One in Three Employees would leave Union if Given Opportunity

New Poll: 1 in 3 Employees Would Leave the Union if Given the Opportunity

The National Employee Freedom Week Coalition conducted a series of scientific surveys to ascertain just how many of the nation’s union households would opt out of union membership if they could do so without losing their job or facing any other penalty.
The results were surprising: Nationally, 33% of respondents indicated that they would opt out of union membership. State results also showed that a significant portion of those in union households want to opt out of union membership.

Click here — http://employeefreedomweek.com/survey-results/ — to view your state’s results.

article sent by Mark Waldeland

Scalia’ Dissent Exposes Majority Opinion Lies and Bigotry on Gay Ruling

Click to access 12-307_g2bh.pdf

[Antonin Scalia’s dissent] “. . . . But the majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice—with the “purpose” (ante, at 25) “to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples. It says that the motivation for DOMA was to “demean,” ibid.; to “impose inequality,” ante, at 22; to “impose . . . a stigma,” ante, at 21; to deny people “equal dignity,” ibid.; to brand gay people as “unworthy,” ante, at 23; and to “humiliat[e]” their children, ibid. (emphasis added).

I am sure these accusations are quite untrue. To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

The above Scalia article was sent by Mark Waldeland.

The penultimate sentence of the majority’s opinion is a naked declaration that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined” to those couples “joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State.” Ante, at 26, 25. I have heard such “bald, unreasoned disclaimer[s]” before. Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 604. When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with “whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Id., at 578. Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,” ante, at 23—with an accompanying citation of Lawrence. It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with. . . .

By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court’s declaration that there is “no legitimate purpose” served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has “the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” the “personhood and dignity” of same-sex couples, see ante, at 25, 26. The majority’s limiting assurance will be meaningless in the face of lan- guage like that, as the majority well knows. That is why the language is there. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society’s debate over marriage—a debate that can seem in need of our clumsy “help” only to a member of this institution.

In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.”

Carbonized Obama will Skirt Congress to Push Phony Climate Change “Laws”

Obama unveils climate change plan that goes around Congress
By Ben Geman

President Obama is launching fresh battles over climate change with plans to curb emissions using executive powers that sidestep Congress — including controversial rules to cut carbon pollution from existing power plants. [WATCH VIDEO]

The wide-ranging plan, which Obama will tout in a speech later Tuesday, also beefs up federal efforts to help deploy low-carbon and renewable energy, and has programs to help harden communities against climate-fueled extreme weather.

Internationally, it seeks to knock down trade barriers to climate-friendly goods and services; enhance cooperation with India, China and other big carbon emitters; and curb U.S. support for overseas coal plant construction, among many other steps.

The plan is designed to get around Congress, where major climate bills have no political traction. White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday that Obama’s executive approach “reflects reality.”

But the plan, especially its controversial Environmental Protection Agency power plant regulations, will nonetheless face big hurdles on and off Capitol Hill.

Teachers’ Pensions Based on Phony Statistics and Invisible Money

Retirement Costs and School Budgets

from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

How much and on what terms retired schoolteachers receive pensions differs from place to place and individual to individual, due to varying requirements pertaining to age and length of service. But every state ensures that eligible teachers receive compensation in their golden years, most of them through a pension system. Though the specifics of pension plans vary, the logic behind them is the same: collect dollars and invest them during an employee’s working years, and use them to pay the employee a promised amount later, say Dara Zeehandelaar and Amber M. Winkler, researchers at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

State and district obligations for teacher retirement costs take two forms: pensions and health benefits. Regarding the former, many states now carry crippling unfunded liabilities.

•A 2010 report calculated that teacher pensions across the United States were carrying a reported liability of $332 billion, but that their true liability was much higher — at least $933 billion — and would inevitably increase in the future.
•Another study found that, between 2009 and 2012, funding shortfalls grew in 43 states and the District of Columbia.
In addition to retirement income, states and/or districts also provide health benefits to retirees and sometimes to their families. Many fund these plans on a pay-as-you-go basis, which means they haven’t set aside money for future liabilities. Yet with baby boomer teachers retiring en masse, and health care costs much higher than a decade or two ago, this balloon payment is also now coming due.

How did this storm arise?

•Rather than reining in benefits, states were actually increasing them until recently. More than half of them enhanced educator pension benefits from 1999 to 2001.
•While it’s easy for lawmakers to increase benefits, it’s exceptionally difficult for them to reduce them. State constitutions almost universally protect public pensions from complete restructuring, and many shield benefits against reductions unless legislators can prove that their alterations are both reasonable and necessary.
•Public pensions are not subject to the same accounting standards as private funds. This has led to a variety of dubious practices, such as underestimating the present value of future liabilities and allocating single-year returns over a multiyear period.
Put it all together and one can understand the sources of today’s pension crisis, a crisis that policymakers, editorialists, analysts and much of the American public are awakening to.

