The overtime rule, women in the workplace, and that 79 percent untruth

[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

Old joke: The three biggest lies are “The check is in the mail,” “Of course I’ll respect you in the morning,” and “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.”

Now comes the long-expected “overtime rule,” announced this week by the Labor Department, that will hurt businesses and consumers, employers and employees, but is presented by the Obama administration as something that will help people.

The rule dramatically expands overtime pay eligibility for salaried employees, making salaried employees earning under $47,476 eligible for overtime pay, which is over a 100 percent from the current salary threshold of $23,660. It applies to businesses with at least $500,000 in sales. An estimated 4.2 million new workers will suddenly become overtime eligible.

How will businesses cope? Examining a slightly different version of the overtime rule that was being considered, Trey Kovacs of the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote of the effects of such a rule: “Cutting wages would make up for 80 percent of overtime costs, according to U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics economist Anthony Barkume. Or businesses could hire more part-time employees and hourly workers, limiting workers’ hours to 40 and reducing fringe benefits. Workers will bear the brunt of the harmful impact of the overtime rule and its unintended consequences. Salaried employees now on a management track may have their work status downgraded to hourly, which will have some impact on their long-term career prospects, earnings, and other benefits, like healthcare and a pension.”

The overtime rule will be particularly tough on women. In the December 2014 issue of Labor Watch, Diana Furchtgott-Roth noted that, as the rule was proposed, “employees who receive overtime pay would not be allowed to take time off, or comp time; they would have to receive overtime pay. Some people may prefer overtime pay, but others, especially working mothers, may prefer more leisure. . . . Overtime rules hurt women by reducing flexibility with their employer. Many women with children, particularly young mothers who cannot afford childcare, would prefer flexibility in their schedule rather than extra overtime pay. When overtime hours are allowed to count toward time off instead of pay, women can change their work schedules according to their needs.”

Most liberals claim to care about women in the workplace. Hillary Clinton, for example, makes much of the wage gap between men and women, and says she’ll fix it. It’s part of her effort to get women’s vote despite her history. (That history includes helping her estranged husband get away with his serial abuse of women. It also includes her policies as Secretary of State, which set women in the Middle East back decades, perhaps hundreds of years, and which today threaten the women of Europe with a flood of migrants from a culture in which women are subjugated, sexually abused, often sexually mutilated.)

Clinton’s not the only one who claims to be a champion of women. Take Kathleen Mathews, wife of MSNBC personality Chris Mathews, who recently ran for Congress (unsuccessfully) as the candidate of women. In her TV commercials, she asked: “Why does Congress think it is okay that women get paid 20 percent less than a man for doing the same job?” That question is based on a common but fake belief. It’s true that a median female full-time worker makes 21 percent less than a median male full-time worker, but, as noted by Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, “the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the gap is 17 cents when looking at weekly wages. The gap is even smaller when you look at hourly wages—15 cents—but then not every wage earner is paid on an hourly basis, so that statistic excludes salaried workers. Annual wage figures do not take into account the fact that teachers—many of whom are women—have a primary job that fills nine months out of the year.”

The more factors you consider, the smaller the gap appears. It turns out that the average woman has less work experience than the average man; the average woman works more weeks part-time rather than full-time, compared to men; and, in Kessler’s words, “women tend to leave the workforce for periods to raise children, seek jobs that may have more flexible hours but lower pay, and choose careers that tend to have lower pay.” Women make up more than 60 percent of college students, which should mean they will make more money, but women are the majority in nine of the 10 lowest-paying majors while men are the majority in nine of the 10 highest-paying majors. And men take the vast majority of jobs that are dangerous or require back-breaking manual labor.

In some circumstances, the gap narrows significantly or disappears. Comparing never-married women to never- married men, the gap is six cents, not 21. And, according to a 2010 study as reported by Time magazine, women under 30 made more than men under 30 in 147 of 150 cities surveyed. “In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. . . . with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively.”

