For many years, one of the most reliable sources of money for the Democratic party was government workers’ unions. But that suffered a major blow last summer with the landmark Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME. The Court ruled that it’s a violation of the First Amendment to force non-union government employees to make dues-type payments to a union that uses them to help elect political candidates that the workers don’t support. Since that ruling, tens of thousands of workers have stopped paying fees to the unions, substantially reducing the amount that union bosses have to spend on electing Democrats.
But when that much money is at stake, someone will always come up with a sneaky way to get around the rules. One such plan is being laid right now in Oregon, with hopes that if they get away with it there, it can be spread to other liberal states.
Under this plan, instead of forcing workers to pay unions directly, the state or local government would divert some money from their pay into a slush fund that would go to the union. As the story at the link explains, instead of paying a worker, say, $50,000 and making him give $1000 to the union, the pay for that job would be reduced to $49,000 and the other $1000 would go directly into the union fund.
There are a lot of problems with this: legal, logistical and (I’m sure this is the least of its creators’ concerns) ethical. Workers would still, in effect, be seeing what should have been their pay go to political causes they might not support. Plus, politicians would be giving money to unions that would use the money to reelect the politicians. When they negotiate contracts, government would represent both labor and management (and nobody would be representing taxpayers. Or Republicans.)
You can read more about this shifty grift at the link. With all the effort that went into concocting this scheme to evade the SCOTUS ruling and the First Amendment, I wonder if anyone ever spent five minutes considering the best way to get workers to want to join a union: represent their interests instead of the Democratic Party’s.
As usual, Jim Treacher at PJ Media manages to be both funny and brutal in getting to the truth of an issue. This time, he explains why, even though he’s never been a Trump supporter, he’s now thinking of buying a MAGA cap just to defy all the leftist loons in the media who’ve been attacking innocent kids, glorifying a liar who slandered them, and claiming that wearing a cap somehow magically makes you a Nazi. Worth mentioning: many of the same people who think that Trump supporters should be banned from wearing provocative headgear like a MAGA cap in public were last seen marching in DC while wearing fake genitalia on their heads.
Excellent point by Monica Showalter at American Thinker: We have an overabundance of leftists in politics and the media who are more than happy to share their thoughts, opinions and organic pasta recipes with us on both mass and social media. Some seem never to have had an unexpressed thought. And yet, they’re being strangely silent about all those Venezuelans who are sick of going without food, medicine, toilet paper or freedom, and who are risking their lives to stand up against their socialist government.
Even Democrats who have Congressional committee posts related to foreign affairs are tweeting about the Middle East, their canceled European junket and, of course, “Russia! Russia! Russia!” But nary a word about the biggest story of the day: the Venezuelan people’s rejection of socialism.
I know, I know: they don’t want to bring “socialism” socialism to America. They want to bring a different, special kind of socialism, the kind that’s as rare as a unicorn with a horn made of Unobtanium: socialism that actually works and leaves everyone happier, healthier and better off!
Yeah, that’s the kind that Hugo Chavez promised to bring to Venezuela, too.
Well, there was one Democrat in Congress who tweeted support for President Maduro, even if it put her on the same side as Vladimir Putin and the oppressive Venezuelan socialism she’s denied supporting. Bet you can’t guess who that was.
Eye-Opening Video: Cabot Phillips of Campus Reform asked students at George Mason University who is to blame for the government shutdown. Their answer: Trump, of course! Then he asked if they’d change their minds if Trump offered a compromise that included things the Democrats say they want, like an extension of protection for DACA recipients. Oh, yeah, if he did that, then the Democrats should for sure take him up on it! And did the students know that he already did do that and Nancy Pelosi rejected the offer before he even made it?...
Click the link to see their reaction to finding out what’s actually been happening instead of what they’ve been led to believe has been happening.
This links to a story involving one of my favorite people in Congress, Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw. He makes the point that this week, the leftist media let their bias lead them into committing four major journalistic blunders, and three of them were “fundamentally anti-Christian.”
While that part of the story is well worth reading and discussing, I want you to visit this link particularly to see the time-lapse video embedded in it. It shows the staggering size of the crowd that turned out for Friday’s March For Life in Washington, DC. That’s relevant because one of Crenshaw’s examples of anti-Christian journalistic malpractice is that the March For Life drew a vastly larger crowd than the next day’s anti-Trump Women’s March. But the Women’s March got approximately 15 times more media coverage.
While you’re making your Super Bowl party plans, remember that if you want Chick-fil-A food in your spread, you’ll need to pick it up the day before. I’m sure they could enjoy a big sales boost if they just stayed open that day. But there’s something more important to Chick-fil-A’s leaders about Super Bowl Sunday than making money. That’s because to them, it’s still “Sunday,” so they will remain closed, as usual. And that even applies to the Chick-fil-A outlet inside the stadium.
Valuable Lesson: When you admit thinking that being “morally right” is more important than being factually accurate, it’s a bad idea to start a public dispute over numbers with Washington’s top fact-checker. It’s sort of like a mouse challenging a whale to a pie-eating contest.
The CEO of Proctor & Gamble, parent company of Gillette, is standing behind and doubling down on that company’s controversial ad that scolds men for being bullies and sexual harassers. At the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, he insisted that there is “an issue with toxic masculinity,” and the video “started a conversation.”
Say, here’s a nifty conversational point: just one week after being released, that Gillette video is already #28 on YouTube’s list of the Top 50 Most Disliked Videos of All Time. If you factor out music videos, which are notoriously polarizing, it’s #12.
Defenders of that spit-in-the-customer's-eye video are trying to turn the negative reaction around by accusing its critics of being hypocrites. They say that if conservatives think men shouldn’t set a good example and not be bullies and sexual harassers, then why are they so touchy about a video that agrees with them, hmmmmm?
That’s a simplistic and distorted response. Of course, most men don’t like bullies and sexual harassers and will stand up against them. But the ad implies that all men share the guilt of the bad apples, and if they’re not shamed for it, most men will just stand around like gawping lumps, flipping burgers on the grill and roboticly repeating, “Boys will be boys.” It shows an incredible level of disrespect for men by a company that makes products it wants men to buy (aside from their razors for women, which as Greg Gutfeld noted, are pink – check your own gender stereotyping, Gillette!)
At this link is perhaps the best rebuttal to that ad I’ve read so far.
It explains not only why so many men find it offensive, but why women who love those men also find it offensive. It’s written by a woman, who was inspired to write it by her dad, whom she thinks really does represent “the best a man can be.” He made her turn the ad off halfway through because he said he didn’t need to be insulted any more.
He doesn’t need a “woke” razor company to tell him how to be a strong, competent, kindhearted, hard-working, God- and family-loving man, because he got those values from places like the Bible, his church and his own dad. He’s spent a lifetime reflecting and passing on those values in countless ways, and the deep love and admiration his daughter feels for him shines out from every paragraph.
Read this. It’s a heartwarming tribute to a real father and an antidote to all the nastiness we’ve endured this week from elitists slandering good Christian Americans they don’t even know. I promise, it will make your day.
LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM!