“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” – Thomas Jefferson Longtime readers of my work know that I’ve been exposing the compulsory-union dues racket since my days as a columnist at the Seattle Times. Here’s my 1999 column on how public school teachers in Washington state challenged their union over their political dues power grab. Here are your rights as a union worker. Here is a backgrounder on the permissible use of forced dues. As I wrote on Labor Day in 2010, free speech not only means the freedom to voice your political views, but also the freedom from being forced to pay for someone else’s. U.S. Supreme Court precedent established by the D.C.-based National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation guarantees the right to full financial disclosure from a union and a right to challenge the figures in court if they disagree. More and more rank-and-file union members have been speaking up against the confiscation of their dues for political purposes they oppose. Remember this Chicago SEIU member from 2010 ? Or this letter from a Wisconsin teacher last year? As events have unfolded in Wisconsin, I have been reflecting on my nearly 10 years in public education. My parents were both teachers and I greatly admired the work they did with their own students. I began with that same passion for teaching that they instilled in me, but am finding it more and more difficult to keep that flame alive. The hold that unions have over the public educational system is nothing short of toxic. Year after year, I have a lot of money taken out of my paychecks for union dues. What do I get for my money? I am bombarded with emails and flyers “urging” us to vote for candidates that coincidentally always have the letter (D) after them. I get to be lectured to by union reps about the evil Republican candidates are and why they know what is best for me. Now I am being hit with email after email “urging” me to stand with the teachers of Wisconsin. One teacher who is very tight with our union replied to our district making fun of Republicans directly. You might ask why I don’t forward this to human resources, but the repercussions would be brutal. The truth is that any teacher who does not hold down the talking points of the unions, DNC or Obama White House needs to keep quiet to keep their job. The vitriol I heard over the Bush years was deafening but acceptable and expected. I can hardly remember a week that went by where teachers, sometimes in front of students, were not making fun of Republicans. I’ve personally been the subject of much ridicule and scorn from fellow teachers and will continue to be as long as I am in public education. I believe in what I am doing in my own classroom by focusing on educating students, but as time goes by it is becoming more and more likely that I will leave education all together. Not because of students, but because of the unions and the teachers that support them. Frustrated in Minnesota Well, today on Capitol Hill, more brave union members are testifying about the Big Labor money machine forcibly fueled with their hard-earned money. You can watch the proceedings live at 10am at the House Oversight website . You can read the prepared testimony of Mr. Terry Bowman of Ypsilanti, Michigan, Ms. Claire Waites of Daphne, Alabama and Ms. Sally Coomer of Duvall, Washington here . Chairman Darrell Issa’s opening statement: Every worker should have the choice to decide whether their money is taken from their paychecks and used to fund political activity. When this occurs, a worker should also have the right to know how their money is spent. Individual freedom and personal choice are cornerstones of our democratic government—they are also at the heart of union participation in America. Today’s hearing will examine the process by which union dues are collected and how transparent unions are about this process. The Committee’s focus is not an examination of the validity of unions or their right to exist, but rather an effort to ensure that the political activity of unions does not infringe the freedoms of workers. Because of recent court decisions and a systematic effort by the Obama Administration to reduce union transparency and reporting requirements, union workers do not currently know how much of the money from their paycheck dues is being funneled to SuperPACs or used for other political activity. The Administration has also drastically reduced the Department of Labor’s ability to effectively audit labor organizations. These actions will have far-reaching consequences. I welcome the union workers who have agreed to testify today and appreciate their willingness to speak their mind about what they see as unjust restrictions on their freedom of choice in our democracy.
