Gee, This is a Surprise! NOT!
The politically aggressive Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has quietly created a national network of at least eight community-organizing groups, some of which function alongside the Occupy Wall Street movement, a Daily Caller investigation shows.
Incorporated by the SEIU as local non-profits, the groups are waging concerted local political campaigns to publicly attack conservative political figures, banks, energy companies and other corporations.
Each local group has portrayed itself as an independent community organization not tied to any special interest. But they were founded, incorporated, and led by SEIU personnel.
The individual activist groups use benign-sounding names including This Is Our DC; Good Jobs, Great Houston; Good Jobs, Better Baltimore; Good Jobs Now in Detroit; Fight for Philly; One Pittsburgh; Good Jobs LA; and Minnesotans for a Fair Economy.
In reality, they are creations of the wealthy and influential labor union, amounting to a secret network of new SEIU front groups.
Union Liberals behind the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Gee, I’m shocked! 🙂
If you think the Occupy Movement is just a bunch of smelly hippies playing drums in the park, you’re wrong. The Occupy Movement is an organized group of union leaders, academics and anarchists with one common goal: to destroy capitalism. Don’t believe it?
Now DNC Chair Wasserman-Schultz- Under Bush: She blamed Bush and his cronies in the Oil Industry for the high gas prices (going to $3.22 a gallon by the way).
May 2007: “We are now paying more than double than when President Bush took office”
Now comes the Weasel 4 days ago:“What I was referring to in that speech, as I have for many years, is that focusing on fossil fuels and continuing the ‘drill baby drill’ strategy that President Obama rightly referred to the other day in south Florida as ‘a bumper sticker, not an energy policy,’
Ohhh! Am I surprised with the about face- no!
“We are not going to address gas prices over the long-term because there is — there is no President in the short-term that can really change policy and impact gas prices in a significant way. But what we do need to do is over the short-term and long-term make sure that we are using the ‘all of the above’ strategy that President Obama has employed: more domestic energy production than we’ve had in eight years (Thanks to Bush as she says, it takes time so Obama benefits from THAT time), making sure that we invest for the future in alternative energy like wind and solar and hydroelectric power, so that we can really start to impact our need to depend on…” (Go Algaeman! Solyndra Abroad Solar, etc)
“But A lot of Americans are wondering what’s going to happen now and a lot of those things take time,” Carlson shot back.
“Affecting gas prices takes time,” Schultz acknowledged. “You’re absolutely right,”
Unless it’s Republican President then that is.
President Obama’s election-year prescription to accelerate steeply higher energy prices is to add billions of dollars to the oil companies’ tax bills. Expensive gasoline fits the Obama political template.
‘Every time you fill up the gas tank, they’re making money.” That applause line, delivered Thursday by the president from Nashua, N.H., speaks volumes about the thinking that lies at the root of this presidency.
Resentment against the successful is what Barack Obama wants to cultivate among Americans, dividing the dependents of the government, who pay no income taxes to fund it, against the nation’s private-sector producers, who finance the state’s dependency machine by paying the vast bulk of the income taxes.
Fed up with prices at your local gas station going up, up and away, past the $4 level toward $5 and even higher? The president says you should take out your frustration by telling Congress to end the perfectly reasonable oil-and-gas industry tax deductions on drilling costs and other technical aspects of production.
House Speaker John Boehner was quick to respond that “a freshman-year economics student could tell you that increasing taxes on energy production would make gas prices go up, not down.” But Obama’s crass appeal to baser instincts has nothing to do with economics — or solving problems — and everything to do with politics.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu let the cat out of the bag years ago. “Somehow,” he said in 2008, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”
Why would anyone want the government to try to make oil prices skyrocket? Answer: So they can get the public to stop resisting the radical environmentalist agenda, have people accept their fate that they have to drive cars that are little better than golf carts, and ultimately convince them to keep their driving to a bare minimum. Mass transit anyone? Ever try carpooling? (IBD)
Surprise! Class Warfare…who saw that coming…. 🙂
Our friend Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller has an amusing and still quite relevant piece this weekend regarding the Supreme Court’s upcoming review of Obamacare in general and the individual mandate in particular. In it, he describes a meeting he had with Karen Harned of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) who are knee deep in the battle. She turns out to be relatively optimistic about the challenge to the law.
It’s crowded at the Caribou Coffee on 17th and L streets in Washington, but over the din of lobbyists and caffeine fiends, I ask her to sketch out the NFIB’s arguments. “What we’ve seen in all the cases,” she explains — “the one question they cannot answer is: ‘Where does it end?’”
Hers is a slippery slope argument, but that doesn’t mean questioning the government’s ability to regulate economic “inactivity” isn’t legitimate. “You could say, ‘Well it’s good for everybody to exercise — so let’s mandate everybody to join the gym.”
I stir my coffee nervously. As if the thought of being forced to (gulp!) exercise isn’t horrifying enough already, Harned continued: “It’s good for everybody to take vitamins … It’s good for people to eat five fruits and vegetables a day! — Why don’t we make all grocers give those foods away for free — and [require] more people buy broccoli?”
At first, the broccoli reference threw me, but it’s actually pertinent. During a previous trial — when appeals court Justice Laurence Silberman asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General Beth Brinkmann if requiring Americans to buy broccoli would be unconstitutional — she answered: “No. It depends.”
This may sound trite at first blush, but in the end it does seem to be the pertinent question which the justices will have to consider. I agree that “slippery slope” argument are frequent, easy targets for critics, and many are little more than straw men. But there are still some cases where they would apply, and this seems to be one of them.
Handing the federal government the power to regulate a lack of economic activity – as opposed to their recognized power to regulate some actual activity for the public good – opens up a door to a hallway which would seem to stretch to infinity. Can the President, in fact, force us to eat our peas as opposed to saying it in a rhetorical fashion?
The government’s argument would seem to be that such a mandate could be construed as being “for the common good” of society, and would save money in the long run. And while that may prove to be true, is it their place to make that determination? This smells suspiciously like the court’s decision in Kelo vs. New London when the phrase “public use” was not very subtly morphed to include “for the public benefit.” And as soon as you let Washington have the final say as to what is in your personal best interest, all bets are off.
Broccoli? I happen to like it.. sometimes. But I don’t want Washington, DC telling me to buy it. Do you? (Hot air)
The other government argument the NFIB intends to eviscerate is the free rider argument — the notion that health care mandates are vital because otherwise people will just “game” the system by refusing to pay for health care coverage while simultaneously using health services.
This, of course, is a conundrum. But the government’s “solution” would also open up a can of constitutional worms.
The government hopes to argue that the health market is unique — that the slope isn’t slippery at all. But cost shifting occurs all the time, everywhere. “We all pay in fees to our credit cards for the people who don’t pay their credit card bills,” Harned says. “We all pay in our mortgage interest for the people who default on their mortgage”…
It all comes back to this: If the government can mandate the purchase of health care insurance, what can’t they mandate?
“They could create a crisis a day if they want to,” Harned warns.
Lawyers representing Latinos who accuse Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office of racial profiling are asking a federal judge to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees from being called to testify by the sheriff’s lawyers at a trial.
Motions filed late Friday in the suit say ICE gave the sheriff’s lawyers permission to depose five ICE employees, but the depositions were never conducted.
Lawyers for the five Latinos who sued say they were therefore unable to counter with their own questions for the ICE workers. They say Arpaio’s lawyers should be barred from calling the employees to the stand.
The plaintiff’s attorneys also wrote that two other ICE agents who did give depositions have no relevant testimony and also should not be called. (AZStarnet)