Barack Obama Was A Foreign Student – American Media Threatened into Silence | Western Journalism.com

Joe Arpaio speaking 2 SC Barack Obama Was A Foreign Student   American Media Threatened into Silence

On March 7th, 2012, Pravda called out the U.S. press for its deliberate neglect of the largest scandal in modern American history. Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio released credible forensic evidence that Barack Obama, presumed President of the United States, presented to the world a forged Birth Certificate on April 27th, 2011.

Since then, the scandal has only expanded. Former United States Postal Service worker Allen Hulton has recently come forward with compelling testimony given under Oath, which leads to only one conclusion: Barack Obama attended College in the United States as a Foreign Student.

In the summer of 2008 the presidential primary season was winding down, and America could not help but note the fervor a significant number of media personalities expressed while supporting the candidacy Barack Obama. Indeed, it was collectively decided within the liberal media, that Obama’s associations with racist pastors and violent domestic terrorists was to be suppressed.

The exposure of the “Journolist” email scandal in 2010 made this glaringly clear: Stories like Obama’s ties to Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. of the Trinity United Church, and more relevant, to Bill Ayers and his radical past in the Weather Underground Organization were to remain largely un-reported and uninvestigated. Any realistic investigation into Barack Obama’s background was to be minimized, inquiries eventually mocked, and investigators labeled racists.
These tactics have isolated honest media who could and should have reported on these and other important stories yet have inexplicably remained silent. Now we know why. More on this in a moment.

The Postman
Retired United States Postal Worker Allen Hulton recently signed a sworn affidavit for the Maricopa County, Arizona Cold Case Posse convened by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, attesting under oath, to conversations with Mary Ayers, the mother of Bill Ayers. He made his testimony public in a three hour long taped interviewed on March 19th, 2012. Mr. Hutton, by signing an affidavit has subjected himself to laws regarding perjury, not something to be taken lightly as telling the truth is now for him a requirement of law.

His testimony states Mary and Tom Ayers (Parents of Bill ”I don’t regret setting bombs” Ayers) were sponsoring Barack Obama as a foreign student, and financially supporting his education.

This is a huge revelation on not one, but two separate fronts.

Bill Ayers of dubious “Weatherman” fame, was not just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood”, as then candidate Obama brushed aside. The video linked here comes from a televised DNC Debate in the summer of 2008. As Hillary Clinton revealed then, Obama served in a paid position on the Woods Foundation with Bill Ayers and the two were involved in several projects dispersing millions of dollars over several years.

Realistically, the Ayers family could be said to have adopted Barack Obama, if not as a son then certainly as a kindred Marxist spirit, and treated him to one of the finest educations possible.

There is little doubt Mr. Obama has been less than honest with regard to the Ayers family and their significance in his life.
As disingenuous as this is, it is by no means the most important revelation.

If correct, and Obama was introduced to Hulton as a Foreign Student, this means Barack Hussein Obama would have been using a Foreign Passport to get and prove his foreign student status for entrance into Occidental College, Columbia, and later Harvard Universities. Because Hulton has signed an Affidavit, this cannot be disregarded as mere hearsay; it is instead evidentiary in nature.

The significance of this development may not be immediately apparent until one recognizes American law regarding citizenship status. Citizenship laws as expressed in Title 8 of the United States Code states the use of a Foreign Passport constitutes adult recognition of relinquishment of American Citizenship:
8 USC 1481

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; 8 USC 1481

Using a foreign passport in order to obtain status as a foreign student is precisely that, proof of naturalization in a foreign state.

The child Barack Obama became an Indonesian Citizen when he was adopted by his stepfather Lolo Soetoro and the family’s subsequent relocation to Indonesia.

Young Barack by law needed Indonesian Citizenship in order to attend school, and his adoption provided this. Indeed, in young Barack’s situation adoption was necessary to gain it.

In his defense, Obama supporters have claimed for years if the president had lost his American Citizenship as a child, he did not in fact lose it because the actions of a parent cannot permanently remove a child’s American natural born citizenship status. This fallacious argument once had some validity within the confusing morass that is American Citizenship law, the nature of which is a challenge for immigration attorneys even today.

However, Hulton’s story and sworn affidavit would confirm that Barack Obama renounced what American citizenship status he had as an adult over the age of 18, by attending college as a foreign student using a foreign passport.

