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.
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
The D.C. House Voting Rights Act is
unconstitutional. Tell your Representative to vote NO on H.R. 157!
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
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
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.
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
Technorati Tags: news, politics, democrats, Washington D.C., Congress, voting, U.S. Constitution, HR 157, D.C. House voting rights act
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
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?
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
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