Categories

Archive for the ‘Tyrants’ Category

It isn’t surprising that the UAW would run to the NLRB for a shoulder to cry on after suffering a humiliating defeat in its attempt to unionize the Volkswagen plant in Tennessee. It isn’t even surprising that the UAW is attempting to silence opposition to the unionization movement:

On Feb. 14, the workers made their voices heard, with 53% voting against allowing the UAW to represent them. I believe that the workers understood that they were nothing more than dollar signs for the UAW. Obviously, I could not have been happier for the Volkswagen employees, for the community and for Tennessee.

Unfortunately, the UAW has chosen to ignore the employees’ decision and has filed objections with the National Labor Relations Board, charging that elected officials like me should not be allowed to make public comments expressing our opinion and sharing information with our constituents. It is telling that the UAW complaint does not mention President Obama’s public statement urging the employees to vote for the union.

Ordinarily, the NLRB’s rulings aren’t reviewed by the courts. If the NLRB rules that it was improper for public officials to speak about the UAW’s unionization drive, their ruling will get taken to court, where they’ll lose badly.

If the NLRB issues such a ruling, they’ll be exposed as Big Labor’s corrupt shills. They’ll lose credibility in the eyes of the average citizen.

Most importantly, the UAW will be exposed as sore losers who had run of the VW plant for 2 years and who didn’t face management opposition for that time but still couldn’t win the organizing election. That’s pretty pathetic.

Technorati: , , , , ,

After reading this article, I’m wondering if I’m living the United States or in the former Soviet Union. Seriously, does anyone think that governments should be able to use eminent domain to take private property from a family to build biking hiking trails? That’s what Dakota County is attempting to do:

The county is seeking a “quick-take” condemnation, effectively a compelled sale, of four parcels of land in the park reserve, offering a total of about $2 million.

County commissioners voted in November to take the land, saying the properties are a key part of a planned trail and other features.

What’s more important: private property rights or giving government to take any piece of land to do with it whatever it wants to do? This is stealing. What’s especially appalling is the taking of the land to build biking and hiking trails. What’s worse is that Dakota County is attempting to steal this private property for a questionable project while offering the property owners settlements at far less than fair market value:

Aho said the county hasn’t shown enough progress on other planned improvements besides the trail to demonstrate a need for condemnation.

She also said the county’s offer for the land, $370,000, “drastically undervalued” assets like a marina and 1,000-plus feet of lakeshore.

After WWII, eminent domain was used to buy the land needed to build the interstate highway or other high priority pieces of infrastructure that led to great increases of wealth and prosperity to the masses. Since Kelo v. New London, eminent domain has been used to take property from private property owners and give it to government so it can create parks or bike trails.

What’s upsetting to me is that Dakota County thinks that the perceived wishes of the many are more important than the rights of the individual. They aren’t. First, the community’s wish list shouldn’t rate as a higher priority than a private property landowner’s rights. The thought that the landowner’s rights are getting set aside is disturbing enough. The thought that they’re getting set aside for something as frivolous as a community park is especially upsetting.

Next, it’s worth noting that special interest organizations are likely behind this taking. County commissioners don’t just wake up one morning and say to themselves ‘Hey, let’s create a new park.’ It isn’t a stretch to think that they’re approached by special interest organizations who have an agenda but who don’t live near the proposed takings.

Finally, check out the government’s arrogance:

“There’s a great need for this,” commissioner Kathleen Gaylord said at the meeting. “We do need to move forward. The board has come to the conclusion that it is time to move forward. This is a needed piece of property in order to complete our trail in the Spring Lake Park area and to provide the access to the park that our master plan has envisioned for decades. We’re just coming to the head now. It’s time to move forward.”

The board’s conclusion. The commissioners’ needs. The project’s vision. What’s appalling is that Kathy Gaylord and 5 other commissioners put the government’s wish list ahead of the private property owner’s rights. Apparently, Kathy Gaylord and the other slugs who voted to take this land don’t care about these families’ rights.

