Friday, April 27, 2012

Meet The Radical Muslims That Have Infiltrated US Gov't. (Leading Homeland Security)

 - April 26, 2012

Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood Is to the Obama Admin?

There is a powerful documentary, “Rumors of War III,” exposing how radical Islamists, including the Muslim Brotherhood, are infiltrating American government at its highest levels. Here is a video clip from the program outlining some of the key players involved.

The following is an overview of each of the Islamist figures who have found their place — in some way, shape or form — at the Obama administration’s table.

Arif Alikahn, Former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Policy Development: Now a Distinguished Visiting Professor of DHS and Counterterrorism at the National Defense University, Alikahn also served as Deputy Mayor for Public Safety for the City of Los Angeles where he reportedly derailed the LAPD’s efforts to monitor the city’s Muslim community — particularly its radical mosques and madrassas where certain 9/11 hijackers were said to have received support. He is affiliated with MPAC, which has called the terrorist group Hezbollah a “liberation movement.”


Salam al-Marayati, Founder and Executive Director of Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC): Marayati is an Iraqi immigrant who drew national attention over a decade ago when then-House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt nominated him to serve on the National Commission on Terrorism. Backlash over al-Marayati’s defense of Hezbollah and other Islamic groups prompted a withdrawal of the nomination. The Center for Security Policy reports that MPAC was formed in 1986 as the Political Action Committee for the Islamic Center for Southern California, one of the largest Wahhabi mosques in the country. While MPAC later fractioned-off, one of the founders of the Islamic Center, Hassan Hathout, was a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood who also spent time in Egyptian prison.


Mohamed Elibiary, Homeland Security Advisory Committee Member: He is the former president of the Freedom and Justice Foundation, which was billed to ”promote a Centrist Public Policy environment in Texas by coordinating the state level government and interfaith community relations for the organized Texas Muslim community.” He spoke at a 2004 conference in Dallas praising the “Great Islamic Visionary” Ayatollah Khomeini. Most recently he is famous for leaking highly sensitive intelligence documents to a media outlet in Texas.


Rashad Hussain, State Department Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation: The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report uncovered that Hussain spoke at a conference sponsored by the Muslim Brotherhood affiliate, the Association of Muslim Social Scientists. An internal Brotherhood document dubbed the Social Scientists as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” Hussain also spoke at the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding of Georgetown University, which reportedly receives Saudi funding and is directed by Muslim Brotherhood advocate, John Esposito. In 2004, Hussain also participated in the Muslim Students Association’s annual conference, a group founded by the Muslim Brotherhood and known as one of its front-groups. The report also asserts that many of the Student Associations’ nearly 600 college chapters “have engaged in extremism and the group closely collaborates with the other Brotherhood fronts.”

Other Brotherhood sympathizers involved in the administration but who tend to travel beneath the radar include:

Imam Mohamed Magid, Homeland Security Countering Violent Extremism Working Group Member : He is a Sudanese-born president for the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) with alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. ISNA’s parent is the Muslim Student Association. ISNA completed a $21 million headquarters in Indianapolis using funds raised in part from Muslim Brotherhood.


Eboo Patel, Obama Administration Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships: Patel spoke at a Muslim Students Association and ISNA convention, appearing on a panel alongside Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood’s founder, and Siraj Wahhaj, who was named as a possible co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and has defended the convicted WTC bombers. Wahhaj allegedly advocates the Islamic takeover of America.


Huma Abedin, Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: Perhaps most famous for being wife of the disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner, Huma Abedin appears to have family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In an interview with FrontPageMag, anti-Islamist author Walid Shoebat explained that Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin, is involved with the Muslim Brotherhood and that Huma’s brother, Hassan, sits in on the board of the Oxford Centre For Islamic Studies (OCIS) where he is a fellow and partners with other board members including “Al-Qaeda associate, Omar Naseef and the notorious Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheikh Youssef Qaradawi; both have been listed as OCIS Trustees.”

More information on the issue here

KenyaCare: Obama’s Cousin Gets Millions of Dollars

The problems in this story are TWO-FOLD!!!  First there is the issue of cronyism with tax dollars and second is the gift wrapping of US taxpayer $$$ to other countries that should be funding the same projects (or some of them) here at home!!!  Times are tough...unless you are barack obama! 

by Gary North - April 27, 2012

The Prime Minister of Kenya claims to be Obama’s cousin. He is a socialist. This is from 2006.  Now it’s is 2012. Times have changed.  The flow of American tax money is now flowing to Kenya.

The White House is committing to a five-year effort to “improve the inclusiveness and competitiveness” of the livestock industry specifically in Marsabit and Garissa counties, Kenya, according to a presolicitation notice released April 12 that U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor located via routine database research.

The Feed the Future-related initiative, known as the Resilience and Economic Growth in the Arid Lands-Accelerated Growth, or REGAL-AG, program, will be carried out by contractors hired by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), according to the document.

The agency did not disclose the project’s estimated cost: “No additional information regarding this planned RFP [Request for Proposals] is available at this time.”
It’s none of the public’s business to know how much money is involved. This is foreign aid, where money is no object.

There’s more.

•Up to $50 million in U.S. Navy-coordinated military construction projects on the horizon at Camp Simba, Kenya, and at Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti.

•Deployment to Kenya of a privately contracted Regional Advisor for USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA). as well as an Emerging Pandemic Threats Advisor.

•A U.S. Trade & Development Agency-led search for a contractor to perform a “definitional mission” exploring possible funding of geothermal energy projects in Kenya and Rwanda.

Money is no object.
The above-mentioned endeavors have taken place in recent weeks; however, other notable U.S.-funded Kenyan projects thus far in 2012 include the launching of a National Institutes of Health-led initiative to hire contractors to conduct genetic research of Kenyans with Type-2 diabetes. Separately, the U.S. Army embarked upon a market survey of potential vendors to provide helicopter flight-training simulators to the Kenyan government.
When Congress sends pork to their districts, hardly anyone one complains. The Left asks: “Should voters complain when the President of the United States does the same for his home district?” Of course not, we are assured. “That would not be sporting of them. A politician is expected to take care of the folks back home.” No matter how far away home is.

Are American voters suckers? You decide.

Romney Nomination in Doubt – Brokered Convention Likely?

Seems like wishful thinking to me...but an interesting read none-the-less!!!

 April 24, 2012

April 24, 2012. Des Moines. Two networks yesterday, CNBC and MSNBC, broadcast a little known fact – Ron Paul appears to be winning the Republican nomination for President. When the popular Texas Congressman repeatedly assured supporters that the race was about delegates, not beauty contests, he apparently knew what he was talking about. Now, after three more states locked in delegates to the GOP nominating convention – CO, MN and IA – indicators point to a brokered convention with a possible, even probable, Ron Paul victory.

