D.C.

Local Obama campaign chiefs are concerned about their man's name being linked with ACORN's shenanigans and have called here to say so.

Maybe they fear people will think Obama is not about hope, but about hoping to get elected. That the only change he really wants to see is himself in the White House.

That he is in reality no different from Republican operatives who stole a presidential election in Florida in 2000.

Because Obama did not just learn community organizing in Cook County.

He also learned politics there, where election stealing is an art. As the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington would remind us were he here today, politics ain't beanbag.

- Mark Kiesling


'The Man from ACORN' outfoxes America

More ACORN stories: hereVoter-fraud stories: here

'Community organizers' roll over flaccid GOP

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, among many other things, employs people to register voters. It's a thankless job, and it doesn't pay much, and so ACORN hires a disproportionate amount of folks who can't jobs anywhere else, including felons. ACORN's staff facilitates the sending of registration cards to county election supervisors who are then supposed to judge their validity and flag fraudulent ones.

Republicans have a long bill of charges. They accuse ACORN of deliberately trying to inflate the voter roles at the last minute. McCain-Palin '08 political director Mike DuHaime argues: "When groups like that put an enormous amount of pressure and constraints on the election supervisors, at some point, mistakes can happen" -- people who shouldn't vote get approved because the election supervisors are overwhelmed.

Republicans point out that Barack Obama has worked with the group before (although he was never a member or employee) and that ACORN's entire incentive system is set up to get as many registrations through as possible. They're angry that ACORN somestimes takes public money (and were horrified when it seemed that they'd benefit financially from the government bailout bill because it would fortify the National Housing Trust, which has, in the past, sent grants to ACORN).

ACORN works in urban areas and among the poor, so their advocacy benefits the Democratic Party.

And most acutely, Republcians point to charges, many validated, of ACORN's turning in hundreds, of not thousands, of fraudulent registrations in at least a dozen states and employing felons in states where it's illegal to do so for voter registration purposes.

Defenders of ACORN insist they're non-partisan, say that the group simply wants to make sure that as many eligible voters as possible vote and contend that critics are motivated by their partisanship, and possibly by their antipathy toward poor people and black people. Note: ACORN has liberal critics too, including some who think the group's aggressive tactics and history of quasi-socialism make other community organizers look bad.

With thousands of people working on voter registrations, there are bound to be some bad apples, but ACORN insists that it has a zero-tolerance policy for fraud and has notified prosecutors when it discovers bad behavior on behalf of its own employees.

News coverage of these genuine controversies have been scant. That's unfortunate.

ACORN's doing a lot of work on the ground, and its sheer size qualifies it as a powerful interest, even as it helps the powerless. As a story, it's got race, class, politics and power going for it. Here's hoping we read more about ACORN pro, con and otherwise, before the election.


He will force disinterested workers into unions

More EFCA stories: hereMore card-check stories: here

Why vote for Democrat Barack Obama?

What has he done other than condemn Bush and Cheney for all our problems, such as energy, economy, domestic and foreign affairs? What does he propose to do about energy? Will he drill for oil and gas and find alternative energies that will create jobs? Or will he listen to the left wing made up of lawyers, unions, environmental goofballs and anarchists who hate America? Is he going to give more power to the union bosses with the removal of the secret ballot usurping more of the citizens’ right to work?

What will he do about foreign affairs, especially terrorism? Will he talk to our enemies while they build their arsenals of destruction to kill Americans?

What will he do about the government unions that are destroying budgets across the country with their unfunded entitlements, while the unions in the private sector are destroying companies with their outlandish demands?

How is he going to balance the budget, save Social Security and provide all Americans with free health care? Where are the funds coming from?

How will he unite this country when the left believes in multiculturalism, diversity, affirmative action, abortion, more government, other languages, less responsibility, no death penalty for the most gruesome crimes, homosexual marriages, anti-religion, pro-union – everything I despise, as do millions of true Americans?

- Joe L. Souder Berwick, PA


WSJ editors back Colo. labor extortion deal

Related: "Big Bedfellows gang up against the little guy"
More worker-choice stories: here • Big Bedfellows stories: here

Workers are neither smart enough nor wealthy enough to choose for themselves

For a sense of how Big Labor now operates, take a look at a recent brawl in Colorado. That's where a last-minute deal this week only narrowly stopped unions from tanking the entire state economy in an attempt to defeat a right-to-work ballot initiative.

