Monday, December 7, 2009

The Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation's President, Mark Mix has confirmed that his organization on November 20, has file a federal lawsuit, in US District Court, against the Department of Labor for failing to act on its FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request and that the DOL has continued to "stonewall" the organizations efforts to gain access to the information it has requested.
The request asks for records from communications and recorded events where specified Obama appointees and Big Labor official were presents, lists of lawsuits involving the Department of Labor and Deborah Greenfield within the past eight years, list of any gifts received by Solis in the past 5 years from Big Labor or its officials, specifically provide in detail (a) notes, (b) agreements, (c) communications, and (d) agendas related to the regulations related to the labor union and officer disclosure rules, copies of phone logs, and copies of any notes or documents related to any enforcement of any labor laws and any outside groups such as labor unions, American Rights at Work, or ACORN. Mix claims that a Conflict of Interest may exist between the DOL and unions with regards to union reporting requirements. The request was submitted April 6, 2009.
During a recent radio interview posted at the Right to Work Legal Defense Fund website, Mr. Mix specifically discussed two appointments to the Department of Labor who are alleged to previously have ties or were employed directly or indirectly by the AFL-CIO.
The current Secretary of Labor, Hilda L. Solis and Acting Deputy Solicitor, Deborah Greenfield were two individuals that were named by Mix during the interview.
Labor Secretary Solis worked for a 501C4 lobby group, where she was alleged to be an Officer and Treasure of the Organization. A 501C4 includes unlimited rights to lobby government agencies and political officials. While in the House of Representatives, Solis championed the Employee Free Choice Act (Card Check) along with other pro union bills and was the only member of Congress on the board of a pro-union organization that strongly supports the act and for whom she served as treasurer starting in 2004. The lobby group is partially funded by the AFL-CIO, however according to the AFL-CIO, the union has no influence over the organization. During her confirmation hearings, Republican Mike Enzi pressed Solis on whether her unpaid high-level positions at American Rights at Work, constituted prohibited lobbying activity. Solis denied violation of rules of conduct and stated she had not helped lobbying. Solis did acknowledge that she had failed to report those positions on her annual House financial disclosure forms at the time, which a White House spokesperson argued was an"unintentional oversight". Unfortunately, for Solis she was first elected to the House in 2000 and reelected in 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008 while she continued to hold her position with American Rights at Work until she
was appointed to the DOL. That begs the question of why she failed to disclose her position from
2005-2009? Her appointment has garnered heavy support from the AFL-CIO and other labor organizations.
Also mentioned was the current Department of Labor Acting Deputy Solicitor (attorney) Deborah Greenfield. Greenfield was a part of the Obama transition team and attorney that worked for the AFL-CIO in filling a lawsuit last year against the Department of Labor to stop new labor requirements proposed by the Bush administration. The requirements would have required large unions to report the amount of money from pension funds that are placed into the hands of investment managers. Now working as the Solicitor for the Department of Labor Greenfield is in charge of defending the DOL from the vary lawsuit that she prepared and filed for the AFL-CIO.
At the center of the controversy, is the fact that Solis has begun to repeal much of the regulations put in place by the Bush administration, allegedly at the request of union bosses. It is also alleged that she has gone even deeper to weaken union reporting requirements that may go all the way back as far as the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959. Officially known as the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, passed by congress, to curb union corruption and ties to organized crime. The reporting requirements are there to preserve union members rights to see where their pension dues to the union have been invested and spent, and how much of the total pension funds have been vested. Twenty eight states require that employees pay union dues or they can be fired from their job. As a union member they have a right to know where those dues are going. Different unions can vest as much as 100% of its pension funds into investment accounts. Union officials pensions, however are invested, often separately, from the rank and file members, and can include large perks and bonuses. Union members are protected against abuses by a bill of rights that includes guarantees of freedom of speech and periodic secret elections. Secondary boycotting and organizational and recognition picketing (i.e., picketing of companies where a rival union is already recognized) are severely restricted by the act. In the field of arbitration, an amendment to the Taft-Hartley Labor Act (1947) written into this 1959 act authorized states to process cases that fall outside the province of the National Labor Relations Board. Organized labor has, in general, opposed the act for strengthening what they consider the antilabor provisions of the Taft-Hartley Labor Act.
A case in point is SEIU, president Andrew Stern, also has reportedly bragged about spending $100 million dollars of union funds to support the Obama campaign, although the SEIU has never registered as a lobby. Members of the SEIU have a right to question where the funds came from.
As I stated in a past post, every bill that is pasted by Congress, the administrative branch responsible under the legislation has a great amount of latitude in the regulations with regard to
writing and administering the legislation. The only way to check on new proposed regulation changes is through the Federal Register and if no one is watching, there is vary little that can be
done to combat how these regulations are changed and administered.
So what happen to the Executive order that Obama signed his first week in office that no administrative employee can work on regulations or contracts involving a previous employer for two years?
Where is the transparency in government that Obama promised the voters during his campaign?
Finally, where is Attorney General Eric Holder and the DOJ or the FBI?

