Unions Making Slavery Seem Like it Wasn't All That Bad

Unions are suing to revoke the Indiana "right to work" law. As I've explained before, so-called "right to work" states have laws on the books that allow people to work in unionized industries without being forced to join the union. Sane people ask why there needs to be a law to say a person cannot be forced by another person to join a union. The union says that they are enslaved by these laws. Confused? You should be. Unions are arguing in the lawsuit that, because they negotiate wages on behalf of the workers, the people who aren't forced into the union are getting those services for free, which means that the unions are slaves under the 13th Amendment. Let that soak in. The union is arguing that if they cannot force employees to join their organization and give them the fruits of their labor in dues, that the union is being enslaved.

If you're not laughing yet, you're like me, still stunned at the pure illogic of the argument. I mean, if someone argued that they were being enslaved because they were forced to work for a union, I could kind of see that argument, because they are having their labor taken in the form of dues without any choice in the matter. But that's still a stretch. The union argument is like the slave owner claiming that his slaves force him to own a plantation against his will. Unions had a purpose once, and it was good. Now they are just a quasi-governmental organization that thinks other people's money belongs to them simply so that they can perpetuate their own existence. After all, Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO, makes eight times what the average worker does ($200,000-$300,000 a year since 2003 according to a union watchdog) all while making a living complaining about CEO salaries. I strongly suspect that salary is not his sole source of income either.

One to Watch

In these days of conservative cries for fiscal discipline and a return to Constitutional principles, many forego some of the international bodies that just don't work. My personal want is for the United States to withdraw funding from the United Nations and remove all troop support and ambassadors to that organization. Why we give money to a group that lets murderous dictators have a platform to address the world, ranting for hours on end (e.g. Khaddafi, Amhadinajad) is beyond me.

In that spirit, I would like to introduce the reader to Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R. WA). Ms. Rodgers has introduced legislation to revoke the $100 billion dollars pledged to the International Monetary Fund in 2009. This is not the knee jerk reaction of some Tea Party candidate as many liberals would assume. Ms. Rodgers is a 4th term Congresswoman from one of the most liberal states in the U.S. (though the Eastern portion, where her district is, is considerably less so than say, Seattle, or, as they like to think of themselves, New Leningrad). She is concerned with the lack of openness and transparency at the IMF. She also understands that continued borrowing and spending of governments is impeding economic recovery. This makes Ms. Rodgers someone to keep an eye on for the future, even though it is difficult to come to national prominence through the House of Representatives.

Damn the 1%

Ever since the Occupy Wall Street idiocy, the national lexicon has come to refer to the 99% (supposedly the poor and middle class) versus the 1% (the evil people who are wealthy). The Obama campaign is, of course, delighted by this kind of class warfare, it is what they eat and breathe. At a recent campaign appearance to pander to students by offering them money, President Obama noted that he "was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth" and that someone had to give him an education. Whether or not the comment was meant to be a dig at Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney (the White House says it wasn't, but then, they say a lot of things that don't quite pass the smell test), it is clearly playing class warfare. As for someone having to give President Obama an education, that's probably the most honest I've heard him be, because he certainly didn't earn the education he received. From everything I've seen it appears he was a mediocre student at best, especially by comparison to people who get into Columbia and Harvard. But I digress...

I wonder if Democrats would be so quick to criticize the supposed 1% if we attach some names to them. John F. Kennedy, Ted Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. All were born into wealth from a family of insane riches. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was from a similarly wealthy family. George Washington. The first president and arguably the greatest American in history (recently voted the staunchest foe in the history of the British Empire) may also have been the wealthiest man to ever serve as President. Surely President Obama and his campaign would acknowledge that these wealthy men were too wealthy to understand the plight of the common man and woman in the United States and, as such, unqualified to serve in public office. Right?

That Pesky Constitution

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) announced that she is in favor of a plan being advanced by Democrats that finally takes the progressive extreme left out of the closet regarding their hatred of the Constitution. Democrats are so offended that corporations can give political donations now (because it means Republicans might be able to raise money similar to the kind of money Democrats have always gotten from unions) that they want to alter the First Amendment. Feel free to read that again and get a rag to wipe up whatever you just spit out. Democrats want to essentially amend the First Amendment so that they can regulate (i.e. stop) corporate speech.

The thing that scares Democrats most is that they can't win a straight argument. They have to change the subject, drown the argument or stop it all together. Because, in the end, conservative Constitutionalism wins hands down every time it is presented on equal footing. They claim there is a problem with the anonymous nature of the donors. That doesn't take an amendment to the Constitution to fix, that takes a statute to require disclosure. One that would likely gain bipartisan support no less. As soon as the names are out, they will demonize the donors, digging up every piece of dirt they can find on them, just like they did when Joe the Plumber spoke out in 2008. This isn't about disclosure, it's about silence. Ms. Pelosi is just another petty bully, insecure in her beliefs, knowing that in a straight fight, she will lose. So much for that oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

Today's Recommended Reading

Ann Coulter, always funny, always controversial, always insightful, and while you can disagree with her opinions, her history and facts are dead on.

And If I Refuse, Mr. Bond?

Senate Democrats, specifically Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried (D. NV), have refused to pass a budget now for three years. Actually, they've refused to even propose one. The only Democratic budget proposals have been President Barack Obama's ludicrous budgets which I can only assume have been an attempt at humor. The last one was voted down without a single vote in favor. Meanwhile, this refusal to propose a budget runs deep. Outgoing Senator Kent Conrad (D. ND),Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, had the strange idea that he would introduce a budget to be marked up for debate based on the Simpson-Bowles committee recommendations. Not so fast, mister! Senator Ried stepped in and killed the idea, leaving Senator Conrad to plead indirectly to his own party leader for permission to bring a bill in his own committee.

Senate Democrats have been deathly afraid of unveiling a budget because it would likely destroy their chances of holding the Senate and the White House. Their budget priorities are spending, their constituents are blocs they buy off with government goodies. If independents were to see through this it would likely throw the elections heavily to Republicans in November, much the way it did in 2010 when Republicans took historic gains in the House. It's amazing what a group will stoop to in order to maintain power.

Back to the Grind

Sometimes it's hard to self motivate, especially given that I write about an inherently depressing topic. In that spirit and in the hopes that it kick starts me to get back to doing this blog, especially given the coming election season, I give you this video, We're Not Young, a spoof of a son made most popular by a Chevy commercial, and a perfect capture of what it feels like to be in your 30's sometimes. Now, where's my gun? Time to get angry again and start shooting off my mouth.