Saturday, March 31, 2012

After 1,000 days, Senate Democrats still refuse to pass a budget

Washington spending is out of control. For the fourth year in a row, we have a budget deficit of more than one trillion dollars and a national debt that skyrocketed from $10 trillion in 2008 to well over $15 trillion today, and is growing by the second - literally. Yet, despite being presented with multiple budget resolutions by the House, Senate Democrats have refused to pass a budget in over 1,000 days. The House took the responsible approach to pass another budget recently - but not one Democrat voted for it.  The left does not want financial health for America.

Every American - including every infant born - owes over $40,000 each in national debt. This money is owed to China and every other country that holds a portion of our national debt. That's money that belongs to these countries - money that won't be available for American citizens to use for finding jobs, good housing, education and a general quality of life.

When the House passed a balanced budget amendment 15 years ago, it did so with bipartisan support - but it failed in the Senate by one vote. Since then, our national debt has jumped from $4.9 trillion to over $15 trillion. Not surprisingly, President Obama is opposed to a balanced budget amendment, despite that America simply cannot sustain this kind of spending.

In an interview last week, senior Obama advisor David Axelrod was unable to explain why Senate Democrats refuse to produce a budget resolution for going on 1, 070 days. He initially tried to blame it on the “dynamics in the Senate”, but budgets only require a simple majority to pass, so what's the real reason?

As Axelrod stumbled his way through that question, ironically it is the question that reporters should be hammering Obama with at every turn. Of course Obama has no honest answer as to why the Democrats refuse to pass a budget. Then again, honesty would require exposing just how bad our fiscal situation really is.

The President and Senate Democrats don't really want financial health for America's well being. They'd rather play politics while they continue to spend borrowed money, and further empower themselves over the people by forcing more into government dependency.

That is not the American way. It is Obama's way.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Liberals exploit Trayvon Martin's death for political gain

If you base your opinion of the Trayvon Martin shooting solely on the drivel coming from liberal politicians and the mainstream media, you'd think that white conservatives are somehow to blame for the killing. The left will stop at nothing to cast the right in the worst light possible. Facts are immaterial. Right now George Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon Martin under circumstances that are still unclear, is in hiding for his life because the liberal media has declared him a hateful, murderous racist.

It doesn't matter that Zimmerman is Hispanic or a registered Democrat (not that being either automatically excludes one from being racist). It doesn't matter that he tutors black children (which, by the way, so do Caucasian people). It doesn't matter that witnesses claim they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, pounding his head into the ground. To the liberal politicians and leftist media, a black man was shot by a non-black man, so it's too good an opportunity to pass up for fanning the flames of racism.

Lest Zimmerman's Hispanic ancestry somehow douse the racist flames, he is now being dubbed a "white Hispanic" by such news venues as The New York Times, Reuters and The Huffington Post. It's a term never before used, but if the media can manipulate the public's perception on something, they'll do what it takes. And as the newly crowned and completely off-base poster child for white hatred of blacks in America, the left is now exploiting Zimmerman any way it can.

Not to be left out of the fun, Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan are wasting no time making the national rounds to inflame emotions. Newscasters like Karen Finney are gleefully evoking the names of Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in a pathetic attempt to pin the killing on conservative white people. In her delusional mind, it must have been these men's views that inspired Democrat Zimmerman to pull the trigger.

In another incredible example of slanted "journalism", ABC News aired a video of Zimmerman being brought to the police station to show he didn't appear to be injured as he claimed he was by Trayvon. Of course ABC didn't point out that Zimmerman had already been treated and cleaned up by emergency medical personnel at the scene. And had the ABC video not blocked out the back of Zimmerman's head where it had been split open, viewers may have seen the truth.

If that's not disgusting enough, President Obama, shamelessly - and shamefully - said if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. How nice of the President to exploit the death of a 17-year old child to garner sympathy votes in his upcoming election. Then again, it's why he called Sandra Fluke - to court the women's vote.

Is that why Obama is getting involved in a local/state issue in the first place -- and why  he waited until a month after the shooting to start shooting his own mouth, to court the minority vote by inflaming their emotions? If he really cared about the death of one black person, why hasn't he said anything about the infants and toddlers killed recently in Detroit? What about the murders in other major cities? If he cares about all people, then how come he said nothing about the two tourists who were killed by a black teenager in Florida? Don't they count? Should we jettison the hoodies and don a sun visor and sandals in our show of solidarity?