The fight started earlier this year when a coalition of business interests, led by brewery heir Jonathan Coors, got a "right-to-work" amendment on the November ballot. Twenty-two American states currently have right-to-work laws, which allow employees to decide whether to join or financially support a union and which are a big boost to economic growth.

Right-to-work laws tend to make it harder to organize a union, and Big Labor's national priority these days is reversing a long-term trend of falling union numbers. So at the first hint of the initiative, Colorado's labor unions mobilized to defeat the measure, while escalating with four antibusiness ballot initiatives as political retaliation.

One measure would have required any company with more than 20 employees to pay for 80% of health insurance premiums. Another would have made an executive criminally liable for fraudulent activities within their businesses. The third would have given workers the ability to seek additional damages in court beyond workers' compensation. A final one would have forbidden companies from firing employees without a specific reason, and given dismissed workers additional court routes. Taken together, these measures would have turned business-friendly Colorado into one of the most inhospitable work environments in the nation.

The irony is that Colorado needs right to work less than other states because of its unique 1943 Labor Peace Act. That law requires unions to hold a second vote after organizing a workplace to create an all-union shop where membership fees would be mandated as a condition of employment. The labor-peace law already makes it all but impossible to compel workers to join unions or pay agency fees against their will. Unions represented 8.7% of workers in Colorado last year, compared with 12.1% nationwide.

Hoping to send a message beyond Colorado, national unions jumped into this fight, raising $12 million to defeat the right-to-work measure and pass the labor proposals. The right-to-work campaign, by contrast, has struggled to break $1 million in campaign support. Business leaders realized that damage from the labor initiatives would far outweigh any gain from an actual right-to-work law.

Which is why it is good news that the two sides this week struck a deal that will spare Colorado's economy. In return for a business community pledge to raise $3 million to help defeat the right-to-work amendment, labor outfits agreed to pull their four initiatives from the ballot. Some credit here goes to Colorado Democrats -- including Governor Bill Ritter, Senator Ken Salazar and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper -- who were themselves petrified by their labor friends' actions, and helped bring together the two sides.

Much as we support right to work, this was surely the best outcome for Colorado, given the possible economic costs. The lesson for other states is that if they intend to engage in a right-to-work battle with today's unions, they'd better come armed with a big bankroll.


Teachers urged to stand up for their rights

More NEA stories: hereMore worker-choice stories: here

2008: It's an Obama-nation

Big Labor's big money boys are pulling out all the stops to get the presidential candidate of their choice elected. Across the country, teacher union bosses have been pushing their preferred political causes and candidates and the result is the disturbing politicization of the classroom.

Today, the Washington Times reported that union brass of the Virginia Education Association Union (VEA), an affiliate of the National Education Association Union (NEA), sent an e-mail to Virginia teachers which:
...encouraged members to bring politics into the classroom by wearing blue in support of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama and simultaneously suggested that the union's voter registration efforts include those "you teach."
Meanwhile, the New York Post reported today that teacher union bosses in New York have been "handing out thousands of Barack Obama campaign buttons" to teachers. However, as the Post notes, “the Department of Education… has a long-standing policy barring teachers from wearing political campaign buttons in schools.” The teacher union bosses in New York said they will appeal the Department’s decision. The Post quoted Department of Education spokeswoman Ann Forte as saying:
Schools are not a place for politics and not a place for staff to wear political buttons… We don't want a school or school staff advocating for any political position or candidate to students and we don't want students feeling intimidated because they might hold a different belief or support a different candidate than their teachers.
Indeed. But what about the teachers that don't support the union bosses' chosen candidate? They too should not be subjected to union officials' politicking. In the 28 states that do not have Right to Work laws (including New York), union officials are notorious for extracting forced union dues to fund political pet projects that teachers often oppose.

Unfortunately, most teachers are not even aware of their rights to refrain from contributing to Big Labor’s political pet projects as established by Foundation-won Supreme Court cases. However, while our work is cut out for us, there is hope. As Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, stated in an op-ed printed last month, “Praise the teacher, not the union”:
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is currently providing free legal aid to thousands of teachers and other employees who object to their compulsory fees funding the political agenda of union bosses, whose ultimate goal, according to one former NEA official, is "to re-order the priorities of the United States of America."
If you are a teacher who would like to stand up for your rights against the evils of compulsory unionism, click here.


