| Author | Message | ||
     Reindog |
Obama is at it again with his radicals in the NRLB. Remember Boeing? This is even better. If Badweb is lucky, Rocco will be checking in soon to hurl epithets wagging his Shakespearean tongue. When will left of center Americans wake up and realize that Obama is a radical? The NRLB in Obama's corrupt pocket Wall St. Journal opinion NOVEMBER 25, 2011 The NLRB Putsch The labor agency tries to ram through quickie union elections.The descent of the National Labor Relations Board from independent referee to a wholly owned AFL-CIO subsidiary is speeding up. Now its two Democratic appointees are attempting to ram through a new rule requiring quickie organizing elections, with barely any notice and little consultation with its sole GOP member. Once a sleepy, ostensibly independent agency, the NLRB has become the point of the spear for Democratic labor policy since Republicans took the House last year. Earlier this year its general counsel sued to block Boeing from making its planes at a new plant in South Carolina, a case that is still proceeding and could kill thousands of jobs. Now Chairman Mark Pearce, an Obama appointee, says he'll hold a vote next Wednesday on rules to shorten the time frame for union elections. The fire drill is intended to approve the union-favored plan before the recess appointment of the board's other Democrat expires and they lose their quorum. President Obama gave longtime union lawyer Craig Becker a recess appointment in March 2010 after even Senate Democrats considered him too radical to confirm, but that appointment expires at the end of the year. The Obama appointees need at least two of the NLRB's three occupied seats (two are vacant) to approve new rules. Originally floated in June as a proposed rule-making, the plan would shorten to as little as 10 to 14 days the period between the time a union seeks an election to organize a work site and the election date. Under current rules, companies typically have five to six weeks to make their case to employees before the union holds a secret-ballot election. The Becker-Pearce putsch would give labor organizers months to quietly pitch workers, then give targeted companies less than two weeks to react and make their own case before a quickie election. This is Big Labor's version of speed dating, and no wonder. Union membership is down to some 7% of the private workforce, and falling. Fewer workers want to join unions as they see what has happened to the competitiveness of union-dominated industries. Labor's response is to rig the rules so that companies have little time and fewer resources to educate workers about the risks posed by unions. When unions couldn't get a "card check" bill banning secret-ballot elections through even a Democratic Congress, they turned to the NLRB for this and other dirty work. Mr. Pearce's ram-job has drawn the ire of the NLRB's lone Republican commissioner, Brian Hayes. In a letter to House Education and Workforce Chairman John Kline, Mr. Hayes notes that while nearly 66,000 comments had been received on the original version of the proposed rule, he has been cut out of the loop on any responses to the comments by his fellow commissioners or any modifications made to the final rule that differ from the original draft. On the merits of the new rule, Mr. Hayes wrote last summer that, "Make no mistake, the principal purpose for this radical manipulation of our election process is to minimize or, rather, to effectively eviscerate an employer's legitimate opportunity to express its views about collective bargaining." The NLRB's tradition has been to overturn standing law only with the votes of at least three board members, but Messrs. Pearce and Becker are above, or shall we say beneath, such niceties. According to Mr. Hayes's letter, he was advised that "in the event I didn't agree with [the final rule], it would, nonetheless, be approved and published based on their two member vote." Since he wouldn't be granted the traditional 90 days to review the rule and write a dissent, he writes that he was "advised that I would be limited to doing so after publication of the rule." Mr. Hayes has said that he may boycott Wednesday's meeting, and that without his participation or agreement to delegate authority the Becker-Pearce hijacking may be illegal under the Supreme Court's guidelines for quorum requirements in 2010's New Process Steel v. National Labor Relations Board. But Messrs. Pearce and Becker will probably proceed anyway. If Mr. Hayes resigned from the NLRB before Wednesday's vote, then the two Democrats would have a harder time ignoring the law. It's a disgrace that an NLRB member should have to contemplate resignation to prevent an abuse of regulatory process, but Mr. Hayes deserves support if he does. A resignation would draw attention to the way the power of this supposedly nonpartisan agency is being twisted to save unions from the consequences of their antibusiness excesses. | ||
| Court |
I am amazed at how the sheeple tolerate this stuff. Many folks I know have "gone underground", move investments and aren't about to hire, commit or expose themselves to the American economy until this phase blows over. Two old school chums are on a silent project seeking an overseas (make that "out of the United States) location for Boeing . . . I doubt it's any secret that they'll be leaving the USA as soon as they can. (Message edited by court on November 26, 2011) | ||
