Blogger Alerts

Tuesday
Oct212014

CA Political Review - Sen Shaheen Supporter and Malevolent Democrat Billionaire Announces Voter Suppression Scheme

October 17, 2014 By Stephen Frank

Tom Steyer is a billionaire that made his money from oil—big oil, all over the world. Now that he made his money he has a new goal—ending the drilling of oil, all over the world. He is spending money for those Democrats that oppose oil, coal, nuclear power. He wants candidates that oppose the Second Amendment. He just gave the California Democrat Party $200,000 and beginning his efforts to assure Big Government/No Jobs Democrats an office. So far this cycle he has spent over $40,000.

Photo courtesy of secretlondon123, flickr

Photo courtesy of secretlondon123, flickr

Now he is involved in trying to suppress Republican voters—sleazy—but what would you expect from this hypocrite?

 

To Continue Readcing Click Here ---> Tom Steyer Billionaire Hypocrit

Tuesday
Oct212014

Newsmax - US Ordering 34 Million Green Cards for Illegal Plan

Monday, 20 Oct 2014 06:03 PM

By Greg Richter

With some lawmakers predicting a sweeping executive order on immigration from President Barack Obama after the Nov. 4 elections, one federal agency is already making plans to hire a vendor to crank out up to 34 million  blank green cards to accommodate an expected surge in immigrants in 2016.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has published a draft solicitation for a contractor capable of producing 4 million cards a year for five years — and 9 million in the early stages — that would allow immigrants to live and work in the country, Breitbart reports.

To Continue Reading Click Here ---> Obama Wants More Green Cards

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/green-card-immigration-surge/2014/10/19/id/601688/#ixzz3GmSjgCXd

Monday
Oct202014

Personal Liberty - Minimum wage group offers pay that undercuts the wage they’re demanding

fsplogo101714

In another case of reality trumping idealism, a progressive group advocating for a dramatic bump in the federal mandatory minimum wage has inadvertently revealed a bit on unintentional hypocrisy.

The Seattle-based Freedom Socialist Party needed a Web developer, so it put out an online job posting. It describes the necessary qualifications and job responsibilities, and it even clearly states the hourly wage.

Problem is the Freedom Socialist Party isn’t offering its future Web developer nearly as much as the minimum wage it’s demanding from the government. The party wants a $20 mandatory minimum wage, but it’s willing to pay a Web developer only $13 per hour. [...]

Finish reading by clicking herre ---> Socialists and Minimum Wage Hypocrisy

Tuesday
Oct142014

ALG's Daily Grind - Unions try to cash in on government support of home health care workers 

6

Oct. 13, 2014

Permission to republish original opeds granted.

Unions try to cash in on government support of home health care workers

By Nathan Mehrens

When the New York Times uses an editorial to criticize your actions, that is generally a good indication that you are on the right track.

Such is the case of the Times' criticisms of home health care workers (leveled mostly at their attorneys) who do not desire to lose the ability to deal with the government (their quasi employer) regarding their situations and instead cede that ability to a union lobbyist. These home health care workers are providing care for their disabled children under the Minnesota Medicaid program. They do this as an alternative to placing the children in institutions. Certain states like Minnesota would like to make union representation of the parent part of the deal. The Minnesota statute on point makes the parents state employees just for the purposes of unionization, enabling the union to lobby the state on their behalf.

Unions are desperate to find new members and corresponding sources of revenue because today only 6.7 percent of private sector employees are members of unions. As such, unions are working hard to turn every person who receives any type of public benefit into a public sector employee that can be unionized. This has prompted unions to attempt new tactics aimed at gaining additional members from the public sector. The home health care context is one of their latest target areas.

Most of us wouldn't consider an individual who cares for a disabled child to be a public sector employee, and this past June the U.S. Supreme Court in Harris v. Quinn agreed that they are not full employees. As such, they cannot be forced to financially support the union's activities in lobbying the state government.

At issue in the latest litigation is whether despite the Court's actions in freeing individuals from financially supporting union lobbyists, do these individual parents have the right to freely associate and speak to the government regarding their situations, or whether those rights can only be exercised through the union lobbyists as the exclusive representative of the parents.

The principle that should guide the court in this case is simple; the First Amendment protects the rights of persons to choose freely what organizations to associate with, and that will lobby the government, ostensibly, on their behalf. The First Amendment also protects the right of persons to choose to not be represented by a lobbyist and to instead be able to exercise their individual rights to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Therefore, the parents should be free to decide to engage in their own discussions with the government regarding the services they are provided instead of being forced to go through a union lobbyist. Given recent holdings from the U.S. Supreme Court, this is the result that should occur if the case reaches them. 

It is unfortunate that this litigation is even necessary. Rather than designing a service that customers want, like any other business would do, unions have instead focused a good deal of their efforts on causing governmental actions that instantly create new members for them. This results in a much needed revenue source for the union and in many cases causes them little to no extra work. In the public sector context this is particularly problematic as described above, because it places the individual in the position of having a union lobbyist forced upon them.

Somehow I doubt the Times would be in favor of having a lobbyist forced upon them, especially if that lobbyist doesn't share their views. Unfortunately, they see no problem forcing this on parents who are merely trying to take care of their children. 

Nathan Mehrens is President of Americans for Limited Government and previously served in the U.S. Department of Labor.

Friday
Oct102014

Newsmax - Shaheen-Scott Brown Senate Race Still Too Close To Call 

Newsmax.com

Breaking from Newsmax.com

New Hampshire Senate Race a Dead Heat
For the second straight week, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown are in a statistical dead heat with the incumbent Democrat maintaining a small 48.5 percent to 45.9 percent lead, which is within the 2.7 percent margin of error. The New England College Poll was conducted on Oct. 3.
Read the Full Story — Go Here Now