Who decides how much of your earnings you NEED to keep?

Be afraid… very afraid.

Chicago’s Don Wade & Roma radio show Sept 14, 2011 – interview with (D) Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky.

I couldn’t agree more with the positions put forward in this video. Please pass this on.

Felonious Munk speaks ‘truth to power’. Straight forward, passionate and truthful!! What more can you ask for?

AMEN BROTHER!
God bless you and keep up the good work.

Stark:

“The Federal government can, yes, do most anything in this country.”

Suggested reading for all that seek to defend liberty.

REFERENCE ___ The Road to Serfdom – a book written by the Austrian-born economist and philosopher Friedrich von Hayek between 1940–1943, in which he “warned of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning,”

We must understand the past to prevent the destruction of liberty today.  Rep. Stark exposes the ignorance of the constitution and the will of the American people.

By boldly asserting that the authority to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to regulate not merely voluntary activity that is commercial or even ancillary thereto, but inactivity that is expressly designed to avoid entry into the relevant market, this theory effectively removes any boundaries to Congress’s commerce power–Congress could mandate anything. Under this theory, given that the American auto industry is a highly regulated commercial activity in the national marketplace (in which the federal government has invested), Congress could constitutionally require every American to buy a new Chevy Impala every year, or a pay a “tax” equivalent to its blue book value.
…
Never in this nation’s history has the commerce power been used to require a person who does nothing to engage in economic activity. Therefore, no decision of the Supreme Court has ever upheld such a claim of power. Such a regulation of a “class of inactivity” is of a wholly different kind than any at issue in the Court’s most expansive interpretations of the Commerce Clause. A mandate to enter into a contract with an insurance company would be the first use of the Commerce Clause to universally mandate an activity by all citizens of the United States.

Today, even voting is not constitutionally mandated. But, if this precedent is established, Congress would have the unlimited power to regulate, prohibit, or mandate any or all activities in the United States. Such a doctrine would abolish any limit on federal power and alter the fundamental relationship of the national government to the states and the people

The Heritage Foundation

One thing you can count on with this site:

If I make a mistake, it will be acknowledged and corrected.  This is one of those incidences, where an error was made. Statements referring to this error have been –crossed out-, but not deleted. The remaining statements are true and pertinent to the Obama/Union/Non-Union relationships.

====================================================

Obama visits Solar Panel Company in California today.

Mike Zapler Mercurynews.com

…in a boost to the Bay Area’s status as a hub of the cleantech industry, President Barack Obama will tour Fremont solar panel manufacturer Solyndra during a 19-hour swoop through the region next week. Solyndra received a $535 million federal loan guarantee last year to build a new solar panel manufacturing plant that now employs 1,000 workers, according to the White House. The Obama administration has touted the project as a major success story of the economic stimulus bill, which provided the funding. A second phase is expected to employ an additional 1,000 people, Solyndra officials have said.

Reported on the local bay station, KRON 4…

FREMONT (KRON) — Construction workers at the Solyndra Plant in Fremont will be spending the day at home Wednesday without pay as President Obama visits the company to praise its work on solar panels. Union workers have been told not to come back until Thursday because of security concerns associated with the President’s visit. Workers tell KRON 4’s Kate Thompson this day off means they won’t get paid. “It’s with no pay and we have no choice,” construction worker Adam Bracamontes told Kate. “We have to take a day off and come back Thursday. We don’t get to meet the President. We’re the workers and we don’t get to see him.” “I’m a little bummed because I would love to meet the President,” worker Rich Patten added. “We were told we had the day off so it is what it is.” KRON 4’s Gabe Slate reports the President chose Solyndra because it received stimulus funds to help create green jobs. Neither the company nor several unions returned Kate’s calls for comment on why the workers were losing a day’s pay for the President’s visit.

A few relevant facts…

U.S. Bureau of Labor:

In 2009, the union membership rate–the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of a union–was 12.3 percent, essentially unchanged from 12.4 percent a year earlier…

Solar energy makes up about 1% of U.S. energy production.

I can understand why Obama only wants Union members to attend his visit in Fremont. The only sectors of the economy actually benefiting from his policies are the unions and government workers.  So, why include the rest of us in his events?

