Yet Another WARNing Sign

Seeking a Way Around
the Law Yet Again

To begin, let's first ask the obvious question(s); why would an incumbent President with a lead in the polls -- and the press in his hip pocket -- need to sweat the details? Why would he need to embarrass himself with the relative triviality of defense employees possibly receiving layoff notices in a matter of weeks with his own grovelling for the notices to be withheld? After all, hasn't he been telling us that the economy "is improving"?

Since it's hard to tell if this administration is ever telling the truth -- and it's led many of us to believe the contrary in the past -- I cannot believe now that the economy is indeed improving. Of course my own eyes have already proven that case for me, but now the Obama team has provided yet more evidence toward that end.

In July of this year, the Labor Department issue a "guidance" to defense contractors saying that it would be "inappropriate" to issue potential layoff notices tied to sequestration. (Sequestration is the automatic budget cuts scheduled to take effect in 2013 as required by the Budget Control Act , or BCA. It was a mechanism designed to trigger on January 1, 2013 in the event that the Congressional supercommittee failed to agree on a $1.2 trillion deficit-reduction package by Nov. 23, 2011).

It's been almost a year and legislators have not reached a deal. Considering that the Senate hasn't even passed a budget since this class has been seated, it's safe to say that they won't get a deal done before Election Day. That leave contractors in a bit of a bind.

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), which took effect in 1989, is designed to protect workers when layoffs or plant closings are imminent by requiring employers to provide 60 days notice to the workers. It would seem that time is running out on the contractors now. Yet, the Obama administration is asking them not to send the notices.

The idea behind the WARN act was to provide workers and their families a cushion, a time to find new work and training for that new work. It was passed by a Democratically-controlled Congress with veto-proof majorities. What's more, in 2007, then-Senator Obama proposed the FOREWARN Act, which would have strengthened the WARN Act by expanding the number of companies under the law’s jurisdiction and requiring 90 days’ notice. While that bill got no where in Congress, it clearly speaks to how much stock Obama puts into the notion.

Now, however, with Election Day rapidly approaching, Obama suddenly doesn't care for the working man as he has claimed. Just this past Friday, September 28th, the Labor Department issued another guidance to contractors, again insisting that the layoff notices not go out. Why? Because Obama does not want those notices to hurt his election chances. He's not so worried about the working man now, is he?

What's even more interesting is this from the American Enterprise Institute:

The WARN Act provides employees a right that is enforced by federal courts, not the Labor Department. Even the Labor Department admits in a WARN Act fact sheet that “it has no administrative or enforcement responsibility under WARN” and therefore “cannot provide specific advice or guidance with respect to individual situations.”

So what is this "guidance" notice all about, then? Well, it seems that the Obama administration is trying to bribe the contractors. See, if the contractors do not send out the layoff notices to employees, then those employees can sue the contractors. What the Labor Department is telling the contractors is that if they follow the guidance -- not to send the notices -- that the Labor Department will pay the fines for them.

Does this sound like the regime of a man who cares about workers' rights? Obama is encouraging the contractors to break a law that he himself sought to bolster a few years ago.

How can anyone trust Obama?

Sphere: Related Content

The President Spells Out Dad's Dreams

Not "Dreams of My Father"

Apparently Barack Hussein Obama is feeling rather confident that his radical ideology is popular with the people, since he is slowly lowering the mask he wears little by little. He may think that he is presenting a choice between left and right ideologies in America, but what he is actually doing is trying to figuratively kill both political disciplines by using one to bludgeon the other.

Perhaps it is yet another sign of his own inexperience in real life, or that of American life more particularly, because while Obama may have captured the adoration of the genuinely lazy and envious, he has managed only to further infuriate Americans who have been for years aggravated and frustrated. And while the left has worked tirelessly for the past five decades to soften the minds of our children through the public school system, we have taught them far more effectively just what it means to be an American, as opposed to merely living here. In short, we as children eventually outgrow the indoctrination as we mature.

This may be precisely why the class warfare rhetoric of Obama and the Democrat Party are failing. The sound bites make for great platitudes, but people quickly see through them and end up shaking their heads. The American people are finally beginning to outgrow the mainstream media and the deceptions utilized by that once-honorable profession as they see the lies and omissions being used to protect a favored candidate.

While the Obama campaign ratchets up the untrue rhetoric against the Romney-Ryan ticket, the ads become nastier, more desperate and increasingly false and hysterical. After nearly four years of the failed leadership of Obama -- combined with the nearly perpetual campaigning by the man who should have been doing the work of the people -- it has become ever more clear to those very people that Obama's vision of the America he sought to transform it into more closely resembles the dreams his father had for Kenya. Or the dreams his surrogate father, Frank Marshall Davis -- and the Kremlin -- had for us.