Nevertheless, “From a political perspective,” Kessler wrote, “the Census Bureau’s 79-cent figure is golden. Unless women stop getting married and having children, and start abandoning careers in childhood education for aerospace engineering, the gap in wages will almost certainly persist. Democrats thus can keep bringing it up every year.”

Share this post!

Green Watch: A Gift to Bin Laden: Obama’s “rebuke to the terrorists” is actually what the terrorists have demanded

A Gift to Bin Laden
Obama’s “rebuke to the terrorists” is actually what the terrorists have demanded [PDF here]
By Steven J. Allen

Summary: After terrorists attacked Paris,
some security experts called for the postponement
of the world conference on “climate
change” that was to be held in that
city a few days later. But President Obama
said the conference, and the treaty then being
negotiated, would serve as a “rebuke”
to the terrorists. Now it’s clear that the opposite
is true: Global Warming theory is a
major component of Islamofascist ideology.
Osama bin Laden himself, in a letter “to the
American people” left behind when he was
killed, called on Americans to conduct “a
great revolution . . . to free Barack Husayn
[Obama] so he can implement the change
you seek . . . to save humanity from the harmful
gases that threaten its destiny.”

The recent terrorist assault on Brussels
was preceded by a related assault on
Paris. On November 13, terrorists
killed 130 people in a series of coordinated
attacks in Paris and its northern suburb,
Saint-Denis. The terrorists were from the
Islamic State (ISIS), a spinoff of Al Qaeda.

The 2015 U.N. Climate Change Conference,
at which officials were to finalize an
international agreement on Global Warming,
was scheduled to begin in Paris 17
days later. Some suggested postponing the
meeting, but President Obama would have
none of that: “What a powerful rebuke to
the terrorists it will be,” he said, “when the
world stands as one and shows that we will
not be deterred from building a better future
for our children.”

The conference went forward as planned
and, as its final product, produced a world
climate reparations program of the sort that
had been demanded by Al Qaeda’s late
founder, Osama bin Laden.

A powerful rebuke to the terrorists, indeed!

The root of terror
Some persons in the West claim Global
Warming causes terrorism like the Paris
attacks. ISIS supporters have a different
view, of course. They believe they’re fighting
for God. They believe that, as a prelude
to the ultimate battle between Christians
and Muslims, they have re-established the
caliphate (a government to which all Muslims
owe allegiance, ruled by a successor
to, and descendant of, Muhammad), in the
region that includes Dabiq—the Islamic
counterpart to Armageddon—where a
Muslim victory over the Christians will
mark the beginning of the end of the world.
This idea is so central to ISIS ideology that
the organization named its online magazine

According to the Left’s rhetoric, ISIS supporters
are ignorant about their own beliefs;
they may think they’re Muslims, but
they’re not, as the President and a former
Secretary of State keep claiming. (President
Obama: “Now let’s make two things clear:
ISIL [ISIS] is not Islamic. No religion
condones the killing of innocents, and the
vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been
Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state.”
And Secretary Clinton declared, “Muslims
are peaceful and tolerant people and have
nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”)
So, in the view of self-styled Progressives,
ISIS supporters are confused about their
identity. They just think they’re fulfilling
ancient prophecies and conquering the

Unconfused is Prince Charles who, a few
days after the Paris attacks, addressed the
issue, as reported by Reuters:

Britain’s Prince Charles has pointed
to the world’s failure to tackle climate
change as a root cause of the civil war

[Click HERE for the rest of the article.]

Share this post!

Of Republican Bondage

[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

UPDATE: After he got shellacked in Indiana, Ted Cruz dropped out the race for the Republican nomination for president, making Donald Trump the presumptive nominee. This column is now officially out of date. Hope you enjoy it anyway. Just pretend it’s last Tuesday.

(May 3, 2016) Yes, the Trump campaign is being robbed of delegates.

No, it’s not the Cruz campaign that’s cheating.

