…several moderate Democrats opposed the card-check provision as undemocratic.

.

Even in the new world order of Barry “I won” Sorrento?
…Radicals…

The Methodology of Subversion
And the Undermining of Liberty.

The other day Dr. Zero posted a thoughtful, well reasoned essay extolling the virtues of Big Business versus Big Government on one of my favorite sites, HotAir. The argument posited by Dr Zero is one of a battle that has raged across the planet since the turn of the last century. However, the American left has recognized that it has already lost (with the exception of FDR’s New Deal policies) that argument, and has subtlety adapted and moved on.

In doing so he fall’s victim of the old adage of “generals are always fighting the last war” and is guilty of the strategic mistake of not recognizing the precise nature of our opponents today. The former proponents of bolshevist ideology nor longer shun big business, indeed they have ingeniously embraced it and have successfully infiltrated its ranks.

Thus Dr. Zero has missed the forest for the trees, and while directs his fire in the right direction, he misses the mark. Although he touches briefly on Ayn Rand’s philosophy when he cites her in, “When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other.” Other than this, he fails to grasp her uncanny discernment that the struggle is no longer so much purely political as it is philosophical. Later in this piece I will draw heavily upon Miss Rand’s insights.

When Obama foisted the demands of labor upon the captains of industry, backed by his bully pulpit of government and bribery of promises of State supplied advantages over their competitors, he merged their respective interests. This combined the political power of the two and consolidated it with the State. This confluence of a power trifecta between big labor, big business and big government enables Obama in his collectivist quest against individualism. As was so precisely described and ably predicted by Miss Rand in her writings. This is Barack Obama in the role of Wesley Mouch in Atlas Shrugged.

You might think that such heavy handed tactics by Obama might raise howls of protest from our press. But of protest we hear nary a peep, indeed the administration is so confident that it has effectively co-opted our Fourth Estate, that it feels it can threaten to use it as the club wielded by that heavy hand.

Ayn Rand illustrated how this political power and influence over the media is promulgated by a barrage of advisory bodies whose consultation is called upon to fill air-time. Associations of so and so, panels on such and such, & councils for this, that, and the other, these are our modern 527’s. Like People for the American Way, Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org and their sister affiliations, these tax-exempt entities which so inundate our political discourse today sway public opinion to their nefarious political ends. The profusion of which was also foreseen by Miss Rand. This is George Soros in the role of Ellsworth Toohy in The Fountainhead.

Now this veritable cacophony of voices spews forth from our media outlets daily with assurances that, in critical times such as these, action must be taken. That in the interest of the greater good, that sacrifices have to be made. That the emergency is so dire, to put aside our selfish self-interests and answer calls to service of our fellow man. Yet again eerily reminiscent of Ayn Rand’s novels. This invites Rand’s assertion that we need, “just listen to any prophet and if you hear speak of sacrifice-run. Run faster than from a plague. It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.”

Hard as it is to accept, that a Randian vision of our country could come to pass is no longer a matter of speculation, but fact. In a truly Orwellian fashion of inverting wisdom, the Obama/Soros axis has taken Ayn Rand’s warnings of collectivist concentrations of power, turned them on their head and are used them as a template for our governance!

Andy Stern
Mark Rudd
Bill Ayers
Beanadine Dohrn
Steve Tappis
Paul Booth
Marilyn Katz
Howie Machtlinger
Tom Hayden
Todd Gitlin
Wade Rathke
Dale Rathke
Carl Davidson
Arlene Bergman
Mike Klonsky
Jim Jacobs
Bruce Rubenstien
Carl Oglesby
…AND COUNTING! All these former seditious enemies of the state were part of the SDS/Weathermen. People who actively campaigned to overthrow our Democratic Republic have been handed the keys to D.C. These goons are now blithely traipsing through the corridors power, with proven enemies at the helm how long can our ship of state stay afloat?

!SOS!
!Wake up America!

…and all the dimwits who voted them into office.

They are ruining my country!