It's beyond insulting what the left is trying to do here. A young man is dead, and my heart and prayers go out to his family. But how heartless and genuinely racist that the liberals are exploiting Trayvon's death in a disgraceful ploy to win support by marginalizing white conservatives who had nothing to do with it.

There is nothing wrong - or racist - in demanding the facts of the case be made more clear before drawing conclusions about Zimmerman. If common sense actually prevailed, it would show us that in all likelihood, whatever Zimmerman's reason for pulling the trigger, racism wasn't it. In fact, the only racism exhibited here is by the left in its groundless, unfair charges of bigotry against all of white, especially white conservative, America. The President even said about Trayvon's death that we need to examine our "collective soul", as if we all had some role in the mechanics of this event. What he means is that he believes white people are collectively racist.

Way to unite us, Mr. President. Wasn't it Barack Obama who, as a candidate in 2008, said he wanted to unify the races? Well, unfortunately his and the left's hateful, racist, cheap maneuvers have single handedly set back race relations in this country by decades. But of course liberals thrive on that kind of environment.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice: What's so great about the U.S. Constitution anyway?

It's bad enough we have a president who has referred to our U.S. Constitution as outdated and fundamentally flawed. But now Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has jumped on the Constitution-bashing bandwagon. In a recent interview with Egypt's Al-Hayat TV, she said Egypt should use other countries' constitutions as a basis for forming their own, rather than use the U.S. as a model. Her particular favorite is South Africa's constitution because, as she said, "That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, and had an independent really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”

Without going into too many details of S. Africa's constitution, since that country is not the point here, it's worth noting that it does guarantee its citizens freedom from discrimination -- including on the basis of sexual orientation, disability or religion -- and freedom of speech. South Africans also have the right to "make decisions concerning reproduction," "form a political party," or "form and join a trade union."

What a better country America would be if only we had the right to speak, worship and freely associate like they let the people in South Africa do. Oh, that's right, we do. It's called the First Amendment. Yes, of course. And then there's the Second Amendment, and so on. And we have a couple dozen anti-discrimination laws on the books, and the Federal Hates Crime bill signed into law by President Obama -- albeit it's a law that basically paves the very slippery road toward making it a crime to have a single thought or belief not in accordance with the super-sanitized, Grade A-approved, politically correct mindset - but hey, it's on the books. And let's not forget the Holy Grail of all rights established by the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Obviously most of these examples aren't actually in our Constitution, but that's what makes our Constitution so magnificent. It emphasizes the God-given rights of the individual - not the collective rights of certain protected or entitled classes - and it preserves these rights through the sound application and upholding of law (which is the only way freedom and true liberty can exist. Anything less is chaos, and as history shows, most constitutions enacted by nations throughout history have failed precisely and simply because they were not based in sound law, and because they weren't upheld.)

As to her reference to S. Africa's "independent judiciary", I shudder to think what that means. Then again, I shudder a lot lately when I look around in our own country and see our judicial system being overtaken by judicial activists who have no intention of upholding the Constitution or the other laws they swore to obey, but rather are flinging them aside in pursuit of their own political agenda. 

If Justice Bader Ginsberg wants to be impressed with the refreshing "newness" of South Africa's constitution, that's her personal prerogative. But as a Supreme Court Justice charged with the solemn task of sustaining American law, her failure to grasp why it's so great that the U.S. Constitution is "old" becomes worrisome. If you tried to count all the constitutions ratified throughout history by countless nations, you wouldn't find one that has lasted as long as America's. There's a reason for that. It's because our Constitution works. Too bad this Supreme Court Justice is not impressed by that. Makes you wonder just how dedicated she is to upholding it - especially when it comes to the recent case on ObamaCare. 

Have a comment?  Click on the comments link in the bar below - no registration necessary.

Monday, March 26, 2012

To save our healthcare system, Supreme Court must overturn ObamaCare

Today the Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments to determine the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - aka ObamaCare. Considering that the case is being given six hours over three days for arguments to be heard - something not done in any Supreme Court case in 45 years - the monumental importance of this case is clear. What is also clear is that the High Court should toss this atrocious legislation to the trash bin, where it belongs. 

The High Court will be hearing arguments on four key elements:

1) Is the individual mandate a tax or a penalty?