Here’s what happened:

As GOP rules evolved over the past 30 years, those rules were tweaked and fiddled-with repeatedly, in ways subtle and glaringly obvious, by the Establishment. The short-term goal was to fill the delegate seats at the Republican National Convention with members of the party Establishment, or, at least, to minimize the number and effectiveness of potential insurgents.  The ultimate goal was to prevent mistakes like allowing Goldwater to snatch the nomination from the Establishment in 1964. (To Establishmentarians, the political success of Goldwaterite candidate Ronald Reagan was a fluke—an experiment that, although it worked out, must never be repeated.)

It’s not a conspiracy. In fact, most of the manipulation was barely at the level of conscious thought. People were doing what seemed right, which was to make it easier for people like themselves (hard-working party volunteers and high-dollar donors) to become delegates.

The Establishment’s tinkering has worked: Every GOP presidential nominee since Reagan has been someone who opposed Reagan for the nomination, except for John McCain in 2008, who backed Reagan in 1980 but switched to the anti-Reagan wing long before being nominated himself.

After 2012—when, in the view of the Establishment, the party suffered because it took too gosh-darn long for Mitt Romney to secure the nomination—the rules were altered some more, to ensure that, once the 2016 process got under way, Jeb Bush or someone like him would quickly became the nominee. The timing of primaries and debates and other factors were manipulated to prevent a grassroots, Tea Party-type insurgency, and to lessen the prospect of some wise guy like Newt Gingrich beating up the eventual nominee.

The changes were supposed to help someone with high name I.D. and lots of money. In that regard, the plan worked. But the beneficiary wasn’t Jeb; it was Donald Trump. Oops.

Still, Trump might still be denied the nomination because of a different way in which, over the years, the Establishment has manipulated the rules to block insurgencies. That’s the creation of a process in many states in which there is little connection between the preferences expressed by primary or caucus voters and the selection of the individuals who will serve as delegates.

In establishing the rules for nominating presidential candidates, political parties—that is, the leaders of those parties—have the power to do almost anything they want. But “them’s the rules” can’t justify those rules. That’s like the sentiment expressed by Richard Nixon and followed by Barack Obama, that the president can’t break the law because, “If the president does it, it’s not illegal.”

The rules that are the rules can be right, or wrong. I judge the rightness of the rules based on two standards:

  • Were the rules made ahead of time, or were they changed in the middle of the game so as to help one side?
  • When you explain the rules to a fair-minded, reasonably intelligent person, does he or she consider them unfair?

Continue reading →

Share this post!

Beware the Maroon Hole!

The last Saturday evening each April, they hold the White House Correspondents’ Dinner at the Hinckley Hilton, which is about six blocks from my apartment in DC and eight blocks from our offices at the Capital Research Center. This year’s dinner, set for tomorrow night, could bring about the end of the world.

The dinner—known familiarly as “the annual violation of journalistic ethics that stupid people call the ‘nerd prom’”—brings together not just the dumbest people in Washington, but many of the world’s dumbest. On the Kelvin scale, their average IQ approaches zero.

My concern relates to the phenomenon known as a “moron hole,” or, as it was dubbed by the esteemed Mel Blanc, a “maroon hole.”

A maroon hole is a region in the collective consciousness of the universe so lacking in intelligence that it creates an irresistible pull on any intelligence around it. No thought or other evidence of sentience can escape a maroon hole.

The region from which no escape is possible has a boundary that experts call the MSNBC-Weeknights-at-9 Horizon. At that boundary and within, no brainpower gets out.

A maroon hole emits no light of inspiration, so its existence must be inferred. Because it sucks all the intellect out of the area around itself, it can be observed indirectly through, for example, the existence of the bottled water industry and the history of the Academy Award for Best Documentary.

According to the clear consensus of the world’s metaphysicians, the correspondents’ dinner represents a threat because the presence of so many stupid people at the same time in the same place could reach the critical level of doltishness necessary to form a maroon hole. And a maroon hole of sufficient power and notoriety, sucking intelligence from the surrounding area, gaining airheadedness inexorably, might absorb all the smarts in existence. The universe would enter a Diane Sawyer-like state from which it might never emerge.

