Stern's Possible SEIU Successor Could Make Union Peace Elusive

I really hope that the unions in this country will be eating their own. I worked in a state as a Nurse that was a "right to work, state", meaning, union and non-union workers can work side by side. And unions/union shops/construction companies were not allowed to stop non-union companies from placing bids on projects. What the unions do not like about that is: drum roll please----it makes them less competitive. See, unions have to adhere to the salaries and benefits that they promised to each member of the union across the board, regardless of the individual employees experience or productivity. Non-union companies can take both experience and productivity into account when negotiating salaries and benefits, making the non-union companies and services more competitive. Unions need to go.
From Fox News :

Stern is leaving the SEIU as leadership is locked in battle with two other unions -- hospitality industry union Unite Here and a breakaway local out of San Francisco. The fights are draining the union coffers, but Burger would seem unlikely to seek a diplomatic solution.

Stern's fights are her fights, and Stern's enemies are her enemies. Soon after Stern's departure became public, the president of the breakaway National Union of Healthcare Workers made clear that Burger will not be able to make amends with his group.

"His likely successors, Mary Kay Henry and Anna Burger, have been tarred by the same ethics scandals and failed policies that marred his tenure," Sal Rosselli said in a written statement.

Mary Kay Henry is another top SEIU official who could launch a bid to take Stern's place -- Stern selected Burger on an interim basis, but Burger will have to run if she wants to keep the job.

In the fight with Unite Here -- which represents workers in retail, hotels, restaurants, casinos and other sectors -- a chunk of the union's membership peeled off to form a new union affiliated with the SEIU a year ago. Original members accused Stern of facilitating the split, and the two sides have been battling ever since over their bank account.

Health-care mandates could be 'null and void'

This article is extremely important--and long. But please muddle through it. This bill may be the most important issue of our life time. It may mean the resurrection of our Constitution. Or should I say the unearthing of it, because it is not quite dead yet, just buried.
From World Net Daily:

A group of Americans who believe the federal government overstepped its constitutional bounds in passing the recent health-care legislation is rallying allies to a bold and controversial initiative: state nullification of the federal law.

"Now that health-care reform has been signed into law, the question people ask most is, 'What do we do about it?'" said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, in a statement. "The status-quo response includes lobbying Congress, marching on D.C., 'voting the bums out,' suing in federal court and more. But the last 100 years have proven that none of these really work, and government continues to grow year in and year out."

Instead, the Center is reaching back into the history books to suggest states take up "nullification," a controversial measure that would essentially involve states saying to the federal government, "Not in our borders, you don't. That law has no effect here."

Like I said, please read the entire article, we must take our States back and our State sovereignty and kick the Feds out of our lives.
Technorati Tags: Americans, Federal Government, health care, Congress, constitution, Tenth Amendment Center, the Founding Fathers

Obama Details Revised NASA Vision

 From Fox News:

Forget the moon, President Obama said. We're going to Mars. Yet the President stopped short of setting specific goals, leaving a question lingering in the minds of many: When?

"By the mid 2030s, I believe we can send men to Mars's moons and return them to Earth," he told a crowd at the Kennedy Space Center

in Florida, near the launch pads where U.S. space voyages begin.
Armstrong and other astronauts expressed concerns over the past few days that scrapping the moon program would have deep consequences in terms of America's standing in the world. They wrote an open letter to Obama voicing their concerns.

Apollo 13 astronaut Jim Lovell, who signed the letter with Armstrong, told Fox News he believes Obama's plan is "short-sighted."

"We're going to be a third-rate nation. China and Russia are going to be premier," he said.

This is a profoundly bad and dangerous idea. China and Russia are not our friends, they never have been and never will be. But the Obama administration knows this, as have every administration before him. I am very afraid for this country.

Technorati Tags: news, Apollo 13, Fox News, Neal Armstrong, The Moon, Mars, President Obama, NASA, China, Russia, politics, Jim Lovell

House Attempts to Invent DC Congressmen this Thursday!