| Reindog |
Court, Hope you (and Froggy) managed an Occupy Dino BBQ operation. As you know, Laurie and I decided to "tough it out" in San Diego this year. There is a good chance that Obama will be re-elected and my head is electrically shorting like Robbie the Robot in "Forbidden Planet" trying to process such an illogical proposition. It is so patently obvious that 0 is unqualified and has become THE cause of why the economy won't and can't recover until he is gone. I have to have faith that enough of my fellow Americans are waking up to the fact that they voted a narcissistic enemy of free enterprise into the hen house. Back to the college games. Go Hoakies which starts in an hour. I get to proxy for Al and Ebear who are track daying at Buttonwillow this weekend. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
So, in x years time when the US Navy have to name a vessel after your current president what sort of craft is it going to be? Maybe a dredger? well that's scraping the bottom.  | ||
| Mtjm2 |
grumpy , thats funny right there . | ||
| Cowboy |
I think a MANURE SCOW. Is in order. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
how O gets re-elected.... 1) Suspends elections all together, as an Eastern Dem Senator already hinted at - expect martial law and violence to ensue 2) Overturn the 'Electorate College' and get the vote based solely on popular vote - from a state where dead people vote.... you know that ballot box will be stuffed. 3)Political action derbies in target neighborhoods and populations to maximize participation - ie you want your continued entitlements - vote my way. 3a) Enforced and Malicious voter group appearances in areas that are hostile to Obama... the New Black Panthers will be very busy this rotation, probably need help from SEIU. And the sheeple will accept it. Remember the Revolutionary War was organized by a few dozen men, and participated and supported initially by less than 10% of the population - many of the remainder were quite fine to keep paying King George his 'due' .... hell some even turned coat to support the status quo.... It rhymes - expect the tune to grow louder (PS Soviet Union had elections, ballots, and voters.... do not think it means ANY correlation to a Democracy) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
USS Assclown | ||
| Sifo |
WOW! How often does a sitting POTUS make any list of the least influential people? http://www.gq.com/entertainment/humor/201112/25-le ast-influential-people-alive?printable=true | ||
| Chauly |
I love Christmas lights. They remind me of the people who voted for Obama. They all hang together; half of them don't work, and the ones that do, aren't that bright | ||
| Pwnzor |
 | ||
| Reindog |
Once again, Krauthammer is prescient. Excerpts for those who are unwilling to read more than a few sentences. "This is populism so crude that it channels not Teddy Roosevelt so much as Hugo Chavez." "This obsession with a sock-it-to-the-rich tax hike that, at most, would have reduced this year’s deficit from $1.30 trillion to $1.22 trillion is the classic reflex of reactionary liberalism — anything to avoid addressing the underlying structural problems, which would require modernizing the totemic programs of the New Deal and Great Society." Obama’s campaign for class resentment By Charles Krauthammer, Published: December 8 In the first month of his presidency, Barack Obama averred that if in three years he hadn’t alleviated the nation’s economic pain, he’d be a “one-term proposition.” When three-quarters of Americans think the country is on the “wrong track” and even Bill Clinton calls the economy “lousy,” how then to run for a second term? Traveling Tuesday to Osawatomie, Kan., site of a famous 1910 Teddy Roosevelt speech, Obama laid out the case. It seems that he and his policies have nothing to do with the current state of things. Sure, presidents are ordinarily held accountable for economic growth, unemployment, national indebtedness (see Obama, above). But not this time. Responsibility, you see, lies with the rich. Or, as the philosophers of Zuccotti Park call them, the 1 percent. For Obama, these rich are the ones holding back the 99 percent. The “breathtaking greed of a few” is crushing the middle class. If only the rich paid their “fair share,” the middle class would have a chance. Otherwise, government won’t have enough funds to “invest” in education and innovation, the golden path to the sunny uplands of economic growth and opportunity. Where to begin? A country spending twice as much per capita on education as it did in 1970 with zero effect on test scores is not underinvesting in education. It’s mis-investing. As for federally directed spending on innovation — like Solyndra? Ethanol? The preposterously subsidized, flammable Chevy Volt? Our current economic distress is attributable to myriad causes: globalization, expensive high-tech medicine, a huge debt burden, a burst housing bubble largely driven by precisely the egalitarian impulse that Obama is promoting (government aggressively pushing “affordable housing” that turned out to be disastrously unaffordable), an aging population straining the social safety net. Yes, growing inequality is a problem throughout the Western world. But Obama’s pretense that it is the root cause of this sick economy