Mitt Romney in a panic

The only report announcing the news of another Paul victory yesterday was the Doug Wead Blog. That write-up, which included the headline, ‘Romney in a Panic’, was picked-up and reprinted by a number of independent news outlets like RT News and The Daily Paul. Wead’s conclusion is based on a number of factors. First and foremost, Ron Paul continues to win more delegates than Mitt Romney during each state’s respective slating processes. Additionally, the writer points to drastic, last-minute changes to GOP procedure showing an attempt to limit the Paul vote. Some measures include a new poll tax in Washington and robo-calls in New York telling Republican voters that only Mitt Romney remains in the race.

What has the GOP power-brokers and their candidate in such a panic? In three short words – Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa.

Keep in mind that every major US news outlet continues to show Texas Congressman Ron Paul in last place for the GOP nomination and with only 75 delegates. View Politico's delegate tracker as an example. They show Rep. Paul winning 3 delegates in Colorado, 17 in Minnesota and 1 in Iowa. Those networks however, have based their numbers on which candidate each state’s delegates are pledged or likely to vote for. The more important number is who they actually do vote for. And in that race, the only race that matters, Ron Paul is shocking the political world.


As reported by this author last week in the article, ‘Colo, Minn, GOP Delegates chosen – Paul Strategy Working’, the local Colorado Ron Paul campaign teamed up with the remnants of former candidate Rick Santorum’s supporters. Together, they created a fusion slate of delegates to take on front-runner Mitt Romney and throw their collective voting power behind the last challenger remaining, Ron Paul.

Last week, the Paul campaign sent out a press release quoting the Denver Post’s headline proclaiming, ‘Stunning Upset’. The Post was referring to Congressman Paul’s delegate haul in the state party’s selection process. More importantly, the Colorado selection was the first to be conducted since former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum dropped out of the race, leaving it to the final two men standing – Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

The result, and a possible indicator of things to come, was Colorado Republicans refusing to give Mitt Romney even half their state’s voting delegates. If that trend continues, Mitt Romney cannot mathematically reach the needed 1,144 delegates, at least not on the first ballot.

This author pointed out last week that most of the national media, as well as the Colorado GOP, refuse to acknowledge Rep. Paul’s delegates in Colorado. The state party simply calls Paul’s delegates, “unpledged”. As the Paul campaign, as well as a small handful of other publications pointed out – Ron Paul actually took home 12 Colorado delegates, compared to 16 for Mitt Romney and 8 for Rick Santorum. Together, the anti-Romney delegates outnumber Romney’s 20 to 16.


The independent-leaning state of Minnesota was one that many thought Ron Paul might win outright. While the candidate didn’t win the “beauty contest” as Paul calls it, the libertarian conservative is cleaning up with regard to delegates. Minnesota’s delegate selection process is one of those that happens over the course of a few weeks and occurs locally, as Ron Paul puts it, “one precinct at a time, one delegate at a time.”

A few days ago, the Paul campaign and this author both announced the candidate’s surprise delegate haul in Minnesota. At the time, three major Congressional districts locked in their delegates and Ron Paul carried all three. In the excited words of the candidate himself, Ron Paul exclaimed, “Have you heard the news yet? Yesterday, Minnesota held three district conventions. Our campaign swept all three – winning nine delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa.” Again, read this author’s April 16th column titled, ‘Colo, Minn, GOP Delegates chosen, Paul Strategy Working’ for more information.

Now, just a few days later and with another block of Minnesota GOP delegates being chosen, Ron Paul has guaranteed himself a victory in the state. As confirmed by Rachel Maddow last night and by Ron Paul himself while he was the special guest host of CNBC in the morning, Ron Paul has already locked in 20 of the state’s 40 delegates. 16 of those 40 still remain to be chosen and will be awarded over the coming days. As Paul announced yesterday, and Maddow confirmed last night, 24 Minnesota delegates were chosen through this weekend and 20 of them are Ron Paul’s.


In the most stunning and unbelievable example of the Republican Party’s dysfunctional Presidential nominating process this year, the state of Iowa now has its third official winner. As humorously noted last night by Maddow, Newt Gingrich is the only candidate not to have won Iowa.

First, Mitt Romney was forced into the winner’s circle in a crazed, midnight, backroom announcement, even though the votes didn’t warrant it. Whiteout Press was one of the only media outlets in the nation to write about the faulty vote totals and was vindicated two weeks later when the Iowa GOP reversed its decision and awarded the victory in Iowa to Rick Santorum. Read the Whiteout Press article 'Santorum Won Iowa and didn't say Black' predicting the reversal two weeks before the Iowa GOP reversed its ruling. As a result of the fiasco, the Iowa Republican state chairman resigned. Read the article, ‘Midnight Chaos at Iowa Caucus’ for election night details.

Nothing sums up this weekend’s surprise results like Rachel Maddow’s on-air announcement on MSNBC, “I think Ron Paul just won Iowa.”

The left-leaning political anchor was referring to this weekend’s official awarding of Iowa GOP delegates to the party’s national nominating convention. While the state party has yet to post the results or make any announcement, the results are trickling out on their own, including the Paul campaign and on-air comments on CNBC and MSNBC. Those results show Ron Paul winning the most Iowa GOP delegates, including the new Iowa state party Chairmanship.

Iowa has 28 total delegates to the GOP nominating convention. The national media still shows Ron Paul with only 1 Iowa delegate however. Watch closely over the coming days as the state party quietly changes its totals to show Ron Paul going from 1 delegate to 14 - a full 50 percent of the state’s entire delegation to the nominating convention. And again, many of the remaining delegates are party leaders, elected officials and other super delegates who have yet to assign their votes.

Romney in trouble

The only good news for Mitt Romney is that Iowa, Minnesota and Colorado weren’t the former Governor’s strongest states to begin with. And while the Romney campaign may not be in “panic” mode just yet as some independent reports are suggesting, the candidate and his establishment backers must be concerned. With Mitt Romney failing to capture even half of the delegates from these initial states, he is on course to fight it out for the party nomination at a brokered convention this summer.

The Warren Harding lesson

Many political observers, not just within the Ron Paul campaign, are calling the Texas Congressman’s nomination plan the ‘Harding Strategy’. Referring to the 1920 Republican nominating convention held in Chicago, Warren Harding was at the bottom of a list of 12 potential GOP nominees. Unable to unite behind one candidate during the primary process, the delegates were forced into a brokered convention.