From capwiz The D.C. House Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Tell your Representative to vote NO on H.R. 157!	Take Action!
April 19, 2010   After casting a career-defining vote in favor of Big Government Obamacare, congressional liberals know that they have little time left as the majority party in Congress, so they are pushing hard for all the little-known leftist bills that have been sitting in dusty desk drawers for decades.  One such piece of legislation is the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act.  Just last week, President Obama called on Congress to get this bill passed and to his desk before November 2010 rolls around.  Sponsored by DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 (H.R. 157) would establish full House of Representatives voting rights for the District of Columbia while adding an additional seat to Utah, a traditionally Republican stronghold and the next state in line to pick up a Congressional seat in reapportionment. However, there is one minor problem:  D.C. is NOT a congressional district or a state!   The D.C. House Voting Rights Act aims to accomplish the following: Subvert the District Clause of the U.S. Constitution - Article I, Section 8, clause 17 - which makes clear that D.C. is a federal city, not a state, with final governing authority resting with Congress. The U.S. Constitution states that the House shall be composed of "Members chosen...by the People of the several States," not delegates representing non-state territories. Silence critics of D.C. voting rights by buying them off with a "sure Republican" seat because they know the D.C. seat will be a solid Democrat. In the last 12 elections since D.C. was granted the right to cast presidential electoral votes, it has never cast less than 74.8 percent of its popular vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. This move is simply a partisan trade-off by the congressional liberal Majority wanting to add a permanent Democrat vote to their tallies. Bribe Republicans to favor the idea by including a provision to increase the number of House Members from 435 to 437 and give the extra Representative to Utah. Lay the initial groundwork for achieving the ultimate goal of establishing two permanent Democrat Senate seats for the District. If the initial inclination is for DC to be "considered a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives," then the idea for DC to be "considered a state for the purposes of representation in the U.S. Senate," will not be far down the road.   Simply introducing a bill such as this is unconstitutional!  DC cannot be "treated as though it were a congressional district," unless it were formally made a congressional district via a constitutional amendment, which would require a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress as well as three-fourths of the states to ratify it.   This is nothing new from the Left.  Congressional liberals have been trying to grant full voting rights to the District of Columbia since the 1980s.  The maiden attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution through the "D.C. Representation" Amendment was unsuccessful, after it passed Congress but was rejected by the American people and died on August 22, 1985 after a decisive majority of 34 of the 50 states refused to ratify it.  Now, Members of Congress are attempting to forgo the constitutional process and slip one past the American people in order to accommodate their political agenda! Remember, the Senate passed its version of the DC Voting bill (S. 160) by a vote of 61 to 37 (Roll Call 73) in February 2009.  However, that bill stalled in the House because it contained a Senate Republican-offered amendment which repealed strict DC gun laws.  Although the language of H.R. 157 has not yet been made public, the bill is expected to contain either the same or similar gun provisions, and although many House liberals favor DC gun control laws, it is likely that the liberal House leadership will approach this legislation in much the same way it did Obamacare:  Pass it now, fix it later.    TAKE ACTION! The House is scheduled to vote on H.R. 157 on Thursday, April 22, 2010!  Please call and email your representatives and tell them to vote NO on this unconstitutional bill! Be sure to focus your calls on Republicans and Democrats alike, as various Republican "moderates" have been known to support this attempted scheme in the past and some Democrat "moderates" have opposed it.     Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121     Further Reading:   Liberal Plans to Subvert the U.S. Constitution  by Phyllis Schlafly The Unconstitutional Compromise  by George Will Why the DC House Voting Rights Act is Unconstitutional  by Professor Jonathan Turley

Technorati Tags: news, politics, democrats, Washington D.C., Congress, voting, U.S. Constitution, HR 157, D.C. House voting rights act

L.A. mayor calls for temporary shutdowns of some agencies

Both the city council and the mayor are to blame. Our elected officials are out of control, no matter where they hold power. Time to kick them all out and start over.
From the Latimes:

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called for shutting down non-essential agencies two days a week Tuesday as he and City Council members remained locked in a standoff over the intertwined issues of electricity rates and the city's worsening budget shortfall.
Villaraigosa's action topped another day of threats and name-calling at City Hall.

