Big Labor -- Obama's Shock Troops

Big Labor -- Obama's Shock Troops

Nolan Finley of the Detroit News argues that "Now we know how United Auto Workers President Bob King will repay Barack Obama for holding the union harmless from the Detroit automakers' bankruptcy: He'll provide the ground troops for the president's class war."  SEIU , Van Jones, and MoveOn.org are also involved in this program. Finley continues: The Daily Caller blog says it found evidence that King and the UAW are behind the "99 Percent Spring," which aims to train and deploy 100,000 Americans for "non-violent direct action" in the months leading up to November's presidential election. The Daily Caller says files on the group's website, which have since disappeared, indicate the UAW is providing the organizational support for protests designed to support the president's narrative that America is divided into two camps — the wealthy 1 percent and the struggling 99 percent. "99 Percent Spring" will replace the Democrat's previous grassroots charade, the tainted Occupy movement, with its filthy camps and allegations of violence and rapes that gave it no chance of resonating with mainstream voters. This new movement will perpetuate the myth that Obama bears no responsibility for the economic suffering that has marked his tenure. It will foist the blame instead on wealthy individuals and big corporations, and mask the failure of the president's wealth transfer schemes, oppressive regulations and job-killing tax plans. It's a perfect way for King to pay back Obama for tossing aside established bankruptcy law and moving the UAW to the top of the pecking order when Chrysler and General Motors filed for Chapter 11.
Barack Obama Sees No Taint in Teamster Brass

Barack Obama Sees No Taint in Teamster Brass

Despite a judge's recent finding that Teamster chieftain Jim Hoffa "raided the Teamster treasury to try to buy his own reelection support with jobs and pensions," President Obama continues doggedly courting Mr. Hoffa's support. Credit: mediatumblr.com Presidential Pal Jim Hoffa Recently Tried to Bribe Union Rivals (Source:  January 2012 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) For decades, Inside-the-Beltway politicians have again and again sullied themselves and the American public's view of how Washington, D.C., works by turning a blind eye to Teamster union-boss corruption. Undoubtedly, the best-known example is the Nixon Administration's 1971 decision to pardon Teamster czar Jimmy Hoffa well before he had served out his 13-year sentence for mail fraud and attempted bribery of a federal jury. More recently, the George W. Bush Administration publicly toyed from 2001 to 2003 with cutting an outrageous deal to end federal oversight over the Teamsters, even as major cases of ongoing rampant Teamster-boss corruption and orchestration of strike violence were making national news. (Thanks largely to the fierce and vocal opposition of citizens who support the rule of law, the Bush Administration never actually cut the deal.) And now it is Democratic President Barack Obama who is practicing the "old politics" of coddling corrupt Teamster officials in exchange for Teamster forced dues-funded "in-kind" campaign support as Mr. Obama prepares for a potentially tough re-election bid this fall. Barack Obama and Teamster Kingpin Are 'Like Tweedledum and Tweedledee' As opinion writer and blogging maven Michelle Malkin pointed out in one of her syndicated columns early last fall, Mr. Obama and current Teamster President Jim Hoffa (the son of Jimmy, who disappeared in 1975 and is presumed dead) have over time become "like Tweedledum and Tweedledee," that is, inseparable.
Damn Our Union Members,

Damn Our Union Members, "There's Bigger Fish to Fry"

Why Right To Work Laws Are Important While Big Labor Bosses continue to pour forced-union dues into campaigns to stop Right To Work freedom, they also continue to shower Barack Obama with forced-dues money even-though Obama just killed a pipeline project that would have created jobs for 20,000 workers, many of which would be union members. If most of their members had the Right To Work, they could stop paying dues and force union officials to pay attention to union member jobs rather playing politics with union families' income. From Lachlan Markay's post: The Obama Administration’s decision to forego the Keystone pipeline has forced the country’s labor groups into a bitter civil war. At issue is the central purpose of the labor movement: those who feel it should represent workers in the workplace generally oppose the administration’s decision; those who see unions as primarily political organizations have generally supported it. Unions that had a stake in the Keystone decision were livid that the administration abandoned it, and equally angry at their fellow union members who had supported that decision, according to a Friday report from Politico Pro ($): “People are p****d,” said one U.S. labor official who supports the proposed TransCanada pipeline. “The emotions are really, really raw right now. This is a big deal.” “It’s repulsive, it’s disgusting and we’re not going to stand idly by,” Laborers’ International Union of North America General President Terry O’Sullivan told POLITICO. “The rules have changed. So we’ll react accordingly.”… But other top figures in the labor movement defended the decision. Their argument: re-electing President Obama is a higher priority than preserving union jobs, and to that end, unions had to prevent Republicans from gaining the upper hand on the top political issue of the day.
Damn Our Union Members, "There's Bigger Fish to Fry"