God Bless


Friday, December 4, 2009

This little story has floated around the internet for years. It seems to make an appearance every time the liberals get busy. Since BO made his
job pitch, it seems only appropriate to resurrect the story and give credit where credit is due with a new revision of the key players.

Author's Note: I can not take credit for the revision. I simply copied the story as I received it and passing it along.
Sometimes we all have to take a step back and let in a little humor or the liberals would
drive us all off the cliff with them.
And as Larry would say, "I don't care who ya are, now that FUNNY!!"


The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away...

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!


The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies
for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be
allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of
the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog
appears on Oprah
with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy
Being Green.'

stages a demonstration in front of the ant's
house where the news stations film the group singing,
"We shall overcome " . Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray to God for the
grasshopper's sake.

President Obama
condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher
Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid
exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off
the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his
fair share..

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning
of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to
pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the

The story ends as we see the grasshopper
and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's
food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house,
crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken
over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful,

The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010.

I fully support a timetable to withdraw!

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

I know there are many of you that will disagree with me, but I fully support a timetable to withdraw...that is a timetable to withdraw from health care and climate change legislation.  Why is the left only so willing to throw in the towel when it comes to war, why not their Marxist domestic agenda?  At home, they are only too willing to bet all the marbles with no  contingency plan for when their programs don't work.

I feel it important to note, that I feel my recent support for a timetable to withdraw is a huge concession away from my previous support for the trigger option (real guns would be involved) and the nuclear option (Marxist legislation, deserted island in the pacific, and enriched uranium, the destruction would be sweeping and historic?).

GE to Sell the Obama News Channel to Comcast

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Hot off the presses from Wall Street, it looks like a deal is being finalized to sell NBC, which includes the cable news channel MSNBC, to Comcast.  In case, you aren't familiar with Comcast, they are the second largest cable company behind Time Warner and will be new to the TV world.

I wouldn't expect any magic in changing NBC's programming away from the liberal agenda, but it will be interesting to see if the Obama mouthpiece is toned down.  A smart strategy for NBC would be to shake things up.  The network often trails in viewer ratings.

Retired Navy Master Chief Scores an Obama Broadside

Monday, November 30, 2009

Here is an open letter to President Obama sent by retired Master Chief Harold Estes, USN.
I bet the HUFF & PUFF Post or any of the other liberal news organizations covered, interviewed, or printed a word of his letter. I think that it deserves to be passed on.
The Master Chief could not have said this more elegantly and mirrors what many of us have been trying to say.
Its unfortunate but I believe that the Obama liberal base really does not give a damn.
To them its what is in it or me or me first, as long as I'm not the one who has to suffer or
pay for it. After all, its "Obama money.
I want to personally Thank the Master Chief for standing up and defending our nation once again. He has more than earned the right to sit back and let someone else stand up and step into the line of fire. I also wish him a Happy Birthday and may God Bless him and all of our servicemen and women, young and old for their desire to fight to keep this nation safe regardless of which idiot sits in the White-house.
Are you listening Congressman Massa?
In view of your position on Afghanistan, you could use a lesson on what it means to be a patriot. I think that the Master Chief has pretty clearly defined it for you.
Its more than being a military veteran. It's a lifetime commitment to a nation and its citizens, not ones personal beliefs or party agenda.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.
I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.
One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.
So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of.