Through the first 6 rounds of delegate voting, Harding didn’t even finish in the top three during any of the votes. But by the 10th vote, Warren Harding walked away with the Republican nomination. He went on to win the general election and become President.

While many political analysts are calling Ron Paul’s current journey a mirror image of Harding’s 1920 trek, others aren’t quite convinced. As the Paul campaign itself continues to point out, only half of the states have voted so far. Nothing’s been decided yet. If nothing else, just when the Republican leadership and the national media have proclaimed Mitt Romney the GOP nominee, Ron Paul’s string of delegate victories this week may force them to do what they were forced to do in Iowa – admit they’re wrong.

Whether or not the Texas Congressman can duplicate Warren Harding’s stunning upset on the way to the White House is another question. But if delegate selections continue on the course they’re on, Mitt Romney will not have enough delegates to win the nomination outright. If that turns out to be the case and the GOP heads into a brokered convention, Ron Paul may have the party right where he wants it. A brokered convention has been his strategy all along.

Cronyism! Portland Bans Groupon and Handicaps Competition to Assist Political Insiders


Oregon city stopping citizens from saving money in tough times.

As Ronald Reagan famously quipped, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I'm here to help.’” Portland, Oregon, though, really is here to help. The problem is that the city hasn’t created laws to benefit Portlanders—it’s created them to benefit one specific industry, at the expense of every consumer in the area.

The Portland city council two years ago put in place regulations that force limousine and sedan services to charge a $50 minimum for rides to and from the airport, and at least 35 percent more than taxis for trips to any other destination. And these transportation companies cannot pick up customers until at least an hour after the customer calls for a ride.

And it gets worse. Daily deal companies such as Groupon and LivingSocial partner with local businesses looking for new customers and offer limited-time specials that allow people to buy goods and services at a discounted price.

But when two companies offered their chauffeur services at a cut-rate through Groupon in separate months last year, Portland responded each time by assessing fines on every Groupon sold: a total of $635,500 for and $259,500 for Fiesta Limousine. The firms refunded their would-be customers rather than risk going bankrupt.

Portland officials have been surprisingly frank in discussing the rationale for the rules. The Huffington Post reports,

Frank Dufray, administrator for Portland's Private-for-Hire Transportation Program, which regulates both taxi and livery services, said the laws aren't intended to help consumers or the city, but to protect market share for the taxi industry.

"The main thing is that you don't want the Town cars to take all of the best fares, which are to the airport, and not leave any for the taxi industry," he said. "That's why there's a minimum fare and a one-hour wait requirement."
The Institute for Justice, the libertarian public-interest law firm, has just filed suit in federal court against the city. They succinctly summarize the issue at stake:

Can the government bar entrepreneurs from offering competitive prices, online discounts and prompt service merely to protect politically powerful insiders from competition?

That is the question the Institute for Justice (IJ) and its clients seek to answer though a federal lawsuit they have filed challenging Portland, Oregon’s anticompetitive limousine and sedan regulations.
As IJ attorney Wesley Hottot says in the nonprofit's YouTube video outlining the case, “That isn’t just wrong; it’s unconstitutional.”

IJ’s complaint filed today with the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, which will be put online shortly, is based on the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and its Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. The law firm expects the more general legal question at issue here eventually to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Judge Declares State Worker Drug Testing Order Unconstitutional

As potheads everywhere scramble for state jobs!!!

Apr 26, 2012

A federal judge declared Gov. Rick Scott's order requiring drug testing for some 85,000 state workers unconstitutional Thursday, saying the governor showed no evidence of a drug problem at the agencies to warrant suspicionless testing.

The ruling marks the second blow to Scott's proposals regarding drug testing. The governor also suspended a state law he supported that required drug testing for welfare recipients last year after a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. A federal judge in Orlando has temporarily blocked that law.

The ACLU and a government worker's union also filed a lawsuit last year challenging Scott's order to drug test state employees, saying the testing violates the Fourth Amendment by subjecting state workers to an unreasonable search without adequate suspicion that they used drugs. Scott, who suspended drug testing for state employees in June, said he will appeal Thursday's ruling.

"As I have repeatedly explained, I believe that drug testing state employees is a common sense means of ensuring a safe, efficient and productive workforce," Scott said in a statement. "That is why so many private employers drug test, and why the public and Florida's taxpayers overwhelmingly support this policy."

Attorneys for the governor's office had argued there is adequate statistical evidence in years of national studies about workplace drug use and its dangers to justify the order. They also reasoned that employees aren't being forced to take state jobs and that they can find employment elsewhere if they don't want to be drug tested.

Scott's attorneys also cited state laws requiring some state employees under certain circumstances to make financial disclosures or provide open access to public records, arguing all state employees have diminished privacy interests regarding drug testing.

"But the Governor's reasoning is hardly transparent and frankly obscure," U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro wrote. "He offers no plausible rationale explaining why the fact that a state employee's work product and financial status are publically accessible leads to the conclusion that the employee's expectation of privacy in his or her bodily functions and fluids is then diminished."

The ACLU and the workers union said that in 2010, only 46 of the 85,000 workers in question were subjected to drug testing because of suspicion they were using drugs - about five one-hundredths of 1 percent. Most were in the Corrections and Juvenile Justice departments, and most were found to be drug-free. In 2009, only four of more than 4,700 workers tested were found positive for drugs.

"There never was any evidence that state employees used drugs more than any other group so this was a case of using hard working state employees to score political points," said Alma Gonzalez, an attorney for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

EPA Official's 'Philosophy' On Oil Companies: 'Crucify Them' with False Claims to Incite Fear

By Craig Bannister - April 25, 2012

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor today to draw attention to a video of a top EPA official saying the EPA’s “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies - just as the Romans crucified random citizens in areas they conquered to ensure obedience.
Inhofe quoted a little-watched video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.
In the video, Administrator Armendariz says:
“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said:
“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.
“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”
“It’s a deterrent factor,” Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans’ philosophy for subjugating conquered villages.
Soon after Armendariz touted the EPA’s “philosophy,” the EPA began smear campaigns against natural gas producers, Inhofe’s office noted in advance of today’s Senate speech:
“Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.
“In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were premature at best – and despite their most valiant efforts, they have been unable to find any sound scientific evidence to make this link.”
In his Senate speech, Sen. Inhofe said the video provides Americans with “a glimpse of the Obama administration’s true agenda.”
That agenda, Inhofe said, is to “incite fear” in the public with unsubstantiated claims and “intimidate” oil and gas companies with threats of unjustified fines and penalties – then, quietly backtrack once the public’s perception has been firmly jaded against oil and natural gas.

