Top 10 Obama Paybacks to Big Labor for $1 Billion Plus In Campaign Contributions

Top 10 Obama Paybacks to Big Labor for $1 Billion Plus In Campaign Contributions

In “The Audacity of Hope,” Barack Obama wrote: 

“I owe those unions. When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don’t consider this corrupting in any way.”

Big Labor spent nearly $1 billion on the Obama’s 2008 Campaign. In return, Obama has paid the unions back with Presidential Big Labor paybacks as follows:

Top 10 Obama administration Big Labor Presidential paybacks (based on an article by Mark Mix is the president of National Right to Work. (see http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/30/barack-obamas-top-10-most-outrageous-big-labor-paybacks/#ixzz25ArGMynV):

1. Obama appointed forced-unionism partisan Hilda Solis to run the Department of Labor. Solis, utilizing numerous Obama executive orders, rolled back progress in union boss transparency and disclosure of the prior eight years, making it more difficult for workers to know where their forced dues dollars are being spent.

2. Obama’s first budget slashed funding for the Office of Labor and Management Standards (OLMS), the federal agency that enforces union disclosure laws. It’s one of the few areas of the budget that Obama has proposed cutting.

3. Obama appointed union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency that administers and enforces federal labor law. Becker was never confirmed by the U.S. Senate because of bipartisan opposition to his nomination. Obama appointed him to the NLRB via recess appointment.

4. Becker was a key vote in striking down any protections workers had against card-check union organizing drives, despite the fact that he previously participated as a union lawyer in the very case that established those worker protections. 

5. The Obama NLRB pushed new rules to make union organizing campaigns as one-sided as possible by ambushing workers into union membership and dues payments. The new rules dramatically shortened the time frame individual workers have to share information with their coworkers about the adverse effects of unionization and to hear their employers’ views on the subject.

6. The Obama NLRB pushed new rules requiring job providers to post pro-union notices in their facilities. No new requirement was made for unions to post notices informing workers of their right to refrain from union activities or throw out an unwanted union.

7. Obama-appointed NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon used the federal agency to punish Boeing for locating production of its 787 Dreamliner jets in right-to-work South Carolina over non-right-to-work Washington State. The frivolous persecution of Boeing eventually fizzled, but only after the company guaranteed future jobs would go to Washington State, where union bosses get to collect forced dues as a condition of employment.

8. Earlier this year, Obama subverted the U.S. Constitution and installed two pro-forced unionism lackeys onto the NLRB as “recess” appointments even though the U.S. Senate was not in recess. The NLRB continues to churn out lopsided decisions in favor of union bosses.

9. Obama’s appointments to the National Mediation Board (NMB), the federal agency that administers labor law in the railway and airline industries, changed the election procedures of unions organizing under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The two Obama-appointed NMB members who approved the new rule, Harry Hoglander and Linda Puchala, are former union officials with the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) unions, respectively.

Both unions are a major part of an American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) union-led coalition that urged the three-member board to discard its election policy of 75 years. The new procedure stacks the deck in favor of unionization by granting a union monopoly bargaining power over railway or airline industry workers if the union acquires support from just a bare majority of eligible workers in an election, no matter how few actually vote. This means that a small bloc of workers could force union boss “representation” on the whole group rather than having a true majority of all workers deciding for themselves.

10. The effects of Obama’s pro-forced unionism agenda will be felt long after his stay in the White House ends. Obamacare is full of sweetheart deals aimed at placating union bosses. For example, nonunion medical facilities are basically ineligible to participate in Obamacare’s professional-development grant program for healthcare workers. Obamacare is full of these sorts of provisions — provisions that further unionize the healthcare industry.

The Supreme court recently ruled in favor of workers opposed to unfair union practices (see http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/29/supreme-court-upholds-fairness-in-union).

By a 7-2 vote, the high court slapped down the union for deducting money from its employees’ paychecks and using it to fight against California campaign initiatives—without giving its nonmembers a chance to opt out of these political campaign contributions.

What if their money were deducted by force from their paycheck and used to support conservative tax-limiting initiatives? 

