For real change, Occupiers must reject Obama

There’s only one way the Occupy Wall Street movement can become like the tea parties, and that’s for Barack Obama to lose in 2012. Why? Because Obama is the most divisive figure in American politics today.
I suspect that sentence reads funny to some people because in the mainstream press, “divisive” is usually a term reserved for “conservatives we disagree with.” But as a factual matter it can apply to anybody who is, well, divisive.
Obviously, Obama divides the right and left. That’s not all that interesting or relevant (even if it does represent a failure to live up to his “one America” rhetoric from 2008). But Obama also divides everyone else. Independents, whom he desperately needs to win re-election, are split over Obama, with the bulk siding with Republicans.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1376923

Pro-Union Is Not Pro-Worker

A recurring theme from the current administration is that to be pro-organized labor is to be pro-worker.  Concurrently, the administration has consistently refuted that it is using class warfare as a theme.

For Joe Biden to incorrectly and belligerently suggest that being pro-union means being pro-worker is pure flawed logic.  He obviously has never worked as a supplier to a large union company or worked as an employee in a company supplying a union company.

A comment from Vice President Biden in March 2011 summed it up when he stated, "We don't see the value of collective bargaining; we see the absolute positive necessity of collective bargaining.  Let's get something straight: the only people who have the capacity -- organizational capacity and muscle -- to keep, as they say, the barbarians from the gate, is organized labor.  And make no mistake about it: the guys on the other team get it.  They know if they cripple labor, the gate is open, man.  The gate is wide open.  And we know that, too."

In my experiences helping groups avoid bankruptcy, the tier-1 and tier-2 suppliers to the auto industry and their employees, many of whom are UAW members as well, have suffered horribly at the hands of the big three (GM, Chrysler, and Ford) and the big one (the UAW).     

The suppliers to the auto industry have seen prices cut and wages slashed for their workers with the result that America has lost even more jobs overseas to help pay for the contract settlements with the auto manufacturers.  The loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States has even caused the UAW membership itself to plummet from 1.5 million members in 1979 to about 355,000 in 2010, yet the union fails to acknowledge its role in the decline of its own membership.   

The most recent labor negotiation with the UAW is concerning because of the impact it will have on workers at the suppliers to the big 3 or to the car buyers if prices are raised to pay for this contract.  After a taxpayer-funded bailout and substantial write-off of debt by GM and Chrysler, the auto company employees will reap bonuses and benefits unheard of in the rest of America in this current economic climate.  Class warfare at its finest!

While one might concede that it is wonderful to provide such benefits if you can afford them, those benefits can be paid only if, ultimately, the  customer is willing to pay a higher price for your product.  

Should the customer not want to pay a higher price, such bonuses and benefits must come from suppliers, the suppliers employees, shareholders (pension plans in many cases), and government.

The greed of this most recent labor negotiation in the middle of a recession/depression is palpable.  The sheer arrogance and abuse of power by the industry and its union reminds me of someone silly enough to fly to Washington, D.C. in a private jet to ask for a bailout -- not that anyone would be silly enough to do that.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/pro-union_is_not_pro-worker.html

U.S. Gov't Financial Regulators Earn Tax-Funded Salaries of $225,000-Plus

(CNSNews.com) – Federal employees at several financial regulatory agencies – including the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – are earning six-figure salaries and taking home bonuses up to $5,000, according to federal records obtained by Judicial Watch. At least 228 such regulators make $225,000 a year.

In comparison, members ofCongress make $174,000 a year; the Speaker of the House makes $223,500; and the majority and minority leaders pull in $193,400 a year.

The records, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), show the number of employees at five of the six major financial regulatory agencies.

In addition to the CFPB, the personnel documents come from Wall Street regulatory agencies including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Treasury Department, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The forms reveal that hundreds of regulators earn in excess of $225,000 per year, not counting bonus income awarded by some of the agencies.

The CFPB – created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulation law – has hired a dozen employees at more than $225,000 per year, Judicial Watch reported on Tuesday. The massive new financial regulator has also hired a college student intern, paying her $42,036 per year, despite being listed as a “student trainee” in federal records. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/us-govt-financial-regulators-earn-tax-funded-salaries-225000-plus

If I Were a Liberal by Ann Coulter

If I were a liberal, I would have spent the last week in shock that a Democratic audience in Flint, Mich., cheered Vice President Joe Biden's description of a policeman being killed. (And if I were a liberal desperately striving to keep my job on MSNBC, I'd say the Democrats looked "hot and horny" for dead cops -- as Chris Matthews said of a Republican audience that cheered for the death penalty.)

Biden's audience whooped and applauded last week in Flint when he said that without Obama's jobs bill, police will be "outgunned and outmanned." (Wild applause!)

I suppose liberals would claim they were applauding because they believe Obama's jobs bill will prevent these murders. Which reminds me: Republicans believe the death penalty prevents murders!

In a case I have previously mentioned, Kenneth McDuff was released from death row soon after the Supreme Court overturned the death penalty in 1972 and went on to murder more than a dozen people.

Which belief bears more relationship to reality? 

William Jordan and Anthony Prevatte were sentenced to death in 1974 for abducting a teacher, murdering him and stealing his car. They came under suspicion when they were caught throwing the murder weapon from the stolen vehicle in a high-speed car chase with the cops and because they were in possession of the dead man's wallet, briefcase and watch.

The Georgia Supreme Court overturned their capital sentences in an opinion by Robert H. Hall, who was appointed by Gov. Jimmy Carter.

Hall said that the death sentences had to be set aside on the idiotic grounds that the jurors had overheard the prosecutor say that the judge and state supreme court would have the opportunity to review a death sentence, which might have caused them to take their sentencing role less seriously.

(If the facts had been the reverse, the court would have overturned the death sentences on the grounds that the jurors did not take their sentencing decision seriously, under the misapprehension that no judge or court would second-guess them.)

Prevatte was later released from "life in prison" and proceeded to murder his girlfriend. Jordan escaped and has never been found.

As president, Carter appointed Hall to a federal district court.

Darryl Kemp was sentenced to death in California in 1960 for the rape and murder of Marjorie Hipperson and also convicted for raping two other women. But he sat on death row long enough -- 12 years -- for the death penalty to be declared unconstitutional. He was paroled five years later and, within four months, had raped and murdered Armida Wiltsey, a 40-year-old wife and mother.

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2011/10/26/if_i_were_a_liberal

The ObamaCare games being played on us

If ever you needed proof that our government should not be entrusted with control of our healthcare, a clear case sits before you now. Even so, the Obama Administration remains confident you will not take the time to understand what has happened. Most citizens won’t.

On a recent Friday late afternoon the Administration announced the CLASS Act portion of ObamaCare will not be implemented. Friday afternoon announcements are timed with the hope they will be little noticed, a strategy of both Democrat and Republican administrations. But if you open your eyes to comprehend what happened here, you may realize what they hope you overlook, that you and I are being played by our government.

Caring for an elderly family member soon becomes a strain as it consumes more of your time, competes with spouses and children for your attention, interferes with work schedules, twists sibling relationships over the sharing of time and expenses and builds stress like a pressure cooker; never mind that it also changes the relationship with the elder needing care.

The CLASS Act (Community Living Assistance Services and Support) is an ObamaCare program ostensibly to provide benefits for long-term care (LTC). Anyone who has been a caregiver for grandma as she becomes too old and frail to care for herself knows meeting that family duty of loving care can turn life on its head.

Finally, making the decision on a nursing home placement will break your heart even though you put it off as long as possible. 

http://www.thecitizen.com/blogs/terry-garlock/10-25-2011/obamacare-games-being-played-us