Damn Our Union Members, "There's Bigger Fish to Fry"

Why Right To Work Laws Are Important While Big Labor Bosses continue to pour forced-union dues into campaigns to stop Right To Work freedom, they also continue to shower Barack Obama with forced-dues money even-though Obama just killed a pipeline project that would have created jobs for 20,000 workers, many of which would be union members. If most of their members had the Right To Work, they could stop paying dues and force union officials to pay attention to union member jobs rather playing politics with union families' income. From Lachlan Markay's post: The Obama Administration’s decision to forego the Keystone pipeline has forced the country’s labor groups into a bitter civil war. At issue is the central purpose of the labor movement: those who feel it should represent workers in the workplace generally oppose the administration’s decision; those who see unions as primarily political organizations have generally supported it. Unions that had a stake in the Keystone decision were livid that the administration abandoned it, and equally angry at their fellow union members who had supported that decision, according to a Friday report from Politico Pro ($): “People are p****d,” said one U.S. labor official who supports the proposed TransCanada pipeline. “The emotions are really, really raw right now. This is a big deal.” “It’s repulsive, it’s disgusting and we’re not going to stand idly by,” Laborers’ International Union of North America General President Terry O’Sullivan told POLITICO. “The rules have changed. So we’ll react accordingly.”… But other top figures in the labor movement defended the decision. Their argument: re-electing President Obama is a higher priority than preserving union jobs, and to that end, unions had to prevent Republicans from gaining the upper hand on the top political issue of the day.
Obama NLRB Actions "Unconstitutional"

Obama NLRB Actions "Unconstitutional"

Roger Pilon, a constitutional scholar from the CATO Institute, makes a compelling case that President Obama's outrageous appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are unconstitutional: All of Obama’s appointments yesterday are illegal under the Constitution. And, in addition, as too little noted by the media, his appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is legally futile. Under the plain language of the Dodd-Frank Act that created the CFPB, Cordray will have no authority whatsoever. Yesterday, Professors John Yoo and Richard Epstein, writing separately, made it crystal clear that the president, under Article II, section 2, may make temporary recess appointments, but only when the Senate is in recess. Add in Article I, section 5, and it’s plain that the Senate is presently not in recess, just as it wasn’t under Senate Democrats when George W. Bush wanted to make recess appointments. The difference here is that Bush respected those constitutional provisions while Obama — never a constitutional law professor but only a part-time instructor – ignores them as politically inconvenient. Attempts by Obama’s apologists to say the Senate is not in session are pure sophistry and, in the case of Harry Reid, rank hypocrisy, as this morning’s Wall Street Journal brings out. But clear beyond the slightest doubt is the language of the statute (itself unconstitutional on any number of grounds not relevant here). As my colleague Mark Calabria wrote yesterday, “authorities under the Act remain with the Treasury Secretary until the Director is ‘confirmed by the Senate.’”  A recess appointment, even if it were constitutional, is not a Senate confirmation. There is simply no wiggle room in that language that gives Cordray any authority, as litigation will soon make plain.
Obama NLRB Actions

Obama NLRB Actions "Unconstitutional"