See video here

EEOC Says You Have to Hire Drop Outs and Cross Dressers

If employers must hire anyone regardless of "mental impairment", where does it stop?  Pedophilia is considered a mental impairment.  Are youth groups required to hire pedophiles?  Are churches?

- by:

The bureaucrats are at it again. Not only are they requiring that spas and swimming pools install permanent lifts for the disabled but a new set of opinions is coming out of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to protect prospective employees who have “gender identity” issues. If enacted, the new laws would come under the prohibitions on sex discrimination contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC opinion would mean that that you would have to hire Chaz Bono if he/she applied for a job. It won’t stop with hiring. The issue of accommodations enters the picture. Which bathroom will he/she use? Will women be comfortable with a man who thinks he’s a woman and wants to use the woman’s bathroom? Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel writes:

This ruling basically says that a Bible bookstore owner, for instance, could not turn away a homosexual, cross-dressing man, a man who likes to wear a miniskirt and lipstick — this would protect that man from being denied a job at a Bible bookstore that holds sincerely held religious beliefs that are opposed to that individual’s lifestyle,” Barber explains.

Liberals like to shout, “Get out of my bedroom!” Well, get out of my work place. I don’t owe anybody a job.

When the government passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, most people praised the Act because they believed it would protect people with physical disabilities and mental impairment from employment discrimination. Critics of ADA believed the law was made purposefully vague so that it could be expanded by government bureaucrats. Of course, this is true of all laws. On signing the measure, Pres. George H. W. Bush said:

I know there may have been concerns that the ADA may be too vague or too costly, or may lead endlessly to litigation. But I want to reassure you right now that my administration and the United States Congress have carefully crafted this Act. We’ve all been determined to ensure that it gives flexibility, particularly in terms of the timetable of implementation; and we’ve been committed to containing the costs that may be incurred…. Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.

The EEOC is issuing opinions to expand the meaning of “mental impairment” based on the provision found in the ADA legislation.

A letter from the EEOC is warning employers that requiring a high school diploma from a job applicant might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. “The ‘informal discussion letter’ from the EEOC said an employer’s requirement of a high school diploma, long a standard criterion for screening potential employees, must be ‘job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.’”

A “learning disability” — based on the “D” in ADA — may now be covered under the law. So some 9th-grade dropout who applies for a job and doesn’t get it because he doesn’t have a high school diploma or a GED could sue the company because of his claim that the reason he didn’t graduate from high school was due to a learning disability.

Do you know how nuts this is? It doesn’t stop at high school. What if a graduate from high school is denied entry into the college of his choice because of his grades? He counters that his law grades were the result of a learning disability. What if he flunks out of college? Could he file a claim with the EEOC and argue that he was discriminated against because of his learning disability?

One of the companies that I run was contacted by the EEOC. The person who filed the claim wanted money. The EEOC was trying to pressure my company to pay out more than $40,000. Of course, the government agency would have taken less, say, $26,000. Most companies pay because they count what it would cost to fight it. We fought it and one. Other companies are not as fortunate.

Remember the comment that Pres. Bush made when he signed the bill: “I know there may have been concerns that the ADA may be too vague or too costly, or may lead endlessly to litigation.”

I’m of the opinion that a high school diploma or college degree is not always necessary for employment, but it’s not the government’s job to say so.

Government & Tax $$$ Drive Scientific Opinion

April 26, 2012 - by:

In 2006, then climate change enthusiast James Lovelock believed that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” The 92-year-old scientist is now in the recanting phase of his life. He admits that some of the language in his 2006 book Revenge of Gaia had been over the top. He admits that if he were writing today he would be more cautious.

It’s a little late now that laws are being implemented to curtail what was said to be “scientific fact.”

More than a century ago, John William Draper made the unsupported claim that scientific “opinions on every subject are continually liable to modification, from the irresistible advance of human knowledge.”[1] This wasn’t true then and it’s not true today.

In reality, many new scientific theories are often opposed by scientists for any number of reasons. There is continued scientific debate over the causes or even the reality of human-caused global warming, whether oil is a “fossil” fuel or a renewable abiotic resource,[2] the medical benefits of embryonic stem-cells, and much more. A lot of it has to do with grant money.

These debates can be downright hostile as charges and counter charges are lobbed from scientific strongholds where the claim is made that there is no room for debate. Consider the Inquisition-like reaction to those who question the certainty of global warming:

Scientists who dissent from the alarmism [over global warming] have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. . . . In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.[3]

Some have gone so far as to propose that “global warming deniers” are aiding and abetting a global holocaust and should be prosecuted. Australian columnist Margo Kingston “has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial.’ ‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial,’ she wrote. ‘Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.’ Others have suggested that climate change deniers should be put on trial in the future, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their attempts to cover up the ‘global warming . . . Holocaust.’”[4] These arguments are being made by those within the secular scientific community. Follow the money.

There’s a new Inquisition in operation. If you don’t hold to the agreed-upon theories, then you will not be hired, and if you already have a position, there is a good chance you will lose it if you express your opinion, especially if that opinion goes against a theory that might jeopardize money that flows from government grants. Stephen Jay Gould has written: “The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology.”[5] Scientists are just like everybody else. They want the same things.

We shouldn’t be surprised that climate scientists might fudge the evidence to keep the grant money coming in. Who’s really getting harmed? Anyway, the kids need new shoes and an investment portfolio so they can get into the best universities to learn how to game the system.

Gary Sutton, writing in an online article for Forbes, makes the point:

You can’t blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed’s mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today’s scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.[6]

Of course, they can be blamed when they claim that they are doing real science, there is no contrary evidence, and what contrary evidence they do find they suppress it. So the next time someone dogmatically asserts that the majority of scientists believe in Global Warming, ask your antagonist how much grant money he’s getting?


1.John William Draper, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1875), vi. [↩]

2.Jerome R. Corsi and Craig R. Smith, Black Gold Stranglehold (Nashville, TN: WND Books, 2005). [↩]

3.Richard Lindsen, “Climate of Fear: Global-Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence,” The Wall Street Journal (April 12, 2006): [↩]

4.Brendan O’Neill, “Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech” (October 6, 2006): [↩]

5.Stephen Jay Gould, “In the Mind of the Beholder,” Natural History (February 1994), 103:14. [↩]

6.Gary Sutton, “The Fiction of Climate Science,” (December 4, 2009). [↩]

Feds Killing Small Farmers By Seizing Bank Accts On Phony Charges

By: Rady Ananda - April 23, 2012

Monsanto’s Food and Drug Administration can’t close down small dairies and private food clubs fast enough, bursting on the scene with guns drawn as if the criminalized right to contract for natural foods we’ve consumed for millennia deserves SWAT attention.