This would explain the president’s refusal to release his college records. These records will easily prove or disprove his status as a Foreign Student. This is the importance of U.S. Postal worker Allen Hulton’s testimony. Unless Obama formally renounced that foreign citizenship, there is the distinct possibility he is not an American Citizen, let alone a Natural Born Citizen.

In reality, due to his father’s British heritage, Mr. Obama was never a Natural Born Citizen to begin with, and admitted precisely this on his “Fight the Smears” website, stating that he was born under the British Nationality Act of 1948. This website “http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/” has since been removed from the live internet to re-direct to Attackwatch.com “http://www.attackwatch.com/”. Clearly Mr. Obama has relied upon confusing the American people as much as possible in order to make the truth as difficult as possible to ascertain.

Selective Service Fraud

Equally unreported by the U.S. media is that of the Selective Service Card which registered Barack Obama for the Draft in 1980. Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse released information on March 1st 2012 that this document is also “Highly Suspicious” of being a forgery, along with Mr. Obama’s “Long Form Birth Certificate” which was released by the president in the White House press room on April 27th, 2011.

One of the few media outlets reporting fully on the Cold Case Posse is the Tea Party Tribune of Arizona. On March 21st, the Tribune reported that Sheriff Arpaio has asked the Selective Service headquarters in Virginia for the original card itself in an effort to determine its authenticity within the Selective Service System. According to the Tribune, Sheriff Arpaio expressed his confidence that the agency would investigate the matter. This remains to be seen.
Has the wider American media addressed any of this in context? It may be the largest scandal in American history, certainly the most significant constitutional crisis the nation has faced since the end of the Civil War…

No.

They don’t dare.

Censorship: It is not a rumor.

Amendment I
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment will not prevent a few thugs funded by a private citizen or corporation from paying strategic individuals personal visits though, will it? Now we know why the remaining honest media has remained suspiciously silent.

Rumors of censorship of the American press have circulated at various times over the last several years. It seemed impossible that credible and realistic questions could exist concerning Barack Obama’s qualifications for President, yet be somehow missed by the main stream media. Indeed, the media in general is very aware of these questions, however they cannot ask them, let alone report on them. Just one example is Media Matters, funded by the George Soros Foundation, which has repeatedly and openly threated Talk Radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and his advertisers. Many have given in to the threats merely to stay in business.
In late May 2011 Dr. Jerome Corsi PhD. published “Where’s the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President”. At about the same time, a concerted behind the scenes effort was made to silence the press with regard to the ever increasing questions about Barack Obama’s eligibility.

A telephone interview March 22nd with Cold Case Posse Lead investigator Mike Zullo revealed the Posse had received “highly credible” information from three separate, unrelated, credible sources detailing information regarding a nationally syndicated Conservative Talk Radio show. This major very well-known host had a fill-in the day the script called for a discussion of Barack Obama’s persistent and unanswered questions regarding his citizenship status.

The executive producers of the national show, 3 hours before air time, pulled the script literally leaving the temporary host with no script whatsoever.
For a nationally syndicated show, this is absolutely unheard of, particularly with a fill-in doing the show. Programing is scheduled days in advance as hours of work and preparation often go into them; it is after all a business and one which must inform accurately. To have a script tossed just hours before airing is simply not done without explanation or substitution.

Lead Investigator Zullo revealed in this conversation that several individuals have come forth to provide testimony; the identity of these witnesses is being withheld for their protection. They identify producers, reporters, T.V. and radio personalities who have been told specifically by intimidating individuals who state clearly, they are not going to report on this story. These witnesses have been told: “If you breathe a word about it on air, we will make certain you never work in this business again,” said Investigator Zullo. Apparently those making the threats have the power to carry through on them.

Some of these witnesses have been told this along with a sinister inquiry into how a family member is doing over at XYZ (details have been changed to protect witness identity), or some other means of letting that person know the powers that be know exactly where their family members are…

There are a few however with the courage to speak out and report on this story. Talk radio show host Rodger Hedgecock recently had Sheriff Joe Arpaio on his show. “This is probably the biggest censorship blackout in the history of the United States…” said Arpaio, “Why?” he continued, “Because it has to do with the White House? The President?”.

How can the American media possibly pass on a story so huge, and so important – fraud committed by a sitting president? – Simple, it has quite simply been threatened into silence, and law enforcement is now well aware of it.

