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.

The Auto Workers Obama Left Behind

The Auto Workers Obama Left Behind

Michele Malkin looks behind the president's rhetoric and self congratulations over "saving" the American auto worker to remind us of those the president choose to leave behind -- workers who were not part of the Big Labor machine in Michigan: The White House fairy tale about the Happily Ever After Auto Bailout is missing a crucial, bloody page. While President Obama bragged about "standing by American workers" at a rowdy United Auto Workers meeting Tuesday, he failed to acknowledge how the Chicago-style deal threw tens of thousands of nonunion autoworkers under the bus. In a campaign pep rally/sermon billed as a "policy speech," Obama nearly broke his arm patting himself on the back for placing his "bets" (read: our money) on the $85 billion federal auto industry rescue. "Three years later," he crowed, "that bet is paying off for America." Big Labor brass cheered Obama's citation of GM's "highest profits in its 100-year history" as the room filled with militant UAW chants of "union made." "Union made" -- but who paid? Scoffing at the criticism that his bailout was a massive union payoff, Obama countered that all workers sacrificed to save the auto industry. "Retirees saw a reduction in the healthcare benefits they had earned," Obama told the congregation, er, crowd. "Many of you saw hours reduced," he sympathized, "or pay and wages scaled back." Let's clear the fumes (again), shall we? The bailout pain was not distributed equally. It was redistributed politically.

Hobbs Act Loophole Legitimizes Union Violence

Hobbs Act Loophole Legitimizes Union Violence

In southwestern Washington last September, overpowered police were unable to prevent bat- and ax handle-wielding union toughs from systematically sabotaging a multi-million-dollar grain terminal. Credit: AP Georgia Congressman Strives to Abolish 'Union-Thug Exemption' (Source:  January 2012 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) In today's America, prosecutions of Big Labor arson, assaults, death threats, and other serious crimes are extraordinarily difficult. Such prosecutions are frequently hindered because of a loophole in federal law that exempts extortionate violence from prosecution when it is committed pursuant to so-called "legitimate union objectives." And one objective that federal law clearly deems to be "legitimate" is to expand the number of employees who are forced to accept union representation and pay union dues as a condition of employment. "Time and again, federal prosecutors have amassed extensive evidence that Big Labor bosses have orchestrated, authorized and/or ratified violence, vandalism and threats for union organizing purposes," noted Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee. "Nevertheless, because of the pro-union violence loophole in the federal Hobbs Act, extortion prosecutions of the implicated union officials ultimately fail -- or never even get off the ground." In its controversial 1973 Enmons decision, Mr. Mix explained, a divided U.S. Supreme Court exempted threats, vandalism and violence perpetrated to secure "legitimate" union goals. Union Goons in Buffalo Accused of Sabotage, Assault With a Knife, Rape Threat What this means in practice can be illustrated by a federal criminal case, now before U.S. District Judge William Skretny in New York, against 10 former officers and militants of the Buffalo-based Local 17 of the International Union of Operating Engineers.

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.

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.