Indeed, such a catastrophe was narrowly averted last year. When President Obama cited the latest drought in California as proof of “climate change,” dimwittedness in the Hilton ballroom hit such a level that it began to siphon intellectual capacity from outside the room. Waiters elsewhere in the hotel began forgetting to pick up their tips.

Fortunately, it was at that moment that three celebrities returned from bathroom breaks, instantly raising the average intelligence and averting disaster. The formation of a maroon hole was staved off, and the universe may have been saved, by the presence of Crystal the Capuchin monkey, star of The Hangover: Part II, who was the guest of The Washington Times, and prominent Washington cockroaches Klxchrpppt and Shikkakkx, who crashed the event to promote their new reality show.

Could a catastrophe occur Saturday night?

Have you seen the list of attendees??

Nothing can protect you from a maroon hole of sufficient size, but it’s possible to survive a small one if you’re lucky and protect yourself, even if, like me, you’re just a few blocks away when they gather at the Hilton for the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

If you ever wondered why I wear a tinfoil helmet on the last Saturday evening of April—well, the reason is: “Just in case.”


Share this post!

Labor Watch April 2016: Unions Fear the Trump Threat: A billionaire businessman shows how working-class voters might be pulled away from the Left


Unions Fear the Trump Threat
A billionaire businessman shows how working-class voters might be pulled away from the Left
by Steven J. Allen [PDF here]

Summary: Whether or not Donald Trump wins the Republican presidential nomination, the reaction to his candidacy among working-class Americans shows that voters in union households are no longer a “safe” constituency for Democrats. A Republican presidential nominee who makes a sincere, savvy appeal to workers—whether that nominee is Trump or someone else—may be able to create a profound shift in the American political landscape.

For decades, Republicans have failed to make significant cracks in the united Democratic front presented by the nation’s unions. At least 30 percent of union members usually vote for GOP candidates, and Mitt Romney in 2012 received 40 percent of the vote cast by union households, but the unions themselves—with their wealthy and otherwise political formidable machines—support Democrats almost exclusively.

If Donald Trump is the Republican nominee for president this year—or if the nominee is someone who, like Trump, is seen by many voters as a champion of the working class—there may be a major change in voting patterns of union members and their families. Could such a shift be so profound that it would threaten unions’ alliance with the Left? This is a prospect that puts fear into the hearts of union leaders who, since the 1990s, have moved their focus away from improving their members’ wages, benefits, and working conditions, in order to promote instead an agenda rooted in left-wing Political Correctness.

Republicans face danger mixed with political opportunity: the possibility that, even as blue-collar workers and “Trump Democrats” gravitate toward the GOP—perhaps putting states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota into play in the Electoral College—other voters will be repelled by Trump himself or by a Trump-type message.
Unions aren’t taking any chances. They’re already moving to counter the Trump threat.
Worry in San Diego
On the last weekend in February, union leaders gathered in San Diego to discuss a report analyzing the reasons that “white” members of the working class were turning to Trump. The report, Fighting Right-Wing Populism, was prepared by Working America, the AFL-CIO’s affiliate that reaches out to politically likeminded people who can’t or won’t join unions.

Founded in 2003, Working America is headed by Karen Nussbaum. According to the watchdog website Discover the Networks, Nussbaum in the late 1960s was a member of a support group for the violent, racist Black Panther Party. In 1970, she participated in a “Venceremos Brigade,” a group of young people who traveled to Cuba in support of the government of that country’s murderous dictator, Fidel Castro. She described [For the rest of the article, click HERE.]


Share this post!

The Great Green Fleet, chicken fat, and Hillary Rodham


[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]


Remember when Dylan sang at Clinton’s first inaugural [in 1993] in front of the Lincoln Memorial as fighter jets flew overhead in battle formation? Actor-activist Ron Silver saw those jets roar across the sky, and, recalling the ’60s days of rage in that same place, he was troubled. But (after all, he was invited) it soon passed. A sudden realization reconciled him to the scene: “Those are our planes now,” he thought.

