A Pattern of Abuse Emerges, From Top Down
This morning, I noted that -- taken in context -- what Gene Sperling wrote to Bob Woodward didn't qualify as an outright "threat," at least to me.
It's worth wondering why The White House so quickly released the Sperling email, though. Was it to prevent other members of the MSM from coming forward with their own stories of abuse at the hands of Obama's people? If so, it may be too late.
Ron Fournier, late of the AP and now of the National Journal, tells of hectoring and abuse from "a senior White House official" so severe that he finally told that person to buzz off -- a first for him in his career. Lanny Davis -- a former Clinton aide -- likewise revealed this morning on WMAL that he, too, was threatened. And don't forget the administration bullying of CBS reporter Sheryl Attkisson, when she was reporting on Fast and Furious; Attkisson says "they literally screamed at me and cussed at me."
A New York Times report on Valerie Jarrett also details attacks on allies like the ACLU's director and Cornel West.
These are stories that ought to be told. One wonders whether the abuse would even have occurred in the first place had there not been a media atmosphere so worshipful that it led administration members to believe they could act this way with impunity.
After all, the administration paid no price for its systematic attempt to discredit Fox News back in 2009. And remember this gem from the San Francisco Chronicle back in 2011, when The White House threatened to remove one of its reporters (and possibly other Hearst reporters) from the press pool and then lied about it? Chronicle editor Ward Bushee released a statement at the time:
Sadly, we expected the White House to respond in this manner based on our experiences yesterday. It is not a truthful response. It follows a day of off-the-record exchanges with key people in the White House communications office who told us they would remove our reporter, then threatened retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban, and then recanted to say our reporter might not be removed after all.The White House has been acting this way for quite some time. Note the observations of White House Dossier's Keith Koffler, back on March 14 of 2011:
The White House bullies reporters to try to ensure favorable coverage. When White House officials, particularly members of the press office, see a story they don’t like, they often call and verbally abuse the reporter who wrote the piece.
In diatribes often peppered with obscenities, they complain of profound injustice, bias, lack of relevance – anything they can think of to get reporters to back off their story.
It’s not just a series of uncontrolled outbursts. It is a planned, methodical, and highly artificial effort to either squash a story or get inside a reporter’s head so they think twice about doing a piece next time that negatively impacts Obama.
That this is an actual policy is evident from the consistency of the practice and its implementation by nearly every member of the White House press office staff. They are all nice, affable people who suddenly switch into an unmarked gear and begin running you over at full speed.
I have been told by one Obama flack that a story was “horseshit” and by another that “you’re really going to win a fucking Nobel Prize for that one.” A third, while he was working on the campaign in 2008, told me he “almost fell out of my chair” when he heard I was working on a certain piece and proceeded with a profanity-laced analysis of its weaknesses.
A fourth, who I’d thought was the good cop among the bunch, had a sudden change of personality in his office one day when he tore into a rather routine article of mine that barely grazed the president.
And I’d never even heard from former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Even President Obama has acknowledged Gibbs could give reporters a hard time.
All this while I was a member of the mainstream press with Roll Call, before I launched this blog.Despite Woodward's weak protestations that's he's sure the President knows nothing about any of the threats, what the facts suggest is that the tactic comes from the top. Obama's bullied a wide variety of targets -- from the Supreme Court (actually, twice), to (pre-campaign) Paul Ryan, and of course, Mitt Romney, running a campaign that reached a new low in ugly distortion.
The real problem is that a meek, compliant and largely-supportive press has declined to report about The White House behavior in the kind of systematic way that would bring it to public attention. If the Woodward kerfuffle succeeds finally in precipitating this kind of coverage, then perhaps it's worth something, after all.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2013/02/28/a-pattern-of-abuse-emerges-n1522732
Indoctrination? Houston Public School Assembly Slams Bush and Heaps Praise on Obama
The Katherine Smith Elementary School in Houston held an assembly on Tuesday. The program — which was forwarded to Houston radio host Joe Pags — was innocently titled, “A Dream Come True – Living in the present by remembering the past and looking forward to the future.”