is ridiculous. As is his solution, that old perennial: selective abolition of the Bush tax cuts. As if all that ails us, all that keeps the economy from humming and the middle class from advancing, is a 4.6-point hike in marginal tax rates for the rich. This, in a country $15 trillion in debt with out-of-control entitlements systematically starving every other national need. This obsession with a sock-it-to-the-rich tax hike that, at most, would have reduced this year’s deficit from $1.30 trillion to $1.22 trillion is the classic reflex of reactionary liberalism — anything to avoid addressing the underlying structural problems, which would require modernizing the totemic programs of the New Deal and Great Society. As for those structural problems, Obama has spent three years on signature policies that either ignore or aggravate them: -A massive stimulus, a gigantic payoff to Democratic interest groups (such as teachers, public-sector unions) that will add nearly $1 trillion to the national debt. -A sweeping federally run reorganization of health care that (a) cost Congress a year, (b) created an entirely new entitlement in a nation hemorrhaging from unsustainable entitlements, (c) introduced new levels of uncertainty into an already stagnant economy. -High-handed regulation, best exemplified by Obama’s failed cap-and-trade legislation, promptly followed by the Environmental Protection Agency trying to impose the same conventional-energy-killing agenda by administrative means. Moreover, on the one issue that already enjoys a bipartisan consensus — the need for fundamental reform of a corrosive, corrupted tax code that misdirects capital and promotes unfairness — Obama did nothing, ignoring the recommendations of several bipartisan commissions, including his own. In Kansas, Obama lamented that millions “are now forced to take their children to food banks.” You have to admire the audacity. That’s the kind of damning observation the opposition brings up when you’ve been in office three years. Yet Obama summoned it to make the case for his reelection! Why? Because, you see, he bears no responsibility for the current economic distress. It’s the rich. And, like Horatius at the bridge, Obama stands with the American masses against the soulless plutocrats. This is populism so crude that it channels not Teddy Roosevelt so much as Hugo Chavez. But with high unemployment, economic stagnation and unprecedented deficits, what else can Obama say? He can’t run on stewardship. He can’t run on policy. His signature initiatives — the stimulus, Obamacare and the failed cap-and-trade — will go unmentioned in his campaign ads. Indeed, they will be the stuff of Republican ads. What’s left? Class resentment. Got a better idea? (Message edited by reindog on December 11, 2011) | ||
| Cityxslicker |
They are ginning up the Revolution - I just thought they would wait until 2016 when he COULDN'T get reelected Constitutionally. I fear he does indeed get reelected and jumps the gun with the agenda before I can get the f#ck outtta here. Never liked the smell of this guy - too much L'eau de Lenin. | ||
| Blake |
You ought to stay and help fight. Or at least be ready to return. | ||
| Drkside79 |
Well O has 104 votes before the election even starts 166 more to go........ | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/12/ dnc_chair_denies_unemployment_has_gone_up_under_ob ama.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/pos t/wonkbook-the-real-unemployment-rate-is-11-percen t/2011/12/12/gIQAuctPpO_blog.html http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/b eltway-confidential/after-perry-attack-obama-displ ays-christian-faith/250751 I believe ( could be wrong ) that this is the 4th time Barry has attended church since he was sworn in. His excuse, and, I admit, it's a good one, is he doesn't wish to disrupt the other people going with all the security. Except, of course, when he wants to make a political point, then they can all go to he11. Barack has gone golfing while Prez orders of magnitude more than church. Not surprising, his faith's relation to Christianity is just as cover. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology and http://frontpagemag.com/2010/03/31/world-council-o f-churches-the-kgb-connection/ The Pope refers to Obama's faith as "demonic". That is if you take the Presidents word as to his adopted faith. I, myself, do. A bit hard to tell sometimes when a guy celebrates Hanukkah a couple weeks early and lights all the candles in one go. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/white-hou se-hanukkah-2011_n_1138629.html?ref=style Not sure ( read some Torah, but am nowhere close to a scholar... ) how blasphemous that is. Probably a minor thing ( anyone who knows, I'm mildly curious ) and to be expected from a guy who probably thinks Kristallnacht is a German nativity play. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
stay and fight ????.... nobody I know believes it is coming. They all think I am loony as hell, pity is this is exactly the kind of thing that I spent a lifetime looking at and reporting against. And I can't believe that our elected representatives are rolling over for it; again and again. I don't like the smell of it - and if I have to be shooting back, it will be with a crew that I know have no love lost for Communists, Socialists, or Radical Jihadi F*cks. | ||
| Moxnix |
