Unions: Obama’s Big Secret Cash Machine

The following is a guest post by Joseph Hall.

***

Obama’s Secret Big Cash Machine

Every good politician needs streams of revenue to propel them to election. In the case of our campaigner-in-chief, fundraising is a full time position with the option to govern. With the president, he also has a secret revenue stream to support a wide variety of projects that manipulate public opinion. According to economist Fred Sauer, (A Simple Guide: How Liberalism, a Euphemism for Socialism, Destroys People and Nations) the big cash machine is funded by union support. His research is exhaustive and convincing. The AFL/CIO and subordinate unions contributed millions of dollars in 2008 to support Obama’s election bid.

Traditionally, the unions seek revenue from membership. However, in several behind the scenes maneuvers, the White House has massaged the laws concerning union membership to allow the forced recruitment of workers. The idea: more members, more money.

Recently, Ed Morrissey posted an article on Hotair.com that includes videos of three people who appeared before the house committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The faces of the witnesses on the video are strangely reminiscent of the Viet Nam era POW videos of people held hostage in a hostile environment.

In his blog, “Videos: Three faces of forced unionism and political contributions’” Morrissey reflects,

“I wrote about this last November, when both Michigan and Minnesota tried to extend this forced-unionism into day-care operations as well as home-care situations. There is no reason to force parents who receive Medicaid to care for developmentally-disabled children into unions, except to pick their pockets for the benefit of union bosses and political parties. It’s positively ghoulish, as I wrote at the time, and only the efforts of Republican-controlled legislatures in both states kept them from forcing babysitters into unions.”

Over the weekend, Fox News and others reported on their investigation into the protest at the CPAC convention. The reports indicate that OWS protesters at the national CPAC convention in Washington, DC were actually unemployed iron workers. According to the report, the protest was actually a collection of union members and their friends. Furthermore, they were paid $60 each to show up to the convention and protest CPAC, but had no idea what they were protesting. So the big money machine appears to be supporting the OWS and thereby attempting to create a negative impression of conservative Republicans.

See related article, “Protesters paid to occupy CPAC” (Lonley Conservative)

Additionally, Sauer details the hidden agenda of the national educator’s union (NEA) that had provided millions of dollars throughout the country to promote the gay agenda, specifically the same-sex marriages. This calls into question the legality of the union’s use of member money to support an agenda that many of the members do not support. The bottom line is, can union member money be used to push the gay agenda when many rank-and-file members do not support the agenda? This may be regarded as a voter influence scheme.

Watch the YouTube Video about the OWS protesters who got paid for showing up for one day to protest.

In a high-stakes election year, the gloves come off. This is a bare knuckle fight for victory.

Submitted by: Joseph Hall, Daymar Institute, Health Care, Law, General Studies

Tags: campaign contributions, CPAC, OWS, politics, same sex marriages, unions, voter influencing