Macmillan:

The First Black President is a critical and passionate reflection on the political and historical implications of an Obama administration concerning the issue of race in America.  Obama’s rise to political power has forever changed the contours of race relations in the country as many hail the new age of a “post-racial” society.

“Post-racial”, really??  More like “post-American.” When you divide the country by union membership, is that not destructive? Should we be looking for “Non-Union Members not welcome” signs popping up all over the place.

NON-UNION MEMBERS GO HOME
For this event, you should stay home without pay…
(DURING ONE OF THE WORSE ECONOMICAL TIMES IN HISTORY)
because our righteous leader is going to speak.

I understand he represents Unions and the public sector, but are you part of the 88 % of Non-Union workers in the United States or part of that 12% that is so cozy with our President?

My problem with unions is not representation.  My problem is the ideological orientation of government worker union leaders.  They are stripping the country and raping the country blind.  They are destroying the private sector where wealth is created.  The jobs for public sector government workers do not produce anything.  The taxpayers who are paying these people do not make anywhere near as much money as the people they are paying.  They support liberal socialist political causes and candidates which are creating great harm to the country, pure and simple.

I’m not even talking about the rank-and-file members in my criticism here. The dirty little secret here is too many union leaders have as much real concern for their workers as socialist communist leaders ever had for the proletariat.  They don’t care about them.  They care about themselves, ingratiating themselves with power.  SEIU is a microcosm of the Soviet Union, and Andy Stern is the MOST frequent visitor to the White House.

How much representation in the White House is the other 88% of the population getting??

Is 88% of the population a SECURITY RISK??

We all know the “stay home without pay,  if your Non-Union,” seems to be the current administration’s economic policy for the country.  Refer to the last 18 months… 

Distrust of Power Not Necessarily Disrespect for Leaders

The Founders had more confidence in the people than they did in the leaders of the people, especially trusted leaders, even themselves.  They felt the greatest danger arises when a leader is so completely trusted that the people feel no anxiety to watch him.

Alexander Hamilton wrote:

For it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those [toward] whom they entertain the least suspicion. (Federalist Papers, No. 25, p.164.)

Two hundred years of American history have demonstrated the wisdom of the Founders in proclaiming a warning against the frailties of human nature in the people’s elected or appointed leaders. Every unconstitutional action has usually been justified because it was for a “good cause.”  Every illegal transfer of power from from one department to another has been excused as “necessary.”

— Bailouts, Bank take-overs, Auto Industry take-overs,Obamacare… any of this sound familiar?

The whole explosion of bureaucratic power in Washington has been the result of ‘trusting” benign political leaders, most of whom really have good intentions.

Armstrong Williams:

The social engineering of liberal policy makers often has the unintended consequences of making life more difficult for the people it is trying to help.  They justify liberal policies by correctly highlighting real institutional barriers like racism and historical poverty that have historically held back the disadvantaged. However, instead of teaching the disadvantaged to fish so they can feed themselves for a lifetime, they merely give them a fish to eat.

A Miracle that Changed the World, continued:

Thomas Jefferson struck out with all the force that tongue and pen could muster against trusting in human nature. Said he:

It would be a dangerous delusion where a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights; that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go….

In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, BUT BIND HIM DOWN FROM MISCHIEF BY THE CHAINS OF THE CONSTITUTION. (The kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Annals of America, 4:65-66; emphasis added.)

The wealth of information and context revealed in this book is astounding. I recommend that anyone concerned about the future of America, go out and buy this book today.

The foundation of our country and the principles which have made us the greatest civilization of the planet are explained and exposed as the salvation of human race. To understand where we are going today, we must understand the importance of the Founding Fathers and the radical change in governess which they established.

History was never my favorite subject during my years of education. Dates, names, places… all seemed so overwhelming to me. Totally lost in the flood of information, the context was illusive, if not obscure. The 5000 Year Leap, by W. Skousen, taught me more in a few days then I learned in years of formal education.

Asked to grade themselves on their knowledge, 89 percent of adults polled believed they could pass a basic test on the American Revolution. However, 83 percent failed the test that covered the underlying beliefs, freedoms, and liberties established during the Revolution.

This book should be REQUIRED READING in every school in America.