Image: Facebook
According to the program, the show
featured three cast members — one student acting as a speaker and two as
Michelle and Barack Obama, and students singing seven songs. As you
might expect from the title of the show, and the image below (also from
the cover page), most of the songs are a salute to civil rights heroes
like Rosa Parks and Dr. Matin Luther King, Jr. But there is also
considerable adoration heaped upon President Obama.
Image: Facebook
While the majority of the program might
be considered to be an over-the-top tribute to President Obama, the
very first song, “Feels Like Change” actually takes a shot at President
Bush.
Caption: Facebook
The rest of the songs, as they were performed:
I Have A Dream – Dr. King is the complete focus of this song.
It’s A New Day – This song sounds more like something that was sung the morning after Obama’s first win in 2008.
I Believe – Another song with lyrics that seem to come from 2008 and the days leading up to and just after the election.
This One’s For You – This song is a complete tribute or salute to President Obama.
Image: Facebook
Following that Obama tribute was another song that tied the president to Rosa Parks and Dr. King.
“Rosa Sat” is quoted on the front page of the program and includes an oft-repeated refrain:
Rosa sat so Martin could walkMartin walked so Barack could RunBarack ran, he ran and he wonSo that all our children could fly.
Those words are repeated six times during the song. But there are some other verses that have raised eyebrows from parents:
Thousands of people that November night.All of us here were for the long fight.Now we’re as one,Creating a new nation.Join together in celebration.
By having students sing “all of us
here were for the long fight” assumes that 100% of the children were
supporters of the president. Were they? Additionally, some parents have
asked about the line saying, “Now we’re as one, creating a new nation.”
TheBlaze has contacted the Katherine Smith Elementary School several times, requesting an interview with Principal Salazar.
As of this writing, Ms. Salazar has not responded to this request. We
have also asked Terry Greer, the Superintendent of the Houston
Independent School District to comment on the topic.
As this story was going to press, we received the following response from Superintendent Greer’s spokesperson.
The song lyrics you received were used as part of an after-school PTO program celebrating Black History Month at the school. Students who participated had signed permission slips from their parents to participate in this after-school event. They danced to the music, but did not sing or otherwise recite the lyrics. Copies of the lyrics were given to the parents, but not the students. This program was organized by three first-year teachers, who mistakenly failed to get the principal’s approval to distribute the song lyrics. After reviewing the lyrics, the principal agrees that some of the songs were overly political and should not have been included in the program. The teachers who coordinated the program have been reminded that materials such as this must receive prior approval by the principal in the future. The principal apologizes to those who may have been offended by some of the lyrics that were included in the PTO program.
President Obama’s Legacy: Government Greed
Americans know that at least 3 percent of federal spending is wasteful.
By Governor Bobby JindalIt seems as if President Obama sends out another cabinet secretary every hour to tell the public about the dire consequences we will face if the sequestration cuts are not averted.
You’ve heard them — no vaccinations for children, teachers losing their jobs, less security from terrorist attacks, longer wait times at airports, and fewer food inspections. Now there are even reports that government officials are releasing hundreds of immigrants from deportation centers. What’s next? Is the president going to threaten to open the doors of federal prisons? This is silly.
Sequestration cuts account for less than 3 percent of the federal budget, but the president would have you believe that the world is going to end if they happen. Americans know that at least 3 percent of federal-government spending is wasteful — and they would tell you there’s room to cut the waste without jeopardizing critical services. The president is asking the American people to believe that there is no waste or fat in government. It’s just a ridiculous notion.
It gets better: Even after the sequestration reductions, the federal budget will actually be larger than it was last year. Let that one sink in. Only in Washington, D.C., would this be called a cut.
One idea I had was to delay Obamacare by not implementing the health-insurance exchanges and the Medicaid expansions. This would save tens of billions of dollars, and it wouldn’t cut a program that has already started.