Anytime that government puts a higher priority on their projects than they put on individuals’ rights, our nation moves closer to authoritarian rule. That isn’t who we are as a nation.

We The People should reject this type of tyrannical government ASAP.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Democrats defensively say that they’re defending the Second Amendment but that isn’t the truth. If they were, they wouldn’t make the statements like this:

“What is the inconvenience? What are we doing? What are we doing to impact on a gun owners’ right if he only has a clip with ten rounds in it instead of 30 rounds in it?” he asked.

The true test of whether Democrats are advocates of a citizen’s right to protect himself, his family or his business is whether they’ll fight for Chicago shopkeepers’ rights to protect themselves with a handgun. Unless they’re willing to tell fanatics like Rahm Emanuel, Michael Bloomberg, John Hickenlooper and Andrew Cuomo that their policies are anti-constitutional and dangerous, then Democrats shouldn’t be given credibility during Second Amendment conversations.

I’m not interested in finding ‘common ground’ with Constitution-hating zealots like Andrew Cuomo or Rahm Emanuel. Politicians like them are far beyond the mainstream on the Second Amendment. If they want to admit that they’ve been wrong about the Second Amendment and that they’re changing their position by 180 degrees, then there’s room to talk. If they aren’t willing to change their position, there isn’t much to talk about.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

One way the left has quietly, insidiously, killed the American economy is through the dirty tricks it plays with unelected bureaucrats. This op-ed by private property rights attorney Karen Budd-Falen shows how the federal government ignores laws while destroying what’s left of people’s private property rights:

Private landowner Andrew VanDenBerg is at the center of the controversy, including now being vilified by a press release issued by the Colorado U.S. Attorney’s Office (part of the U.S. Justice Department).

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) guarantees access to private property across federal lands. Although the private landowner is required to file an application explaining the location of such access, that application cannot be denied under ANILCA. According to the Senate Committee reports regarding ANILCA, Congress intended to eliminate the federal government’s discretion in allowing adequate and feasible access to inholdings by “direct(ing) the Secretary to grant the owner of an inholding such rights as are necessary to assure adequate access to the inholding and is intended to assure a permanent right of access to the concerned land across, through or over these Federal lands by such State or private owners or occupiers and their successors in interest.”

The problem with the application system however is that the BLM routinely, and many times intentionally and unreasonably, delays processing such applications, thereby denying access to the private property during the processing. It is more common than not to have an application for access delayed for years, all the while denying access to private property.

Why have laws if the federal government routinely ignores those laws with impunity? Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Here’s what should frighten people:

Private landowner Andrew VanDenBerg is at the center of the controversy, including now being vilified by a press release issued by the Colorado U.S. Attorney’s Office (part of the U.S. Justice Department).

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) guarantees access to private property across federal lands. Although the private landowner is required to file an application explaining the location of such access, that application cannot be denied under ANILCA. According to the Senate Committee reports regarding ANILCA, Congress intended to eliminate the federal government’s discretion in allowing adequate and feasible access to inholdings by “direct(ing) the Secretary to grant the owner of an inholding such rights as are necessary to assure adequate access to the inholding and is intended to assure a permanent right of access to the concerned land across, through or over these Federal lands by such State or private owners or occupiers and their successors in interest.”

The problem with the application system however is that the BLM routinely, and many times intentionally and unreasonably, delays processing such applications, thereby denying access to the private property during the processing. It is more common than not to have an application for access delayed for years, all the while denying access to private property.

Why have federal laws if the federal government routinely ignores those laws, then bullies landowners in their attempt to restrict private property rights? That’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. After having BLM bureaucrats ignore him, Mr. VanDenBerg decided to apply a little common sense to the situation:

In complete frustration at the bureaucratic delays and denials, VanDenBerg decided to use an existing road to get to his property. This road, noted as an existing road on the 2005 San Juan National Forest map and known as County Road 33A, has been in existence since 1886. The road was clearly visible on the ground as well as noted on the federal government’s maps. VanDenBerg cut dead fall timber from the roadway and moved it out of the way. Although he followed the tracks of the road and he did not get out of the roadway that has existed for over 125 years, the BLM charged him with civil trespass charges in federal district court.