Good, shut them down, less government is better government.

The latest escalation of the financial crisis began Monday when the Department of Water and Power took steps to withhold a promised $73.5-million payment to the city's depleted treasury.

Villaraigosa blamed the action on the council's rejection of an electricity rate increase, which DWP officials said was necessary to cover the DWP's fluctuating fossil fuel costs and the mayor's renewable energy agenda.

As for the renewable energy agenda, the start up cost for renewable energy is staggering. I know because we are just starting to find that out here on the Uncooperative Mountain. It's really expensive to buy the equipment that is needed to do this, so if they can't pay their regular bills, how do they pay to revamp the grid? And here is another question to ponder; how much of the budget goes to the care of Illegal Alien Invaders and their families?
Technorati Tags: Los Angeles, city budget, Mayor Villaraigosa, California, illegal aliens, Congress, news, states rights

Will the U.S. Adopt a Value-Added Tax?

Just one more creative and sneaky way to tax us. Enough is enough. How many of you have your signs ready for tomorrows rally on our elected cockroaches in Washington?
From cbsnews.com:

A VAT can be assessed in several different ways. In the most common method, the VAT is assessed on a good at each stage of production and distribution -- when the raw material is sold, when the product is manufactured, when a store stocks up, and when the consumer buys it. When a business calculates its VAT payment, it deducts the tax paid at the previous stage, based on records every company along the chain keeps. That's one reason the VAT is considered highly efficient -- it's hard to dodge since each link in the VAT chain keeps an eye on the rest.

This process effectively hides the VAT from open view -- unlike state sales taxes, the VAT is buried in the price of the good, not assessed at the cash register. But make no mistake: a 10 percent VAT would raise the cost of everything 10 percent. (High VAT taxes back home are one reason that Europeans love to shop in the U.S.) A VAT is also relatively simple to administer, so its "dead weight" -- the distortion it imposes on the economy above and beyond the price of the tax itself -- is minimal.

This is actually an informative article, go read it and arm yourself against the progressives that want to destroy, this great country. The article also explains why Canadians come to the U.S. to shop.
Technorati Tags: news, VAT, taxes, Europe, Washigton DC, tea party movement, politics, Paul Volcker, CBS, progressive

ABC Vets Insist Obama Not on Left, Blocking ObamaCare Reminds Roberts of ‘First Step Toward the Civil War’

From NewsBusters.org:

On ABC’s This Week, when retired ABC newsman Sam Donaldson recommended that President Barack Obama nominate, to replace Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, someone who “is going to stand up for the principles – on the left, if you will – that he believes in,” Cokie Roberts jumped in: “I’m not so sure he is so far to the left.” Donaldson agreed: “Well, I’m not sure either.”

Minutes later, Roberts contended the efforts of state attorneys general, to get a federal court to rule unconstitutional ObamaCare’s requirement every citizen get health insurance, reminded her of the “nullification” which led to the Civil War:

What the hell are these people talking about? And they get paid for this? I'll tell you, I have read much more insightful stuff on Gather and heard more intelligent conversation on BlogTalk Radio, than what I get from the Lame Stream Media.
Technorati Tags: ABC, Sam Donaldson, Gather, Cokie Roberts, Supreme Court, President Obama, Justice Stevens, news, the left, politics, progressive

Greenspan Exposes Governments responsibility in Subprime Lending

from NYT:

The committee examining the causes of the financial crisis heard a strong defense of the Federal Reserve from its former chairman on Wednesday as the panel began three days of hearings 0n the failure to rein in Citigroup, Fannie Mae and the subprime mortgage market.

In his testimony, an unflinching Alan Greenspan, the former fed chief, fended off a barrage of questions about the Fed’s failure to crack down on subprime mortgages and other abusive lending practices during his lengthy tenure.

He pointed out that the Fed had warned about subprime lending and low-down-payment mortgages in 1999, and again in 2001. And he argued that if the Fed had tried to damp the housing market amid a “fairly broad consensus” about encouraging homeownership, “the Congress would have clamped down on us.”