Source: Dara Zeehandelaar and Amber M. Winkler, “The Big Squeeze: Retirement Costs and School District Budgets,” Thomas B. Fordham Institute, June 2013.

DOMA Rejection was Inevitable

SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN KEY PART OF DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

By Robert Barnes at the Washington Post:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down as unconstitutional a key part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married in the states where they reside.

The decision was 5 to 4, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court’s liberals to form the majority. It did not address the question of whether there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriages.

Gallery

Victories for same-sex marriage: The Supreme Court struck down a key part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of federal law. The court declined to rule on California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, clearing the way for the unions in that state.

Read the rulings

The decision

But the court said DOMA violated equal protection laws to provide benefits to heterosexual couples while denying them to gay couples in the 12 states and the District of Columbia where same-sex couples can marry.

A roundup of Supreme Court coverage today

“DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others,” Kennedy wrote.

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.”

The law, passed by bipartisan majorities in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, recognized marriage as only between one man and one woman. It passed at a time when same-sex marriage was not legal anywhere in the world.

Kennedy was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

In a second ruling Wednesday morning, the court gave another boost to same-sex unions, clearing the way for gay marriages in California by declining to rule on the state’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

In the DOMA case, Justice Antonin Scalia read a lengthy and scathing dissent from the bench, saying the court should have left the matter for Congress to settle and had unfairly labeled proponents of traditional marriage as bigots.

“In the majority’s telling, this story is black and white: hate your neighbor or come along with us,” Scalia said. “It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s court can handle.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. also dissented.

Roberts wrote separately to emphasize that the opinion did not address a broader right to marriage.

“We may in the future have to resolve challenges to state marriage definitions affecting same-sex couples,” Roberts wrote. “That issue, however, is not before us in this case.”

The case was brought by 83-year-old Edith Windsor, who married Thea Spyer, her partner of more than 40 years, in Canada in 2007. Both were residents of New York. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her estate to Windsor.

At that time, New York recognized the marriage. But because it was not recognized by the U.S. government, Windsor paid a federal estate tax bill of more than $360,000 that would not have been assessed if she were married to a man.

After learning of the Supreme Court ruling, Windsor broke into tears.

“If I had to survive Thea, what a glorious way to do it, and she would be so pleased,” she said at a news conference. She thanked her lawyers and her allies, gay and straight: “We won all the way, so thank you from the bottom of my heart.”

Asked what Spyer would say to her if she were alive, Windsor replied, “‘You did it, honey.’ ”

The Obama administration had agreed with the appeals court that ordered a refund but wanted the Supreme Court to render a definitive verdict on DOMA.

In a statement written aboard Air Force One en route to Africa, President Obama on Wednesday welcomed the Supreme Court decision striking down DOMA, which he called “discrimination enshrined in law” because it had treated gay and lesbian couples as lesser people.

“The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free,” Obama said in the statement. He said he had directed Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to work with other Cabinet members in ensuring that the decision is carried out quickly.

In celebration of the ruling, the National Cathedral and seven other churches in Washington rang their bells at noon.

But others were disappointed by the ruling, including House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

“A robust national debate over marriage will continue in the public square, and it is my hope that states will define marriage as the union between one man and one woman,” Boehner said in a statement.

A group of conservative Republicans in the House sharply criticized the Supreme Court decisions.

“A narrow radical majority of the court has substituted their personal views for the constitutional decisions of the American voters and their elected representatives,” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp (Kan.). He said he would file a federal marriage amendment this week.

The country is in a feminized trance politically, religiously, and therefore culturally. Its universities are announcing there is no difference between the human male and human female beyond what they are taught, and what and how they are told to play . It is the feminist brain at work with all of its intellectual and command of knowledge limitations. The feminist, both male and female, needs no proof, no statistics no realities, no facts to rely on….after all, it is really how one feels that counts.

The feminist’s concept of female superiority is a dire disease and the culture will pay dearly for its infections. Despite the Obamaling world of collections of truth tellers, mankind, at least some portion of it, will still cling to the rule of law, the striving of exposing the unknown, and the enrichment of what is classically good in the world of thinking mankind, that evil.

The evil in Washington are determined to destroy mankind’s traditional, some claim sacred, institution of marriage as central to the continuation of the species. It’s destruction is next on the modern American Supreme Court agenda, for political reasons and feelings, not rational, intellectual ones based on realistic expections of the future of the species.

Today’s Liberals vote with their crotch, not the mind for the mind has been feminized.