Now, Obama has the Dept. of Justice going after small farmers under the post-911 “Bank Secrecy Act” which makes it a crime to deposit less than $10,000 when you earned more than that.

“The level we deposited was what it was and it was about the same every week,” Randy Sowers told Frederick News. The Sowers own and run South Mountain Creamery in Middletown, Maryland.

Admittedly, when the Sowers earned over $10,000 in February, and learned they’d have to fill out paperwork at the bank for such large deposits, they simply rolled the deposits over to keep them below the none-of-your-f**king-business amount, rather than waste time on bureaucratic red tape aimed at flagging terrorism or other illegal activities.

“Structuring,” explains, “is the federal criminal offense of splitting up bank deposits so as to keep them under a threshold such as $10,000 above which banks have to report transactions to the government.”

While being questioned, the Sowers were finally presented with a seizure order and advised that the feds had already emptied their bank account of $70,000. The Dept. of Justice has since sued to keep $63,000 of the Sowers’ money, though they committed no crime other than maintaining their privacy.

Without funds, they will be unable to make purchases for the spring planting.

When a similar action was taken against Taylor’s Produce Stand last year, the feds seized $90,000, dropped the charges, and kept $45,000 of Taylor’s money.

Knowing that most farms operate on a very thin margin, such abuse of power wipes out a family’s income, and for a bonus, the feds enhance the monopoly power of Monsanto, Big Dairy and their supply chain.

You can just smell attorney Michael Taylor behind all this, Obama’s dairy dog. Who you’ll find, instead, is US district attorney Stefan Cassella. He’s the first to head the DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture & Money Laundering Section, created in 2009, having wrote the books on it. He cut his teeth on seizing $1.2 billion from real money launderer, BCCI. Guess his focus has changed since then.

The Maryland Dept. of Agriculture had no trouble hitting up the Sowers for a recipe in its Buy-Local cookbook; but Cassella must’ve missed that public service, or it’s what drew his attention – “Ah! A small dairy! Let’s rob them of their cash, those evil Big Dairy competitors. They probably sell raw milk under the table. Even if we find no evidence of wrongdoing, we’ll keep their money anyway.” (Cue Curly’s, “yuh, yuh, yuh.”)

City Paper reports that in 2011, “Maryland brought 14 of the nation’s 99 structuring cases, making it the top state for such prosecutions. Nationally, the numbers have been rising; the 2011 figures are up 8.8 percent from the year before and up 57.1 percent from five years ago.”

Funny, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and other criminal banksters are still in operation, despite committing millions of acts of fraud during mortgage reassignations. But the DOJ prioritizes squashing family farmers since it’s easier to pick the low-hanging fruit than do battle with well-financed criminals who’ve illegally seized the homes of millions of US citizens.

Former Maryland assistant U.S. attorney Steven Levin told the paper, “The emphasis is on basically seizing money, whether it is legally or illegally earned. It can lead to financial ruin for business owners, and there’s a potential for abuse here by the government.”

Ya think?

The Bank Secrecy Act was modified* after 9/11, another in a long line of Constitutionally-abhorrent laws enacted by officials who cannot prove they were elected to office (given those elections were held on electronic voting systems that can be hacked without leaving evidence of the crime).

With the current Administration’s Agenda 21 focus on destroying the natural food and herb industry, is it not unsurprising to see unconstitutional terrorist legislation used on innocent, law abiding citizens?

Discrimination Against Confederate Flag Proof of Indoctrination

This story is proof of the skewed curriculum being taught in schools throughout this country.  For people to automatically equate the confederate flag to racism rather than anti-federalism and a fight for independence illustrates the indoctrination being committed in our public schools.  First of all, the flag in question is the confederate "battle flag" NOT the national flag of the confederacy. Additionally, though slavery was more prevalent in the South, it was NOT the main reason the Civil War was fought.  Slavery was actually ending in the South around the start of the war, and most folks fighting for the confederacy didn't actually own slaves.  I wonder what the next generation will believe in regard to the September 11th attacks and the War on Terror?!

Janice Broach - 4/25/2012

A high school senior from West Tennessee says she was banned from attending her prom because her dress resembled a Confederate battle flag, WMC-TV in Memphis reported.

"It wasn't done to offend anybody," Texanna Edwards, 18, told the NBC station. "It was done just for the sole fact that I just wanted a rebel flag dress because I thought it was cool."

But officials at Gibson County High School officials in Dyer, Tenn., did not agree with her coolness factor. Principal James Hughes declined comment to WMC.

"He told us y'all have to leave because the dress is inappropriate," Edwards said. She said that last year she wore a camouflage dress to the prom without any objection.

She said she doesn't understand why the dress was banned because students in school wear rebel flag shirts, hats and belt buckles.

"I don't see the point of not letting someone in their one and only prom, senior prom. The year they graduate. Doesn't represent anything bad," student Cody Beasley told WMC-TV.

Gibson County Special School District Superintendent Eddie Pruett, however, said a teacher had warned Edwards months ago that the dress might be inappropriate, The Associated Press reported. Pruett said there have been racial tensions at the school in recent years and the high school principal worried the dress could have caused more, according to the AP.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Black and White: Who’s Killing Whom?

by: da Tagliare - April 25, 2012

Ever since George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin a month ago, it seems that everyone is talking about racial crimes. Every time a non-black commits a violent crime against a black person, certain black activists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson crawl out from the cracks like cockroaches when the lights go out. They do their best to make everything into a racial hate crime, whether it was or not.

So I thought it was about time we take a look at racial crimes and see just who is committing the crimes against whom.

According to a study conducted by the Scripps Howard News Service, white on black killings rose from 3% thirty years ago to 4% today. Black on white killings rose from 6% thirty years ago to 8% today. In other words, there are twice as many black on white killings as there are white on black killings.

On our local news last night, they reported white on black crimes in Ohio are running at 3.2% while black on white crimes are more than double, running at 8.2%. Worse yet were the black on black crimes, which had state and local officials alarmed. They never said exactly what the black on black rate was but indicated that it was significantly higher than the white on black and black on white figures combined.

With state and national statistics showing that black on white crimes are twice that of white on black, where are the racial activists screaming hate crimes? Where are Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson when a black person kills a white person? If they were honest and sincere about wanting to stop racially motivated hate crimes, they should be fair and make the same accusations when the color is on the other side of the gun.

If they don’t think many black on white crimes are racially motivated, they need to think again. A former job of mine would take me into a predominately black area of a large metropolitan city. I was threatened by blacks of all ages and sexes. I’ll never forget the day a black preschooler came up to me and called me an f’n honky and then told me to get my white ass out of his neighborhood.