This seems pretty straightforward. The road is visible from the ground. It’s highlighted on federal maps. Mr. VanDenBerg removed some dead fall timber from the road because the federal government hadn’t maintained the road like they were obligated to do. In most citizens’ eyes, he should get a good citizens award for his efforts. That isn’t what happened, though:

Not wanting to expend the money on a huge and expensive trial, VanDenBerg decided to settle with the BLM. The settlement agreement states that VanDenBerg does not admit to ANY of the claims or assertions put forward by the government and that he is simply reimbursing the federal government for the reclamation of the dead trees he cut. Although he did not want to settle with the federal government, he recognized that the largest law firm in the world, the U.S. Justice Department, represents the federal government and that he would be buried in litigation costs. He thought a settlement agreement would end the matter and that the BLM would process his application so that he could have the access to his private property that he was promised by Congress.

Before the ink on the agreement was barely dry, the U.S. Attorney’s Office issued a “press release” that incorrectly labels VanDenBerg as a “trespasser” and claiming his attempt to access his own private property is “unauthorized.” The release also states that VanDenBerg’s actions occurred in a “wilderness.” VanDenBerg had disputed all of those statements. Even the settlement agreement itself noted that these statements are only allegations by the U.S., yet their press release states them as fact.

When asked about the false and misleading statements in the press release (in addition to noting that VanDenBerg denied all of the allegations in the settlement agreement), the U.S. Attorney noted in an e-mail to VanDenBerg’s attorney, “While I realize that you and your client were disappointed in the press release,…it is routine for this office to issue press releases on these kinds of settlements, especially in cases where the conduct is of the kind that we hope to deter in the future.”

At this point, you’re thinking ‘that stinks but at least that isn’t happening in my state’, right? Though the specifics in this article are changed, the goal remains the same:

The report recommends a revitalized EQB, with up to 10 staffers, more than double the current level.

Agriculture Commissioner Dave Fredrickson, chair of the EQB, said the environment will benefit if the board can plan ahead.

“They can look into the future and anticipate problems that we may hit head-on, so rather than react, we can as a board act on some of those important issues,” Fredrickson said.

He cited silica sand mining; the board has been asked to do a broad review called a Generic Environmental Impact Statement on that subject. If the board had more staff, it could proceed.

Why must the EQB exist? Here’s what the EQB is:

The Environmental Quality Board includes the heads of nine state agencies and four citizens.

Does Minnesota government need 9 different agencies to protect the environment? That isn’t likely. In fact, it’s exceptionally likely that most of those oversight agencies were created to placate environmentalists.

Whether the federal or state government is involved in the environment, the goal isn’t to protect the environment. It’s to limit people’s private property rights.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s apparent that President Obama carries some pretty nasty grudges. That was in plain view after the Supreme Court ruling on SB1070. The minute that they upheld the section that got the most publicity, President Obama’s vindictiveness flashed into public view. At that precise moment, he stripped Arizona law enforcement of their 287(g) capabilities.

That’s the face of vindictiveness.

It’s equally apparent that he’ll fight for his allies even if it means ignoring the Constitution or this nation’s laws. This op-ed makes a compelling case that President Obama won’t hesitate to ignore this nation’s laws if that’s what’s needed to fight for his friends:

When the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel exposed the fact that the Obama campaign is keeping an enemies list and spending vital resources attacking Romney supporters, many liberals gasped in surprise. Richard Nixon and Senator Joseph McCarthy kept lists of names to be targeted, but Obama keeping an enemies list? They just couldn’t understand it.