– Thomas de Zengotita in Harper’s magazine

When the Left is put in charge of the military, don’t be surprised when the military starts to reflect leftwing values.

Many ideas for saving energy or for getting energy from alternative sources may have merit. It may be a good idea, say, to use roll-up solar blankets to power Marines’ GPS devices in Afghanistan, or to coat the hulls of ships with “anti-fouling” coatings to reduce drag from barnacles. But when the armed forces are required to carry out an agenda based on ideology, rather than science and logistics and the needs of the military, how can we be sure that any given policy is in furtherance of national security rather than politics?

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) once noted the trade-offs involved in “imposing a green agenda on the Department of defense”: “Which would you rather have? Would you rather spend $4 billion on Air Force Base solar panels, or would you rather have 28 new F-22s or 30 F-25s or modernized C-130s? Would you rather have $64.8 billion spent on pointless global warming efforts or would you rather have more funds put towards modernizing our fleet of ships, aircrafts and ground vehicles to improve the safety of our troops and help defend our nation against the legitimate threats that we face?”

The Obama administration has its priorities straight, unfortunately—using the armed forces to promote environmentalist projects like the Great Green Fleet.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, a former governor of Mississippi and ambassador to Saudi Arabia, declared in 2009 that one of his goals was the creation of the GGF, a carrier strike group that would run on “sustainable” forms of energy—actually, a combination of nuclear power and biofuel/standard fuel blends. (The term “sustainable energy,” which is ill-defined and inaccurate, generally refers to forms of energy not based on carbon.)

By the standard definition, a carrier strike group includes an aircraft carrier and the ships and planes that travel with it: at least one cruiser, a destroyer squadron of at least two destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. It may also include submarines, attached logistics ships, and a supply ship. There are currently 11 carriers—accordingly, 11 such groups—in the U.S. Navy.

The carrier strike group was dubbed the Great Green Fleet in reference to President Theodore Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet, which included 16 battleships and circled the world in 1907-09 to demonstrate that the United States had become a major power on the world’s seas.

The GGF sailed in July 2012 during the RIMPAC (Rim of the Pacific) exercise, the world’s largest international maritime warfare exercise, conducted with U.S. allies such as Australia, Canada, and Japan. The carrier, USS Nimitz, was nuclear powered. Otherwise, the group ran on a 50/50 mix of petroleum and biofuel derived from cooking oil and algae. The group is set to deploy fully this year.

Government officials openly proclaim that the GGF is intended to promote the biofuel industry. National Defense magazine reported in 2009: “Mabus is confident that if the Navy and Marine Corps create a demand for biofuels, the market will respond by increasing production and lowering costs.” Mabus said, “A lot of these fuels are already out there. But there’s no demand for them. . . . I’m hoping that by providing demand, it will incentivize industry.” That’s the standard rationale for crony capitalism, that, if the government declares winners and losers in a rigged marketplace—if it decides who gets rich and who goes broke—the benefits will eventually trickle down to the rest of society.

Continue reading →

Share this post!

Convention rules, ’splained

GOP 2012

[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

Your cheatin’ heart
Will pine some day
And crave the love
You threw away
The time will come
When you’ll be blue
Your cheatin’ heart will tell on you…

  • Hank Williams

Don’t kid yourself. Members of the Republican Establishment intend to steal the presidential nomination for one or their own, and they have the power to do it. The only thing that would stop them is the price they could pay when voters figure out what they’d done.

That’s why, in a March 16 interview with leftwing CNN personality Chris Cuomo, Donald Trump predicted that, if he were unfairly denied the Republican nomination, there would be trouble. “I think we’ll win before getting to the convention, but I can tell you, if we didn’t and if we’re 20 votes short or if we’re, you know, 100 short and we’re at 1,100 and somebody else is at 500 or 400, because we’re way ahead of everybody. I don’t think you can say that we don’t get it automatically. I think you’d have riots. I think you’d have riots. You know, I’m representing a tremendous—many, many millions of people, in many cases first time voters.”

