Unions Can Now Have Access To Your Personal Info

As of April 14, the Obama-slanted National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) put new rules into effect that are designed to favor the labor unions and disadvantage employers.

Under these new rules, employers will have an extremely short time to argue their cases against unionization because voting must occur within 14 to 21 days after being notified that a vote must be taken. Prior to this, the average time was 38 days with some contested voting lasting up to 56 days. Thus, a large company with multiple locations and multiple shifts (such as Walmart) will be logistically disadvantaged in arguing its case against unionization.  And, that's intentional.  The whole purpose of this "quickie election rule" is to insure that employees don't get all the facts before they decide.

But, it doesn't just stop there.  Under the new rules, if your company is targeted by a union, you must turn over the names, addresses, telephone numbers, company and private email addresses, company locations and work hours of all employees.  Previously, it was only required for unions to have access to names and addresses of a company's employees.  So now, while businesses will have less time to argue their case, unions will have months to barrage potential members with information by mail, email, telephone calls, or in person meetings at your home, or anywhere outside your work location.  At the same time, employers are restricted from countering the union campaigning prior to the period after the union notifies the employer of a vote.  A fact that many legal eagles find unconstitutional because it restricts an employer's freedom of speech.

The biggest problem with the above ruling is that it is a complete invasion of privacy.  In the wake of the NSA scandal where private emails and conversations were being listened into by the federal government, a lot of people are not going to tolerate this.  Unions contacting people in multiple ways might find out that this will backfire when it comes to votes.  I know that I would consider it harassment if I already had no interest in being a member of a union and they kept contacting me.

Also, unions are big "get-out-the-vote" volunteers for the Democrat party.  In the past, having a list of just names and addresses was too labor intensive.  They were better off going door-to-door, neighborhood by neighborhood.  Now, they have all the contact information they need  for campaigning.  I also doubt that there are any protections that prevent the unions from handing over that extremely valuable information to their favored political party.

Lastly, the NLRB rules (similar to other attempts by Obama to legislate by mandate) may not stand up to a legal review.  Several business groups have already filed federal lawsuits to block these new rules.

References:

NLRB To Force Companies To Turn Over Employee Telephone Numbers & E-Mail Addresses To Unions?: http://laborunionreport.com/2012/01/26/nlrb-chair-wants-to-force-companies-to-turn-over-employee-telephone-numbers-e-mail-addresses/

NLRB Allows Employees to Use Employer Email Systems for Organizing Purposes, and Issues New Speedy Union Election Rule:  https://www.ropesgray.com/news-and-insights/Insights/2015/January/NLRB-Allows-Employees-to-Use-Employer-Email-Systems-for-Organizing-Purposes.aspx

 NLRB “Quickie Election” Rule Accelerates the Union Organizing Process: http://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2015/03/articles/collective-bargaining/nlrb-quickie-election-rule-accelerates-the-union-organizing-process/http://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2015/03/articles/collective-bargaining/nlrb-quickie-election-rule-accelerates-the-union-organizing-process/

Business Groups File Lawsuit to Block NLRB’s Union-Organizing Rule: https://www.google.com/search?q=Business+Groups+File+Lawsuit+to+Block+NLRB%E2%80%99s+Union-Organizing+Rule&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

The Damage That Obama Has Done To The Democrat Party

In 2009, President Obama was swept into office with widespread expectations that America would become a better place.  Aiding him in this endeavor was the fact that he had majority control in the House of Representatives and a two-thirds unstoppable majority in the Senate.

But, as the lies and deceptions surrounding his promise of "hope and change" started to slowly creep out of the woodwork, things went dramatically south for both him and his party.  His approvals fell from nearly 70% on Gallup to today's low 40's.  In 2010, in response to ObamaCare and the changes that Americans just weren't liking, there was a sea-change election with Democrats losing the House and their powerful majority in the Senate.  Additionally, state legislature, once Democrat controlled, started to fall.

While Obama got reelected in 2012, the Democrats in both the House and Senate continued to lose seats but, not enough to lose majority control in the Senate.  The trend toward Republican control of state legislatures continued.

Then in 2014, the Democrats lost even more seats in the House while the Senate's majority flipped to a 55-seat takeover by the GOP; resulting in the highest Congressional control by a single party since the Great Depression. The Republicans also became even stronger in the state legislatures.  With 69% as the most powerful Republican control since 1900.   All that the President could say about this is that if two-thirds of the people hadn't stayed home this last election, things would have been a lot better for his party.  As if all those people would have voted for Democrats.

The clear and simple fact is that, since President Obama took office, his party has become a bunch of historic 3-time losers;  losing both statewide and nationally in 2010, 2012, and now again, in 2014.  As a result, the President's party is at its weakest position in at least 85 years; 114 years if you just look at state legislatures.  Obviously, the nation is rejecting Democrat ideas and principals and I believe that the party's top salesman, Barack Obama, is responsible.  I also believe that if he continues in an even more heavy-handed and ideologically-driven manner over the next two years, the losses by the in 2016 will be even greater; including a possible landslide loss of the White House.