So my advice to black activists like Sharpton and Jackson is to start with their own house, clean it up first before they try to start cleaning up the houses of others. They need to spend more time working with blacks, especially those in major cities, start changing their racist attitudes and then maybe they’ll see a difference in the rest of American society.

Romney Vows to Maintain 'Progressive' Tax Code

I pray it's only a ploy during these times of obama incited class warfare, but based on the pattern...sadly I'm afraid it is not!

By Patrick Burke - April 23, 2012

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has repeatedly vowed during his presidential campaign that if he is elected president he will maintain the "progressivity" of the tax code, so that as a person's income goes up he or she will be required to give an increasing percentage of it to the government in taxes.
Romney's advocacy of a progressive tax goes back a long way. In 1996, as a private citizen, according to the Boston Globe, he spent $50,000 of his own money to run full-page advertisements in the Globe, the Des Moines Register, the New Hampshire Sunday News and the Boston Herald to express his opposition to the 17-percent flat tax that then-presidential candidate Steve Forbes was promoting as a part of his campaign.
"I'm hoping that by running these ad voters will realize the Forbes flat tax is a gimmick, a phony, and not what it pretends to be," Romney told the Globe that year.
Romney's ads against the Forbes flat tax, the Globe reported, attacked Forbes's plan because it did not tax interest, dividends or capital gains. "The Forbes tax isn't a flat tax at all--it's tax cut for fat cats!" Romney's ad said.
In this campaign, Romney's insistence that he will maintain the progressivity in the tax code seems to reject a tenet of supply-side economics--which holds that reducing the marginal tax rate increases the incentive for small business people to invest additional dollars expanding their businesses and creating jobs because they will not be penalized for the added return that risking their money might bring it.
In an April 17 interview with Larry Kudlow on CNBC, Romney indicated that he intended to take back from the wealthiest taxpayers any break they got from the reducing the top income tax rates by eliminating for them some of the tax deductions that people in lower brackets would still be able to claim.
"[U]nderstand," said Romney, "that virtually all the of the deductions and exemptions, particularly for high-income taxpayers are going to be on the table, because we are going to have to eliminate--well, limit rather, not eliminate, but limit--for high-income individuals some of the deduction and exemptions in order to compensate for the deductions in rates."
On February 26, 2012, Romney told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that he wants, “to make sure that we maintain the progressivity of the [tax] code.”
“I’m not trying to change the progressivity of the code, I’m not trying to say that one group or another is going to get a better deal, but what I am trying to do is to make sure that under no circumstances is the middle class going to end up with a larger share of the tax burden,” said Romney.
“I want to make sure that we maintain the progressivity in the code, and I want to help people who I think have been most hurt by the Obama economy, and that’s middle income Americans. I’m not looking to change the deal that we have right now with regards to people looking at their share of the tax burden.”
On March 3, during a FoxNews interview with college senior Devin Largent on “Huckabee,” Romney said: “By lowering marginal rates across the board, we’ll have two things we also do. One is to limit the deductions and exemptions that exist particularly for people at the high end of the income spectrum so that one, we maintain progressivity in the code and number two, we’re keeping the revenue coming in by getting rid of some of the exemptions and deductions, or not getting rid of but by limiting them. And then secondly, we’ll get a growth effect.”
At a campaign event at Tri-City Christian Academy in Chandler, Ariz., on February 22, 2012, the candidate said he would not only maintain the “progressivity” of the tax code, but also ensure “the top 1%” pays the same amount or more in taxes.
“And also in order to make sure that we continue to have progressivity as we have had in the past in our code, I'm going to limit the deductions and exemptions particularly for high income folks,” he said.
“But for high income folks, we're going cut back on [deductions] so that we make sure that the top 1% keeps paying the current share they're paying or more. We want middle income Americans to be the place we focus our help because it’s middle income Americans that have been hurt by this Obama economy.”
At a private fund raiser in Palm Beach, Fla. Romney reportedly promised to eliminate numerous tax reductions that are usually available to high income earning Americans, to offset the lost tax revenue as a direct result of lower marginal rates.
“I’m going to probably eliminate for high income people the second-home mortgage deduction,” said Romney. “By virtue of doing that, we’ll get the same tax revenue, but we’ll have lower rates.”
And during an interview with Larry Kudlow on “The Kudlow Report” on April 17, Romney said: “So what we really need to do is to simplify our tax code, lower our rates, at the same time eliminate, or limit rather some deductions or exemptions particularly for high income folks. And by virtue of doing that you can keep the progressivity in the code, at the same time you can make it more likely for small businesses to start.”
"Well, I've put a number of things on the table, and you understand that virtually all the of the deductions and exemptions, particularly for high-income taxpayers are going to be on the table, because we are going to have to eliminate--well, limit rather, not eliminate, but limit--for high-income individuals some of the deduction and exemptions in order to compensate for the deductions in rates," Romney told Kudlow. "This is, of course, the way that Bowles-Simpson laid out their plan. Bring the rates down, the tax rates down, top marginal rates down, so that businesses have an incentive to hire again and to grow and to pay for that in part by limiting the deductions and exemptions particularly on high-income folks because it is my intent not to reduce the burden paid by the top earners but instead to maintain it at its current level but to bring the rates down."
According to the tax plan on his campaign’s Web site, Gov. Romney plans to cut marginal tax rates by 20 percent, in addition to reducing taxes on dividends, capital gains and interest on all those who earn less than $200,000.
He also plans to eliminate the federal estate tax -- commonly referred to as the death tax, and decrease the corporate tax rate to 25 percent as a way to boost American global competitiveness.

$400,000 Debt Per Household to Cover Medicare/Social Security

* Medicare Faces Unfunded Liability of $38.6T, or $328,404 for Each U.S. Household

* Social Security Faces Unfunded Liability of $8.6T, or $73,167.83 Per Household

Medicare Faces Unfunded Liability of $38.6T, or $328,404 for Each U.S. Household

By Christopher Goins - April 23, 2012

Medicare faces an unfunded liability of $38.6 trillion, according to the Medicare Trustees report released Monday.
The unfunded liability is the amount that has been promised in benefits to people now alive that will not be funded by the tax revenue the system is expected to take in to pay for those benefits. (The Medicare Trustees calculate the unfunded liability for a period of 75 years into the future.)
The $38.6 trillion in unfunded benefits Medicare is expected to pay over the next 75 years equals $328,404.43 for each of the 117,538,000 households the Census Bureau said there were in the United States in 2010.
“From the 75-year budget perspective, the present value of the additional resources that would be necessary to meet projected expenditures, at current-law levels for the three programs combined, is $38.6 trillion,” reads the report.
“To put this very large figure in perspective, it would represent 4.3 percent of the present value of projected GDP over the same period ($907 trillion),” states the Trustees report.
The extra money needed to fund the unfunded liabilities would have to come from something other than payroll taxes, benefit taxes, and premium payments scheduled under current law.
The report also says that there is “a significant likelihood” that the “projected HI and SMI expenditures are substantially understated as a result of potentially impracticable elements of current law.”