Follow me on this. If the Federal Government can impose binding arbitration on companies, why not just set wages without arbitration? We already have a Pay Czar. Why should he be limited to arbitrarily setting only executive salaries when he could regulate everyone’s salary?

If the government decides to give itself the power to set all wages in all businesses, and to also impose State approved benefits (like National Health Care), then the “need” for unions is gone.

Someone will same that Obama would never turn on the Unions because they contribute lots of money to him. But why should he settle for “lots of money” when he can take them over and seize ALL their money! Obama has already given the UAW most of Chrysler and much of GM and it should be clear by now that Obama thinks he owns any company, business or State that has taken money from him the Federal Government.

A lot of people/groups support Obama because they think that they will gain from his policies. They don’t understand that sooner or later Obama will run out of conservatives whose wealth he can confiscate tax, and then he will turn on his own, one after the other.

Who will he turn on first?

Emanuel to Stern: “Shhh! You can’t say that yet!”

Update: Andy Stern claims that this is just a dodge to avoid the filibuster, and that the card-check clause will return in the conference version of the bill:

Of course, we wouldn’t want congress to be voting on the actual bill – what kind of precedent would that set?

but they won’t always have Barack Obama in the Oval Office, either.

Don’t make sweeping statements like that

Update: Andy Stern claims that this is just a dodge to avoid the filibuster, and that the card-check clause will return in the conference version of the bill:

“As we have said from day one, majority sign-up is the best way for workers to have the right to choose a voice at their workplace. The Employee Free Choice Act is going through the usual legislative process, and we expect a vote on a majority sign-up provision in the final bill or by amendment in both houses of Congress.”

This is highly unethical.

They should filibuster the bill anyway and kill it because of this twit’s actions.

I stand corrected. You’re right – it was the Wagner Act.
As for repeal, the only laws I recall being repealed in my lifetime were the 55 mph national speed limit and the automatic seatbelt law.

guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 1:41 PM

It’s a pity that the constitution didn’t prohibit the government recognition of unions, but I’m not sure unions really existed in the modern sense at the time.

Just a normal day in the Beltway!!

…but I guess a repeal of the Wagner Act too much to ask.

Count to 10 on July 17, 2009 at 1:18 PM

I stand corrected. You’re right – it was the Wagner Act.
As for repeal, the only laws I recall being repealed in my lifetime were the 55 mph national speed limit and the automatic seatbelt law.

“In these difficult times, we feel it would be a mistake to undergo a change in leadership in the Presidency, therefore….”

Bishop on July 17, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Broken off at “therefore” as the presidential bunker is taken over in a coup.

But you’ve got to enjoy the schadenfreude…teachers unions and other unions seeing their pensions nose dive because the UAW is more equal than other unions in Obamareich’s bankruptcy proceedings.

Laura in Maryland on July 17, 2009 at 1:22 PM

Very true!

What is the ruling that ever allowed this and what possible argument could they have given?

Wasn’t a ruling. It was a law: the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Unconstitutional, unless you believe the Commerce Clause gives Congress almost unlimited powers.

But it was a Roosevelt initiative; he had nothing but contempt for the Constitution.

I’ll be amazed if they don’t fix the next election and change the constitution to get him a few more terms.
Griz on July 17, 2009 at 1:29 PM

“In these difficult times, we feel it would be a mistake to undergo a change in leadership in the Presidency, therefore….”

Maybe not forever but for the next 20 years. Barry’s a natural born dictator. I’ll be amazed if they don’t fix the next election and change the constitution to get him a few more terms.

If you ever hear a union lawyer talk, you will always hear them say, “But the union has alredy compromised on many issues already.”

I have nothing against union members and don’t begrudge them the ability to collectively bargin for better wages. I am just worried that unions in general will undermine the competitiveness of the United States. If this bill results in more unions in the United States, it will then translate into less private sector jobs (because unions make private sector firms less competitive in the market) and more public sector jobs (because government is very difficult, if not impossible, to shrink).