Roger Pilon, a constitutional scholar from the CATO Institute, makes a compelling case that President Obama's outrageous appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are unconstitutional: All of Obama’s appointments yesterday are illegal under the Constitution. And, in addition, as too little noted by the media, his appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is legally futile. Under the plain language of the Dodd-Frank Act that created the CFPB, Cordray will have no authority whatsoever. Yesterday, Professors John Yoo and Richard Epstein, writing separately, made it crystal clear that the president, under Article II, section 2, may make temporary recess appointments, but only when the Senate is in recess. Add in Article I, section 5, and it’s plain that the Senate is presently not in recess, just as it wasn’t under Senate Democrats when George W. Bush wanted to make recess appointments. The difference here is that Bush respected those constitutional provisions while Obama — never a constitutional law professor but only a part-time instructor – ignores them as politically inconvenient. Attempts by Obama’s apologists to say the Senate is not in session are pure sophistry and, in the case of Harry Reid, rank hypocrisy, as this morning’s Wall Street Journal brings out. But clear beyond the slightest doubt is the language of the statute (itself unconstitutional on any number of grounds not relevant here). As my colleague Mark Calabria wrote yesterday, “authorities under the Act remain with the Treasury Secretary until the Director is ‘confirmed by the Senate.’”  A recess appointment, even if it were constitutional, is not a Senate confirmation. There is simply no wiggle room in that language that gives Cordray any authority, as litigation will soon make plain.
Obama Reelection Gambit; Ignores Constitution & Gives Big Labor the NLRB

Obama Reelection Gambit; Ignores Constitution & Gives Big Labor the NLRB

Typically before a reelection, Presidents try to avoid creating constitutional battles. Not President Obama, he bypassed the Senate and appointed three NLRB board members.  Effectively, Obama handed the NLRB over to Big Labor Bosses, his biggest political spenders and political ground force, or “his army” as Teamster Boss Hoffa describes it. Election 2012 has already become ugly. This power grab by a desperate president gives Big Labor control over the NLRB, which was supposedly established to referee labor relations disputes.  Obama’s actions will make Big Labor the Harlem Trotters of labor disputes. Also, it will create a legal battle with Republicans in congress.  A battle the former constitutional law professor seems to seek. From the Hill: The recess appointments President Obama announced Wednesday are “almost certain” to be challenged in court … The recess appointments broke with legal precedent, as they while the Senate is holding regular pro forma sessions. Republicans insist the Senate has not been in recess thanks to the seconds-long sessions held every few days, but White House attorneys determined the procedural move is a gimmick that can be ignored by the president. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) blasted the move as an "unprecedented power grab" and said he expects "the courts will find the appointment to be illegitimate." The gambit puts the bureau in "uncertain legal territory," according to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). From the Washington Times: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks; Nominations could provoke constitutional fight Pushing the limits of his recess appointment powers, President Obama on Wednesday bypassed the Senate to install three members of the National Labor Relations Board and a director for the controversial new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - moves Republicans said amounted to unconstitutional power grabs Big Labor applauds, from In These Times: Obama Makes Recess Appointments to NLRB. Is It Enough for AFL-CIO Endorsement?
Obama Reelection Gambit; Ignores Constitution & Gives Big Labor the NLRB

Obama Reelection Gambit; Ignores Constitution & Gives Big Labor the NLRB

Typically before a reelection, Presidents try to avoid creating constitutional battles. Not President Obama, he bypassed the Senate and appointed three NLRB board members.  Effectively, Obama handed the NLRB over to Big Labor Bosses, his biggest political spenders and political ground force, or “his army” as Teamster Boss Hoffa describes it. Election 2012 has already become ugly. This power grab by a desperate president gives Big Labor control over the NLRB, which was supposedly established to referee labor relations disputes.  Obama’s actions will make Big Labor the Harlem Trotters of labor disputes. Also, it will create a legal battle with Republicans in congress.  A battle the former constitutional law professor seems to seek. From the Hill: The recess appointments President Obama announced Wednesday are “almost certain” to be challenged in court … The recess appointments broke with legal precedent, as they while the Senate is holding regular pro forma sessions. Republicans insist the Senate has not been in recess thanks to the seconds-long sessions held every few days, but White House attorneys determined the procedural move is a gimmick that can be ignored by the president. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) blasted the move as an "unprecedented power grab" and said he expects "the courts will find the appointment to be illegitimate." The gambit puts the bureau in "uncertain legal territory," according to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). From the Washington Times: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks; Nominations could provoke constitutional fight Pushing the limits of his recess appointment powers, President Obama on Wednesday bypassed the Senate to install three members of the National Labor Relations Board and a director for the controversial new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - moves Republicans said amounted to unconstitutional power grabs Big Labor applauds, from In These Times: Obama Makes Recess Appointments to NLRB. Is It Enough for AFL-CIO Endorsement?