The title edit is mine since, in light of Obama’s admonitions after the Tucson shooting compared to his deathly silence regarding the harm caused by unions, it’s clear Obama endorses violence against anyone who disagrees with him.
Check out Michelle’s list of union incidents.
In practice, of course, the unions are Democratic Party front groups that shovel hundreds of millions of dollars to liberal causes and candidates — against the will of their rank-and-file members and often without their knowledge.
Mark Levin’s ever-vigilant Landmark Legal Foundation has pressured the Internal Revenue Service for more than a decade to force national teachers unions to file proper federal reporting and IRS statements regarding their hidden political expenditures.
(The overwhelmingly Democratic donations are not tax-exempt.) As a result of Landmark’s investigative work, the Wisconsin Education Association admitted in 2006 that it had failed to pay more than $171,000 in federal taxes on Democratic political expenditures.
Given the immense difficulty that dissenting teachers across the country have had in challenging the abuse of their dues for political purposes, it’s clear this is the tip of Big Labor’s tax-evasion iceberg.
In addition, the national parent organizations of the CFT and CTA also benefit from widespread property tax exemptions on their ownership of lavish real estate used for union brass vacations and retreats. Fox Business Network reporter Elizabeth MacDonald’s investigation of IRS records earlier this year shed light on several tax-sheltered, union-owned luxury hotels, golf courses and country clubs — including the “swanky” AFL-CIO-owned Westin Diplomat resort in Florida and the UAW’s $33 million lakeside resort and golf club in Onaway, Mich.
“What the documents don’t show,” FBN noted, “is whether union members like teachers, firemen and cops get invited to these junkets — or even approve of or know about the use of their dues to outright buy and run resorts, or spend on junkets, among other things.”
Then there’s the Obamacare Cadillac tax exemption for unions…”
Nickelodeon has the nerve to boast about its many “corporate social responsibility” campaigns, including a project encouraging children to stand up to bullies. But when confronted with a garbage-spewing, misogynistic cyberbully within its own lucrative kiddie TV lineup, Nickelodeon is a craven enabler.
“Jon Carson, director of Obama’s Office of Public Engagement, took to Twitter to hype how “auto companies support the higher fuel-efficiency standards” and how the rules crafted behind closed doors will “save consumers $8,000” per vehicle. His source for these claims? The New York Times, America’s Fishwrap of Record, which has acknowledged it allows the Obama campaign to have “veto power” over reporters’ quotes from campaign officials.
And whom did the Times cite for the claim that the rules will “save consumers $8,000″? Why, the administration, of course! “The administration estimated that the new standards would save Americans $1.7 trillion in fuel costs,” the Times dutifully regurgitated, “resulting in an average savings of more than $8,000 a vehicle by 2025.”
The Obama administration touts the support of the government-bailed-out auto industry for these reckless, expensive regs. What they want you to forget is that the “negotiations” (read: bullying) with White House environmental radicals date back to former Obama green czar Carol Browner’s tenure — when she infamously told auto industry execs “to put nothing in writing, ever” regarding their secret CAFE talks.
“Senate Democrats have failed to pass a budget in nearly 1,200 days.
But they are carving out time today to vote on the loophole-ridden, incumbency protection racket, masquerading as “campaign finance reform,” dubbed the DISCLOSE Act.
Wait a minute. Didn’t they already vote on the DISCLOSE Act?
Why, yes. Yes, they did.’
The Senate is expected to vote Monday on the DISCLOSE Act, a Democrat-sponsored bill requiring more disclosure of political activity. The bill faces fierce opposition from Senate Republicans who say it’s an attempt to target and harass donors.
Senate Democrats introduced a new version of the bill last Tuesday evening, but a provision requiring political ads to reveal their funders was pulled from the latest version at the behest of unions, senior GOP aides say.
The DISCLOSE Act of 2012, first introduced in March, had two major provisions: requiring politically active super PACs, unions, and corporations to disclose the identity of donors who contribute $10,000 or more; and requiring electioneering ads to disclose who is funding them.”