Those who are threatening the media are apparently dead serious: to the extent that no member of the media who has been threatened is willing to admit publically to it. However, there are several who have given their witness testimony, but have done so under the very strictest of confidentiality agreements. Collectively they are afraid of losing their jobs, or of their employees being further threatened.

This is no game, this is no rumor. Sheriff Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse have the information directly from witnesses who have specific knowledge of the threats, and there are a significant number of informants. Whoever is making these threats has the power to make those threats happen. It is being taken so seriously that no major media outlet has dared to break the silence.

Lead investigator Zullo, mirroring the comments of Sheriff Arpaio commented, “This is probably one of the most concerning aspects of this investigation.” When asked if this was thuggery, the reply came without hesitation, “That’s exactly what it is.”

Media moguls at the levels of a Rupert Murdoch are justifiably nervous. The implicit threat – beyond the direct threats made to their employees – involve investigations of media outlets along with their websites and their parent companies by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

“During our investigation, we actually were told [that media] had been threatened with FTC investigations. Commentators [had been] threatened with their jobs.” Lead Investigator Zullo told Bob Unruh of World Net Daily on March 7th. These are the auspices of the federal government with the resources of a powerful nation backing them. The justifications for using such power are almost unlimited as RedState pointed out in August of 2011.

These federal agencies can yank broadcasting licenses, or take a variety of other actions which have the effect of making it impossible to do business let alone broadcast. It’s a brutal quid pro quo: don’t breathe a word on Barack Obama’s citizenship issues or constitutional qualifications for the office he has usurped, and we will let you stay in business.

To be brutally clear, the power and backing of the United States Federal Government is being used to silence the press about Barack Obama. Either outright or through coercion, the media is complicit in covering up the crimes of the fraud Barack Obama and his unconstitutional government. These patterns are clear and unmistakable.

Part two of this column will report on 9 State Attorneys General who have taken the unprecedented step of listing the continuing crimes of the Obama Administration with the clear intent to prosecute, which has also received little media attention.

Mrs. Cotter is a senior at American Military University, recipient of the Outstanding Student Essay of 2009, a member of Delta Epsilon Tau and Epsilon Pi Phi Academic Fraternities and on the Dean’s and President’s Lists for academic achievement. She has published at American Thinker, Examiner.com, Accuracy in Media, Family Security Matters, Post and Email, and English Pravda. The author can be contacted at Cotter.d.c@gmail.com, or at DiannaCotter.com

Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.

Read More on this Subject

  1. Forgerygate: Media Threatened With Federal Investigations If Obama Birth Certificate Story Reported Individuals and member organizations of the American media were threatened…
  2. Huckabee On O’Reilly: Did Obama Get Foreign Student Loans In College? … Continue to Post…
  3. IS PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA AN AMERICAN? By Mark Rhoads, Illinois Review The headline above is not…
  4. Obama’s Student Visa Program Undermines American Workers by Joe Guzzardi Khalid Aldawsari, who entered the United States…
  5. Barack Obama’s Cowardly Foreign Policy Liberal critics derided President Bush for engaging in cowboy diplomacy,…

–>

What has happened to our self indulgent “Main Stream” media? Clearly, they are on the take, showing a remarkable, and active, conspiratorial disdain for making the pursuit of Truth a central objective. They have become captives of a Marxist ideology that has proven itself to spawn death, destruction, and tyranny wherever it exists. They have become puppet organizations for subversive elements who are hard at work to tear apart freedom, honor, and the spirit that makes America special in the world.

President Obama Moves Left;- Aims to pilfer from those who save and invest

Media_httpwwwinvestor_thddj

Here’s just one more part of the puzzle the Obama plan. This is just a piece of the puzzle of how he and his minions intend to rob Peter to pay Paul. Taking what is rightfully Peter’s, to ingratiate himself with Paul. Marxism discourages individual effort and encourages slovenly behavior- and ultimately, dependence on the State for your very existence. There is no escape.

GOP Lawmakers Challenge White House On ‘Scientific Misconduct’ | Fox News

U.S. Senate – POLITICS

GOP Lawmakers Challenge White House on ‘Scientific Misconduct’

Published October 20, 2011

| FoxNews.com

  • John Holdren, Science Czar

    AP

    ** FILE ** In this Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2007 file photo, John Holdren, professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, speaks at the Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy presentations in Pittsburgh. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)

Several Republican lawmakers are challenging the Obama administration’s science czar over what they claim are repeat incidents of “scientific misconduct” among agencies, questioning whether officials who deal with everything from endangered species to nuclear waste are using “sound science.” 