“Public-sector unions have the right under the First Amendment to express their views on political and social issues without government interference. … But employees who choose not to join a union have the same rights.”

Non-members, who must pay union dues in union-shop states such as California to cover the portion of union efforts used to negotiate salary and benefit matters on all workers’ behalf, have a chance to opt out of those portion of the collected dues used for political purposes. The idea is they shouldn’t be forced to subsidize political activities that may fly in the face of their own beliefs. But the SEIU concocted a scheme to evade that requirement in order to, ironically, battle a statewide ballot initiative that would have limited their ability to unilaterally take such dues from members in the future.

"That way madness lies...": Why Obama Wants America to become like Europe.

"That way madness lies...": Why Obama Wants America to become like Europe.

Barack Obama wants to make America more like socialistic Europe, where the governemt share of the economy is close to 50% in most EU countries. But America is yet Europe How do we know this? Just compare the unemployment rate in the Eurozone and in the US (see above chart).

Why would we want to emulate the failed European model? It is a disaster and has been for nearly 3 years running. European unemployment rose to 11.3% in July of 2011, a record post-Euro rate - the highest unemployment since 1990. European inflation in August increased from 2.4% to 2.6%, more than the expected 2.5% increase. The stagflated European misery index is now above that of the entire  rest of the world.

European economic confidence dropped more than forecast to a three-year low in August and German unemployment increased for a fifth month, with the euro-area economy continuing to shrink in Q3. “The whole euro zone is undergoing negative growth developments,” said Don Smith, a London-based economist at ICAP Plc. “The sense is that increasingly the euro-zone crisis is bearing down on countries in northern Europe and Germany in particular.”

And while the economy continues imploding, the ECB, like a true headless chicken, is scrambling to release one after another more and more meaningless rumor, which does nothing to restore credibility to the Goldman-headed money printing institution (which can't even do that without a German green light), and instead of attempting to halt the rise of inflation, or do anything about unemployment which month after month rises ever higher, is instead desperate to continue herding cats, and do everything to delay the inevitable exit of Greece, and soon thereafter many others, from the world's most artificial construct.

Europe is NOT where we should be heading as Americans.

So a pertinent question might be: Why does the American President want to follow the European economic and social model, which is so clearly failing? The answer is: ideology. Obama really is a through and through ideologue. He believes what he believes, reality be damned. He really is following the dreams of his father, Barack senior, who was willing to tax at a 100% rate, so that government could fully plan what was best for its citizens.

The great movie, "2016", by Dinesh D'Souza, sets forth in sober and clear fashion the genesis and history of Obama's ideologica fixation and obsession, which he has completely internalized and which he identifies with. Facts and economic realities be damned, and regardless in fact of anything outside himself. His life-long ideological socialistic big government grounding has given Obama a consummate conceit and megalomaniacal certaintly that his way is the right way, even after 4 years of ecomonic reality and failure. He is unimpressed by reality. That way madness lies.

France's Hollande is 3/4 of the way to Barack senior's 100% tax rate - Hollande will tax at 75%. That way madness lies, too.

Birth Certificate? I don't need no stinkin' Birth Certificate.

Campaign & Supine Media Ignores Afghanistan, Record Gas Prices

Campaign & Supine Media Ignore Afghanistan and Record Gas Prices - Focus on Akins and Mitt Taxes Instead

-->> Gas prices have never been higher than during this third week of August 2012 (see top graph).

-->> This week the 2003'd American died in Afghanistan, America's forgotten war. (see above graph)

-->> US National Debt is poised to exceed $16 Trillion in the next few days

It is obvious why Obama doesn't talk about these three vitally important issues - they don't help his campaign. In fact Obama has even had the chutzpah to ask the Euro zone leaders (i. e. Angela Merkel) to string Greece along with cash infusions until after the US election. Why? Because a Greek crisis, like high gas prices, like record death toll in Afghanistan, and like record National Debt, would not help the Obama election campaign.