Of course, the president has rejected this idea and every other rational proposal to make these cuts in a way that doesn’t jeopardize services. Instead, he’s using scare tactics and political theater to promote the solution he prefers for every problem — more taxes and more spending.
This week he even rejected an idea that would have given the administration more flexibility to make these reductions in a way that wouldn’t affect critical services. Why, you ask? This administration has an insatiable appetite for higher taxes and government growth. There has been over $600 billion in new spending and nearly $6 trillion in new debt under this president. Last month, he approved over $600 billion in new taxes that will affect nearly every American. Now he wants more money out of our paychecks.
It’s the latest example of why the Obama years will be remembered as the Era of Government Greed. There isn’t a problem President Obama thinks can’t be solved by more taxes and more spending. His solution is always to take more money out of the American economy and put it into the government.
You can’t grow the economy by taking money out of the economy. Yet that’s the president’s plan, and it’s leading us down a dangerous path. First, the greed of Wall Street crippled our economy, and now, President Obama’s Government Greed is threatening to drown our economy.
It’s time for the president to show leadership. It’s time for him to send to Congress a list of reductions that preserves critical services. Every governor has had to balance budgets during tough economic times. Every family has to balance budgets, too. Every business has had to become more efficient and tighten its belt. It’s time for the president to stop campaigning, stop deploying scare tactics, and do his job.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/341834/president-obama-s-legacy-government-greed-gov-bobby-jindal
Frankenquester unraveling: DHS official 'retires' over release of illegals
It
didn't a lot of brains to call out the administration for releasing
illegal aliens from prison and then blame budget cuts that hadn't even
occurred yet. The author of this edition of Obama scaremongering over
the sequester - DHS's Gary Mead, executive associate director over
enforcement and removal operations at ICE, "retired" immediately after
the story broke.
Associated Press:
Again, DHS has yet to explain why they had to be relased before the sequester took effect on Friday. If not to put political pressure on Republicans, then what?
Finally, the press is starting to ask some questions about Obama's claims. How far they'll go is another question, but poking holes in Obama's sequester nonsense can only help.
Associated Press:
The senior Homeland Security Department official in charge of arresting and deporting illegal immigrants announced his retirement the same day the agency said that hundreds of people facing deportation had been released from immigration jails due to looming budget cuts, according to a letter obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press. The government said he had told his bosses weeks ago that he planned to retire.
Gary Mead, executive associate director over enforcement and removal operations at Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, disclosed his departure in an email to his staff Tuesday afternoon. The announcement of the release of the illegal immigrants had come earlier in the day.
President Barack Obama's spokesman, Jay Carney, said Wednesday that the decision to release the immigrants was made without any input from the White House. He described the immigrants as "low-risk, non-criminal detainees."
The announcement that a few hundred illegal immigrants were being released was among the most significant and direct implications described so far by the Obama administration about the pending, automatic budget cuts that will take effect later this week under what is known as sequestration.
Republicans in Congress quickly criticized the decision and pressed the Homeland Security Department for details.
In an email to his staff obtained by the AP, Mead said he was leaving the agency at the end of April "with mixed emotions." He did not say what prompted his departure. Mead did not immediately respond to an email and a telephone call.Don't ya love Carney? "Low risk, non criminal" detainees. They wouldn't be in jail if they didn't break the law, Jay, so stop spinning what DHS was really trying to accomplish; scare people with visions of waves of brown people descending on their towns after being released due to budget cuts.
Again, DHS has yet to explain why they had to be relased before the sequester took effect on Friday. If not to put political pressure on Republicans, then what?
Finally, the press is starting to ask some questions about Obama's claims. How far they'll go is another question, but poking holes in Obama's sequester nonsense can only help.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/frankenquester_unraveling_dhs_official_retires_over_release_of_illegals.html#ixzz2MDCob1lt
Frankenquester fail #2: Education Secretary Duncan lies about teachers getting 'pink slips' already
Maybe the administration is just too anxious to inflict pain in the American people. First the release of illegal immigrant criminals, before the cuts have even happened. This follows on the heels of Education Secretary Duncan's statement on Face the Nation where he tried to scare parents by saying that "There are literally teachers now who are getting pink slips, who are getting notices that they can't come back this fall..."But when challenged yesterday by the press, Duncan backtracked:
When he was pressed in a White House briefing Wednesday to come up with an example, Duncan named a single county in West Virginia and acknowledged, "whether it's all sequester-related, I don't know."