See the original post here:
On Capitol Hill today: Union members testify against forced dues racket
Scroll down for an update to this story: Last Sunday, Catholic priests across the country read an open letter to their parishioners. The letter condemned the Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to force religious employers to cover the cost of contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in its employees’ health-care coverage. The letter argued that the faithful could not and must not in good conscience comply with the HHS’ “unjust law.” However, Catholic chaplains in the U.S. military were “forbidden” from reading this letter. After Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who is in charge of Catholic military chaplains, sent out the letter to be read at Sunday masses, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out another communication “forbidding Catholic priests to read the letter, in part because it seemed to encourage civil disobedience, and could be read as seditious against the Commander-in-Chief,” Business Insider ‘s Michael Dougherty reports. Military officials felt that “the letter contained language that might be misunderstood in a military setting,” according to Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online , and the Army asked that the letter not be read from the pulpit. “Instead, the letter would have been referenced in announcements and made available in the back of the chapel for the faithful, if they wished, as they departed after the Mass,” Lopez writes. Despite these instructions, some chaplains read the letter anyway. Business Insider reports: More than one Catholic chaplain who spoke to us off the record confirmed that many chaplains disobeyed this instruction and read the letter anyway. Others sought further instructions from their Archbishop. Some reasoned that because the letter was not “politically driven,” and that it only sought to reaffirm Catholic teachings on sexual ethics and the “sanctity of life,” they would risk punishment and disobey instructions, one source involved told The Blaze. Anticipating repercussions for reading the letter, a confidential letter was sent to the chaplains instructing them to contact the Military Archdiocesan lawyer in case of more interference or any punishment (via BI): The Archdiocese believes that any attempt to keep a chaplain from freely teaching and preaching the Catholic faith, for which you were endorsed, is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. If any of you are in any way punished or slated for punitive action, I ask that you kindly call our Archdiocesan Attorney, John L. Schlageter, Esq….he will immediately place you into contact with a Religious Freedom Law Firm that will be most willing to take your case free of charge. Here is the Archdiocese for Military Services account of what happened regarding the letter, its public reading, and a newly-edited, government-approved version to be released (via National Review Online ): On Thursday, January 26, Archbishop Broglio emailed a pastoral letter to Catholic military chaplains with instructions that it be read from the pulpit at Sunday Masses the following weekend in all military chapels. The letter calls on Catholics to resist the policy initiative, recently affirmed by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, for federally mandated health insurance covering sterilization, abortifacients and contraception, because it represents a violation of the freedom of religion recognized by the U.S. Constitution. The Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains subsequently sent an email to senior chaplains advising them that the Archbishop’s letter was not coordinated with that office and asked that it not be read from the pulpit. The Chief’s office directed that the letter was to be mentioned in the Mass announcements and distributed in printed form in the back of the chapel. Archbishop Broglio and the Archdiocese stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army constituted a violation of his Constitutionally-protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants. Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop’s letter. Additionally, the line: “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law” was removed by Archbishop Broglio at the suggestion of Secretary McHugh over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience. The AMS did not receive any objections to the reading of Archbishop Broglio’s statement from the other branches of service. Update : The decision to forbid the chaplains from reading the letter is an odd one. This is not the first time that the question of religious liberty and freedom of speech in the military has been brought up. In fact, the Pentagon was once sued by The Becket Fund for having issued gag orders against a Catholic priest and Jewish rabbi for being vocal supporters of H.R. 1122 (the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997). The Becket Fund argued in court that the gag order “violated their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause, the Free Speech Clause, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb, et . seq ,” according to Free Preach . The court agreed with The Becket Fund that the gag order was unconstitutional: What we have here is the government’s attempt to override the Constitution and the laws of the land by a directive that clearly interferes with military chaplains’ free exercise and free speech rights, as well as those of their congregants. 962 F. Supp. at 165. Free Preach writes: In particular, the court rejected all of the arguments advanced by the government to support their censorship of speech from the pulpit. For example, the government argued that it was not an important part of the plaintiffs’ religion to urge their congregations to contact Congress about particular moral or political issues. The court soundly rejected that argument, holding that it was not the role of the government “to determine whether encouraging parishioners to contact Congress [about a particular issue like] the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is an ‘important component’ of the [plaintiffs'] faiths.” Id . at 161. Moreover, the court held that “[e]ncouraging parishioners to contact Congress” about legislation addressing moral issues related to religious faith “appears to be no less important to the [plaintiffs' faith] than other religiously-motivated activity courts have held to be important enough to a religion such that its prohibition amounts to a substantial burden.” Id . The government then argued that the chaplains’ contemplated speech was “not religious” but merely “political.” The court rejected this argument also, holding that “it is not the role of this Court to draw fine distinctions between degrees of religious speech and to hold that religious speech is protected but religious speech with so-called political overtones is not.” Id . at 164. Finally, the court held that any interests advanced by the government for their censorship policy were “outweighed by the . . . chaplains’ right to autonomy in determining the religious content of their sermons.” Id . at 162. It is imperative to note that these same interests would likely be asserted by the government in the private freedom-to-preach context as well, and similar reasoning to reject such would apply. To summarize the holding: The State cannot interfere with the right of religious leaders to preach from the pulpit on political issues, even if those ministers are in the military [emphasis added]. Now, all that being said, and the legal and constitutional precedent having been set, the question is this: on what grounds did the U.S. military have right to forbid those chaplains from reading an open letter from the Archbishop during Sunday Mass? This is a breaking story. Updates will be added as they become available.