You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
" We're no longer a Christian nation"
" America is arrogant" - (Your wife even
announced to the world,"America is mean-
spirited. " Please tell her to try preaching
that nonsense to 23 generations of our
war dead buried all over the globe who
died for no other reason than to free a
whole lot of strangers from tyranny and

I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president. You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

Harold B. Estes

Climategate and the difference between Science and Unscience

The scientific way of resolving Climategate via UK Telegraph:

In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.

The publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre. The full data, when disclosed, is certain to be scrutinized by both sides in the fierce debate.

As I pointed out last week, this is the way a scientific person would settle the Climategate scandal.  I also said that the above would never happen.  Was I wrong?

The unscientific way of resolving Climategate via Times Online:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Question!  If you release all data, but the data you've scrubbed, can this be considered releasing all data?  

It also begs the question, "why would a scientist throw out raw data."  To a real scientist, raw data is gold.  You'd never destroy it!  Raw data is what allows people to find errors, recreate your work, prove your theories and establish improvements to models.  

CRU is boasting of 95% disclosure of their temperature data.  Sounds nice, 95%, but sometimes the devil is in that 5%.

NY Times teaches us about "what capitalism can learn from socialism" and cars

I admit it, I love reading the NY Times!  Why read the funnies when you can watch the left's spin machine in action.  With last Friday's piece "US Teaches Car Makers Capitalism," comedy is at your fingertips.

Obama's nationalization of the car companies was vastly unpopular and aside from the stimulus, it is the only thing Obama has actually done since taking office.  Time for the Times to manufacture a stunning success for socialism.  Please remember to check your energy and health care usage at the entrance to your new Obama utopia!

As with all MSM outlets, news is covered in half-truths.  I've got to be honest with you the problems with the article were many and I can't possibly present them in a way that doesn't make my post look like a dissertation.  Here is all the information abridged.

The spin formula:

1.  Capitalists do not care about efficiency. They are greedy and want only want profit.  
2.  Their greed blinds them to logical, objective decision making (the Times says while batting their eyes at Obama)
3.  The rising price of domestic cars is proof that Obama's cost cutting strategies are working?  I don't know how the opposite outcome proves the strategy, but this is why they call it spin folks.
4.  Gee!  Why can't we just take over the banks and be socialistic.  Then we'd do everything right.

Here is the article's greatest hit:  (Please remember: this is not exhaustive by a longshot!)

Evidence of what is going on came this week in the consumer price figures for October. The index for new autos was up 1.6 percent for the month, and 3.8 percent for the last 12 months. It has been more than a decade since that index rose by nearly that much. That is what can happen when companies focus on raising margins, no matter what the impact on volume.

The Times is totally correct that GM and Chrysler are focused on margins.  One way to do so is to cut costs.  By lowering your costs and holding price steady, you can increase your profit.  The problem?  The proof of a successful cost cutting strategy is a stable or slightly lower price, but level or increased profit.  Instead, the article is touting higher prices, which is indicative of a value or quality centered strategy.  It sounds like nit-picking, but in actuality, it means all the marbles.  

Why?  Because unlike the Times' straw man argument that:

One rap on socialism has always been that governments are much more worried about jobs than profits. No politician wants to be responsible for layoffs, so the government is happy to rely on optimistic assumptions to avoid painful decisions.

The real rap on socialism is that it favors cronies.  The UAW now owns GM and Chrysler, check.  The other rap is that government does not run as efficiently as the profit seeking behavior found in free markets.  Proof that the government is not running efficiently would be…rising prices!  

Maybe double check!