The first proof we had of President Obama’s lawlessness was when he told auto executives that their secured bondholders wouldn’t get their money, that they’d have to wait in line until after the UAW got their money first.

At a private meeting, President Obama told the auto executives that he was the only person standing between them and angry mobs. The clear implication was that these bondholders would have to forfeit their rights to people who didn’t have any rights to the spoils.

We saw President Obama ignore common sense when he shoved Solyndra’s loan down our throats even though he knew they were going bankrupt. Those aren’t the only examples:

This is why he threatens institutions such as the Supreme Court and treats the Republican House of Representatives as if they don’t even exist. He isn’t interested in compromise or coexistence with his opponents; he is committed to destroying them.

This is why when Washington rejects his political priorities, he just dictates them through executive order. Don’t enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. Don’t enforce our immigration laws. Congress defeats his cap and trade legislation, so he tells the EPA to write the new regulations by edict. He is comfortable acting on his own, ignoring the US Constitution’s old fashioned limits to executive power.

For most of my life, I’ve heard a phrase repeated again and again that I can’t shake. America is a “nation of laws, not men.” For most of my adult life, that’s been true. The hallmark of this administration has been the opposite. In President Obama’s practice, America is a nation of his whims and preferences. If this nation’s laws don’t fit his agenda, then he’s ignored this nation’s laws.

It isn’t possible to credibly argue that President Obama hasn’t attempted to do through executive orders and regulations what he couldn’t accomplish legislatively.

After he’s defeated this fall, most people won’t miss his ruthlessness or lawlessness. They’ll breath a sigh of relief that his ill-advised policies won’t adversely affect their lives.

Investors will breath an even bigger sigh of relief because they won’t have to worry about the bullseye this administration painted on their backs.

The downside is that President Obama created a pool of people who think that people with money should be punished. In fact, many of the lefty bloggers here in Minnesota think like that.

They hate prosperity. They love omnipotent government.

Many in the media have swooned over “The One.” He isn’t “The One.” This administration’s hardline followers are cultists; he’s their James Jones.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If there was any doubt that Wisconsin Democrats were thugs, this video shows who they are:

With the recall election closing in fast, Democrats are resorting to arson in venting their frustration. TMJ4 issued this report:

Vandals are torching pro-Walker yard signs, and now homeowners and neighbors are worried the crimes could escalate. Someone set fire to at least five Walker campaign signs here in Fox Point.

Jamie Schumaker came out of his Fox Point home to get the paper Sunday morning to find his small Governor Walker campaign sign reduced to ashes, a sign he put up just the day before.

“You’d like to disagree agreeably and not have to resort to something like this,” said Schumaker to TODAY’S TMJ4.

Schumaker said he’s an avid Walker supporter, even a donor, and said this is upsetting. His neighbor’s sign ruined the same way. “I’d hate to see this kind of intimidation and threats creep into certainly this election,” said Schumaker.

The Fox Point Police Department said they’ve had several complaints of burned Walker signs and in response, they plan to put out extra patrols. “There’s a better way to express your political opinion that to burn someone’s sign,” said North Shore Fire Department Chief Robert Whitaker.

There’s no question but that Democrats are behind these torchings. Remember the thug tactics of AFSCME Democrats:

Last month, Dawn Bobo, owner of Village Dollar Store in Union Grove, Wis., was asked to display a pro-union sign in her window. Ms. Bobo, a self- described conservative Republican, refused and received a letter from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees asking her to reconsider.

“Failure to do so will leave us no choice but do [sic] a public boycott of your business,” the letter said.

Wisconsin Republicans love Scott Walker for obvious reasons. They aren’t the arsonists destroying pro-Scott Walker signs. While it’s true that some independents don’t agree with Gov. Walker, it isn’t likely that independents are torching the pro-Scott Walker signs.

That leaves only one group torching signs. It’s the group that’s shown a propensity for attacking people they disagree with.

These Democratic activists’ actions are hurting Democrats in another way that the thugs probably haven’t thought about. The Democrats’ thuggish behavior are hurting President Obama’s campaign through his association with them.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

It’s a great day in America, albeit a rare one, when an Obama-appointed judge limits the power of President Obama’s EPA, then mocks the EPA for its institutional arrogance. According to Don Surber’s post, that’s precisely what happened:

First and foremost, EPA’s interpretation fails because it is illogical and impractical. EPA claims that it is not revoking a permit, something it does not have the authority to do, because it is only withdrawing a specification. Yet EPA simultaneously insists that its withdrawal of the specification effectively nullifies the permit. To explain how this would be accomplished in the absence of any statutory provision or even any regulation that details the effect that EPA’s belated action would have on an existing permit, EPA resorts to magical thinking. It posits a scenario involving the automatic self-destruction of a written permit issued by an entirely separate federal agency after years of study and consideration. Poof! Not only is this nonrevocation revocation logistically complicated, but the possibility that it could happen would leave permittees in the untenable position of being unable to rely upon the sole statutory touchstone for measuring their Clean Water Act compliance: the permit.

It is further unreasonable to sow a lack of certainty into a system that was expressly intended to provide finality. Indeed, this concern prompted a number of amici to take up their pens and submit briefs to the Court. They argued that eliminating finality from the permitting process would have a significant economic impact on the construction industry, the mining industry, and other “aggregate operators,” because lenders and investors would be less willing to extend credit and capital if every construction project involving waterways could be subject to an open-ended risk of cancellation.

The EPA’s ruling is dripping with disdain for parts of the private sector. It’s apparent that the EPA hates coal and the companies that mine for it. It’s apparent, too, that Lisa Jackson’s EPA thinks it’s empowered to run roughshod over industries it doesn’t like.

This lawsuit is finished. The EPA can appeal the ruling to higher courts but this lawsuit is finished. When a judge rules that there’s no authority in any of the statutes that supports the EPA’s actions, that isn’t likely to get overturned.

What’s even better is that this coal-mining company might be eligible for compensation from the Equal Access to Justice Act since they proved their case. If they qualify for EAJA compensation, it means they’d get their legal bills paid by the federal government.

It’s a great day for justice in America.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Tom Daschle’s op-ed on the fate of O’Care is carefully crafted spin. Not that that’s surprising from a man with tax avoidance issues. In a sense, that should be expected. Here’s how Sen. Daschle frames the O’Care-SCOTUS debate:

With hearings starting Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to deliver a pivotal decision that will profoundly affect the future of our country. At stake is whether millions of Americans can have greater access to affordable health care coverage or whether the nation’s health care system will be plagued by uncertainty, imbalance and spiraling costs.

The justices are to rule on a critical element of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the now two-year old, groundbreaking health care reform law. They will determine whether Congress has the authority, under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, to mandate that every U.S. citizen must buy health insurance.

This is what happens when politicians stay in DC way too long. They start thinking that the American people can’t think for themselve, that they’re incapable of telling markets what they want.

The real debate isn’t over whether O’Care is the solution to our imagined health insurance crisis. It’s whether the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the authority to dictate its priorities onto the people it purports to serve.

Let’s cut to the chase. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t give the federal government that authority. Whatever the Supreme Court’s ruling, that’s the reality.

If the Supreme Court rules that O’Care is constitutional, it will have ruled that there’s nothing the federal government can’t force people to do. In the end, I suspect that’s why they’ll rule the individual and employer mandates unconstitutional.

Sen. Daschle couldn’t resist making this phony argument:

The only real question, in fact, is whether we have an individual mandate, one that requires individual responsibility, which I always thought was claimed as a conservative value, or we have a community mandate.

This isn’t a real question. It’s Sen. Daschle’s way of exposing his disdain for the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers would’ve cringed at the thought of the federal government getting involved in the most intimate parts of people’s lives.