Obviously, the Republicans, who are supposed to be in total disarray and with very little approval in the polls, are doing something right.  Or, perhaps, it is Obama and Democrats who are doing everything wrong.  

References:

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval: http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Republicans just won the election. President Obama doesn’t much care: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/05/republicans-just-won-the-election-president-obama-doesnt-much-care/

In the states, the GOP is in its best position since the Great Depression: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/09/in-the-states-the-gop-is-in-its-best-position-since-the-great-depression/

Why Midterm Election Polling Might Be Getting It Wrong

Right now, the Real Clear Politics averages of all polls that are covering the Senatorial elections have the Democrats and the Republicans holding 45 seats each; leaving 10 seats as toss ups and too close to call.  This, then, means that whatever party is able to win 6 of those 10 races will have majority control of the Senate come January.

But, the problem with almost all of these polls is that they don't reflect the historical voter demographics of midterm elections which tend to give Republicans a natural advantage.

First of all, the midterm voters tend to be older; and older voters more often vote Republican.  Also, a large part of the Democrat's base, Blacks, tend not to vote in the midterms. This also proves true for women, who historically favor Democrats. On the other hand,  non-black males show up and tend to vote Republican.

So, when you look at it from a sampling basis, women and blacks are typically over-polled relative to historical turnout rates. At the same time, men and older Americans are being under polled.  This is clearly true in Kansas that has Greg Orman leading Republican Pat Roberts 45 to 44 percent.  There, men were under polled 49% to 51% for women. Yet, historically, men have a higher turnout than women.  Also 45% of those polled were under age 45; despite more older voters expected to show up.  While it is true that sorting out the "likely voters" from those polled helps adjust for the demographic turn out rates, that action still doesn't take into account for the turnout rates of the individual groups mentioned above.

These are the reasons why I think that a Republican win is being grossly understated and why most of those "too close to call" races are probably more Republican than the Real Clear Politics averages suggest.  Thus, expect Republicans to win on the high side of the predicted 5 to 8 seats of the 10 toss up races.

References:

Real Clear Politics: 2014 Senate Races: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/2014_elections_senate_map.html

Voter turnout always drops off for midterm elections, but why?: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/24/voter-turnout-always-drops-off-for-midterm-elections-but-why/

How the Rise of Reagan Seniors Helps Republicans in November: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-25/reagan-loving-senior-voters-give-republicans-an-advantage-in-midterm-elections-and-maybe-control-of-congress

2014 Midterm Elections: More Women In The Electorate, But More Men Vote: http://www.ibtimes.com/2014-midterm-elections-more-women-electorate-more-men-vote-1712601

Women More Likely to Be Democrats, Regardless of Age: http://www.gallup.com/poll/120839/women-likely-democrats-regardless-age.aspx

Obama looks to black radio listeners to boost (black) Dem votes in midterms: http://www.theind.com/news/indnews/19331-obama-looks-to-black-radio-listeners-to-boost-dem-votes-in-midterms

Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball:  Current outlook: Republicans net 5-8 Senate seats: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2014-senate/

Kansas Senatorial Race: NBC/Marist Poll: http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/KSpolls/KS141018/Complete%20October%2026,%202014%20Kansas%20NBC%20News__Marist%20Poll%20Release%20and%20Tables.pdf

Pelosi: Democrats Will Sweep 2016 Elections

In a recent interview with The Hill.com, Nancy Pelosi predicted a Democratic sweep of the congress and the presidency in 2016.  Of course, one can't forget her last big prediction. In 2010, when asked "If your party does lose the House would you step aside as leader?", she said:

"First of all, I don't accept that premise in any way shape or form. The momentum is with us. We are out there to dispel many of the misrepresentations that have been going out there for nearly two years by the Republicans and the special interests, the oil industry, the health insurance industry, the banks and their allies....And we believe that six weeks from today, six weeks from Wednesday of this week we will have no regrets but instead we will have a great Democratic victory."

Well, as we all know, in 2010, the Democrats lost a record 680 seats in federal and state legislatures and the Republicans wound up controlling the House of Representatives and 29 of 50 Governor's seats and gained the dominant control of 26 state legislatures; leaving the Democrats only controlling 15.

I think it's great that Nancy Pelosi thinks there will be a Democratic sweep.  Given how wrong she was in 2010, it must mean that the Republicans will win big in 2016; including the presidency.

References:

October 2014: Pelosi: Dems will take Congress, WH in '16: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/219461-dems-will-win-control-of-congress-wh-in-2016-pelosi

September 2010: Nancy Pelosi: 'Momentum Is With Us. Confident About Election': http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/09/21/130027010/nancy-pelosi-momentum-is-with-us

2010 Election Results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2010

Will The Label 'Do Nothing Congress' Backfire On Democrats In November

Ever since 2010, when the GOP took control of the House of Representatives, liberals and the liberal media have referred to them as a "Do Nothing Congress" because the President and the Democrats have been unable to get any of their liberal agenda passed through the GOP-controlled House. Of course that moniker also includes the Democrat-controlled Senate.  So, from a public opinion standpoint, they are both "do nothings".  This is why Congress, as a whole, has historically low approval ratings.