And, as it turns out, it isn't.
Officials in Kanawha County, West Virginia say that the "transfer notices" sent to at least 104 educators had more to do with a separate matter that involves a change in the way West Virginia allocates federal dollars designated for poor children.
The transfer notices are required by state law and give teachers a warning that they may be moved to a different position next school year. They don't necessarily mean a teacher has been laid off, said Pam Padon, director of federal programs and Title 1 for the Kanawha County public schools. "It's not like we're cutting people's jobs at this point."
She said those 104 notices will ultimately result in the elimination of about five to six teaching jobs, which were likely to be cut regardless of the sequester.
"The major impact is not so much sequestration," she said. "Those five or six jobs would already be gone regardless of sequestration."This is getting silly. And it is turning into a political disaster for Obama.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/frankenquester_fail_2_education_secretary_duncan_lies_about_teachers_getting_pink_slips_already.html#ixzz2MDDDUjM7
Medicaid Expansion -- the New Wealth Killer
It is clear that the Democrats win by creating constituents. They use the ObamaPhones, Food Stamps, and other freebies to accomplish exactly this. The American people are all the while screaming "stop!" But they also scream, "just don't stop mine."The evidence that public money poured out indiscriminately fosters continued government dependence is undisputed. Although not all government entitlements should be considered welfare, all entitlement programs are from the government. Most individuals drawing social security checks and Medicare benefits are justifiably recovering the dollars they paid in to support the system. That distinction is important.
With the future growth of government services available to the public, it is imperative that we know what is actually happening to Medicaid. Let me explain.
Currently to receive Medicaid coverage in most states the individual has to qualify under many different eligibility factors. This is done because most Medicaid programs are limited in funding and cannot afford to cover all the population. Many individuals do fall in the cracks, and often these individuals are the sickest. But this expansion will still not cure all these ills.
Under present eligibility guidelines and individual must fit in one of the following categories.
- Be the age of 65 or older.
● Be deemed disabled by the Social Security Administration.
● Be under the age of 21.
● Be Pregnant.
● Or be the caretaker of a child under the age of 19.
The new Medicaid expansion is expected to start January 1, 2014. This massively enhances the eligibility roles by eliminating the disability and caretaker requirements for individuals between the ages of 21 to 65. It also uses a much higher income limit than that previously used and does not consider resources.
For example, the income limit for an individual that is 20 years old with no children is currently $362.00 net income per month. This amount may vary slightly by state. At age 21 this individual would no longer qualify for any coverage with the exception of pregnancy or family-planning services. These limits are grossly small and are decades old. Primarily this program only fills the gap with hospitalization and emergent care. No one believes the system did not need to be improved.
Now the upcoming Medicaid Expansion will increase the income limit for that same 20 year old to slightly more than $1239.00 net income per month. This individual will potentially remain eligible at the age of 21 and older. Many states will see growth in their programs by as much as 800,000 individuals.
This program's growth will authorize so many new recipients for Medicaid that it will likely become the new ObamaPhone. Because the income limit is not at the bottom as it is now, many will choose to live within the income limits and not jeopardize that important Medicaid coverage.
The dream of being self-sufficient will most likely be traded for just making sure they don't make too much. We all know growth often comes from wanting better for yourself and your family.
I heard an old story once about an old blue tick hound that sat on the porch and would occasionally make a grievous howl. When the owner was asked why, he explained that the hound was lying on a nail. The owner was then asked why the dog didn't just get up and move, he replied... It don't hurt that much.
Low Information Voters? How about a Low Information President?
There is a real possibility, a strong likelihood, that President Obama knows nothing of the nuts and bolts, the details
and realities of the positions he promotes. He rides the Starship Air
Force One, thrills adolescent crowds and frames himself with federal employees while orating vapid clichés dowsed in demagoguery.