He added: “There is a lot of amnesia that’s emerging, apparently.”

I have been saying this from the beginning: this sub-prime meltdown was caused by the government pushing the notion that everyone is entitled to own a home. It started with the progressive Clinton administration and continued in the progressive bush administration. Homeowner ship is not a right, health care is not a right and rights come from our creator not the government; read the Declaration of Independence.

Thank GOD for the Tea Party Movement! Finally "we the people" are waking up! Come on folks jump on board! The Constitution is The Solution!


Technorati Tags: sub prime mortgages, ressession, financial, greenspan, home mortgages, bill clinmton, george w. bush, progressive, liberals, conservative, constitution

Leahy Refuses to Delay Hearing for Controversial Judicial Nominee

From FNC:

Democrats refused Wednesday to delay the confirmation hearing for one of President Obama's most controversial judicial nominees a day after Republicans slammed the candidate for failing to initially disclose more than 100 of his speeches, publications and other background materials.

It is not unreasonable to request a delay to read over the 117 documents, so what are the democrats thinking? Remember when they were the minority party the dems filibustered allot of bush's nominees.

The hearing for Goodwin Liu, a Berkeley law professor nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, already had been postponed twice. Republicans have targeted Liu for his writings suggesting health care is a right and describing the U.S. Constitution as a document that should adapt to changes in the world.

This alone should disqualify the nominee. This view of the Constitution is political and judges should not make decisions based on their view of the world. This amounts to changing the original meaning of the Constitution right? Well, the founding fathers who created the Constitution debated how to change the Constitution as the need arises, it is called amending the Constitution. See, the founders new their would be a need to change the Constitution and they made the provision to do so, this being the case the idea of judges changing it in the judiciary is ridiculous. The judicial branch is not supposed to make law or change the Constitution, this has been nothing but the progressives making an end run around the system. The LEGISLATIVE branch is the only branch to make law and the amendment process is the only way the Constitution is to be changed.

Technorati Tags: news, politics, leahy, Goodwin Liu, democrats, judicial nominee, judicial hearing, progressives, liberals, U.S. Constitution, barack obama, law

Bullock to side with Pelosi/Reid/Obama over Montanans

This was sent to me via e-mail:

We received this email at 8:45 this morning.
Jason Priest
Executive Director
Montana Growth Network

March 25, 2010

Thanks for expressing your concerns about the constitutionality of the recent health care legislation.

We have reviewed the legal arguments that are being used to challenge the legislation, and have concluded that it is highly unlikely it will be found unconstitutional. This is a conclusion that is shared by the vast majority of legal scholars, liberal and conservative, who have reviewed the issues. As a result, Montana will not be joining the lawsuit that several state Attorneys General have brought.

People can certainly disagree over whether the health care legislation is good policy. That does not mean, however, that the State of Montana should spend taxpayer money to file a lawsuit that we do not believe has legal merit. Like the Republican and Democratic Montana Attorneys General who served before me, I try hard to keep my personal political beliefs out of legal decisions.

My staff and I are busy and working hard to protect the interests of Montanans. The courts will have the opportunity to judge the merits of the challenges to the health care legislation without the involvement of Montana. If we are correct and the courts reject the challenges, we will have saved valuable Montana taxpayer resources. In the unlikely event that the Courts declare the legislation unconstitutional, their decision will apply to all Americans - including all Montanans - even though we weren't a party to the lawsuit.

Sincerely,
STEVE BULLOCK
Attorney General

This is what my elected cockroach feels about this matter. My husband says he can see where he is coming from, I think he is a coward.
Technorati Tags: news, politics, President Obama, White House, Senator Reid, House Speaker Pelosi, pollitics, constitution, legislation

Obama to Limit Potential Uses of Nuclear Weapons

From FNC:

The United States will pledge not to use nuclear weapons against most non-nuclear countries -- no matter what they use against us -- but will keep "all options" on the table for nations like North Korea and Iran, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.

This man is extremely STUPID! This makes it more likely that we will be attacked! There was no need for this statement, even if you "feel" this way you don't say it in public!

