Beware "Employee Free Choice Act"

With private sector union membership at a 50-year low (7.4% of workers), labor bosses understand that the secret ballot will no longer serve their parochial interests. But, fear not--the Democrats are coming to their rescue again. For the Dem leadership, any accommodation is possible if it means more political contributions and an expanded voter base.

Though public opinion solidly supports federally supervised secret ballot elections to form unions, to curry union boss favor liberals are now pushing for passage of the deceptively-named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) which will replace secret ballot elections with a "card check" system. Under attack by none other than Senator George McGovern, this undemocratic "card check" system will enable union organizers to elicit a worker's support for unionizing merely by persuading the worker to publicly sign an "authorization card". And so long as a simple majority of workers have publicly signed a card, the union is a fait accompli. (Note: even the U.S. Supreme Court has opined--understatedly--that the card check system is "inferior to the election process.")

If passed, EFCA would strip workers of their right to privacy and free choice and would surely expose them to intimidation, deception and coercion from both their peers and outside union organizers.

Always the suspiciously vocal champion of individual rights and the "little guy", behind the scenes the Dems are again assailing Americans' personal liberties, this time in the workplace.

Among a wide array of excesses, be prepared for reimposition of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", repeal of the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) and, of course, unfettered abortion "rights" should the Dems take over in January.

Serious Energy Policy a Top Priority

Posted/Published D&C October 8, 2008

On September 23rd, the Dems conceded defeat in their cynical bid to extend the 1981 offshore drilling ban which mercifully expired September 30th.

While the concession doesn't portend imminent federal sale of offshore oil and gas leases, for the moment it does hold at bay foreign oil producers and those pesky speculators who were hoping for an extension of the ban and a corresponding short-term spike in oil prices.

However, still very much missing is passage of a "comprehensive, all-of-the-above energy bill" without which emergy prices will surely soar once the ameliorating effect of the ban's expiration has subsided.

Without a serious and timely "comprehensive energy policy", consumers and an economy already shaken by years of grotesque government mismanagement and intrusion in the free market could soon be facing insurmountable economic challenges. (Looming still are Medicaid and social security, two more government-induced disasters in the making.)

To restore our economic vitality, let's vote for a President who will push for aggressive offshore drilling and a country-first Congress which will quickly pass a comprehensive energy bill.

Obama's "95% Tax Cut" Ruse

As we patiently listen to Sen. Obama's tedious torrent of socialist mantras like "economic fairness" and "leveling the playing field", we would all do well to clearly remember just who pays the taxes in these United States.

When speaking about tax policy with Obama disciples, we must intellectually challenge them with, among other truths, this verifiably indisputable FACT:

"According to the IRS, 75% of tax filers in the top
5% income bracket are small busniness owners who create
75% of new jobs in America."

To help lead our liberal friends further into the light, here's a breakdown of what portion of total taxes collected is already paid by the various income brackets:

Top 5%..........60%
Top 10%.........70%
Top 25%.........86%
Top 50%.........98%
Bottom 50%.......0%

This straightforward IRS breakdown means that Obama's oft-repeated and seductive promise of a "tax cut" for 95% of taxpayers is shamelessly misleading. (In impolite circles it would be called a "lie".) Simply put, since 50% of low and middle income earners pay no tax, then 50% of Obama's 95% figure will NOT get a tax cut. What they will get is a bread-and-circuses, vote-buying welfare check. Again, not a "tax cut".

Finally, history has proven over and over and over again that taxing business stymies job growth and economic prosperity. Thus, imposing higher taxes on the top 5%--75% of whom are small businesses which create 75% of new jobs--would severely hurt the very people whom the liberals loftily profess they so desperately want to help. Unblievable. The twisted logic of socialism.

Now that this is off my chest, let the Obama chicanery resume--but, in part, pre-exposed this time around. And let's none of us be reluctant to enlighten those Obamaniacs who, despite the intrusion of facts in their lives, opt to see and "feel" otherwise.

Dems Concede Defeat on Drilling Ban Extension

We count our blessings while we can.

With prospects of Senate passage of HR 6899 dim and anticipating a Bush veto if it were, yesterday the Dems dropped their bid to extend the 1981 offshore drilling ban which expires on September 30th. A singular victory for American consumers and a tribute to the dogged determination of the Republican minority on the otherwise infamous Hill.

While the Democratic concession doesn't portend imminent federal sale of offshore oil and gas leases, it likely stems any immediate speculative spikes in oil prices and certainly buoys the spirits and aspirations of the "drill here, drill now" crowd.

So, for the moment, American consumers can breathe a sigh of relief. Now if D.C. can but untangle the morass of bureaucratic red tape to expedite actual drilling operations.

One step at a time, I guess. And we'd best watch our backs: the ever-ruthless party-first Pelosi-Reid diumverate will continue to shamelessly conspire against any actual drilling operations and any commonsense and comprehensive "all of the above" energy policies as well. Loyalty to their enviro-lobbyist buddies still very much outweighs their loyalty to country.

Pelosi's Energy Bill a Shameless Hoax

Without floor debate or committee discussion, on Tuesday, September 16th, Nancy Pelosi, in her usual tyrannical and heavy-handed manner, ramrodded HR 6899 through the House of "Representatives".

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) labeled the Pelosi bill a "bait and switch" which "won't produce one drop of oil for many years to come."

The American Petroleum Institute (API) characterized the bill as "a dry hole for the American consumer...[which] will make Americans more dependent on foreign energy."

Looks like our Machiavellian me-first San Fran Nan and her liberal "party-first" minions have done it again: swindled "we the people". Let's pray for cooler heads in the Senate where this preposterous bill is headed.

Passing along essentially party lines, this so-called "compromise, comprehensive, all-of-the-above energy bill" permanently prevents America's accessing 80%--that's 80%!!!--of its offshore energy reserves, prohibits exploration in nearly 90% of the outer continental shelf, blocks energy production in the Western US, and, for the first time, prohibits energy production in arctic Alaskan waters. It also prohibits construction of any nuclear plants and, the coup de grace, levies $18B in taxes on the oil industry, the cost of which will, of course, be passed on to American consumers. And, yes, folks, there is pork. It's just too tantalizing for our "reps" on the Hill to resist.

In effect, this travesty of an energy bill extends the current moratorium on domestic drilling which would otherwise have expired on September 30th.

More specifically, the fine print imposes a 50-mile coastal ban on drilling where the largest known energy supplies exist, and allows drilling within 50-100 miles of the coast--but only with state approval and without any incentivizing revenue sharing mechanism in place to ensure state buy-in. Beyond the 100-mile range where there is precious little energy to be had, drilling is mercifully allowed by Politburo Chief Pelosi.

Nancy's environmental lobbyist contributors must be positively giddy and already feverishly scibbling checks for the DNC. And, of course, they must all be salivating in anticipation of a White House and Congress controlled by Dems and their socialist allies in November.

During these profoundly precarious economic times, wouldn't you think the Dems would try to do what's best for America first and not their environmentalist contributors? Or have they really shown their true colors for all to see? And, once again, those colors aren't red, white and blue! Imperiously ignored by autocratic congressional "leadership" once again, just when will the American people rise up and toss Comrade Pelosi and her elitist socialist bums on the street where they belong!

Better that Congress, the sop of special interests, were still on vacation than be allowed to perpetrate this debilitating hoax on America. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia, among other oil producers--and those pesky speculators lurking in the shadows--are most certainly buoyed by this outrage. Look for higher oil prices soon if the Senate rubberstamps this or a similarly odious energy bill.

Boy, are we in trouble. When our own "representatives" work at cross purposes with those they are supposed to represent--YOU and ME--what is our recourse?

("The citizen can bring political and governmental institutions back to life, make them responsive and accountable, and keep them honest. No one else can." John Gardner)

("The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colours breaking through." Alexis de Tocqueville)

("A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." Edward R. Murrow)

Just What is a "Community Organizer"?

Bland though the subject may be, in view Sen. Obama's claim to community organizing fame, I felt it personally compelling to more precisely define what a Community Organizer really is. Allow me to share my meager findings.

When asked by his college classmates what a community organizer (CO)is, Sen. Obama is quoted in his autobiography as having stated "I couldn't answer them." Since my research is unable to develop an accurate, authoritative and widely accepted definition either, his reply, though unenlightening, is nonetheless some source of solace.

Though being protested, here is Wikipedia's tentative definition of "community organizing": "a process by which people living in close proximity to each other are brought together to act in their common self-interest. CO's act as area-wide coordinators of programs for different agencies in an attempt to meet community needs for various services. CO's work actively, as do other types of social workers, in community councils of social agencies and in community action groups. At times the role of CO's overlap that of social palnners."

Though Wikipedia is having a devil of a time defining CO and seems to concede that the definition may ultimately be a subjective exercise, it's important to note that the U.S. Occupational Outlook handbook doesn't list "community organizer" as a job listing. However, according to the U.S. government CO's "come under paid for nonprofits" and are defined as "activists [who] recruit and organize members of a common community to work for a cause, they publicize and lead community gatherings and discussions and meet with government agencies and the leaders of nonprofits."

(You may now stretch.)

Though this is probably more than you ever wanted to know about the subject, by the Wikipedia definition I gather that the local military recruiter could be said to be a CO. For that matter, a godfather of organized crime could be considered a CO. And though never self-identifed as such, Mahatma Ghandi, Marthin Luther King Jr., Christ, albeit our savior, and leaders of gay rights and anti-war activists could also be described as CO's.