He drives the fancy car but needs help filling it with gas and couldn't point to the air filter if you popped the hood. Imagery sans leadership. Celebrity is the accomplishment here, and adoration is the metric. Polls demonstrate people approve more of him and less of his execution of the responsibilities of office. This Presidency is therefore wrapped in a managed personal imagery that supersedes the measure of ability.
He speaks yet says nothing. He exists before the camera scripted to generalities and clichés. Once this is understood, we can sense there is no more. True leadership and real understanding of the issues just aren't there. Recall a few instances.
There was the Paul Ryan Obamacare summit in which Ryan began to peel back the skin on the Affordable Care Act. Ryan began reading from the bill itself, and as he did Obama's eyes glazed over. When Ryan was finished, Obama had nothing of substance to say. Dismissive and aloof, he pushed out a short narrative of banalities and bromides.
Did Obama know enough to defend his own program?
There was also the Univision interview in which Obama declared that George W. Bush began Fast and Furious back in 2007. This is inherently false. There was a similar program, granted. But, the program had ended and, by the way, the program attempted to capture gun runners. Two glaring differences. But did Obama know these facts? At first one thinks there is a twisting of the truth by the President. But, there is a strong possibility that indeed he believed what he said based on what he had been told.
Dr. Benjamin Carson revealed his version of the world and the shortfalls of Obamacare standing a few feet from the President himself. Obama's body language, as he was forced to bear witness, spoke volumes. This was the closest to an exchange between Obama and a critic of his beloved health insurance initiative to date. But there was no exchange. There was no defense. There was no telepromptered pre-authored clichéd speech to deliver.
Regarding the Benghazi incident, Obama suggested that for him to dig in and learn the details and facts of that 9/11 day would be to somehow interfere with an FBI investigation, an investigation that to date has provided nil. Wouldn't, shouldn't a President's attitude be more in the vein of "I will find out what happened and I will report back to the nation."?
He declares that he has cut over a trillion dollars, somewhere. He has been told this and it seems he believes it.
He will not engage a critic and nor defend his positions in detail. He can not apparently even engage a questioning reporter nor engage his congressional opposition. In my opinion, he couldn't last 5 minutes in a fact-driven analysis of that which he promotes. The President doesn't meet with the political opposition to initiate compromise because he simply couldn't keep up his end of the argument. His game is to broadcast insipid generalities wrapped in demagoguery and reliant on an arrangement that disallows honest questioning.
Can we recall anytime that Mr. Obama had control and knowledge of the facts of an issue?
I maintain that Obama really believes that George Bush started Fast and Furious.
I maintain that Paul Ryan has read more of the Obama Care bill than the President.
I think he actually believes he has trimmed over 1 Trillion dollars from the budget and that the sequestration is a "real" cut rather than merely a trimming of the rate of increase in federal spending.
The president operates only on the information he is given. That is understandable. But does he sense that perhaps his information is flawed? Does he care? Not likely.
Obama's non-engagement and aversion to compromise is actually seated in his complete lack of knowledge, and therefore inability to defend his agenda or even forge a compromise. He is inactive in leadership and compromise because he simply lacks the ability and issue knowledge to lead and compromise.
It is becoming apparent that the President is purposely kept in a bubble by his handlers, protected by the aegis of screened questioning. He is merely a one trick pony with the trick being nothing but media-enabled and unrebutted declarative demagoguery delivered to fawning audiences and broadcast to the clinically under informed.
He drives the fancy car but needs help filling it with gas and couldn't point to the air filter if you popped the hood. Imagery sans leadership. Celebrity is the accomplishment here, and adoration is the metric. Polls demonstrate people approve more of him and less of his execution of the responsibilities of office. This Presidency is therefore wrapped in a managed personal imagery that supersedes the measure of ability.
He speaks yet says nothing. He exists before the camera scripted to generalities and clichés. Once this is understood, we can sense there is no more. True leadership and real understanding of the issues just aren't there. Recall a few instances.