Going into the fall elections, when the Democrats desperately need to keep Senatorial control, the liberal name callers may have unwittingly set up a negative branding of their own candidates who are seeking reelection in typically GOP voting states.  And, I think this is why -- at least partly -- that 7 existing Democrat Senate seats are currently up for grabs going into November. This according to today's Real Clear Politics aggregate polling results.

Seven seats that just might give the control of the Senate to the Republicans.

References:

A 'do-nothing Congress'?: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/212041-a-do-nothing-congress

Rachael Maddow: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trying-split-the-do-nothing-congress

No surprise public approval of Congress at rock-bottom: http://www.news-press.com/story/news/2014/10/05/surprise-public-approval-congress-rock-bottom/16737691/

For ObamaCare: The 2014 Elections Might Have Serious Consequences

I think a lot of Republicans (and Democrats, too) believe that it would be impossible to repeal and replace ObamaCare unless they controlled both houses of Congress and could retake the presidency in 2017.  However, I believe there is another scenario that could seal ObamaCare's fate in 2015.

If (and that is a big "if") the Democrats receive a similar shellacking in 2014 as was seen in 2010, and they lose control of the Senate and see even more losses of seats in the House, a number of Senate Democrats may possibly be willing to side with Republicans in repealing ObamaCare.  Enough, even,  to override an Obama veto.  I can say this with confidence because no Democrat is going to be willing to lose another sweeping election because of their continued support of ObamaCare.

The only way Republicans can pull this off is to offer a bill that, in the very first paragraph, repeals or supersedes ObamaCare and, then, goes on to outline a new reform of heath care. One that would have clear public acceptance over the current law and one that, at the very least, is somewhat acceptable to the Democrats.

The biggest hangup in doing this will be the Republican's insistence on tort reform.  Because trial lawyers are such big donors to the Democrats, it will be very difficult for any of them to vote for a bill that would harm that critical donor base.  In fact, right now, ObamaCare, with all of its legislative facets, is a potential gold mine for trial lawyers if health care providers and insurance companies fail to comply with any parts of the law; leading to both Federal and civil lawsuits being filed.  While tort reform would definitely benefit the country as a whole by lowering health care costs, the Republicans would be wise to hold off doing anything about it until they do have the presidency and both houses of congress.

Greece Avoids Disaster But Still Swims In Boiling Seas

The dreaded Greek elections are over and the fear that Greece would reject austerity was averted.  The pro-austerity, stay in the euro zone, New Democracy party won the majority of seats.  While everyone in Europe is probably breathing a sigh of relief, the worst may be yet to come.

The election didn't solve any of Greece's spending problems.  It only insured that there will be even more unrest from the anti-austerity youth and socialists as they continue to make spending cuts.  At least, after today, the they won't face the immediate revival of the drachma at a highly discounted rate -- causing rabid inflation and economic collapse.  However, that fate may still come later this year when austerity fails and the Greeks are left with no other choice but to leave the euro zone.

8 Things Ahmadinejad Can't Tend To During These Iranian Riots

Normally, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, is a very, very busy guy. Being both a regional and world agitator as well as being the exporter of both verbal hate and weapons to disrupt and kill Israelis and Americans in the region really takes up the better part of his day. After all, a really good hate speech doesn't write itself!

So, it is no wonder that all the political unrest over his stealing of the recent election is taking time away from a lot of important tasks that he has on his table. These people and students that are rioting need to understand that there is important hate work to be done. There's no time for all this silly rioting, the beatings, and the deaths. All this crap is keeping Ahmadinejad from doing God's work!

In order to give some clarity to this situation, I have put together a list of projects that might "not" be getting Ahmadinejad's full focus; either now or until the rioting stops:

1. The continuance of a nuclear weapons program that can be used to threaten Iran's neighbors and that can be used to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
2. The development of a long-range missile system that would give Iran the capability to deliver a nuke attack on Israel and, if necessary, even Europe.
3. The continuing development of plans to disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz that could starve the Western world from Middle East oil and bring those countries like the U.S. to their economic knees.
   
4. The export of weapons and weapons systems to Hezbollah so they can continue their disruption of political activities in Lebanon.
5. Weapons assistance to Hamas in their battle against the Israelis.
6. Weaponry and explosives to insurgents and dissidents in Iraq like Muqtada al Sadr that can be used to kill American soldiers and disrupt Iraq's plans to be a Democracy.
7. The continuation of dialog with that "axis of evil" buddy, Kim Jong Il in North Korea, to develop better nukes and longer range missiles.
8. Continued speeches threatening Israel and the complete denial of the holocaust. (A real crowd pleaser in Iran and music to the ears of any Palestinian).

Thank God that President Obama has elected to not "meddle" in Iran's current political problems. That would have just added another distraction that, too, might have kept Ahmadinejad from his long list of dirty deeds. After all, just because Iran is a meddler in the affairs of all its neighbors and loves to kill Americans, that doesn't mean we have to compound the instability by talking down the current Iranian regime. Right? I'm sure Obama can't wait until the rioting ends in Iran and we can all get back to fighting Iranian-backed insurgents in Iraq.