Progs crack down on Free Speech

Related: "Unions win using Rules for Radicals"
• "Saul Alinsky's rules guide Barack" • more Saul Alinsky stories: here

U.S. set to reprise ugly, fascistic Progressive Era

"... President [Clinton] is coming to town. We want a real good real good reception... We want to drown out demonstrators." - Then-Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell to former Teamsters' Boss John Morris, Philadelphia, Sept. 1998

"I want you to talk with them whether they are Independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face ... You are my ambassadors." - Barack Obama to supporters, Elko, Nevada, Sept. 2008

Despite my natural apprehension to partake in rallies or protests, I decided to attend a recent McCain/Palin Campaign event in Media. It had been almost 10 years to the very day since I last attended a political demonstration of any kind - and for good reason.

On Oct. 2, 1998, 10 years ago today, at the height of the Lewinsky scandal, my sister and I traveled to Center City to protest Bill Clinton during one of his numerous presidential visits to the area. Little did we know that the Teamsters Union would be present to intimidate and harass us at every turn - beginning with the blaring music emanating from their moving tractor-trailers, which could be seen and heard several blocks from our ultimate destination. Despite the ominous atmosphere, I proudly carried my sign that read, "Resign or get impeached."

Upon our approach to City Hall, the Teamsters began cursing and jeering us. Since police protection, at this point, was virtually non-existent, we had to fend for ourselves, which meant, for all practicality, getting out of the Teamsters' way.

The situation seemed so out of control; we talked of heading home. At that fateful juncture, however, we ran into a group of like-minded individuals - about 60 in all, young and old alike. While, as Clinton protesters, we were in a definite minority, it now seemed possible to carry on.

As late afternoon turned into the early evening, our numbers began to dwindle - many felt the unrelenting Teamsters might become more violent. (They had already ripped signs from some Clinton protesters and roughed up a few others.) But, finally, several TV cameramen focused in our direction, and the 30 of us who had remained thought we might get a chance to air our message.

Yet, just as we were marching past the cameras, chanting, "Impeach Clinton now," a Teamster snuck-up behind us (my sister and me) and grabbed our signs. When we turned around to demand them back, a group of 20 Teamsters encircled us. And then it happened.

After a quick verbal exchange, an old-style Molly McGuire Union Boss, John Morris, rammed a fedora over my face, blinding me to the onslaught of Teamsters who would proceed to knock my sister and I to the ground. Once we were down, they pummeled us. If my sister hadn't protected my head from some of blows, I don't know if I'd still be alive.

In the aftermath of the highly publicized beating, District Attorney Lynne Abraham prosecuted me on trumped up charges that I had hit two Teamster women - despite exculpatory police statements and news video evidence. Mrs. Abraham and the Teamsters tried to pressure me into accepting a quid pro quo - drop your charges against the Teamsters and they'll drop their charges against you. I wasn't moved. And so I stood trial, the only person in the entire matter to do so. I was found not guilty.

Five Teamsters copped pleas and received the usual slap on the wrist. Their ringleader, John Morris, was never indicted.

The civil phase of the incident was a drawn-out affair. After learning that then-Mayor Ed Rendell had instructed the Teamsters to "drown out" Clinton protesters, and he had subsequently intervened in the criminal case by telling Morris "nothing was going to happen to your [Teamster] boys," we named Mr. Rendell in the suit, but to no avail.

Mrs. Abraham, too, received immunity from civil prosecution and, after nearly 10 years of fighting the Teamsters and their political cronies, the only people to receive a modicum of justice were the five Teamsters who pled guilty in the criminal phase.

Yet, in spite of it all, here I was, 10 years later, attending a McCain/Palin rally. Not much has changed. We were greeted with curses and jeers from Congressman Joe Sestak's, D-7th, supporters, allies of Mr. Obama to be sure. During speeches by Sarah Palin and John McCain, Obama forces "drowned out" the candidates' words by repeatedly shouting, "O-BAM-A, O-BAM-A." I heard not a word from either Republican nominee.

Indeed, as Mr. Obama had requested, his supporters got in our faces. Just as they had gotten in the faces of Fox News reporter, Griff Jenkins, and his cameramen, at a Democratic Party rally in Denver on August 25. The Obama crowd literally tossed the Fox News Team off the premises.

Sadly, the attempt to silence political opponents continues on the legislative front. Democrats in Congress would like to "drown out" conservatives in the media by instituting the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." This is an ever so slight veiled attempt to silence opposition talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. If Barack Obama becomes President Obama, they will surely have their way.

From my vantage point, the tyranny of it all is quite apparent. Here's the message of Mr. Obama, Mr. Rendell and Mrs. Abraham as well as the judges and thugs they control - OUR POLITICAL OPPONENTS SHOULD NOT BE SEEN, NOR HEARD, NOR TOLERATED. THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BE DAMNED.

Mr. Obama's new politics is nothing but the old politics of leftist tyranny.

- Don Adams is a freelance writer living in the Philadelphia area. He is currently writing a book, "In the Faces of Teamsters, Rendell, and Clinton: Our Ten Year Battle Defending Free Speech."


Blame ACORN's Barney Frank

More ACORN stories: herefraud stories: here

'Affordable housing' mafia gets bailed out by taxpayers

Barney Frank tells readers we are stupid for putting all the blame on Fannie and Freddie (“The right’s all wrong in blaming Democrats,” Sept. 30). Well it was his party that introduced the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 under President Carter.

When President Clinton came to office in 1993 he allowed the Community Reinvestment Act to increase the number of mortgage loans by 39 percent, while other loans increased by 17 percent.

President Bush was concerned about Fannie and Freddie, and proposed changes that would not bail them out if they ran into difficulty. It was Frank who stated: “Fannie and Freddie are not facing any crisis.” And Frank’s left-wing groups like ACORN wanted to increase the scope of CRA. Paying for Frank’s failures is not the job of the taxpayer; this belongs to the people and institutions who took on these loans.

Related video: "They're not the best investments"

- Anne Hilbert, Weymouth


God Bless ACORN

More ACORN stories: herefraud stories: here

Barack successfully "ACORNizes" the United States

Remind me why protest groups who interfere with the running of the US government deserve taxpayer dollars, which they already receive and which they would have received in abundance if the Democrats had their way and created a slush fund for ACORN in the bailout bill.

This is especially grating when the same group has a history of voter fraud. Of course, if Barack Obama wins and the Democrats continue to control Congress - which looks guaranteed - we can expect increased funding for ACORN.

This is a group that has long lasting ties to Barack Obama and a group to which he has pledged his fealty: welcome to the ACORNIzation of America where Congressmen, businessmen, and local government officials will face the prospect of protest groups intimidating them any time the far left anti-capitalist, anti-free mearket radicals do not get what they want.

Political extortion is their specialty. And it is part and parcel of the same rule book the Obama campaign uses to silence critics and chill free speech. They give us threats and protest, not reason and compromise.

The latest manifestation of this tactic: a protest at the office of the embattled Republican Congressman from Connecticut, Christoper Shays.
The group went into the building at 10 Middle St. and delivered a letter to Shays' staff, demanding he include forced restructuring of mortgages and to allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of loans in any bailout package. Tuesday's picket in Bridgeport was part of a national action by ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, with other chapters delivering similar letters to their members of Congress.

Bobby Jones and Steve Horvath, the movers, were taking a lunch break on Middle Street when about 18 ACORN members began their hourlong demonstration.

Congress is debating a $700 billion plan to buy troubled assets, like mortgages, off the balance sheets of financial institutions in an effort to free financiers to hand out more loans and keep the economy moving. But ACORN and other groups are demanding Congress force those banks to modify high-interest and adjustable-rate loans to help prevent foreclosure. Many of these loans are the "troubled" loans being considered for the government purchase.

"We were just talking about it," said Horvath. "If you decided to go with an adjustable-rate mortgage, you deserve what you get. Homeowners are at fault for this."
Which just goes to show that ordinary Americans have more common sense than our political elites ever give them credit for.

- Ed Lasky


States allow unprecedented voter-fraud

More ACORN stories: hereVoter-fraud stories: here

Union-backed voter-fraud group ACORN leaves fingerprints everywhere

A breakdown in quality control allowed a pile of suspected fraudulent voter registration applications to find its way into the hands of Lake County election officials, said an official for the organization that collected the applications.

Charles Jackson, national spokesman for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), said the group rigorously inspects applications its canvassers collect on voter registration drives across the country.

In Indiana, Jackson said a pile of applications which had been tagged as suspicious accidentally got delivered to Lake County elections officials along with a pile of "clean applications."

Lake County election workers discovered dozens of ACORN-delivered registration forms they believe contain inaccurate voter information, including one in which a dead man from Gary was listed as the applicant. None of those applications was processed.

Lake County Republican Chairman John Curley pointed to the applications to bolster his case that Lake County should not open "satellite voting centers" in Gary, Hammond and East Chicago. He argued it would be easier to pull dirty tricks at those locations than in precincts.

But James Wieser, a former Democratic attorney for the Lake County Election Board, characterized Curley's argument as a smoke screen.

"This is simply about suppressing people's ability to vote," Wieser said.

Wieser argued Indiana's voter ID law would make it tough to pull off in-person vote fraud at remote early-voting centers the county intends to set up at Clerk's Offices in the three northern cities.

"It isn't like you can walk in, say 'I'm Joe Blow,' get a ballot and vote," Wieser said. "You would need to say 'I'm Joe Blow, and here's a state ID card proving I'm Joe Blow.' "


U.S. law favors labor organizing

More EFCA stories: hereMore card-check stories: here

Disinterested workers to be forced into unions under President Obama

This letter is in response to Ms. Jessica Stromp’s letter to the editor concerning the Employee Free Choice Act. In her letter, she states in response to Mr. Michael Day’s letter that the reason for the Labor Relations Act of 1935 was union worker intimidation. In order for your readers to have a balanced view of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, I submit the following:

Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act (or Wagner Act) in 1935. It is a United States federal law to protect the rights of employees and employers.

The Wagner-Connery Act established a federal agency, the National Labor Relations Board, to investigate and decide charges of unfair labor practices and to conduct elections in which workers would have the opportunity to decide whether they wanted to be represented by a union.

In the first few years of the Wagner Act, many employers refused to recognize it as law.

The U.S. Supreme Court had already struck down other statutes passed during the New Deal on the grounds that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to enact them. Most of the initial appellate court decisions reached the same conclusion. They found the act unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable.

Many unions did not bother to use the NLRB in the first few years of its passage. They chose instead to strike for recognition, using methods such as the sit-down strike used by the United Auto Workers in the Flint Sit-Down Strike in the mid-1930s.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute in 1937 in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. The Supreme Court upheld the NLRB’s interpretation of the Wagner Act. However, the court imposed two major limitations on it.

The court held in NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., in 1938, that while employers could not fire workers for going out on strike, they could permanently replace them. The court later held in National Labor Relations Board v. Virginia Electric & Power Co. that the First Amendment to the Constitution barred the NLRB from making it illegal for employers to express their opposition to unionism, so long as they did not try to coerce or threaten workers with reprisals for exercising their rights.

Opponents of the Wagner Act introduced bills to amend or repeal the law after its passage. All of them failed or were vetoed until the passage of the Taft-Hartley amendments in 1947 for such things as treble damage awards and sight checks of union authorization cards for a union to be certified as the collective bargaining representative.

I hope the above provides some history of the NLRA for your readers.

Paul Aubert
systems integration technician


Bailout of Congress won't help Michigan

More worker-choice stories: herefraud stories: here
Related story: "The 28 labor-states"

Worker-choice could actually make a difference, but union-backed power-brokers refuse to consider it

By loosening tight credit markets, the $700-billion financial rescue plan should prevent more pain from hitting Michigan's long-suffering economy. But experts say it won't have much of an impact on the state's fundamental economic problems.

"It will prevent a calamity," said Dana Johnson, Comerica Bank's chief economist. "The plan makes the national recession less deep." But Johnson cautioned that the country is probably already in a recession and the bailout package won't end it.

Expectations are high that the financial rescue plan will encourage banks to step up their lending since the government intends to take toxic mortgages and other burdensome debts off their books.

That could help Michigan banks with bad mortgage loans or significant housing-related assets, such as National City Corp. and Flagstar Bank.

The plan is also expected to aid Detroit's automakers by making it easier for consumers to obtain car loans.

Perhaps most important of all, the return of credit markets to more normal operations should prevent a financial crisis at many companies that rely heavily on borrowed money to operate, particularly manufacturing companies and small businesses. In recent days, these businesses were having a harder time getting access to capital.

But the bailout doesn't do anything to stop the loss of thousands of manufacturing jobs from the state caused by the restructuring and sales slump at Detroit's automakers. And it won't reverse the slide in home prices or the wave of home foreclosures that have besieged the state in recent years.

David Littmann, senior economist at the Mackinac Center, a free-market think tank in Midland, said the rescue plan could provide a temporary boost of confidence to the local economy.

But Littmann said he believes Michigan still needs to take a number of steps to get its economy growing again, such as reversing last year's tax increases, making deeper cuts in government spending and becoming a right-to-work state.

"If you don't change the climate for being here and working here, it's a graveyard spiral," he warned.


Community Organizing 101

Voter-fraud stories: here

Related Posts with Thumbnails