There was the Paul Ryan Obamacare summit in which Ryan began to peel back the skin on the Affordable Care Act. Ryan began reading from the bill itself, and as he did Obama's eyes glazed over. When Ryan was finished, Obama had nothing of substance to say. Dismissive and aloof, he pushed out a short narrative of banalities and bromides.
Did Obama know enough to defend his own program?
There was also the Univision interview in which Obama declared that George W. Bush began Fast and Furious back in 2007. This is inherently false. There was a similar program, granted. But, the program had ended and, by the way, the program attempted to capture gun runners. Two glaring differences. But did Obama know these facts? At first one thinks there is a twisting of the truth by the President. But, there is a strong possibility that indeed he believed what he said based on what he had been told.
Dr. Benjamin Carson revealed his version of the world and the shortfalls of Obamacare standing a few feet from the President himself. Obama's body language, as he was forced to bear witness, spoke volumes. This was the closest to an exchange between Obama and a critic of his beloved health insurance initiative to date. But there was no exchange. There was no defense. There was no telepromptered pre-authored clichéd speech to deliver.
Regarding the Benghazi incident, Obama suggested that for him to dig in and learn the details and facts of that 9/11 day would be to somehow interfere with an FBI investigation, an investigation that to date has provided nil. Wouldn't, shouldn't a President's attitude be more in the vein of "I will find out what happened and I will report back to the nation."?
He declares that he has cut over a trillion dollars, somewhere. He has been told this and it seems he believes it.
He will not engage a critic and nor defend his positions in detail. He can not apparently even engage a questioning reporter nor engage his congressional opposition. In my opinion, he couldn't last 5 minutes in a fact-driven analysis of that which he promotes. The President doesn't meet with the political opposition to initiate compromise because he simply couldn't keep up his end of the argument. His game is to broadcast insipid generalities wrapped in demagoguery and reliant on an arrangement that disallows honest questioning.
Can we recall anytime that Mr. Obama had control and knowledge of the facts of an issue?
I maintain that Obama really believes that George Bush started Fast and Furious.
I maintain that Paul Ryan has read more of the Obama Care bill than the President.
I think he actually believes he has trimmed over 1 Trillion dollars from the budget and that the sequestration is a "real" cut rather than merely a trimming of the rate of increase in federal spending.
The president operates only on the information he is given. That is understandable. But does he sense that perhaps his information is flawed? Does he care? Not likely.
Obama's non-engagement and aversion to compromise is actually seated in his complete lack of knowledge, and therefore inability to defend his agenda or even forge a compromise. He is inactive in leadership and compromise because he simply lacks the ability and issue knowledge to lead and compromise.
It is becoming apparent that the President is purposely kept in a bubble by his handlers, protected by the aegis of screened questioning. He is merely a one trick pony with the trick being nothing but media-enabled and unrebutted declarative demagoguery delivered to fawning audiences and broadcast to the clinically under informed.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Monday ordered members of the International Board of Teamsters Local 107, Pennsylvania’s self-described “most powerful labor organization,” to stop assaulting and spitting on employees, vandalizing vehicles, and obstructing business operations at the Eureka Stone Quarry, Inc.
Jim Morrissey III, whose grandfather started the cement mixing and construction service company, launched the suit after striking drivers dragged a company mechanic from his truck after obstructing the road with nails—an incident captured on surveillance tape.
“He was scared to death, surrounded by six to eight guys he thought were his friends,” Morrissey said.
Local 107 secretary-treasurer Shawn Dougherty downplayed the NLRB ruling.
“This fella’s so litigious that anything that’s said or done with this particular labor dispute is exaggerated,” Dougherty said. “We normally don’t comment on the NLRB decisions.”
Morrissey says he is not anti-labor. He decided to appeal to federal authorities after concluding that local officials would turn a blind eye to the issues plaguing his business.
“I had no choice but the NLRB: They said they were going to put me out of business and they’ve put a tremendous amount of pressure on other groups to not hire us,” he said. “The unions in Philly run the show; it’s a big joke with the police and the politicians—they just look the other way.”