2) Is the individual mandate constitutional? This is the crux of the whole issue, and why ObamaCare is so dangerous. If this law can force you to purchase private health insurance, what will it force you - or private businesses - to do next? Can it force you to join a gym? Can it force you to prove on your tax returns how many vegetables you bought to prove you're living a healthful lifestyle? Can it force stores to give these vegetables away for free?

Remember, built into the Act is the implied right given to the HHS Secretary and other official panel members to hand down opinions that automatically become law. Because this Act gives unelected officials the power to force new laws on Americans, our own Congress - the legislative body responsible for enacting policy - is tossed aside, and with it, the very structure of our three-branch government system of checks and balances. And through this power, ObamaCare has already decided to force companies to provide free contraception. If there is any person who believes employers will not eventually be forced to provide "free" abortions or any other services, then sadly, that person is very naive. 

3) If the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, then the Court must decide if the rest of the law must be struck down entirely or only parts of it.

4) Finally, the Court will consider if the enormous expansion of Medicaid is constitutional.

It's hard to say how the Court will rule on any one of these matters, but with at least one Justice - Elena Kagan - saying she will vote to uphold ObamaCare regardless of any arguments presented, you can safely bet the entire case will be subject to personal opinion by at least some of the Justices.

That's not good, because a law of this magnitude - essentially the federal government's takeover of our entire health system - is not the place for personal politics. ObamaCare needs to be struck down simply because it is harmful for both America and its citizens, both in terms of its outrageous costs and its personal assault on citizens, especially the elderly.

First, figures from the Congressional Budget office show that the $940 billion price tag originally put on ObamaCare over the next ten years is really going to cost taxpayers $1.76 trillion. The CBO also estimates that businesses that will now be forced to provide health insurance will see an additional $52 billion in taxes (and people wonder why companies aren't hiring?). Other data from the CBO shows that taxes will be levied - to the tune of $47 billion - on drug companies and medical devices. Insurance premiums are expected to rise by up to 3.7 percent over the next several years and within the ObamaCare legislation are new taxes on investment income for families earning over $250,000. Even sales of homes are subject to taxation under ObamaCare. How ironic - or outright sickening - that the Act dares to put the word "affordable" in its title.

Most ominous, the Act is carried out by an Independent Payment Advisory Panel, which consists of 15 people appointed by Obama who are responsible for overseeing costs, especially reducing Medicare spending. In the most brazen act of duplicity, the politicians speeding ObamaCare through to passage specifically added that the Act wouldn't go into full effect until "after the 2012 presidential election." Why? Because its proponents don't want senior citizens to know before the election that ObamaCare plans to cut $500 billion from Medicare beginning in 2014. Even now, the recommended cuts to Medicare reimbursements to physicians treating the elderly are so severe that many doctors are simply refusing to take on elderly patients, or are limiting their schedules to two slots per week for appointments dedicated to the elderly.

How horrendous that our senior citizens will have to compete with one another to get into one of these two precious appointment slots. Where our current system lets any elderly patient get in to see a doctor relatively quickly, how long will they have to wait to see a doctor once ObamaCare goes into full effect? How long will they then have to wait to see the doctor again for actual treatment, like hip replacements or cataract surgery, or worse, something life-saving?

Most chilling about the 15-member panel is that it alone will decide if someone deserves approval for medical treatment. What are the chances that an 81 year-old will be approved for a knee replacement by a panel whose sole task is to save money? Recall Senator Tom Daschle's words when he attempted to defend this particularly nasty part of the Act that puts a premium on money over human beings: "Senior citizens are just going to have to accept the discomforts that come with aging." This is a revolting, Orwellian, un-American way to treat our elderly citizens, or any American for that matter.

Even worse, supporters of ObamaCare know the entire Act is indefensible so as a way to drum up support for it, they must employ scare tactics to convince senior citizens and others that it is the Republicans who want to deny them access to healthcare. These are just more disgusting lies from the leftists who cannot rest on the merits of their own policies because they know their policies are destroying this country. And as costs continue to rise, and more doctors leave their practices, and fewer people enter the medical field to begin with because of these choking restrictions and costs, it will only be a matter of time before the rest of us are competing for precious few available slots to be seen by a healthcare provider.