The letter sent Wednesday to John Holdren, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, cited four specific controversies in recent years where scientific findings were questioned. Sens. David Vitter, R-La., and James Inhofe, R-Okla., and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., rattled off a slew of questions on what they called “the apparent collapse in the quality of scientific work being conducted at our federal agencies.” 

  • inhofe_james_020911.jpg

    Feb. 9, 2011: Sen. James Inhofe testifies on Capitol Hill.

“Specifically, we are concerned with data quality, integrity of methodologies and collection of information, agencies misrepresenting publicly the weight of scientific ‘facts,’ indefensible representations of scientific conclusions before our federal court system, and our fundamental notions of ‘sound’ science,” they wrote. “We identify in this letter important examples of agency scientific misconduct.”

Inhofe spokesman Matt Dempsey told FoxNews.com the issues in the letter had been on Republicans’ radar screen “for some time.” But he said the lawmakers decided to compile them and confront the administration about it out of concern that a “trend” was developing. 

“The concern is there’s a lot more there,” he said. 

White House representatives so far have not returned requests for comment on the letter. 

The Republicans’ letter cycles through several incidents the lawmakers claim to be troubling. 

One concerned the controversy over a temporary deepwater drilling moratorium was issued in May 2010. In the announcement, the Interior Department said the report’s recommendations had been “peer-reviewed” by experts with the National Academy of Engineering. But those experts later complained, saying the moratorium was not among their approved recommendations — this led to an apology from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar

Interior officials later told the inspector general’s office probing the incident they did not intend to imply those experts supported the drilling ban. 

The GOP lawmakers, though, said the incident shows “blatant political influence” in the decision making. 

The lawmakers also questioned an EPA assessment on the dangers posed by formaldehyde — the National Research Council earlier this year claimed the assessment did not adequately back up some of its claims, including claims that the chemical causes leukemia and respiratory tract cancers. 

In another case, the lawmakers highlighted the scolding a federal judge gave the Fish and Wildlife Service last month over testimony in defense of a plan to protect a tiny fish called delta smelt by diverting water in California away from farmland. U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger said the testimony was “riddled with inconsistency.” 

In their letter, the lawmakers focused most on concerns about the 2009 decision to pull the plug on the controversial Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site in Nevada. The project years in the making faced heavy opposition in Nevada. 

Energy Secretary Steven Chu in 2009 said the project was simply not a “workable option.” In early 2010, the department withdrew its license application for the site, and moved instead to impanel a commission to look at alternative sites. A department filing at the time noted that scientific knowledge on nuclear waste had “advanced dramatically” in the 20 years since the project started. 

But the Government Accountability Office said in an April report the DOE did not cite “technical or safety issues” in its decision. 

“Amid uncertainty over whether it had the authority to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository program, DOE terminated the program without formally assessing the risks stemming from the shutdown, including the possibility that it might have to resume the repository effort,” the report said. 

A June report from Republicans on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee also said the panel could not find a “single document” to support claims that Yucca Mountain is unsafe for nuclear waste. 

Not all Republicans are united in backing the Yucca site, however. 

It’s a sensitive issue in Nevada, and at the Republican presidential debate in Las Vegas Tuesday night top GOP candidates said the federal government should not be sticking Nevada with the waste. 

“The idea that 49 states can tell Nevada, ‘We want to give you our nuclear waste,’ doesn’t make a lot of sense,” former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said. 

For the incidents cited in the letter to Holdren, the lawmakers asked for more information about how the alleged missteps occurred and what the administration intends to do about them. 

Though Inhofe is best known on the scientific front for challenging climate change science and the regulations that emerge from it, the letter did not specifically address climate change. 

But in a separate letter, the Competitive Enterprise Institute on Tuesday sent a Freedom of Information Act request to Holdren’s office asking for records on coordination between his office and the United Nations climate change panel. 

In a statement, the group charged that a U.N. plan would “hide” online correspondence by using non-governmental accounts. CEI urged the White House to use official email channels.