So, after all is said and done, it appears that CO's are, in shorthand, "activists who recruit and organize members of a community to work for a cause." Just what cause is entirely up to the CO in question, and in Sen. Obama's case my research exposes precious little in the way of specific, substantive or otherwise remarkable accomplishments. (Perhaps CO accomplishments are not measureable, but who really knows.) So, how his CO experience has any significant relevance to his presidential qualifications is, at best, still painfully elusive.

Of special interest and concern to me, however, is the fact that during my research "community organizing" as a regimen/field/discipline/occupational speciality, especially as it relates to Chicago's South Side, appears to be built upon the socialist philosophy of one Saul Alinsky, a radical socialist who wrote "Rules for Radicals" (1971) and "Reveille for Radicals"(1946).

Alinsky championed "social reform", aka "change", which had as its aim the destruction of the upper and middle classes through political struggle and the redistribution of income. Alinsky's name continually popped up in my CO research, for it was his socialist activities and principles that guided the Developing Communities Project in Sough Side/Chicago for which Sen. Obama worked in 1985 for a $13K salary and the use of an automobile.

So, is it mere serendipity that such populist and seductive terms such as "change", "fairness", "economic security" and "social justice" are at the very core of Sen. Obama's presidential campaign rhetoric? I think not. For when one considers his choice of radical associations over the years and the strong expressions of support, outright endorsements and praise extended to him by the likes of the Democratic Socialists of America, Fidel Castro, Hamas, George Galloway, MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, Louis Farrakhan, ACORN, Daniel Ortega, Hollywood elites, Qaddafi, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden and the Communist Party USA, among other far-leftists, the obvious answer to my query is academic. And it is on that basis that I believe America's got a very serious problem, perhaps insuperable, on its hands, i.e. a stealthy socialist takeover of the American government in November by a wily CO.

With the toxic specter of an Obama Administration in league with a Democratically-dominated Congress before us, it looks like all we can do is pray and work very hard to elect decent and well-grounded Republicans and Conservatives to Congress, continue to expose the excesses and chicanery of the Democratic elites at every turn, and to soundly defeat Obama at the polls. Let's wish ourselves and this great nation, already under seige, copious good fortune in this challenging endeavor.

McCain Proposes a "League of Democracies "

During a speech before the Hoover Institution on May 1st, Sen. McCain spoke about the formation of a "League of Democracies" which would enable "democratic friends and allies...to build a new global order of peace...that can last...for a century: and "where the dangers and threats we face diminish and where human progress reaches new heights."

Call me a wild-eyed idealist--of the conservative genre, of course--but such a pioneering concept in these treacherous and transformative times is, for me, very appealing and definitely worth exploring. Despite cynical detractors both on the left and the right, it's my belief that new challenges call for new approaches and, hopefully, remedies. For that reason, formation of the League is definitely worth pursuing.

Though I was unable to cull a lot of spedific information on this proposal, from what I've gleaned such a league is intended to be a viable and constructive alternative to a UN rife with parochial interests, corruption and ineptitude. It appears that the League would not supplant the UN; rather, it would, in parallel, independently supplement UN capabilities.

The theory goes that the nearly 100 democracies which would comprise this coalition would share common values and similar viewpoints on important matters, thus better ensuring more effective unified action on international issues and challenges of common concern. And, of course, as long as we don't delude ourselves in believing that such a league would morph into a "Grand Alliance" or otherise diminish the need for existing military alliances, such as they are, then a League of Democracies just might make the positive differences on the world scene McCain is hoping for.

Though international organizations have been inherently and notoriously ineffective, the League's greatest asset would be its constructive example which might well help to invigorate burgeoning democracies while encouraging a UN woefully in need of major reform to do so.

As a respectable international watchdog of sorts--with credible ecoomic, political and military leverage to boot--the League would be unconstrained by unconstructive and pftem irresponsible Security Council vetoes. Chances are probably better than even that a League of Democracies would be able to more effectively and quickly intercede in acute humanitarian crises like the Rwanda massacres and Darfur. As an international aid worker in my past life, possessing an aggressive humanitarian capability (my words) alone would render the League's formation well worth the effort. I suspect that the UN's role would be appropriately reduced to that of handling those humanitarian crises with which it would be more adept and familiar, e.g. UNICEF, UNHCR and less politically challenging disaster relief and peacekeeping operations worldwide. And, of course, the UN would continue to be a venue where international crises and concerns would be discussed--just not the only one.

In any event, I hope this concept has legs. Though it hasn't been talked about much by either Sen. McCain or the media, I believe it has genuine merit. If nothing else, it would serve to reinvigorate America's international diplomatic purpose and clout while enhancing the Free World's collective security as well. One would hope so anyway.

("Freedom lies in being bold." Robert Frost)