OK, but why is Mitt Romney not talking about these issue? Well, the answer is that he is talking about them. But the supine, captive press is busy with Rep. Akin, busy with Prince Harry, busy with Mitt Romney's taxes. As NBC Political Director and sometime reporter Chuck Todd admitted this week, the mainstream media pres takes its cue as to what stories to emphasize from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

If Romney wins this fall, there will be a mega transformation in the workforce of media outlets the world over. Out with the libs, in with the tea party.

How to Rein in Congress, the President, & the Debt

How to Rein in Congress, the President, & the Debt - Take Away Power From President and Congress

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offered the best proposal ever heard, re how to fix, in one swell foop, the debt ceiling, congress, and the presidency. Buffett said:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more
than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligiblefor re-election." And (my addition)  apply the same law to the President.

How realistic is this, and how fast can this be done? Well...

-> The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified!

-> Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this to as many people as possible:

Proposed Congressional and Presidential Reform Act of 2012

1. No Tenure / No Pension: A Congressman/woman and the President collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) and the President participate in Social Security.

All funds in the Presidential and Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress and the President can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves or the President a pay raise. Congressional and Presidential pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress and the President must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women and the President are void effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women or with the President.

Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathersenvisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their then go home and back to work.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENCY, THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE DEBT!!

What is Your "Fair Share" of Taxes?

What is Your "Fair Share" of Taxes?

The above chart shows that the US Tax Code is progressive, and has become more so over time. So is it not fair to ask Obama, when he calls for the rich to pay their "fair share", to be specific and say just what percent of taxes paid would be a fair share?

Presently the top 1% pay about 37% of all income taxes. Is this not fair? If not, then what % would be fair?
    "           "     "  5%    "        "   58%  "   "       "          " .  Is this not fair? If not, then what % would be fair?
    "           "     " 10%   "        "   70%  "    "      "          "  . Is this not fair? If not, then what % would be fair?
    "           "     " 25%   "        "   86%  "    "      "          "  . Is this not fair? If not, then what % would be fair?
    "           "     " 50%   "        "   96%  "    "      "          "  . Is this not fair? If not, then what % would be fair?
And last but not least...
--> The bottom 50% pay about  4% of all income taxes.  Is this not fair? If not, then what % would be fair?

The truth is that Obama's use of the phrase  "Fair Share" as a phoney demagogic tool.
Just like Joe McCarthy's use a made up number of communists supposedly working in the State Department was also a demagogic tool.

Both Obama and Joe McCarthy share the same bogus tricky tactic,  designed to mislead and obfuscate for partisan political advantage, nothing less.

Why Romney Deserves the Jewish Vote, and Anti-Israeli Obama Does NOT

Why Romney Deserves the Jewish Vote, and Anti-Israeli Obama Does NOT

 It is the very epitome of self hate for any Jew to even think about voting for Obama.

Back in '09 Obama insulted Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu during Bibi's first visit to the Obama WH. How? He highhandedly, imperiously, and insultingly demanded that Bibi sign a repugnant statement (drafted by the WH) which reneged on  existing American-Israeli agreements on settlements, new construction, and military matters.

Bibi of course refused to sign under pressure. So Obama then demanded that Bibi stay seated right there in the WH and think it over for a few hours, in a room that the Israelis knew had been wired for sound. Obama then said that while Bibi and his aides should wait there (in the wired room) while he, Obama, himself would go upstairs and have dinner with his family.

There was no offer of food, kosher or otherwise, for the Israelis. (Btw, can you imagine anything more insulting to Jews? NO FOOD???) This all occurred in the early evening, and Obama didn't even offer to send out for kosher sandwiches for the Israelis. How insulting is that?

 Not since MacArthur hosted the Japanese diplomats on the USS Missouri for the Japanese surrender, or Hitler hosted Chamberlain in Munich, had a head of government been treated with such contempt, disdain, and insult.

Fortunately for Jews the world over,  Bibi neither faltered nor succumbed to the Obama bullying tactics. Bibi picked himself up and along with his Israelis aides he retired back to the Israeli embassy in DC, in an RF shielded room, where communications were secure, to discuss the situation. They then came back to the WH a few hours later to break the news to Obama - no, there would be no signature, thank you very much, and no surrender. And, btw, FU. This has set the tone for the Netanyahu-Obama relationship to the present day, including the dressing down Netanyahu gave Obama in front of the world press, in May of 2011, re Obama's idiotic '67 borders inane and false statement.