See the rest here:
U.S. Military Silences Catholic Chaplains From Speaking out Against Obama Admin Ruling
Some may already be familiar with the image featured above. For those who aren’t, it is painting titled “The Forgotten Man” which features President Obama trampling on the Constitution while an astonished James Madison pleads with him to stop. To the side, a man sits on a park bench in the throes of depression while 43 presidents look on. The painting, which uses discarded dollar bills and scraps of paper with individual constitutional amendments scrawled onto them. The Blaze first reported on artist Jon McNaughton’s controversial rendition back in 2010 when the artwork was released. Now, however, McNauughton’s Forgotten Man has resurfaced and is making its rounds across the internet again after appearing on Rachel Maddow’s blog on Thursday. In a video that accompanied The Forgotten Man’s release, the politically charged McNaughton revealed, “For a long time I didn’t know if I wanted to paint this picture, because I worried it might be too controversial.” He explained that the man on the park bench “represents every man, woman, and child who is an American” and who “hopes to find the American dream of happiness and prosperity.” The artist added, “But now because of unconstitutional acts imposed on the American people by our government we stand on the precipice of disasters.” The artists’ work can be found at McNaughton Fine Art (though the site appeared to be down, at least temporarily on Friday evening) and on his Facebook Page . A search of McNaughton’s postings on Facebook reveal a number of paintings with strong political and religious themes including another provocative work released in October 2011 titled “Wake Up America.” The image features Obama smiling on the stump while shackled Americans gather around him. From the artist’s YouTube page : We are enslaved to our debt. Wake up, America! Before it is too late… Every man, woman and child in America is enslaved to the national debt. As an artist, I have painted my vision of the dire circumstances that surround us. Now, more than ever, each American must make a choice: we must unlock the shackles that enslave us, or will we lose our freedom. It is my hope and prayer that America will “wake up” before it is too late. The image is featured below: With the Nevada Caucuses around the corner, CBS Las Vegas caught up with McNaughton to talk about his work. Since the painting’s release, “It sold thousands,” McNaughton told the network. “I sold many different sizes and editions, and now that we are in an election year I expect to sell more.”
At Los Angeles Times, ” ‘Atlas Shrugged Part 2′ to start production in April .” Well, progressive heads will explode at the news. I can’t remember a film more reviled by the left. Liberty, initiative and personal responsibility ward off leftists like garlic to vampires.
Here is the original post:
‘Atlas Shrugged’ Sequel Secures Financing, Production to Start in April
Back in November of last year, Glenn Beck heard Freedom Works President Matt Kibbe speaking in South Carolina. One particular line from Kibbe’s presentation stuck with Glenn. Kibbe told the crowd; “I can’t believe we have to go fight the Republicans before we go fight the Democrats.” Tonight on GBTV, Glenn and Matt talked at length about the Tea Parties all across America and how these very diverse groups have the potential to change the direction of the country in the 2012 elections and beyond. Here’s part one. In second part of the interview, Beck and Kibbe drilled down a little deeper into the Tea Party’s beliefs on what makes a good elected official. The Freedom Works President clarified his thoughts: Our thing is constant accountability, transparency, holding everyone to the same standard regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat… It’s based on the issues… it’s based on what you actually do in office. On the topic of the Fall election season, Glenn asked Matt about the Tea Party plans for making certain that the elections are legitimate: I think our whole strategy has to be based on freedom. That the fight against voter fraud is only going to be fought with a very decentralized system where each person takes responsibility in their community to police those voting booths, to volunteer, to actually be there. Despite the current tensions in the GOP Primary process, Kibbe maintains a positive outlook: That’s why I’m so optimistic, I think that a decentralized, freedom-based model can win and will win if each of us take responsibility and focus on the things that matter. The entire second part of the interview with Matt Kibbe is here:
Muslim Brotherhood spokesperson Mahmoud Ghezlan told the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper on Wednesday that the militant group will neither speak nor meet with Israeli officials. He added that the Brotherhood’s stance on Israel is unwavering and not up for discussion. “It’s illogical to have dialogue, any dialogue, in light of the Israeli practices against the Arab peoples,” the paper quoted Ghezlan as saying. Meanwhile, in the spirit of cooperation, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Yigal Palmor told Israeli radio that Israel has not ruled out talks. “We will be happy to hold dialogues with whoever wants to have dialogue with us,” Palmor said. Egypt Independent adds: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party controls 47 percent of the seats in the newly formed People’s Assembly, but the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is still running the executive branch of Egypt’s government. Some fear that Islamists will push for ending the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Western officials met with several Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist leaders after People’s Assembly elections. Ghezlan said the Brotherhood has not yet received a similar invitation from the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, but that any such request would be rejected.
Link:
Muslim Brotherhood Vows to Shun Israel: ‘It’s Illogical to Have Any Dialogue’
The New York Police Department is taking heat following revelations that a documentary about the threat of radical Islam was screened to nearly 1,500 officers during training.