This administration is filled, packed, and stacked with self described and avowed Socialists and even Marxists who use the cover of “science” to impose a system of job destroying regulation designed to crush American economic potential and ability to defend itself against the sinister hopes and aspirations of enemies within.

» In Shot Heard Around Business World, Obama’s Labor Board Issues Complaint Against Boeing – Big Government

In Shot Heard Around Business World, Obama’s Labor Board Issues Complaint Against Boeing

by

LaborUnionReport


On Wednesday, President Obama’s union-controlled National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against the Boeing Company that, if ruled in the union and NLRB’s favor, may prove to have far-reaching consequences across the American business landscape. Ultimately, the outcome to this case will state whether or not America has, in fact, become entirely hostile to business (and the jobs they provide). The complaint was issued by the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel (the same one who threatened to sue South Carolina and three other states over the states’ secret-ballot initiatives) and is set to go to hearing on June 14th before an administrative law judge in Seattle.

At issue, according to the NLRB, is whether Boeing violated federal labor law by deciding to transfer a second airplane production line from a union facility in the state of Washington to a non-union facility in South Carolina for “discriminatory reasons.”

Despite the fact that Boeing now employs around 1,000 employees in South Carolina and has spent millions to build a facility, the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel is seeking an order for Boeing to maintain production of the second production line in Washington.

Lafe Solomon, acting general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, has suggested a remedy for Boeing’s actions: that Boeing will maintain a second 787 line in Washington state. The labor board, however, isn’t saying Boeing has to close its South Carolina facility.

We’re not telling them what to do with it,” said Nancy Cleeland, a spokeswoman with the labor board.

Despite the possibility of political retaliation on the part of the Obama NLRB, as well as the possible job losses in South Carolina an eventual NLRB decision may cause, the core principle at stake is whether or not an employer has the right to move business away from a unionized location that has repeatedly been the victim of extortive strikes, causing the employer hundreds of days of lost production, customer delays and billions in revenue.

The Background—

In 1989, the International Association of Machinists engaged in a 48-day strike against Boeing which caused the company to miss orders and resulted in sales being $2 billion less than projected.

In 1995, the IAM struck again—this time lasting 69 days.

In 2005, while not as lengthy as prior strikes, the IAM struck Boeing for four weeks.

In 2008, the IAM struck Boeing for 58 days and cost the company $1.8 billion.

In 2009, with orders for its new 787 having been put in jeopardy Boeing officials began exploring alternatives to having to deal with union strikes every three or four years. One alternative was to talk to the union about obtaining longer contracts with no-strike clauses and the other was to begin searching for location for a second production line outside of the Puget Sound area. It decided to do both.

Boeing entered into discussions with the IAM, something that even the NLRB noted it did not have to do:

The investigation did not find merit to the union’s charge that Boeing failed to bargain in good faith over its decision regarding the second line. Although a decision to locate unit work would typically be a mandatory subject of bargaining, in this case, the union had waived its right to bargain on the issue in its collective bargaining agreement with Boeing.

As Boeing is a huge employer in the Puget Sound, the local media coverage was quite extensive as the talks between the IAM and Boeing were taking place. Eventually, however, the union’s demands in exchange for a long contract (and no strikes) were too great and talks broke down. According to a statement from Boeing:

Boeing had hoped to secure a long-term agreement with a no-strike clause that would ensure production stability for its customers and be cost competitive for the future.  In exchange, however, the IAM insisted upon terms unacceptable to Boeing, including a guarantee that Boeing would place all future commercial airplane production in Puget Sound, and a promise from the company to remain neutral in all IAM union organizing campaigns nationwide. When an agreement with IAM leaders could not be reached, Boeing opted to build the new facility in North Charleston.

Following the decision to expand production to a second line in South Carolina, in March 2010, the IAM filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB alleging, among other things, that Boeing retaliated against union employees for the 2008 strike. [Striking (that is, acting in concert), after all, is a protected right.]

In reviewing the NLRB’s complaint (see in full below), the Acting General Counsel accuses the company’s decision was coercive and is, apparently, basing his decision on five “incidents”—the first “incident” was that a company officer explained the decision on an earnings conference call that was later reported on, as well as posted on Boeing’s intranet site; the second was in a Q&A distributed to managers; and the other three were newspaper reports. All of these “incidents” took place after negotiations with the IAM had broken down and the decision was made. However, because all of them had basic statements explaining the business rationale for locating the production line in South Carolina was to have a “dual sourcing” system to ensure continuity because of past strikes, the NLRB believes that is illegal.