Countries that have tried socialized medicine, such as Great Britain and France, are desperately trying to move away from the miserable failure of such a system because it simply doesn't work. How awful that our own President is doing everything he can to ram it down our throats.

Let's pray the Supreme Court will see through the horrific, unconstitutional nature of this Act, and strike down ObamaCare in its entirety.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Monday, March 19, 2012

"Wrongful Birth" verdict: A good decision or a victory for evil?

Last week a family in Oregon won a court battle against their health care provider - Legacy Health System - because medical professionals there failed to let a pregnant woman know her unborn child had Down Syndrome. Had the mother known, she would have ended her child's life through abortion rather than let her live and be loved. The family has been awarded $2.9 million for the "Wrongful Birth" of their daughter.

The ramifications of this are chilling. First, medical doctors take an oath to do no harm. But in this case, the very existence of the child is assumed to be injurious and is seen as justification for murder. Why? Because she is not deemed worthy by a culture that's increasingly intolerant of physical imperfections, but more and more okay with heinous acts of evil.

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. It would be interesting to see if this child would have a case against her own parents for discriminating against her - to the point of wanting her dead - because of a perceived disability. But then again, we live in a country that makes it okay to kill any human being for the first nine months of his or her existence in the womb for any reason at all (and even after birth, if you consider those, like our own President, who believe mothers have the right to kill their newborn babies if they survived the abortion attempt made on their lives). Is it any wonder that people are now using the "right" to abortion not only to to pick and choose if they want the child, but what kind of child it should be?

Because Oregon also has legalized "assisted suicide", it puts those with disabilities who survived their mothers' wombs - and other vulnerable people, like the elderly - at particular risk. After all, if an unborn child is considered unworthy of birth because of a disability, then what's to prevent those living with disabilities from being targeted for "assisted suicide"? As our society puts an ever-growing premium on convenience and self-gratification over love and respect for every life, it would be easy to convince people they're doing a "favor" to the disabled person by putting them out of their "misery". We wouldn't want to live with a disability, so therefore the disabled person must not want to either, right? How simple to be duped into seeing it as an act of compassion to take the person's life from them to end their supposed suffering.

Overlooked, not just in Oregon, but across our nation, is that suffering comes in all forms, not just through physical handicaps. Some of the most physically perfect people suffer from all sorts of things, from depression and addiction, to poverty and domestic abuse, and so on. Why not put them out of their suffering, too? Why limit this "compassion" only to those born with the physical challenges God bestowed on them?

The power of suggestion is just that - powerful, and decisions like the one in Oregon suggest that life is not something to be valued for its inherent worth, but rather something to be tossed aside when it suits our needs. It suggests that human beings are not created by God with our own soul, our own unique traits, our own gifts and imperfections. The verdict suggests that God has less say than society does over who walks this earth, and that unless someone is perfect in our eyes, they shouldn't be here. And how easily people buy into it. To award someone almost three million dollars because, in their opinion, someone should not have been born, says it all. Our sense of decency and morality are disappearing at a heart-numbing rate, as the value of life itself all but disintegrates before our eyes.

As cases like this recent one in Oregon become more commonplace - which is precisely what's happening through things like selective abortion based on disabilities and even gender - the rightful shock and horror of many will probably, sadly, give way to gradual acceptance. The more exposure you have to something graphic, the less impact it eventually has. Taking human life has no more depth of meaning than simply being a "woman's choice".

This is precisely how the culture of death prospers. With Roe v Wade the country was handed a bill of goods that it is okay to take human life simply because we can. Now that "right" is being used to target specific people in the womb because they don't stack up to our ideal. And many are okay with that or just silently look the other way, because in this increasingly warped, godless culture, it is worse to judge someone's evil actions than it is to take an innocent person's life.

Looking back over the years since Roe v Wade, it's astonishing how our values have changed. It used to be that things like smoking cigarettes were the accepted norm, while actions like adultery and out-of-wedlock birth were frowned upon. Nowadays, it's okay for a woman to slaughter her own child in the womb, even up to the ninth month, but God help the pregnant woman who is seen smoking a cigarette.

If one believes that God creates all human life, then that means every single person on this planet is meant to be here by God's design. So it rightfully stands that there is no such thing as "wrongful birth" -- but we do seem to be suffering deeply from a lot of "wrongful indifference". It is this indifference that we should be fighting, not the birth of a baby.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Friday, March 16, 2012

Up next from HHS: mandatory $1 insurance plan surcharge for abortion coverage

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - "Obamacare" - to know what's in it? Well, now we know.  