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/12/12/infant-in -minn-developed-h1n2-unique-type-of-h1n1/ Hey, City-- Here it comes......... | ||
| Pwnzor |
stay and fight ????.... nobody I know believes it is coming. Hardly anybody I know personally believes it isn't. | ||
| Cowboy |
To the disbeleavers This Prez. was raised in a 3rd world country and a up rising is second nature to him. I have my stuff ready When it comes. ( it is closer than further) | ||
| Aesquire |
I have a shamefaced retraction to make. I have picked on Obama's religious beliefs, which is wrong of me. I may be wrong about what he believes. I don't like what I believe is his true religious beliefs, as noted in the wikilink above, but have only a few (ghostwritten) autobiographies to actually go by. Like a guy or not, he's a politician and his image is his job. So I may be working from a completely wrong set of assumptions. Thank you, and resume the regular ranting. | ||
| Reindog |
The wages of appeasement By Charles Krauthammer, Published: December 15 “Ask Osama bin Laden whether I engage in appeasement.”— Barack Obama, Dec. 8 Fair enough. Barack Obama didn’t appease Osama bin Laden. He killed him. And for ordering the raid and taking the risk, Obama deserves credit. Credit for decisiveness and political courage. However, the bin Laden case was no test of policy. No serious person of either party ever suggested negotiation or concession. Obama demonstrated decisiveness, but forgoing a non-option says nothing about the soundness of one’s foreign policy. That comes into play when there are choices to be made. And here the story is different. Take Obama’s two major foreign policy initiatives — toward Russia and Iran. The administration came into office determined to warm relations with Russia. It was called “reset,” an antidote to the “dangerous drift” (Vice President Biden’s phrase) in relations during the Bush years. In fact, Bush’s increasing coolness toward Russia was grounded in certain unpleasant realities: growing Kremlin authoritarianism that was systematically dismantling a fledgling democracy; naked aggression against a small, vulnerable, pro-American state (Georgia); the drive to reestablish a Russian sphere of influence in the near-abroad and; support, from Syria to Venezuela, of the world’s more ostentatiously anti-American regimes. Unmoored from such inconvenient realities, Obama went about his reset. The signature decision was the abrupt cancellation of a Polish- and Czech-based U.S. missile defense system bitterly opposed by Moscow. The cancellation deeply undercut two very pro-American allies who had aligned themselves with Washington in the face of both Russian threats and popular unease. Obama not only left them twisting in the wind, he showed the world that the Central Europeans’ hard-won independence was only partial and tentative. With American acquiescence, their ostensibly sovereign decisions were subject to a Russian veto. This major concession, together with a New START treaty far more needed by Russia than America, was supposed to ease U.S.-Russia relations, assuage Russian opposition to missile defense and enlist its assistance in stopping Iran’s nuclear program. Three years in, how is that reset working out? The Russians are back on the warpath about missile defense. They’re denouncing the watered-down Obama substitute. They threaten not only to target any Europe-based U.S. missile defenses but also to install offensive missiles in Kaliningrad. They threaten additionally to withdraw from START, which the administration had touted as a great foreign policy achievement. As for assistance on Iran, Moscow has thwarted us at every turn, weakening or blocking resolution after resolution. And now, when even the International Atomic Energy Agency has testified to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Russia declares that it will oppose any new sanctions. Finally, adding contempt to mere injury, Vladimir Putin responded to recent anti-government demonstrations by unleashing a crude Soviet-style attack on America as the secret power behind the protests. Putin personally accused Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of sending “a signal” that activated internal spies and other agents of imperial America. Such are the wages of appeasement. Makes one pine for mere “drift.” Even worse has been Obama’s vaunted “engagement” with Iran. He began his presidency apologetically acknowledging U.S. involvement in a coup that happened more than 50 years ago. He then offered bilateral negotiations that, predictably, failed miserably. Most egregiously, he adopted a studied and scandalous neutrality during the popular revolution of 2009, a near-miraculous opportunity — now lost — for regime change. Obama imagined that his silver tongue and exquisite sensitivity to Islam would persuade the mullahs to give up their weapons program. Amazingly, they resisted his charms, choosing instead to become a nuclear power. The negotiations did nothing but confer legitimacy on the regime at its point of maximum vulnerability (and savagery), as well as give it time for further uranium enrichment and bomb development. For his exertions, Obama earned (a) continued lethal Iranian assistance to guerrillas killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, (b) a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador by blowing up a Washington restaurant, (c) the announcement just this week by a member of parliament of Iranian naval exercises to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, and (d) undoubted Chinese and Russian access to a captured U.S. drone for the copying and countering of its high-tech secrets. How did Obama answer that one? On Monday, he politely asked for the drone back. On Tuesday, with Putin-like contempt, Iran demanded that Obama apologize instead. “Obama begs Iran to give him back his toy plane,” reveled the semiofficial Fars News Agency. Just a few hours earlier, Secretary Clinton asserted yet again that “we want to see the Iranians engage. We are not giving up on it.” Blessed are the cheek-turners. But do these people have no limit? | ||