When the federal government imposes its priorities on the people it’s supposed to represent, it loses legitimacy. The Tenth Amendment says that those things not outlined in the Ninth Amendment belong to “the states or the people.” President Obama and Sen. Daschle apparently don’t like that part of the Bill of Rights. Apparently, they’re willing to willfully ignore parts of the Constitution and its amendments.

That’s known as tyranny, which must be stopped ASAP.

Sen. Dashle implies that O’Care will fix all that ails the U.S. health insurance industry. It does nothing of the sort. It makes things worse by telling insurance companies what types of coverage must be included in insurance policies.

Here’s a glimpse at a total fabrication:

Congress was well aware of the experience of these states and knew that the insurance market reforms at the heart of improving coverage under this new act are inextricably linked to a mandate that requires all of us to take responsibility for our health.

If “Congress was well aware” that required a mandate to fix the health insurance industry, why did then-candidate Obama oppose individual and employer mandates?

The truth is that Sen. Daschle is spinning like a top. There isn’t a morsel of truth in his op-ed.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

If anything is certain, it’s that President Obama is a devout believer…in uberradical Saul Alinsky. This video shows Alan Colmes sitting like a potted plant and Monica Crowley explaining to Bill O’Reilly President Obama’s affinity for Alinsky:

Thanks to Jim Hoft, the Gateway Pundit, we have this picture of then-community organizer Barack Obama teaching Alinsky 101 to college students:

GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has framed the debate that this election is about Alinsky vs. the Founding Fathers. Here’s part of Newt’s victory speech:

Let me just say that I believe the debate we’re going to have with President Obama over the next eight or nine months is the outlining of the two Americas:

Those two choices, I believe, will give the American people a chance to decide permanently whether we want to remain the historic America that has provided opportunity for more people of more backgrounds than any country in history, or whether, in fact, we prefer to become a brand-new, secular, European-style, bureaucratic socialist system.

The America of the Declaration of Independence v. the America of Saul Alinsky; the America of paychecks v. the America of food stamps; the America of Independence v. the America of Dependence; the America of strength in foreign policy v. the America of weakness in foreign policy.

Peter Ferrera develops that further in his American Spectator article:

In so summarizing his South Carolina victory speech last week, Newt Gingrich framed the debate against President Obama with a clear vision that will sharply clarify the choice the American people will have to make this year.

Do we want the America of the Declaration of Independence? Or the America of radical Marxist revolutionary and social manipulator Saul Alinsky? One TV commentator indicated that most Americans do not even know who Saul Alinsky was. But that is exactly why Gingrich is so right to frame the debate this way, because with Barack Obama as their President, Americans need to know who Saul Alinsky was, and when Gingrich is done with his campaign, every American will.

President Obama is not only a follower of Saul Alinsky, and literally a practitioner of his strategies and tactics for the radical socialist takeover of America. After graduation from Harvard Law School, Obama was an instructor of fellow Marxist comrades in the Alinsky philosophy and methodology of social manipulation for the radical Marxist organization ACORN.

The American people need to know this, and all about Alinsky, to make an informed decision on whether to vote for Obama for reelection. That vote would represent a fundamental rejection of America, and all it has stood for since 1776.

What’s heartening to me is that Newt gets it that this isn’t just a fight of who has the better policies. The Democratic Party is filled with Alinskyite radicals that won’t think twice about lying to the American people to get their way.

That’s why Newt’s standing up to the media is ultimately important. He won’t let them get away with sloppy information. He won’t let their false premises, which is foundational to Alinskyite tactics, go unchallenged. That’s why President Obama, in his heart of hearts, doesn’t want to run against Newt Gingrich.

He might get beat by Mitt but he’d get exposed by Newt. He doesn’t like either option but getting exposed for being an Alinskyite radical would cripple the Democratic Party for at least a decade.

Newt will fight for the Founding Fathers’ America. He’ll fight against the Obama-Alinsky America. Mitt might or might not fight for good capitalist policies. Mitt won’t attack Obama-Alinskyite radicalism because that’s not what’s done in polite society.