Social Security Faces Unfunded Liability of $8.6T, or $73,167.83 Per Household

By Christopher Goins - April 24, 2012

Social Security faces an unfunded liability of $8.6 trillion, according to the 2012 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds.

The unfunded liability is the amount that has been promised in benefits to people now alive that will not be funded by the tax revenue the system is expected to take in to pay for those benefits. (The Social Security trustees calculate the unfunded liability for a period of 75 years into the future, from 2012 to 2086)

The $8.6 trillion in unfunded benefits Social Security is expected to pay over the next 75 years equals $73,167.83 for each of the 117,538,000 households the Census Bureau said were in the United States in 2010.

However, the report also shows that when considering the unfunded obligations over an “infinite horizon”—the period extending into the indefinite future—the $8.6 trillion shortfall balloons to $20.5 trillion.

“Extending the horizon beyond 75 years increases the measured unfunded obligation,” the report said.

“Through the infinite horizon, the unfunded obligation, or shortfall, equals $20.5 trillion in present value, which represents 3.9 percent of future taxable payroll or 1.3 percent of future GDP,” reads the report.

The report adds that the 2012 estimate for unfunded obligations over the infinite horizon has increased from the $17.9 trillion in the 2011 report.

Obama's Labor Dept. to Ban Kid's from Doing Farm Chores

By Patrick Richardson - 04/25/2012

A proposal from the Obama administration to prevent children from doing farm chores has drawn plenty of criticism from rural-district members of Congress. But now it’s attracting barbs from farm kids themselves.

The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land.

Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.”

“Prohibited places of employment,” a Department press release read, “would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.”

The new regulations, first proposed August 31 by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, would also revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA, replacing them instead with a 90-hour federal government training course.

Rossie Blinson, a 21-year-old college student from Buis Creek, N.C., told The Daily Caller that the federal government’s plan will do far more harm than good.

“The main concern I have is that it would prevent kids from doing 4-H and FFA projects if they’re not at their parents’ house,” said Blinson.

“I started showing sheep when I was four years old. I started with cattle around 8. It’s been very important. I learned a lot of responsibility being a farm kid.”

In Kansas, Cherokee County Farm Bureau president Jeff Clark was out in the field — literally on a tractor — when TheDC reached him. He said if Solis’s regulations are implemented, farming families’ labor losses from their children will only be part of the problem.

“What would be more of a blow,” he said, “is not teaching our kids the values of working on a farm.”

The Environmental Protection Agency reports that the average age of the American farmer is now over 50.

“Losing that work-ethic — it’s so hard to pick this up later in life,” Clark said. “There’s other ways to learn how to farm, but it’s so hard. You can learn so much more working on the farm when you’re 12, 13, 14 years old.”

John Weber, 19, understands this. The Minneapolis native grew up in suburbia and learned the livestock business working summers on his relatives’ farm.

He’s now a college Agriculture major.

“I started working on my grandparent’s and uncle’s farms for a couple of weeks in the summer when I was 12,” Weber told TheDC. “I started spending full summers there when I was 13.”

“The work ethic is a huge part of it. It gave me a lot of direction and opportunity in my life. If they do this it will prevent a lot of interest in agriculture. It’s harder to get a 16 year-old interested in farming than a 12 year old.”

Weber is also a small businessman. In high school, he said, he took out a loan and bought a few steers to raise for income. “Under these regulations,” he explained, “I wouldn’t be allowed to do that.”

In February the Labor Department seemingly backed away from what many had called an unrealistic reach into farmers’ families, reopening the public comment period on a section of the regulations designed to give parents an exemption for their own children.

But U.S. farmers’ largest trade group is unimpressed.

“American Farm Bureau does not view that as a victory,” said Kristi Boswell, a labor specialist with the American Farm Bureau Federation. “It’s a misconception that they have backed off on the parental exemption.”

Boswell chafed at the government’s rationale for bringing farms strictly into line with child-labor laws.

“They have said the number of injuries are higher for children than in non-ag industries,” she said. But everyone in agriculture, Boswell insisted, “makes sure youth work in tasks that are age-appropriate.”

The safety training requirements strike many in agriculture as particularly strange, given an injury rate among young people that is already falling rapidly.

According to a United States Department of Agriculture study, farm accidents among youth fell nearly 40 percent between 2001 and 2009, to 7.2 injuries per 1,000 farms.

Clark said the regulations are vague and meddlesome.

“It’s so far-reaching,” he exclaimed, “kids would be prohibited from working on anything ‘power take-off’ driven, and anything with a work-height over six feet — which would include the tractor I’m on now.”

The way the regulations are currently written, he added, would prohibit children under 16 from using battery powered screwdrivers, since their motors, like those of a tractor, are defined as “power take-off driven.”

And jobs that could “inflict pain on an animal” would also be off-limits for kids. But “inflicting pain,” Clark explained, is left undefined: If it included something like putting a halter on a steer, 4-H and FFA animal shows would be a thing of the past.

In a letter to The Department of Labor in December, Montana Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg complained that the animal provision would also mean young people couldn’t “see veterinary medicine in practice … including a veterinarian’s own children accompanying him or her to a farm or ranch.”

Boswell told TheDC that the new farming regulations could go into effect as early as August. She claimed farmers could soon find The Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division inspectors on their land, citing them for violations.

“In the last three years that division has grown 30 to 40 percent,” Boswell said. Some Farm Bureau members, she added, have had inspectors on their land checking on conditions for migrant workers, only to be cited for allowing their own children to perform chores that the Labor Department didn’t think were age-appropriate.

It’s something Kansas Republican Senator Jerry Moran believes simply shouldn’t happen.

During a March 14 hearing, Moran blasted Hilda Solis for getting between rural parents and their children.

“The consequences of the things that you put in your regulations lack common sense,” Moran said.

“And in my view, if the federal government can regulate the kind of relationship between parents and their children on their own family’s farm, there is almost nothing off-limits in which we see the federal government intruding in a way of life.”