Among the Trump-deranged, his remark set off a firestorm. Well, not literally a firestorm. I mean the term “firestorm” metaphorically, like when Trump said “riots.” He meant that his supporters would get very upset, justly so, if it appeared that the party elite stole the nomination and corruptly denied Trump his shot at the presidency. By “shot,” I do not mean literally that he or anyone else would shoot at anyone. Whew. When you’re dealing with people as stupid and/or corrupt as the Hillaryites, the RINOs, and most of the Washington commentariat, you really have to watch your language. I don’t mean “watch” literally, of course… Oh, never mind.

It’s a good thing Trump didn’t say, “Hell would break lose.” If he had, his critics would be demanding that those in charge of security in Cleveland engage the services of exorcists.


Legal cheating

This effort by the Republican Establishment to win the nomination one way or the other, by hook or by crook, has been in the works a long time. Jeb Bush, speaking in December 2014 at the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council dinner, outlined his vision of a winning strategy for a Republican campaign in 2016, that a candidate would have to “lose the primary to win the general, without violating your principles. It’s not an easy task, to be honest with you.”  At the time, the statement didn’t seem to make sense. If you lose the primary campaign, you won’t be on the ballot in the general election, so how can you “lose the primary to win the general”?

Continue reading →

Share this post!

Labor Watch March 2016: PATCO’s Revenge: Capitol Hill cronyism may give the air traffic controllers what they always wanted


PATCO’s Revenge
Capitol Hill cronyism may give the air traffic controllers what they always wanted [PDF here]
by Steven J. Allen

UPDATE: After this article went to press, this happened:
ATC Privatization Bill Thrown Out
FAA maintains control over air traffic control, for now.
By Pia Bergqvist

A sigh of relief could be heard last week by many in the aviation industry as the bill that, if passed by Congress, would have privatized air traffic control was tossed out. At least for now. ATC privatization has been a high priority for the Committee’s chairman, Bill Shuster, who is known to be closely linked with Airlines for America, an organization in favor of privatizing ATC services. A4A’s president and CEO Nicholas Calio has worked for years with Shuster to transfer air traffic services away from the FAA, claiming that the agency is incapable of putting through NextGen, the modernization of the air traffic control system. General aviation alphabet groups lobbied heavily against the bill as the suggested not-for-profit ATC services organization would have been governed by an airline-centric board and funded by user fees. With the FAA funding running out at the end of March, a temporary extension is expected soon while the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee drafts a new FAA reauthorization bill.

  • Robert Poole, Searle Freedom Trust Fellow and director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation, responded to this article. Click HERE for the response. 

Here’s the article from the March Labor Watch:

Summary: Momentum is building behind a fake “privatization” of air traffic control proposed by a second-generation congressman whose family is notorious in Washington for wheeling and dealing and for extremely close relationships with lobbyists. The scheme would create a “Fannie Mae of the Air” authority that would be insulated from public accountability and beholden to a powerful union—a union that Ronald Reagan faced down in one of the most consequential political fights of the 20th Century.

In 1981, the air traffic controllers union, PATCO, went on strike and held hostage the safety of the flying public. President Reagan fired the controllers and broke the union. It was a pivotal moment, arguably altering the course of history at home and abroad. Now, Washington politicians and lobbyists, testing the bounds of ethical behavior, are working feverishly to create an unaccountable, special-interest-controlled monopoly “corporation” to run the nation’s air traffic control system—one that would give the controllers’ union the deal of a lifetime.

Straddling the realms of federal and private-sector employment, the controllers would get the benefits of both—high salaries and pensions, government-level job protection, and an end to the ban on strikes.

Call it PATCO’s Revenge.

Controllers strike!
Air traffic controllers are, in the most-cited definition, “people trained to maintain the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic in the global air traffic control system.” In the popular mind, they’re the people, often ensconced in towers at airports, responsible for making sure that airplanes don’t fly into each other.