And on the early campaign trail -- particularly after the selection of Paul Ryan for vice presidential running-mate -- Obama's message not only becomes more shrill, but also more obviously anti-American in tone. In stunning bravado, rather than trying to figuratively "tunnel under" the radar of true patriots, Obama is all but flying the hammer and sickle at campaign rallies.

Consider the state of the economy under the previous administration of George W. Bush for the first six years of a Republican-controlled Congress  compared to the last two years -- 2007 and 2008 -- after the Democrats regained control of both chambers. Also consider the steep downward spiral after the Democrats completed the trifecta by winning the Executive branch.

Then remember whenever Obama says that Republicans want to take us back to the "failed policies of the past", that he is lying because the Republicans don't want that, and that what he is really attacking is his own party's record. The "mess" Obama claims he inherited was made by his own alleged party, the Democrats. (I refuse to lay blame equally on Obama as a member of the Congressional session that convened in 2007 only because he was largely a non-participant.)

Perhaps one of the greatest ironies of all time is this; Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was a socialist Kenyan who loathed the Colonial power of England, and sought to crush their rule at all cost. Obama Jr. wrote of his "Dreams from [His] Father" to wide acclaim. But Junior's main ambition has been to crush the "colonial" rule of the United States of America, which also crushed the colonial rule of England.

A narcissist in power is never a good thing. A confused and inept narcissist is downright dangerous when in control of a nation, especially when it's a nation he loathes. My question is, why can't a single person in the mainstream media realize this?

Not that that matters much now, anyway, as the mainstream media has succeeded in relegating itself to the scrap heap of relevance by its own malfeasance. The people have awakened and are tired of being told on a daily basis to ignore the evidence their own eyes present. The only danger that lies ahead for the future of America is the Obama crowd's realization of their own futility, and how they react to it. It may get very, very ugly.

I think that we, the people, are ready for victory regardless.

Sphere: Related Content

The "Palinization" of Paul Ryan Begins

Wait for it...

Before Mitt Romney even made the official announcement that Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan would be his pick for vice president, the mere speculation was enough to fire up the Liberal punditry and begin the assault. Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker  filed the first attack piece just hours before the news was known, and the hypocrisy of it was instantly apparent.

In the opening paragraph of his piece, Lizza speculates that if the pick is Ryan, Romney will have "made the most daring decision of his political career." Lizza's reason is because he believes that there are many "risks" in a Ryan pick, the most ominous of which is what Lizza cites as Ryan's lack of "significant private-sector experience". (Sarah Palin redux, anyone?).

Lizza sniffs that Ryan's jobs at McDonalds, the family construction business or "waiting tables as a young Washington staffer" are meaningless, as private sector experience goes. He even "worries" aloud that Ryan is a comparable light-weight for the business-savvy Romney. But then Lizza doubles down on absurdity when he also complains of the lightness of Paul Ryan's Washington experience.

As I read the piece, I immediately thought of the comparisons to then-senator Obama in 2008 and his own qualifications to be president of the United States. Obama never had any job, not even at McDonalds, and he was running for POTUS after only 143 days as a U.S. senator. Ryan has been in Congress for fourteen years. Naturally, I wondered how Mr. Ryan Lizza felt about the chances of an even lighter Barack Hussein Obama in 2008.

It didn't take long to find out. I found an article by Lizza  in The New Yorker from July 21, 2008 in which the author took fifteen pages to gush about the rising star of Barack Hussein Obama. Throughout the entire article there is not one bit of evidence that Lizza was concerned over the lack of experience in the candidate to actually become president, yet now he frets that Ryan lacks the experience to be a "potential president". The reasoning behind the absence of Lizza's concern in 2008 is stunning:

Pritzker, whose family, one of the wealthiest in Chicago, owns the Hyatt hotel chain, was as crucial to Obama’s next campaign as Toni Preckwinkle’s was to his first. “We were talking about whether he was ready to do this or not,” Pritzker told me. She was blunt, telling Obama, “As I see it, the two things that you’re going to need to address are your executive leadership skills, because your résumé doesn’t have that in it, and the second would be your credentials in national security.” Obama returned with an organizational chart indicating how the campaign would be structured—one of his great tactical advantages over the disorganized Clinton campaign—along with a list of advisers. Pritzker agreed to become his finance chair. 

That "Pritzker agreed to become his finance chair" after her concerns over Obama's experience were apparently allayed by his production of an organizational chart seems to be good enough for Lizza. The hypocrisy is blinding.

This is only the beginning, too, and we can expect to see the mainstream media throw all they've got at Paul Ryan in the coming months. How fortunate for them this time that they only have to travel to Wisconsin for their dumpster-diving forays, instead of trekking all the way up to Alaska.

Hey, maybe they'll even find an old picture of Paul Ryan shooting a moose!

Sphere: Related Content