Remember also when President Obama assured lawmakers and the public that conscience rights would be protected so nobody morally opposed to contraception and abortion would have to pay for these things in ObamaCare? Well, he lied - a couple times. 

At a speech in Notre Dame in 2009 he promised conscience protection. Elsewhere, in a joint session of Congress on September 9, 2009, the president said, “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion” and that federal subsidies would not be granted to purchase private insurance that covers abortions. This promise was pivotal in removing the Stupak-Pitts Amendment from ObamaCare that would have prevented subsidies for elective abortions under any component of the health-care legislation.

When it looked like he didn't have the votes he needed to pass ObamaCare precisely because of concern over conscience protections, he signed a flimsy, meaningless Executive Order banning federal funding for abortion. The concerned members of Congress fell for his promise and gave him the votes he needed. Then just last month the President and the HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, announced the mandate to force contraception coverage on all employers, with only the narrowest exception for actual houses of worship.

And now, just this week, the HHS finalized another part of ObamaCare - a "minimum" $1 surcharge on insurance plans to cover abortions. For a thorough analysis of exactly what we're dealing with, click here.

What kind of country are we going to be five, ten, twenty years from now, if we sit idly by while extreme leftist politicians trample on our rights? Whether you're okay with contraception and abortion or not, what the federal government is doing is not a referendum on those issues per se. They are flagrantly abolishing fundamental freedoms right before our eyes. We cannot allow that to happen. Whether we contact our legislators, sign petitions like the one at, or do something else, we need to relentlessly strive to protect ourselves from this assault on freedom of conscience. Because if we allow this out-of-control government to do what it is doing to us in the form of ObamaCare, do we really want to find out what they'll do next?

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Monday, March 12, 2012

Department of Justice decision encourages voter fraud

You need to show identification to write a check, board a plane, open a bank account and the like. But when it comes to voting in America - an activity that is reserved for eligible U.S. citizens only - why is there such resistance to requiring a voter to show photo id? And why is this resistance coming from the Department of Justice itself?

Today, for the second time in recent months, the DOJ rejected the voter identification law that passed in Texas last year (it recently rejected South Carolina's voter law, too). It claims the laws are "discriminatory against Hispanics, African-Americans, and low-income people because they are less likely to have a driver's license or personal state-issued photo ID." Obviously not everyone needs a driver's license, but anyone here in this country legally can easily obtain state-issued identification. It seems that not having a state-issued ID should be the first indicator that someone may not be a legal voter.

Demographics and polling have historically shown that Hispanics, African-Americans, and low-income people tend to vote democrat, and the DOJ is aware of this. As for people in the country illegally, a Pew Hispanic Center report states that about 57 percent of illegal immigrants in America are from Mexico. With an estimated illegal immigrant population of 11 million people, the Democrats see this as roughly 6 million potential votes for them should these illegal immigrants be able to find a way to register and vote.

According to a report issued by the Commission on Federal Election Reform in 2005, at least 35 non-eligible foreign citizens applied for and received voter cards in 2004 in just one county in Texas. That same year, the Washington State gubernatorial election was decided by 133 votes while it was found that 1,678 votes were cast illegally. The election was upheld because there was no way to determine which candidate received the illegal votes.

Because states that have and enforce voter id laws have lower incidents of fraud, it makes sense why proponents of photo id laws say the requirement can combat voter fraud. Opponents say there is little evidence of voter fraud. If that's the case, then how do they explain the above-mentioned findings? How can they ignore investigations that revealed in 2006 that 2,600 votes were cast in New York by people who were deceased? A 2008 study in Florida reported that 65,000 ineligible and duplicate voters  were on Florida's registration rolls. In Connecticut, a study found that 8,500 dead people remained registered to vote, and in Indiana, it was discovered that ACORN had registered dead people to vote. At the actual voting stations, election workers only have the names of registered voters - it does not indicate whether the person is alive or not, so how easy would it be for someone to simply show up at a voting booth, claim to be the deceased person and vote since they don't have to show any id?