Leo Knepper, executive director at the Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania, said the legacy of union dominance in the “Keystone State” has created an aura of invincibility among labor groups.
“When anything threatens [union] interests, they react violently,” he said. “Unions have such a strong influence in local politics that it gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want because no one is willing to enforce the law against these guys.”
Morrissey says union intimidation tactics are no longer effective with the availability and affordability of surveillance.
“When you have them on tape, they can’t deny it,” he said. “Technology changes everything and the unions aren’t savvy enough to get that.”
No company has employed technology as devastatingly as Post Brothers Apartments, a real estate firm engaged in a drawn out and oftentimes violent campaign by the Philadelphia Building and Construction Trades Council over a $38 million apartment development at the abandoned Goldtex shoe factory.
Post Brothers awarded half of its construction contracts to union shops. The council demanded 100 percent of the contracts and began picketing and vandalizing the site when construction began in 2012.
The company launched a public campaign of its own after workers discovered feces and urine scattered at the site, oil dumped on its parking lot, and asbestos installed in walls, according to Post Brothers CEO Michael Pestronk.
The company has posted YouTube videos of union leaders assaulting security guards, shared photos of smashed windshields on a public Google Docs account, and argued its case against the unions through its website, PhillyBully.com.
“Our employees feared for their lives, so we got the equipment for personal protection,” Pestronk said. “It wasn’t some masterful calculation: changing political institutions [or] buying politicians costs millions, posting videos to YouTube is cheap and it gets you public attention.”
The Trades Council did not return calls for comment.
The website is already paying dividends. A union member allegedly assaulted Post Brothers employees Chris Gardner and Matt Hunt in December with a crowbar after they attempted to park their car near the work site. Gardner was arrested for assault when he subdued his attacker, who was not charged in the incident.
The police dropped the charges on Tuesday thanks in part to the company’s photo and video evidence, “but mostly because our attorney threatened to sue the city, the police, and the [district attorney],” Pestronk said.
The young real estate executive said he hopes PhillyBully.com “sets an example” on how to combat union intimidation.
“They’re getting desperate so it appears [violence] has been ramping up,” he said. “The mainstream media is not calling attention to it, so it really helps to use YouTube to subvert them and make them pay attention.”
New media is not the only tactic businesses are using to curb union violence. The eastern Pennsylvania chapter of the Association of Builders and Contractors, which represents open shop construction companies, is now offering a $50,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the union members suspected of burning down a Quaker meetinghouse construction site a few days before Christmas.
“We’ve seen a steady pattern of violence on open shop projects in Philadelphia—anytime open house contractors come in there’s retaliation,” said chapter president Mary Tebeau. “We’re afraid that business owners and developers will bypass this area, so to combat that we came up with a reward to punish those responsible for the bombing.”
A Philadelphia Police Department spokeswoman told the Washington Free Beacon that there have been no arrests in connection to the incident.
Robert Reeves, president of E. Allen Reeves, Inc., the firm building the Quaker meetinghouse, echoed Tebeau’s concerns, adding that bounties will not do much to deter future violence without institutional change.
“I think there’s a resurgence in violence because unions are contemplating their loss of market share,” he said. “I wish that leaders in the Philadelphia region would speak up against violence. They don’t tolerate it in schools, but they look the other way when it’s their supporters.”
Some politicians at the state level are looking to diminish the amount of influence wielded by unions at the state and local level through labor reforms, including right-to-work legislation introduced earlier this year.
“There are a lot of unfair policies enacted on behalf of Big Labor back when it had clout, but the demographics spell trouble for unions,” central Pennsylvania state Rep. Stephen Bloom said. “The Philadelphia area is still a bastion for union influence, but it’s waning there as it is across the state and the balance of power is shifting and inevitably we’ll get to the point where we’ll adopt labor reforms necessary for economic survival.”
http://freebeacon.com/it-gets-better/#sthash.pz2qaoDF.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment