The proposals would heavily favor unionized companies and significantly increase the cost and amount of time needed to award contracts. Estimates have the potential cost increase at 20 percent, adding about $100 billion a year to the federal budget.(from dailycaller.com)
“Making contracting decisions based on political or ideological litmus tests will waste taxpayer dollars and limit economic growth at a time when we can least afford to do so. The administration’s new rules amount to a backdoor attempt at card check. The last thing our small businesses need is to be saddled with new rules that effectively say ‘unionize or die,’” said John Hart, communications director for Senator Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican. Coburn and four other Senate Republicans sent a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag last week asking for a briefing on the proposals; they have yet to receive a response.
The proposals are among the measures the administration is considering in order to give a boost to unions following a series of setbacks. Many liberals have conceded the Employee Free Choice Act, also known as card check, is dead for the time being and organized labor was dealt another blow yesterday when the Senate blocked the nomination of labor lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.
Now the administration is facing increasing pressure to go around Congress and implement pro-labor policies via executive order. The Service Employees International Union, one of the groups lobbying the White House to adopt the new labor policies, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
There have been many allusions to Obama’s incredible narcissism. indeed, many find it is more intense and apparent than that of Bill Clinton’s. And it is. Simultaneously there have been innumerable observations about his defensiveness, surprise at being challenged, and lack of knowledge. Let me explain and interpret this for you.
First be advised that I’m a psychiatrist with more than 30 years of experience. I practice in Beverly Hills. I grew up on the south side of Chicago in a neighborhood that later became Obama’s venue. I went to college at Northwestern at the inception of the affirmative action, equal opportunity adventure.
Obama’s educational experience parallels that of many of my classmates. While we, the majority sweated through organic chemistry, physiology, graduate-level courses in literature, advanced composition, and tutorial reading with the late Prof. Bergen Evans, African-American classmates showed up at their leisure, sent for tests if they cared to, read none of the 15 novels in 10 weeks, submitted no papers whatever, and passed with flying colors. They were never tested, criticized, graded or, heaven forbid, flunked. They were all literate as per the first definition in the dictionary – they could read and write. Most were illiterate by the second definition in the dictionary – they were not well read, knowledgeable, or people of letters. All of this describes and defines Obama. He is functionally literate, not a man of letters or knowledge, of only average intellect, not insightful or curious, and without ever having been challenged. The narcissism and grandiosity engendered by his life experience is of monumental proportion.
Flavor this with Chicago politics. Few people wonder why Chicago politicians rarely succeed on the national level. Does the name Rostenkowski ring a bell? During my childhood our aldermen was an amiable lush named Nicholas Bohling. He never put the arm on anybody. But if you needed the winter’s potholes in front of your house filled you dropped off a fifth of rye at his office. If you had a traffic ticket that you could not afford to fix on the scene (which means you did not have enough money in your wallet or pocket at the time to give to the police officer to “take to the court for you”) you dropped off two bottles of rye and a sealed envelope. Things were as efficient as Mussolini’s trains. There was of course an underside to all of this. When a classmate’s father was late on some payments a couple of times (this with respect to his business which was not in Ald. Bohling’s territory, but was downtown, a restaurant with a back room gaming establishment) he went missing. His remains were found a few weeks later in a sewer. It is a mystery to this day how the police new precisely which one of the several hundreds of thousands of sewers in Chicagoland to explore, but their expert sleuthing allowed the family to have a funeral.
Obama moved into the venue where he could not be challenged on any front. His fancy education made him brilliant and superior. His minister, his buddies (Dorn, Ayers) and his wife set the tone and ran interference. And of course, ultimately any critique or criticism was racist.
So you see how this man glided through life unmarred, unchallenged and unquestionable. His monumental omnipotence is matched only by his monumental ignorance. He has never been confronted (What Michele has to say in private is unknown, of course, but not pertinent to the discussion either.) And so we see what we see – a pompous, self- absorbed narcissist who can speak of virtually nothing ad libitum. He needs a Teleprompter or surrogate. And if challenged or questioned or criticized, the shock and surprise in his eyes are sincere. He simply cannot believe it. This has never happened. It is not supposed to happen. It’s against the unwritten rules. Equal opportunity, affirmative action folks cannot be tested, challenged, criticized or ever, ever be wrong. And that is why, as he takes his health-care dog-and-pony show on the road he is absolutely rigid, and unyielding in what he wants. It is why he is so angry at being questioned or challenged. It is why his surrogates have ceased to imply and begun to scream and bellow the charge of racism against any person, organization, reporter, commentator, handicapped person in a wheelchair, and so forth and so on ad nauseum. Racism, it’s racism. Not rational, honest, open, fair, democratic debate and discussion. It’s racism.
One final comment: Obama is not socialist, he is a communist. What is the difference? Look around. In countries that have socialist parties and have had socialist governments– Scandinavia and other parts of Western Europe — they engage in debate with other parties, negotiate, and lose elections without revolutions. Communists never accept a loss as fair, will do anything to consolidate their power and control, and always follow the Marxist credo that the end justifies the means.
Jory F. Goodman, M. D.
A leading opinion maker has brilliantly observed that President Barack Obama seemingly cannot stop campaigning, and start leading. This choice is a result of his experience in community organizing. Obama cannot help but agitate.
Trained on the streets of Chicago as a community organizer in the "Rules for Radicals" of communist Saul Alinsky and in the elite precincts of liberal colleges, Barack Obama views the GOP as "the man" who runs the "system" to the detriment of all. Never mind the fact that he is president of the United States, and the Democrats, his party, have majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate.