In the U.S., the Army and the Post Office developed radio-based systems that led to the nation’s first Air Traffic Control (ATC) tower, regulating the movement of planes at a specific airport in Cleveland in 1930. Soon, ATC grew into systems regulating air traffic from departure to destination, beginning with the first Air Route Traffic Control Center in Newark in 1935. By the 1950s, radar was in use to control airspace around major airports.

The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) was founded as a professional association in 1968 with the assistance of attorney F. Lee Bailey, who was famed for the Sam Sheppard and Boston Strangler cases and, later, for the Patty Hearst and O.J. Simpson cases. From the beginning, PATCO made trouble, declaring “Operation Air Safety” on July 3, 1968, a work-to-the-rule protest in which controllers adhered strictly to established standards for keeping aircraft separated. That led to significant delays.

The Federal Aviation Agency (now Administration) agreed to a voluntary payroll deduction for PATCO dues, on condition that the group remain a professional association. But in January 1969, the U.S. Civil Service Commission declared PATCO to be a union instead. In June, PATCO conducted a three-day protest in which many members called in sick, it being illegal for government workers to strike. In March 1970, another “sick-out” involved a reported [Click HERE for the rest of the article]

Share this post!

“A special place in hell”


[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, introducing Hillary Clinton at an event the Saturday before the New Hampshire primary, noted that “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

In the primary, Bernie Sanders beat Clinton by 11 points among women.

The New Hampshire result came as a disappointment to the Clinton campaign, which hoped to garner votes based on Secretary Clinton’s gender. She is certainly a strong advocate on women’s issues—supporting taxpayer-funded sex-selection abortions, which target little girls; backing Obamacare, which forces a 60-year-old woman working behind the counter at McDonald’s to pay for the birth control of a 30-year-old soon-to-be-millionaire graduate of Georgetown Law; and working to install regimes in North Africa and the Middle East that subjugate and sexually mutilate women. (WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, of all people, noted correctly that she “set back women’s rights in the Middle East by hundreds of years.”)

She has served as a role model for certain feminists by riding her estranged husband’s coattails into the halls of power while smearing his sexual-abuse victims as whores, trailer trash, and members of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy. A self-described “Progressive,” she supported the Iraq War and the bailout of Wall Street millionaires, and she pledged to undo the First Amendment in order to protect herself from criticism. (The pro-First Amendment decision in Citizens United, she said on New Hampshire Primary night, must be overturned; it was, she said, a travesty because it allowed “a right-wing attack on me and my campaign.”)

She has advanced gender equality by proving that a woman in politics can be as corrupt as any man—with the “commodities deal” scheme for laundering payoffs from polluters… the Whitewater deal (selling people real estate they couldn’t afford, repossessing the properties, repeating the process)… the apparent mass collection of information, suitable for use in blackmail, from Republicans’ FBI files… Clinton flunkies’ role in the sale of missile technology to China… the granting of presidential pardons based apparently on political considerations and cash… the Benghazi deception (silencing critics of radical Islam while leading voters in 2012 to believe wrongly that Al Qaeda was “on the run”)… the theft of at least 66,000 government e-mails (and the storage of those e-mails, containing some of our country’s most precious life-or-death secrets, in a way that made them readily available to our country’s enemies)… and the “speaking fees” (ha!) that made Hillary and Bill and Chelsea ultra-rich. In the eight years prior to her presidential run, which included Hilary’s time as secretary of state, the Clintons raked it in at an average of almost $350,000 a week. Politico reported last September: “She earns more for a 20-minute speech to an industry trade group than a dozen fast-food workers make in a year.”

Continue reading →

Share this post!

Bernie Sanders, ox, gets gored

[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

So, Sanders voters…

Tell us again how vote fraud is just something that Republicans make up.


Of course, this is not the first time that a party’s corrupt Establishment wing has done this.


Share this post!