Boeing vows to fight.

Even as Boeing has expanded in South Carolina, it has also added jobs in Puget Sound which seems to undermine the NLRB’s claim that the company’s decision was based on union animus (animosity toward the union) versus sound business judgement. Nevertheless, Boeing has vowed to fight.

“This claim is legally frivolous and represents a radical departure from both NLRB and Supreme Court precedent,” said Boeing Executive Vice President and General Counsel J. Michael Luttig. “Boeing has every right under both federal law and its collective bargaining agreement to build additional U.S. production capacity outside of the Puget Sound region.”

[snip]

Boeing also was critical of the timing of the complaint, which comes a full 17 months after the company announced plans to expand its manufacturing capacity in the United States in South Carolina.  Construction of the factory is nearly complete and the company has hired more than 1,000 new workers.  Final assembly of the first airplane is slated to begin in July.

Boeing has made it clear that none of the production jobs created in South Carolina has come at the expense of jobs in Puget Sound and that not a single union member has been adversely affected.  In fact, IAM employment in Puget Sound has increased by approximately 2,000 workers since the decision to expand in South Carolina was made in October 2009.

Boeing does seem to have well-established law on its side—most notably, several U.S. Supreme Court Cases appear to undermine various components of the NLRB’s complaint (Darlington Mills, First National Maintenance, American Ship Building, as well as NLRB vs Brown)—which makes one wonder whether politics are more at play here.

The Politics of  Pull…

Last November, voters of four states (South Carolina being one of them) voted to ensure the secrecy of their ballots in unionization campaigns. In January, the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel threatened to sue the states if they moved to act on the voter-approves measures to which the Attorneys General for all four states shot back a terse reply. In early February, the Acting General Counsel seemed to back down from his earlier threat.

In January, the newly-elected governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, was sued by the Machinists union after she stated that she was opposed to unions.

Haley, however, is not one to be intimidated by the Machinists or the NLRB. Following the NLRB’s complaint on Wednesday, Haley fired right back:

“This is an absolute assault on a great corporate citizen and on South Carolina’s right-to-work status. We will continue to do everything we can to protect that status, and to stand with companies like Boeing who understand what it means to take care of their employees without the interference of a meddlesome, self-serving union. This bullying will not be tolerated in South Carolina.”

Senator Lindsay Graham [R-SC] issued a blistering statement which also speaks to the broader principles at stake for American businesses (and jobs):

This is one of the worst examples of unelected bureaucrats doing the bidding of special interest groups that I’ve ever seen. In this case, the NLRB is doing the bidding of the unions at great cost to South Carolina and our nation’s economy.

If successful, the NLRB complaint would allow unions to hold a virtual ‘veto’ over business decisions.  Left to their own devices, the NLRB would routinely punish right-to-work states that value and promote their pro-business climates. The current makeup of the NLRB Board has been skewed against business.  This action will not be allowed to stand.

“I would be surprised if any court recognized the legitimacy of this complaint.  It’s pretty easy to see that at its heart, this is about union politics. As Senator, I will do everything in my power, including introducing legislation cutting off funding for this wild goose chase, to stop the NLRB’s frivolous complaint.”

Senator Jim Demint [R-SC] also issued a similar statement with respect to the politics of pull likely at play:

“This is nothing more than a political favor for the unions who are supporting President Obama’s re-election campaign. Unfortunately, it comes at the expense of hundreds of jobs in South Carolina and thousands of jobs nationwide. There is no doubt that if the National Labor Relations Board’s claim against Boeing moves forward, it will have a chilling effect on job growth in my state and in right-to-work states across the country. Using the federal government as political weapon to protect union bosses at the expense of American jobs cannot be tolerated. I intend to use every tool at my disposal as a United States Senator to stop the President from carrying out this malicious act.”

Here is the full NLRB complaint:

_________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

X-posted.

Follow laborunionrpt on Twitter


Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , ,
Posted Apr 21st 2011 at 5:34 am in Big Labor |
Edit

Comments (82)

Continued effort by Government to shift America private enterprise towards a Marxist inspired collective form of economy. A sure “Road to Serfdom” for America.