Obama articulated his world view in the best-selling books "Dreams from My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope" before he ran for president. Most in the national media ignored his real views during the 2008 presidential campaign. But you don't have to be Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh to figure out where Obama is coming from a year into his presidency.
Here's a telling quote from "Dreams from My Father," page 100, of the paperback edition: "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated."
The president remains alienated and still tries to resist bourgeois society's stifling constraints. He still does not want to be a "sellout" to conventional American society.
Obama said during a retreat in Baltimore a week and a half ago that the Republicans think his version of health care reform is a "Bolshevik plot." That's a straw man argument. Certainly, health care reform and Obama's other agenda items are not a plot in the sense that they are not secret.
The problem for Obama is that America is starting to listen and read what Obama has earlier said and written -- and, even more important, observe what he does -- and they don't agree with his premises or end goals. We know the result of multitrillion-dollar deficit spending is not a utopia, a secular heaven on earth, but a higher tax bill and a slow-growth economy.
• Summary of Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals'
• More Saul Alinsky stories: here
• 'Rules for Radicals' at amazon.com
Related video clips:
|'Fundamentally transforming the U.S.A.'||'The fundamental flaw of this country'|
Among the most wasteful of the spending increases hidden in President Obama's 2011 budget proposal is his plan to create an army of government-funded community organizers at the shocking price of $1.4 billion. While the economy reels and many taxpayers are looking for ways to trim their personal spending, the president is demanding a whopping 59 percent boost for the Corporation for National and Community Service and its best-known program, AmeriCorps. It's time to pull the plug on both.(from washingtontimes.com)
To make matters worse, the Obama administration in June fired AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin after he opened an investigation into the use of "volunteers" to do such important public service as washing the car of a friend of the president.
AmeriCorps and the Corporation for National and Community Service can't be shut down soon enough.
Imagine if you could get full salary and benefits for a decent paying job and you didn’t have to work to get it. All you had to do was be accused of a crime.
What crime, you ask? How about molesting school kids? That’s what the teachers‘ unions in states like California and New York State are doing: coddling accused criminals — at your expense. And it’s probably going on elsewhere as well.Believe it or not, New York is a lot tougher on them than California.
Unions and public sector jobs are the most unholy alliance of our times. These beasts should never have mated, because they’ve issued forth monstrous offspring in the form of dire consequences that no one probably saw coming. And many victims have been left in their destructive wake.
Did you know that nine states have provisions in their constitutions for recalling elected officials, possibly including the senators and congressmen representing them in Washington?
The states include Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. RecallCongress.org points out that Article 1, Section 2b of the New Jersey constitution says: "The people reserve unto themselves the power to recall, after at least one year of service, any elected official in this State or representing this State in the United States Congress. The Legislature shall enact laws to provide for such recall elections."
There are a dozen incumbent senators from these nine states who are not up for re-election in 2010, but who could be if successful petition drives were mounted in their states.
RecallCongress.org is a project of the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), which filed a brief earlier this week in New Jersey court in support of the petition drive to recall Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ. The petition drive was launched by the Sussex County Tea Party and the New Jersey Tea Parties United.
For more information on the New Jersey suit, including a link to the brief, go here.
After posting the initial item, Russell said, the Times-Picayune reviewed the official material more carefully and realized that it did not specifically allege wiretapping. The paper asked federal authorities, and heard that while there was some suspicion on that point, the U.S. attorney was not prepared to make that allegation. At that point, the paper modified the story’s language, though it did miss one reference to an “alleged wiretap plot” in the last paragraph. “That’s an oversight on our part,” Russell said, when it was brought to his attention today, and the paper will now be running a correction.
(The paper also retained the reported claim—which was based on the words of an unnamed official, “not included in official arresting documents,” and not necessarily proof of wiretapping—that one of the four arrestees had been found “with a listening device in a car blocks from the senator’s offices.”)
The change was made, Russell said, as a product of internal discussions. Law enforcement authorities did not suggest it, and the paper did not receive a request for a correction. “Nobody called to say we’d overreached. We did internally [decide we had], and by a very small degree,” he said.
But by that point, the assumption had spread widely. While the “wiretap” meme has now been pretty well beaten back, discussion over the first couple days was based on the incorrect idea that he was an “alleged wiretap plotter.” The Times-Picayune’s report wasn’t the only factor driving that discussion, but it was a contributing one.
While O’Keefe’s defenders have seen initial reports of a “wiretap plot” as ideologically motivated attempts to take him down, there’s no reason to think that the Times-Picayune’s error was malicious. But it was an error, and one that could have been avoided. Translating “federal-speak into English” should be done with the utmost care, and that didn’t happen here.
Moreover, according to Russell, the paper made no attempt, either in print or online, to call attention to the fact that the language had changed. That, too, was a mistake. The Times-Picayune, he said, makes a practice of modifying posts on developing stories to reflect new information, without noting that they’ve been modified. That’s fairly standard industry practice, but it’s a bad one. There are different schools of thought about where to draw the line when an update or change needs to be explicitly noted, but wherever the threshold is set, this detail—which involved a criminal proceeding, and was shaping coverage of a national story—was above it.
The Times-Picayune should have conspicuously noted that its original language was not substantiated by the official documents. Other outlets that amplified the wiretap allegation should do the same, if they have not already done so.