| Drkside79 |
Blessed are the cheek-turners. But do these people have no limit? I'm sure they do? Although keep in mind Iran will not be the pushover Iraq was. (that's not to say that Iraq wasn't dangerous or meant to in any way mitigate the suffering and hard work of our troops) However the Iranians have better trained better equipped troops. I would rather they thought this one out. | ||
| Reindog |
Ignoring what Iran says it is going to do, time and time again, will make Iraq/Afghanistan seem insignificant when Iran attempts to nuke Israel. There is very little difference between Iran and what Hitler broadcast to the world in the mid-thirties. I take Iran's stated word seriously and every American should too. A nuclear exchange is coming if America continues to not be taken seriously. Obama spews weakness and our enemies as well as our friends know it. This is one very important reason why one should not vote for Obama next November. The Pettiness who currently Occupies the White House is an appeaser, first class. He was such a big shot when it came to Libya but kept his yapper shut when the Iranian people needed support. The Gestapo aka Iranian Guard now control the country and have their jackboots on the throat of the Iranian people. History does repeat itself. (Message edited by reindog on December 16, 2011) | ||
| Oldog |
Zero cant accept that he can be wrong there may be an nuclear exchange we may be involved. If we are lucky the Iranian weapon wont be done before zero is outed, perhaps we can then prevent the exchange when a Good and proper official sits in the white house.. If the Iranians have to deal with a prez that will tell them up front you launch we launch. is any one watching pakistan?? they are armed with nukes.... | ||
| Sifo |
is any one watching pakistan?? they are armed with nukes.... It's a good thing that BO has done such a good job keeping our relationship with Pakistan so strong.  | ||
| Blake |
Andy, Are there no measures that fall between appeasement and all out military invasion that you can imagine? Really? It blows my mind the giant chasm-wide leaps some make in their logic. | ||
| Aesquire |
My idea for Iraq was the "palace a day club" where every night another of Saddam's many palaces, burned. That tactic ( never tried ) isn't germane to Iran. How about? Near simultaneous strikes on leadership. Target every Republican Guard barracks, Every militia site, and the homes and offices of the top leaders..... and maybe the Mullahs. ( that one is arguable ) No boots on the ground, just decapitation and full diplomatic support for the rebellion. Pull the teeth of the Tehran mobacracy and prepare to neutralize the Army when it moves in to take control. If needed. Of course for that to work it would help if we had done it before they let the Russians sell Iran the latest anti-air toys, and we'd have to be ready to take the flack from China. And Russia. And the leftists here and in Europe. The major oil shipping point in the south of Iran also seems obviously tempting. If you want to make everyone mad at you. Especially China. The current course seems to point straight at Tehran burning, a massive power grab scramble at the sudden vacuum, and a brief, but very bloody multi nuke spasm war as the capitals of Egypt, & Syria burn as well. That's assuming that Putin and Hu don't freak out and join in. And I would assume that. (Message edited by aesquire on December 17, 2011) | ||
| Blake |
Sheriff Joe speaks truth. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/19/justice-dept-sil ent-as-holder-charges-critics-with-racism/ That's right! Eric now has defined liar as a race. Thanks, Eric. ...It’s not the first time the race card has come into play in efforts to protect Holder from criticism. Most recently, during a December 8 House Judiciary Committee hearing into Fast and Furious where Holder was testifying, Georgia Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson argued that Fast and Furious wasn’t that big of a scandal because “white supremacists,” among others he described, were able to purchase weapons at “gun shows.” Johnson, who was concerned Guam may “tip over and capsize” if more military personnel are sent there, later told TheDC that he thinks the tea party movement and the National Rifle Association “manufactured” Fast and Furious as a scandal to try to attack the president. ... I really hope that Rep. Johnson was making a joke about Guam. ( If he's your rep. fire him, please ) His outright lies about The Fast & Furious scandal make him an accessory to murder, in my eyes. Mass murder. Over 300. High Crimes and Misdemeanors. |