The declaration came out of the Obama administration's revised nuclear policy, under which the United States is committing not to develop or test any new nuclear weapons. The document is aimed at leading the world in reducing nuclear stockpiles, though some are concerned the country could put itself in danger if others don't follow.

Gates said Tuesday the administration reserves the right to make "adjustments" to the policy and that the document doesn't quite declare that the United States will never be the first to use a nuclear weapon.

Well, if you are not going to use it even if attacked, why would they believe you would use it first?

The Obama administration plans to urge Russia to return to the bargaining table following Senate ratification of the new START arms reduction treaty, to be signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Prague on Thursday.

Gordon Chang, author of "Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes on the World," called the policy announced Tuesday a "dramatic departure" and said it will work only if other nuclear states follow the U.S. lead.

"We could end up in sort of a ... situation of strategic inferiority, because everyone else is improving and we're not doing anything," he said.

Gee, you think? Russia has allot more missiles than we do, something like 10 times, so we better not be doing it evenly or it is just stupid. Mutually assured destruction has worked quite well, notice no one has used a nuke yet. So, why mess with something that works.

Technorati Tags: news, politics, nuclear weapons, nuclear draw down, start program, russia, barak obama

The Court Rules FCC has no power to regulate Net neutrality

From Cnet News:

The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to slap Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

A three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. unanimously tossed out the FCC's August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had taken measures to slow BitTorrent transfers before voluntarily ending them earlier that year.

Because the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the power to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

I bet they will either pass this in Congress using "reconciliation" or they will try and find another way.

Net neutrality proponents responded to Tuesday's ruling by saying the FCC should slap landline-style regulations on Internet providers, which could involve price regulation, service quality controls, and technological mandates. The agency "should immediately start a proceeding bringing Internet access service back under some common carrier regulation," Public Knowledge's Gigi Sohn said. The Media Access Project said, without mentioning common carrier regulations directly, that the FCC must have the "ability to protect the rights of Internet users to access lawful content and services of their choice."

In a statement on Tuesday, the FCC indicated that it was thinking along the same lines. The DC Circuit did not "close the door to other methods for achieving this important end," the agency said. A spokeswoman declined to elaborate.

Aha! I guess I was right huh? Here comes the lobbying that will begin again in earnest. We do not need to grant the government even more unconstitutional powers. You heard me, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, this was not the intent of the commerce clause and they have not amended the Constitution.

Dying Patient Was Refused A Glass Of Water

Something to look forward to here in America...

From Sky News:

A dying patient had to ring a hospital switchboard on his mobile to ask for a glass of water, after nurses ignored his pleas.

Officials from the South London NHS Trust have apologised to the family of Derek Sauter, who later died in hospital of pneumonia.

The 60-year-old did not receive a "proper and professional standard of care" when he was admitted with a chest infection in June 2008.

A formal investigation is being conducted into his death, after it was found his oxygen levels went unchecked for 11 hours and were 35% lower than recommended.

Ruth Sauter, the patient's daughter, said she was disgusted by the treatment her father had received.

She told The Daily Mail: "His condition was not life threatening, and nurses had specific instructions to keep close tabs on him.

"'But their appalling lack of care, and cruel behaviour killed my father...It's so much worse knowing that he died alone, thirsty and scared on that ward."

After being admitted in the morning, he was given antibiotics and oxygen, but was later forced to ring his wife to tell her that he was not allowed any more water as he had earlier knocked over a cup.

After ringing the switchboard, a doctor was called to the ward, only for a nurse to tell him that the patient was "overreacting".

This is what comes from socialized medicine and we are marching towards it. The Fed. Govt. is going to be telling doctors what they can and cannot do as to treatments and in this health care bill there is no appeal! Even Canada allows an appeal of the Government's medical panel decisions.

We can only hope the supreme court does the right thing and finds the Bill unconstitutional. If you people want government run health care then amend the Constitution otherwise it is unconstitutional!

Technorati Tags: news, politics, health care, socialized medicine, socialism, healthcare bill, Constitution, , law