Bibi, like his martyred brother Jonathan, had dealt with much tougher hombres than Obama. He even had killed a few. So there was no real contest there. By his juvenile bullying behavior, Obama only displayed how naive and inexperienced a jerk he really was, and remains to the present moment.

The above little incident is a only a vignette and small a token of the mutual antipathy and disdain that exists between Bibi and Obama, and of the contempt and dismissive attitude Obama holds for Jews and and for the state of Israel. Obama's famous moronic statement on going back to the '67 borders was just another outstanding illustration of his ineptitude. If Obama is  re-elected, there will be no check on the power he will be  grabbing, and it will be to the detriment not only of Jews and Israel, but of America.

Obama is a narcissistic, grand egotistical, power mad, ideologue and socialist, and a destroyer of America. No Jew should even think about voting for him. We should instead contribute money and work in the campaign to defeat this little amateur would be Hitler, and to elect the best friend Israel has in America, Mitt Romney.

Economic Model Predicts Obama will lose in near-landslide

Economic Model Predicts Obama will lose in near-landslide

The "Bread and Peace" Economic Forecasting Model for predicting Presidential elections utilizes two factors:

1) "The Bread" - i. e., the per capita real disposable personal income over the incumbent president’s term, and

2) "The Peace" - i. e., the cumulative U.S. military fatalities in overseas conflicts.

Well, just how good a predictor is the model? And how well has it correctly predicted the outcome of past Presidential elections?

The answer to this pithy question is provided by the above chart, showing the percent share of the 2-party Presidential vote gained by the incumbent party for past Presidential elections. Of course when this percentage falls below 50% it means that the incumbent will usually lose, since the opponent's share in this case will then be greater than 50%.

The result of applying the model to past Presidential elections dating back to 1952 is shown in the above figure. The model computes incumbent shares of the 2-party vote of less than 50%, correctly predicting incumbent party losers,  for the election of 1980, 1952, 2008, 1960, 1968, 1976, and 2000, which were all elections in which the incumbent party actually did lose.

Contrariwise, the model computes incumbent shares of the 2-party vote of greater than 50% for the elections of 1996, 2004, 1988, 1956, 1984, 1972, and 1964, which were in fact elections in which the incumbent party did actually win. The names of the candidates in each of the above elections are shown in the chart, for referece.

Judging from these results, and noting that while the elections of 1960 and 2000 were both effectively a tie split at 50% share for each candidate, that in both these elections the incumbent party still lost. This suggests that an incumbent needs more than the bare 50% share of the 2 paarty vote in order to win.

So based on the above results, the "Bread and Peace" Economic Forecasting Model has correctly calculated winning percentage for elections in which the incumbent party did win, and correctly calculated losing percentages for elections in which the incumbent party did lose This would indicate a very good track record, and would make the predictions of the model regarding the current Presidential race something that should interest us. So what does the model say about the current race?

Applying the model to the current presidential race, the Bread and Peace model predicts that Romney will win, 52.5% to Obama’s 47.5%, which is close to a landslide for Romney. Note that this is in disagreement with recent polling results.

The model is a leading indicator, however, and we shall see in the next 97 days whether the polls catch up to the model, or vice versa.

Referenced URLs:

1) http://www.douglas-hibbs.com/HibbsArticles/HIBBS_OBAMA-REELECT-31July2012.pdf, and
2) http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/08/economic-forecasting-model-predicts-obama-will-lose-in-near-landslide/

While the Battle Rages in Aleppo, Syria's Stalingrad, Obama is Busy Campaigning in Ohio

While the Battle Rages in Aleppo, Syria's Stalingrad, Obama is Busy Campaigning in Ohio

The Battle for Aleppo is the Battle of Stalingrad for Syria.