"The announcement by the DOJ... is not based on accurate data or the merits of the argument; instead, it appears that some Democrats and far left groups believe the more lawful an election, the less likely they are to emerge victorious," said David Norcross, Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) Chair.  "Neighboring New Mexico, the state with the highest percentage of Hispanic voters, requires voter ID for city elections in Albuquerque without any problems.  Just as some liberals defended corrupt election groups like ACORN, now others are attacking processes that will make it harder to cheat on Election Day."  

Read more here:

November's election is about seven months away. That's plenty of time for legal, eligible citizens to get the id they need. Then states that do have voter id laws need to enforce them (Michigan, for instance, requires photo id, but says signing an affidavit swearing you forgot your id is sufficient to vote).

You would think photo id is a matter of basic common sense (which it is). But if Eric Holder and the Department of Justice feel their side cannot win the November election based on the failed policies of this administration, then they need to rely on getting votes through other means. Allowing people to vote without showing photo id is one of those means they seek.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Thursday, March 8, 2012

U.S. Defense Secretary: America should surrender its sovereignty to NATO, U.N.

At a recent congressional hearing on the situation in Syria, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the decision to send U.S. troops to Syria would ultimately need to be approved by NATO and the U.N. Security council. Expressing rightful, jaw-dropping shock, U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), turned to our Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, for clarification. Surely, he didn't hear General Dempsey correctly, did he? Unfortunately he did. Panetta concurred with Dempsey, adding that any nation-building coalition the U.S. wants to partake in requires permission from an international assembly. "If it comes to an operation where we're trying to build a coalition of nations," Panetta said, " we did in Lybia or Bosnia, or for that matter, Afghanistan, we want to do it with permissions either of NATO, or by the international community." 

Wasn't it the Taliban who took control of Afghanistan and provided a hide-out for Osama bin Laden, who sent planes into our buildings on American soil, killing thousands of American citizens? So by the Obama-appointed Panetta's reasoning, we should have sought permission from NATO and the United Nations to send troops to Afghanistan because he saw it merely as a nation-building effort?

When you appoint people - as Obama has - who clearly have no sense of what constitutes defense and national security - who can't even see the difference between Bosnia and Afghanistan! -- it is no surprise our country's sovereignty is thrown out the window.

Americans need to pay close attention to what is happening. This isn't about politics. This isn't about Democrats vs. Republicans. This is about the very future of our country, our Constitution, our federal republic. This is about a president and his hand-picked helpers who are becoming increasingly bold in ignoring the Constitution and forfeiting America's sovereignty in the process. We all need to open our eyes and look at the real ramifications that come with the approaches being taken by this Administration. 

Below is the video. After viewing, ask yourself if you feel truly confident that these people have our country's best interest in mind.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

New poll shows Michigan supports Right to Work legislation

A new Mitchell Research & Communications Inc. poll shows there is much higher support for Right to Work legislation in Michigan than the Big Labor unions would have you believe. According to the poll, a total of 57% of Michigan residents express support for Right to Work. 

Under current Michigan law, a majority of people employed at a business that has a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union must join that union and pay dues as a condition of employment. It doesn't matter if the employee is opposed to the union, the initiatives their dues pay for, or the candidates or other issues the unions endorse. Right to Work simply gives employees their rightful choice whether or not to join a union without threat to their job. 

Given that Michigan is a labor union stronghold, the fact that about six in ten voters support Right to Work is a big deal. Labor unions are of course threatened by Right to Work because it represents a loss of revenue, and ultimately power. But maybe it's time labor unions start embracing the concept of freedom that Right to Work would offer. But I wouldn't hold my breath that they will. 

Right now Big Labor is collecting petition signatures to get an initiative on this November's ballot that would prohibit Right to Work from ever being implemented in Michigan, effectively placing a  permanent ban on worker freedoms in our state.

Since 1970 the population in right to work states has gone up four times faster than states with a heavy labor union presence. If we really want to turn Michigan around, retain our educated people, and attract the companies that will provide jobs, then Michigan voters must reject this ballot initiative, and instead put their efforts into getting Right to Work passed in Michigan.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Monday, March 5, 2012

What is our role in safeguarding traditional values?

In 2008, a couple months before the election of Barack Obama, 38 percent of youths responded "yes" when asked in a Gallup poll if they supported traditional values in America. In 2011, this same question received 53 percent "yes" support. What are we adults doing to ensure these young people that we will safeguard the traditional values they seek?

Have a comment?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.