My opinion for this campaign is simple: It’s time to think of this election for what it is: a bare-knuckled street fight between Alinskyite radicals that hate America and freedom-loving constitutionalists.

Mitt can’t rise to that occasion. He’s never thought about fighting that fight. Mitt’s temperament isn’t suited for fighting that fight. Every part of Newt’s being, his temperament especially, is geared toward fighting this fight.

It’s time to start fighting this fight so we can vanquish Alinskyite radicalism for a generation.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The stakes just got raised in the child care small businesses vs. the Dayton administration, the SEIU and AFSCME. That’s because the child care providers filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Gov. Dayton’s executive order:

The federal lawsuit will contend the union effort authorized by Governor Dayton’s executive order on November 15, 2011 violates the providers’ first amendment right of free political expression and association. The National Right to Work Foundation, a nonprofit legal aid association based in Washington, DC, has offered free legal assistance to child care providers who are battling what they view as compulsory unionization.

“The allegation is going to be that it’s unconstitutional, that the first amendment guarantees everyone the right to choose with whom they associate to petition government and that the government can’t choose who’s going to represent providers for lobbying the state,” said Bill Messenger, an attorney with the National Right to Work Foundation who’s working on the case.

The case appears to have merit. A governor doesn’t have the right to tell a small business that they have to join a union to petition government. The First Amendment gives people the right “peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” It doesn’t give it to a public employee union and it certainly doesn’t give that right to a governor.

This isn’t a prediction but this has the potential of blowing up in the Democrats’ faces:

The federal court action takes a broader approach, raising constitutional issues that could have a far-reaching impact in Minnesota and across the nation. In recent years, labor unions have gone state-by-state seeking to find ways to bring home child care providers under union jurisdiction, gradually gaining a foothold in thirteen states.

“If they’re allowed to get away with it, this type of scheme could be applied to almost anybody, virtually any kind of business in this state, from hair dressers to grocery stores that are regulated by the state or care for people who are on state assistance,” said Bill Messenger, an attorney with National Right to Work Foundation. “I mean if you can do it to home daycare providers there’s no reason you can’t do it to a whole host of industries.”

The National Right to Work Foundation is helping child care providers in Michigan challenge former Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s actions:

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, five Michigan home-based childcare providers have filed a federal appeal to win back forced union dues taken from tens of thousands of providers in the state.

Carrie Schlaud, Diana Orr, Peggy Mashke, and Edward and Nora Gross originally filed a federal class-action suit against then-Governor Jennifer Granholm and a United Auto Workers (UAW) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) coalition, the Child Care Providers Together Michigan (CCPTM) union, for designating home childcare providers who accepted state assistance as public employees solely for the purposes of CCPTM “representation” and forcing them to pay union dues.

Under Granholm’s direction, the Michigan Department of Human Services created the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council to provide union officials with an entity to negotiate with as the childcare providers’ “management.” Working with the council, CCPTM operatives staged a union certification election to acquire monopoly bargaining privileges over Michigan childcare providers.

This has overreach written all over it. Apparently, Gov. Granholm, in her last year as Michigan’s chief executive, threw the UAW and AFSCME a bone to show her appreciation for her political allies. Now that bone might bite her allies in the backside.

Although only 15 percent of the 40,000 childcare providers receiving state assistance voted in the union certification election, CCPTM union bosses were then granted monopoly lobbying privileges and the power to collect union dues from home-based care providers.

The five childcare providers won a settlement with Governor Rick Snyder ensuring that Michigan will no longer be able to force home-based childcare providers into union ranks. However CCPTM union officials still possess forced union dues previously collected from tens of thousands of providers.

There’s a good possibility that alot of child care providers will have the final say in who, if anyone, represents them in the capitols of Michigan and Minnesota. Things certainly aren’t turning out the way Govs. Dayton and Granholm, AFSCME, the SEIU and the UAW were hoping it would.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,