The city is Syria's commercial hub, its largest by population, and whoever wins Aleppo wins the war. Whoever loses Aleppo dies, meaning Basher Assad or the rebel cause. The human toll is already immense, involving some 200,000 refugees and uncounted casualties. Assad's forces have assaulted the city with tanks, helicopter gunships and now warplanes. The rebels have broadcast video showing brutal ersatz execution of Syrian soldiers. This is the endgame of the Syrian civil war.

Only the US can stop the slaughter. How? By clearing the skies over Aleppo of Syrian planes and helicopters, and by destroying Assad's armored corps. This is exactly how Libya was handed to the Libyan rebels on a silver platter - taking out Ghadafi's armor. In fact, it was an air attack on Ghadafi's escaping armored column which sealed Libya fate, by causing Ghadaffi's capture and death, ultimately. Tanks, air power, and artillery are a lead pipe cinch to annihilate the rebels in their pick up trucks and AK-47's. Every time. Guaranteed. It is no contest.

So where is the United States? Well, Obama is campaigning in Ohio. And Hillary is scoring useless diplomatic points at the U.N. Security Council. And Obama is on the phone with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan tryin to "coordinate efforts to accelerate a political transition in Syria." While fingering a baseball bat. Very lame. What is really says is that Obama is entirely throwing in the towel on Syria, and will not intervene.

So the question remains - why was Obama so eager and willing to attack Libya, and is now running and hiding out in Ohio, and cannot be dragged, not even kicking and screaming, into doing the right thing in Syria?. Why?

The answer, of course, like the answer to every other question for Obama, is always the same. The campaign comes first. Tens of thousands may be being killed in Syria, and more and more every day. But the campaign comes first.

After he is re-elected, Obama will have, as he told former Russian President Medvedev, why then he "will have more flexibility". But not yet.

Bullies don't like to pick fights they are not guaranteed to win. So the cowardly bully, Obama, had no problem attacking Libya with impunity. There was no risk there. But wait a minute. Syria has Putin and Russia behing him. Oh no. Syria is not at all a slam dunk. Assad could win. Yikes.

This entirely determines Obama's response. Intervention is too risky. Meaning too risky to re-election. God forbid, if the US intervenes and then there is no quick resolution in Syria, meaning before November 6, then Obama will be blamed, and his defeat will be sealed. Way too risky. Better to make another campaign trip to Ohio.

But you can't do nothing. So fire up the PR machine. Obama's PR machine is making the best of this losing proposition. So the campaign releases word of  a 'secret' finding signed by Obama relative to covert CIA operations in Syria. Macho man. And the campaign releases of a photo of Obama on the phone with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, while fondling a baseball bat. These are PR macho man ploys. Very similar, incidentally, to the macho man bare chested pictures of Putin riding a horse, or next to a tiger, of last year. Hilarious, if it wasn't so tragic..

So this is what US intervention has come down to.

Everyone knows that saving Syria is really up to only the United states of America. Europe will never ever act on its own, and will only will follow the US, just like it did in Libya.

So the United States, they guardian of freedom and liberty in the world, right now, this minute, today, is the last best hope for thousands of Syrian civilians, who are about to die. Will Obama do the right thing? Fogetaboutit.

Obama's Intrade Odds For Re-election Goes Bust

Obama's Intrade Odds For Re-election Goes Bust

INTRADE is a platform where you make predictions by buying and selling shares on the outcome of real-world events. For example, a markets currently available is:

--> Barack Obama to be re-elected President in 2012, Yes or No?

In other words, it is a type of poll where people don't just answer a pollster's question, they actually put their money where their mouth is: they put money down to back up their opinion or prediction. 

Since January 2009, there has been an incredible correlation between Obama's INTRADE odds of being re-elected, and the S&P 500 index (see chart above).

But the correlation broke down badly in early June of 2012 (see shaded portion of above plot), just around the time of Obama's hoof in mouth speech where he said: "You didn't build that!". Since then, there has been a large gap between the Obama INTRADE odds, and the S&P index.

This does not auger well for Obama's re-election, and indicates increasing odds that Romney will be the next President of the United States.