The Department of Labor did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Read more:

Big Labor Tramples Employee Rights

April 25, 2012 - by Newt Gingrich

Big Labor asserts that workers have rights to a workweek capped at 40 hours, a certain amount of paid vacation, and unsustainable pension programs. Rights, in fact, to lots of things--but not to leave the union or to stop funding their political activities. The Employee Rights Act, introduced last year by Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Tim Scott, seeks to change that.

We all know the feeling of quiet resentment upon opening a paycheck, only to find that a quarter of what we've earned has been hijacked by a federal government everyone knows is extravagantly wasteful. But, however much of our income we may suspect is going to finance public employees' "planning" excursions to Las Vegas, at least we know that much of our money does go to important purposes.

Some Americans, though, find in each paycheck a void more unpleasant than tax withholding. For those workers whose jobs require them to be members of a union, they are likely to find that their unions have deducted money, as well, much of it used for political activities--even without their consent.

Few people, given a choice, would wish to donate large chunks of their income regularly to political campaigns, year after year of their working lives. Yet under current law, unions can make it difficult--if not impossible--for employees to opt out of contributing to such activities. And if they even try, members could face intimidation, or worse.

This shakedown is a fundamental violation of employee rights. Its sole purpose is to protect the political power of union bosses. And for many union members, the money their so-called leaders are skimming from their paychecks goes to advance political causes to which the employees themselves are opposed.

We know that the biggest unions dropped well in excess of $100 million on the 2010 elections, and that 93 percent of union spending was on behalf of Democrats. Yet the same year, more than 40 percent of voters in union households reported casting their ballots for Republicans.

That means millions of union members had money taken from their paychecks and used to support candidates of the party they were voting against--and they scarcely had a choice about it.

What's more, only a tiny minority of employees in a union today ever had a chance to vote whether they wanted their workplaces to be unionized in the first place. Less than 10 percent have voted for a union in their workplace, according to National Labor Relations Board and Census data. Even for many of their own members, unions are unwelcome and entrenched organizations everyone but the union bosses would be better off without.

The Employee Rights Act seeks to correct these genuine injustices.

It would transform the outdated labor law to protect workers' paychecks from union deductions for political purposes, providing instead that they could opt in to such contributions. Of course, the unions oppose this change not for reasons of principle or for the well-being of their members, but because they know few of those members would choose to give them the money on which the bosses' political power depends.

In addition, the bill would require unions to be recertified in workplaces every three years, to confirm that employees actually want to be in a union. Many companies today are unionized because employees voted decades ago to join--and there has never been another vote since. The barriers to decertification are very high, and again, serve only to protect the union bosses, not the employees, who could always vote to keep their union representation. The reason they oppose these rights is because they know many of their members would vote to decertify them if they had the chance.

The bill would also give workers the right to a secret ballot regarding questions of union certification and union strikes. There are no free or fair decisions about workplace representation when union organizers can pressure employees, individually and in groups, into signing union authorization petitions. But in 2009, workers were denied a secret ballot in nearly 40 percent of union authorizations.

Finally, the bill would criminalize threats of violence by unions in an attempt to intimidate employees. Each of these provisions is supported by large majorities not just of Americans at large, but of union households as well. Polling shows 78 percent of union households support the bill, and 80 percent of non-union households. Americans can see there are simply no arguments against recognizing these employee rights.

Practically the only people who oppose the bill are the union leaders and the politicians who depend on their largesse. As Richard Berman of the Center for Union Facts, which conducted the polling, put it, "I have yet to hear any responsible objection to the ERA provisions. With 80 percent public support all politicians should embrace these changes to a law that hasn't been substantially modified since 1947."

It's a frightening commentary on what unions have become that we need legislation to protect employees' rights, not from abuse by their employers, but by Big Labor itself.

Monday, April 23, 2012

Catholic Bishops Take on Obama; Now Demand Repeal of Mandate


The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has taken a bold stand for religious freedom. In a recent statement, titled “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty,” the bishops call for repeal of contraception coverage mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services. The clarified position sets up a dramatic confrontation with the Obama administration—and would, if the bishops prevail, help preserve the religious liberty of all Americans.

The HHS mandate requires employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception and sterilization services. It is, according to the bishops, an “unjust law.” They write: “It cannot be obeyed and therefore one does not seek relief from it, but rather its repeal.”

The statement is a rebuke of President Obama and the so-called accommodation his administration proposed in February. It also raises the stakes between the president and the leaders of America’s Catholic Church.

The bishops call on Catholics in America, “in solidarity with our fellow citizens,” not to obey the law. They implicitly compare the HHS regulation to a segregation-era statute, and even cite Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” In a not-so-subtle manner, the bishops tell the Obama administration that they are willing to go to prison rather than comply with the mandate’s provisions.

In doing so, the bishops are ruling out the possibility of a compromise that might preserve the mandate by expanding possible conscience exemptions from it. Most discussion had been over how far the religious liberty exemption should extend—but with the bishops calling for repeal, that all could change.

The Obama administration was not against an exemption per se, it just wanted a narrow one that only covered church employees serving members of their own faith with jobs pertaining to the inculcation of religious belief. The Catholic bishops, it seemed, wanted a more robust exemption that covered institutions of faith, including hospitals, universities, and other social service providers.

Now the bishops have made clear that the contraception mandate must be rescinded, because, in their view, even a more expansive exemption cannot sufficiently protect religious freedom.

The bishops did not have to take this route, but all those who cherish religious liberty should be glad they did. If the bishops settled for a more expansive accommodation, they might have been able to get an exemption for their hospitals and universities (including my own, Notre Dame). That would have been the easy way to “preserve” religious liberty while also retaining the mandate.

But what, then, would the bishops have said to business owners who likely would not have been covered by a more expansive exemption? How could church leaders say that it’s wrong for church institutions to pay for contraception and abortifacients, but that Catholic business owners must cover these costs?

The exemption approach might have allowed the bishops to secure religious liberty for their institutions, but not for all their followers. That would have been a failure of moral authority and political strength to protect the common good.

To their credit, the bishops appear to understand this and are now willing to lead the battle to preserve religious liberty for all, Catholics and non-Catholics, church institutions and private employers.

But it won’t be without confrontation. This statement from the bishops sets up a dramatic showdown between the leaders of the Catholic Church and the Obama administration, a confrontation that may not be good for either side. It is hard to see what middle ground exists, or even if it does.

The Constitution was designed to prevent such fundamental clashes between church and state. Perhaps the best way out of this thicket would be for the Supreme Court to step in and stop it from happening. Striking down the contraception mandate would avert the disastrous situation of the president sending bishops to jail for being faithful witnesses to their religious convictions.