Excerpt from:
‘A Slander Against the Film’: Narrator Says Documentary Shown to NYPD Officers Isn‘t ’Anti-Muslim’
Last week, I noted the possibility of a plea deal in the trial of SSgt Frank Wuterich, the last of the U.S. Marines charged in connection to an alleged massacre of Iraqi civilians in the village of Haditha in 2005. (See here . All previous Wuterich trial coverage and Haditha links below.) Today, the plea deal was reached. SSgt Wuterich’s defense team at Puckett Faraj says this afternoon: Press Release, Aexandria VA January 23, 2012/12:45PM: “No one denies that the consequences of November 19, 2005 were tragic, least of all SSgt Frank Wuterich. But the fact of the matter is that he has now been totally exonerated of the homicide charges brought against him by the government and the media. For six years, he’s had his name dragged through the mud. Today, we hope, is the beginning of his redemption. He has always publicly taken responsibility for the lawful actions of his squad that day, as portrayed in his interview with CBS 60 Minutes. Today’s agreement is completely consistent with everything he has always said. Which is that the decisions he made that day led to an outcome that was tragic and regrettable and he takes responsibility for them, but they were not criminal.” The North County Times reports on the details: Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich agreed to plead guilty Monday to one count of negligent dereliction of duty, ending his trial on manslaughter and related charges for his role in the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians in 2005. “This was his decision and his decision alone,” Neal Puckett, Wuterich’s lead defense attorney, told the North County Times. “Staff Sergeant Wuterich believed this was the right and honorable thing to do.” Negligent dereliction of duty is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of 90 days in custody and a reduction or forfeiture of pay. It was not immediately known when a sentencing decision would be announced. The deal was announced in court early Monday morning. After the announcement, Wuterich shook hands and hugged his parents, who have been watching the courtroom proceedings since the trial began. The agreement has been approved by Lt. Gen. Thomas Waldhauser. The plea deal ends the six-year saga of eight Camp Pendleton Marines charged with criminal wrongdoing in the incident that took place in the city of Haditha at the height of the war. A reminder of how the Left’s smear merchants tried and convicted the Haditha Marines in the court of public opinion — and got away with it: Outrage came from around the world and from Washington, D.C., where the late Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha said he believed the Marines might have “killed in cold blood” and went on to say U.S. troops were overstressed. The result was eight Marines being charged with crimes at Haditha, including four officers and four enlisted men. Seven of those eight saw their cases resolved, some with the withdrawal of charges in exchange for their testimony, one acquitted at trial and others having charges dropped entirely. Wuterich, a 31-year-old Murrieta single father of three girls, had pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors appeared ready to strike a plea deal last week after a series of their own witnesses gave testimony largely beneficial to Wuterich’s position that he believed he and his men were under attack and responded in keeping with their training. Puckett said his client continues to believe his actions were lawful, despite the civilians deaths, which Wuterich has repeatedly said he regrets. “He has always taken responsibility for his and his squad’s actions that day,” Puckett said. “Today’s agreement is completely consistent with everything he has said, which is that the decisions he made that day led to an outcome that was tragic and regrettable, but they were not criminal.” *** (Graphic via Defend Our Marines ) *** Previous: 1/23/12 The trial of the last Haditha Marine: SSgt Wuterich takes plea deal 1/19/12 The last Haditha Marine: Trial update, prosecution collapse, plea deal in the works? 1/5/12 The last Haditha Marine: Wuterich trial update 1/2/12 Remember SSgt Frank D. Wuterich: The last Haditha Marine goes on trial 5/6/09 Haditha Marine update: Lt. Col. Chessani wins another round 4/23/09 Justice Dept. attorney: Murtha should be immune from Haditha lawsuit 11/19/08 Murtha Watch: Cut-and-run smear merchant wants immunity 8/23/08 When will Biden apologize for Haditha smear? 6/19/08 The fate of Lt. Col. Chessani, continued 6/18/08 Defining atrocity: Marines vs. the Haditha Smear Merchants 6/17/08 Haditha Watch: Charges dismissed against Lt. Col. Chessani 6/16/08 Haditha Watch: The fate of Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani June 5: Haditha Marine Lt. Andrew Grayson acquitted 3/28/08 Case dropped against Haditha defendant Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum 9/18/07 Charges dropped against Capt. Lucas McConnell 8/23/07 Charges recommended dropped against Lance Cpl. Stephen B. Tatum 8/9/07 Charges dropped against Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt 4/17/07 Charges dropped against Sergeant Sanick Dela Cruz Let Freedom Ring reviews the Murtha Marine-smearing timeline. Everything else you need to know is at Defend Our Marines.
Go here to read the rest:
The trial of the last Haditha Marine: SSgt Wuterich takes plea deal
